Revolution or Civil War?

By Paul Wolfowitz, Friday, April 1, 8:28 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-counter-gaddafis-regime/2011/04/01/AFbK2wJC_story.html

We do not speak about the French Civil War of 1789 or the American Civil War of 1776. When armed thugs of the Mubarak regime attacked peaceful demonstrators recently in Tahrir Square, no one called it the Egyptian Civil War. It would be equally wrong to call the conflict in Libya a “civil war.”

It is, in fact, a popular uprising or revolution that began peacefully like the recent uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Moammar Gaddafi has turned it into a war against his own people.

Gaddafi knows this — and he knows that how that war is characterized is important. Scholars generally define civil war as a conflict between organized groups within a country that aim to take power at the center or in a region. Legal definitions are similar. So when Gaddafi and his son Saif al-Islam refer to a “civil war,” they understand that this description equates the two sides in the conflict and strengthens the argument against intervention on behalf of the opposition.

How can the international community be sure that this is not a war between two groups that both enjoy broad support, and that a rebel victory might simply reverse the roles of oppressor and oppressed? Simply put, we can’t. We don’t know the loyalties of people in regime-controlled cities, including Tripoli. Journalists have no unrestricted access to the population. Consider the treatment of Iman al-Obeidi, the Libyan woman who recently described how she was detained by Gaddafi’s forces and gang-raped. When she tried to speak with journalists in a Tripoli hotel, she was physically dragged away — just one demonstration of how thoroughly the regime restricts journalists’ access to Libyans. The obviously staged encounters that are permitted — with ever-present government minders coaching people on what to say — are another indication of the difficulty of knowing what Libyans in regime-controlled areas think.

Even if access were not so restricted, it would be hard to know Libyans’ true opinions because they have been living under a regime-imposed blanket of fear for four decades. That fear has intensified with the uprisings as informers go through neighborhoods to identify participants in demonstrations for pickup by the feared “Revolutionary Committees.” Some of those taken away never return; others return to tell horrific stories of the tortures that await those who are detained. Most terrifying of all is the regime’s practice of cracking down on family members of activists. As one Libyan in Tripoli, with his face hidden, recently told al-Jazeera, “Those who spoke up had their families harassed. So they fear for their families more than for themselves.”

Despite the difficulties of assessing public sentiment in Libya, the international community must keep a few fundamental points in mind: A regime that enjoyed genuine loyalty from its people would not have to terrorize them. Nor would it depend so heavily on foreign mercenaries and hired militias to do its fighting. Yet while popular opinion is almost certainly against the regime, the balance of military power favors it.

Much could be done now to shift that balance against the regime — and hasten the end of Gaddafi’s massacres — without escalating foreign military involvement and perhaps even without supplying weapons to the opposition. Officially recognizing the Interim Transitional National Council would signal clearly that the United States and others have taken sides and that the Gaddafi regime is doomed. That simple, powerful message would encourage defections from the regime that could hasten the end of the conflict. And the United States could assist the council in the crucial communications battle by getting satellite providers to stop carrying Libyan State Television (or by jamming it directly) and helping the opposition to establish its ownbroadcasting capability. We could assist Libyans throughout the country in communicating to the outside world in ways that could not be monitored by the regime, such as providing communications gear to opposition fighters that would free them from dependence on the regime-controlled cellphone network.

By embracing the Interim Transitional National Council we could help set in motion a process that would provide the only true expression of the loyalties of the Libyan people: free elections. The council’s recently published “Vision of a Democratic Libya” lays out an eight-point plan that guarantees basic political and human rights “regardless of colour, gender, ethnicity or social status”; that “condemns intolerance, extremism and violence”; and that provides for an elected government with separation of powers.

So far, it is only a piece of paper, but international recognition could help make it something more than that and pave the way for a post-Gaddafi Libya in which differences are decided not by wars of any kind but by democratic processes, including peaceful demonstrations.

Paul Wolfowitz, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, was deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005.



Libya, Gaddafi, rebels and intervention

Monday, April 4, 2011 - Stories of Faith by Clark Eberly

ARLINGTON, Va., April 4 -- Some objections have been raised over the U.S. involvement in the coalition air campaign, begun March 19, to aid the rebels opposing the forces of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Chief among them are that it is costly to our government, and that we don’t really know much about the rebels other than that they want to be free from Gaddafi. However, two important reasons for supporting the air campaign trump the objections.

To begin with, suppose that no country, not the U.S., Great Britain or France, or any other nation, had intervened to aide the rebels in Libya. Considering Gaddafi’s overwhelming power in aircraft, tanks and artillery, it is almost certain that his forces would have crushed the opposition fighters by now. They would all have been killed or imprisoned, or if they were lucky, some of them might have escaped across the border as refugees. Their cause would have been lost.

There couldn’t have been a better way than inaction, for the West to pour cold water on the newly emerging reform movements in North Africa and the Middle East. The clear message to dictators and autocrats would have been that if they respond to protesters and reformers with ruthless force, they will remain in power, and they won’t have to change anything at all.

And the clear message to reformers in nations such as Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or even Iran would be that the West is not going to exert much effort to help them, and that they are on their own.

Thanks to the coalition air strikes against Gaddafi’s forces and the no-fly zone they have established, the situation is different. The rebels in Libya are still alive, and they have a chance of success. Although the rebels are still largely unknown to the West, Gaddafi is definitely known, as a tyrant. It can be hoped at least, that from among the rebels can emerge true leaders who will bring their people into better times.

Moreover autocratic rulers in a number of other countries in the region may be more likely to treat reformers and protesters with some respect and to listen to their appeals for constructive change. Hopefully, the reform efforts in many of these nations can bear fruit through mostly peaceful means, rather than the kind of warfare that Libya is enduring.

The second good reason for the coalition intervention has simply to do with conscience. Do you remember the genocide in Rwanda in the 1994? In this situation the world governments knew that extremist Hutu militias threatened minority Tutsis, and they had ample time to prevent loss of life, but they failed to act decisively.

The result was that around 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered when the militias overwhelmed the tiny, token United Nations force that was supposed to provide security. In 1995 over 7000 Bosnian Moslems were rounded up and murdered by Bosnian Serbs in Srebrenica, a town that the U.N. had designated as a haven of safety. Again, the world had failed to take decisive action to prevent a massacre.

Essentially, the U.N. and the U.S. have acted in Libya in order to get it right this time, to prevent yet another massacre. If the coalition forces had not acted, would Gaddafi have killed his opponents on a massive scale? He was certainly attacking rebel-held cities with ruthless abandon, with air force and artillery attacks.

Would he have hurt any rebels or suspected rebels who survived long enough to be taken prisoner? Consider the recent testimony of three BBC journalists who were briefly imprisoned by Libyan government forces before being released. They reported that in the military compound where they were held, they saw many other prisoners who had been terribly tortured. One of the journalists, Goktay Koraltan, said, “I cannot describe how bad it was. Most of them were hooded and handcuffed really tightly, all with swollen hands and broken ribs. They were in agony. They were screaming.” There is no doubt that had the world not intervened, Gaddafi would have taken a horrible vengeance on those Libyans who had had the temerity to ask for reform of their government and of their lives.

It is true that the U.S. and coalition effort in Libya is an expensive gamble, a little like the gamble that the French took in supporting the American revolutionaries in the late 1700s. But sometimes gambles pay off. Moreover, we did the right thing in acting to prevent the annihilation of rebel fighters and civilians in Libya. Around twenty centuries ago, a very wise man told his friends, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Doesn’t this wisdom apply not only to how individuals should relate to other people, but to how nations should relate to those in need? When an individual, a nation or a coalition of nations does the right thing, the effort may be costly. Nevertheless, Heaven often tends to reward the effort, even in ways we might not expect.

The Unfinished March to Tripoli

THE UNFINISHED MARCH – 200 YEARS ON THE ROAD TO TRIPOLI

By William E. Kelly, Jr. (billkelly3@gmail.com )

The tyrant of Tripoli demanded millions of dollars in tribute to stop pirating ships, Americans were being held for ransom in the dungeons of the old castle fort, the US Navy bombarded the city while a ragtime army of rebels captured an important eastern port town, repelled a counterattack by loyalists forces and began to march on Tripoli against all odds.

Sound familiar? Well that was the situation in 1805 when Yusuf Karamanli, the tyrant of Tripoli had demanded millions of dollars in tribute and ransom for the 300 man crew of the captured frigate USS Philadelphia.

Rather than pay tribute or ransom, the American people responded with the battle cry of “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute,” and Congress approved the financing of the construction of a fleet for a Navy to go and fight the pirates.

