Libyan rebels have entered Tripoli. As gun battles break out across the city, it is timely to enter into a discussion as to how the rebels arrived there. It is time to review the curious role of NATO and the future of U.S. interventionism.
A negotiated settlement in Libya was deliberately avoided for months while NATO, in violation of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 1970 and 1973, illegally pursued regime change. NATO chose sides, intervened in a civil war and morphed into the air force for the rebels, who could not have succeeded but for NATO's attacks.
NATO acted with impunity. The NATO command recklessly bombed civilians in the name of saving civilians. Usurping the United Nation's traditional role, NATO looked the other way as the arms embargo was openly violated by U.N. member nations.
NATO's top commanders may have acted under color of international law but they are not exempt from international law. If members of the Gaddafi Regime are to be held accountable, NATO's top commanders must also be held accountable through the International Criminal Court for all civilian deaths resulting from bombing. Otherwise we will have witnessed the triumph of a new international gangsterism.
The reasons for the U.S./NATO intervention in Libya keep changing. First it was about the potential for a massacre in Benghazi. When the massacre did not materialize and once the war against Libya was underway, the reasons for intervention changed.
We were reminded Libya had spent 'forty years under a tyrant.' We were urged to remember the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland, which occurred 23 years ago this December 21st. Yet almost 20 years later, on November 18, 2008 the Associated Press reported that President George Bush called Colonel Gaddafi personally "to voice his satisfaction that Libya has settled a long-standing dispute over terrorist attacks, including the bombing of a Pan Am jet over Scotland."
On December 19, 2003 Libya voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapon-making capability and on January 6, 2004 ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Its relationship with the U.S. on the mend, Libya then opened up to international investment and began the wholesale privatization of its industries, leading to massive unemployment and dissatisfaction with the state of things, particularly among younger Libyans.
I mention this not to sympathize with Colonel Gaddafi's brutality or to minimize the great tragedy of Flight 103. But if the U.S. had come to terms with Gaddafi's past violence, why does the Obama Administration invoke it as justification for an attack on Libya? One conclusion could be that the reasons for the March 2011 attack were bogus.
Once into the war, the Administration promptly passed off nominal responsibility for the war to NATO, after beginning the war without congressional authorization. NATO became the beneficiary of U.S. funds, U.S. war planes, U.S. drones, U.S. bombs, and U.S. intelligence assets.
NATO violated UNSC resolutions. The Obama Administration violated the U.S. Constitution by bypassing Congress on the war. These are not mere academic matters. They have moved the world community from the rule of law to the rule of force and have set a precedent for NATO to become the new global-cop. Far from bringing a new level of security to the world scene, NATO has brought a new level of insecurity and unaccountability.
The question of the reason for United States' involvement in Libya remains.
Was the United States' Central Intelligence Agency involved in planning for regime change prior to events in February and March in Benghazi? Did the CIA and its assets have a role in fomenting a civil war?
Was the United States, through participation in the overthrow of the regime, furthering the aims of international oil corporations in pursuit of control over one of the world's largest oil resources?
Did the United States at the inception of the war against Libya align itself with elements of al Qaeda, while elsewhere continuing to use the threat of al Qaeda as a reason for U.S. military intervention, presence and occupation?
The foreign policy objectives of the Obama Administration are cloudy. Pledges to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are in doubt. The Iraq War is supposed to be over at the end of this year, yet that promise appears to be fading. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan appears to be open-ended. The latest reports describe a U.S. commitment in Afghanistan through 2024. This raises the question as to whether the Administration has full control over the military and intelligence apparatus.
In the case of Libya, now that NATO, with the help of the U.S., has brought the rebels into the streets of Tripoli to fight, what follows? What's the plan? Who governs and for whose sake? Will Libya become NATO's protectorate?
It is not only the Gaddafi compound in Tripoli that will be left in ruins by NATO's actions; it will also be the Obama Administration's relationship with the African Union (AU). The AU and its member nations have been repeatedly rebuffed by the U.S. in its efforts to bring about a peaceful, negotiated settlement for the regime's transition out of power. While the U.S., through NATO, has been bombing Libya, China has spent time building commercial opportunities across the African continent.
