The world is in turmoil with the Middle East experiencing something like a social revolution, so what’s the last remaining superpower to do? I’m serious. Colonel Qaddafi is bringing heavy armor and air power to bear against the rebels opposing him in Eastern Libya and inflicting some serious casualties. The rebels are calling for U. S. air strikes or maybe a U. S.-enforced no-fly zone. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates, sitting already on two regional wars he can’t win, doesn’t want to get involved in yet another. Anything discussed so far that Obama might do will only make new enemies or long-term problems for America, but then so will doing nothing. So while the big brains at the Pentagon and White House think their deep thoughts, I’ll just throw out my own idea of what to do, which seems brutally obvious to me — electronic warfare.
The U. S. President has already come down on the side of the rebels, but setting-up a no-fly zone from the USS Enterprise parked in the Mediterranean, while feasible, is probably not practical. Libya is a big place and policing from the sky every hectare is bound to be costly and holes will be found in that defensive fabric. Another alternative would be preemptive air strikes to take out the Libyan Air Force so it no longer presents a problem. If either of those moves are being seriously debated I am sure the Pentagon is suggesting they be done together as a one-two punch.
But think about the strategic goal here, which is simply to level the playing field. If the people of Libya want Qaddafi out, then it is up to them to push him out, with the most democratic conflict being man-to-man, not tank-to-man or MiG-to-man. That’s where electronic warfare comes in.
While the United Nations and NATO come to their own policy positions, here is what I would do were I the Commander-in-Chief. In the middle of the night (tonight!) I’d send stealth aircraft and drop electromagnetic pulse weapons on all 13 Libyan Air Force bases as well as on selected Libyan Army bases and current battlefield targets. It’s hard to imagine needing more than 24 devices. These devices would destroy all command-and-control capability on both sides, fuse all military electronics, take out the mobile and wired phone networks, and probably shut down large parts of the Libyan electrical grid, ideally with little loss of life.
There are two ways to inflict such electromagnetic damage: 1) detonate a nuclear device in the atmosphere high over Libya, or; 2) use quite simple explosive devices pioneered in Russia and Los Alamos in the 1950s, each capable of doing the damage of dozens of simultaneous lightning strikes.
I’d choose door number 2.
By dawn, with the exception of the odd surviving tank, the Libyan war would be down to boots and AK-47s with the victor being he who commands more of both.
One more thing, though. If I were the President and ordered such a strike, I’d also order that it remain a state secret, which is the only reason that stealth aircraft would be needed — to avoid a radar record of the attack.
Maybe the Libyans will pretend nothing happened. Maybe they won’t know who to blame. Ideally they’ll just fade away.
Surely you are joking, Bob. No person, country, or group of countries has the right to damage another country in this manner. This is an act of war. War, like murder, can only be justified as an act of self defense.
Getting back to issues which are of concern to you and me, how is the second phase of the Cringely Startup Tour coming along. Any news you care to give out?
Charles,
you have it backwards.
Yes, it would be an act of war,
But EVERY country has that right.
The right to declare and carry out wars is a pretty basic right of true states.
Without this, you can hardly call a state sovereign.
That said, I hardly think charging in and “taking charge” or “evening the odds” is a good idea. Even if (QKG)addafi is the most evil being on the face of the planet, there is every likelihood that whatever replaces him (assuming he doesn’t crush the rebels) will not be much better, if at all.
It is only an act of war if you assume Gadaffi is still the legal ruler of Libya. If you argue that the free people of Libya are the rightful rulers of that state and that Gadaffi is a rebel attempting to usurp the democratically expressed will of the people then it goes from being an act of war to simply being one nation extending military aid to another nation in need.
Charles,
Surely you have it backwards. Right now there is a greater potential loss of life via human rights violations and use of military armaments against a civilian population. I say go for it. Level the playing field.
Hey guys, it’s one thing for a government of a country to oppress its own people. It’s something else entirely for an outside country to wage war on another country, except in self defense.
I believe one of the purposes of the United Nations was to prevent future wars. As far as any country having some sort of natural right to wage war against other countries without being attacked– hogwash!
The UN is too busy printing reports on how great Qaddafi is to intervene while at the same time issuing letters with “harsh words condemning him”. Besides, the UN hasn’t got any record of stopping any conflict anywhere. Rawanda, Congo, they didn’t lift a figure to stop the slaughter, why would they be any different helping civs in Lybia?
I think I just answered my own question… Perhaps like you Charles, they too only believe in self defense and won’t do anything unless the UN is attacked itself.
Sarcasm aside, Qaddafi wouldn’t be doing any of this if he actually feared the US or UN action. He is confident Obama is secure in his belief as a non-interventionist regardless of cost the Lybians. He will continue to kill his own people until he is stopped by force; simple as that. No letters, tough talk, or UN resolutions will change his behavior.
The whole purpose of the UN (and its precursor, The League of Nations) is to prevent wars from changing governments. And since the UN is full of tyrants, expect their sympathies to be with the Duck of Death, not the Libyan people. The precedent would threaten them, as well.
Besides that, the US government doesn’t admit to having any EMP weapons. We could use precision munitions to take out his helicopter maintainance infrastructure, though.
No problem — we just make the MNP devices look like they where made in IRAQ out of Russian and Chinese parts with writing in Arabic and French. It will drive them crazy when they get a look at the leftover parts…
“…and inflicting some serious casualties.”
For the first 10 days or so I checked YouTube for evidence of those “serious casualties”. Couldn’t find much. One video showed a dead guy, but didn’t prove why he was dead. The statements made by U.S. and U.N. officials that “thousands” of deaths can not be verified, at least not by any video posted on YouTube.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait we were held spellbound by “eye witness testimony” that infants were being spilled out of their hospital beds and trampled underfoot. Of course this wasn’t true. But it makes one wonder why someone would intentionally cast doubt on reports of a horrific event by lying about it even if you have the best of intentions.
As to what we SHOULD do. The U.S. IS BROKE. No more money. The well is dry. Sorry. Too bad this couldn’t have happened before 2003. The only alternative is to turn the policing of the situation in Libya to the powers that be in the Mediterranean area. Maybe a coalition of local area countries with the means to keep the situation from turning into a blood bath.
I like Egypt for the primary participant in that role.
Egypt has 10,000 modern armored vehicles just sitting around not being used. I say let them do a student body left and meet at the Tunisian border. To wrap the thing in legitimacy let them paint their helmets U.N. blue.
Other than that I say we can’t spend any more money on foreign wars. Sorry. Too bad. We have our own problems to think about. Our people are suffering too.
Best of luck. God speed. See you on the other side, Libya.
I don’t think foreign policy should be subject to Youtube verification.
Just so, then CNN, Drudge Report, Fox News, CBS, ABC, The Register can’t be trusted either.
As far as not trusting YouTube to set foreign policy. I didn’t make myself completely clear. There is no video footage of the 1000 + deaths ANYWHERE. When the U.N. guy said the slaughter was occuring this could not be verified by video from ANY source. The headlines read something like “Eyewitness Reports of Mass Murder in Libya” with no supporting video evidence. This just isn’t possible in today’s electronic age. I’m sure some people were killed. But thousands killed in a senseless, mindless slaughter? The available evidence contradicts those assertions.
My friend.
My friends.
THE DOG IS WAGGING THE TAIL.
Somebody is lying. Ha, and Hillary Clinton. Obama and the others all look like fools mouthing the lie! What MAROONS.
Didn’t they fabricate the video evidence you seek in Wag the Dog? So what exactly would youtube videos prove now?
The “wagging” is in the headlines and commentary associated with the video. A lot of video is being shown in the media (not just YouTube), with commentary stating that there is mass murder occurring. But the content of the video does not validate the commentary. The video presents no evidence of “crowds of protesters being raked with cannon fire from tanks and anti-aircraft guns”. Every news media outlet is guilty of this. Every one.
I’m particularly disappointed with the PBS Newshour.
When this is all pieced together and analyzed some producers and executives are going to have to explain their actions and in all likely hood will not be able to. Some highly placed people should lose their jobs over their actions.
Why?
We need the truth. Thousands of lives are at stake. The whole world is broke and has no ability to waste its resources.
We need to be able to answer the question “Do we send ‘Doctors Without Borders’ or the USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Battle Group and the USS Iwo Jima Assault Task Force to Libya?” The difference between the two options can be measured in BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
The US TAXPAYER is tapped out. We care. There isn’t a more sensitive and caring generation of people in the history of mankind. But – we can not support the whole world on our shoulders. We just can’t do it anymore.
And it isn’t just a question of money. It’s about sacrifice too. Sending our children into harm’s way year after year – its heartbreaking.
Until a month ago Libya was a peaceful place. Maybe not perfect but the balance sheet (see CIA Factbook) gives a nod to Crazy Quaddafi’s efforts.
Damn it, I’m forced to defend a guy we all hate. But to lie and get a bunch of innocent people killed just so we can get our revenge isn’t right.
That’s what wagging this dog is all about. Getting revenge. A tough impulse to ignore.
“This just isn’t possible in today’s electronic age.”
Is Libya in today’s electronics age? You’re expecting starving people in the crowd to whip out their iPhone 4 and upload videos to Youtube? The people who can afford nice things are probably on Qaddafi’s side, and the government, which routinely censors the Internet in normal times, took early moves blacked out the Internet country-wide.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m against yet another war for the USA, even IF there is solid proof. Europe is right across the Med, it has historical ties with North Africa, and it is capable. If there is a problem, let them deal with it. Heck, Kosovo should have been a European operation. It’s a day’s drive from Paris for crying out loud. Anyway, the USA is busy floundering around in the Middle East trying to figure out how to leave with some tiny measure of dignity or success.
However, I certainly don’t require Youtube/CNN/whatever video evidence of crime. I assume the US and other allied countries have intelligence operatives and other personnel in the area that can confirm or deny reports. We have spies, spy planes, drones, and satellites.
Where’s the video evidence of mass starvation in North Korea? I guess it must be a worldly paradise.
I think he’s black, not maroon. And dogs are supposed to wag their tails.
Where’s Curveball when you need him??
So your suggestion is to bomb them into the stone age and let a civil war settle the matter. Wow.
And this will result in less casualties?
— bomb them into the stone age
You do know who originate that description?
Fewer American casualties, most likely.
The Question: what is America’s strategic interest? American corporations, oil ones particularly, prefer autocrats. To the extent American Government serves corporations primarily, and Democracy when it doesn’t matter to corporate interests, The Colonel is Our Guy. There’s a reason he wasn’t killed for Lockerby. Ever think of that? Whether American gasoline is actually cheaper to us (as opposed to the oil companies) just because we prop up Our Dictators, is not likely.
ummm… Operation El Dorado Canyon? They have tried to kill this guy more than a few times.
RXC: EMP is a good idea, but unlikely. It would require flying right on top of every Libyan air base, and they have experience at shooting down American planes. If I’m not mistaken MIGs are EMP shielded as well.
What experience is that, shooting down American aircraft? They couldn’t shoot down our F-14s in the Reagan era and Libya’s aircraft and SAM sites haven’t been updated since while our aircraft HAVE been. The best they have are MiG-23s and not very many of those. And as for EMP-hardening, I wouldn’t want to test that against an all-out EMP attack with dozens or hundreds of devices.
About the only experience the Libyan Air Force has at shooting down is being shot down, including at least 4 MIGs by US Navy aircraft and at least two by Stinger missiles in Chad.
Over half their planes are in storage and not flyable, including MIG 17’s, 19’s and Tu-22’s. The other half are questionable due to lack of spare parts and service personnel. Considering the state of the art in Soviet aircraft manufacturing in the late ’70’s and early ’80’s when most of Ghaddafi’s planes were procured, they have relatively unsophisticated electronics, the more so because they are export models and not first-line aircraft.
The bigger worry is what would we do without bit.ly?
Dishy Libya take down an F-111 when we bombed them in the 80’s?
I am not sure it would be in our long term interests to be the first country to use an EMP weapon. God help us if someone (e.g. Iran) uses one on us.
I think it’s more likely that the first country to deploy EMP weapons will prove to everyone that EMP weapons don’t really have a big impact on the target.
Bob – you’re a bit out of your depth on this one!
Michael has it right – bombing the country back to the stone age on the basis that “we’d love to do more guys, but really can’t afford it right now” isn’t the answer.
But the world has also seen what ‘doing more’ can look like (Bosnia) and maybe we shouldn’t go that way either.
Do it right or step away.
This what the UN and African Union are for. These organisations should step in and prove that they can fulfil their mandates (which they have failed to do in Darfur and Zimbabwe to name but two).
I doubt that this would bomb them back to the stone age. Most of the bombs would hit military targets leaving the desert filled still with Nissan pickups. The wireless infrastructure could be restored in days. The wired infrastructure might never have to be restored except for power delivery.
maybe back in the 60s, a wireless infrastructure based on 12AX7s and 6146s could be restored quickly.
now, with all the semis measured in microns? nope. no to both wired and wireless.
Iraq still doesn’t have sewage plants and dependable electricity, by the way. even that doesn’t come quick. the US should have had ten cargo ships with generators, wire, transformers, and HV fuses standing 60 miles off shore before going back in to spank Saddam. we blew it.
midday reports had the UK and France drawing up potential no-fly-zone plans. congratulations, guys, it’s your ball.
Too bad EMP weapons (which were used in the 2003 Iraq invasion largely as a test) have a reputation for not working very well. The electronic wipe-out you’re describing is still mostly science fiction.
I’m sure we learned from that experience.
look at Pakistan —
1 Want help
2 Resent help
3 Blow up USA equipment going to Afghanistan
4 Kill any one they don’t like
5 ALL above shows lawlessness at all levels of Government
6YET want to prosecute a USA Diplomat for some violation of their law against their own acceptance of International Diplomatic LAWS *
WHAT does the above show?
–
They want their cake for free and eat it with 72 virgins!
OR
i They want infidels to work for them for nothing
ii They want food hand outs for nothing
iii They want to live as kings with infidels as slaves to do their bidding
Well give them nothing and let them sort out their problems themselves
With NO REFUGEES at all
Till they understand that there are responsibilities that need to be seen to be in action.
THE FIRST IS POPULATION REDUCTION!!
* Over 40 years look at the diplomatic law breaches perpetuated by Muslim Nations.
They are Not Good international citizens!
Mr. C:
Thinking this is a “Modest Proposal” if you get my drift.
John “Jonathan Swift” S.
The neat thing about this solution is that somebody gets to sell more weapons to whoever becomes the next dictator of Libya. Ya gotta love that! 🙁
Interesting idea. I’ve always thought another possible strategy would be for the US to externally provide free wifi over the country so the citizens can mobilise and get information out without the US dropping any bombs. That would be a great strategy for dealing with Iran.
awful hard to populate a blog when there are jets strafing you.
Not really, see NerdTV Season 1, Episode 9. “Anina High Fashion Meets High Tech”. She goes into great detail of how to blog from a smartphone.
(Hey Cringely, I’m surprised you’re not defending your past efforts here)
We tried that in Vietnam before the war, only then it was citizens band radio. Didn’t work.
My thinking is that the US (and hopefully some other nations as well) should make a resolution to not purchase any more oil from Lybia until [KGQ]addafi is out. He doesn’t really care about the country, he just wants the oil money.
Whups, wrong there. All the evidence is that Qaddafi is pouring Libya’s oil revenues into food production, some $25 billions worth.
See:
http://geocurrentevents.blogspot.com/2011/03/gaddafis-saharan-farming-schemes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Geocurrents+%28GeoCurrents.info%29
Libya has a very modest military. Global Security says he has 980 tanks active. Compare that to about ~3,500 Egyptian tanks.
Per wikipedia:
“Though the Libyan army has a large amount of fighting equipment at its disposal, the vast majority was bought from the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s and is largely obsolete. A high percentage remains in storage and a large amount of equipment has also been sold to various African countries. No major purchases of equipment have been made in recent years largely due to the decline of the economy and military sanctions experienced throughout the nineties.”
I thought to agree with you too, but alas the facts do no fit the fancy.
Actually after some study of Quaddafi’s recent performance as a leader I GRUDGINGLY / RELUCTANTLY conclude that on the really big issues it hasn’t been that bad.
Man, I hate to do this, but I have to pull out Teddy Roosevelt. In this case I have to call Moumar Quaddafi the “Man in the Arena”.
All the evidence is that after the Soviet Union’s influence ended, Quaddafi turned his interests to the welfare of his people in the best way he knew how. He has dared great things for the Libyan’s welfare, to make them self-sufficient. It really pains me to write these words but I think at best we should just stand by and let the opposing sides duke it out.
Tragic, absolutely bad luck for everybody involved.
yes, as thuggish dictators go, he’s definitely one of the nicer ones.
however, his people clearly want him to go, and if our oil money is keeping him in power we should take responsibility for that and act with nuanced deliberation.
it’s also possibly that my proposal wouldn’t be very effective. china would probably be happy to purchase the leftovers.
the spice must flow.
A couple of observations:
1. Qaddafi: You’re using the Fox spelling, any correlation to your views?
2 Your electromagnetic solution: Isn’t that also taking out Twitter?
I first interviewed Qaddafi in 1974, which predates Fox News by about 30 years. I’ll spell it any way I like.
Qaddafi it is.
It’s interesting that we haven’t seen a correct spelling rise to acceptance. The previous time Qaddafi was in the news it was the Q and Kh spellings (I haven’t kept track of the number of d’s in the middle, or the i vs. y at the end). This time the G spelling has been introduced.
I like the idea. Used to be pretty much a pacifist non-interventionist until the excitement in the Balkans in the ’90s. Agonized over how the Bosnians were getting decimated by the Serbs. Then the CIA teamed up with their pals in Iran who sent a freighter of arms over to the Dalmatian coast. After suddenly racking up a lot of casualties, the Serbs decided negotiations might useful. Leveling the playing field is a great idea. Obviously it should be covert. Hell just getting a private contractor to drop some arms & supplies to the rebels would help immensely.
