Skip to main content

From CCDS website 01/08/11 - (CCDS omitted the first 3 paragraphs of my critique in their publication of it.)
This Sunday I am told that 142 Syrians in Hama were slaughtered by Assad's tanks. It is estimated that as many as 1700 peaceful protesters have been massacred by Assad since the Syrian people welcomed the Arab Spring. I find it absolutely shameful that much of the left, including CCDS remain silent in the face of the Syrian people's cries for international support. I think we can do a lot better than that.

When the internationalist history of the Arab Spring is finally written it will be embarrassing to some that these revolutionary people's uprisings have received more practical support and solidarity from US computer hackers than from the US left.

CCDS was similarly silent as Qaddafi's "yellow hat" thugs shot unarmed protesters in Benghazi (18/02/11), waiting to make its official statement on Libya 72 days after Libyan protests started with the housing sit-ins on January 14, 2011 and more than a month after it had become a revolutionary armed struggle.  As I will show below, this statement, which has as it's focus opposition to our own imperialists is self-centered and in the context of concrete conditions of the Libyan revolution, counter-revolutionary. In summation, the I agree with rima_misrata who tweeted July 30:

Hey anti-interventioners - Were you enraged when Gaddafi was massacring Libyans? No? So you don't really have a moral leg to stand on?

CCDS Statement on Libya - a Critique

By The Committees of Correspondence for Democracy & Socialism
March 27, 2011

In war, the first casualty is truth. Nowhere is this maxim more relevant than the current air and naval bombing campaign against Libya initiated by the U.S., France and Great Britain, and involving other NATO countries.

IMHO this is already taking a position that equates the Qaddafi regime with "Libya." NATO would argue that their military activities are against the forces of the Qaddafi regime not Libya, and frankly the revolutionaries would agree. As a matter of fact there is very little evidence that NATO has attacked Libyan population centers or infrastructure in the way they did in Iraq.  [see my How Many Libyans has NATO Killed? for details and background]

Furthermore, the statement "the current air and naval bombing campaign against Libya initiated by the U.S...." reinforces the view that Qaddafi=Libya. The Libyan opposition would say that the "current air and naval bombing campaign against Libya" was initialed by Qaddafi with his naval bombardment of the people of Misrata and his aerial bombing of the people of Benghazi and Tripoli, which preceded the NATO intervention and which was stopped by that intervention.

What is more important, behind all the anti-imperialist rhetoric, the practical application of CCDS's basic demand under the concrete conditions currently existing is that Qaddafi would be allowed to continue his naval and aerial bombardment of any population centers in Libya where the people have forced him out on the ground.

So far I don't see anything in the CCDS statement that Qaddafi would object to.

The air and missile strikes on Libya are acts of war.

No argument there. Of course I would also argue that Qaddafi's air and missile strikes on Libya are also acts of war, and contrary to the wishful thinking of pacifists, sometimes violence must be put down with violence. Sometimes you can only put an end to "acts of war" is by countering them with "acts of war" to stop the initial perpetrator of the violence.

Is it the position of the CCDS that it would oppose intervention by any outside force to prevent say, another Rwanda, if the interventionists were allowed to use "acts of war?"

All the talk of ‘no fly zones,’ ‘protecting civilians from massacre,’ ‘humanitarian intervention’ and so on are diversions if not falsehoods.

This sounds like the CCDS doesn't believe the threat to Benghazi was real. This statement would also lead me to believe it is discounting all the stories about cluster munitions, Grad rockets, and land mines being used by Qaddafi forces on population centers. Well they can stick their collective heads in the sand and Qaddafi will applaud them for it, but I don't know of any serious close observers outside of the Qaddafi camp that doubt, with 200+ tanks just outside of Benghazi on March 17th, and Qaddafi saying they there going to "go house to house" and "clean out the rats", a million people were in grave danger when the UN passed resolution 1973. If CCDS could have its way, Qaddafi would have been allowed to move forward with his plans for Benghazi. As far as the Benghazi threat goes, and the other stuff about Grad rockets, cluster munitions and land mines. I'm here to tell you there is overwhelming evidence. I mean overwhelming.
A ‘no fly zone’ means more than preventing military aircraft from taking off as we have already seen. It means destroying aircraft and their hangars. It means destroying any airports and airfields. It means destroying refineries and fuel supplies. And most important, it means destroying ‘command and control centers,’ which means bombing any structure or location where the military planners think Gaddafi or his loyalists might be.

I'm not sure what a "no fly zone" means but I am sure that UN resolution 1973 authorized much more than a "no fly zone." Like it or not, it authorized just about anything short of ground troops. The falsehood that the UN only authorized a "no fly zone" and that therefore NATO is in violation of the UN resolution is another Qaddafi talking point that just isn't true.
We’ve seen this movie before in Iraq.

To me, this is the most embarrassing statement in the whole document for anyone trying to practice dialectical materialism. It's saying that there is nothing new to see here, that it's basically like Iraq. So what do I think is different? The "Arab Spring" wasn't in the movie last time I saw it. The "Arab Spring" as it is being called, is so far the greatest people's revolt of the 21st century and the Libyan uprising is part and partial of the Arab uprising in MENA. The Libyan revolt is the first place the Arab uprising was forced to go over to armed struggle and this is what precipitated the international intervention.

The sad thing is that it wasn't the people's revolt that really got CCDS's and many others on the lefts attention, it was the NATO intervention. Not only have they not seen this movie before, they came into this movie in the middle and they think they know what's going on without first finding out about the parts they missed. That is why you hear so many US left commentators parrot the Qaddafi line that the rebels were armed from the start. Nobody that was observing this struggle from the start will even give such an person a penny for his thoughts.

France has taken the lead in NATO intervention, this is new. They didn't want to have anything to do with the war in Iraq - remember "freedom fries?"

What else is new? Well, the role of the Internet is absolutely new and deserving of deep study and developing practice by revolutionaries. The hacker group Anonymous started #OpTunisia on Jan 2, #OpLibya and  #OpEgypt soon followed. Internet activists were able to work together to insure that the revolutionaries always had Internet access in spite of regime attempts to shut it down, while at the same time impeding the regime's use of the Internet. You know, I once played courier for a vital message from Alexandria to the Egyptian opposition in Tahrir Sq and I never left Venice Beach to do it. As a revolutionary this role was very new to me.

IMHO revolutionaries today should be studying the Arab uprising, and especially where it has developed to the point of armed struggle in Libya, in the spirit with which Marx studied the Paris Commune. The masses are teaching us many important lessons about making revolution in the 21st Century. It is our job to refine them and return them to the masses but if we think we've been through this movie before then we think we already know it all.

It means the usual ‘collateral damage’ of widespread civilian death and destruction

I absolutely challenge this. That the NATO campaign has caused "widespread civilian death and destruction" is another Qaddafi talking point that has been backed up with fraudulent claims by the Qaddafi regime. In the war on Iraq the US dropped 29,199 munitions in the first 30 days, in Libya the US claims to have dropped munitions on 132 targets in the first 100 days. Qaddafi would like the world to think that he is being bombed the way that Iraq was during shock and awe so I'm sure he would be happy with the way CCDS portrays things.  Again see How Many Libyans has NATO Killed? for details.
—all done in the name of preventing civilian deaths.

Which doesn't exactly address the question of whether on not they have actually prevented civilians deaths, but would seem to imply that they haven't. Well IMHO, more Libyans were killed in the 4 weeks before NATO intervened than in the 4 months since and I challenge anyone in CCDS to make a creditable argument to the contrary.
And as in Iraq,

Same movie, different country, nothing new here.

the US is dropping bombs containing depleted uranium, which will destroy Libyan lives for generations.

