Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 30, 2011

How The War On Libya Will Continue

The obviously finally comes to light in some U.S. media. The "rebels" in Libya are just a bunch of maybe 1,000 wild running rag tags with no structure or real population support. On top of these, but without any control, are a handful of freshly imported expatriates, usually the U.S. indoctrinated type, and a few old Gaddafi hands who have fallen out with him.

Turkey did some yeoman's work to get the whole operation under NATO control. France's Sarkozy objected because he did see that it would end his plans. NATO is a political consensus machine. A majority of NATO countries, the two biggest old European ones, Turkey and Germany, and all the new eastern members, objected to the use of force against Gaddafi.

Now NATO is in control and will follow the UN resolution by the letter. It now sets the rules of engagement. Accordingly there will be no more direct air support for the rebels. There will be no official weapon transfer to them either.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen dismissed the idea in a CNN interview yesterday, saying “we are not in Libya to arm people, but to protect people.”

(France and the U.S. will likely try to circumvent that, but will hear some serious objections.)

Without air support the rebel gang will lose. This will not be a stalemate, the rebels will lose. Not only the oil cities like Ras Lanuf but all of the cities they "conquered" including Benghazi.

Before that happens there will be a lot of back and forth over hundreds of miles of coastal roads like we have seen over the last day. If you want to learn why that will be the case read Infantry Brigadier starting at chapter 7. New Zealand's WW-II officer Howard Kippenberger fought against Rommel in just the same area and his report on the back and forth is amusing and scholarly. Logistics, logistics, logistics ...

For the rebels to win the U.S., France and the U.K would have to get troops on the ground, train the rebels, provide weapons, artillery, communication, medics, food and everything else and then start a march on Tripoli through cities with a hostile population. I doubt that now, as the likely length of such a campaign becomes obvious and more serious thinkers are finally getting the upper hand in the discussion, the will to do so will still be there.

Gadaffi may well survive this and the continuing sanctions. Libya has been under sanctions so many years that little will change. Someone will buy that light, sweet crude. Eventually some need will come up to rehabilitate him.

Then again I may be wrong on all of this. But I wouldn't bet on any other scenario.

Posted by b on March 30, 2011 at 19:10 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Looks like you could be right. BP, Total and Exxon could lose their concessions. Italy will get a new flood of migrants. Only the scrap metal dealers will come out OK.

Posted by: dh | Mar 30 2011 19:24 utc | 1

Someone will buy that light, sweet crude.

well this is the key. It seems possible that the coalition could make oil sales difficult for Moammar Qaddafi. Just occupy the refineries and take his oil away from him.

His days are numbered.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 30 2011 20:08 utc | 2

I'm afraid Clinton, Sarkoszy and Cameron will try at all costs at least to kill Gheddafi so as not to lose face - your scenario spells political disaster for them

Posted by: claudio | Mar 30 2011 20:14 utc | 3

They will not loose their concessions if sanctions are lifted.

My theory just now is all this mainly is about the Union for the Mediterranean

http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/libya-the-pariah-in-the-eus-mediterranean-union-plans/

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3083

Posted by: somebody | Mar 30 2011 20:17 utc | 4

Sarkoszy is one way or another on the way out already. Clinton, well, perhaps if the Clinton and more pro-zionist side of the US democrats gets humiliated, again, we will see a different side of the empire at least for a while. Gates and the military didn't seem really interested on this kind of (miss)adventure. Cameron and the liberal-democrats could fall due to economic reasons and disagreements on their own in year or two prompting early elections in UK.

Posted by: ThePaper | Mar 30 2011 20:23 utc | 5

"They will not loose their concessions if sanctions are lifted."

Lose not loose. But you make a good point. Those concessions are probably the best bargaining chip Ghadaffi has.

Posted by: dh | Mar 30 2011 20:29 utc | 6

b, why are you so assertive that Nato won't attack Lybian government troops? the mantra continues to be that "Gheddafi must go" (Obama and Clinton, but also Merkel);

you think it's a bluff? trying to scare Gheddafi into exile and so resolve all problems? and that if Gheddafi stands firm, Nato will back down?

