Today’s New York Times has a story by David Kirkpatrick and Rod Nordland running down the exaggerations and misinformation that have been spread throughout the Libya War. There’s been “spin from all sides,” they report. Gadhafi’s exaggerations are well-known, but this passage is rather striking:
Still, the rebels have offered their own far-fetched claims, like mass rapes by loyalist troops issued tablets of Viagra. Although the rebels have not offered credible proof, that claim is nonetheless the basis of an investigation by the International Criminal Court.
And there is the mantra, with racist overtones, that the Gadhafi government is using African mercenaries, which rebels repeat as fact over and over. There have been no confirmed cases of that; supposedly there are many African prisoners of war being held in Benghazi, but conveniently journalists are not allowed to see them. There are, however, African guest workers, poorly paid migrant labor, many of whom, unarmed, have been labeled mercenaries.
So stories about African mercenaries are a racist mantra? If that’s the case, then point a finger at media outlets like the New York Times. While the warnings about mass rapes and mercenaries fueled the supporters of the NATO bombing, few reporters have detailed–mostly notably Patrick Cockburn in the Independent–that there was never solid evidence to support them. They were nonetheless a regular part of the media coverage of the war, as I pointed out in a recent piece in Extra!:
A February 24 Washington Post editorial thundered, “Mr. Gadhafi has unleashed an orgy of bloodshed in the capital, Tripoli, using foreign mercenaries and aircraft to attack his own people.” The day before, the New York Times editorial page (2/23/11) announced that in Tripoli “pro-government forces, relying heavily on mercenaries, were massacring demonstrators.” The Times added that “there were reports of warplanes and helicopters being used to attack civilians”–though the paper did note that “authoritative information was difficult to come by.”
“Gadhafi’s brutal side has emerged once again,” reported ABC‘s Martha Raddatz (World News, 2/22/11). “This time, flying in cargo planes full of African mercenaries, who don’t even speak the language, to do his dirty work. Trained killers gunning down residents and protesters in cold blood.”
And those “racist overtones” were fairly common in the pages of the New York Times. From February 22:
By Monday night, witnesses said, the streets of Tripoli were thick with special forces loyal to Colonel Gadhafi as well as mercenaries. Roving the streets in trucks, they shot freely as planes dropped what witnesses described as ”small bombs” and helicopters fired on protesters….
Two residents said planes had been landing for 10 days ferrying mercenaries from African countries to an air base in Tripoli. The mercenaries had done much of the shooting, which began Sunday night, they said. Some forces were using particularly lethal, hollow-point bullets, they said.
Witnesses said groups of heavily armed militiamen and mercenaries from other African countries cruised the streets in pickup trucks, spraying crowds with machine-gun fire.
Distrustful of even his own generals, Colonel Gadhafi has for years quietly built up this ruthless and loyal force. It is made up of special brigades headed by his sons, segments of the military loyal to his native tribe and its allies, and legions of African mercenaries he has helped train and equip. Many are believed to have fought elsewhere, in places like Sudan, but he has now called them back.
It’s worth noting that David Kirkpatrick, co-author of today’s piece, also co-authored all of the articles excerpted above.
One has to wonder if the Times is changing the story now because they believe the war is over. What better time to start exercising skepticism than now?
An absolute essential for a career in the corpress:
A flexible faithfulness to the facts
On second thought, better make that “flaccid”
Let’s just remember: Libya is IN Africa. Libyans ARE African. Talk about “racist overtones”.
Not only so-called “mainstream” media are full of imperialist propaganda lies – I suppose FAIR could take a look at J.Cole blog. Cole got payed by Pentagon while posting as an independent and informed blogger. His blog is so full of NATO propaganda and lies it sometimes looks worser than even Al-Jazeera the arm of the Qatar royal “democracy supporters”
Can you believe the level of disingenuousness this represents? American “journalists” are condemning the very same propaganda they spread all the while pretending they weren’t the ones who spread it! And what’s the use of these revelations now? It’s too little too late! The war is already over. The lies have won.
It is said that you can’t fool all the people all the time. It seems you don’t have to. You have to fool them just long enough to get elected or win the war.
Human Rights Investigations blog has been covering the racist atrocities and ethnic cleansing including in Misrata, Benghazi and Tawergha but as you say – the mainstream media generally refuse to cover it.
http://wp.me/p1w0fz-kx
http://wp.me/p1w0fz-fw
http://wp.me/p1w0fz-dQ
@ lidia. You make a very interesting point about Juan Cole. I’ve been reading his blogs and posts for several years, and it was so very noticeable how he changed when this “war” started. He had major arguments with many who had been loyal colleagues, such as Glenn Greenwald in Salon, and all I’ve read from him over the past couple of months or so have been the Orwellian pieces printed/shown in the MSM. No comment about the total partiality of Al Jazeera, not much querying of anything that didn’t agree with the insurgents’ view.
