11th hour intervention in Libya

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Oh boy, where to start? First of all, has this guy ever heard of private arms dealers? You can buy brand new semi auto FAL clones here in the States. I'm sure they are available elsewhere. Furthermore, the FAL was standard issue in the Israeli Army (and many others) for years. I'm sure a lot of these are floating around in the region, un-issued and pristine. Its a very common weapon. I'm sure someone with the cash could easily arrange to have crates of almost any weapon they can afford shipped over there.

Same with 106 RR. Common in that region. Used by Egypt, Israel, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, and Turkey, just to name a few.

That MANPADS looks like an SA-7, Libya would certainly have plenty of those laying around in their arsenals. And why does he state with certainty that "instructor" is not Libyan? What makes him a Western agent? The Raybans?

If this guys Rod Serling imitation didn't discredit him, his statement about the REAL freedom fighter at the end certainly did. As if they are all just a bunch of goat herders!

[lakedaemonian]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

you have to wade through the smarmy BS but the weapons insight is interesting.

(hey, we just added an Epson pro-line printer to the studio. Where's the instructor? There was none in the box.)

This is just my personal opinion, but:

I think the video creator has an axe to grind.

The FN-FAL/SLR is as common in many places around the world than the AK-47 and M16...especially on the African continent.

The GPMG/MAG-58 machine gun is also a very, very common light support weapon...almost as common in use if not numbers than the FN-FAL/SLR.....they're like two peas in a pod as they fire the same round.....which is incredibly common around the world....both in production and use since the 1950's.

The FN-FAL/SLR are still the minority of personal/support weapons I've seen...still mostly AKs and Russian designed Light/medium support weapons, and ubiquitous RPG

And they are all pretty insignificant at this stage...since the very open country would dictate engagement distance at longer range by the often seen Russian design heavy machine guns and Katyusha rockets and recoiless rifles.

The "US pistol" is nothing such....a bit grainy and pixelated, but appeared to be a Browning HiPower in 9mm...a VERY common pistol worldwide in production since the 1930's, but being supplanted by more modern pistols in the west.

Pistols are insignificant and a waste of time looking for western covert assistance.

The recoiless rifles being used have been out of service with western forces for decades in many cases and largely replaced with anti tank guided missiles. Operational use of recoiless rifles has largely been relegated to 3rd world use for a number of decades.

The MANPAD displayed is a Russian design Strela SA7/14/? Manufactured in Russia, China, Egypt, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, and probably elsewhere....early versions have ben in use since the early 70's I believe.

ALL of these weapons could be stored for decades in brand-new unused condition....even the MANPAD missile would have a relatively long shelf life if stored properly.....limited by the shelf life of the rocket motors, can't recall if the system is battery powered or by chemical vial.

In any case....Qaddafi has puchased and stored a massive amount of weapons over the 4+ decades of his reign.

It's a bit like former Yugoslavia in that case....enough munitions already in the country to maintain a civil war conflict for a LONG time.

The fitout of vehicles the author suggest as proof of western influence is ridiculous.....maybe he should read up of the Toyota Wars of the 80's Libya was involved in......to me, an indicator of western involvement would be if the vehicles possessed a rudimentary "friend or foe" identification system to avoid anymore "blue on blue" contacts between NATO air support and rebel forces as some of Qaddafi's forces are reportedly "hiding in plain sight" by mimic-ing the rebel technicals.

Is it possible SOME of these weapons were introduced?

Quite possibly....if so, I would guess the culprit as Egyptian, or Egyptian by proxy.

I doubt the west could do much in Eastern Libya on the ground without the direct support or knowledge of the powers that be in Egypt.

The initial support for the Muj in Afghanistan included more deniable-ish(for the west) weapon systems....a lot of it coming from Egypt and China.

Of course the west is in Libya with at least a few boots on the ground.

My guess, same as before, is US/UK working with and thru Egypt.....maybe Jordanian and maybe UAE forces.

I would also guess that since NATO NFZ has pretty solid control of the air.....rebel MANPAD need is quite low.....and I'd expect that over time efforts would be made by the west to gain control of them to avoid the threat posed by them down the road.

Much as efforts to purchase back MANPADs in Afghanistan.

The author of this video brings little to nothing to the table.

His final photo of stereotyping what a "genuine" Libyan desert fighter looks like is simply ridiculous.

[charliebrown]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

+1

maybe global warming, no drilling etc, is a way to keep any reserves in ground for when they are really needed.

Think about, what else would the gvt do? Say "we expect to be out of oil in 10 years, prepare for $10.00 gasoline"
Or "prepare for gas rationing". Taxation and enviromental restrictions make a more palitable pill to swallow.

This would be giving the washington dunderheads a lot of credit however. And I assume if this is the talking points and a known ruse, with so many legislators and executives, the word would leak. Although since the MSM has been captured, maybe a leak has occurred and it is not reported.

[don]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

2 great critiques!

better than I anticipated they would be!

thanks, guys.