One of the first American ships on the scene, the schooner USS Enterprise, under Lt. Andrew Sterett, encountered the pirate ship Tripoli. After a fierce fight, during which the pirate captain twice faked surrender, he finally capitulated, but because we were not officially at war, Sterett couldn’t take the ship as a prize. It was however, a good example of how the Americans intended to deal with the pirates.

Another American warship, the frigate USS Philadelphia, was less fortunate, and under command of Captain Bainbridge, ran aground while chasing a pirate corsair into Tripoli harbor. The 300 man crew were taken prisoners and held for ransom in the dungeons of the old castle fort.

Lt. Stephen Decatur, aboard the captured pirate ship rechristened USS Intrepid, entered Tripoli harbor at night, sunk the Philadelphia and escaped without any casualties in what was one of the first covert actions of the US Navy.

Decatur and Lt. Richard Somers then led successful attacks against the pirate fleet in Tripoli harbor.

Somers and twelve other men would die in the September 4, 1804 explosion of the Intrepid, which had been outfitted as a fire ship that prematurely detonated, killing everyone. The next morning their bodies washed ashore and prisoners from the Philadelphia buried them in the park east of the fort, which is now known as Green Square.

While the navy bottled up Tripoli harbor, US counsel to Egypt William Eaton opened up another front, convincing Hamet Karamanli, the deposed brother of Yusuf, that he could reclaim power with the help of the Americans. With eight US Marines under Sgt. Presley O’Bannon, a contingent of Greek Christian mercenaries and a calvary of Bedouin tribesmen, they marched across the desert and attacked the eastern port city of Derna. In an overland surprise attack they captured the city in a little more than an hour, and then repulsed a counterattack from Tripoli loyalists.

As the ragtag army, flush with two quick victories, began to march on Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli met with the American diplomat Tobias Lear and accepted a peace treaty that paid $60,000 in ransom for the prisoners of the Philadelphia and allowed Yusuf Karamanli to remain in power.

The treaty also betrayed and abandoned Hamet Karamanli, who thanked Presley and the Marines for fighting with him by presenting Presley with his Mameluke sword, now used as the official dress sword of the US Marines.

The treaty also left behind the remains of Lt. Somers and the twelve officers and men of the USS Intrepid buried in Green Square, which once Gadhafi is gone, will be renamed Martyr’s Square, in honor of all those who died fighting the tyrants.

And now, as we witness the unfinished march to Tripoli as it plays out today, will Eaton, O'Bannon, Hamet Karamanli and Tobias Lear be redeemed and avenged by current events? Or will a treaty for peace allow the tyrants to stay in power?

[William Kelly is the author of “300 Years at the Point – A History of Somers Point, N.J.” Lt. Richard Somers’ hometown. He can be reached at billkelly3@gmail.com ]

Ted Nugent, Farraakhan & McKinney endorse Gadhaffi

 

NUGENT: No U.S. strategic interest in Libya
By Ted Nugent

The Washington Times
6:52 p.m., Monday, March 21, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/21/the-gadhafi-precedent/?page=2

Africa isn’t called the Dark Continent for no reason. Africa has forever been a politi- cal nightmare full of overt corruption, tribal warfare, genocide, murderous regimes and brutal dictators.

There is no country in Africa that truly respects freedom or the rule of law. The majority of countries in Africa are in economic ruin because of political corruption and a history ugly with cruel despotism. That’s why starvation and disease are rampant. AIDS is projected to kill as much as half the populations of some countries. Genocide is a way of life. There is little light in Africa.

The evil Col. Moammar Gadhafi, the vicious dictator of Libya, is killing Libyans who want to string him up and replace him.

In order to keep Col. Gadhafi from killing Libyan rebels, the United Nations has instituted a no-fly zone and is bombing Libya. Though the action is led by the French, who once wouldn’t let us fly over their country to bomb Col. Gadhafi, it is the United States, as usual, that is - and will be - doing all the heavy military lifting.

For what? The president said America is “acting in the interest of the U.S.” Please tell us, Mr. Obama: Just what are those interests that are so precious that America will put military lives in harm’s way and spend tens of billions of dollars more that we don’t have bombing Libya and enforcing a no-fly zone?

The president stated that we will not put ground forces in Libya. Air power alone probably will not stop Col. Gadhafi. If anything, bombingLibya probably will embolden him.
As of this writing, America has fired at least 120 missiles into Libya. Are we prepared to fire 1,120 missiles at about a million bucks a shot in order to topple Col. Gadhafi, to whom the United States granted a visa just a few years ago so he could threaten to live in a big tent while he attended the den of thieves meeting at the United Nations?

If precision-bombing Libya and destroying the country’s limited air force fails to stop the colonel, what’s next on the agenda, Mr. President? How long will you order our military to stick around off the coast of Libya, and at what financial burden? Will you reverse course and send in ground forces if bombing doesn’t work? What is the message to the other African thugs and thugs in the Middle East if Col. Gadhafi isn’t toppled?

If the real goal of the United Nations is to topple the Libyan leader, kill him and all his henchmen. Flatten the area of Tripoli where it is believed he is holed up with a human shield surrounding him. Kill all those people and get it over with. Implement total war for a week, and cockroachGadhafi will be entombed in a pile of rubble.

Because we won’t implement total warfare, we run a real risk that he will remain in power. Col. Gadhafi knows the key to his victory is to wait us out. He knows we can’t afford to float our Navy off the coast of Libya and launch rockets against tactical targets forever.

Most important, he knows the America people will soon begin to ask: What the heck are we over there for when we have no strategic interest and Libya does not pose a military threat to the United States?

Granted, a dead tyrant is a good tyrant, but there have been any number of murdering African thugs and punks who have deserved to be killed over the years, including Robert Taylor of Liberia, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, Idi Amin of Uganda, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and others who have killed millions of Africans.

As I write this, hundreds of thousands of Africans have been killed and a couple of million more have been displaced in Darfur. Are we prepared to go in there and drop bombs and fire missiles until we get the results we want?

Africa is an international scab. Bono of the band U2 advocates that if we forgive debt African nations owe, peace and tranquillity will sprout up mystically. The real problem is murdering, corrupt thugs and punks likeCol. Gadhafi. Once we swat one of these African cockroaches or intervene in their civil war, where do we stop?

America can’t solve all the world’s problems, nor should it try. We have enough of our own problems to address without getting involved in a Libyan civil war.

Spending national treasure by bombing Libya is not wise when we have no strategic interest in Libya and we are bankrupt. It would have been much cheaper for the CIA to arrange for the cockroach colonel’s demise than to spend billions and billions of dollars that we don’t have in hopes he is toppled. Whatever happened to that wonderful American ingenuity of improvise, adapt and overcome?

Ted Nugent is an American rock ‘n’roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is the author of “Ted, White and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto” and “God, Guns & Rock ‘N’ Roll” (Regnery Publishing).

Rock Guitarist Ted Nugent, Cynthia McKinney and "Farrakhan say Qaddafi is a friend"

Nation of Islam Min. Louis Farrakhan said the United States is a hypocrite for its current military action against Libya

Calling Col. Muammar Qaddafi "brother leader," Farrakhan said the embattled Libyan dictator has been a friend to him. He added that he doesn’t understand why President Barack Obama authorized military intervention in Libya.

"I love Muammar Qaddafi and I love our president. It grieves me to see my brother president set a policy that would remove this man," Farrakhan said.

The minister made those remarks at Mosque Maryam, the headquarters of the Chicago-based Nation of Islam. Farrakhan says in 1972 Qaddafi lent the Nation $3 million to buy the mosque, a former Greek church.

In the early 1980s, Qaddafi lent $5 million to help Farrakhan start a line of black-owned personal care products.


Statement of Cynthia McKinney
Newseum Press Conference on Libya
Thursday, 31 March 2011

I am pleased to stand with my colleagues today who are outraged at Nobel Peace Laureate President Obama’s decision to wage war on Africa in Libya. At the outset, let me state that Libya is home to tens of thousands or more of foreign students and guest workers. The students come from Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia. The messages I have received from concerned Africans state that these young innocent people, inaccurately labeled by the U.S. press as “black mercenaries,” have been trapped in hostile territory and are hated by the U.S.-allied Al Qaeda insurgents. The press forgot that Libya is in Africa and that Libyans are Black!

I would also like to acknowledge the outrage of the Women International Democratic Federation of Brazil that repudiates the invasion of Libya. They point specifically to the depressed state of women in pre-Qaddafi Libya and how women now have positions that had once been denied to them. They note in their communiqué that the National Front of the Salvation of Libya has been financed by the C.I.A. since 1981 and that its headquarters is in Washington, D.C.

In fact, I have received messages and phone calls from people literally all over the world who are outraged at this action. And because the media cannot be relied upon to tell the truth, I repeat the call that I received directly from Libya yesterday for international observers to go to Libya to tell the world the truth. I would go.

Sadly, President Obama’s justification for war provides answers that don’t answer, explanations that don’t explain, and conclusions that don’t conclude. Reports continue to emerge of the US ties to the so-called rebel leaders: the latest being that Khalifa Hifter, latest leader of the rebel army, spent much of the past 20 years in Langley, Virginia. He didn’t even move to Baltimore to disguise the relationship! Moreover, General Wesley Clarke told us that Libya was on the U.W. hitlist ten years ago!

This is nothing new. This operation smells very much like so many other Africa operations fueled by U.S.-supported individuals who become a rebel force able to threaten an inconvenient leader who stands up to the U.S. This particular play has been repeated in Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, and Angola and Mozambique before them. We are not blind; we recognize this play. And the use of depleted uranium will cause health effects for generations to come.
Pentagon Secretary Gates said “Libya is not part of our vital interest.” Then why are we there? Herein lies the conundrum. President Obama has authorized secret support for its rebels in Libya, just like Miami’s Cuban community has received for decades.

Sadly, our President has chosen to spend $600 million per week in addition to other war costs at a time when the Black community is melting. As of the most recent Economic Policy Institute study, average Black family wealth was $2,000 while that of Whites was $94,600. President Obama has done nothing to address the disparities that have existed in this country since slavery. Clearly, our President should focus on home and improving the lot of the people of this country before launching another war.

Finally, I must say something about the ugly hate language that is emanating more and more from Black political voices. Any politician seeking votes by exacerbating divisions in our country does not deserve our votes. I’m speaking specifically about the unfortunate remarks of Herman Cain who should know better.

I stand with those who support the right of self-determination of the Libyan people, including their right to resolve differences without interference from outsiders.

6 Reasons Why I Oppose US Intervention in Libya By HAROON MOGHUL

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4451/6_reasons_why_i_oppose_us_intervention_in_libya,

I, like many others, have found myself unable to turn away from the Arab revolutions. As a strong believer in the egalitarian nature of the Muslim religion, and a fervent critic of common assumptions about Arabs and Muslims, these revelations were a welcome confirmation of my beliefs. I also hate dictators.

As such, I never had, and still have, no love for Libya’s clown Colonel, Mu’ammar Qaddafi; and like any other person of conscience, I watched with heavy heart as his armies approached liberated Benghazi. Every time I prayed, I included the people of Libya in my prayers, that they be given strength, freedom, and protection from harm.

And then, kind of, sort of, in the nick of time, France, Britain, and the United States obtained a Security Council resolution—forwarded for debate by Lebanon, whose government was formed by Hezbollah, a convenient ally this time—and began devastating Qaddafi’s forces before they could effect a likely mass slaughter in Benghazi.

But the timing was also the least bit troubling. On pretty much the same day in March 2003, the United States went to war with Saddam Hussein, alleging that he had weapons of mass destruction (he didn’t). And one century ago this year, the Italians seized Libya from the Ottomans, depriving that crumbling empire of its last African territory. Still, in many ways, the Libyan intervention appeared to solve many of the problems of previous interventions, or non-interventions.

In Iraq, in 2003, we didn’t have a Security Council resolution and there was no imminent danger of mass slaughter. We waited for too long in Bosnia, and tens of thousands were slaughtered. UN peacekeepers could do nothing to prevent the killing of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica. And in Rwanda, by the time it was over, up to 1,000,000 were dead, and we had done nothing; but we had no regional mandate to act, and there was no army for us to destroy from the sky.

So does that mean I’m okay with this? Actually, no. And that’s a solid segue to the substance of the matter. Here are six reasons why I don’t feel right about Operation Odyssey Dawn:

1) Just because Obama is a Democrat doesn’t mean the Constitution allows him to go to war without consulting Congress—there’s simply no excuse for violating the democratic principle of checks and balances. If another President down the road starts a war without asking us, and then tries to explain him or herself a week later, is that supposed to make it okay? Let’s say it’s President Palin, and she wants to bomb a country more likely to hit back.

Supporters of the war against Qaddafi have argued that Obama intervened for humanitarian reasons. Perhaps he has, but there are troubling facts to consider. Explaining your actions after the fact does not constitute a valid check or balance. Anyone who was paying attention to the region knew that the Libyan rebels were in tremendous danger more than a week before the actual intervention began.

Considering that this did not drop out of nowhere, and everyone knew how brutal Qaddafi was, is, and would be against those who challenged him, why is it that President Obama couldn’t explain himself to the American people until a full week of war had passed? If it were a matter of an emergency humanitarian intervention, he should have stood up the minute the missiles started flying and explained why he hadn’t consulted the American people—because, as he saw it, there was no time.

Still more, making exceptions is a messy business. There are many court cases in which a defendant is clearly guilty, and yet we must throw out the case due to a violation of the rules of evidence. In individual instances, this creates injustices—we wish the judge could act with more discretion. But that discretion itself causes the greater danger; hence the wisdom of our political system. Because, in the aggregate, the presence of such checks and balances ensures a more just society for all; maybe not immediately, but over time.

So too with our government and our foreign policy. While, yes, it is true that consulting with Congress may have caused us to intervene far too late, or not at all, this intervention sets a terrible precedent. The President cannot simply start a war on the grounds that he and his advisers thought that there was a humanitarian crisis, and then only bother to explain it to us shortly before Dancing with the Stars. If the crisis were so grievously serious, he could have laid out his case, told Congress the time to act was now, and trusted in the humanity of his fellow Americans.

This belief that only he and his circle know what’s right is, at the very least, elitist; it’s not dissimilar from the Republicans’ insistence on prosecuting the war in Iraq even after the 2006 elections, when the American people made it clear that they wanted out. Are the American people really that irrelevant, that you can wait a full week to bother to tell us why you got us into another war before we’re even out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

2) I am rightly made uneasy by conflicts with no obvious goal. The United States, like every other institutional body that has interests in the region, is deeply confused, and trying to hide that. Only a few months ago, our Vice President was denying that Mubarak was a dictator. Now our government is arguing that we must intervene to get rid of a tyrant in the region—the same tyrant we were recently trying to lure with carrots (while hedging as to whether that’s the purpose of our war).

Moreover, if the purpose of the Security Council resolution is to protect civilians, the only way in which we can do that is with boots on the ground or tons of guns. The problem is, we have no crystal ball. We can destroy Qaddafi’s armor, but he will have forces operating within cities, and those most loyal to him may fight to the bitter end (see also: Iraq). The rebels don’t have any military capacity, and Qaddafi’s army could as of now easily wipe them out.

It is plausible that Qaddafi’s tribesmen may still reach Benghazi, at which point we will have to escalate our war to save Benghazi (again). Our options at that point would be arming the rebels, landing troops to finish the job, bombing the Qaddafis out of Libya, or splitting Libya into two separate countries, with peacekeepers patrolling the boundary between them (oil goes to the east); or walking away after it’s even more screwed up. And imagine how that would play out.

3) Why is it that we can intervene in other countries but find it so hard to intervene in our own? The Obama administration must tell us every day how much this so-called “kinetic action” is costing the American people. I’m also wondering how much of this we’re going to be able to afford, and when this cycle might end. Do we, the American people, also believe that once this is over—let’s say successfully, with Qaddafi gone—we’ll simply walk away? It’s too easy not to, until the next thing you know you get a bill far larger than you expected. (In that case, wars are like cell phones.)

We have a right to know just how much can be spent on uncertain military objectives, and it would be nice to know whether that much money could be spent, without consulting Congress, on the betterment of the condition of the American people. The roads around my apartment need repair. Can we get NATO to send some army engineers in? New York City also desperately needs new airports, which I’m sure we could build up at least partway, and then address the American people as to why we were forced to build it without clearing it first; after all, New York is vital to the American and global economy.

If we’re going to transgress certain democratic principles, at the very least we should do so in our own clear and obvious interest. Or maybe it’s just me.

4) This intervention only drives us further into a negative conversation with the Muslim world and the Middle East. Over and over again, we insist that we are not the world’s policeman, and yet we get involved in police actions with astonishing regularity. We intervene selectively, we make huge mistakes, but we insist our intentions are good. I recall something about a certain road being paved with good intentions, but it must not be an American road, since it’s so hard to get those paved these days.