Do you have a source for your allegation? If so it would be most welcome.
Note that the NYT calls them “mercenaries” when Libya is alleged to hire fighters, but when he US does it, its calls them “contractors”.
I’ve got to draw a line at the Enemyfication of Juan Cole. He supports the war, as do I. Suddenly he’s a criminal, taking bribes. Document this, please. Throwing around wild charges is a tactic learned from the neocons.
So truth is one of the first casualties of war.
I have no special insight into the use of “African” mercenaries by pro-Gaddafi forces in Libya. They may, in fact, be drawn from the population of sub-Saharan immigrants who entered Libya at the invitation of Gaddafi, during his Pan-African movement in the 1990’s. I was struck by the strong sentiments of many Libyans against the black “African” immigrants from Sudan, Chad, Somalia and Niger into the country. Through the 2000’s, these Black Africans could be seen lining various highways in Tripoli, seeking work. They were perceived by the local Arabs and Berbers as drug-sellers, prostitutes and carriers of HIV (does any of this sound familiar to our view of immigrants from the south?). They were also referred to as “African,” meaning “Black.” My Libyan friends were surprised to hear that from a North American perspective, they themselves were African, and if they were to travel or live in the US, would subject to the intermittent but pervasive racism targeting anyone with skin darker than pinky-tan.
@Bogwar – J.Cole admitted it himself when he was confronted – see here
http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html#comment-69489
Akos Horvath
08/22/2011 at 4:53 pm
Professor Cole has freely admitted to do consulting work for the US gov and the Pentagon, if I remember correctly. So, why would anyone consider Cole an independent thinker? He plays his part in creating a kinder, friendlier empire, coming soon to your oil-rich neighborhood.
And J.Cole responses
Juan
08/23/2011 at 4:39 am
“Are you kidding me? I couldn’t buy a really nice home movie system with what I got in honoraria from speaking to Pentagon audiences. Where my money comes from, indeed.”
So, Jim H, I was NOT talking about “bribes” but about a JOB.
And, Bogwar, I was NOT at all surprised by Cole the imperialist – he was here all along, to people who bother to look into his “anti-war” blog and find here whitewash of USA crimes. including falluja.
@ lidia. Thank you for the link. I had in fact already seen that, being on Prof Cole’s mailing list, and thought nothing of it. He is, after all, one of America’s few experts on the Middle East, he speaks Arabic and Farsi, and has a Pakistani Muslim wife. Given his occupation as Professor of History at UMich and his interests it is hardly surprising that the Pentagon would want to hear from him.
The honoraria that such people receive from the Pentagon and other sources would certainly be insufficient to slant his views. There are only two alternatives. Either his tenure at UMich is under threat, which seems unlikely (though certainly not impossible) or he genuinely believes what he is writing. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I would have to opt for the latter.
BO on the article below.
Would love to have tweeted this. When are you going to add a Twitter button? Can’t stomach FB or Yahoo.
@Bogwart
of course, Cole, being an imperialist, believes in all “NATO is the force of good” b…s. I was only pointing at a trifle matter of someone being on the payroll of Pentagon posting as an independent expert.
Of course, it is a pretty usual thing – an academic or journalist or other public figure using his/her credentials as a tool of propaganda. As a matter of fact, CIA use such people as well, so nothing new here. It is called a freedom, you know, unlike Qaddafi propaganda :)
We should call then mercenaries whoever hires and uses them, whether Ottomans using “Janissaries,” British using Hessians, Libyans using sub-Saharan Africans, or Americans using guns-for-hire. The gist of most of the reports is that such mercenaries are, by their very nature, loyal to their boss and disconnected from the populations against whom they are sent. They therefore have a tendency to be especially cruel (or, when the going gets too risky for the pay, to take off). “Racism” is too powerful and important a charge to be thrown around as lightly is it is in this report.
We should call them mercenaries whoever hires and uses them, whether Ottomans using “Janissaries,” British using Hessians, Libyans using sub-Saharan Africans, or Americans using guns-for-hire. The gist of most of the reports is that such mercenaries are, by their very nature, loyal to their boss and disconnected from the populations against whom they are sent. They therefore have a tendency to be especially cruel (or, when the going gets too risky for the pay, to take off). “Racism” is too powerful and important a charge to be thrown around as lightly is it is in this report.
Yes, do NOT offend NATO’s propagandists calling them racist, poor little war criminals would cry!
There is NOT any proof of so-called mercs in Libya unless one counts UK and Qartar “former” black-ops men.