The Libya thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Libya thread

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:42 pm

U.S. repositioning forces around Libya: Pentagon

WASHINGTON | Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:39pm EST
(Reuters) - The U.S. military is repositioning naval and air forces around Libya, a Pentagon official said on Monday, as international demands intensify for an end to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's four-decade rule.

"We have planners working and various contingency plans and I think it's safe to say as part of that we're repositioning forces to be able to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made ... to be able to provide options and flexibility," said Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman.

"We're still in that planning and preparing mode should we be called upon to do any of those types of missions, whether humanitarian and otherwise."

Lapan declined to give details about the types of ships or units being repositioned or how U.S. commanders plan to use them.

"No decisions have been made yet," he said.

The Pentagon now has two aircraft carriers in its naval command region that includes the Arabian Sea and Gulf, Lapan said, but does not have any carriers in the Mediterranean.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby 8bitagent » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:52 pm

Neocons like Lieberman and Mccain are aggressively trying to get the US to give the rebels weapons and other means, but I hope the "Benghazi" home base refuses. "Pact with the devil" or not, they'll have more cred and pride if they resist any Western temptations.

For leftists, human rights watchers, para-politically minded and activist folks...its a mixed bag. On one hand we want to see the people take their country back, yet by saying so we also are agreeing with the neocons and hawks who want to see Gadhafi taken out. People think of the 2000 fall of Slobo in terms of the OTPOR! uprising, yet there was some heavy CIA money behind that and the Clinton NATO death from the air campaign the year prior.

If reports are true that Benghazi and other cities are making a strong effort to get things working with municipalities, government, banks, handouts, and basic life structure...and it's being done largely without Western meddling, than this is a good thing.

I've no allusions here, I know what we're witnessing is simply an early chapter in the coming chaos and global conflict that will plague the earth in the coming year/s. However, a part of me wants to celebrate humanity standing up to tyranny...even if it's all part of the script.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Nordic » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:14 am

It's not a question of if the U.S. (or "coalition forces" or "NATO" or whatever lipstick they put on the pig) invades and "secures" the oilfields and facilities in the name of fostering "democracy" and "stopping a madman" or whatever, it's a question of when.

I knew it days ago when I actually watched me some CNN and saw the actors reading the new script.

If anything, we should have a pool going as to when it will happen.

Could be relatively quickly in this case. This is an international case of someone finding a bag of money on the street. Everybody's gonna jump for it, only try to not look like they're jumping for it.

Libya is the football here:

"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Jeff » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:47 am

How can Latin America's 'revolutionary' leaders support Gaddafi?
Those who came to power on the back of mass democratic movements cannot deny Libyans the right to topple a dictator


Mike Gonzalez
guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 February 2011

t was undoubtedly a mischievous rumour, but William Hague accepted it without demur: Hugo Chávez had offered asylum to Colonel Gaddafi. It was vigorously denied by the Venezuelan government, and as yet it seems to be founded on nothing but a rightwing sleight of hand that elides Chávez and Gaddafi into a single, caricatured military dictator. But Chávez was elected, and re-elected, to the presidency of his country, unlike Gaddafi, and he has not tortured and murdered thousands of his political opponents as Gaddafi has – on the contrary his detractors continue to vilify him daily in the media with impunity.

Yet the response to the Libyan events from Latin America's radicals has been perplexing and disturbing. Chávez himself has praised Gaddafi and echoed directly the views on the Libyan revolution offered by Fidel Castro. Castro has counselled caution and patience, warning that since the US media are consistently reporting the insurrection and denouncing Gaddafi's brutal repression it must clearly be suspect. Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, rushed to present himself to the press as a fervent supporter of the Libyan leader in his sterling defence of his nation.

...

How can Ortega, or Castro more cautiously, deny their support for this mass movement in the name of the Latin American revolution? Ortega, of course, has no right to claim to represent a movement which carried him to power but which he has frequently betrayed, not least by making a pact with the man who led the US-backed movement that ultimately destroyed Sandinista Nicaragua, the now Cardinal Obando y Bravo, in order to get himself elected.

...

In the tradition of Marx and Lenin, revolution is the moment when the mass of working people take to the stage of history to win their freedom – their "self-emancipation" as the tradition has it. This makes a movement potentially revolutionary, not the words of its leaders. Why the caution then? In a world of realpolitik, Libya has invested in all three countries and presented itself as an anti-imperialist power, defying the US and deploying its enormous oil wealth as a weapon of national defence. No doubt it has been an important factor in forging an alliance between third world states looking to strengthen their ability to resist the assaults of imperialism.

