Our Yale University colleague, the distinguished professor of law and political science, and author, most recently of The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, Bruce Ackerman, published a very important piece last week in Foreign Policy. To read the original with links, click here. Excerpts are below:
By Bruce Ackerman
“In taking the country into a war with Libya, Barack Obama’s administration is breaking new ground in its construction of an imperial presidency — an executive who increasingly acts independently of Congress at home and abroad. Obtaining a U.N. Security Council resolution has legitimated U.S. bombing raids under international law. But the U.N. Charter is not a substitute for the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress, not the president, the power ‘to declare war.’
After the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which granted the president the power to act unilaterally for 60 days in response to a ‘national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces’…
But, again, these provisions have little to do with the constitutionality of the Libyan intervention, since Libya did not attack our ‘armed forces.’ The president failed to mention this fundamental point in giving Congress notice of his decision…
Without an armed “attack,” there is no compelling reason for the president to cut Congress out of a crucial decision on war and peace.
This is particularly striking since, in the Libyan case, the president had plenty of time to get congressional support. A broad coalition — from Senator John McCain to Senator John Kerry — could have been mobilized on behalf of a bipartisan resolution as the administration engaged in the necessary international diplomacy. But apparently Obama thought it more important to lobby the Arab League than the U.S. Congress.
In cutting out Congress, Obama has overstepped even the dubious precedent set when President Bill Clinton bombed Kosovo in 1999. Then, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel asserted that Congress had given its consent by appropriating funds for the Kosovo campaign. It was a big stretch, given the actual facts — but Obama can’t even take advantage of this same desperate expedient, since Congress has appropriated no funds for the Libyan war. The president is simply using money appropriated to the Pentagon for general purposes to conduct the current air campaign.
The War Powers Resolution doesn’t authorize a single day of Libyan bombing. But it does provide an escape hatch, stating that it is not “intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President.” So it’s open for Obama to assert that his power as commander in chief allows him to wage war without Congress, despite the Constitution’s insistence to the contrary.
Many modern presidents have made such claims, and Harry Truman acted upon this assertion in Korea. But it’s surprising to find Obama on the verge of ratifying such precedents. He was elected in reaction to the unilateralist assertions of John Yoo and other apologists for George W. Bush-era illegalities. Yet he is now moving onto ground that even Bush did not occupy. After a lot of talk about his inherent powers, Bush did get Congress to authorize his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, Obama is putting Bush-era talk into action in Libya — without congressional authorization.
The president’s insistence that his Libyan campaign is limited in its purposes and duration is no excuse. These are precisely the issues that he should have defined in collaboration with Congress. Now that he claims inherent power, why can’t he redefine U.S. objectives on his own? No less important, what is to stop some future president from using Obama’s precedent to justify even more aggressively unilateral actions? ” (emphasis added)
oops sorry for the repeat I did not see my first post up
You tube put together an interview with PM Netanyahu. Folks around the world entered questions for him. During the interview Netanyahu mentions Iran six times in the first five minutes. It’s as if you tube is part of the rebranding Israel campaign as well as pushing for a fight with Iran.
Netanyahu begins the interview with a focus on bad bad Iran and ends the interview with that focus. The clearly pro Israel interviewer Dana Weiss led the PM right where he wanted to go towards the end of the interview.
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/03/benjamin-netanyahus-heart-of-darkness.html
Pentagon: ‘Feel free to wear Hijab’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/pentagon-feel-free-to-wear-hijab-2/
Cyrus, all the finger pointing at Iran over Bahrain, but silence over all the noises coming from Iraq–including Sistani!
What do the Iranians get out of this? They find themselves positioned right alongside Iraq, which is where they wanna be. An amplification of soft power with a 5:1 superiority in numbers.
y’see Cyrus, you just displayed what a murderous bunch of thugs Iranians are — threatening to bomb a sovereign state where the legitimate ruler is quite reasonably using the tools that are at the command of government to quell the outrageous rebellion of a few troublemakers. Buncha meddlers.
/s
A bigger question is if the US can involve itself in other people’s conflict, then why can’t Iran start bombing Bahrain in the name of protecting the SHiites there from Saudi aggression?
Is it over?
“US ending its air combat role in Libya”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/03/29/national/w085508D96.DTL#ixzz1II9QNo5f
thanks for the links, fyi.
from The National Interest article:
“Analysts long have warned that an Iranian nuclear bomb might spur Saudi Arabia and Egypt to follow suit. So might the latest allied attack on another Arab country.
There will always be practical barriers to countries obtaining nuclear weapons, but the incentive to try is now stronger than ever even for unlikely candidates such as Burma and Venezuela. Today no foreign government, no matter how close it seems to be to Washington, can feel secure from the West’s born-again nation builders. The war against Libya is a mistake for many reasons. Not least is the impact on Washington’s long-standing fight against nuclear proliferation. The U.S. government’s aggressiveness has demonstrated yet again that the only sure protection against American military action is possession of nuclear weapons. Washington’s policy of peaceful nonproliferation where it matters most is dead. “
Even when a commentator purports to speak truth to power, he washes down his words with the Koolaid du jour: “the impact on Washington’s long-standing fight against nuclear proliferation.”
Senator Bob Casey is one of Washington’s stalwart “warriors against nuclear proliferation.” He spoke to students in a graduate studies class in international affairs a while back, and included in his presentation a showing of nuclear ‘scare’ film that featured boogeyman Ay-rabs getting their hands on nuclear material.
I chatted with students after the event to find out their reaction to the content and tone of the presentation.
“It’s fearmongering and hypocritical; that’s the way they teach us; you can’t get away from it,” the group of young men and women in the graduate program told me. “It’s racist, and based on scare-tactics. We don’t pay much attention to that stuff.”
If non-proliferation warriors like Casey really ARE committed to non-proliferation, they will immediately DEMAND that no Israeli company be permitted to come in contact with a nuclear facility until Israel has signed NPT and demonstrated at least three years of IAEA-certified compliance with the Treaty’s provisions.
These are facts:
-Israel has nuclear weapons.
-Israel has used STUXNET
-An Israeli company worked at the Fukushima nuclear facility
-STUXNET attacked several Japanese nuclear plants in Oct 2010
-Israel is not a signatory to NPT — NOBODY has oversight over Israel’s nukes
-A poll released recently showed that About 60% of Jewish youths prefer “strong leadership” to rule of law; Israeli teens in 2010 believe less in democracy, are inclined towards rebelliousness and violence, are more racist and some have given up hope for peace.
This is what Israeli young people are learning from their leaders and their education system.
Must the rest of the world be held hostage to this out of control, nuclear-armed, rule-of-law disdaining state?
At that time, when they had the power to do so, the Americans could have created a World Government (however impractical that might have been even at that time) but they did not.
The main reason is the Zionist have got hold of the USA government and it’s people representatives and changed it’s direction towards a Greater Israel that’s why.
BiBiJon says:
“A rather disturbing story by AP:”
Of interest is also Pakistani security involvement with Bahrain and if it may have impact on Pakistan’s own shia populations. Davutoglu going to Bahrain, the question is, what was erdogan seeking from his visit with sistani?
“Bahrain is very pleased with Pakistan’s`principled stand` on the situation in the Gulf state, which was succinctly articulated by Zardari: “Pakistan desires peace, security, and stability in Bahrain. Pakistan… would not like its (region`s) stability to be upset in any way.”
:http://bhadrakumarviews.blogspot.com/2011/03/pakistan-skating-on-thin-bahraini-ice.html
“Davutoglu is heading for Manama next week to “see the situation on the ground” and follow up on the consultations he has had with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have been alleging an Iranian hand behind the Shi’ite uprising in Bahrain.”
:http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD02Ak02.html
paul says: April 1, 2011 at 10:42 am
In 1946, US was running the world (excepting territories of USSR).
At that time, when they had the power to do so, the Americans could have created a World Government (however impractical that might have been even at that time) but they did not.
Now, of course, it is too late to create a World Government (and thank God for that) since the Axis Powers do not have that power.
But between not having the power and accepting your limitations, there is quite a bit of gap now, isn’t there?
Libyans need to have a more representative and responsible government; something that Mr. Qaddafi had singularly failed to do for 40 years.
Good link, Fyi, on the westphalian principle, this quote in particular:
“The ultimate goal of the anti-Westphalians is of course a world government, dominated by unaccountable supranational bureaucrats even if it includes some electoral fig leaf (which will be entirely unrepresentative, because the global population of 7 billion is far too great to be adequately represented by 1,000 or so delegates, the maximum that can usefully participate in a world congress) … one must wonder whether the free peoples of the world’s sovereign states will wake up to the danger before it is too late. ”
Basically, the attack on Libya – and the presumably upcoming attack on Iran – epitomizes the notion that the US and its allies can and should presumptively constitute themselves as a world government, created by force (both economic and military force). Even a world government not created by force would almost have to be a global totalitarian state – as this quote points out, there’s no possible way for the global population to meaningfully elect a global representative government. Any such government would actually represent a very small global elite. But what we are currently watching unfold globally is even worse than that. We are watching the US and its allies claim the right to ‘intervene’ anywhere, anytime, and basically dictate who can govern and how. We’ve seen over and over again that the US and allies overtly and covertly overthrow governments they don’t like, ignore or overturn elections they don’t like, ignore laws and agreements they don’t like, including the US constitution, and so on. How obvious do they have to make it that a sense of impunity guides them, before we the people of America and the planet get wise to what is going on?
All:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MC30Dj01.html
All:
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-end-nonproliferation-5093
hans, perhaps I should have phrased that differently.
how about this:
“frankcornish was smart enough to marry an Iranian woman.”
not sure if she’s from N Tehran or Keng.
A rather disturbing story by AP:
Bahrain wages unrelenting crackdown on Shiites
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jT8sej7yw8Q5X_CxWP5pEU8uYDGQ?docId=0078ed18ef51465cb79aa1020bda88fb
I have a feeling that what restraints or lack thereof US/NATO shows in Libya will amount to nothing, compared with what is likely to hit the fan regionally as a result of the situation in Bahrain.
Fiorangela says: March 31, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Stuxnet was an act wanton and irresponsible strategic escalation to nowhere.
Its negative consequences for US and for the world will continue for several more decades.
@Fiorangela A friend, a bright young man with a history background, an Iranian wife, so I should get myself an Iranian wife and I will be successful. Should she be a resident from North Tehran? I guess a daughter from the IRG is out of the question :-)
Eric- what I gather, from reading your last post, this from a Harvard trained lawyer, commenting on inconsistent actions with law of land, conducted by another Harvard trained lawyer on constitutional law, is, that we are living in a failed democracy.
With all due respect to Bruce Ackerman, all this talk about the lack of Congressional authorization for the Libya War is coming decades too late. My deceased mother was picking out her prom dress the last time Congress declared war.
No question that Presidents ought to consult Congress – just as it says in the US Constitution – or that Congress ought to decide whether the country goes to war (absent some emergency, with which I think the War Powers Act deals quite well). Obama ought to have done that this time. Nonetheless, had he done so, I have little doubt he would have walked away with a Congressional resolution that would make UNSC Resolution 1973 look like a model of legal precision and restraint.
That’s precisely what Bush did in the summer of 2002 concerning Iraq. Hillary Clinton and other Senators later claimed to be incredulous that Bush could have interpreted Congress’ authorization as broadly as he did. To Bush’s credit, though, my very clear impression at the time was that he was up front with Congress: he was asking for permission broad enough that he would not need to come back a second time. I remember thinking that this was Congress’ chance, its one and only chance, to stop Bush from going to war in Iraq, and I don’t think Bush ever presented it as anything but that.
Early drafts of what Congress finally passed would have reined Bush in, but his representatives chipped away at those drafts until Bush ended up essentially with what he’d asked for at the outset. Congress’ drafters of that resolution could not have understood otherwise. Hillary Clinton could not have understood otherwise. There is no question that she (among others) pressed for tighter language, and I’ve never doubted her sincere desire to limit Bush precisely as she was then insisting. But she and all the others nevertheless stopped pressing in the end. The mid-term election was coming up; Hillary and others (Kerry, for example) were positioning themselves for future Presidential runs, and they knew full well that a “no” vote on an Iraq resolution was not likely to win any swing votes for a Democratic candidate – especially suspected limp-wristers like Clinton and Kerry. And so they signed on to exactly what Bush needed: a sufficient claim (in my view) that he need not ever darken Congress’ doorway again.
