If You Believe Libia is a "Humanitarian Intervention" You'll Drink Radioactive Milk

March 31, 2011 at 10:27:20

This is no "Humanitarian Intervention" in Libya

By Debra Sweet (about the author)

I've talked to a number of people in the last 10 days who describe themselves as "hoping for the best" from the US intervention into the North African country of Libya. They choose to believe the US arguments that the intervention is 1) for humanitarian reasons limited to "saving civilian lives"; 2) is legitimate because it has the backing of the UN and NATO.

But the facts don't support those hopes.

Jill McLaughlin, a World Can't Wait leader, writes in Don't be Confused: U.S. "Intervention" in Libya is Immoral and Illegitimate Too:

The hypocrisy and the illegitimacy of the U.S. intervention in Libya runs thick as the blood that has been spilled by the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. Prior to the attack on Libya the U.S. began using the weapon of fear in trying to justify and build support for its use of force.

Stephen Zunes, Chair of the Middle East program at the University of San Francisco, asks Intervention in Libya: Is It Really the Only Option? He notes the risks of US intervention in Libya to what the US did in Afghanistan in opposing the Soviet Union's war there:

One could certainly make an argument that the mujahidin fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s also had a just cause and that the civilian population of that country also needed to be defended from the threat of serious war crimes. However, 80 percent of the billions of dollars of US aid money sent to help the Afghan "freedom fighters" ended up in the hands of Hezb-i-Islami, an extremist minority faction, which slaughtered many thousands of Afghan civilians and is currently allied with the Taliban and attacking US forces.

Here is the transcript to Obama's address last night on Libya. A World Can't Wait supporter wrote me in response to it:

When listening to Obama's speech last night about Libya, and talking about the Libyan government's air attacks against civilians, attacking hospitals, ambulances mosques etc., and that it was necessary to intervene for humanitarian reasons, I couldn't help thinking of the Israeli assault on Gaza that did the same things to a civilian population, and the fact that there wasn't even a discussion about world intervention to stop the carnage there.

Revolution newspaper calls us to Stand Against the Bombing of Libya... Find Ways to Oppose This Outrage:

This is not the first time the U.S. has dressed up military aggression with the costume of "humanitarianism." This is not the first time the U.S. has united other imperialist countries and pushed through a UN resolution to use weapons of mass destruction. This is not the first time the U.S. has cried "evil dictator" to justify raining down death and destruction on a sovereign country.

The people of Iraq suffered under a no-fly zone for 12 years, when 500,000 children died due to the sanctions. No-fly zones are hardly no-killing zones; they only mean that much of the killing is from the air. There is no way an anti-war movement should support this U.S. intervention.

http://www.worldcantwait.net

Debra Sweet is the Director of World Can't Wait, initiated in 2005 to "drive out the Bush regime" by repudiating its program, forcing it from office through a mass, independent movement and reversing the direction it had launched. Based in (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Heart Warming Massacres

by Linh Dinh / March 31st, 2011

On January 28, 2003, George W. Bush gave a 50-minute State of the Union address, nearly half of which was devoted to his decision to invade Iraq. During this segment, he didn’t mention oil or, God forbid, the petro dollar even once, but focused relentlessly on weapons of mass destruction. America and the rest of the world were threatened by a dictator who was “assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons,” “a brutal dictator with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism,” so that “this nation and our friends” were “all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm.” The decision to attack Iraq, then, was a sacred, providential duty, a “call of history has come to the right country.” Bush concluded, “America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.”

Though America is always engaged in several wars simultaneously, she really hates to make wars, so we’re told by each U.S. President. An American war is always humanitarian in aim and execution. We wage war not because we love to kick ass, then go home, not because we’re born to kill, murder ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out, etc, but because we love foreigners, actually, the browner the better. It doesn’t matter if they have petroleum or not, or if they’re scarfed with a keffiyeh (while eating a donut). America wages war out of compassion.

Thus, this week, we’re told by Obama that his attack on Libya is to prevent innocents from being massacred and chaos from spreading, “For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges.” Reluctant, yes, but not when it is America’s duty, again, to attack a sovereign nation, “To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

Like Bush, Obama did not mention oil once, but surely, some of you are saying, this is not really about oil, again? Here are the facts: Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. Sweeter and cheaper to extract than elsewhere, Libyan oil is also easier to bring to market, thanks to its proximity to Europe. About three-fourths of this is exported to NATO countries, primarily Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Greece and the U.K. With the exception of Germany, these are also the main European nations attacking Libya, along with the USA.

But why attack Gaddafi if he’s already selling you oil? Why upset the status quo? It’s because on January 25, 2009, Gaddafi declared:

The oil-exporting countries should opt for nationalization because of the rapid fall in oil prices. We must put the issue on the table and discuss it seriously. Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production.

