To do their job on Libya, scepticism is MPs' best weapon - The Guardian

Audience or inquisition? Echo chamber or debating chamber? Monday's debate on the crisis in Libya is a chance for the Commons to show that politicians learned hard lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. We are "at war", but this isn't a moment of national peril that obliges MPs to button their lips and patriotically applaud the prime minister. Far from it.

If we have learned one thing from the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, it is that you cannot impose democracy by bombing. A second lesson is that getting into a conflict is a lot easier than getting out. I would be much happier if the media and political cacophony about Libya was less about boys' toys – fighter aircraft and different missile systems – and more about Libya's unusual history and the hideously difficult political choices ahead.

If the air strikes have cowed Muammar Gaddafi's forces enough to keep them from invading Benghazi and causing a further bloodbath there, then that is good news. David Cameron and the other leaders are to be applauded for that. As a senior Labour MP put it to me on Sunday, when I asked him about the danger of us being drawn into a long stalemate, "a stalemate's better than a slaughter".

But we are being drawn in; we are drawing ourselves in. The UN resolution forbids an "occupying force", but on Sunday the government confirmed this still leaves the option for ground troops. Strong supporters of intervention like Colonel Bob Stewart, the Tory MP who commanded UN forces in Bosnia in the 1990s, called on Cameron to acknowledge the resolution allows the arming of anti-Gaddafi forces. Cameron said its "very strong language" allowed Britain and others to take "a number of military steps to protect people and harm those who are intending to damage civilians".

Gaddafi cannot easily be forced out of Tripoli. Just now he has nowhere to run to. He seems to have many vocal, indeed hysterical, supporters, particularly among his own tribal group and paramilitaries; after 42 years of incessant propaganda, that is hardly surprising. So even if he cannot get into Benghazi, he can unleash horrifying attacks on his enemies in other parts of Libya. Using human shields, hiding his killers in cities, he can wreak terrible damage of a kind that cannot be dealt with by Tomahawk missiles or jets.

What happens then, when the rumours, then the pictures, get out? We have asserted some kind of responsibility. Would ground forces and help not then seem essential? And if this leads to a civil war in Libya, would those welcoming western intervention not soon turn against it, as happened in so many other places? What then?

Just as serious is the early unravelling of support for the attacks. The Arab League's backing for the no-fly zone was quoted often and eagerly – but the support was always flaky. Last week, out of its 22 member states, just two very small ones were actually committed to action. Now the league's secretary general, Amr Moussa has pulled the rug away, saying this was not what they wanted: "What we want is civilians' protection, not the shelling of more civilians."

The good news is that some MPs on both sides are asking the right questions. Among the Tories, Richard Ottaway, the chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, has warned that there is a real danger of a stand-off between Tripoli and Benghazi, and said openly that "if we want to get rid of Gaddafi we are going to have to use ground troops". Rory Stewart, who saw post-invasion Iraq first hand as a young diplomat, has warned that we could shift quickly "from dipping our toe in the water to being submerged up to our necks". Another Tory, David Nuttall, says just the same, only changing the metaphor: the situation is "a maze – much easier to get in than to get out".

On the Labour side, David Winnick warns that Britain could be dragged into our third war in nine years, and wants daily reports to the Commons to ensure this doesn't happen. Jeremy Corbyn is asking what we will say about other Arab countries attacking their own civilians – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen? David Lammy reminds us of Iraq and wants to know about reconstruction after the firing stops. Natascha Engel is worried we may make a dangerous situation worse, and Graham Allen points out that while al-Qaida currently has no base in Libya, a civil war, with the west taking one side, will produce a breeding ground. Mike Gapes has raised the problem of the African Union being opposed to what is happening.

While aircraft are flying and British ships are sailing offshore, it is all too easy for ministers to try to deflect such questions by saying "now is not the time" or that they "are taking this one step at a time". It is the job of the Commons on Monday to insist that now is exactly the time to ask where these steps are leading – and to require full and open discussion of each further step towards involvement on the ground.

This is hugely difficult. The action could turn out to be successful, if Gaddafi suddenly and quickly gives up; if the rival groups don't turn on one another; and if some alternative political force arises in Libya to take over – and turns out to be democratic. But look at the recent history of Libya and it is not encouraging. Ravaged and brutalised by Mussolini-era Italian colonists, it was a war zone in the second world war. The country has had only one election in its history, and seen the ruthless destruction of all recognisable civil society under Gaddafi – who created a personality cult that shapes the imaginations of many Libyans even now.

This does not sound promising. Add the fact that the country is divided along traditional tribal lines, and that Libya also has oil – usually a disaster for a developing country because it encourages despots, crooks and dirty deals – and one worries for Libya's future. After Iraq, who really thinks democracy can be offloaded from a military plane and grafted easily on to a country that has known little except dictatorship and violence?

Gaddafi has been such a terrible leader that, perhaps, anything would be better. Maybe Libya can escape the fate of Iraq. But we certainly can't assume it. In this gung-ho, "Brits sort out mad dog" media atmosphere, it is the job of MPs to ask hard questions of ministers, in a sceptical and persistent way. This isn't a moment for the chamber to be cheering Cameron, for boisterous back-slapping. It is a time, instead, for the Commons to assert itself after the disgraces and embarrassments of recent years – to really do its job. If not now, then when?