Fatigue shows in Libya by Victor Kotsev

[Jefferson23]

May 5, 2011

TEL AVIV - Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi is showing first signs of military strain, if mostly because the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has become so desperate that it has embarked on an assassination campaign against him. It is yet to be seen how many more self-declared red lines the leaders of the intervention will breach to avoid - or delay at great human cost - losing the "humanitarian" war.

It is hard to overlook that operations to "crush the head of the snake" (kill or capture rogue leaders that refuse to be defeated) seem to be the latest military fashion in the West. First it was Ivory Coast's Laurent Gbagbo, who is persistently rumored to have been captured by French commandos rather than by the local forces of his enemy, Alassane Ouattara. Former South African president Thabo Mbeki lays out the case for how the intervention on the part of the international community, and specifically the French, was misguided and morally dubious from the start. <1>


More recently, Osama bin Laden's assassination in Pakistan has raised considerable controversy. <2> Somewhere in between, at least two of what looked a whole lot like attempts on Gaddafi's life took place in Libya - one about 10 days ago, <3> and another one on Saturday, killing his obscure youngest son, Saif al-Arab Gaddafi. "Targeted assassinations have become an increasingly favorite tool of US security policy," Stephen Walt, Harvard international affairs professor, writes in Foreign Policy. "...And there's certainly some reason to believe that this is how NATO is trying to resolve the civil war in Libya, though of course we will never say so openly."

It bears noting that the bombing that took the life of Saif al-Arab came roughly at the same time as a new peace offer from Gaddafi, which NATO and the rebels rejected promptly. The moral ambiguity - or outright hypocrisy - of the assassination attempts is also underscored by the fact that Obama has publicly ruled out killing Gaddafi several times in the past.

in full: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME06Ak02.html

[tabatha]

1. Asia Times?

[Jefferson23]

2. What about it? n/t

[tabatha]

3. I find it horribly biased.

Why are they not concerned about the unbelievable bloodbath that Gaddafi unleashed on his people - that was planned in January before the Libyans took to the streets?

The "house" in which the son was supposed to have been killed (absolutely no verification because they produced bodies that were unrecognizable) was clearly a command center - just view the pictures that are widely available.

Btw, Gaddafi has done this before - he once produced charred bodies stating they were killed because of NATO bombing, but journalists and the photos they took, showed bullet holes in the bodies.

And the intervention in the Ivory Coast stopped more bloodshed from happening.

Before 1994, Mbeki was one of my heroes, but his handling of AIDs patients and his attitude to Mugabe, have made him hardly credible in my eyes.

I hope in two weeks time there is an arrest warrant out from the ICC for Gaddafi.

[Jefferson23]

4. Horribly biased? This author, nor the Asia Times online

are not biased. You wish them to ignore the politics behind what transpires, then that would
be an inaccurate presentation. The author is not giving anyone a pass, nor should he.

[tabatha]

5. Their politics is guess work.

NATO has stated that they are not out to get Gaddafi. For starters, they have no idea where he is. Secondly, it would be preferable if they did not assassinate Gaddafi. (Personally, I and I am sure many others, would love to see Gaddafi at The Hague.)

If they can provide solid proof that there is an attempt to get Gaddafi, then that is another matter. For now, they are accusing falsely.

[Jefferson23]

6. I believe very often actions speak louder than words re: NATO .

We may need to agree to disagree here, and the story is far from over, so we'll see.

[tabatha]

7. What people do not realize is that

Gaddafi placed the Command and Control centers in his compound. In order to try to stop the massacre of thousands of civilians, these centers have to be taken out.

There are reports that Gaddafi has taken the wounded from hospitals and killed them --- why, because the fact that they are injured is a sign that they oppose Gaddafi. He has lobbed shells at humanitarian aid ships trying to get the wounded and the fleeing out of Misrata, and mined the harbor. He has fired heavy duty weapons at unarmed civilians. He has poisoned water supplies, and killed goats belonging to civilians.

Why was none of this in the report?

And if the death of his son is bogus, as I suspect it is, then NATO's campaign in Libya has been pretty good - I think there are less than 20 people killed as opposed to the 10,000 and counting by Gaddafi.

Why are those numbers not in that report? Why is the fact that the ICC has evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity not in that report?

[Jefferson23]

8. Tell me why you believe the author is pro Gaddfafi, if that is what you think. You imagine

the report should reflect all you have stated here as if that would change
his reporting on the impact NATO has brought to it? I think you may be attributing a motive to his writing that is unwarranted.

Keep in mind he is referencing here too: "Targeted assassinations have become an increasingly favorite tool of US security policy," Stephen Walt, Harvard international affairs professor, writes in Foreign Policy. "...And there's certainly some reason to believe that this is how NATO is trying to resolve the civil war in Libya, though of course we will never say so openly."

