Obama Speech on Libya

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ramadhan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 77
  • Views Views 13K
...As well as getting rid of Khaddafi and helping to bring to power someone more friendly (friendlier than Khaddafi) to western interests. Trying to Make friends with the people all over the Arab world by helping to take out one dictator with the intent that maybe the people will forget they supported these dictators for decades etc. But judging by recent events I don't think all is going according to plan.

Like who? The West certainly didn't support Gaddafi 'for decades'; quite the contrary. Normal diplomatic relations were only restored over the last few years, and only when Gaddafi actually did what what the US and UK (the victims of Lockerbie) had been demanding; quit supporting terrorism anywhere and cancel development programmes for WMDs.
 
:sl:

I have not been keeping up with the news but I'll share my thoughts on this issue.

I'm not sure why the US wants to get involved in Libya. I doubt the US wants to help the Libyan rebels. I'm not convinced that any country would get involved in other countries' domestic affairs unless their national interests were affected. The US ignored the Saudi troops attacking the Bahraini civilians or the violence taking place within Yemen. For those who believe the US is getting involved for charitable purpose are clearly naive or living in a fantasy world.

Anyway, I'm not surprised that Libya was targeted. Following 9/11, the neoconservatives had significantly influenced the US foreign policy. The necons are Zionists and targeted the following countries: Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

They are particularly interested in Iraq, Iran and Syria. As a result Iraq was invaded. Many believe the Iraq invasion was about oil but I disagree. The main reason I think why Iraq was invaded because of Israel. Israel, through AIPAC, put significant pressure on the Bush Administration to attack Iraq because it was considered a strategic threat to Israel. I think oil was a factor but not the main reason behind the Iraq invasion. If oil was the main motive, then Saudi Arabia would have been targeted because it has the world largest oil supply. In addition, it would not have been difficult to connect Al-Qaeda with Saudi Arabia.

Israel clearly perceives Iran as a threat. The Afghanistan war might be to Israel advantage because the US troops are stationed there and even in Pakistan.

"Operation in Afghanistan is rooted in Israel"

There are US bases in Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and in Iraq. I think there are US bases in Saudi Arabia too but I'm not sure...anyway, the point is, Iran is completely surrounded.

So I see a long-term plan for the US to build a military presence in that region and to surround hostile countries like Iran and Syria. I think the US is interested in Libya due to a strategic reason but I could be wrong...there might be another reason.

What intervention in Libya tells us about the neocon-liberal alliance

^ I'm certain the neconservatives have played a role behind Libya's invasion...
 
UK and US have cultivated an image as promoters of 'freedom' and 'democracy',

Promoters of freedom and democracy? they are promoters of satan and who sell thier own wife and daughters for TV ads and prostitution.
do libyan's need help of bunch of kuffars to rid their country of a tyrant?

May allah help this ummah and our brothers in libya, only allah knows if it will get easy of worse
 
Bizarre, isn't it?



Apart from the obvious flaw that as Gaddafi was quite happy to sell us oil anyway, surely 'the plan' with taht object should have been supporting him and not the rebels? Not to mention that there would be no restriction in supply, and only a minor price increase. The Saudis and others would just increase production to manage the supply; that's what OPEC is for. Likewise, if/when Gaddafi goes that price reduction won't be happening either!

Thats like a few months ago - we've dumped him - soon as the problems in Libya began it was time take the oil off Gaddafis hands -

do you think Gaddafis still going to give us oil now when they/we have been trying to kill him? If he stays in power it will just be another Iran - very different from anything us westerners have pulled on Gaddafi I tell you.

Opec doesnt seem to be helping right now the prices are sky high and gaddafi staying will just make them go way higher - taking him and taking side with next regime will secure some stabilty back to the oil prices. You'll see the plans going smooth.

We cant rely on saudis for long - Theres been uprisings all around them - Bahrian, Yemen, Egypt, Syria. I'm shocked nothing happend in saudi arabia.

Just securing the oil guys dont mind us.
 
