It sure looks like the Empire is trying to make the most from an otherwise unpredictable situation. In Egypt, the Empire is now allowing for a travel ban on Mubarak while in Libya the US-NATO forces seem to be gearing up for the imposition of a no-fly zone.
I just head a British lawyer on al-Jazeera explaining that a no-fly zone can be imposed by the UNSC in case of genocide, crimes against humanity and other such massive atrocities which the so-called “duty to defend” doctrine can invoke to impose a no-fly zone. Except that nothing of the kind is taking place in Libya.
Ok, before somebody calls me a Gadaddi-fanboy let me make something clear: I don’t care for the guy one bit and I am absolutely delighted that his own people have decided to get rid of him, his sons, and his minions. But that does not mean that a genocide or crimes against humanity are taking place in Libya.
First, I don’t think anybody besides ex-Libyan diplomats trying to endear themselves to their new masters is seriously suggesting that a genocide is taking place in Libya. What about crimes against humanity then?
Take a look here for a definition of “crimes against humanity”. I suppose that one could make the case that murder, disappearance, torture and “persecution against some groups” is taking place now. But to qualify as crime against humanity these need to be “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack“. I see no evidence of that whatsoever (which is not to say that I deny that they are occurring, only that I see no evidence of that). Here is what we know about the situation in Libya:
1) there are violent clashes taking place which include the use of lethal force to control and suppress demonstrations.
2) there are also armed battles between regime-controlled military/security/polices forces on one side, a armed militias of anti-regime forces. Judging by the footage shown on al-Jazeera, the oppositions forces’ armament range from primitive hunting rifles, to anti-air guns (a *formidable* and vastly under-rated weapon which can be used against personnel, armor, buildings, roads, bridges, artillery and, of course, aircraft), mortars, anti-tank missiles and even main battle tanks.
3) there has been no proof shown whatsoever which would indicate that the Libyan Air Force has been used to bomb anything besides ammunition dumps.
I would say that NONE of that qualifies as “crimes against humanity”.
Frankly, this reminds me of the so-called “Timisoara massacre” – a fictional massacre invented to help topple Ceaușescu or the “Racak massacre” – another fictional massacre invented to justify the US/NATO attack against Yugoslavia. By the way, Ceaușescu and Milosevic were certainly repugnant individuals with plenty of blood on their arms, just like Gadaffi, but that is hardly a justification. It is a very naive and misguided think that to generate or propagate such fictional atrocities is acceptable: the parties generating them are always using such lies to manipulate the public opinion and hide the true nature of their intervention.
In the case of Libya, what seems to be coalescing is the imposition of a no-fly zone. The danger of such a plan is that it puts the military powers imposing such a no-fly zone in the position of becoming king-makers. You can be sure that if such a no-fly zone is decided upon, it is not going to be the Chinese or Chilean Air Force which will enforce it but the same clique which imposed the no fly zones on Bosnia and Iraq: the US and its NATO puppets.
Yes, a no-fly zone would tactically help the anti-Gadaffi forces, but only at the cost of a major strategic risk. Once a no-fly zone is enforced by the US/NATO there will be absolutely no oversight whatsoever over exactly how it is enforced. The US NATO forces will be able to easily begin flying all sorts of missions which have nothing to do with the enforcement of the no-fly zone or the prevention of ‘crimes against humanity’: aerial reconnaissance, insertion of special forces or foreign elements, exfiltration of allies and agents, covert airstrikes, delivery of supplies and ammunitions, false-flag massacres, etc. While the idea of a no-fly zone seems very reasonable and non-interventionist, the reality is that it puts the country over which it is imposed at the complete mercy of the forces enforcing it.
I very much hope that the Libyan people and the countries at the UNSC who are not puppets of the Empire (Russia, China) will see through all this and not allow such a resolution to pass.
The Saker
“In the case of Libya, what seems to be coalescing is the imposition of a no-fly zone. The danger of such a plan is that it puts the military powers imposing such a no-fly zone in the position of becoming king-makers. You can be sure that if such a no-fly zone is decided upon, it is not going to be the Chinese or Chilean Air Force which will enforce it but the same clique which imposed the no fly zones on Bosnia and Iraq: the US and its NATO puppets.
