11th hour intervention in Libya

[don]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Most appropriate for Libyan Odyssey Dawn: Giulio Douhet

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Even better - a CIA connection to the 'rebellion'. Hopefully this isn't true...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/ma...pers-m28.shtml

A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels

28 March 2011

The Libyan National Council, the Benghazi-based group that speaks for the rebel forces fighting the Gaddafi regime, has appointed a long-time CIA collaborator to head its military operations. The selection of Khalifa Hifter, a former colonel in the Libyan army, was reported by McClatchy Newspapers Thursday and the new military chief was interviewed by a correspondent for ABC News on Sunday night.

Hifter’s arrival in Benghazi was first reported by Al Jazeera on March 14, followed by a flattering portrait in the virulently pro-war British tabloid the Daily Mail on March 19. The Daily Mail described Hifter as one of the “two military stars of the revolution” who “had recently returned from exile in America to lend the rebel ground forces some tactical coherence.” The newspaper did not refer to his CIA connections.

McClatchy Newspapers published a profile of Hifter on Sunday. Headlined “New Rebel Leader Spent Much of Past 20 years in Suburban Virginia,” the article notes that he was once a top commander for the Gaddafi regime, until “a disastrous military adventure in Chad in the late 1980s.”

Hifter then went over to the anti-Gaddafi opposition, eventually emigrating to the United States, where he lived until two weeks ago when he returned to Libya to take command in Benghazi.
The McClatchy profile concluded, “Since coming to the United States in the early 1990s, Hifter lived in suburban Virginia outside Washington, DC.” It cited a friend who “said he was unsure exactly what Hifter did to support himself, and that Hifter primarily focused on helping his large family.”

To those who can read between the lines, this profile is a thinly disguised indication of Hifter’s role as a CIA operative. How else does a high-ranking former Libyan military commander enter the United States in the early 1990s, only a few years after the Lockerbie bombing, and then settle near the US capital, except with the permission and active assistance of US intelligence agencies? Hifter actually lived in Vienna, Virginia, about five miles from CIA headquarters in Langley, for two decades.

The agency was very familiar with Hifter’s military and political work. A Washington Post report of March 26, 1996 describes an armed rebellion against Gaddafi in Libya and uses a variant spelling of his name. The article cites witnesses to the rebellion who report that “its leader is Col. Khalifa Haftar, of a contra-style group based in the United States called the Libyan National Army.”

The comparison is to the “contra” terrorist forces financed and armed by the US government in the 1980s against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra scandal, which rocked the Reagan administration in 1986-87, involved the exposure of illegal US arms sales to Iran, with the proceeds used to finance the contras in defiance of a congressional ban. Congressional Democrats covered up the scandal and rejected calls to impeach Reagan for sponsoring the flagrantly illegal activities of a cabal of former intelligence operatives and White House aides.

A 2001 book, Manipulations africaines, published by Le Monde diplomatique, traces the CIA connection even further back, to 1987, reporting that Hifter, then a colonel in Gaddafi’s army, was captured fighting in Chad in a Libyan-backed rebellion against the US-backed government of Hissène Habré. He defected to the Libyan National Salvation Front (LNSF), the principal anti-Gaddafi group, which had the backing of the American CIA. He organized his own militia, which operated in Chad until Habré was overthrown by a French-supported rival, Idriss Déby, in 1990.

According to this book, “the Haftar force, created and financed by the CIA in Chad, vanished into thin air with the help of the CIA shortly after the government was overthrown by Idriss Déby.” The book also cites a Congressional Research Service report of December 19, 1996 that the US government was providing financial and military aid to the LNSF and that a number of LNSF members were relocated to the United States.

This information is available to anyone who conducts even a cursory Internet search, but it has not been reported by the corporate-controlled media in the United States, except in the dispatch from McClatchy, which avoids any reference to the CIA. None of the television networks, busily lauding the “freedom fighters” of eastern Libya, has bothered to report that these forces are now commanded by a longtime collaborator of US intelligence services.

Nor have the liberal and “left” enthusiasts of the US-European intervention in Libya taken note. They are too busy hailing the Obama administration for its multilateral and “consultative” approach to war, supposedly so different from the unilateral and “cowboy” approach of the Bush administration in Iraq. That the result is the same—death and destruction raining down on the population, the trampling of the sovereignty and independence of a former colonial country—means nothing to these apologists for imperialism.

