Coalition’s War Aims Remain Confusing

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

More than a week into Operation Odyssey Dawn, there are still no clearly stated war aims on the part of the coalition formed against Moammar Gadhafi.

Now that NATO itself has taken control, no one is certain what the rules of engagement are: while France wants a very muscular policy of targeting Libyan weaponry and troops, Germany and Turkey are more cautious.

According to the White House, the United States is not taking the rebels' side in Libya and not using military means to unseat the dictator. The aim is to prevent humanitarian catastrophes -- the mass killing of civilians.

Yet from the air alone, it's almost impossible to shield civilians in the cities controlled by the dictator.

Indeed, the U.S. calls it not a war, but a "time-limited, scope-limited military action." It is "very uncertain on how this ends," Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted.

The Arab League, initially in favour, has backed away from real support of the mission. Only two relatively minor countries, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have been involved.

As for the African Union - an organization liberally funded by Gadhafi oil money - they have said little other than hoping for a negotiated settlement between Gadhafi and the rebels.

George Friedman, founder of the Stratfor global intelligence consultancy, said that the allies are now supporting "a very diverse and sometimes mutually hostile group of tribes and individuals, bound together by hostility to Gadhafi and not much else."

They have formed an Interim Transitional National Council to try and lead the rebellion. But Washington has not yet decided whether to recognize the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya, saying that it raised legal questions.

On March 28, Obama made a ludicrous speech. The first half spoke of how the U.S. understood the Libyan people's aspirations for freedom, and described Gadhafi's cruel regime in horrific detail; the second half told the American people, and the world, that, even after having intervened militarily in Libya, it was not the job of the U.S. to effect regime change in the country.

America would exert economic and political pressure, stated the president, but nothing more, to get rid of the dictator, even if it were to take months or years.

Obama's policy lacks clarity and is logically incoherent. In his world, it appears that one can militarily attack another country with massive force, yet oppose removing the enemy's leader! I suspect Gadhafi won't appreciate these nuances.

Here's the bottom line (and forget all the other babble): the rebels can't defeat Gadhafi; the coalition has to do it. If it doesn't, he'll stay in power and cause even more trouble than he has in the past, because there's no need for him to "play nice" anymore.

The “Chelm” War

Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer

In east European folklore, there is a mythical "town of fools" named Chelm, where people do everything backwards.

For example: Townspeople were falling into a large hole in the middle of a busy street and breaking their arms and legs. So what did the city's leaders do? They decided, not to pave over the hole, but to build a hospital beside it!

If this reminds you of the current coalition campaign against Libya, it should. More than one week into Operation Odyssey Dawn, it remains a political and military muddle.

President Barack Obama waited weeks to act, and only went ahead after he received the backing of the Arab League and then the UN Security Council. But the UN resolution that authorizes the current air strikes speaks of protecting civilians and makes no mention of regime change in Libya. NATO is now in control of enforcing a no-fly zone.

Beyond that, confusion. Are the attacks designed to protect civilians or, in reality, to support Moammar Gadhafi's opponents? Can the coalition also supply the rebels with arms? Supporters of the intervention have argued that in order to protect Libya's civilians, regime change is necessary.

After all, Libyan civilians are threatened not just in Benghazi and other rebel-held territory, but also in Tripoli and other parts of the country still under the dictator's control.

According to the White House, the United States is not taking the rebels' side and not using military means to unseat Gadhafi.

So what happens if Gadhafi remains in power, even if only in the western part of the country? "It is U.S. policy that Gadhafi needs to go," Obama has declared many times. Yet Gadhafi seems to be the only person in the country who, we are told, is not being intentionally targeted by the coalition!

Might Libya be partitioned between Gadhafi in Tripoli, and his opponents in Benghazi? Or might it dissolve entirely, becoming another Somalia? Would al-Qaeda take advantage of this confusion?

On the other hand, what happens if Gadhafi is killed, or flees? What exactly will take his place? No one really knows - Libya under the 42-year reign of the dictator had become a giant prison and there is no political structure in the country. Gadhafi has ruled it as an absolute monarch.

It doesn't appear that the UN, the U.S., NATO, and the Arab League are on the same page in terms of the desired outcome of this campaign. It's definitely a "Chelm" war.

Gadhafi and His Enablers

Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer

Finally, something is being done which may rid the world of the madman who has held Libyans hostage for some four decades. As western air power was finally unleashed against Moammar Gadhafi’s mercenaries, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there was every reason to think that Gadhafi would commit “unspeakable atrocities” if left unchecked.

Though the Arab and western states seemed to take forever to get their act together, there is one positive aspect to this: by the time they were ready, they had effectively isolated the “bad guy.”

