What’s
going on in Libya? The answer in one sense is very simple: revolution.
However, the long-term results are complex and unknown.
The
U.S., Britain, and France are the main foreign principals attempting, among
other deeper goals, to end the Gaddafi regime and replace it with a new
state, a new constitution, and a new form of government. They are
predominantly using air power. Their boots on the ground consist of their own
special forces (including CIA forces) and an assortment of other forces
native to the region that are rebelling.
The
revolution in Libya is a joint operation of Libyan rebels and forces of the
West. The country in one sense was ripe for revolution because of 42 years of
Gaddafi’s dictatorial rule in which civil society and opposition were
suppressed. But, on the other hand, economic discontent was not a probable
factor fanning revolutionary flames. Libya’s standard of living was
high with about 61 percent of the world’s countries ranking below it.
Libya ranks 83rd in per capita GDP (out of 213 countries) as
compared with China’s ranking of 126. Its per capita annual income of
$14,000 is almost double that of China and more than double that of Egypt.
Although
the revolution from the West’s perspective is something like many
CIA-instigated coups of the past, it differs in three respects. The West has
as one of its aims not merely to replace a government but to change the governing
structure. It is taking a war and a rather long time period to accomplish
this aim. The revolution is relying on Western air power, without which it
cannot succeed and with which the degree of success is not yet clear.
Importantly,
the Libyan revolution has large effects. It creates large displacements of
civilians, alters economic activity, and reshapes the country’s
politics. The hostilities reshape the lives of many, ending some.
Uncertainties
of revolution
Revolution
opens up unforseen and unintended consequences. Longer-term results are
unknown. This is necessarily true because people are involved. Their ideas,
sentiments, interests, and values are constantly changing, and this makes
their actions unpredictable. Revolution is not a chemical reaction in which
combining two molecules is known to produce another molecule under known
conditions. Revolution is complex even when external forces and interests are
not involved.
The
personal reactions of Libyans affected by the revolution are many and varied
and they are bound to keep changing. At present the National Transitional
Council (NTC) is a coalition united by resistance to the Gaddafi regime. It
contains some who want a parliamentary democracy, others who are former
members of Gaddafi’s government and want power for themselves, some who
want to restore the monarchy, and others who want to institute an Islamic
state.
Libya’s
tribes are important to the country and the state. Attitudes of tribal
leaders to the revolution vary. The attitudes of the NTC members to the
tribes and tribalism itself in Libya vary. This adds still more complexity.
U.S.
involvement
The
legal cover for the West’s military operations against Gaddafi is U.N.
Security Council resolution 1973 (March 17, 2011). It allows regional
organizations to participate. That provides the legal cover for NATO’s
participation.
The
legal cover is so that Libya, which is being attacked, cannot claim that
aggression against it is occurring, which it is. And it is so that the
attackers can claim that they are attacking for humanitarian reasons, which
they are not. Additionally resolution 1973 contradicts the clear language of
the U.N. charter which forbids such international attacks on its members, of
which Libya is one.
The
West’s overt military attack began on March 19, 2011 (Operation Odyssey
Dawn) with the launching of air attacks by the U.S., Great Britain, and
France from submarines and ships. The U.S. commanded the initial operations
for several weeks. NATO subsequently took over, but only in name. A U.S.
admiral is the Supreme Allied Commander, and the U.S. provides 70 percent of
the reconnaissance, 75 percent of the refueling, and 27 percent of all air
sorties. NATO also imposed a blockade by sea.
These
operations took time to prepare. They took planning and coordination. The
initial targets had to be recognized and selected. The ships had to be
brought into position. The U.S. had to have been instrumental in these
operations.
The
U.S. had to have been the leader in the decision to remove Gaddafi, because
of its role in these preparations and its subsequent dominant role. The U.S.
needed only the right sparks within Libya to have fanned them into a
full-fledged revolution. It needed only a pretext or two in order to decide
that the time had come to end the Gaddafi regime.
The
initial uprising in Benghazi began on February 15. By February 22, Gaddafi
was suppressing the revolt in Tripoli. This resulted in an estimated 200-400
deaths. Gaddafi threatened a house to house intensive search for armed
protestors, warning them that execution lay in store for them. He said
"Any Libyan who carries arms against Libyans will be punished by
death."