The United States was able to eliminate Libyan air defense systems in days, and this wasn’t even a full-scale war. Qaddafi has been revealed to be as impotent as Saddam, with an army that can be picked off as so many inert targets in a videogame you have a cheat code for. I’m sure many Arabs and Muslims across the region watched this and thought two things: what exactly was the point of independence, if some 60 years later a country has no actual capacity to defend itself? And, given that, why is it Western powers are still rescuing Arabs or Muslims, as they see it, on their own terms?

5) Let’s not pretend that this is truly an allied operation. We’re doing all the heavy lifting; and even if we didn’t want to, it wouldn’t work out any other way. (Can you see America agreeing to put its troops under French command?) The only Muslim majority country with any real military capacity is Turkey—the only Muslim democracy with guns in this fight—and Turkey was deeply hesitant to get involved. Even after the war started, we still had to fight (diplomatically) to get Turkey onboard.

While Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have loaned out fighter planes, they’re probably going to make, at best, a miniscule contribution; and neither are democracies that, theoretically, have to consult their people about their entanglements. And, while the Arab League has endorsed the Security Council resolution, let us not confuse the Arab League for a democratic body that speaks for the majority of its peoples. In fact, the majority of the Arab League was or is currently experiencing democratic uprisings in one form or another.

6) It’s time for the Arab and Muslim-majority world to get its act together, and Western intervention only delays the inevitable. It’s simply unacceptable that there’s no broader security architecture to solve the region’s problems. If the Arab League were so insistent that a no-fly zone be established over Libya, it should have created one itself and put its own armies and monies at risk. If the OIC’s desire to develop an Islamic solidarity is genuine, then they have to prove it. Either option sounds absurd to us right now, and why shouldn’t they? What’s the long-term trajectory of these democratic revolutions? How will they be protected? How will they achieve legitimacy?

And how long will Western powers be responsible for Libya?

Libya isn’t Bosnia; there’s no NATO and no EU to welcome the new governments down the road, to give them benchmarks to work towards and real rewards for realizing those benchmarks. We need to stop enabling Arab and Muslim political inertia. The Arab and Muslim world needs to figure out how to solve its own problems. Too often, its consultative bodies are reduced to irrelevant bystanders, its local powers unable to have civil dialogue with one another (see: Bahrain), and its biggest problems all but ask for foreign intervention since there’s no local mechanism to resolve the conflict before it explodes out of all proportion.

President Obama on Tripoli

 

Text: Obama's remarks on Libya
The US president said America helped Libyans avoid a "masscre" and will be a friend to those who "long to be free."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/20113293489811364.html

Aljazeera

US President Barack Obama delivered a 29-minute speech about military action in Libya and the democracy movements in the Middle East on March 28, 2011, at the National Defense University in Fort McNair, Washington. The following remarks were distributed by the White House.

Tonight, I'd like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya -- what we've done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.

I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved.

Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda all across the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I'm grateful to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and to their families. And I know all Americans share in that sentiment.

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an 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. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That's what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -- two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -- Muammar Qaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world -- including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

Last month, Qaddafi's grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, "For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over."

Faced with this opposition, Qaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qaddafi's aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Qaddafi's regime's assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

In the face of the world's condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime's attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Qaddafi's troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit Qaddafi's air defenses, which paved the way for a no-fly zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi's deadly advance.

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies -- nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey -- all of whom have fought by our sides for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibilities to defend the Libyan people.

To summarize, then: In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us 31 days.

Moreover, we've accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi's remaining forces.

In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role -- including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation -- to our military and to American taxpayers -- will be reduced significantly.

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do.

That's not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Qaddafi regime so that it's available to rebuild Libya. After all, the money doesn't belong to Qaddafi or to us -- it belongs to the Libyan people. And we'll make sure they receive it.

Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Qaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve -- because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.

Now, despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Qaddafi does leave power, 40 years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community and -- more importantly -- a task for the Libyan people themselves.

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all -- even in limited ways -- in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.

It's true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country -- Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

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.

Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful -- yet fragile -- transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution's future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.

Of course, there is no question that Libya -- and the world -- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces -- to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone -- carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. It's also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do -- and will do -- is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Qaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Qaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Qaddafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on Qaddafi's side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America's military power, and America's broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I've made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests. That's why we're going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security -- responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us. They're problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act -- but the burden of action should not be America's alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

That's the kind of leadership we've shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States -- in a region that has such a difficult history with our country -- this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, "We are your friends. We are so grateful to those men who are protecting the skies."

This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.

Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently to different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And then there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns will have to be addressed.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference.

I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one's own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith -- those ideals -- that are the true measure of American leadership.

My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas -- when the news is filled with conflict and change -- it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I've said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home. That must always be our North Star -- the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring for our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer, our own future is brighter, if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.

Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward. And let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you

Maroud Bwisier & Revolutionary Songs

Maroud Bwisier strums his guitar and sings revolutionary songs, some of which he wrote himself.

Photo: Jason Koutsoukis

Maroud Bwisir, a musician and café owner, had brought along his Spanish guitar and sang with his comrades. The group broke up as an enemy aircraft appeared, banking to drop bombs on a Shabaab position to the right.

Strange days on the rebels' road to Tripoli
Jason Koutsoukis March 27, 2011

Benghazi coffee shop owner Masoud Bwisir sings a rebel song on the road 150 kilometres south-west of his home.

THE crack of a shell exploding 200 metres up the road sent the small crowd gathered on the highway racing for cover. ''Don't be worried,'' shouted rebel fighter Masoud Bwisir, the only one not running. ''It's OK.''

The blast interrupted an impromptu live performance of Mr Bwisir's latest musical composition, a song about freeing his country from the rule of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

A few kilometres in the distance, an infantry unit of about 200 increasingly isolated soldiers loyal to Colonel Gaddafi was continuing its efforts to ward off attempts by rebels to retake the city of Ajdabiya.

A man who was injured by a shell a short distance away. Photo: Jason Koutsoukis
''He sends us rockets, we send him music,'' said Mr Bwisir, 36, who runs a coffee shop and car wash in the city of Benghazi, about 150 kilometres to the north-east.

With a loaded rocket propelled grenade launcher slung over one shoulder, and a sub-machine gun over the other, Mr Bwisir had been happily strumming his acoustic guitar all morning. He even had a troupe of back-up singers on hand to help him through the chorus. ''It's a song about fighting to make my home free,'' he said.

A few minutes later, a truck came roaring down the highway from the area where the shell had landed, the men in the cabin gesticulating wildly to an ambulance parked behind Mr Bwisir.

When the truck stopped, a man was lying in back, screaming in pain and pointing to his right leg. The absence of blood, or any sign of damage to his clothes, led a doctor at the scene to conclude that perhaps the wounded man had a broken leg.

Whatever the injury, he was soon in the back of the ambulance and on the way to Benghazi.

''Are you leaving already?'' asked a disappointed sounding Mr Bwisir. ''Please stay, I have other songs.''

At the rebel checkpoint of Zwitina, out of firing range of Colonel Gaddafi's troops, the oscillating morale of the fighters there was at a high point.

Overnight, Western coalition aircraft had pounded the pro-Gaddafi infantry unit.

''They are running out of fuel and water and food,'' said Omar Salem, 21, a geology student at Garyounnis University in Benghazi. ''It won't be long before we have them completely surrounded.''

Early yesterday, rebel leaders claimed to have entered Ajdabiya from a desert road. ''The only part the Gaddafi forces control is the eastern gate,'' said Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, vice-president of rebels' transitional national council.

Dismissing talk of a negotiated settlement to the conflict, Mr Ghoga vowed that once rebel fighters had re-taken Ajdabiya, they would resume their earlier mission to go all the way to the capital, Tripoli.

''Gaddafi has Tripoli surrounded; the people there need our help,'' he said.


UPDATE: 24/04/2011 - LIBYA - POPULAR REVOLT - REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK

A rap song for the revolution

When Muammar Gaddafi lost control of Benghazi, three aspiring Libyan rappers found themselves in the heart of history. FRANCE 24's Leela Jacinto discovers how one rap tune captured the soul of the Libyan revolution.

The beat is pumping, the music blasting and the kids are flaying their arms and pouting in the international body-language of rap stars. As they spot my camera, they flash the ubiquitous Libyan pro-democracy “V” for victory sign. Then the song glides into its catchy refrain and they're off again:

“Hadi thawra!

