NATO will Expand Libya Campaign

With Muammar Gaddafi's once-fragile grip on power in Libya suddenly looking stronger, NATO says it's changing strategies. When the alliance entered the conflict, its airstrikes were intended to hasten a rebel victory by holding back forces loyal to Gaddafi. But with rebels struggling to coalesce and the war headed toward a potential stalemate, NATO now says it's expanding its list of targets to include Gaddafi's palaces, communications centers, and other key institutions. The goal is to prevent effective communication, crippling Gaddafi and his army. That won't end the war, but NATO hopes it might erode confidence enough to peel off key aides and even drive Gaddafi into exile.

Read it at The New York Times

Why Libya? Why not Iran?

Why Libya? Why Gaddafi?

Assad in Syria is much worse than, say, Mubarak in Egypt, but Obama vows not to interfere in that vassal of Iran, despite the slaughter of its people. And Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood, which is steadily taking control in Egypt. To what end? Why hasn’t Obama taken such action against the jihad pirates in Somalia? Why not a “secret war” in Ethiopia to aid their fight against jihad? Or aid for the fight against jihad in Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia?

Because we can’t be everywhere, nor should we be. So we pick our fights based on where we can do the most good and remove the biggest evil.

Iran should have been the target. The mullahcracy should have been removed. The only revolution that was a genuine fight for life, liberty, and freedom was in Iran in the summer of 2009, and Obama ignored it. He sat back and watched the heroic Neda Sultan assassinated in broad daylight on the streets of Tehran, and thousands of others slaughtered. He backed the mullahcracy. He will always be remembered for that, especially after the coming catastrophe.

Why Libya?

It should have been Iran—if we had picked one country to set the example of muscular diplomacy while removing the gravest threat to the free world. It should have been Iran. Period.

Bombing Libya makes no sense. Recipe: disaster.

Pam Geller

Incoherent POTUS in Libya

Observations by Truth Provider:

Here is the deal about Libya.

First Syria.

1) Has been subverting and meddling in Iraq since the beginning of the war there.
2) Supports and supplies Hezballah (a terrorist organization) in Lebanon despite UN Res. 1701
3) Supports and supplies Hamas (a terrorist organization) in Gaza.
4) Cooperates with Iran.
5) Long history of violence against its own citizens. In 1982 Hafez Asad the father murdered between 17,000 and 40,000 thousands in the Syrian city of Hama to quell a revolt.
6) 6) in the last few days Bashar Asad killed some 150 demonstrators in several Syrian cities.
7) Syria is of no economic interest to the west.
8) Political institutions exist for regime change.

Libya

1) Stopped its nuclear program.
2) Paid compensation to the families of the Lockerby Pan Am 103 victims.
3) No military threat to America and the west.
4) Major petroleum supplier to the west.
5) Rebels are disorganized. Tribal warfare. No political institutions to take over.
6) Strong presence of Al-Qaeda in the country.

Yes, my friends, Kadaffi is a madman, a terrible dictator, a goofball, call him any name you wish, but there are many cruel and crazy dictators around the globe who pose a much more serious threat to the west's interests.

If President Obama's reason (pretext?) for attacking Kadaffi and Libya was to protect the rebels and save lives, why are we not attacking Syria? Iran? Yemen? Congo? North Korea? Etc. etc.

So, when you listen tonight to the President's speech, do not be swept away by his usual spins. We have already listened to several contradictory statements from his administration and himself.

Also, do not listen to NPR's comments with its usual bias in support of whatever the President does.

Globalists Intend to Bomb Libya

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will deploy additional amphibious ships to the Mediterranean, the military said on Friday, as part of the Obama administration's plans for responding to ongoing violence in Libya.

The USS Bataan Amphibious Ready Group will deploy on March 23 "ahead of its original schedule in order to relieve units from the USS Kearsarge (Amphibious Ready Group) currently positioned in the Mediterranean Sea," it said in a statement.

The arriving group includes the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan, based in Virginia, and other ships.

(Reporting by Phil Stewart, editing by Philip Barbara) - Reuters

Libyan Strikes Could Come within Hours

The United Nations seems on the brink of taking a momentous decision. After hanging back for days the Americans have now not only backed the British and French resolution on Libya but beefed it up. The fact that the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, will be here in person is a sign of French confidence that the Russians and Chinese won't block the resolution.

