By Stephen Lendman
On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary
of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a White House Office of
the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:
"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United
States to (attack) Libya in support of an
international effort to protect Libyan civilians," he,
in fact, doesn't give a damn about. "That action has
now begun," he added, claiming military action was a
last resort.
In fact, it was long-planned. All military
interventions require months of preparation, including
target selections, strategy, enlisting political and
public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict
plans.
Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA
agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya,
enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called
anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western
aggression for imperial control. More on it below.
A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces
Press Service release announced America's led
"Operation Odyssey Dawn," saying:
"Coalition (of the willing) forces launched
"Operation Odyssey Dawn" today to enforce UN Security
Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people
from the country's ruler....Today we are part of a
broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a
threatened people."
False! In fact, Washington-led naked aggression was
launched to replace one despot with another, perhaps
assassinate Gaddafi, his sons and top officials,
colonize Libya, control its oil, gas and other
resources, exploit its people, private state
industries under Western (mainly US) control,
establish new Pentagon bases, use them for greater
regional dominance, perhaps balkanize the country like
Yugoslavia and Iraq, and prevent any democratic spark
from emerging.
According to DODspeak, Libya is being attacked, its
people killed, civilian targets destroyed, and a
humanitarian disaster created to save it. In other
words, "destroying the village to save it" on a
nationwide scale like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Somalia, Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, and
Korea in the 1950s since WW II alone. Besides numerous
proxy wars in Central America, Africa and elsewhere.
Wherever America shows up, blood spills followed by
horrific human suffering, what Libyans can now expect.
Military and government targets include:
-- command-and-control centers;
-- air defense systems;
-- Gaddafi, his sons and senior officials;
-- communications systems;
-- government buildings and other facilities; and
-- military air fields, tanks, artillery, other
weapons, munitions, fuel depots, mobile and other
targets.
About 25 US, UK, French, Canadian and Italian ships
are involved, 11 from America, including three nuclear
submarines. The Pentagon is providing command, control
and logistics support. Air and surface-launched
munitions are being used, including against Tripoli,
the capital and Gaddafi stronghold.
Moreover, invasion and perhaps occupation may
follow, despite official denials.
Either way, widespread death and destruction is
likely. Surgical war is an oxymoron. Expect
considerable "collateral damage," the Orwellian
designation for war crimes against noncombatants and
civilian targets.
In his 1992 book titled, "Beyond Hypocrisy," Edward
Herman referred to "nuclear chicken analysis,"
defining "collateral casualties" as "civilians killed
as a regrettable 'spillover effect' of a nuclear
attack on a military target' more generally, allegedly
unintended casualties" of any type attack.
In other words, "inadvertent and tragic errors"
that, in fact, constitute wanton murder and
destruction of schools, hospitals, vital
infrastructure and other non-military targets.
Pack Journalism Promotes War
A previous article explained how it enlists public
support for imperial war, accessed through the
following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/pack-journalism-promotes-war-on-libya.html
Western media, including BBC and Al Jazeera incite
it, no matter how lawless, mindless, destructive and
counterproductive. Smell it. It arrived again because
inflammatory journalism stoked reasons to attack. As a
result, America, Britain and France primarily readied
strikes. Ground and submarine-launced cruise missiles
inflicted widespread destruction. In addition, French
jets struck "targets of opportunity," preceded by
exaggerated/unverified/inflammatory reports like the
following:
On March 19, New York Times writers David
Kirkpatrick and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined,
"Reports Say Attacks by Regime Against Rebels
Continue," saying:
Unverified "(r)eports indicated that Col. Muammar
el-Qaddafi's forces were continuing to press their
attacks despite warnings that such moves would provoke
military action."
On March 19, Financial Times writer Tobias Buck
headlined, "Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi,"
saying:
Forces loyal to Gaddafi attacked "in violation of
the regime's promise of a ceasefire."
Libyan state TV channel, Al Jamahiriya, reported it
differently, saying "the people of Benghazi have risen
up against the rebels and raised the flag of Libya
over the government building in the middle of the
city."
On March 19, New York Times writers Steven Erlanger
and David Kirkpatrick headlined "Allies Open Push in
Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:
"American, European and Arab leaders began the
largest international intervention" since 2003 against
Iraq, omitting the illegality of both aggressions.
On March 19, New York Times writers David
Kirkpatrich and Elisabeth Musmiller headlined, "France
Sends Military Flights Over Libya," saying:
Flying reconnaissance missions, it's "the first
sign" of premeditated war, launching new hostilities
against a war-torn region, without explanation why.
On March 19, Times writers Steven Erlanger and
David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Allies Open Push in
Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:
Hostilities began to stop "Qaddafi's war on the
Libyan opposition," after a no-fly zone was
established.
As a result, war arrived preemptively. French
President Sarkozy said it's to stop Gaddafi's
"murderous madness," no matter that he responded to
violence. He didn't instigate it. So would Sarkozy,
Obama or any leader against armed insurrection.
Love or hate him, Gaddafi said:
"Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans. This
is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is
uncalculated risk for its consequences on the
Mediterranean and Europe. You will regret it if you
take a step toward intervening in our internal
affairs."
Hours earlier, he pledged a ceasefire. Conflicting
reports disagree if he honored it. Is he or Western
intervention stoking violence? US media reports point
fingers one way.
Washington, Britain, France, other NATO allies, and
complicit Arab States back armed anti-Gaddafi
insurrection. They're promoting it, inciting it,
funding it, arming it, with clear imperial aims. A
previous article explained, accessed through the
following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/washingtons-un-war-resolution-on-libya.html
On March 19, ahead of intervention, Al Jazeera
headlined, "Gaddafi forces encroaching on Benghazi,"
saying:
Gaddafi unleashed "a fresh act of defiance even as
the United States and its allies prepared to launch
military attacks on Libya."
Unverified "(r)eports from Libya say pro-government
forces have entered the western outskirts of the
opposition stronghold of Benghazi, with the city also
coming under attack from the coast and the south."
Unnamed "(w)itnesses....said they heard large
explosions....Government troops reportedly bombed the
southern Benghazi suburb of Goreshi among other
places."
No verification was given, except to quote Mustafa
Abdel Jalil, opposition National Libyan Council
leader. More on him below. Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley
reported "a lot of jittery people...a lot of activity
and a lot of firing going on."
In contrast, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim
told the BBC that "the ceasefire is real, credible and
solid. We are willing to receive (international and
NGO) observers as soon as possible." He insisted no
air strikes were launched.
Hours later Al Jazeera headlined, "Airstrikes begin
on Libya targets," saying:
"French warplanes hit four tanks....on a day when
opposition fighters in (Benghazi) reported coming
under constant artillery and mortar fire." Expect
sustained strikes to follow.
Al Jazeera and other media reports don't explain
that "opposition" officials from organizations like
the National Libyan Council and National Front for the
Salvation of Libya have close Western ties, pretending
they're credible. More about them below.
Headquartered in Qatar, moreover, Al Jazeera
noticeably abstains from criticizing its government,
now part of Washington's anti-Gaddafi
coalition-of-the-willing, complicit in illegal
aggression.
On March 18, Obama stopped short of declaring war,
announcing "all necessary measures" against Gaddafi
without full compliance with UN Resolution terms,
including an immediate ceasefire, withdrawing his
forces, reestablishing essential services to all parts
of the country, and letting in "humanitarian
assistance," including foreign imperial forces opposed
to his leadership.
In other words, impossible terms to accept to be
followed by others likely demanding he step down,
permit balkanization, predatory Western investment, US
bases, and free exploitation of his resources and
people. Imagine comparable demands made on America -
non-negtiable to be followed by military action for
non-compliance.
On March 18, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rogh
Rasmussen signaled war, saying the alliance was
"completing its planning to be ready to take
appropriate action in support of the UN resolution as
part of the broad international effort."
Launched the next day, the resources of another
resource-rich Arab state will be divided among Western
belligerents, to benefit Libyans, they claim.
On March 20, New York Times writers David
Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Busmiller
headlined, "Qaddafi Pledges 'Long War' as Allies
Pursue Air Assault," saying:
"On Sunday, American (stealth) B-2 bombers were
reported to have struck a major Libyan airfield,"
following initial attacks against Libya's air defense
systems, "missile, radar and communications centers
around Tripoli," Misurata and Surt.
Reuters said "US fighter planes backed by
electronic warfare aircraft" attacked Gaddafi's ground
troops and air defenses. A Pentagon statement stated:
"US Navy Growlers provided electronic warfare
support over Libya while AV-8B Harriers from the 26th
Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted strikes...."
Parliamentary secretary Muhammad Zweid said attacks
"caused some real harm against civilians and
buildings." According to an unnamed US official,
Libya's air defenses are now "severely disabled."
As of Sunday morning, visible destruction also
included 14 tanks, 20 armored personnel carriers, two
or more trucks, rocket launchers, dozens of pick-ups,
and exploding munitions. Ahead of cruise missile
attacks, France initiated reconnaissance flights and
aggression.
On March 19, Middle East/Central Asian analyst
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's Global Research.ca article
headlined, "Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked.
Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed," saying:
Regime change-planned naked aggression was
launched. "The war criminals are back at it again,"
Washington, of course, in the lead. On March 19,
"sources in Libya have reported that three medical
facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one
a medical clinic. These were civilian facilities."
Targets attacked included Al-Tajura and Saladin
hospitals as well as a clinic near Tripoli, unrelated
to military necessity, distant from combat areas.
Moreover, civilian air facilities were struck as well
as "all Libyan military bases" - air, naval and
ground. In addition, "a vast naval blockade around
Libya has now been imposed," America the lead
belligerent.
Further, Libyan sources report "two French jets
were also shot down....near Janzour" plus another
"near Anjile." Washington and co-belligerents "are
creating a real humanitarian disaster," waging war for
peace, killing civilians to save them, and destroying
Libya by "humanitarian intervention."
Moreover, Washington enlisted Egypt and Saudi
Arabia to supply "opposition forces" with weapons, in
violation of Resolution 1973 prohibiting any sent. Of
course, international and US law forbid aggressive
war, but that never deterred imperial America from
preemptively attacking, invading, occupying and
colonizing nations illegally, Libya its latest target.
Libya's So-Called "Opposition"
Included are the National Front for the Salvation
of Libya, its officials with ties to the CIA and Saudi
Arabia. Also, Muhammad as-Senussi, Libya's so-called
heir to the Senussi Crown, concerned only for his own
self-interest.
Central is the National Libyan Council (NLC),
announced on February 26, established officially on
March 5, led by former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa
Abdel-Jalil, a Western-allied opportunist.
NLC is an umbrella group of local so-called
opposition leaders headquartered in Benghazi. Bogusly,
it claims to represent all Libyans. Abdel-Jalil calls
it a "transitional government" ahead of future
elections after Gaddafi is deposed.
At the same time, Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, a Benghazi
lawyer, refuted his leadership, calling himself NLC's
official spokesman. Both men, however, have similar
aspirations, including controlling Libya by ousting
Gaddafi.
As of now, Abdel-Jalil remains NLC's official head,
Ghoga its spokesman, and Omar El-Hariri in charge of
military operations. General Abdel Fattah Younis may
be another key member, his status, however, not
confirmed. In total, NLC has about 30 members. Most
aren't named. Two known include, Mahmoud Jebril and
Ali al-Essawi, former Libyan ambassador to India in
charge of foreign affairs.
On March 5, Reuters headlined, "Rebel National
Libya Council sets up (a three-member) crisis
committee," saying:
In charge of military and foreign affairs, members
include Omar El-Hariri, Ali al-Essawi, and Mahmoud
Jebril as leader.
Western Hypocrisy - Denouncing
Violence While Backing It
At Obama's behest, about 1,000 Saudi troops invaded
Bahrain guns blazing, attacking peaceful protesters,
arresting opposition leaders and activists, occupying
the country, denying wounded men and women medical
treatment, and imposing police state control in
support of the hated monarchy.
Not an angry Western demand was heard to stop
hostilities and leave. Nor against similar Egyptian
army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan,
Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily
against Palestinians.
On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were
killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital,
when security forces attacked thousands, demanding
President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down.
Ally turned bete noire Gaddafi was targeted for
removal. In contrast, Saleh is supported because of
Yemen's strategic location near the Horn of Africa on
Saudi Arabia's southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab
el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen
from Eritrea through which three million barrels of
oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to
the Indian Ocean.
Instead of denouncing his brutality, Obama endorsed
it, calling on "all sides (to pursue) a peaceful,
orderly and democratic path to a stronger and more
prosperous nation."
Friday's massacre was the bloodiest since
resistance erupted in mid-February. Security forces
and plainclothes police opened fire on demonstrators,
shooting to kill, hitting some in the back of the head
as they fled. Afterward, Saleh imposed a state of
emergency and nationwide curfew.
Demonstrations, nonetheless, persist, Yemenese
wanting his 32-year dictatorship ended. Achieving it,
however, entails overcoming Washington's imperial grip
on regional client states, all run by favored despots.
A Final Comment
On March 19, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry
Arab.com headlined, "Bush Doctrine revised: Obama puts
his stamp," saying:
"Western/Saudi/Qarari military intervention in
Libya sets a dangerous precedent." Under Bush, ousting
regimes for democracy "was a bloody farce...." Obama's
model may be installing puppets "without having 'boots
on the ground,' " but don't discount them. He expanded
Bush's Afghan war, began his own in Pakistan as well
as in Somalia, Yemen and Bahrain, backing favored
despots besides the Saudi monarchy.
AbuKhalil calls NLC's Abdel-Jalil "a useful idiot."
Moreover, "Western enthusiasm for (Libyan)
intervention" was never properly explained beyond
nonsensical platitudes about "humanitarian
intervention" to protect civilians.
In contrast, "why (didn't) the hundreds of deaths
in Egypt or Tunisia....warrant" similar outrage, let
alone Israel's Cast Lead, occupation and daily
aggression against defenseless Palestinians.
Intervening militarily is Libya "is far more
dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of
colonial powers, (and) abort democratic uprisings all
over the region. Bahrain (Yemen and Saudi Arabia) of
today (are) the vision for Libya for tomorrow,"
Western-dominated, of course.
Will it work? Love or hate Gaddafi, Libyans know
what Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians endure.
Moreover, its society is fractious, divided by tribal
loyalties, suspicious of Western intervention, and
long-governed locally as well as nationally.
Against them is America's military might under
leaders not shy about using it. As a result, Libyans
are experiencing firsthand what's ahead under Western
control, what makes Iraqis yearn for Saddam, almost
saintly compared to Washington.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be
reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit
his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on
the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive
Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and
Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are
archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
Save
Add
Comments