The Attack on Libya is Not Merely a No Fly Zone—But an Intervention Into Libya
By Kevin Zeese
It was hard for some peace activists to look at the planned attack by Col. Gadhafi on Libyan rebels and oppose the no fly zone approved by the U.N. Col. Gadhafi is a vicious leader who promised to make the streets run red with blood so this was an issue that divided the peace community.
Regardless of how you felt about the original no fly zone, how you feel about the Gadhafi regime or the armed rebels fighting it, we should all recognize that the United States, United Kingdom and France are going further than a no fly zone and are intervening in a civil war for their own reasons that have nothing to do with defending democracy or other humanitarian goals. Already we are seeing evidence of the broader mission beyond a no fly zone and beyond what President Obama said would be a few days with no troops on the ground.
- While in Egypt this week Secretary Gates hinted that the war in Libya may be open-ended.
- There is confusion about the goals in Libya. Does it include removal of Gadhafi as President Obama and Secretary Clinton have said? Putting in place a democracy? Reaching those goals is beyond the UN mandate and will get the U.S. into another quagmire.
- While President Obama promised no troops on the ground in Libya, there are reports that there are already 2,000 marines off the coast of Libya.
- Special Forces are developing a role in Libya. Even before the UN resolution there were reports of U.S. “advisors” on the ground in Libya in early March and Special Forces fighting with rebels in late February, a month before the mandate.
- The U.S. is planning on sending National Guard troops to Libya. Is a longer war planned than has been admitted?
- It is becoming more evident that this is a foreign intervention into a civil war and we’ve had enough experience with that to know that it will not end well. And, there is strong evidence that if this is not already one, it will become a civil war because of foreign intervention.
- Due to the expansion of the attack beyond a no fly zone, which the Arab League originally called for, the Arab League now opposes the intervention because it is not a legitimate “no fly zone.” As the Arab League president said, “What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians.”
- The “hidden agenda” of oil is rearing its ugly head again. Would the U.S. be in Libya if it produced asparagus? Why isn’t the U.S. opposing dictators in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia? Now that the Libyan Air Force has been made unable to fight, what is the purpose of the ongoing bombardment?
- And, how many civilians will the U.S. kill to save civilians from being killed? Already there are reports of widespread civilian deaths as well as mistaken civilian deaths. Secretary Gates’ denial of civilian deaths are hard to believe when nearly 200 missiles have been launched into Libya.
The Libyan attack raises a persistent issue in U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. trained the Libyan military and provided them with weapons, including $15 million in arms sales in FY 2009 alone. Now the U.S. military is destroying that same military and the weapons the U.S. sold them. Should the U.S., the largest arms merchant in the world which sells nearly 70% of all weapons, be selling weapons to despots, dictators and royalists who do not have the support of their people? Doesn’t this ensure rebellions seeking democracy will be met with lethal force and the U.S. may need to intervene for “humanitarian” reasons? President Obama has produced record arms sales, in particular the largest arms sale in history to one country with $60 billion in sales to Saudi Arabia, another unpopular regime among its people.
Finally, the Constitutional issue of unilateral military attacks on countries that are not a threat to the United States was violated by the attack on Libya and needs to be faced up to. When he was running for office, candidate Obama correctly said: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution wrote in 1795 that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which put the power to declare war and fund war in the hands of the legislature, was the most important clause of the constitution.
“The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.”
The founders had seen monarchs unilaterally declare war resulting in mass deaths and economic ruin. Indeed, the U.S. with an already fragile economy and stretched thin military faces those risks with the Libyan war. Already the U.S. has used more than 150 Tomahawk Cruise missiles against Libya, each one costing $1.5 million. On the first day the U.S. spent an estimated $100 million on the Libyan attack. And, people are estimating that the U.S. will spend $1 billion in Libya in a very short time. This will all be borrowed money and comes at a time when austerity measures are being put in place by state and federal governments cutting basic services.
Please call President Obama and give him your thoughts about Libya. Tell him to avoid mission creep and another military quagmire. The White House switchboard is 202-456-1414.
Kevin Zeese is co-founder of Voters For Peace and directs Come Home America which brings people from across the political spectrum to oppose war and empire.



34 Comments

We knew this — “The Attack on Libya is Not Merely a No Fly Zone—But an Intervention Into Libya” — a week ago, when the U.S. and the other interventionists rejected Libya offer of a UN-inspected ceasefire.
” Hard to oppose a no-fly zone?” It was easy for me to oppose this farcical trip into nation meddling. If the G,K,orQ man wanted to massacre the entire country I would not have lost a day`s sleep. The same clowns who are supposed to be heroic revolutionaries cheered themselves hoarse when the Pan Am plane went down. Al Qeda has announced it would send help to the Bengazi fighters. I voted for Obama because I thought he was a peace maker. Now it is obvious he is a chicken hawk, even to the extent he is hen pecked by more women than any leader [? } in history. We need to follow Ron and Rand Paul, James Webb, Lugar of Hoosietown and Dennis Kuchinich not a tyrant who wages war whenever his delicate sensibilities are awakened. Get the fleet out of the Gulf of Sidra and Obama out of the White House before they both drag us into another 10 year long fool`s parade of blood.
Zenostoa
“hen pecked”? You might be able to be more retro if you tried harder.
No, I don’t think that zen could be more retro regardless of the amount of effort expended.
I’m shocked, shocked that plans for ground troops were in place a week ago.
Shocked, I said. As sure as this surprises me.
I’d say “We will never learn,” but we the people have. It’s our war-addicted “leaders” who don’t, and it’s time to kick their asses to the curb.
Zounds; I really do learn something every day. He belong to the He-man Women Haters Club, too? With Spanky and Alfalfa??
I guess it is okay for Maureen Dowd to write these things in the ” Times,” but not I. Since I`m typing I want to ad I just heard an unctous democrat flak named Strum tell Mathews that Obama didn`t go to congress because Rand Paul would have fillabusterd the effort. If that is true, may God bless Rand Paul and all who sail with him. Rand Paul had a father who loved and taught him how to ,” Act like a man,”Obama`s old man didn`t teach him anything. As a result falling prey to the harpies, Clinton and Rice lite is not a surprise.
Zenostoa
No; because silly Dowd said it doesn’t make it any less retro, IMO. I confess, I haven’t read her for years.
“Al Qeda has announced it would send help to the Bengazi fighters.”; false statement as it pretends that Al qaeda is homgenous and monolithic. You also seem susceptible to propaganda from idiots.
If your really concerned about al qaeda your focus should be on Yemen.
And why does everyone want to ignore the ‘all necessary means’ part of the resolution choosing to focus on a “no fly zone”?
I have no clue as to where the locations of Al qaeda may be and neither does anybody who writes about them on FDL.
HERE’S WHAT I KNOW FOR A FACT. The experts who rigged the explosives in the WTC towers were Americans who were ordered to do it by the only person on this planet with that power and who was warned more than 40 times of the attack on 9/11.
http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/2011/02/only-bush-was-capable.html
If Obama actually wanted to completely stop any and all terrorist threats he’d send in the marines to kill Qadaffi for the Libyan people and haul ass out of there. Let them choose whatever government they want and be neutral.
But the Obama CRIME FAMILY thrives on selling the boogeyman terrorist threats for endless war. Obama can spread money around to any people he likes while he keeps protecting Americans as they stay in their trance.
Anthony Noel really believes this. “I’d say “We will never learn,” but we the people have. It’s our war-addicted “leaders” who don’t, and it’s time to kick their asses to the curb.”
Anthony and all the FDL progressives will renominate and will reelect Obama. Or will it be Donald Trump? The Donald demands seeing Obama’s birth certificate. I can show Trump my birth certificate, why can’t Obama show Trump his birth certificate.
I don’t care where Obama was born, he sucks and so does Trump. Trump bankrupted two casinos that he owned.
America has evolved into an entire country of weird clowns. The circus never ends and its on TV for free.
@Screwed Again. Man you really enjoy insulting the American people dont you? But I think your confused. The “weird clowns” are the ones promoting the “explosives in the WTC towers”. There is no creditable evidence anywhere of such explosives. Just an endless circus of lies and re-history attempts that any normal clown can see through on their worst pie in the face day.
just my opinion but peace doesn’t involved a couple hundred tomahawk missiles.
…..
anyway, sorta related…. email from dfa yesterday:
needless to say, i gave them some feedback…. on the order of: I don’t know why DFA needs to ask the question. It doesn’t matter the which political party the President belongs to. Starting stupid, senseless, immoral wars needs to be stongly opposed regardless of party.
“just my opinion but peace doesn’t involved a couple hundred tomahawk missiles.”
A no-fly zone hasn’t ever been considered peace. So your opinion doesnt really make any sense.
i’ll bold some relevant bits in the first paragraph of the post:
there are lots of things that actually make no sense. for example, a couple hundred tomahawks hitting GROUND targets that did not violate a no-fly zone.
Agree with your point that peace doesn’t involve hundreds of tomahawk missiles.
Disagree with your assertion that no-fly zones are not widely understood to involve incapacitaion of ground based air defenses.
Michael Ramsey, writing at OpinioJuris.org Wednesday:
See also today’s second post by Professor Ramsey on the same subject:
http://opiniojuris.org/2011/03/25/declaring-war-and-libya-a-comment-on-past-practice/
This is plainly the US and Nato taking sides in a civil war, and it’s not to save lives.
The war powers act is, or has been used, as a kind of amendment to the constitution, effectively giving the President the power to declare war. Of course, as we all know, Congress does not have the authority to amend the constitution, even to renege on its own authority.
The Pentagon front man, retired General Keane, was interviewed on the NewsHour last night laying the groundwork for the upcoming land invasion. He opened up his notes from the Bushco Iraq invasion and rolled out some real doozies: now that the US has committed to the overthrow of Qaddafi, if ends in a stalemate, then the US loses face; our national honor besmirched; all that rot. The bloodlust!
In order to blast the targets amongst the civilian population, General Keane needs boots on the ground to direct the jet bombers, which will use laser guided bombs to avoid civilian casualties. (Yeah, right.)
These guys can’t have enough war. Never mind teh DEFICIT. BTW, lay off how many schoolteachers per cruise missile shot?
“No; because silly Dowd said it doesn’t make it any less retro, IMO. I confess, I haven’t read her for years.”
Hear, hear! For a self-alleged “feminist” she sure loves to wallow in self-hatred along with hatred of others. Especially those who manage to stay married.
I clicked on the link you’ve titled “Special Forces are developing a role in Libya”, and found this (emphases mine):
How you got “Special Forces are” out of “Special Forces may and could, but it’s extremely unlikely”, I have no idea.
Again, this isn’t some grand Imperial American Hegemony bullshit: Obama had to be made by France and the UK (who among other things apparently feared the huge swarm of Libyan refugees that they expected to hit their borders as a result of Libyans fleeing Gaddafi’s crackdown) to take part in this. The most he was going to do was to try and get the Saudis to pass on some arms to the rebels, something the Saudis have so far refused to do because the last thing they want to see is an Arab Spring with enough oomph to make it into Saudi Arabia.
Why does it seem that everyone opposed to the no-fly zone is assuming it’s going to be like Iraq, when so far it seems to be operating a lot more like Kosovo — which, by the way, worked? (Oh, and for all the Milosevic apologists that might still exist out there: Yes, he did commit atrocities — which he worked like mad to hide.)
Recommended, my hunch is ground troops will be sent in, late April early may.
markfromireland
Your use of dualities is reminiscent of neo-conservative good-evil rhetoric. Kosovo good, Iraq bad. Kosovo isn’t as cut-and-dry as you might think. You don’t have to be a Milosovic apologist to say that the war was not the unadulterated success neo-cons and liberal interventionists alike claim it was. US bombing caused large-scale civilian casualties, and in the aftermath evidence of human rights abuses by Kosovar militias went uninvestigated (very similar to likely crimes by Paul Kagame and the RPF in Rwanda, also largely uninvestigated thanks to support from liberal interventionist who said Hutu bad, Tutsi good).
I think it remains to be seen what conflict to analogize this to. Is regime change the goal of NATO? Then Iraq is an apt metaphor to some degree because, the rebels seem incapable to take Tripoli on their own, necessitating foreign ground forces, and we’ve seen the massive human cost of imposing democracy at the tip of a gun. No there are not the same religious differences, but there are tribal elements at play as the NYT noted. Can eastern Libya feasibly be split off from the rest of the country? Then yes, perhaps this is similar to the Kosovo situation.
I believe if you were for it in the beginning you have to prepared to see it through. I won’t be happy, but I’m not going to be a hypocrit and say I don’t support ground troops if that’s the only thing that will dislodge Gaddafi.
This bit caught my eye:
That’s no “report”. The DoD has been admitting that for awhile now. What is new is this bit from that link:
[emphasis mine]
The report says that they’re guarding Ajdubiyah. I don’t know if that report is accurate, of course, but that’s what the report said.
Looking further, I’ve found no confirmation of that report. Even the ABC affiliate it claims to be quoting says no such thing, though it was revised today. I suspect this is a correction, but there’s no indication on the ABC site of what, if anything, they deleted from the earlier report.
The newspaper said earlier today that the source had walked the news back.
The ground targets have not been limited to ground based air defenses.
Ok. I can accept your point of view. Some who posted here earlier this week were positively GIDDY about the No-Fly-Zone because they were *convinced* that no US troops would be sent in.
All I can say to that is: yeah, right. I’ve seen this movie before, and Act II is no surprise.
Speaking only for myself, I never supported bombing Libya no matter how horrid Gaddafi is. I also knew we’d end up with boots on the ground.
Nice how Unions are being crushed under on the notion that public servants, like teachers, police, fire dept, librarians, etc, all *make insanely gigantic salaries* that are simply driving the US into bankruptcy. But somehow there’s TON$$$$$ of ca$h money to pay for yet another quagmire leading to no good for all concerned.
Let$ $ee… who’s going to *benefit* from this BigOIL quaqmire?? Cannot figure out *cough BP* who will benefit… could it be the “small folks” of Libya suddenly all being given unicorns and freedom?? Sincerely doubt it.
Pardon me whilst I dust off my cynicism…. except there’s nothing to dust off anymore bc I’m cynical 110% of the time.
I resent your assertion that we either embrace NATO airstrikes -or- we are Milosevic and Gaddafi appologists.
Why are those the only two options on the table?
Not only are we likely to make things even worse for the people of Libya, we are also giving the nations of the world a strong incentive to rearm.
A no-fly zone directly involves hitting “GROUND” locations. You should research just exactly an no-fly zone operation is.
Yes I read that, but still its a no-fly zone not a peace mission.