Libyan War : Political and strategic aspects

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 10 Apr 2011 01:18

BTW, Syria has a Baathist regime as well... the party split in the early days and one guy influenced the Syrian regime (one Michel Aflaak IIRC) and another chap influenced the Iraqi side... nevertheless because of their ideological similarities they made an attempt at "unification" - with Saddam on one side and Hafez Al Assad on the other you can imagine how well that went. ...of course the "unfication" idea focusing on these two countries has been around since the crusader days (we keep coming back to that...) and a few attempts have been made ...

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Apr 2011 17:32

State Dept wants a political solution - they are looking at Saif Al Islam as a solution for libya,. They want a transition between Gaddafi. So state dept is arguing for Saif to take power during transition.

US state dept sent former number 2 at US emb tripoli to give US support to the TNC in Benghazi. Some US senator has spoken with Gaddahfi.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Apr 2011 19:34

the rebels are hardly poor people - most seem to have come in their own cars and look well dressed and fed. evidence that the qadhafi regime while enriching its close circle and unwilling to tolerate dissent, did spread some butter on the bread for everyone.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 10 Apr 2011 21:19

It definitely did... perhaps better than many others, which are much closer to the US

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 10 Apr 2011 21:53

The rebels are for the most part middle class civilians - they just dont have the organisation, training , weapons or cash to hold out against Qadafi's family based C2, experienced Tuareg mercenaries, and tens of billions in gold and cash.

Qadafi's irregular light forces are pretty much indistinguishable from the air from the rebels once they're in contact with each other.

There's only two ways that Qadafi can be pushed; more strikes that disrupt Qadafi's command and control and puts the top family members on the run.

The second is enough FACs or SF to actually direct strikes on every prong of Qadafi thrusts, not just one or two at a time. Qadafi has the numbers and organisation to multiply the points of pressure under current rules of engagement.

Neither of these actions are supported by the wording of the UNSC resolution, and Russia is certainly not ready to allow those changes.

Secondly Secretary of Defence Gates and the Joint Chiefs have fought US military involvement in Libya tooth and nail, seeing it as a distraction from the Afghanistan mission, a possible Iraq all over again. While Cameron has been enthusiastic about intervention, the defence services are keeping the footprint small in anticipation of the cuts that the government have confirmed will be effected beginning this summer. Once again Afghanistan is the ongoing commitment that they wont wish away, unlike the politicians.

In the end the US need to preserve NATO's credibility may tip the balance for the Obama administration, but this may well put them in conflict with the UNSC resolutions. Its going to be down to the wire.

The other issue the massive human exodus you can imagine from Benghazi if Qadafi looks like he's going to retake the city. The French and Italians dont want to deal with that, and neither do the Egyptians.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 11 Apr 2011 01:10

JE Menon wrote:It definitely did... perhaps better than many others, which are much closer to the US

On a per capita basis Libya has and produces as much oil as Suadi Arabia or even the UAE. Just from the sale of oil alone every Libyan should have had an income of over $10,000. Yet only a fraction of that wealth is visible amongst the people.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 12 Apr 2011 02:47

Clinton renews calls for Kadhafi to leave Libya
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 0aed5e.2d1

Africa’s defective Libyan peace plan
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2775d8d4-6474 ... z1JFmHYIif

Can the UN clean up Libya?
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... n_up_libya

Why not follow Ivory Style of overthrowing Gaddafi? I mean send an UN ground force with opposition which will throw Gaddafi out. This UN force will have mainly Arabic countries and also Asian countries that will defeat Gaddafi and capture him. Anything should be done soone and quick.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 12 Apr 2011 05:13

Well, Gaddafi's military is significantly more powerful, he has oil wealth and has bought many allies. Also the African Union will never go for it, and who knows if the UN would actually do anything?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Apr 2011 05:33

My Years As Gaddafi's Nurse

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 12 Apr 2011 05:45

abhischekcc wrote:My bad.

Yes Mossadegh was in Iran. But the progression remains the same. The shah was placed because he would crush the democratic forces in Iran, then when he started to nationalise the oil industry and bid for peace with Iraq, he was replaced by the mind numbing Khomeini. Who not only crushed the democratic aspirations of that country but also restarted the aggression against Iraq which the shah had stopped in larger interests of both countries. Then, when 8 tired years later, Iraq and Iran made peace, Saddam was lured into the quagmire in Kuwait (not that he needed much prompting), and another round of blood letting started. And when.....

