Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 23, 2011

The Upcoming Occupation Of Libya

The Independent reports that "former" UK special operation forces led the western rebels in their onslaught on Tripoli. These several handful of mercenaries, payed for with British and Qatari money, will not be enough to occupy the country. But an occupation is what the "western" countries involved want.

It is quite possible, even likely, that the fighting will continue even if the attackers somehow manage to get Gaddhafi out of the way. I pointed out quite early that Libya is a tribal country and that historically the various groups of tribes never got along very well. There is also an ethnic component with Berbers of the south disliked by the Arabs in the north and vice versa. There is a religious point with Salafi Muslim in the east and much more secular people in the west and Tripoli with each side certainly having different opinions on how to run Libya. There is a lot of money to be taken and to be made and there will always be some group which will want to have a bigger part of the loot.

My best advice is to let the Libyans fight this out on their own. It will be bloody and take a while but it will very likely be much less bloody and shorter than with outside intervention.

But my advice will not be taken.

The argument will be that the anticipated civil war will necessitate "peacekeepers" and "humanitarian intervention" with boots on the ground.

Here is the head of the U.S. Council Of Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, in the British Financial Times preparing us for such:

International assistance, probably including an international force, is likely to be needed for some time to help restore and maintain order. The size and composition of the force will depend on what is requested and welcomed by the Libyan National Transitional Council and what is required by the situation on the ground.

President Barack Obama may need to reconsider his assertion that there would not be any American boots on the ground; leadership is hard to assert without a presence.

The UK has already several hundred soldier ready to decent on Tripoli:

Hundreds of British soldiers could be sent to Libya to serve as peacekeepers if the country descends into chaos, Downing Street indicated last night.
...
Two hundred troops are on standby to fly to the North African state at 24 hours’ notice if needed.

The soldiers from 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers are stationed in Cyprus, about 1,000 miles from Libya.

A source said: ‘The troops have been on standby for Libya since the start of July. All their kit is packed and they are just waiting to get the call to go.’

Up to 600 Royal Marines are also deployed in the Mediterranean and would be available to support humanitarian operations.

The French will certainly also send a few battalions.

The British written rebel plan calls for some special security force in Tripoli:

The document includes proposals for a 10,000-15,000 strong "Tripoli task force", resourced and supported by the United Arab Emirates, to take over the Libyan capital, secure key sites and arrest high-level Gaddafi supporters.

I wonder what "resourced and supported" means in this context. Will that task force be mercenaries from a foreign country or Libyan tribal gangs paid by the UAE?

The right wing German minister for defense made some noise of sending German troops. There is no way he will be allowed to without a UN resolution. But even with a resolution I doubt that the German parliament, which must decide on this, would agree.

The current UN Security Council resolution 1973 explicitly excludes "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

The countries involved might argue that any boots on the ground will not be an "occupation" but neither China nor Russia nor the public will accept that interpretation. Some legal cover from the UN will be needed for inner political reasons. It is doubtful that, after having been scammed with the "no-fly-zone" resolution 1973, China and Russia will agree to any new resolution without each demanding a very, very hefty price maybe even the size of Taiwan or Belarus.

With the occupations we witness in Iraq and Afghanistan we can be confident to estimate how a "western" occupation of Libya will likely develop. The TNC puppet government will turn out to be mediocre and not inclusive. The troops send will soon be shot at by someone every once a while and will start to shoot back. An insurgency against the occupation will develop. Salafi fighters from the various countries around Libya will come in and join the fun. More troops will be needed and send. It will take years and a lot of blood will flow until everyone is exhausted, the fighting dies down and the foreign troops go home.

Libya has only six million people. But two million live in Tripoli and it will thus be the core of the fight and the occupation. The outlying towns in the desert can not all be occupied without sending many more troops than the "west" will be willing to send. They will be left to the insurgency and will be their bases and retreats. The oil, which is mostly found in the southeastern desert and pumped through long pipelines, will be hard to recover.

Some ten years from now books will be sold describing the idea of supporting and installing a Libyan rebel government and the occupation following as an idiotic idea. Nothing will be learned from it.

Posted by b on August 23, 2011 at 15:25 UTC | Permalink

Comments

remember Somalia? how well was an occupation force received there?

Posted by: somebody | Aug 23 2011 15:50 utc | 1

Seems like a cat and mouse game going on Tripoli. Gaddafi forces seems to have been surging at night and retreating or keeping positions through the day.

Rebels say they enter Bab al-Aziziya (or some parts of it) and find it relatively empty.

