| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | Wood added, | | Wood added, |
| | {{Cquote|extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the [[Iran]]ian revolution to the [[Egypt]]ian people’s overthrow of [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html</ref>}} | | {{Cquote|extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the [[Iran]]ian revolution to the [[Egypt]]ian people’s overthrow of [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html</ref>}} |
| − | An international coalition has intervened in what many describe as an "illegal war"<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/01/obamas_illegal_war</ref> led by the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (Nato), whose own leaders have publicly questioned what the value, purpose, and reason for existence of the Nato orgnization is.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/europe/14iht-letter14.html</ref><ref>http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_58ebd6cf-0558-5ee2-bd8d-cf27c1af7630.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/12/nato-usa</ref> | + | An international coalition has intervened in what many describe as an "illegal war"<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/01/obamas_illegal_war</ref> led by the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), whose own leaders have publicly questioned what the value, purpose, and reason for existence of the NATO orgnization is.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/europe/14iht-letter14.html</ref><ref>http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_58ebd6cf-0558-5ee2-bd8d-cf27c1af7630.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/12/nato-usa</ref> |
| | __TOC__ | | __TOC__ |
| | | | |
| Line 65: |
Line 65: |
| | The root base of the armed uprising is Benghazi, a hotbed of tribal backers and clients of the deposed King Idris who ruled with an iron fist over a semi-feudal backward state. | | The root base of the armed uprising is Benghazi, a hotbed of tribal backers and clients of the deposed King Idris who ruled with an iron fist over a semi-feudal backward state. |
| | | | |
| − | In May, 2011, Nato and Arab countries agreed in Rome to set up a fund to manage donations to help areas controlled by the rebels; they announced a financial mechanism to assist the opposition in Libya. This would include a partial unfreezing of the Gadhafi regime assets in banks that would go into a temporary fund to be managed by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. And it would help the rebels with their immediate needs to cover food, medicine and hospital costs;<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136011941/diplomats-discuss-aid-to-libyan-rebels</ref> They could have access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting Col Muammar Gaddafi;<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8492745/Libyan-rebels-to-receive-1.8-billion-trust-fund.html</ref> the Transitional National Council is planing to use money pledged for humanitarian and reconstruction needs to buy weapons.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-accuses-gaddafi-regime-of-war-crimes-in-misurata/2011/05/06/AFbPjw6F_story.html?hpid=z2</ref> | + | In May, 2011, NATO and Arab countries agreed in Rome to set up a fund to manage donations to help areas controlled by the rebels; they announced a financial mechanism to assist the opposition in Libya. This would include a partial unfreezing of the Gadhafi regime assets in banks that would go into a temporary fund to be managed by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. And it would help the rebels with their immediate needs to cover food, medicine and hospital costs;<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136011941/diplomats-discuss-aid-to-libyan-rebels</ref> They could have access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting Col Muammar Gaddafi;<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8492745/Libyan-rebels-to-receive-1.8-billion-trust-fund.html</ref> the Transitional National Council is planing to use money pledged for humanitarian and reconstruction needs to buy weapons.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-accuses-gaddafi-regime-of-war-crimes-in-misurata/2011/05/06/AFbPjw6F_story.html?hpid=z2</ref> |
| | | | |
| | <blockquote> | | <blockquote> |
| Line 94: |
Line 94: |
| | Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}} | | Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}} |
| | | | |
| − | Of Nato's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced, | + | Of NATO's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced, |
| | {{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}} | | {{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}} |
| | and warned | | and warned |
| Line 123: |
Line 123: |
| | {{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}} | | {{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}} |
| | | | |
| − | Nato's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan insurgents.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> A document published by the U.S. [[West Point]] Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center reveals that Libya sent more fighters to the [[Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#InsurgencyIraq|Islamic insurgency]] than any other [[Muslim]] country (from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.).<ref>[http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf The Sinjar documents], a collection of al Qaeda computer data captured by Americans in 2007 in a predawn raid near Sinjar, Iraq, six miles from the Syrian border. The documents included background information on around 750 foreign fighters, who migrated to Iraq to kill American soldiers, many of those fighters coming from among the very people we are now pledging to protect. David Wood wrote: "Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans."</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the insurgents.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>
| + | NATO's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan insurgents.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> A document published by the U.S. [[West Point]] Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center reveals that Libya sent more fighters to the [[Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#InsurgencyIraq|Islamic insurgency]] than any other [[Muslim]] country (from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.).<ref>[http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf The Sinjar documents], a collection of al Qaeda computer data captured by Americans in 2007 in a predawn raid near Sinjar, Iraq, six miles from the Syrian border. The documents included background information on around 750 foreign fighters, who migrated to Iraq to kill American soldiers, many of those fighters coming from among the very people we are now pledging to protect. David Wood wrote: "Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans."</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the insurgents.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> |
| | | | |
| | Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in. | | Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in. |
| Line 145: |
Line 145: |
| | | | |
| | ==Role of China== | | ==Role of China== |
| − | After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libaya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and Nato cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire. | + | After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libaya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire. |
| | | | |
| | Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is | | Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is |
| Line 155: |
Line 155: |
| | | | |
| | ==Mission creep== | | ==Mission creep== |
| − | [[File:Women with Gaddafi Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Lizzie Cocker with mum and two daughters from Sudan who have been living in Libya for 17 years. They had to flee from Misrata to Tripoli following the vicious atrocities committed by the pro-nato rebels against black skinned peoples. They are firmly standing behind their leader Moammar Gadaffi. The sisters have written on the poster, on the left: "King of Kings of Africa" and on the right: "Our souls are for you".]] | + | [[File:Women with Gaddafi Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Lizzie Cocker with mum and two daughters from Sudan who have been living in Libya for 17 years. They had to flee from Misrata to Tripoli following the vicious atrocities committed by the pro-NATO rebels against black skinned peoples. They are firmly standing behind their leader Moammar Gadaffi. The sisters have written on the poster, on the left: "King of Kings of Africa" and on the right: "Our souls are for you".]] |
| | UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi forces, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes, | | UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi forces, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes, |
| | {{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}} | | {{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}} |