The Libya problem.

[mike3]

Hi.

I saw this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23920

Is this correct? How much of the information we get about what's going on in Libya is accurate? Is there any way to get direct, hard facts from on the ground, without any middleman? With all this seemingly conflicting stuff, where is the truth in the matter? What are the hard facts, and where can they be found?

And if this is right, what is the correct way to save as many lives of Libyans as possible and truly prevent as many atrocities in all forms from all parties? Note that none of these kinds of pieces seem to give answers to those big, huge, nagging questions. All criticisms, NO solutions.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Russian government satellites monitored Libyan airspace during the early days and said the frequent claims that the Government was using planes to attack protests were untrue - that would be fair reliable.

As for solutions. The possible outcomes have never changed.

1. The Libyan government reasserts its sovereignty over the country. That won't happen now, there are no circumstances with which politically the leaders of the UK, US and France can allow Tripoli based forces to retake the East.

2. The insurgents conquer the country with the help of Allied air support - which would have to be officially denied. That is still in play - but any regime that came to power this way would be extremely unpopular outside the East.

3. A genuine ceasefire resolution is passed by the Security Council. That would involve a demarcation line being drawn and observers being posted to monitor it. This would require the agreement of both sides. It is unlikely that the Britain, France or the US would agree to a genuine ceasefire until the insurgents have advanced at least to the outskirts of Sirt. Whether the country could then come together at a later date would have to be a matter to decide in the future and for the parties involved. It is not impossible after a cooling off period - but the longer the violence goes on, the harder it will become.

4. High level defections in the Libyan army either removes or sidelines Gadaffi. I don't think this is likely as I don't think the Libyan army really think Gadaffi did anything wrong, I very much doubt that the Libyan army thinks the insurgents have any legitimacy at all, so that any change in Tripoli would be to some extent superficial to try and provide a face-saving way out for Western leaders. BUT this still leaves the country divided, because it is highly unlikely that the Libyan army will be able to respect or work with the insurgents, and it is equally unlikely that the Western countries will withdraw the support that is the only thing that holds up the insurgents.

It is hard to imagine that the Libyan military will ever serve under people who called in Western air strikes on them. That will mean an entirely Eastern armed forces will have to be armed and trained and the previously armed forces largely disbanded and a significant portion of its officer corps eliminated or imprisoned.

 

[mike3]

But if you object to the campaign we (the West) are on, what do you think would have been a better option at that time, with "time running out" on Qaddafi's crackdown? As to me, it is only fair to critique the initial action if there were genuinely better options that would result in less killing and less oppression on/from all sides that had not been tried to failure. Let Qaddafi retake the country and smash out all opposition, even if it meant a major bloodletting of some sort, and then try and get him to come out some other way?

 

[Pardalis]

where is the truth in the matter?

Most likely not at globalreasearch.ca. It's a junk site.

 

[little grey rabbit]

But if you object to the campaign we (the West) are on, what do you think would have been a better option at that time, with "time running out" on Qaddafi's crackdown? As to me, it is only fair to critique the initial action if there were genuinely better options that would result in less killing and less oppression on/from all sides that had not been tried to failure. Let Qaddafi retake the country and smash out all opposition, even if it meant a major bloodletting of some sort, and then try and get him to come out some other way?

Oh that's easy. There has be no indications of indiscriminant bloodletting in the West of the country.

If estimates that the insurgents have only 1000 fighters (many of them opportunistic) are true, those that didn't blend into the population would have fled across the border into Egypt. A couple of journalists had done interviews with insurgent fighters where they quite openly said the expected to be given in refugee status in the US and Britain. The Libyan military just before the "Tactical Air Support" resolution was quite open that they would have no trouble taking Benghazi as the insurgents were relatively few.

A perfect solution? No. But a solution involving a lot less bloodshed and misery across. And the fact is people who pick up guns and start killing soldiers from amongst apartment buildings and civilians don't traditionally receive either respect or protection. If they escaped - good for them, if they got caught - too bad. But the people we are killing at the moment have done nothing wrong at all.

If you like, doing nothing would have capped deaths at a maximum of 1000 - but in all probability much less. Intevening, by the time it is over, we should expect the death toll to top the recent tsunami.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Had there been a real desire to do a humanitarian intervention (as opposed to tactical air support) and a desire to keep the insurgents in power in Benghazi.

