Greenwald writes: "Just as there was no al Qaeda or ISIS to attack in Iraq
until the U.S. bombed its government, there was no ISIS in Libya until NATO
bombed it. Now the U.S. is about to seize on the effects of its own bombing
campaign in Libya to justify an entirely new bombing campaign in that same
country."
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
The US Intervention in Libya Was Such a Smashing Success That a Sequel Is
Coming
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
27 January 16
The immediate aftermath of the NATO bombing of Libya was a time of high
gloating. Just as Iraq War advocates pointed to the capture and killing of
Saddam Hussein as proof that their war was a success, Libya war advocates
pointed to the capture and brutal killing of Muammar el-Qaddafi as proof of
their vindication. War advocates such as Anne-Marie Slaughter and Nicholas
Kristof were writing columns celebrating their prescience and mocking war
opponents as discredited, and the New York Times published a front-page
article declaring: "U.S. Tactics in Libya May be a Model for Other Efforts."
It was widely expected that Hillary Clinton, one of the leading advocates
for and architects of the bombing campaign, would be regarded as a Foreign
Policy Visionary for the grand Libya success: "We came, we saw, he died,"
Clinton sociopathically boasted about the mob rape and murder of Qaddafi
while guffawing on 60 Minutes.
Since then, Libya - so predictably - has all but completely collapsed,
spending years now drowning in instability, anarchy, fractured militia rule,
sectarian conflict, and violent extremism. The execution of Saddam Hussein
was no vindication of that war nor a sign of improved lives for Iraqis, and
the same was true for the mob killing of Qaddafi. As I wrote the day after
Qaddafi fled Tripoli and Democratic Party loyalists were prancing around in
war victory dances: "I'm genuinely astounded at the pervasive willingness to
view what has happened in Libya as some sort of grand triumph even though
virtually none of the information needed to make that assessment is known
yet, including: how many civilians have died, how much more bloodshed will
there be, what will be needed to stabilize that country, and, most of all,
what type of regime will replace Qaddafi? . When foreign powers use military
force to help remove a tyrannical regime that has ruled for decades, all
sorts of chaos, violence, instability, and suffering - along with a slew of
unpredictable outcomes - are inevitable."
But the much bigger question was when (not if, but when) the instability and
extremism that predictably followed the NATO bombing would be used to
justify a new U.S.-led war - also exactly as happened in Iraq. Back in 2012,
I asked the question this way:
How much longer will it be before we hear that military intervention in
Libya is (again) necessary, this time to control the anti-US extremists who
are now armed and empowered by virtue of the first intervention? U.S.
military interventions are most adept at ensuring that future U.S. military
interventions will always be necessary.
We now have our answer, from the New York Times:
Worried about a growing threat from the Islamic State in Libya, the United
States and its allies are increasing reconnaissance flights and intelligence
collecting there and preparing for possible airstrikes and commando raids,
senior American policy makers, commanders and intelligence officials said
this week. . "It's fair to say that we're looking to take decisive military
action against ISIL in conjunction with the political process" in Libya,
[Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Joseph] Dunford said. "The president
has made clear that we have the authority to use military force."
Just as there was no al Qaeda or ISIS to attack in Iraq until the U.S.
bombed its government, there was no ISIS in Libya until NATO bombed it. Now
the U.S. is about to seize on the effects of its own bombing campaign in
Libya to justify an entirely new bombing campaign in that same country. The
New York Times editorial page, which supported the original bombing of
Libya, yesterday labeled plans for the new bombing campaign "deeply
troubling," explaining: "A new military intervention in Libya would
represent a significant progression of a war that could easily spread to
other countries on the continent." In particular, "this significant
escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about
the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include
airstrikes and raids by elite American troops" (the original Libya bombing
not only took place without Congressional approval, but was ordered by Obama
after Congress rejected such authorization).
This was supposed to be the supreme model of Humanitarian Intervention. It
achieved vanishingly few humanitarian benefits, while causing massive
humanitarian suffering, because - as usual - the people who executed the
"humanitarian" war (and most who cheer-led for it) were interested only when
the glories of bombing and killing were flourishing but cared little for
actual humanitarianism (as evidenced by their almost complete indifference
to the aftermath of their bombing). As it turns out, one of the few benefits
of the NATO bombing of Libya will redound to the permanent winners in the
private-public axis that constitutes the machine of Endless Militarism: It
provided a pretext for another new war.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/27/the-u-s-intervention-in-libya-was-such-a
-smashing-success-that-a-sequel-is-coming/https://theintercept.com/2016/01/2
7/the-u-s-intervention-in-libya-was-such-a-smashing-success-that-a-sequel-is
-coming/
The US Intervention in Libya Was Such a Smashing Success That a Sequel Is
Coming
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
27 January 16
he immediate aftermath of the NATO bombing of Libya was a time of high
gloating. Just as Iraq War advocates pointed to the capture and killing of
Saddam Hussein as proof that their war was a success, Libya war advocates
pointed to the capture and brutal killing of Muammar el-Qaddafi as proof of
their vindication. War advocates such as Anne-Marie Slaughter and Nicholas
Kristof were writing columns celebrating their prescience and mocking war
opponents as discredited, and the New York Times published a front-page
article declaring: "U.S. Tactics in Libya May be a Model for Other Efforts."
It was widely expected that Hillary Clinton, one of the leading advocates
for and architects of the bombing campaign, would be regarded as a Foreign
Policy Visionary for the grand Libya success: "We came, we saw, he died,"
Clinton sociopathically boasted about the mob rape and murder of Qaddafi
while guffawing on 60 Minutes.
Since then, Libya - so predictably - has all but completely collapsed,
spending years now drowning in instability, anarchy, fractured militia rule,
sectarian conflict, and violent extremism. The execution of Saddam Hussein
was no vindication of that war nor a sign of improved lives for Iraqis, and
the same was true for the mob killing of Qaddafi. As I wrote the day after
Qaddafi fled Tripoli and Democratic Party loyalists were prancing around in
war victory dances: "I'm genuinely astounded at the pervasive willingness to
view what has happened in Libya as some sort of grand triumph even though
virtually none of the information needed to make that assessment is known
yet, including: how many civilians have died, how much more bloodshed will
there be, what will be needed to stabilize that country, and, most of all,
what type of regime will replace Qaddafi? . When foreign powers use military
force to help remove a tyrannical regime that has ruled for decades, all
sorts of chaos, violence, instability, and suffering - along with a slew of
unpredictable outcomes - are inevitable."
But the much bigger question was when (not if, but when) the instability and
extremism that predictably followed the NATO bombing would be used to
justify a new U.S.-led war - also exactly as happened in Iraq. Back in 2012,
I asked the question this way:
How much longer will it be before we hear that military intervention in
Libya is (again) necessary, this time to control the anti-US extremists who
are now armed and empowered by virtue of the first intervention? U.S.
military interventions are most adept at ensuring that future U.S. military
interventions will always be necessary.
We now have our answer, from the New York Times:
Worried about a growing threat from the Islamic State in Libya, the United
States and its allies are increasing reconnaissance flights and intelligence
collecting there and preparing for possible airstrikes and commando raids,
senior American policy makers, commanders and intelligence officials said
this week. . "It's fair to say that we're looking to take decisive military
action against ISIL in conjunction with the political process" in Libya,
[Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Joseph] Dunford said. "The president
has made clear that we have the authority to use military force."
Just as there was no al Qaeda or ISIS to attack in Iraq until the U.S.
bombed its government, there was no ISIS in Libya until NATO bombed it. Now
the U.S. is about to seize on the effects of its own bombing campaign in
Libya to justify an entirely new bombing campaign in that same country. The
New York Times editorial page, which supported the original bombing of
Libya, yesterday labeled plans for the new bombing campaign "deeply
troubling," explaining: "A new military intervention in Libya would
represent a significant progression of a war that could easily spread to
other countries on the continent." In particular, "this significant
escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about
the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include
airstrikes and raids by elite American troops" (the original Libya bombing
not only took place without Congressional approval, but was ordered by Obama
after Congress rejected such authorization).
This was supposed to be the supreme model of Humanitarian Intervention. It
achieved vanishingly few humanitarian benefits, while causing massive
humanitarian suffering, because - as usual - the people who executed the
"humanitarian" war (and most who cheer-led for it) were interested only when
the glories of bombing and killing were flourishing but cared little for
actual humanitarianism (as evidenced by their almost complete indifference
to the aftermath of their bombing). As it turns out, one of the few benefits
of the NATO bombing of Libya will redound to the permanent winners in the
private-public axis that constitutes the machine of Endless Militarism: It
provided a pretext for another new war.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
