Libya: ‘Humanitarian’ war escalating

Issue 
A wounded anti-Gaddafi receives treatment.

The US-led military operation in Libya has morphed from the initial imposition of a “no-fly zone” — ostensibly to prevent Muammar Gaddafi’s regime from carrying out a massacre — into an ongoing bombing campaign with no end in sight.

And now there’s increasing talk of the use of ground forces until Gaddafi is overthrown and a new government, no doubt Western-approved, takes his place.

Libya discussion
Left wrong to oppose military intervention
Two wars in Libya
Springtime for NATO in Libya
Libya: A different view of the rebels
Editorial: Support uprising, not Western bombs
Arab revolt
Repression and hypocrisy in Arab world
Bahraih: tensions rise despite repression
Video: Electronic Intifada journalist Matthew Cassell on 'activist journalism' and the Arab Spring
Antony Loewenstein on Israel and the Arab revolutions part 1
Antony Loewenstein on Israel and the Arab revolutions part 2

This transformation of the aims of the intervention — often called “mission creep” — helps to further expose the deception that “humanitarian” concerns are motivating the US or its European allies.

No week goes by without news of another escalation. LATimes.com reported on April 22 that Washington is deploying Predator drone aircraft to wreak the same kind of destruction they have brought to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The use of Special Forces and covert operatives has been old news for some time. The Independent reported on April 21 that France, Britain and Italy announced that they were each sending military “advisers” to aid the anti-Gaddafi rebels.

Anyone familiar with the history of Vietnam and other US military adventures knows what comes next.

When US President Barack Obama explained US involvement in a speech a week after the first bombs fell on Libya, he insisted that “broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake”.

But by mid-April, Obama had co-signed an op-ed article in the April 15 British Telegraphwith British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy that argued: “[S]o long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.

“Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders.

“For that transition to succeed, Colonel Gaddafi must go, and go for good.”

The “new generation of leaders” that the US and friends have in mind are people they can “do business with” — members of Libya’s elite who have come out against Gaddafi, former officials from the regime, military officers who switched sides, and the like.

The uprising against Gaddafi that began in February was a mass rebellion inspired by the revolutions against dictators in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt.

But the West’s intervention is aimed at promoting figures and political forces that represent the opposite — ones who will serve the interests of the US and other powerful nations.

Anyone who cares about justice and freedom will have identified with the mass struggle that shook Gaddafi starting in February. But if the US and its allies are responsible for his downfall, the regime that replaces him will be compromised from the start, and the cause of democracy — at the heart of the uprising against Gaddafi — will be set back.

These are the consequences of a military intervention that was sold as a “humanitarian” mission to save civilian lives.

Its real aim is becoming clear — the reassertion of Western power in a region that has seen a wave of upheavals and two successful revolutions since the start of this year.

If anyone believed the initial claim that the West’s intervention in Libya would be limited, events have surely proven the opposite by now.

By the end of April, rebel fighters and forces loyal to Gaddafi were locked in a protracted war. Battles for disputed cities such as Misurata swung back and forth, but neither side had managed a sustained breakthrough.

An April 21 New York Times article connected the dots between the stalemated military situation and the latest escalations: “The decision to send military advisers seemed to push [France, Britain and Italy] closer toward the limits of the United Nations Security Council resolution in mid-March authorizing NATO air strikes but specifically ‘excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.’

“But the promised deployments also seemed a tacit admission that almost five weeks of air strikes have not been enough to disable Colonel Qaddafi’s troops and prevent his loyalists from threatening rebel forces and civilians.”

Gaddafi’s forces aren’t the only ones “threatening civilians”. NATO bombings have killed or wounded dozens of civilians and rebels — not to mention the toll among conscript soldiers fighting for the regime.

On April 7, for example, 13 rebel fighters were killed and dozens wounded in a botched NATO air strike on the town of Brega.

The British Daily Mail said on April 8: “An ambulance was one of the vehicles hit, and three volunteer medical students were among the dead. Doctors said many rebels suffered terrible burns in the attack.

“One rebel fighter shouted ‘down, down with NATO’ as dozens of vehicles retreated eastwards at speed from the front lines back towards the city of Ajdabiya.”

On April 20, at least seven civilians were killed, including women and children, and 18 wounded in a NATO air raid that targeted Khellat Al-Ferjan, a suburb of the capital of Tripoli.

Such casualties are the result of an escalating bombing campaign. This is needed, Western governments and supporters of the intervention say, because of the continued brutality of the Libyan regime, which, for example, reportedly used cluster bombs in the battle for Misurata.