Last edited:
So I see a long-term plan for the US to build a military presence in that region and to surround hostile countries like Iran and Syria. I think the US is interested in Libya due to a strategic reason but I could be wrong...there might be another reason


Might want to put your tinfoil hat on before reading this. The entire invasion of the middle east was an Israeli idea called operation shekhinah that was later named operation iraqi freedom. Operation Shekhinah itself is part of the plan of the new strategy for securing the realm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

Gaddafi is not useful anymore. The west used saddam to attack Iran and had no problem giving him biological weapons but after that he was no longer useful. Gaddafi funded sarkozy's campaign in france and he is no longer useful.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/170262.html
 
...As well as getting rid of Khaddafi and helping to bring to power someone more friendly (friendlier than Khaddafi) to western interests. Trying to Make friends with the people all over the Arab world by helping to take out one dictator with the intent that maybe the people will forget they supported these dictators for decades etc. But judging by recent events I don't think all is going according to plan.

I can understand your confusion. ^o)
Salam

Kaddafis been more crafty then that - he hasnt been like other arab dictators - The UK didnt like him for a long time until they sorted out the Lockerbie bombing break up.
 
Salaam

Good article on the current situation

]Libya: Politics of humanitarian intervention

The process of implementing the UN resolution on Libya was a poorly executed farce with no long-term foresight.



Iraq and Afghanistan teach us that humanitarian intervention does not end with the removal of the danger it purports to target. It only begins with it. Having removed the target, the intervention grows and turns into the real problem. This is why to limit the discussion of the Libyan intervention to its stated rationale – saving civilian lives – is barely scratching the political surface.

The short life of the Libyan intervention suggests that we distinguish between justification and execution in writing its biography. Justification was a process internal to the United Nations Security Council, but execution is not. In addition to authorising a "no-fly zone" and tightening sanctions against "the Gaddafi regime and its supporters", Resolution 1973 called for "all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi." At the same time, it expressly "excluded a foreign occupation force of any form" or in "any part of Libyan territory".

UN conflicts

The UN process is notable for two reasons. First, the resolution was passed with a vote of 10 in favour and five abstaining. The abstaining governments – Russia, China, India, Brazil, Germany – represent the vast majority of humanity.

Even though the African Union had resolved against an external intervention and called for a political resolution to the conflict, the two African governments in the Security Council – South Africa and Nigeria – voted in favour of the resolution. They have since echoed the sentiments of the governments that abstained, that they did not have in mind the scale of the intervention that has actually occurred.

The second thing notable about the UN process is that though the Security Council is central to the process of justification, it is peripheral to the process of execution.
The Russian and Chinese representatives complained that the resolution left vague "how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be."

Having authorised the intervention, the Security Council left its implementation to any and all, it "authorised Member States, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements." As with every right, this free for all was only in theory; in practise, the right could only be exercised by those who possessed the means to do so.
As the baton passed from the UN Security Council to the US and NATO, its politics became clearer.

Money trail

When it came to the assets freeze and arms embargo, the Resolution called on the Secretary-General to create an eight-member panel of experts to assist the Security Council committee in monitoring the sanctions. Libyan assets are mainly in the US and Europe, and they amount to hundreds of billions of dollars: the US Treasury froze $30bn of liquid assets, and US banks $18bn. What is to happen to interest on these assets?

The absence of any specific arrangement assets are turned into a booty, an interest-free loan, in this instance, to US Treasury and US banks. Like the military intervention, there is nothing international about the implementing sanctions regime. From its point of view, the international process is no more than a legitimating exercise.

If the legitimation is international, implementation is privatised, passing the initiative to the strongest of member states. The end result is a self-constituted coalition of the willing.
War furthers many interests. Each war is a laboratory for testing the next generation of weapons. It is well known that the Iraq war led to more civilian than military victims.
The debate then was over whether or not these casualties were intended. In Libya, the debate is over facts. It points to the fact that the US and NATO are perfecting a new
generation of weapons, weapons meant for urban warfare, weapons designed to minimise collateral damage.

The objective is to destroy physical assets with minimum cost in human lives. The cost to the people of Libya will be of another type. The more physical assets are destroyed, the less sovereign will be the next government in Libya.

Libya's opposition

The full political cost will become clear in the period of transition. The anti-Gaddafi coalition comprises four different political trends: radical Islamists, royalists, tribalists, and secular middle class activists produced by a Western-oriented educational system. Of these, only the radical Islamists, especially those linked organisationally to Al Qaeda, have battle experience.

