Gaddafi killed, Libyans enter new era
Libyan officials reported that Colonel Gaddafi has been killed after months of fighting as he attempted, without success, to put down a revolution in his country. This marks a new epoch in Libyan history.
The announcement comes from Mahmoud Shammam, the chief spokesman of the Transitional National Council, which is the interim government that replaced Gaddafi’s regime after he fled Tripoli in late August.
Shammam noted, "We were serious about giving him a fair trial. It seems God has some other wish."
Libya joins the noble ranks of England, France, Russia, and - very recently - Tunisia and Egypt, among other nations, in deposing a corrupt and aristocratic ruler, laying the groundwork for (potentially) a new and more democratic society.
The "Arab Spring" actually has a great deal in common with the workers' struggles earlier this year in Wisconsin and the Occupy Wall Street movement currently spreading across the US. It remains to be seen, however, whether any of them will remain independent, or whether they will be co-opted by reactionary powers and repressed. In America, this is the Democratic Party's role: channeling popular anger into the mainstream political system, ensuring that it's kept under control and doesn't develop into a a truly independent movement against the establishment.
This can also be seen in Egypt, where a anti-democratic military junta has taken power, crushing any possibility of dramatic reform or radical progress. Unless the Egyptian people remain vigilant and overthrow the junta, they will face the same situation as under Mubarak. In Libya, as in Egypt, the working people must be wary of those who hold power, and must continue the struggle for permanent revolution.
Libya: an imperialist excursion
Imperialist NATO-led war on Libya
The prolonged military intervention in Libya is a reactionary and imperialist war crime of epic proportions, masked and distorted by pseudo-liberals and the media alike.
NATO is the nominal head of the military onslaught against Libyans; in reality this means largely the governments of the United States and France, joined by Britain and Italy, each pursuing its own strategic and economic interests in the region. The operation has somehow been given cover by liberals as a "humanitarian" mission, with a primary purpose of removing a dictator and cultivating democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Aside from the obvious similarities between the war that the United States launched against Iraq in 2003 and the war being waged on Libya, the reactionary character of this "mission" should come as no surprise to anyone. Capitalist regimes, backed by their own financial barons and ruling elites, are organically incapable of fostering democracy or rendering humanitarian assistance. It's not a subjective matter of who's in charge and what decisions he or she makes. It is objectively and historically impossible for an imperialist regime in the US, France or elsewhere to take on a progressive, revolutionary role when interfering in other regions of the world. They are driven by objective business interests.
In particular in Libya, NATO warplanes have carried out over 20,000 "sorties" (which generally means specific bombing missions). These attacks on civilian sites have destroyed countless hospitals, schools, and homes. They have massacred thousands of Libyan soldiers, largely young people who had no choice but were simply drafted into the Libyan military. The overwhelming slaughter is completely unjustifiable; it's obvious that the most aggressive and militaristic nations on Earth are not at all interested in saving or protecting civilian lives.
This level of imperialist aggression has not been seen since the 1930s, when Italy invaded Ethiopia. Germany soon turned its attention to North Africa, as well, after its carve-up of Czechoslovakia. The shocking brutality has, if anything, only increased today with modern bombs and fighter jets that are incomparably more powerful.
Despite the rhetoric, imperialism is thoroughly incapable of anything truly progressive; the United States, France, Britain and Italy have nothing but predatory war aims. Only the working class - in Libya and worldwide - is capable of carrying out a democratic (and ultimately socialist) revolution.
With Gaddafi's imminent downfall, these NATO countries are preparing to reap the spoils of their barbaric aggression. Reuters noted that a post-war Libyan carve-up could "herald a bonanza for Western companies and investors." Emad Mostaque, Chief Middle East and North Africa strategist at Religare Capital Markets, called Libya a "fantastically wealthy country" with "a lot of money up for grabs." This is perhaps the most frank and honest assessment of the agendas of these Western nations.
Escalation in Libya
Rebels injured in the civil war against Gaddafi, treated in a hospital Wednesday (Reuters)
The media covered events in Egypt and then Libya for a while, a few months ago, when things were fresh and interesting. First Mubarak was forced to step down by masses of protestors, and then it seemed Gaddafi would follow suit. Against all odds, however, he has refused to leave and has remained in power. And paradoxically, as the Obama administration and NATO decided to get more involved in the military conflict, the media seemed to lose interest.
Obama, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, launched well over 100 cruise missiles into Libya, killing scores of civilians and throwing down the gauntlet, marking the open U.S. entrance into yet another war in the Middle East (well, technically North Africa, but the country is rich in oil).
Gaddafi held fast, beating down the resistance, and now Western powers are at a crossroads. Do they back off, admitting they wasted time and money (the U.S. cruise missiles alone cost well over $100 million) and that lives were lost for nothing? Or do they double down on their efforts and escalate the conflict? Naturally, inevitably, they will choose the latter.