Yes, a no-fly zone would tactically help the anti-Gadaffi forces, but only at the cost of a major strategic risk. Once a no-fly zone is enforced by the US/NATO there will be absolutely no oversight whatsoever over exactly how it is enforced. The US NATO forces will be able to easily begin flying all sorts of missions which have nothing to do with the enforcement of the no-fly zone or the prevention of ‘crimes against humanity’: aerial reconnaissance, insertion of special forces or foreign elements, exfiltration of allies and agents, covert airstrikes, delivery of supplies and ammunitions, false-flag massacres, etc. While the idea of a no-fly zone seems very reasonable and non-interventionist, the reality is that it puts the country over which it is imposed at the complete mercy of the forces enforcing it.”
Thanks, Saker.
That explains it very nicely. I was wondering that maybe a no fly zone would be a reasonable idea, but now I know better.
With that risk in mind, I hope the anti-MQ forces push him out ASAP, before this becomes a reality.
Also, once a No fly zone is established, when is it lifted? supposing MQ is defeated days later, will they keep the NFZ in place for whatever nefarious reason?
Also, do you think they would be bold enough to put troops in? My guess is no, given Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. Without that, even with an NFZ I doubt they will be able to impose their will on the Libyans.
Also, if you could advise the Libyan freedom fighters, what would you tell them should be their next move?
@Lysander:Also, do you think they would be bold enough to put troops in?
No, I very much doubt it. That would be dangerous and would require a much larger commitment of forces: intelligence, supplies, force protection, command and control, etc. This is still Libya, a country which the US bombed, and there are plenty of folks over there who would be quite delighted to have a “Black Hawk Down” repeat.
Also, if you could advise the Libyan freedom fighters, what would you tell them should be their next move?
Pretty much exactly what they are doing: take back their country town by town, street by street, while being mindful of the possibility of a counter-attack. The biggest risk, I suspect, is that the vast majority of anti-Gaddafi forces do not have competent soldiers or commanders. They should therefore avoid engaging Gaddafi’s guards, commandos or mercenaries as much as possible. I have no idea how much military muscle the regime has left, but I suspect a non-trivial amount. Those Gaddafi loyalists might be far better trained, equipped and commanded, and they are probably capable of conducting combined arms operations. Though, at least so far, I have seen exactly zero evidence of the use, or even existence, of such well trained forces. However, the fact that they have not been seen yet does not mean that they are not there. I am not a Libya specialist AT ALL so I cannot say.
Maybe somebody else can comment on this aspect?
Kind regards,
The Saker
OT Saudiwoman on the potential situation in Arabia.
http://saudiwoman.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/are-we-or-arent-we/
On Libya the last thing they need is NATO intervention. Is there any evidence anyone in Libya is calling for it?
Al Jazeera live blog is reporting the regime is attacking Misurata, 200km west of Tripoli, with aircraft and helos as well as artillery. It seems one of the helos was brought down. I haven’t heard about an infantry attack. A regime attempt to retake Zawaya, which is a lot closer to Tripoli, has failed.
MQ is probably thinking he can demoralize and collapse the freedom fighters by retaking a city. That is possible but unlikely. In this game defections can really only go in one direction. No one can tolerate MQ retaking the country. The terror that would follow is unfathomable. And no one would trust him enough to redefect.
By contrast, the rebels really can out wait MQ. (the only problem is NATO intervention becomes more likely the longer this drags out) It seems much of the oil is in the hands of the free Libya forces. MQ’s assets out of the country are frozen and without oil, he has no revenue. A mercenary army is not cheap and he has to reward his loyal army troops to keep them loyal.
So it seems to me the FL forces just have to repel regime attacks and wait. One by one, MQ loyalists will defect.
One possible idea the rebels can try is a general amnesty for any regime forces that defect over the next few days. There are probably some who would like to but feel they have already committed war crimes and can’t. And while I’d love to see MQ meet Mussolini’s fate, it may be best if he and his sons had a place to run to.
