EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
America's Secret Plan to Arm Libya's Rebels
Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi
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.
Saudi Arabia has not yet responded to a request from the US to supply weapons to rebels in Libya (Getty) 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 and later – to America's chagrin – also funded and armed the Taliban.
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 armor, 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 Endeavor, which has broad reach to undertake aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region.
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 neighboring 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 organizers 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.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
73 Comments so far
Show AllSell Arms? Is that the solution?
I say take a stand against governments using military power against it's people!
Isn't that their excuse for invading Iraq? Protect it's citizens against the evil Saddam.
It's easier to control a country after it's been considerably weakened, which must be their plan...
the nature of the "rebels," at least some elements of them, has been quite obvious, to an informed eye: REACTIONARY. so, as expected, there's dissension within their "alternative" government already.
not that kadafi is perfect, but that kadafi has been played.
remember, according to the global parasites, he was supposedly a reformed man since he surrendered to the global parasites in 2004 after decades of sanctions and bombings against libya, which refused to play by the imperialist rules.
"highly classified"? So the U.S. can "disclaim involvement"?? Not so much anymore, since it's here on CD and the Independent UK, and presumably all over for all the world to see.
bits of information through Democracy Now are instructive:
1) the refugees, political and / or economic, from many countries that have been ravaged by never-ending virtual civil wars, which are often instigated and funded by the global corporate / financial parasites through their mercenaries or regular armies, possibly over a million of them, have been providing a big chunk of labor force to libya without threat, until the politically-right-leaning rebels took over parts of libya and started genocidal cleansing against the non-arab africans.
2) the foreign worker-refugee population have been labled as "mercenaries" on kadafi's payroll" and have been blamed for "massacres" of the "peaceful protesters".
3) the global parasite class and its corporate / mainstream media have been hiding 1) while spreading 2).
What game are the MIC monsters playing at now???
tryng to secure their foothold in libya through their "rebels", at any cost and by all means, in order to re-take the entire northern african region under their thumb.
Simple.
The MIC machine needs oil. Cheap oil.
Libya has oil, plus refineries and shipping terminals.
2+2 = more dead to feed the American beast.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
I imagine ExxonMobil, et al have been salivating at the thought of controlling Libyan oil for decades. As I understand it, Libyan light-sweet crude oil is the most sought after on the planet because of its relative ease of refining into gasoline. And Gawd knows, AmeriKKKa needs plenty of gasoline.
Of course, having huge military bases on Egypt's western border (just in case those misguided democratic rebels decide they don't want AmeriKKKa's "help") and Libya's access to the Mediterranean Sea would be a plus too.
Huge profits for the military industrial komplex gotta be the number one goal of all this intrigue.
Important correction there - to imperialism by naming. USA by calling itself "America" tacitly usurps two continents, in line with the Monroe Doctrine (1823).
Who to believe? In this report it claimed that an Israeli Company has been contracted to hire Mercenaries for Gaddafi.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167814.html
Remember that due to pressure from the USA these mercenaries can not be charged with war crimes.
Trying to figure out what the heck is really happening is difficult at best with so much of the Media under Government and or Corporate control.
Actually, that is not correct. They cannot be prosecuted at the ICC because Libya is not a member of the ICC and since they are not, the only way that they can get before the ICC is for the security council to recommend it. In the last week, Gadhaffi has been referred with the support of the US.
But the mercenaries are NOT Libyans. My understanding is that should Canadian Mercenaries as example commit war crimes in Libya those Canadian Mercenaries can be charged at the ICC because Canada a signatory.
Hooyah! And ka-ka to you Mr. Man!
There will be not more secrets kept from the world anymore. Why not just prosecute us all right now for searching out the truth of the matter. Now we can get them there flash-sticks thingies with ALL the "secrets" informaiton on it for a tiny $$$ donation. Hooyah! Again and hats off to Al Jeezera.
Probably a naive question but...
China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. seem not to be compelled to interfere. They all use oil too. Then why always the USA?
Lucy, please 'splain.
In the case of the Saudis and the Russians, they are producers of oil so they will benefit from instability in the region.
China and India are also more focused on their immediate region than the ME.
China and Russia trade amongst themselves.
Russia is also a semi-major player in the oil game. China, for the most part, is using coal and nukes to power it's current (and soon-to-be short lived) economic boom. As long as the US stays out of Iran (China's major oil supplier), China has little reason to bother the US over Libyan intervention /adventure.
The US one the other hand, desperately needs the ME to be at least somewhat stable, to insure that the vast quantities of oil and it's by-products continue to reach America to power is lifestyle.
This has nothing to do with 'democracy(tm)' and EVERYTHING to do with maintaining the status quo, which George W. Bush said was non-negotiable.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
Russia is not a "semi-major player in the oil game". It is the world's largest oil producer (followed by Saudi Arabia), and the world's largest producer of natural gas. It's military is still the second or third most powerful on earth. It is, therefore, THE major player in the oil game.
