Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why the West is Committed to the Murderous Rebels in Libya
Foreign governments rush to recognise the Transitional National Council in the hope of commercial concessions and a carve-up of the oilfields
In keeping with the British Government's well-established record of comical ineptitude in dealing with Libya, William Hague chose to recognize the rebel leaders in Benghazi as the legitimate government of the country at the very moment some of them may have been shooting or torturing to death their chief military commander.
The exact circumstances surrounding the killing of General Abdel Fattah Younes remain murky, but he appears to have been lured from his operational headquarters at the front and arrested. As Gaddafi's long-term defence and interior minister, who gave a crucial boost to the insurrection by defecting in February, he knew he was a target for assassination, but may have misjudged the likely identity of the assassins. Believing he was on his way to answer allegations of still being in touch with Muammar Gaddafi, he and two of his senior aides were murdered and their bodies burned. "You killed him," shouted some of his soldiers as they burst into the hotel where the Transitional National Council (TNC) had been meeting. Probably they are right and it is difficult to believe claims by the TNC that pro-Gaddafi gunmen had infiltrated Benghazi and assassinated the commander-in-chief.
Regardless of the circumstances of his death, the murder should begin to raise questions about who Britain and other foreign powers are backing as a replacement to Gaddafi in Libya. What regime will follow his long-delayed fall, when and if it happens? Will a new regime be able to control the country? Is there any reason to suppose that it will have general support, given the bitterness of the civil war? Will the rebels not be as reliant on foreign powers in peace as they have been in war?
Remember that neither Saddam Hussein nor the Taliban were popular in Iraq or Afghanistan at they time they were driven from power. But what followed in both cases was prolonged and murderous anarchy because of the weakness of their Western-backed replacements. William Hague, once again displaying a striking ability to get Libya wrong, had praised the TNC leaders – as he recognized them as the Libyan government – as showing "increasing legitimacy, competence and success". Presumably, his information came from the same source that led him months ago to inform journalists that Gaddafi was already on his way to Venezuela.
The accusations of treason against General Younes and his subsequent murder illuminate divisions within the rebel leadership that they have so far been surprisingly successful in concealing. The last time I saw him was at a press conference in Benghazi where he exuded a confident sense that the rebels were on the road to Tripoli. Burly and commanding, he was the one rebel leader who looked as if he was on top of events.
As he described the military situation, it was difficult to keep in mind the real situation on the frontline. The chaotic forays and retreats of the brave but hysterical rebel militiamen that I had just seen south of Benghazi, were portrayed by Younes as if they were well planned military maneuvers. Soon, the advance on Tripoli would begin again. There was one mystery: Younes had supposedly defected with 8,000 soldiers under his command but there was never any sign of them and no explanation as to what has happened to them.
The Libyan rebels are even weaker than those in Afghanistan and Iraq where the Western-backed opposition had a core of loyal and well-trained fighters. In Afghanistan, these were the mostly Tajik forces of the Northern Alliance and in Iraq the Kurds had a well organized and well led army in the north of the country. In Libya, rebel forces have always been more meagre, inexperienced and often appear to be one side in hitherto obscure tribal confrontations which have turned into mini civil wars.
The nature of the civil war in Libya has been persistently underplayed by foreign governments and media alike. The enthusiasm in some 30 foreign capitals to recognize the mysterious self-appointed group in Benghazi as the leaders of Libya is at this stage probably motivated primarily by expectations of commercial concessions and a carve-up of oilfields.
These were the understandable motives which led Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy and so many others to kow-tow humiliatingly to Gaddafi prior to the uprising, and to treat his bizarre personality cult with respect. A foreign no-fly zone and limited no-drive zone to defend Benghazi against Gaddafi's tanks could be justified in the early stage of the war, but this rapidly changed into a dubious decision to overthrow Gaddafi, relying on NATO air power and a few thousand rebel militiamen. The supposition was that Gaddafi would go down quickly, and when this did not happen it became a question of throwing good money after bad in the hope that his forces would cave in.
It has not happened yet and, with Ramadan beginning tomorrow, it is unlikely that fasting militiamen will be able to fight their way to Tripoli. Worse, the rebels' only strong card is NATO air power, so any cessation of the war in order to open the way for negotiations is against their interests.
In one respect, the foreign media has been more culpable than governments in giving credibility to the TNC as an alternative to Gaddafi's regime. Official rebel statements and claims have been treated with respect, as if they were not geared to winning the propaganda war. Atrocity stories, such as the use of the mass rape of women as a weapon of war, were broadcast uncritically by CNN and others. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as well as a UN commission, found there was no evidence for the allegations, but there was no retraction by the media. How could it be that for month after month Gaddafi's forces were still fighting when he was meant to have no support? One answer was that he had hired mercenaries from black Africa. Frightened laborers with no documents were arrested and presented by the rebels at TV press conferences as mercenaries and later quietly released. In contrast to their limited military capabilities, the rebels have proved extremely effective in cultivating the foreign media.
Will the strange death of Abdel Fattah Younes, whoever killed him, puncture the myth that the rebel leadership is fully capable of replacing Gaddafi and ending the war in Libya? Unfortunately for Libyans, the answer is probably no because too many foreign governments are now committed to installing the rebels in power and too many foreign journalists have portrayed them as freedom fighters battling an evil despot.
26 Comments so far
Show AllThe Transitional National Council seems to be nothing but a U.S. backed gang of murderous thugs.
Much like the contras were.
Yes, and this is about the most extreme example of mission creep I've ever seen, as well as the hypocrisy of embracing Ghadaffi and then trying to kill hm.
Yep, everyone who was paying attention (i.e. reading alternative analysis rather than letting themselves be indoctrinated by Western mass media) knew all along that the much beloved Libyan rebels were really just monarchist CIA assets and al-Qaeda types. Its no surprise that they have started killing each other now that the civil war has clearly turned into a stalemate. Obama should be immediately impeached for killing Libyan, Iraqi, Yemeni, Afghan, Pakistani, and Somalian civilians.
That sounds about right, Ocean, and this statement by Cockburn:
"A foreign no-fly zone and limited no-drive zone to defend Benghazi against Gaddafi's tanks could be justified in the early stage of the war..."
show's us he's faithful to his marching orders as one of NATO's compliant minions.
The reasons for the attack on Libya are the positive example set by Gaddafi's socialism to the rest of the region, and the fact that his oil was inaccessible for exploitation by the "international community".
Your justification of any part of this outrageous invasion is unacceptable, Mr Cockburn.
You're absolutely right, port.
Western backed and armed rebels attacking their countrymen were never part of the "Arab spring", as the propaganda asserted.
A country which lionizes Lincoln has no right to criticize a leader putting down an armed insurrection.
Not only does Libya have really good oil, it has tons of gold, Gaddafi was investing in African infrastructure, trying to develop African independence from western imperialism, trying to encourage African-Arab ties, starting an African investment bank, and, worst of all, advocating selling oil in dinars, instead of dollars or euros.
The US is taking Libya bank funds and going after the oil and gold in Libya.
No doubt they want to headquarter Africom in Libya, instead of Germany, also.
Shame on Cockburn, for implying that this attack on Libya is in any way justified.
But good for Common Dreams, printing something besides the endless speculation on US 2012 elections. I'm already sick of the pre-game show. (Including the debt ceiling theater)
Your absolutely right on all points, but you left our Libya's aquifer another reason the western world wants control.
"the positive example set by Gaddafi's socialism to the rest of the region,"
Clearly you have never lived in, or even visited Libya or read much about it. Gaddaffi's "socialism" is as socialistic as Lenin's and Stalin's "communism" was. The only example it sets is the usual one of (totalitarian) dictator-imposed economic and social tyranny and incompetence.
Perhaps you can tell us then, omniscient troll Rainborowe, why Libya has (or had until the war) the highest standard of living in Africa.
They can't answer that question.
More neverending war...
not only is the neverending resource grab continuing, but those of us with eyes to see , could see this from the first days that the mis named revolt was in front of the camera.
The gives Piracy a bad name and i resent it.
"What regime will follow his long-delayed fall, when and if it happens?"
Wrong question of course. Cockburn is playing to the armchair imperialist in us. He might even make a buck off our little internal armchair imperialists. But instead of giving him and the rest of the imperialists bits of our energy we should instead invest that energy back into ourselves and into our local comunities/economies.
Let's think it through and see what that gets us: Instead of "justifying" imperialism with our armchair ambitions we can build and strengthen the channels and loops of energy flow that excludes the imperialists, and thereby we isolate them, more and more, and shrink their party down to where it's small enough to "drown in a bathtub".
This gives us better chances to build with our energy the structures that are beneficial, that satisfy Kant's Categorical Imperative, for example, that which is done by all benefits all, i.e. that which is sustainable. Imperialism ain't it. Don't let Cockburn's ethical pretenses fool you. Ultimately he's accomplishing nothing but the promotion of imperialism, when fueling infighting among imperialists with discussions about "how to".
I guess if we fail to redirect our energies away from imperialism it will grow bigger and overwhelm more of us. Hilarious! How thuggery engulfs people when given a chance.
Interesting comment, rtdrury.
If an understanding and appreciation of Kant's Categorical Imperative (it's quite simple really) was a prerequisite to graduation from all primary schools, what a fine world we would have.
Has anyone else noticed that while the U.S. military (or NATO-same thing) is very good at causing terrific explosions, they can't seem to actually win a war. Terrible waste of money (not to mention fodder units), I'd say.
Why bother winning the war? A neverending war is a neverending revenue stream for the MIC.