Posted by: ThePaper | Aug 23 2011 16:42 utc | 2

Libya would make a perfect base for Algeria and Egypt jihadists.

Posted by: ThePaper | Aug 23 2011 16:59 utc | 3

Has it ever occurred to anyone here that all the leaders of the Arab League who support the ousting of Gaddafi are doing so in part because they see him more as an African than as a Middle Easterner, especially after he made Libya a member of the African Union? If this turns out to have some grain of truth to it, then the African-American community should speak out against the Arab League for harboring racial bigots. To call attention to the fact that many who support the war in Libya are doing so out of bigotry against Africans is one way to put an stop to this illegal war in the Middle East!

Posted by: Cynthia | Aug 23 2011 17:19 utc | 4

@Posted by: Cynthia | Aug 23, 2011 1:19:22 PM | 4
See this
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/08/look-whos-been-lying.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef014e8ae19527970d

Posted by: hans | Aug 23 2011 17:33 utc | 5

Because the African American community has soooo much clout. /s We really need to quit pretending the US powers that be (buy-partisan) are remotely interested in representative governance.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Aug 23 2011 17:34 utc | 6

On the Arab League throwing Gaddaffi under the Bus.

It's all about the long running fued between Gaddaffi and Saudi King Abdullah. Supposedly it started off while Abdullah was still the Crown Prince in 2003 when 13 people mainly Libyans tried to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah. Saudi Arabia and the US blamed Gaddaffi and opened up an investigation into the matter.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050809/2005080913.html

In 2005 Crown Prince Abdullah officially became King after being the unofficial ruler since the late 90's. The fued publicly boiled up again in 2009 during the Arab League meeting between heads of state. Gaddaffi took a microphone and in front of a pissed off looking King Abdullah called the Saudi monarchy "a British-American creation" and said King Abdullah was to cowardly to meet him the last six years. The Arab League moderators ended up cutting Gaddaffi's microphone off but he apparently continued accusing Abdullah of betraying the Palestinian cause and a few other things before storming out of the meeting.

Video with English subs here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k52f--zQPjA

News Article about it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/5079290/Muammar-Gaddafi-accuses-Saudi-Arabias-King-Abdullah-of-lying-at-Arab-summit.html

So I think when the choice came to take Gaddaffi out the Saudi King russled up the Arab League to support it. Lesson being don't piss off the Saudi King.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Aug 23 2011 18:23 utc | 7

On the Arab League throwing Gaddaffi under the Bus.

It's all about the long running fued between Gaddaffi and Saudi King Abdullah. Supposedly it started off while Abdullah was still the Crown Prince in 2003 when 13 people mainly Libyans tried to assassinate Crown Prince Abdullah. Saudi Arabia and the US blamed Gaddaffi and opened up an investigation into the matter.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050809/2005080913.html

In 2005 Crown Prince Abdullah officially became King after being the unofficial ruler since the late 90's. The fued publicly boiled up again in 2009 during the Arab League meeting between heads of state. Gaddaffi took a microphone and in front of a pissed off looking King Abdullah called the Saudi monarchy "a British-American creation" and said King Abdullah was to cowardly to meet him the last six years. The Arab League moderators ended up cutting Gaddaffi's microphone off but he apparently continued accusing Abdullah of betraying the Palestinian cause and a few other things before storming out of the meeting.

Video with English subs here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k52f--zQPjA

News Article about it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/5079290/Muammar-Gaddafi-accuses-Saudi-Arabias-King-Abdullah-of-lying-at-Arab-summit.html

So I think when the choice came to take Gaddaffi out the Saudi King russled up the Arab League to support it. Lesson being don't piss off the Saudi King.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Aug 23 2011 18:23 utc | 8

*Hundreds of British soldiers could be sent to Libya to serve as peacekeepers if the country descends into chaos, Downing Street indicated last night.*

Ermmmm - I don't think so. Britain hasn't got the soldiers. Cuts in the armed forces, and continued over commitment in Afghanistan, (plus the Falklands and Cyprus)mean that there are surely no troops available to "police" the 2 million population of Tripoli, let alone other cities over in the east like Benghazi. Cameron and Hague may talk big, but their words are meaningless. The Brit generals would kybosh any idea of an involvement in Libya. France might do it, and maybe Italy, but the UK? Ha ha ha ha.

