It is perfectly correct to observe that any celebration of the apparent victory of the Libyan rebels--a clear consequence of the major military assistance by NATO and the U.S--is, at best, premature. If the outcome of the "victories" in Afghanistan and Iraq don't warrant extreme caution in drawing conclusions about the efficacy of military interventions to bring about regime change, then nothing will.
That said, some of the continued skepticism about the success of the Libyan intervention is not persuasive. For one thing, the argument that the U.S. and NATO exceeded the UN mandate--which specified that the mission was to protect civilians--is weak. It was abundantly clear from the beginning--and now, maybe even more so, as the extent of Qaddafi's repression becomes even clearer--that a victory of Quaddafi would have led to a bloodbath and the return to unchecked power of a regime which has a history of killing its own civilians. In this particular case, then, the distinction between protecting civilians and intervening in a civil war was nearly nonexistent.
In short, it would not have been possible to meet the UN mandate without regime change. And who can seriously doubt at this point that the overwhelming majority of the Libyan people supported the intervention and are overjoyed at its outcome? Or, more cautiously said, at least what appears to be its outcome.
The most important argument of those who strongly opposed the Libyan intervention from the outset and continue to do so today is that its success--if indeed it holds up in some meaningful way--will only encourage further US or NATO military interventions in countries where the costs and consequences would be far greater than in Libya and "success"--however defined--much less achievable.
That is an extremely important argument--but it appears highly unlikely that the necessary warning against hubris will be disregarded. It is instructive that hardly anyone--the Obama administration, the Democrats, the Republicans, the Tea Party, leading commentators, etc.--are calling for military intervention in, say, Syria, let alone Iran (the obvious present analogues to Libya.)
Put differently, it appears to be very widely recognized in this country that the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq are far more relevant and instructive in terms of future U.S. policies in internal conflicts than whatever success may emerge in Libya. That being the case, there is no harm in a muted, cautious celebration of one of the very few cases in which an essentially humanitarian military intervention actually worked, with bearable costs and the likelihood that the beneficial consequences will outweigh any damaging ones.
Or so there is reasonable reason to hope.
This is a crosspost from Jerome Slater's site.
glenn greenwald wrote an article last week that captures some of my thoughts fairly well..
link to salon.com
as for syria, one wonders how long this will go on before the insanity stops.. why isn’t the un adopting a similar resolution towards syria that it adopted to libya? it doesn’t have to do with the oil like everywhere else in the mid east does it? one has to wonder..
lets hope the planet doesn’t have to wait til some 1982 hama massacre has to be reenacted…
Jerome seems to have missed a few points. Let us not forget to celebrate the murders and imprisonments by the new Libyan government of their black African citizens and guest workers from subSahara Africa. These are the ones that are called “mercenaries”. We should also exult over the deaths of 50,000 Libyans that occurred over the past six months as a result of this war (these are estimates by the rebels themselves). Certainly the Italians and French have much to celebrate having just secured Libyan oil contracts. Finally, all of this was conducted by a rebel militia that is led by an Islamist who got his training fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan and many of their battle experienced commanders gained their combat training fighting Americans and in Iraq’s civil war.
“Finally, all of this was conducted by a rebel militia that is led by an Islamist who got his training fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan “
Oh noes! The Libyan revolution is just a cover for an islamofascist takeover, just like the rest of the Arab spring!
William Kristol, is that you?
Many people on the left in the Western world are woefully naive when it comes to ME politics. The Arab spring that characterized the movements in Tunisia and Egypt had to stir freedom loving people everywhere. But at the same time it was only prudent to worry what the Islamic fundamentalist organizations would do (learn anything from Iran, circa 1979).
What was clear from the first week of the Libyan uprising was that this was not a peaceful people’s uprising. Remember Benghazi in that first week — the non-violent people’s uprising consisted of a suicide bomber that destroyed the gate of a military fort which was then stormed by armed men who over ran the facility. They then executed the surviving defenders. This is not an act of a people’s peaceful protest against tyranny, rather it is something else.
Now move to the present. These same elements murdered Younis, their supposed military leader most likely because he was secular. Now this last week we know for certain that the militia commander that conquered Tripoli spent 10 years in Afghanistan fighting with Al qaida. He was so bad that when the CIA got hold of him 2002 they tortured him and then turned him over to our ally Khaddifi. Somehow through the fickle finger of fate, this man assumed control of the most powerful rebel militia and now is the major military leader in Tripoli.
Do you really believe that he will now retire and turn over power to the Western backed TNC that is led by Western educated professionals, democracy lovers and people with secular views? If so, you are as naive as you sound in this brief comment.
“He was so bad that when the CIA got hold of him 2002 they tortured him “
This line speaks volumes.
Hey worker bee I am confused. Do you have a coherent position, or is it just a series of cryptic one-liners?
Do you even begin to understand the point of this comment. You seem to support the Nato rebels. Is that right? Then,, if so then you implicitly support America’s alliance with these former Al qaida forces. These guys were our enemies yesterday. Perhaps you are comfortable with Orwell’s 1984 image — why we have always been at war with Eastasia — as we switch our enemies.
I don’t know how that last one could be hard to understand. My point is that I don’t believe the CIA tortures people simply because they’re bad, the fact that the CIA tortures somebody definitely isn’t evidence that they are bad, and it’s disturbing that you would suggest this is the case. I mean, “so bad the CIA tortured him”? Really?
My overall objection is that you are making a strong claim without providing evidence. I mean, you are claiming that the rebels are “NATO rebels” whose dominant ideology is islamist. And you haven’t given any evidence for either claim, except that one guy is supposed to have Taliban links. That proves nothing about the rebels in general.
ToivoS:
I was drafting a nasty response to worker bee but then I went back and read your post.
Are you really saying that when the CIA tortures someone, this means that the person was “bad?”
Can you clarify that?
Haytham, if you get around to writing that nasty response, could you include any evidence you know of that the rebels include a substantial al-Qaeda contingent? Because that smells like bullshit to me. But if I’m wrong, I’d like to know.
As to whether they will serve the interests of NATO, I’m sure that they will, at least to some extent, but that doesn’t mean the whole thing was a NATO operation to begin with.
I’ll have to side with Toivo on this one. I wouldn’t go so far as to pretend to be in possession of the truth here, as currently there is little more than circumstantial trivia to go by regarding the various possible outcomes of the Arab Spring. To date there is more evidence indicating that key movement figures think more along the Egyptian Brotherhood agenda than they do along the ‘secular, modern, democratic state that partners with the rest of the world lines’. Me personally, I don’t condemn that, they have a right to the kind of government they want just like we do. But it’s futile to argue this out, it’s what this entails that will end up being important.
If the outcomes in the various States currently in upheaval result in the establishment of what can be called religious fundamentalist regimes, this could mean a large set-back for the I / P situation internationally, as people may come to the conclusions that a Palestinian state (if ever in place) or more freedom for the Palestinians would result in efforts to establish a similar regime on their part, a point that Zionists have been eager to point to when asked to explain their heinous actions. It could be the Arab Spring might actually end up playing into their hands in this way.
Can I just add my tiny voice to the torrent of critcism about the US “intervening to protect civilians” when they did no such thing in Egypt,Bahrain, Yemen,or Gaza-indeed applause and approval for the killing of civilians if they are Palestinians.Can I also say that bearing in mind the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by the US in Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan,Somalia,Libya and by proxy in Palestine, that a convincing argument can be made for the world-wide responsibility to protect civilans FROM THE US.
SURPRISE, SURPRISE- It seems this liberal Zionist is also a liberal imperialist! Ignoring history, regurgitating propaganda and downplaying NATO’s assault on Libya, he declares victory in the name of the Libyan people! What imperial chutzpah!
“…a victory of Quaddafi would have led to a bloodbath….” An honest person would choke on these words. At least 8ooo bombing sorties, infrastructure destroyed, and, according to Chris Hedges: “Libya’s ruling National Transitional Council estimates that the number of Libyans killed in the last six months, including civilians and combatants, has exceeded 50,000.” Guess what? A US/NATO intervention has led to a verified
bloodbath. And it ain’t over yet! Tribal civil war awaits.
As I wrote in March, the Libyans under Gaddafi enjoyed free medical, free education, the highest UN development index for all of Africa and the highest standard of living in Africa. All of that has been destroyed as the empire has gained control of Libyan oil and preempted any future threat to empire by Gaddafi. The “rebels” were basically mercenaries totally dependent upon US/NATO firepower, equipment, logistics, helicopter gunships, drones, and special ops forces for victory. To pretend that this was other than an imperial intervention for geo-strategic reasons is to be an apologist for imperial intervention, something many liberals feel quite comfortable doing. Shame!
The sad truth is that liberals only protest Republican wars and militarism. When there is a Democrat in the White House, liberals don their holier-than-thou mantle to support wars to “save lives,” as all liberal wars do, liberals being noble and good by definition. Facts don’t count, they never do if you are a public intellectual and know how to spin reality. And lordy, lordy, haven’t a lot of facts been ignored by Jerome Slater. For those interested in a more truthful evaluation of the Libyan intervention, I recommend the following by William Blum:
link to killinghope.org
“The “rebels” were basically mercenaries totally dependent upon US/NATO firepower, equipment, logistics, helicopter gunships, drones, and special ops forces for victory.”
Citation needed.
“When there is a Democrat in the White House, liberals don their holier-than-thou mantle to support wars to “save lives,””
Who are the liberals cheering for Obama’s drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan?
Do you think the Wikileaks document showing Qaddafi was a CIA asset, who tortured “terrorists” on behalf of the US, was faked?
All the arguments I see against the NATO intervention in Libya are about the bad intentions of the US, as if the US’s intentions are the only thing that matters in the world.
Citation needed?
link to dailymail.co.uk
link to globalresearch.ca
The Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) was listed until June 2011 by the United Nations Security Council as a bona fide terrorist organization. On June 21 2011, The Listing of Terrorist Organizations, conveniently vanished from the UN Security Council website pending the revamping of the website.
According to DebkaFile (Israeli intelligence online report), the “pro-Al Qaeda brigades” led by LIFG Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj constitute the dominant force of the rebellion, overriding the authority of the Transitional Council. They are in control of strategic buildings including Gadhafi’s compound.
“The LIFG chief [Abdel Hakim Belhadj] now styles himself “Commander of the Tripoli Military Council.” Asked by our sources whether they plan to hand control of the Libyan capital to the National Transitional Council, which has been recognized in the West, the jihadi fighters made a gesture of dismissal without answering. (Debka, Pro-Al Qaeda brigades control Qaddafi Tripoli strongholds seized by rebels, August 28, 2011 )
Abdul Hakim Belhhadj received his military training in a CIA sponsored guerrilla camp in Afghanistan. He constitutes a CIA “intelligence asset” operating in the Lybian war theater. An earlier report suggests that he has some 1,000 men under his command. (Libyan rebels at pains to distance themselves from extremists – The Globe and Mail, March 12, 2011) @ link to theglobeandmail.com
@ link to debka.com
link to globalresearch.ca
Your terrorist is my non-combatant, freedom-fighter, liberal-minded, women-friendly, central-bank opening, western-orientated, oil-rich, man-of-the-hour.