(though credit is due the outrageous "desert fighter" at the end! Shades of Monty Python)

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

More indications of the ethnic nature of this struggle:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...574388483.html

Captives are taken to a military base where political prisoners were kept during Gaddafi's rule. In the closed cement quadrangle courtyard lined by cells sit rows of captives. On the right are the foreign prisoners, thought by the rebels to be 'mercenaries hired by Gaddafi to fight against them. Lined on the left were dozens of black Libyans. They sat huddled but not handcuffed in the sunlight.

Interesting how the race of the 'foreign' mercenaries isn't contrasted with the 'black' Libyans. Are these Egyptians? Tunisians?

The most likely sources of mercenaries would be Chad or similar south-Saharan African nations which Qaddafi has assisted in the past.

[GRG55]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

...The world's arms merchants would love nothing better than a prolonged war in Libya. They are selling to both sides, you can count on that.

The relative quiet in sub-Saharan Africa in recent years has taken a big bite out of their incomes. This was a godsend...

This should prolong the chaos and the killing for quite some time to come. Wonder who benefits... ;-)

In due course we'll find a few influential Libyan "rebels", none of whom have ever ridden in the back of Toyota p/u cradling a gun, and all of whom prefer the coffee houses of Istanbul or Nice to those in Africa, have become extraordinarly wealthy.

If anybody doubts this outcome, just look up Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi...

Libyan Rebels Get U.S. Recognition, Await Cash

Jul 16, 2011 8:23 AM MT

Leaders of the Libyan rebels’ Transitional National Council flew to Istanbul seeking legitimacy and money. They will leave with the official recognition of the U.S. and 31 other nations...

...The decision to treat the council as the “legitimate governing authority” in Libya is a key step to freeing up some of the government’s frozen assets for rebels seeking the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi. Still, obstacles such as existing United Nations sanctions won’t disappear overnight.

“We still have to work through various legal issues, but we expect this recognition will allow the TNC to access various forms of funding,” said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

At stake are about $34 billion in frozen Libyan government assets that are held by U.S. institutions and as much as $130 billion more held around the world. Speaking by phone from Istanbul, Transitional National Council spokesman Mahmoud Shammam put the total in excess of $100 billion globally...

...In the coming weeks, U.S. officials will consult with the TNC and international partners on the most effective and appropriate method of making additional significant financial assistance available, according to a Treasury official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly...

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

This should prolong the chaos and the killing for quite some time to come. Wonder who benefits... ;-)

Given that France was already caught (and admitted) dropping arms itself into Libya - despite a supposed UN arms embargo - I'm not sure why the fig leaf of "black market arms dealers" is even necessary:

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories...id=631912&vId=

Then there's the suspicious 'Qatar arms shipment' - boxes of which were all labeled in English. Several ways to look at that...

[tombat1913]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Meanwhile massive arms shipments to our neighboring failed state of Mexico by our own government via Operation Fast and Furious. Now it's Arab Spring, Next it's World Wide Winter, and we're essentially completely open on our southern border with a brutal war escalating right on the other side. With over 3000 murders last year in Juarez alone, you can bet if things turn for the worse here the problems down there will escalate and spill over more.

[don]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

from Asia Times:

Another take on Libya hubris for China
By Peter Lee

Western self-regard was on full display in a United States headline describing the Libya Contact Group confab in Istanbul over the weekend. It read: World leaders open Libya talks in Turkey. [1]

Well, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was there. Much-diminished leaders of 19th-century world powers Britain and France - and first millennium world power Italy - were there, too.

But attendance from the BRICS countries was patchy: Nobody was there from Russia, which boycotted the talks. China declined to send a representative. Brazil and India only sent observers, which meant they had no vote in the proceedings. South Africa didn't attend, and blasted the outcome of the meeting. [2]

It is an indication of the altogether ghastly reporting on Libya that Western self-regard was on full display in a United States headline describing the Libya Contact Group confab in Istanbul over the weekend. It read: World leaders open Libya talks in Turkey. [1]

Well, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was there. Much-diminished leaders of 19th-century world powers Britain and France - and first millennium world power Italy - were there, too.

But attendance from the BRICS countries was patchy: Nobody was there from Russia, which boycotted the talks. China declined to send a representative. Brazil and India only sent observers, which meant they had no vote in the proceedings. South Africa didn't attend, and blasted the outcome of the meeting. [2]


It is an indication of the altogether ghastly reporting on Libya that there has been little effort to determine the Libya Contact Group's constituting authority, its decision-making processes, or even its membership, let alone the legitimacy of its pretensions to set international policy on Libya.

The LCG was formed in London on March 29 under the auspices of the United Kingdom, at a conference attended by 40 foreign ministers and a smattering of international organizations. Its declared mission was be to "support and be a focal point of contact with the Libyan people, coordinate international policy and be a forum for discussion of humanitarian and post-conflict support". [3]

Since then, the group has met three times and its attendance seems to have stabilized around a core of 20 or 30 countries, mostly drawn from members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), conservative oil-rich states in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and GCC cadets Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco. Dutiful ally Japan has also tagged along.