Posted by: hilerie | Aug 23 2011 18:35 utc | 9

Live coverage on RT link

At this moment it is showing a few dozens 'fake' rebels on Green Square celebrating (this is the group some journalists including some from AJE was following today). Usual bunch that isn't likely to have done anything firing on the air with light and heavy machine guns. A few armed and uniformed men that look like security. It isn't a big party for taking down a city. Gaddafi could put more people on site any day of the week. So either it's not very secure at the moment, people don't feel like partying and local people not enjoying the moment.

Saw some obviously staged 'entry into Bab al-Aziziya' footage in Reuters blog (embedded flash and I can't find a link).

The video from inside the compound with the monument seemed a bit weird because of the minimum damage on the area (the front of the building in that image was left in that state after US bombing in the 80s).

Previously in the RT feed there were very big black smoke plumes on what was likely the Bab al-Aziziya area and also on a tall building towards what I guess was the north-west. Then I stopped watching before they starting celebrating the victory.

Posted by: ThePaper | Aug 23 2011 19:41 utc | 10

Seems I don't know how to post links correctly ...

RT video feed from Tripoli

Posted by: ThePaper | Aug 23 2011 19:42 utc | 11

yes and gaddafi forces then fired into their own compound
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/08/libya-al-jazeera-staffer-possibly-shot-inside-kadafi-compound.html
it seems to be

http://twitter.com/#!/feb17voices

It seems to be this guy's people
Abdelhakim Bilhaj

against Gaddafi forces

Abdelhakim Bilhaj
features here as leader of the rebel's forces
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/08/libya-kadafi-search-goes-on-as-rebels-search-compound.html

and here as reformed islamist
http://www.pvtr.org/pdf/Report/RSIS_Libya.pdf

Posted by: somebody | Aug 23 2011 19:54 utc | 12

Here is the Reuters video.

What the hell are they firing upwards with the AA machine guns (birds?). That wall is not even damaged seems just like the gate was torn apart.

Posted by: ThePaper | Aug 23 2011 19:59 utc | 13

ThePaper this is called celebration. That is what rebels do, they stand somewhere symbolic and celebrate ...

Posted by: somebody | Aug 23 2011 20:37 utc | 14

oh yeah, it will be called buffer force ...

this is from the Guardian...

"Government soldiers taken prisoner have said they were convinced they would be slaughtered if they surrendered and so rarely did so. Rebel officers said they would like a buffer force that would allow pro-Gaddafi unit to laid down their arms."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/23/libya-rebels-tripoli-stabilisation-effort

sounds like they are losing on the ground now ...

ceasefire anyone?

Posted by: somebody | Aug 23 2011 20:57 utc | 15

dennis kucinich tells it like it is

“NATO’s top commanders may have acted under color of international law, but they are not exempt from international law,” Kucinich said in a statement released by his office. “If members of the Qadhafi regime are to be held accountable, NATO’s top commanders must also be held accountable through the International Criminal Court for all civilian deaths resulting from bombing. Otherwise, we will have witnessed the triumph of a new international gangsterism.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61920.html#ixzz1VtJHH0Hs

Posted by: somebody | Aug 23 2011 21:50 utc | 16

and now this:

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said a "reliable, affirmative" statement from Gadhafi himself is needed to underscore that "the days of his leadership are over."
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/08/23/libya.war/

?????

Posted by: somebody | Aug 23 2011 22:07 utc | 17

b, the inconsistencies of your analyses are stunning. The expediency of your narrow ideology required you to say about Iraq that the occupation created internecine war. And now, the expediency of your narrow ideology of course requires you to say that Libya is wracked by tribal violence (which is true).

Also, to anyone who has read your meanderings through the reality of the "Arab Spring" knows that you are pretty much completely fucking wrong about almost everything.

Posted by: slothrop | Aug 23 2011 22:24 utc | 18

This is how the government's agency reporting the important news.

"the market in physical gold is tiny, and largely comprised of nutcases."
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/23/how-to-get-12-billion-of-gold-to-venezuela/

This is what the truth is:

“People are aware of the story but I think it’s under-appreciated. Meaning, I’m not sure the full implications of this have sunk in. They have about $6.3 billion of cash and a little more than 200 tons of gold worth $11 billion, so it’s quite a bit of wealth. Hugo Chavez is moving his cash out of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which is the central bankers central bank. And he’s moving it to Russian, Chinese and Brazilian banks. So he’s basically getting out of the Western banking system, moving into the communist, Russian and Latin American banking system.”