In short, they caved in. Bush knew they would, and they did. It was disingenuous for Hillary Clinton (and other Senators) to claim otherwise.
I have no doubt that Congress would have done exactly the same thing this time. If Obama can stretch a “no fly, protect civilians” UNSC resolution as far as he’s stretched UNSC 1973, it would have been child’s play by comparison for him to stretch whatever language Congress finally passed for him. What Senator would have stood up and argued against intervening to prevent the predicted massacre of tens of thousands of civilians in Benghazi? What Senator would have insisted that Obama come back, hat in hand, each time he wanted to escalate the conflict a bit – knowing that even a day’s delay might result in thousands more civilian deaths (or so the argument would have gone)?
The most likely result, had Congress actually debated the question, would have been a broad resolution that required Obama to consult with senior Congressional leaders of both parties on only a few key issues – all of which key issues (if any actually arose) would have been decided quickly and behind closed doors by Obama, a few Cabinet secretaries and generals, and a small handful of Senators and Congressmen. And the chances of that small group deciding to do anything other than escalate the war at each opportunity would have been slim to none.
Suppose, for example, that such authorization had been given by Congress, and Obama were now considering whether to arm the rebels? Does anyone doubt he’d have been given that authorization in a heartbeat by that small group – and without a word of that authorization being disclosed to the American people, or even to Congress as a whole? Sending in US ground troops, I suspect, would have been explicitly boxed out of the resolution, but authorization to do anything short of that would have been just a quick conference call away. Even “boots on the ground” would probably have required, at most, a week of effort, predictably spearheaded for Obama by the Congressional members of his “war cabinet.”
The real problem is not that US Presidents don’t seek Congressional authorization for war. The problem is that Congress is just unable to say no. Senators talk tough – just as they are now – when the President neglects to ask them. But when the President does ask, they simper and sign. The result is the same either way: another war.
Eric,
LMAO. When VHS came out, my Iranian dad liked that movie. He had a high regard for the fighting capabilities of Libyan soldiers. That and Iranian air force pilots (he was a DC-3 pilot so he might have been partial).
Okay, here’s another great series, which shows one of the ultimate presidential “precedents”. It’s a documentary series in 12 parts, titled Battlefield Vietnam. Here’s part 1 on YouTube (they’re all uploaded):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa1U2z9GTr8
When you get to Siege at the Khe Sahn and the B-52 “arclight raids”, you realize that even by today’s standards with PGMs and all, those old school bomber pilots were dumpin’ some serious tonnage, wiping out many thousands.
I recall there was a Nobel peace prize thrown away during that Nixon administration, as well.
Anyway, the documentary is kind’a dry, being military history and unusually technical for a TV series. However, for what it is it may be the best ever aired.
Paul – unfortunately this international yellow belly, hyenas (America and Europe) only are willing and can attack the small unfortunate and defenseless countries, it is time for the rest of the world to measurer up against this evils, for whatever the cost is. This warmongers most be confronted and stopped by the rest of the free world.
‘Iran to notch up highest growth in 2015′
“A Goldman Sachs report on global economics indicates that Iran is forecast to reach the highest economic growth between 2015 and 2025 and join the world’s largest economies.”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/172511.html
Kooshy, notice how that always happens? The Prez starts a war that no one really wants or needs, and then when folks start questioning it, as they darn well should, everyone says ‘oh, but our credibility is at stake now’. Quite a scam.
Obviously, no one should arm either side in Libya.
Facebook drops ‘intifada’ page for promoting violence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12902273
With regard to the US/EU’s Libyan adventure, it sounds that the MSM (Pravda Americana) with help of the Obama lefties are incrementally preparing the public for more direct American involvement, the new talk coming out of the Cole type lefties, which incidentally are now very cozy with MSM and are continuously on, since they are signing favorable tunes is “Now that we have gone this far if not won and the regime is not changed the American credibility is on line”
One should start asking how the American credibility measures up with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn’t they think we should sure up the American credibility in those unfinished places first.
Jalal Khalegh
This may be nothing more than the rooster taking credit for the dawn, but I’ll claim credit anyway. We all do what we can
The New York Times published a lead on-line story this morning headed:
“Gates Says Other Nations Should Arm Libyan Rebels”
I promptly typed up a comment to post on another NYT article (this article didn’t allow reader comments) to point out how misleading that headline was. Gates had said only that other countries can arm the rebels (meaning they’re capable of it) and can do so (meaning they’re obviously free to do so) if that’s what they want to do. Importantly, however, he did not say the US should do so, nor did he he felt that other countries should do so.
My comment was not published by the Times, which is quite unusual. Two hours later, though, I noticed that the headline of the story had changed to this:
“Gates Says Other Nations Can Arm Libyan Rebels”
It’s hillarious to watch the Zionist-regime cry ‘wolf. wolf, wolf’ every time Iran, Hamas or Hizbullah prepares itself against a future terrorist attack from the Jewish army. While Israel receives US$3 billion annual military aid from the US – Tel Aviv expects its neighboring countries to stop arming themselves or implementing some sort of defense measures against Israeli attack.
A memo drafted by Israel Occupation Force (IOF) and sent on March 31, 2011 to Israeli embassies details what it says are Hizbullah’s stepped up activities to fortify the volatile border region since the end of the 2006 Lebanon war.
Hizbullah has built as many as 550 bunkers in the southern Lebanon region, holding various weapons. In addition, the organisation has built 300 underground facilities and 100 storage units for munitions including rockets, missiles and other weapons,” said the memo seen by AFP.
Hizbullah itself has claimed to have increase its short-range rocket stocks from 10,000 in 2006 to over 20,000. However, Hizbullah has no tank or gunship or F16 or naval war ship – with which the Jewish army is loaded with.
After receiving a humiliating military defeat in 34-day-war in 2006 – Israel always come-up with some scary ‘smoking gun’ to convince its western supporters that even armed with most modern deadly arms including over 240 nuclear bombs – its existence is still being threatened by Islamic Resistance militias.