They – like NATO – have the most to gain in the short term from a process that is more military than political. This is why the most likely outcome of a military resolution in Libya will be an Afghanistan-type civil war. One would think that this would be clear to the powers waging the current war on Libya, because they were the same powers waging war in Afghanistan. Yet, they have so far showed little interest in a political resolution. Several facts point to this.

The African Union delegation sent to Libya to begin discussions with Col. Gaddafi in pursuit of a political resolution to the conflict was denied permission to fly over Libya – and thus land in Tripoli – by the NATO powers. The New York Times reported that Libyan tanks on the road to Benghazi were bombed from the air Iraq War-style, when they were retreating and not when they were advancing.

The two pilots of the US fighter jet F15-E that crashed near Benghazi were rescued by US forces on the ground, now admitted to be CIA operatives, a clear violation of Resolution 1973 that points to an early introduction of ground forces. The logic of a political resolution was made clear by Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, in a different context: "We have made clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing Bahrain. Violence is not the answer, a political process is."

That Clinton has been deaf to this logic when it comes to Libya is testimony that so far, the pursuit of interest has defied learning political lessons of past wars, most importantly Afghanistan. Marx once wrote that important events in history occur, as it were, twice – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. He should have added, that for its victims, farce is a tragedy compounded.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201133111277476962.html
 
Last edited:
I've only been skimming through this thread, but are some people here actually pro qaddafi? those videos that people posted seem to imply that we have at least some people here who think he's a good guy...
 
I've only been skimming through this thread, but are some people here actually pro qaddafi? those videos that people posted seem to imply that we have at least some people here who think he's a good guy...
Not necessarily. What he is doing is now is obviously wrong but he did have some redeeming qualities prior to the situation in Libya now and I did used to like him, even Saddam Hussein had some redeeming qualities that doesnt mean Saddam wasnt a mass murderer...I may be against what Khaddafi is doing to the people of Libya but i'm alot more against those trying to interfere in Libya's affairs now in the guise of humanitarian concerns. Better the devil you know kind of thing...
Salam
 
I've only been skimming through this thread, but are some people here actually pro qaddafi? those videos that people posted seem to imply that we have at least some people here who think he's a good guy...

Salaam,

I always found him annoying but now I think he is a lunatic.
 
Salaam

Libya and the World of Oil

by Noam Chomsky


Last month, at the international tribunal on crimes during the civil war in Sierra Leone, the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor came to an end.

The chief prosecutor, U.S. law professor David Crane, informed The Times of London that the case was incomplete: The prosecutors intended to charge Moammar Gadhafi, who, Crane said, “was ultimately responsible for the mutilation, maiming and/or murder of 1.2 million people.”But the charge was not to be. The U.S., U.K. and others intervened to block it. Asked why, Crane said, “Welcome to the world of oil.”

Another recent Gadhafi casualty was Sir Howard Davies, the director of the London School of Economics, who resigned after revelations of the school’s links to the Libyan dictator. In Cambridge, Mass., the Monitor Group, a consultancy firm founded by Harvard professors, was well paid for such services as a book to bring Gadhafi’s immortal words to the public “in conversation with renowned international experts,” along with other efforts “to enhance international appreciation of (Gadhafi’s) Libya.”

The world of oil is rarely far in the background in affairs concerning this region. For example, as the dimensions of the U.S. defeat in Iraq could no longer be concealed, pretty rhetoric was displaced by honest announcement of policy goals. In November 2007 the White House issued a Declaration of Principles insisting that Iraq must grant indefinite access and privilege to American investors.

Two months later President Bush informed Congress that he would reject legislation that might limit the permanent stationing of U.S. armed forces in Iraq or “United States control of the oil resources of Iraq” – demands that the U.S. had to abandon shortly afterward in the face of Iraqi resistance.

The world of oil provides useful guidance for western reactions to the remarkable democracy uprisings in the Arab world. An oil-rich dictator who is a reliable client is granted virtual free rein. There was little reaction when Saudi Arabia declared on March 5, “Laws and regulations in the Kingdom totally prohibit all kinds of demonstrations, marches and sit-in protests as well as calling for them as they go against the principles of Shariah and Saudi customs and traditions.” The kingdom mobilized huge security forces that rigorously enforced the ban. In Kuwait, small demonstrations were crushed. The mailed fist struck in Bahrain after Saudi-led military forces intervened to ensure that the minority Sunni monarchy would not be threatened by calls for democratic reforms.

