"The US has signalled that the international community should "go beyond" a no-fly zone in Libya, suggesting military intervention for the first time.""— "West should 'go beyond' no-fly zone, US says" – The Daily Telegraph, 20 March 2011
So why is there no 'no-fly zone' over the Ivory Coast, or Yemen, or Bahrain or indeed any country where the state is killing its citizens? What makes Libya different? Could it be that the hysterical propaganda campaign concerning Gaddafi's human rights abuses in the Western media is related to the following, with the head of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen telling his Polish audience, "When I look at central and eastern Europe I'm extremely optimistic about the future we can achieve in North Africa" – 'NATO: Libya Military Intervention: Model For North Africa', Reuters, 17 March 2011
Referring to the successful overthrow of the former Eastern Bloc members and of course, the destruction of Yugoslavia. SoLibya is to be the first of many according to Rasmussen who are going to get 'humanitarian assistance', NATO-style.
That in reality, having been caught napping elsewhere in the region, the nominally UN-backed invasion is an attempt by the Empire to regain control not only of the outcome of Libya's rebellion, but also setting the stage for many more and not for democracy or human rights but to ensure control over Libya's vital (to the West) oil assets, the biggest in Africa and secure the Empire's overall control of the region.
As I wrote way back, creating a 'no-fly zone' is an act of war, a view that is confirmed by the US' UN ambassador Rice: "A diplomat on the security council told the Associated Press that Rice said the goal should be expanded from creating a no-fly zone to protecting civilians. To do this, the international community must have all the necessary tools – including authorisation to use planes, troops or ships to stop attacks by Gaddafi's air, land and sea forces…the Pentagon has described [the no fly zone] as a step tantamount to war." – 'Authorise Libya air strikes, US urges UN' – The Guardian, 17 March 2011
The 'no-fly-zone' is de facto an act of war on Libya for to enforce it, you first need to destroy the enemy's military capacity to act, else it's just words. But worse still is the gigantic lie that's been put over by the Empire concerning events in Libya used to justify this horrendous action, all of which has come to pass. Already there are reports of civilian deaths from the Empire's missile strikes. It's all so sickeningly predictable.
Meanwhile, the Western left, such as it is, and just as depressingly predictable, is now in a real predicament. One 'left' journalist, Gilbert Achcar writing for ZCommunications wrote the following: "So, to sum up, I believe that from an anti-imperialist perspective one cannot and should not oppose the no-fly zone, given that there is no plausible alternative for protecting the endangered population. The Egyptians are reported to be providing weapons to the Libyan opposition – and that's fine – but on its own it couldn't have made a difference that would have saved Benghazi in time. But again, one must maintain a very critical attitude toward what the Western powers might do." – 'Libyan Developments', March 19, 2011
This is the 'left' speaking on a very well known 'left' platform? What on earth makes Achcar think that Egypt, still a military dictatorship is interested in Libyan human rights? Achcar justifies it by using the same argument as the Empire, that it's being done to prevent Gaddafi committing atrocities. So why didn't Achcar advocate a 'no-fly zone' ages ago if he believes that it would have prevented Gaddafi's committing atrocities? For that matter, why didn't the Empire?
Sucked in by all the allegations of Gaddafi's 'reign of terror' and one armed by the very people who are now busy destroying it, instead of focusing on why the Empire was so concerned with Gaddafi's regime as opposed to its indifference, indeed arming of Israel when it decimated Gaza, it got caught up in the West's propaganda assault about defending 'human rights'! A call by the way, that the MSM makes great play of when propagandizing for the Empire, stating on numerous occasions that force would only be used to defend civilians.
But just like the infamous UN Resolution that led to the invasion of Libya, 'defending civilians' is an opened-ended and totally vague statement that can be interpreted any which way.
What I don't understand is why Russia and China abstained from voting except for the allegation made by the head of Russia’s Communist party, Gennady Zyuganov that,
"Changes have been made to the document just ahead of the vote, although it had been agreed upon by the sides. These changes are in fact loopholes for launching a large-scale ground intervention" – 'Russian Communist leader slams Moscow's passive stance on Libya', RT, 18 March 2011
Although, Russia having already backed the idea of a 'no-fly zone' had to know what it really entailed. Russia's UN ambassador justified its abstention as follows:
"Asserting that Russia did not veto the resolution as it was "guided by the necessity to protect civilians and by general humanitarian values," he remained convinced that "an immediate ceasefire is the shortest way to reliable security of the peaceful population and long-term stabilization in Libya.""
Shame on you Russia after all the hot air about being vehemently opposed to any foreign intervention in the internal affairs of Libya. Let's move on…
Libya's 'revolution' US-inspired and engineered?
From the outset, the Libyan rebellion has been presented as a continuation of the rebellions elsewhere in the Middle East/North Africa and the State/MSM often uses the 'revolutions' elsewhere as a justification for supporting the Libyan 'revolution', failing to mention of course that so far, there have been no revolutions anywhere in the Middle East or North Africa. In fact the opposite has been the case, with the state murdering its citizens in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen and no sign of the Empire's missiles raining down on Bahrain, Yemen or Saudi Arabia's US-supplied military arsenals.
"In a bid to further clamp down on the Libyan government, the Treasury Department sanctioned the country’s foreign minister, who was a key CIA asset over the years" – 'US Tightens Screws On Libya, Sanctioning Foreign Minister And 16 Companies', New York Times, 15 March, 2011
What we do know is that the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), itself a front for the US government are heavily involved in supporting the Libyan 'revolution' and as the NYT story above illustrates the US have agents within Gaddafi's government and have had them for years.
"The FNSL was part of the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition held in London in 2005, and British resources are being used to support the FNSL and other 'opposition' in Libya. The FNSL was actually formed in October 1981 in Sudan under Colonel Jaafar Nimieri– the US puppet dictator who was openly known to be a Central Intelligence Agency operative, and who ruled Sudan ruthlessly from 1977 to 1985. The FNSL held its national congress in the USA in July 2007. Reports of 'atrocities' and civilian deaths are being channeled into the western press from operations in Washington DC, and the opposition FNSL is reportedly organizing resistance and military attacks from both inside and outside Libya."— 'Petroleum and Empire in North Africa. NATO Invasion of Libya Underway', By Keith Harmon Snow, 2 March 2011.
A clever ruse was plotted by the Empire and its minions well in advance of yesterday's invasion including I am sure, direct involvement in the rebellion.
First, wait and see if the rebels can stage a successful coup. If not – and that's what happened what with Gaddafi's forces ready to take back Benghazi – persuade the doubters that Gaddafi was about to commit unspeakable horrors (already set-up from day one of the rebellion with the unfounded rumours of Gaddafi's atrocities and African mercenaries) and push through an open-ended Security Council resolution that gave the Empire free reign to do whatever it wanted with Libya.
And to make the entire sordid and illegal affair more palatable to a world quite used to being 'liberated' by US 'largesse' in its distribution of democracy, do it all through an Anglo-French front (they have the most to lose along with Italians in Libya through their oil concessions) but with the US pulling all the strings (and firing most of the missiles).
A cynical and sordid deal worthy only of the pirates who have succeeded in turning a former ally into an ogre aka Manuel Noriega, who was also surplus to requirement, indeed a potential embarassment to the Empire.