5 Nov

The curious path to the end of Moammar Gaddafi [Reader Post]

                                       

Barack Obama said this about Muammar Gaddafi’s death:

For four decades, the Qaddafi regime ruled the Libyan people with an iron fist. Basic human rights were denied. Innocent civilians were detained, beaten and killed. And Libya’s wealth was squandered. The enormous potential of the Libyan people was held back, and terror was used as a political weapon.

The path to Gaddafi’s end has been a very strange one.

Gaddafi seized power in Libya in 1969 and has ruled Libya with an iron fist.

Dissent has been ruthlessly crushed and the media remains under strict government control.

Libya has a law forbidding group activity based on a political ideology opposed to Col Gaddafi’s revolution.

The regime has imprisoned hundreds of people for violating the law and sentenced some to death, Human Rights Watch says.

Torture and disappearances have also been reported.

Ronald Regan twice struck at Libya in 1986.

Soon after the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 it was believed that the Gaddafi regime was behind it. The US and the EU imposed sanctions on Libya to force it to turn over those responsible for the bombing.

The EU and UN Security Council ended their arms embargo in 2004 when Libya handed over the two suspects in bombing.

Libya also agreed to compensation for the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.

US sanctions were lifted in return for a series of Libyan concessions.

“In the last two months,” the White House said, “the government of Libya has removed virtually all elements of its declared nuclear weapons program, signed the IAEA Additional Protocol, joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, destroyed all of its declared unfilled chemical munitions, secured its chemical agent pending destruction under international supervision, submitted a declaration of its chemical agents to the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, eliminated its Scud-C missile force, and undertaken to modify its Scud-B missiles.”

In 2008 Libya paid $1.5 billion into a US fund aimed at compensating the victims of Pan Am 103 and the 1986 disco bombing.

Since the 80’s, Libya has been awarding the “Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights.” The award, accompanied by a sum of $250,000, has been awarded to Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez among others.

The UN elected Libya to the Human Rights Council in 2010, to the UN Security Council in 2009 and made Libya President of the General Assembly in 2009.

Human Rights Watch declared that although slow, Libya was making progress on Human Rights in 2009.

In 2009 Barack Obama became the first US President to shake hands with Muammar Gadaffi.

Gaddafi referred to Obama as “our son.”

Gaddafi had complied with everything demanded of him. So why did Barack Obama choose to intervene and remove Gaddafi?

The obvious first answer is oil.

Superimposed over this motive is a creatively contrived policy.

The Tuesday-evening meeting at the White House at which the president decided to move on Libya was “extremely contentious,” according to a report in Josh Rogin’s excellent blog, The Cable.

Power and a few others took the position that the United States couldn’t stay on the sidelines as Moammar Khadafy murdered his own people and snuffed out the people-power revolt in the Middle East in its infancy.

They were opposed by Power’s own boss, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Powers created something R2P.

According to Rogin, the governing doctrine that helped Obama to make his decision to act was not an appeal to the national interest, but rather to a recent concept promulgated at the United Nations called “responsibility to protect,” or R2P.

R2P is an effort to create a new international moral standard to prevent violence against civilians.

In her career as a genocide expert, Power was an indefatigable proponent of R2P, and now on the National Security Council has been “trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward.” Hillary is her ally in this effort, it appears.

Gaddafi was not simply murdering his own people- he was suppressing a rebellion.

Nor was any of this a threat to our national interest.

Obama’s actions were and are to reshape the region- but it is highly likely that it won’t be for the better. But there is an election coming and Obama needs to keep killing people to prop up his chances.

There is one concrete lesson from this Libyan misadventure- if Barack Obama wants to shake your hand- run.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Africa, Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Global Regions, Libya, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, November 5th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
| 610 views

20 Responses to The curious path to the end of Moammar Gaddafi [Reader Post]

  1. anticsrocks says: 1

    It would be highly interesting if the ties between Ghaddafi and Goldman Sachs ever came to light.

    Good article, DrJ!

    ReplyReply
  2. RICHARD WHEELER says: 2

    Dr J. Once again I offer my condolences at the brutal loss of your beloved Colonel. Time heals all wounds but how long will you be pimping for and pining over this grotesque madman?
    Your crush on him worse than his on Condi.