And later here: This means that although the government in Tripoli would be weakened by his death, it is unlikely to crumble, at least in the immediate aftermath, and the civil war would become even more entrenched as many Libyans would perceive him as a martyr fighting an invasion. The international community - beyond NATO members and a few countries in the Persian Gulf - would also become more vocal against the intervention.


You may not agree, but he is not making things up out of thin air.

[tabatha]

9. He is making stuff up out of thin air.

NATO is not trying to target Gaddafi. They have stated so.

"Targeted assassinations have become an increasingly favorite tool of US security policy," - examples please?

"and the civil war would become even more entrenched" --- It is NOT a civil war. It is a war of the people versus the regime.

"many Libyans would perceive him as a martyr fighting an invasion". --- He has no evidence for that.

From what I have seen and heard and read, the only people who would not be happy to see Gaddafi go, are probably his family. There are reports that other higher-ups want to defect but they are under virtual house arrest, and they are concerned for their families.

Gaddafi pays people to demonstrate in his favor. He is rounding up people and forcing them to fight against the pro-democracy fighters. He has to import mercenaries to fight for him ... why?

Sorry, what you have quoted has no basis in fact or reality, and there are no links to supporting evidence.

[Jefferson23]

10. What NATO states is not in any way contrary to their actions in your

analysis, ok.

The author has no evidence, but you do here? "many Libyans would perceive him as a martyr fighting an invasion". --- He has no evidence for that.

Your evidence? From what I have seen and heard and read, the only people who would not be happy to see Gaddafi go, are probably his family. There are reports that other higher-ups want to defect but they are under virtual house arrest, and they are concerned for their families.

You: Targeted assassinations have become an increasingly favorite tool of US security policy," - examples please?

As I already stated, the author is not making things up, you don't agree with Stephen Walt, Harvard international affairs professor,
that is who the author references..not a credible source to you I guess.

You: Sorry, what you have quoted has no basis in fact or reality, and there are no links to supporting evidence.

Evidently you did not read the piece through:

Notes
1. What the World Got Wrong in Cote D'Ivoire, Foreign Policy, April 29, 2011.
2. Concerns raised over shooting of unarmed bin Laden, burial, Reuters, May 4, 2011.
3. NATO Bombs Gadhafi Cribs (But Not to Kill Him, Honest), Wired, April 26, 2011.
4. Qaddafi's Great Arms Bazaar, Foreign Policy, April 8, 2011.
5. France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty, BBC April 26, 2011.
6. Libyan fighting spills into Tunisia, The Christian Science Monitor, April 29, 2011.
7. African Union accuses ICC prosecutor of bias, Reuters, January 30, 2011.
8. Gaddafi reaches tipping point, Asia Times Online, February 25, 2011.
9. Gaddafi forces accused of rape, al-Jazeera, May 3, 2011.

Victor Kotsev is a journalist and political analyst based in Tel Aviv.



I believe we're done here tabitha..thank you.

[tabatha]

11. Yup, I agree. Done, indeed.

References to articles that are themselves conjectures.

[Jefferson23]

12. So now you have read the sources you had previously stated

were not available to you, ok. That was fast reading on your part, 9 articles, to include Reuters, Christian Science Monitor,
the BBC, and have deemed them all conjecture.

Credibility, your opinion is without.

[tabatha]

13. This is the last thing I am going to say.

If NATO wanted to assassinate Gaddafi, it would have happened already.

Why spend all of the ammunition and allow all of the killing to continue, if that was the aim. Makes no sense at all.

What what completely horrifies me, is the total lack of concern for the Libyans who are being slaughtered.

The "protection" and defense of Gaddafi, and the vilification of a body that is trying to protect innocent civilians from Gaddafi's excesses, seems to be the focus.

Unbelievable.

[Jefferson23]

14. Your lack of understanding of the OP is made apparent in this thread,

most especially, in post# 11. No defense of Gaddafi rests within it.

Take care.

[bhikkhu]

15. Well that's a pretty sketchy narrative

The OBL thing goes way back, before there was anything particular going on in Libya. Its a whole different story.

And then the "targeted assassinations", which have of course been used against the Taliban more or less effectively, depending on what you think about screw-ups and collateral damage. The decisions and the chain of command there have little to do with Libya also, and not really much to do with OBL, except in the beginning. Its also hard to see a real connection between Gadhafi's "peace offer" and the air strike, as he has little credibility after the last two months. He says whatever sounds good to him at the moment, and does whatever suits him as well regardless of what he has said.

[Jefferson23]

16. Sketchy? What connection do you think he is trying to make

with Libya and bin Laden.

The meaning from your statement, there should be no concern for the most part..you're ok with targeted assassinations by NATO or was that
a generalized approval, if an approval at all.