Can't speak about the other countries, but Russia had recently signed huge contracts with Quadaffi to build roads and railroads, and is heavily invested in oil field development and natural gas projects in the country. So they will not interfere on the side of the rebels. Of course they will continue to supply spare parts, training etc. for the Libyan Air Force, and no doubt the Russians will see to it that the government forces don't run out of ammunition.The idea that the rebels are 'reactionary' is laughable, unless, of course, you want to consider Quadaffi 'progressive'.
Oh looky... Obama's trying out his governments version of the 'Iran-Contra' game...
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
"Oficially, NATO will only describe the presence of American AWACS planes as part of its post-9/11 Operation Enduring Endeavor, which has broad reach to undertake aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region."
Talk about mission creep. Neither the 2001 AUMF authorizing use of force in Afghanistan nor the 2002 AUMF authorizing the invasion of Iraq had jack shit to do with Libya, Ghadaffi, or "aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region" generally.
The Bushies dreamed up using NATO as a coalition-of-the-willing front group to overthrow the Taliban regime on the theory Mullah Omar had harbored the 9/11 Al Qaeda conspirators, dusting off this Cold War relic mutual defense pact as a fig leaf of legality to justify US intervention in Afghanistan and the Pakistan frontier areas. Voila! What was once universally understood to be a mechanism for safeguarding Europe in general and Germany in particular from ground invasion by the Soviets and the Warsaw pact was magically converted from shield into a 21st Century interventionist sword.
Libya, Colonel Ghadaffi, and Libyan intelligence had nothing to do with 9/11, the Afghan Taliban, or Saddam's mythical weapons of mass destruction. Whatever "Operation Enduring Endeavor" supposedly encompasses, it is absolutely absurd to try to pretend that bombing the Libyan air force's command and control network and imposing a no-fly zone somehow constitutes a "counter-terrorism measure." This is utter gibberish.
Would somebody please point me to the act of Congress which ostensibly authorizes US armed forces to drop bombs, and for US spies, US special forces, or US surrogates to take sides in a Libyan civil war?
Unless the UN Security Council expressly approves such an intervention, it is flat out illegal under international law and under the United States Constitution. Trying to brand label such military adventurism a NATO mission doesn't change that reality.
Bill from Saginaw
Air Force tankers getting together
The big tanker base is in Washington near Spokane.
A friend in the area said the other night there was one going overhead every 15 minuets for hours. He couldn't see them in the dark, but he heard them.
The last time there was this many flying by was before the invasion of Iraq.
Hunch is that we are preparing for a no fly zone in Libya. It will take a fleet of tankers to support continual flying of military airplanes.
Thanks, Robert.
The US of A never seems to learn from their mistakes. We failed in Afganistan in the 80's and now we want to do the same thing again and the world will know about it. "Go Figure"
Near as I can guess so far is that the US and a few others have conducted some black op to arm a group of 'rebels' to overthrow Gaddafi and let the West in. If Gaddafi reacts too violently that provides the excuse for invasion. One wrinkle is that there is dissention among some in the Lybian government, and a bigger wrinkle is that there are lots of real pro-democracy rebels among the people, who want nothing to do with the West. The old 'hold a coup and install a new puppet' plan isn't working out well lately because too many people have woken up, become informed, and willing to resist and take over their countries for the themselves, excluding the puppets.
"US, French and British special forces troops have been on the ground in eastern Libya since Feb. 24."
This would not surprise me one bit. In fact, I would expect it. But, do you have a source for this?
The Brits were sent packing but did they also take the arms with them or leave these behind? If they left them behind that was interference.
There's been a lot of this in the news recently-but, no I can't cite chapter and verse.But multiple articles have refered to it. Questions NOT anwered: how many are there, and what are they doing? Training? Protecting French and British nationals? Helping to evacuate same? Fighting? Probably not the last.
Americans can always find ways to kill other people.
Exactly. Gaddafi is someone the empire wants out so they can take the oil. Everything else is BS.
Yes, of course, the AmeriKKKan fascist regime will take advantage of another opportunity to expand its policies of endless wars around the globe. Just think--all that AmeriKKKan oil under Libya's sand, more profits for the war, er, I mean the defense industry and more gulag-torture sites to fight the endless war on terror.
Is AmeriKKKa a great country or what ?!!
You spelled "America" wrong. Three times....
No, the spelling is quite fine the way it is: defining a racist, intolerant, religious fundamentalist, misogynistic Government dominated by Corporate interests.
I generally like Tom Joad's posts-but I have to say that calling this place AmeriKKKa does kind of get under my skin. It was funny the first time, and maybe a few times after that, but using that name over and over tends to dimish its effectiveness. I find it mildly irritating, and I think it detracts from the reasonable arguments he often makes. At the moment, there are roughly 12,000 Klan members. I don't belong to the Klan, nor do the rest of the 310 million Americans. Gringolandia is a useful term, up to a point, but runs the risk of being confused with Greenland, which is bigger, but has less people.