But when those states act against their own people, they have no right to continue their claim to be acting on their behalf. The mask falls, and the revolutionary process comes face to face with the state that has claimed to be its embodiment. As Gaddafi bombs and burns his own people, there is only one choice before anyone who claims to be leading a people's revolution – and that is to unequivocally support the movement from below, irrespective of its confusions and contradictions.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... fi-libyans
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby DevilYouKnow » Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:48 pm

Chávez' support of Gaddafi is sadly ironic because what Washington fears more than anything now is the prospect of a half a dozen Arab Venezuelas.

I agree the drums of war are starting to beat a little too loud for comfort.
DevilYouKnow
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:47 pm

DevilYouKnow wrote:Chávez' support of Gaddafi is sadly ironic because what Washington fears more than anything now is the prospect of a half a dozen Arab Venezuelas.

I agree the drums of war are starting to beat a little too loud for comfort.


So well said and true.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Nordic » Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:05 pm

HERE WE GO!

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us-def ... hips-libya


US Defense Secretary Gates Sending Hundreds Of Marines, Two Amphibious Ships To Libya

Gates said 400 Marines are aboard amphib Kearsarge (as we predicted yesterday), which is headed towards Libya w/other ships. Notes UN has not authorized use of force.

And to those who think the good Colonel will leave his oil in the hands of the infidels, we suggest you short Brent now.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Nordic » Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:36 pm

Special forces and "advisors" have already landed in Libya:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/03/ ... se-us.html

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=78009


US UK, French forces land in Libya

India sending 3 warships in support , Gadhafi vows to ‘triumph over enemy’

Akhtar Jamal

Islamabad—The United States, Britain and France have sent several hundred “defence advisors” to train and support the anti-Gadhafi forces in oil-rich Eastern Libya where “rebels armed groups” have apparently taken over.

According to an exclusive report confirmed by a Libyan diplomat in the region “the three Western states have landed their “special forces troops in Cyrinacia and are now setting up their bases and training centres” to reinforce the rebel forces who are resisting pro-Qaddafi forces in several adjoining areas.

A Libyan official who requested not to be identified said that the U.S. and British military gurus were sent on February 23 and 24 night through American and French warships and small naval boats off Libyan ports of Benghazi and Tobruk.

The Western forces are reportedly preparing to set-up training bases for local militias set-up by the rebel forces for an effective control of the oil-rich region and counter any push by pro- Qaddafi forces from Tripoli.

Other reports claim that efforts to “neutralize” the Libyan Air Force were also underway to limit Qaddafi’s rule in Tripoli if not fully uprooted from the country.

Meanwhile, three Indian Navy warships, are also being dispatched to be deployed in the rebel-held areas of Libya.

According to reports the Indian Navy has already sent two warships plus one its largest amphibious vessel INS Jalashwa. According to defence experts “Jalshwa” is the largest ship of Indian Navy which was delivered by the U.S. four years ago. Jalashwa, formaly the USS Trenton, has the capability to embark, transport & land various elements of an amphibious force & its equipped with mechanised landing craft, Sea King helicopters & armed with raders, ship to air missiles & rapid firing guns.

Experts say that Indian ship Jalashwa has a Landing Platform Dock with a capability 1000 fully armed troops. The warship is also used for maritime surveillance, special operations, search & rescue and to undertake other tasks.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Jeff » Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:47 pm

According to an exclusive report confirmed by a Libyan diplomat in the region “the three Western states have landed their “special forces troops in Cyrinacia and are now setting up their bases and training centres” to reinforce the rebel forces who are resisting pro-Qaddafi forces in several adjoining areas.

A Libyan official who requested not to be identified said that the U.S. and British military gurus were sent on February 23 and 24 night through American and French warships and small naval boats off Libyan ports of Benghazi and Tobruk.


But this is exactly what a hard-pressed Gaddafi official would be expected to say now. And of course, it's also what should be expected now of the imperial states. I'd say this story still awaits confirmation.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Nordic » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:04 pm

Jeff wrote:
According to an exclusive report confirmed by a Libyan diplomat in the region “the three Western states have landed their “special forces troops in Cyrinacia and are now setting up their bases and training centres” to reinforce the rebel forces who are resisting pro-Qaddafi forces in several adjoining areas.

A Libyan official who requested not to be identified said that the U.S. and British military gurus were sent on February 23 and 24 night through American and French warships and small naval boats off Libyan ports of Benghazi and Tobruk.


But this is exactly what a hard-pressed Gaddafi official would be expected to say now. And of course, it's also what should be expected now of the imperial states. I'd say this story still awaits confirmation.



Good catch, Jeff, and good point.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:06 pm

.

There's no doubt the uprising is the real thing, inspired by Tunisia and Egypt, and there's no doubt that by now the forces of empire think they've found their footing and are looking to make lemonade, get ahead of the revolutionary wave. If they can get a military intervention going under quasi legitimate cover -- any intervention, in any of these countries -- it can change the dynamic of the events, all of which are riffing off each other. McCain and Lieberman in the square is a signal, a demonstration that there are still things so shameless I could not have imagined them in advance. I hate to talk like this but I sure hope GQdafi just croaks before an intervention fucks up that country beyond repair.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby Nordic » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:09 pm

Well, like somebody said in some thread here today, the last thing the U.S. wants is a bunch of Arabic Venezuelas in the region.

