arming gaddafi (background)

What in the world is going on?
Post Reply
User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7675
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

arming gaddafi (background)

Post by mnaz » June 25th, 2011, 6:20 pm

for those of you who have been following the libyan situation, here is some background information on the arming of gaddafi. i'm not saying "the west" is solely responsible for the whole mess, but the events of the last decade are worth considering (and re-considering). (from 2/24/11):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/2 ... ng-Gaddafi
In the beginning Colonel Muammar Gaddafi had gotten much of his weaponry from Russia and the Soviet Bloc. His reputation as a terrorist, his so-called socialism, his pursuit of WMD and the mistaken belief that he really was the "revolutionary" that he pretended to be all made him off limits to western arms merchants.
So in the first half of the last decade the US, UK and EU insisted that Libya get rid of weapons that were a danger to them, namely it's nuclear weapons program, WMD and ballistic missile programs. By 2005 Libya had met the disarmament requirements of the great powers. Since then those powers have been involved in a mad scramble to re-arm Libya with the type of weapons most useful to Gaddafi in suppressing his own people, weapons that are being used with terrible efficiency today.
Access to oil was always the principal reasons these great powers wanted to restore relations with Gaddafi but sale of weapons was also high on the list. In October 2004 EU foreign ministers went even farther than Bush and ended an 18 year restriction on the sale of weapons to Libya. Bush used the desire of U.S. companies to participate in the destruction of Gaddafi's chemical weapons to get the U.S. into that game. In September 2005 he waived some defense export restrictions on Libya . . .
Republican congressman from Pennsylvania Curt Weldon became a principal U.S. contact with Gaddafi about this time. He had long considered Saif Gaddafi his friend . . . Congressman Curt Weldon became a big Gaddafi booster and led three US Congressional Delegations to Libya. His friend now has a lot of blood on his hands. . . . This turn to military power by the so-called moderate Saif Gaddafi should come as no surprise to U.S. officials. Wikileaks has made available state department cable 09TRIPOLI960 dated 2009-12-14 from the Tripoli embassy that noted Saif Gaddafi increasing sway in military matters
After he left congress, Curt Weldon became the center of an FBI probe into alleged conflicts of interest while in office. That didn't stop him from becoming a principal in a private American defense consulting firm that did business with Libya, Defense Solutions. There he helped to broker deals between Libya and Russian and Ukranian weapons suppliers. Paradoxically, it was the "War on Terror" and efforts to rearm Afghanistan and Iraq, which had much Soviet-era weaponry, that created the ambiguities and loopholes that allowed this new arms trade to flourish.
The Libyan people are now paying the very terrible costs of that very profitable policy. To get the profitable contracts, Defense Solutions boasts an impressive list of advisers such as retired four-star general, White House drug czar and NBC News military analyst Barry R McCaffrey. . . .
No one should expect Barry McCaffrey to be squeamish about selling Gaddafi the tools of mass murder. Especially since he is paid up to $10,000 a month for his advice. While still in uniform, he was the author of the infamous "Highway of Death" that ended the first Gulf War by mowing down tens of thousands who were fleeing Kuwait. From Barry McCaffrey and War Crimes: "Most recently, Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker that a two-star general ordered a massacre against a five-mile line of retreating Iraqi soldiers, and did so two days after a ceasefire went into effect. Hundreds of soldiers were murdered, men and boys who posed no threat and didn’t know the war was still on.
McCaffrey's job now is to open doors like those of his friend David H. Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq to Defense Solution's offerings. “That’s what I pay him for,” Timothy D. Ringgold, chief executive of Defense Solutions told the NY Times. General Petraeus has been a big advocate of increased U.S. weapons sales abroad . . . Under Bush's policies, relations with Gaddafi improved and companies like Defense Solutions got rich. On 30 July 2006, President Bush removed Libya from the State Department's list of countries sponsoring terrorism and shortly after that full diplomatic representation was restored.
In December 2007 representatives of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and about 19 other U.S. companies made a visit to Libya sponsored by the National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce. Lockheed Martin may be the Pentagon's biggest supplier but they are happy to sell to Gaddafi too. Thomas Jurkowsky, a Lockheed spokesman said about his company's war making capabilities "The opportunities to leverage that expertise in Libya cannot be overlooked." About the trip Christian Today said, "Major U.S. companies are jockeying for tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure and other big projects in oil-rich Libya, as ties between the former foes warm.
In January 2008, the former foes got even closers as Foreign Minister Mohammed Abdel-Rahman Shalgam met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and became the highest ranking Libyan official to visit Washington in 35 years. "We don't speak anymore about war or confrontation or terrorism" . . . "No, the contrary: Wealth of the people, cooperation, investments, peace and stability." . . . Apparently human rights wasn't on the agenda either.
Two years ago the U.S. military ended decades of isolation and started building relations with Gaddafi. In January 2009 the Pentagon and Gaddafi's government signed a "non-binding statement of intent" aimed at developing bilateral military ties. A few months later they were already trying to sell Gaddafi the type of equipment he is using now in the violent suppression of his people. From Reuters:... "We will consider Libyan requests for defense equipment that enables them to build capabilities in areas that serve our mutual interest," said Lt. Col. Elizabeth Hibner of the Army. . . As examples, she referred to systems used for border and coastal security . . . "Coastal security" might include naval capabilities that allow Gaddafi to fire on rebellious coastal towns from ships, as he has been doing . . . Gaddafi has planes made by Boeing and Lockheed Martin in his fleet. . . .
there's more, but that's enough . . .