This has been true in earlier campaigns against those who posed a danger to the international community. In the Gulf wars of 1991 and 2003 against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; the assault on Serbia in 1999; the campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 2001; and now the action against Moammar Gadhafi, the rogue regime under attack was faced with overwhelming power arrayed against it, and had no military allies (at least not officially) on its side.

Of course this is scant comfort to the thousands of Libyans who have had their friends and relatives murdered and their homes destroyed. This comes at least two weeks too late, a result of Barack Obama’s obsessions with multilateralism.

But the anti-Gadhafi forces may still have the means to defeat this tyrant. Without his overwhelming advantage in weapons, Gadhafi will not only be checked by the opposition in Benghazi but may soon enough face an uprising in Tripoli itself.

But it will not be enough to let Gadhafi slink away to some country, such as Venezuela, willing to allow him to live in exile. He, and all those who enabled him to run his ruthless regime, must be brought to justice at the International Criminal Court.

This includes his sons; his top generals; his foreign minister and former head of the Libyan intelligence agency, Moussa Koussa, responsible for the murder of many Gadhafi opponents; and even Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the operative who was jailed in Britain in 2001 for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the atrocity which claimed 270 lives in 1988.

Megrahi was – disgracefully – freed from a Scottish prison in 2009 “on compassionate grounds.” Supposedly terminally ill with prostate cancer, and given a very short time to live, he seems to have miraculously recovered after receiving a hero’s welcome back in Tripoli.

Megrahi was accompanied home by Saif al-Islam al-Gadhafi, son of the Libyan leader, who had pledged in 2008 to bring about his release, and so raised his arm in victorious salute to the crowd at the airport.

Though Saif stated that Megrahi’s release was not tied to any oil deals but was an entirely separate matter, four United States senators made public their concerns over the release, stating they believed that the oil company BP had pushed for his release to secure a deal with Libya.

BP confirmed that it did press for a “Prisoner Transfer Agreement” as it was aware that a delay might have “negative consequences” for British commercial interests.

British Prime Minister David Cameron recently remarked that the release had been “profoundly wrong.”

There are many academics, politicians and business people in Britain, Canada, France, Italy, the United States, and elsewhere, who looked the other way, pretending not to notice that Libya had become one big gulag, while they were getting fat on the money to be made in the country.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair used his final foreign trip to sign a confidential deal with Gadhafi in May 2007 to train Libyan special forces. Remarked one observer last month: “I wonder if the former Prime Minister now feels that this accord with Gadhafi really was such a triumph.”

In December 2007, President Nicolas Sarkozy welcomed Gadhafi to Paris and insisted that “Gaddafi is not perceived as a dictator in the Arab world.” The visit resulted in Libya’s decision to buy £200 million of anti-tank missiles and radio systems from a largely French owned company.

Libya is a key supplier of oil to Italy and the $65 billion Libyan sovereign wealth fund has provided welcome support for Italian companies. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in August 2008 signed a friendship treaty with Libya that included a $5 billion reparations deal for colonial misdeeds.

Just last March, at an Arab League summit held in Libya, Berlusconi literally kissed the dictator’s hand.

Gadhafi not only brutalized his own nation, but corrupted many greedy people outside of Libya who turned a blind eye to his crimes. They will probably never be charged with any specific offenses but will have to live with the knowledge that in their desire for easy money, they enabled this evil man to stay in power for as long as he has.

Gadhafi Should be Removed Now

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian
 
Moammar Gadhafi may be crazy, but he’s crazy like a fox.


As soon as the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973 authorizing military action to protect Libyan civilians from Gadhafi’s savagery, the Libyan dictator announced that he would halt military operations and abide by a cease-fire.

The resolution allows western and Arab states to attack his forces besieging Benghazi and other cities.

Of course this is simply a ploy by Gadhafi to gain time and keep his stranglehold on those parts of Libya under his iron fist.

The coalition now arrayed against him should not only arm the anti-Gadhafi forces – they’re not “rebels” – but also destroy Gadhafi’s military, as a prelude to arresting him and bringing him, and his close allies and relatives, to justice at the International Criminal Court.

It is long past time to free Libya from this tyrant, who has oppressed his people for more than four decades.

After all, even a weakened Gadhafi will plot to seek revenge, using his favourite weapon – terrorism. He may even resume his quest for weapons of mass destruction.

Let’s not forget this man’s record. He personally ordered the downing of Pan Am 103 over Scotland, killing 270 people, in 1988; destroyed a French passenger jet over Niger, killing 171 people, a year later; bombed the La Belle discotheque in West Berlin, killing two U.S. soldiers and injuring more than 50 American servicemen, in 1986; established terrorist training camps on Libyan soil; provided terrorists with arms and safe havens; and at various times plotted to kill leaders in Saudi Arabia, Chad, Egypt, Sudan, and Tunisia. He praised the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Gadhafi has supported terrorist activities from Ireland to Africa and the Middle East. He killed dissidents in Libya and sent agents to kill them overseas, too.