Posted by: claudio | Mar 30 2011 22:08 utc | 7

jurisprudence is junk

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 30 2011 22:09 utc | 8

Libyan Rebel Leader Spent Much of Past 20 Years in Langley Virginia

By Chris Adams

March 30, 2011 "McClatchy" -- WASHINGTON - The new leader of Libya's opposition military spent the past two decades in suburban Virginia but felt compelled — even in his late-60s — to return to the battlefield in his homeland, according to people who know him.

...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27795.htm

And who else lives in Langley?

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/Test-CIA/LIBYA

Posted by: brian | Mar 30 2011 22:17 utc | 9

NATO has already violated resolution 1973
http://www.anaonline.net/en/NewsDesc.aspx?NId=917

Posted by: brian | Mar 30 2011 22:20 utc | 10

That's about the size of it.

Amazing how many "liberal" talkers and gadflies (in the U.S.) jumped on this burning hay wagon to no where. What Bush 43 had in mendacity is no match for what Obama has in gullibility. Somehow the show always goes on.....

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 31 2011 0:36 utc | 11

What Bush 43 had in mendacity is no match for what Obama has in gullibility.

Huh? Obama's not gullible in the least....the people who voted for him....well, that's another story. Both (Bush and Obama) are bozo cheerleaders for the Plutocracy. They're given a script and told to dance the two-step whilst they sell anal rape as humanitarianism.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Mar 31 2011 1:13 utc | 12

Brian @9, now let's see what the UN does about it. Nothing, I'm betting. Now why would that be?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Mar 31 2011 1:15 utc | 13

Doesn't being a rag tag fighter merit a trip to Guantanamo? Maybe enemy-of-my-enemy combatants should be the neologism.

And what is with the feigned shock in the use of land mines by the MSM?

And, if I were arming anyone, I would make them promise not to shoot all their bullets in the air in premature celebrations of victory.

Lights, action, camelas!

Posted by: Biklett | Mar 31 2011 6:38 utc | 14

you are probably right. I like the right wing comment section of this report
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371595/Libya-Outgunned-outfought-rebels-crumble-Mad-Max-style-retreat.html

"Now NATO have taken over (Thursday morning 6 a.m.) there will be proper rules of engagement which will partially prevent indiscriminate gung-ho air attacks on ground forces (unless they are actually attacking civilians at the time). So Gadaffi's best bet is to halt his advance along the coast road immediately - now he has secured important oil terminals and then put in some sort of buffer zone to protect both sides from the other. He will then advance to the south to capture the oil fields which produce the oil for the Benghazi / Tobruk oil terminals and again put in a buffer zone between the southern oil fields and the nort-eastern "rebel" held corner. The country can then be partitioned with Col G holding the west and the bulk of the oil and "rebels" holding the east - and a UN buffer zone for decades to come.

- Tom, London, 31/3/2011 10:52"

Posted by: somebody | Mar 31 2011 10:04 utc | 15

Got to make the rockets real pretty for fighting

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Mar 31 2011 10:05 utc | 16

r'giap @ 8; Thanks for that. The cabal that runs the US and most of the West cares not about what's legal.

Anna missed @ 11: "somehow the show always goes on.": Yep!

MB @ 12 & 13: I agree on both.

Posted by: Ben | Mar 31 2011 13:51 utc | 17

inner city press: UN Security Blocks Room Where Libya Talk by d'Escoto Was Planned, Video

UN security guards blocked press access to the media briefing room on Thursday morning, when a session on Libya by Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann had been scheduled to occur. Inner City Press video at http://youtube.com/watch?v=PgV_Dc1oo2w

The UN has already unceremoniously dropped d'Escoto Brockmann's press conference from its Media Alert on the evening of March 30, after US Permanent Representative Susan Rice complained that since d'Escoto Brockmann is on a tourist visa in the US, he cannot speak for Libya - and should not be holding a press conference inside the UN.

At a reception at the Chinese mission on Wednesday night and since, Inner City Press has been told that the when the UN Secretariat received the complaint, rather than point out that other press conferences have been held by non diplomats they moved to cancel Brockmann's “show.”