Libya is turning into another Iraq or Afghanistan. Tim Hetherington, a British photographer and journalist - noted for his recent documentary "Restrepo" about the war in Afghanistan - was killed from a mortar round in the Libyan city of Misurata. He is the first British casualty of the war in that nation. He will probably not be the last.
Military analysts say the war in Libya could drag on. Who could have possibly foreseen this?
France, Italy, and Britain will send "liaison officers" - that is, military advisers - to support the rebel army. This sounds exactly like how the U.S. got slowly dragged into the quicksand of Vietnam. A senior NATO ambassador said that no military official thinks the war in Libya will be over quickly. Undoubtedly, as Obama has promised $25 million to aid the rebels in Libya.
The war in Afghanistan has been dragging on for a full decade; in Iraq, for 8 years, since March 2003. Each has cost the U.S. billions of dollars per week. And according to several independent studies and polls, the Iraqi war has killed over 1 million civilians. Now that Libya is under constant attack from Western powers, seeking to reassert imperial control, its future is also looking bleak.
US-led coalition slaughters civilians in Libya
Muammar Gaddafi
According to Khaled Omar, an official in the Libyan health ministry, US-led coalition strikes in Libya have killed 114 people and wounded another 445 over a four day period. The ruthless aerial bombardment has been going on for over a week now, and the actual death toll (not to mention wounded) is no doubt significantly higher.
You might be a little skeptical of the report from a Libyan government official. Fair enough. But the Obama administration refuses to even give estimates of Libyan civilian deaths (or military deaths for that matter). Where else are we to turn for accurate figures? It's just like in Iraq, where, according to multiple independent reputable surveys, the U.S. war has killed over 1 million civilians since the initial "shock and awe" campaign, since March 2003. But the U.S. government refuses to even keep track or make any effort to find out.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" program, attempting to justify the war on Libya. He dismissed Libyan government claims of civilian deaths: "The truth of the matter is we have trouble coming up with proof of any civilian casualties that we have been responsible for."
That's reassuring. In any case, how much of an incentive does an accused murderer have to gather and present evidence of his own guilt?
Gates also went on ABC's "This Week" program. The moderator asked Gates, "[S]ome NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that... Will the mission be over by the end of the year?" Gates replied, "I don't think anybody knows the answer to that."
Huh. Interesting. Especially considering it's only March.
Why you should oppose the war against Libya
NATO-led military attack on Libya
First, let's clarify the intended audience of this article: liberals, progressives, and possibly socialists or communists who agree with Obama that a military intervention is necessary in Libya. Conservatives' opinions on this subject are not at issue here; we know what they think. The real problem is that a lot of so-called liberals and progressives are being swept up in the official U.S. propaganda that intervention is necessary and morally right. It seems true on the surface. Gaddafi is certainly an illegitimate dictator, killing his own people.
So why should you oppose this war?
First, let's look at the credibility of this president. Barack Obama is the sole authority behind U.S. participation in these military strikes - Congress has not declared war or even authorized Obama to do anything. Instead, he's relying (he hopes) on the inherent power of the executive to use the military without any authorization. This is different from Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan because in those situations, Congress had passed a law - the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, known as AUMF - that at least arguably gave Bush the power to go to war, although it wasn't very specific.
Here, Congress hasn't even done that much. Obama is very likely doing something unconstitutional.
Aside from that, however, this means that the credibility of the reasons behind the U.S. military strikes rests on Obama's word. This is the word of a man who, despite having incomprehensibly won the Nobel Peace Prize, has continued to wage two wars during his entire term in office - dramatically increasing the troops in Afghanistan, too. He also has launched more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined. He's killed far more people using unmanned predator drones in Pakistan than Bush ever did. And even now, as he delivers violence and destruction onto the people of Libya, he ignores the situations in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other anti-democratic brutal regimes.
Given his track record, should we believe that this man is a champion of peace, on a purely humanitarian mission?
Even if we give Obama the benefit of the doubt, look at the objective facts in this particular military campaign so far. U.S. cruise missiles have struck a number of targets and are admittedly not confined to simply protecting civilians. Gaddafi's own compound was targeted and destroyed in Tripoli. Libyan state television reported that a hospital in Tripoli was destroyed, killing at least 48 and wounding hundreds.
Similarly, after a U.S. fighter jet crashed due to mechanical failure, the two pilots safely ejected, and Libyan villagers - people on our side - rushed in to rescue one of the pilots. The British reported that a Marine Osprey aircraft engaged in the rescue effort opened fire on the villagers, killing five. This is the first of many massacres of civilians.
The central point here is that there's no reason to believe Obama, nor any other U.S. officials, that this will be a purely humanitarian intervention. Nor do the facts on the ground bear this pretext out. This is already unfolding as a NATO-led massacre; the U.S. and its allies have the firepower and technology to do far worse than Gaddafi could ever dream of doing himself. Even when attacking Gaddafi's forces, U.S. and European fighter jets are completely inappropriate. Men walking around on the ground with guns are no match for an aerial bombardment. This is equivalent to someone threatening you with his fist and a third party intervenes by killing the alleged aggressor with a machine gun. Come on; there's such a thing as disproportionate force. Planes cannot just indiscriminately slaughter hundreds or thousands of soldiers below.
This imperialist military excursion will inevitably lead to NATO troops on the ground to coordinate the aerial attacks and a greater involvement of U.S. forces. Obama kept Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, when he came into office, an unprecedented move for an incoming president. Not to be outdone by Bush, Obama now drags America into war #3.
America’s export: violence
Here are just a handful of the images from the United States' decision to lay siege to Libya (courtesy of AP and Reuters). The official government claim is that the attacks are merely to protect civilians, but the U.S. admitted to deliberately bombing Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli, and it has obviously bombed a number of military (and other) targets. No wonder most of the world hates America. I think it's fair to say that these pictures represent the United States as viewed through the eyes of most citizens around the globe.
[Click the images to enlarge. A lot.]
U.S. air strike on Libya
A bus destroyed
Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli
People lying near a road to avoid an air strike
A French air strike against one of Gaddafi's tanks
More vehicles destroyed
Obama launches war against Libya
Air strike destroys one of Gaddafi's tanks
I am frequently outraged by official U.S. foreign policy, but rarely surprised. Well, okay, scratch that - I'm surprised fairly often, too, by the level of brutality and ruthlessness that exceeds anything I anticipated. But launching a war of aggression against Libya when the U.S. is already mired in two other wars in the Middle East? This is ridiculous. The worst part is that many people are buying into the U.S. propaganda, spinning this as a righteous and totally justified war - both on the left and the right.
News flash: the United States spins every military invasion, attack, and long-term war as justified for humanitarian reasons. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, killing his own people (nevermind the fact that the U.S. had supported Saddam for many years) - therefore an invasion of Iraq is justified and necessary. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were repressing the people of Afghanistan (nevermind the fact that the U.S. had long supported and funded these groups to help fight against the Soviets) - therefore an invasion of Afghanistan is justified and necessary. Humanitarian reasons were given in the first Gulf War, in Bosnia, in Somalia... the list goes on.
In reality, there are equal or greater human rights abuses - including massacres - in countries other than Libya, and the U.S. does nothing about this. In Yemen, just a few days ago, professional snipers opened fire on protesters, killing at least 52 people. This is as appalling as anything Gaddafi has done - but Obama merely issues a statement that he "regretted" the violence. Admirable.
Similar government-backed massacres are happening in Bahrain. Obama not only refuses to launch attacks against the Bahraini government - he actually supports the brutal regime, as he supports Saudi Arabia.
So it's obviously not for humanitarian reasons that the U.S. and various European allies have chosen to launch a war of aggression on Libya. But then why have they done so? The answer is as simple as it is inevitable: imperialistic interests require it. Libya has massive oil reserves and occupies a strategic position in between Tunisia and Egypt. Securing control over Libya means ensuring domination - or at least powerful influence - over the entire region.
It's frightening that Obama (incidentally, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize) has launched this war precisely 8 years after Bush invaded Iraq. He assures us that the attack on Libya - already slaughtering dozens of innocent civilians and wounding hundreds more - will be a short-term operation and won't last long.
Funny. Donald Rumsfeld, on the eve of the Iraq war: "I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that."
Attacking Libya: Imperialism in disguise
Military intervention in Libya begins
The recent UN Security Council vote to authorize military action in Libya has paved the way for a huge military intervention in the North African country. The resolution is not merely to establish a "no fly" zone, as was originally suggested. Rather, it approves "all necessary measures" to be taken. The U.S. has joined with several European powers, such as Britain and especially France, who are clamoring for military attacks on Gaddafi's forces.
Don't get me wrong - I fully support the revolutionary uprising in Libya, and I want to see Gaddafi deposed and replaced with a democratic government. But this is a job for the Libyan people, not for outside imperialist Western powers, who are only trying to exploit the situation. Sure, on the surface, it sounds promising: Gaddafi is attempting to hold power by massacring his own people, and this Western coalition comes along to save the day under humanitarian pretexts. But let's look just a little deeper and scrutinize some of the reasons being offered to justify this invasion.
The Arab League approved the no-fly zone! Hmm. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other dictatorships that brutally repress, torture, and kill their own citizens are in favor of more democracy in Libya. Great argument there.
This isn't just the U.S. scheming - like with Iraq and Afghanistan - European powers support intervention, too! First, not all European countries agree. Germany has opposed any military intervention in Libya, while France and Britain are already mobilizing forces and beginning attacks. As a side note, the last time these imperialist nations clashed in North Africa was during World War II. More importantly, though, these European countries have huge economic interests at stake with their corporations and resources in Libya - the country has a lot of oil.
But it's a humanitarian effort, not a war of conquest! If the motives behind this action were truly to stop Gaddafi's massacre of his own people, I'd support it. But these are imperialist governments and cannot be trusted; notably, look at the U.S. track record in recent decades. The United States slaughtered 3 million Vietnamese and 1 million Cambodians during the Vietnam War; it has supported innumerable ruthless dictatorships around the world (including Mubarak for decades and even Gaddafi increasingly over the past few years), and it has killed over 1 million Iraqis since 2003.
Let's get serious here. Neither the U.S. nor European powers care about human rights or about anything humanitarian. France, Britain, and the U.S. are pursuing and protecting their own selfish ruling class interests by asserting military control over an oil-rich country. Plus, let's not forget that Libya is conveniently situated between Tunisia to the west and Egypt to the east, giving Western powers a large degree of control over all revolutionary movements in the region.
This is merely a no-fly zone/ aerial bombardment; there won't be ground troops deployed. Really? Here's an interesting fact: officially, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are "occupied" by U.S. troops, either. Official statements from the U.S. (or any) government rarely harmonize with reality, even in the present - let alone with future predictions.
Speaking of the future, military excursions generally begin small and then grow.. and grow more. Why are we still in Iraq, long after Saddam has been deposed, tried, convicted, and executed? That was supposed to be a brief aerial bombardment, too, with the "shock and awe" campaign (i.e., a mass murder of civilians). Things don't exactly work out as planned when it comes to military adventures. This may easily turn into a full-fledged ground war that lasts for months or years.
In summary, a powerful nation - or bloc of nations - with a gigantic military cannot be trusted to intervene anywhere for "humanitarian" purposes. If the U.S. really cared about ending brutal oppression and fostering democracy, why didn't it stop Gaddafi earlier? Why doesn't it attack the leaders and military sites of Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Yemen, who are repressing their own revolutionary movements? Don't be fooled into believing that Western powers, with their long, bloody history of colonialism and imperialism, actually have the slightest desire to assist the Libyan people.
Invading Libya
The United States and its allies in Europe have been openly discussing an armed intervention in Libya. On Thursday, President Obama delivered some remarks in which he refused to rule out a "no-fly" zone over the North African nation.
In an Orwellian twist, a so-called no-fly zone involves U.S. or European aircraft flying over the country to bomb sites containing anti-aircraft missiles. Yes, you read that right - a no-fly zone equates to us flying over Libya and bombing it. Such a course of action would be tantamount, of course, to an act of war.
Obama and other Western leaders are seizing on the crisis in Libya as a pretext for possible military intervention, just as the U.S. seized on the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for invading Afghanistan and then, defying all logic, invading Iraq. Illustrious and trustworthy senators such as Joe Lieberman and John McCain - who clearly have ample credibility in foreign policy - are urging Obama to act even faster.
It's true that Gaddafi is a murderous and barbaric autocrat who is killing his own people on a daily basis. Gaddafi should absolutely be removed and replaced. But a remedy must not come from the top-down, from imperialist powers abroad - the solution, rather, lies in the Libyan people themselves rising up, and they are more than capable of handling the problem.
The global community, and particularly the Middle East, is skeptical of U.S. military intervention - for good reason. America is currently waging two full-blown wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it continues to invade Pakistan's territory to kill civilians with predator drones. To lead an invasion into Libya would create, at a minimum, bad PR, if not trigger attacks on the troops due to overwhelming hostility. As a result, Obama is hoping European allies take the lead.
Regardless of who assumes responsibility, though, an invasion of Libya by the U.S. and European nations would merely be to replace Gaddafi with another pro-Western puppet who will continue allowing oil companies access to its rich reserves. Serving its imperialist masters, such a government would also prove useful in cracking down on future popular democratic uprisings - in Libya and throughout the entire Middle East.
Poll
Loading ...Archives
- December 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
Recent Posts
- US threatens war with Iran
- Obama blocks morning-after pill for minors
- Egyptians show solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, including Oakland
- Gaddafi killed, Libyans enter new era
- Steve Jobs was no Thomas Edison
Categories
- civil liberties
- death penalty
- economy
- health care
- history
- inequality
- japan
- libya
- middle east
- occupy wall street
- religion
- science
- supreme court
- terrorism
- U.S. politics
- wisconsin protests