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2011/8/23_Rickards_-_Chavezs_Gold_Leased_to_JP_Morgan%2C_Barclays%2C_HSBC.html

Please, keep posting from Reuters, CNN, BBC, Guardian etc.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Aug 23 2011 23:57 utc | 19

that was quick:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/23/us-libya-gaddafi-idUSTRE77M8ZR20110823
Gaddafi says he will fight to the end.

So that's the worst possible outcome: an authoritarian government shrunk to its core powerbase acting like a guerilla force.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 24 2011 0:20 utc | 20

and this sums it up.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/08/five-rules-for-libya-jon-lee-anderson.html

Posted by: somebody | Aug 24 2011 1:08 utc | 21

1) You must believe that leaders of USA, UK, and France, are complete idiots!? Why would they send their military to occupy Libya? Last thing they want is to engage in another anti-insurgency. If they want control over oil, they do not need military. All that is needed is a corrupt local government.
2) Revolutionary guards in Iraq turned into insurgency only after dumb US administrator decided to disband the Iraqi army, leaving lots of armed people in the streets without jobs.
3) Tribal differences is not the same thing as religious and/or ethnic problems. There are no Suni-Shia issues in Libya.

You have no clue, and your analysis is pure wishful thinking. You are just hoping for NATO to fail.

Posted by: Ervin | Aug 24 2011 4:46 utc | 22

SAS troopers help co-ordinate rebel attacks in Libya

The Guardian has learned that a number of serving British special forces soldiers, as well as former SAS troopers, are advising and training rebel forces, although their presence is officially denied.

The Guardian has previously reported the presence of former British special forces troops, now employed by private security companies and funded by a number of sources, including Qatar. They have been joined by a number of serving SAS soldiers.

They have been acting as forward air controllers – directing pilots to targets – and communicating with Nato operational commanders. They have also been advising rebels on tactics, a task they have not found easy.

For the SAS it is a return to old stamping grounds. In one of their first successful missions in the second world war, they attacked airfields in Libya, destroying 60 aircraft. SAS battle honours include Tobruk in 1941 and a raid on Benghazi in 1942.

They returned to Libya in February this year, even before the UN mandate urging states to protect civilians from Gaddafi's forces.
...
France is understood to have deployed special forces in Libya and Qatari and Jordanian special forces are believed to have also played a role.

Posted by: b | Aug 24 2011 5:13 utc | 23

Ah, The Grand Chessboard. Amidst the turmoil, Israle seeks to fortify its position(s).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-23/greece-deepens-israeli-ties-seeking-economic-gains-amid-crisis.html

Greece Deepens Israeli Ties for Economic Gain

With unrest roiling Libya and Syria and the debt crisis hammering Portugal, Spain and Italy, Papandreou says stability on the financial and political front is imperative for the region.

“You see some of the peripheral countries having problems, they are now basically southern,” the U.S.-educated leader said in an interview in Athens on July 19. “A stable southern Europe is I think essential for the Arab spring, what is going to happen, the integration. I think this is a strategic issue for Europe, for the Arab world and the United States.”

Both countries are also counting on military benefits. Greece will provide Israel with the airspace, land and sea area to conduct large-scale military exercises, replacing what had formerly been Turkey’s role, while Greeks will benefit from training and Israeli know-how, Thanos Dokos, the director general of the Athens-based Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, says.

Greece and Israel have conducted at least two joint military exercises in the past year.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Aug 24 2011 11:15 utc | 24

I think b's synopsis is damn close to what will happen in Libya. By whatever route the West chooses, the end game will be, complete control by the West, of Libya's natural resources. Without sharing in the wealth of the nation, an insurgency will surely develop. Time will tell all.

Posted by: ben | Aug 24 2011 13:24 utc | 25

The one constant of the Libya affair since February has been the upending of "informed opinion". That is because clearly this country is opaque even to people who otherwise know "the Arab World" well (and "b" is not among them). Fusing personal gall and empty tags like "disaster capitalism" and "occupation" and "Libyan Socialist Republic" and "tribes" into extreme predictions is just... stupid. Yes, Qatar, KSA, France et al are now going to jockey for influence and spoils of some sort. But the Transitional Council has already stated that all existing international treaties and contracts will be respected. The Libyan Socialist Republic was a myth. Universal healthcare and other perks for a tiny population paid for by enormous oil revenues is not socialism. Get a grip. I am beginning to wonder what is wrong with me that I am even commenting on this nonsense.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 24 2011 14:49 utc | 26

nteresting read about the Transitional National Council (TNC) on Wikipedia:
Mohammad Jabril, head of the TNC, is the LAST person rebels would choose to head their movement: “He taught strategic planning at Pittsburgh for several years, and has published 10 books on strategic planning and decision-making, including Imagery and Ideology in U.S. Policy Toward Libya, 1969–1982…