Inner City Press and some other media have complained. Now the word is that d'Escoto Brockmann's press conference has been re-scheduled for Friday at 10 am. Not only is that April 1st -- that is, April Fool's Day -- but to some it does not remove the taint of the UN canceling the press conference, then sending armed guards to block media from entering the briefing room.

spelling it out, from that second link

The result is that the US, by invoking immigration rules, “mocking”, as one Latin diplomat put it to Inner City Press, its duties under its Host Country Agreement ... , is blocking the UN press corps from hearing a perspective that the US doesn't like.

Posted by: b real | Mar 31 2011 15:34 utc | 18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-LSrsd0fw

the above film should be spread.

Posted by: somebody | Mar 31 2011 18:55 utc | 19

Dear Moon of Alabama,


My name is Barbara O’Brien and I am a political blogger. Just had a question about your blog and couldn’t find an email—please get back to me as soon as you can (barbaraobrien(at)maacenter.org)

Thanks,
Barbara

Posted by: Barbara O'Brien | Mar 31 2011 20:14 utc | 20

Obama has always been a Reagan fan, and now he is reprising the Contras. Aimed at the Gipper's old foe Ghadaffi and, to ensure their victory, they will be armed to the teeth, operating under close air cover of the gun ship sort, guarded by SAS, Special Forces, Foreign Legionaires and Israelis and virtually escorted to victory.
If necessary there will be tens of thousands of "volunteers" and maybe, once again, to keep the Spanish Civil War analogies alive, they will be from Italy.

These people in NATO don't operate by the rules, they aren't even sure what "rules" are any longer, they have been, like criminals, skating around the law for so long that they don't understand its purpose. Their aim is to de-regulate social relations in the same way that they have commercial and financial affairs: the 'market' (according to Hobbes) will decide who should have the most power. We will know who is right by noting who is strongest.

Posted by: bevin | Mar 31 2011 22:22 utc | 21

I would not respond to Barbara. I got the same message on my blog a while back, and then saw the same message on my other blog, only with a different name and the same maacenter.org.

It is either spam or a spying attempt.

Posted by: Susan | Apr 1 2011 0:47 utc | 22

If it's this Barbara O'Brien of MahaBlog, I don't think it's spam or spying. I think bernard can just go to the blog and check whether the email is the same as what commenter Barbara O'Brien has (I can't open it for some reason).

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 1 2011 1:17 utc | 23

@19: if somebody's listening...

Very important and vitally apropos film! I hope people take the time to watch and think about it -- it has the potential to change one's entire perspective on world history.

Also, I hope people saw the two Metanoia films Uncle Scam linked to several months ago: "Human Resources" and "Psywar".

Posted by: Malooga | Apr 1 2011 2:59 utc | 24

At the risk of seeming hypocritical for criticising Bevin's post of a stratfor report, I thought I would link to this stratfor report on the 'business council for africa' site which considers the demise of the current libyan administration, in light of Libya's huge investment in Africa. Unsuprisingly stratfor concludes that it shouldn't be too much of a problem:

Libyan leader Moammar Gaddhafi has pursued an aggressive foreign policy of Pan-African integration and the cultivation of Libyan regional dominance during the latter half of his 42 years in power. Consequently, Libya’s financial influence can be traced throughout Africa, raising the question of whether Gaddhafi’s potential exit might have any destabilising effect on the continent.

Historical overview

At the end of the 1990s, Gaddhafi established economic ties with many of the countries and groups he previously had backed politically. Through a series of investment vehicles funded by the country’s petroleum revenues, the Libyan state systematically developed an extensive network of financial holdings designed to generate a return on investment and to protect Libyan interests in strategic regions.

By 2002, subsidiaries of the country’s sovereign wealth fund, the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), had accumulated or extended investments in at least 31 countries throughout Africa. The largest investments were in Zambian telecommunications firm Zamtel ($394 million) and in oil storage and pipeline infrastructure linking Moanda to Matadi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (around $300 million). The majority of stakes were significantly smaller, however. These investments came on top of an existing network of commercial banking subsidiaries established largely to manage the supply of ongoing petroleum exports from Libya.