The
critical moment of U.S. decision became public when Obama said on February 26
that Gaddafi had "lost legitimacy" and must "leave now".
On March 3, he repeated that Gaddafi had lost legitimacy and should step
down. He revealed that he was considering a range of military options to make
this happen. It’s very likely that Obama had already directed military
forces into the region in February, given that the attack came on March 19
and that reports of ships headed for Libya through Suez had surfaced by March
1.
What
the timing of these movements and statements suggests is that the U.S. had
decided very early on to remove Gaddafi when the opportunity presented
itself, or to create the opportunity. A firmer degree of planning probably
goes back into 2010, before the uprisings began in January in Egypt.
Contingency planning probably goes back further than that.
Each
foreign state that has been participating in this revolution has its own
interests in bringing it about. A politician who cites humanitarian concerns
is either terminally naive or lying. The haste with which a number of
countries have recognized the National Transitional Council as the legitimate
representative of the Libyan people tells us that state interests
predominate.
In
the U.S. case, the reasons for removing Gaddafi include reducing Chinese
influence in Libya and Africa, removing an independent voice who can
encourage African nations to keep their distance from the U.S., removing
someone who is moving to abandon the use of dollars in pricing oil, access to
a high quality crude oil and abundant potential reserves, removing an
antagonist of Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.'s general policy of creating
western-style democracies.
By
March 16, Gaddafi’s superior forces were on the doorstep of Benghazi.
The U.S. was in the last stages of obtaining legal cover and making attack
preparations. It was at this point that the West’s propaganda machine
went into high gear with the suggestion that Gaddafi was going to massacre
the population of Benghazi. This was a physical impossibility.
Gaddafi’s heated and pugnacious rhetoric at what he thought was his
moment of complete triumph played into the West’s hands. A more balanced
report at the time quoted a Libyan army source to the more sensible
effect that the government wanted to retake Benghazi without attacking the
city, and that the message it wanted to convey on Libyan state television was
that "The idea is to surround Benghazi but to leave one exit open for
the rebels. If we can get the rebels to leave the city then we will move
troops in between them and the city and fight them in the open desert."
Propaganda
has been a significant element in the strategy of the rebels and their
foreign partners. This has included the highly implausible charge that
Gaddafi was using rape and Viagra as a weapon.
CIA
methods
The
CIA is surely integral to U.S. operations inside Libya. It takes only a brief
look at the CIA’s history to realize that this must be the case.
One
of the CIA’s methods is the secret war. The CIA waged a secret war for
some 13 to 20 years in Laos between 1955 and 1974. The CIA itself tells its
story of this covert war on
its web site.
Another
of the CIA’s methods is the coup d’état. For example,
Nixon directed the CIA to create a coup against Allende in Chile. The CIA
published a prize-winning article about this that says
"So
sure were senior US officials that Salvador Allende and his coalition would
be defeated in the September 1970 election, as he had been three times
previously, that, despite CIA warnings, they were caught off-guard when he
won a plurality. Undeterred by the voters’ preference, President Richard
Nixon delivered a clear and forceful Directive calling for expanded CIA
operations in Chile. In the weeks between Allende’s election and his
inauguration planned for 3 November, the CIA actively sought to foment a coup
in Chile. Washington was unequivocal about its desire to keep Allende from
power."
More
such cases can be found here.
Consider
also the U.S. coup activity in Syria that stretched over many years. Adam
Curtis has an informative blog on CIA machinations in Syria. What is
more, he tells the story of some pre-CIA government-led 1947 attempts to
influence Syrian politics as explained by CIA agent Miles Copeland in his
1968 book The
Game of Nations.
An
extensive treatment of the U.S. coup attempts in Syria appears in historian
Douglas Little’s article "Cold War and Covert Action: The
United States and Syria, 1945-58." This 25-page article will not be
accessible to most readers. Brief summaries appear here
and here.
Prof.
Little writes, for example, of Operation Straggle in 1956. The CIA cooperated
with the British SIS (Secret Intelligence Service) in this (as they are doing
in Libya now). The U.S. ambassador suggested an anti-communist coup
engineered by the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). Plans for a coup
were subsequently discussed in the White House. The Secretary of State
communicated about these prospects with his British counterparts. Within two
months, they had developed covert plans (in the words of the British Foreign
Secretary) "to establish in Syria a Government more friendly to the
West". Subsequently the CIA chief flew to London to work out details
with the SIS.
We
read that
"The
original CIA-SIS plan appears to have called for Turkey to stage border
incidents, British operatives to stir up the desert tribes, and American
agents to mobilize SSNP guerrillas, all of which would trigger a pro-Western
coup by ‘indigenous anticommunist elements within Syria’
supported, if necessary, by Iraqi troops."
False
flag events are a common technique used in coups.
The
CIA in Libya
The
CIA’s role in fomenting, assisting, and furthering the Libyan
revolution has received relatively little attention. As usual, the public
information is sparse. We have to make inferences and piece together a
complete picture. The margin of error goes up, but maybe not that much in
view of the past record of the CIA and what we know from the public record..
On
March 30, 2011 the LA
Times reported White House comments that "CIA officers on the ground
in Libya are coordinating with rebels and sharing intelligence." The
White House refused comment on a Reuters report of a secret memo that two
weeks earlier had authorized secret aid to the rebels.
The
time frame for these decisions lines up well with Obama’s March 3
revelation that he was considering military options. In order to spot targets
for bombing and report them to NATO, CIA and other intelligence services of
Great Britain and possibly France are essential. In order to train rebels in
weapons and advise on military operations on the ground, such forces are
essential. The CIA has deep experience in inserting operatives on foreign
grounds. It is safe to assume that CIA operatives for these military purposes
were in place in Libya in February and certainly by March 3. That was the
date on which a team of British special forces fouled up and were captured by
some rebels in Libya.
As
of May, the commander of the rebel forces is Khalifa Belqasim Haftar. He
has close ties to the CIA, which financed his militia years ago. He lived a
number of years in Langley, Virginia.
Military-oriented
CIA personnel are likely only a portion of the full array of CIA people with
a hand in this revolution. Sooner or later, if the West ousts Gaddafi, it
will try to control the new government. It will choose whom to back and
support and whom to marginalize. The CIA will be critical in making these
decisions.
No
doubt the CIA and other western intelligence operations are now connected to
a number of persons on the National Transitional Council, either directly or
indirectly. This affords them the means to control or influence the direction
of the revolution, or the hope of doing so. Members of the council’s
executive team have toured western capitols and have been constantly seeking
assistance, both military and financial. This is bound to have exposed them to
western diplomats, politicians, and intelligence operatives.
Specifically,
one contingent of the NTC is affiliated with the Libyan
League for Human Rights, which has a number of branches in the West. It
was founded in 1989. Another contingent is the National
Front for the Salvation of Libya, founded in 1981. It has been supported
by Saudi Arabia and the CIA. A third element is separatist and goes back to
the Senoussis Brotherhood that was the de facto government of Cyrenaica. This
element is monarchist.
(See also here.)
Also on the NTC are liberals with links to human rights organizations,
persons who are ex-Gaddafi government officials, and finally persons who
favor a radical Islamic state.
The
CIA would not at all have minded in the 1990s that Gaddafi would be battling
terrorism within Libya . They would have been pleased that Gaddafi reconciled
with the West. These activities led to cooperation with the West. That
brought the CIA close to Gaddafi's intelligence operatives and members of his
regime. That allowed the CIA to infiltrate and turn some Libyan agents into
double agents. That allowed the CIA to identify and cultivate elements in
Gaddafi’s government that were anti-Gaddafi. The same goes for the SIS.
In
other words, the CIA and SIS have had sources within Gaddafi's intelligence
operation and government for a long time. They had double agents. There are
Libyan government officials who are on the NTC who deserted Gaddafi that are
seeking power. Some of these are likely to be closely attached to the SIS and
CIA. The CIA always infiltrates. It has its fingers on as many of the NTC
contingents as it can.
At
the opportune time, the U.S. will push aside certain revolutionary elements
and support others. It did this for years in Syria in its failed attempt to
control that country’s politics. It has been doing this for years in
Iraq and Afghanistan. CIA influence on these decisions will be important.
U.S.
failures
The
CIA agrees with its critics that its early efforts in Syria and elsewhere
were failures. CIA historian and veteran intelligence analyst Nicholas
Dujmovic writes on the CIA web site "It is no surprise to anyone
knowledgeable about early CIA covert operations that, in the first years of
the Cold War [1945-53], most of this activity met with failure."
CIA
failures are really broader U.S. policy failures. Later efforts of the CIA
have failed again and again, in places like Syria, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, and
Afghanistan. There are many reasons why.
A
big reason is that the U.S. is unable to control a country’s politics
by any means and certainly not by military means. There are too many dynamic
unknowns. Unintended consequences occur because the U.S. cannot foresee and
therefore cannot control all the possible events that can happen, and
that’s because it cannot foresee what the political players are going
to do. Very many actions of human beings come from within. As such they are
uncaused, frequently being uncertain and unpredictable. Human beings have the
capacity to break into reality and alter it. Multiple actions of multiple
parties create new conditions that could not have been foreseen. Human beings
can lie and deceive. They can give out false information. They can uses ruses
and stratagems. They can switch sides. They can bluff.
In
international politics, communications are cloudy. Intentions are unclear.
Trust is lacking. Crises can erupt. Definite information about how far others
will go and what they will do is not available.
The
games that are being played are dangerous games, and they are games that are
being played with people’s lives.
The
Syrian case illustrates these points. American-Syrian relations were friendly
for over a century after 1820. The U.S. supported Syria’s removal of
the French control over the country. Syrians looked upon America as friendly.
This altered dramatically when the U.S. supported the creation of Israel.
In
November of 1948, Stephen Meade, a CIA political action specialist, contacted
right-wing Syrian army officers. This led to a coup in March 1949 in which
Husni Zaim took power. At first, this was wildly successful from the U.S.
perspective. Zaim rooted out communists, approved an ARAMCO oil pipeline,
began to improve relations with Turkey and Israel, and planned to resettle
Palestinian refugees. However, on August 14, 1949, Zaim was overthrown in
another coup that the CIA and the U.S. had not foreseen. This led to
political instability and rule that was not conducive to U.S. aims. After
seven civilian cabinets in 23 months, Colonel Shishakli became dictator.
About two years later, he was overthrown. The next leader lasted 14 months
before he was assassinated. In August 1955, Syria elected Shukri Quwatly as
president.
The
next U.S. coup attempt nearly led to a superpower confrontation between the
U.S. and the Soviet Union. All during 1956 and most of 1957, the U.S. planned
various coups in Syria. Operation Wappen was approved in August of 1957. This
led to a fiasco. The Operation was penetrated by Syrian intelligence. As soon
as the CIA approached Syrian officers, they reported to their authorities.
Syria expelled several CIA agents and placed the U.S. embassy under constant
surveillance. Contrary to the CIA’s designs, a left-wing colonel now
gained control over his moderate rivals. This alarmed Turkey which massed
50,000 troops on the Syrian border. John Foster Dulles was prepared to go to
war in Syria. He viewed Khrushchev "as more like Hitler than any Russian
leader we have previously seen." Khrushchev emitted a clear message that
"if Turkey starts hostilities against Syria, this can lead to very grave
consequences, and for Turkey, too." The U.S. then had to provide aid and
assurances to Turkey so that it would de-mobilize.
Closing
thoughts
The
U.S. foreign policy goals have been and are large. Too large.
Anti-Communism was seen as a worldwide confrontation of huge proportions.
Anti-terrorism is now seen as a huge matter of global scale. The U.S.
government pushes democracy, not just here but everywhere on earth
The
U.S. government is too ambitious, too utopian, and too domineering. When it
catches hold of one of these causes, it goes whole hog. It thinks it has
found truth. It thinks it’s necessary to implement it everywhere. It
tries to spread it everywhere.
Domestically,
it’s the same. Utopia is the goal. No area of life shall be left
untouched in the government’s quest to make life wonderfully perfect
for all persons and from all angles. Everyone shall be made happy. Does it
ever occur to anyone that maybe happiness is not a good goal for
one’s life or for every single aspect of life? Does it ever occur to
anyone that Jefferson maybe had it wrong? Does the government not realize
that suffering is an ineradicable part of living and dying? Does no one in
government realize that in the quest for unending happiness, we may create a
great deal of unhappiness for ourselves? Does no one in government realize
that they do not know what constitutes the happiness of a given person? Does
no one realize that happiness may deaden creativity, or that many worthwhile endeavors
are not happy experiences, or that unhappiness may bring about many good
results? Life is not so simple.
We
have presidents and Congressmen who want to eliminate poverty, eradicate
disease, provide everyone with health care, make sure anyone can buy a house,
make sure that Americans have jobs, make sure that the planet doesn’t
get too warm, make sure that no child is left behind, and make sure that no
one takes "bad" drugs and all those who should have
"good" drugs be made to take them. We have governments that want to
make sure we don’t waste energy and that every bottle has a tamper
proof seal. Every toy should be ultra safe. Children shall never point their
fingers at each other. Women shall be paid the same as men. No one shall
touch a creek, a swamp, a marsh, a stream or a river without permission. No
one shall kill certain bugs or critters.
No
parent shall strike a child. What would have happened to my parents if this
had been the rule when my father took a razor strap to my behind or my mother
slapped me across the face? Isolated instances to be sure, but in those
particular cases my behavior called for it. Can a man slap an hysterical
person these days? It’s still shown in the movies. In those same
movies, travelers often pack guns as they board airplanes or place them in
suitcases. Can a person exercise reasonable judgment and precautions in all
sorts of situations without running afoul of laws? Not any more. One has to
have permission. It’s grade school extended to life.
It’s
all insane. The U.S. is a nuthouse. It once prohibited alcohol nationwide.
This shows how nutty American government can be. Americans then went on a
very large Prohibition binge. Insane.
Plain
old living seems increasingly to be beyond the capacity of human beings in
modern life, at least that with which I am familiar in the U.S. Living and
let living increasingly are falling by the wayside.
The
nuttiness isn’t only in the overambitious goals. It’s also in the
knee-jerk resort to force to bring them about. Do we actually believe that
force is the answer to everything? To health care, shelter, education, drugs,
foreign relations, food, unfriendly governments, product safety, and money?
It appears we do. Such a belief is insane.
The
government’s overambitious foreign goals are made even more improper
when they are implemented in secretive, unaccountable, and violent ways that
constantly interfere in the internal workings of other nations. How can the
U.S. maintain that it stands for freedom and for democracy when here at home the
people are kept in the dark about the CIA? The public doesn’t know the
amount of funding of the CIA much less its activities. The CIA is a secret
arm of the Executive branch. It routinely violates any semblance of
constitutional and international law. How can any of that be reconciled with
the idea that the U.S. government is a government of a free people who
control its actions?
On
paper, the U.S. is a constitutional republic with limited powers. In reality,
it goes around the world seeking to make and unmake the governments of other
countries. This is currently the case in Libya.
The
U.S. government believes in governing not only its own citizens but anyone
else it can. Its ideal is to regulate behavior so as to produce what it will
call happiness and security of a person. Its laws and regulations are merely
a crude form of programming, because they require external monitoring and
enforcement.
For
government, the (science-fiction) ideal would be something like this. The
government would determine how to make every person be "happy" all
day long. It would determine what behaviors, thoughts, and actions are
consistent with this and what are not. It would program all of this onto a
chip that would be implanted in a newborn baby. The chip would then control the
baby, thereby ending the baby’s will and humanity. The baby would be
turned into a robot that always obeys the commands and impulses brought about
by the instructions on the chip. Once the government had fastened upon a set
of "happiness instructions" and programmed them, the human race
would simply reproduce itself and live happily ever after. A high degree of
stasis would occur. Certain amusements might be programmed in. Work would be
made the occasion of pleasure by appropriate drugs.
The
U.S. would prefer Gaddafi to be dead so that the Libyans can achieve a higher
measure of "happiness" with a new form of government. The U.S. had
the same wish for Saddam Hussein. In the brave new world of perfect
government by implanted chips, any potential Gaddafis, Saddam Husseins, and
Hannibal Lecters will be eliminated long before they can damage others. The
chip will automatically release deadly poison if certain limits of violent
behavior are surpassed. Punishments will be automatic.
In
this world, human creativity would cease. Human personality would be
suppressed. Freedom would be non-existent. This is the limit to which
existing government is tending. The result of this is the death or near-death
of the human race. Without freedom and creativity, human beings will be
unable to cope with environmental changes. Climate changes alone will doom
them, but so may new species of other animals, crop failures, floods, etc.
The chip-makers will be unable to foresee all contingencies in the same way
that the U.S. government never foresees the results of its intrusions in
other nations. Perfect chip-government will kill everyone. Utopia will be the
death of us.
Michael S. Rozeff
|