“Many of these terror centres are located near hospitals, private homes and schools, Hezbollah’s way of taking advantage of the civilian population of Lebanon,” it said.
Israeli soldiers are accustomed to travel in school buses and are known for using Palestinian youths as ‘human shields’ during their military operations. Last year, Israel daily Ha’aretz had quoted Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, headmaster of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva, as saying that using Palestinian youth as ‘human shield’ is permitted by Torah (Old Testament).
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/hizbullah-defense-strategy-scares-israel/
Libya: Obama’s $600 million/week ‘turd sandwich’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/libya-obamas-600-millionweek-turd-sandwich/
I may be crazy to even speculate that Israel had some involvement in the disaster at Fukushima, and that it involved STUXNET, but if I’m crazy, I’m not alone. Gilad Atzmon posted this the other day: STUXNET found in Japan in October — Fukushima uses the same Siemens control system as Bushehr
If there is only a 10% chance that Israel, or the Israeli security firm that contracted to monitor Fukushima, planted STUXNET in the Japanese nuclear facility, is that 10% possibility sufficient for the IAEA to DEMAND that Israel NOT engage in any activity dealing with nuclear facilities, until Israel SIGNS NPT and demonstrates at least 3 years of compliance with NPT, certified by IAEA inspections?
Remember, the Japanese government contracted with Israel’s Magna BSP corp. for security monitoring of Fukushima; the Japanese government plans to contract with Magna to monitor ALL of Japan’s nuclear facilities.
ALSO recall that it is characteristic of Japanese society to engage in high-risk behavior.
Can the world afford the combination of Israeli access to STUXNET technology that Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and German security engineer Ralph Langner agree is the most dangerous “wmd” on the planet; and Japanese high-risk tendencies?
:http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon.html
Israel MUST sign NPT. Israel MUST NOT be permitted to engage in ANY commerce involving nuclear technology UNTIL it has signed NPT and demonstrated full compliance.
Fiorangela says:
March 31, 2011 at 4:22 pm
If you find anything of interest in that book, let us know. I’m always floored by statements such as “Mousavi is a hardcore socialist in his economic platform …” (Dabashi in The People Reloaded) as I, admittedly a total outsider, have never seen a shred of evidence that Mousavi (labelled elsewhere by Dabashi as Iran’s Mandela) was running on a “hardline socialist” platform in 2009. My understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, is that essentially the entire establishment in Iran supports privatization and subsidy reform – the difference being, Ahmadinejad has established various forms of social justice programs to alleviate the adverse impacts of privatization on the lower classes, while Mousavi publicly derided such populist programs. Is there any English-language material that clarifies this issue (the campaign platforms of the Mousavi campaign)?
“Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, has said he does not support the idea of arming Libyan rebels fighting to oust Muammar Gaddafi from power.
Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of the House Armed Services panel that many other countries have the ability to train and support the rebels.
“My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.”
Gates and Mullen told Congress that future US participation will be limited and will not involve an active role in airstrikes as time goes on.
They were unable, however, to answer key questions from clearly agitated politicians about the length of the operation and how it will play out if Gaddafi does not relinquish power.
The US goals are unclear and officials do not know who the rebels are, said Mike Turner, a Republican representative, adding that if it came to a vote he would not support US involvement in the operation.
Gates and Mullen said that Gaddafi’s military has been degraded by as much as 25 per cent, but Mullen noted that regime forces still outnumber the rebels by about 10-to-1.
They said the opposition groups are fractured and operating independently city by city, with just 1,000 of the rebels militarily trained.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/03/2011331161058970489.html
Pirouz,
I hadn’t seen “Lion of the Desert,” which you recommended, but I’ve started watching it at your suggestion. Rod Steiger seems well cast as Obama – excuse me: Mussolini.
fyi, in my opinion the US-Israel relationship is entangled not at the “d’coeur” but at some other anatomical region.
Rd. says:
March 31, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Thank you for correcting me.
Fiorangela says: March 31, 2011 at 1:40 pm
The United States has no hard national interests in Israel, her well being or her survival.
This is “une affaire d’coeur” for very many Americans – both Jews and Protestant Christians – playing either the role of the late Anne Franck’s protector or that of Cyrus the Great.
Many more people will die for this affaire in the future.
Fio-jan,
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with the Saudi connection in all this. Remember it’s not the first time the Saudis are financing US adventures. In fact one of Saudis job in this world is to finance US operations when the President can’t get Congressional approval. In return for what? Unconditional support of Ale Saud in the heart of the Muslim world. The US-Saud nexus is what keeps the beast alive. Losing Saudi means the s… hitting the fan, in the US as well. Fukushima is peanuts compared to that catastrophe.
The Leveretts hold the position that the Green Movement is a chimera.
A friend, a bright young man with a history background, an Iranian wife, and interesting connections in the DC area, has earned a favorable reputation on a political blog for his writing on Iranian politics. His strategy is to avoid any mention of Israel, in order to keep an audience; it’s worked for him, but it won’t work to keep Israel out of the picture in shaping a comprehensive policy.
In any event, FrankCornish recently wrote a review of The People Reloaded, that motivated me to look for the book and give it a test drive.
fyi says:
“For the last 100 years, the Alawites have been moving closer and closer to the 12-Imami Shia.”
Fyi, the article was referring to iyad Alawi, there were no refrences to Syria. (according to the article) Turkey backing Alawi along with Saudi for iraq’s last election. According to the article, since loosing that battle, Erdogan has been making his shia comments earlier in turkey and now visit with Ayatollah Sistani.
theater of the absurd.
someone from the US Naval Academy writes in today’s Baltimore Sun that the US should hire Blackwater to fight Qaddafi’s forces in Libya. Fight Mercenaries with Mercenaries.
“There is a third option that seems not to have been considered but which offers real possibilities. Outsource the problem. Provide the necessary funding for the rebels to secure the services of one or more of the private companies that could supply the necessary expertise and logistical support to turn the rebel rabble into a genuine fighting force.
Of course this suggestion will be met in many circles with horror. Mr. Gadhafi, the bad guy, is allegedly using mercenaries. We’re the good guys, and we would never stoop so low.”
hmm, Israel’s Global CST doesn’t seem to have a problem ‘stooping so low.’
:http://www.voltairenet.org/article168736.html It’s supplying mercenaries to Qaddafi.
Maybe the difference is that the Israeli company is MAKING money by sending mercenaries to fight for Qaddafi, while Mr. Peter Deane Baker urges the US to SPEND money to send mercenaries to fight against Qaddafi’s mercenaries.
And so US “undying and forevah” support for Israel comes to what Sister Luke would call it’s “logical conclusion:”
The United States provides money to subsidize Israel’s military capacity so that Israel can create military capacity which it sells to third party states, where that military capability will be employed to attack forces that the US will provide money to hire military capacity to defend against.
fyi @ 1:01 pm: “other than these it is a fine article.”
What I found interesting about the “fine article” is the implication that US must remain fully engaged in the Middle East to protect Israel’s interests.
Neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton ever clearly define what those “national interests” are that they are protecting when they drop bombs in order to protect civilians from massacre and slaughter. Nor do they fully describe how American values are sustained by rushing right past negotiation and full-throated prosecution of UN Resolution 1970, demanding that Qaddafi appear before the International Criminal Court, before resorting to an armed intervention.
Is the United States and the global community so bereft of covert operatives and special forces agents that it can’t get a protected team of diplomats in to execute UN Resolution 1970 against Qaddafi? If the nations who voted FOR UN Resolution 1970 didn’t think they could execute it, why did they create and pass the measure? If they DID think they could enact the provisions of UN Res 1970, what did they do to execute it?
“Last I checked, Obama was popularly elected, so even more reason to trust his principles.”–Pak
So why don’t you trust Ahmadinejad?
But let’s not kid ourselves, Pak. Politics is politics.
In my case, I voted for Mousavi and really came to regret it. And I naively voted enthusiastically for Obama, perhaps the weakest US president since the latter years of Reagan when he was visibly suffering from the onset of Alzheimers.
Fiorangela says: March 31, 2011 at 12:47 pm
This is popular journalism and not in-depth strategic analysis.
As such, it is useful as a possible indicator of the thinking of a segment (however small) of Israeli society.
The first thing that strike me is the attribution of such collosal cleverness and power to US; that her leaders and officials could direct the course of events. In this belief in overwhelming US power and adroitness, the Israelis are just like Arabs.
Secondly the conflation of the Muslim Brotherhood and (Islamic) Iran shows the extent that at least some Israelis have assumed an anti-Islam posture. Clearly very many Jews and Israelis have identified Islam as their enemy.
Thirdly, this fellow and the like-minded people in Israel seem to think that peace is still possible. That the war will continue without the possibility of peace is apparently beyond their grasp.
Fourthy, the analogy is completely wrong. This is not analogous to Europe in 1789 but closer to 1848 – and even that is a stretch of imagination.
Other than these, it is fine article.
IF Obama is SOOOOO concerned for the safety of Libyan “civilians” — whoever they are and however they are identified, did he call upon that stalwart ally of the US, Israel, to rescind the contract an Israeli company had to pay some 50,000 mercenaries to fight FOR Qaddafi AGAINST the “civilians” who were threatened with “massacre, slaughter” unless the US drop bombs on someone to spare their lives?
DID OBAMA CALL UPON ISRAEL TO DEMAND THAT ISRAELI COMPANY CST GLOBAL RESCIND its contract to supply mercenaries to ATTACK the civilians Obama is waging a war to protect?
:http://www.voltairenet.org/article168770.html
:http://www.voltairenet.org/article168630.html
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/u-s-should-direct-mideast-storm-of-change-toward-iran-1.345363
“But the great Arab revolution also holds great danger. In the past decade, the United States dismantled Iraq, took Egypt apart and lost Turkey. In doing so, it broke down the Sunni buffer against Iran. These days Washington is dismantling Bahrain, undermining Jordan and endangering Saudi Arabia – thereby turning Iran into the leading regional power. Unless the American policy changes, the result could be a geostrategic disaster.
Under the heading of “democratization,” the Shi’ite Muslims will take over a considerable part of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. Under the heading of “liberation,” radicals will take over a considerable part of the Arab world. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and Syria will become impossible. The Israeli-Egyptian and Israeli-Jordanian peace treaties will fade away. Islamic, neo-Nasserist and neo-Ottoman forces will mold the Middle East. The 2011 revolution could end up the same way as the 1789 French Revolution did – some Bonaparte will hijack it, take advantage of it and turn it into a long succession of bloody wars.”
haaah.
“Peace between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and Syria will BECOME impossible.”
And it’s all somebody else’s fault. Not Israel’s intransigence.
aren’t these folks embarrassed to pump out the same garbage day after day?
EDIT:
should read:
“I’m convinced that the financing of this adventure is quite the opposite of what Ackerman contemplates. I believe that Saudi Arabia is paying the US to wage this war in Libya, just as Saudi Arabia is likely financing Jeffrey Feltman’s activities in Syria, that fyi linked at 8:49 am.”
Three points on the rest of Ackerman’s essay:
The buck stops on Capitol Hill. As always, presidential unilateralism puts Congress in a tough position. It cannot afford to cut off funds immediately and put the lives of Americans, and U.S. allies, in danger. But it can pass a bill denying future funding after three months. This would prevent the president from expanding the mission unless he can gain express congressional consent.
I’m not convinced that the financing of this adventure is quite the opposite of what Ackerman contemplates. I believe that Saudi Arabia is paying the US to wage this war in Libya, just as Saudi Arabia is likely financing Jeffrey Feltman’s activities in Syria, that fyi linked at 8:49 am.
I’m stickin’ to my guns: Obama turned on a dime and employed US supported violence on Libya, rather than follow through on UN Res 1970, when Japan called in its notes and US needed funds to convert to yen. Saudi Arabia agreed to supply the funds in exchange for ______ . In this situation, the US Congress has NO leverage.
Does anyone really think that Obama would run the risk of not getting funding from Congress — a very likely outcome given the budget crisis — if he didn’t have an ace in the hole?
The U.S. Congress should also take more fundamental steps to bring the imperial presidency under control. In the aftermath of Watergate, Congress went beyond the War Powers Resolution to enact a series of framework statutes that tried to impose the rule of law on a runaway presidency. Many of these statutes have failed to work as planned, but they were the product of a serious investigation led by Senator Frank Church and Representative Otis Pike during the 1970s. A similar inquest is imperative today. In many respects, Bush’s war on terrorism was a more sweeping breach of constitutional norms than anything Richard Nixon attempted in Watergate. Yet Congress has been silent, trusting Obama to clean house on his own.
Ahh, Frank Church. The entire neoconservative-neoliberal community hates Frank Church and blames the Church Committee for multiple failures of “intel” — which, by the way, those same neocons were able to exploit by creating their own “intel” to take US to war against Iraq.
Good luck with getting Congress to form a Church-like commission of inquiry.
The president has shown, by his actions, that this trust is not justified. If Congress fails to respond, we have moved one large step further down the path to a truly imperial presidency.
Isn’t it interesting: When we’re talking about the USofA, it’s an “imperial presidency.” Israeli leaders, who have kept half of the people on its land mass in bondage for over 40 years, head the “greatest democracy in the Middle East.”
But if we’re talking about Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, the leader is a “theocratic dictator,” a “murderous tyrant,” “homicidal dictator,” “corrupt dictator,” or just plain dictator.
Does the US foreign policy establishment use a different dictionary from the rest of the English-speaking world?
Pak says: March 31, 2011 at 10:26 am
And so was Mr. Ahmadinejad.
I hope you will accept that.
Rd. says: March 31, 2011 at 9:57 am
For the last 100 years, the Alawites have been moving closer and closer to the 12-Imami Shia.
I can state with metaphysical certainity, that there is no chance that Mr. Sistani or in fact any Shia scholar will support regime change in Syria. That will be asking the Shia leaders to shred a multi-generational project in support of a dubious Sunni-American fitna in Syria.
I think Mr. Erdogan’s visit was just a courtesy call and an acknowledgement of Mr. Sistani and the wider Shia Marjaiyat in Iraq.
The long-term plan of the Shia Vatican (Qum-Najaf) is the re-absorption of syncretic sects such as Yazidi, Babi, Baha’ai, Alawite, Ahmadi, Ali Allahi, and Druze through intellectual discourse and persuasion.
They need to be thinking of the Alawites in Turkey; 12-Imami Shia will gain nothing by undermining Alawites of Syria.
Last I checked, Obama was popularly elected, so even more reason to trust his principles.
Who cares about the American constitution, so long as Obama is pursuing his principles.
I thought this is the kind of thing the Leveretts like?
fyi says:
“I think this is quite plausible.”
V1. we had the old cia covert regime change.
V2. a big party, rock music in down town for kids, color revolution.
V3. creative destruction, train kids in “democracy” tweetie sweetie revolution party. (in some cases hired by well paid US well known IT companies (eg. google executive in the emirates)).
V4. human right excuse to regime change, because we have the right and the means to kill more, not by choice, rather as collateral damage.
So the zixes are busy creating new destructive means to save the empire, knowing full well how strongly people resist. So they come up with new approaches to create dis-order and chaos. Then use the excuse to deploy military for a quick (in their mind) victory and a Hollywood scripted mass media promoted wishful democracy in their own name. What a disease.
“The Turkish, US and Saudi alliance planned that Alawi would lead the coalition and gain a majority to form the next government.”
So, Erdogan visiting Ayatollah Sistani has anything to do with the above?
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD01Ak03.html
All:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/why-did-website-linked-to-syria-regime-publish-u-s-saudi-plan-to-oust-assad-1.352809
I think this is quite plausible.
This Moussa Koussa story remains puzzling. I gave up long ago accepting early reports about anything in this Libyan War, since we can’t even be sure day to day who controls what city or where the rebels are within a 100-mile radius. Nonetheless, the absence of any statement from Koussa himself (unless I’ve missed it) makes it hard not to consider at least the possibility that he’s a modern-day Rudolph Hess.
Hans,
“From the NY Times (David Kirkpatrick), you believe anything this Zionist rag prints with regards to Muslims?”
Very little – that was more or less my point.
Empty says: March 31, 2011 at 8:00 am
There really is not much to talk about.
The Axis Powers started on their politico-economic war with Islamic Iran followed by a campaign of cyber-attacks and assasinations of (nuclear) scientists.
That war is going on but public information on it is not readily available.
Furthermore, the Axis Powers are clearly too occupied with the events in the Arab World in general and Libya in particular at this time to do more than to operate their politico-economic war against Iran at the current levels.
There probably will be an assessment sometime towards the end of this year but the Iranian front for the Axis Powers will be quite until after the elections of 2012.
Photi says: March 31, 2011 at 8:25 am
Yes, Persian Gulf is wrong.
Iranians only need to sit tight and let the course of global and local events accomplish their goals.
The Iranian leaders will do all they can to avoid involving Iran in a war.
Their strategic choice is to absorb limited non-strategic attacks.
However, they will fight back with all they have if attacked strategically.
Neil M says: March 31, 2011 at 1:34 am
I think in addition to your points, there is the military capabilities and the terrain of the targetted state. The Axis Powers will think very hard before glibly taking on a nuclear-armed state or even a state with rboust and competent military.
Furthermore the fact that Libya is within range of Axis Powers air assets makes the replication of the Libyan model to other states impossible without using air craft carriers. Only 3 Axis states own such assest: US, UK, and France. The 3 may not be able to assemble adequate level of forces in specific situations.
Thirdly, there is a global political alignment of non-Western states against such adventures. While they cannot physically stop these types of activities by Axis Powers, they can resist it politically at the global level, could assist the targetted state, and in general try to wreck the Axis porject.
Just like Iraq, Libya looked do-able to the Axis Powers.
The other states must do their best to wreck the Axis project in North Africa; Active Neutrality, if they can.
Persian Gulf,
A move like that by Iran would start a war throughout the entire Middle East. Just what the Israelis ordered.
The owners of this site have not produced much original idea for months. Overwhelming majority of the threads/articles posted nowadays is a regurgitation/para-phrasing/excerpts of articles from Elsewhereville.