Then a Cease-Fire Resolution should have been passed and also a No-Fly Zone with the following implementations:

The No Fly Zone would have not involved attacking ground infra-structure until there was clear violations by the Libyan Airforce. As it turned out the only violation was by the insurgents and what probably happened was they no longer have the skills to maintain aircraft and it crashed. Since the No Fly Zone was proclaimed there have been no offensive operations by the Libyan airforce and possibly only one prohibited flight (with no combat mission associated). By launching into a comprehensive demolition of air defences in response to a Libyan ceasefire we simply underscored our hypocrisy.

The Ceasefire would have been best implemented if at least the insurgents, but probably the government allowed neutral observers to monitor the situation. It was completely in the interests of the insurgents that the Libyan government been seen to have broken the ceasefire, so it is likely that the Libyan army was correct when they said the insurgents were launching attacks on halted units. Only have observers on the ground could have avoided such a situation.

But we never intended to act as an honest broker - which is why the French leapt immediately to decimate the Libyan army outside Benghazi - an army which it seems was most likely trying to implement a ceasefire.

 

[rjh01]

The article in the OP looks like propaganda to me.

 

[BeAChooser]

Have to say I agree with your analyses, little grey rabbit.

Obama has created quite a mess now. And don't forget to add this into the mess. Libya was a country with WMD program and which had engaged in terrorism in Europe. What actually happened to Libya's chemical weapons and uranium? Especially given the fact that as late as 2009, Libya was stalling on destroying the chemical weapons: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/06/09TRIPOLI490.html .

According to this ...

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...has-significant-stockpile-of-chemical-weapons

Libya has 'significant' stockpile of chemical weapons

... snip ...

Indeed, Libya has one of the world’s largest remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons.

This is who Obama has started a war. So what's his exit plan again?

 

[Virus]

Ghaddafi started it, not Obama.

 

[angrysoba]

The article in the OP looks like propaganda to me.

I saw global research and thought, "Not reading that!"

Happy birthday!

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hi, Mike 3.

To get the purpose of this thread, the problem is how to deal with the Libya problem, on the presumption that article's assertions are true?

Poor formula I'm afraid. Personally, I tend to value globalreasearch.ca articles, on their big picture anyway (a lot of random woo, some of it atrocious, gets in as well). But as a counter-weight to the prevailing media that doesn't address a lot of these issues adequately, it's valuable and worth a look.

You'll note, however, that most people just decide it's bunk, CT propaganda because it's got a visible and unusual slant. They're used to pervasive, invisible slants. So they dismiss it and refuse to entertain your hypothetical.

I'd propose that this, in fact, is the Libya problem. People are unable to parse anything beyond the corporate media headlines and talking heads from Washington think tanks and free Libya think tanks. They accept every rebel report as fact and dismiss anything the other side says as obvious lies. It seems to work pretty well as far as national interests are concerned.

As for the article itself:

What is obvious to all but the most duped and apathetic is that once again we have another war launched by the imperialist powers thinly veiled as a “humanitarian intervention”, dressed up as a mission of peace driven by the use of heavy bombardment and murder, where the truth lies diametrically opposed to the propaganda being pushed by the mainstream media. Nothing is what it seems; the lies and deceptions are as Orwellian as ever.

I'm undecided if it's really that bad,or obvious, but I fear it might be so.

Then a lot of historical background that I do think is relevant to consider, but ran a bit long. That means fewer specifics of the supposed Orwellian campaign. He missed a couple I've wondered about, but all this is happening quick, and most of us have full-time jobs. Makes it hard to research and think for yourself. But anyway:

Arms and al-Qaida-affiliated fighters have also been flowing into the country to fuel the insurrection from Saudi Arabia and Egypt directly from NATO and other Western sources in an attempt to foment the overthrow of Qaddafi.

I'm not totally sure of that. I'd wager it is true, more or less.

There are additional reports that Israeli-affiliated African mercenaries have also infiltrated Libya to support the attempted insurrection.

I did see a report suggesting, from Arab sources, that Israel was sending in Mercenaries to support Gaddafi, out of fear of an Islamist victory. Link not handy. Dunno. Interesting.

It is the reaction of the Libyan government – a completely justified response to a violent insurrection aided by agents from foreign governments with reciprocal force – that the Western press is characterising as the oppression of unarmed protesters.

Absolutely.