The role of Hifter, aptly described 15 years ago as the leader of a “contra-style group,” demonstrates the real class forces at work in the Libyan tragedy. Whatever genuine popular opposition was expressed in the initial revolt against the corrupt Gaddafi dictatorship, the rebellion has been hijacked by imperialism.

The US and European intervention in Libya is aimed not at bringing “democracy” and “freedom,” but at installing in power stooges of the CIA who will rule just as brutally as Gaddafi, while allowing the imperialist powers to loot the country’s oil resources and use Libya as a base of operations against the popular revolts sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.

Patrick Martin

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/9...ican-official/

ROME (Reuters) - At least 40 civilians have been killed in air strikes by Western forces on Tripoli, the top Vatican official in the Libyan capital told a Catholic news agency on Thursday, quoting witnesses.

"The so-called humanitarian raids have killed dozens of civilian victims in some neighborhoods of Tripoli," said Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli.

"I have collected several witness accounts from reliable people. In particular, in the Buslim neighborhood, due to the bombardments, a civilian building collapsed, causing the death of 40 people," he told Fides, the news agency of the Vatican missionary arm.

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Even better: Obama signs 'secret' order authorizing CIA involvement in Libya

Just so long as they don't get called 'military advisors'. Also amusing point about supplying arms to Libya violating a UN arms embargo - unless of course the embargo is modified...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110331/...ibya_usa_order

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.
"As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. "I will reiterate what the president said yesterday -- no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya."
The CIA, which declined comment on the Obama authorization, has inserted small groups of clandestine operatives to gather intelligence for air strikes as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the United States hopes can help bleed Gadaffi's military, The New York Times reported, citing unnamed American officials.
[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

In addition to the CIA operatives, dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are also working in Libya, the newspaper said.
News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.
The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.
Interviews by U.S. networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to "ultimately step down" from power. He spoke of applying "steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means" to force Gaddafi out.
Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. "It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," he told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.
In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insisted to reporters that no decision had yet been taken.
U.S. officials monitoring events in Libya say neither Gaddafi's forces nor the rebels, who have asked the West for heavy weapons, now appear able to make decisive gains.
While U.S. and allied airstrikes have seriously damaged Gaddafi's military forces and disrupted his chain of command, officials say, rebel forces remain disorganized and unable to take full advantage of western military support.
SPECIFIC OPERATIONS
People familiar with U.S. intelligence procedures said that Presidential covert action "findings" are normally crafted to provide broad authorization for a range of potential U.S. government actions to support a particular covert objective.
In order for specific operations to be carried out under the provisions of such a broad authorization -- for example the delivery of cash or weapons to anti-Gaddafi forces -- the White House also would have to give additional "permission" allowing such activities to proceed.
Former officials say these follow-up authorizations are known in the intelligence world as "'Mother may I' findings."
In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.
Because U.S. and allied intelligence agencies still have many questions about the identities and leadership of anti-Gaddafi forces, any covert U.S. activities are likely to proceed cautiously until more information about the rebels can be collected and analyzed, officials said.
"The whole issue on (providing rebels with) training and equipment requires knowing who the rebels are," said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA Middle East expert who has advised the Obama White House.
Riedel said that helping the rebels to organize themselves and training them how use weapons effectively would be more urgent then shipping them arms.
ARMS EMBARGO
Sending in weapons would arguably violate an arms embargo on Libya by the U.N. Security Council imposed on February 26, although British, U.S. and French officials have suggested there may be a loophole.
Getting a waiver would require the agreement of all 15 council members, which is unlikely at this stage. Diplomats say any countries that decided to arm the rebels would be unlikely to seek formal council approval.
An article in early March on the website of the Voice of America, the U.S. government's broadcasting service, speculated on possible secret operations in Libya and defined a covert action as "any U.S. government effort to change the economic, military, or political situation overseas in a hidden way."
The article, by VOA intelligence correspondent Gary Thomas, said covert action "can encompass many things, including propaganda, covert funding, electoral manipulation, arming and training insurgents, and even encouraging a coup."
U.S. officials also have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gaddafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels with weapons.
Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activities in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahideen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.
There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."
"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.
(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell in Washington and Louis Charbonneau at the United Nations; Editing by David Storey and Christopher Wilson)

[don]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

what's past is present once again . . .

[tsetsefly]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

THis is just getting better and better. The Nobel Laureate using the same tactics every other US president has been vilified for... Yet the "anti-war" left remains silent...

[oddlots]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Interesting analysis of militant humanitarianism:

GOODIES AND BADDIES

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurti...d_baddies.html

I'm cautiously optimistic today because of Kousa's defection and the apparent caravan of high level Gadaffi loyalists hitting the highway for Tunisia and word that Saif's "fixer" is in London trying to broker some kind of deal, even if that deal sounds ridiculous. But I'll certainly admit the precedents are not good.

[don]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

no other word for it - Rag Tag

[GRG55]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Interesting analysis of militant humanitarianism:

GOODIES AND BADDIES

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurti...d_baddies.html

I'm cautiously optimistic today because of Kousa's defection and the apparent caravan of high level Gadaffi loyalists hitting the highway for Tunisia and word that Saif's "fixer" is in London trying to broker some kind of deal, even if that deal sounds ridiculous. But I'll certainly admit the precedents are not good.

Excerpt from the link: "...It began to be obvious that getting rid of evil didn't always lead to the simple triumph of goodness. Which became horribly clear in Iraq in 2003..."

I was living in the Persian Gulf at the time of 9/11 and the subsequent build-up to Gulf War II [Iraq, 2003]. In the weeks before the start of "Shock and Awe", as the American armaments were built up and naval forces being readied, the Gulf monarchies were frantically trying to talk the USA out of this insane idea.

In the very early hours one morning a few weeks before the start of the bombing I was with the largest Arab shareholder in my company, drinking tea in the lobby of one of the fancy hotels that litter that region. He had just returned from Washington as part of an official delegation, having met with Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the gang. This normally chronically upbeat and optimistic individual confided that "the Americans are our friends, but they just won't listen to any advice from us".

He then went on to say something I did not understand at the time: "The Iraqis are crazy people. If the Americans remove Saddam they will start killing each other". And that is exactly what happened.

So hated is Quadaffi that he cannot negotiate sanctuary even in the usual places such as Saudi Arabia. It is difficult to imagine a regime worse than Quadaffi's.

But just because one cannot imagine it, doesn't mean the world isn't going to get something worse than Quadaffi when it finishes meddling in Libya...

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

THis is just getting better and better. The Nobel Laureate using the same tactics every other US president has been vilified for... Yet the "anti-war" left remains silent...

To be fair, their has been some stink from the lefty crowd about returning the Nobel prize, etc.

But I'm starting to see the organized Democrat party rationalizing how good this will be for the US.

This "war" is the best proof yet of how little real differences between Democrats and Republicans. Same policies, just different constituents.

[GRG55]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

...But I'm starting to see the organized Democrat party rationalizing how good this will be for the US.

This "war" is the best proof yet of how little real differences between Democrats and Republicans. Same policies, just different constituents.

No surprise here. Just one example: California probably has the largest concentration of defense contractors of any State in the Union. Last time I checked Cali alway voted blue...

[gnk]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

I have never been to the Middle East, but that was one of my concerns about the Iraqi War. When I read about someone like Saddam, I have to wonder, how much of his brutality is a product of his genes, and how much of it is a product of his environment.

And what I mean by environment - Dictators are not always brutal because they enjoy it - they are brutal because the alternative is chaos. Iraq's boundaries were not drawn by centuries of bloodshed the way Europe's boundaries were drawn. The Iraqi boundaries were drawn by Churchill, for England's sake.

The US's boundaries were fought over between the Americans and the British, and then the Mexicans. Europe's boundaries are probably some of the most bloodstained in history. The Middle East? They never got their chance to duke it out to see who gets what, and so, it is a terminal powder keg.

Unfortunately, a lot of oil sits under that powder keg, and the rest of the world can't sit by waiting for them to sort things out.