We can’t tell how history will turn out, but being against Colonel Gaddafi seems like a good bet.
How about this: launch a *bunch* of drones equipped with mobile phone uplinks and blanket libya with mobile broadband. Fix the access problem and let the information flow in and out.
Yes, thats the kind of thing I was thinking. Must be relatively cheap to do compared to military action, very difficult for the regime in power to do anything about. Not sure exactly what networking technology would work best, just so long as the people on the ground end up getting free, unrestricted internet access.
Wow, great plan! Send a large part of the oil infrastructure supplying Europe back to the stone age! Empower all the local would-be warlords and turn Libya into Somalia!
A word of advice: stick to high tech reporting, leave foreign policy to others.
Other than Italy (which relies on Libya for both a high percentage and a hard to replace number of barrels/day), not really too much dependence. And regime change in Italy would be a freakin’ god-send.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/02/libyan_oil
Actually I did foreign policy (and oil) long before I got into technology. The oil’s not going away, nor would it even stop flowing. Have you ever SEEN Libyan crude? It has no color. It’s like pumping diesel fuel out of the ground and can be burned without refining. Now how did I know that????
Well, if you’re not making it up, then I’d expect that, at the very least, an oil industry organ will have written that up, at least once. Pretty extraordinary, if you ask me. I guess you did.
You armchair warriers would garner more respect if your sudden need to liberate Libya happened before the Libyans started the action themselves.
So, what other countries do you think need sorting out? Whose leadership is evil and wicked and needs to be sorted out? Or do you only call those out when the course of action is already started by someone else?
Life isn’t just an action movie, people. Grow yourselves some empathy.
Empathy for whom? I did 13 months in Beirut in the mid-70s.
Good idea, Bob, it might even work. However, keep in mind that when a MIG-25P that was piloted by a defector into Tokyo in 1976 was inspected they found it could most likely survive an EMP hit, unlike US aircraft of the time. It operated using shielded vacuum tubes!
Personally, I think we ought to just sit this one out for a while until we the fog of civil war clears up a bit, if at all.
You raise a very interesting point here about the MiG-25. Yes, its vacuum tube electronics were there for precisely that purpose, PLUS they couldn’t generate enough power with transistors to run the onboard radar which was known to be capable of killing rabbits near the taxiways if turned-on before takeoff. That’s a radar that weighed more than 7,000 lbs! But Libya doesn’t fly MiG-25s anymore, or at least none of them have been sighted in more than a decade. They have some MiG-23s that are slightly more modern. But the better question to ask is whether we were likely to have improved our EMP weapons after gaining that bit of MiG-25 intel? The other guy isn’t the only moving target.
Who’s to say an EMP blast or three wouldn’t also damage the petroleum infrastructure in Libya? What wouldn’t stop Qaddafi from blowing the wells in retaliation.
Personally, I’d seize the real estate, especially the Saharan part and start implementing huge solar panel farms to export electricity to Europe and North Africa, best to forcefully implement alternative energy ideas now. If I was a Northern Sudanese and Egyptian politician, I’d get on that bandwagon.
Actually, enforcing a no-fly zone against Libya wouldn’t be that difficult. Gaddafi’s (his chosen English spelling) air force is based right around Tripoli. He doesn’t control the Eastern half of his country. The U.S. could easily knock down anything taking off around Tripoli, and Libya’s anti-aircraft defenses are based mainly on 1960 technology. Gaddafi has only on Mirage jet and maybe a half dozen MiGS in flyable condition. All the other planes in the Libyan Air Force are smaller, slower jets based on 1950s and 1960s technology.
The main question is whether it would really help the rebels or Gaddafi. Gaddafi wouldn’t fall from an American imposed no fly zone and can probably hold himself up around Tripoli for quite a while.
In the end, the rebel forces could simply be unable to keep up the pressure. They have no organized command. They have few weapons and no training. In order to attack Gaddafi, they have to take control of Surt which seems beyond their capabilities. Surt is the center of Gaddafi’s power and protects Tripoli from attack by the rebels.
Over the decades of his rule, Gaddafi destroyed anything that could challenge his authority. Everything went personally through him. There are no independent civil organizations that the rebels could use to organize themselves. The fact that, despite the lack of weapons, training, or command structure, they have kept Gaddafi at bay for so long shows how much people are willing to risk to rid themselves of Gaddafi.
Dictators like Gaddafi, Mubarak, and Ben Ali rule on fear and fear alone. When the populace loses its fear, they have no power.
All true, but made a bit easier, I’d say, by eliminating most of those 980 tanks, which might be the more useful EMP targets.
[QGK]addafi has repeatedly said he doesn’t care how his name is spelled in English – as long as it’s right in Arabic.
Why not just make it Dafi?
What if the US set up a web page where the people of the middle east can vote on whether they want the US to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya? That way the US can always point to the result of the vote to justify its actions.
There is an irony going on here, of which I haven’t seen a single comment on, since Gates spoke.
Since the crash, employees, both government and private have been told to do more work with fewer people (and less pay) to the point of exhaustion, to the point of demonstrating in the streets.
Here we have one of the nations top employees saying as eloquently as he can to his employers, I’m Already Doing Two Jobs And You Want Me To Do Another? Are You Serious?
Bob. you sneaky bastard. I like you better making IT commentary.
If the US used EMP devices as weapons in the Middle East, you would strongly increase the likelihood that terrorists would turn around and try to use them in the West, having seen their effectiveness.
Maybe they’ve tried and they don’t work? If not, it’s not like it’s an idea that hasn’t been suggested in myriad books, papers, etc before.
NO.
I’m not going to comment about the intelligence or lack therof of getting involved in another regional conflict, and a civil war at that. I’m too tired to even check out the other comments, always insightful here. But Bob, your idea of having the US deploy EMP weapons is something I have to respond to.
