Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 24, 2011

First Thoughts On Aftermath Of War On Libya Sighted

A UN human rights investigator, Amnesty International and the International Crisis Group have dispeled the propaganda against Libya's Gaddhafi. There was no mass rape, no foreign mercenaries were found and the claims of massive military attacks against civilians were false.

But the propaganda continues. The Wall Street Journal talked with Africom, the U.S. military organization concerned with subjugating the 50 states of Africa to a U.S. dictate, and was told about some new intelligence about Libya.

New U.S. intelligence shows Col. Moammar Gadhafi is "seriously considering" fleeing Tripoli for a more secure location outside the capital, according to U.S. officials, raising the prospect that the Libyan leader's hold on power is increasingly fragile.

It seems the "days not weeks" Obama illusion is still operational. Gaddhafi will of course not leave Tripoli. Why should he?

But the WSJ story also carries an official voice which, and this is a first, finally acknowledges the utter stupidity of this whole war:

"We, the international community, could be in postconflict Libya tomorrow and there isn't a plan, there is not a good plan," the senior U.S. commander in Africa, Gen. Carter Ham, told The Wall Street Journal.

Using a pluralis majestatis and declaring that the handful of countries involved in attacking Libya are the "international community" is pure hubris. But Ham is at least admitting that the whole idea of taking down Gaddhafi was never really thought through. Like in the war on Iraq there is no plan for Phase IV of the war for "activities conducted after decisive combat operations to stabilize and reconstruct the area of operations". It is still possible that such a plan may not be needed for Libya. Gaddhafi has not lost yet and without a "lucky shot", that kills him as ordered, the conflict can go on for month and month until, amid exhaustion, some political compromise solution is found or Gaddhafi finds some trick to defeat the rebels.

But Ham is concerned with an important issue. No, it is not the life or well being of the Libyan people. Notice what he mentions first:

Gen. Ham predicted that Col. Gadhafi could fall quickly, underlining the need for an allied plan to deal with the aftermath. He said the United Nations or African Union might have to contribute a significant ground force to Libya. He stressed that the U.S. wouldn't send troops.

"If it ends in chaos, if it is a state collapse and all the institutions of the government fall apart, you will potentially need a sizable force on the ground to secure critical infrastructure and maintain law and order," Gen. Ham said.

"Critical infrastructure", as the war on Iraq taught, only means one thing. The oil wells the U.S., France and Britain hope to get their hands on.

But I doubt that General Ham will find the troops he talks about to secure those wells. Which UN or AU country would be stupid enough to intervene in the tribal conflicts in Libya when it falls apart? Of the current participants in the war on Libya, neither the U.S., France or the U.K. nor Italy have any appetite for another drawn out expensive occupation. Tunisia or Egypt are busy with themselves and will not send soldiers abroad. The African countries south of Libya will understand that to send African troops into a mostly Arab country where the rebels have killed black guest workers just for the fun of it andtheir skin color is not a good idea.

General Ham has taken a first step which the politicians who started this war have yet to take. He admits that there will be "a day after" for which no plans exist. But he still has "days not weeks" like illusions that such a plan can be somehow improvised on a short term. The current UN resolution explicitly excludes any occupation force and I doubt that China and Russia will ever agree to a new one changing that. Any unilateral U.S. financed African force on Libyan grounds would not survive and just like the U.S. financed Ethiopian 2006-2008 occupation of Somalia end in defeat.

The best solution for Libya is still Colonel Gaddhafi and letting him, without further interference, find a way to keep Libya stable even after his rule ends.

Unfortunately it is unlikely that General Ham, or any politician in his "international community", will publicly come to that conclusion. They will rather sow chaos than to admit they were wrong all along.

Posted by b on June 24, 2011 at 20:05 UTC | Permalink

Comments

b, i am incapacitated in fury at the madness of the empire & its useless & unthinking minions

its endless demential projects of war & destabilisation

i find it less & less possible to distance myself from the loathing i feel for that diabolic project

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2011 21:41 utc | 1

well, if your are faced with a solution you do not want and no solution, you opt for ...

same as Ghaddafi's strategy to just stay, the coalition's strategy is to ensure there is no solution, it is easy and cheap as long as "rebels" are prepared to fight and die.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 25 2011 6:40 utc | 2

So, reading between the lines, that Mr Gen Ham straight admits that the organisation he leads has been sitting on its ass and prepared just nothing for the ‘after-the-combat’ fase of operations ? That should get him fired… Not that it will happen.

Posted by: philippe | Jun 25 2011 8:56 utc | 3

@philippe - It isn't Nato's job to convince the African Union to lend ground troops to this ridiculous "war"; it's Clinton, Sarkozy and Cameron, the politicians that pushed for intervention, that should be tarred and feathered or simply send in Bengazi as Nato ceases hostilities; plus, everybody should be fired and become object of contempt who said that it would a matter of "days, not weeks", months ago; like the neocons, who promised an easy ride to Baghdad, and then for years insisted we were just about to "turn the corner", etc against "Saddam dead-enders", etc etc etc; this lack of accountability is intolerable, it lets these people freely persist in lying and wishful thinking;

Posted by: claudio | Jun 25 2011 12:01 utc | 4

Well, a lot of trial balloons have started. The English have realised what overreach in times of crises is all about.

The British Cost of the Libyan War

Short of a sudden change in fortune, the backtracking will happen; First Cameron, then little boy Sarkozy and then of course blaming the Germans.

Of course, you have to blame the Germans.

That, the English papers will do by claiming that the belated recognition of the Rebels by the Germans extended the war.

Of course.


Posted by: shanks | Jun 25 2011 13:16 utc | 5

By this time in June, I thought the West would've already found a way to push Mr. Q out, and install someone friendly, to help the West achieve it's goals(oil) in Libya. Can't see them giving up yet. Might take a little longer, but, hegemony in the region to secure resources, is the mission. The appetite of the corporate monoliths knows no bounds or borders.

Posted by: ben | Jun 25 2011 13:39 utc | 6

Remember Eman al-Obeidy, the Libian woman who feigned rape.

However, something went wrong in Qatar, an ally of the Libyan rebel movement and the NATO military offensive against Libya. Al-Obeidy was suddenly deported by Qatar. Al-Obeidy resorted to the same histrionics she employed against Qaddafi’s government: she claimed she was beaten by Qatari authorities, although she withheld rape charges in Qatar’s case.

Read the rest here

Posted by: hans | Jun 25 2011 13:45 utc | 7

For example, India is deciding between the Eurofighter and the Rafale. Indian officials are watching the Libyan conflict, industry officials say, so the planes’ makers are using the air show to talk up their products’ performance in Libya. “Everyone who is watching what’s going on in Libya is very impressed by Rafale’s reliability and accuracy,” said Charles Edelstenne, chairman and chief executive of Dassault Aviation SA, which makes the plane, in an interview. The Eurofighter’s makers are boasting about their plane in turn.

From an article from the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304231204576405722412027848.html

Posted by: hans | Jun 25 2011 14:27 utc | 8

shanks, the Daily Mirror is more fun than the Guardian

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/parsons/2011/06/25/we-can-t-win-in-libya-and-we-could-lose-the-falklands-david-cameron-115875-23224521/

I do not think they can stop. They got themselves into a corner, as of course Ghaddafi's troups would overrun the "rebels" as soon as Nato stops. They have aligned themselves with Islamists (maybe not, the "rebels" do not seem to get much real help), and I am not sure how the Algerian military feel about that, nor the Tunisian, Egyptian or Turkish military. However, if they stop, I am quite sure, how Gulf states will feel. And they have got elections ...

Posted by: somebody | Jun 25 2011 14:56 utc | 9

@9, somebody

Ouch! That was a fairly blistering article,macing Cameron in his face. I'm afraid or rather looking at the Greece default to ripple across UK banks to make them pause. Do they prop up the banks or spend it on blasting buildings in Libya? Qadhafi's ace is still the oil wells and pumping stations for oil which he can wreck whether dead or alive.

That or boots on the ground to finish things if they don't want to end up being comical.

Posted by: shanks | Jun 25 2011 17:40 utc | 10

hey shanks, they still got Pound Sterling, they can print it?

Posted by: somebody | Jun 25 2011 19:01 utc | 11

In a huge roundabout way, the guardian finally mentions the reports by Amnesty International noted in the first graph of the post.

Posted by: philippe | Jun 26 2011 11:23 utc | 12

and in a roundabout way the financial times confirms Gaddafi has got enough money stashed away in a secure way to last long

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca11d7b4-9e30-11e0-8e61-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1QNvkSN00

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2011 12:42 utc | 13

and the first post mortem analysis goes to Iran

http://www.payvand.com/news/11/jun/1256.html

Posted by: somebody | Jun 26 2011 19:12 utc | 14

There was this Infowars report that the week long Exercise Mailed Fist up and down the US east coast that ended yesterday is preparation for a land invastion of Libya.

Corps aircraft, including MV-22 Ospreys and F/A 18 Hornets, as well as some Navy ships and Air Force planes,” CNN reported.

The exercise will encompass a large area on the U.S. East Coast – from Quantico Marine Base in northern Virginia to the Navy’s Pinecastle Bombing Range in Florida. Most of the exercise activity will occur above North and South Carolina.

The drill begins today and ends on Friday.

Thousands of Marines will take part. According to CNN, it will be biggest drill of its kind ever held on the East Coast.

“Infowars.com has received alarming reports from within the ranks of military stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas confirming plans to initiate a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion in Libya and deploy troops by October,” …

Moreover, the source stated that additional Special Forces will be sent to Libya in July, with the 1st Calvary Division (heavy armor) and III Corps deploying in late October and early November. Initial numbers are estimated at 12,000 active forces and another 15,000 in support, totaling nearly 30,000 troops.

There is very little on the web about the exercise. It isn't exactly routine, since it is the biggest exercise in 10 years, and the largest on the east coast.


Posted by: xcroc | Jun 26 2011 19:52 utc | 15

Meet the libyan Free Generation Movement...the latest subversive group in Tripoli:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/26/us-libya-tripoli-networks-idUKTRE75P0BB20110626

are they calling in airstrikes?

Posted by: brian | Jun 26 2011 21:37 utc | 16

what makes you think Gadafi is the 'ruler' or that his 'rule' will end? People seem not to understand the nature of libyan politics!
Gadafi is the revolution...thats how Libyans see him, and thats why the US/EU and the Benghazis want him removed.

Posted by: brian | Jun 26 2011 21:40 utc | 17

Why doesn't Gaddafi attack Nato bases in Sicily? It is now openly admitted that Nato is trying to kill him. They will almost certainly succeed. Why try to dodge bombs without throwing some back? Or maybe Gaddafi is just too humane for such Götterdämmerung-like gestures (!?) knowing that Nato's response might well be accepting of rather 'extensive' collateral damage in loyalist areas.

Posted by: launch resume | Jun 26 2011 21:57 utc | 18

Looks like Obama has signed up for another exercise in nation building. Libya currently has few institutions. After Qadhafi, someone will have to set them up or risk having a failed petro state on the Mediterranean.

My guess is that Obama knows, which is why the flow of arms to the rebels have been so scant. Given half a chance, those rebels might actually take out a few members of the soon to emerge pacification forces. (The "no boots on the ground" mantra will soon be forgotten.) Of course, who needs guns when there are plenty of opportunities to use IEDs and suicide bombers?

Iraq and Afghanistan have been such sterling examples of the success of American "democracy building" that Obama cannot resist seizing the opportunity in Libya. Idiot!

Posted by: JohnH | Jun 27 2011 4:34 utc | 19

An invasion would lead to all kinds of conflicts within NATO and between NATO, Russia and China. I do not think Obama can afford that.

It would be futile, any plan for Libya from the outside would be futile if the following analysis from Teheran is correct (I suspect it is)

"There are several reasons for the failure of the military intervention. The Libyan government is not a rational system. The political structure devised by Gaddafi is based on two foundations: first Muammar Gaddafi himself and his ideology, which is elaborated in his famous Green Book, and second, the political culture of the Libyan people. There is a well-known proverb in Libya which says “following a political party is an act of treason against the country.” Therefore, the dissemination of political views is regarded as a negative concept in Gaddafi’s regime. Thus, the opposition’s efforts to overthrow Gaddafi mean replacing him and his tribe with another person and tribe."
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=243126

Posted by: somebody | Jun 27 2011 5:49 utc | 20

.....meanwhile, the call for US ground action is beginning. Jaimie Rubin is trying to be forceful making his rounds on the morning "news" shows..
stay tuned....

Posted by: georgeg | Jun 27 2011 12:16 utc | 21

georgeg, where did you see or hear Rubin? Google doesn't have anything about his apperances (yet). Thnx.

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 27 2011 13:50 utc | 22

when deutsche welle quotes Debkafile you know it is not journalism but something else

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15186523,00.html

Posted by: somebody | Jun 27 2011 15:53 utc | 23

@somebody

The editor of that article is Rob FMudge

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jun 27 2011 16:16 utc | 24

well they better rush that invasion and get those gold bars, as otherwise they have to finance a million people in Benghazi or let them starve

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13937817 "Libyan rebels face health crisis"

Posted by: somebody | Jun 28 2011 5:11 utc | 25

Jawbone......Rubin had a 6 minute segment on the CBS Early Show 6/27/11....

Posted by: georgeg | Jun 28 2011 10:42 utc | 26

georgeg, t/u for the info on which program. Here's the link for video:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7371446n&tag=mncol;lst;2

Ah, yes, "time to finish things off" means ground troops; otherwise, air alone takes lots longer.

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 29 2011 3:08 utc | 27

Counting the chickens before they hatch ...

Planning Begins for Gadhafi's Fall

A U.K.-led report laying out an international road map for post-conflict Libya envisions using Col. Moammar Gadhafi's army and police force to keep the peace if he is ousted, drawing on lessons learned from post-invasion Iraq, a British government minister said.

United Nations officials, meanwhile, are preparing contingency plans for Col. Gadhafi's fall, including the proposed early deployment of 200 unarmed U.N. observers to oversee a cease-fire, according to a Security Council diplomat who was present at a briefing to the council by a U.N. official.

According to these plans, the Security Council would later be asked to approve the deployment of an armed, multinational force, to be followed by a U.N. peacekeeping force, which takes longer to put together, the diplomat said.

The multinational force would likely be comprised of troops from regional nations such as Turkey, Jordan and perhaps from African Union nations, he said.
...

Posted by: b | Jun 29 2011 7:43 utc | 28

@b
we can imagine how eager all those countries ("Turkey, Jordan and perhaps from African Union nations") are to participate in the occupation of Libya on the West's behalf

perhaps AU soldier enforcing "peace-keeping" in Bengazi? I'd love to see how it would play out

(b, please correct the link) [done - b]

Posted by: claudio | Jun 29 2011 9:40 utc | 29

"... envisions using Col. Moammar Gadhafi's army and police force to keep the peace if he is ousted, drawing on lessons learned from post-invasion Iraq, a British government minister said"

So the planning now is for a Gaddafi regime without Gaddafi, this should make the "rebels" feel real safe.

The "rebels" are out now, by the way, the Berber are supposed to do it.

http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20110629-french-press-review-29-june-2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/a-king-a-speech-and-a-new-constitution-for-morocco/2011/03/29/AGSximcH_blog.html

Must be a winning strategy for sure
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15192096,00.html

"... using Col. Moammar Gadhafi's army and police force to keep the peace" will go down with the Berber real well too, I am sure.

I guess the boys enjoy doing a game of 19th century colonial politics together, just nowadays it is reported real time, not after months in the capitals.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 29 2011 10:30 utc | 30

my impression is that someone is at work on "mission impossible": a face-saving retreat

leave the Libyan state's structures intact, Gaddafi "stands down" (from what? renouncing his televised speeches?), a sprinkling of rebels in the new government, a draft of a new Constitution - maybe a framework for an agreement exists, or is being carved out?

the main problems will be:
(1) Gaddafi himself (no way he'll go into exile or voluntarily "disappear") and his sons
(2) guarantees for the rebels against reprisals (who on earth can guarantee that, once Nato pulls out?)
(3) Western's greed, which means that any agreement must entail some form of influence on the Libyan economy ("war reparations" for expenses incurred by Nato for its "humanitarian intervention")

Gaddafi is winning by simply resisting and exposing the rebels' flimsiness, but the West has a practically unending supply of bombs

on the other hand, there are strong forces in the West that for a reason or another regularly end up supporting religious radicals versus lay nationalists, and destabilization over "uncontrolled stability" (copyright of Uncle $cam, I think?); so the basic problem that Us and Nato planners have to decide upon is whether we can afford chaos in Libya (which would spill over to Tunisia, Egypt, etc) or if we must come to terms with Gaddafi

my feeling is that Gaddafi hasn't really been targeted yet by Nato because there hasn't been a decision to risk a failed state in the middle of the Mediterranean - not against the wishes of all the countries in the region, from AU to Israel, and not with fundamentalists currently threatening Syria, Yemen and others

Posted by: claudio | Jun 29 2011 20:19 utc | 31

It is a case of 1000 cooks burning the dish - inside and outside of Libya.

The following is from German Amnesty International April 2009

http://www.amnesty-libyen.de/Main/Menschenrechte-Innenpolitik-Sonstiges

"Beginning of March the People's Congress in Sirte took place. The Congress voted for Gaddafi's plan from last year, to distribute oil income directly to the people. Gaddafi also demanded the abolition of most of the ministeries as he thinks corruption would disappear with the ministeries. That way the people would govern themselves and Libya would achieve real democracy. The people's congress however decided that the necessary instruments would take some time to be built, to carry out this plan, so that this would be implemented at some point in the future. Until then, the state's role in supplying education, health. security and energy should remain."

"To the disappointment of the reformers ... Gaddafi decided to keep the old guard close to the revolutionary committees in government, and to distance himself from the followers of his son Seif al-Islam. .. Gaddafi did not mention the plans for a new constitution. Gaddafi confirmed attorney Mohamed Mesrati, whose dismissal Seif had demanded because of his practices against human rights. Former political prisoner and later chairman of Gaddafi's human rights foundation Juma Atiga was arrested on January 31 and was freed by intervention of Seif a few days later. Gaddafi cannot isolate Seif al-Islam completely, as he represents to many hopes, especially of the younger generation. However, he is said to be more and more enervated by the public declarations of his son."

Posted by: somebody | Jun 29 2011 21:17 utc | 32

'A UN human rights investigator, Amnesty International and the International Crisis Group have dispeled the propaganda against Libya's Gaddhafi. There was no mass rape, no foreign mercenaries were found and the claims of massive military attacks against civilians were false.'

these bogus claims have been used by such left wing stalwarts as Yvonne Ridley, Louis Proyect, Pulse media, etc to actually appluad the NATO 'intervention' apparently oblivous to the failure of the same NATO to intervene in Bahrain, let alone Gaza!

but at least those of us not sucked in by such obvious frauds can say: see we told you so!

Posted by: brian | Jun 29 2011 21:46 utc | 33

'Gaddafi is winning by simply resisting and exposing the rebels' flimsiness, but the West has a practically unending supply of bombs'

those bombs are paid for by european tax payers.The illegal invasion of ibyan airspace and the bombing of Libyan towns and cities and killing of Libyans is being carried without once consulting the euro citizens...,thats not very democratic!

Posted by: brian | Jun 29 2011 21:49 utc | 34

The comments to this entry are closed.