Just an idea.
@Lysander:MQ is probably thinking he can demoralize and collapse the freedom fighters by retaking a city. That is possible but unlikely.
Again, I am not a Libya specialist, but I very very much doubt that this is possible. The Libyans have lived in fear so long that now this is not a slow release of feelings, but a real explosion which cannot be “demoralized” by a defeat. And, as you very correctly say yourself “No one can tolerate MQ retaking the country. The terror that would follow is unfathomable”
Besides, BOTH sides now know that they have nowhere to retreat, which brings me to your next point:
One possible idea the rebels can try is a general amnesty for any regime forces that defect over the next few days. There are probably some who would like to but feel they have already committed war crimes and can’t. And while I’d love to see MQ meet Mussolini’s fate, it may be best if he and his sons had a place to run to.
Well, I would be VERY cautious with that. If we are talking about Colonel-ranks and below, maybe. But with the top folks, the ones close to Gaddafi, I would advise against it. Judging by Gaddafi’s “turncoat” diplomatic corps, I suspect that the armed forces are no better, that they are composed of spineless Gaddafi sycophants who will try to join the winning side whichever it may be. Though this idea gets a bad press with the US “de-baathification” campaign in Iraq, I happen to think that the concept is sound: those who were the core supporters of the regime must be given the boot and replaced by a new generation. That is true for Egypt and that is true for Libya.
As for the real inner core, Gaddafi’s sons and close-in minions, they are all looking at the Ceaușescu option, and that sure brings no tears to my eyes. My nightmare would be to have Castro, Chavez or Ortega accept these guys because of their anti-imperialists past. I say let Lukashenko or Kim Jong Il have him/them, but I really hope that folks who matter in Latin America will not touch this clique with a 10 foot pole.
Saker, as you brought the issue, this is what I read:
http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/s/26022011/25/mundo-chavez-diz-apoia-governo-libio.html
(in Portuguese)
Chavez is showing a cautious support for Kaddafi, but is also trying to keep a distance: “I can’t say I support him or that I am on his side or that I applaud any decision made by a friend of mine. But I do support the Lybian government.”, said Chavez.
@Carlo: but the key sentence is here: “Durante um encontro televisionado em seu gabinete, Chávez disse que não iria se apressar em fazer um julgamento tendo como base apenas as informações da mídia, que ele não considera confiáveis.“
I would agree here. This is why I am posting all these posts about being cautious about what the media is saying too. Now, Chavez also says that he had a ‘friendship’ with Gaddafi. Well, I sure would see what would bring these two together. However, I dare hope that Chavez was not aware of the worst aspects of Gaddafi’s personality, that he was focused on Gaddafi’s many decades of anti-imperialist struggle. After all, Gaddafi was for sure not the worst of the Arab leaders and I would argue that compared to the Saud family or even the rest of the pro-Western leaders of the Maghreb he does not stand out as being much worse.
But its one thing to be aware of this checkered past and quite another to offer the guy asylum. Reading the article you refer to I get a sense that Chavez is being cautious. I least I want to read that into it.
I will tell you why it is, I think, so important to disassociate the leaders of the Latin American anti-Imperial resistance from Gaddafi: he is a typical, iconic, representative of an OLD and FAILED anti-resistance period of history. Chavez, Lula, Morales and the rest of them are representatives of a radically NEW anti-Imperialist resistance (Casto being somewhere in the middle, but closer to the old ones, of course). The fact is that the anti-Imperial forces were all collectively DEFEATED buy the US Empire and that the new generation of the Morales types of leaders need to break any connection between a failed past and a promising future.
Besides, Chavez has enough trouble on his plate to get involved in this no-win situation, don’t you think?
Yes its very unfortunate Chavez and Ortega being close to Gadaffy and shows a lack of judgment on their part.
Right wing trolls are having fun all over the internet by flagging up Chavez’s relationship with Gadaffy. Of course it’s laughable hypocrisy on their part when you consider that people like Tony Blair sold arms to the bastard which is something they prefer to forget.