In his New York Times column today (3/24/11)–headlined “Hugs From Libyans”–Nicholas Kristof boils down the argument in favor of the war in Libya:
Then, on Wednesday in Benghazi, the major city in eastern Libya whose streets would almost certainly be running with blood now if it weren’t for the American-led military intervention, residents held a “thank you rally.” They wanted to express gratitude to coalition forces for helping save their lives.
Kristof goes on to write that “a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted for now,” and that the air strikes could not wait: “A couple of days of dutiful consultation would have resulted in a bloodbath and, perhaps, the collapse of the rebel government.”
At the same time, Kristof acknowledges that”the uncertainties are huge” and that “there are enormous uncertainties,” concluding:
But weighed against those uncertainties are a few certainties: If not for this intervention, Libyan civilians would be dying on a huge scale.
It is somewhat jarring to read someone argue that there are many uncertainties about the Libya war,but simultaneously declare that a bloodbath was certain. However you feel about this war, one could argue that a slaughter in Benghazi was a possibility, or that it was more likely than unlikely. But a certainty?
What is certain is that fighting on the ground is continuing in some Libyan cities. A Times news article today describes the situation:
A pounding from allied warplanes in the rebel-held city of Misurata forced Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s troops to pull back for much of the day, residents said, but by nightfall his forces had renewed their attacks. Government tanks terrorized the city, in one instance firing a shell that landed 20 yards from a hospital door.
It is somewhat unusual for the Times to describe shelling near a hospital as terrorism. Is that label applied consistently? When Israeli forces shelled a UN school in Gaza and killed 40 people in 2009, was it considered to terrorize the local population? Read one of the Times accounts of that attack, and others like it that killed civilians. Or read this one. No doubt in both cases civilians were terrorized. But the label seems to apply in one case more than another.
This is only speculation, but how is it that with all this military might, the “coalition” forces are only forcing the regime’s troops to pull back “for much of the day”?
Might there be ulterior motives for allowing these attacks?
I don’t know, but it would be irresponsible not to consider the possibility, don’t you think?
Speaking of ulterior motives:
Institute for Public Accuracy
AFRICOM as Libya Bombing Motive
http://www.accuracy.org/release/africom-as-libya-bombing-motive/
The plot thickens.
With the blood of the innocent.
Thank you for freeing us. Now please go home. — an echo from Iraq
It seems that Mr. Kristoff’s error was in using the word “certainly” rather than a seemingly more objective word such as “likely” or “possibly.” Regarding the shelling near a hospital, that sort of thing would terrorize anybody regardless of the New York Times’ biases per the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I’m not sure this level of nitpicking of Mr. Kristoff’s reporting from this particular war zone furthers the cause of fairness in American journalism. Instead, FAIR’s critique reveals a knee-jerk rejection of American military intervention under any circumstances.
The blood of the innocent makes a grease the military machine can use in its imperial machinations around the globe. No matter how “smart” those weapons may be touted to be.
I think one of the better “tip-offs” that the North Amerikan and European Empires are hard at work for causes (like filling the coffers of our Pentagon industrial contractors), other than those of Libyan liberation or civilian safety, is the lack of media reporting on high altitude and satellite photography as intel for the “war effort”.
With no references to such commonplace and quickly utilized surveillance technologies, it is easy to have an old fashioned military engagement where you can’t tell friend from foe, and must shoot at anything that moves.
The DOD is content with firing off millions of dollars of “smart” munitions to the benefit of weapons manufactures, while strategic and policy discussions in all the media, from what I can tell, seem to completely ignore our real intelligence capabilities, which in turn makes it much easier for the generals and our President to shrug their shoulders when asked about timetables or civilian casualties. Or even exactly where such and such or this or that is at any given moment…
Has anyone seen a single satellite photo anywhere in Libya since we started talking engagement? I haven’t even heard the word “satellite” mentioned since the Tunisia revolution.
Except on the Weather Channel…
But you have heard excuses made about lack of physical intel yes? Doesn’t all that just stink of more “occupation” in the works? More free-trade corporate colonialism for resources?
Obama has admitted as much in his most recent speech when he made more than one inference to the US maybe being involved for an “indefinite” period. Libya will be a broken nation, he said in effect, and will be needing our “help”. (That should scare those poor slobs more than Gaddafi ever did)
In about 6 to 18 months, we’ll be hearing the old tried and true from the military, “at least 6 to 18 more months before we can think about getting out.”
And we will hear that again when after that? ummm,