Bad citation. Neither of those links says anything about Libya’s rebels, much less that they are “mercenaries”. They don’t even discuss how much the rebels depended on NATO firepower. The Daily Mail article does show a rebel with a headscarf who it says shouted “Allahu Akbar”, though, so I guess that proves your “Libyan rebels are terrorists” claim, right?
One terrorist or al-Qaeda sympathizer having an important position in the Libyan rebel army says nothing about the overall direction the new government will take. Desperate times make for strange bedfellows. The Muslim Brotherhood protesters also played an important role in the Midan Tahrir when things got violent, because they were willing to go toe-to-toe with government thugs and help the other protesters organize to fight them. That doesn’t mean the Tahrir protests were all just a Muslim Brotherhood plot.
This whole argument that the Libyan rebels are Muslim fundamentalists sounds a lot like the concern trolling by American Zionist organizations about the Arab Spring.
WORKERBEE- “Neither of those links says anything about Libya’s rebels, much less that they are “mercenaries”. They don’t even discuss how much the rebels depended on NATO firepower.”
Well, you have certainly lowered the bar, haven’t you? Can you recall the ostensible reason for this “humanitarian” intervention? Gaddafi was supposedly about to overrun the “rebels” and perpetrate a massacre. Remember? NATO was going to stop the evil Gaddafi from defeating these same “rebels” right at the start, which sounds an awful lot to me like they had minimal military capabilities and popular support without the “assistance” of massive NATO firepower. If they didn’t need 8,000 bombing sorties, why engage in such massive bombing contributing to over 50,000 deaths so far? As for the mercenaries comment, who do you think is paying for all of their equipment and salaries? France has been involved in this for a long time. Bernard-Henri Levy their spokesman. The “transitional” minister for finance and oil is a University of Washington professor on sabbatical. Then there are all of those “frozen” Libyan assets being turned over to the transitional council which, in an unprecedented move, has already opened a central bank. Get real. That this is an imperial intervention is obvious to all but the willfully blind.
An additional comment needs to be made. This intervention isn’t occurring in a vacuum. We have 65 years of relevant history to guide us. Ever since the end of World War II, the US has been engaged in a non-stop war against the entire Third World, from Latin America to SE Asia to the Middle East. No empire has ever engaged in what could even remotely be considered a “humanitarian” intervention, although noble sounding pretexts are regularly provided to justify, yet again, another imperial intervention. The documentary record speaks for itself. Uncle Sam is a serial mass-murderer. Documentation? Read Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy, William Blum, John Pilger, etc. Virtually all of the liberal intelligentsia has consistently provided ideological support for US imperial interventionism, which now includes neoliberal globalization.
Bad citation. Neither of those links says anything about Libya’s rebels, much less that they are “mercenaries”.
I sort of agree with you here. There is no evidence that these rebel forces are mercenaries, Keith erred in making that charge. They seem to me to be motivated by ideology — it is just that it not an ideology that either you or I should support.
“They seem to me to be motivated by ideology — it is just that it not an ideology that either you or I should support.”
What is the evidence that more than a few of the Libyan rebels are islamists? Naming one guy who’s an islamist doesn’t prove anything, neither do accounts of rebels shouting “Allahu Akbar”.
TOVIOS- “There is no evidence that these rebel forces are mercenaries, Keith erred in making that charge.”
In view of the frozen assets turned over to the Western backed rebel leadership, which will be administered by a University of Washington Professor of economics and probable CIA asset, along with other probable financial assistance, I don’t think that it is incorrect to say that the rebels as a group have been bought and paid for, that is mercenaries, regardless of the motivation of some of the individual fighters. I am not claiming that these guys are soldiers of fortune, merely that they have received and are receiving massive financial support, and are more or less following the instructions of their paymasters.
“They don’t even discuss how much the rebels depended on NATO firepower.”
Well, you have certainly lowered the bar, haven’t you? Can you recall the ostensible reason for this “humanitarian” intervention? Gaddafi was supposedly about to overrun the “rebels” and perpetrate a massacre. Remember?”
I do remember, but the articles don’t make that argument. And, c’mon, how can you seriously cite an article from the Daily Mail as proof of anything? And then talk about lowering the bar?
I agree that NATO firepower was decisive, that the rebels might not have won if Qaddafi’s tanks &c. had not been neutralized. But that is not the same as saying the rebels were mercenaries, or that they lacked popular support. And how can the rebels both be mercenaries and un-trained, ineffective fighters? Wouldn’t the latter fact lend support to the argument that they had popular support?
Uncle Sam is a serial mass-murderer. Documentation? Read Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Tariq Ali, Arundhati Roy, William Blum, John Pilger, etc.
Of course Uncle Sam is a serial mass-murderer, and the US and other powerful countries will do everything they can to loot Libya now that Qaddafi is gone. But that doesn’t mean the rebellion against Qaddafi was phony (and by the way, the protests went on peacefully for more than just “days” before they took up arms).
WORKERBEE- “I do remember, but the articles don’t make that argument.”
I wasn’t the one who provided the citations you refer to, I linked to Bill Blum who you ignored. My point about lowering the bar would seem obvious. What is the point in challenging a particular reference when the essential point is so rather obvious? The references don’t specifically support the assertion? So what. Rather elementary logic supports the conclusion, your sophistry concerning sources, reference, etc, a diversion from the obvious reality of the situation.
“And how can the rebels both be mercenaries and un-trained, ineffective fighters?”