    ReplyReply
  3. Nan G says: 3

    Gaddafi was Muslim but progressive.
    Obama just announced he is OK with the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt.
    The Muslim Brotherhood are the grandfathers of every extremist, Islamist Muslim movement no matter what name they give themselves.
    Gaddafi would have opposed Islamists of any stripe taking over his little corner of the Islamic world.
    Now he is out of the way and al Qaeda’s flag is flying all over Libya.
    Men are being threatened to show respect for al Qaeda…..or else.
    Women are being legislated backwards 1000 years even by Libya’s standards.
    Obama shook hands with each of the G-20 infidels, but Obama HUGGED the one Muslim member of the G-20, Turkey’s leader.
    How long will Obama walk like a duck, quack like a duck, fly like a duck and look like a duck before we recognize him for what he is?

    ReplyReply
  4. Gaddafi should have been taken out decades ago but no president but Reagan had the guts to try it. The rest of them stood by as then psych prospered, and then removed him from the list of countries that support terrorism. The oil companies were angry at all the victims holding up their attempts to get into Libya, a law prevented them from doing so. Bush made a deal with nut to so that the victims could be compensated, but not all of them at the same rate. Then let the whack job off of probation. They were all wrong period, everyone one of them. And then after Gadaffi was knocked off the throne our government finally found the missing evidence that did in fact prove that he had those Americans murdered. And it was then officially ok to hate the old terrorist again. But they our government did the same thing to us the Cole families. As late as August 2001 I was told that Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the attack on the USS Cole. And their was no way they could take out Al-Qaeda and prevent another such attack with-out that evidence. Approximately two weeks later, after 9/11 our government found the evidence that did in fact prove that AQ did attack the Cole, and announced it. Simply amazing? or politicians doing what they all do so well, protect their jobs first and political careers first, and country second. I did noy like our presidents letting Gaddafi get away with murder, nor Al-Qaeda either, or any other dictator who murders my fellow Americans, and or family. Kill them, or say you don’t have the political fortitude to kill them, but don’t stick your damn head in the sand and tell everyone lies.

    ReplyReply
  5. MataHarley says: 5

    drj in OP: There is one concrete lesson from this Libyan misadventure- if Barack Obama wants to shake your hand- run.

    LOL! Never have truer words been spoken. Altho I do believe he will rue the day when he decided to “shake hands” with the “occupiers” before the election year is out.

    Gary S, while I understand you wanting to see some semblance of “justice”, this type of selective foreign policy, tossing over cooperative (as much as infidels can expect) while ignoring outright enemies (Iran and Syria come immediately to mind…) is simply poppy cock.

    Take, for example, NATO… who officially ended their so called “humanitarian no-fly only” campaign at the end of October. Fact is, whatever Gaddafi was pre the deposition of Saddam, intel docs obtained during this “freedom fighter” revolution indicated that Gaddafi was working closely with the CIA. Additionally, he was accused of some impending mass murder of protesters that never was either in the making, or happened. And, in fact, were the US facing the same type of armed insurrection from the “occupiers”, you wouldn’t find me siding with that movement for an overthrow of the government.

    On the flip side, Assad in Syria has been busy using his military against the protests. Yet are their plans to assail Syria by NATO, under the “humanitarian” banner? Hell no…. Evidently humanitarian wars that don’t include oil don’t count… Instead, they are hoping that the execution of Gaddafi by rogue rebel troops, taking “justice” into their own hands, will serve as a “clear signal” for Syria.

    With the end of NATO’s Libya mission, the alliance has faced some calls to intervene in Syria’s uprising.

    But Fogh Rasmussen said NATO has no intention to get involved in Syria.

    “I can completely rule that out,” he said. “Having said that, I strongly condemn the crackdowns on the civilian population in Syria. What has happened in Libya sends a clear signal to autocratic regimes all over the world — you cannot neglect the will of the people.”

    Yeah… there’s a “clear signal” alright… and drj nailed it. Shake hands with the Great Satan, and start counting your days. Because the knife is poised at your back, no matter how much you cooperate with our CIA on intel.

    ReplyReply
  6. Wm T Sherman says: 6

    Strictly in terms of national interest, we are not necessarily better off with Gaddafi being removed at the time that he was removed and in the way that he was removed. The people who view these events skeptically rather than euphorically simply ask that this be kept in mind.

    He was a tyrant in a neighborhood of tyrants. He was a murderer of Europeans, Americans, and Libyans. A case could be made that we owed him fatal tribal revenge on general principles. But by that sort of criterion, we owe revenge to other tyrants who have been let off the hook. And will Gaddafi be replaced by a different murderer of Europeans, Americans, and Libyans?

    What attention is being paid to the nature of Libya after Gaddafi? Why was nothing done to secure the thousands of missing surface-to-air missiles, and where are they now? What does it portend for our future credibility if the world sees us shaking hands with the tyrant one month, and launching air strikes at him the next? What does an assurance from our country mean? It’s part of a larger pattern. The Iraqis, for example, took a good look at this adminstration and decided to deal with arch-rival Iran rather than depend on us in the future. Every faction, even the Kurds, has given up on us.

    Screw Gaddafi. It’s not about him per se.

    Questions. Just have some questions. And a jaundiced eye.

    ReplyReply
  7. bbartlog says: 7

    @RICHARD WHEELER: No particular admiration of Khaddafi is required to observe that the rationale(s) given for intervention are not believable. If someone wants to cite his human rights record, then what of Mugabe? What about Syria? Saudi Arabia? And so on. Especially weird is the claim that ‘Libya’s wealth was squandered'; while Khaddafi certainly stole plenty, Libya has (or had) the highest standard of living in Africa. If you want squandered wealth there are many better candidate nations.
    All of which taken together leaves one to wonder what the real reason for his removal was. Oil? Gold? A new, secret nuclear program? Convenient opportunity to test NATO’s firepower? If I thought Obama were actually the instigator of the affair, I suppose I could add NanG’s proposal to my list, but I don’t think he took the initiative here.

    ReplyReply
  8. anticsrocks says: 8

    @bbartlog: You are wasting your time, richard wheeler has devolved from having the ability to make salient points every now and then to just being a troll who revels in poking Conservatives generally, (and Dr J in particular) with a stick.

    ReplyReply
  9. DrJohn says: 9

    @MataHarley:

    Altho I do believe he will rue the day when he decided to “shake hands” with the “occupiers” before the election year is out.

    I think we will rue that day, Mata, and we both know it’s coming.

    ReplyReply
  10. DrJohn says: 10

    @RICHARD WHEELER:
    Rich

    Obama bows to Muslim kings and hugs Muslim leaders. As Nan points out, this becomes painfully obvious after a while.

    Obama is nurturing an Islamic world.

    ReplyReply
  11. DrJohn says: 11

    @Wm T Sherman:

    Why was nothing done to secure the thousands of missing surface-to-air missiles, and where are they now?

    You betcha.

    Rich is much happier now that these STA missiles are in the hands of Islamic militants.

    ReplyReply
  12. Disenchanted says: 12

    Unfortunately, the average American thinks nothing of these things. Instead, John Stewart names Obama “President Bad-Ass” and the AP, Politico, and CNN don’t speak of the handshaking only months before.

    Liberal ignorance is our real problem…and the fact that the majority of our news and entertainment espouses only one point of view.

    If you are not concerned that all of these autocratic regimes are all of a sudden being “toppled,” you should be. It is not due to the efforts of strong President, for sure.

    ReplyReply
  13. Nan G says: 13

    @DrJohn: Obama bows to Muslim kings and hugs Muslim leaders. As Nan points out, this becomes painfully obvious after a while.
    Obama is nurturing an Islamic world.

    More painfully obvious now.
    The Navy SEAL team six has come out about what happened with Osama bin Ladin as a result of OUTRAGE over Obama.

    The Navy SEALs who killed Osama Bin Laden have spoken for the first time about their mission after being angered by Obama’s response.

    The SEALS were enraged by the image that was being painted of them as cold-blooded murderers on a ‘kill mission’.
    Osama bin Ladin was killed just 90 seconds after the team landed in his compound in Pakistan and only 12 bullets were fired.
    Obama announcing Bin Laden’s death on TV a few hours later made their intelligence-gathering futile.
    Every living al Qaeda leader had a head start going into a new hiding hole as a result.

    Before the mission the SEALs planned everything.
    They were going to use Ghost Hawk helicopters that have an almost silent running mode.
    Obama nixed that.
    They were TOLD to go in on Stealth hawks instead.
    Even local Pakistani reporters saw and heard and reported seeing those choppers!

    Obama cuts off our ability to WIN even when he allows the cutting down of an individual snake.
    Major General Peter Fuller was fired this week.
    His crime?
    Saying that Hamid Karzai (who wants to impose SHARIA on all troops in Afghanistan) is out of touch with reality.
    Last month (October) it was reported that Shafiq Mubarak, from the Marine Corps Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning is teaching U.S. Marines to never spit or urinate to the west, the direction of Mecca that Muslims in Afghanistan face when they pray.