Yani kamat al intisar!

El horriyah l'il ahrah!”

“This is revolution!

The height of victory!

Freedom for the free people!”

This is revolution the way the Libyan youth see it. If every history-mending youth movement were to have its own Bob Dylan vocalizing the dissent and dreams of a generation, “Hadi Thawra” is the “Times They Are a-Changin'” of the anti-Gaddafi hipster set.

Islam Barassi in Revolution Beat's one-room studio. Photo: Leela Jacinto
This catchy rap song is familiar to any Libyan who made his or her way to the Benghazi's central square in the heady days after February 21, when Libya's second-largest city fell from Muammar Gaddafi's control to become the de-facto capital of liberated Libya.
It was written, sung and produced by three Benghazi youths who bought packs of 50 CDs, copied their hit tune, and distributed the CDs to the anti-Gaddafi demonstrators in Benghazi's central courthouse.

“We're doing it for the country,” explains 23-year-old Mutaz el Obidy. “We don't want money – now,” he adds as a prudent afterthought.

The 'Street Beat' that never hit the streets

Before the revolution, Mutaz and his friends, Islam Barassi, 21, and Youssef Prucki, 24, used to gather in their parents' basements to sing and produce their rap songs in a mix of Arabic and English.

A committed Anglophone, Mutaz is an English literature student while Islam works in his brother's business. Youssef is a garbageman by day and a rapper by night.

In the old days, when Gaddafi's Revolutionary Committee members were keeping a close watch on the populace, the trio called themselves the “Street Beat” even though their music never hit the streets – it was too dangerous.

“We weren't allowed to talk about the system, we could not speak our thoughts. We were not allowed to perform in college or anywhere. We just did the music for ourselves,” says Mutaz.

In those days, they were carefully, deliberately tight-lipped about their passion. “I was afraid not about myself, but about my family,” says Mutaz. “They would have been killed, I'd have to watch my sister being raped. I never got into trouble because I was not stupid about it, we never published it.”

Their early songs from the underground era tackled the angst and frustration of many young, educated Libyans under Gaddafi.

“Hate that, Hate this,

The one thing I hate is living in this shit.

Hard to figure out where do I fit.

Streets of Libya make me feel sick,

I rap out loud,

No kissing ass like those hypocrites.”

Mutaz sings his song in the one-room studio-cum-office, where Benghazi's three star rappers work and hangout along with a changing number of friends and groupies.

Revolutionary entertainment for everyone

After the city fell, they changed the group's name from “Street Beat” to “Revolution Beat” and that's what they've been doing ever since – belting out the revolution. I'm somewhat surprised to find them in the backroom of the Benghazi courthouse premises.


Mutaz el Obidy flashes the ubiquitous Libyan pro-democracy “V” for victory sign. Photo: Leela Jacinto
A cluster of seaside buildings, the “courthouse” as it's commonly called, is the hub of the Libyan pro-democracy movement, where journalists gather to badger mostly clueless TNC (Transition National Council) spokespeople, fighters back from the frontline hang around, and crowds descend every evening for what could best be described as “thawra entertainment” - or “revolution entertainment” - which includes an exhilarating mix of speeches, music and much flag-waving.
The flag of course is the pre-Gaddafi tricolor under the former King Idriss, a native of these parts. These days, it's hard to spot a street that does not boast the omnipresent tricolor.

Ensconced in prime revolutionary real estate

A gigantic tricolor emblazons the wall of the studio-office, where the rapping kids are belting out their thawra tunes. How did they secure this prime revolutionary real estate?

“Well, on February 19, we came to the courthouse and found a room,” explains Mutaz. “We brought our laptops, our tunes, our mixers, our beats and so we started singing our first song, 'Thawra'.”

In a testament to the unscripted yet tolerant nature of the anti-Gaddafi revolt, TNC officials have let the kids use the space – although they did transfer them from the main courthouse building to their current space in the former lawyers offices next door.

Their revolutionary rap oeuvre so far features three songs: “Thawra”, “Saba thash fubraihu” (Arabic for Seventeenth February - the day the Libyan uprising began) and “Freedom”. Mutaz himself raps in English. “Even though I speak Arabic, I don't know how to rap in Arabic. English is easier for me,” he explains.

Islam and Youssef rap in Arabic and the group's songs typically feature a mix of English and Arabic.

For “Thawra” though, the trio decided the song must be sung in Arabic - “because all the people would not understand English,” Mutaz explains.

The next step is adding new songs to their album-in-the-making.

Are they afraid that the Gaddafi forces will overpower the rebels' shoddy military organization combined with NATO's weak, wavering aerial support?

Apparently not – or at least that's what they say. “Gaddafi is not going to win, we will, it's gonna be easy,” insists Mutaz. “I feel sad when I see Gaddafi's troops advance, but not scared. The people may die, I may die. But the revolution will never die.”

Also See: Libyan Rebal Song in Ajdabiya - no comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7l9dMJuuvg

Guitarists Massoud Abu Assir strums and sings for rebels
http://media.smh.com.au/news/world-news/guitarist-strums-for-libyan-rebels-2316902.html

Do you Here the people sing? The Tollund Women
"Join in the fight that will make you free...music of a peop;le who won't be slaves again..." Ra Ra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8PfBaStr4U

On the Road to Tripoli

 

Thursday, April 7,2011

Eight reasons to arm Libya's rebels

By Paul Danish

There seems to be a big debate going on in the Obama administration over whether we should arm and train the Libyan rebels.

That’s strange, because arming and training the Libyan rebels should be a no-brainer — for at least eight reasons:

1. They are doing the Lord’s work — assuming you believe the Lord (aka Yahweh, aka Allah) endowed men with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the right to take down deranged tyrants who have become abusive of those rights.

2. They are fighting to take down Gaddafi, who apart from being an enemy of liberty, democracy and term limits, is a vicious enemy of the United States who will be an orders-of-magnitude worse enemy if he survives.

3. If they are not armed and, more importantly, trained, they will lose.

4. If they lose, the United States loses. NATO loses. The pro-democracy movement sweeping the Arab world loses. The Arab world’s tyrants will win. They will know they can put down mass protests with mass murder and that the world will let them get away with it.

5. Everyone who said “never again” after Srebrenica, after Darfur, after Rwanda, after the Holocaust, will lose. The world’s dictators will have one more reason to believe — as if they don’t have enough already — that the people who say “never again” never mean it.

6. If the Libyan rebels lose, Obama loses, because if Gaddafi stays in power, Obama won’t. When picking presidents, Americans don’t reward failure, as Herbert Hoover (the Depression), Harry Truman (Korea), Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam) and Jimmy Carter (Iran hostages) found out. That alone should make arming the Libyan rebels the Obama administration’s job one.

7. Arming and training the Libyan rebels can be done without sending American ground troops into Libya. If the folks in Washington are so set against having the U.S. Army’s boots on the ground, they should give the company formerly known as Blackwater, or some of its many competitors, a call.

8. Arming and training the Libyan rebels is the best way to ensure that Libya won’t go Islamist. It’s all but certain that there are Muslim Brothers, al- Qaida members and assorted other Salafists and jihadists hanging around the Libyan revolution, just as there were Bolsheviks hanging around the Russian revolution in 1917, and there is no guarantee that, like the Bolsheviks, they won’t take over. But there is a lot less chance of that happening if the U.S. is actively siding with the revolution and helping it succeed by providing it with the tools it needs to do so.

It might drive the folks at the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center wild to say it, but the principal way that nations that have arms industries gain influence and clout in nations that don’t is by selling them arms.

Good thing, too. The U.S. was able to persuade the Egyptian military to not turn Tahrir Square into Tiananmen Square in no small part because the Egyptian military was American-armed, American-trained and American-sustained.

Supplying arms and help to a revolution can lead to enduring alliances.

Consider our relationship with the French, who sold us guns during the revolution and showed up with a fleet off Yorktown in 1782 to enforce a no-sail zone. It was the start of a beautiful friendship.

The surest way to ensure that we will have some influence in Libya after Gaddafi is out is to become the revolution’s armorer before he goes. And a sure-fire way to ensure we have no influence in Libya after Gaddafi goes, and to open the door to the Islamists, is to turn our backs on the democratic forces in the country while the fate of their revolution — and it is currently their revolution, not the Islamists’ — hangs in the balance.

But aren’t the Libyan rebels no more than a stunningly incompetent rabble in arms? Maybe, but chances are good that properly arming them and teaching them some rudimentary military skills can accomplish wonders.