Gadhafi is likely to cause problems for neighboring Tunisia, Egypt and everyone else if he stays in power, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday. “That is just his nature.” 

When George H.W. Bush forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in the Gulf War of 1991, some suggested that he continue on to Baghdad and oust the Iraqi leader. He chose not to. Saddam continued murdering thousands of Iraqis for another 12 years.

The same mistake should not be repeated with Libya. This leopard will not change its spots.

Is President Obama Playing the Role of Hamlet?

Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer

Who could have imaged that, three weeks into a rebellion against the mad despot Moammar Gadhafi’s repressive rule in Libya, the world’s most powerful nation would continue to sit on the sidelines, offering little but platitudes and wringing its hands?

Barack Obama seems so afraid of Gadhafi’s shadow that won’t even commit to a no-fly zone over Libya, to prevent Gadhafi from butchering his own people from the air. The most absurd rationalizations are offered up as excuses to do nothing. Obama makes Hamlet look decisive.

General Merrill McPeak, a former U.S. Air Force chief of staff, who helped oversee no-fly zones in Iraq and the Adriatic, told the New York Times that he is mystified by the lack of action.

“I can’t imagine an easier military problem,” he said. “If we can’t impose a no-fly zone over a not even third-rate military power like Libya, then we ought to take a hell of a lot of our military budget and spend it on something usable.” Well stated.

He continued: “Just flying a few jets across the top of the friendlies would probably be enough to ground the Libyan Air Force, which is the objective. If we can’t do this, what can we do?” he added.

Along with a no-fly zone, another important step would be to use American military aircraft to jam Libyan state television and radio propaganda and Libyan military communications. General McPeak said such jamming would be “dead easy.”

It would be bad enough if Obama did nothing and said nothing. Instead, day after day, like a broken record, he keeps calling for Gadhafi to step down. (I’m sure the Tripoli tyrant finds this amusing.)

Obama is now in the political equivalent of a rundown play in baseball. This situation occurs when the base runner is stranded between two bases.

When he attempts to advance to the next base, he is cut off by the defensive player, and attempts to return to his previous base before being tagged out.

As he is doing this, the defense-man throws the ball past the base runner to the previous base, forcing him to reverse directions again. This is repeated until the runner is put out.

Should Gadhafi lose to the opposition – increasingly unlikely, as things now stand – Obama will get no credit; he ignored their pleas for help.

However, should the dictator prevail, what is Obama going to do?

Pretend he never said those “nasty” things about the great leader? Try to go back to business as before? There won’t be enough eggs in the world to cover his face!

This American passivity will make the United States look worse in the Arab world than it did before these revolutions against oppression began.

All the people who already hated the United States because of its support for dictators (and Israel) will continue to do so.

But now those who expected America to help them gain freedom from thugs like Gadhafi will also despise it.

As Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum has remarked, Obama is about to learn a lesson: “because of America’s size and military power, the American president does not have the option to remain neutral indefinitely, to let others lead or to offer mere moral encouragement – even though those are the policies this president would prefer.”

The Four Main Types of States on the World Map

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

Sometimes it’s wise to step back from day-to-day events and remind ourselves that the 200-plus states that constitute the international order vary in so many different ways.

But perhaps we can simply this by creating a typology of four different types of countries.

First, there are those that are basically geography. These are states – mainly in post-colonial regions such as Africa – that have little in the way of ethnic, linguistic, or religious homogeneity. They contain within their borders pre-existing nationalities, groups that preceded their creation, and which are often at odds with each other.

An obvious example is Nigeria, cobbled together by the British, with large self-conscious national groupings such as the Ibo and Yoruba. Another is the Democratic Republic of Congo, with literally dozens of different peoples within its artificial borders.

In such states, different ethnic groups vie for power and there is little national consciousness or patriotism. They are fragile constructs and sometimes fall apart altogether.

Then there are state-nations, countries where the vast majority of people have been assimilated into a new, hybrid nation, unified, usually, by language and often by religion.  They have been created by colonialism and immigration from the home country and they are a blend of different peoples who have created a new identity.

One example is Brazil, a Portuguese-speaking melange of peoples originally from Europe and Africa. Another is Mexico, a “métis” nation, combining mixed aboriginal and Spanish cultures. Islands such as Malta also fit this category. The United States may also -- certainly ideologically -- fall into this grouping. These states can exhibit a strong sense of nationalism.