The unambiguous American template for Libya - and the LCG - is Kosovo, another humanitarian bombing campaign cum regime change exercise conducted by NATO in disregard of the United Nations.

United States Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg invoked the Kosovo precedent - and a prolonged diplomatic and sanctions campaign that grew out of a "humanitarian military action" - in testimony before the US Congress on Libya:

Our approach is one that has succeeded before. In Kosovo, we built an international coalition around a narrow civilian protection mission. Even after Milosevic withdrew his forces and the bombing stopped, the political and economic pressure continued. Within two years, Milosevic was thrown out of office and turned over to The Hague. [4]

NATO decision-making is a rather fraught exercise in consensus-building, especially when it involves political as well as military issues. NATO's military command draws its legitimacy in Libya from UN resolution 1973 (the infamous no-fly + protect civilians undertaking), which it obviously interprets as it sees fit. Political undertakings like the LCG appear to be adjuncts to the military operation, a state of affairs that has not served NATO particularly well in Afghanistan.

NATO's political policy on Libya is in the hands of the "North Atlantic Council" or NAC; for obvious reasons this crusaderish piece of nomenclature is not often invoked in the Libyan situation.

A 2003 paper by the Congressional Research Service described the decision-making process and applied it to the Barack Obama administration's explicit template for bombing people into freedom, the Kosovo air war:

The NAC achieves consensus through a process in which no government states its objection. A formal vote in which governments state their position is not taken. During the Kosovo conflict, for example, it was clear to all governments that Greece was immensely uncomfortable with a decision to go to war. NATO does not require a government to vote in favor of a conflict, but rather to object explicitly if it opposes such a decision. Athens chose not to object, knowing its allies wished to take military action against Serbia. In contrast to NATO, the EU seeks unanimity on key issues. [5]

In other words, the dominant powers decide the policy; then it is up to the other guys to decide if they wish to undermine NATO's unity, credibility and image by obstructing the mission.

Inside NATO, it appears that most countries choose to opt out in order to affirm their diplomatic, doctrinal or political concerns, but not raise a formal, explicit objection.

For instance, when NATO took over the Libya mission, a US State Department official noted:

With respect to the Germans, Germans have made from the very beginning a very clear - a clear statement that they would not participate militarily with their own troops in any operation. But they've also made clear that they would not block any activity by NATO to move forward. [6]

Long story short: it's likely that NATO countries vote as a bloc when it comes to LCG matters.

GCC decision-making is even more opaque, but it is not unreasonable to assume that the smaller states are voting in a bloc with lead member Saudi Arabia on the Libya issue.

In other words, NATO and the GCC get their ducks in a row before the LCG meetings, which appear to be political window-dressing to convince Western opinion, at least, that a legitimate international process - well, maybe not quite as legitimate as UN debate - is going on.

China and Russia recognize the LCG as an effort by the proponents of military intervention in Libya to take the political bit in their teeth as well, in order to keep any further Libya discussions out of the UN Security Council where China and Russia - which were spectacularly burned by Resolution 1973 - would undoubtedly wield their veto power to the fullest to sidetrack the NATO/GCC-led campaign.

China has been relatively circumspect in its criticisms of the LCG, politely declining Turkey's invitation to join the Istanbul meeting - and thereby adding a further veneer of political legitimacy to the exercise - with the statement that it would skip the meeting "because the function and method of operation of this contact group need further study". [7]

The Russians have been much more blunt. In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared that it was the LCG, and not Muammar Gaddafi, that had a legitimacy problem:

"The contact group is a self-appointed organizational structure that somehow made itself responsible for how the (UN) resolution is carried out," Mr Lavrov said ...

"From the point of view of international law this group has no legitimacy." [8]

In rejecting the Turkish invitation to join the meeting in Istanbul, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its objections:

[W]e were called upon many times to join this Group by our other partners through various channels ... At the same time, the Russian approach to this issue has not changed. We are not a member of the Group and do not participate in its work. This applies to the upcoming meeting in Istanbul as well. [9]

In the most unflattering construction, therefore, the LCG is not a united effort by "the leaders of the world"; it is an effort to circumvent the UN Security Council, largely coordinated by Atlantic ex-colonial powers and anxious Arab autocrats who are most deeply committed to the bombing campaign against Gaddafi.

That effort is not going particularly well. NATO has strayed well beyond its "protect civilians" UN mandate - or, at the very least, creatively interpreted the mandate so as to render its intent and limitations meaningless - to conduct air operations against Gaddafi's forces for the past four months.

Nevertheless, the Libyan rebels have been unable to drive Gaddafi from power and thereby demonstrate the potency of Western arms and self-righteous bluster, even when exercised at safe distance and through enthusiastic proxies against an isolated Third World potentate.