If you doubt this, consider our own revolution. In 1775, America’s rebels were about as ragtag as they come. (How ragtag? Consult the lyrics to Yankee Doodle.) The first couple years of the American Revolution saw more panicked retreats and humiliating routs than American victories, and the American army that went into winter quarters (such as they were) at Valley Forge in 1778 was still a little better than a rabble in arms.

Fortunately, a foreign trainer and advisor showed up in the person of Friedrich von Steuben and taught the continental army some basic military skills. After that, things began to turn around.

The Libyan rebels are the product of a popular uprising. They don’t have to be convinced of the value of regime change and democracy. Their revolution is explicitly calling for those things, and they volunteered to fight for them. Those are the sort of revolutionaries that most deserve our help and can most benefit from it.

Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com

Peter Dale Scott's Libyan Notebook

Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3504

Peter Dale Scott's Libyan Notebook

Preface

The world is facing a very unpredictable and potentially dangerous situation in North Africa and the Middle East. What began as a memorable, promising, relatively nonviolent achievement of New Politics - the Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt - has morphed very swiftly into a recrudescence of old habits: America, already mired in two decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sporadic air attacks in Yemen and Somalia, now bombing yet another Third World Country, in this case Libya.


USS Barry launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the Mediterranean Sea, March 19, 2011. US government handout

The initially stated aim of this bombing was to diminish Libyan civilian casualties. But many senior figures in Washington, including President Obama, have indicated that the US is gearing up for a quite different war for regime change, one that may well be protracted and could also easily expand beyond Libya.1 If it does expand, the hope for a nonviolent transition to civilian government in Tunisia and Egypt and other Middle East nations experiencing political unrest, may be lost to a hard-edged militarization of government, especially in Egypt. All of us, not just Egyptians, have a major stake in seeing that that does not happen.

The present article does not attempt to propose solutions or a course of action for the United States and its allies, or for the people of the Middle East. It attempts rather to examine the nature of the forces that have emerged in Libya over the last four decades that are presently being played out.

To this end I have begun to compile what I call my Libyan Notebook, a collection of relevant facts that underlie the present crisis. This Notebook will be judgmental, in that I am biased towards collecting facts that the US media tend to ignore, facts that are the product in many instances of investigative reporting that cuts to the heart of power relations, deep structures, and economic interests in the region including the US, Israel, and the Arab States as these have played out over the last two decades and more. But I hope that it will be usefully objective and open-ended, permitting others to draw diverse conclusions from the same set of facts.2

I wish to begin with two ill-understood topics: I. Who Are the Libyan Opposition, and II. Where Are the Libyan Rebel Arms Coming From?

I. Who Are the Libyan Opposition

1) Historically:
"If Muammar Al Gaddafi behaved paranoid, it was for good reason. It wasn't long after he reached the age of 27 and led a small group of junior military officers in a bloodless coup d'état against Libyan King Idris on September 1, 1969, that threats to his power and life emerged - from monarchists, Israeli Mossad, Palestinian disaffections, Saudi security, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL), the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO), British intelligence, United States antagonism and, in 1995, the most serious of all, Al Qaeda-like Libyan Islamic fighting group, known as Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya. The Colonel reacted brutally, by either expelling or killing those he feared were against him."3

Gaddafi and Nasser in a 1969 Photo. Getty image

2) National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL)
"With the aim of overthrowing Libyan strongman Muammar Khadafy, Israel and the U.S. trained anti-Libyan rebels in a number of West and Central African countries. The Paris-based African Confidential newsletter reported on January 5th, 1989, that the US and Israel had set up a series of bases in Chad and other neighboring countries to train 2000 Libyan rebels captured by the Chad army. The group, called The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, was based in Chad."4

"US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed. In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused. By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan."5

"The FNSL [National Front for the Salvation of Libya] was part of the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition held in London in 2005, and British resources are being used to support the FNSL and other 'opposition' in Libya.... The FNSL held its national congress in the USA in July 2007. Reports of 'atrocities' and civilian deaths are being channeled into the western press from operations in Washington DC, and the opposition FNSL is reportedly organizing resistance and military attacks from both inside and outside Libya."6

3) National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO),
"The main group leading the insurrection is the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition which includes the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). The NFSL, which is leading the violence, is a U.S.-sponsored armed militia of mostly Libyan expatriates and tribes opposed to al-Qaddafi."7

4) Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, LIFG)
"The LIFG was founded in 1995 by a group of mujahideen veterans who had fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Upon their return to Libya they grew angry about what they viewed as the corruption and impiety of the Libyan regime and formed the LIFG to create a state that would show what they believed to be the true character of the Libyan people.

The most significant LIFG attack was a 1996 attempt to assassinate Gadhafi; LIFG members led by Wadi al-Shateh threw a bomb underneath his motorcade. The group also stages guerilla-style attacks against government security forces from its mountain bases. Although most LIFG members are strictly dedicated to toppling Gadhafi, intelligence reportedly indicates that some have joined forces with al-Qaida to wage jihad against Libyan and Western interests worldwide. ....

As recently as February 2004, then-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that "one of the most immediate threats [to U.S. security] is from smaller international Sunni extremist groups that have benefited from al-Qaida links. They include ... the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group."8

"In recent days Libyan officials have distributed security documents giving the details of Sufiyan al-Koumi, said to be a driver for Osama bin Laden, and of another militant allegedly involved in an "Islamic emirate" in Derna, in now-liberated eastern Libya. Koumi, the documents show, was freed in September 2010 as part of a "reform and repent" initiative organised by Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi's son....

The LIFG, established in Afghanistan in the 1990s, has assassinated dozens of Libyan soldiers and policemen. In 2009, to mark Gaddafi's 40 years in power, it apologised for trying to kill him and agreed to lay down its arms. MI6 [British Intelligence] has been accused in the past of supporting it. Six LIFG leaders, still in prison, disavowed their old ways and explained why fighting Gaddafi no longer constituted "legitimate" jihad.

Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, another freed LIFG member, denied the official claims. "Gaddafi is trying to divide the people," he told al-Jazeera. "He claims that there is an Islamist emirate in Derna and that I am its emir. He is taking advantage of the fact that I am a former political prisoner."

Derna is famous as the home of a large number of suicide bombers in Iraq. It is also deeply hostile to Gaddafi. "Residents of eastern Libya in general, and Derna in particular, view the Gaddadfa (Gaddafi's tribe) as uneducated, uncouth interlopers from an inconsequential part of the country who have 'stolen' the right to rule in Libya," US diplomats were told in 2008, in a cable since released by WikiLeaks.

The last 110 members of the LIFG were freed on 16 February, the day after the Libyan uprising began. One of those released, Abdulwahab Mohammed Kayed, is the brother of Abu Yahya Al Libi, one of al Qaida's top propagandists. Koumi fled Libya and is said to have ended up in Afghanistan working for Bin Laden. Captured in Pakistan, he was handed over to the US and sent to Guantánamo Bay in 2002. In 2009 he was sent back to Libya.9 US counter-terrorist experts have expressed concern that al-Qaida could take advantage of a political vacuum if Gaddafi is overthrown. But most analysts say that, although the Islamists' ideology has strong resonance in eastern Libya, there is no sign that the protests are going to be hijacked by them.10

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group Members released

"Fierce clashes between [Qadhafi's] security forces and Islamist guerrillas erupted in Benghazi in September 1995, leaving dozens killed on both sides. After weeks of intense fighting, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) formally declared its existence in a communiqué calling Qadhafi's government "an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty" and declaring its overthrow to be "the foremost duty after faith in God." [3] This and future LIFG communiqués were issued by Libyan Afghans who had been granted political asylum in Britain.... The involvement of the British government in the LIFG campaign against Qadhafi remains the subject of immense controversy. LIFG's next big operation, a failed attempt to assassinate Qadhafi in February 1996 that killed several of his bodyguards, was later said to have been financed by British intelligence to the tune of $160,000, according to ex-MI5 officer David Shayler. [4] While Shayler's allegations have not been independently confirmed, it is clear that Britain allowed LIFG to develop a base of logistical support and fundraising on its soil. At any rate, financing by bin Laden appears to have been much more important. According to one report, LIFG received up to $50,000 from the Saudi terrorist mastermind for each of its militants killed on the battlefield." [2005]11

"Americans, Britons and the French are finding themselves as comrades in arms with the rebel Islamic Fighting Group, the most radical element in the Al Qaeda network [to bring down Gaddhafi]. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted the risks of the unholy alliance in a congressional hearing, saying that the Libyan opposition is probably more anti-American than Muammar Gaddhafi. A decade ago, this very same delusion of a Western-Islamist partnership in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya ended abruptly in the 9/11 attacks."12

5) Transitional National Council
"A RIVAL transitional government to the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi looks set to win US and other international support as momentum builds to oust the longtime dictator.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed yesterday that the Obama administration was reaching out to opponents of Colonel Gaddafi. She said the US was willing to offer ‘any kind of assistance' to remove him from power.