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 20607
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas

Re: arming gaddafi (background)

Post by stilltrucking » June 25th, 2011, 10:17 pm

NATO officials in the Libyan operations center in Naples say that the reason the conflict has lasted so long is because they have been extremely careful to avoid civilian casualties, and that if they stopped operations now, it would give Gaddafi an opportunity to rearm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... ml?hpid=z1
Yes, Gaddafi won't rearm if France, Italy, and other western countries stop selling him weapons.

User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7675
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

Re: arming gaddafi (background)

Post by mnaz » June 26th, 2011, 3:55 pm

true, much of the blood is on europe's hands, maybe most of it, at least as far as providing means and methods. yes, our trusty allies. (and of course we had no clue they were arming this maniac to the teeth, right?)

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/before ... equipment/
In the months before Libyans revolted and President Barack Obama told leader Moammar Gadhafi to go, the U.S. government was moving to do business with his regime on an increasing scale by quietly approving a $77 million dollar deal to deliver at least 50 refurbished armored troop carriers to the dictator’s military. Congress balked, concerned the deal would improve Libyan army mobility and questioning the Obama administration’s support for the agreement, which would have benefited British defense company BAE. The congressional concerns effectively stalled the deal until the turmoil in the country scuttled the sale.
State Department spokesman Mark C. Toner said the proposed license was suspended along with the rest of “what limited defense trade we had with Libya.”
The Gadhafi regime’s desire to upgrade its troop carriers was so intense that a Libyan official told U.S. diplomats in Tripoli in 2009 that the dictator’s sons, Khamis and Saif, both were demanding swift action. Khamis, a commander whose army brigade reportedly attacked the opposition-held town of Zawiya with armored units and pickup trucks, expressed a “personal interest” in modernizing the armored transports, according to a December 2009 diplomatic message disclosed by WikiLeaks, the whistleblower website.
i don't know if anyone has a real clear idea just how much weapons trading we did with libya from 2006-2010, though mr. toner above hints at some.

but beyond that--- and the main reason i posted this--- apparently, under pressure from gaddafi's sons, the u.s. was just about to jump into the death merchant bazaar on a larger scale, if the information in this link is true. funny how when you click on the a.p. article link within this link, it reads: "article no longer available."

if we were, in fact, willing to sell military transport to gaddafi (under demands for "swift action" by his sons), do we really think the u.s. government and its intel. agencies had no clue about rising unrest?

as for the "highway of death," technically hersh was talking about the so-called "battle" of rumaila. . . from the wiki account:
The all-out attack on the Iraqi column, sparked by Iraqis opening fire on an U.S. patrol which had wandered into their path of retreat, took place two days after the war had been officially halted by a unilateral U.S. ceasefire and just as the Iraqi government and UN coalition forces were scheduled to begin formal peace talks the next morning. These circumstances provoked a heated debate over whether McCaffrey was justified in his decision to destroy the column, and why had the 24th Division moved during the ceasefire into the path of the withdrawing Iraqis in first place.[7][8] U.S. Lt. Gen. Ronald H. Griffith said to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh: "It was just a bunch of tanks in a train [transported by trailer truck], and he [Gen. McCaffrey] made it a battle. He made it a battle when it was never one."[2] However, McCaffrey was exonerated by an Army inquiry, and an inquiry by the U.S. Congressional did not find any fault in the battle.[9]
so . . . a sloppy reporting of technical facts, but i think the point is still made, at least as far as the writer intended.

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 20607
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas

Re: arming gaddafi (background)

Post by stilltrucking » June 26th, 2011, 4:26 pm

Just want to mention in passing the revelations about the release of the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds and the multi-billion dollar concract liyba signed with the British weapons maker. And the oil deal with BP.

Yes I noticed the bit about the US sales, I did not mean to imply that our hands were clean. Just that France and Italy had such a sudden change of heart about Gaddafi it makes me suspicious of what the real motives were.

I heard Amy Goodman say that we could end war in the 21st century. It is such a beautiful thought I think I will believe it for awhile. Call me a Pollyanna cowboy i guess.

If we only had a free press. I been watching a lot of Free Speech TV. lately
...Show the pictures! Show the images! Could you imagine if, for just one week, we saw the images of war in Iraq - across the day, across the night. Above the fold, newspapers every day, photos and stories on top of newscast. For one week we saw the babies dead on the ground. We saw the soldiers, dead and dying. We saw the women with their legs blown off by cluster bombs. For just one week! Americans would say "No!". People around the world would say "No!" That war is not an answer to conflict in the 21st century.

User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7675
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

Re: arming gaddafi (background)

Post by mnaz » June 26th, 2011, 4:34 pm

i remember thinking the same thing in early 1991 when the gulf war was getting started. the rubble will not be televised. we will not be shown much beyond the precision exploding white flowers of our "smart bombs" in the noble campaign. and my folks at the time said something like, "it's not necessary to show anything more than that." and i disagreed. i thought it should be necessary.

anyway . . . well said, jack.

Post Reply

Return to “Culture, Politics, Philosophy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests