Crooked Global Cops Go After Libyan Gang Leader Muammar Gaddafi

Libya's Muammar Gaddafi is a savage and brutal despot, the sooner he is removed from power the better. But he must be removed by the Libyan people, not America, or NATO. It won't take a couple of weeks before Gaddafi is done, which means there will be bloodshed. But that's the way it has to be. Revolutions and civil wars usually take a long time to resolve, a fact that we foolishly overlook in our instant gratification culture. We all like to see Gaddafi removed from power today, but history is a little messier. It is irrational and naive to believe that American and NATO power will achieve good change in Libya. Putting blind faith in the power of America, NATO, and the West is a big error. Foreign intervention will only increase the troubles in Libya, and probably re-energize Gaddafi and his mindless followers.

The U.S. government and NATO don't have the moral authority to intervene anywhere in the world. Backing the U.S. and NATO against Gaddafi is like backing big Satan against small Satan. It is sad that the world is still operating on the law of the jungle, but that is the truth. Western powers are not a just force in the world, and the U.N. is not a serious organization. And it should be kept in mind that the traitorous war criminals who control America's shadow government are not concerned about human welfare or freedom. Remember when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, and neocons said that the Iraq war would be over in six months? Look at how wrong they were in their calculations. Look at how many innocent people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan because of U.S. action. The same mistake could be repeated in Libya. We are hearing the same arguments again, often made by the same shameless people who brush off criticism of the Iraq war debacle.

If U.S., EU, and NATO cared about human life then they would've taken measures to stop their own atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the fact is that they are not interested in stopping the bloodshed in Libya. Other agendas are at work in the push for intervention. Military generals are just not the sentimental types, and they're certainly not the revolutionary types, either.

Those interested in freedom and revolution in the Middle East should remember that revolutions are not won without blood or turmoil. Nations are not freed and saved from poisonous and corrupt leaders without brutal conflict. The people of Libya decided to rise up with arms knowing that the price of freedom in their country would be costly. But they did it anyway because freedom is worth the price, and they are not afraid of blood.

The idea that revolutions can be won by foreign military force is the craziest idea in the world. The price of freedom must be paid by the Libyan people for it to be truly their freedom, which means that the international community must not intervene. The day will eventually come when enough military leaders in Libya come to their senses and take out Gaddafi with a bullet to the head, or the rebel forces become so strong that Gaddafi becomes nothing more than a frail, old gang leader waiting to be killed the day he lets his guard down.

Gaddafi will be better removed by the angels from below in Libya than the devils from above who control the U.S. military and NATO. So let's not be fooled by the warhawks and "humanitarian" interventionists who are calling for U.S. military force in Libya. It is not a coincidence that the most vocal supporters of humanitarian intervention in the U.S. government like Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton tend to be the most hypocritical, deceptive, immoral, and treacherous human beings on the planet. One day these benevolent warhawks support air strikes on villages in Afghanistan and Iraq and other acts of gross brutality that needlessly kill innocent people, and the next day they get on their high horse and criticize other governments for doing the same thing. Where do they get the right to blow their moral horn? Clinton and Gingrich are asses, not statesmen. Nobody should listen to them.

Lost in the debate over intervention in Libya is the issue of public opinion in the West. Arrogant politicians in America never ask what the American people think about whether to use U.S. military force in countries that do not pose any threat to America. They want to selectively use America's military power in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Iran, but not in Bahrain or Israel/Palestine. If America is supposed to be the world's policeman then it is the most crooked policeman in the world.

Read the articles below which criticize plans for intervention in Libya.

Maximilian Forte: Globalization, Compression, and the Desire for Intervention

Some go as far rehabilitating discredited tools in the imperial armoire, such as the no fly zone. And this has the urging of some Libyan rebels who ask for it. Yet, when it is pointed out that a no fly zone is actual military intervention, then the call is revised: yes, to the no fly zone, and air strikes (added recently), but no to foreign troops on the ground. Then they call on the UN to impose these, when the UN has no air force and no means of enforcement…so those in Libya calling for military intervention know very well that it will come from NATO. Neither no fly zones nor air strikes have ever removed a dictator or ended human rights violations–but they have always led to an escalation of atrocities and have vastly expanded the range of suffering. No matter: action now, any action, the no fly zone is suddenly validated. Also validated, NATO, as if it were some sort of global protector of revolutionaries. Gone from some minds are the lessons of Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Pat Buchanan: It’s Their War, Not Ours

If we attack Libya, we could not let Gadhafi prevail and plot revenge attacks on U.S. airliners. Having wounded the snake, we would have to go in and kill it. And the interventionists know this, and this is what they are all about.

Never strike a king unless you kill him. In for a dime, in for a dollar. If we declare a no-fly zone, we have to attack Libya. And if we attack Libya, an act of war, we have to see that the war is won.

And after that victory, we could not wash our hands and walk away. We would have to ensure the new government was democratic and a model to the Muslim world, as we are trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do we really want to adopt another Muslim country?

