It’s all about American exceptionalism. Of course for some it may be Western, Christian or White exceptionalism. The NATO supporters failed to see NATO for what it actually is, this is the result of reading endless articles in the Guardian and other Liberal outlets which present every aggressive war as a “mistake”.

Posted by: Atheo | May 19 2011 19:21 utc | 4

Sarkozy’s little war (well, OK, Obama, Cameron, and NATO’s as well) does lead to actual violence, even for a French businessman set to meet with rebel leader about…security.

France has been a major backer of the rebels and has played a leading role in the NATO campaign.
The friendly French relationship with the rebels came in for a jolt this week, when the director of a French military contracting company was killed in the Libyan city of Benghazi — hours before he was supposed to meet with Jibril’s transitional government.
The French government has been tightlipped about the circumstances surrounding the death of Pierre Marziali, head and founder of SECOPEX Conseil.
A rebel commander said Marziali was killed in an accidental discharge of a weapon as he was arguing about his team getting arrested. A statement from the rebels’ transitional government Friday said four Frenchmen with Marziali were arrested for alleged “illicit activities that jeopardized the security of free Libya.”
SECOPEX says its director was in Libya to set up a security guard service and a “secure corridor” on the road to Cairo. (My added link for SECOPEX)

Oops.

Posted by: jawbone | May 19 2011 19:52 utc | 6

you may have wondered how Africa got to be called A basketcase…your getting a real time eg of how basketcases are created with the wests war on Libya..
if Libya is destroyed , in 50 years the acadamic monsters in EU and US will cry:’Look at Libya…a basket case! They are unable to help themselves, and always need white men to pull them up.’

Posted by: brian | May 19 2011 22:02 utc | 8

I came across this article from about a month ago: U.S. military supplies for Africa ops surge
Analyst suggests hike indicate ‘boots on ground’ soon

New questions are being raised about the Obama administration’s plans for U.S. troops on the ground in Africa, where Libya and Ivory Coast are in turmoil and other nations are unstable, as documentation reveals federal officials are planning massive increases in U.S. fuel purchases for military operations there.
Information obtained by WND reveals the most recent fuel procurement, #SP0600-10-R-0242, includes nearly 29 million U.S. gallons of jet fuel, up from only 11.6 million in 2007; plus 13.9 million U.S. gallons diesel fuel, up from 8.2 million; 154,000 gallons premium unleaded gasoline, up from 59,000; and about 200,000 gallons aviation gasoline. There are no earlier figures are available for that category
…
The latest fuel plan for some 43 million gallons plus aviation gasoline arrived even as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was explaining during a White House daily news briefing that the administration has “full confidence in NATO’s capacities” in Libya, rejecting one reporter’s inquiry as to whether the French and the British might be shouldering an unfair burden in NATO’s mission in Libya.
…
WND has identified an additional development that is further indicative of elevated U.S. preparedness in Africa: the hiring of private pilots to carry out troop and equipment “ferrying services” between AFRICOM’s Stuttgart headquarters and unidentified locations across the African continent.
According to a contracting document, #HTC711-11-R-R001, updated April 8 and located via a federal database research, the U.S. Transportation Command is reaching out to vendors capable of ferrying in AFRICOM personnel and supplies at the time of “mission origination” and ferrying them out at “mission completion,” the document says.
The selected contractor would begin providing ferrying services as early as July, with the first-year contract running through June 2012 along with two possible contract option-years through 2014, according to the solicitation.
“Advance notice will be given when practical; however the contractor shall be prepared to support missions with notification of 24 hrs. or less,” the document noted.

Posted by: xcroc | May 19 2011 22:42 utc | 10

hmmm.
actually the Libyan government spokesperson is getting quite good, I guess the US is losing this argument;
“Libya’s government called US President Barack Obama delusional after he said in a speech on Thursday that Muammar Gaddafi would inevitably leave power.
Obama is still delusional. He believes the lies that his own government and media spread around the world.
“It’s not Obama who decides whether Muammar Gaddafi leaves Libya or not. It’s the Libyan people,” government spokesman Mussa Ibrahim told journalists.”

