- Over the past two weeks Libya has been subjected to the
most brutal imperial air, sea and land assault in its modern history.
Thousands of bombs and missiles, launched from American and European submarines,
warships and fighter planes, are destroying Libyan military bases, airports,
roads, ports, oil depots, artillery emplacements, tanks, armored carriers,
planes and troop concentrations. Dozens of CIA and SAS special forces
have been training, advising and mapping targets for the so-called Libyan
'rebels' engaged in a civil war against the Gaddafi government, its armed
forces, popular militias and civilian supporters (NY Times 3/30/11).
-
- Despite this massive military support and their imperial
'allies' total control of Libya's sky and coastline, the 'rebels' have
proven incapable of mobilizing village or town support and are in retreat
after being confronted by the Libyan government's highly motivated troops
and village militias (Al Jazeera 3/30/11).
-
- One of the most flimsy excuse for this inglorious rebel
retreat offered by the Cameron-Obama-Sarkozy 'coalition', echoed by the
mass media, is that their Libyan 'clients' are "outgunned" (Financial
Times, 3/29/11). Obviously Obama and company don't count the scores of
jets, dozens of warships and submarines, the hundreds of daily attacks
and the thousands of bombs dropped on the Libyan government since the start
of Western imperial intervention. Direct military intervention of 20 major
and minor foreign military powers, savaging the sovereign Libyan state,
as well as scores of political accomplices in the United Nations do not
contribute to any military advantage for the imperial clients according
to the daily pro-rebel propaganda. The Los Angeles Times (March 31, 2011),
however described how "many rebels in gun-mounted trucks turned and
fledeven though their heavy machine guns and antiaircraft guns seemed a
match for any similar government vehicle." Indeed, no 'rebel' force
in recent history has received such sustained military support from so
many imperial powers in their confrontation with an established regime.
Nevertheless, the 'rebel' forces on the front lines are in full retreat,
fleeing in disarray and thoroughly disgusted with their 'rebel' generals
and ministers back in Benghazi. Meanwhile the 'rebel' leaders, in elegant
suits and tailored uniforms, answer the 'call to battle' by attending 'summits'
in London where 'liberation strategy' consists of their appeal before the
mass media for imperial ground troops (The Independent (London) (3/31/11).
-
- Morale among the frontline 'rebels' is low: According
to credible reports from the battlefront at Ajdabiya, "Rebels complained
that their erstwhile commanders were nowhere to be found. They griped
about comrades who fled to the relative safety of Benghazi(they complained
that) forces in Benghazi monopolized 400 donated field radios and 400 moresatellite
phones intended for the battlefield(mostly) rebels say commanders rarely
visit the battlefield and exercise little authority because many fighters
do not trust them"(Los Angeles Times, 3/31/2011). Apparently 'Twitters'
don't work on the battlefield.
-
- The decisive issues in a the civil war are not weapons,
training or leadership, although certainly these factors are important:
The basic difference between the military capability of the pro-government
Libyan forces and the Libyan 'rebels', backed by both Western imperialists
and 'progressives,' lies in their motivation, values and material advances.
Western imperialist intervention has heightened national consciousness
among the Libyan people, who now view their confrontation with the anti-Gaddafi
'rebels' as a fight to defend their homeland from foreign air and sea power
and puppet land troops - a powerful incentive for any people or army.
The opposite is true for the 'rebels', whose leaders have surrendered their
national identity and depend entirely on imperialist military intervention
to put them in power. What rank and file 'rebel' fighters are going to
risk their lives, fighting their own compatriots, just to place their country
under an imperialist or neo-colonial rule?
-
- Finally Western journalists' accounts are coming to
light of village and town pro-government militias repelling these 'rebels'
and even how "a busload of (Libyan) women suddenly emerged (from one
village)and began cheering as though they supported the rebels" drawing
the Western-backed rebels into a deadly ambush set by their pro-government
husbands and neighbors (Globe and Mail (Canada)3/28/11 and McClatchy News
Service, 3/29/11).
-
- The 'rebels', who enter their villages, are seen as invaders,
breaking doors, blowing up homes and arresting and accusing local leaders
of being 'fifth columnists' for Gaddafi. The threat of military 'rebel'
occupation, the arrest and abuse of local authorities and the disruption
of highly valued family, clan and local community relations have motivated
local Libyan militias and fighters to attack the Western-backed 'rebels'.
The 'rebels' are regarded as 'outsiders' in terms of regional and clan
allegiances; by trampling on local mores, the 'rebels' now find themselves
in 'hostile' territory. What 'rebel' fighter would be willing to die defending
hostile terrain? Such 'rebels' have only to call on foreign air-power
to 'liberate' the pro-government village for them.
-
- The Western media, unable to grasp these material advances
by the pro-government forces, attribute popular backing of Gaddafi to 'coercion'
or 'co-optation', relying on 'rebel' claims that 'everybody is secretly
opposed to the regime'. There is another material reality, which is conveniently
ignored: The Gaddafi regime has effectively used the country's oil wealth
to build a vast network of public schools, hospitals and clinics. Libyans
have the highest per capita income in Africa at $14,900 per annum (Financial
Times, 4/2/11. Tens of thousands of low-income Libyan students have received
scholarships to study at home and overseas. The urban infrastructure has
been modernized, agriculture is subsidized and small-scale producers and
manufacturers receive government credit. Gaddafi has overseen these effective
programs, in addition to enriching his own clan/family. On the other hand,
the Libyan rebels and their imperial mentors have targeted the entire civilian
economy, bombed Libyan cities, cut trade and commercial networks, blocked
the delivery of subsidized food and welfare to the poor, caused the suspension
of schools and forced hundreds of thousands of foreign professionals, teachers,
doctors and skilled contract workers to flee.
-
- Libyans, who might otherwise resent Gaddafi's long autocratic
tenure in office, are now faced with the choice between supporting an advanced,
functioning welfare state or a foreign-directed military conquest. Many
have chosen, quite rationally, to stand with the regime.
-
- The debacle of the imperial-backed 'rebel' forces, despite
their immense technical-military advantage, is due to the quisling leadership,
their role as 'internal colonialists' invading local communities and above
all their wanton destruction of a social-welfare system which has benefited
millions of ordinary Libyans for two generations. The failure of the 'rebels'
to advance, despite the massive support of imperial air and sea power,
means that the US-France-Britain 'coalition' will have to escalate its
intervention beyond sending special forces, advisers and CIA assassination
teams. Given Obama-Clinton's stated objective of 'regime change', there
will be no choice but to introduce imperialist troops, send large-scale
shipments of armored carriers and tanks, and increase the use of the highly
destructive depleted uranium munitions.
-
- No doubt Obama, the most public face of 'humanitarian
armed intervention' in Africa, will recite bigger and more grotesque lies,
as Libyan villagers and townspeople fall victims to his imperial juggernaut.
Washington's 'first black Chief Executive' will earn history's infamy
as the US President responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of black
Libyans and mass expulsion of millions of sub-Saharan African workers employed
under the current regime (Globe and Mail 3/28/11).
-
- No doubt, Anglo-American progressives and leftists will
continue to debate (in 'civilized tones') the pros and cons of this 'intervention',
following in the footsteps of their predecessors, the French Socialists
and US New Dealers from the 1930's, who once debated the pros and cons
of supporting Republican Spain... While Hitler and Mussolini bombed the
republic on behalf of the 'rebel' fascist forces under General Franco who
upheld the Falangist banner of 'Family, Church and Civilization'
a fascist prototype for Obama's 'humanitarian intervention' on behalf of
his 'rebels'.
|