The countries with oil concessions in Libya are Italy, France, Spain, the US, the UK, Norway, Russia and Germany. See a pattern here? Norway is also in the US-led coalition to attack Libya. It’s noteworthy that France is particularly belligerent this time. In 2003, by contrast, France was vehemently against invading Iraq, since it had much dealing with Hussein and would lose much should he be replaced.

To Francophobes, France’s stance on Iraq proved that it had no backbone, as suspected, that it would fight with its feet and, ahem, make love with its face, as the saying goes, that it wouldn’t stand up to terrorists. Two American congressmen, Robert Ney and Walter Jones, even started a campaign to rename french fries “freedom fries.” What a way to go down in history. To Francophiles, however, France was to be applauded for refusing to be cowed by America, but the truth is much simpler. France didn’t want to lose the billions Hussein already owed it, and the billions it would make if he stayed in power. It came down, as it always does in these situations, to money.

And so it is with Libya. Wanting to gain access to Libya’s oil, the United States is not just helping one side in a civil war, but directing the fight. The rebel’s military leader is a long time CIA asset, Khalifa Hifter. Before returning to Benghazi last week, Hifter spent two decades in Northern Virginia, a five minute drive from CIA headquarters.

The rebels are flying the old flag of the Kingdom of Libya. Some are carrying photos of King Idris. Even the French flag has been displayed, leading French Prime Minister Fillon to proclaim, “There is hope in Benghazi now, the French flag is being waved there, and also the flag of a different Libya which dreams of democracy and modernization.” I would not equate flying a monarchical flag and the flag of a country that colonized a good chunk of Northern Africa not that long ago with “dreams of democracy and modernization.” Under King Idris, Libya was also host to American and British military bases. With 4,600 Yanks, Wheelus air base was even dubbed “Little America by the Mediterranean.” Gaddafi ended all that.

Funny, but the same countries that now attack Gaddafi sold him lots of weapons, more than a billion’s worth since 2005. The British Special Air Service even trained Libyan Special Forces, and American war colleges instructed Libyan military officers “to fight terrorists.” From the Libyan government’s point of view, the rebels now supported by America and the rest sure fit that description.

To gain access to oil, all these countries armed a man they now call a mad dog, but Gaddafi didn’t just become a tyrant two weeks ago. He’s been embraced by Tony Blair, feted by Nicolas Sarkozy, visited by John McCain and even had his hand kissed by Silvio Berlusconi, so everything was manageable until he threatened to nationalize Libya’s oil in 2009. As he became perfectly sane, at least from the Libyan point of view, as he promised to distribute more oil revenues to his own people, the West decided he must be ousted.

We will see if Obama can stick to his promise of sending no ground troops, but for now, the alliance is fighting strictly from the air. This is macabrely appropriate as Tripoli, Libya was the site of the first air assault in world history. A century ago, during Italy’s invasion, Giulio Gavotti dropped four hand grenades onto an Ottoman Empire encampment. He had no idea how many he killed. Then, as now, it’s impossible to countenance anyone’s mortality from such a height. In any case, Gavotti landed a hero. Italy’s best known poet at the time, Gabriele D’Annunzio, lauded him, “From your wing you hurl your bomb / On an instant massacre; and it appears / Your live heart is warmed.”

Now, as foreign planes fly over Libya yet again, we are told that the people below are grateful. Thanks for the depleted uranium, Sirs! My children and my children’s children will also thank you. As least in the desert, there won’t be any agent orange raining down. An American pilot had to parachute because his plane malfunctioned. According to Obama, he was greeted by a young Libyan “who came to his aid [and] said, ‘We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies.’” Was this young Libyan speaking in English, or did the pilot understand Arabic? Can you spell CIA? Do you smell a fish?

Linh Dinh is the author of two books of stories and five of poems, and a just released novel, Love Like Hate. He's tracking our deteriorating socialscape through his frequently updated photo blog, State of the Union. Read other articles by Linh.

This article was posted on Thursday, March 31st, 2011 at 8:01am and is filed under CIA, Disinformation, France, Italy, Libya, Military/Militarism, Obama, Oil, Gas, Pipelines, Propaganda, United Kingdom, Weaponry.

'Noble' War In Libya - Part 2

MEDIA LENS

March 28, 2011

'Noble' War In Libya - Part 2

As a Sunday Times leader made clear on March 20, sometimes you just have to draw a line:

‘[T]here can be no accommodation with a man like Gadaffi or any of his family who aspire to succeed him.’ (Leading article, ‘Allies need a rapid victory to outwit Gadaffi,’ Sunday Times, March 20, 2011)

Seven years earlier, Alan Massie wrote in the same newspaper:

‘The sight of Tony Blair shaking hands with Colonel Gadaffi last week will have disgusted many… One may sympathise with these sentiments but, pushing emotion aside, Blair has shown courage. It would be lovely if international politics could be conducted so you were always dealing with decent people. It might be nice if governments were able consistently to pursue the "ethical foreign policy" of which Robin Cook used to speak so enthusiastically but the world isn't like that.’ (Massie, ‘Keeping Gadaffi close is the safest option,’ Sunday Times, March 28, 2004)

Sometimes, then, there can be accommodation with a man like Gaddafi. It was important not to overstate the extent of his crimes:

‘Of course, Libya remains essentially a dictatorship, even if not as repellent a one as that of Saddam's.’

And democracy was far more likely to take root in the Middle East ‘in an atmosphere of friendship than of hostility’. Thus Blair was ‘bringing Libya into the fold of the community of nations’.

Like a skilled conjuror, the media slips effortlessly, and without explanation, between the obvious need for ‘positive engagement’ and the obvious need to ‘confront tyranny’.

The previous day, a Telegraph headline had read:

‘Shell fills its boots in the desert sun. The oil major's deal with Libya is a welcome distraction from weeks of turmoil.’ (Christopher Hope, Daily Telegraph, March 27, 2004)

Christopher Hope commented:

‘Libya's re-emergence as a place to do business looks well-timed for Western oil companies concerned about dwindling reserve levels. Like Iraq last year, it shows that on occasion politicians are not deaf to the necessity of driving through geo-political change to find more oil which will keep Western economies on the road.’

Reviewing the same rapprochement in 2004, a Guardian leader nodded quiet approval:

‘We should congratulate the Foreign Office for its quiet and effective diplomacy… Col Gadafy should be encouraged, but not at such a forced pace.’ (Leading article: ‘Colonel Gadafy: The prodigal son returns,’ The Guardian, March 26, 2004)

An Independent editorial described Gaddafi as merely ‘the Arab world's most eccentric and unpredictable leader’, adding:

‘Mr Blair is right to argue that there is real cause for rejoicing in a sinner that repenteth. However distasteful to the families of those murdered, an engagement and reconciliation with Libya that leads to the admission of guilt and compensation is better than continued isolation of the North African country.’ (Leading article, ‘The ethics of shaking hands with a tyrant, and the reality of Mr Blair’s foreign policy,’ The Independent, March 26, 2004)

Again, it was important not to exaggerate Gaddafi’s crimes: ‘It is many years, also, since the Colonel has been actively engaged in supporting terror groups in Europe.’

Seven years later, on March 19, an Independent editorial exalted:

‘The international community has managed to come together over Libya in a way that, even a few days ago, seemed impossible. The adventurism [sic] of Bush and Blair in 2003 looked as if it had buried the principle of humanitarian intervention [sic] for a generation. It has returned sooner than anyone believed possible.’

We have found not a word in that editorial, or any other, on why ‘engagement and reconciliation with Libya’ was advisable and possible in 2004, but completely impossible now. Might the explanation in fact lie in the WikiLeaked cable from November 2007 cited in Part 1:

‘But those who dominate Libya's political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector that could jeopardize efficient exploitation of Libya's extensive oil and gas reserves. Effective U.S. engagement on this issue should take the form of demonstrating the clear downsides to the GOL [government of Libya ] of pursuing this approach…’?

In 2004, Andrew Rawnsley wrote in the Observer that ‘Tory attacks’ on Blair’s deal with Gaddafi looked ‘clumsily opportunistic’. And anyway: ‘Our poll today indicates that a substantial majority of voters support the visit.’

Rawnsley drew attention to the positives:

‘It will be an ultimate gain if engagement with the West gradually draws Libya towards more democratic values. It is a start that Amnesty International has at last been allowed into Libya to monitor human rights.’

He added brightly:

‘This is a very British coup. In the eyes of the Prime Minister, this is also a quintessentially Blair coup: a vindication of his own approach to the world, a reassertion of his belief that Britain plays a pivotal role in global affairs.’

Seven years later, Rawnsley shudders at the prospect of ‘a pariah, highly dangerous Gaddafi regime on the southern borders of Europe. The people of Libya will never be truly safe from him until he no longer has the power to do them harm'.

No-one could accommodate this maniac:

‘At the heart of the perils ahead stands Colonel Gaddafi, the great survivor among tyrants. He may be mad, but that doesn't mean he is entirely stupid… He declared a ceasefire as if he had suddenly become a reformed character who would not hurt a hair on a civilian's head. We can be justified in regarding that possibility as being about as likely as discovering that Elvis Presley is alive and well living in the stomach of the Loch Ness monster.’

Ironically, echoing his earlier article, Rawnsley commented: ‘Public opinion is broadly behind confronting Colonel Gaddafi.’

The Guardian has been more sceptical of the intervention, although for pragmatic reasons:

‘The moment the US intervenes militarily, even under a UN banner, Gaddafi gets what he wants – to be the defender against the foreign aggressor. Libya's rebels are unanimous in their opposition to a ground intervention.’

Media Irrationalists

In adapting so flexibly to the claims of the powerful, the media’s framework of understanding might best be described as irrationalist. Typically, the media does not look for rational causes or systemic motives. It does not explain how leaders clearly emerging from a corporate power base can so often agitate for ‘humanitarian intervention’, and so often in resource-rich countries. It does not learn from history, even very recent history. It does not return to reflect on the credibility of previous claims (‘not news’), or on the testimony of credible witnesses countering such claims (‘no news hook’). It lives in a version of ‘now’ woven from government spin. If evidence drops in their laps, journalists will report, and quickly forget the significance of, the comments of an Alan Greenspan or a John Norris. But to actively seek out such material is to be deemed ‘crusading’, ‘biased’ and, ultimately, ‘radioactive’ (that is, unemployable).

Western journalists are reporting essentially the same Perpetual War being fought against the same ‘rogue states’ using the same means over and over again. This is why, in replying to one emailer, the BBC’s Jonathan Marcus wrote:

‘I think the clear military logic is that until Colonel Gaddafi issues a definitive order to halt offensive operations, Iraqi ground forces will be seen as targets.’ (Email, forwarded to Media Lens, March 21, 2011 – our emphasis)

We have seen numerous slips of this kind.

The BBC’s Mark Mardell, wrote of the latest attack by the latest ‘coalition’ on Libya:

'They felt it was their duty to intervene. We don't focus on this nearly enough. The Chinese didn't feel that way. Neither did the Russians. Nor the Indians. Or Brazilians…

'Why does the West feel this way, when no one else does? Is it a legacy of the enlightenment, a sense of responsibility and shared humanity? Or does it follow from colonialism, a feeling that it is their role to rule, that there is still a version of Kipling's "White Man's Burden", - the "savage wars of peace" - even if it is defined by geography, not colour.'

The media is good at telling us what our leaders really, truly feel. This time they ‘felt it was their duty to intervene’; that is, their moral duty. In the absence of counter-balancing scepticism, this is just outrageous in ostensibly neutral journalism. When a reader emailed Mardell advising that we had entered him in ‘The Hall of Propaganda Infamy’ for these remarks, he replied:

‘Staggering. It is so sad, when there is a real need for such an organisation that they are so thick and self absorbed.’ (Email, forwarded March 21, 2011)

We responded to Mardell:

Hi Mark

Sorry if you found our comments annoying…. The suggestion that the West perhaps feels it should take up the 'White Man's Burden' can also be read as positing a positive motivation. Kipling's words are often used to refer to the idea that the West, presuming intellectual and moral superiority, feels obligated to rule 'lesser races' for their own good. In other words, your comments can easily be interpreted as offering a choice between two benevolent motivations for Western actions: compassion and a sense of moral duty. A more appropriate counterpoint to a possible motivation of 'shared humanity' would be ruthless greed for power and profit regardless of the consequences for the people themselves. [We then cited Alan Greenspan’s comments – see Part 1]

Best wishes

David Edwards (Email to Mark Mardell, March 21, 2011)

Mardell replied on March 21:

Yes I do see that point. I guess I should have been clearer. My presumption was that the reference to Kipling would reinforce the notion of an arrogant sense of mission. Personally, and these are my views not the BBC ..blah blah ..., I think that this veneer was always important to Victorian colonialism, while the looting and exploiting went on underneath the moral justification. I think how this translates these days is a pretty important debate to have, and that is what annoyed me : I was trying to get a debate going that I wasn't seeing much in the general media, not trying to justify the action.
Thanks, Mark

Underneath Mardell’s blog, a poster had noted:

‘I think you mean that cruise missiles are exploding in Libya, not Iraq. To my knowledge America is not launching missiles there.’ (At 2:56pm on 20 Mar 2011, Will wrote, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/)

Mardell must have made the same Freudian slip as Jonathan Marcus and many others, with the mistake subsequently being corrected.

Also on the BBC’s website, political editor Nick Robinson declared:

‘David Cameron will feel a sense of vindication tonight. An idea which was condemned as sabre-rattling, unworkable and unnecessary has been agreed after days of intense diplomacy.’

Once again, a senior BBC journalist had found instant vindication for a leader he was supposed to be holding to account.