Ever since WW2 the US has been the arbiter of acceptable behavior in warfare. Like it or not, the fact is that our use of a tactic or a specific weapon serves as the go-ahead for other countries. The ultimate example are WMD’s: by stating that the use of lethal chemical or biological weapons is equivalent to the use of nuclear devices – and will be responded to in the same way – we have effectively removed them from the battlefield. In the last 66 years WMD’s have been used only once between countries: The Iran-Iraq war. That policy is one of the things I’m proudest of the USA for enforcing.
An EMP isn’t a nuke. But I would personally place their use on the battlefield as being almost as undesirable. Because I don’t know of another weapons system capable of more asymmetric damage between a modern western military unit and a low-tech guerilla unit. C3I systems, artillery support, drones, RPV’s, bomb-disposal robots, laser designators, night vision, close air support, the new XM25 grenade launcher. Medivac helicopters.
This isn’t a weapon we want anyone using on the modern battlefield.
OTOH, if we did want to send a message it can be done very easily. At different points in the past Qaddafi had a plane loaded with everything he would want to take with him, fueled up and ready to go 24/7. I’m sure he has one now. Cruise missiles will ensure that the source of the message is clear to the world.
We’re not going to blow up his plane. After all, we want him to go. So: Destroy six other planes at the other end of the same airbase. Follow up with a promise that his plane will be allowed to depart safely, for any destination he chooses. Put a 24-hour time limit on the offer.
Might be interesting.
Bob, when you’re good, you’re very, very good – but when you’re bad you’re horrid.
Unfortunately, this is one of the horrid columns.
The first mistake is to think that the rebels want US or Western support. They don’t. They’ve repeatedly made that very clear.
Why? Because it was the US and the West in general who propped up Gadaffi and many other dictators for so many decades. US hypocrisy about this, and ignorance among the US public about what their government has been doing in the Middle East all this time, is simply sickening.
But the US is very worried about Libya’s oil resources. Therefore the urge to interfere.
The daily output of Libya is quite small, and easily replaced by myriad other producers – there’s no real concern on that front.
There is no winning of any sort for the US in the middle/near east.
As the Humongous said “just walk away”. Help and we’ll be hated. Stay out we’ll be hated. – hence it is cheaper to stay out.
If the revolt is serious enough and Ghaddaffi is hated enought then they should succeed, likely from someone inside his camp. If the rebels are not up to it they will lose and they will have hell to pay.
It might have take a couple of years longer but even without France the US would have prevailed against George III.
“Maybe they won’t know who to blame.”
Are you kidding, the US would be the first to blame, even if they had no idea what exactly had even happened.
This situation is unusual for the USA. It is one of those rare times where the USA has truly had little involvement with a country or its government. The USA cut its ties to Libya years ago. It has not supported its leaders. It has not sent money to be misused. It has clearly not supported a corrupt leader. If the next government is not anti-west, then there is an opportunity for the USA to do some good and make a new friend.
The more interesting question is what is Europe doing? Why don’t they help with the revolution? They’ve been doing business with Libya for years. They have some fences to mend with the people. Will they offer aid? Or just dump the heavy lifting on the USA again?
World cheers as the CIA plunges Libya into chaos
How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi? How bad did the people have it? Were they oppressed as we now commonly accept as fact? Let us look at the facts for a moment.
Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.
People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.
How does Libya get so rich? The answer is oil. The country has a lot of oil, and does not allow foreign corporations to steal the resources while the population starves, unlike countries like Nigeria, a country that is basically run by Shell.
Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in fact he doesn’t, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should be compared to a founding father.
The true leader of Libya is an indirectly elected prime-minister. The current prime-minister is
Baghdadi Mahmudi. Calling Khadaffi the leader of Libya is comparable to calling Akihito the leader of Japan. Contrary to what your media is sketching, opinions in Libya vary. Some people support Gadaffi but want Mahmudi out. Others want both out. Many just want to live their life in peace. However, effort is taken to sketch the appearance of a popular revolt against the supposed leader of Libya, Gadaffi, when in fact he is just the architect of Libya’s current political system, a mixture of pan-Arabism, socialism, and Islamic government.
Videos of Pro-Gaddafi protests are disappearing from Youtube as we speak. “Pro Gaddafi Anti Baghdadi Mahmudi demonstrations in” youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5fLGNg0sk is gone. “Pro Gaddafi protests in front of Libyan embassy London” youtube.com/watch?v=pRwv0Ac8qbc Is gone. Youtube deletes any video containing gore normally, except when it’s from Libya. Apparently more traumatizing to it’s viewers than chopped up bodies are Libyans who do not jump on the bandwagon and enter the streets to force Gadaffi out.
Are the protesters in Libya comparable to the protesters in Egypt and Tunisia? Not at all. The governments reaction is more violent, and obviously excessive violence is being used. However let us look for a moment at the actions of the protesters. The building of the the general people’s congress, the parliament of Libya, was put on fire by angry protestors. This is comparable to protesters putting the United States Capitol on fire. Do you think that for even a moment the US government would sit idly by as protesters put the US capitol on fire?
The riots erupting now are not secular youth desiring change, or anything like we saw in Egypt and Tunisia. A group calling itself “Islamic Emirate of Barka”, the former name of the North-Western part of Libya, has taken numerous hostages, and killed two policemen. This is not a recent development. On Friday, the 18th of February, the group stole 70 military vehicles after attacking a port and killing four soldiers. Unfortunately, a military colonel has joined the group and provided them with further weapons. The uprising started in the eastern city of Benghazi. The Italian foreign minister has raised his fears of an Islamic Emirate of Benghazi declaring itself independent.
So where does this sudden uprising come from? The answer is that the same groups the US has been funding for decades are now taking their chance to gain control over the nation. A group recently arrested in Libya consisted of dozens of foreign nationals that were involved in numerous acts of looting and sabotage. The Libyan government could not rule out links to Israel.