At Counterpunch, Alexander Coburn excoriated the rebels, the media and Western delusions that this would be a quick and politically advantageous war: He wrote:

In a hilarious inside account of the NATO debacle, Vincent Jauvert of Le Nouvel Observateur has recently disclosed that French intelligence services assured [President Nicolas] Sarkozy and foreign minister [Alain] Juppe "from the first [air] strike, thousands of soldiers would defect from Gaddafi". They also predicted that the rebels would move quickly to Sirte, the hometown of the Qaddafi and force him to flee the country. This was triumphantly and erroneously trumpeted by the NATO powers which even proclaimed that he had flown to Venezuela. By all means opt for the Big Lie as a propaganda ploy, but not if it is inevitably going to be discredited 24 hours later.

"We underestimated al-Gaddafi," one French officer told Jauvert. "He was preparing for forty-one years for an invasion. We did not imagine he would adapt as quickly. No one expects, for example, to transport its troops and missile batteries, Gaddafi will go out and buy hundreds of Toyota pick-up in Niger and Mali. It is a stroke of genius: the trucks are identical to those used by the rebels. NATO is paralyzed. It delays its strikes. Before bombing the vehicles, drivers need to be sure they are whose forces are Gaddafi's. ‘We asked the rebels to a particular signal on the roof of their pickup truck, said a soldier, but we were never sure. They are so disorganized ...' " [10]

In fact, it appears that an important purpose of the Istanbul meeting was to jumpstart the ineffectual efforts by the Libyan rebels and, in particular, deal with calls by Turkey and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for a ceasefire during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (approximately August 1 to August 29 this year).

Ramadan is traditionally a time of fasting and peaceful reflection. In Libya, it would also undoubtedly be an opportunity for Gaddafi to regroup his forces and engage with the myriad interlocutors and negotiators - in addition to African Union, France and Italy were also reportedly meeting with Gaddafi's representatives - who were trying to end the embarrassing mess.

Both Turkey and the OIC - as well as otherwise disengaged Islamic power Indonesia - have warned NATO that continuing the bombing campaign during Ramadan would be a dangerous political miscue.

Therefore, to guard against the dread prospect of peace breaking out in unwelcome ways post Ramadan - and Gaddafi remaining in Tripoli without having received the necessary chastisement by the righteous democratic powers - the LCG made two important decisions:

First, it recognized the Transitional National Council (TNC) headquartered in Benghazi as the legitimate government of Libya, declared that Gaddafi's regime had lost its legitimacy, thereby pre-emptively taking Gaddafi's political survival off the table.

This was despite the fact that the TNC probably controls less than half of Libya's sparse population and vast territory while Gaddafi is still in firm control of the western half of the country, most of the population, and the capital.

Foreign Policy's Joshua Keating noted that, before Libya, only twice has the United States declined to acknowledge the legitimacy of a nation's ruling power.

First, in 1913, president Woodrow Wilson, who objected to the unsavory (and suspected anti-US business) tendencies of Mexico's strongman of the moment, Vicotriano Huerta, and refused to recognize his government until it collapsed, courtesy of Pancho Villa and the US occupation of Veracruz.

The second was China; the United States quixotically not only refused to recognize the communist conquest of the mainland for 50 years; it also countenanced Chiang Kai-shek's pretensions to rule all of China, even as he exercised sway over only the formerly marginal province of Taiwan. [11]

The recognition of the TNC supposedly served the purpose of unlocking the frozen-asset goodie room for the Benghazi forces, which were officially blessed as freedom-loving, not riddled with al-Qaeda sympathizers, and committed to the honoring of previous foreign contracts in Libya, thereby reducing the cash-strapped Western forces' financial exposure to the Libyan imbroglio in general and the TNC in particular.

It is a rather amusing sidelight to the conflict that the Western powers, laboring through recessions, cutbacks in government services, and overall political disgruntlement, have taken certain steps to minimize the stated cost of the Libya intervention.

Brad Sherman, a US Congressman from California - and an accountant - pointed out that the US has decided to count only marginal expenditures as costs of the Libyan conflict: that means direct costs such as munitions and fuel consumed and combat pay disbursed, giving a misleading idea of how much it costs to pound even a third-rate power into submission.

United Nations ambassador Susan Rice, one of the architects of the Libyan humanitarian intervention, countered with the assertion that all those US seamen and airmen would be getting paid anyway even if they weren't bombing Libya: "The Libya mission is not one that falls under UN accounting or US budgeting. It is something we are undertaking in a national capacity." [12]

Even by Rice's limited yardstick, the Western alliance has already disbursed a hefty US$1 billion on the war.

In any event, there is no obvious political constituency for pouring dollars into Benghazi. Sherman, for instance, proposed that the operation be funded by confiscating Gaddafi's frozen assets in the US. The desire to make Gaddafi pay for the war against him by seizing his frozen assets is widespread.

