Oh, What a Stupid War!
The war on Libya now being waged by the U.S., Britain and France must surely rank as one of the stupidest martial enterprises, smaller in scale to be sure, since Napoleon took it into his head to invade Russia in 1812.
Let's start with the fierce hand-to-hand combat between members of the coalition, arguing about the basic aims of the operation. How does "take all necessary measures" square with the ban on any "foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory." Can the coalition kill Gadhafi, and recognize a provisional government in Benghazi? Who exactly are the revolutionaries and national liberators in eastern Libya?
In the United States, the intervention was instigated by liberal interventionists: notably three women, starting with Samantha Power, who runs the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights in Obama's National Security Council. She's an Irish-American, 41 years old, who made her name back in the Bush years with her book A Problem From Hell, a study of the U.S. foreign-policy response to genocide, and the failure of the Clinton administration to react forcefully to the Rwandan massacres. She had to resign from her advisory position on the Obama campaign in April 2008, after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an interview with The Scotsman, but was restored to good grace after Obama's election, and the monster in her sights is now Gadhafi.
America's U.N. ambassador is Susan Rice, the first African-American woman to be named to that post. She's long been an ardent interventionist. In 1996, as part of the Clinton administration, she supported the multinational force that invaded Zaire from Rwanda in 1996 and overthrew dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, saying privately that "Anything's better than Mobutu."
But on Feb. 23, she came under fierce attack in the Huffington Post at the hands of Richard Grenell, who'd served on the U.S. delegation to the U.N. in the Bush years. Grenell dwelt harshly on instances where in his judgment Rice and her ultimate boss, Obama, were dropping the ball, and displaying lack of leadership amid the tumults engulfing the Middle East and specifically in failing to support the uprising against Gadhafi.
Both Rice and Clinton took Grenell's salvo to heart. Prodded by the fiery Power, they abruptly stiffened their postures, and Clinton lobbed her furious salvoes at Gadhafi, "the mad dog." For Clinton it was a precise rerun of her efforts to portray Obama as a peace wimp back in 2008, liable to snooze all too peacefully when the red phone rang at 3 a.m.
For his part, Obama wasn't keen on intervention, seeing it as a costly swamp, yet another war and one bitterly opposed by Defense Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But by now, the liberal interventions and the neocons were in full cry, and Obama, perennially fearful of being outflanked, succumbed, hastening to one of the least convincing statement of war aims in the nation's history. He's already earned a threat of impeachment from leftist congressman Dennis Kucinich for arrogating war-making powers constitutionally reserved for the U.S. Congress, though it has to be said that protest from the left has been pretty feeble.
As always, many on the left yearn for an intervention they can finally support, and initially, many of them have been murmuring ecstatically, "This is the one." Of course, the sensible position (mine) simply states that nothing good ever came out of a Western intervention by the major powers, whether humanitarian in proclaimed purpose or not.
So much for the instigators of intervention in the U.S. In France, the intellectual author is the intellectual dandy and "new philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy, familiarly known to his admirers and detractors as BHL. As described by Larry Portis in our CounterPunch newsletter, BHL arrived in Benghazi on March 3. Two days later, BHL was interviewed on various television networks. He appeared before the camera in his habitual uniform—immaculate white shirt with upturned collar, black suit coat and disheveled hair.
His message was urgent but reassuring. "No," he said, "Gadhafi is not capable of launching an offensive against the opposition. He does not have the means to do so. However, he does have planes. This is the real danger."
BHL called for the scrambling of radio communications, the destruction of landing strips in all regions of Libya and the bombardment of Gadhafi's personal bunker. In brief, this would be a humanitarian intervention, the modalities of which he did not specify.
Next step, as BHL explained: "I called him (Sarkozy) from Benghazi. And when I returned, I went to the Elysee Palace to see him and tell him that the people on the National Transition Council are good guys."
Indeed, on March 6, BHL returned to France and met with Sarkozy. Four days later, he saw Sarkozy again, this time with three Libyans whom he had encouraged to visit France, along with Sarkozy's top advisers. On March 11, Sarkozy declared the Libyan National Transition Council the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people.
Back in Benghazi, people screamed in relief and cheered Sarkozy's name, popularity at last for Sarko, whose approval ratings in France have been hovering around the 30 percent mark.
So much for the circumstances in which intervention was conceived. It has nothing to do with oil, everything to do with ego and political self-protection. But to whom exactly are the interveners lending succor? There's been great vagueness here, beyond enthusiastic references to the romantic revolutionaries of Benghazi, and much ridicule for Gadhafi's identification of his opponents in eastern Libya as al-Qaida.
In fact, two documents strongly back Gadhafi on this issue. The first is a secret cable to the State Department from the U.S. embassy in Tripoli in 2008, part of the WikiLeaks trove, entitled "Extremism in Eastern Libya," which revealed that this area is rife with anti-American, pro-jihad sentiment.
According to the cable, the most troubling aspect "... is the pride that many eastern Libyans, particularly those in and around (Darnah), appear to take in the role their native sons have played in the insurgency in Iraq ... (and the) ability of radical imams to propagate messages urging support for and participation in jihad."
The second document—or rather, set of documents—is the so-called Sinjar Records, captured al-Qaida documents that fell into American hands in 2007. They were duly analyzed by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Al-Qaida is a bureaucratic outfit, and the records contain precise details on personnel, including those who came to Iraq to fight and, when necessary, commit suicide, fighting American and coalition forces.
The West Point analysts' statistical study of the al-Qaida personnel records concludes that one country provided "far more" foreign fighters in per-capita terms than any other: Libya. The records show that the "vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country's Northeast."
Benghazi provided many volunteers. So did Darnah, a town about 200 km. east of Benghazi, in which an Islamic emirate was declared when the rebellion against Gadhafi started. New York Times reporter Anthony Shadid even spoke with Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, who promulgated the Islamic emirate.
Al-Hasadi "praises Osama bin Laden's 'good points,'" Shadid reported, though he prudently denounced the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Other sources have said that this keen admirer of Osama would be most influential in the formation of any provisional government.
The West Point study of the Iraqi Sinjar Records calculates that of the 440 foreign al-Qaida recruits whose hometowns are known, 21 came from Benghazi, thereby making it the fourth-most-common hometown listed in the records. Fifty-three of the al-Qaida recruits came from Darnah, the highest total of any of the hometowns listed in the records. The second-highest number, 51, came from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Darnah (80,000) has less than 2 percent the population of Riyadh. Darnah contributed "far and away the largest per capita number of fighters."
As former CIA operations officer Brian Fairchild writes, amid "the apparent absence of any plan for post-(Gaddhfi) governance, an ignorance of Libya's tribal nature and our poor record of dealing with tribes, American government documents conclusively establish that the epicenter of the revolt is rife with anti-American and pro-jihad sentiment, and with al-(Qaida)'s explicit support for the revolt, it is appropriate to ask our policymakers how American military intervention in support of this revolt in any way serves vital U.S. strategic interests."
As I wrote here a few weeks ago, "It sure looks like Osama is winning the Great War on Terror." But I did not dream then that he would have a coalition of the U.S., Great Britain and France bleeding themselves dry to assist him in this enterprise.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Powers and Madeline Albright are all prowar war abominations. Hillary was for bombing Serbia, Sudan, Iraq and Afganistan everytime Monica Lewinsky was causing her husband any trouble. I know men are supposed to be the ones who are warmongers. But these babes have turned nature on it's head. A lot of liberal women used to in peace marches, not anymore.
Good rule of thumb: if any of these harpies (BHL included) take a stand on any issue, treat that position as gangrene and move elsewhere.
How did it happen?
How was it that exactly 10 years after 9/11 and 7 years after fighting bloody Iraqi insurgency, United States sides with...
the very tribals who comprised those who condoned the actions of (and even worked with) those involved in the aforementioned?
First arm the mujahideen, then have them turn anti-American and kill American soldiers in Iraq, and then support as allies the very Benghazi rebels who also fought in the Iraqi insurgency? Wow.
The US is still fighting that Iraqi insurgency.
"The Powerpuff Girls" to the rescue . . .
Horrifying.
Obomber and his boss, Hilary are obviously lying about the costs. They are also lying about the "no ground troops" although I haven't quite figured out how they'll parse that in a few weeks or months. They're "armed peacekeepers"? Atrocities have been carried out against African migrants by our noble rebels although that story has been quietly shelved since the war started. And don't think that the half of Libya that supports the mad Colonel doesn't face reprisals if we can bomb the rebels into Tripoli. We have created a humanitarian crisis far worse than the one that would have happened if we had stayed out or actually tried a truly limited intervention. This a civil war and we are fighting on one side. If our noble rebels prevail it will only take them a short time before they hate us even as we spend further billions to re-build what we today are destroying.
The only thing I can say about all of this is that the average working American needs to tighten his belt so we can pay for this help. The folks in the desert need us something awful and you can't expect other people to do what only we can do, since we see further into the future, are the indispensable nation and need to create some jobs. The other thing is what Paul Wolfowitze testified about in Congress before going into Iraq (when oil was about 40.00 dollars a barrel on a good day) our access to their oil and the stability in the markets our access should create, will help pay for the war. Now with oil over a hundred dollars a barrel and the markets stabilizing upward, average Americans need the Federal governments intervention in the Middle East more than ever! This is not about Israel, or just cheap oil, this is about helping a Moslem country of peaceful radicals overthrow an EVIL man-- Evil, Evil, Evil!!!
Can anyone imagine Hillary Clinton as any sort of elected official had she not been tethered to a prominent politician? On her own she could not be elected dog catcher. And what exactly are her qualifications for U.S. foreign minister? She is ignorant of history, a solid knowledge of which should be the minimum prerequiste for the job. What comprises her frequently commented-upon "brilliance?" She has never displayed even anything close to mediocre in all her public pronunciamentos. Not only is she ignorant of history, geopolitics,and military affairs, and unimaginative, but her utter lack of judgment and common sense is truly appalling. Count on her to always be wrong in her perception of world affairs. That is the only thing right about her. As for the other two warrior-princesses, Power and Rice, they possess even lower grade intellects than Clinton. Never in U.S. history have people so stupid and inferior held such high and influential offices.
While Samantha Power is cheerleading "humanitarian" military interventionism, her husband, Cass Sunstein advocates the labeling of opposition to federal policy as a "conspiracy theory" and outlawing opposition to the federal state. It is amusing that globalists will speak of the "legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people" while protests are banned from Lafayette Park near the White House and at the G20 in Pittsburgh.
Taking a long view and setting aside non-interventionists, anti-war, and war on terror arguments, there is an upside to this intervention. In its small way it may wind helping to erase Africa's colonial borders that share a significant share of the responsibility for the tyranny, turmoil and bloodshed of the post-colonial period. Africans should be allowed to and strive for redrawing their political borders along historic, ethnic, and tribal lines. Botswana is a good example of a relatively stable and peaceful country that is so because it is by and large homogenous.
M Atkins, I agree with your sound stance on re-drawing imposed or untenable borders. Unfortunately this war is not about anything that sensible. The intervening powers will bomb and bomb and bomb until someday the noble rebels, perhaps Al-Qaeda, have subjugated the entire country. Or "armed peacekeepers" will be coming soon to impose peace, perhaps for decades. A new coalition flag will have to be designed so that Obomber does not have to admit that this largely American force is actually a largely American force.
I don't mind reading Cockbun's articles at all. He is a thoughtful man. I do, however, prefer the previous picture of him that used by Chronicles. In the old picture he looked like Rooster Cogburn with a patch over one eye. In this more recent photo he looks like a college professor who has taught long enough to know better.
It is the reputation of the world leaders involved in this conflict taht is at stake. I remember the 1980s victory of Britain in the Falklands war, which caused that the popularity of Margaret Thatcher increased and she had no problem to be reelected prime minister. The French and British leaders don't enjoy much popularity among the voters right now and so the victory is the best impulse that their current positions can receive.
According to reliable sources, Cad-daffy has hired "African" mercenaries from an Israeli outfit called Global-CST. I suppose you too can hire an armed posse for $2000/grunt/day when you sit on a vast pool of light, sweet crude. The "soldiers" receive $100 a day, except when they get killed by brave rebels. Because I have a conscience, I cannot get into this line of work depsite the tempting profit margins.
Meanwhile, that Soros anti-christ is selling short on Libyan dinars. And the right connections can get B. Hussein Oh-bummer to go along with their little profit-making schemes. It's all too easy.
The Wayne Madsen Report put up this link from an Israeli site: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167814.html
It's gratifying that Mr Cockburn hasn't trodden the well-worn GOP paths of turning Barry Obama into a devilish caricature (granted Mr Cockburn never was a partisan of the Republicans). On both prudential and moral grounds this latest war is not one whit more reasonable than the last twenty, fifty or however many have been waged with the acknowledged view of freeing mankind from its master's chains - I believe that is the present form of the Liberals' mindless cant.
More importantly, the United States appears to have entered the age of Aspar and Ricimer; where the Cæsars are chosen and dominated by clandestine cabals - Clinton was likely the first president to be wholly subject to a foreign will. To blame Clinton, Bush II or Barry personally is unavailing: these men were nonentities prior to election and remain ciphers afterward. Do you think George "The Decider" Bush was permitted to pick his own neck-tie? This man was a worthless drunk hired to be a kind of stage actor whenever the governing interest needed an advertising face for its crooked schemes.
“Anything’s better than Mobutu.”
Would "anything" include rape, mutilation, anarchy, death, despoiling the envrionment, looting of a nation's natural resources by its neighbors through invasion?
Mobutu may well have been a thief but he well understood his authority kept this foul spawn Belgian colonialism together, all of its many tribes, religions, and languages. One of the world's largest and potentially riches nations does not do any good as a failed nation-state
The notion that the US government "failed to respond" to the Rwandan genocide is a myth designed to create popular support for expeditionary warfare in the name of humanitarianism.
The US government was not dithering while Rwanda burned, but rather was watching with keen satisfaction as the US-trained and armed Tutsi rebels of Paul Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) routed the politically decapitated French-trained and armed army of the former Rwandan Hutu regime. Any massacres by Hutu mobs of Tutsi civilians would only burnish the moral legitimacy of the new Tutsi regime (which committed its own share of atrocities in Rwanda and soon went on to rape and pillage in the eastern Zaire...all in the name of hunting the genocidaires, and with the profitable complicity of Western multinationals).
Had the Rwandan civil war gone the other way, with the RPF retreating pell-mell to its bases in Uganda, then I am sure that we would have heard plenty of energetic rhetoric from US officials about the need to intervene to stop a humanitarian catastrophe.
ps. The International Tribunal for Rwanda has acquitted those like Colonel Bagosora, who were indicted for pre-meditated genocide, of that charge. Consequently, it has not found any intent on the part of Hutu government figures to commit genocide prior to April 6, 1994 when the plane carrying Rwanda's Hutu President Juvénal Habyarimana was shot out of the sky by surface-to-air missiles launched by...who exactly?
The aforementioned Tribunal has not investigated this event which is accepted as being what unleashed the genocide. The present Rwandan regime and the Western mainstream media accused and continue to accuse shadowy Hutu extremists within Habyarimana's government for having committed a false-flag attack (so poor Africans are capable of false-flag attacks but US government interests are not...). But French and Spanish judicial investigations have named the RPF as the culprit.