Michael Maiello's picture

    Disturbed About Libya

    By Michael Maiello on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 11:58am | Politics

    As already noted here at Dag, a NATO air strike killed Gadhafi's son and narrowly missed the dictator and his wife.  The way I see it, this isn't the war we were sold.  Weren't we told quite explicitly that Ghadhafi wasn't being personally targeted?

    There's always been some tension between US policy (Gadhafi must go) and the UN mandate (protect civilians).  But it seems to me that the contradictions are now so great that the U.S. government can't be honest with us about what's going on.  I gather that policymakers hoped that the no fly zone would tip the balance of power in favor of the rebels and that Gadhafi would be dead or in exile by now.  Under that scenario, contradictions don't much matter.  Nobody is going to lose time crying over Ghadafi.

    But it's now clear that the UN mandate doesn't serve NATO's larger interests.  They're not trying to negotiate a truth or a cease fire or anything of the sort, they're trying to kill the guy.  Now, you might think, as I do, "couldn't have happened to a nicer dude."  But what worries me is that this is explicitly not what the President told us about this war.

    If Obama had come out and said, "He's a bastard, he has to go and we're going to see to it that he's gone," that'd be one thing.  But to say that we're just there to protect civilians and to even deny that we're taking sides in a civil war, and then to do things like bombing Ghadafi's family homes is simply dishonest.

    So far I feel darned justified in not supporting the Libya intervention from the start and in holding our government's responsibility to be honest with its own citizens in higher regard than I do the "responsibility to protect."  It's time for Obama to come clean about what the mission is.

    War has a way of turning well intentioned governments dishonest.  It's time for Obama to face that the war he's fighting has changed substantially from the war he told us about in March.  The liberal interventionists who pushed for our engagement like to call themselves idealists.  But I think honest and transparent government is an ideal too.  Theirs should be the loudest voices calling for a new national conversation about how the Libyan adventure has evolved and what role, if any, the U.S. should play going forward.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    This piece by Tarak Barkawi I posted in the News saddened and depressed me, Destor.  It's about the efficacy of using war as a means to pursue politics (Clausewitz), and the tendency nations have to want to calibrate the amount of force necessary to achieve the goal politics.

    This in particular was a truth, imo:

    "What Clausewitz actually teaches us is that war is far more likely to make us its servants than we are to make war our instrument. War subjects us to its dynamics, it draws in ever greater resources, and it changes everything, especially but not only for those caught in the direct grip of its violence.

    What then of those who would speak truth about war?"

    But this bit slammed me, and it was before Gadaffi's 6th son (and perhaps 3 grandchildren were killed):

    "War is a train that once boarded is very difficult to get off at the station you prefer, and which is headed to a new and unknown destination."

    And dear God; we're heading now to an unknown destination. 

    Thanks for the diary, Destor.  Oh - and can a person email you at your paper's site?  I looked once, but only found a general email address.

     


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:16pm

    You can write me anytime at destor23 [at] gmail.

    I'm technically a contractor for The Daily, so I don't have an email address with them.  They're of the belief that if they give me one they'll have to give me healthcare benefits as well.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:21pm

    Thankee, dear.  Always a pleasure doing business with you.   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:32pm

    Nice work destor, and agreed.


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 12:55pm

    I can't pass up a chance to say so too, and if I had said so before to you, I would say I told you so, but I did say so to some so and so, and so I will say here so all will know, that what you say is so, just so they know, and so it goes, as people lie, others die in droves.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 1:08pm

    This is more macabre Kaddafi klan theatre. These (alleged) “grandchildren” are likely “human shield” orphans.

    It is no secret that the coward Kaddafi intentionally (as a rule) surrounds himself with women (bodyguards) and children (orphans).

    After Operation El Dorado Canyon (April 1986), Kaddafi “adopted” (post-humously) the child human shield, Hannah.

    Every year, Kaddafi monstrously exhumes the memory of that child’s corpse to shake at the West– and mainstream media dutifully parrot his terrorist propaganda lies as fact.

    Don’t drink Kaddafi’s Kool-Aid. Kaddafi is no victim. The deaths of his human shield victims remain on his blood-soaked hands.


    by Kaddafi_Delenda_Est (not verified) on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 1:21pm

    None of this is on point. Nobody is defending Ghadafi here. The point is that Obama needs to be honest about what we're doing there and the American people need to be able to give informed consent.