Despite this, Libyan aid and investment does not appear to pose a concentration risk to any African government. The freeze on Libyan state investments does mean that subsidiary companies may struggle to access the working capital needed to maintain operations. But overall, Libya has spread its aid and investment too thinly to create a risk of destabilisation in potential client states.

What is stratfor saying? although african states, corporations & workers may suffer from being cut off from their capital by the newly introduced sanctions, it should not be so destabilising that insurrections occur?

After Libya was chased out of a meaningful role in providing assistance for ME countries by fukUS and amerika's puppets in the house of saud, Libyans looked around for somewhere else to 'do some good' with their surplus oil revenue and settled on Africa where at that time, no one else appeared to give a flying fuck as long as they could assure stability in the resourse extraction areas they had dotted across the continent.

The engine of imperialism is fuelled by economics, so we have chiefly considered Libya's oil as being the reason that france and england were so keen to get involved in controlling Libya and thereby ensuring that the amount of Libyan oil revenues spent in Libya was reduced. Their objective is to gain control of the Libyan administration to ensure more of the revenues remain within england and france. amerikan involvement would then be purely a sort of a charity thing, europe had zealously supported amerikan colonial wars over the last decade, so amerikan support for the violation of Libyan sovereignty was a relatively inexpensive way of keeping europe on board for the next ten years of the empire's agenda.

But it may be more than that; certainly for the european nations who buy mobs of Libyan oil, aside from Italy who does sell a fair swag of exports to libya, most other nations have a huge trade imbalance which is prolly exacerbated by Libyan insistence on investing their revenue in African development rather than european capital markets and real estate. So stopping Libyan support of africa would save them a quid and may even allow the europeans to 'tickle the peter' that is to grab the Libyan entities currently operating in Africa under the pretext of 'reparations for terrorism' or some such bulldust, and make them their own. Certainly news emanating from england about the quisling Moussa Koussa have suggested he is being interrogated about the Locekerbie explosion.

Perfidious albion certainly needs 'evidence' that Libya was involved with Lockerbie because many people in england don't believe that fit up is true.
But as well as providing a bit more 'cause' for arming the new puppets, Moussa Koussa's perjury, which may be a condition of his asylum, could easily create a situation where the cost of england's war against libyans is immediately borne by Libyans, rather than on the more traditional drip-feed manner that imperialists normally utilise to ensure their subjects pay for their own oppression. England seizes a top potential earner like the Libyan funded LAP Green networks that has set up mobile phone services in Niger, Ivory coast, Uganda and Rwanda and plans on doing the same in Chad, Sierra Leone, Togo and southern Sudan. english pm cameron then hands the network over to his mates in the english mobile conglomerate, Vodafone.

But all of that is ancillary to the larger issue of why some elements of the amerikan empire have been so gung-ho about regime change despite the reality that the Libyan regime has been careful to avoid un-neccessarily antagonising the town bully for the last couple of decades. Africom and the awful reality that Africa is the last continent whose people have thus far avoided being made addicts of corporate consumerism, may well be the biggest reason amerika is murdering Libyans as I write this.

Exhibit A is the Reuters article dated november 2010 which says:

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi said earlier this year he was offering to invest $97 billion in the continent to free it from Western influence, on condition that African states rid themselves of corruption and nepotism. That sum is about the amount Libya holds in foreign currency reserves, according to official data. Libyan officials have given no further details about Gaddafi's offer.

I reckon that would have been the kicker right there. "get rid of the whitefellas, create a more egalitarian society and Libya will move all its cash outta the western banks where it is being used for perverse scams against ordinary humans, and put it into your economy where we can build schools hospitals and a viable alternative to western resource parasitism." would have had oblamblam whose appointment by the amerikan elites was at least partly based upon his perceived ability to deliver africa without too much messy shooting, (something which would likely get african amerikans up in arms, threatening to boycott 'good amerikan corporate leeches'), looking like the spare prick at a wedding.