Protest leaders who have taken control in Libya's eastern cities claim to have established a transitional "national council" that amounts to rival rule. They have called on the country's army to join them as they prepare for an attack on the capital, Tripoli, where the Libyan leader retains control.

Confident the Libyan leader's 42-year rule was coming to an end, Mrs Clinton said yesterday: ‘We are just at the beginning of what will follow Gaddafi.'"13

6) Facebook
"He [Omar El- Hariri, Chief of Armed Forces for the Transitional National Council] remained under close surveillance by the security forces until Feb. 17, when the revolution started. It was not initiated by prominent figures of the older generation, he said, but began spontaneously when Tunisia and Egypt inspired the youth. ‘Children of Facebook!' he declared, in English, with a broad smile."14

7) Oil
"Libyan rebels in Benghazi said they have created a new national oil company to replace the corporation controlled by leader Muammar Qaddafi whose assets were frozen by the United Nations Security Council.

The Transitional National Council released a statement announcing the decision made at a March 19 meeting to establish the ‘Libyan Oil Company as supervisory authority on oil production and policies in the country, based temporarily in Benghazi, and the appointment of an interim director general" of the company.

The Council also said it "designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."15

Peter Dale Scott's Libyan Notebook

II. Where Are the Libyan Rebel Arms Coming From?

Robert Fisk, "Libya in turmoil: America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels;
Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi," Independent, March 7, 2011:
"Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a "day of rage" from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington's highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago.

Washington's request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis. The royal family in Jeddah, which was deeply involved in the Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, gave immediate support to American efforts to arm guerrillas fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1980 ....

But the Saudis remain the only US Arab ally strategically placed and capable of furnishing weapons to the guerrillas of Libya. Their assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain - even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis.

The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi's armour, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers.

Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport. If the guerrillas can then go on to the offensive and assault Gaddafi's strongholds in western Libya, the political pressure on America and Nato - not least from Republican members of Congress - to establish a no-fly zone would be reduced.

US military planners have already made it clear that a zone of this kind would necessitate US air attacks on Libya's functioning, if seriously depleted, anti-aircraft missile bases, thus bringing Washington directly into the war on the side of Gaddafi's opponents.
For several days now, US Awacs surveillance aircraft have been flying around Libya, making constant contact with Malta air traffic control and requesting details of Libyan flight patterns, including journeys made in the past 48 hours by Gaddafi's private jet which flew to Jordan and back to Libya just before the weekend.

Officially, Nato will only describe the presence of American Awacs planes as part of its post-9/11 Operation Active Endeavour, which has broad reach to undertake aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region.

US Awacs monitor Libya

The data from the Awacs is streamed to all Nato countries under the mission's existing mandate. Now that Gaddafi has been reinstated as a super-terrorist in the West's lexicon, however, the Nato mission can easily be used to search for targets of opportunity in Libya if active military operations are undertaken.

Al Jazeera English television channel last night broadcast recordings made by American aircraft to Maltese air traffic control, requesting information about Libyan flights, especially that of Gaddafi's jet.

An American Awacs aircraft, tail number LX-N90442 could be heard contacting the Malta control tower on Saturday for information about a Libyan Dassault-Falcon 900 jet 5A-DCN on its way from Amman to Mitiga, Gaddafi's own VIP airport.

Nato Awacs 07 is heard to say: "Do you have information on an aircraft with the Squawk 2017 position about 85 miles east of our [sic]?"

Malta air traffic control replies: "Seven, that sounds to be Falcon 900- at flight level 340, with a destination Mitiga, according to flight plan."

But Saudi Arabia is already facing dangers from a co-ordinated day of protest by its own Shia Muslim citizens who, emboldened by the Shia uprising in the neighbouring island of Bahrain, have called for street protests against the ruling family of al-Saud on Friday.
After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations.

Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.

If the Saudi government accedes to America's request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces.

Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region. "16

"Libya rebels coordinating with West on air assault," Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2011
"Reports from the region suggest that the Saudis and Egyptians have been providing arms. Though U.S. officials could not confirm that, they say it is plausible."17

"Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels," Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011:

"CAIRO-Egypt's military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington's knowledge, U.S. and Libyan rebel officials said.

The shipments-mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition-appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters. Those fighters have been losing ground for days in the face of a steady westward advance by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

The Egyptian shipments are the strongest indication to date that some Arab countries are heeding Western calls to take a lead in efforts to intervene on behalf of pro-democracy rebels in their fight against Mr. Gadhafi in Libya. Washington and other Western countries have long voiced frustration with Arab states' unwillingness to help resolve crises in their own region, even as they criticized Western powers for attempting to do so.

The shipments also follow an unusually robust diplomatic response from Arab states. There have been rare public calls for foreign military intervention in an Arab country, including a vote by the 23-member Arab League last week urging the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

The vote provided critical political cover to Western powers wary of intervening militarily without a broad regional and international mandate. On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted on a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone in Libya and authorizing military action in support of the rebels.

Within the council, Lebanon took a lead role drafting and circulating the draft of the resolution, which calls for "all necessary measures" to enforce a ban on flights over Libya. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have taken the lead in offering to participate in enforcing a no-fly zone, according to U.N. diplomats.

Libyan rebel officials in Benghazi, meanwhile, have praised Qatar from the first days of the uprising, calling the small Gulf state their staunchest ally. Qatar has consistently pressed behind the scenes for tough and urgent international action behind the scenes, these officials said.

Qatari flags fly prominently in rebel-held Benghazi. After pro-Gadhafi forces retook the town of Ras Lanuf last week, Libyan state TV broadcast images of food-aid packages bearing the Qatari flag.

Anti-Gadhafi fighters in Benghazi

The White House has been reluctant to back calls from leaders in Congress for arming Libya's rebels directly, arguing that the U.S. must first fully assess who the fighters are and what policies they will pursue if they succeeded in toppling Col. Gadhafi. U.S. officials believe the opposition includes some Islamist elements. They fear that Islamist groups hostile to the U.S. could try to hijack the opposition and take any arms that are provided.

The Egyptian weapons transfers began ‘a few days ago' and are ongoing, according to a senior U.S. official. ‘There's no formal U.S. policy or acknowledgement that this is going on,' said the senior official. But ‘this is something we have knowledge of.'

Calls to Egypt's foreign ministry and the spokesman for the prime minister seeking comment went unanswered. There is no means of reaching Egypt's military for comment. An Egyptian official in Washington said he had no knowledge of weapon shipments.

The U.S. official also noted that the shipments appeared to come "too little, too late" to tip the military balance in favor of the rebels, who have faced an onslaught from Libyan forces backed by tanks, artillery and aircraft.

"We know the Egyptian military council is helping us, but they can't be so visible," said Hani Souflakis, a Libyan businessman in Cairo who has been acting as a rebel liaison with the Egyptian government since the uprising began.

"Weapons are getting through," said Mr. Souflakis, who says he has regular contacts with Egyptian officials in Cairo and the rebel leadership in Libya. "Americans have given the green light to the Egyptians to help. The Americans don't want to be involved in a direct level, but the Egyptians wouldn't do it if they didn't get the green light."

Western officials and rebel leaders in Libya said the U.S. has wanted to avoid being seen as taking a leadership role in any military action against Mr. Gadhafi after its invasions of Iraq and Afganistan fueled anger and mistrust with Washington throughout the region.

But the U.S. stated clearly it wants Mr. Gadhafi out of power and has signaled it would support those offering help to the rebels militarily or otherwise.

A spokesman for the rebel government in Benghazi said arms shipments have begun arriving to the rebels but declined to specify where they came from.

"Our military committee is purchasing arms and arming our people. The weapons are coming, but the nature of the weapons, the amount, where it's coming from, that has been classified," said the spokesman, Mustafa al-Gherryani.

The U.S. official said Egypt wanted to keep the shipments covert. In public, Egypt has sought to maintain a neutral stance toward the rebel uprising in Libya. Egypt abstained during the Arab League's vote calling for the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone on Mr. Gadhafi, according to people familiar with the internal Arab League deliberations.