The Executive Board was sacked en masse by decision of the NTC on 8 August over its sluggish response to the assassination of General Abdul Fatah Younis, Benghazi’s top commander.[17] Jibril was asked to form a new board subject to the council’s approval.[18] Though Jibril will stay on as the board’s chairman, a spokesman for the NTC said he would be required to spend less time out of the country.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Jibril

This raises a LOT of questions, such as
“Who selected the executive board?”
“Was it Libyan rebels, or a consortium Saudi, British, French and American power brokers?”
“Was the August 8 sacking really an internal coup, sponsored by outside interests?”

Turns out the the newly formed Unified National Syrian Council is headed by a reactionary Syrian who worked for the House of Saud for decades...

Posted by: JohnH | Aug 24 2011 15:22 utc | 27

Some clarifications to my prior post--

The brand new head of the Libyan rebel movement was a strategic planner, and apparently knew nothing about war or of leading rebel movements...hmmm

He was selected only 10 days ago, when everyone else got fired. This suggests an orderly, coordinated action, not characteristic of a rebel movement in crisis, focused on pursuing the fight.

The whole thing reeks of coordinated, outside intervention.

Posted by: JohnH | Aug 24 2011 15:31 utc | 28

"1) You must believe that leaders of USA, UK, and France, are complete idiots!? Why would they send their military to occupy Libya? Last thing they want is to engage in another anti-insurgency. If they want control over oil, they do not need military. All that is needed is a corrupt local government."

They evidently enjoy anti-insurgency campaigns. It is called stamping out resistance and dealing with political dissidents by killing them. As to occupying Libya, they would prefer to rule it through compradors, in the meantime using minimal military force in order to control things is very sensible. In Haiti, for example, the US and its surrogates have maintained military control for the past seven years. For imperialists money is no object, compared to the compulsion to deter democrats.

"2) Revolutionary guards in Iraq turned into insurgency only after dumb US administrator decided to disband the Iraqi army, leaving lots of armed people in the streets without jobs."

This is a propaganda line from imperialists. It is premissed on the idea that resistance to invasion is unnatural when the invaders include the Anglo-Saxons.
Resistance to the Occupation was inevitable. Disbanding the Iraqi Armed Forces might have encouraged resistance but, unless you believe that the leaders of the US and UK were complete idiots then, as you assert in 1/ that they are not now, there is good reason for believing that by disbanding the forces the Occupiers made resistance, arms acquisition etc more difficult. It was also a necessary preliminary to the division of Iraq into warring sects since the forces were not sectarian.

"You have no clue, and your analysis is pure wishful thinking. You are just hoping for NATO to fail."

Hoping for NATO to fail is widespread: all sane people, concerned at the emergence of a Totalitarian Dictatorship over the entire world, have an interest in scotching this monster before it turns into the world's unelected police force cum Biker Gang.

Ghadaffi was bad, NATO rule, in conjunction with the Saudi salafist tyrants, is going to be much much worse. Not least because, until this organisation is given a good beating it is likely, in the way that bullies do, to carry on, from one country to another, making and breaking governments whimsically. If only to distract people from seeing that the member states, eunuchs in the Palace of Capitalism, have completely given up governing themselves, their economies, currencies and social security. The only job creation they can undertake involves killing foreigners, on behalf of Washington.


Posted by: bevin | Aug 24 2011 15:59 utc | 29

Occupations and resulting insurgencies are not failures...rather, they are successes. It's part of the strategy, and a steady profit stream.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Aug 24 2011 16:22 utc | 30