Stories of atrocities carried out by Qaddafi have also turned out to be of questionable veracity, for instance the accusation that Qaddafi was using his air force to strafe crowds of protesters.

True. That order is based on the word of two pilots who defected to Malta. It's an illogical order, IMO. Fighter jets are expensive to scramble, and so fast relative to crowds of protesters (as we imagine/presume/whatever) would have to keep swooping back. Rather, I suspect some rebellion-supporting air force commander sent two subordinates to tell the world that story. They were stealing the jets to get the world talking no-fly zones, so it helps to be fast.

Another evidence of Gaddafi "bombing his own people" aside from what two defectors said?

And further, the author missed the possible misattribution of 130 of those killed near Benghazi in the first days. The soldiers Gaddafi offed at al-Baida for refusing to kill protesters? A pretty convincing video suggests protesters did that slaughter, of 130, presumably for refusing to join them. It also shows people on the insurgent side from places far and wide, haranguing the prisoners before their deaths. A Russian-looking (Chechen?) guy is there, holding a rifle. Protesters got mercs?

These accusations remain unsupported, but that hasn’t stopped them being repeated ad nauseum across the mainstream media. If there is a grain of truth in them (and it’s not simply a case of Qaddafi’s forces legitimately striking back at armed, Western-backed “rebels”),

or unsupported tweets of shelling that, for all we know, was done by some of the foreign fighters from Kosovo or wherever. That liar Gaddafi (don't EVER trust him!) has suggested just that - "to draw in the west." That's why I suggested Kosovars.

one has to wonder why such a supposedly unpopular leader has recently handed out 1 million machine guns to the public to fight against a foreign occupation. Hardly the tactics of a dictator fearing overthrow from within.

Good question. Most of us presume his own army can't be trusted, let alone the cowed citizens. After all, he had to have 130 of his own soldiers slaughtered at al-Baida. Oh, wait ...

Perhaps the media will release photographic or video evidence supporting their claims, but if the past is anything to go by … well, perhaps they won’t.

I have to e-mail this guy that one of the biggest among them has perhaps been exposed.

Fox News got in on the act of making things up recently as well, using the well worn “human shields” hoax popular amongst defenders of Israeli barbarism towards the Palestinians. Fortunately, CNN correspondent Nic Robertson set the records straight:

CNN video embedded on a CRG page. Ironic. Fox's lame attempt to block ALL western media coverage from anywhere slightly near Gaddafi''s vantage point. It is our national duty to do all we can to maintain the focus we're all, somehow, maintaining so far.

Then a photo of American brutality that, as always, is a case of a few bad apples. Meanwhile, we're chopping down a whole rotten tree over there, we tell ourselves.

So yeah, it's propagandistic, biased, and over-the-top. But it's not wrong.

Sorry, I still didn't get to the problem part. How else to have dealt with it, given there's a lot we don't know and it could be that all of this isn't really necessary. At least, not for the given reasons.

 

[Laeke]

Is this correct? How much of the information we get about what's going on in Libya is accurate? Is there any way to get direct, hard facts from on the ground, without any middleman? With all this seemingly conflicting stuff, where is the truth in the matter? What are the hard facts, and where can they be found?

And if this is right, what is the correct way to save as many lives of Libyans as possible and truly prevent as many atrocities in all forms from all parties? Note that none of these kinds of pieces seem to give answers to those big, huge, nagging questions. All criticisms, NO solutions.

Is this problem specific to Libya? Everything you heard of, except for what you experience directly, are not "direct hard facts" but are reported via one way or another, most notably the media (but it can also be justice decisions, studies, etc...): there is always middlemen. So either you just discovered the frightening uncertainty of modern day life where our whole world view is based on approximations, and sometimes inaccurate or fake information, or you need to cool down and put Libya into perspective.

Of course, if you take the same position as the article, namely that "Western Media" (which now includes Al Jazeera I guess?) are only liars and syphocants, you're pretty much excluding the most part of what is being reported anyway. God forbids there would be some sort of middle ground on the accuracy of what they report!

To be honest, the article you link to seems to make a lot of bold statements without backing it by anything or citing any sources.

 

[McHrozni]

Russian government satellites monitored Libyan airspace during the early days and said the frequent claims that the Government was using planes to attack protests were untrue - that would be fair reliable.