Don’t start down a road the end of which you cannot see or do not know. There is no vital U.S. interest in whether Gadhafi wins or is deposed. We ought to stay out. This is their war, not ours.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett: Libya, The United States, And Iran: Just Who Is "Meddling"?

It is embarrassing enough that President Obama is demanding things he has no capacity to bring about, and Secretary Clinton talks about having the United States attack another Middle Eastern country when she clearly has not given any serious thought to what such an action would entail. But now Qaddafi is putting up a real fight, and may well be able to hold out for quite a bit longer than anyone in the Obama Administration seems to have considered.

Does no one in Washington remember that, after suffering a substantial military defeat by the United States in 1991, Saddam Husayn put down a (U.S.-instigated) Shi’a rebellion in southern Iraq? After that, with two no-fly zones and a comprehensive oil embargo in place against Iraq, Saddam held on to power in Baghdad for almost another 12 years. And, in the end, it wasn’t the Iraqi people who got rid of him. It took a U.S. invasion to do that—with, of course, horrible consequences for both the Iraqi people and U.S. interests.

Undoubtedly, Qaddafi will crush the rebel forces if he can. At a minimum, though, he is working to hold off the rebels and force the start of a political negotiation—at the end of which (at least in his vision) he would still be playing a significant role in Libyan politics.

With its no doubt emotionally gratifying but feckless rhetoric demanding Qaddafi’s departure, the Obama Administration has ensured that it can play no constructive role in a process of political transition in Libya. Can anyone with a clear head, an appreciable measure of historical memory, and decent intentions honestly think it would be a good idea for the United States to invade Libya—under the rubric of humanitarian intervention and with the stated aim of restoring the Libyan people’s “freedom”? Can no one in Washington remember Somalia, let alone Iraq?

Gen. Wesley Clark: Gen. Wesley Clark says Libya doesn't meet the test for U.S. military action

In Kosovo, NATO had the upper hand from the outset. We weren't losing aircraft (we lost only two in combat out of 36,000 sorties flown over 78 days); we never lost a soldier or airman in combat; and because we minimized innocent civilian casualties and the destruction of nonmilitary property, we maintained our moral authority.

But once Americans start dying, public tolerance for military action wanes sharply. We've seen it time and again, from the aborted attempt to rescue our hostages in Iran in 1980 to Afghanistan today. Intervening successfully isn't so much a matter of how many troops and planes you use, it's about mustering decisive power - military, diplomatic, legal, economic, moral - while avoiding the casualties and collateral damage that discredit the mission.

A no-fly zone in Libya may seem straightforward at first, but if Gaddafi continues to advance, the time will come for airstrikes, extended bombing and ground troops - a stretch for an already overcommitted force. A few unfortunate incidents can quash public support.

Richard Falk: Kicking the intervention habit

What is immediately striking about the bipartisan call in Washington for a no-fly zone and air strikes designed to help rebel forces in Libya is the absence of any concern with the relevance of international law or the authority of the United Nations.

None in authority take the trouble to construct some kind of legal rationalisation. The 'realists' in command, and echoed by the mainstream media, do not feel any need to provide even a legal fig leaf before embarking on aggressive warfare.

It should be obvious that a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace is an act of war, as would be, of course, contemplated air strikes on fortifications of the Gaddafi forces.

The core legal obligation of the UN Charter requires member states to refrain from any use of force unless it can be justified as self-defence after a cross-border armed attack or mandated by a decision of the UN Security Council.

Neither of these conditions authorising a legal use of force is remotely present, and yet the discussion proceeds in the media and Washington circles as if the only questions worth discussing pertain to feasibility, costs, risks, and a possible backlash in the Arab world.

The imperial mentality is not inclined to discuss the question of legality, much less show behavioural respect for the constraints embedded in international law.

Marko Markanovic: Seeing Through the ‘Humanitarians’

One is to be weary and suspicious of the power and ambition of lesser powers. The idea of a humanitarian intervention carried out without UN authorization by Russia, China, or Muammar Gadhafi would be met with instant scorn. American power on the other hand is infinitely redeemable. No matter how often it discredits itself and shows itself to be a force for chaos, destruction, coercion, and criminality it can always be instantly rehabilitated and called upon to do something good – and do it right this time. Provided a villain can be found, Americans can always be safely cast in the role of heroic saviors, even if fresh from the slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Balkans.

Simon Jenkins: 'No-fly zone' is a euphemism for war. We'd be mad to try it

Happy days are back for the sofa strategists and beltway bombardiers. After the miseries of Iraq and Afghanistan, a Libyan no-fly zone is just the tonic they need. If you zero in from carrier A, you can take out the Tripoli air defences while carrier B zaps the mercenary bases and carrier C zooms with special forces to secure the oilfields. You might tell the Americans to go easy on Leptis Magna after what they did to Babylon. Otherwise, let rip. You can sense the potency surging through Downing Street's veins. This is how wars begin, and beginning wars is politically sexy.