I confess to knowing nothing about Libya, and to entertaining many "left-anarchist fantasies" about what's going on there. However, I can only wonder about the self-licking ice cream cone aspect of recent events there. It is undoubtedly too simplistic to see a sort of cycle of the type
DC $'s ----> Libyan stooges ----> DC lobbyists ---> More DC $'s to Libyan stooges --> ...
in operation here, but, again, I confess to favoring simple-minded explanations for observable events.
Naturally, for those events that are not observable, for example, the precise material advantage to be extracted from up-ending Libya's mercurial rais one can resort to conspiracy theories, which may, in the present case reduce to nothing more than better deals on hydrocarbon pricing and "management" for such national champions as Sarkozy's friends at Suez-GdF. This kind of thing has happened in the past, as illustrated, for example, by the infamous 1953 anti-Mossadegh coup in Iran or, more recently, the Ben Ali coup in Tunisia after Habib Bourguiba began requesting "confiscatory" transit fees for Algerian gas heading to Italy.
Quite likely much of this probably is, as Guthman Bey asserts @26, nonsense, or perhaps is subsumed under his rubric of "Qatar, KSA, France et al are now going to jockey for influence and spoils of some sort". But if this paleo-marxist view is indeed pure nonsense, I am at a loss to understand the serious reasons for the Nato-cum-Arab-League intervention. If there is no such substantial "pay off", then it seems to me that the intervention must be attributed to lèse majesté and spite (in the case of KSA) and personalistic electoral calculations (in the case of Sarkozy and Obama). I beg forgiveness if I sin in not giving credence to the democratic bona fides of the architects of the intervention. I do however have no doubt that many of the "foot soldiers" implementing that intervention are indeed true believers, at least as faithful to the mythology of democracy as their Salafist allies are to Islam.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Aug 24 2011 17:05 utc | 31

that's because it is opaque Guthman Bey, no. 26, it is like a Rorschach test, everybody sees a different figure.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 24 2011 18:32 utc | 32

Listened to Robin Wright's expert opinion on Lybia......why is it that all Middle East experts are staunch supporters of Israel?????

Posted by: Georgeg | Aug 24 2011 20:06 utc | 33

Because being a supporter of Israel is the main (only?) requirement to act as Middle East expert on most of the English speaking MSM. Search AngryArab posts on the matter.

Posted by: ThePaper | Aug 24 2011 20:25 utc | 34

i get the idea SOMEBODY doesnt like Gadafi or Libya! and cant wait to see it under a combimnation of NATO occupation and Sharia law!


The Libyan Soldier: The True Heroes of NATO’s War
aletho | August 24, 2011 at 11:43 am | Categories: Aletho News | URL: http://wp.me/pIUmC-7Rp
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford - August 24, 2011
The story is not over – not by a long shot – but the saga of the Libyan resistance to the superpower might of the United States and its degenerate European neocolonial allies will surely occupy a very special place in history. For five months, beginning March 19, the armed forces of a small country of six million people dared to defy the most advanced weapons systems on the planet, on terrain with virtually no cover, against an enemy capable of killing whatever could be seen from the sky or electronically sensed. Night and day, the eyes of the Euro-American war machine looked down from space on the Libyan soldiers’ positions, with the aim of incinerating them. And yet, the Libyan armed forces maintained their unit integrity and personal honor, with a heroism reminiscent of the loyalist soldiers of the Spanish Republic under siege by German, Italian and homegrown fascists, in the late 1930s.

The Germans and Italians and Generalissimo Franco won that war, just as the Americans, British, French and Italians may ultimately overcome the Libyan army. But they cannot convey honor or national legitimacy to their flunkies from Benghazi, who have won nothing but a badge of servitude to foreign overseers. The so-called rebels won not a single battle, except as walk-ons to a Euro-American military production. They are little more than extras for imperial theater, a mob that traveled to battle under the protective umbrella of American full spectrum dominance of the air. They advanced along roads already littered with the charcoal-blackened bodies of far better men, who died challenging Empire.

One thing is sure: the Americans and Europeans have never respected their servants. The so-called rebels of Libya will be no different. Washington, Paris and London know perfectly well that is was their 18,000 aircraft sorties, their cruise missiles, their attack helicopters, their surveillance satellites and drones, their command and control systems, their weapons, and their money, that managed to kill or wound possibly half the Libyan army. Not the rabble from Benghazi.

The rebels should not take too seriously being fawned over by the ridiculous hordes of corporate media tourists that have come to Tripoli to record the five-month war's finale. They are highly paid cheerleaders. And, although it may appear that they are cheering for the rebels, don't be fooled – at the end of the day, the western corporate media only cheer for their own kind. They are celebrating what they believe is a victory over the Libyan demon they have helped to construct in their countrymen's minds. Next year, rebel, that demon might be you.

Or next year, it might be many Libyans, including those who were no friends of Col. Moammar Gaddafi. The Americans treat their native minions like children in need of supervision – and there is a certain logic to this, since whoever would entrust his nation's sovereignty and resources to the Americans is, surely, either exceedingly stupid, or hopelessly corrupt. But Libya's honor and her place in history has already been secured by a small African army that held out nearly half a year against the NATO barbarians.

Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Posted by: brian | Aug 24 2011 21:41 utc | 35

Voltaire Net has been Temporarily Shut down - More Censorship due to Libyan Situation?
Posted by Waterput on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 Under: Libya

UPDATE August 24, 2011 - 20:16 Libyan Time: Thierry Meyssan's website is on-line again. Why was the site taken off the air during the release of journalists? Possibly to protect themselves? Lizzie Phelan's website is still off-line. If anyone can explain, please don't hesitate to do so.

Today a reader informed me about a shocking development in the crusade against those who think differently than the NATO-countries: Thierry Meyssan's VOLTAIRENET.ORG (1) has been removed from internet!

As I have informed you before in an earlier articles (2, 3) there are strange things going on with censorship on youtube dealing with certain NATO-unfriendly videos, like the one below:

Thierry Meyssan (4, 9) talks about being threatened by the US because of his NATO-critical perspective. Now he has become so dangerous to the NATO-countries, especially France and the USA, that they have strafed his website completely. Please spread this news and comment. What are the NATO-countries hiding about what is really going on in Libya? Why are they silencing independent journalists?

If you take a look at Thierry Meyssan's book ''Operation Sarkozy'' (5, 6) you might get an idea why Sarkozy is eager to get rid of this man. In that particular book Thierry Meyssan claims that Sarkozy is in fact a former CIA agent, installed by the US. This might explain the sudden change in French approach to international conflicts since the coming of mr. Sarkozy.

Not only Voltairenet.org has been closed down, but the site of another critical journalist in Libya, Lizzie Phelan has been taken off the air! (7)

Is NATO trying to hide something terrible that is going on in Tripoli, because of their introduction of the most brutal killers imaginable in the peaceful city of Tripoli?

Here's a report by Tony Cartalucci whose twitteraccount has been suspended after having been too critical towards NATO (8).
http://waterput.yolasite.com/english/voltaire-net-has-been-shut-down-more-censorship-due-to-libyan-situation-

Posted by: brian | Aug 24 2011 21:41 utc | 36


Land Destroyer Twitter Account Suspended
Follow @LanddestroyerW for now.
by Tony Cartalucci

Quite obviously my coverage of Libya has a lot of people upset. I had received a concerted barrage of attacks by suspiciously similar accounts all tweeting 24/7 for weeks regarding Libya, all overtly pro-NATO just before my account was suspended. I was covering the Rixos Hotel and how even mainstream media admitted that snipers were targeting the building and Qaddafi's troops were attempting to protect it. Despite this the media suggests the journalists are "hostages." The troops have now, in fact, allowed them to leave. This was yet another hoax, on par with the "Saif al-Islam" hoax where a very much free and energetic Saif showed up to personally dispel BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, NATO propaganda.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/08/land-destroyer-twitter-account.html

Posted by: brian | Aug 24 2011 21:48 utc | 37

Lizzie Phelan's Twitter feed and blog have been taken down:


http://twitter.com/lizziephelan
http://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/

Posted by: brian | Aug 24 2011 22:04 utc | 38

brian @ 35: Thanks for that.

Posted by: ben | Aug 24 2011 22:55 utc | 39

Aljamahiya is back in tripoli

alJamahiriya @antiwar_soldier I only arrived in #Tripoli yesterday.Hopefully later today we will be able to go out. I don't want to repeat rumours I hear
about 1 hour ago in reply to antiwar_soldier
alJamahiriya @NEWS_Libya NO. #Tripoli is not a ghost town, but #NATO's psycological war of bombs and helicopters make it dangerous to go out at night.
about 1 hour ago in reply to NEWS_Libya
alJamahiriya Unconfirmed. From my father-in-law's neighbour. Five members of #British forces captured with all equipment in southern suburbs of #Tripoli.
about 3 hours ago ...
alJamahiriya #Libyan troops targeting foreign agents to leave rebels with no communications with #NATO. Rebels leaving injured & dead in the streets.
about 10 hours ago
alJamahiriya Passed Bab Al-Aziziya, many foreign troops with satellite phones. But Bab Al-Aziziya has been empty for months!!! NATO bombing empty bunkers
about 10 hours ago
alJamahiriya Am in #Tripoli. We travelled from #Tunis. Rebels control very little. We were able to pass them. Saw many foreigners trying to look arab!!!
about 10 hours ago

Posted by: brian | Aug 25 2011 2:24 utc | 40

35) it is not a matter of like or dislike, just the fact that somebody tells me what to think, throughout my life, would seriously get on my nerves. Must be the same for a lot of educated middle class Libyans under the age of 50. if your psychology is such that you prefer this, then we are different.
The reason for intervention presumably was a) the decision to decide to let Saudi Arabia to crack down on unrest in Bahrain (containing Iran) b) at the same time trying to get the US to own the Arab Spring. Gaddafi must have seemed the perfect dictator to show the progressive essentials of the West (and they felt a need to distance themselves from supporting him so obviously and blatantly, especially Sarkozy, who had run into this problem in Tunisia.) And remember they considered it fast, easy and cheap. So basically they tried to cover up their support of the one dictatorship they like by supporting the disposal of another dictatorship they dislike.
Basically the US/Europe feel their influence in the Middle East is slipping. It is inevitable, though.
And yes, I think they acted mainly out of stupidity, they had no idea what they walked into.
This will now be decided and fought out by local actors, and my guess is, the TNC the West set up will not survive.


Posted by: somebody | Aug 25 2011 5:28 utc | 41

Ah, the old International Security Assistance Force gambit.

Like Pepe Escobar said recently, Libya is fixin to be nuthin but:

Afghanistan: ReMixed!

Posted by: ScuzzaMan | Aug 25 2011 10:02 utc | 42

somehow I do not think NATO has the will power to see this through:

this here is the line from Moscow

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/medvedev-urges-libya-peace-talks/442611.html

Medvedev Urges Libya Peace Talks
25 August 2011
Reuters

SOSNOVY BOR, Buryatia — President Dmitry Medvedev called on Moammar Gadhafi and Libya's rebels on Wednesday to stop fighting and sit down for talks, saying the embattled leader still had some power and military might.

"We want the Libyans to come to an agreement among themselves," Medvedev said after talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il at a military base near Buryatia's capital, Ulan-Ude.

"We would like [the fighting] to stop as soon as possible and for them to sit down at the negotiating table and reach an agreement on Libya's future," Medvedev said in his first public remarks on Libya since Gadhafi fled his Tripoli stronghold.

"Despite the rebel successes in the offensive on Tripoli, Gadhafi and his supporters still maintain some influence and military potential," he said.

Medvedev described Moscow's position on Libya as "cautious" and said Russia was closely monitoring the situation.

He suggested that Russia could establish formal relations with the rebels if they emerge as a force with nationwide public support, a sign that Moscow is edging toward recognizing those forces poised to topple Gadhafi's 42-year-old rule.

"If the rebels have enough strength and opportunities to unite the country for a new democratic start, then naturally, we will consider establishing relations with them," he said.

More than 30 countries, including the United States and some European Union nations, have recognized the rebel National Transitional Council as the new Libyan authorities.

Russian officials have warned that NATO aerial support for the storming of Tripoli could cast doubt on the rebels' legitimacy.

Read more: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/medvedev-urges-libya-peace-talks/442611.html#ixzz1W2BIATwg
The Moscow Times

Posted by: somebody | Aug 25 2011 10:12 utc | 43

and South Africa has stopped to cooperate

South Africa urges to probe NATO's possible human rights violation in Libya
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-08/25/c_131074233.htm

Posted by: somebody | Aug 25 2011 10:14 utc | 44

Hans@5, thanks for the link!

All I can figure is that most members of the African-American community are totally clueless to the fact that by conquering a African country to enrich the American Empire, Obama has made myself into a great Uncle Tom banker boy.

Posted by: Cynthia | Aug 25 2011 14:43 utc | 45

somebody continues to cary water for NATO and genocidical racists:

Ana Tsivdari
Take a look at this...I wonder hhow many more black people need to get killed by the rebels, for some journos to stop the "african mercenaries" label? Although, if they were in military uniforms, hands tied shows how the prisoners of war are treated there.
"danieljerivers Dan Rivers
Been wandering through Bab al Azizya compound lots of bodies of what looked like African mercenaries hands bound, On intersection nearby"
=======================
what does an african mercenary look like?...well hes usually black!
Note that the insurgents have brought to Tripoli their brutal genocidical practices in Benghzai thus confirming the accounts we heard are true! This is what will happen thruout Liya if the wretched europens and americas thru NATO win. These rapist genocidical rebels have put out a $ 2million bounty on Gadaff ..but using whose money?

Posted by: brian | Aug 25 2011 21:59 utc | 46

The comments to this entry are closed.