Easy. The “rebels” are de facto mercenaries of empire who provide photo ops after US/NATO pulverizes the Libyan militias. The key rebel “leadership” are bought and paid for US educated hirelings, Mahmoud Jibril (PhD, Univ of Pittsburgh), Ali Tarhouni (University of Washington economics instructor), etc. These are strong neoliberal advocates.
An interesting question is what your position is, other than being a troll and opposing a wide variety of different opinions. In toto, you are both ideologically and factually inconsistent, throwing logic to the wind as you flitter about piecemeal arguing different perspectives. Perhaps you are an intellectual gadfly, demonstrating to yourself how clever you are.
“it is just that it not an ideology that either you or I should support.”
I dont really get this, is it that only those whose ideology is acceptable are protected by international law, such as it is, or the UNDHR. The point is surely irrespective of anyones ideology, we have no right to destroy and co-opt other nations, if you seriously believe that the ideology of our victims or allies is a material question could i ask what god damn use your “pedagogical” support is, oh right ask the Palestinians, your precious support is much craved by those who will be condemned to utter abjection. Teach us what ideologies are acceptable to you dear masters.
watching people discuss the bestiary that is the “arabs” in popular american discourse is somewhat upsetting, for instance whatever Hamas’ ideology or nature, in their confrontation with the zionist entity they are 100% in the right, according to all customary legal structures and much else, what other than the real relations of power permit anyone to scrutinize our victims and or allies for ideological hygiene. No one is as venal or blood soaked as us, despite our ideological glories.
Strangely no one is asserting the need for Libyan rebels to adopt non-violence, nor is anyone much worried by their violence hey different strokes and all.
Finally does it not occur to anyone that in reality our ideology precludes anyone whatsoever supporting us, with out utter moral degradation, those whom we are dominating (“supporting” or opposing) are not in any way obliged to be ideologically acceptable to us because such a prerequisite is itself a symptom of our dominative insanity.
No rudeness intended, anyway my ideology is probably reprehensible or it would be if i thought that for one moment that the denizens of privileged whiteness had any right to judge it, may i on behalf of all my arab and muslim brethren and sisteren ask you to keep your support as it is of no utility to us, none at all. It is we who are supporting you rather than the other way round and that goes for all the ideologically filthy who are now taking the field against a resurgent colonialism. Perhaps a little self reflection would be a good idea. I hope you can see what i am getting for some reason it seems i am unable to be too clear as its so obvious, westerners are not in any position to judge others at all, we are not your slaves. (sorry about the we, us, them confusion i come from everywhere). Respect Toivos nothing personal.
read Saadi Youseff’s “America America my sweet home” its dirty but then how could it be otherwise, we defile all we touch, its the arab way. ://www.idao.org/saadi-yousef.html
Gamal, I think I agree with you completely. I may not like the ideologies of another country, but I do not think it is our business to interfere in their affairs to change it. That goes for Iran today, for Khadaffi’s Libya or whatever replaces it. The point is is that the US is now in the process of putting into place a new government in Libya and I do not think most of us will particularly find it agreeable. Because of our interference we are now somehow responsible for what follows. We should not have gotten involved in the first place.
thanks for that T obviously couldnt agree more. So much in the current discourse operates to obscure the humanity of those we are killing and to offer reductive and ahistorical accounts of indigenous political thought, for instance the 1928 league of nations report called the Italian ingress into Libya one of the darkest episodes of colonialism, at a time when there was quite a lot of competition for such an accolade, it was estimated that 80% of the population, if i remember correctly, were exterminated over some few years, i dont know about you i reckon we should factor that stuff in when discussing what we “should” or “should not” support, they/we are not primitive our/their humanity and autonomy is in no way attenuated.
That some factions in Libya see their interests as being advanced by subservience to the powers is not surprising that the Nato allies are committing racist and other atrocities is clearly very likely, that the resistant forces are fighting a brutal counter insurgency is also a given. But this constant “a plague on all their houses” approach does nothing but bread apathy as it is intended to do and is based on an emotional, rather than explicitly thought out, racism.
The current ME has been a long tome in the making and its current strands are more related to reactions to imperial policies and their deleterious effects, rather than an inability of the indigenes to work out an acceptable politics. The first modern Salafists, were so critical of the state of the arab/islamic world that they ended up supporting a period of imperial domination by the west, so as to shake up the arabs, who had been colonial subjects rather than conquerors for the previous near millennium, the west is merely the latest conqueror of the arabised population of north africa and western asia, they have been resisting for all this time, but as a tearful iraqi woman in 2003 and three retorted to a christian peacemaker visitor when he said encouragingly that the iraqi people were strong “No” she demured “we are tired, we are exhausted”. It shows in the arab world which, for the last three hundred years, has been slowly pounded to dust. In the last 250 years 5 years have not elapsed when one or other arab nation has not been involved in a defensive war in it s own territory against a western army, they are tired, exhausted, one of the things Ghaddafi has said with which i agree is that “This is a heroic age for the Arabs” with all the dread such an epiphet inspires. As an arab i feel a strong sense of human solidarity with all sides and participants in these disasters as a westerner i am utterly appalled at our savage injustice. but i am also quite unwilling to plead before the tribunal of ostensibly progressive opinion in the west, for some certificate of acceptability, as bob marely sang “let them talk”, all our peoples views must be considered and found space for in whatever political arrangements we arabs manage to establish, no one is beyond the pale.
The references don’t specifically support the assertion? So what. Rather elementary logic supports the conclusion, your sophistry concerning sources, reference, etc, a diversion from the obvious reality of the situation.