Nevertheless, a hitch remains: countries such as Canada have laws on their books that prevent them from unfreezing Libyan assets until the UN Security Council gives its OK - a virtual impossibility given Russian and Chinese disgust with the West's adventurism. [13]

In an amusing reprise of the enthusiasm for financial derivatives that plunged the world into the Great Recession, the LCG is encouraging interested states to evade the UN process by lending cash to the TNC, with the loans collateralized by frozen assets.

In a further sign that the US is not confident that the TNC can run its finances any better than it runs its war (and perhaps has achieved a belated awareness of the risks involve in lending ready cash against illiquid assets) it declared that most of the $30 billion in Gaddafi assets in the US were illiquid ie real estate, and a mere $3.5 billion - could possibly be funneled to the TNC. [14]

Nevertheless, Western financial creativity, once again deployed in the absence of Western hard cash, will undoubtedly succeed in forestalling the collapse of the Benghazi authority for the foreseeable future.

The second purpose of the Istanbul meeting was to cut the legs out from under other negotiators - such as the Gaddafi-friendly African Union, which was holding talks with regime representatives in Ethiopia and, for that matter, the French, who were sowing epic confusion through equivocal secret contacts with Gaddafi's representatives - by setting up a single, publicly-endorsed channel.

Apparently, despite its new-found ascendancy as Libya's legitimate ruling authority, the Transitional National Council does not, in the opinion of the LCG, have the wherewithal to engage in direct negotiations with Gaddafi's rebel bastion in Tripoli.

But the TNC was not the only organization to receive the back of the hand treatment from the Libya Contact Group.

The UN also got a slap.

Initial reports indicated that the UN's special envoy for Libya, Abdul Elah al-Khatib, would be the sole designated interlocutor for the LCG. Franco Frattini, Italy's loquacious foreign minister, told reporters in Istanbul:

Mr Khatib is entitled to present a political package. This political package is a political offer including a ceasefire. [15]

His remarks on the "authorized" status of Khatib were echoed by Frattini's British counterpart, William Hague.

This raises the interesting question of how the LCG, an ad hoc organization with no legal standing, can order around the UN's Khatib as its errand boy.

The problem has apparently been rectified.

It seems that Ban Ki-moon, the ever-pliant UN secretary general, has agreed to put the LCG program into execution - per the "authorization" of the seemingly all-powerful LCG - without the inconvenience and embarrassment of a UN Security Council discussion or vote, as Bloomberg reports:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be the only person authorized by the contact group to negotiate with both sides in Libya. Ban will set up a board of two to three interlocutors from Tripoli and the rebel-held town of Benghazi, Frattini said. [16]

According to a Financial Times report, it appears that the passion to claim Gaddafi's scalp has evaporated in France and Italy and the Western powers will accept anything short of Gaddafi taunting them from his presidential throne in order to end the embarrassing conflict:

On Thursday it emerged that the western-led coalition confronting Colonel Muammer Gaddafi was beginning to examine the possibility of offering him a face-saving deal that removes him from power in Tripoli but allows him to stay inside Libya as a means of bringing a swift end to the conflict.

As some 40 nations prepare to meet in Istanbul on Friday to discuss progress in the Nato-led operation against the Libyan leader, Britain, France and the US continue to state publicly that the war can only end with Col Gaddafi's physical departure from Libya.

But behind the scenes in Paris and London, senior officials are discussing whether the international community and the Libyan opposition could offer a deal that sees Col Gaddafi surrendering all power while going into internal exile in Libya.

For several days, French officials have made clear that Col Gaddafi could stay in Libya if he makes a clear statement that he will abdicate all military and political power. [17]

In the best tradition of Western peacemaking, it appears that a Ramadan ceasefire will be proceeded by a two-week barrage of bombs and missiles that will demonstrate both to the Gaddafi regime and world opinion that, despite its abject and obvious desperation to disengage, the NATO/GCC coalition is still rough, tough and a force to be reckoned with, even as it hastens to fulfill its publicly-stated ambition to be "outta here" by September.

The most plausible roadmap for Libya's post-conflict (or perhaps more accurately, mid-conflict) future is Turkey's roadmap, which foresees a Ramadan ceasefire, Gaddafi leaving power but not the country, and a constitutional commission.

As floated in the Turkish media, "the core of the commission would consist of five people: Two from Tripoli who would be accepted to Benghazi, two from Benghazi who would be acceptable to Tripoli and a fifth who would be named by those four who would set up the basis for a new constitution in Libya." [18]

Good luck with that.

A prompt ceasefire and a negotiated settlement do not leave the TNC with a very attractive hand. It controls less than half the country (albeit the predominantly oily half).

Furthermore, it is unlikely to perform outstandingly in any nationwide democratic contest that would involve the TNC canvassing for votes among the inhabitants of western Libya, a certain number of whom are likely to regard the TNC as venal and incompetent eastern adventurers who conspired with foreign powers to bomb and sanction the residents of Tripoli into misery and poverty.