The Anti-Iraq Model

Writing in the Independent, Mary Dejevsky comments:

‘President Obama was elected on a platform that included not just a pledge to withdraw from Iraq, but a renunciation of everything the Iraq debacle stood for: the rush to military force, the idea of the US as the global gendarme, the proselytising of Western-style democracy, and the demonisation of Islam…’

This is pure fantasy, but let’s run with it. Dejevsky continues: ‘Such considerations led him to hold back over Egypt, despite much urging that he jump in sooner.’

The real reason, of course, was that Mubarak was 'our man'. No heroics were demanded of Obama; he just needed to cut off the supply of billions of dollars of weapons to the tyrant. As even the BBC observes, ‘this supposedly anti-war president looks almost as warlike as President George W Bush’.

Dejevsky adds: ‘Supporters of intervention will breathe a sigh of relief and hail this as the anti-Iraq model.’

The ‘Iraq model’: mass violence and mass killing, with war as the first resort.

The ‘anti-Iraq model’: mass violence and mass killing, with war surely not the last resort.

Dejevsky ends:

‘And it is easy to conclude that eight years ago George Bush picked the wrong fight. If you want to foster democracy, why not invest in a country where opposition forces are already championing it on their own? But it is a bit late for such regrets now.’

It takes a special kind of mind to believe that Bush aimed to ‘foster democracy’ in Iraq.

The nation's most progressive mainstream newspaper, the Guardian, takes a similarly benign view of Western motives:

'Obama, who made reform and democratisation in the Arab world a key plank of his foreign policy when he spoke in Cairo in 2009, could not stand by and watch as Gaddafi crushed the uprising.'

And yet, as discussed in Part 1, Obama clearly can stand by while allied dictators kill numerous pro-freedom protestors with American weapons in Bahrain and Yemen. Again, there is precious little evidence that the US is interested in real 'democratisation', as opposed to pro-Western ‘guided democracy’, which is not democracy at all.

A Guardian blog found that the UN vote to take 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians in Libya ‘is little short of a personal triumph’ for David Cameron. The ‘obvious parallel’ is with the Kosovo crisis, the blog noted: ‘Blair prevailed and the NATO military campaign was a success.’ In fact, the campaign led to a major increase in atrocities, as Nato generals predicted in response to a ‘genocide’ that turned out to be a fraud. Is that success?

Also in the Guardian, Simon Tisdall argues that if the air campaign is successful, ‘the revolution will have been salvaged’. As the magnificent Michael Moore Tweets on Twitter:

‘Let's hear from the "liberals" who say this is a just war because we're protecting innocent Libyans--like that's what we do!’ (http://twitter.com/MMFlint, 5:31 PM Mar 20th)

Tisdall adds:

‘If Libya falls to democracy, then like-minded reformers in Bahrain and elsewhere will be greatly heartened.’

If Libya falls to non-guided democracy, a new ‘rogue state’ will have risen from the ashes of the old.

In a condition of near-total unawareness, Tisdall writes of our dear leaders: ‘It's a story, as they would prefer to write it, with a happy ending, producing a newly independent country, and another friend for the west.’

A ‘newly independent country’ would naturally be ‘a friend for the West’. This helps us translate ‘independent’ and ‘friend’, which actually mean tied and subordinate to Western power.

The Independent has serious concerns about the war: ‘The West must be careful not to lose the propaganda war’:

‘The regime in Tripoli is claiming that 48 civilians were killed and a further 150 wounded by the initial Western strikes. Those figures have not been verified and the Gaddafi regime is likely to be exaggerating the numbers killed. Something similar took place in the 1999 Kosovo war, when Nato planes, enforcing a no-fly zone, were accused of killing a large number of Serbian civilians in the process.’

Unfortunately, the 'bad guys' are always making stuff up in this way. But what about the' good guys', including the media knights in shining karma? US Defence Secretary, William Cohen, said during the Kosovo war:

‘We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing... They may have been murdered.’ (Quoted, Degraded Capability, The Media and the Kosovo Crisis, edited by Philip Hammond and Edward S. Herman, Pluto Press, 2000, p.139)

In their book, The Politics of Genocide, Edward Herman and David Peterson reported that US newspapers used the word ‘genocide’ 323 times in reference to the Kosovo conflict, in which some 4,000 people are estimated to have died on all sides. (Herman and Peterson, The Politics of Genocide, Monthly Review Press, 2010, p.35) The death toll in Iraq, by contrast, has been consistently undercounted by a factor of ten.

The Independent added: ‘Allied to dangers of a reversal in the propaganda war is the threat of mission creep on the part of the Coalition.’ The possible loss of the propaganda war is a ‘danger’ for the independent Independent – by which they mean, ‘we’ are backing the ‘good guys’.