Posted by: somebody | May 20 2011 3:46 utc | 12

b real #3, thanks for the link.
susan #11, ditto everything you said.
i never doubted you b.

Posted by: annie | May 20 2011 4:54 utc | 14

@xcroc – glad to see peacock is still around and keeping an eye out for these type of docs in the fed db. lost track of him since he stopped publishing the peacock report. i wonder, though, about how significant the increase in fuel billing really is, since u.s. military activity on the continent has obviously increased substantially since 2007 now that AFRICOM’s presence/influence is better established in almost every african nation, and given the vast distances (hence fuel) to traverse this huge continent. more military-to-military relations also translates into more training and exercises, which requires a lot of additional fuel. outsourcing some of the transport is also not that unusual, even when factoring in the language of ‘missions’, which fit in w/ the parallels b/w religious/imperialist missions and military/imperialist missions through africa.
— — —
why some commentators at MoA had the idea that an intervention by “western” might in Libya, be it through sanctions or no fly zones or anything else, would be somewhat “humanitarian” and called for it is something I don’t get
i’ve wondered about this too and it’s difficult to not seriously consider that, while on behalf of some contributors it was sincere opinion, some of it was operational propaganda, as in the agent-of-influence type. it’s telling that one of the most outspoken proponents of that position, a self-announced nocturnal predator, has not posted here again since the bombing campaign commenced. lots of spooky critters that go bump in the night, full moon or not…

Posted by: b real | May 20 2011 16:08 utc | 16

To put the other point of view, though not really playing devil’s advocate, I understand, b, that your main point was that the strategy of NATO has been a failure. Probably right.
On the ground, though, my impression is that Qaddafi’s position is weak, and might collapse. This must be due to the retreat of Qaddafi’s troops from Misrata. That retreat must be due to NATO bombing of their backup, plus the bombing of sites in Tripoli. Qaddafi’s forces are in panic mode again. They may yet recover their morale.
According to one report I read, NATO is discouraging the rebels from advancing from Ajdabiya again.
In the end, success or failure for the rebellion depends upon support for Qaddafi in Tripoli. You say, b, that it is a tribal rebellion, and in that case the Tripoli tribes will remain loyal to Qaddafi. Me, I think they are fair weather friends, and could switch sides.
I don’t think the commitment to Qaddafi is that strong, and a Serbian situation could re-occur. That is, that the western tribes are fed up with the bombing, and the destruction of their property, and abandon Qaddafi.
We’ll see what happens. Qaddafi may recover his position; his people have been very inventive, and I expect them to go down, if they do, full of new arguments.

Posted by: alexno | May 20 2011 19:34 utc | 18

@ alexno | May 20, 2011 3:34:52 PM | 18
You realize, of course, that Nato’s mandate in Libya is limited to the establishment of a no-fly zone, yes? It is beyond Nato’s legal mandate to breach those terms without further UN deliberation.
Nato intervention was given the green light ostensibly to save civilian lives — dubious pretext from the outset, given that there has been no concrete evidence of deliberate targeting of civilians by Libyan forces. But let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that the Nato intervention was justified. — A no-fly zone has been established. Nato’s mission is accomplished. Period.
If the true goal of the Nato mission is “R2P”, it is time, now, for a cease fire and organization of negotiations between the armed contingents in the East and Libyan government forces, to resolve mutual grievances. The Libyan government has been calling for independent observers on the ground and intermediaries who’d work towards conflict resolution from Day 1 of the conflict.
The Libyan government is facing an armed insurrection, foreign-armed and instigated, to boot. Do tell us what you imagine a Cameron, Obama or Sarkozy would do in similar circumstances — Do you suppose for a moment that they, or the British, French and American people, would welcome violent foreign intervention on the part of an military force whose stated goal was the destruction your country?