Great Britain funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya, in an attempt to assassinate Gadaffi. The main opposition group in Libya now is the National Front for the Salvation of Libya. This opposition group is being funded by Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and French Intelligence. This group unified itself with other opposition groups, to become the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition. It was this organization that called for the “Day of Rage” that plunged Libya into chaos on February 17 of this year.
It did this in Benghazi, a conservative city that has always been opposed to Gadaffi’s rule. It should be noted that the National Front for the Salvation of Libya is well armed. In 1996 the group tried to unleash a revolution in the eastern part of Libya before. It used the Libyan National Army, the armed division of the NFSL to begin this failed uprising.
Why is the United States so opposed to Gadaffi? He is the main threat to US hegemony in Africa, because he attempts to unite the continent against the United States. This concept is called the United States of Africa. In fact, Gadaffi holds all sorts of ideas that are contrary to US interests. The man blames the United States government for the creation of HIV. He claims that Israel is behind the assasination of Martin Luther King and president John. F. Kennedy. He says that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the US. He also urged Libyans to donate blood to Americans after 9/11. Khadaffi is also the last of a generation of moderate socialist pan-Arab revolutionaries that is still in power, after Nasser and Hussein have been eliminated, and Syria has aligned itself with Iran.
The United States and Israel however have no interest in a strong Arab world. In fact it seems that elementary to the plan is bringing Libya to its knees through chaos and anarchy. In late 2010, the United Kingdom was still propping up the Libyan government through lucrative arms sales. Nothing is a better guarantee to destroy Libya than a bloody civil war. The tribal system that is still strong in Libya is useful to exploit to generate such a war since Libya has historically been divided into various tribal groups.
This is also why the Libyan government responds by importing mercenaries. Tribal allegiances go before allegiance to the government, especially in Benghazi, and thus the central government has no control over the eastern part of the country anymore. The alternative to mercenaries is a conflict between the various ethnic groups. Gadaffi has tried for 41 years to make the country more homogeneous, but opposition groups funded by outside forced will take little more than a few days to put the country back into the 19th century, before the region was conquered and unified by Europeans. The violence is indeed excessive, but everyone seems to forget that the situation is not the same as in Tunis and Egypt. Tribal ties play a far greater role, and thus the conflict will unfortunately be bloodier.
Please remember at all times that the violent Libyan civil war unfolding now is not comparable to the revolutions seen in Tunisia and Egypt. Both of these revolutions involved peaceful protesters suffering from poverty, in opposition to their corrupt governments. The chaos in Libyan consists of a mixture of tribal conflicts, conflict over oil revenue (since most oil is in the east of the country), radical islamists opposed to Gadaffi’s system of government, and outside destabilization by Western funded exile groups.
Gadaffi took control in a bloodless coup from a sick monarch away for medical treatment 41 years ago. His ideology is based on unification and he attempted to peacefully merge his country with Egypt and Syria. It would take a miracle for the violence unfolding now to lead to a single stable democratic government in Libya, with full control over the entire country. The country is more than twice the size of Pakistan, but with 6 million inhabitants. Endless deserts divide many of the cities in the nation. If anything we should ask ourselves how many more nations will be shattered into pieces in the coming months, as the world cheers.
Take a look at
World cheers as the CIA plunges Libya into chaos part 2
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire… Al Qaeda.
How did Al Qaeda start? Al Qaeda grew out of the Afghan Arabs in Afghanistan that the CIA trained at Camp Peary. Amongst these men were many Libyans. These Libyans who had fought in Afghanistan eventually created the Libyan Islamic Fighting group. As explained on Wikipedia and in my earlier report on Libya, they were funded by MI6 to assassinate Gadaffi in 1996.
Unlike the US that keeps you in prison forever without even receiving a trial, the Libyan government made the mistake of showing mercy. They released 90 members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting group in 2008. It gets weirder. On the day of the “Day of Rage”, Libya had released 110 rehabilitated members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting group. These were men, part of an organization linked to Al Qaeda who plotted to overthrow the Libyan government.
As I explained earlier, the “Day of Rage” was called for by an organization that is funded by the CIA. Seems like a bit of incredible coincidence that the day of rage was planned to be on the same day that violent nutcases would be released who wanted to turn Libya into a second Afghanistan.
So, Gadaffi holds a speech and says that Al Qaeda is behind the uprising in his country. And we consider him to be a schizophrenic autistic nutcase of course. He says that he will fight until the end, and we consider him the next Hitler. He holds a speech to a massive group of people clothed in green, and we tell ourselves they were simply being bribed.
Make no mistake, the United States are using Al Qaeda to overthrow governments, yet again. As reported by CNN:
“Al Qaeda’s North African wing has said “it will do whatever we can to help” the uprising in Libya, according to a statement the militant group posted on jihadist websites.
The statement by Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was posted Thursday, said SITE, a terrorist-tracking organization based outside Washington.
[…]
In 2006, al Qaeda documents found by U.S. forces in Iraq showed that per capita, Libya surpassed other Arab nations in the number of citizens joining al Qaeda. The regime’s fear was that the terror group would bring its fight back to Libya.”
We saw the same thing in Kosovo, where Al Qaeda was being used to terrorize the Serbs. As reported by the National Post:
Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network has been active in the Balkans for years, most recently helping Kosovo rebels battle for independence from Serbia with the financial and military backing of the United States and NATO.
The claim that al-Qaeda played a role in the Balkan wars of the 1990s came from an alleged FBI document former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic presented in his defence before the Hague tribunal last week. Mr. Milosevic faces 66 counts of war crimes and genocide.
Although Hague prosecutors have challenged the veracity of the document, which Mr. Milosevic identified as a Congressional statement from the FBI dated last December, Balkan experts say the presence of al-Qaeda militants in Kosovo and Bosnia is well documented.
Today, al-Qaeda members are helping the National Liberation Army, a rebel group in Macedonia, fight the Skopje government in a bid for independence, military analysts say. Last week, Michael Steiner, the United Nations administrator in Kosovo, warned of “importing the Afghan danger to Europe” because several cells trained and financed by al-Qaeda remain in the region.
