Ah yes. This war began less than a month ago, and already the Norpois, the leaden-footed proponents of salon diplomacy, well-versed in Munich-speak, have raised their heads again and, once over their initial astonishment, have taken up their favourite refrain: what are we doing, involved in this business?
First of all, war aims. The "true" aims of this war. And what if the allies had a "secret agenda" and, in particular, "oil". The imbeciles! The too-clever-for-their-own-good who, eternally seeking the hidden side of things, ultimately fail to see what is right there under their own eyes! Namely, that, oil for oil, there was one simple means to ensure control over Libyan oil, and that means was to touch nothing, to change nothing, and to go on dealing with Gaddafi, as they have for decades. Sarkozy, Cameron, Obama may be capable, like all politicians, of all the cynicism one likes. But concerning this affair, why not have the elementary honesty to recognize their share of sincerity?
Then, the length of this war. The way it has of "getting stuck" in the sands of the Libyan desert, when we had hoped it would be short and sweet. Once again, grotesque. Unutterable bad faith. For--quite apart from the fact that four weeks is nothing compared to the decade of the Afghan war or the ten weeks of that of Kosovo--there is a reason, only one, that operations are lasting beyond the successful rescue of Benghazi. And this reason is the strategy of a Gaddafi who has hunkered down in the bunkers of his other cities, turning their inhabitants into human shields. At that point, there are two strategies possible. Either blow up the crowd, in which case, yes, things will go swiftly (and it's no surprise to see the butcher of Chechnya, Vladimir Putin, in the front ranks of those who think things are dragging on). Or else look out for the lives of civilians, not losing sight of the fact that the international community has provided a mandate to protect them, the civilians, and that it will take the time it will take. (To deny that, one must be drugged on quick solutions, drunk with the urge for immediacy, or, worse, irresponsible.)
Third, the "amateurism" of the insurgents. Their supposed habit of "skedaddling like rabbits" when they are shelled from a distance of 10 kms and have only RPG7s whose range is limited to 200 metres to oppose the tanks and the canons. We were willing to come to their aid. Correction: to the aid of the victory. But from there to saving them, perhaps arming them, from there to allowing the necessary time for these teachers, engineers, taxi drivers, students, and simple merchants to organize themselves into an army, there's a step our armchair strategists refuse to take. Indigent bastards!, they say. Good for nothings! Short hitters! This is what we are fighting for? For these beggars who, for the moment, have no other arms than their enthusiasm and their courage? We're just short of regretting they lack the professionalism, the skill, the spirit of resistance (and yes, I've heard it said) of Gaddafi's mercenaries.
Fourth objection, the National Council of Transition. After all, what do we know of this Council of "nebulous" outlines? And wasn't France jumping the gun a bit in recognizing it? There again, it takes a lot of nerve to think so. And there's something profoundly perverse in this way of depicting who knows what occult power--an Angkar as in Cambodia, the black box of a Libya not as free as it professes to be--and in this way of spreading doubt and insinuating, in reality, the worst. For the members of the Council are well known. Their biographies are transparent. They are either those who have earned a price on their heads in Tripoli for rallying to the cause, whose respective political itineraries are known to all, or men who are new but who speak to whomever openly. But it's true that, to set this supposed mystery to rest, one must take the trouble to go to Benghazi....
And then, Al-Qaeda. Ah ! Al-Qaeda. On the pretext that, among the foreign jihadis who once left to fight in Iraq were a small majority of Libyans, one concludes that there would be a majority of jihadis at the heart of today's Free Libya. The sophism, in this case, is not only perverse, it is despicable. And it's the same abjectness, by the way, that, fifteen years ago at Sarajevo, inferred the probable birth of a fundamentalist State in the heart of Europe--and therefore the necessity to let Bosnia in its entirety die--from the presence of a handful of Iranians in the 7th corps of the Bosnian army. In this case, the truth is simple. It is possible that a few jihadis have infiltrated Derna or Benghazi. It is probably a rule that such sleeper agents profit from the chaos of war to reinforce their position. But it is a lie, accredited for the time being only by hazy statements backed by a Gaddafism which is in dire straits and fresh out of arguments, that they have a significant role in the ranks of the insurgents.
I would add that the best way of delivering Libya into the hands of chaos would be to abandon in mid-river those we have encouraged to ford it, giving in, at the last minute, to the sirens who would convince us to save what can be saved of the Gaddafi regime. He, really, is not only a butcher of civilians, a patent hater of the West and of democratic values, the declared enemy of the Arab--and, tomorrow, the African--spring, but a world class champion, all categories included, of terrorism. More than ever, this man should beat it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110325/us-fla-molester-convicted/
The man was convicted in the 70s, fled and now got 30 yrs. What is the difference outside the fact he isnt a famous direcor like your buddy in france? Polanski was part of a holywood jewish sex offender ring like the lithuanian high pedophilia ring resulting in the murder of a judge:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/288760,judge-gunned-down-in-lithuania.html
That jusge was also jewish. Supporting ur own eh? Where are ur articles on that judge brother of urs?
This is the opposition being midwifed in L|by@:
"The Obama administration dropped financial sanctions on Monday against the top Libyan official who fled to Britain last week, saying it hoped the move would encourage other senior aides to abandon Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the country’s embattled leader."
"But the decision to unfreeze bank accounts and permit business dealings with the official, Moussa Koussa, underscored the predicament his defection poses for American and British authorities, who said on Tuesday that Scottish police and prosecutors planned to interview Mr. Koussa about the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and other issues “in the next few days.”
"But as the longtime Libyan intelligence chief and foreign minister, Mr. Koussa is widely believed to be implicated in acts of terrorism and murder over the last three decades, including the assassination of dissidents, the training of international terrorists and the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/africa/06koussa.html?_r=1&ref=world
Mr. Levy somehow mentions this bit but leaves out the tribal nature of Libyan society. They have varying allegiances and not uniform ones. There are some considerably parts of Libyan population still behind Gaddafi. In essence they are not Human shields but instead are civilian supporters to a cause juxtaposed to the one the rebels are fighting for.
What Mr. Levy wanted should have said was what would happen when the civilian supporters of Gaddafi's decide to stand by him. What then? Does NATO, who's mandate is to provide "HUMANITARIAN" assistance to the people of L|by@, kill those civilians or arms the rebels to do the job for them?
These rebels are being midwifed and armed by the U$ but we know the history, Mr. Levy, of U$ backed groups that replace an old regime in various places:
"But some of those same tactics appear to be creeping into the efforts of the opposition here as it seeks to stamp out lingering loyalty to Kadafi. Rebel forces are detaining anyone suspected of serving or assisting the Kadafi regime, locking them up in the same prisons once used to detain and torture Kadafi's opponents."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5389027,full.story
This is an intervention worthy of sharp condemnation whichever way you look at it…
Seems we have heard this song before.
Unless, of course, the situation was deemed by some to be an inevitable civil war. So, when are you, a rich child of privilege, taking up a weapon to join the insurrectionists?
Since none of us actually KNOW how reality was packaged and presented to Obama, we cannot know if this was a genuine humanitarian intervention. I want to believe it was. But I wasn't born yesterday, and should it turn out to be yet another "smash and loot" create-your-own-disaster-capitalist scam, we'll know soon enough.
BTW - the fact that the rebels have already entered into an oil agreement (terms undisclosed) in NOT encouraging.
Pretty good for a bunch of 'rag-tag" rebels.
"The Council also said it “designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/libyan-rebel-council-sets-up-oil-company-to-replace-qaddafi-s.html
What the people of the United States should be spitting fire about is the fact that the President has ignored the limitations of his role under the Constitution. Ironically, I just read that the Senate by a vote of 90-10 swept aside a resolution stating just that, and ignoring their own responsibilities under the Constitution.
False assumptions, lead to faulty analysis, Mr. Levy.
"The Libyan leader proposed the nationalisation of U.S. oil companies, as well as those of UK, Germany, Spain, Norway, Canada and Italy in 2009.
On January 25, 2009, Muammar Al Gaddafi announced that his country was studying the nationalisation of foreign companies due to lower oil prices.
"The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalisation because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously," said Gaddafi.
"Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production," said the Libyan leader.
These statements have worried the main foreign companies operating in Libya: Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, U.S. ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany's Wintershall, Austria's OMV , Norway's Statoil, Eni and Canada's Petro Canada.
In 2008, the Libyan state oil company, National Oil, prepared a report on the subject in which officials suggested modifying the production-sharing agreements with foreign companies in order to increase state revenues."
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/25-03-2011/117336-reason_for_war_oil-0/
So you believe that the price of oil, and not the control of oil revenues, is the motivating factor behind nationalizing Libyan oil industry?
Well, that certainly is an interesting theory, can you give us any other examples of nationiztion that was not based on control of oil revenues?
Just unrelated Gaddafi anecdotes.
Your statement: "These statements have worried the main foreign companies operating in Libya: Anglo-Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, U.S. ExxonMobil, Hess Corp., Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum and ConocoPhillips, the Spanish Repsol, Germany's Wintershall, Austria's OMV , Norway's Statoil, Eni and Canada's Petro Canada."
...is CERTAINLY true though! Cheers...
When in reality Libya was forcing, the various foreign oil companies, them to give larger share of oil revenues to Libya.
So, arguement that the status quo would allow unchanged procurement of Libyan oil is false but, then Mr. Levy is a believer that the Libyan war is not about oil.
http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/libyas-gaddafi-wants-one-african-army
2. Obama was blocked from going further into Libya because, this time, the Republicans opposed it. And also (3) because it became clear that the rebels really couldn't win.
4. Can I declare a National Council of Transition? I want Seattle.
5. "[I]t is a lie...that [Al Qaeda has] a significant role in the ranks of the insurgents." (BHL)
versus
"Flickers' of al Qaeda in Libyan opposition, U.S. NATO leader says"
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-29/us/libya.opposition.analysis_1_james-stavridis-moammar-gadhafi-al-qaeda-or-one?_s=PM:US
But what does he know.
Although BHL does get something right: he writes "the West" and "democratic values" as if they were two separate notions. Because they are.
2) There were *flickers* of al Qaeda fighting against the genocidal maniacs in the 90s Balkans conflicts. In fact, that's where some of al Quaeda cut it's teeth in battle. Just because some members of al Qaeda believe that Muslims shouldn't be slaughtered wholesale doesn't mean that it's an invalid concept.
"[T]he army that rebel military leaders bragged about consists of only about 1,000 trained men." (New York Times)
So a "flicker" means training 300 people for an army of 1,000.
But BHL assures us "it is a lie...that [Al Qaeda has] a significant role in the ranks of the insurgents."
Easy to stand by your principles when someone else is doing the fighting, isn't it? How about americans fighting for americans? Now there is a unique and revolutionary concept.