I guess we don't need ground radars and AWACS any more then, eh? We can do it all with satelites. It's true, the Russians say so.

McHrozni

 

[Toontown]

Kadaffy is a creep who illegitimately seized a country and became an international terrorist.

The West is at war against international terrorists. Like it or not. No matter who they are. No matter what country they've seized. For better or for worse. For richer or for poorer. In sickness and in health. Until death do us part.

Some of you appear not to have gotten the message. This has been going on for some time now. Might as well start getting used to it.

 

[BeAChooser]

The West is at war against international terrorists.

Then how ironic that the US may have entered this *war* on the side of people who have ties to al-Qaeda.

http://www.anhourago.co.uk/show.aspx?l=8324268&d=501

Libya rebels: Gaddafi could be right about al-Qaeda

… snip …

In fact, two documents strongly back Gaddafi on this issue.

The first is a secret cable to the State Department from the US embassy in Tripoli in 2008, part of the WikiLeaks trove, entitled "Extremism in Eastern Libya", which revealed that this area is rife with anti-American, pro-jihad sentiment.

According to the 2008 cable, the most troubling aspect "... is the pride that many eastern Libyans, particularly those in and around Dernah, appear to take in the role their native sons have played in the insurgency in Iraq … [and the] ability of radical imams to propagate messages urging support for and participation in jihad."

The second document, or rather set of documents, are the so-called Sinjar Records, captured al-Qaeda documents that fell into American hands in 2007. They were duly analysed by the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point. Al-Qaeda is a bureaucratic outfit and the records contain precise details on personnel, including those who came to Iraq to fight American and coalition forces and, when necessary, commit suicide.

The West Point analysts' statistical study of the al-Qaeda personnel records concludes that one country provided "far more" foreign fighters in per capita terms than any other: namely, Libya.

The records show that the "vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their home town in the Sinjar Records resided in the country's northeast". Benghazi provided many volunteers. So did Dernah, a town about 200 kms east of Benghazi, in which an Islamic emirate was declared when the rebellion against Gaddafi started.

New York Times reporter Anthony Shadid even spoke with Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi who promulgated the Islamic emirate. Al-Hasadi "praises Osama bin Laden's 'good points'," Shadid reported, though he prudently denounced the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Other sources have said that this keen admirer of Osama would be most influential in the formation of any provisional government.

The West Point study of the Sinjar Records calculates that of the 440 foreign al-Qaeda recruits whose home towns are known, 21 came from Benghazi, thereby making it the fourth most common home town listed in the records. Fifty-three of the al-Qaeda recruits came from Darnah, the highest total of any of the home towns listed in the records. The second highest number, 51, came from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. But Darnah (80,000) has less than two per cent the population of Riyadh. So Darnah contributed "far and away the largest per capita number of fighters".

As former CIA operations officer Brian Fairchild writes, amid "the apparent absence of any plan for post-Gaddafi governance, an ignorance of Libya's tribal nature and our poor record of dealing with tribes, American government documents conclusively establish that the epicentre of the revolt is rife with anti-American and pro-jihad sentiment, and with al-Qaeda's explicit support for the revolt, it is appropriate to ask our policy makers how American military intervention in support of this revolt in any way serves vital US strategic interests".

Especially since you can't point to any activity in recent years implicating Ghaddafi in terrorism. Maybe he'd turned a new leaf. If so, Obama is foolish to try and topple him and put a group who are still actively committing terrorist acts in charge. Don't you think? Doubly foolish is we make the attempt, fail, then walk away. Remember, Ghaddafi may still have chemical weapons. At least the experts think he does. What if he NOW decides to retaliate with them using terrorists? What's the exit strategy for that? Hmmmmm?

 

[WildCat]

Russian government satellites monitored Libyan airspace

How do you monitor airspace with satellites?

 

[Segnosaur]

where is the truth in the matter?

Most likely not at globalreasearch.ca. It's a junk site.

Gotta agree here.

If you look around, you can see their site has a 9/11 section, complete with the regular nonsenses of "thermite" and "free-falling tower" claims. I suggest that any site that posts such nonsense should never be trusted as an information source for any statement more complex than "the sky is blue" (and even then I'd probably check outside to make sure.)

 

[mike3]

Hi, Mike 3.

To get the purpose of this thread, the problem is how to deal with the Libya problem, on the presumption that article's assertions are true?