"And then the "targeted assassinations", which have of course been used against the Taliban more or less effectively, depending on what you think about screw-ups and collateral."


The author's concerns are about what may follow Gaddafi's death:

This means that although the government in Tripoli would be weakened by his death, it is unlikely to crumble, at least in the immediate aftermath, and the civil war would become even more entrenched as many Libyans would perceive him as a martyr fighting an invasion. The international community - beyond NATO members and a few countries in the Persian Gulf - would also become more vocal against the intervention.

Secondly, if the government does collapse eventually, this would plunge the country into utter chaos and would most likely result in an atrocious civil war and massive waves of refugees flooding North Africa and Europe. Libyan society has never been particularly cohesive, and a lot of bridges were burnt in the last few months as the rebellion pitted the western part of the country against the eastern one. In addition, arms proliferation has soared, <4> and various factions and interests have mushroomed; tribalism is also rampant. This situation is a recipe for disaster.

[bhikkhu]

18. He states the connection that he is trying to make

in the clip that you posted in the OP.

"Sketchy" as in he tries to draw connections of intention and policy between things that are not especially connected, and in the broad narrative drawn from a slim selection of facts.

Its easy to read and gloss over the faults if you agree with the conclusions. If you disagree, however, then you're left looking for "meat" in the argument; there isn't any. As said, its just a sketchy narrative drawn from a slim selection of facts that anyone following the events is already aware of, but skewed to please a specific audience.

[Jefferson23]

19. The slim selection of facts, according to you, but you haven't

disputed them, ok. I have no idea what you mean when you stated:

"The OBL thing goes way back, before there was anything particular going on in Libya. Its a whole different story."


He references bin Laden 3 times. I think you may be confused by his use of the references to bin Laden, as your response here
seems inapplicable to the OP and the meaning of his references to bin Laden. "The decisions and the chain of command there have little to do with Libya also, and not really much to do with OBL, except in the beginning."



(a) More recently, Osama bin Laden's assassination in Pakistan has raised considerable controversy. <2> Somewhere in between, at least two of what looked a whole lot like attempts on Gaddafi's life took place in Libya - one about 10 days ago, <3> and another one on Saturday, killing his obscure youngest son, Saif al-Arab Gaddafi.

You're claiming there is no controversy on this matter? Nothing similar to you.


(b)Firstly, like Osama bin Laden, he is the symbol of his side, but in practice he seems to have delegated a lot of the direct responsibilities to those around him, specifically his sons. To borrow a corporate metaphor, he is more like the chairman of the board rather than the chief executive officer. His son Saif al-Islam is in charge of propaganda and diplomacy (and most likely designated successor) while his sons Khamis and Mutassem seem to be spearheading the military campaign.

Gaddafi hasn't delegated a great deal to those around him and his sons?


(c) Talk about justice, Obama-kills-Bin Laden-style. A suspicious spin is also emerging about the use of rape as a weapon of war; Moreno-Ocampo specifically accused Gaddafi of this in his speech. There are a number of reports of rape in Libya, and such a heinous crime cannot be taken lightly, but neither should be manipulated allegations of it. "We have a few credible cases of gender based violence and rape, but the evidence is not there at this point to suggest it is of a systematic nature, or an official policy," said last week Fred Abrahams, a representative of Human Rights Watch.

So Human Rights Watch is not reliable and no "meat" to you.

A recent al-Jazeera report shows stockpiles of Viagra and Cialis, of which rebels claim to have found large amounts on captured Gaddafi soldiers and in bombed government tanks. <9> The allegation goes that Gaddafi ordered his men to rape "rebel" women, and provided them with the means to do so (perhaps less a statement that government troops are impotent as an implication that they are acting against their own will).

What seems a bit strange in the images - though obviously this is only circumstantial evidence - is that the medications showed seem right off the shelf, neatly packaged with bar-codes and bearing Pfizer logos. Throughout Africa, on the other hand, and specifically on the black market on which Gaddafi reportedly relies heavily, countless generic medications circulate to treat anything from worms to impotence to Malaria to AIDS (the HIV epidemic and expensive AIDS medication patents have significantly boosted this underground trade).

It is hard to imagine, to say the least, that these new containers were found either on the bodies of captured soldiers in a prolonged military campaign, or in burnt-out tanks. It looks too much like a manipulation, and has the logic of one - let's recall, for example, how the US invading invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to bring there women's rights. (end)

[Jefferson23]

17. Military intervention in Libya is a serious mistake, says Noam Chomsky

Chomsky adds that in Egypt public opinion polls have shown about 90 per cent of the population thinks the US is the worst threat they face.

He stresses that Libya is a humanitarian problem. “It is also a civil war and intervening in a civil war is a complicated business,” he says. “We may not like it, but there is support for Gadafy.”

in full: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20110321.htm

* on edit for clarity.