For the Libyans to even suggest that plan was on their minds would be enough for amerika to secretly declare war, however much they may have assured themselves the promise was unlikely to be kept. The Libyans had just provided a 'third way' an alternative to two options of either succumbing to amerikan imperialism or signing up for the chinese style - exploitation without overt interference.
Now african leaders had choice something that has been denied most resource producing third world nations since the collapse of the USSR. They didn't have to go with it because the nepotism issue would likely have discouraged the elites that have controlled much of africa since the colonial powers cut their post WW2 deals, but now they had a lever to negotiate better terms outta amerika and china with.

I knew that Libya had offered support to sub-Saharan africa at a time when no one else would, and seemingly with few strings, but does that reuters article which lists Libya's investment in Africa, and shows much bigger investments than many of us were aware of, point towards the real reason amerika is happily slaughtering yet another islamic society, so soon after Gates promised "never again"?


sorry about spelling & typos that will be worse than usual, the machine I am using doesn't have a spell check function

Posted by: Debs is dead | Apr 1 2011 4:50 utc | 25

Mmmmmmmmm..Could be Debs. Besides their lust for the light sweet, I've been wondering how Libya pissed off the masters of the universe. Time will tell

Thoughts are more important than spelling & typos.

Posted by: Ben | Apr 1 2011 5:22 utc | 26

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-LSrsd0fw

The Ceauscescu story should explain it. They have a plan for the region - the Mediterranean Union - and Ghaddafis are sitting on a strategic piece of it. US/UK/France do not understand how this family functions or thinks, they do not feel safe with them (they tried to find common grounds, i.e. internship, London School of Economics, they are incalcable. And Ghaddafi is a rethoric pain in the neck who can sum up and render ridiculous that plan in one sentence ("what's that, the Roman empire?")
The parallels to the Ceauscescu story go further, it is not just US/UK/France who find him part of the problem and not the solution, notice that Iran has been calling the "rebels" of the Western press "Libya's revolutionary forces" http://www.presstv.ir/detail/172413.html.
And of course it is Africa, there are lots of vultures circling there.
And as with Ceauscescu, the "street", "rebels" are supposed to be the useful idiots to give legitimacy to an internal coup. The first failed plan had been to enable the Libyan administration to get rid of Ghaddafi. They are now fighting on the rest of a failed plan.

Posted by: somebody | Apr 1 2011 6:14 utc | 27

@ somebody #19 and #27

Thanks for link. Fascinating anatomy of a popular revolt.

Posted by: smoke | Apr 1 2011 8:20 utc | 28

Humanitarian intervention? or mass murder?

US-NATO bombings kill civilians in Tripoli
By Bill Van Auken
1 April 2011

US-NATO air strikes on Tripoli and other Libyan cities have claimed growing numbers of civilian victims, according to the Vatican’s top representative in the Libyan capital.

The report represents a severe blow to the attempts by Washington and its NATO allies, backed by the overwhelming majority of the Western media, to dismiss the Libyan government’s claims of civilian casualties as “propaganda” and portray the continuous air raids as a “humanitarian” defense of the population.

“The so-called humanitarian air raids have taken the lives of dozens of civilians in various areas of Tripoli,” Bishop Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli told Agenzia Fides, the Vatican news service.

“Of particular concern, in the district of Buslim, a building collapsed because of the bombing killing 40 people,” he said “Yesterday I reported that the bombing had affected some hospitals, albeit indirectly. I can now confirm that one of these hospitals is in Misda,” a town about 110 miles south of Tripoli.

The Euronews television channel reported that a bombing raid on an ammunition dump in Misda had caused damage to the hospital and nearby homes, wounding at least 13 civilians.

In an interview with Euronews, Bishop Martinelli said that the scores of casualties had been “confirmed to me by people who have lost loved ones because of these bombings.”

He cited another incident in which an air strike hit a munitions warehouse located in close proximity to a civilian neighborhood. “This building was exploding for three, four hours,” he said, claiming more victims.

