W1N5T0N
1st July 2011, 22:13
Four months into the NATO air campaign, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is still in power, protected by loyalists and mercenaries. Americans are weary of war, and patience in Europe is also wearing thin. But NATO must not give up.
If Colonel Qaddafi is allowed to have his way, thousands more Libyans will die. The credibility of NATO and this country would also be severely damaged. Colonel Qaddafi, who has a long history of sponsoring international terrorism, is not one to let bygones be bygones.
There is progress. The make-shift rebel army — aided by British, French and Italian advisers and armed by France and Qatar — is slowly improving. NATO strikes on military command centers, including Colonel Qaddafi’s compound in Tripoli, have done real damage. This week’s International Criminal Court indictment of Colonel Qaddafi, one of his sons and his intelligence chief on charges of crimes against humanity should be a warning to all of his cronies.
A naval blockade and international sanctions are increasingly having an effect. Oil revenues, the government’s main income, are down by two-thirds. There are reports of long gasoline lines in Tripoli and rising bread prices. On Thursday, people fleeing Tripoli told of overnight gunfire and signs of revolt.
The Qaddafi clan is watching closely for signs that NATO’s will is flagging. Italy’s recent call for a cease-fire (which could give government forces time to regroup) and second-guessing by the Arab League’s outgoing leader, Amr Moussa, are not helpful. Neither are Congressional efforts to force an end to American support for the air campaign.
President Obama was wrong to ignore the War Powers Act, but that should not stop the House and Senate from adopting the Kerry-McCain resolution authorizing the mission to continue for another year.
NATO must help, but the Libyan people are the only ones who can bring the regime down.
The rebels need more military advisers and weapons and access to $30 billion in frozen Qaddafi government funds. The United States and other countries need to remove the legal obstacles to getting that money.
The alliance should extend sanctions to more of Colonel Qaddafi’s cronies and the subsidiaries of state-owned enterprises. Washington and its partners should also help the rebels start building the political and civil institutions they will need to keep a post-Qaddafi Libya from descending into chaos.
There has been recent talk by all sides about a possible political deal between the rebels and the government. We are eager to see an end to the fighting. But Washington and NATO must stand firmly with the rebels and reject any solution that does not involve the swift ouster of Colonel Qaddafi and real freedom for Libyans.
-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/opinion/01fri2.html
Interesting article from the New York times. Couple of things caught my eye and thus i want to do some chomskyan analaysis.
1.
loyalists and mercenaries
-makes it seem like the people fighting against the rebels are just a bunch of thugs that "deserve to be killed". However, I have come to the conclusion that, as in most regimes, most of Gaddaffis troops
are consctipts, or have been forced to take a job as soldier to provide for their families. If they drop out now,they will a. be seen as the enemy and b. their families may be killed
2.
The credibility of NATO and this country would also be severely damaged. Colonel Qaddafi, who has a long history of sponsoring international terrorism, is not one to let bygones be bygones.
-NATO/USA credibility? Please. The govt. of the USA has been involved in numerous armed conflicts around the world only for their own imperialist agenda. Furthermore, it's a little ironic how it is completely omitted in this article that the USA have been sponsoring terrorists all around the world for decades (Nicaragua, contras; Afghanistan, Mujahideen/Taliban; Batista, Cuba; Bin Laden, international terrorism; the list is long...). Of course, it is then "counter-terrorism" in the Interest "of the most free country on earth" and of course the country they happen to be terrorising. They have and will continue to intervene only on basis of their own interests, and this usually comes back to bite them in the arse (again, Taliban;Bin Laden).
3.
There are reports of long gasoline lines in Tripoli and rising bread prices.
And who suffers most from this? The working man. The people. Children. THAT is also terrorism, although much subtler. This will only succeed in getting more loyalists for Gaddaffi, and is thus quite counter-productive.
4.
This week’s International Criminal Court indictment of Colonel Qaddafi, one of his sons and his intelligence chief on charges of crimes against humanity should be a warning to all of his cronies.
If that is the case (which is quite probable) then most of America's presidents till now should also stand trial in the ICC. Obama practically overrode the consitution, he was so eager to help. However, this also raises couple a legal questions...What if this becomes a trend? Did the American people vote on this issue? Very little (direct) democracy here. And yep, voting would have taken a long time by paper, so why not have electronic voters for this kind of thing? Also, there was a thing way back in the 50's, called Nuremberg trials? It was only ever applied to german fascist leaders, and not American ones....(This argument is of course not directed towards Obama. I am referring to the prez's of the until the 70's).
These the most prominent of things which caught my eye in this blatantly subjective piece of journalism.