    In addition, when sharing a base with Afghan army troops, Marines shouldn’t sleep with their feet pointed west, because that also is considered offensive, he taught.

    Are our fighting men the Dhimmi slaves of their Muslim overlords in Afghanistan?
    Because that is how Dhimmi slave fighters were kept in line in times of old.
    Their own commanders ordered them to do acts of Dhimmitude.

    ReplyReply
  14. Richard Wheeler says: 14

    Mata #5 “What has happened in Libya sends a clear message to autocratic regimes around the world.”You cannot ignore THE WILL of the people” EXACTLY Assad take note. Iran–(Israel is coming).

    ReplyReply
  15. MataHarley says: 15

    @Nan G: Before the mission the SEALs planned everything.
    They were going to use Ghost Hawk helicopters that have an almost silent running mode.
    Obama nixed that.
    They were TOLD to go in on Stealth hawks instead.

    I don’t see that Obama made that call at all, Nan G. According to the original source for your link – the Daily Mail article - the decision to use older stealth choppers instead of the “Ghost Hawks” is that sending them in there without fighter jet back up was “too risky”.

    In all honesty, Obama wouldn’t know a “Ghost Hawk” from a tinker toy, so while he gave the green light go ahead to a mission, I don’t believe the military strategists defer to a community organizer for details and choice of transport.

    But you’ll notice I keep putting “Ghost Hawk” in parentheses… why? You won’t find any information on the Internet using that term. In fact, what I did find was a military aircrew forum where one put the question out about a “ghost hawk”. You’ll get a laugh out of the “If I tell you, I’ll have to…” type responses. But the fact is, that’s correct.

    But there is information from last year about a new rotor design that enables superior noise cancelling for the blades. Needless to say, it’s quite likely these vehicles are still proprietary, and the military would think twice about risking them in a mission, conducted sans approval in another sovereign state. Especially if they felt the task could be accomplished without that risk.

    Didn’t seem to deter the SEALs at all…. extraordinaire types that they are.

    Even as it was, many were saying they did use an advanced stealth chopper in the raid. Dunno… another talking about it at Above Top Secret.

    So I don’t know what was actually used between the Daily Mail reported Stealth Hawks, or the “Ghost Hawk” that you can’t find any information about. But two things are obvious… the military felt they didn’t need to risk unnecessarily high tech vehicles for the mission. And I doubt the bozo in chief had much to say about that, since it’s way above his “pay grade”.

    ReplyReply
  16. MataHarley says: 16

    rich wheeler, Israel is not coming for Assad. They are coming for Iran… maybe. Syria gets a pass, and therefore drj is correct. The lesson to be learned is twofold:

    1: Any friend of the US under this admin has a knife pointed at their backs while enemies are left alone, and
    2: Israel knows the US will not give them aid or support, and has to go it alone.

    ReplyReply
  17. Richard Wheeler says: 17

    For Conservatives to make everything about BHO (ODS) is really small minded. Get a decent candidate and beat him at the polls.In the meantime God Bless America and our troops.
    Happy Birthday USMC 11/10/2011

    I’d suggest the over/under on that butcher Assad is 9 months.It’s not if—it’s when and at the hands of his people like Gaddafi and Mubarek.

    ReplyReply
  18. DrJohn says: 18

    @Richard Wheeler:

    I’d suggest the over/under on that butcher Assad is 9 months

    Timed especially for the elections, eh?

    ReplyReply
  19. Richard Wheeler says: 19

    Dr J. If the election motivates BHO to take out the butcher Assad—-OOH RAH.

    ReplyReply
  20. Nan G says: 20

    Mata, I hear you.
    I can only find ”ghost” versions referred to in reviews of Pfarrer’s own book:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/06/new-book-details-seals-raid-that-killed-osama-bin-laden.html

    But some details in his book could complicate the 2012 presidential race. Pfarrer reports that the White House overruled the Navy plan to have two F-18 Hornets provide air support for SEALs helicopters, which would have been easily shot down if found by Pakistan’s Air Force. Also scrubbed were the latest-generation stealth helicopters, known as “ghost hawks.” The SEALs would have to make do with the older Stealth Hawks, which had mechanical problems. Ultimately, one crash-landed due to faulty electronics and had to be demolished on the site. Each of these decisions—to deny fighter support and to use older helicopters—may have been sound.

    Don’t want to die over it, so I’ll quit while I’m ahead.
    LOL!

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>