No wonder the TNC spokesperson, Mahmoud Shamam, harrumphed to journalists in Istanbul that the TNC would ignore a ceasefire, saying "Even the Prophet Mohammed fought during Ramadan. We will continue to fight for our lives." [19]

However, if the West's Libya fatigue holds and the war doesn't re-ignite, the TNC may find itself lording itself over Benghazi in a de facto partitioned Libya, using its advantageous location vis-a-vis Libya's oil reserves to sustain its economy and its diplomatic standing.

In an indication of the world's resignation to a divided Libya, even China and Russia, who regard the TNC as a travesty and calamity, have pledged money for "humanitarian assistance" to "the Libyan people".

On the heels of a Russian announcement that it was sending 36 tons of aid to Benghazi, a terse announcement from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on July 11:

Q: The prolonged war in Libya deteriorates the humanitarian situation there. Will China consider providing humanitarian assistance to Libya?

A: In a bid to alleviate the humanitarian disaster faced by the Libyan people, China has decided to provide 50 million RMB [US$8 million] worth of humanitarian assistance to them. [20]

This is something, but - considering that the TNC has consistently declared it needs $3 billion in cash to keep the doors open in Benghazi - not a great deal.

As for the West, it can content itself with the observation that, if it wasn't able to save Libya, at least it was able to cripple it.

It is a pattern that has served the West reasonably well as its diplomacy engineered partition instead of national reconciliation in Kosovo and Sudan, and expedited the fragmentation of the Soviet Union into a suspicious Russia and a host of new NATO members.

It is another lesson in US "nation-building" - born of a casual disregard for sovereignty, circumvention of the United Nations, a cavalier attitude toward international law and a reckless deployment of political power - that China, one of the last great multinational empires left standing, is likely to take to heart.

Notes
1. World leaders open Libya talks in Turkey, The Raw Story, Jul 15, 2011.
2. Zuma, Cameron Set to Clash, IOL News, Jul 16, 2011.
3. Libya Contact Group: Chair's statement, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Apr 13, 2011.
4. Assessing the Situation in Libya, US Department of State, May 12, 2011.
5. NATO's Decision-Making Procedure, CRS Report for Congress, May 5, 2003.
6. Teleconference Background Briefing on North Atlantic Council (NAC) Discussions on Libya, US Department of State, Mar 24, 2011.
7. Russia not to attend Libya Contact Group meeting July 15, ITAR-TASS News Agency, Jul 13, 2011.
8. Russia denounces Libya contact group as 'illegitimate' , Telegraph, May 13, 2011.
9. Russia not to attend Libya Contact Group meeting July 15, ITAR-TASS News Agency, Jul 13, 2011.
10. NATO's Debacle in Libya, Counter Punch, Jul 15, 2011.
11. A Wilsonian move by the White House in Libya, Foreign Policy, Jul 15, 2011.
12. Democrat says Libya costs run much higher, Washington Times, Apr 7, 2011.
13. Canada mulls ways to fund Libyan rebels with frozen Gadhafi assets, Jul 16, 2011.
14. Summary of the American and International Press on the Libyan Revolution - Morgan Strong, Tripoli Post, Jul 17, 2011.
15. UN Envoy to Lead Libya Talks, Al Arabiya News, Jul 16, 2011.
16. Libyan Rebels Get U.S. Recognition Without Keys to Qaddafi's Frozen Cash, Bloomberg, Jul 15, 2011.
17. Click here for text.
18. Turkey seeks Libyan truce before Ramadan, Hurriyet Daily News, Jul 14, 2011.
19. Libyan TNC vows to continue military action in Ramadan, People's Daily, Jul 16, 2011.
20. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei's Remarks on China Providing Humanitarian Assistance to Libya, Chinese Foreign Ministry, Jul 11, 2011.

Peter Lee writes on East and South Asian affairs and their intersection with US foreign policy.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MG19Ad01.html

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

It is amusing indeed to see "days, not weeks" morphing to 'weeks, not months', now morphing to 'months, not years'.

As I noted early on in this thread - it is a mistake to think Qaddafi doesn't have any base of support, equally a mistake to think the 'freedom fighters' are necessarily motivated by 'democratic' concerns.

We're near the 4 month point and there is no indication whatsoever that the 'freedom fighters' are sparking a 'popular revolt' despite arms shipments, NATO bombing, and UN resolutions.

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Truth, or pro Qaddafi propaganda?

Several very strong statements made here.

Don't go to this web site - it has some type of auto-spam virus, but the source is:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...www.google.com

End Game for Benghazi Rebels as Libyan Tribes Prepare to Weigh In?

by Franklin Lamb

August 3, 2011

TRIPOLI — On July 30, the day before this 97.5 percent Muslim country began the holy month of Ramadan, NATO spokesperson Roland Lavoie lamely attempted to explain to the press at the Rixos Hotel and internationally why NATO was forced to bomb three Tripoli TV towers at the Libyan Broadcasting Authority, killing three journalists/technicians and wounding 15 others. Like most people currently in central Tripoli, this observer was awakened at 1:50 a.m. by the first of a series of nine blasts, three of which I watched from my balcony as they happened, and which seemed to be about 800 yards away as I saw one TV tower being blown apart. On the four-lane divided highway adjacent to my hotel and below my balcony, which runs along the sea front, I could see two cars frantically swerving left and right as they sped along, presumably trying to avoid a NATO rocket, fearing they themselves might be targeted.