“If it is true that the bombings appear to be very targeted,” Martrinelli told the Fides news agency, “it is also true that they are hitting military targets which are in the midst of civilian neighborhoods, thus the local people are also affected.”
etc

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/nato-a01.shtml

Posted by: brian | Apr 1 2011 9:08 utc | 29

'Libyan leader Moammar Gaddhafi has pursued an aggressive foreign policy of Pan-African integration and the cultivation of Libyan regional dominance during the latter half of his 42 years in power. Consequently, Libya’s financial influence can be traced throughout Africa, raising the question of whether Gaddhafi’s potential exit might have any destabilising effect on the continent. '

This is really twisted. Gadaffi has pursued a pan africn course for Libya..but NOT out of the wish for regional dominance (the writer is thinking like an american)

Destabilising? 'exit'? hyou mean his being ousted in this illegal war and coup?

What a perverted view of Libya../but thats what the westerners feed on...no wondee they are endorsing the war crimes if this is what they believe

Posted by: brian | Apr 1 2011 9:11 utc | 30

Some bits form this LATimes piece: Libyan rebels losing their nerve

For many rebel fighters, the absence of competent military leadership and a tendency to flee at the first shot have contributed to sagging morale. Despite perfunctory V-for-victory signs and cries of "Allahu akbar!" (God is great), the eager volunteers acknowledge that they are in for a long, uphill fight.
...
Retreating rebels paused only to wolf down lunches provided by volunteers supporting their cause. Two in mismatched military uniforms took time out in Ajdabiya to sneak into a blown-out police post and smoke hashish.
...
Rebels surrounded by garbage and swarms of flies at a checkpoint in Ajdabiya complained that their erstwhile commanders were nowhere to be found. They griped about comrades who had fled to the relative safety of Benghazi, and about a dearth of weapons and ammunition.
...
A Libyan telecommunications specialist who works for the opposition said forces in Benghazi had monopolized 400 donated field radios and 400 more Thuraya and Iridium satellite phones intended for the battlefield.

Several fighters said they were now being charged one Libyan dinar (about 80 cents) per bullet because rebels had wasted thousands of precious rounds firing wildly into the air. During the panicked retreat from the desert hamlet of Bin Jawwad on Tuesday, many fighters fired randomly as they fled, sometimes just over the heads of fellow rebels.
...
Another battlefield problem for the rebels is the scores of teenagers who have flocked to the front. They seem drawn by the idea of fighting and the spirit of revolution, but they carry no weapons.
...
"They act like this is some kind of Rambo movie," he said. "This is a war, not a picnic."


Posted by: b | Apr 1 2011 14:31 utc | 31

It is a supreme irony that as we fear radiation being emitted from one source, we are actively irradiating the other side of the planet in order to bring "Democracy."

Will the parents whose lives are to be consumed caring for children who suffer birth defects because of the irradiation of their land appreciate this Democracy? Perhaps the Pew Charitable Foundation will commission a poll of them. Perhaps not.

I hate the authoritarian governor of my State (population similar to Libya), but I don't want to see my State capital irradiated because of him.

I believe the relationship between Depleted Uranium and life to be inverse,
and the West's contention that DU heralds Democracy to be perverse.

Whatever...

I suppose there is a group of cruise missile liberal oncologists who can find some reason here.

It seems that mankind, having kenned the clever parlor trick of splitting the atom, cannot irradiate the planet fast enough.

Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, the March of Dimes thunders on.

Birth Defects R US.

We bring Newlife to old cultures.

Really, the marketing angles are endless.

And so it goes...

Posted by: Malooga | Apr 1 2011 14:52 utc | 32

"At the risk of seeming hypocritical for criticising Bevin's post of a stratfor report, "

you must be mistaken. I have no idea of who stratfor are, or what their report was.

Posted by: bevin | Apr 1 2011 15:26 utc | 33

how about bringing "depleted democracy" to the world?

Posted by: claudio | Apr 1 2011 16:07 utc | 34

Clear thinking and clear analysis from Mamdani on Libya -(who was proven correct about the campaign by esp. western liberals to bomb peace into the Darfur civil war)
LIBYA: POLITICS OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

When it came to the assets freeze and arms embargo, the Resolution called on the Secretary-Secretary to create an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring the sanctions.

