Libyan War : Political and strategic aspects

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 27 Aug 2011 07:41

The problem with Gaddhafi was that he was ignorant and confused, unable to comprehend the nature of his new-found friends in London, Paris, New York. He kept large amounts of money in their banks, which was duly stolen, of course. As regards being a tyrant, no doubt he was, but his people were not only getting their bread, but a fair amount of butter spread on it as well.

Anyway, one can't condemn him too much, large sections of the Indian elite and upper-middle classes are equally deluded, unheeding of the few stray voices in the wilderness, pleading with them to learn.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 27 Aug 2011 14:47

I do not understand why some are still sympathetic to Gaddafi - a gone indivudual. Ofcourse he educated his people in a western way and gave them good support did not allow them to speak freely and criticise him as Chinese reds. It is libyan people who fougth him along with NATO and got rid of him for good. It is time for Libyan to build a free Muslim society with a western freedom and democracy. It is time to restore and help them not to fall into a fundamentalist agenda rathen growth and well being of all people should be an agenda and make sure oil wealth is properly shared by people at large for a better country rather than ending up in another individual's account in one of the Western banks.

For me India should engage in reconstructing Libya and make friends with the ITC sooner rather than isolating themselves. Recognise ITC as a proper representatives of Libya and then provide them some help at this stage so that we can also invest in their country.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Aug 2011 16:48

Suez redux.

Events in Libya are the revenge of the disastrous Anglo-French invasion of Suez and Egypt in that infamous "police action" aimed at taking the Suez Canal in collaboration with the Israelis-who barely trusted the two.The catalyst for the invasion was the nationalisation of the Suez Canal by Nasser,who needed revenue from it to build the Aswan Dam.The two nations ,Whitehall and the Quai d'Orsay,have for more than half a century been gnashing their teeth at the failure of that attempt.British PM Anthony Eden and French premier Guy Mollet conspired well in advance to take military action and "liberate" the canal,by instigating an Israeli invasion of the Sinai Peninsula,which would see the Briish and French storm in as "Peacekeepers"! The failure of the US to support this infamy was due to a reluctant Eisenhower,who was standing for re-election and id not want to be labelled as a war-monger.The "police action" as the British described their invasion allowed the Soviet Union to connduct their own "police action" in Hungary without any allied military response.

We see today the same chicanery from both Britain and France this time in Libya where the Anglo-French alliance have won an infamous victory.If the Suez Canal as a conduit for oil was the prize in 1956,then lust for the oil riches of Libya is the driving force today for the abuse of yet another miserable UN resolution,ostensibly to protect civilians.The revenge killings by the rebels going on in Triploi right now strips the fig leaf of hukan rights as an excuse for ousting the Gadhaffi regime from power ,however dictatorial it may have been.If Col.Nasser was the villain then Col. Gadhaffi is the villain today.While Col. Nasser went on to become an historic icon for the Arab masses,Col.Gadhaffi is heading for an ignominious end,to be either caught alive and face a show trial as saddam did,or be killed in his lair as he has vowed,"victory or martyrdom".

The Imperial revisionists who would like nothing better than to set the clock back to the nostalgia of the colonial era and the plunder of nations hrough military action,"expedtionary warfare" as they lovingly call it,will do well to remember that their actions of latter-day piracy comes with risk and at a perilous price to pay, as we saw just a few years ago on another September morning in New York.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 27 Aug 2011 17:59

I do not find it is strategically done as a revenge. If Anglo-French wanted to do they would have done when US bombarded Libya. But now it is not correct to interpret Anti-Western interpretation in every event that is happening in Libya. There is a clear strategy of Pro Chinese elements to create an antiwestern feelings among Indian mindset by interpreting every event ein such lights. It does not mean that one should be obssessed by pro-Western. But do not interpret every event from the perspective of Anti-Western when many millions of Indian people benefit through their industries and by being in their country. We need to make use of any relationship with any country for our growth and benefits and defence system improvements.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 27 Aug 2011 19:02

joshvajohn wrote:I do not understand why some are still sympathetic to Gaddafi - a gone indivudual. Ofcourse he educated his people in a western way and gave them good support did not allow them to speak freely and criticise him as Chinese reds. It is libyan people who fougth him along with NATO and got rid of him for good. It is time for Libyan to build a free Muslim society with a western freedom and democracy. It is time to restore and help them not to fall into a fundamentalist agenda rathen growth and well being of all people should be an agenda and make sure oil wealth is properly shared by people at large for a better country rather than ending up in another individual's account in one of the Western banks.

For me India should engage in reconstructing Libya and make friends with the ITC sooner rather than isolating themselves. Recognise ITC as a proper representatives of Libya and then provide them some help at this stage so that we can also invest in their country.

Nobody is sympathetic to Gaddafi. Only pointing out the loot of Libya undertaken by US/UK/France etc under some bogus pretext, in this case humanitarian assistance. Those so called rebels are every bit as savage as Gaddafi if not more.

This is like US and its western pipsqueak lackeys offering air cover and other logistic support including arms for Maoist terrorists and Kashmiri Muslim terrorists and help them march into New Delhi. And all the while their propaganda machines: CNN, BBC, Faux Nazi network beam out to the world about the horrors of the Hindu caste system, the "atrocities" againt Kashmiri Muslims by Hindu-dominated India, and how the "noble" white man is helping these "freedom fighters" achieve "liberty" from the cusp of Hindu oppression. Now if this kind of nonsense fills the airwaves round the clock, one cannot find fault with the joshvajohns of the rest of the world into getting such a 1-dimensional, carefully calibrated demonized picture of India. The same thing is happening in Libya, and you are falling for that garbage.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 27 Aug 2011 20:21

C Rams read the following who talked about Kashmir at UN!

Maverick Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, has embarrassed India at the United Nations. In his marathon speech Gaddafi raised the Kashmir issue.

"Kashmir should be an independent state, not Indian, not Pakistani. We should end this conflict. It should be a Ba'athist state between India and Pakistan," he said.

And he also opposed expanding the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to include countries like India, saying that would add more injustice and tension to the world.

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/gadda ... ?slider&cp

some fools fall into anti India ideas by falling into antiWestern! many of our companies work in US and in the West! Many Indians have invested a huge wealth in the Western countries but these attitudes are not going to help Indians in long term!

It is China who gives separate visa to Kasmiris not US nor any Western Countries!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Aug 2011 22:45

joshvajohn ji,

it is simple. PRC, TSP, other Muslim countries have all said negative things about India, done wrong to India.

Why is that a reason to be pro-US? The two things have nothing to do with each other. More importantly, what is the need to buy Western propaganda?

BRF is India-centric, and US propaganda will always be rejected. Not just because it is all rubbish, but also because it is not India-centric.

***********

Considering that Qadhafi is at the end of his rope, perhaps an old article from him:

US, Israel creating rift between India and Pak: Gadhafi

PTI Jun 2, 2009, 09.41am IST

WASHINGTON: Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi believes that it is the US and Israel which is creating sharp differences between India and Pakistan, so that the latter could not target its "Muslim bomb" against the West.

"The Pakistanis are told that their enemy is the Hindus, not the Jews or Christians, and therefore their bomb should be directed towards them, the Pakistanis' immediate enemy, and not anyone else," he wrote in The Washington Times.

Similarly, the Indians are led to believe their real enemy is Pakistan and that the Pakistani bomb was directed toward them rather than the Israelis or Americans, Gadhafi said in an opinion piece published last week.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 28 Aug 2011 03:24

RajeshA wrote:Why is that a reason to be pro-US? The two things have nothing to do with each other. More importantly, what is the need to buy Western propaganda?

In that case why do we A$$lick arab states and even treat Panda gently while railing against 'western imperialism'. West acts in its interests. India does not even act in its own interests. Can anyone here explain how our interests are aligned with the extinct creature Gaddafi?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Aug 2011 04:21

A long time ago, I had posted about Qaddafi's comments on "Kashmir". For me that marks him out as a strategist who will play his Islamist card as and when opportune. The fact that his erstwhile backers take him out - does not automatically absolve him of his attitude as relevant for India.

There are two things let us get clear about when we talk about "removal of Gaddafi" a "disaster for India"

(1) if we mean just because one set of crony-capitalist sharks tore up a bleeding fellow shark - these sharks will specially get enthused about tearing up India : then, we are giving out many unstated beliefs. First, that these sharks would not tear up India anyway, if they get a chance - independent of whether Gaddafi falls. Second belief, by helping out Gaddafi or taking a stance of supporting him - India is setting precedence by which sharks will not move when they get their chance. Third, Gaddafi somehow was preventing or absorbing forces that would otherwise turn against India.

None of which are really provable, and any such belief is even more dangerous than supporting Gaddafi. The threat from western designs remain independent from what happens to Gaddafi, and Gaddafi was never a thorn on their sides - really.