In other words, “no I/he didn’t actually provide you with evidence for my point, but it’s obvious anyway so you should believe me?” No, in fact I don’t think it’s all that obvious. It’s not sophistry to ask for evidence. But sorry to confuse you with Daniel Rich.
More specifically, there’s a huge difference between saying the rebels are actual mercenaries who were working for a foreign power and who weren’t representative of how Libyans felt about Qaddafi, and calling them “de facto mercenaries” because their cause happens to coincide with US interests at the moment.
The problem with Blum’s article is that he sees it as a contradiction that the Libyan uprising was both a genuine protest movement and that it furthers US interests. Blum also says some positively stupid things, like calling the Libyan rebels “monarchists” because they flew the pre-Qaddafi flag. It doesn’t follow that the whole movement to oust Qaddafi was manufactured, just because NATO’s motives are not humanitarian, and Qaddafi actually did some good things. And maybe Libyans have priorities other than the global struggle against US hegemony. The “struggle against US hegemony” is a cause that could be coopted or abused (as Chavez, Putin, Khamenei, &c. have done), just as the “struggle for freedom” has been coopted/abused by the US.
Calling the rebels “mercenaries” doesn’t clarify anything. The “key rebel leadership” you mention have not always been in power in the rebel movement. Jibril became chairman of the council only in August. He’s just one guy. Where is evidence that others are neoliberal-sympathizers? Could the council have been bought out or influenced by the US? Sure. But I doubt that Libyans will simply submit to a NATO takeover of their country, complete with military bases.
WORKERBEE- “But I doubt that Libyans will simply submit to a NATO takeover of their country, complete with military bases.”
That is what the Libyan government militias were trying to prevent and they lost. Let us begin with what should be obvious. Libya has been physically destroyed. All of the benefits they hitherto enjoyed, like free education and medical, etc, will be eliminated. NATO will almost assuredly have a base in Libya, and AFRICOM will also be welcome. Virtually all public assets will be privatized. Women will suffer new restrictions. Libya will be incorporated into the global financial network. There will likely be tribal conflicts resulting in low level ongoing death and destruction. Additionally, the destruction of essential infrastructure such as water purification will result in additional disease and death. At this stage of the game, there is very little that the people of Libya can do to prevent any of this. Of course, the compradors and quislings will be well rewarded.
No need to ask for citations, just save this and repost it in a year and make me eat crow. Five months ago I made another prediction. How well did that turn out? “When the dust clears, I think it is highly likely that Libya’s infrastructure will have been destroyed and the countryside littered with depleted uranium munitions. The Libyans, who have a relatively high standard of living and development for Africa, will be reduced to pauper-hood. The total number of people killed will greatly exceed the number which would have died with no intervention. Libya may be divided, with the oil-rich east under US/NATO/rebel control.” It appears at this point that US/NATO was able to conquer all of Libya, however, overall my assessment was both accurate and obvious. And if a year from now I am totally off base and the Libyans are cleansing themselves in the headwaters of the Arab Spring, then eating crow will be a small price to pay for their unexpected good fortune. Perhaps you could also make a prediction?
Was Libya actually littered with depleted uranium and was the civilian infrastructure actually damaged a lot? By quick googling, I see reports of one May 15 comment by a NATO general that they should go after civilian infrastructure in govt-held territories. I also see a report in al-Jazeera that they did go after military infrastructure (bunkers, ammo depots, &c.). Nothing else turns up about them going after civilian infrastructure, other than a video labeled “carpet bombing” that afaict doesn’t actually show carpet bombing. But I guess in the next few weeks we’ll start to find out if that’s true.
I predict no new restrictions on women, no military base (NATO or otherwise), and no low-level civil war, and probably some privatization within the next year, but not out-of-control surrender of the country’s assets to foreign companies, at least not beyond what Qaddafi already did.
Sure you will be glad if your prediction was wrong, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a bad idea to make the prediction in the first place. Accurate, careful prediction is intrinsically valuable, it reduces our credibility if we make bad predictions based on insufficient evidence. We are supposed to be reality-based, we shouldn’t make knee-jerk judgments. It’s not a question of the US’s intentions being noble or ignoble, it’s a question of how exactly are they trying to pursue their agenda.
citation? just go back and read articles on the progression of the conflict. the rebels did not fight this war, NATO did. in fact, NATO considered them a bunch of bungling idiots that couldn’t do much more than get themselves killed. NATO would bomb the hell out of a Gaddafi-held town, then you’d see video of rebels riding into town unopposed to declare victory.
and all this time that the rebels were held up as a propaganda tool, they were trying to get funding for their war. all the way up to the very end here, the rebels were trying to get access to Gaddafi’s overseas accounts. but for whatever reason, the legal obstacles were never hurdled. i know they were also talking to some other sources like the chinese, but not sure if anything came of that either. at least not openly. probably we will not see cash flow until sometime after NATO has chosen who will be new leader. maybe that leader will also be an old oil company exec like Karzi.
but just you all wait. right now, no one that wants to be in the transition has any choice but to agree to everything from NATO if they want a part in the new government. but after that, when they’ve managed to wrest control from NATO, if the new leaders start mumbling about nationalizing the oil as Gaddafi did… then we will see a pox of insurrection again, and perhaps NATO itself will be right back in there to save the day. because the west is not going to give them anything of substantial value for their product. not when we can mint fresh dinero out of thin air through our banks.
the rebels weren’t really our mercenaries, imo. more like political pawns to manipulate public opinion. they weren’t relevant, and they weren’t funded in any meaningful way. in fact, the NTC is now telling them to go home: thanks guys, but we’ve got it from here. oh, and mumblings about all that firepower in their hands seems to trouble them also. seems they want to disarm the freedom fighters. why on heaven’s earth would the NTC fear freedom?
