NATO SECRET GROUND WAR IN LIBYA

NATO's Secret Ground War in Libya

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya. Global Research, May 16, 2011

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24746
The War on Libya - PART III

In Part I of this text, the events which led up and set the backdrop for the present conflict in Libya were discussed.
Part II examined the central role of media distortion and misinformation in justifying the NATO war on "humanitarian grounds".

The following text examines US-NATO war plans and intelligence operations pertaining to Libya, prior to the onset of the insurrection in Eastern Libya and the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

From the outset, the conflict in North Africa was intended to lead into an all out NATO war. The Pentagon and NATO are not only arming the Transitional Council in violation of international law, they also had forces on the ground from the start.

Libya and the Imperial Re-Division of Africa
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24471

The Media War on Libya: Justifying War through Lies and Fabrications
- by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya - 2011-05-02
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24566

----------------------------

Extracts:

Read these subtitles by open the website: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24746

Foreign Forces Were on the Ground in Libya prior to any type of U.N. Approval

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 only passed, because Moscow and Beijing abstained. This was a tactical move meant to limit the war. If the resolution had been vetoed by Russia and China, in all likelihood, the U.S., Britain, France, Italy (and the Western European members of NATO) would have resorted to “other means,” including an outright invasion. By abstaining and getting the NATO powers to vocally invest themselves to U.N. Resolution 1973 and to hide behind it, Moscow and Beijing managed to limit the options of the Pentagon and NATO.
[…]
What these reports confirm is that there was a foreign military and intelligence presence in Libya before any U.N. mandate for a no-fly zone was granted. In this regard, the governments involved were in blatant violation of international law.

Another Case of Double-Standards: Yesterday’s Terrorists are Today’s Allies

Foreign intervention also consisted in embedding U.S., British and Saudi “intelligence assets” inside Libya. The latter consisted of Islamic para-militaries from Afghanistan and other conflict zones, which were dispatched to Libya. These intelligence assets are what the U.S. and its allies would themselves define as “terrorist elements.” This is utter hypocrisy.
[…]
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) has been one of the components of the Transitional Council forces. According to a study authored at the Pentagon’s West Point, the area around Benghazi and Darnah in Barqa is the place known for supplying the second largest group of foreign fighters into Iraq; these fighters are tied to the LIFG, which is currently allied to the U.S. and NATO. [21]

NATO wanted a War in North Africa from the Start

The New York Times (February 28, 2011) asserted that the French government was opposed to military action and that NATO would “not” be used against the Libyans. [22] This was really an act of brinkmanship intended to pave the way towards a broader war in North Africa. Steven Erlanger analyses the bogus French position as follows:
[…]
NATO was also monitoring Libyan airspace before Libya was attacked. [26] In the frankest of terms Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Obama Administration, 10 Downing Street, and the E.U. were misleading the public. It is also worth noting that Anders Fogh Rasmussen was selected to be the secretary-general of NATO as a reward for his support as Danish prime minister for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why has Operation Odyssey Dawn been Handed to NATO?

NATO is an undemocratic body and is not answerable to any constituency of voters. It is through NATO and international organizations that the voting public is being bypassed. The command of the war against Libya has deliberately been reassigned from the Pentagon to NATO as a clever means to bypass public scrutiny and accountability by the U.S. government and all other governments involved in this war.
[…]
Moreover, it is a U.S. flag officer that holds the post of Supreme Allied Commander Europe. U.S. Admiral James G. Stravridis is the supreme commander of NATO military operations. Admiral Stravridis does not need to have the approval of anyone in NATO for many of the combat decisions he makes. As a matter of public record, this was deliberately clarified by Senator Joseph Lieberman and Admiral Stravridis at the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing where Libya and U.S. military operations in Europe were discussed. [30] It should also be noted, while Admiral Stravridis can operationally work independently from the oversight of the rest of NATO’s members, he is totally subordinate to the Obama Administration and the Pentagon.

Turkey: A Trojan Horse?