    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 1:40pm

    I dunno, man. Maybe you should wait to find out if this is accurate. The press has raised questions about the site they were shown that was supposedly the aftermath - and Qaddafi *does* have a documented history of fabricating this exact narrative to garner sympathy. AJE is correct to raise the question of accuracy. Statements made by the regime throughout the conflict have been a mass of lies and inaccurate statements. It is irresponsible to give their words the credibility of journalistic truth without independent confirmation. Until an identifiable body has been presented, IMO this whole line of discussion is premature. The staging has been fishy as hell so far - including presenting supposed victims while hiding all potentially identifying features.

    NATO says it was targeting a Command and Control center that was definitively linked to assaults on civilian targets. Why would we give the word of Qaddafi more weight than the word of NATO? Specious complaints regarding other conflicts aside - uncritically accepting the word of the regime's propaganda operation doesn't seem a realistic approach to holding an informed view of the situation.

    But your complaint brings up an interesting question. If Qaddafi decides to direct operations in a command and control center, do you believe that renders the site off-limits to military strikes? I don't think it's our job to protect the guy. If he goes where bombs are falling, I fully expect him to get hit with a bomb. I sure don't expect NATO to ignore a potential threat because Qaddafi happens to be directing operations. If the guy wants to play military commander at a facility overseeing rockets indiscriminately fired into Zintan - he has absolutely made himself a legal military target under the UNSC resolution.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 2:31pm

    Regardless of Destor's or others current emotional state, disturbed or feeling justified, the fact is this is a European war. Yes we have a couple of drones on duty and maybe some radar aircraft offshore. If Gadaffi forces had purged Benghazi and left hundreds or thousands dead, and tens of thousands fleeing into Egypt the slaughter would have been blamed on a dithering Obama and no one else.

    Obama signed on with the understanding that this was not going to be an American operation, and it isn't. I have confidence that the French, Italians and British will eventually work out a solution for their war in Libya.

    BBC Death of Saif Al-Arab Gaddafi may backfire for Nato

    Nato states made a number of operational innovations. Three member states - Britain, France, and Italy - injected military advisers into rebel-held eastern Libya. Another, the US, began continuous patrols of armed drones...........It may eventually leave Britain and France bearing the military burden alone, with modest but limited assistance from a cagey US administration eager to keep at arm's length from this European war.


    by NCD on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 2:33pm

    I'd like a receipt because it seems to me that this war is far more American than we're being told.

    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 3:23pm

    Based on what? I'm seeing what A-Man describes.

    Do you have any documentation to back this feeling up?


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 3:31pm

    Can't say it's documentation per se, but I dug this out.  Last week it had been estimated that 41% of the air missions were US. 

    "Washington (CNN) -- U.S. fighter jets have been flying bombing and strike missions against Libyan air defenses even after control of the operation was handed over to NATO, Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan said Wednesday.

    Public comments by U.S. officials since the handover had previously indicated that the U.S. mission had largely been limited to support roles, such as refueling and electronic jamming.

    The U.S. aircraft assigned to NATO for these roles include six F-16 fighter jets and five EA-18 jets, which are equipped to jam electronic signals but also are capable of firing missiles. They have flown 97 sorties since April 4, and on three occasions U.S. aircraft fired ordnance, according to data provided by the Pentagon.

    The revelation comes as divisions have arisen within NATO over the mission. British Foreign Secretary William Hague and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe both called Tuesday for NATO to get more aggressive in Libya, and Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, deputy chairman of the Libyan National Transitional Council, urged the international community to implement a U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for "all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack."

    At the time of the mission handover to NATO control, U.S. officials, including President Barack Obama, said the American input would be more support than kinetic."

    And yes, Obama okayed drones April 4 for surveillance and missile strikes.  Good grief; if you don't think there's been mission creep on the part of the US...cripes..

     


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:20pm

    You call this proof?!

    Where are these missions' LONG-FORM bomb-certificates... EEEEEEH?!


    by Obey on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:27pm

    Fired ordnance three times. Not exactly WWIII.


    by Rootman on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:30pm

    I make it a habit to always put my trust in the Pentagon.  Like that they really report their actual budget, and don't hide billions in other budget lines and dpartments. 


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:49pm

    You just need someone to trust for fair and balnced reporting if you expect to judhe our governments actions.

    http://nprcheck.blogspot.com/


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:34pm

    Better watch it, dude.  NPR watch lists Greenwald and Correntewire as two of its favorite sites.  You know what that means....folks of that persuasion.  And I blog occasionally at Corrente; it's home for many people who were banned from that nasty FDL...so....shhhhhhhhhhhhh.   ;o)


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:58pm

    I'm with stardust: Cripes!