(2) why is it that India has to play at the global "humanitarian" and world's "conscience keeper" and this has to be mixed up with its strategic dances? Why is it so difficult to separate out the "global conscience" bit and national strategic bit?

What would prevent an opportunist Islamist like Qaddafi - who began to shout about Kashmiri "independence" when he began to face music in his own corner of feudal fief, and hwo has a record of sponsoring "terrorism" with possible dubious linkages to the shark company secret services and covert ops - from sponsoring more "Kashmiri" jihad as part of a plea bargain with fellow sharks?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 28 Aug 2011 04:33

joshvajohn wrote:
some fools fall into anti India ideas by falling into antiWestern! many of our companies work in US and in the West! Many Indians have invested a huge wealth in the Western countries but these attitudes are not going to help Indians in long term!

It is China who gives separate visa to Kasmiris not US nor any Western Countries!

Gaddafi's views on Kashmir are as important as what a Somali pirate also has to say about Kashmir. Thats irrelevant to what we are talking about. India should act in its interests in Libya, not follow the "international community" (US and its western pipsqueak lackeys). And India should also act in its interests by eschewing knee jery anti western sentimens. So I don't know what you are arguing about. What me and many others are saying is that what is happening in Libya is old-fashioned banditry by the white man's gang of US and its western lackeys. There are no good guys here, neither Gaddafi, nor the rebels, nor the white boys. So no room for the kind of moral sentimens you are putting forth.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 28 Aug 2011 07:42

RajeshA wrote:
Considering that Qadhafi is at the end of his rope, perhaps an old article from him:

US, Israel creating rift between India and Pak: Gadhafi

PTI Jun 2, 2009, 09.41am IST

WASHINGTON: Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi believes that it is the US and Israel which is creating sharp differences between India and Pakistan, so that the latter could not target its "Muslim bomb" against the West.

"The Pakistanis are told that their enemy is the Hindus, not the Jews or Christians, and therefore their bomb should be directed towards them, the Pakistanis' immediate enemy, and not anyone else," he wrote in The Washington Times.

Similarly, the Indians are led to believe their real enemy is Pakistan and that the Pakistani bomb was directed toward them rather than the Israelis or Americans, Gadhafi said in an opinion piece published last week.

What Gaddhafi was saying is exactly what a lot of folks on BRF say (barring the mention of Israel and the == in the last sentence).

habal · Post by **habal** » 28 Aug 2011 08:04

Gaddafi was a soft target who wasn't respecting the global order. What he should have done was to invite international players like Goldman's, Chase etc into Libyan banking industry and not complain when they turned it into a greece, Ireland. That is what is expected of an ideal leader.

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 28 Aug 2011 11:08

habal wrote:Gaddafi was a soft target who wasn't respecting the global order. What he should have done was to invite international players like Goldman's, Chase etc into Libyan banking industry and not complain when they turned it into a greece, Ireland. That is what is expected of an ideal leader.

Exactly. And of course, there is oil.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 28 Aug 2011 14:05

who will be happy if India is isolated from International affairs? Pakistan and China. Last time even in BRIC, China manipulated in a way India was the target of criticism of the West and China went on private negotiations with the Western countries as if they were good and only India was opposing all these ecological issues and economic issues as well. So for India's own advantage they do not need to be antiwestern which does not mean that they should be prowestern either.

But there are a few in these threads who drag the arguements often against the West. If that is the sentiment of the many who are in power in India it is not correct. In terms of Libyan context it was correct thing to do. If not when China ran over Tibet and some part of North India, middle man Nehru had to ask US and because of US pressure (indirect) Chinese retreated while Bengali Marxists were flagging welcome of the red army. At this time Chinese are a real threat to India and play all games around us. They indirectly instigate Pakis against India not to get UNSC and others. If India needs to grow it has to play international role. It cannot get away from her responsibility of being a largest democratic country in the world and so it can play around the world in humanitarian cause. Such activity takes India beyond her South Asian roles. this will make India to be part of UNSC. Also for her own business in terms of oil and investment she should play the right role in Libya at this time in helping Libyans to establish democratic governance and develop economy. This will benefit India in long term.

Chinese are already trying to get back into their projects in Libya by supporting the TNC in Libya. I do not think there are good strategists around FM who has some good suggestions.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 28 Aug 2011 14:48

>>Gaddafi's views on Kashmir are as important as what a Somali pirate also has to say about Kashmir.