Ankara has been portrayed as siding with the Libyan regime. In reality Ankara supports the Transitional Council and the NATO war against Libya. It has been claimed that Turkey has been advising Colonel Qaddafi and his regime, but this is misleading. Ankara has been playing the role of a negotiator and go-between, but it is not impartial.

Turkey is administering or running the airport in Benghazi from which the U.S., British, French, NATO, and Qatar have given covert and illegal combat support assistance to the Transitional Council. [31] It was actually NATO that assigned Ankara the airport authority role via a NATO agreement with the Transitional Council. [32] Moreover, one of NATO’s operational headquarters for the war against Libya is located in Turkey and Ankara’s naval forces are participating in the naval operations and embargo against Libya. Turkey is also a de facto combatant through its combat support role in the war.
[…]
In this regards Turkey could be seen as working as a Trojan horse that is integrating these players into the imperial network of Washington’s empire. Turkey’s role in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza also appear to be part of a coordinated effort to cut them off from Iran.

Arming the Rebels: The Coalition in Breach of U.N. Resolutions and the ATT

The U.S. and its allies have breached international law and U.N. Resolutions 1970 and 1973 by sending weapons to the Transitional Council. U.N. Resolution 1970 specifically states that no weapons are to be shipped into Libya. Qatar’s Prime Minister Al-Thani even said that the rebels will be armed at the start of the conflict. [34] Prime Minister Al-Thani did not make these statements in isolation; he made these statements during the London Conference on Libya and in conjunction with his meetings with the U.S., the E.U., and NATO.
[…]
The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) also prohibits arming the rebels, because they are not the legal government of Libya. The governments arming the rebels have tried to circumvent this legality by recognizing the Transitional Council as the legal government of Libya. [42]

The U.S. Government Redefines International Law and Reality to Justify its Crimes

The U.S. government is the party that has paved the way for arming the Transitional Council and unquestionably breaching U.N. Security Council Resolution 1970 and the ATT. The directive to arm the Transitional Council with weapons was passed down from Hillary Clinton to all the officials gathered at the London Conference on Libya. [43] Had it all not been an act, this would have constituted a radical change for a U.S. official who earlier was maintaining that U.S. and foreign intervention would be counter-productive. [44] Hillary Clinton has sought to justify arming the Libyan rebels through a creative interpretation of U.N. Resolution 1973: “‘It is our interpretation that (UN Security Council resolution) 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition on arms to anyone in Libya, so that there could be a legitimate transfer of arms if a country should choose to do that,’ Clinton said.” [45]
[…]
On March 30, 2011 that “President Obama has issued a secret finding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and other support to the Libyan opposition groups.” [47] Moreover, it would become public that Washington was sending arms into Libya through its Arab clients.

The Arab Role in Arming the Transitional Council

At the same time that Hillary Clinton was telling the international community that it was okay to breach the U.N. resolutions, the Pentagon was coordinating a breach of the Libyan arms embargo by giving the green light to the Egyptian military junta to arm the Transitional Council. [48] There were also reports of that Egypt was supplying arms to the rebels:
[…]
It should be noted this all happened well before Britain and France publicly acknowledged that they were sending military units to help train the Transitional Council for combat operationsa against the Libyan military. This is in contrast to what the British government publicly declared earlier when it announced that it had no intention of sending any military personnel to assist the Transitional Council. [51] Subsequently, the U.S. and Italy also held high-level bilateral meetings in Washington about arming the Transitional Council’s forces. [52]

More Double-Standards: Who is Sending Mercenaries into Libya?

London has put forward a plan for the Arab dictatorships, specifically the U.A.E. and Qatar, to send military units and military trainers into Benghazi and Libya. [53] Jordan, which has also been involved in the war on Libya and in the oppression of Bahrainis, will in all likelihood be involved. [54]

[…]
Yet, before the British government even put forward such a plan there were reports that London, alongside Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S., was arming the Transitional Council’s fighters against the Libyan military. [57] This would have to include training by foreign contractors or military forces. [Here we end extracts]


Phase Two of Operation Libya: Direct Ground Intervention?