They want to keep Libya one big artificial country, like Iraq and others. Self governance? Noooo! Those people can't handle that, it will devolve into anarchy and civil war! They're SAVAGES after all!
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby vanlose kid » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:11 pm

Top powers split over Libya options
Amid calls for a no-fly zone, Russia and France caution against military intervention without UN authorisation.
Last Modified: 01 Mar 2011 21:32 GMT

The US is repositioning its military assets around Libya even as Britain wants to impose a no-fly zone over the country

Western powers are weighing the military option against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi with US ships being moved to waters closer to Libya and more calls being made for a "no-fly zone" over the North African country.

Russia has however described the no-fly zone idea as "superfluous" and along with France cautioned against moving militarily against Gaddafi without UN authorisation.

“At the moment it seems that the international community is not speaking with one voice on this issue, so in the meantime we will have to wait to see how this plays out,” Al Jazeera’s John Terrett, reporting from Washington, said.

While Jay Carney, a White House spokesman, said on Tuesday that the ships are being moved in order to prepare for contingencies of a chiefly humanitarian nature, he was quick to add that "we aren't taking any options off the table."

Ships to enter Suez

Two US amphibious assault ships, the USS Kearsarge, which can carry 2,000 marines, and the USS Ponce, will pass through Egypt's Suez Canal on Wednesday morning, an Egyptian official said on Tuesday.

The official said the ships would enter the canal at 03:30 GMT.


David Cameron, the British prime minister, on his part said the international community cannot let Gaddafi "murder" his own people, as he justified considerations for a no-fly zone.

"It's not acceptable that Colonel Gaddafi can be murdering his own people, using aeroplanes and helicopters gunships ... and we have to plan now to make sure that if it happens we can do something to stop that," he said.

"If he starts taking that sort of action we might need to have a no-fly zone in place very quickly."

His comments came as Catherine Ashton, the European Union's foreign policy chief, meet Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary-general, in Brussels, the Belgian capital, over the situation in Libya.

Cameron said he had asked the ministry of defence to work with its allies over plans for a no-fly zone.

He added his government would consider arming opposition groups fighting in Libya.

However, a senior US military official has warned that establishing a no-fly zone in Libya would be a "challenging" military operation.

"My military opinion is that it would be challenging," General James Mattis, commander of US Central Command, told a Senate hearing. "You would have to remove air defence capability in order to establish a no-fly zone, so no illusions here. It would be a military operation - it wouldn't be just telling people not to fly airplanes."


Russia against no-fly zone

Senior Russian officials have ruled out the idea of creating a no-fly zone over Libya.

Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, described the idea of imposing limits on Libyan air space as "superfluous" and said world powers must instead focus on fully using the sanctions approved by the UN Security Council over the weekend.

The United Nations general assembly on Monday unanimously suspended Libya's membership of the UN Human Rights Council, citing the government's use of violence against protesters.

A statement said that Libya had committed "gross and systematic violations of human rights".

Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's NATO ambassador, cautioned against moving militarily against Gaddafi without UN authorisation.

"If someone in Washington is seeking a blitzkrieg in Libya, it is a serious mistake because any use of military force outside the NATO responsibility zone will be considered a violation of international law," Rogozin told Russia's Interfax news agency in Brussels.

"A ban on the national air force or civil aviation to fly over their own territory is still a serious interference into the domestic affairs of another country, and at any rate it requires a resolution of the UN Security Council," Rogozin said.

Mikhail Margelov, a leading Kremlin-allied parliamentarian, said US military action in Libya could "kill the shoots of democracy in the region".

France urges UN mandate

France has said military intervention in Libya could only go ahead with a clear United Nations mandate.

"At the moment I speak, no military intervention is planned," Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said.

"Different options can be assessed, notably a no-fly zone. But let me put it clearly here - no intervention will happen without a clear UN Security Council mandate".

NATO says any intervention in Libya would have to be UN-authorised.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Tuesday that even more action beyond UN sanctions might be needed, because in Libya "a regime that has lost legitimacy has declared war on its own people."

"It is up to us, the community of nations, to stand against this crime," Ban said in New York.

Barak Seener, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, told Al Jazeera that any UN resolution backing a no-fly zone "would have to demand that the no-fly zone is not open ended and subject to review at certain intervals".

He said as most of the atrocities are taking place on the ground, such a plan could lead to a no-drive zone, or a no-sail zone, and so clear parameters would be needed.

John Rees from the London-based Stop the War Coalition has said such military intervention would be a "prelude to a new war" and a "classic foreign policy blunder".

In an interview with the BBC he said Egypt and Tunisia had proved that people were capable of overthrowing their governments without the help of Western nations.

He added that Libyans were capable of toppling Gaddafi's regime alone
, saying large sections of the military had already defected.

Talks over military intervention come after the United Nations Security Council backed a resolution condemning Gaddafi's actions, imposing travel bans and asset freezes on key government figures.

The European Union has also approved its own sanctions on Libya, including an arms embargo and travel bans, and a number of nations, including Britain, the US, Germany, Canada, Switzerland and Austria have announced their own asset freezes.

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/afri ... 19900.html


*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby DevilYouKnow » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:31 pm

France urges UN mandate

France has said military intervention in Libya could only go ahead with a clear United Nations mandate.

"At the moment I speak, no military intervention is planned," Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said.

"Different options can be assessed, notably a no-fly zone. But let me put it clearly here - no intervention will happen without a clear UN Security Council mandate".

Cheese eating surrender monkeys!!!

Why am I having a case of dejà vu here...

You have to feel for the Military-Industrial Complex though, as they're about to lose the last Mad Arab Dictator against whom to rattle their sabres.
DevilYouKnow
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Libya thread

Postby vanlose kid » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:39 pm

Libya: Are the US and EU Pushing for Civil War to Justify NATO Intervention?
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya*


Of all the struggles going on in North Africa and the Middle East right now, the most difficult to unravel is the one in Libya. After Egypt, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya focuses on the maelstrom unfurling next door and mulls over Libya’s ominous future. Is “manufactured destruction” or creative destruction at work? Is oil-rich Libya being set up for a civil war to pave the way for a U.S. and NATO armed intervention? Qaddafi is an independent Arab dictator; one should definitely be opposed to dictatorship, but should also not forget about foreign tutelage.

Something is Rotten in the so-called “Jamahiriya” of Libya

Something is Rotten in the so-called “Jamahiriya” of Libya There is no question that Colonel Muammar Al-Gaddafi (Al-Qaddafi) is an oppressive dictator. He has been the dictator and so-called “qaid” of Libya for about 42 years. Yet, it appears that tensions are also being ratcheted up and the flames of revolt are being fanned inside Libya. This includes statements by the British Foreign Secretary William Hague that Colonel Qaddafi had fled Libya to Venezuela. [1] This statements served to electrify the revolt against Qaddafi and his regime in Libya.

Although all three have dictatorship in common, Qaddafi’s Libya is quite different from Ben Ali’s Tunisia or Mubarak’s Egypt. The Libyan leadership is not outright subservient to the United States and European Union. Unlike the cases of Tunisia and Egypt, the relationship that exists between Qaddafi and both the U.S. and E.U. is a modus vivendi or an accommodation between the three parties. Simply put, Qaddafi is an independent Arab dictator and not a “managed dictator” like Ben Ali and Mubarak were.

One can be against dictatorship, but also just as equally against foreign tutelage, which is why the approach of the U.S. and the E.U. towards Libya must be scrutinized. In Tunisia and Egypt the status quo remains; this works for the interests of the United States and the European Union. In Libya, however, upsetting the established order is a U.S. and E.U. objective.

The U.S. and the E.U. now seek to capitalize on the revolt against Qaddafi and his dictatorship with the hopes of building a far stronger position in Libya than ever before. Weapons are also being brought into Libya from its southern borders to promote revolt. The destabilization of Libya would also have significant implications for North Africa, West Africa, and global energy reserves.

Colonel Qaddafi in Brief Summary

Qaddafi’s rise to power started as a Libyan lieutenant amongst a group of military officers who carried out a coup d’état. The 1969 coup was against the young Libyan monarchy of King Idris Al-Sanusi. Under the monarchy Libya was widely seen as being acquiescent to U.S. and Western European interests.

Although he has no official state or government position, Qaddafi has nurtured and deeply rooted a political culture of cronyism, corruption, and privilege in Libya since the 1969 coup. Added to this is the backdrop of the “cult of personality” based around himself that he has also enforced in Libya. The man in short is a megalomaniac who has always dreamed of grandeur and being praised as a hero and leader.

Qaddafi has done everything to portray himself as a hero to the masses, specifically, the Arabs and Africans. His military adventures in Chad were also tied to leaving his mark in history and creating a client state by carving up Chad. Qaddafi’s so-called “Green Book” has been forcefully portrayed and venerated as being a great feat in political thought and philosophy. Numerous intellectuals have been forced or bribed to praise it.

Over the years, Colonel Qaddafi has tried to cultivate a romantic figure of himself as a simple man of the people. This includes pretending to live in a tent. He has done everything to make himself stand out. His reprimanding of other Arab dictators, such as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, at Arab League meetings have made headlines and been welcomed by many Arabs. While on state visits he has deliberately surrounded himself with an entourage of female body guards with the intent of getting heads to turn. Moreover, he has also presented himself as a so-called imam or leader of the Muslims and a man of God, lecturing about Islam in and outside of Libya.

Libya is run by a government under Qaddafi’s edicts. Fear and cronyism have been the keys to keeping so-called “order” in Libya amongst officials and citizens alike. Both Libyans and foreigners have been killed and have gone missing for over four decades. The case of Lebanon’s Musa Al-Sadr, the founder of the Amal Movement, is one of the most famous of these cases and has always been a hindrance to Lebanese-Libyan relations. Qaddafi has had a very negative effect in creating and conditioning an entire hierarchy of corrupt officials in Tripoli. Each one looks out for his own interests at the expense of the Libyan people.

Fractions and Tensions inside the Hierarchy of Qaddafi’s Regime

Because of the nature of Qaddafi’s regime in Tripoli, there are a lot of internal tensions in Libya and within the regime structure itself. One of these sets of tensions is between Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and his father’s circle of older ministers. Libyan ministers are generally divided amongst those that gather around Saif Al-Islam and those that are part of the “old guard.”

There are even tensions between Qaddafi and his sons. In 1999, Mutassim Al-Qaddafi tried to ouster his father while Colonel Qaddafi was outside of Libya. Mutassim Qaddafi holds a Libyan cabinet portfolio as a national security advisor. He is also famously known amongst Libyans for being a playboy who has spent much of his time in Europe and abroad. There is also Khames Ghaddafi who runs his own militia of thugs, which are called the Khames militia. He has always been thought of as possible contender for succession too against his other brothers.

There have always been fears in Libya about the issue of succession after Colonel Qaddafi is gone. Over the years, Qaddafi has thoroughly purged Libya of any form of organized opposition to him or prevented anyone else, outside his family, from amassing enough power to challenge his authority.

The Issue of Loyalty and Defection in Libya

Undoubtedly, little loyalty is felt for Qaddafi and his family. It has been fear that has kept Libyans in line. At the level of the Libyan government and the Libyan military it has been both fear and self-interest that has kept officials, good and corrupt alike, in line. That mantle of fear has now been dispelled. Statements and declarations of denunciation against Gaddafi’s regime are being heard from officials, towns, and military barracks across Libya.

Aref Sharif, the head of the Libyan Air Force, has renounced Qaddafi. Interior Minister Abdul Fatah Al-Yunis (Al-Younis), who is from Benghazi and oversees a branch of the special operations work in Libya, has resigned. Yunis is reported to be Qaddafi’s “number two” or second in charge, but this is incorrect. Abdullah Sanusi, the head of Libyan Internal Intelligence and Qaddafi’s in-law through marriage, is the closest thing to a “number two” within the structure of power in Tripoli.

Reports have been made about two Libyan pilots defected to Malta and Libyan naval vessels refusing to attack Benghazi (Bengasi). Defections are snowballing amongst the military and government. Yet, there must be pause to analyze the situation.

The Libyan Opposition

At this point, however, it must be asked who the “opposition” in Libya is. The opposition is not a monolithic body. The common denominator is the opposition to the rule of Qaddafi and his family. It has to be said that “actions of opposition or resistance against an oppressor” and an “opposition movement” are also two different things. For the most part, the common people and corrupt Libyan officials, who harbour deep-seated hate towards Qaddafi and his family, are now in the same camp, but there are differences.

There is an authentic form of opposition, which is not organized, and a systematic form of opposition, which is either external or led by figures from within the Libyan regime itself. The authentic people’s internal opposition in Libya is not organized and the people’s “actions of opposition” have been spontaneous. Yet, opposition and revolt has been encouraged and prompted from outside Libya through social media networks, international news stations, and events in the rest of the Arab World. [2]

The leadership of the internal opposition that is emerging in Libya is coming from within the regime itself. Corrupt officials that have rebelled against Gaddafi are not the champions of the people. These opposition figures are not opposed to tyranny; they are merely opposed to the rule of Colonel Qaddafi and his family. Aref Sharif and Al-Yunis are themselves Libyan regime figures. It has to also be considered that some Libyan officials that have turned against Qaddafi are doing it to save themselves, while others in the future will work to retain or strengthen their positions. Abdel Moneim Al-Honi, the Libyan envoy to Arab League in Cairo, can be looked at as an example. Al-Honi denounced Qaddafi, but it should be noted that he was one of the members of the group of Libyan officers who executed the coup in 1969 with Qaddafi and that later in 1975 he tried to take power in a failed coup. He would flee Libya and only return in 1990 after Qaddafi would pardon him.

Al-Honi is not the only Libyan diplomat to resign. The Libyan ambassador to India has also done the same. There is an intention on the part of these officials to be members of the power structure in a Libya after the ouster of Qaddafi:

- Libyan Ambassador to India Ali al-Essawi told the BBC that he was quitting, opposing his government’s violent crackdown on demonstrators.
Mr. Al-Essawi was reported to be a Minister in Tripoli and could be an important figure in an alternative government, in case Libyan President Muammar Qadhafi steps down.

- The second Libyan diplomat to put in his papers was Tripoli’s Permanent Representative to the Arab League Abdel Moneim al-Honi, who said in Cairo that he had quit his job to “join the revolution” in his country.
“I have submitted my resignation in protest against the acts of repression and violence against demonstrators, and I am joining the ranks of the revolution,” said Mr. Al-Honi.

- The Second Secretary Hussein Sadiq al Musrati, announced his resignation from China, in an interview with Al-Jazeera, and called on the Army to intervene in the uprising. [3]


Again, these revolting officials, like Al-Yunis and Sharif, are from within the regime. They are not mere diplomats, but former ministers. There is also the possibility that these types of “opposition figures” could have or could make arrangements with external powers.

External Forces at Play in Libya

The governments of the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, and Italy all knew very well that Qaddafi was a despot, but it did not stop any of them from making lucrative deals with Tripoli. When the media covers the violence in Libya, they should also ask, where are the weapons being used coming from? The arms sales that the U.S. and the E.U. have made to Libya should be scrutinized. Is this a part of their democracy promotion programs?

Since rapprochement between the U.S. and Libya, the military forces of both countries have moved closer. Libya and the U.S. had military transactions and since rapprochement Tripoli has been very interested in buying U.S. military hardware. [4] In 2009, a Pentagon spokeswoman, Lieutenant-Colonel Hibner, affirm this relationship best: “[The U.S.] will consider Libyan requests for defen[c]e equipment that enables [Libya] to build capabilities in areas that serve our mutual interest [or synchronized U.S. and Libyan interests].” [5] The qualifier here is U.S. interests, meaning that the Pentagon will only arm Libya on the basis of U.S. interests.

In what seems to have happened overnight, a whole new arsenal of U.S. military hardware has appeared in Libya. American-made F-16 jets, Apache helicopters, and ground vehicles are being used inside Libya by Qaddafi. [6] This is a shocking revelation, if corroborated. There are no public records about some of this U.S. military hardware in the the arsenal of the Libyan military. In regards to the F-16s, Libyan jets are traditionally French-made Mirages and Russian-made MiGs.

Silvio Berlusconi and the Italian government have also been strong supporters of Qaddafi’s regime. There is information coming out of Libya that Italian pilots are also being used by the Libyan Air Force.] [7] Mercenaries from Chad, Sudan, Niger, and Nigeria are also being used. This has been verified through video evidence coming out of Libya. The Libyan regime is also considering contracting the American or European security firms (mercenaries). [8]

The Politics of Al Jazeera

The Libyan government has shut down the internet and phone lines and an information war is underway. Although one of the most professional news network in the world, it has to be cautioned that Al Jazeera is not a neutral actor. It is subordinate to the Emir of Qatar and the Qatari government, which is also an autocracy. By picking and choosing what to report, Al Jazeera’s coverage of Libya is biased. This is evident when one studies Al Jazeera’s coverage of Bahrain, which has been restrained due to political ties between the leaders of Bahrain and Qatar.

Reports by Al Jazeera about Libyan jets firing on protesters in Tripoli and the major cities are unverified and questionable. [9] Here to, the reports that Libyan jets have been attacking people in the streets have not been verified. No visual evidence of the jet attacks has been shown, while visual confirmation about other events have been coming out of Libya.

Al Jazeera is not alone in its biased reporting from Libya. The Saudi media is also relishing the events in Libya. Asharq Al-Awsat is a paper that is strictly aligned to U.S. interests in the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region. Its editor-in-chief is now running editorials glorifying the Arab League for their decision to suspend Libya – why were such steps not taken for Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, or Yemen? Inside and outside the Arab World, the mainstream media is now creating the conditions for some sort of intervention in Libya.

The Role of Foreign Interests in Libya

Qaddafi and his sons have run Libya like a private estate. They have squandered its wealth and natural resources amongst themselves and their officials. One of Gaddafi’s son’s is known to have paid the American singer Beyoncé Knowles a million or more U.S. dollars for a private music concert. [10]

The positions and actions of foreign corporations, the U.S., and the European Union in regards to Libya should not be ignored. Questioning the role of foreign governments and corporations in Libya is very important. The Italian and U.S. governments should be questioned about the role that pilots of Italian nationality and newly bought U.S. weaponry are playing in Libya. It is very clear that democracy is only used convenient as a pretext against dictators and governments that do not bow down and serve U.S. and E.U. interests. Just looking at the way Mutassim Qaddafi was welcomed with open arms in Washington on April 21, 2009 by Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration shows the regard the U.S. government has for democracy and democratic ideals. Upon their meeting, Secretary Clinton publicly said: I am very pleased to welcome Minister Gaddafi to the State Department. We deeply value the relationship between the United States and Libya. We have many opportunities to deepen and broaden our cooperation and I am very much looking forward to building on this relationship. So, Mr. Minister, welcome so much here. [11]

What the U.S. and the E.U. want to do now is maximize their gain in Libya. Civil war seems to be what Brussels and Washington have in mind for doing this.

The Balkanization of Libya and the Push to Civil War

Qaddafi’s son, during a televised speech, Saif Al-Islam has made statements about deviant Taliban-like faith-based organizations taking over Libya or attempting to take it over. Nothing is further from the truth. He has also warned of doom and civil war. This is part of the Qaddafi family’s efforts to retain power over Libya, but a path towards civil war is unfolding in Libya. Amongst the ranking members of the military, Mahdi Al-Arab, the deputy chief of Libya’s military staff, was said to have renounced Qaddafi. [12] Al-Arab, however, has modified his position by saying that he does not want to see Libya spiral into a civil war that will allow foreign intervention and tutelage. [13] This is why Al-Arab prevented the people of his city, Zawarah, from joining the revolt and going to nearby Tripoli. [14]

The drive towards civil war in Libya is fuelled by two factors. One is the nature of Qaddafi’s regime. The other is an external desire to divide and weaken Libya.

As a paranoid autocrat, Qaddafi has always worked to keep Libyans divided. For years there have been fears that Qaddafi’s sons would start a civil war amongst themselves or that some other high ranking officials could try to jockey for power once Qaddafi was gone. Civil war on the basis of ethnicity, regionalism, or tribalism is not a big threat. Tribes and regions could be co-opted or allied with, but the people that would spark a civil war are regime figures. The threats of civil war arise from the rivalries amongst regime officials themselves.

The flames of revolt are being fanned inside Libya. Chaos in the Arab World has been viewed as beneficial in many strategic circles in Washington, Tel Aviv, London, and NATO Headquarters. If Libya falls into a state of civil war or balkanizes this will benefit the U.S. and the E.U. in the long term and will have serious geo-political implications.

All the neighbouring states in North Africa would be destabilized by the events in Libya. West Africa would also be destabilized, because the tribal boundaries running in Libya and Chad extend into countries like Niger, Algeria, and Sudan. It would also have a significant effect on Europe and global energy. Already the events in Libya are being used to validate the drive to control the Arctic Circle and its energy resources. [15]

What Will Be Qaddafi’s End?

It is very likely that Qaddafi will not have as fortunate an exit from power as Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt. Finding refuge for Qaddafi will not be as easy. In general Qaddafi is considered a liability by other governments, because of his erratic behaviour. Nor is a friend of many of them.

Saudi Arabia, which can be portrayed as a refuge for Arab dictators, will most likely not give Qaddafi refuge. Libya and Saudi Arabia have bad relations. He is also wanted for investigation in Lebanon. Generally, Qaddafi’s relationship with the leaders of the Arab petro-sheikhdoms in the Persian Gulf is tense and negative. He will not be granted refuge anywhere in the Persian Gulf.

In general, Arab governments will also be afraid to host him. In his efforts to present himself as a champion of the people, he has insulted many of his fellow Arab dictators. There is something to be said, however, when Qaddafi’s statements at Arab League meetings or about Palestine and Iraq are far more popular or candid than the rest of the Arab dictators.

Nor will Qaddafi find refuge in the U.S. Canada, Turkey, Iran, Japan, China, Israel, India, Australia, New Zealand, or South Korea. It is also highly improbable that any Latin American, European, or ex-Soviet countries will give him refuge either. A country in sub-Sahara(n) Africa is the mostly likely place Qaddafi could seek refuge in.

His options are limited and he is determined to hold power. Civil war seems to be looming in the horizon for Libya. It is highly unlikely that he will leave Libya peacefully and the U.S. and its allies have probably calculated this. On February 23-24, 2010, he met with the leaders of the three biggest tribes in Libya (Werfala, Tarhouna, and Wershfana), to secure their support. [16] His own tribe, Qaddafa is supporting him and it seems that the Madarha and Awlad Slieman tribes are also supporting him. [17]

The Threats of NATO Intervention and the U.S. and E.U. Control over Libya

Libya has been in the cross-hairs of the Pentagon for years. According to Wesley Clark, the retired general who was the supreme military commander of NATO, Libya was on a Pentagon list of nations to be invaded after Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The list included Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, and lastly Iran. In Clark’s own words:

So I came back to see him [a high ranking military officer in the Pentagon] a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, ’Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ And he said, ’Oh, it’s worse than that’. He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, ’I just got this down from upstairs’ — meaning the Secretary of Defence’s office — ’today’. And he said, ’This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran’. [18]

In one way or another all the nations on the list have been attacked directly or indirectly and all of them, but Syria and Iran have succumbed to the U.S. and its allies. The only exceptions are Iran and its ally Syria. In Lebanon, the U.S. has made partial gains, but that is now receding with the decline of the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance.

Libya started secret negotiations with Washington in 2001, which materialized into formal rapprochement after the fall of Baghdad to British and American troops in 2003. Yet, the U.S. and its allies have always wanted to expand their influence over the Libyan energy sector and to appropriate Libya’s vast wealth. A civil war provides the best cover for this.

Libyans Must Beware of the Pretext of Humanitarian Intervention

The Libyan people should be on their high guards. In is clear that the U.S. and the E.U. are supporting both sides. The U.S. and the E.U. are not the allies of free peoples. In this regard, the U.S. supports Qaddafi on the ground through military hardware, while it supports “opposition.” If the so-called Western governments were serious about democracy, they would have cut their business ties to Libya, specifically in the energy sector, before 2011.

Both Washington and the powers in Brussels could co-opt opposition forces. They have supported Gaddafi, but they do not control him or his regime like they controlled Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Libya. Libya is a much different story. The objectives of Washington and Brussels will be to strengthen their control over Libya either through regime change or civil war. “Actions of opposition to Gaddafi” are strong, while an organized “opposition movement” in not strong yet. The two are different. Nor is democracy guaranteed, because of the nature of the coalition opposed to Gaddafi, which includes corrupt regime officials.

There is now talking about “humanitarian intervention” in Libya, similar to Yugoslavia and Iraq. A “no fly zone” over Libya has been mentioned, as has NATO military intervention. The aims behind such statements are not humanitarian, but are intended for invasion and control. Should they come into fruition, Libya would be an occupied country that will be plundered and all its assets privatized and controlled by foreign corporations like in the case of post-2003 Iraq.

Today, in Libya and the Arab World the ghosts of Omar Mukhtar and Saladin are still very much alive and active. Getting rid of Gaddafi and his sons alone is not the solution. The entire corrupt system of governance in Libya and the culture of political corruption must also be unhinged. At the same time, however, foreign tutelage should also not be allowed to take root hold in Libya. If the Libyan people are mobilized and steadfast, they can fight such schemes.


Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Multidisciplinary sociologist and scholar in Canada. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) specializing in geopolitics and strategic issues. He is also a lecturer and author about the topics of the Middle East, Central Asia and the former USSR. He has been published and cited in languages including English, Spanish, French, German, Italian and Russian.



[1] “UK Hague: some information that Qaddafi on way to Venezuela,” Reuters, February 21, 2011.

[2] One is taken aback by the proliferation of pre-1969 coup Libyan flags. Where did all these flags come from?

[3] 3 Libyan Diplomats resign,” The Hindu, February 22, 2011.

[4] James Wolf, “U.S. eyes arms sales to Libya,” Reuters, March 6, 2009.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Information from sources in Libya; not publicly confirmed yet.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.; I have been given two explanations for this. The first explanation is that government agents from Libya have been disseminating misinformation to Al Jazeera. This includes reports made to Al Jazeera that jets have been attacking civilians in the streets. Gaddafi has used this to try and discredit Al Jazeera internally in Libya by pointing out to the Libyan people that no jet attacks have occurred and that Al Jazeera is broadcasting misinformation. The second explanation is that Al Jazeera is simply spreading misinformation. Whatever the case, both explanations agree no Libyan jets have attacked protesters yet.

[10] Marine Hyde, “Beyoncé and the $2m gig for Colonel Gaddafi’s son,” The Guardian (U.K.), January 8, 2010; it was Mutassim and not Hannibal Gaddafi that the music concert was for (the article is wrong). The article is not authoritative and has been cited to illustrate that these types of escapades are even vaguely known by the mainstream press in Britain and Western Europe. Foreign corporations also play a role in this story.

[11] U.S State Department, "Remarks With Libyan National Security Adviser Dr. Mutassim Qadhafi Before Their Meeting,” April 21, 2009.

[12] Information from sources in Libya; not publicly confirmed yet.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] David Ljunggren, “Libya turmoil puts focus on Arctic oil: Greenland,” ed. Robert Wilson, Reuters, February 23, 2011.

[16] Information from sources in Libya; not publicly confirmed yet. I have been told that Qaddafi promised them reform and that he would step down in about one year in time. I was also informed that he claimed that none of his sons would control Libya either.

[17] Ibid.

[18] General (retired) Wesley Clark, “92 Street Y Exclusive Live Interview,” interview by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now, March 2, 2007.



http://www.voltairenet.org/article168588.html


*

just to add this illustration from 2009. the major Libyan oilfields, five of six terminals, all refineries and the sole gas planet are in opposition control. Azzawiyah, where the sixth terminal is located is also under opposition control. the time for the west to "lend democracy a hand" is just about perfect. -- vk

Image

*

edit: image source is SEPM.

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 167 guests