Excellent point. And for that matter, what anybody has to say about Kashmir, including the US. Some we ignore. Some we politely dissuade. But all know that no matter how many times they meet with this group or that group, or push out think-tank recommendations, India is not going to allow a second partition. And they can all see the result of the first. I suspect right now the only people in the world who actually think partition was a good idea is a majority of Indians and the Pakjabi elite

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Aug 2011 20:59

joshvajohn ji,

you're thinking in bipolar world terms - Pax-Americana and Pax-Sinica. Indians want to be the third pole - Pax-Indica. So there is no question of joining any other. We are not going to be building the third pole if we dissolve ourselves in Pax-Americana. There would always be cooperation, but we will keep our very separate course.

You're trying to talk the people into making a choice - USA or China. Such a premise is a useless premise. There is no need to make the choice.

There is an impression that India can be better friends with USA due to values, and strategic interests. So there will be cooperation. You seem to demanding much more than that! That would not be forthcoming.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Aug 2011 13:42

incidents like these show the true character of the despotic elite. they could have atleast treated their own servants with kindness rather than torturing..all too common among arab elites.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/afric ... ?hpt=hp_c1

with the discovery of mass murder and charred bodies by the khamis brigade, qadhafi and his sons have got the death warrant stamped in triplicate now, the rebels will either kill him in the field or hang him after a show trial.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 29 Aug 2011 23:42

^ I came here to see if anyone posted that, truly macabre. The Arab oil despots are all unrestrained animals with a (very) thin veneer of civilization.

Their servants and chaprasis are always blacks or SDREs too.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Aug 2011 23:49

UBanerjee wrote:Their servants and chaprasis are always blacks or SDREs too.

In 20 years, many Indians would be having English Butlers - Alfreds, James, ...

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 30 Aug 2011 00:25

@RajeshA Gadafi is telling a half-truth and playing to WKK == in that washingtontimes article. TSP is being diverted against India based on a lie, but it is not the case that India is wrong to respond to TSP threat.

Joshuajohn et al: We care nothing for Gadafis of this world, only about India. Gadafi is a manipulative crook who did some good to Libya but unkil and aunty got him in the end due to his own contradictions. Only lesson for us is to confirm our skepticism about West vis-a-vis Indian interests.

Also, please don't confuse BRF with GOI or WKK attitudes towards arab world etc.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 30 Aug 2011 00:55

Gaddafi Wife & Daughter and couple of sons in Algeria now. Confirmed. Gaddafi himself still in Libya apparently.

Esp. Hannibal, whose wife burned that poor girl.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 30 Aug 2011 01:59

Have they found Gaddafi's secret stash of Larry Flynt publications he keeps behind the cistern yet? Or pendrives with San Fernando Valley's releases?

No recent invasion/overthrow/encounter is complete without a mental picture of the dead/overthrown herrow taking a shower, while deftly holding these naughty books outside the cone of water-spray. A picture that is lovingly painted in my uncomfortable mind by reliable media sources from a westerly direction.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 30 Aug 2011 06:30

Singha wrote:incidents like these show the true character of the despotic elite. they could have atleast treated their own servants with kindness rather than torturing..all too common among arab elites.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/afric ... ?hpt=hp_c1

with the discovery of mass murder and charred bodies by the khamis brigade, qadhafi and his sons have got the death warrant stamped in triplicate now, the rebels will either kill him in the field or hang him after a show trial.

I would be careful, lots of propaganda in western media outlets. Recall the "Saddam throwing babies out of incubators" nonsense. More recently, "Gaddhafi distributing _**** for rape" etc.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 30 Aug 2011 07:20

hnair wrote:Have they found Gaddafi's secret stash of Larry Flynt publications he keeps behind the cistern yet? Or pendrives with San Fernando Valley's releases?

Does Gay p0rn count. Yes one his sons had a small stash. And there was Gaddafi's secret stash of Condaleeza Rice pictures.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 30 Aug 2011 08:18

Learning the right lessons from Libya

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 30 Aug 2011 09:04

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Esp. Hannibal, whose wife burned that poor girl.

Graphic image/video: Link

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Aug 2011 11:45

MSNBC. -

TRIPOLI, Libya — Members of Moammar Gadhafi's family have entered Algeria, Algeria's state news agency said Monday, but the whereabouts of the ousted Libyan leader were unknown. Libyan rebels claimed to have killed one of his sons.

The report by APS news agency cited Algeria's Foreign Affairs Ministry as saying Gadhafi's wife Safia, his sons Mohammed and Hannibal, and his daughter Aisha entered the neighboring country on Monday. It did not immediately provide additional details or say whether Gadhafi himself was with the family.

The Egyptian news agency MENA, quoting unidentified rebel fighters, had reported from Tripoli over the weekend that six armored Mercedes sedans, possibly carrying Gadhafi's sons or other top regime figures, had crossed the border at the southwestern Libyan town of Ghadamis into Algeria. Algeria's Foreign Ministry had denied that report.

Libya's de facto government said it considers Algeria's apparent sheltering of members of Gadhafi's family an act of aggression and will seek their extradition.

"We have promised to provide a just trial to all those criminals and therefore we consider this an act of aggression,'' Mahmoud Shamman, a National Transitional Council spokesman, told Reuters.

"We are warning anybody not to shelter Gadhafi and his sons. We are going after them in any place to find them and arrest them,'' he said.
Image: A combo of file pictures of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's family

Libyan rebels have accused Algeria of supporting the ousted regime.

Meanwhile, Libyan rebels commanders said another of Gadhafi's son, Khamis Gadhafi, was killed in an airstrike about 60 km (37 miles) south of Tripoli, Britain's Sky News reported.

Khamis was said to have been in an armored four-wheel-drive vehicle that was struck by a missile apparently fired from a NATO Apache helicopter, Sky News said.

Sky News' chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay, who was at the scene, said a man claiming to be Khamis' bodyguard confirmed that Khamis had died in the vehicle.

Col. Al-Mahdi Al-Haragi, in charge of the Tripoli Brigade of the rebel army, said he had confirmation that Khamis was badly wounded in the clash near Ben Walid and Tarhoni. He was taken to a hospital but died of his wounds and was buried in the area, Al-Haragi said, without giving the timing.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters the U.S. could not yet independently confirm Khamis' death but said similar information was being received in Washington from "reliable sources."

Earlier on Monday, prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo of the International Criminal Court told Reuters he may apply for an arrest warrant for Khamis.

Human Rights Watch said members of the Khamis Brigade, a force commanded by him, appeared to have carried out summary executions of detainees whose bodies were found in a warehouse in Tripoli.

The Hague-based ICC has already approved warrants for the arrest of Moammar Gadhafi, his son Seif al-Islam, and Libyan intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senoussi on charges of crimes against humanity.

The developments came as rebel forces were converging on Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte, hoping to deliver the coup de grace of their revolution.

The fugitive Gadhafi's whereabouts were still not known and it was possible he was still in hiding in Tripoli after it fell to rebel forces and his 42-year-old reign collapsed.

The U.S. has seen no indication that Gadhafi has left Libya, the White House said on Monday.

"If we knew where he was, we would pass that on to the opposition forces,'' White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

There was some fighting Monday on the eastern and western approaches to Sirte. Some have speculated that Gadhafi and other senior regime figures may have fled there.

A NATO officer, who asked not to be identified because of alliance rules, said there was fighting 30 miles (50 kilometers) east of Sirte. He said there are still clashes around Sirte, Bani Walid south of Misrata and Sebha further south.

Taking Sirte will mean getting past entrances that are reportedly mined and an elite military unit. Gadhafi's tribe is the most powerful in the city. Libyans familiar with the coastal city on which Gadhafi has lavished building projects say its first line of defense is a heavily fortified area called the al-Wadi al-Ahmar, 55 miles (90 kilometers) to the east.

The rebels asked NATO Monday to keep up pressure on remnants of Gadhafi's regime.

"Even after the fighting ends, we still need logistical and military support from NATO," Abdul-Jalil said in Qatar. NATO has been bombing Gadhafi's forces since March under a United Nations mandate to protect Libyan civilians.

In other developments, the chairman of the African Union on Monday accused Libyan rebels of indiscriminately killing black people because they have confused innocent migrant workers with Gadhafi's mercenaries. Jean Ping, speaking to reporters in Ethiopia, added this is one of the reasons the AU is refusing to recognize the National Transitional Council as Libya's interim government.

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 30 Aug 2011 12:23

My first post here on Libya page.

I don't understand why would Britain and France will foot up such a large bill? I mean there were reports that they ran out of ammunition and that the airstrikes were scaled down. No wonder Gadaffi felt that he was secure once he has given up on his nuclear ambitions. He must be kicking himself now.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Aug 2011 12:52

the bill will be recovered with some interest in the massive reconstruction contracts first and later the development projects. UK and France cos will be in the forefront of that. plus the added dynamic of having a new munna in north africa to supply hassle free oil .

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 30 Aug 2011 16:29

Sri wrote:My first post here on Libya page.

I don't understand why would Britain and France will foot up such a large bill?

I aske rhetorically in jest, but I don't understand how you can believe that kind talk from UK/France bandits. Like US does when it plunders an oil-rich country like Iraq, they pompously talk about the "cost" incurred to them. And worse, they will even have conservative Vs liberal hot air, self-satisfying debates on whether to reconstruct with tax payer money or not. As though that is really in the offing. You heard it from me first: It is looted Libyan oil and Iraqi oil that will in part help western economies bounce back. Footing a large bill, my foot, its gluttonous usurping of oil masquerading as something benign.

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 30 Aug 2011 16:41

How were the oil contracts awarded in Iraq? I heard petronas and BP got a decent share . Even Indian companies got some contracts. I mean unkil did not own all of iraqui oil. I don't know a thing about the oil business. Gurus eggspain.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 30 Aug 2011 17:39

CRamS wrote:I aske rhetorically in jest, but I don't understand how you can believe that kind talk from UK/France bandits. Like US does when it plunders an oil-rich country like Iraq, they pompously talk about the "cost" incurred to them. And worse, they will even have conservative Vs liberal hot air, self-satisfying debates on whether to reconstruct with tax payer money or not. As though that is really in the offing. You heard it from me first: It is looted Libyan oil and Iraqi oil that will in part help western economies bounce back. Footing a large bill, my foot, its gluttonous usurping of oil masquerading as something benign.

$35 billion of Libya's funds that were parked in US banks alone has been ripped off by the US govt. Not even counting the ripoffs in Europe of Libya's assets, that's many times what the cost of waging war against Libya would be. Libya also had substantial overseas investments which I'm sure they will pocket too. Aside from its oil & gas fields of course and the infrasturcutre it built over 25 years to supply its cities with water from the desert.

European are #1 chores. They can find no way to grow their insolvent economies and the only idea they have is how to rip off others.

I wonder what nation will now be stupid enough to keep its funds in western banks. They are liable to get cleaned out.

I expect a 'civilian protection' take over of other countries especially small rich nations like UAE, Kuwait, maybe even Singapore in the future.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 30 Aug 2011 22:18

Aisha Gaddafi gave birth to a daughter in the middle of all this!

Probably saved her life as Algeria will never deport her now.

WRT to infrastructure most of the existing building contracts were with the western companies, esp. in technology stuff like communications, water, power, etc. That giant man made river project which was the bulk of spending was with western companies any way. In fact they lost a ton of equipment and money when the fight broke out. The Chinese were into apartment building where margins are wafer thin anyway. Mostly bottom feeding. One of the key things that is probably going to save Gaddafi's life is that he never broke the rules of engagement by going after westerners in Libya or going after Israel, which is what Saddam did. If the Rebels catch him alive the West will intercede to spare his life.

I still think that the major error on Gaddafi's part was to threaten/release the illegal immigrant horde on Europe. It is cheaper for Europe to bomb Libya and hold the immigrants there than to to deal with them on European soil.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 30 Aug 2011 22:50

Take a look at this map of the water supply in libya. Some of those pipes are 2000 km's long!

Phases 1,2 & 3 are more or less complete.

When Benghazi cut the water to Sirte it also cut the water to Tripoli. That is why there is so much pressure to take Sirte immediately. To restore the water to Tripoli. Wish the media would do some research. The project pumps about 10 MAF of water annually and cost about $25 Billion.

Once Sirte is taken and the water restored, the mopping up in the South can be done more leisurely.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Aug 2011 12:10

As Robert Fisk says in this piece,about Algeria resisting western "orders".Sarko can embrace Gadhaffi in 2007 and then bomb him in 2011! He also beautifully puts it that if Libya's main produce was potatoes and Iraq's asparagus,then they would never have been invaded!

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 46599.html

Xcpt:

Robert Fisk: Algeria sends the West a message by taking in Gaddafi's brood

Neighbour thinks the Libyan revolution gathered Western support because the land is so rich in oil

Wednesday, 31 August 2011

When the Emir of Qatar flew to see President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria early this summer, he had one message to convey: don't help the Gaddafi regime. In other words, don't replace the dictator's Nato-destroyed armour with identical tanks and personnel carriers from the Algerian army. Word has it – meaning very good Arab military sources say – that Mr Bouteflika, almost as much a façade for the military authorities in Algeria as Mr Assad is for the Baath party in Damascus, gave all the necessary promises and then broke them. An awful lot of Gaddafi's Russian-made desert armour appears to be new; it didn't get its spotless shine after rotting in the desert for the past five years.

Qatar's role in the Libyan conflict remains one of the untold stories of the war – there were Qatari flags waved in Martyrs' Square in Tripoli last week – but so does Algeria's. Arabs were not surprised that so many of Gaddafi's family turned up in Algeria this week. For years, the Algerians have supported Gaddafi's independent – albeit crazed – policies because their own history has taught them to never accept orders from abroad. The moment the French – occupiers, colonisers and persecutors of Algeria for 132 years – bombed Libya, the Gaddafi regime's struggle to survive became a re-enactment of the Algerian FLN's 1954-62 battle for freedom against French rule. If the Libyans have been deprived of serious school history books for more than four decades, they know their country's travails all too well. For the Fezzan, the stony deserts and mountains south of the coastal cities, was occupied by French troops long after the Second World War to protect the frontier of Algeria – then still part of the French empire. The arid frontier between Libya and Algeria has been a smugglers' trail for centuries. Carrying the Gaddafi family into exile was not a major military operation.

Indeed, it was typical of the Algerian foreign ministry to announce the presence of the Gaddafi family on Algerian soil. Algerians like to show the West – especially the French – their freedom, the sacred trust of Algerian nationhood, damaged in the Islamist 1990-98 uprising, is not going to be traded for Western favours.

Related articles

There would be no "Gaddafi-family-in-secret-Algerian-exile" headlines; Algeria had every right to show humanitarian sympathy for fellow Arabs; Nato's rebel allies can claim the Algerian offer of sanctuary as "an act of aggression" if they wish. Besides, Gaddafi's battle against his own Islamist enemies – minuscule compared to the Algerian government's ferocious war against its own al-Qa'ida style antagonists – made the Gaddafi dictatorship and successive Algerian military "democrat" regimes into allies. Why should proud Algeria now abandon its old brother Muammar just because the Arabs of the Gulf and the European powers (some of them, at least) have turned against him? French President Nicolas Sarkozy may embrace Gaddafi in 2007 and bomb him less than four years later. Algeria does not turn on its own friends.

That, at least, is how the pouvoir in Algiers can explain all this. But there are darker, bloodier contacts between the two countries' security services, which have used torture, political killing and massacre to assert their will over their people; the Algerians many times passed on the fruit of their "anti-terrorist" experience to Gaddafi's mukhabarat. The Algerian tale contained more bloodbaths – 150,000 deaths, mostly civilians, scarcely measures up to the fewer tortures and murders in Gaddafi's Libya – but both governments knew that to retain power meant wielding terrible power.

Besides, Algeria does not intend to be a second Libya. The country is freer and marginally more democratic than it was in the dreadful 1990s. But it believes – not without reason – that the Libyan revolution gathered Western support because Gaddafi's land is so rich in oil.

Algeria itself possesses the eighth-largest natural gas reserves in the world and is the fourth-largest gas exporter. Beneath its deserts lie 12.5 billion barrels of oil reserves and 27 per cent of current oil exports are bought by the United States. Algerians are well aware that if Libya's national export was potatoes, the West would no more have intervened than it would have invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein's principal resource was asparagus.

So if anyone else challenges the rule of the pouvoir, it is not going to collapse in a "democratic" spring. Taking in Gaddafi's wife and brood was a gesture aimed more at the West than at the remains of the tyrant's élite in Libya.

Suez Redux:

PS:Sri,you must understand that the Libyan invasion and "takeaway" of Libya"s oil by Britain and France primarily,is just another act in a long play that spans two centuries.One must remember how Britain and "Britannia ruled the waves.British naval superiority wasa a major reason why Napoleon was defeated.Nelson's victories against the French at the "Battle of the Nile and then at Trafalgar",saw that French expansionism was "land-locked".Had the French been able to support Gen. Dupleix better,perhaps India would've become a French colony and not British!

Now this was all achieved during the age of sail and the next great revolution in naval warfare was the age of steam.Coal-fired steam power plants replaced sail and the Royal Navy was dependent upon coal for its navy...that is until OIL was found in the Middle East.A century on,is three-lettered word still is the most important word in strategic affairs today.The Royal Navy's warships then swiftly changed over from being coal-powered to oil -powered.Securing lasting and plentiful supplies of oil was its paramount foreign policy,as it was fundamentally the RN saw to it that "the sun never sets upon the British Empire".Thus were defeated the Ottoman Empire during the days of TE Lawrence (of Arabia).A secret deal between the British and the French,the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement,saw to it that the Middle East was carved up between French and British interests.WW1 and WW2 saw the Anglo-French alliance somehow manage to hang onto their respective spheres of influence,but the emergence of the state of Israel,Arab nationalism and the decline of the British Empire,saw the Suez Canal nationalised by a bold Egyptian and Arab nationalist Col.Gamal Nasser.Stung by his audacity, a disastrous attempt by the Anglo-French alliance with some help from the Israelis,suckers,made to invade the Sinai by the British and French on unkept promises,sealed the eclipse of the influence of both nations in N.Africa.The Algerian revolution against the French saw them also booted out of N.Africa.