Does anybody have more ideas? Disagreements? Agreements?
Feel free to comment and to share your ideas.
If Colonel Qaddafi is allowed to have his way, thousands more Libyans will die. The credibility of NATO and this country would also be severely damaged. Colonel Qaddafi, who has a long history of sponsoring international terrorism, is not one to let bygones be bygones.
There is progress. The make-shift rebel army — aided by British, French and Italian advisers and armed by France and Qatar — is slowly improving. NATO strikes on military command centers, including Colonel Qaddafi’s compound in Tripoli, have done real damage. This week’s International Criminal Court indictment of Colonel Qaddafi, one of his sons and his intelligence chief on charges of crimes against humanity should be a warning to all of his cronies.
A naval blockade and international sanctions are increasingly having an effect. Oil revenues, the government’s main income, are down by two-thirds. There are reports of long gasoline lines in Tripoli and rising bread prices. On Thursday, people fleeing Tripoli told of overnight gunfire and signs of revolt.
The Qaddafi clan is watching closely for signs that NATO’s will is flagging. Italy’s recent call for a cease-fire (which could give government forces time to regroup) and second-guessing by the Arab League’s outgoing leader, Amr Moussa, are not helpful. Neither are Congressional efforts to force an end to American support for the air campaign.
President Obama was wrong to ignore the War Powers Act, but that should not stop the House and Senate from adopting the Kerry-McCain resolution authorizing the mission to continue for another year.
NATO must help, but the Libyan people are the only ones who can bring the regime down.
The rebels need more military advisers and weapons and access to $30 billion in frozen Qaddafi government funds. The United States and other countries need to remove the legal obstacles to getting that money.
The alliance should extend sanctions to more of Colonel Qaddafi’s cronies and the subsidiaries of state-owned enterprises. Washington and its partners should also help the rebels start building the political and civil institutions they will need to keep a post-Qaddafi Libya from descending into chaos.
There has been recent talk by all sides about a possible political deal between the rebels and the government. We are eager to see an end to the fighting. But Washington and NATO must stand firmly with the rebels and reject any solution that does not involve the swift ouster of Colonel Qaddafi and real freedom for Libyans.
-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/opinion/01fri2.html
Interesting article from the New York times. Couple of things caught my eye and thus i want to do some chomskyan analaysis.
1.
loyalists and mercenaries
-makes it seem like the people fighting against the rebels are just a bunch of thugs that "deserve to be killed". However, I have come to the conclusion that, as in most regimes, most of Gaddaffis troops
are consctipts, or have been forced to take a job as soldier to provide for their families. If they drop out now,they will a. be seen as the enemy and b. their families may be killed
2.
The credibility of NATO and this country would also be severely damaged. Colonel Qaddafi, who has a long history of sponsoring international terrorism, is not one to let bygones be bygones.
-NATO/USA credibility? Please. The govt. of the USA has been involved in numerous armed conflicts around the world only for their own imperialist agenda. Furthermore, it's a little ironic how it is completely omitted in this article that the USA have been sponsoring terrorists all around the world for decades (Nicaragua, contras; Afghanistan, Mujahideen/Taliban; Batista, Cuba; Bin Laden, international terrorism; the list is long...). Of course, it is then "counter-terrorism" in the Interest "of the most free country on earth" and of course the country they happen to be terrorising. They have and will continue to intervene only on basis of their own interests, and this usually comes back to bite them in the arse (again, Taliban;Bin Laden).
3.
There are reports of long gasoline lines in Tripoli and rising bread prices.
And who suffers most from this? The working man. The people. Children. THAT is also terrorism, although much subtler. This will only succeed in getting more loyalists for Gaddaffi, and is thus quite counter-productive.
4.
This week’s International Criminal Court indictment of Colonel Qaddafi, one of his sons and his intelligence chief on charges of crimes against humanity should be a warning to all of his cronies.
If that is the case (which is quite probable) then most of America's presidents till now should also stand trial in the ICC. Obama practically overrode the consitution, he was so eager to help. However, this also raises couple a legal questions...What if this becomes a trend? Did the American people vote on this issue? Very little (direct) democracy here. And yep, voting would have taken a long time by paper, so why not have electronic voters for this kind of thing? Also, there was a thing way back in the 50's, called Nuremberg trials? It was only ever applied to german fascist leaders, and not American ones....(This argument is of course not directed towards Obama. I am referring to the prez's of the until the 70's).
These the most prominent of things which caught my eye in this blatantly subjective piece of journalism.
Does anybody have more ideas? Disagreements? Agreements?
Feel free to comment and to share your ideas.