The parallels are striking to what is happening in Libya, with veterans of the Afghan war against the Soviet Union popping up again, this time leading the charge against Gadaffi:
“Many members of the Kosovo Liberation Army were sent for training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan,” said James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia and an expert on the Balkans. “Milosevic is right. There is no question of their participation in conflicts in the Balkans. It is very well documented.”
The arrival in the Balkans of the so-called Afghan Arabs, who are from various Middle Eastern states and linked to al-Qaeda, began in 1992 soon after the war in Bosnia. According to Lenard Cohen, professor of political science at Simon Fraser University, mujahedeen fighters who travelled to Afghanistan to resist the Soviet occupation in the 1980s later “migrated to Bosnia hoping to assist their Islamic brethren in a struggle against Serbian [and for a time] Croatian forces.”
Whatever way you want to put it, Libya is a thorn in the eye of our globalist elite. It has been claimed that there are 5 countries on the planet left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya. I don’t necessarily think you can boil the conflict down simply to having a Rothschild controlled central bank or not. However, considering the fact that by now, Sudan has split in two, Libya is under mob rule and South Korea is upping it’s propaganda offensive against the North Korean government where demonstration are breaking out for the first time in the history of the nation, the list is at least a little unnerving.
It’s important to note that Libya was in fact recently beginning to introduce Islamic banking to the nation. In Islam, usury is illegal. Banking families like the Rothschilds and the Warburgs of course derive all their wealth (except for the wealth they’ve simply stolen) from usury. Islam has the concept of Musharakah. It abolishes the idea of a fixed interest on a loan. Instead money is paid back only if the enterprise makes a profit. Seems like an excellent idea, regardless of your religious beliefs.
The US puppet president won’t rule out military intervention in Libya. Big oil is watching a dream come true as oil production in Libya (where no foreign companies have a hand in oil production) plunges, and anxiety drives the price up even further. Ships are of course already in the area, and have been for a while. It’s all incredibly convenient. Reuters has reported that Venezuela’s foreign minister said it looked like some western powers wanted to break up and occupy the Mediterranean nation for its oil. Fidel Castro has said the same thing.
After invading you can then choose to leave the country in ruins with no oil production at all, or you can occupy the country and hand the oil to your buddies. Oil companies are predatory entities. In fact the United States overthrew the government of Iran for simply nationalizing the oil.
Egypt meanwhile isn’t the slightest bit more free than it was under Mubarak. It has simply turned into a military dictatorship. The US simply replaced an old unruly puppet with a new one.
Of course it’s not difficult to unleash riots in the Middle East. As long as people have entertainment and food, they’re quiet and not much of a nuisance. Take away either, and you get an angry public. The global genocide through starvation unleashed over the working classes of the world is the result of food speculation in the US.
The Brzezinski clique currently in control of the United States has found a far more effective way of dealing with its enemies. Instead of directly fighting them, they create anger in these nations, and then use the people themselves to sow chaos. The first attempt in Iran failed. Now the US has chosen to create examples in vulnerable countries first, to help mobilize the people in less vulnerable nations.
It’s the most genius solution to defeat your enemies with. Contrary to the neoconservative approach, the whole world now supports your operation. If the carnage gets excessive enough, people around the world will beg their own governments to intervene in these 3rd world nations. If you thought that after Iraq further military intervention in the Middle East had become impossible due to a lack of popular support, it seems you were wrong. The Brzezinski approach has opened up this possibility again.
Are the uranium bombs going to be used in Tripoli next? Is Tripoli going to be another Fallujah? Only time can tell. The world will probably praise Obama as Tripoli is contaminated for generations to come. In fact, getting rid of Gadaffi by turning Tripoli into another Fallujah could even ensure that Obama is reelected.
Update:
http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-cheers-as-cia-plunges-libya-into.html
http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-cheers-as-cia-plunges-libya-into_26.html
Hey Bob, ever thought about imposing a word count limit on posts?
Hey, Bob, I didn’t know Charlie Sheen was a reader!
Seriously, Karel offers no proof of alleged CIA involvement in Libya. It’s a rather ludicrous rant with just a few bits of reality to lend support.
We’ve known TheDaffy was involved up to his eyeballs with the PanAm bombing, but until recently didn’t have our hands on anybody who could put him in the room. This happened since the uprising began.
No, we haven’t started it, it would almost be against our national interests to do so, and I don’t see the current administration as having the cojones or even the vague interest to prod the CIA out of its bureaucratic coma, despite the proven reserves and quality of the crude.
No one in the DoD wants to touch it. They had to borrow a brigade of Marines just to man the LCS they sent up the Med.
No, we may want to take advantage of it, but if we had a hand in it, we would have had assets in place long before.
>Seriously, Karel offers no proof of alleged CIA involvement in Libya.
Seriously? Google “CIA involvement” for any of these countries and you might find things like:
CIA man Edwin P. Wilson shipped explosives to Libya as part of a program to train terrorists:
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/10/us/cia-denies-any-official-role-in-libya-activities-of-ex-agents.html
All those who slaughter civilians should be held accountable – but maybe not:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8350968/Libya-African-mercenaries-immune-from-prosecution-for-war-crimes.html
>I did 13 months in Beirut in the mid-70s.
And that worked out well? – probably should remove that one from your resume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq
Yeah and your EMP bombs will take out the rebels means of communication as well . . . handing victory to the Colonel. Military equipment is going to withstand EMP much better than civilian cell phones.
I just know the US is going to go into another one sometime soon . . . if not Libya, Iran, if not Iran, Saudi (we can’t let 40% of the world’s oil production go away can we?).
Would you expect crude to cost less or more if it’s owned by a dictator or a democracy? Why do you care who owns it, so long as the price is lower than the other way round? Isn’t that in the USofA’s best interest? Is it a coincidence that the gummint and the oil companies attempt to overthrow anyone who isn’t a Rightwing Dictator? We install them when we can, and have fits when democracies or socialists replace Our Dictator.
Costs less if it’s owned by a dictator of course, especially if it’s our dictator. Simply because it’s cheaper to pay one man and his family obscenely, than a whole country of millions of people fairly.