    I get it that Obama needs to let the Europeans (and Canadians, and Gulf states, etc.) carry out the bulk of actual air strikes. Especially if the target is now Qaddafi and his family.

    But jeez! Clever people like A-man buying into the self-serving BS that "we're just bit players here, folks?" Really?

    U.S. involvement of "maybe 1 per cent?" C'mon, people! Who commands NATO? Who orchestrated the UN resolution?


    by acanuck on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:37pm

    Found this, Canuck.  It makes me sick.  I remember being yelled down when I questioned the 'Gadaffi forces carrying Viagra and raping women as not verified except in the way the early non-verifiable calls for American help were being interpreted as authentic.  Who knows, even now?  But it turns out that Susan Rice made the claims...and it turns out to have been bullshit

    One site called it 'Susan Rice's stolen incubators.'  Yep; we should believe all we hear from the Ambasadress, too.


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 6:13pm

    Does nobody at State or the White House realize how much the solid stream of bogus statements and evidence at the UN has undermined U.S. credibility across the board? Colin Powell's ludicrous WMD presentation may have swayed some domestic opinion in favor of invading Iraq, but that short-term gain came at enormous long-term cost. As long as U.S. foreign policy is so amateurish, I suppose I should just welcome the loss of credibility.


    by acanuck on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 6:59pm

    Short answer has to be "No".  There isn't any accountability, sorta like with no prosectutions for massive banking fraud = no learned lessons. 

    I lost a friend over Colin Powell's crap testimony and faked satellite images; the info had already been largely discredited before he spoke.  Then the "Ooopsie!  Those installations and flying chemical weapons drones have gone!  Moved!"  And life goes on. 

    What your questions reminded me about once again is: How many Good Dems would be flipping their topknots if all this were being done under Bush.  And many of the worse-than-dubious challenges Obama makes to Constitutional Law.  (Don't make me list them, canuckidoodle-o.)


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 7:42pm

    The CIA seems to have alimited playbook, stardust, in which bogus claims and fabricated evidence count for as much as the real things. And they get away with it because the White House and State don't ever demand a higher standard. In this case, it sounds like Rice was was just free-lancing , making up whatever she thought might help her argument.


    by acanuck on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 9:36pm

    The rape charges were made several weeks ago from the UN's office on sexual violence in conflicts, by the Swedish activist Margot Wallstrom, who runs the unit. This was not something made up by Rice.

    http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38154&Cr=Libya&Cr1=


    by Rootman on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:05pm

    "Despite robust action by the international community to protect civilians in Libya, we still hear reports of sexual violence,” said Ms. Wallström, who strongly condemned the use of sexual violence as a means to political and military ends.

    That's all she said. Nothing about government-issued Viagra or orders to rape as a terror tactic. That was Rice's embellishment.


    by acanuck on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:19pm

    Wallstrom has been ringing the alarms on this for weeks, based on accounts from doctors and refugees. You didn't see the TV news of the Tripolian woman who approached the press in their hotel with rape accounts? The Viagra thing was in the NYTimes and Brit press last week. Just saying that Rice didn't pull it out of her hat.


    by Rootman on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:28pm

    I remember; I guess it's hard to say what charges Wallstrom made; of course it's a horrific part of war and civil war too often.  But the viagra charge meant Gadaffi was actively promoting it, which is too disgusting if true.  This piece mentions Wallstrom:

    "The use of rape as a weapon during wartime has received increasing attention at the United Nations. Last year, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed a special envoy on sexual violence during armed conflict, Margot Wallstrom.

    Earlier this month, Wallstrom chided the Security Council for failing to mention sexual violence in two recent resolutions on Libya, despite having made the subject a priority" but at the end of the story about Rice's comments 'behind UNSC closed doors' and diplomats said:

    "Rice’s statement, diplomats said, was aimed principally at countries like India, Russia and China, which have grown increasingly skeptical of the effectiveness of the NATO-led air strikes, which they fear have turned the conflict into a protracted civil war that will cause many civilian deaths.

    Most council members, diplomats said, had expected Qaddafi’s government to collapse quickly. They said the frustration felt by India, Russia and China would likely grow if the war dragged on."

    I don't know why the diplomats would lie, though they are unnamed.  And yes; I sure remember the video of the woman at the hotel begging to be heard.

    forgot the link:  http://www.arabstates.net/middle-east/qaddafi-troops-in-rape-warfare-un-told-arab-news/


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:32pm

    And the mainstream stenographers by and large are only too happy to promote the false as true.  And it's much easier, it seems, when there is fear and loathing to sell.  All this makes me think again of the Changing Chimeras of reasons to increase troops numbers in Afghanistan, stay a decade with nothing to win, either militarily or, it seems clearer, politically.  And yet we stay.  And now Petraeus will rule a conjoined military/intelligence machine that will oversee all of that intel, and by all accounts the true non-political analysts are freaking out about it.

    "The WH and State don't ever demand a higher standard.'  Hard to know where ass-covering and 'convenient intel' intersect any more, canuck. 


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:04pm

    Yeah. I know all that. Buuuuut. That pretty much matches what I perceive myself to have been told about what our involvement would be. I'm not denying we're involved. We're in NATO. The part that I'm not agreeing with is that the operational configuration is materially different than what we were told would happen.

    You didn't agree with it three weeks ago.  I don't expect you to agree with it now. But you continuing to disagree didn't turn the exact plan you totally disagree with into a lie. You simply still totally disagree. This will be true until the situation resolves, I imagine.

    If there was some "there" there, I'd totally be with you. Like, say, if there were a push to bring an authorization resolution before congress or something. But there simply isn't anything positive, proactive - or that even makes much sense from my perspective - to get behind. So, we just disagree on this.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 11:29pm

    I will try to learn to live with that.  I am often disagreeable.  (it sounds better in French.)  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 8:38am

    http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63612

    Very distressing.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 7:13pm

    You are more easily distressed than I on this one. We're in NATO. We are supporting this action. Not being the one pushing the cart doesn't mean we would just cut an run leaving our allies flapping in the wind. Full stop.

    According to that, we made a total of eight ordinance drops between April 1 and April 19. That means less than 1/100th of the missions conducted were of a lethal nature. I haven't been keeping a specific count, but by my estimates the number of NATO ordinance drops since this thing started is somewhere in the vicinity of a SHITLOAD. Doesn't this article show that the vast majority of lethal operations are specifically NOT being carried out the American military?

    If that's what's bugging you, kind of looks like you are disturbed over 792 refueling missions.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 7:56pm

    And half the time they drop bombs on whales and such and it still goes into the count.


    by Rootman on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 7:58pm

    This is all beginning to sound a bit absurd. To those of you who think this is a "European" war, maybe you should go check out membership in NATO. Did the US withdraw, and I just missed it? Also, from the UN vote to the initial actions to background support now, can we please not pretend the US isn't at least involved? 

    Shorter: Gaddafi may be a monster and a liar, and maybe his family was unharmed in that last hit, but, ummm... the US is in NATO. Really. Check it out. Bye. 


    by quinn esq on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 3:40pm

    The U.S. Is partially involved. Some percentage. Maybe 1%. I like those scrappy rebels. If there was a Lincoln Brigade or something, I'd get a circumcision and sign up to drive an ambulance over there.

    by Rootman on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 4:16pm

    Liking the "scrappy rebels" or not has nothing to do with whether we're being told the truth about the Libyan mission. The U.S. commander of NATO apparently now thinks the UN resolution to "protect civilians" authorizes the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi. It does not.


    by acanuck on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 5:46pm

    The commander of NATO forces in Libya is CANADIAN. His name is Lieutenant General Joseph Jacques Charles "Charlie" Bouchard. He took command on March 25th. Well over a month ago.

    This is HIS direct statement:

    Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, commander of NATO's military operations, said in a statement he was "aware of unconfirmed media reports that some of Gadhafi's family members may have been killed.

    "We regret all loss of life, especially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of this ongoing conflict," Bouchard said. "NATO is fulfilling its U.N. mandate to stop and prevent attacks against civilians with precision and care -- unlike Gadhafi's forces, which are causing so much suffering."

    The NATO commander stated that all targets "are military in nature and have been clearly linked to the Gadhafi regime's systemic attacks on the Libyan population ... We do not target individuals.

    The only way the general assertion you are making here could be true is if the CANADIAN commander's statements are specific and direct lies.

    So, are you saying Canada is lying to the world?


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 7:27pm

    Bouchard is a three-star general operating in a chain of command. He is speaking as NATO's operational commander in Libya, not for Canada. His own overall commander is American.

    As for whether his statements are "specific and direct lies," I do not see anything in them that's intended to be a factual statement. "We do not target individuals," carry out our mandate "with precision and care," and "regret all loss of life" are reiterations of official policy -- they exist on a totally different plane, not subject to standards that you or I might call "truth" or "lie."

