Steve Weissman writes: "Regime change was always what the big three wanted, as they never stopped repeating. But now they have effectively rewritten the UN resolution to make Kadhafi's ouster their officially stated goal. Continuing to describe their intervention in humanitarian terms, they have moved from protecting innocent civilians to openly backing one side in a Libyan civil war."
A Libyan rebel runs up a burning stairwell during fighting Wednesday, 04/20/11. (photo: Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
Growing the War in Libya
20 April 11
Reader Supported News | Perspective
f America and its NATO allies flew into battle over Libya to prevent a bloodbath in Benghazi, as President Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, and President Nicholas Sarkozy of France continue to claim, the big three are now escalating their war to defend "the defenseless civilians of Ajdabiya" and end the "medieval siege" of Misrata.
Their barely camouflaged declaration of intent came in a joint letter that appeared last week in the Times of London, Le Figaro and the International Herald Tribune. "Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians," they wrote. "It is not to remove Qaddafi [Kadhafi] by force."
But, they added, "So long as Qaddafi [Kadhafi] is in power, NATO must maintain its operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds."
Regime change was always what the big three wanted, as they never stopped repeating. But now they have effectively rewritten the UN resolution to make Kadhafi's ouster their officially stated goal. Continuing to describe their intervention in humanitarian terms, they have moved from protecting innocent civilians to openly backing one side in a Libyan civil war.
With the original UN resolution, the nations that voted for it - and those that abstained - were motivated in part by Col. Muammar Kadhafi's murderous threat to "chase the traitors from Benghazi." He would, he said, "track them down, and search for them, alley by alley, road by road" and show them "no mercy."
Respected scholars argue [1] that those who favored intervention "grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat" and falsely raised the specter of genocide to justify military action. But who in power cared? Having already boxed themselves into a corner by repeatedly calling for Kadhafi to go, Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron would never run the risk that the Libyan strongman might follow through on his bluster while they refused to act. Tune in to Al Jazeera English to watch both the bloodshed and the squirming.
Now, with all sides contributing to a very real humanitarian crisis in Misrata, the big three have greatly upped the stakes. The rhetoric remains hot and heavy, with far more media coverage of Kadhafi's sins than those of the armed civilians NATO is now backing. And, amid the grisly recitation of atrocities, the allies are openly putting more of their own military boots on the ground. [2]
On Tuesday, Cameron sent a small group of military advisors to Libya, to do what is not exactly clear, while Sarkozy is sending in a French contingent following a meeting Wednesday with the leader of the rebels' National Transitional Council, Kadhafi's recently-resigned Minister of Justice, Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The meeting came after one of Sarkozy's allies in the French parliament called for putting 200 to 300 French special forces on the ground to help direct NATO planes in bombing Kadhafi's forces.
Lawyers will argue at what point the build-up of British and French forces violates the UN resolution's explicit prohibition of "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory." But, contrary to official statements, these are not the first foreign troops to enter the war, nor are they likely to be the last.
As early as February 25, the Israeli news service Debkafiles reported that British, French and American special forces had landed off Benghazi and Tobruk, while the Wall Street Journal, UPI and London's Daily Mail reported the presence by early March of foreign arms and military advisers, including some from Egypt.
Another report in the rightwing Italian daily Libero claims that French soldiers secretly met with one of the military planners of the Benghazi uprising as early as November 18 of last year. This is yet to be confirmed, but French media [3] have widely reported that the first of Kadhafi's top officials to defect, protocol chief Nuri Mesmari, came to Paris in October asking for political asylum. Known as the Libyan WikiLeak for his intimate knowledge of Kadhafi's inner circle, Mesmari and his discussions with French intelligence appear to have been the initial impetus behind Sarkozy's push for the Libyan intervention.