I disagree. Air power by itself does not win wars on the ground. It requires disciplined ground forces. Those disciplined ground forces have their own reasons for sacrificing their lives and as far as the Libyan rebels are concerned it is not either for paychecks or for spreading Western democracy. It is for something few of us could support.
Because God forbid Arabs should take up arms and sacrifice their lives for freedom! Only Americans do that!
TOVIOS- “Air power by itself does not win wars on the ground. It requires disciplined ground forces.”
If by disciplined ground forces you are referring to the special operations forces and advisors which controlled the final stages of the intervention, you may have a point. I appreciate what you are trying to say about the El Qaeda elements in the Libyan “rebels”, and am not unsympathetic to your concerns, however, we need to keep in mind the relative military weakness of the Libyan militias when faced with the overwhelming firepower of US/NATO. That they were able to resist US/NATO aggression for 6 months is quite an accomplishment. In the end, they were simply overwhelmed by the forces of US/European imperialism. No point dying in a losing cause. If US/NATO could smash Serbia to bits in 78 days, how much easier to smash the much, much weaker Libya to bits in 6 months?
As an aside, if mercenaries seems somewhat inaccurate, how about de facto mercenaries?
It’s astounding to see an article on this blog supporting the bombing of Libya. “A victory of Quaddafi would have led to a bloodbath and the return to unchecked power of a regime which has a history of killing its own civilians”. Most states would suppress an armed rebellion. Like USA in 1864. The victory over Gaddafi is also a bloodbath and will lead to who knows what. It could be another Afghanistan.
What an incredible lopsided and one-dimensional load of horse manure. The ‘west’ has been raping this planet for hundreds of years now, there’s no excuse; only reasons without reasoning.
Aye, Aye!
Horse manure is putting it lightly.
A cruise missile liberal mind all works the same – some atrocity agitprop, and add water.
The reality is that they did not attack Libya because of Ghadaffi, they attacked Ghadaffi because of Libya. Now they have to kill him. They were quite upset that his daughter and wife “got away” – according to Anthony Lowenstein.
Don’t forget that Mondoweiss endorsed the military intervention – can’t trust a liberal. Neo-connism always lurks just below the surface.
They wouldn’t mind Israel Bombing Gaza, if only Israel could construct a narrative that said Hamas was attacking and killing its own people. That Philip Weiss could easily endorse.
RE: “Will Libya victory feed western hubris?” ~ Jerome Slater
ALSO SEE: Imperial Delusions, By Robert Jensen, Counterpunch, 9/05/11
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to counterpunch.org
RE: “The problem is…that we are still operating on those [founding] principles — delusional notions about manifest destiny, American exceptionalism, and the right to take more than our share…” ~ Robert Jensen (above)
FROM IRA CHERNUS, 01/20/11: “…White Americans, going back to early colonial times, generally assigned the role of ‘bad guys’ to ‘savages’ lurking in the wilderness beyond the borders of our civilized land. Whether they were redskins, commies, terrorists, or the Taliban, the plot has always remained the same.
Call it the myth of national security — or, more accurately, national insecurity, since it always tells us who and what to fear. It’s been a mighty (and mighty effective) myth…”
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to commondreams.org
America don’t have the money to fight no wars abroad. It can’t please all those 1% of rich folks AND balance the budget.
RE: “America don’t have the money..” ~ seafoid
MY REPLY: And that’s where the new and improved (reformulated) NATO comes in. The ultimate goal is to get Europe, etc. (a/k/a “the West”, and/or the “League of Democracies”) to pay for U.S. hegemony (expanding and maintaining The Great American Empire).
SEAFOID- “America don’t have the money to fight no wars abroad. It can’t please all those 1% of rich folks AND balance the budget.”
The authors of “American Empire and the Political Economy of Global Finance” disagree. They feel that “…the US not only has the capacity to sustain its own massive current account deficit but also to reproduce its position at the top of the imperial chain.” This is the result of several factors of which the unique position of the Federal Reserve as the de facto central bank of the global financial system is very significant. In other words, the US controls the global financial system. Empire is in the process of transmogrifying itself. Neoliberal globalization is all about created interdependencies and financial control. In short, reports of imperial collapse are premature.
Keith
I get the feeling nobody is in charge of the imperial project at the moment. The US may have the capacity to sustain its current account deficit in theory but the rich don’t want it. They want to screw the poor and reduce Government to a size that would allow it to be drowned in the bathtub and if that means reducing the size of the military they’ll do it. The whole thing is incoherent. There seems to be big retrenchment.
The most amazing scene of the debt ceiling fiasco was the sight of some senior Yank general in Afghanistan telling his troops he didn’t know if they would get their paychecks at the end of the month.
That was never in the script.
I met one of your plutocrats at the weekend and he said America is a mess but we’ll fix it because we always do and I thought “not this time”. The underlying structural crisis in capitalism is too serious especially if people refuse to understand it.
I love the hauteur of this author and those who happily save arabs with bombs and who offer bounties for the leaders of once nominally sovereign arab states, the spectacle that is the modern humanitarian imperialism is awesome in its depravity, and its callous smugness.
“that a victory of Quaddafi would have led to a bloodbath and the return to unchecked power of a regime which has a history of killing its own civilians.” that really is a bit lazy, but no thats what they out there you know er do, when we’re not bombing them, they kill their own civilians. and if the un votes for “regime change”, er implicitly er i reckon, well who cares about international legality, arabs are not beings who bear such rights, in some ways their primitiveness precludes it, luckily there are enough jdams etc ensure arab safety, one of our most cherished desires.