The role of NATO and the military coalition against Libya is not limited to the air and the sea. During a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Admiral Stravridis was obliged by Senator John McCain into acknowledging that NATO forces would eventually move into Tripoli. [58] Oana Lungescu, the spokeswoman for NATO, has denied that NATO plans on sending boots on the ground to Libya, but this stands in stark contradiction to operational command statements.

McCain has repeatedly demanded that Libya’s neighbours and NATO fund the war against Libya too. [59] Alongside Senator Lieberman, McCain had repeatedly called for the arming of the Benghazi-based forces from the start of the conflict. Both McCain and Lieberman started making these demands and calling for a no-fly zone while visiting Israel and consulting with Israeli leaders. [60] Both want a invasion of Libya.

A foreign military presence of some form is in the cards. It will not be like the previous NATO military occupations. While President Obama has stated that no U.S. combat troops will land in Libya, the U.S. Armed Services Committee and Admiral Stravridis have clarified that NATO is considering sending soldiers into Libya as part of a “stabilization regime.” [61]

In other words, an international force will be sent for so-called “peacekeeping” or “stabilization” missions similar to those in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. This is another shape and name for occupation. The Pentagon and NATO are now looking at methods to publicly side-step the U.N. in order to invade Libya.

Both Cairo and Tunis are slated to play a role in a NATO-sponsored ground invasion. In early-March 2011, Hillary Clinton held consultations in Tunisia and Egypt with the Libyan opposition and the governments in Egypt and Tunisia. [62] She was actually coordinating for the war on Libya with Tunisia and Egypt.

Both the governments in Tunisia and Egypt are continuations of the old regimes in those countries.

No authentic democratization process has taken place. The “counter-revolutionary” regimes have opened Tunisia and Egypt to further U.S. and E.U. economic control under so-called “democratic reforms” and new “foreign investment.” [63] With the launch of the war, Tunis would openly give its support for the war while the Egyptian military junta would provide covert support. It was susequently revealed in London that there were plans to sent British ground forces to the Libyan border with Tunisia. [64] The British government was to justify this under the pretext of helping refugees fleeing Libya. [65]

A foreign troop presence, specifically under the E.U. and NATO, would be geared towards dividing Libya into a loosely-knit protectorate or trusteeships. This would probably take shape under two separate administrations respectively based in Tripoli and Benghazi. If the occupation were to occur it would also be agreed upon by at least one or both of the governments of a divided Libya with capitals respectively in Tripoli and Benghazi.

The Justifications for War have Morphed: Deception of Mission Creep

President Obama and his allies initially said that the war was not about regime change, but they have backtracked.

While Obama was still denying that any regime change would take place, Senator McCain contradicted him and said: “Let’s be honest with ourselves and the American people. Our objective in Libya is regime change, whether the [Obama] Administration wants to call it that or not.” [66] Similarly in Canada, Prime Minister Steven Harper and his defence minister confirmed that regime change was an objective. [67]

All the hallmarks of deceit are present. The unstated goals in Libya have always been the same, but like in Iraq the goals stated publicly have changed. Obama, President Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Cameron have now admitted in a joint letter that the mission in Libya is not over until Qaddafi is removed. [68] This means regime change. It can also be part of a strategy to get Qaddafi to agree to the partition Libya to save himself and his regime.

Moving forward, Senator John McCain and Admiral Stravridis have stated that a strategic stalemate between Qaddafi and the Transitional Council in Libya is unacceptable for Washington or to the interests of the U.S. while also ironically and unwittingly mentioning that no-fly zones and U.N. sanctions “don’t succeed.” [69] If the no-fly zones and U.N. sanctions do not work in protecting civilians, then why were they imposed on Libya in the first place? The no-fly zones and sanctions imposed on Libya are not intended to protect civilians or to stop the internal fighting, but are intended for weakening the defences of Libya.

The no-fly zones cover the whole of Libya and not exclusively the areas controlled by the Transitional Council. If the rationale of the no-fly zones was to protect civilians, the no-fly zones would have been applied to the area around Benghazi and not to Tripoli and the western portion of Libya. What this means is that the White House and the E.U. have been using the no-fly zones as a pretext for waging a war of military aggression against Libya. As President Obama stated in a televised address on March 28, 2011, the U.S. is helping the Benghazi-based Transitional Council, because it is in the interest of the U.S. government. [70]

Regime change rather than protecting civilians is a stated goal of the war. The U.S. and the E.U. originally denied this, but with time have ratcheted up the talk about regime change while simultaneously racketing down denials about regime change in Tripoli. Obama has also declared this objective: “[T]here is no question that Libya – and the world – would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means.” [71]

More Deception: NATO and European Union Peacekeeping

The European Union has also made the preparations for deploying an E.U. military force to Libya called EUFOR Libya. [72] The German government has been a major, but subtle, backer of this. [73] This is being presented under the guise of a peacekeeping mission in Libya. This is essentially the same thing as using NATO peacekeepers, but under a different name.

NATO is moving into fill the so-called “post-conflict” voids in places that the Pentagon and its cohorts wage war. This has happened from the former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan and Lebanon. It is a new strategy of modern-day colonization.

The use of NATO can happen formally or informally. In Lebanon, NATO wanted to send troops, but when alarm bells began to ring amongst the Lebanese and Arab peoples the name of NATO was formally removed. Instead NATO members did send their troops to Lebanon, but not under the name of NATO. The operation became informal.

The role of NATO in Lebanon was not drawn in the spirit of peacekeeping. In fact, General Alain Pellegrini the former military commander of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in an interview with the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir confirmed that the Pentagon had planned to launch a NATO invasion of Lebanon to help Israel and to use NATO in occupying Lebanon in 2006.

The Pentagon and NATO are Prolonging the War to Deepen their Roles

Over a month after his claims about Qaddafi’s attempts to use chemical weapons on civilians, General Abdul Fatah Al-Yunis also said that NATO has been slow to act in support of the Benghazi-based Transitional Council. His previous statement about chemical weapons aimed at bolstering support for foreign military intervention is an outright lie. His latest statement, however, could either be a coordinated propaganda effort aimed at shoring up demands for more NATO military intervention or a genuine sign that NATO has deliberately been using measured responses to get the Transitional Council to become more dependent on foreign support and to prolong the internal fighting in Libya. [74] It may be both.

Al Jazeera had these statements to report about his press conference:
“Unfortunately, and I am sorry to say this, NATO has disappointed us. My staff have been in contact with NATO officials to direct them to targets that should protect civilians, but until now, NATO has not given us what we need,” he said.

[…]

“Civilians are dying daily because of lack of food or milk, even children are dying. Even by bombing. If NATO waits for another week, it will be a crime that NATO will have to carry. What is NATO doing? It is shelling some defined areas only,” he said.

“When a large force of tanks, and even artillery, is on its way to Benghazi, Ajdabiya or Brega, we always inform NATO straight away. Because we don’t have such weapons. NATO’s reaction is very slow. By the time the information reaches from one official to another until it reaches the field commander, it takes hours. [sic.]

“Will these forces wait for hours to bomb? No, they will go into the city and burn it down. That is why I want NATO to stand with us and support us, otherwise I will ask the [opposition] National Council to address this issue at the UN Security Council.” [75]

General Al-Yunis also stated: “If NATO wanted to remove the siege on Misurata, they would have done so days ago [during their attacks on the Libyan military.]” [76] In this regard, Al-Yunis is corrected. The U.S. and NATO are deliberately prolonging the war and for the time being are trying to keep a strategic stalemate in Libya as part of their effort to control the entire country. This has been part of their longstanding plans to weaken Libya either through partition or soft balkanization under a new federal system.


Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).


NOTES: open the web http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24746