Additional Sources:
[1] http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/14/more_to_read_about_libya
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8461863/British-troops-go-to-Libya-amid-Vietnam-warnings.html
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2011/04/18/01003-20110418ARTFIG00651-libye-la-coalition-n-exclut-pas-l-envoi-de-commandos.php
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualite/les-revolutions-arabes/20110420.OBS1597/libye-sarkozy-recoit-ce-mercredi-le-president-du-conseil-national-de-transition.html
[3] http://www.africaintelligence.com/
http://www.jeuneafrique.com/Article/ARTJAJA2604p021.xml0/arrestation-mouammar-kaddafi-seif-el-islam-detournement-de-fondsfin-de-partie-pour-mesmari.html
http://www.liberation.fr/monde/06013118-avec-la-force-et-la-lutte-du-peuple-le-regime-de-kadhafi-va-tomber
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he writes on international affairs.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 22 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 23 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 23 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
"But still the pretense in the ‘news’ that this war is for civilians. Not even any notice that civilians in Tripoli are apparently less civilian than those in Benghazi.
And who are the rebels? The West knows only that it knows little about them, except that some of their leaders were formerly Libyan military, and that the rebellion was much stronger in Libya’s east than in Tripoli. Do the rebels represent a minority or majority of Libya’s citizens? We don’t know. How significant to the conflict is inter-ethnic or inter-clan anger? We don’t know (we do know, however, that letting one clan ‘win’ and another ‘lose’ is something ‘the civilized world’ should try to avoid). And, most importantly, would most Libyans benefit if the West (through the rebels) takes over and Qaddafi is ousted? We don’t know (but I admit I agree with the common sense that sovereignty is a good and beneficial thing)."
another NEOCON crime - and it seems that it is getting worse under the Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy -- good thing is that NAZO is running out of bombs.
He made the statement as the no-fly zone was about to be implemented and it was part of an offer of an amnesty to any rebels laying down their arms.
He was clearly hoping this carrot and stick approach might help him to capture Benghazi before NATO arrived.
Britain and France were already mobilising to implement the no-fly zone. He made it as part of an offer of amnesty to any rebels in Benghazi who were prepared to lay down their arms.
This "carrot and stick" approach was clearly intended to make it easier to take Benghazi before NATO arrived.
The Western leaders, however, found it convenient to use the second part of the statement to justify their intervention.
The issue is that it has not been reported in the West, business and special interest controlled media. If the people knew about this, the war could not have happened. This is part of Africom, plan for NATO and Western Business to control the Mediterranean and Africa and force out Chinese and Russian competition.Petraeus is probable new head of CIA, and has issued a statement which is essentially about Western mind control, including the media and the Universities. We arent living in a democracy.We are in a Fasco-demo-puppetocracy, where big business, special interests, and the military control the media,distort the facts so the corporo-military can do whatever they want,with the people and politicians backing them, based on distorted TV information, and lobbying of the politicians. A TV expert said that TV has the ability to control public opinion. And of course this is what you should expect. We have a pairing of a democratic political system with a capitalistic economic system. The capitalistic economic system has realized it can enormously increase its bottom line by controlling the democratic political system, which requires control of the people, through TV control,and the politicians, and so it has done that.
Another Shocking UN Cover Up about Libya. 4/24/11
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/22-03-2011/117288-Another_Shocking_UN_cover_up_about_Libya-0/
excerpts
Now comes to light another utter embarrasment for them and the UN....It just so happens that the United Nations Human Rights Council was scheduled to take another important vote...The Council was about to vote on a report that affirmed and praised Libya and Colonel Ghaddafi for THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD..... the Ghaddafi government protected "not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights," and praised it for the nation's treatment of religious minorities, and the "human rights training" ....It was to be approved at a vote later this month. Did something suddenly happen over night? ....No less than 46 delegations to the controversial Human Rights Council made positive comments, with rare criticism from, who else, the United States....They have moved to postpone the vote.... How embarrassing for the dogs of war it would be if it were held honestly... How embarrassing...first the best standard of living in Africa and now a commendation for human rights practices. Moreover he has type of democratic government in which he consults with the various tribal councils and implements their reasonable plans.
And all the while we carefully study the globe, seeking the next chapter in this endless, empire-building torrent. All the while ignoring the very real and helpless victims elsewhere who share no oil booty and are thus deemed most unworthy.
RSS feed for comments to this post.