Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 07, 2011

Rasmussen on Libya

Nato will stay out of Libya: Rasmussen, February 24
"I would like to stress that Nato has no plans to intervene and we have not received any request," Rasmussen said after talks with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.


NATO plans for all eventualities in Libya: Rasmussen, March 3
"I'd like to stress that NATO doesn't have any intention to intervene, but as a defense alliance and security organization, we do prudent planning for all eventualities," Rasmussen said after talks with Montenegro Prime Minister Igor Luksic.


Nato 'is impartial' in Libya, says Rasmussen, March 28
The secretary general of Nato has insisted that it is "impartial" and coalition forces in Libya will not arm the rebels to attack Col Gaddafi.


Rasmussen says no NATO ground troops for Libya, March 28
Rasmussen: The UN mandate does not authorise the use of forces on the ground. We are there to protect civilians against attack. We are there to implement a no-fly zone; we have no intention of putting troops on the ground.


NATO Head Rasmussen - 'There Is No Military Solution to the Libya Conflict', April 13
Rasmussen: The honest answer is that there is no military solution to this conflict. We need a political solution, and it's up to the Libyan people to come up with one.


Rasmussen: "NATO needs more precision strike fighters in Libya", April 15
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said here Thursday that NATO generally has sufficient military assets for the Libyan mission, but it needs more precision strike aircraft as Libyan government troops changed their tactics.


'Game over' for Gaddafi: Nato chief, May 9
'The game is over for Gaddafi. He should realize sooner rather than later that there's not future for him or his regime,' the Nato secretary-general told CNN's State Of The Union program.


Rasmussen: Nato in Libya 'as long as it takes', June 9
Speaking to the BBC, Mr Rasmussen said that Nato members had agreed to extend operations in Libya for another 90 days and would be there "for as long as it takes".


Libya War: NATO to use any means – Rasmussen, June 23
“We are allowed to use any means necessary. But I do not want to talk about what we are preparing,” he said.

Rasmussen said he was not surprised by the fact that Gaddaffi still continues to resist NATO and the opposition.


Rasmussen Rules out NATO Land Operations in Libya, July 4
"We have no intention of deploying troops on the ground (in Libya)," Rasmussen said after meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the Black Sea resort of Sochi.


NATO: 'Game over' for Gadhafi, July 6
"The momentum is against Gadhafi, his economic strength to sustain war is declining, his generals and ministers are deserting, the international community has turned against him," [NATO secretary-general Rasmussen] told reporters in Brussels. "For Gadhafi, the game is over."

Posted by b on July 7, 2011 at 11:40 UTC | Permalink


yeah, it is a joke. Libya reminds me of the comment of a friend when we watched a beautiful young female English teacher surrounded by a group of young male Iranian students.

"She is perfectly safe", he said. "They are all watching each other."

Posted by: somebody | Jul 7 2011 14:03 utc | 1

oh and there is this from Strasbourg

I guess, it will make European warmongers a bit more careful ...

Posted by: somebody | Jul 7 2011 14:06 utc | 2

Saif al-Islam (the Kadhafi ‘reformist’ son) was recently interviewed by JP Rémy, special envoy to Tripoli, published in Le Monde and Le Temps. The originals are behind pay walls.

The eng version is courtesy of World Crunch. It is shortened but correct in spirit.

So what does NATO want? Elections? A new Constitution? Lybia as the new Switzerland? Saif asks (for those who don’t want to read the article.) I like it when he called the NATO actions a ‘fast food campaign.’

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 7 2011 16:00 utc | 3

libya's oil would keep the american military running (at current rate of consumption) for over 200 years... so if you put that oil in the PNAC/NATO/neocon bank, and prevent it from going to china...

seeing as how the american military is the enforcement arm of the PNAC, and PNAC intends to establish benevolent global hegemony by killing off anyone who doesnt knuckle under...

is a pattern emerging here, or am i seeing things?

Posted by: groundresonance | Jul 7 2011 16:22 utc | 4

'the international community has turned against him," [NATO secretary-general Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels. "For Gadhafi, the game is over."'

just who is this 'international community'? Does it include you and me?

wh dont those erports ask some real questions of the General? like what is NATO doing violating Libyan airspace? WHy is NATO boming cities and killing civilians? and as it has been doing it for a long time in Afghanistan, why did the UNSC award the peacekeeping contract to a war machine ?
also FYO a god article on Libya:

'In Libya, it appears that LIFG was behind the uprising. It also appears that they attacked the government during the initial protests. Not only that, but it appears that media organization such as Al Jazeera are intent on concealing this fact.
“After initially letting slip that the earliest Libyan protests were organized by the LIFG, Al Jazeera quickly changed its line to present a heavily filtered account portraying the events as ‘peaceful protests,’” said Yoichi Shimatsu. “To explain away the gunshot deaths of Libyan soldiers during the uprising, the Qatar-based network presented a bizarre scenario of 150 dead soldiers in Libya having been executed by their officers for ‘refusing to fight’. The mysterious officers then miraculously vacated their base disappearing into thin air while surrounded by angry protesters! Off the record, one American intelligence analyst called these media claims an ‘absurdity’ and suggested instead the obvious: that the soldiers were gunned down in an armed assault by war-hardened returned militants from Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Posted by: brian | Jul 7 2011 21:35 utc | 5

Nato strikes at Libya's oil in bid to oust Gaddafi

Nato forces have attacked Libya's oil facilities for the first time in this conflict in an attempt to starve Muammar Gaddafi's army of fuel, as rebels, following fierce clashes, moved to within 50 miles of the capital Tripoli.

The airstrikes on the complex at Brega, one of the countries' biggest petrochemical complexes and port for export, was designed, says Nato, to prevent regime troops from mounting attacks.

Posted by: b | Jul 8 2011 8:44 utc | 6

The view from India:

"In December 2010 NATO released its new strategic concept renewing its commitment to Collective Security. The concept attempted to shore up the gaps the past 10 years have presented. Due to lack of consensus among the member states provisions for potential future crises was not addressed adequately. Consequently less than one year on, NATO entered into a conflict it was ill prepared for and lacked unity over.1 The intervention in Libya has demonstrated that NATO has failed to find consensus over its future role despite the creation of a new strategic concept. Only nine out of the 25 European states were willing or capable to commit to ‘out-of-area’ operations in Libya; however, a Libya-like intervention may have to be undertaken elsewhere in the future and it will be necessary for NATO partners to participate if the cohesion of NATO is to be maintained. This paper will present the fundamental problem of the 2010 strategic concept through an analysis of its application to the Libya conflict. "

"Germany notably does not show any signs of wanting to include R2P within NATO as it does not wish to become involved in global military actions,10 risking the alienation of powers such as China and Russia,11 preferring to keep NATO to the far more limited role of collective defense.

What Germany and other European nations need to consider is that whilst NATO’s fundamental purpose remains collective defence, there is almost no threat of large scale conflict arising in Europe or North America and as such there is a requirement for NATO to refocus on issues other than its traditional role of preserving European security if it is to remain relevant"

Posted by: somebody | Jul 8 2011 11:03 utc | 7

and now, the New York Times tells it like it is

Posted by: somebody | Jul 11 2011 5:40 utc | 8

the NYT Chivers:
'No one could reasonably dispute that when the Qaddafi forces were at their strongest — when they crushed the demonstrations in Tripoli, '

well duh! i do dispute it..there were no demonstrations in Tripoli to crush! not outside the insurgent fed propaganda...Its lies like this and Judith Millers WMDS in Iraq that have crushed the NYS reptutation.

Posted by: brian | Jul 11 2011 5:45 utc | 9

The comments to this entry are closed.