The cluster bomb attacks show the true character of Gaddafi’s vile regime. But coming from Western governments that themselves use cluster bombs in other conflicts, the denunciation of their use is an excuse for further military action that they were preparing for anyway.





The Western intervention is also having an effect on the character of the Libyan opposition to Gaddafi.

As the weeks have progressed, high-level defectors from Gaddafi's regime, such as Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, a former justice minister, have stepped forward to position themselves as “leaders” of the opposition — even brokering various agreements with Western nations.

When military action began, leading figures among the rebels insisted that while they welcomed a no-fly zone and Western air strikes on military targets, they didn’t want the US or European countries to deploy ground troops.

But that position is shifting. Intelligence consulting business Stratfor reported on April 21 that Nouri Abdallah Abdel Ati, a member of the leadership committee in rebel-held Misurata, reversed his position and called on United Nations or NATO ground forces to enter the city to defend it from the Gaddafi regime's siege.

Ati’s rationale mirrored the justifications put forward for the no-fly zone — just as advocates for Western intervention insisted that the air operation was necessary to stop a slaughter in Benghazi, Ati insisted that Western ground troops were now the only way to stop a massacre in Misurata.

This is not to say that everyone in the anti-Gaddafi opposition has become a puppet of the West, as some on the left have claimed. But it is certainly true that Western countries are using every opportunity to push to the fore pro-US/European figures — while pushing aside anyone who has different ideas.

The war in Libya can’t be understood outside the context of other uprisings in the region. The US-led intervention is a way of pulling the reigns on a wave of popular revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.

At the same time that the “no-fly zone” was imposed in Libya, other regimes in the region facing popular pro-democracy movements dramatically increased repression — most of all in Bahrain.

Independent journalist Patrick Cockburn said on April 22: “[T]he Bahraini monarchy, backed by troops from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, has brutally but effectively crushed the protesters in the island kingdom. Pro-democracy leaders are in jail or have fled abroad.

“The majority Shia population is being terrorized by arbitrary arrests, torture, killings, disappearances, sackings, and the destruction of its mosques and religious places.”

This crackdown had tacit approval from the US — even as Washington claimed to be using its military machine in Libya to “stop a massacre”.

What’s taking place in Libya and what’s taking place in Bahrain can’t be separated — they represent Plan A and Plan B for the US and its European allies.

The US government has always been willing to tolerate repression and violence if its interests are served, as they are in Bahrain today.

In fact, the US was happy to do business with Gaddafi himself until a few months ago — the Libyan leader reviled today by Obama and Hillary Clinton was a loyal ally in the “war on terror” not long ago.

The Western intervention was never about supporting the mass opposition to Gaddafi, but harnessing the forces that led to ouster of dictators in Egypt and Tunisia, and that threatened them elsewhere.

The contrast between the popular, mass character of the Arab revolution and the military operation the West is engaged in is stark.

With Gaddafi still entrenched in power and rebel forces unable to topple his regime, the stage is set for Washington and other Western powers to broker some sort of settlement.

It may include Gaddafi, or it may not. But it will certainly not help in rebuilding a genuine pro-democracy movement in Libya.

US intervention in Libya has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. Rather, it is about re-establishing the US’s right to intervene militarily whenever Washington feels its interest are threatened — and trying to stem the tide of the Arab revolution by seeking to set up a conservative, pro-US regime in place in Libya.

[Abridged from www.socialistworker.org .]

Comments

Spot on!!! If it were a "humanitarian" mission there would be fervent negotiations, diplomacy and peace keeping efforts towards both sides of what is in effect an ever more bloody civil war. The West does not really want Ghadaffi to go they want to eliminate him because they give no solution as to where he can go leaving the regime no other option but to fight on till the death, with the death of more civilians, conscripts and fighters from both sides, as well as the vicious destruction of Libya's infrastructure East and West that may well set the country back for years. But then the West can obtain the jucy contracts to rebuild the infrastructure and re-arm the government that comes out of all of this, whether it be fully democratic will only then be seen but I very much doubt it.

If you like our work, become a supporter

Green Left is a vital social-change project and aims to make all content available online, without paywalls. With no corporate sponsors or advertising, we rely on support and donations from readers like you.

For just $5 per month get the Green Left digital edition in your inbox each week. For $10 per month get the above and the print edition delivered to your door. You can also add a donation to your support by choosing the solidarity option of $20 per month.

Freecall now on 1800 634 206 or follow the support link below to make a secure supporter payment or donation online.