Libya Death Toll Could Be As High As 30,000: U.S.

WASHINGTON — The death toll in Libya after more than two months of violence could reach as high as 30,000, an Obama administration official said Wednesday.

Gene Cretz, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, said it is very hard to gauge how many people have died in strongman Moammar Gadhafi's crackdown on protesters and the subsequent fighting between rebels and pro-government forces.

But he said that U.S. officials have seen figures ranging from 10,000 to 30,000.

"I don't think we're probably going to get an accurate number until we really get more hands-on experience on the ground," Cretz told reporters at the State Department in Washington. "We just have no sense of the scale of this thing until it's over."

Cretz said the U.S. keeps getting reports of "bodies that have been uncovered on the beach" as it maintains communication with contacts it established when it operated an embassy in Libya.

He also described Libya's Transitional National Council in Benghazi as a "political body that is worth our support," suggesting that the United States could provide further assistance to individuals seeking to set up an alternative system governance to Gadhafi's 42-year dictatorship.

However, Cretz stopped short of saying the administration would recognize the council as Libya's legitimate government as NATO allies France and Italy have done.

He spoke a day after the administration eased its sanctions on Libya, allowing opposition forces to sell the oil it controls and use the income to buy weapons and other supplies, while the White House ordered the expenditure of up to $25 million in surplus, nonlethal goods and commodities to support and protect the rebels.

Comments

[PerotVentuSheehCarte]

12:14 AM on 06/01/2011

Where there were deserts
I saw fountains
Like cream the waters rise

nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin

And we strolled there together
With none to laugh or criticize

[mbt sandals]

09:36 PM on 05/19/2011

No country , however rich , can afford the waste of its human resources http://www.cheapmbtshoes-sale.com/

[slumlord420]

01:12 AM on 04/29/2011

I thought Obama said this operation would last just days and would prevent civilians from dying. I guess we are keeping it under control with only 10,000 dying per month.

[7voiceofreason7]

12:16 PM on 05/10/2011

Nooooooooooooooooooo.

Obama said that our primary role would last only days, and he delivered.

I'm pretty sure nothing like 10,000 are dying per month. Unless you can provide some solid evidence otherwise.

[Felixio]

12:12 PM on 04/28/2011

I don't believe in killing but if we kill Qaddafi, will save thousand of lives, one in exchange of many.

[I3edlam]

10:05 AM on 04/28/2011

Only human beings... So there was this Alpha male monkey in the pack. Then some of the lesser monkeys got mad, but they were still afraid of the alpha so they did anything but confront the root of the problem. Then the Alpha male monkey told all his loyal monkeys, "kill them all" so all the little monkeys killed each other in the thousands while the big monkey sat in the background to see if he'd be killed too.

Then some other Alpha monkeys told their minion monkeys to sit in the trees and throw stones at the loyalists in hopes that their Alpha would die. That way they could get a cut of his bananas.

And that is the story of humanity in the 21st century. Makes you proud that we've come such a long way doesn't it? I wonder who and what the problem is in this scenario?

[DAE]

09:36 AM on 04/28/2011

If the figure is accurate it can be assumed that the vast majority of deaths occurred after the NATO intervention as there was no indication of such a mass slaughter before it began. Thus the "humanitarian" intervention may have provoked far more carnage than it may have prevented. Such is the expected result. There is no such thing as a "good" war. Haven't we learned that yet? Didn't Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate that? So now our actions have led to the mutilation of Libya and the killing of a goodly percentage of its people. If we had not intervened Qadaffi would have probably quelled the rebellion with far fewer deaths and the country would still be intact. His actions prior to the invasion were no different than those of our erstwhile allies in Bahrain and Yemen or our foes in Syria and Iran. And who are we helping? I cannot believe that we don't know who the rebels are. What is the $100 billion CIA/NSA budget for? As Qadaffi originally said elements of Al-qaeda are certainly involved. What a travesty. And all this from a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Give me a break.

[MMRDO]

09:46 AM on 04/28/2011

I'd actually say that Gadaffi's forces who did the actual killing of protesters are responsible for the deaths of the protesters.

[DAE]

10:34 AM on 04/28/2011

That may very well be the case but the point is that, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, our actions set the stage for the mass killings. Was the ousting of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban worth the hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilian deaths that occurred as a result? And who are we to impose these kinds of solutions on countries and peoples beyond our borders? Sure there are some in those countries who call for our intervention but there are many more who would rather be left alone.

[babybecks]

09:18 AM on 04/28/2011

Sheezus. I didn't support this endeavor whatsoever, but that puts a new spin on the situation.

1 c a s u a l t y is too many, 5, 100, but that number is hard to digest.

Having this information, if it is indeed true, makes it seem nonsensical to allow this continue to draw out any further.

Having said that, no one in the West will do what seems to be the only thing that would expedite ending this. And there really wasn't a plan on what to do when he wouldn't go quickly and willingly. All the makings of a total clusterfck.

[Meesterclean]

08:32 AM on 04/28/2011

This is terrible. Thank God Obama did act.

Veteranstoday dot com has some good articles about Libya. Usually against wars and occupations, they made an exception for Libya. The weaponry that a few can have to terrorize the majority is what makes today's times different than the past. There is almost no way a people can shake their leadership if their leadership has too many sophisticated and destructive weapons.

[TheLonelyGod]

05:53 AM on 04/28/2011

That's unbelievable.

[Rubiconski]

04:13 AM on 04/28/2011

To support or endorse Western aggression is out of question.

Libya will be in ruins and the west will happily exploit their vast resources.

[Nicholas Azarian]

05:34 AM on 04/28/2011

Will you also condemn Gaddafi's aggressive and brutal attempts to crush the opposition? As he is the one who's driving Libya down the path in ruin.

[basenji]

03:44 AM on 04/28/2011

The revolutionary war wasn't exactly death free. They want freedom, they need to fight for it.

[vinny]

03:13 AM on 04/28/2011

"I don't think we're probably going to get an accurate number until we really get more hands-on experience on the ground," Cretz told reporters at the State Department in Washington. "We just have no sense of the scale of this thing until it's over."
========

WMD type lie

[osofar]

02:34 AM on 04/28/2011

The only people who benefit from our wars without end are war profiteers.

[osofar]

02:33 AM on 04/28/2011

The greatest loss of life in a civil war was during the Taiping Rebellion in China. Yet, the USA did not get involved in this civil war.

[SouthStJo]

03:41 AM on 04/28/2011

You mean the one that happened over 150years ago....during the US civil war?
Ya, the NATO Time Travel Unit should have gotten on that.

LOL, no wonder you're an "expat english teacher".

[osofar]

04:35 AM on 04/28/2011

Just saying, the US once did not get involved in other nation's civil wars. Like, the British did not get involved in our civil war.

[greeneyes51654m]

12:30 AM on 04/28/2011

The toll will be much higher by the time this is all finished, if it ever is finished.