We now see the return of the "auld alliance " as they carve up Libya for themselves in another infamous abuse of the UN.It has been long in the planning.Just as reports about the coup and overthrow of the British Guiana (now Guyana) govt. of Cheddi Jagan in the past by Biritish Intelligence has eventually come to light, so also 50 years from now the sordid tale of the "take-away" of Libya the role of the SAS and other covert Anglo-French military acts apart from their air strikes killing innocents,will be revealed in all its infamy.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 31 Aug 2011 21:27

One wishes India would get the spine to play this game for its interests rather than sitting on the sidelines and pontificating moral principles like a bunch of empty headed blow hard's chasing one CT or the other. As a people we need to grow up. A $2 Trillion economy deserves better.

We could have easily put ourselves in an advantageous position here. ship a few weapons, some doctors, some reporters, some food, medicine and the put ourselves in prime position for future contracts. About Rs 200 crore would have done it. But no, we have morals. Empty vessels that make too much noise.

end rant.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 01 Sep 2011 00:25

Theo ji,

What really rankles is that there was absolutely no debate on this issue? in the past 6 months, what has been the thought process of our leadership? I don't even know what position they are on? are they concerned about Islamism? Jihadism? Oil Politics????

nothing. zilch. absolutely no communication from leadership to the people. this is an outgrowth of the "vacuum ideology." they can't say openly that Islamism is a threat. they can't say openly that it is conspiracy by West to take over resources. they can't say that removal of Gadhafi *MIGHT* bring in more democratic thought process. they can't say anything, b/c everything ultimately offends some special interest that the Nehru family protects...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Sep 2011 01:18

devesh wrote:they can't say anything, b/c everything ultimately offends some special interest that the Nehru family protects...

India is a "sovereign, socialist, secular, say-nothingist democratic republic".

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 01 Sep 2011 02:02

Davesh,

Yup. Tiny Qatar if you believe it showed more spine than we did.As you say Dilli has become so sclerotic that our interests are no longer being looked after. It is something about the Indian condition that we want to be morally correct rather than win a position at the table by taking some risk.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2011 16:42

It's all about OIL...yet again as it was about Iraq! The writing is on the wall.Ye lesser nations (especially those who cannot defend themselves),tremble at the sound of the white man's foot.Obey him unhesistatingtly,surrender your wealth to his MNCs and you may survive as vassal entities.Resist and you will be broken underfoot and your nation annhilated fit to be inhabited by jackals and vultures.His fate was sealed the day he announced that he was giving it all up!

Poor Col. G.he must be kicking himself in the butt for giving up his N-weapon ambitions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... egins.html

Libya: David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy host victory summit as scramble for oil wealth begins
Russia has finally moved to recognise Libya’s victorious rebels as Moscow seeks to muscle in on postwar reconstruction and to protect its economic interests in the oil-rich North African country.

As David Cameron joins Nicolas Sarkozy for a post conflict summit with over 50 countries, Nato and the United Nations in Paris, Russia dropped its opposition to military intervention in Libya and demanded that rebels honour lucrative energy and construction contracts signed by Gaddafi and worth billions.

The French President and Prime Minister, who led the West’s intervention, will use three hours of talks to focus on political and economic reconstruction in a bid to avoid the post-conflict chaos and mistakes made in Iraq.but talks on the sidelines may expose early jostling for opportunities in oil and infrastructure.

Libya, which boasts Africa’s largest reserves of top-quality crude oil, has been left badly underdeveloped by Gaddafi, who as a young army captain ousted Libya’s King Idris on Sept. 1, 1969, 42 years ago to the day.

The “friends of Libya” summit will give the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) its first major international platform as the legitimate government of Libya. It has promised economic rewards for countries, such as Britain and France, which took a lead role in backing the revolt against Gaddafi.

The French newspaper Liberation reported on Thursday that it had obtained a letter showing that the rebels had agreed to give France priority access to 35 per cent of Libya’s oil.