International alliance forming to stop Gaddafi

Libya’s Deputy Permanent UN Representative warns that a convoy of 400 military vehicles are headed to destroy Ajdabiya and that the UN must intervene in the coming hours.

The New York Times reports:

The prospect of a deadly siege of the rebel stronghold in Benghazi, Libya, has produced a striking shift in tone from the Obama administration, which is now pushing for the United Nations to authorize aerial bombing of Libyan tanks and heavy artillery to try to halt the advance of forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

The administration, which remains deeply reluctant to be drawn into an armed conflict in yet another Muslim country, is nevertheless backing a resolution in the Security Council that would give countries a broad range of options for aiding the Libyan rebels, including military steps that go well beyond a no-flight zone.

Administration officials — who have been debating a no-flight zone for weeks — concluded that such a step now would be “too little, too late” for rebels who have been pushed back to Benghazi. That suggests more aggressive measures, which some military analysts have called a no-drive zone, to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from moving tanks and artillery into Benghazi.

The United States is insisting that any military action would have to be carried out by an international coalition, including Libya’s Arab neighbors.

The rapid advance of forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi, combined with rising calls from the Arab world to prevent a rout of the opposition, has changed the calculations of the administration, which had clung to a belief that interfering in a Middle East uprising could provoke an anti-American backlash.

“The turning point was really the Arab League statement on Saturday,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday to reporters traveling with her in Cairo. “That was an extraordinary statement in which the Arab League asked for Security Council action against one of its own members.”

Mrs. Clinton said she was hopeful that the Security Council would vote no later than Thursday. The American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, is in intensive negotiations over the language of a resolution, sponsored by Lebanon, another Arab state, and backed by France and Britain.

This about-turn in the Obama administration’s position is being viewed with a measure of skepticism in some quarters. “Privately, some European officials expressed frustration with the Obama administration, with one saying he believed it was supporting strong measures in an attempt to draw a veto.”

What is particularly noteworthy is that the resolution is sponsored by Lebanon. Even while the country is still in the process of forming a new government, this UN initiative can most likely be attributed to Hezbollah, now the dominant political force in Lebanon.

Soon after the Feb 17 Revolution began, Hezbollah issued a strong condemnation of Gaddafi. On Feb 22, the Ahlul Bayt News Agency reported:

Hezbollah lashed out Monday at the “crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime” in Libya:
“Anyone with honor and consciousness in this world cannot, and should not, keep silent on the massacres that the Gaddafi regime is committing across the country on a daily basis, namely in Benghazi.

Terror and violence do not protect a regime that was founded on corruption and crime, from the will and determination of a people that has taken its decisive decision,” a Hezbollah statement read.

“Hezbollah firmly condemns crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime against the oppressed Libyan people. We also offer our sincere condolences to the families of those who were unjustly killed, just for demanding their rights. Hezbollah expresses support to the revolutionists in Libya and we pray that they will triumph over this arrogant tyrant,” the statement added.

“The criminality of this tyrant had first struck us deeply as Lebanese, when he kidnapped the Imam of the resistance Sayyed Moussa Sadr with his two dear companions. We ask Almighty Allah that the honorable revolutionists in Libya would be able to liberate Imam Sadr and his companions, just as they would be able to free Libya from all of its chains,” the statement concluded.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 thoughts on “International alliance forming to stop Gaddafi

  1. Norman

    How about a squadron of A-10’s hitting that convoy? If the U.S. is afraid of anyone thinking that it’s meddling into another Arab country, I’m sure the Mechanics can whip up a pretty pink color scheme with perhaps red roses as insignia’s . Come “O”, show the world you do have a pair of balls in that empty suit.

  2. KFritz

    Re a previous comment & this item

    There is a way to cripple Gaddafi and ensure his eventual demise. It would be dangerous, messy, and controversial. It would enrage Russia & the PRC. Put simply, it’s an all-out attack on the petroleum refineries at Zawiyah and Ras Lanuf. Without this capacity, Gaddafi would run out of gasoline to power his armored advantage. Resupply to Tripoli could be blocked, and the US &EU could resupply the alternate government in the east of Libya. Gaddafi’s collapse would be only a matter of time.

  3. Dieter Heymann

    The danger of every action considered thus far by the US, EU, NATO, UN is that no clear ultimate objective is defined by anyone. What is it? What is yours, Norman? It is cheap to sit at your computer and demand that our President shows “balls” because you do not have to commit US men and women to possible combat.
    As I have written elsewhere I believe that the least messy objective is the partitioning of Libya into two states Tripolitania in the West and Cyrenaica in the East. If the Tripolitanians want to be ruled by Kadaffi so be it and the “outside world” must stop demanding that he go away because that is up to the Tripolitanians. They may well decide that he has misled them and rise up against him. He will then be removed “by his own” which is infinitely better than his removal by outside forces, especially the Cyrenaicans who overplayed their hands in hubris when they mistakenly assumed that they could take the city of Tripoli on the run.
    Any assistance given to the insurgents must be on condition that they accept the divorce of this shotgun marriage called Libya.
    By far the worst objective is a united Libya ruled either by the Kadaffi family or by the insurgents because that will leave all of the political and cultural explosives in place.