    That I consider them bullshit goes without saying. At least one member of Gaddafi's family is dead -- apparently one ininvolved in any military decisions. NATO bombed his home, despite the known presence of innocent civilians, including children. Muammar Gaddafi says he was in the house at the time and this was an attempt to assassinate him. Bouchard says nothing about this, so I take his silence as confirmation of Gaddafi's claim.

    Who took the decision that Gaddafi was a legitimate target, and when? Because what's being done now lacks any international sanction.


    by acanuck on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:20pm

    but, ummm... the US is in NATO. Really. Check it out. Bye.

    Indeed. But then, as an equally specious observation, so is Latvia. Fun fact: neither of these nations is in command of NATO forces in Libya - Canada is. Check it out. Bye.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 7:31pm

    Dear Potatohead. From a guy who can't tell abortion from circumcision, I'm taking no lessons.

    Now. When someone comes on and says something as stupid as "It's a European war," you pretty much need to hit them over the head with a hammer.

    But as long as you're onside, at least the bum fluff brigade in here has some starch to hold it together, eh? 


    by quinn esq on Mon, 05/02/2011 - 12:21am

    1. I'm glad Obama acted when he did just in time to save Benghazi.. Was then. Am now. That prevented many deaths.

    2. Also prevented many rapes whether or not Susan Rice also believes that. Because that's what happens. If the Rebels occupy Tripoli there will be many rapes We should prevent that.

    3. Certainly we are lying about what's happening there. Everyone does during a war. 

    4 Shouldn't Obama tell the American people the truth? No.He should tell the public whatever's in our interests , provided at the same time he's telling the truth to Congress.

    5.Is he being dishonst about our mission being to protect civilians ? Does the sun rise in the east?

    6. Are US commanders in the top echelon at Nato? Yes. Doesn't  that mean we're in charge? . There are also non american commanders .

    Obama saved Benghazi. As most everyone here agrees , and approves.

    He said we wouldn't put boots on the ground and we haven't. Doesn't the rescue team disprove that? No. Please explain. No,

    He said we'd get out in a week and we haven't. Had. Hadn't. Had. So's your old man. .

    Those were all general statements of intention and the criterion for judging them is whether they've generally been complied with.  They have. Hadn't

    Get over it. The guy did the right thing this time, and it worked- this time. Other times he's failed or will fail as he's doing Afganistan. If you intend to treat his succeses as if they were failures perhaps you should prominently post a warning to that effect. 

     


    by Flavius on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 7:11pm

    Baby eating. You left out baby eating. Certainly the regime has eaten many protest babies, and will do so again in a minute. Obama saved babies who would have been eaten - something to applaud, don't you think?


    by Desideforyourself (not verified) on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:46pm

    Flavius,

    I personally would have no problem if the president sent someone in for the specific purpose of eliminating Qaddafi, but that's probably not the correct approach to foreign policy either.  My biggest concern is that whatever our level of participation is or has become over the last month or so, there just seems to be a disconnect between the stated objective of protecting civilians and what appears to this military novice to look like a campaign for regime change.  I don't have the need to know everything we're doing, but I think it's important for the president to focus, to the extent possible, on communicating a coherent policy.  And I don't think that's happening. 


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 8:49pm

    See Rome

    By CHRIS FLOYD

    While you were dreaming
    While you wrapped your mind in silks

    Bronze Steel Stone
    Did their work

    While you breathed the fumes
    Of the oracle's fissure
    Deranged the senses
    Settled in soft beds

    Rome
    Sent agents into the streets
    Hard men pinched men
    Bronze Steel Stone
    To eliminate execute
    Discredit and destroy

    See Rome

    While you stood in the forum
    Declaimed high words
    Filled temples with fragrant smoke
    Scrawled millions of learned disquisitions

    Rome marched
    Somewhere, in your name
    Fired the village
    In your name
    Put steel to the belly

    While you were wrapped in silks
    While you grubbed
    While you drank degraded waters
    Drank dark, brilliant wine
    Wore silks, while you dreamed

    Rome was
    Rome hammered the real

    Your silks
    Your songs
    Are dreams

    See Rome





    by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 9:34pm

    Thank you, Lulu.  That's a keeper.


    by we are stardust on Sun, 05/01/2011 - 10:26pm

    Seriously? What other end game was there possibly for this?  Stalemated civil war? Disasterous partion?  Gadaffi compromise? 

    Take out the figurehead, endorse whoever looks strong enough to stabilize, keep our troops off the ground, and hope for the best.

     


    by Saladin on Tue, 05/03/2011 - 11:10am

    Latest Comments