Libyan assets are mainly in the US and Europe, and they amount to hundreds of billions of dollars: the US Treasury froze $30bn of liquid assets, and US banks $18bn. What is to happen to interest on these assets? The absence of any specific arrangement assets are turned into a booty, an interest-free loan, in this instance, to US Treasury and US banks.

ABOUT THE REBELS

The anti-Gaddafi coalition comprises four different political trends: radical Islamists, royalists, tribalists, and secular middle class activists produced by a Western-oriented educational system. Of these, only the radical Islamists, especially those linked organisationally to Al Qaeda, have battle experience.

They – like NATO – have the most to gain in the short term from a process that is more military than political. This is why the most likely outcome of a military resolution in Libya will be an Afghanistan-type civil war.

One would think that this would be clear to the powers waging the current war on Libya, because they were the same powers waging war in Afghanistan. Yet, they have so far showed little interest in a political resolution.

REGARDING THE WESTERN BOMBING OF LIBYA

The objective is to destroy physical assets with minimum cost in human lives. The cost to the people of Libya will be of another type. The more physical assets are destroyed, the less sovereign will be the next government in Libya.

Posted by: Minerva | Apr 1 2011 17:11 utc | 35

from al jazeera: 7:16pm

Catheron Ashton, the European Union's foreign policy chief, says (through a spokesman) that the bloc will launch a military operation with boots on the ground to support humanitarian assistance in Libya, but only if asked to do so by the UN.

According to an EU statement, the headquarters for EUFOR Libya would be in Rome, under Rear Admiral Claudio Gaudiosi of Italy.

It would last four months at most, and cost $13.86 million.

:-))

Posted by: somebody | Apr 1 2011 17:44 utc | 36

Interesting. Didn't the UN just pass it over to NATO? Or was that the US? I need a recap.

Posted by: dh | Apr 1 2011 17:54 utc | 37

NATO=US?

Posted by: Ben | Apr 1 2011 18:07 utc | 38

@somebody - some dates are special ...

Posted by: b | Apr 1 2011 18:19 utc | 39

that was my first reaction b, however to be on the safe side I googled eufor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Military_Staff

Posted by: somebody | Apr 1 2011 18:35 utc | 40

@somebody - forget about it - the EU has other problems - I can not imagine that it would find a common decision on this issue.

Posted by: b | Apr 1 2011 18:52 utc | 41

as far as I could find it already has been decided, http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v5/newsworld.php?id=575735 Bosnia being the model. Just the military part did not go according to plan. Remember those plans for a EU defense force? Of course, you are right, the EU is in no position to follow up on those lofty plans, they have been in the drawers though.

for the amount named "$13.86 million" you cannot do much, the humanitarian assistance I suppose means what "humanitarian assistance" should mean, i.e. looking after refugees, or, cynically put, will mean, preventing them from landing in Lampedusa (one of Ghaddafis - and Castros - trump cards)

in the meantime reality sinks in
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8422839/Forces-serving-in-Libya-to-be-told-you-face-the-sack.html

it is the end of empire.

Posted by: somebody | Apr 2 2011 7:45 utc | 42

@jawbone - it is not the same email.

Posted by: Susan | Apr 2 2011 17:20 utc | 43

catching up on some older articles: from the mamdani piece at al jazeera that was linked a few days back,

The two pilots of the US fighter jet F15-E that crashed near Benghazi were rescued by US forces on the ground, now admitted to be CIA operatives, a clear violation of Resolution 1973 that points to an early introduction of ground forces.

and, from a march 27 dispatch at inner city press
A source in the room while Resolution 1973 was being negotiated said that US Permanent Representative Susan Rice explained that she needed the “notwithstanding” loophole for a situation in which the US might have to go in with weapons to save a downed pilot, and wouldn't want merely carrying weapons to violate the arms embargo.

Posted by: b real | Apr 4 2011 4:36 utc | 44

@44 nice catch b real and hope to see you post more often.

Posted by: Minerva | Apr 4 2011 12:46 utc | 45

The comments to this entry are closed.