“In short, it would not have been possible to meet the UN mandate without regime change. And who can seriously doubt at this point that the overwhelming majority of the Libyan people supported the intervention and are overjoyed at its outcome? Or, more cautiously said, at least what appears to be its outcome”. rice and flowers, and happily smiling natives in their gay bandanas lined the roads.
“The most important argument of those who strongly opposed the Libyan intervention from the outset and continue to do so today is that its success–if indeed it holds up in some meaningful way (who really gives a damn when we get to reduce another filthy arab nation to dust)–will only encourage further US or NATO military interventions ( which may not be against arabs or muslims, this is an area of genuine concern) in countries where the costs and consequences would be far greater than in Libya (which is only some bunch of islamomaoist anti-semite medieval fascistic theocratic socialistic pathogenic arabs) and “success”–however defined–much less achievable.” (we bomb it we own it)
Is there a prize for writing paragraphs perfectly suffused with vapid, gloating malevolence. Well anyway i expect you know that those of us familiar with Iraq ( i can personally also add Libya) dont really by the “and then the beasts began slaughtering each other” fighting a sectarian wars for the first time in their history, sadly its only iraqis who provide the counter narrative and well they either lie or just get shit wrong, its why their voice is never heard, the subaltern has no need to speak, we will tell them the outcomes of our complex philosophical debates.
low intensity conflict is a well designed and comprehensive policy aimed at controlling and dominating imperial possessions, any how when they bomb my brothers in egypt i am not sure that my main objection would be that it might lead to some shit down the road, only a murderous lunatic could say such a thing, probably we need not have saved libya in the heroic manner we have, bravely killing, amongst many others, Ghadaffis sons and grand children, don’t you find that just a bit nauseating, and offering money for him dead or alive, I really appreciate the utter meaninglessness of the didn’t violate the terms of the un res. spielmeme, well if you ascribe novels meanings to it i suppose thats true, On the other hand of course what else could we have done, obviously “there would have been a blood bath”, as the following article persuasively argues 2011 was a great year to bomb libya. yay and happy anniversary military humanists (and yes i am the we who is also them, intersectionality man, its a gas)
Ninety-three years of bombing the Arabs
By GAVIN GATENBY
20 August 2004
In Iraq, few days pass without the US Air Force bombing civilian targets. In a high-profile atrocity in May, a bunch of trigger-happy fly-boys shot up a village wedding in western Iraq, killing 45 guests including many children, and a Baghdad singer loved by millions, but these things happen almost daily in towns like Najaf, Samarra and Fallujah, and in other places too far from public gaze to warrant media attention.
The explanation – on the increasingly rare occasions that one is given – is always that these are precision strikes against “terrorists” (newspeak for resistance fighters), but the injured that reach the hospitals and the bodies that turn up in the town morgues are largely women and children.
The explanations don’t play well on Arab Street where they’re received as confirmation of the persistent anti-Arab bias of the West – a view that is essentially correct.
Before you scoff, try this general knowledge test on a few well-read, politically literate friends: Ask them to name the first town in the world where civilians were indiscriminately bombed from the air.
More likely than not, they’ll cite Guernica, the Basque town reduced to rubble by aircraft of the German Condor Legion during the Spanish Civil War. If they’re really up on their history, they’ll know it happened in 1937 and they’ll mention Picasso’s famous painting of the atrocity.
That answer is wrong, and symptomatic of a Euro-centric view of history that’s led western politicians to gravely underestimate the nationalist feeling and visceral distrust of the West that now has the US-led coalition bogged down in Iraq.
In fact the Guernica answer is wrong by a quarter of a century. It was the Italians, hell-bent on acquiring an African empire, who got the ball rolling. In 1911 the Libyan Arab tribes opposed an Italian invasion. Their civilians were the first to be bombed from the air, when the infant Italian air force bombed the oases of Tagiura and Ain Zara in a reprisal attack. The French followed in 1912, sending six planes to a “police action” in their bit of Morocco.
Pilots soon discovered that far from being a discriminating technique, aerial bombing was most effective against soft civilian targets – towns, bazaars, livestock and crops. In 1913 the Spanish began dropping shrapnel-type bombs on rebellious Moroccan villagers. Over the following years they graduated to poison gas.
The British, struggling to suppress nationalist movements in their vast empire, soon got in on the act. From 1915 onwards, the Royal Air Force bombed Pathan villages on India’s North-West Frontier. In May 1919 they attacked the cities of Afghanistan, dropping six tons of bombs on Jalalabad and inflicting 600 casualties in a dawn to dusk raid on Dacca. Then, on Empire Day, they hit Kabul with history’s first four-engine bomber raid. The British Government even offered poison gas bombs to their Indian Viceroy. Fortunately, he declined the offer.
Bombing the natives saved the RAF when post-WWI austerity measures looked like killing it off. The fly-boys proposed an experiment: if they could bomb a Somali tribal leader dubbed “The Mad Mullah” into submission at a fraction of the cost of a ground expedition, they’d survive. The aerial assault worked, and a delighted Winston Churchill told the RAF to take on rebellious Iraq, over which Britain had assumed a League of Nations mandate.
They called it “control without occupation”, and, under Arthur “Bomber” Harris, the RAF took to “police bombing” Iraqi Arabs and Kurds with enterprise and enthusiasm. By 1922 the RAF was deploying high-explosive and phosphorous bombs, an early form of napalm, anti-personnel shrapnel, “crows feet” shrapnel designed to kill and maim livestock and incendiaries to set alight thatch rooves. They even used bombs with time-delay fuses to prevent tribesmen from tending their crops under cover of darkness but when they stooped to machine-gunning women and children who had taken refuge in a lake, even the bellicose Churchill protested.