[GRG55]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

I have never been to the Middle East, but that was one of my concerns about the Iraqi War. When I read about someone like Saddam, I have to wonder, how much of his brutality is a product of his genes, and how much of it is a product of his environment.

And what I mean by environment - Dictators are not always brutal because they enjoy it - they are brutal because the alternative is chaos. Iraq's boundaries were not drawn by centuries of bloodshed the way Europe's boundaries were drawn. The Iraqi boundaries were drawn by Churchill, for England's sake.

The US's boundaries were fought over between the Americans and the British, and then the Mexicans. Europe's boundaries are probably some of the most bloodstained in history. The Middle East? They never got their chance to duke it out to see who gets what, and so, it is a terminal powder keg.

Unfortunately, a lot of oil sits under that powder keg, and the rest of the world can't sit by waiting for them to sort things out.

That is the fallacy...that the RoW needs to intervene to keep the oil flowing.

The oil will flow no matter what. If the world wants oil it does not need to send its youngsters to die in foreign deserts to get it.

Iraq is but the latest example. The oil production fell steadily, first due to the UN sanctions after Gulf War I, and then after the "Coalition of the Willing" invasion. It is just now starting to rise again. Iran is another example. Oil production fell after the revolution, but despite all the animosity the Iranians haven't stopped producing and selling the stuff to "the West". And if the world wants more oil from there all it need do is hold it's nose, remove the sanctions and let the money be invested.

That is exactly the lesson that should have been learned from Libya. Tony Blair made his trip to shake Quadaffi's hand in March 2004. On that same date it was announced that Shell had signed an agreement to explore offshore Libya. Once the money flows so does the oil. Have a look at the chart of annual Libyan oil production in the years immediately after 2004. http://www.indexmundi.com/libya/oil_production.html

What do we think is going to happen to Libya oil production over the next few years, given we apparently couldn't "sit by waiting for them to sort things out"?

Everybody thinks that this is "all about oil", and there is considerable validity in that, but the situation is much more complex that that single motive.

[gnk]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Yes, it is complicated, but ultimately, it is about oil. There are two issues regarding influence or occupation in the Middle East. One is, it is a good idea to have as many friendly regimes running the show - to keep the oil flowing and to support the US Dollar thru petrodollar recycling, buying US weapons, investing in US securities, etc...

The other view is that it is also important to have your hand on the oil spigot at all times, you never know when it could be useful. Otherwise, you'll see another power set up shop with their military in that region. Imagine the Chinese Army setting up shop in the Persian Gulf.

The US got to have the world reserve currency, inter alia, because it had the most gold in the world at that time. As the gold reserves whittled away, oil replaced the gold.

Money is but an abstraction that needs to represent something real, whether the average person knows it or not. The most real asset in our industrial civilization is energy - oil.

I'm just looking at Realpolitik here. Is it sustainable? Not really. Law of diminishing returns... Tainter's complexity thing...

[GRG55]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Yes, it is complicated, but ultimately, it is about oil. There are two issues regarding influence or occupation in the Middle East. One is, it is a good idea to have as many friendly regimes running the show - to keep the oil flowing and to support the US Dollar thru petrodollar recycling, buying US weapons, investing in US securities, etc...

The other view is that it is also important to have your hand on the oil spigot at all times, you never know when it could be useful. Otherwise, you'll see another power set up shop with their military in that region. Imagine the Chinese Army setting up shop in the Persian Gulf.

...

Once again, that is the fallacy...

The oil will flow, friendly regime or not. And the weapons will be procured regardless of whether the USA has military bases and thousands of people in the region or not.

I fail to see the logic behind the concern about the Chinese military. I have for some years been telling my Gulf Arab business partners that in due course the Chinese Navy is likely to displace the US Navy in the Persian Gulf, just as the US displaced the Royal Navy in the region once it became too expensive for Great Britain to maintain all its unnecessary foreign outposts [it's amazing how the lack of money focusses the thinking on the reality of a situation].

The Persian Gulf exports approximately 18 million barrels of oil a day. Of that roughly 2 million barrels goes to North America, 1 million to Latin America and Africa, 3 million to Europe and 12 million to East Asia [figures from the International Energy Agency]. Tell me again why the US military needs to be in that region to "protect the oil supply"? For whom?