Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
NATO Strikes at Libya's Oil in Bid to Oust Gaddafi
Most senior British commander says decision to launch attack on Brega works 'was not taken lightly'
NATO forces have attacked Libya's oil facilities for the first time in this conflict in an attempt to starve Muammar Gaddafi's army of fuel, as rebels, following fierce clashes, moved to within 50 miles of the capital Tripoli.
A Libyan rebel stands on a picture of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi on June 22. (AFP)
The airstrikes on the complex at Brega, one of the countries' biggest petrochemical complexes and port for export, was designed, says NATO, to prevent regime troops from mounting attacks.
Control of Brega and the adjoining city of Ras Lanuf has changed hands several times in the course of the bitter civil war. It is now under the control of the regime, denying the opposition administration based in Benghazi a highly lucrative source of income.
The most senior British commander involved in the Libya operation, Rear Admiral Russ Harding, told The Independent: "This was not done lightly, we looked at the pattern of life on the ground, and we decided that the only ones benefiting from the fuel were the Gaddafi forces and not local people. And they were using that fuel to carry out attacks on civilians.
"There are commercial aspects to this. Brega and Ras Lanuf could provide a revenue stream for the TNC (Transitional National Council, the rebel administration). But that was not something in our consideration, the decision was taken solely to protect civilians."
Rear Admiral Harding stressed that only the refueling facilities were being hit and not the oil tanks. Speaking at NATO HQ in Naples, he continued: "It is not the case that this will be affecting babies in incubators at Brega hospital. If the hospital in Brega is being used, it is being done by Gaddafi forces."
The bombing, however, could be seen as a risky strategy for NATO, which has insisted that its forces are avoiding targeting infrastructure. Oil storage terminals at Ras Lanuf were set alight during the early weeks of fighting following the February revolution, and since then there had been an attempt by all sides in the conflict to ensure that the facilities were not affected.
However, although more than 14,000 sorties since military action began had destroyed much of Muammar Gaddafi's armor and artillery, Admiral Harding said: "We have seen them use private cars, trucks, technicals [flatbed trucks with guns mounted at the back] sometimes hundreds at a time.
"By depriving Gaddafi of fuel we are depriving him of mobility. We have seen his forces drive deep down into the desert to pick up supplies, pick up ammunition."
Limiting fuel supplies would prevent the regime troops from carrying out attacks in the eastern front as well as moving to the west, where a rare co-ordinated attack by the rebels has brought their fighters close to Tripoli, with the most advanced in the village of Qawalish, south-east of the city and the mountain village of Kikla.
In the Libyan capital, the deputy foreign minister, Khaled Kaim, declared that NATO's increased bombings represented the "final phase" of the air campaign, aimed clearing a path for the rebels. He insisted that the push "will fail and it is the civilians who will pay the price".
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...


20 Comments so far
Show AllOr does anyone think it's easy any longer to speak out against "the Conventional Wisdom" about the latest "dictatorial villain" in the NATO-countries?
Try it, and get the answer from even the well informed, former supporters of UN-charter law, that "Oh well, Gaddafi is after all a bad ruler..." - Only he isn't: he's lifted living-standards in Libya enormously in the time of his rule. When NATO takes over, will it be better? - Look to "happy" Iraq. Look to Afghanistan "saved" from Taliban. Look to Somalia in ruins but surely satisfied they're not muslim ruins?
All we can push through of honest voices against the Powers in Place is to make measly comments like this on sites like this. But even here we're ruled by whims of random PC.
The Libyan war has become about whether it can be economically advantageous or not - the complaint in Congress about it being that it's too costly - not whether attacking sovereign countries to control them is right or not. That twist of the debate is in itself dangerous to real democracy.
Liar, liar, oil on fire.
Gaddfi's forces are not attacking civilians now, if they ever did. They're defending themselves against NATO-attacks and NATO-supported attacks. NATO attacks in the first 100 days killed 1069 civilians on Gaddafi's side.
(What is it with these rulers with "adda" in the middle of their names - a call for NATO to attack?)
I bet King George III would have loved this bum. His words ring the same as all the worst englishman's words ever did.
"There are commercial aspects to this. Brega and Ras Lanuf could provide a revenue stream for the TNC (Transitional National Council, the rebel administration). But that was not something in our consideration, the decision was taken solely to protect civilians."
There's a sliver of truth in that statement. We know you don't care about the transitional national contras either. Your only goal is to colonialise Libya. And if you actually cared about protecting civilians you fascists never would have armed an insurrection in the first place.
You gotta wonder why Qaddafi never invested in any stinger like anti-aircraft missiles? The only thing that seems to stop the imperial war machine is if you can do some damage to the men, machines, and the jingoist support in the homeland. The Vietnamese were the last people to cause enough damage to the fascists to end a war.
So my fellow dreamers who do you think is next? Iran or Syria. I'm guessing Syria. These assholes in washington and london seem to prefer to pick on the weakest and poorest countries first.
Rear Admiral Russ Harding? I mean, come on...