Scriverius' Salon Blog: Qaddafi's Killing Should Give US Pause

[TomClash]

This blogger has an interesting take on Qaddafi's demise.

Few would hold a brief for the late Muammar Qaddafi, a murderous tyrant if ever there was one. I certainly do not. But while acknowledging his many crimes, and putting aside for now all the open questions about what the future holds for the Libyan people, we in the US should still be troubled by the circumstances surrounding Qaddafi's death.

So much of the media attention has been on the Libyan rebels who took Qaddafi captive, wounded but still alive, and then, it seems increasingly likely, simply executed him en route to a hospital. Somewhat drowned out by all the videos of Qaddafi's "final moments" is the fact that Qaddafi (along with a number of his cohorts) was initially wounded by the airstrike on his convey carried out by a French fighter jet and, yes, one of the USA's efficient predator drones. Although I haven't seen much written about it, it certainly seems possible that this airstrike was based on intelligence indicating that Qaddafi was in the convey. Now this wasn't the first time NATO forces targeted Qaddafi personally. But the point is that NATO forces, including US forces, attempted to kill Qaddafi and almost succeeded. The fact that he was wounded and captured by Libyan rebels who, flush with excitement and hatred, likely put a gun to his head and finished off the job of killing him may shift attention away from the NATO airstrike, but it doesn't change the reality. Why, only one day earlier, in Tripoli, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton indicated plainly that the US wanted Qaddafi captured "or killed." So, instead of capturing Qaddafi and, consistent with international law, subjecting him to plenary trial at the ICC on charges of crimes against humanity, the West, under the two-sizes-too-small figleaf of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, essentially subjected him to summary execution.

. . .

And so, although the US re-established diplomatic relations with Qaddafi's government only a few years ago, in exchange for a package of concessions including his payments to the families of the Lockerbie victims and giving up a nascent nuclear weapons program, at the first opportunity the US was part and parcel of a NATO-led consortium to rid the world of the same terrorist-tyrant we had just made up with. And this without so much as a mere notice to Congress under the War Powers Act. (What this mission (and others like it) have to do with NATO's original defensive mission is a story for another day.)

A critical factor that is also being ignored in all this, but whose implications are surely to be felt in the future, involves the lesson that other tyrants will learn from this sorry episode, especially those who already possess or are looking to acquire, nuclear weapons. In 2003, when Qaddafi agreed to terminate his nuclear weapons program, there was much discussion (and Bush administration gloating) about how he was motivated by a desire to ward off an American-led military effort to effect regime change in Libya. Yet, despite keeping his promise to relinquish the nuclear program, that is precisely what Qaddafi got in the end. Since North Korea refuses to give up its nuclear weapons because it views them, not illogically, as the best means of ensuring that the US will not invade, and Iran pursues the same goal for similar reasons, how can we hope to convince them or others to give up the only card they have to play to ensure survival of their regimes. More likely, those regimes will become more hardened and resistant to negotiations since there seems little if any upside.

http://www.open.salon.com/blog/scriverius/2011/10/21/qaddafis_killing_should_give_us_pause

[dkf]

1. I don't like this. We should have stayed out of it. Too much can go wrong.

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. Alive, Gaddafi would have talked about all of the international back-room deals he'd made.

Across decades. Can't have that.

[Kaleva]

3. Nuclear weapons failed to insure the survival of the Soviet Union

"how can we hope to convince them or others to give up the only card they have to play to ensure survival of their regimes"

The main threat to autocratic regimes is internal and not external. Despite the billions in oil revenue, Qaddafi purposely kept his army small, divided and rather poorly equipped 'cause he saw a strong army as a major possible threat to his hold on power.

[sabrina 1]

4. And there was no internal threat to Gadaffi. That is why

NATO invaded the country and aligned with the small % of those who were traditional enemies of the Libyan Govt. but who, without the Western Imperialists, posed little threat to him.

Libya was on the PNAC list. I guess they can cross another one off thier list.

[Kaleva]

5. In Oct. of 1993, Ghaddafi survived an assassination attempt...

by elements of his own army.

[sabrina 1]

6. That's a long time ago. Twenty years almost.

If that threat still existed, it could have been done instead of this NATO invasion that has killed so many people. But apparently it didn't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. As I told you yesterday

if there were no forces ready to strike, this could not have worked.

It worked because there were plenty of INTERNAL elements ready and yes, willing.

I do not think Europe will get the result out of this that they expect either... but that is another story.

[Kaleva]

9. I rather agree with you.

Alone, the rebels wouldn't have succeeded against Qaddafi's better trained and equipped forces. But then NATO alone couldn't have destroyed his regime without the rebels.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Exactly... but in ten to fifteen years we may see a little blowback

and not in a good way.

Not to say that this guy was a boy scout either... depends on what the international community does.

[sabrina 1]

11. We know who the elements were, they have been known for 40

years and this is not the first time they tried. But with popular support from most Libyans, they failed in the past. It took NATO to do it. It was not a popular people's revolution, not by a long shot.

As many international observers have noted, it is amazing how long this did take, indicating how much support he did have.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with Libya's short history, but remnants of the supporters of the old king ousted by Gadaffi decades ago, were always opposed to him. And that is why you see that flag being displayed now by the rebels. There are always factions that will jump at a chance to oust someone they view as illegitimate. This was a NATO war, after they instigated a civil war. And now we have to wonder, who is next and what the story will be to get people on board. I am guessing it will be Syria. They too are on the PNAC list.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. so Assad is not killing his people?

Sorry if I cannot go down that road with you...

(And for the record so far the UN has not been able to get the consensus and NATO is not hungry for that one)

Here is one revolution that also succeeded and would not have without foreign help. You might be familiar with it from your history books. It started in 1776... and without the FRENCH Navy in 1783 executing a blockade I suspect Cornwallis would have been able to hold off until the British Navy came in from New York

There is this thing called shades of gray... and not all manichean evil comes from Paris or DC... and there is a chance that local forces were behind this all along Time will tell.

[sabrina 1]

13. No, Assad is killing his people, but that is not our business.

No one in that region of the world trusts the US and NATO countries anymore, so it's best that we do not interfere, all we do is cause more death and destruction. In fact many Syrians believe that the US does have agitators in their country which is possible. We have zero credibility as 'humanitarians' anymore. That was destroyed by the Iraq War lies and the horrible destruction, torture, death rained down on those people by the war machine.

Shades of grey and evil in the country itself, yes of course. But that is their business, not ours. Why are we in all of these countries when they do not want us there? No country is perfect. But our bigotry is apparent when we claim that Africans need us to teach them how to live, when we have so much here that says we have a lot of learning to do ourselves. Not to mention the millions of deaths we are responsible for.

We need to stop interfering in other people's business, stealing their resources and making enemies while depleting our own resources in dollars and lives. Empires never last very long, they all meet the same fate eventually.

As for Libya, it was none of our business, until we made it so. Because they have resources.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. And with this we part company

after all we should never interfere in anybody's business, good or bad....

Alas that is not how the real world works.

As I said, none is hungry to go into Syria... nor Yemen... nor did we start the Arab Spring. That is the next thing I expect to read here. It was a CIA plot I tell you.

I will repeat this, time will tell, but this year's version of 1848, the year of revolution, is full of shades of gray and not all of it is the pure unrepentant evil emerging from European capitals or DC for that matter.

I have a problem with that view...

As to this is none of our business... I recommend a read or two into International Law, there are relevant treaties here, some of which Assad, or rather his dad, signed.

[sabrina 1]

16. Perhaps I didn't word that very well.

In the past, when I believed we were capable of helping, I would have wanted us to go in. But now, after what we have done to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone attacks that are killing hundreds of innocent people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, no, we are not the ones to help anyone. We no longer have the moral authority to do so. And no one wants us in their country as we are now regarded as the biggest threat to world peace.

I don't know who might be able to help, but we are no longer wanted. We are feared.

That is the saddest thing about the harm done by the Iraq war and the torture, and the refusal to hold anyone accountable, but that is the reality now.

Maybe Russia or China will be asked, and how bad is it that this is even a possibility, but they are trusted far more now than we are. We have lost a lot over the past decade. I remember before Bush, thinking we were the good guys, wanting us to go help in Rwanda eg, or the Balkans. But I have changed my mind now.

For that alone, Bush should have been prosecuted.

Imo, the Arab Spring worked BECAUSE it was done by the people and without our help nor did they want our help. As they said 'we do not want to be another Iraq'. I wonder if people realize fully the damage that war has done. Also, the US supported Mubarak and Ben Ali keeping them in power and causing untold suffering for their people. They do not forget that. They have asked, and rightly so imo, for an apology for that. However now, it seems their revolution has been hijacked, by the Military who are very close to the US Military. And that is what I mean. We are once again, not on the side of the people. So, as one Egyptian said recently, 'we need another revolution now'.

'Not all of it is the pure, unrepentant evil emanating from European Capitals or DC'

No one said it was. But we have no control over other countries, we can only try to have some over the actions of our own government. And most Americans do not want their military involved in every conflict in the world anymore. It seems even the most ardent supporters of Iraq, have had enough. The torture, the brutality, the war crimes, all of that has turned people off.

Treaties with other countries don't seem to mean much. Eg, why is NATO in Libya? Libya is no a NATO member nor did it attack a NATO member. It was a sovereign country and internal affairs in that country were not our business.

There's a lot of evil in the world, we could have done more by settting a good example, instead we went that road of evil ourselves, and became part of it, instead of leading people away from it. With lies, and bombs and illegal invasions, and theft of resources. So, while there is plenty of evil in the world, we did not have to become a part of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Yes Iraqis and Afghanis are not our fans

for the record afghanis do not like russians or brits that much either LOOOOONGGGG history... but if this is even close to what it is supposed to be, it is the way to change that.

Take a look at that picture...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2167928

I do not think it was a Du'er who painted that.

Nor do I think it was a CIA operative. Unlike the US, people do speak and write English outside the US.

As to Bush and the rest, yup, they should be prosecuted, sent to the Hague, you got no argument.... indictments one, two and three of Nuremberg are relevant... but this... take a good look at that photo.... reminds me of this....



One of those, is the French Flag, those are French Marines... we loved the French for two generations after that and Lafayette is both an American and French hero.

As to victims of American imperialism and adventurism... seen my fair share... but I still can see shades of gray.

[sabrina 1]

19. Don't disagree with much of what you say.

On the graffiti, I have also read statements from other Libyans who are shattered by what has happened in their country and by the deaths of their loved ones simply for being loyal to Gadaffi and they now fear for their lives. So, there are always two sides to every story. Here in the US, we always hear only the one we are supposed to hear. Which is why I go out of my way to hear the other side.

[sad sally]

15. We do know there will be no "humanitarian" missions to liberate

the Tibetans and Uyghurs, or people in the Myanmar gulags, or the people of Uzbekistan or the Kurds in Turkey, or the Pashtuns.

Now the war on terror in Northern Africa - that we'll take on.

[sabrina 1]

20. 'Africom' is in full effect. Libya, Somalia and now Uganda.

Considering the record of destruction and death of the Western powers, maybe it's better for the Tibetans and Uyghurs and the people of Myanmar that we leave them alone. Myanmar was something we could have done something about, simply by removing our oil corporations from their country, but oil profits trumped humanitarianism so the regime remains as powerful as ever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I have said here why I find this troublesome

and that is that. For some it is the witch is dead... DANCE!

[bluestate10]

18. Gadaffi is dead.

Because his own people hated the bastard. If that was not the case, the NATO air strike that flushed Gadaffi into rebel hands would have been cause for the rebels to nurture and protect him. But they did not, instead Gadaffi is said to have been hit upside the head with shoes, a traditional insult for one that is despised. NATO, nor the USA bears responsibility for Gadaffi's death. Neither do the Libyan people, many who have relatives that were murdered by Gadaffi and his agents.