  4. Earl Sharp

    In the world of power politics, ultimate objectives are seldom stated. However, these objectives may be determined by analyzing the strategies of a given actor.
    In the case of the United States, it’s latest strategic proposal is to impose a “no fly or drive” zone over Libya.
    Under such a policy, both Russia and China would likely veto the proposal which would then “excuse” the U.S. to act unilaterally. The consequence of a U.S. controlled no fly or drive zone would then lock both Libyan factions in place thus effectively dividing the country in to opposing zones of East and West. Succinctly, under such analysis one might conclude that the “ultimate objective” of the U. S. is to implement a divide-and-conquer strategy so that American corporate interests might gain control of petroleum resources thus providing the U.S. with a firmer grip over recalcitrant NATO countries which are highly dependent on Libyan oil.

  5. Renfro

    President Postpone strikes again.
    Evidently not many people have heard a stitch in time saves nine.

    Now all the short sighted who were against intervening for the opposition early on to stop Gaddaffi before it got to this point might get the kind of more costly and involved full scale intervention they were wringing their hands over.

  6. M. Smith

    I for one wasn’t “wringing my hands” over a US administered NFZ. I was forcefully rejecting another excuse for the US rogue state to use extreme violence that would not only be illegal (who cares about international law??) but consistent with every “intervention” it has undertaken since WWII (and arguably during and before that conflict) in so far as it having escalated the death and destruction making the victims (read Libya) as well as the US and its allies LESS safe. I really find it hard to stomach you and the rest of the laptop bombers out there who haven’t heard the screams. I’ve never been witness to war but I happen to have a vivid imagination. What are you going to tell the Libyan mother of a child “accidentally” vaporized in front of her by one of our errant ordnance? “Well mam, I’m so sorry to hear about your loss. But I understand that in keeping with other theaters in our necessary “War On Terror” you’ll be compensated with $2500 USD and a goat. But you see from where we stood in the god fearing righteous capitals of the west Gaddafi just had to go and there was this rebellion you see… well i know it wasn’t organized really and there were characters among them who were unsavory (kinda like Iraq and Afghanistan actually!) and tied to US/European oil/mining interests and well… but you see it was just so important that we, the right and the just, the all knowing, all seeing Western powers “intervene” once again to stop the bloodshed…. er uh did I say I was sorry about your child? As I was saying you see there was NO TIME left…. just like the imminent mushroom clouds we were going to see at the hands of Saddam… and well you know… we are a force for good even though “stuff happens” and there are “known knowns” and “unknown knowns” and well gosh war is awful I know but you see Gaddafi was just awful and he was killing his own people!! and YOU NEEDED OUR HELP! and our track record of peacekeeping and knowing exactly how to solve the world’s problems with tons and tons and tons of high explosives… well you can see for yourself how much we’ve made the world a better place… anyway… gotta run…. sorry about your loss again… but remember it was done WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS…”
    I say this to all those calling for US military intervention. Unless you’re able and willing to walk the streets of Libya afterword and comfort every single grieving party killed by our forces than I respectfully say to you to please cease and desist from bleating on and on about it. Explain to those who will die from our actions why this is the ONLY way to solve the problem. Don’t waste your time on us. Explain it to THEM. If you can’t imagine convincing those we will kill of the righteousness of your cause then shut the hell up.

  7. Norman

    Why Dieter, I’m surprised by your comment. Yes I sit at my computator, (spelled on purpose). I also have watched since W.W.II the decline of the so called freedoms that was supposed to be why the Greatest Generation fought to uphold. Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out what a squadron of A-10’s would accomplish? Doe it take you to defend the P.O.T.U.S. because he hasn’t had the guts to even stand up for the country that he took an oath to stand up for? He has shown that he is willing to give the Bankers what they ask for, the Insurance Co,’s what they ask for, the Republicans what they ask for. And what does he give the taxpayers, those that still have a job to pay taxes on? How about bend over and hold on to your socks. You want a plan. How about getting out of all the countries the U.S. Military are in? How about the U.S. quit backing despots? How about the U.S. quit creating terrorists? How about . . . . . . . . . . . . ?

  8. Renfro

    M. Smith March 17, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    You’ve got Bush Post Tramatic Disorder.
    Seek counseling, it will help you to distingush between the past and the present.

Comments are closed.