ما زنده از آنیم که آرام نگیریم
موجیم که آسودگی ما عدم ماست
“We move and excel, therefore we remain,
Like waves in stillness, to our end we wane.”
Iran tops in science growth for the second year
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/iran-tops-in-science-growth-for-the-second-year/
Well – the only way to stop Obama to keep waging new wars against Muslim countries – would be for all the 57 Muslim nation-states to recognize the Zionist entity and the Jewish rights to occupy the remaining parts of the Middle East as shown on Theodor Herzl’s map of ‘Eretz Israel’.
Until then – Obama has no other choice than end-up like former President John F. Kenney at the hand of Israeli Mossad.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/does-obama-fear-assassination/
Colonel Gaddafi goes Mao:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MC31Ak03.html
If only he could resist for two more weeks and perhaps target a few planes!, the already desperate coalition forces would disintegrate. The deeper the crisis in Libya, the better it would be for Iran. I wish this fight between Gaddafi and the allied forces could stay like this for a long time, hopefully for months and years to come. The U.S is unable to fight with a weak country like Libya that has very limited resources, friends,… yet she was bluffing for an airstrike on Iran.
by all means, Libya’s mission showed the U.S has no military option, if any, at her disposal in dealing with Iran. all those talks look like a mere propaganda.
I think, the time is ripe for Iran to aggressively move in the Persian Gulf for the removal of the U.S troops in that region. It is crystal clear that the U.S won’t even fire a single bullet. At least, Iran could try to fire a few missiles near the U.S troops and see what the reaction. when Iran is going to take some bold actions?
The talk for the cost of Libya’s mission surfaced too soon; unbelievable that a (paper) superpower is unable to sustain air-strike, the only leverage remained, for even few weeks over a very weak country.
It is manifestly obvious that this Libyan intervention was not about enforcing a no-fly zone so much as removing Qaddafi and controlling its hydrocarbon resources. Fears of refugees arriving on European shores and the effect on markets from a protracted civil conflict are also factors.The CIA have now been authorized to help the rebels and Qaddafi forces are being targeted even if not in battle with anyone.
Senator Joe Lieberman has called for intervention in Syria using the Libyan precedent.
Instead of Iran’s nuclear file being used as a casus belli, the report of the newly-assigned U.N human rights investigator for the country could be used as justification for an invasion. This argument has already been made for further sanctions.
Meanwhile Bahrain is facing a human rights disaster under the watch of the 5th fleet.
Impeaching the warmonger would be a great idea!
Friends! March and Rally with AIFC and the United National Anti-War Committee (UNAC)
DATE: Saturday, April 9, 2011
PLACE: 14TH Street & Union Square , NYC.
TIME: 12:00 Noon
Join AIFC at NW corner of 14th Street and Broadway at 11:30 AM.
We say NO to the wars still raging in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No to war and plunder of the people of Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa !
Stop the sanctions and war threats against Iran , Yemen , North Korea.
End U.S. aid to Israel!
End U.S. support to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the siege of Gaza !
Out of Libya NOW!
Stop drone bombings in Pakistan and Yemen.
Fund schools, hospitals, city and state social services.
No budget cuts to serve the military machine!
@E A B
From the NY Times (David Kirkpatrick), you believe anything this Zionist rag prints with regards to Muslims?
Pirouz,
I should’ve better said posting a high-quality youtube of the movie at this time by ‘StillLibya4Libyans’ has a clear message to convey. My libyan friend at school (10 years ago) was proudly keeping a copy of the movie.
Fara,
I noticed. The previously available YouTube rendering was of lower quality.
obama should be impeached if we are to stop never ending wars.
The workings of a war economy, a particular but instructive case:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-stoner-arms-dealers-20110316?print=true
“WHAT IS TO STOP OBAMA FROM USING THE LIBYA PRECEDENT ELSEWHERE?”
There are quite a few factors. In no particular order, here are just two.
1. American military incompetence. If there’s any conceivable way for the Jubilation T Cornpones in Congress, the Pentagon and US spin tanks and lobbies to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, they’ll find it and Seize The Day as Bush II & Co did in Iraq. The Iraqis surrendered but the troglodytes, seduced by their own fantasies, couldn’t bring themselves to confront reality and stop “saving” Iraqis.
2. China. The Peoples Republic is becoming very adept at staying below the horizon and stamping the CHINA brand on global resources in Africa and elsewhere using commercial acumen, instead of bullets and bluster, to prevail in the scramble for future assets. It is debatable whether the (hoped for) commercial advantage to be gained from regime change in Libya is worth all billions of dollars of US taxpayer-funded carnage and vandalism to come, but one thing is certain. If the corporations hoping to profit from the result had to provide the open-ended funding themselves, there would be no military intervention in Libya’s ‘civil war’.
There aren’t any neocons in China and when the Chinese say “Yes We Can” they mean “Yes we can” not “We wish we knew how – but we’ll keep kidding ourselves until we find out.”
from the Information Clearinghouse article that Dan Cooper quoted:
“In Egypt and Tunisia, the US is backing a conservative junta of self-appointed civil-military elites in order to block the profound democratic and nationalist transformation of society demanded by the protesters. The ‘junta’ aims to push through neo-liberal economic “reforms” through carefully-vetted pro-Western ‘elected’ officials. . . .”
our man Feltman. Having overseen the destruction of Lebanon under his ambassadorship, he’s now overseeing the destruction of autonomous government in Tunisia, possibly Egypt also.
If the rationale was about protecting the supply or control of oil (and Israel) in the past, how does US still square that policy today, when the bullet points are relentless: “We must become energy independent; free of reliance for energy on people who don’t like us.” Do the people who recite these line, people like Texas Congressman Gene Green, apply the same paradigm to energy as most congressmen usually apply to war; namely,
“We have to fight this war to win or else the sacrifice of all those who have died will have been in vain.”
“We have to play out this militarization of resource control to the drop of blood and last dime in the Treasury, otherwise all the billions we have thrown at securing energy will have been wasted.”
Pirouz
You may have noticed the movie you post its link, at March 31, 2011 at 12:33 am, was recently uploaded on youtube (Mar 29, 2011).
Marc Ambinder from Mar 19: “a new doctrine is taking form”
An hour before bombing began Saturday, Clinton spoke to the press in Paris. Asked why military action was in America’s interest, she gave three reasons and implied a fourth. A destabilizing force would jeopardize progress in Tunisia and Egypt; a humanitarian disaster was imminent unless prevented; Qaddafi could not flout international law without consequences. The fourth: there’s a line now, and one that others countries had better not cross.
The development of a new doctrine in the Middle East is taking form, and it could become a paradigm for how the international community deals with unrest across the region from now on. The new elements include the direct participation of the Arab world, the visible participation of U.S. allies, as well as a very specific set of military targets designed to forestall needless human suffering. Though the Libyan situation is quite unique – its military is nowhere near as strong as Iran’s is, for one thing – Obama hopes that a short, surgical, non-US-led campaign with no ground troops will satisfy Americans skeptical about military intervention and will not arouse the suspicions of Arabs and Muslims that the U.S. is attempting to influence indigenously growing democracies.
Stephen Flanagan, CSIS, on NATO: :http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/TOStr
Flanagan: . . .NATO protects the security of its members AND contributes to the broader security of the world. This is the NEW MISSION STATEMENT of NATO that was agreed to in November in Lisbon . . .NATO and UN . . .The US wants to support change in the Arab world. This is an enormous opportunity if things go well. . . .
Caller: You said this action was taken against Libya largely because Qaddafi SAID he would go house to house . . . For about three years Iran has been saying they want to wipe Israel off the map, and they’re trying to go nuclear. What will US do about Iran?
Flanagan: I think there’s a big difference between what Iranian leaders have been saying and what Qaddafi has been doing.
There’s no doubt about it that Iran supports terrorism, that if push comes to shove they’re willing to go to war with Israel. But the US has a strong relationship with Israel, we have military deployments in the region, and indeed, one of the reasons the US is engaged in Libya is to send a message to the Iranians and others in the region that if you go after your people, if you try to cause instability in the region, the United States and other members of the international community are prepared to act. And that’s part of the message out there.
But at this point I think at this point the international community needed to act against clear acts of violence that the Libyan government was undertaking and prepared to do more.
And in the case of Iran I think it’s about maintaining a robust deterrence and that’s still what the United States is about vis a vis Iran.
Eric, do you remember this old screen gem? (I think Ghadafi may have financed this old movie).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8pPqb0WvXA&feature=related
This is what we’re up against, “us” being Americans. Some of the same type of players are evident this time around.
Was the photo featured for this post deliberately chosen for the Israeli IDF Merkava Mk IV main battle tank?
I’m guessing there aren’t any Hasbara’s still with us here at RFI, otherwise they’d be screaming bloody murder over this. Like what does Israel have to do with the EU/NATO/US air war being directed against LA assets, yada yada yada…?
Paul,
“They are already talking about possible ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Syria. Expect Iran in this conversation soon.”
I think your second sentence is probably correct, though the near-term “conversation” about Iran will just be a “feeler” to test the mood of the American public. If the public passes the test, the Iran “conversation” will be put on the back burner until after the 2012 election, though careful notes will be taken and kept.
If Libya goes well for the US, much as Afghanistan went well for the US in late 2001 (or at least appeared at the time to have gone well), I anticipate that the post-election revived conversation about Iran will “go well” too – a veritable frenzy for war, requiring only some incident to touch it off.
On the other hand, if Libya doesn’t go so well for the US – as I hope – then maybe the US government will have a bit harder time whipping up war fever against Iran after the election.
On the other hand, if Libya doesn’t go so well
They are already talking about possible ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Syria. Expect Iran in this conversation soon.
Must Read
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27797.htm
If not to prevent genocide, grab the oil or promote democracy (via Patriot missiles), what, then, is the driving force behind the Euro-US imperial intervention?
A clue is in the selectivity of Western military intervention: In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Qatar and Oman ruling autocrats, allied with, and backed by, Euro-US imperial states go about arresting, torturing and murdering unarmed urban protestors with total impunity.
In Egypt and Tunisia, the US is backing a conservative junta of self-appointed civil-military elites in order to block the profound democratic and nationalist transformation of society demanded by the protesters. The ‘junta’ aims to push through neo-liberal economic “reforms” through carefully-vetted pro-Western ‘elected’ officials.
While liberal critics may accuse the West of “hypocrisy” and “double standards” in bombing Gaddafi but not the Gulf butchers, in reality the imperial rulers consistently apply the same standards in each region. They defend strategic autocratic client regimes, which have allowed imperial states to build strategic air force and naval bases, run regional intelligence operations and set up logistical platforms for their ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as their future planned conflict with Iran. They attack Gaddafi’s Libya precisely because Gaddafi had refused to actively contribute to Western military operations in Africa and the Middle East.
The key point is that while Libya allows the biggest US-European multi-nationals to plunder its oil wealth, it did not become a strategic geo-political-military asset of the empire. As we have written in many previous essays the driving force of US empire-building is military and not economic. This is why billions of dollars of Western economic interests and contracts had been sacrificed in the setting up of sanctions against Iraq and Iran – with the costly result that the invasion and occupation of Iraq shut down most oil exploitation for over a decade.
The Washington-led assault on Libya, with the majority of air sorties and missiles strikes being carried out by the Obama regime, is part of a more general counter-attack in response to the most recent Arab popular pro-democracy movements.
The West is backing the suppression of these pro-democracy movements throughout the Gulf; it finances the pro-imperial, pro-Israel junta in Egypt and it is intervening in Tunisia to ensure that any new regime is “correctly aligned”.
It supports a despotic regime in Algeria as well as Israel’s daily assaults on Gaza.
In line with this policy, the West backs the uprising of ex-Gaddafites and right-wing monarchists, confident that the ‘liberated’ Libya will once again provide military bases for the US-European military empire-builders.
From the NY Times (David Kirkpatrick):
QUOTATION:
GHARYAN, Libya — Standing at the grave of an 18-month-old baby on Wednesday, officials of the Qaddafi government presented the first specific and credible case of a civilian death caused by Western airstrikes. But relatives speaking a few yards away said they blamed Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and welcomed the bombs.… “What NATO is doing is good,” he said, referring to the Western military alliance that is enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya.”