I don’t think the commitment to Qaddafi is that strong, and a Serbian situation could re-occur”.

Well, that sorta puts to rest any pretention of alarm over loss of civilian lives, doesn’t it?
How do you manage to justify such hypocrisy?

Posted by: danae | May 20 2011 21:13 utc | 20

@alexno #18

I understand, b, that your main point was that the strategy of NATO has been a failure

I think b’s main point is another, it’s that foreign intervention increases the suffering of the population
If the west can bomb forever, gradually destroying all civilian infrastructure, etc, of course it will “win”; just depends what the exact meaning of the word is, what the meaning of “humanitarian” is, and what the Libyans, at the end, will think of it

Posted by: claudio | May 20 2011 22:08 utc | 22

I do not know Libya, I do not know what tribal means, I can just guess …
Ghaddafi has been in “power” whatever that means for more than 40 years, people had grand kids since then. Lybian society is bound to have changed dramatically especially in the cities which is the Mediterranean ie having a strong connection with Europe, Europe’s historical crimes in Libya do not weigh that much after three generations, though surely they will be remembered.
Ghaddafi has oriented Libyan politics towards Africa, he is allied with Algeria and Polisario. His original “narrative” is anti-imperialism and the desert. He also has tried to take the politics out of Islam by making it individual.
However, according to Wikipedia “Ninety percent of the people live in less than 10% of the area, primarily along the coast. About 88% of the population is urban, mostly concentrated in the three largest cities, Tripoli , Benghazi and Misrata”
The people in those cities are bound to orient towards Europe, they will not be interested in the desert and the tent or the guerilla fight. The oil however is in the desert.
What Nato is doing now, is proving Ghaddafi’s originial narrative, it is completely counterproductive, especially dealing with people who know about guerilla fight. The population of the cities is useless in the desert, the cities themselves are hard to defend.
If tribal means which saharan people sit on which oil resources, good luck to foreign invaders with that.

Posted by: somebody | May 21 2011 17:41 utc | 24

The more NATO bombs Libya, the more Libyans will remember the historic European crimes against their country. It won’t matter whether they live in coastal regions or not. The neo-colonial assault against them will eventually be pushed back, despite the idealist elements in the rebel ranks. The RAF is bombing Libyan ships and killing their crews. NATO aircraft are sent persistently to assassinate Gadhafi; and although they failed, they have managed to kill one of his sons and three grandkids in the process.
The piecemeal destruction of Libya is a pure loser, politically. When the suffering of the population increases, attitudes will further harden. Gadhafi has offered again to step aside; but he will not be allowed a dignified retreat. The attacking powers want to freeze him in place, so that he can be destroyed where he stands. It is not just him, personally, they want to destroy. They are primarily interested in erasing his legacy and his tilting of the country away from Europe, away from the western financial domination. The reversal of Libya’s orientation toward Africa is one of the targets.
Perhaps we should be reminded of King Lear; where it is offered for the king, in the end, to live out his days as king, in spite of his own admission of not being in his “perfect mind”. Gadhafi may be kept on as a figurehead, as a symbol of the country’s refusal to capitulate in the face of an imperial onslaught. This war is more about looting than it is about democracy. Looting and the dominance of privileged classes. Consumed by grief, by the bodies of his dead children, and the realization of his own dementia; as much cornered by his own excesses, and his ego, and the ransacking of his country by jackals, Lear asks if someone could kindly undo the top button of his tunic so he can die. But he has given his enemies no satisfaction.

Posted by: Copeland | May 21 2011 19:05 utc | 26

re Danae 23
I didn’t reply because irrelevant to my point.
I was trying to express the situation. Yesterday the regime seemed to be panicking. Women sent to the airport. Today it’s more calm. I take it to be a recovery from the panic created by the retreat of the Qaddafi forces from Misrata.

Posted by: alexno | May 21 2011 21:55 utc | 28