Fw: from David McR-- EdgeLeft: on the fruits of the "victory" in Libya

----- Original Message ----- 
From: David McReynolds 
To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Portside 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 12:58 PM
Subject: EdgeLeft: on the fruits of the "victory" in Libya


Clearing up some clippings on my desk, I thought I'd get these notes off without the formality of a more coherent essay.

I was never happy with the NATO actions in Libya because I was never convinced we were witnessing a genuine "revolution". It seemed much more like a civil conflict.

More distressing to me was the outrageous behavior of the European leaders, such
as (in my view) the truly detestable Tony Blair. Gadaffi had surrendered his weapons program, 
he had made his peace with Western Europe, he had been embraced by the political leaders there (and assuming there was truth to the stories of torture and brutality under Gadaffi, those had to have been true at the time Western Europe was embracing the man).

In any case, in the beginning the NATO action was, in theory, only to provide a "no fly zone"
so that Gadaffi's jets could not pound the civilians in Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya. If you remember, there was a clear statement by Obama, and by NATO, that the military actions by
NATO were not an effort at regime change - only at protecting civilians. When Gadaffi didn't fall, and his military forces didn't fold, NATO extended its actions with a series of air strikes clearly aimed at the murder of Gadaffi. Without even the dignity of a public discussion, NATO had shifted its goal from protecting civilians to the direct overthrow of the Libyan government.

Leap forward to the immediate past and, aside from the nonsense about Benghazi, where the US Ambassador was murdered, (and I say "nonsense" because no less a source than the Wall Street Journal, reporting on the matter in depth, pointed out that the Consulate in Benghazi was of secondary important - the more important target was the CIA base there), we have seen the horrific fruits of the NATO intervention.

First, there is no stability in Libya - not even what can pass for a government. The Republican Senators who want the "full story" of Benghazi, don't really want the fully story or they would realize that there was no military or police force in Libya which could have protected the US Ambassador. The NATO intervention removed Gadaffi but in his wake there are armed gangs under no one's control. The prize of Libya - the oil - cannot even safely be apportioned out to the NATO "liberators".

Second, and more important, the supply of NATO weapons sent in to Libya, combined with the overthrow of the government, has meant that in Mali we have seen an entirely new
battlefront opened up. Gadaffi had relied on the Tuaregs, who had come from Mali, as a key
part of his military force. With the overthrow of Gadaffi, the Turaregs moved back to Mali. (With, I might add, some "help" from the Libyans, who had resented the Turaregs, who, as black Africans, were not popular in Libya and came under attack after Libya's "liberation").

Now, with the supply of weapons they brought with them from Libya, there is a deadly new
front opening in Mali. The NATO intervention in Libya was never "humanitarian" - it was about oil. But the result of that intervention has been a Libya without order, and a new front of violence in a neighboring country which had been stable.

It is past time for the Europeans to dismantle NATO. The liberation of Libya was a farce,
one for which the people of Mali are currently paying a high price.

David McReynolds, New York City