[A-List] Attack on Libya May Unleash a Long War

[Nadja Tesich]

cb
So called'rebels' in Libya use money  from here and their words.
It's a fraud as usual.But they can't fool me.
Nadja
----------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:52:41 -0400
> From: cb31450 at gmail.com
> To: marxism-thaxis at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu; marxist-debate at googlegroups.com; a-list at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Subject: [A-List] Attack on Libya May Unleash a Long War
>
> http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/attack_on_libya_may_unleash_a_long_war
>
>
> Attack on Libya May Unleash a Long War
>
> March 28, 2011 · By Phyllis Bennis
> Libyan protesters asked for help, but the military attacks they're
> getting may actually create a whole new set of problems that could
> last a very long time.
>
> The United States and its allies launched the war against Libya on the
> eighth anniversary of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. President Barack
> Obama says the U.S. will transfer command authority very soon, that
> military action should be over in "days, not weeks," and that he wants
> no boots on the ground. But the parallels with other U.S. wars in the
> Middle East don't bode well.
>
> The Pentagon may indeed transfer its command to some other military
> leadership. But what happens when London and Paris decide they don't
> have sufficient weaponry, or can't afford it any longer--what will
> President Obama do then? And what about that "no U.S. troops on the
> ground" line? Forget about it. When the first F-15 warplane went down
> on Sunday, one of the airmen was picked up by Libyan opposition
> supporters and turned over to unidentified "U.S. forces"--who must
> have been on the ground as part of a rescue arrangement.
>
> The people of Libya, like those in neighboring countries who also rose
> up to challenge brutal dictatorships, are paying a huge price for
> their resistance. Unlike the others, the Libyan uprising quickly
> became an armed battle, with Gaddafi's side far more powerful. The
> need to support the out-gunned protesters was very real.
>
> Libyan activists themselves said they wanted intervention by the
> international community. But what they got may have far different
> results than they sought. Despite their exultation over the first
> destroyed tanks, questions loom. The United Nations' intent is to
> protect civilians from those tanks. But according to The New York
> Times, "many of the tanks seemed to have been retreating"--just what
> the UN resolution required. That happened in 1991, too, when a column
> of retreating Iraqi tanks and troops leaving Kuwait was attacked by
> U.S. warplanes whose pilots called it "a turkey shoot."
>
> Why do we think another U.S.-led western attack against another Middle
> Eastern country will lead to democracy? What's the end game? What if a
> stalemate leaves Libya divided, with military attacks continuing? The
> UN resolution is very clear that military force can only be used to
> protect Libyan civilians, but the Western powers have simultaneously
> made clear that their real political goal is regime change--ousting
> Muammar Gaddafi. Ironically, by stating Gaddafi has "lost his
> legitimacy," western leaders are dramatically narrowing the space for
> negotiations which could provide for a more peaceful removal of the
> Libyan leader. And what if these attacks lead to an escalating, rather
> than diminishing, civil war?
>
> The Pentagon's official position is that U.S. military involvement in
> Libya matches the UN resolution--we're only protecting civilians. How
> will that work if air strikes continue against military targets that
> happen to be located in the middle of Libyan cities? And how is anyone
> supposed to believe that protecting civilians is really the Pentagon's
> only goal when their Commander in Chief says Gaddafi must go?
>
> In Iraq, a protracted no-fly zone directly caused hundreds of civilian
> casualties. What if that happens in Libya? Already, during the pilot's
> rescue, at least six Libyan civilians were shot by U.S. forces--one of
> them a little boy who will probably lose his leg. If such casualties
> continue, how long will Libyans continue to support the western
> intervention?
>
> Back here at home, there's the gnawing question of how we can afford a
> third U.S. war in North Africa and the Middle East. The first day,
> U.S. gunships fired 110 Tomahawk missiles. They cost $1 million each.
> That's $110 million just for the missiles, not counting the ships, the
> planes, the bombs, the pilots...We could have used that $110 million
> to create 2,200 new green jobs instead.
>
> The UN itself acknowledged that this could be the beginning of a very
> long war. The resolution asks the secretary-general to report on
> military developments in Libya "within seven days and every month
> thereafter." So much for "days, not weeks."
>