Poor formula I'm afraid. Personally, I tend to value globalreasearch.ca articles, on their big picture anyway (a lot of random woo, some of it atrocious, gets in as well). But as a counter-weight to the prevailing media that doesn't address a lot of these issues adequately, it's valuable and worth a look.

You'll note, however, that most people just decide it's bunk, CT propaganda because it's got a visible and unusual slant. They're used to pervasive, invisible slants. So they dismiss it and refuse to entertain your hypothetical.

I'd propose that this, in fact, is the Libya problem. People are unable to parse anything beyond the corporate media headlines and talking heads from Washington think tanks and free Libya think tanks. They accept every rebel report as fact and dismiss anything the other side says as obvious lies. It seems to work pretty well as far as national interests are concerned.

However, if that's the case, then why is it a "poor formula" to presume that? If the stuff you agree with is true, then what is the bst way to apporach the Libya problem to minimize deaths and maximize positive things coming out of this? And what do you think of Gaddafi, overall?

 

[mike3]

Is this problem specific to Libya? Everything you heard of, except for what you experience directly, are not "direct hard facts" but are reported via one way or another, most notably the media (but it can also be justice decisions, studies, etc...): there is always middlemen. So either you just discovered the frightening uncertainty of modern day life where our whole world view is based on approximations, and sometimes inaccurate or fake information, or you need to cool down and put Libya into perspective.

That's true, however, the thing I want to do here is come up with the best, most rational possible, or at least much more rational than just jumping on stuff, opinion, and that requires knowing what you can trust (to a reasonable degree) and what you can't. Basically, to not get duped "sheeple-like" by propaganda, in support of either viewpoint (pro or con).

Of course, if you take the same position as the article, namely that "Western Media" (which now includes Al Jazeera I guess?) are only liars and syphocants, you're pretty much excluding the most part of what is being reported anyway. God forbids there would be some sort of middle ground on the accuracy of what they report!

To be honest, the article you link to seems to make a lot of bold statements without backing it by anything or citing any sources.

But I'm still left hanging: Should we have used military intervention, or not? If not, then what should we have done? Should we have let the 48 hours lapse and have Qaddafi shut it all down and fully reassert power, or not? Or what? As that seems wrong. Is there some third option here that I am missing and that isn't clear at all from any of these "reports"?

 

[Caustic Logic]

However, if that's the case, then why is it a "poor formula" to presume that? If the stuff you agree with is true, then what is the bst way to apporach the Libya problem to minimize deaths and maximize positive things coming out of this? And what do you think of Gaddafi, overall?

It's a poor formula given this forum population, and the source. As you can see, aside from me. And no mainstream news source "skeptics" here would trust will ever speak such major doubts about an ongoing military campaign. So basically they've tuned out all but the smallest, most niggling questions about what we're doing.

The best situation would have been not promote this uprising to begin with, IMO. Because I think we did, considering the speed and size of the defections and seizure of half the country, I suspect planning and oustide encouragement, at least. Next, encourage a cease-fire for BOTH sides, enforce it if need be with air power, etc. Try to help remove the threat of overthrow OR partition to steal most of the country's oil, and I'm sure Gaddafi would not want find it worthwhile to crush anyone anymore (except maybe some of those who slaughtered his soldiers, etc - law enforcement, not war).

But of course these things are out. The West at large will not allow this chance at overthrow or division to steal most of the oil pass by untaken. So the "mad tyrant" is backed into a corner, prepared to fight back for his country (aka repression of civiilians and "Genocide").

Gaddafi is the universally hated underdog, so at least to play the most valuable part I can in creating a level dialog, I must support. I'm sure he's guilty of some of the things he's blamed for, mostly the domestic stuff. (it's hard not to repress some when you have a coup attempt every other year). But I'm sure he was framed for Lockerbie, at the very least, among the major European terror incidents. (WPC Fletcher shooting too, I think).

Framed? I suspect Wall Street and "intel" agencies have always hated Gaddafi and the regime for its economic aspects (sharing oil wealth with the population and not so much with corporations) and support for other "nations" trying to throw off capitalist/imperialist oppression (Chadians, Palestinians, Northern Irish, Black South African, etc.) So he's been subject to a handful of coup and assassination attempts, using everything from cruise missile (86), Italian air force (80), and al Qaeda's north Africa branch (96).

Few others will agree, and that's for the best, as far as national interests go.