When it comes to ethnic groups and nationalities, we have entered the realm of history rather than simply geography. Armenians and Jews, for example, are two nations that were dispossessed of their countries, yet retained their cohesion for centuries. The Kurds are spread across a number of Middle Eastern states but are clearly a self-defined group with their own language and culture, and aspirations for self-determination.

Finally, we have nation-states. These are homogenous countries where geography and history coincide. They are “homeland” nations, the patrimony of a particular ethnic group, with its own culture, language, and collective memories and myths. Poland, Serbia and Sweden are obvious examples.

The boundaries of such states may vary over the centuries – they may even disappear from the map for a time, as Poland did -- but it is clear that these countries “belong” to the ethnic groups which provide them with their very name. They are probably the most fortunate entities on the globe.

A New Chapter in the Assault on Israel

Henry Srebrnik, [Toronto] Jewish Tribune

I’m sure you didn’t know that a mere three years after six million Jews were murdered by Nazi Germany in the Holocaust, the remnants of our people were themselves guilty of genocide!

That’s because you probably haven’t read some of the recent scholarly literature on the subject.

The Journal of Genocide Research promotes an interdisciplinary and comparative approach to the study of mass murder. In its September-December 2010 issue, two academics debate this question: should the word ‘genocide’ be applied to the expulsion and killing of Arabs in Palestine during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence?

Omer Bartov is the John P. Birkelund distinguished professor of European history and professor of history and professor of German studies at Brown University in Providence. Martin Shaw is a professorial fellow in international relations and human rights at Roehampton University in London.

Both agree that some form of what is now called “ethnic cleansing” did occur in Palestine in 1948. But whereas Bartov is unwilling to regard these events as genocide, Shaw appeals to the United Nations’ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to arrive at a different conclusion.

According to the UN Convention, adopted at the end of 1948, genocide is legally defined as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Shaw believes that ethnic cleansing, even when it stops short of outright murder, falls within this definition. He also maintains that pre-war Zionism “included the development of an incipiently genocidal mentality towards Arab society.”

In contrast, Bartov argues that to regard ethnic cleansing and communal violence as genocide is to empty the term of historical meaning.

The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 was indeed, as everyone knows, accompanied by a mass exodus of Palestinian Arabs. Most fled during the war itself, after neighbouring Arab states invaded and tried to strangle the fledgling country, which was fighting for its very survival.

As is the case in war, many Arabs were killed – as were many Jews. Those Arabs who remained in the new state became the nucleus of today’s large and growing Israeli Arab population, who have full civil and political rights within Israel.

Israel Charny, professor of psychology and family therapy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has also weighed in on the Bartov-Shaw dispute. Charny, who directs the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem and has edited the Encyclopedia of Genocide, rejects Shaw’s thesis. A field of study that had its start as “a civilizational response to the horror of the Holocaust” has been turned against the Jewish state, Charny told the New York Forward newspaper.

He is right. If Shaw’s analysis is accepted, the state that emerged as a refuge for European Holocaust survivors and Jews expelled from Arab countries, is itself a genocidal nation, and what Palestinians call the naqba (catastrophe) can be compared to the Holocaust.

Shaw’s argument sets up a moral equivalence between Nazis and Zionists and, since genocide is the ultimate political crime, provides cover for those who wish to liquidate the “criminal” state of Israel. Shaw’s attack on the Jews is more insidious, and thus more effective, than the denial of the Holocaust by antisemitic crackpots.

An aside: never ignore what at first may appear to be merely the ravings of marginal radicals. Fully four decades ago, left-wing and Communist groups were already referring to Israel as an “apartheid settler state” engaged in “genocide.” Few people paid them any heed. But these ideas have now entered mainstream discourse. Mind you, when Milosevic’s Serbia was accused of genocide during the 1999 Kosovo war, I predicted that a similar fate awaited Israel.

So it’s now come to this: the Jewish state is the product of genocide, genocide perpetrated by Jews. Perhaps this inversion of history was inevitable, though, because it fits into today's zeitgeist. After all, the prevailing ideology of the age informs the type of antisemitism expressed.

Such paradigm shifts are nothing new. In religious periods, Jews were deicides who perversely refused to accept “the true faith,” Christianity; in racist and fascist decades, they were an “inferior” or “demonic race” spreading “Bolshevism”; in Communist countries, they were suspect as “capitalists and Zionists.”

We in the Western world now live in what might be described as the era of “human rights.” The emphasis is on crimes against humanity, especially those committed in the ‘Third World.’ It follows, therefore, that today those who hate the Jews and their state will charge Israel with the most extreme crime against humanity: genocide.

The specific accusations may differ, but the hatred remains the same.