NATO’s Secrecy Stance (Libya)

[EFerrari]

By C. J. CHIVERS
Published: March 24, 2012

SOMETIME late last Aug. 8, NATO warplanes flying from Europe arrived over the Libyan farming village of Majer, where forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi were withdrawing and anti-Qaddafi forces were claiming ground. Civilians were in motion, too — seeking pockets of safety away from the roaming sides, neither of which fought with precision or clear rules. This is the type of situation in which air support can be especially risky and in which, even with a careful calculus of modern target planning, mistakes are likely.

The aircraft that night have never been publicly identified by NATO, which has treated their origins and nationalities as strict military secrets.

From the standpoint of public accountability and civilian control of the military, this position serves as a kind of case study in the costs of withholding unpleasant facts, effectively denying civilians and taxpayers of NATO’s member nations their responsibility to assess their military services’ performance — a task that is difficult enough in an allied operation, under which the roles and responsibilities of each nation’s forces can be hard to map.

Shortly before midnight, those as yet unidentified aviators released several laser-guided 500-pound bombs. The first bombs destroyed a house crowded with families. The next bombs destroyed two more. Then the aircraft struck again, survivors and local doctors say, dropping high-explosive ordnance on Libyans who had rushed to the victims’ aid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/sunday-review/natos-secrecy-stance.html?_r=1

[RobertEarl]

1. GDFS

Man this pisses me off.

War is a racket. A stupid dumbass racket that benefits only the 1%.

[EFerrari]

3. Ironically, the writer of this piece

was one of the most uncritical reporters during the bombing itself.

[sabrina 1]

2. And people wonder why no one is enthusiastic about Western Powers 'helping'

anymore countries. It's obvious now also that 'protecting civilians' as their mission, ended as soon as the goal of regime change, yes, I know that was not supposed to be their mission, had been accomplished. Civilians were murdered, tortured and are still terrified for their lives, but NATO seems to have lost interest in the safety of civilians.

Any country that is currently in turmoil, and who knows anymore who is who since we discovered what the real situation in Libya was, who is stirring up that turmoil, causing innocent people to die, won't benefit, if saving lives is the issue, from any more of NATO's 'humanitarian interventions'. I think the world has seen enough of what that means to countries and no one is fooled by their selective 'concerns' about which civilians need saving and which do not. Bahrain, eg, Palestine, why no concern for those civilians?

I think Hillary explained in her interview after the regime change in Libya, how the US will conduct wars from now on. Smart wars, I think she called it. Using proxy armies, like Qatar's military.