As the Administration indulges itself with wars in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan -- spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military adventurism -- the United States has massive economic problems at home. Resources which should be spent creating jobs in America are going to perpetuate war abroad. Resources which should be used to build bridges in America continue to be used to bomb bridges elsewhere.
Millions of Americans are begging for a chance to earn their daily bread while the government spends its money on daily bombing. While the government has yet to produce a viable jobs program to put millions of unemployed back to work, the waste of resources on war is guaranteed to continue: The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are NOT to subject to spending caps in the budget. The American people get myths, rhetoric and unemployment while war profiteers get the gold. Can you imagine what the people of Libya will get?
Follow Rep. Dennis Kucinich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RepKucinich
Jonathan Gandomi: 66th U.N. General Assembly a Chance for Common Action
Michel Gabaudan: Libya: A Revolution's Endgame
Or take our own noble experiment designed to recognize at least in theory (and that's a start) the basic equality of each and every individual citizen. That each of these individuals were of the same value regardless of race or social class, that no one deserved more respect and dignity than anyone else; we were intended to be a nation by the people and for the people, and I must say that is a very worthwhile goal.
But oooppps, we stumbled at some point and missed the path, we fell right off it and into that ditch they're always talking about. Our ideals and high values became mired in the mud by the side of the road and now the windshield wipers are having a hard time keeping a patch of glass open to see through; now we see through a muddy windshield darkly.
Wake up,
or live with endless war.
The USA spend twice what the resto of the world spends on war combined.
54% of our taxes f go to war. War resistors.org.
The USA tortures and goes to war for profit.
While widows and orphans starve and die here at home, and more cuts to come.
Vote for the CPC Progressive caucus Kucinch folks in the primaries and the dems in the general.
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/
Not theObama Clinton Rahm Blue dog new dem DLC corporatist anti-populist folks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
i don't believe in coincidences anymore.
Another question, now all the GOP critics are saying the President didn't act enough to bring the Libya conflict to an end faster. Where are all the GOP critics who were saying we shouldn't be spending anything in Libya because of our problems at home? (interesting point is we spent the same amount supporting the Libyan people that we spent in a day in Iraq, most of which would have been spent anyway training)
And for all the people now who are wringing their hands over who will rule in Libya, that is a legitimate concern but should never stop us from erring on the side of supporting people who long for and are willing to fight for freedom. I thought that was what America is all about. Or is that just reserved for certain people?
Being a citizen of the European Union I am entiteled to do so, because Rasmussen is a citizen of Danmark which, in conjunction with every other state of the EU, has signed and ratified the UN-Charter on human rights, to prevent or, at least, prosecute and punish acts of crime against humanity.
And I will do so, because - like Congressman Kucinich correctly stated - NATO has engaged itself in an illegal regime change, in violation of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
This makes Secretary General Rasmussen a criminal offender, guilty of unwarranted murder of maybe tens of thousands of Libyans in the course of the military intervention of NATO in Libya over the past six months, and makes NATO itself a criminal organization by definition.
Politicians are NOT supposed to be above the law.
It's time to bring the rule of law back into politics.
I agree we've were wrong in Afghanistan and we were wrong in Iraq but you were wrong about Libya. Face it.
FANNED!
It's turning into a nightmare, like the Bush administration, and anyone who is sincere about solving the BREAKDOWN-CRISIS has to stop making excuses for any of these politicians in government.
There needs to be a top/down house cleaning of the entire government to kick out all of these bought-n-paid for Republicans and Democrats and tell them to go and leave Washington for good.
We need an leadership with the vision of a world post-Wall Street/City of London that first and foremost believes in the rule-of-law and justice and the need to rebuild the physical economy.
With these corrupt Wall Street Democrats and Republicans still in power, there is no hope. PERIOD.