Plus the dictator has to “watch his back” so much of what he’s paid will eventually end up back in our pockets as we sell him arms and security apparatus.
I haven’t heard anyone mention one of the important issues involved in creating a no fly zone: the fact that Libyan air defenses are likely next to mosques and hospitals. This is an old trick perfected by the North Vietnamese. Bombed mosques and hospitals will make good video footage for Qaddafi and Iranian propaganda.
Your suggestion reminds me of the Star Trek Episode “A Taste of Armageddon”
Overview: The crew of the Enterprise visits a planet whose people fight a computer simulated war with a neighboring enemy planet. The crew finds that although the war is fought via computer simulation, the citizens of each planet have to submit to real executions inside ‘disintegration booths’ based on the results of simulated attacks. The crew of the Enterprise is caught in the middle and are told to submit themselves voluntarily for execution after being ‘killed’ in an ‘enemy attack’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
Thanks for the reminder. The original Star Trek was timeless.
I like your medicine, RxC. Surely you know someone who knows someone who knows someone close to the Prez. Get off your asterisks and to a phone immediately and get your plan submitted. Though disappointed in the big O, I suspect he thinks outside the box.
The stealth thing is brilliant. I would suggest the Prez play dumb and not say a thing.
I expect to wake up tomorrow to news that something strange is happening in Libya and Quakdaffi was seen scurrying to his aeroplane with bits of his undies and nylons trailing from the edges of his suitcase. Oh, and his sons running ahead of him.
If it works so well, then we can also use it next time a no fly zone is needed to protect innocent civilians in gaza.
We can also park a surveillance vessel to monitor like we did last time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Bob, I have been reading and enjoying your articles for years, since the Cringley and Pammy days (that was you, wasn’t it?). While not an illustrious journalist like yourself, I did live and work in Iran from 1976 through their revolution in 1979 and do have an understanding of the middle eastern peoples, their cultures and their several millenia of history. They are so use to being led like sheep and have survived under many different conquerers (in and of itself a tribute to their tenacity), that they mostly have no idea of how to be free and think for themselves, to some extent. Unless they go through their own civil war (as we did) and learn from their own experiences (making their own mistakes) how to be free people and how difficult it is to be a democracy, they will most often fall back and look for some shepherd (good or bad) to lead them.
While the USA has had a few hundred years of democracy, we still have many problems in our own governing system that could (should) be improved. We really should let the people of these countries fight for themselves, no matter how well armed the oppressive regimes are (as the British were against our forefathers), and how one sided the fight is. We cannot fight their fights, nor should we “level their playing fields”, nor impose our moralities on them. This is not our fight, it isn’t even in our “neighborhood”, we should not impose (nor should we be expected to) our will there. I feel deeply for the Libyans fighting for their freedom and hope that they win and go on to create a state of freedom for their nation, but only through a people’s own struggles, can those people really earn (and appreciate) freedom and dispose of their tyrants.
There is no way we can say that the “new government” that comes after this strategic strike of yours will be any better than Gaddafi’s rule. It is better not to interfere in another state’s internal affairs unless those internal affairs have any negative impact on the proper workings of our own state. Even if there are negative impacts, it is better to find out alternatives than a direct strike as you described.
Buy $10 Replica Designer Sunglasses with 3-day FREE SHIPPING
EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.
Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’ Thus, the president concluded, “preventing genocide’’ justified US military action.
But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.
The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially — including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.
Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.
But Khadafy’s acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libya’s air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire — each one a tragedy — but that is urban warfare, not genocide.
Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’
If bloodbath was unlikely, how did this notion propel US intervention? The actual prospect in Benghazi was the final defeat of the rebels. To avoid this fate, they desperately concocted an impending genocide to rally international support for “humanitarian’’ intervention that would save their rebellion.
On March 15, Reuters quoted a Libyan opposition leader in Geneva claiming that if Khadafy attacked Benghazi, there would be “a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda.’’ Four days later, US military aircraft started bombing. By the time Obama claimed that intervention had prevented a bloodbath, The New York Times already had reported that “the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda’’ against Khadafy and were “making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.’’
It is hard to know whether the White House was duped by the rebels or conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds. In either case, intervention quickly exceeded the UN mandate of civilian protection by bombing Libyan forces in retreat or based in bastions of Khadafy support, such as Sirte, where they threatened no civilians.
The net result is uncertain. Intervention stopped Khadafy’s forces from capturing Benghazi, saving some lives. But it intensified his crackdown in western Libya to consolidate territory quickly. It also emboldened the rebels to resume their attacks, briefly recapturing cities along the eastern and central coast, such as Ajdabiya, Brega, and Ras Lanuf, until they outran supply lines and retreated.
Each time those cities change hands, they are shelled by both sides — killing, wounding, and displacing innocents. On March 31, NATO formally warned the rebels to stop attacking civilians. It is poignant to recall that if not for intervention, the war almost surely would have ended last month.
In his speech explaining the military action in Libya, Obama embraced the noble principle of the responsibility to protect — which some quickly dubbed the Obama Doctrine — calling for intervention when possible to prevent genocide. Libya reveals how this approach, implemented reflexively, may backfire by encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering.
Alan J. Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, is author of “The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention’’ and co-editor of “Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention.’’
Online UK costume and fashion jewellery shop with,
Beaded Magnetic Bracelet for Health
Nachhaltige Produkte…
I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Big Bang Theory – Cringely on technology…
From this perspective, it’s actually quite apparent why their economy has gone through 4 recessions in the last 20 years, and will continue to slide after the reconstruction blip. The aging population is the cause, not for the reason of an “aging-workforce” but “stubborn idealism” that is threatened like a guillotine on the younger workforce.
buy google plus 1, buy google plus one, buy google 1, buy google +1, buy google plus ones…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Big Bang Theory – Cringely on technology[…]…
of money (thousands) in the process.i didn’t…
discover article marketing until years after my introduction to the internet world. i didn’t think that free marketing techniques could make me money, so i stuck with paid advertising. in particular, pay per click advertising, and advertising on a hom…