According to NATO spokesperson Lavoie, allowing Libya’s population to watch government TV, and by implication, to hear terrorist public service announcements concerning subjects such as gasoline availability, food distribution for Ramadan, updates on areas to be avoided due to recent NATO bombing, prayers and lectures by Sheiks on moral and religious subjects during Ramadan, or to see the Prayer Times chart posted on government TV, during this month of fasting, plus children’s programs and normal programming, had to stop immediately.

The reason to bomb Libyan government TV, according to NATO, is that Libyan leader Gaddafi has been giving interviews and speeches following repeated NATO bombings that recently have included hospitals, Ramadan food storage warehouses, the nation’s main water distribution infrastructure, private homes, and more than 1,600 other civilian sites. NATO believes that preventing Gaddafi’s use of Libya’s public airwaves by bombing transmission towers is within UN resolutions 1970 and 1973, the scope of which are being expanded beyond all recognition from their original intent. NATO spokesperson Lavoie claims that Libya’s leadership is using TV broadcast facilities to thwart NATO’s “humanitarian mission” and, yet again are, “putting civilian lives at risk.”

Government officials admit using the media for communication with the population, including to urge tribal unity, to dialogue with those based in Benghazi referred to here as “NATO rebels”, to argue for an immediate ceasefire and, yes, even to call for all Libyans to resist what many here, including Colonel Gaddafi, call “the NATO crusader aggressors.”

In western Libya, and even among many in the east, according to recent rebel defectors who daily arrive on the western side, NATO has lost the respect of this country, Africa, the Middle East, and increasingly the international community. The reasons are well known here and include the serial false premises and descriptions of what happened in February in Benghazi and Misrata areas.

In addition, NATO daily bombing strikes have increased approximately 20 percent since July 25, and will continue to increase according to French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet, who, along with UK Defense Minister Liam Fox, while publicly saying NATO must continue the bombing, is privately expressing his frustration with the killing of rebel military commander Abdul Fatah Younnis. This assassination, according to Libyan officials, was very likely carried out by Younnis’ rebel leaders or Al Qaeda. Both are said to feel that the rebel leadership in Benghazi is collapsing. So do many NATO leaders and the Obama Administration.

A former senior member of Britain’s Liberal Democratic Party, Sir Menzies Campbell, has just urged the UK government to rethink its involvement in the war on Libya. Campbell said Britain must undertake a “wholesale re-examination and review” of its involvement in the NATO conflict in Libya after the murder of the opposition figure and Britain “must think about the end-game of the conflict in Libya.”

One Libyan government supporter, who just arrived here in Tripoli, claims he spent the past two months on the ground in Benghazi “undercover” as a liaison between the rebels and NATO. He told his rapt audience at a Tripoli hotel this week many details of what he claims is NATO’s frustration with the deterioration, corruption, and incompetence of their “team” in the east and the CIA view that “Al Qaeda will eat Mahmoud Jibril and the entire rebel leadership for Iftar during one of the Ramadan feasts during August. They are just waiting for the right opportunity to make a dramatic move and take control.”

Only the zealots of “humanitarian intervention” could seriously have contemplated the kind of protracted, bloody land war in Libya that would have been necessary to win. So, the bet on an alliance with NATO now appears to have been doomed from the start, even on its own terms.

The force that is rapidly entering into this conflict is the leadership of Libya’s more than 2000 tribes. In a series of meetings in Libya, Tunisia and elsewhere, the Tribal Council is speaking out forcefully and forging a political block that is demanding an end to Libyans killing Libyans.

Generally considered Libya’s largest tribe are the Obeidis, to which the Younnis family belongs. Some of the tribal leaders and members have vowed revenge against rebel leaders, and as they carried the coffins of Abdul Fatah and his two companions, they chanted, under the gaze of security forces, “the blood of martyrs will not go in vain.”

Libya’s Tribal Council has issued a manifesto which makes clear that it intends to end this conflict, help expel “the NATO crusaders”, and achieve reforms while supporting the Gaddafi, Tripoli based government. Before Ramadan is over, it intends to end Libya’s crisis even if it needs to rally its hundreds of thousands of active members to march on Benghazi.

NATO, according to various academics at Al Nasser and Al Fatah University, and Libya’s Tribal leadership, appear surprisingly ignorant and even contemptuous of this country’s tribes and their historic roles during times of crises and foreign aggression and occupation. One tribal leader well known to Italy was Omar Muktar.