Bahrain is sensitive not only because it hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet but also because it borders Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, the location of most of the kingdom’s oil. The world’s primary energy resources happen to be located near the northern Persian Gulf (or Arabian Gulf, as Arabs often call it), largely Shiite, a potential nightmare for Western planners. In Egypt and Tunisia, the popular uprising has won impressive victories, but as the Carnegie Endowment reported, the regimes remain and are “seemingly determined to curb the pro-democracy momentum generated so far. A change in ruling elites and system of governance is still a distant goal” – and one that the West will seek to keep far removed. Libya is a different case, an oil-rich state run by a brutal dictator, who, however, is unreliable: A dependable client would be far preferable. When nonviolent protests erupted, Gadhafi moved quickly to crush them.

On March 22, as Gadhafi’s forces were converging on the rebel capital of Benghazi, top Obama Middle East adviser Dennis Ross warned that if there is a massacre, “everyone would blame us for it,” an unacceptable consequence. And the West certainly didn’t want Gadhafi to enhance his power and independence by crushing the rebellion. The U.S. joined in the U.N. Security Council authorization of a “no-fly zone,” to be implemented by France, the U.K. and the U.S.

The intervention prevented a likely massacre but was interpreted by the coalition as authorizing direct support for the rebels. A cease-fire was imposed on Gadhafi’s forces, but the rebels were helped to advance to the West. In short order they conquered the major sources of Libya’s oil production, at least temporarily.

On March 28, the London-based Arab journal Al-Quds Al-Arabi warned that the intervention may leave Libya with “two states, a rebel-held, oil-rich East and a poverty-stricken, Gadhafi-led West. ... Given that the oil wells have been secured, we may find ourselves facing a new Libyan oil emirate, sparsely inhabited, protected by the West and very similar to the Gulf’s emirate states.” Or the Western-backed rebellion might proceed all the way to eliminate the irritating dictator.

It is commonly argued that oil cannot be a motive for the intervention because the West had access to the prize under Gadhafi. True but irrelevant. The same could be said about Iraq under Saddam Hussein, or Iran and Cuba today.

What the West seeks is what Bush announced: control, or at least dependable clients, and in the case of Libya, access to vast unexplored areas expected to be rich in oil. U.S and British internal documents stress that the “virus of nationalism” is the greatest fear, since it might breed disobedience.

The intervention is being conducted by the three traditional imperial powers (though we may recall – Libyans presumably do – that, after World War I, Italy conducted genocide in eastern Libya).
The western powers are acting in virtual isolation. States in the region – Turkey and Egypt – want no part of it, nor does Africa. The Gulf dictators would be happy to see Gadhafi gone – but, even as they’re groaning under the weight of advanced weapons provided to them to recycle petrodollars and ensure obedience, they barely offer more than token participation. The same is true beyond: India, Brazil and even Germany.

The Arab Spring has deep roots. The region has been simmering for years. The first of the current wave of protests began last year in Western Sahara, the last African colony, invaded by Morocco in 1975 and illegally held since, in a manner similar to East Timor and the Israeli-occupied territories. A nonviolent protest last November was crushed by Moroccan forces. France intervened to block a Security Council inquiry into the crimes of its client.

Then a flame ignited in Tunisia that has since spread into a conflagration.

http://www.zcommunications.org/libya-and-the-world-of-oil-by-noam-chomsky
 
Salaam

So the quest to 'liberate' Libya grinds on. Hard hitting article

David Cameron's gift of war and racism, to them and us


The Euro-American attack on Libya has nothing to do with protecting anyone; only the terminally naive believe such nonsense. It is the West’s response to popular uprisings in strategic, resource-rich regions of the world and the beginning of a war of attrition against the new imperial rival, China.

President Barack Obama’s historical distinction is now guaranteed. He is America’s first black president to invade Africa. His assault on Libya is run by the US Africa Command, which was set up in 2007 to secure the continent’s lucrative natural resources from Africa’s impoverished people and the rapidly spreading commercial influence of China. Libya, along with Angola and Nigeria, is China’s principal source of oil. As American, British and French planes currently incinerate both “bad” and “good” Libyans, the evacuation of 30,000 Chinese workers is under way, perhaps permanently. Statements by western officials and media that a “deranged and criminal Colonel Gaddafi” is planning “genocide” against his own people still await evidence. This is reminiscent of fraudulent claims that required “humanitarian intervention” in Kosovo, the final dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the establishment of the biggest US military base in Europe.

The detail is also familiar. The Libyan “pro-democracy rebels” are reportedly commanded by Colonel Khalifa Haftar who, according to a study by the US Jamestown Foundation, set up the Libyan National Army in 1988 “with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency”. For the past 20 years, Colonel Haftar has been living not far from Langley, Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp. The Mujihadeen, which produced al-Qaida, and the Iraqi National Congress, which scripted the Bush/Blair lies about Iraq, were sponsored in the same time-honoured way, in leafy Langley.

Libya’s other “rebel” leaders include Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Gaddafi’s justice minister until February, and General Abdel-Fattah Younes, who ran Gaddafi’s interior ministry: both with formidable reputations for savagely putting down dissent. There is a civil and tribal war in Libya, which includes popular outrage against Gaddafi’s human rights record. However, it is Libya’s independence, not the nature of its regime, that is intolerable to the west in a region of vassals; and this hostility has barely changed in the 42 years since Gaddafi overthrew the feudal king Idris, one the more odious tyrants backed by the west. With his Bedouin hyperbole and bizarre ways, Gaddafi has long made an ideal “mad dog” (Daily Mirror), now requiring heroic US, French and British pilots to bomb urban areas in Tripoli, including a maternity hospital and a cardiac centre. The last US bombing in 1986 managed to kill his adopted daughter.

What the US, British and French hope to achieve is the opposite of a people’s liberation. In undermining efforts Libya’s genuine democrats and nationalists to free their country from both a dictator and those corrupted by foreign demands, the sound and fury from Washington, London and Paris has succeeded in dimming the memory of January’s days of hope in Tunis and Cairo and distracted many, who had taken heart, from the task of ensuring that their gains are not stolen quietly. On 23 March, the US-backed Egyptian military issued a decree barring all strikes and protests. This was barely reported in the west. With Gaddafi now the accredited demon, Israel, the real canker, can continue its wholesale land theft and expulsions. Facebook has come under Zionist pressure to remove a page calling for a full scale Palestinian uprising - a “Third Intifada” - on 15 May.

None of this should surprise. History suggests nothing less than the kind of machination revealed by two senior diplomats at the United Nations, who spoke to the Asia Times. Demanding to know why the UN never ordered a fact-finding mission to Libya instead of an attack, they were told that a deal had been done between the White House and Saudi Arabia. A US “coalition” would “take out” the recalcitrant Gaddafi if the Saudis put down the popular uprising in Bahrain. The latter has been accomplished, and the bloodied King of Bahrain will be a guest at the Royal Wedding in London.

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/david-cameron-s-gift-of-war-and-racism-to-them-and-us
 
Well Well ... The US has finally taken a more aggressive approach and started firing off missiles. Maybe they get more impatience now that Khaddafi is not out yet after all this. I wonder what the assorted atheists who ridiculed me in previous pages are saying now.

(note to Tyrion and anyone else before jumping into conclusion: just because I criticize the US military involvement in Libya does not mean I support Khadaffi).


DOD: First Predator strike carried out in Libya


WASHINGTON – The Pentagon says the U.S. Air Force has carried out its first Predator missile strike in Libya.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt. Darryn James, said the airstrike happened Saturday. He provided no details.
On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates disclosed that President Barack Obama had approved the use of armed Predator drones to improve the precision of strikes on Libyan government forces.
Predators had previously been used in Libya only for surveillance missions.
 
Salaam

(Previous thread
http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=134304182)

Yes, Its pretty depressing how many people have fallen for the fanciful notion that this is a 'humanitarian' intervention, given the past record of western powers.

Just speculation, I think western powers want to install a 'friendly' vassal state that will be suitably obedient to western interests (eg. commercial). Also wouldnt be surprised if this is aimed at China, particualrly its ablity to access oil on favourable terms.

its like a geopolitcal game of chess.

Nice entertaining 12 min video on the subject.


I feel for the Libyans, they are between a rock and a hard place. Who will they submit to? Gaddafi and his family or will they acquinese to becoming a vassal state of western powers.

Of course the idea that Libyans could rule themselves is to outlandish to contemplate.

No easy choices. :(
 
Last edited:
Salaam

this is interesting from Putin


Of course I dont trust his motives, being more concerned with guarding Russian interests but nevertheless his analysis is perceptive.

Heres another


Speech given by Jeremy Corbyn MP in the House of Commons on 18 March 2011 when MPs debated western intervention in Libya.. Again another perceptive speech

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php...ial-treatment-for-gadaffi-by-jeremy-corbyn-mp

Heres some statements from leading Trade Unions in the UK

unite_the_union_60.jpg


Unite the union believes the attack on Libya by British, French and US forces is wrong and should be halted.

While holding no brief for Colonel Gaddafi and his regime, and strongly supporting the movements now developing for democracy and freedom across the Arab world, Unite believes the present military intervention is a mistake because:

It risks killing Libyan civilians while doing nothing to end hostilities on the ground.
It prolongs a civil conflict when what is needed is a ceasefire followed by mediation.
It raises the possibility of escalation leading to military occupation of all or part of Libya, when similar occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown how disastrous and counter-productive such interventions are. This could lead to a wider war in the region.
The action has little or no Arab involvement, and is opposed by, amongst others, Russia, China and India, leaving it dependent on those western powers whose policies have aroused deep hostility throughout the Middle East.
It stands in contrast to the indulgence shown by the government to the autocrats in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who have been allowed to repress movements for democracy in their own countries with impunity.

We urge the British government to think again, call a halt to the military action and urge a general ceasefire to be followed by international mediation.

unison_logo_60.jpg


"The record of the Gadaffi regime and the serious concerns over the safety of civilians in the areas of Libya that supported the revolt against his regime led to the United Nations Security Council resolution establishing the no-fly zone. However, the intervention of NATO forces potentially risks prolonging a civil conflict and a division on Libya, instead of a lasting solution that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people."

stuc_logo.jpg


This Congress supports the right to protest for people around the world and expresses its solidarity with people in Libya who seek democracy and regime change. Congress, however, is not convinced that the current military action is contributing to a positive solution for the Libyan people.

Congress is concerned that the military action taken by British, French and US forces goes beyond the scope of the UN resolution and has resulted in civilian casualties. Furthermore, this action is likely to lead to further and significant ‘mission creep’ increasing the humanitarian costs and resulting in large numbers of refugees fleeing the area. It may also result in Britain becoming involved in a long and drawn out ground offensive, to the detriment of the Libyan people. The belief that Gaddafi’s regime would crumble in the face of international pressure has become less likely with each passing day and this Congress believes that the current military action has precipitated a stalemate.

Furthermore, this activity does not contribute to the development of civil society organisations, such as independent trade unions, which are required to build democracy and ensure lasting change for Libya.

Congress, therefore, urges the UK Government to:

work towards a cessation of the current military action in Libya and towards a diplomatic solution that will allow for a peaceful transition to democracy;
encourage the growth of an independent civil society in Libya and other Middle Eastern nations, including support for the development of truly independent trade unions.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php...ons-calls-for-immediate-halt-to-libya-bombing
 
Last edited:
Salaam

The quest to 'protect' the civillians of Libya continues! This time its getting even more 'muscular'


Apache helicopters to be sent into Libya by Britain

Use of helicopters, which can attack small targets, represents significant escalation of conflict


Britain and France are to deploy attack helicopters against Libya in an attempt to break the military stalemate, particularly in the important coastal city of Misrata, security sources have told the Guardian.

In a significant escalation of the conflict, the Apaches – based on HMS Ocean – will join French helicopters in risky operations which reflect deepening frustration among British and French defence chiefs about their continuing inability to protect civilians in Libya.
Apaches, which are being used in counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan, can manoeuvre and attack small targets in relatively built-up areas. Heavily armed Apaches and French Tiger helicopters are equipped with night vision equipment and electronic guidance systems. Forces loyal to the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, have shed their uniforms, are using civilian vehicles and hiding armour near civilian buildings, including hospitals and schools.

The decision to deploy the helicopters is a clear recognition that high-level bombing from 15,000 feet cannot protect civilians who continue to be attacked by rocket and mortar shells. It brings the Nato offensive much closer to the ground at a time when Britain and other Nato countries are insisting they have no intention of sending in troops. However, the helicopters could be vulnerable to handheld rocket-propelled grenades and even rifle fire.

Hospital officials said two people were killed and several wounded during Monday's fighting in Misrata. Later, heavy explosions outside the city were heard, lasting about an hour. Reuters quoted a rebel spokesman as saying that forces loyal to Gaddafi also shelled the rebel-held town of Zintan and moved troops close to the mountainous region bordering Tunisia, intensifying operations on the war's western front.

On Monday Nato warplanes bombed Tripoli in what appeared to be the heaviest night of bombing since the start of the air campaign against Gaddafi's forces and his sprawling compound. More than 20 airstrikes in less than half an hour set off thunderous booms that rattled windows around the city. Britain and France clearly hope that the use of attack helicopters, and the fact of revealing the intention to use them, will deter pro-Gaddafi forces and assuage Libyan rebels who have been demanding more effective military action from Nato countries. The sight of Nato forces actually on the ground would be strongly opposed by most countries in the alliance, including the US and also those Arab countries in favour of the air campaign against Gaddafi's forces.

The foreign secretary, William Hague, attending an EU ministerial meeting in Brussels, said: "We are very much behind the intensification of the military campaign and ... so is France." He added: "We certainly agree with France, and indeed with all our partners, including all our partners at the EU meeting here today, that it is necessary to intensify the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the Gaddafi regime."

Alain Juppé, France's foreign minister, confirmed that Paris has dispatched a dozen helicopters to add greater strike force to the campaign against Gaddafi in Libya. He said that the 12 Tiger and Gazelle helicopters sent from Toulon on 17 May would enable "us to better adapt our ground attack capacity with more precise means of striking".

He added: "Our strategy is to step up the military pressure in the weeks ahead while pushing at the same time for a political solution." According to French sources, the battleship Tonnerre, carrying the helicopters, left Toulon last week. The vessel combines the roles of helicopter carrier, hospital ship, and troops transporter. Juppé said the helicopters would not be used to deploy ground forces in Libya and that the decision to send them was fully in line with the UN security council resolution mandating attacks in Libya.

The French newspaper Le Figaro said the helicopters would be assisted by target identification from French special forces who have been on the ground in Libya since the start of the allied operation there. The Ministry of Defence does not comment on special forces' operations. Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said: "This is a significant development. It is right that the alliance is intensifying military pressure on Gaddafi's forces, but the British government needs to be clearer about a political strategy for Libya and whether the military commitment to Libya is an open-ended one."

The first international stabilisation response team has arrived in Libya, the international development secretary Andrew Mitchell has confirmed . He said Britain would continue to provide medical and emergency food supplies, adding that "the international community also needs to start thinking strategically about what is needed now to help lay the foundations for a stable, secure Libya".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/23/apache-helicopters-libya-britain









And in the age of austerity and cuts, the UK can still miraculously afford to spend hundreds of millions bombing another third world country.

Libya: on track to be Britain's £1 billion war

We were told it would cost "tens, not hundreds of millions", but after two months the war on Libya is already over £100 million, and by September it's likely to top £1 billion.

Britain's involvement in the Libya conflict will cost the taxpayer as much as £1bn if it continues into the autumn as expected, according to expert analysis and data gathered by the Guardian.

Two months after western powers began bombing Libyan targets to protect civilians in Operation Unified Protector, the cost to Britain so far of the dozens of bombs dropped, hundreds of sorties flown and more than 1,000 service personnel deployed is estimated at more than £100m, according to British defence officials. But defence economists have told the Guardian the costings are conservative. Francis Tusa, editor of the Defence Analysis newsletter, estimates that by the end of April Libyan operations had already cost the UK about £300m and that the bill was increasing by up to £38m a week.

Military chiefs have acknowledged that the air campaign would last six months. At this rate, the Ministry of Defence's own estimates will put the cost of war at about £400m, but the expert view is that the figure will top £1bn by September.