The latest draft I have seen goes well beyond calling for a no-fly zone. It says that the Arab League, individual nations and organizations like Nato are authorized to "take all necessary measures...to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat...including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force."

I am told the first strikes will be unilateral ones by British and French aircraft. They could be in the air within hours. It is likely five Arab air forces will take part. Hillary Clinton has said it will mean bombing Libyan air defences. Nato will step up if asked but could take a while.

Although there have been other recent UN operations this would be the most serious intervention in a crisis for a long time, a marked contrast to the division over Iraq. That does not ease the worries of some in the administration that this will still be labeled an American war and they will be dragged deeper and deeper into the affairs of another Arab nation.
BBC

POTUS Epic Failure in Libya

Daniel Henninger argues that the failure of the international community to even formulate a response to Libya shows that 'internationalism' has collapsed.

Barack Obama is the first Democratic president to assemble a foreign-policy team made up entirely of intellectuals who for years have developed a counter-thesis to the policies of presidents extending back to John F. Kennedy. We are in a "post-American world," they have argued, in which the U.S. is obliged to pursue its interests in concert with the rest of the world's powers, never alone.

The uprisings against autocracies in 10 separate Middle Eastern countries, a crisis inherited from no one, was their real-world test. In Egypt, they fumbled. In Libya, they have failed.

The poster boy for this internationalist view is White House deputy Ben Rhodes, who told a reporter last week: "This is the Obama conception of the U.S. role in the world—to work through multilateral organizations and bilateral relationships to make sure that the steps we are taking are amplified."

Days later, bemused Libyan rebel spokesman Essam Gheriani remarked in Benghazi: "Everyone here is puzzled as to how many casualties the international community judges to be enough for them to help. Maybe we should start committing suicide to reach the required number."

...

This was a test case, and what we have seen is that a world in which the U.S. doesn't unmistakably lead is a world that spins its wheels, and eventually the wheels start to come off. When the U.S. instructs the Saudis not to intervene in Bahrain, and the Saudi army does precisely the opposite, the wheels are coming off the international order.

Read the whole thing. This crew cannot be gone soon enough.

Labels: American exceptionalism, Barack Obama, epic fail, internationalism, Libyan civil war, Libyan no-fly zone

posted by Carl in Jerusalem

Civil War in Libya

It sure sounds like there's a civil war going in Libya. Here's a report from a Sky News correspondent named Alex Crawford, who is the only Western reporter in the town of Zawiyah (about 30 miles west of Tripoli - see map below and picture at top left).

The New York Times reports that the Libyan uprising has become a civil war.

Eighteen days after it began with spirited demonstrations in the eastern city of Benghazi, the Libyan uprising has veered sharply from the pattern of relatively quick and nonviolent upheavals that ousted the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt. Instead, the rebellion here appeared to have become mired in a drawn-out ground campaign between two relatively unprofessional and loosely organized forces — the Libyan Army and the rebels — that is exacting high civilian casualties and appears likely to drag on for some time.

That bloody stasis was evident on Saturday in Zawiyah, the northwestern city seized by rebels a week ago, where the government’s attacks raised puzzling questions about its strategy. For the second day in a row its forces punched into the city, then pulled back to maintain a siege from the perimeter. Hours later, they punched in and retreated again.

By the end of the day, both sides claimed control of the city.

Foreign journalists were unable to cross military checkpoints to evaluate reports of what Zawiyah residents called “a massacre.”

Witnesses there began frantic calls to journalists in Tripoli at 6 a.m. Saturday to report that soldiers of the Khamis brigade, which is named for the Qaddafi son who commands it and is considered the family’s most formidable force, had broken through the east and west gates of the city. “They are killing us,” one resident said. “They are firing on us.”

The militia attacked with tanks, heavy artillery and machine guns, witnesses said, and the explosions were clearly audible in the background. “I am watching neighbors dying unarmed in front of their homes,” one resident said. “I don’t know how many are being killed, but I know my neighborhood is being killed.”

In a telephone interview a little more than three hours after the attack began, another resident said: “Everything is burning. We don’t know from which side they are shooting us, from the buildings or from the streets. People are falling everywhere.”

The rebels, including former members of the Libyan military, returned fire. Although a death toll was impossible to determine, one resident said four of his neighbors were killed, including one who was found stripped of his clothes.