The story, just one sense murder campaign promoted by the west after another.

So when pro-US regime comes in, that is a puppet regime installed by CIA. When virulently anti-US regime comes in overthrowing CIA-installed regime, that is also a puppet regime installed by CIA. What a useful bogeyman! It all stems from the mythical belief in superhuman American power where anything that occurs must be planned result of such superhumans, no matter how complex or chaotic it looks. Then read the tea leaves, and aha! a secret plan reveals itself.

But from where I'm sitting it looks as if American foreign policy is neither so cohesive nor so brilliant. There are many moves of very questionable wisdom as well as moves that are smart and sensible. Invasion of Iraq; what has that achieved? Was it a seed planted to get this Jasmine revolution started, or was it a seed planted to destabilize the region to some nebulous unknown end, or was it a saga of blunders which cost the US trillions and might contribute to its decline? It seems, if anything, the latter. Apparently, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is some normal maneuver but American invasion is some brilliant master plan of unleashing jihad? I don't see that either.

It seems to me that there are times that the American empire has tried to use jihadis for its own ends and there are times when it has tried to crush or redirect the same forces for its own ends. It also seems as if other players have their own motivations and capabilities- and that has been a big factor in the current Mid-east situation. Which gets very short shrift in your analysis because you know, since Americans are superhuman, no one else matters. How is this supposed analysis proceeding without paying any attention whatsoever to Soviet and European influences, for a start.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 12 Apr 2011 07:56

^^^
we have to understand that having a foot in both camps is classic Anglo strategy which Americans have adopted. Iraq was a result of utter hubris and overconfidence in themselves. doesn't mean Iraq didn't have an objective. 9/11 planted the idea that the time had once again come to eliminate the Muslim heretics. combine these lofty ideas with arrogance and overconfidence, and the result is Iraq.

Americans are not superhumans. but America is a truly Global power. due to such power, they have defined the entire globe as their backyard. they have defined a set of interests in every corner of the globe. this is what makes America dangerous. it is a nation full of power and wishes to use that power to create all kinds of harakiri.

to be paranoid of America is the first step in the defense mechanism. to understand their ways and strategies is the second step. to form cohesive strategy to oppose/counter them is the third step. there is nothing wrong with it. on the contrary, it is necessary, if we must preserve India's interests.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Apr 2011 08:03

devesh wrote: to be paranoid of America is the first step in the defense mechanism. to understand their ways and strategies is the second step. to form cohesive strategy to oppose/counter them is the third step. there is nothing wrong with it. on the contrary, it is necessary, if we must preserve India's interests.

^^
+1

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Apr 2011 08:09

Exellelently put Deveshji!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Apr 2011 08:11

Devesh, Sometime before you joined we used to have threads to understand America for it is complex. It got deleted when folks in a fit of remorse after 2008, wondered why we have so many threads to understand America.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 12 Apr 2011 08:57

^^^
a humble thank you. as a side note, i should say that no author has helped me understand America better than George Friedman. he is an unrepentant imperialist of the British mold. but his writing on American imperialism has been very open. he doesn't use the peace/liberty/freedom BS to justify. he openly states that America is an empire and that America doesn't care for the people it hurts across the globe as long as they get what they want.

i very strongly suggest that everybody read GF's "next 100 years." he ignores huge aspects of world history from that book. but what BRFites can learn from his writing is what America WANTS. what GF believes will happen, is in reality what GF hopes will happen, b/c he thinks that particular scenario will be easy to handle for America. for everyone who has a beef against US imperialism, GF has provided the most important weapon of providing insight into American geopolitical thinking and he has also given away what America fears and what America doesn't fear. everything that is in GF's book as plausible scenario, is actually everything that America doesn't fear. it is everything that America will help create b/c they can later destroy it and create the artificial veneer of global supremacy...it is a deep seated narcissism and machiavellian thinking at play here.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Apr 2011 09:07

ramana wrote:Devesh, Sometime before you joined we used to have threads to understand America for it is complex. It got deleted when folks in a fit of remorse after 2008, wondered why we have so many threads to understand America.

Ramana we had a thread about American elections which I strongly protested. And that was at a time when Indian elections were not discussed on this forum.