On other occasions, bombing was used to punish recalcitrant impoverished villagers for “non-appearance when summoned to explain non-payment of taxes”.
In 1924, in a draft report to parliament (complete with photos of what had been Kushan-al-Ajaza) Harris boasted that the RAF could wipe out an Iraqi village and a third of its inhabitants in 45 minutes.
1925 was a landmark year. The French bombed dozens of Syrian villages and even parts of Damascus, but probably the worst pre-Guernica incident occurred at Chechaouen, a Muslim holy town in Spanish Morocco. There, American mercenary fliers of the French Flying Corp indiscriminately bombed the undefended town in revenge for a severe defeat suffered by the retreating Spanish army. The London Times reporter called it “the most cruel, the most wanton, and the most unjustifiable act of the whole war”, and reported that “absolutely defenceless women and children were massacred and many others were maimed and blinded”.
Thus it went on, until the Second World War, and afterwards, through the eight years of the French war in Algeria, the Israeli repression of the Palestinians and the bombing of Iraq during the 12 years of post-Gulf War sanctions. The technology has “improved”, but the political intention, and the outcome, in terms of dead civilians, remains the same.
So why do most of us think of Guernica was the first indiscriminate air attack on civilians? Well, the Basques were on the north side of the Mediterranean, and were thus European, whereas, in Western public opinion and international law, people outside the pale of European civilisation just didn’t count – they were “turbulent”, “rebellious”or “uncivilised” tribesmen, bombing of whom was a normal, acceptable, policing technique.
They didn’t teach you this stuff at school or show it to you on TV during phase one of the Iraq war, but don’t imagine the Arabs and Afghans don’t remember.
© Gavin Gatenby, 2004.
____________________________________
References:
Sven Lindquist, A history of bombing, Granta 2002.
Lawrence James, Raj, The Making and Unmaking of British India, TSP 1998.
Peter Sluglett, Britain in Iraq 1914-1932, London Ithica Press, 1976.
David Omissi, Air Power and Colonial Control: The Royal Air Force, 1919-1939, Manchester University Press.
The “Western” success in Libya is limited and the methods are self-limiting.
It basically follows the same scheme as a less celebrated victory of “freedom” in Ivory Coast several months earlier. This scheme requires that not only the government is found wanting for some reasons (loosing elections and lieing about it, or shooting civilians) but that its military largely disintegrates and looses control over a large part of the national territory if not most.
Moroever, there are local folks who may be deemed legit, and rather then invading and running the shop for the interim period the West merely helps one side, without any involvement on the ground (or a very limited amount of that).
The indirect nature of the intervention is very important. On one hand, it leaves the responsibility for the mess that is invariable created (like slaughtering 1000 folks here and there with machetes) in the local hands. The West is not hand-picking the winners, to the contrary, the winners may prove damn inconvenient, like Afghan veterans in Libya.
I think that this aspect of voluntary and transient association is the largest limiting factor for this type of intervention — and this is a good thing. “Yes, (s)he sleeps with me tonight, but will (s)he be grateful in the morning?” It is amazing how much acrimony may follow the best intentioned trysts, we may ask Julian Assange or Dominique Strauss-Kahn (and yes, we can expect claims of “rape by the West”).
“Will Libya victory feed western hubris?”
Well, duuuuh!
Not entirely off topic, here is an interesting summary of the use of the veto by the US.
link to krysstal.com
Of course, there are an awful lot of vetos for resolutions against Israel and apartheid South Africa, but it is interesting to look at the others.
“Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.”
“Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.”
“Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.”
“Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.”
“Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.”
“Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.”
“Development of international law.”
“Prohibition of manufacture of new weapons of mass destruction.”
“On the elimination of racial discrimination.”
“Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.”
“Calls to end the use of depleted Uranium in weapons.”
“Respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification.”
“Calls for a convention against female descrimination.”
And there seems to be a pattern of these.
Is the US really on the side of the angels?
And how do the other veto holders use their vetoes?
(I bet Hostage knows.)
A stopped clock is right twice a day. The US is definitely not on the side of the angels, I would be amazed if anybody here thinks it is, but that doesn’t mean every single thing it ever does is wrong.
“that doesn’t mean every single thing it ever does is wrong.”
Never said it did.
But the pattern of vetoes is interesting. It gives the impression that the US has no objections to racism or to discrimination against women, that the US doesn’t care whether people starve to death or die of preventable diseases, but is desperately keen to continue producing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in order to impose economic and social systems on other countries.
“It gives the impression that the US has no objections to racism or to discrimination against women, that the US doesn’t care whether people starve to death or die of preventable diseases, but is desperately keen to continue producing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in order to impose economic and social systems on other countries.”
Yes it does.
I have no ideas as to the provenance of this or the sources it quotes but it is roughly coincident with my own research and analysis.
link to examiner.com
At the top of this post I mentioned that the rebels have been slaughtering and arresting black Africans. Not one response to this. I guess the killing of these people do not register in this forum. Racism anyone?
Were you expecting people to condemn them? Obviously it’s a tragic thing that is happening, but what specific response did you expect here? I would like to hear more about how widespread these abuses are. I also would add that as terrible as it is, it doesn’t really tell us much one way or the other about the nature of the rebellion, other than that the country is in some degree of disorder now, which, duh. Still nothing like Iraq in 2004-7.