Which leaves the US installed puppet, Khalifa Haftar, as the unchallenged military chief of the "rebels" having returned to Libya in April after his 20 year exile in Virginia following Haftar's fallling out with Gaddafi.
How conVEEEEEEEEnient.
Boy, it sure got quiet on this issue after the initial euphoria from interventionists.
Just sayin'.
Before our war for Libya's oil, they had the highest standard of living in Africa. We can spend millions of dollars a day killing innocent Muslims, but we have to lower social security payments. Billions for war because our ruling class profits from every missile launched, but nothing for anything reflecting human decency. War has become America's leading export, along with our surplus young men and women who can't get jobs in the USA. Almost 10 years in Afghanistan, over 8 in Iraq, who knows how long in Yemen, now Libya -- the profits will never stop. I would love to listen to the moral lepers who run the military industrial complex speaking to each other and to their families in private. Do they see themselves as God's gift to the world or do they see themselves as the monsters they are? I suspect the former and that they look down on the rest of us. We know that Obama laughs at people like those who visit CD and holds them in contempt. He has said so explicitly. I suspect all the rest of them do too.
Our leaders have worked very hard to make modern empire building not only acceptable but something you don't support at your peril.
Of course peril now is administered as being marginalized and removed from visibility to the general public.
As much as I want to think our leaders are stupid in these matters, they are very smart and very evil.
"What regime will follow his long-delayed fall, when and if it happens?"
Wrong question of course. Cockburn is playing to the armchair imperialist in us. He might even make a buck off our little internal armchair imperialists. But instead of giving him and the rest of the imperialists bits of our energy we should instead invest that energy back into ourselves and into our local communities/economies.
Let's think it through and see what that gets us: Instead of "justifying" imperialism with our armchair ambitions we can build and strengthen the channels and loops of energy flow that excludes the imperialists, and thereby we isolate them, more and more, and shrink their party down to where it's small enough to "drown in a bathtub".
This gives us better chances to build with our energy the structures that are beneficial, that satisfy Kant's Categorical Imperative, for example, that which is done by all benefits all, i.e. that which is sustainable. Imperialism ain't it. Don't let Cockburn's ethical pretenses fool you. Ultimately he's accomplishing nothing but the promotion of imperialism, when fueling infighting among imperialists with discussions about "how to".
I guess if we fail to redirect our energies away from imperialism it will grow bigger and overwhelm more of us. Hilarious! How thuggery engulfs people when given a chance.
"Frightened laborers with no documents were arrested and presented by the rebels at TV press conferences as mercenaries and later quietly released. "
Quietly released? I guess lynchings can be described by some as being quietly released.
"Other evidence of the massacres of black people, which include the lynchings and murder of black soldiers of the Libyan army, guest workers from other African countries and dark-skinned Libyan civilians include a report from the BBC on 25 February which cited a Turkish construction worker as saying:
“We had 70-80 people from Chad working for our company. They were cut dead with pruning shears and axes, attackers saying: ‘You are providing troops for Gaddafi.’ The Sudanese were also massacred. We saw it for ourselves.”
On 27th February Nick Meo of The Telegraph reported from Al-Bayda that he had been shown mobile phone footage of a ‘captured mercenary‘ (presumably he means black person with a uniform) lynched from a street lamp as well as a ‘black African hanging on a meat hook.’"
http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/07/libya-ethnic-cleansing/
From the Article: "A foreign no-fly zone and limited no-drive zone to defend Benghazi against Gaddafi's tanks could be justified in the early stage of the war..."
This statement shows that Mr Cockburn either believes [or is selling] the hype that Khadaffi was going to slaughter un-armed civilians when there is no hard proof of such -but- much proof that the King Idris / AL-CIAeda inspired rebels were never really for peaceful protest BUT- from the git-go- were for ARMED Rebellion! Plus what about 'Operation Southern Storm'- which shows that France, UK, US & NATO [FUK-US NATO] had likely planned this assault on Libya since at-least Nov 2010; or the US, French & UK special forces that were on the ground in Libya apparently weeks before imposing their so-called 'Humanitarian' No Fly Zone?!
AND as DER astutely observes- The assassination of Gen Younes 'conveniently' leaves that CIA asset Khalifa Haftar, as the unchallenged military chief of the "AL-CIAeda inspired "rebels"...
To Mr Cockburn's credit he does note that the 'Khadaffi's feeding Viagra to his troops for mass-rapes...' -&- 'Khadaffi's Black African Mercs...' stories were unfounded &/or over-hyped -but- He fails to state that the King Idris / AL-CIAeda inspired rebels have used the 'Black African Merc' LIE as an excuse for Racist Attacks on Black African Migrant Workers & Even BLACK LIBYANS [IE: many of them weren't just merely 'Released' unharmed]!
"Why the West is Committed to the Murderous Rebels in Libya" - because they are the West's murderous rebels. Duh.