Hundreds of thousands of Egyptian laborers are believed to still be in Libya.

On the other hand, the Egyptian military's covert support for the rebels suggests that it has calculated that Mr. Gadhafi is unlikely to remain in power, at least in the eastern half of the country, and therefore Egypt is eager to begin to build good relations with the rebels.

Rebel forces in the past 24 hours appeared to make some progress fending off pro-Gadhafi forces' assaults and have rolled out new weapons for the first time since the uprising began last month. Among them are rebel tanks that have taken up positions on the front lines in recent days. Rebels also launched fighter-jet attacks on government positions on Wednesday for the first time so far.

The tanks and fighter jets are believed to have been among the weapons seized by rebels from defected units of the Libyan army in the eastern half of the country, but they have received spare parts or trained mechanics from outside the country to help them deploy them, some rebel officials have speculated.

-Sam Dagher and Adam Entous contributed to this article.18

Benjamin Gottlieb, "Egypt Arms Libyan Rebels As Gaddafi's Conquest Continues," NeonTommy Annenberg Digital News, March 17, 2011:

Arms shipments from Egypt's military have begun flowing across the border into Libya with U.S. knowledge, Libyan rebels and U.S. officials said Thursday.

Made up mostly of small arms, such as assault rifles and ammunition, the shipments are the first confirmed reports of an outside government supporting rebel fighters with weapons. Rebels have been loosing ground for days against pro-Gaddafi forces aiming to end the conflict before foreign intervention plans are finalized.

Although the U.N. approved a "no-fly zone" over Libya late Thursday, rebel forces fear that any planned foreign intervention would be too little to late.

No-Fly Zone

The shipment of arms indicated an unusually bold response by an Arab nation intervening in a conflict outside its borders. There have also been rare public decrees for the West to intervene in the conflict - the Arab League voted 23-0 last week encouraging the U.N. to impose the "no-fly zone" over Libya.

In spite of reports of arms flowing across the Egyptian boarder, Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Menha Bakhoum told Reuters that Egypt would not be involved in any military intervention in neighboring Libya.

"Egypt will not be among those Arab states. We will not be involved in any military intervention. No intervention period," Bakhoum said.

Bakhoum was responding to comments by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said Thursday that discussions were on the table regarding Arab involvement in U.S. and European intervention in the conflict.

Clinton has said repeatedly that the U.S. desires involvement from a neighboring Arab nation in any planned intervention.

A Libyan rebel government spokesman in Benghazi, Mustafa al-Gherryani, said rebels have begun receiving arms shipments from neighboring nations, however he declined to reveal their origin.

"Our military committee is purchasing arms and arming our people. The weapons are coming, but the nature of the weapons, the amount, where it's coming from, that has been classified," he said.19

Yoichi Shimatsu, "Mideast Revolutions and 9-11 Intrigues Created in Qatar," New America Media, March 1, 2011

"It may puzzle and perhaps dismay young protesters in Benghazi, Cairo and Tunisia that their democratic hopes are being manipulated by an ultra-conservative Arab elite which has underhandedly backed a surge of militant Islamist radicals across North Africa. Credible U.S. intelligence reports have cited evidence pointing to Qatar's long-running support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and jihadist fighters returning from Afghanistan.

The links to Qatar uncovered by anti-terrorism investigators in the wake of 9-11 need to be reexamined now that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an on-and-off affiliate of Al Qaeda, has seized armories across half of the North African country. Libya's well-stocked arsenals contain high-power explosives, rocket launchers and chemical weapons. LIFG is on the State Department's terrorist list.

Most worrying, according to a U.S. intelligence official cited by CNN, is the probable loss of chemical weapons. The Federation of American Scientists reports that, as of 2008, only 40 percent of Libya's mustard gas was destroyed in the second round of decommissioning. Chemical canisters along the Egyptian border were yet to be retrieved and are now presumably in the hands of armed militants.

After initially letting slip that the earliest Libyan protests were organized by the LIFG, Al Jazeera quickly changed its line to present a heavily filtered account portraying the events as ‘peaceful protests'. To explain away the gunshot deaths of Libyan soldiers during the uprising, the Qatar-based network presented a bizarre scenario of 150 dead soldiers in Libya having been executed by their officers for ‘refusing to fight'. The mysterious officers then miraculously vacated their base disappearing into thin air while surrounded by angry protesters! Off the record, one American intelligence analyst called these media claims an ‘absurdity' and suggested instead the obvious: that the soldiers were gunned down in an armed assault by war-hardened returned militants from Iraq and Afghanistan....

According to a Congressional Research Service report of January 2008, ‘Some observers have raised questions about possible support for Al Qaeda by some Qatari citizens, including members of Qatar's large ruling family. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Qatar's Interior Minister provided a safe haven to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed during the mid-1990s, and press reports indicate other terrorists may have received financial support or safe haven in Qatar after September 11, 2001.'

The national security chief, Interior Minister Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani, is further mentioned as paying for a 1995 trip by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ‘to join the Bosnia jihad.' The report recalls how after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, FBI officials "narrowly missed an opportunity to capture" the suspect in Qatar. ‘Former U.S. officials have since stated their belief that a high-ranking member of the Qatari government alerted him to the impending raid, allowing him to flee the country.'"20

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan.
His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here.

Recommended citation: Peter Dale Scott, "Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?," The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 13 No 3, March 28, 2011.

Notes
1 “Defense Secretary Gates, who recently warned against any further protracted US ground war, said on March 23 that the end of military action in Libya is unknown and could last longer than a few weeks. ‘I think there are any number of possible outcomes here and no one is in a position to predict them,’ Gates told reporters in Egypt” (C-Span, March 24, 2011).
2 Interested readers may wish to consult my first exploration, “Googling ‘Revolution’ in North Africa.”
3 Dan Lieberman, “Muammar Al Gaddafi Meets His Own Rebels,” CounterCurrents.org, March 9, 2011.
4 Joel Bainerman, Inside the Covert Operations of the CIA & Israel's Mossad (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1994), 14.
5 Richard Keeble, “The Secret War Against Libya,” MediaLens, 2002.
6 "Petroleum and Empire in North Africa. NATO Invasion of Libya Underway," By Keith Harmon Snow, 2 March 2011.
7 Ghali Hassan, “U.S. Love Affair with Murderous Dictators and Hate for Democracy.” Axis of Logic, Mar 17, 2011.
8 Center for Defense Information, “In the Spotlight: The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG),” January 18, 2005
9 Qadhafi was concerned about Al Qaeda terrorism in Libya, and in 1996 Libya became the first government to place Osama bin Laden on Interpol’s Wanted List (Rohan Gunaratna, Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror [New York: Columbia UP, 2002], 142). Thereafter American and Libyan intelligence collaborated closely for some years against Al Qaeda. Beginning when?
10 Ian Black, “Libya rebels rejects Gaddafi's al-Qaida spin,” Guardian, March 1, 2011.
11 Gary Gambill, "The Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Jamestown Foundation," Terrorism Monitor, May 5, 2005,; citing Al-Hayat (London), 20 October 1995 [“communiqué”]; "The Shayler affair: The spooks, the Colonel and the jailed whistle-blower," The Observer (London), 9 August 1998; Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié, Ben Laden: La Verite interdite (Bin Ladin: The Forbidden Truth). Cf. also Annie Machon, Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5, MI6 And the Shayler Affair (Book Guild Publishing, 2005) [Shayler].
12 Yoichi Shimatsu, “Attack on Libya: Why Odyssey Dawn Is Doomed,” New America Media, March 20, 2011.
13 “US reaches out to Libyan insurgents,” The Australian, March 1, 2011,
14 “How a onetime friend to Gadhafi became his rival,” Globe and Mail [Toronto], March 4, 2011.
15 Libyan Rebel Council in Benghazi Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi’s,” Bloomberg, March 22, 2011.
16 Robert Fisk, “America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels,” Independent, March 7, 2011.
17 “Libya rebels coordinating with West on air assault,” Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2011.
18 “Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels,” Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011,
19 Benjamin Gottlieb, “Egypt Arms Libyan Rebels As Gaddafi's Conquest Continues,” NeonTommy Annenberg Digital News, March 17, 2011.
20 Yoichi Shimatsu, “Mideast Revolutions and 9-11 Intrigues Created in Qatar,” New America Media, March 1, 2011. The al-Thani family’s protection of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is confirmed by former CIA officer Robert Baer (Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2003). Cf. Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil (New York: Crown, 2003); Peter Lance, Triple Cross (New York: Regan/HarperCollins, 2006), 234-37.