Hmm ... no mention of oil.
Bush/Cheney/Big Oil were more immediately predictable, but after some beating around the bush, its the same.
Who sold Gadhafi all those jet bombers?
The French...
No actually they are Russian MIG 23s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23
The good stuff is vulnerable to a little unmanned drone!
"European arms sales to Libya, in figures":
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/03/02/european-arms-sales-to-libya-in-figures
>>"Italy is the biggest exporter: they officially sold Libya €111m of weapons, but are also responsible for €80m of firearms dubiously licensed through Malta. ...
In Britain, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade reports that “the UK Government had approved the export of goods including tear gas and crowd control ammunition and sniper rifles to Bahrain and Libya“. The arms-promotion wing of the UK government counts Libya as a “priority market”, and says “high-level political interventions” have supported UK weapons sales there. Last November, over half of the exhibitors at the Libyan Defence & Security Exhibition (LibDex) were UK companies.
...
In France, web outlet Rue89 interviews Jean Guisnel, whose recent book on the arms trade has a chapter devoted to Libya. He names French politicians involved in weapons deals with Libya: president Nicolas Sarkozy, minister of defence Michèle Alliot-Marie and her husband, and the Libyan middle-man Ziad Takieddine. ..."<<
From "The Dail Mail", UK,
"How can we be so blindly stupid as to sell arms to despots then bleat about democracy?"
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1360079/How-Britain-sell-arms-Gaddafi-Libya-bleat-democracy.html
>>"In 2007, the British Government agreed a £5 million package with Libya which included armoured personnel carriers and water cannon. Since then we have sold arms worth tens of millions of pounds to Gaddafi’s regime. ...
As recently as last summer, the Coalition Government approved licences to sell products to Libya including ‘crowd control ammunition’ and ‘tear gas/irritant ammunition’. Only a few months ago we shipped sniper rifles to Libya. ..."<<
Bottom line: Don't look for any "principles" when it comes to weapons sales. These are among the few things that western countries can still export in a competitive global market and they are not about to stop selling as long as they can get away with it.
Let's see, we sell arms to the rebels to oust a bad dictator. Didn't we do that in Afghanistan? Remember what happened. We got rid of someone bad and wound up with someone worse.
Wasn't something like this tried in Afghanistan in the 1980s? Operation Cyclone? Is history once again poised to repeat itself? Let's see. We arm the rebels, they overthrow the government(in 1980s the soviet occupiers) and then when the dust settles, the weapons are used on our troops. Bad idea, AGAIN! Let the UN handle this, perhaps with our aid, but no more aid than any other UN member offers. I would like some of our money spent on us not spread around the world in order for oil corporations or any other corporation(arms manufacturers) to increase profit
Please people, if you live in the US and you want to say something like "US policy sucks", don't say "OUR policy sucks".
It is not "our" policy, unless you are in the upper level of the corporate/government power structure. If you are posting here, you probably are not.
As far as I know the Nuremberg trials did not assign collective responsibility to all Germans which they would have to throw in jail for war crimes if the Trials had done so. It is a valid discussion point to which extent every US citizen is responsible for what our government does. I wonder what Thomas Jefferson had to say about this issue.
Your comment is so hilariously silly that I do not know where to begin. On second thought, I will not even begin to enter your mudbath.
Ethical culpability, in any group situation, is proportional to the influence you have over decision making. In a true democracy, the voting citizens are theoretically responsible for the consequences of the policies they select. In a republic that responsibility is diluted - since we don't vote issues in elections (as we should) but personalities. In authoritarian states, the population has less responsibility because the people have even less influence over policy.
Does ethical cuplability have any practical value? In the Tokyo trials following WWII, a Japanese general (sorry, can't remember his name) was hung for the brutal actions of a handful of his troops on an island somwhere far away of whom he had no knowledge and over whom he had no realistic influence let alone command. It was never alleged that he commited any war crimes. The strong do what they want, the weak do what they must.
Actually it was Tomoyuki Yamashita - at the Manila tribunals. Sorry for suggesting it was the Tokyo tribunals. Surely Tojo ordered the commission of war crimes and was rightly convicted.
What do you suggest - if you are suggesting something? Something practical please, not just the same old tired slogans of the 'rise up and throw off your chains' variety like one sees here.
Pseudo-jesuit? LOL
Sounds like contempt for our supposed weakness. Contempt, hatred, or venom will only beget more of the same.
William Bowles has some good material on this situation.
http://williambowles.info/2011/03/07/bewitched-bothered-and-bewildered-by-william-bowles/
There are also good articles at http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home
"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]?"
Jeez, you'd think for the $billions spent on intelligence the AWACS would have some ground feed of the ATC data to it's onboard systems and get datablocks for the targets it follows. That way they would not have to call on an open frequency.