NATO DU use in Libya is another Qaddafi talking point that is a little short on proof. Without going into details, there are good reasons to believe they are not using DU in Libya for the same reason they eventually stopped using Agent Orange in Vietnam. The bad PR eventually trumped the military advantages of the stuff. Besides they have developed other substitutes for DU, even more toxic substitutes, and there is reason to believe that is what they are using in Libya. I asked a leading CCDS member about the basics for the claim that NATO is using DU and I was referred to a pro-Qaddafi "expert" that said his tests indicated NATO may be using DU. But "may" is not "is" and why is this "expert" qualifying his opinion with "may", isn't DU radioactive? Didn't this expert have a Geiger counter? How come none of the reports I've seen reporting DU in Libya include tests for radioactivity?
It’s one reason why the African Union refused to support the UN measure and why the Arab League began criticizing it as soon as they saw the reality of what they had put their name too.

Opinions vary.
We in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism join with many others around the world to oppose this aggression and call for its immediate and unconditional cessation. Cease Fire!

Since nothing in this statement so far indicated that the Qaddafi regime is attacking the Libyan people, it sounds like this cease fire demand does not include Qaddafi's forces. I don't see any opposition to Qaddafi's aggression anywhere in the CCDS statement.
We urge that Libyans resolve their differences without resort to arms.

It would have been good of CCDS to have urged this before Qaddafi attacked protesters with military aircraft and tanks. [Note: It's interesting how more proof on this continues to come out.  Just this evening on BBC World News I saw an interview with an immigrant from Libyan that had made it safely home to Bangladesh. He said the greatest threat they faced in Misrata was from bombs dropped from helicopters - this was before NATO, only Qaddafi had helicopters.] To demand this now but not before is also a position that Qaddafi would support. To demand peace, once the the revolution has been forced over to armed struggle and while the people are winning that armed struggle is counter-revolutionary. And make no mistake about it, all defeatist talk of "stalemate" aside, the rebel army has been making slow but sure progress on three military fronts with important victories near Brega and Ziltan as I write this.
We support international diplomatic efforts aimed at assisting Libya to resolve their conflict politically – a path that was ignored in the lead up to the intervention by the U.S. and others.

This is turning the recent history of the Libyan uprising on it's head! It blames "the U.S. and others" and not Qaddafi for turning this conflict into an armed struggle and not choosing to resolve the people's protests politically. And to suggest that at the time the French started air strikes near Benghazi on Qaddafi forces that were already starting to enter the city, that instead they should have limited themselves to "diplomatic efforts" is to wish the people of Benghazi a very bad day. Qaddafi has got to love these guys.
At bottom – ‘kinetic military activity’ – the new Pentagon euphemism for imperialist war is simply a grab for power and oil in a third world country temporarily weakened by an internal crisis.

Which we definitely won't take sides on. The struggle between a dictator and the people is an internal struggle. After the US, EU, and UK have armed the dictator they should stay out of it and let the people and dictator fight it out.
Libya has huge oil reserves that are state owned—

Which in Libya pretty much means Qaddafi owned.
including much oil that is easily accessible. Libya has a huge territory where oil exploration has yet to be completed, due to former disputes between the government and foreign oil explorers. Due to past Western boycotts of Libya, China and India have joined its prime customers, and there is now competition and rivalry for future oil deals with the Libyan government.

With the escalating confrontation between Israel and the Arab states, and the mass movements arising in the Arab states for economic and political democracy, the US and its allies are focused on controlling events on the ground. A key means to this end is the establishment of a U.S. military command center in Africa – AFRICOM. AFRICOM is spearheading the military intervention in Libya for the U.S. But it is located in Germany because African countries have refused to host the command center.

According to Wikipedia "of all the African nations, only Liberia has publicly expressed a willingness to host AFRICOM's headquarters."

The war on Libya offers the justification for placing this new imperial command center in an African nation.

Again "The war on Libya" by which CCDS means the combined attack by the Libyan opposition and NATO air support on the Qaddafi regime is the same as a war on Libya.. Justifications are a dime a dozen. If they find the place that will accept a base and they want it there, the justification will take care of itself.
Unjust wars abroad always extract a price at home. This one has a high price in White House hypocrisy. While claiming to advance democracy abroad, these acts of war have been carried out with complete disregard of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. These laws place war making powers in the hands of the American people through Congress.

On the first night of the attack on Libya, the US rained $240 million of cruise missiles on Libya. The total costs for the US deployment will exceed $1 billion per month. Yet, the American people are told to tighten their belts because there is no money for healthcare, education, transportation, law enforcement, job safety, pensions, social security. The empire can no longer provide guns and butter. The attack on Libya and the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan are inextricably bound to the attacks on the rights of American workers to organize and bargain collectively for a decent living.

This argument seems to work only because they fail to acknowledge the threat to Libyan's from Qaddafi. If they do, it becomes more like "We'd really like to do something about Rwanda or the Jews being persecuted by the Nazis but we have our own problems and just can't afford to get involved."

This is why Kucinich was able to forge such a broad coalition, including many normally pro-war and isolationist Republicans in his effort to strip whatever protection he could from the people of Benghazi and Misrata.

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and a few other Members of Congress are standing up and speaking against this threat to our Constitution, the inevitable loss of our livelihood, the lives of our soldiers and the people of Libya. We strongly urge others in Congress to open debate on this matter, and cut off the funds supplying it.

Many mass actions are scheduled in the coming days and weeks against the efforts to impose austerity measures and against the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We urge the formation of ‘Jobs Not Wars’ contingents to join them, raising the banner of ‘Hands off Libya, Stop the Bombing Now!’, ‘Let Libyans Shape Their Own Future!’ and ‘Bring ALL Our Troops Home Now!’

So they wish to refocus the anti-war movement to put opposition to the "War in Libya" in 1st place, while depreciating the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [no banners called for] even though NATO has boots on the ground in both those countries and are carrying out much more vigorous war policies in them as compared to Libya.

And on the question of this revolutionary struggle CCDS is "neutral", meaning not one word of criticism of Qaddafi and not one word of support for the rebellion. The CCDS will raise high the banner ‘Let Libyans Shape Their Own Future!’ which I assume means, remove UN backed military involvement, continue to recognize the Qaddafi government as the legit gov't of Libya, continue to pay Qaddafi for Libya oil and probably even, continue to sell Qaddafi EU, UK & US military hardware, and then let Qaddafi and his thugs on the one hand and the unarmed popular opposition on the other "Shape Their Own Future!" Splendid!

For my opinion on what NATO should and shouldn't be doing in Libya, please see:
2011-07-04 NATO's Game Plan in Libya
For more background on the Libyan Revolution and links to lots of information see my other writings at the DailyKos and WikiLeaks Central:
The Assassination of General Abdul Fattah Younis
NATO over Tripoli - Air Strikes in the Age of Twitter
How Many Libyans has NATO Killed?
Qaddafi Terror Files Start to Trickle Out!
Have Libyan Rebels Committed Human Rights Abuses?
Tripoli Green Square Reality Check
Behind the Green Curtain: Libya Today
Gilbert Achcar on the Libyan situation and the Left
NATO slammed for Libya civilian deaths NOT!
2011-07-01 Qaddafi's Million Man March
NATO's Game Plan in Libya
February 21st - Tripoli's Long Night
Did Qaddafi Bomb Peaceful Protesters?
Tripoli Burn Notice
Libyans, Palestinians & Israelis
'Brother' Qaddafi Indicted plus Libya & Syria: Dueling Rally Photofinishs
An Open Letter to ANSWER
ANSWER answers me
2011-06-22 No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum
Are they throwing babies out of incubators yet?
Continuing Discussion with a Gaddafi Supporter
Boston Globe oped supports Gaddafi with fraudulent journalism
2011-04-13 Doha summit supports Libyan rebels
Current Events in Libya
Amonpour Plays Softball with Gaddafi
Arming Gaddfi
North African Revolution Continues
Is Libya Next? Anonymous Debates New Operation

In Solidarity,

Clay Claiborne

Note on the recent ANSWER and IAC Pro-Qaddafi Rallies
[this was not in the CCDS submission]

ANSWER has wrapped up their pro-Qaddafi Cynthia McKinney 'Eyewitness Libya' tour. I reported on the Los Angeles event here. After they excluded the Libyans, they had less than 200 people in attendance. Now the International Action Center [IAC] is having their pro-Qaddafi Cynthia McKinney 'Eyewitness Report on U.S./NATO Bombing & Terror' tour. Mercifully, I was unable to attend that L.A. event last Sunday but i have been told that about 100 people showed up and the Libyans didn't even bother this time.

Clearly both of these groups have similar positions on events in Libya and those familiar with their history know that they share a common root. But they both are the result of a sectarian divide that runs so deep that IAC didn't lift a finger to support or promote the ANSWER tour and now ANSWER is doing nothing to tell it's supporters about the IAC events.

You would think that if these two groups were serious about helping the Libyan people and they really believed that NATO was causing "widespread civilian death and destruction" in Libya, that they would bury the hatchet, and not in each others heads, for the greater cause of helping the Libyan people.

Just an observation.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)

    Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

    by Clay Claiborne on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 06:52:32 PM PDT

  •  Care to address (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Edger, BigAlinWashSt, skunkbaby


    It seems that the rebels might actually be under the overall supervision of the international banking industry, rather than the oil majors. On March 19 they announced the “[d]esignation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.’”

    CNBC senior editor John Carneyasked, “Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power?  It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.”

    Ellen Brown, author of the terrific  Web of Debt: the Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free, wrote recently about the rebels’ sophisticated financial operations in the following terms:

        “According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Lybia – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,” Gadaffi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gadaffi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.  During the past year, the idea was approved by many Arab countries and most African countries.  The only opponents were the Republic of South Africa and the head of the League of Arab States.  The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi was not swayed and continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

        “And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank.  In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed: ‘One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned. . . . Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability.  Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.’”

    I’d really like to see an objective account of Qaddafi’s allocation of oil revenues versus the US’s, in terms of social improvement.

    "It's not a question of worrying or of hoping for the best, but of finding new weapons." -- Gilles Deleuze, Postscript on Control Societies

    by GiveNoQuarter on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 07:02:29 PM PDT

    •  Evidently not. Good pull. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skunkbaby, Edger, GiveNoQuarter

      S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

      by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 08:18:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  From Counterpunch and 3,310 other places. (0+ / 0-)

      That's the number of Google search results I find for this same article. I'm amazed at how the Internet is being flooded with the same pro-Qaddafi mis-information over and over again.

      I think the whole line that NATO invaded Libya because Qaddafi secretly was about to introduce the gold dinar is some more BS without foundation. It is designed to appeal to the anti-FED and international banker conspiracy crowd. It allows them to ignore the question of why the Libyan people rose up in the first place and makes them ponds of the international bankers.

      From Global Research we have:

      “It’s one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted,” says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. “There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen.”

      Now lets see how many times Google find that repeated on the Internet:
      About 38,700 results (0.31 seconds)
      That is really impressive! How do they do that? The world has never seen an Internet miss-information campaign like the one that is now being conducted on behalf of Qaddafi.

      But I can't find anything else about these conferences that are suppose to have taken place in 1986 and 2000. No names, no dates, no attends, no cities, no nothing. If you have anything at all that will make me believe they actually took place please post it here.

      Besides Qaddafi has been very cozy with the international bankers in recent years, hiring Richard Pearl and investing in Goldman-Sacks for example. See my Arming Gaddafi for some background. Even Fidel Castro said:

      "it is an undeniable fact that the relations between the US and its NATO allies with Libya in the recent years were excellent," adding that Libya "opened up strategic sectors as the production and distribution of oil to foreign investment" and that "many state-owned companies were privatized. The IMF played its role in implementing these policies." ... "Aznar was full of praise for Qaddafi, and he was followed by Blair, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero, and even my friend the King of Spain; they all queued up under the mocking smile of the Libyan leader. They were pleased...

      As far as the TNC setting up a central bank. That make's sense to me. They have the better part of a country to run. That includes paying school teachers and fire fighters, dealing with banks in many countries and all the other things a government has to do. They will need a central bank and many other institutions.

      Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

      by Clay Claiborne on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:53:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think you spend too much energy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, joe from Lowell

    on insignificant people. How many dozens does CCDS represent? Who still takes Cynthia McKinney seriously?

  •  You don't appear to understand what (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BigAlinWashSt, skunkbaby

    "anti-interventionists" are anti... is that because of just plain ignorance or is it because of wilful ignorance?

    Lately there has been much written about the US/NATO attacks on Libya, with much ‘cheering’ over Obama looking as ‘strong’ as crazy republicans.

    The one thing that most overlook, or few seem to want to face, is what the US Governments intentions really are re Libya.

    Many of the comments posted on various blogs “supporting” the so-called “humanitarian intervention” try to use the fact that some Libyans “asked” for the intervention, and are “happy” that the US obliged. But there is rarely any inquiry into exactly who it is in Libya that “asked” for it, and there is much more to the story than is usually discussed.

    The US Government has been “intervening” in Libya for decades.

    The Secret War Against Libya
    Richard Keeble

    US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed. In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused. By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan.
    Following the April 1986 attack, reports of US military action against Libya disappeared from the media. But away from the media glare, the CIA launched by far its most extensive effort yet to spark an anti-Gadafi coup. A secret army was recruited from among the many Libyans captured in border battles with Chad during the 1980s. And, as concern grew in MI6 over Gadafi’s alleged plans to develop chemical weapons, Britain funded various opposition groups in Libya including the London-based Libyan National Movement.

    Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?
    Peter Dale Scott

    “Americans, Britons and the French are finding themselves as comrades in arms with the rebel Islamic Fighting Group, the most radical element in the Al Qaeda network [to bring down Gaddhafi]. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted the risks of the unholy alliance in a congressional hearing, saying that the Libyan opposition is probably more anti-American than Muammar Gaddhafi. A decade ago, this very same delusion of a Western-Islamist partnership in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya ended abruptly in the 9/11 attacks.”

    Do people really think that some Libyans being happy that the US is bombing some other Libyans somehow invalidates a quarter century or more of history? Or that the US Governments intentions intervening in Libya since it now has a saleable excuse to do so that the America public will “buy” are now magically somehow more “humanitarian” than their intentions have ever been in any other “intervention”?

    “we don’t intervene based on precedent or based on a certain set of consistency guidelines but rather so that we can advance our interests [like energy security].”
    Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough

    We shall see how happy most Libyans are a few years from now. Perhaps they’ll be as happy as Bahrainis are now?

    You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a “yes” vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya – the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.

    The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, “This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner.”

    As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to “seduce” three other members to get the vote.

    p>Translation: only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President.

    Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.

    Both the powerfully seductive myth of American Exceptionalism and the loudly proclaimed goal of “humanitarian intervention” in Libya’s civil war appear to be driving the narrative in US media and from the US Government.

    The history of US involvement and war in Vietnam and in the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations, historically illustrate quite clearly the level of “concern” the US Government has for civilian populations, and US domestic policies the past few years at least illustrate the same level of “concern” re the American people.

    Why anyone would think developments in Libya will be different from those of any other US foreign “intervention” is somewhat of a mystery.

    ● ● ● ● ●

    June 16, 2011 - Independent journalist and influential Asia Times columnist Pepe Escobar talks with James Corbett of The Corbett Report about the real reasons for the NATO operation in Libya and the dangerous precedents that are being set for future NATO unilateral neo-colonial military actions.

    Crossposted from Antemedius

    Antemedius | Liberally Critical Thinking

    by Edger on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 07:26:31 PM PDT

    •  Libya had the highest Human Develpment (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Edger, BigAlinWashSt, skunkbaby

      Index score in all of Africa.

      Anyone think that will still be the case 10 years after the "Free Market" price is paid for NATO help by the new Government?

      Mayan culture was strong enough to save the Mayan people from Mayan civilization.

      by JesseCW on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 07:36:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is another line that get old. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lawrence, UnaSpenser

        Yes Libya has the highest HDI in Africa. Libyan has great oil wealth and a very small population. Qaddafi is not responsible for that. But there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

        Here is another view from a Libyan:

        Have you been to Tripoli and seen the districts of Hadba Shergeeya, AbuSleem, Hay Alislami, Soug al Jomaa to name only a handful? Is it acceptable that in 2001, in a country with vast oil riches, and after 42 years of trying, that this country still has raw sewage pouring onto streets where children play, that some parts of the capital do not have phone lines or water pipeline? Is this credible leadership?

        5- You mention that in Libya there are ‘excellent institutions of learning’. This is nothing short of laughable. Did you know that some libraries in the main uni have no books? Did you know that in other libraries where they have sections for books, you are forbidden to enter these sections? Did you know that corruption in academic institutions is rife, where most lecturers take bribes to allow students to progress, largely because their wages are pathetic, and sometimes delay in receiving these wages sees them without pay for months. Did you know when the ‘brother leaders’ daughter was studying Law in the main uni they banned all males from the law school for the duration of her uni years? So if you were her age, male and wanted to go to law school at tripoli’s main uni….you couldn’t. Tough luck. The ‘brother leader’ says you cant, so you cant.

        6- Please tell me i misread your statement that Libya has good ‘medical facilities’? Are you not aware that most Libyans who require specialist care travel to foreign countries to receive this care? some countries FAR poorer than ours, i.e. Tunisia. Such is the market for ‘medical-tourism’ to tunis that there are Libyan-only medical centres. Perhaps you dont know that you cant even get simple things such as the Flu jab in Libya. Its in such low quantities that it runs out within weeks. Perhaps you dont know that when one of my friends passed away with a heart attack the hospital where he was taken (well known) took 15 minutes to find an ECG that worked, and later kept replacing the defibrillator, because they were malfunctioning. Is this not a farce?

        7- You talk of our sense of belonging to Africa. Do you not know how much money Gadaffi pumps into africa? Have you not heard of the war with Chad where countless libyans and chadians needlessly died? Do you not know of gaddafis funding of rebel movements around arfica contributing to more bloodshed?

        You need to seriously revise your knowledge of the country if you want to be a credible activist for peace, or a worthwhile defender of gadaffi.

        Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

        by Clay Claiborne on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:02:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, you think the IMF program that's about to get (0+ / 0-)

          run on Libya as the price for military assistance is going to increase the standard of living of the average Libyan?

          It's lovely that you've come prepared with copy-pasta, sans original thought.  I understand that you're very eager to find excuses to post it.  Who knows...maybe you've set yourself a block quote daily quota.

          But I really do wish that you'd respond to my posts instead of treating them as excuses to vomit back up something you consumed a few hours ago.

          Mayan culture was strong enough to save the Mayan people from Mayan civilization.

          by JesseCW on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 09:07:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe this is really (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      propaganda dude.

      S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

      by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 08:17:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  These lines from Secret War Against Libya (0+ / 0-)

      has been repeated 2,500 times on the Internet, but no matter how many times it is repeated, that doesn't make it true. Qaddafi has been very cozy with the imperialist since 2004. See the Castro quote above and other links.

      The story that his opposition is a bunch of Islamic militants or al Qaeda in another Qaddafi lie. There is no significant al Qaeda in Libya and anyone familiar with the oppositions knows that they have almost nothing to do with the Islamics.

      All of this is to suggest that the Libyan people aren't really oppressed and the uprising isn't genuine. It's all being 'orchestrated' from above. that's BS.

      The Arab League called for UN intervention because Qaddafi was killing Libyans big time and the Libyans calling for help were the one's that Qaddafi was shelling and bombing.

      Just like what is happening in Syria now.

      Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

      by Clay Claiborne on Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 11:25:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  ANSWER, as much as I often disagree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Edger, BigAlinWashSt

    with their approach and occasionally their message, has never held a Pro-Gaddafi rally.

    It's disgusting to pretend they have, just because they don't agree with you that blowing Libyans into small gooey bits is the best thing we can do for Libya.

    Mayan culture was strong enough to save the Mayan people from Mayan civilization.

    by JesseCW on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 07:34:09 PM PDT

  •  Re:African Union refused to support the UN measure (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue book

    From: What has Zuma to gain from rescuing Gaddafi?

    It appears to be that coincidence of history that has given rise to a mutual interest between the NATO countries and the plebiscites of rebel armies in ousting Gadhafi.

    South Africa’s Jacob Zuma reported to parliament and the African National Congress Youth League, that his committee of African Union ambassadors was of the opinion that NATO is “abusing” the United Nations resolution that sanctioned the use of force to protect citizens from murderous leaders.

    The AU position, Zuma says, is that the NATO countries invoke the UN resolution in order to effect ‘regime change’. By some weird African logic, the AU ambassadors feel duty bound to protect Muammar against the people’s uprising that has reached its limits of tolerance for hunger and joblessness despite what appears to be good levels of education, especially among the youth.
    The ambassadors recommend ‘negotiation’. Between who and who? On the basis of what offer by who, and what response from who?

    Look at it another way. Would Zuma’s party have preferred the situation in which the rebel detachments were weakened military, thereby enabling Gadhafi to hang on for yet another 42 years?

    Does President Zuma fail to appreciate, having been a leading member of Umkhonto We Sizwe, that the military retreat of the popular forces of liberation can only make the ‘oppressor’ that much more intransigent? Why suddenly, does that military rule of thumb suddenly escape Comrade Zuma?
    And now, Zuma has his blue eyed boy, Julius Malema, singing out of the same hymn book on the SABC’s ‘Morning Live’ last week. Did he say the ‘rebels’ are not revolutionaries but ‘terrorists? Something to that effect. What does he know?

    Clearly, President Zuma must be blinded by the ridiculous rule of the Southern African Development Community that says that any kind of political regime is fine as long it behaves in accordance with its constitution. We are told nothing about the expected standards which should be set out for democracy by the constitution. So, because SADC can live with a dictatorship in Swaziland, so must the Libyans tolerate Gaddafi and his Little Green Book!

    There is a civil war in Libya ignited by the intransigence of Muammar Gaddafi who has overstayed his turn, however glorious. It would appear that there is only one issue to negotiate – and it shall be appreciated that such negotiation was precipitated by the people’s rebellion – and that is: To which country should Gadhafi be allowed to retire? South Africa perhaps? That should be far enough from Libya.

    The observation should be made, yes, that it is self- contradictory from an Africanist point of view, that what began as a Libyan people’s uprising should be appropriated by the NATO countries who are driven more by the sinister motive of destabilising the Arab countries so that they can exploit their oil, rather than the altruistic purpose of protecting the people against a tyrant.
    But then the theory of contradictions does permit that the primary conflict, as things stand, is that between dictatorship and people’s power.

    Remember history, Clay Claiborne, Director Vietnam: American Holocaust - narrated by Martin Sheen

    by Clay Claiborne on Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 10:14:33 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site