As NATO and its backers contemplate their endgame, they may want to consider some excerpts from the Libyan Tribal Council’s manifesto issued on July 26. Speaking for Libya’s 2000 tribes, the Council issued a Proclamation signed by scores of tribal leaders from eastern Libya:

By this letter to the extraordinary African Summit, convening in Addis Ababa, the notables of the Eastern tribes of the Great Jamahiriya confirm their complete rejection of what is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi which hasn’t been nominated nor elected by Tribal representatives but rather imposed by NATO.

What is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi was imposed by NATO on us and we completely reject it. Is it democracy to impose people with armed power on the people of Benghazi, many of whose leaders are not even Libyan or from Libyan tribes but come from Tunisia and other countries?

… The Trial Council assures its continuing cooperation with the African Union in its suggestions aimed at helping to prevent the aggression on the Libyan people.…

The Tribal Council condemns the crusader aggression on the Great Jamahiriya executed by the NATO and the Arabic regressive forces which is a grave threat to Libyan civilians as it continues to kill them as NATO bombs civilian targets.…

We do not and will not accept any authority other than the authority that we chose with our free will which is the People’s Congress and Peoples Committees, and the popular social leadership, and will oppose with all available means, the NATO rebels and their slaughter, violence and maiming of cadavers. We intend to oppose with all the means available to us the NATO crusader aggressors and their appointed lackeys.

According to one representative of the Libyan Supreme Tribal Council, “The tribes of Libya have until today not fully joined in repelling the NATO aggressors. As we do, we serve notice to NATO that we shall not desist until they have left our country and we will ensure that they never return.”

[Slimprofits]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Iraq haunts plans for post-Gaddafi Libya
Tom Coghlan From: The Australian August 09, 2011 12:00AM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226111211251

WESTERN governments have helped prepare a blueprint for a post-Gaddafi Libya that would retain much of the regime's security infrastructure to avoid an Iraq-style collapse into anarchy.

The 70-page plan, obtained by London's The Times, charts the first months after the fall of the Gaddafi regime. The document was drawn up by the National Transition Council in Benghazi with Western help...

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Indeed in the same newspaper, this article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226113345948

THE rhetoric of resistance against "crusader aggression" sounds laughable in Paris and London, but it is helping Muammar Gaddafi to win the propaganda war in Libya.

And in the fight between the regime and the rebels to win loyalty in Libya it is hard to counter the small, wooden coffins being carried by grieving relatives.

Images of children allegedly killed or wounded in a NATO airstrike on a farming village near the frontline town of Zlitan are being played around the clock on state television.

In another propaganda rebuke to the allied forces, Libyan TV has been broadcasting images of a man it said was Khamis Gaddafi, the dictator's youngest son, visiting the injured in hospital. The rebels had claimed that he was killed in an airstrike last week.

How different it is from earlier in the year. Grainy footage and eyewitness accounts of forces loyal to Gaddafi shooting at unarmed demonstrators in Benghazi, the second city, as well as in Tripoli and other towns, caused international outrage.

Fears of a massacre as regime troops closed in on Benghazi spurred the UN Security Council, with France and Britain in the lead, to authorise all forms of military action short of putting troops on the ground to protect the Libyan people. At that moment, the moral high ground lay with Britain, France and the rebels -- and Gaddafi appeared illegitimate and isolated.

Repeated denials by his regime about killing civilians and declarations of a unilateral ceasefire rang hollow, while staged rallies in Tripoli of fist-pumping supporters brandishing posters of their leader and waving his green flag did little to dissuade opinion, inside and outside Libya, about what was really happening.

But the Gaddafi regime, adept at playing the victim, has turned the tables on the rebels. It has highlighted at every opportunity the suffering of families because of the bombing, medical and petrol shortages and power cuts, all of which it blames on NATO or "the rats", the name given to opposition fighters.

Part of the reason the anti-Gaddafi forces are losing the propaganda war is the lack of a united vision from Benghazi, the seat of power of the opposition Transitional National Council.

The mysterious and violent death last month of the leading rebel commander and the recent sacking of opposition figureheads has added to a sense of confusion in the ranks that does little to instil confidence in the anti-Gaddafi campaign.

Time is also playing against the rebels. In the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, the prospect of Western warplanes bombing another Muslim nation was less than ideal, but has been accepted as a necessary evil for a limited period.

The longer this campaign drags on, the harder it becomes to justify the bombardments and the easier it becomes for the Gaddafi regime to play on civilian deaths.

The failure of a sudden coup to materialise is being exploited as evidence that there is no majority desire to end Gaddafi's 42-year-old regime. It certainly makes it easier for his propagandists to claim the rebel challenge is fatally flawed and Britain and its allies are targeting Libya for its oil.

The rebels cannot afford to let these notions gain any traction, locally or internationally. NATO requires the continuing acceptance of less sympathetic Security Council members -- namely China and Russia -- if the military action is to maintain UN approval.

In a war of information and perception, the truth no longer matters. It is all about the message and, in Libya, the regime is coming out on top.