Another defence analyst told the Guardian £1bn was probably at the top end of the scale, but that it would not be a complete surprise in Whitehall if this was the final bill for six months of operations.

"A lot of what they are doing out there is a substitute for training that would have cost anyway," he said.

"The final cost will depend on whether the Treasury is prepared to pay for replacements for all the bombs and missiles that have been used so far."

British warplanes are increasingly involved along with the French and Italians. According to data collected by the Guardian for the six weeks of aerial operations up to 5 May, the British have flown 25% of nearly 6,000 sorties over Libyan skies – second only to the Americans. The US total was inflated by an early surge, and it has now scaled back its operations. For the five weeks to 5 May , Britain flew more sorties than any other country. But British planes have been dropping far fewer bombs than their allies, relative to the number of flights .

So far, they have attacked about 300 targets, perhaps only 10% of the few thousands destroyed by Nato aircraft.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/middle-east--north-africa/513-libya-britains-p1-billion-war
 
Salaam

Unsurprising (Western) special forces are involved directly in the fighting, no boots on the ground I see. . . . . . . .

Al-Jazeera footage captures 'western troops on the ground' in Libya

Five of Gaddafi's generals are among latest defectors to rebels as South African president seeks to broker ceasefire



2:00 minutes onwards

Armed westerners have been filmed on the front line with rebels near Misrata in the first apparent confirmation that foreign special forces are playing an active role in the Libyan conflict.

A group of six westerners are clearly visible in a report by al-Jazeera from Dafniya, described as the westernmost point of the rebel lines west of the town of Misrata. Five of them were armed and wearing sand-coloured clothes, peaked caps, and cotton Arab scarves.

The sixth, apparently the most senior of the group, was carrying no visible weapon and wore a pink, short-sleeve shirt. He may be an intelligence officer. The group is seen talking to rebels and then quickly leaving on being spotted by the television crew.

The footage emerged as South Africa's president, Jacob Zuma, arrived in Tripoli in an attempt to broker a ceasefire. He described reports that he would ask Muammar Gaddafi to step down as "misleading", and said he would instead focus on humanitarian measures and ways to implement a plan concocted by the African Union for Libya make a transition to democratic rule but not seek Gaddafi's exile.

The westerners were seen by al-Jazeera on rebel lines late last week, days before British and French attack helicopters are due to join the Nato campaign. They are likely to be deployed on the outskirts of Misrata, from where pro-Gaddafi forces continue to shell rebel positions to the east.

There have been numerous reports in the British press that SAS soldiers are acting as spotters in Libya to help Nato warplanes target pro-Gaddafi forces. In March, six special forces soldiers and two MI6 officers were detained by rebel fighters when they landed on an abortive mission to meet rebel leaders in Benghazi, in an embarrassing episode for the SAS.

The group was withdrawn soon afterwards and a new "liaison team" sent in its place. Asked for comment on Monday, a Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said: "We don't have any forces out there."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/western-troops-on-ground-libya
 
Where's trumble when you need him?

I got chastised by him for saying that Obama's speech on Libya would mark the beginning of western troop involvement on the ground in Libya, and he said that there's no way that the western countries would be directly militarily involved in Libya.
 
Interesting read below from The Oil Empire (US) web site. It's all about the oil!

"Oil geography in the Middle East is a primary motivator of US policies. The selection of Senator Biden to be Obama's Vice Presidential running mate confirms this understanding, as Biden's failed Presidential campaign in 2007 was primarily focused on dismembering Iraq as a supposed solution to ethnic conflict between different groups that allegedly was not fueled by the US occupation. This partition would make it much easier for the US to control the oil fields -- and a long term goal is to similarly divide Iran and Saudi Arabia, creating a new country out of eastern Saudi Arabia, southern Iraq and western Iran that would have nearly all of the oil of those three countries. If this new "Arab Shia state" were combined with US allies Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, this would give the US control over half of the world's remaining oil reserves. This is not a "failure" of US policy in Iraq, merely an extremely cynical Machiavellian strategy. However, this goal probably would require a President with a better image than George W. Bush to conclude. Bush was the Bad Cop for the Empire, Obama has the potential to be the Good Cop."
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top