Understanding America does not mean doing an America on BRF where we are filled with what America sees and hears. Unfortunately many threads went that way. I belong to an alumni forum which is an out and out and unashamed America forum although alumni are present all over the world. American issues with no relevance to India are discussed side by side with Caste, Corruption and Congress. Suddenly someone on the forum will say "This sounds like Rush Limbaugh". Or someone will say "Diane Rehm" and get 20 replies about Diane Rehm. Excuse me - but who the f*** is Rush Limbaugh or Diane Rehm? That happens here too.

There has to be some clear relevance to forum members who are not American, and are specifically Indian.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 12 Apr 2011 11:16

Libyan rebels have rejected an African Union initiative for a truce accepted by Muammar Gaddafi, and say the only solution is the strongman's ouster.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 12 Apr 2011 14:44

UBanerjee,

This is going off thread, so my last post on Iran in the Libya thread.

There is no reason why change in US priorities would not encourage them to dump a former ally. It has happened in many other instances, no reason to believe it could not have happened in the Iranian case.

I agree that US government is not made of particularly intelligent humans, they are just like the rest. However, earlier they had some margin of error, because US did not have any real chanllengers. If they made a mistake, they had the time and money to recover from it. Now, if they make a mistake, some or the other country will try to fill in the vacuum.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 12 Apr 2011 15:52

'NATO' must do more to help Libyan rebels: France, UK

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/ ... MP20110412

What France Uk want is US to provide more troops/planes for attacking Qaddhafi, who has proved more resilient than they thought.
As if these two countries are not part of NATO

. They want to strut about the world stage as big he-men, but want America to provide the equipment and grunt work. It is not for nothing that I call Sarkozy the French Mussolini.

Nothing illustrates how far they have fallen than this grovelling. This is the moment Obama should extract his pound of flesh from them for putting him in such a tight spot.

Obama has been trying to find a way out of this impasse, both before and after the AU peace plan was rejected (by the 'rebels' and their European backers and Hillary).

Now, it back to bombing and fighting, otherwise this needless crisis could have been resolved by the end of this week.

Oh, BTW, the Libyan minister who fled to Britain (Moussa Koussa), just gave a statement on BBC, calling for 'unity' in Libya. I guess he is stating that partition of the country would not be acceptable. IOW, it is still a fight to the finish. OR (and this is a big OR), he may be calling for a government with both Q and rebels. But since Q is not acceptable to the 'rebels' (and because France/Uk still have this need to reassure themselves of their geopolitical manhood), Q is unlikely to be part of this government. IOW, Q's sons taking over the country is still the compromise scenario best suited to most people. Not sarkozy though, he bet the farm on a risky venture, and now looks set to loose everything in this bad bet.

So, I guess another thing that will be need to be done is to find a successor to sarkozy.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Apr 2011 01:30

Wonder if Libya will be 1956 Suez redux for France and UK? Soon after this, UK announced their east of Aden policy/retreat.

Maybe it will be north of Mediterranean Sea now?

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 13 Apr 2011 11:57

Adding some spice to the Libyan civil war. Female power comes to Gaddafi's rescue

FARC chicks fighting in Libya now for Gadhafi

Libyan rebels are receiving reports that female snipers from Colombia have joined other mercenaries fighting to keep dictator Moammar Gadhafi in power.

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 13 Apr 2011 12:09

abhischekcc wrote:'NATO' must do more to help Libyan rebels: France, UK
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/ ... MP20110412

What France Uk want is US to provide more troops/planes for attacking Qaddhafi, who has proved more resilient than they thought.
As if these two countries are not part of NATO . They want to strut about the world stage as big he-men, but want America to provide the equipment and grunt work. It is not for nothing that I call Sarkozy the French Mussolini.

Nothing illustrates how far they have fallen than this grovelling. This is the moment Obama should extract his pound of flesh from them for putting him in such a tight spot.

With Unkil not leading this mission, there are reports that 'ALL ij not well' in NATO. Germany (who abstained from UN Security Council resolution) and Turkey have started their own peace initiatives and have even started backdoor diplomatic talks with Gaddafi. Some other small NATO countries would only like to enforce no fly zone and protect civilians as mandated by UN but do not want to actively help rebels.
Interestingly TOILET reports that India and China are likely to issue a joint statement on Libya during BRICS summit in China.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 967804.cms

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 13 Apr 2011 14:05

Libya rebel leader Guma El Gamaty runs off from televised debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7KzbtcM ... e=youtu.be

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 13 Apr 2011 14:34

Libya contact group to meet in Qatar
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13058694

Gaddafi must go as part of peace deal
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/worl ... -1.1095852

Gaddafi cannot even trust his own family members or his own colleagues to give them the power after him!
He is paying many including South Africa to help him killing his own people and talk of peace. He is a massmurderer and he should go! He should not be allowed to stay in power and kill his own people. Even some NATO countries do support his killing by confusing the purpose. French and British should lead and finish the job as quickly as possibly and make sure that democracy returns and good business and money comes to Libyans and others.

Libya Rebels Urge More NATO Force to Avert Misrata Massacre
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-0 ... sacre.html

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 13 Apr 2011 16:47

jimmyray wrote: Interestingly TOILET reports that India and China are likely to issue a joint statement on Libya during BRICS summit in China.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 967804.cms

I would advise caution. It is related to US vs. Chinese role in Pak. See http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1065400 for analysis.

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 13 Apr 2011 16:58

Doha meeting reveals divisions on Libya

But divisions within NATO immediately appeared at the international "contact group" meeting when Belgium ruled out boosting air attacks or arming Libyan rebels.

The range of views among the 28 members of the NATO alliance is wide. Germany, Turkey and Poland opposed the Libya operation and are not involved in the air campaign.
Italy has said its aircraft will not open fire, the Dutch are enforcing the no-fly zone but may not bomb ground targets and non-NATO Swedish planes may only open fire in self-defence while patrolling the no-fly zone.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 13 Apr 2011 19:50

jimmyray wrote:Adding some spice to the Libyan civil war. Female power comes to Gaddafi's rescue

FARC chicks fighting in Libya now for Gadhafi

Libyan rebels are receiving reports that female snipers from Colombia have joined other mercenaries fighting to keep dictator Moammar Gadhafi in power.

Somehow this reminds me of the fables wherein Ancient Egyptians crossed the Atlantic on papyrus boats and founded the Mayan civilization in Mesoamerica.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Apr 2011 07:00

Western and Arab Nations want Gaddafi to go

Interesting. They dont win and want to impose conditions!

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 14 Apr 2011 07:37

Well things ain't going so well for Britain and France ... now they want big daddy to step in ...
Libya: US urged to return to front line

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 Apr 2011 07:38

The Geopolitical Message from Libya: Brahma Chellaney

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... 16/English

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 14 Apr 2011 11:24

BRICS powers criticise Western strikes in Libya

(Reuters) - Leaders from the five "BRICS" emerging powers joined in criticising the Western air campaign in Libya, a government source at the summit said on Thursday, when Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa met in southern China.

The comment came ahead of a final statement from the summit of the five big emerging powers, which will reject the use of force in the Middle East and North Africa at a summit on Thursday, urging instead dialogue and non-intervention, according to a draft statement

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 14 Apr 2011 11:35

ramana wrote:Western and Arab Nations want Gaddafi to go

Interesting. They dont win and want to impose conditions!

One of the reasons the US military has been against intervention from the start is that they recognised the level of intervention that would be required to help the rebels defeat Qaddafi.

At the political level, Obama also recognised that world opinion would not support that level of intervention either, and wasn't about to take the lead without adequate UNSC authorisation.

The Americans have been thorough realists about this, but Sarkozy in particular has been emotional and poorly advised.

However, as I said earlier NATO's credibility is now on the line, and that is something pretty valuable to sacrifice.

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 14 Apr 2011 15:56

False pretense for war in Libya?

EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold

But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.
But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.
The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.
Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.
But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.
Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’
If bloodbath was unlikely, how did this notion propel US intervention? The actual prospect in Benghazi was the final defeat of the rebels. To avoid this fate, they desperately concocted an impending genocide to rally international support for “humanitarian’’ intervention that would save their rebellion.
On March 15, Reuters quoted a Libyan opposition leader in Geneva claiming that if Khadafy attacked Benghazi, there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.’’ Four days later, US military aircraft started bombing. By the time Obama claimed that intervention had prevented a bloodbath, The New York Times already had reported that “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda’’ against Khadafy and were “making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.’’
It is hard to know whether the White House was duped by the rebels or conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds. In either case, intervention quickly exceeded the UN mandate of civilian protection by bombing Libyan forces in retreat or based in bastions of Khadafy support, such as Sirte, where they threatened no civilians.
The net result is uncertain. Intervention stopped Khadafy’s forces from capturing Benghazi, saving some lives. But it intensified his crackdown in western Libya to consolidate territory quickly. It also emboldened the rebels to resume their attacks, briefly recapturing cities along the eastern and central coast, such as Ajdabiya, Brega, and Ras Lanuf, until they outran supply lines and retreated.

Each time those cities change hands, they are shelled by both sides — killing, wounding, and displacing innocents. On March 31, NATO formally warned the rebels to stop attacking civilians. It is poignant to recall that if not for intervention, the war almost surely would have ended last month.
In his speech explaining the military action in Libya, Obama embraced the noble principle of the responsibility to protect — which some quickly dubbed the Obama Doctrine — calling for intervention when possible to prevent genocide. Libya reveals how this approach, implemented reflexively, may backfire by encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering.

Alan J. Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, is author of “The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention’’ and co-editor of “Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention.’’

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 14 Apr 2011 19:51

Libya fake Twitter ID explosion part of 'cyber war for democracy'?
This is a very interesting report on the use of social media tools as cyber warfare weapons to spread 'democracy'. We have to be aware of this becoz it is something which might be (and perhaps soon will be) easily used by seperatists. It is easy and very effective. You may check it on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxlixI6jJEs ). Twitter is especially useful because you can create thousands of false accounts and make bots (software progs) to auto tweet every few minutes thus creating an artificial cyber movement. Many world leaders use twitter and they can easily be conned into thinking that a huge uprising is taking place.

P.S (Mods if in your opinion this in any way helps anti-nationals, plz delete it)

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Apr 2011 10:29

More to Read About Libya

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... bout_libya

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 16 Apr 2011 12:22

This is perhaps OT, but this could be a reason for the cautious response of our Govt. to Middle East revolutions. It is just a matter of time before Pukis and their supporters in West use ‘Arab Spring’ pretext to foment trouble in the valley

Young Kashmiri activists yearn for an ‘Arab Spring’ - and more Western attention

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 16 Apr 2011 14:39

US to recoup Libya oil from China

Press TV has interviewed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasury from Panama City, who gives his insight on the revolution in Libya and why US President Barack Obama needs to overthrow Qaddafi when no other US presidents did.

Press TV: Russia has criticized NATO for going far beyond its UN mandate. In other news a joint Op Ed is going to be written by Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy who have said that “leaving Qaddafi in power would be an unconscionable betrayal to the Libyan people”.

We do know that the mandate does not call for regime change; the Obama administration has been saying they are not in there for regime change; but things seem a little different now don't they?

Roberts: Yes they do. First of all, notice that the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain or Tunisia and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion.

There are more differences: another is that these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital cities. And we have heard from the beginning, credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset to head up the Libyan rebellion.

In my opinion, what this is about is to eliminate China from the Mediterranean. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source.

The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.

And the third reason is that Libya controls part of the Mediterranean coast and it's not in American hands.

Press TV: Who are the revolutionaries. The US say they don't know who they're dealing with, but considering the CIA is on the ground in contact with revolutionaries - Who are the people under whom Libya will function in any post-Qaddafi era?

Roberts: Whether or not Libya functions under revolutionaries depends if the CIA wins - we don't know that yet. As you said earlier, the UN resolution puts constraints on what the European and American forces can achieve in Libya. They can have a no fly zone, but they are not supposed to be in there fighting together with the rebels.

But of course the CIA is. So we do have these violations of the UN resolution. If NATO, which is now the cover for the world community, succeeds in overthrowing Qaddafi the next target will be Syria because Syria has already been demonized.

Why are they targeting Syria? - Because the Russians have a very large naval base in Syria. And it gives the Russian navy a presence in the Mediterranean; the US and NATO do not want that. If there is success in overthrowing Qaddafi, Syria is next.

Already, they are blaming Iran for Syria and Libya. Iran is a major target because it is an independent state that is not a puppet of the Western colonialists.

Press TV: With regards to the expansionist agenda of the West, when the UN mandate on Libya was debated in the UN Security Council, Russia did not veto it. Surely Russia must see this expansionist policy of the US, France and Britain.

Roberts: Yes they must see that; and the same for China. It's a much greater threat to China because it has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya. So the question is why did Russia and China abstain rather than veto and block? We don't know the answer.

Possibly the countries are thinking let the Americans get further over extended or they may not have wanted to confront them with a military or diplomatic position and have an onslaught of Western propaganda against them. We don't know the reasons, but we know they did abstain because they did not agree with the policy and they continue to criticize it.

Press TV: A sizeable portion of Qaddafi's assets have been frozen in the US as well as some other countries. We also know that the Libyan revolutionaries have set up a central bank and that they have started limited production of oil and they are dealing with American and other Western firms. It begs the question that we've never seen something like this happen in the middle of a revolution. Don't you find that bizarre?

Roberts: Yes it's very bizarre and very suggestive. It brings back the fact of all the reports that the CIA is the originator of this so-called revolt and protest and is fomenting it and controlling it in a way that excludes China from its own Libyan oil investments.

In my opinion, what is going on is comparable to what the US and Britain did to Japan in the 1930s. When they cut Japan off from oil, from rubber, from minerals like ore; that was the origin of World War II in the pacific. And now the Americans and the British are doing the same thing to China.

The difference is that China has nuclear weapons and it also has a stronger economy than do the Americans. And so the Americans are taking a very high risk not only with themselves, but with the rest of the world. The entire world is now at stake on American over-reach; American huberus - the drive for American hegemony over the world is driving the rest of the world into a World War.

Press TV: In the context of America's expansionist policies, how far do you think the US will stretch beyond the UN mandate? Are we going to see boots on the ground?

Roberts: Most likely - unless they can find some way of defeating Qaddafi without that. Ever since we've had Bill Clinton, George W Bush and now Obama, what we've learned is law means nothing to the executive branch in the US. They don't obey our own laws; they don't obey international law; they violate all the civil liberties and buried the principal of habeas corpus - no crime without intent; of the ability for a defendant to be legally represented.

They don't pay any attention to law so they're not going to pay any attention to the UN. The UN is an American puppet organization and they will use it as a cover. So yes if they cannot run Qaddafi out they will put troops on the ground - that's why we have the French and the British involved. We're using the French elsewhere in Africa also; we use the British in Afghanistan - they're puppets.

These countries are not independent. Sarkozy doesn't report to the French people - he reports to Washington. The British PM doesn't report to the English people he reports to Washington. These are puppet rulers of an empire; they have nothing to do with their own people and we put them in office.

Press TV: So these other countries would welcome having NATO troops on the ground?

Roberts: Of course. They are in the CIAs pocket. It's a CIA operation, not a legitimate protest of the Libyan people. It's an armed rebellion that has no support in the capital city. It's taking place in the east where the oil is and is directed at China.

Press TV: Where do you see the situation headed? There seems to be a rift between NATO countries with Britain and France wanting to increase the momentum of these air strikes, but the US saying no, there is no need.

Roberts: The rift is not real. The rift is just part of the cover, just part of the propaganda. Qaddafi has been ruling for 40 years - he goes back to Gamal Abdel Nasser (before Anwar Sadat) who wanted to give independence to Egypt.

He (Qaddafi) was never before called a brutal dictator that has to be removed. No other president has ever said Qaddafi has to go. Not even Ronald Reagan who actually bombed Qaddafi's compound and tried to kill him. But all of a sudden he has to go. Why?

Because he's blocking the US African Command, he controls part of the Mediterranean and he has let China in to find its energy needs for the future. We (the US) are trying to cripple our main rival, China by denying it energy. That's what this is really about; a reaction by the US.

If the US was concerned about humanitarianism, it wouldn't be killing all these people in Afghanistan and Pakistan with their drones and military strikes. Almost always it's civilians that are killed. And the US is reluctant to issue apologies about any of it. They say we thought we were killing Taliban or some other made-up enemy.

Press TV: Who will benefit from all of this other than the US? The other countries that comply with US wishes- What do they stand to gain from this?

Roberts: We are only talking about NATO countries, the American puppet states. Britain, France, Italy, Germany, all belong to the American empire. We've had troops stationed in Germany since 1945. You're talking about 66 years of American occupation of Germany. The Americans have military bases in Italy - how is that an independent country? France was somewhat independent until we put Sarkozy in power. So they all do what they're told.

America wants to rule Russia, China, Iran, and Africa, all of South America. They want hegemony over the world. That's what the word hegemony means. And they will pursue it at all costs.

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 16 Apr 2011 19:56

The Libyan war and the deepening inter-imperialist conflict

This article gives a very interesting view on differences between Germany and France over Libya.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 16 Apr 2011 22:53

Gaddafi forces 'cluster bombing Misurata'
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/20 ... 63774.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2011 23:48

joshvajohn wrote:Gaddafi forces 'cluster bombing Misurata'
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/20 ... 63774.html

With UN NFZ who is this happening? Besides after the vast amount of CB in Iraq and Afghanistan by COW how is this a verboten thing?