A correspondent for Sky News, a British satellite TV channel and the only foreign news organization in the city, reported seeing the militia fire on ambulances trying to remove the wounded from the streets. The reporter also said she had seen at least eight dead soldiers and five armored vehicles burning in the central square.

At 10 a.m., witnesses said, the Qaddafi forces abruptly withdrew, taking up positions in a close circle around the city.

Some rebels painted the pullout as a victory. A spokesman for the rebels told Reuters they had captured three armored personnel carriers, two tanks and a pickup truck.

But other rebel supporters acknowledged that there was little evidence that they had inflicted enough damage on the militia to force the retreat. Residents said they were unable to leave and visitors, including journalists, could not enter. “If you come here you will not believe what you see,” one resident implored. “It is like a war zone.”

Around 4:00 p.m., the militia attacked again. A witness said as many as six tanks rolled through town, there were more skirmishes with the rebels, and then the tanks left as quickly as they had arrived.

“We don’t know which side they are coming from,” one witness said in a panicked phone call.

Finally, here's a map showing who controls what as of Saturday.

UNW's Hillel Neuer Asks U.N. Rights Chief: "Why Were You Silent on Qadda...

Reversal: UN Ousts Qaddafi from Human Rights Council UN Watch

Nine months after shamefully electing the Qaddafi regime to its Human Rights Council, the UN today reversed itself and suspended Libya's membership. Click here for details.

From the moment the Libyan regime declared its candidacy last year, UN Watch initiated the opposition to Qaddafi sitting as a world judge of human rights. Click here for chronology of UN Watch's tireless campaign.

In September, when the Libyan regime took its seat, UN Watch launched a campaign demanding Libya’s suspension from the Geneva-based Council, becoming the first voice to do so. We were supported by 27 human rights groups, a number that surpassed 80 in our renewed NGO appeal of nine days ago.

Silence of the ghouls:

UN Watch Asks Rights Chief: "Why Were You Silent on Qaddafi's Crimes?

Around the globe, the Qaddafis were kings. No longer. The head of the London School of Economics has just resigned over his ties to the Qaddafi regime. Rock stars Beyonce, Nelly Furtado and Mariah Carey are expressing remorse for paid peformances at Qaddafi family parties. Former Egyptian minister of culture Gaber Asfour renounced his 2010 “Qaddafi International Award for Literature.”

Yet at the U.N., no one is willing to take the slightest responsibility for the world body's tight embrace of the Qaddafi regime. In the plenary of the UN Human Rights Council yesterday, UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer urged U.N. rights chief Navi Pillay to begin the soul-searching. She refused to respond. Click here for video. The text follows below.

Madame High Commissioner,

We thank you for your report, and applaud its emphasis on the core principle of accountability. We commend your recent leadership on human rights in Libya. As you stated, “the people of Libya had long been victims of the serious excesses of the Libyan leadership.”

In this regard, given that accountability begins at home, we wish to ask whether your office has begun to reflect upon how, in recent years, the United Nations and its human rights system could have shown greater solidarity with Libya’s victims. We offer five specific questions:

1. Given that your responsibility is to mainstream human rights throughout the U.N. system, we ask: When the Qaddafi regime was chosen to serve on the Security Council for 2008 and 2009; when its representative was chosen as President of the General Assembly in 2009; when Col. Qaddafi’s daughter Ayesha was designated in 2009 a U.N. Goodwill Ambassador — why did you not speak out?

2. According to a study of all your published statements from September 2008 through June 2010, you never once mentioned human rights in Libya. Why?

3. Your report refers to your office’s strong support for the Durban process, for which you served as Secretary-General of its 2009 World Conference on Racism. When a representative of the Libyan regime was chosen to chair that conference’s two-year planning committee, and to chair the main committee, why did you not speak out?

4. When the Qaddafi regime was elected as a member of this council last year, why did you not speak out?

5. Your report refers to the council’s Advisory Committee. In 2008, ignoring the appeal of UN Watch and 25 human rights groups, the council elected Jean Ziegler, the co-founder of the Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize—a propaganda tool for the regime—to this body. Last year he was made the committee’s vice-president. Why did you not speak out?

And will you now call on the recipients of this prize—former Cuban President Fidel Castro in 1998, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in 2004, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in 2009, and Turkish PM Erdogan in 2010—to renounce this prize, and to apologize to all the human rights victims—past and present—of Col. Muammar Qaddafi?

Libyan Protestors Beg Bush to Bomb Qadaffi

Libyan Protesters Beg for Bush: "Bring Bush!"

Has Katie Couric bit off her tongue yet? Not to worry, the jihadists she so enthusiastically defends and abets will do it soon enough.

Just as the world is undergoing a seismic shift in the arab regimes and dictatorships, the American media landscape is desperately in need of a revolution. The old media must be overthrown.

You'll notice that Reuters buried the lede.

"Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes," shouted soldiers

Imagine that. Ayatollah Obama has achieved what would have been thought to be impossible: worldwide calls for the return of George Bush. They pleaded for Bush in Iran, too, when they were being slaughtered in the street while Obama ....... ate ice cream.

Gaddafi bombs oil areas, faces crimes probe Reuters

AL-UQAYLA, Libya (Reuters) – Muammar Gaddafi struck at rebel control of a key Libyan coastal road for a second day Thursday but received a warning he would be held to account at The Hague for suspected crimes by his security forces.

Venezuela said Gaddafi had agreed to its proposal for an international commission to negotiate an end to the turmoil in the world's 12th largest oil exporting nation.

But a leader of the uprising against Gaddafi's 41-year-old rule rejected any proposal for talks with the veteran leader.

In Paris, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said France and Britain would support the idea of setting up a no-fly zone over Libya if Gaddafi's forces continued to attack civilians.

The uprising, the bloodiest yet against long-serving rulers in the Middle East and North Africa, has torn through the OPEC-member country and knocked out nearly 50 percent of its 1.6 million barrels per day output, the bedrock of Libya's economy.
[...]

But on the ground, events appeared to turn against Gaddafi, as rebels spearheading the unprecedented popular revolt pushed their frontline against government loyalists west of Brega, where they had repulsed an attack a day earlier.

The opposition fighters said troops loyal to Gaddafi had been driven back to Ras Lanuf, home to another major oil terminal and 600 km (375 miles) east of Tripoli.

They also said they had captured a group of mercenaries.

In an angry scene at al-Uqayla, east of Ras Lanuf, a rebel shouted inches from the face of a captured young African and alleged mercenary: "You were carrying guns, yes or no? You were with Gaddafi's brigades yes or no?"

The silent youth was shoved onto his knees into the dirt. A man held a pistol close to the boy's face before a reporter protested and told the man that the rebels were not judges.

In The Hague, International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Gaddafi and members of his inner circle, including some of his sons, could be investigated for alleged crimes committed since the uprising broke out in mid-February.

ARREST WARRANTS

He said a request for arrest warrants over Libya could be made in a few months time.

"We have identified some individuals in the de facto or former authority who have authority over the security forces who allegedly committed the crimes," Moreno-Ocampo said.

"They are Muammar Gaddafi, his inner circle including some of his sons, who had this de facto authority. There are also some people with formal authority who should pay attention to crimes committed by their people."

Libyan government spokesman Musa Ibrahim told BBC Radio the news from The Hague was "close to a joke."

"No fact-finding mission has been sent to Libya. No diplomats, no ministers, no NGOs or organizations of any type were sent to Libya to check the facts ... No one can be sent to prison based on media reports," he said.

As the struggle on the ground intensified, a spokesman for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a Gaddafi ally, said the Libyan government had accepted a plan by Venezuela to seek a negotiated solution to the conflict in the North African country,

Information Minister Andres Izarra also confirmed the Arab League had shown interest in the Chavez plan to send an international commission to talk with both sides in Libya

Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said earlier that the plan was under consideration. Moussa said he himself had not agreed to it and did not know whether Gaddafi had done so.

Oil fell on news of the plan. Brent crude fell more than $3 to $113.09 per barrel as investors eyed a possible deal brokered by Chavez. It later edged up to $114.78.

Chavez's plan would involve a commission from Latin America, Europe and the Middle East trying to reach a negotiated outcome between the Libyan leader and rebel forces.

Al Jazeera said the chairman of the rebels' National Libyan Council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, rejected any talks with Gaddafi.

The rebels, armed with rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns and tanks, called Wednesday for U.N.-backed air strikes on foreign mercenaries it said were fighting for Gaddafi.

Opposition activists called for a no-fly zone, echoing a demand by Libya's deputy U.N. envoy, who now opposes Gaddafi.

"Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes," shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush.