In a last ditch effort to preserve power, Gaddafi has invoked Dude Lebowski’s mantra of “this agression will not stand, man,” who adopted it himself from George Herbert Walker Bush.
A day after the UN Security Council passed a resolution to use force against Gaddafi’s regime (to enforce the no-fly zone), and hours after UN forces bombed Libyan targets by sea and air under Operation Odyssey Dawn, Gadhafi has accused the international community of a war of aggression. The Libyan dictator has vowed to arm Libyan citizens, create a Mediterranean warzone and unleash 5,000 Africans from the desert to flood Europe with suicide bombers.
Gaddafi is quoted as saying:
It is now necessary to open the stores and arm all the masses with all types of weapons to defend the independence, unity and honor of Libya… We call on the peoples and citizens of the Arab and Islamic nations, Latin America, Asia and Africa to stand by the heroic Libyan people to confront this aggression, which will only increase the Libyan people’s strength, firmness and unity.
The air strikes were first launched by the French government, followed thereafter by British and US missiles. Canada is also part of the Western coalition. The strikes decimated Gaddafi’s air defenses.
What are we to make of Gaddafi’s statement that the UN resolution and subsequent military action is a war of aggression? Gaddafi is clearly a megalomaniac, but does he have a point? Or is this payback for the years of Gaddafi’s material support of Islamic terrorism?
The UN made the claim that it could not stand by as Gaddafi threatened to destroy the democratic revolution. But, even though Gaddafi’s forces had been bombarding and advancing on Misrata and Benghazi, the rebels have had the upper hand for the last few weeks. It is a civil war after all: Gaddafi was not aggressive beyond his own borders and wasn’t engaged in genocidal activities (which is the usual criteria for UN intervention).
This is not to suggest that Gaddafi is in the right—only that the UN response might just be taking advantage of Gaddafi’s weakened position inside the unstable Libya for political purposes.
France is leading the operations, which creates a certain amount of international prestige for France and its leader Nikola Sarkozy, whose approval rating is low and faces a 2012 election. This also allows UK Prime Minister David Cameron to prove his bona fides on the international scene. And, no doubt, the campaign in Libya benefits the US in matters relating to terrorism, allowing Obama to also look muscular on national defense without the negative visibility of Bush 43′s cowboy militarism.
And these are just the obvious advantages to the UK, France and the US. Might all countries involved stand to benefit from Libyan oil fields and production being removed from Gaddafi’s vice grip?
In no way should this be interpreted as a gesture of support for Gaddafi: he is as repugnant as any dictator. However, could it be the case that the UN’s resolution is merely a stamp of approval for western political and military leverage in the region?
Obama has said, “Our consensus was strong and our resolve is clear: the people of Libya must be protected.” Well, when it’s politically advantageous, yes. Where were we when dictators were dominating the North African and Middle Eastern regions for the last several decades?
And yet, if this is what it takes to ultimately depose Gaddafi, then should we simply forget the past and the current ulterior motives?
We’re supporting democracy, right? Fuck it. The spread of western democracy is built to withstand this sort of inquiry.
March 20, 2011 at 1:14 am, Kim Bjorkland said:
We are definitely NOT supporting democracy. Attacking Gadafi is 100% bullshit. Who sold him his weapons? UK, France, and USA. And they did so at inflated prices by the way. Even until last year the UK was selling him tear gas and crowd suppression tools. And now? They’re attacking him for using the same weapons that they sold him. What a WTF moment!?
March 20, 2011 at 1:49 am, Idifor said:
Attacking Gadafi is 100% bullshit?
You are using a very strong langusage here.
Instilling democracy is not the obejctive of UN resolution.
And UN allies are not attcking Gadafi because he is using the weapons they sold him.
The resolution is for preventing Gadafi killing his own people to cling to his power no matter what costs.
Do you have any feelings at all when you see peopel dying because of Gadafi’s brutal senseless attacks?
I am very ashamed for being in the same planet where a person like yourself, in her comfort zone, making a statement like this and publish it in the open as it it were a comment in a gossip column when people are dying everywhere because of Gadafi’s maniac obsession.
March 20, 2011 at 1:58 am, George said:
It is a civil war of Libya. Why the west powers have the rights to drop bombs in supporting one side and killing other side. During the US civil war, mass killing happened. Did any other country bomb Lincoln’s army or Confederate army?
March 20, 2011 at 3:52 am, Kim Bjorkland said:
It’s not a civil war. Its an agitation.
Why is America bombing Libya, but looking the other way in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia?
This war will just fuel more terrorism. Thanks jack ass Uncle Sam.
March 21, 2011 at 7:45 am, Jdhan2006 said:
You are right. If they set a precedent in Libya they should do so in Yemen, Bahrain and SA. I agree. But international politics is more complicated. It is easy to sit back and know everything on a message board. It isn’t quite so easy when there are interests both foreign and domestic. Thus is the burden of a super power in the modern age.
March 21, 2011 at 7:38 am, Jdhan2006 said:
First of all, George, smart bombs and fighter planes didn’t exist during the American Civil War.
And secondly, it isn’t a civil war. One group of people aren’t fighting against another group of the same population. It is a dictator trying, vainly, to hold onto power. So your point doesn’t make a lot of sense. Again, the majority of his forces (Gaddafi’s) are mercenaries not natives. I appreciate skepticism of Western (especially American) influence in the world but sometimes, not often, they can do the morally correct thing. My beef is that they didn’t do this sooner, but that is probably due to waiting for international support and consensus.
March 20, 2011 at 3:51 am, Kim Bjorkland said:
Newsflash – if Gadafi is attacking his own people with our weapons, why are you ashamed of being on the same planet with me? you should question the people that sold him those weapons when they knew he’s a lunatic. And now? now those very same people are attacking him.
As for attacking his own people, how do people all of a sudden ‘rise up’ and have surface to air missiles and tanks? oh yah they don’t, the CIA and MI6 are clearly on the ground orchestrating a ‘civil war’. If you don’t believe me, then why was the MI6 caught in Libya last week?
This is just iraq #2, trumped up war, creating a false disaster, and will lead to the destruction and obliteration of another country.
March 21, 2011 at 7:19 am, Jdhan2006 said:
If the US, UK or France didn’t sell them weapons, China, Russia, North Korea would have. It isn’t a matter of who sold weapons to whom. The AK-47 has caused more deaths than any other weapon ever (maybe not the sword but come on). Where is your evidence that they got these weapons from the CIA and MI6? The Libya military is sympathetic to the revolution thus their access to arms.
As for the MI6 being caught in the country was a bad decision by Cameron to try and help the rebels. It didn’t work. Most revolutions need some sort of foreign aid.
I don’t think you are correct in assuming that it, “will lead to the destruction and obliteration of another country”. The UN forces aren’t targeting the infrastructure (power plants) but military installations. Also most of the military forces Gaddafi is using are foreign mercenaries from neighboring countries. Also this is a united international effort unlike Iraq, seemingly temporary, not incited by Western powers, and, most importantly, done by the Libyian peoples request for military help.
March 21, 2011 at 7:19 am, Jdhan2006 said:
If the US, UK or France didn’t sell them weapons, China, Russia, North Korea would have. It isn’t a matter of who sold weapons to whom. The AK-47 has caused more deaths than any other weapon ever (maybe not the sword but come on). Where is your evidence that they got these weapons from the CIA and MI6? The Libya military is sympathetic to the revolution thus their access to arms.
As for the MI6 being caught in the country was a bad decision by Cameron to try and help the rebels. It didn’t work. Most revolutions need some sort of foreign aid.
I don’t think you are correct in assuming that it, “will lead to the destruction and obliteration of another country”. The UN forces aren’t targeting the infrastructure (power plants) but military installations. Also most of the military forces Gaddafi is using are foreign mercenaries from neighboring countries. Also this is a united international effort unlike Iraq, seemingly temporary, not incited by Western powers, and, most importantly, done by the Libyian peoples request for military help.