In 2004, former Nato chief General Wesley Clark put the ‘good guys’ in perspective. In a filmed interview with Democracy Now!, Clark recalled a conversation with a Pentagon general in September 2001:

‘He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”’ (Transcript)

Clark added:

‘The truth is, about the Middle East is, had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa. The problem is the opposite. We keep asking for people to intervene and stop it. There’s no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the region has sparked great power involvement.’

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Mary Dejevsky
Email: m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk

Simon Tisdall
Email: simon.tisdall@guardian.co.uk

Nick Robinson
Email: nick.robinson@bbc.co.uk

Andrew Rawnsley
Email: andrew.rawnsley@observer.co.uk

'Noble' War In Libya - Part 1

MEDIA LENS

'Noble' War In Libya - Part 1

One can hardly fail to be impressed by the corporate media’s faith in humanity. Or at least that part of humanity with its finger on the cruise missile button. Last week, the Independent's Patrick Cockburn predicted that ‘Western nations will soon be engaged in a war in Libya with the noble aim of protecting civilians.’

At the opposite end of the alleged media spectrum, former Spectator editor and current London Mayor, Boris Johnson, agreed in the Telegraph:

‘The cause is noble and right, and we are surely bound by our common humanity to help the people of Benghazi.’

So is the aim of the latest war a noble one? How do Cockburn and Johnson know?

Perhaps they have considered evidence from the recent historical record. Economist Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the US Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, wrote in his memoir:

‘I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.’ (Leader, ‘Power, not oil, Mr Greenspan,’ Sunday Times, September 16, 2007)

If this seems heroic, Greenspan's bewildered response to the resulting controversy suggests otherwise:

‘From a rational point of view, I cannot understand why we don't name what is evident and indeed a wholly defensible pre-emptive position.’ (Quoted, Richard Adams, ‘Invasion of Iraq was driven by oil, says Greenspan,’ The Guardian, September 17, 2007)

Certainly it is ‘defensible’, if we accept that the world’s premier power should do as it pleases in pursuit of oil. Greenspan had made his ‘pre-emptive’ economic case for war to White House officials, who responded: ‘Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil.’ (Quoted, Bob Woodward, ‘Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security,’ Washington Post, September 17, 2007)

Across flak so thick you could walk on it, Greenspan backtracked as he ‘clarified’ that, in identifying oil as the obvious key concern he, of course, ‘was not saying that that's the administration's motive’. (Ibid.)

Or consider Nato's air assault on Serbia in 1999. John Norris, director of communications during the war for deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, wrote in his memoir, Collision Course: ‘it was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform - not the plight of Kosovar Albanians - that best explains NATO's war’. (Norris, Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo, Praeger, 2005, p.xiii)

Norris, again, later claimed he had been quoted ‘both selectively and out of context to advance [a] polemic’. But his words mean what they say: that the plight of civilians was not the prime motive for war, thus contradicting a mountain of propaganda.

Wars Of First Resort

For the latest war to be adjudged ‘noble’, mass violence would have to be a final resort committed by agencies motivated by ethical goals. (To be considered legal, it would have to be waged without shaping Libya's internal affairs - an obvious absurdity) In 2005, Michael Smith wrote of the pre-2003 Iraq war 'Downing Street memo' in the Los Angeles Times:

‘British officials hoped the ultimatum [demanding Iraq readmit UN weapons inspectors] could be framed in words that would be so unacceptable to Hussein that he would reject it outright. But they were far from certain this would work, so there was also a Plan B... Put simply, US aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict.’ (Michael Smith, 'The real news in the Downing Street memos,' Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2005 – our emphasis)

Put simply, US-UK leaders were determined to go to war with Iraq.

In 1999, Nato supported a CIA-backed insurgency waged by the Kosovo Liberation Army. Insurgents were clearly eager to stoke a conflict that would trigger foreign intervention - Nato was eager to oblige. Noam Chomsky wrote:

‘NATO chose to reject diplomatic options that were not exhausted, and to launch a military campaign that had terrible consequences for Kosovar Albanians, as anticipated.’

Among the losers, there were the usual winners:

‘[T]he business press described “the real winners” as Western military industry, meaning high-tech industry generally. Moscow is looking forward to a “banner year for Russian weapons exports” as “the world is rearming apprehensively largely thanks to NATO’s Balkans adventure,” seeking a deterrent, as widely predicted during the war. More important, the U.S. was able to enforce its domination over the strategic Balkans region, displacing EU initiatives at least temporarily, a primary reason for the insistence that the operation be in the hands of NATO, a U.S subsidiary.’

Recall that, despite being a violent and unpredictable dictator, Gaddafi was embraced by ‘the international community’ as he renounced all interest in weapons of mass destruction. In 2004, then prime minister Tony Blair declared a ‘new relationship’ between Britain and Libya. In 2007, Blair and Gaddafi did a 'deal in the desert'.

We suspect the real reasons why a non-military solution was 'unachievable' now as part of this 'new relationship' are not being discussed and will surface later, perhaps in someone's autobiography.

A Dirty Little Three-Letter Word

Rory Stewart, a Tory MP, argues ‘we had a moral right to protect Libyans from Gaddafi…’ Really? After everything we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan? In the aftermath of the Kosovo war, the late playwright Harold Pinter told one of us in an interview:

‘When they said “We had to do something,” I said: “Who is this ‘we’ exactly that you’re talking about?” First of all: “Who is the ‘we’? Under what heading do ‘we’ act, under what law? And also, the notion that this ‘we’ has the right to act,” I said, “presupposes a moral authority of which this ‘we’ possesses not a jot! It doesn’t exist!”’

A serial killer with a long history of violent, greed-driven crimes might claim to be motivated by compassion in committing further violence. He might even act morally. But his actions could not possibly be based on any ‘moral right’. And the rest of the world would be entitled to argue that, given his record, he was the last person likely to achieve positive results.

Also, as former Labour and Respect MP, George Galloway, has noted, the claim of ‘noble’ intent is challenged by Western indifference to mass killing in Yemen and Bahrain using Western weapons. Cockburn writes in the Independent:

‘The worst verifiable atrocity in the Arab world in the past week was not in Libya but in Yemen, where pro-government gunmen machine-gunned an unarmed demonstration last Friday, killing 52 people.’

Asked whether the United States still supported Yemen’s dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, or if it was time for him to go, US defence secretary Robert Gates said:

‘I don't think it's my place to talk about internal affairs in Yemen.’

Saleh is an ally of the US against al-Qaeda, Eugene Robinson observes in the Washington Post, and ‘therefore, is a useful tyrant. He gets nudges, not bombs.’

Bahrain’s ruling al-Khalifa royal family also get nudges. Why?

‘Because the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is based there, astride the Persian Gulf shipping lanes through which 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil shipments must pass… Also, the al-Khalifas are close allies of the Saudi royals, who are desperate to keep the protests in Bahrain from spilling over into the nearby kingdom.’ (Ibid.)

Gaddafi, by contrast, is less cooperative, friendly and amenable. Galloway adds of the Libyan attack:

‘It’s so transparently an attempt to protect British companies’ and other Western companies’ massive investments in Libya that it is discredited in the Arab world.’

And yet a Guardian editorial argues that the support of the Arab League ‘was so essential to the argument that military action had regional backing’.

Important to the argument or to the propaganda? Galloway comments:

‘The Arab League, without exception, is a collection of puppet presidents, corrupt kings – every one of them a dictator; every one of them now, currently, shooting their own people who are demonstrating for democracy… What’s the difference between them and Libya? Everyone watching this knows the difference is a dirty little three-letter word called “oil”.’

Secret diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks provide insights into the reality behind the ‘noble’ cause. The following cable was sent from the US embassy in Tripoli to the State Department in August 2008:

'Libya’s economy is almost entirely dependent on oil and gas. Libya has the largest proven oil reserves (43.6 billion barrels) and the third largest proven natural gas reserves (1.5 billion cubic meters) on the African continent. Libya currently produces about 1.7 million barrels/day of oil; only Angola and Nigeria produce more in Africa…

‘… Major U.S. energy companies active in Libya include Amerada Hess, ConocoPhillips, Marathon, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Occidental. Joint ventures involving U.S. companies currently account for about 510,000 barrels/day of Libya’s 1.7 million barrels/day production. A large number of small to mid-sized U.S. oil and gas services companies are also working in Libya.'

A cable sent from the US embassy in Tripoli in November 2007 communicated US concerns about the direction being taken by Libya's leadership:

'Libya needs to exploit its hydrocarbon resources to provide for its rapidly-growing, relatively young population. To do so, it requires extensive foreign investment and participation by credible IOCs [international oil companies]. Reformist elements in the Libyan government and the small but growing private sector recognize this reality. But those who dominate Libya's political and economic leadership are pursuing increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector that could jeopardize efficient exploitation of Libya's extensive oil and gas reserves. Effective U.S. engagement on this issue should take the form of demonstrating the clear downsides to the GOL [government of Libya] of pursuing this approach, particularly with respect to attracting participation by credible international oil companies in the oil/gas sector and foreign direct investment.’

For claims of a ‘noble’ cause to have merit, mass violence would have to result in a conclusion beneficial to the civilians ‘we’ are ostensibly seeking to protect. But again, as Cockburn himself notes, this is unlikely to happen:

‘It is the next stage in Libya – after the fall of Gaddafi – which has the potential to produce a disaster similar to Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases successful war left the US as the predominant power in the country…

‘The local leaders who rise to the top in these circumstances are usually those who speak the best English and get on with the US and its allies.’

It is important to remember that the anguished cry, ‘Something must be done!’ is in response to a manufactured image of the globe supplied by a corporate media system. The image highlights particular news hotspots – Japan after the appalling tsunami, Libyan opposition forces under attack. Crucially, it does not feature the crimes of Western allies in a comparable way. And it does not feature Western military, economic and diplomatic support, over decades, for despots torturing and killing their own people. These issues do not appear as news hotspots afforded round-the-clock coverage with endless, emotive reports eliciting public outrage and a sense that ‘Something must be done!’

If a more honest picture replaced this deceptive corporate product, we would see that positive outcomes could best be achieved, not by waging war, but by simply withdrawing 'our' military support for the likes of Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi.

The Huffington Post

Top U.S. Intelligence Official Tells Congress Gaddafi 'Will Prevail' In Libya

James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, March 10, 2011, before the Senate Armed Services committee hearing on current and future worldwide threats to the national security of the United States. (AP Photo/Ann Heisenfelt)

Tags: Barack Obama, Defense-Intelligence-Agency, Dennis Blair, Dni, Fisa, James Clapper, Jay Carney, Libya, Libya Protests, Libya Rebels, Lindsey Graham, Mike McConnell, Muammar Gaddafi, Muslim Brotherhood, Politics, President Obama, Ronald l. Burgess, Tom Donilon, U.S. Intelligence Chief, US News, White House, World News

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government's top intelligence official fumbled the Obama administration's message Thursday about embattled Muammar Gaddafi's fate, telling Congress that the Libyan leader will prevail in his fight with rebel forces there. It was the latest in a series of public gaffes for James Clapper, the director of national intelligence.

Hours later, the White House distanced President Barack Obama from Clapper's remarks. Obama does not think Gaddafi will prevail, a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama's position on Clapper's comments. The official reiterated Obama's stand that Gaddafi has lost legitimacy and should leave power.

Speaking to senators, Clapper said the Libyan government's military might was stronger than had been described. Clapper said there was no indication that Gaddafi will step down and offer a speedy resolution to the crisis.

"I just think from a standpoint of attrition, that over time, I mean – this is kind of a stalemate back and forth, but I think over the longer term that the (Gaddafi) regime will prevail," Clapper said.

One senator, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, quickly urged Clapper to resign.

"Unfortunately, this isn't the first questionable comment from the DNI director," Graham said. "However it should be the final straw."

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Clapper has the full confidence of the president. Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, later said the president was happy with Clapper's performance. Donilon, however, walked back Clapper's comments slightly.

"Things in the Middle East right now, and things in Libya in particular right now, need to be looked at not through a static but through a dynamic ... lens," Donilon told reporters. "And if you look at it that way, beyond a narrow view on just kind of numbers of weapons and things that, you get a very different picture."

Clapper wasn't divulging classified information when he was describing the situation in Libya. The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess Jr., agreed with Clapper's assessment.

Graham acknowledged that some of Clapper's analysis could be accurate, but he said those remarks should be spoken behind closed doors.

John Pike, and analyst with Globalsecurity.org, said Clapper was doing what intelligence officials should do: give the best intelligence available. Sometimes that's politically inconvenient, Pike said.

"I don't need a director of national intelligence to tell me what I want to hear," Pike said. "I know what I want to hear."

Earlier this year, Clapper said the Muslim Brotherhood was "largely secular," which his office later clarified by saying the group in Egypt tries to work through the political system.

In December, Clapper was in the dark during an interview on national television when he was asked about a terror plot that had been disrupted in England and had received wide media attention. The White House defended him then too, saying Clapper had been preoccupied with tensions between North and South Korea and with helping ensure the passage of a nuclear weapons treaty with Russia.

Clapper is not the first director of national intelligence to find himself in hot water.

Clapper's predecessor, Dennis Blair, told Congress that the government's elite interrogation team, its High-Value Interrogation Group, had not been officially deployed to question the 2009 Christmas Day bomber. Blair also told Congress that the suspected bomber continued to provide helpful information to investigators at a time when authorities had hoped to keep his cooperation a secret. Blair was also the first Obama administration official to describe the deadly shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, as an act of homegrown terrorism. The Obama administration was slow to publicly link the murders to radical Islamic extremism.

The Bush administration's director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, made his share of flubs too.

McConnell once divulged the cancellation of a highly classified, multibillion-dollar satellite program. He wrote an opinion piece that left the impression that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had not been updated since 1978, when the law has been updated dozens of times since its passage. And he spilled classified details about how the surveillance act works to a newspaper editorial board.

___

Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo, Ben Feller and Adam Goldman contributed to this report.