tagged w/ Airstrikes
-
by Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis, March 31, 2011
His lines may be better delivered, but Barack Obama is sounding – and acting – more like the heir to George W. Bush than the answer sold to the public in his award-winning ad campaign. Indeed, when not sending billions of dollars to repressive governments across the globe, the great liberal hope is authorizing deadly drone strikes and military campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and now, in his most morally righteous war yet, Libya.
Strutting out to a podium before an audience of uniformed military personnel – wonder where he got that idea from – a confident, some would say cocky, American president offered a fierce albeit belated speech justifying another preemptive war against a country that posed no threat to the United States. And if you closed your eyes, you could almost hear that faux-Texas drawl.
"As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe," the president declared, adopting his predecessor’s favorite title for himself. "I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests."
Put another way, President Obama says he will only start a war – without consulting Congress, much less the public – when it is absolutely necessary for defending the "homeland" or for, you know, whatever he deems an "interest."
Enter Muammar Gadhafi, a caricature of a tyrant whom the Obama administration just a matter of months ago was looking to sell $77 million in weapons, including more than 50 armored troop carriers. Back then, Gadhafi was a thuggish but reliable client in his old age. And he happened to rule over a country that has the largest oil reserves in Africa.
Funny how friendship works.
But a few short weeks ago, Gadhafi became unreliable – a public relations nightmare – when he started using the weapons he purchased from his erstwhile allies against his own people. Like Saddam Hussein before him, he became a liability.
So now Obama believes Gadhafi to be a "tyrant" who has lost his "legitimacy" – as if there was anything "legitimate" about his previous 42 years of dictatorial rule. On Monday, the president argued war was necessary to prevent Gadhafi from massacring rebel forces and their supporters in Benghazi. Such a massacre "would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world," said the war president. "I refused to let that happen."
I – me – the imperial president. Cue the commander-in-chief landing on an aircraft carrier.
But if the threat of a massacre is what spurs President Obama to action, what are we to make of his reaction to Israel’s massacre of more than 1,400 Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, or what Amnesty International calls "22 days of death and destruction"? Giving Israel an additional $30 billion in American weapons is a rather curious response, no?
And what about the hundreds of civilians killed by drone attacks in Pakistan since Obama took office – as many as 1,850 according to the New America Foundation? In early March, the very administration cloaking its new war in moralizing rhetoric carried out a massacre of 40 Pakistani civilians – a massacre the president who authorized the attack couldn’t even be bothered to comment on.
Right now, the Obama administration is actively supporting brutal regimes in Yemen, Iraq, and Bahrain – to name a few – where protest movements are being violently suppressed on the American taxpayers’ dime. And the Obama administration is selling $60 billion in weapons to the Saudis, who not only oppress their own dissidents but recently occupied neighboring Bahrain and violently cracked down on peaceful protesters there with the U.S.’s stamp of approval.
So if one thing’s clear, it’s that the U.S. government is fine with tyranny – when it’s "pro-American." Fancy rhetoric aside, there is no "freedom agenda."
Speaking to reporters this week, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough conceded as much, saying that the White House doesn’t "make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent." Rather, "We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region."
And as history professor and war supporter Juan Cole helpfully notes, the rebels control significant swaths of oil-rich territory and have taken "key oil towns" thanks to the U.S.-led bombing campaign – of 200 cruise missiles fired so far, 193 have been fired from American warships. They are also on the verge of taking 80 percent of the Buraiqa Basin, writes Cole, which "contains much of Libya’s oil wealth."
Bingo: We just found "our interests." And unsurprisingly, they don’t involve protecting innocent people from being killed so much as they do protecting the natural resource on top of which they’re dying – and then having the freshly liberated locals pick up the tab for American contractors to rebuild everything American missiles destroyed.
Major General Smedley Butler had it right: war is a racket.
But even assuming Obama has the best of intentions – with which the road to hell is paved, mind you – U.S. intervention in Libya is more likely to do harm than good. Besides the inevitable "collateral damage," meaning widowed mothers and orphaned children, war sets off an unpredictable chain reaction of evil – evil that no side has a monopoly over.
Indeed, The Los Angeles Times reports that while the intervention is sold as in defense of human rights, the Libyan rebels on whose behalf the U.S. is intervening are actively rounding up hundreds of their perceived political opponents and imprisoning them without charge in Gadhafi’s former torture chambers. Those being rounded up are primarily black immigrants, with rebel spokesman Abdelhafed Ghoga telling the paper that suspected Gadhafi mercenaries who don’t voluntarily turn themselves in will be subjected to extra-judicial "justice" (read: murder) for being "enemies of the revolution." If they seize the country, who will stop roundups – and massacres – in Tripoli and elsewhere of those deemed to be supporters of the Gadhafi regime, perhaps for no reason other than the color of their skin?
U.S. officials have publicly acknowledged an al-Qaeda presence among the rebels, bringing to mind U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s. And with the self-proclaimed leadership consisting of former top-level Gadhafi cronies who had no problem with the regime’s human rights abuses four weeks ago, those lionizing the rebels – and suggesting the U.S. illegally arm them – should take a closer look at who the U.S. and its allies are preparing to put in power when Gadhafi’s gone.
The Obama administration and supporters of the war — who a month ago couldn’t tell the difference between Benghazi and Baghdad — portray the intervention in Libya as a simple morality tale, with evil on one side and good on the other. But the reality is more nuanced than the applause lines the president laid out in his speech. In the real world, peace is rarely achieved by dropping bombs and installing the most avowedly "pro-American" locals you can find in power. Just look at Afghanistan and Iraq, where George Bush started wars that Barack Obama has only continued – and in the case of the former, escalated.
"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries," Obama said this week. "The United States of America is different." And credit where credit’s due, he’s right: From Gaza to the Arabian peninsula, Obama doesn’t stand idly by while others carry out atrocities – he funds and arms those carrying them out.
And just like Bush, he doesn’t let his hypocrisy get in the way of a good war.by Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis, March 31, 2011
His lines may be better... more
-
-
Relief came Wednesday in the besieged western Libyan town of Misrata after a night of coalition airstrikes that witnesses said targeted encampments of forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi.
But the battle on the ground between pro- and anti-Gadhafi forces was far from over as evidenced by fierce clashes in the eastern town of Ajdabiya, where the opposition appeared to have moved its front line to just 5 kilometers from the city.
Airstrikes targeted military sites in Ajdabiya and Misrata Tuesday night into Wednesday, a U.S. military official said. After the bombardment, Misrata residents reported the first calm in a week.
"It is relatively quiet today -- this is the first time we feel that way in weeks," said Mohammed, an opposition spokesman in the city who would only give his first name. "We want to express our gratitude to the international community since there were airstrikes this morning."
He and a Misrata Central Hospital doctor said the situation was dramatically improved Wednesday, after overnight and early morning airstrikes that they said targeted at least two pro-Gadhafi positions.
Gadhafi's forces have been stationed on the outskirts of the city, from where they have been providing support and supplies to loyalists fighting rebels in Misrata proper.
Many grocery stores and other shops opened in the city, two hours east of Tripoli, which has been inaccessible for journalists.
The doctor, Khaled Mansouri, told CNN that five more people were killed in the last 24 hours, raising the death toll to at least 95 in the last seven days. A man who died Wednesday morning was shot by a pro-Gadhafi sniper, the doctor said.Relief came Wednesday in the besieged western Libyan town of Misrata after a night of... more
-
-
The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people spread quickly around the world. However, Russia's military chiefs say they have been monitoring from space – and the pictures tell a different story.
According to Al Jazeera and BBC, on February 22 Libyan government inflicted airstrikes on Benghazi – the country’s largest city – and on the capital Tripoli. However, the Russian military, monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, says nothing of the sort was going on on the ground.
At this point, the Russian military is saying that, as far as they are concerned, the attacks some media were reporting have never occurred.
The same sources in Russia’s military establishment say they are also monitoring the situation around Libya’s oil pumping facilities.
http://rt.com/news/airstrikes-libya-russian-military/The reports of Libya mobilizing its air force against its own people spread quickly... more
-
-
Since 2001, the US Air Force has dropped nearly 31 million pounds (14,049 metric tons) of bombs on Afghanistan. The UN estimates that US airstrikes alone accounted for 64 percent of the 828 Afghan civilians killed last year. Those numbers practically scream the need to abandon conventional warfare tactics in Afghanistan and dramatically shift US foreign policy to incorporate a more humanitarian approach. Instead, we're seeing the horrific images from IDP camps: refugees who have lost loved ones; parents so desperate they would rather sell their children than watch them starve; children scarred both physically and psychologically. These are the survivors, forced to endure the bleak aftermath of airstrikes as the US escalates this war.
The front page story in the LA Times today examines the US military's seemingly impossible task of reducing the number of civilian casualties in airstrikes like the one that killed up to 140 people in Farah province on May 4. The civilians casualties from that attack, we know from a preliminary investigative report, died because a series of military errors. Had the Afghan forces being trained by the US military not ignored warnings about entering a Farah village, they wouldn't have been ambushed by insurgents, prompting the Marines to call for a strike. And had the pilot of an aircraft not lost site of his target, or had those commanders rethought the need to send in a B-1 bomber strike at a point when those Afghan forces weren't under direct attack, the high number of civilian casualties could have been avoided. Yet as our highly skilled military revisits protocols for conducting air strikes to minimize mistakes like these in the future, these casualties are the inevitable consequences of conventional warfare.
We've heard Gen. McChrystal tell Congress that reducing civilian casualties is "essential to our credibility." We've heard Adm. Mullen claim we need to do "absolutely everything to make sure civilian casualties are eliminated, if possible, or certainly minimized in every situation." But such rhetoric is appallingly disingenuous while Congress simultaneously approves $106 billion in wartime spending with relatively little in the way of economic aid, or when we learn that over a month after the Farah attacks, US commanders have not specified how exactly they plan to reduce the civilian casualties of this war.
Instead of thinking of alternatives to a dangerously flawed military strategy, US commanders are trying to control the narrative about civilian casualties.
end of excerptSince 2001, the US Air Force has dropped nearly 31 million pounds (14,049 metric tons)... more
-
-
U.S.-led airstrikes killed dozens of Afghans, including women and children, the Red Cross said on Wednesday, appearing to confirm an incident that could overshadow a meeting between U.S. and Afghan leaders.
Rohul Amin, governor of Western Farah province where the bombing took place during a battle on Monday and Tuesday, said he feared 100 civilians had been killed. Provincial police chief Abdul Ghafar Watandar said the death toll could be even higher.
If confirmed, those even higher figures could make the incident the single deadliest for Afghan civilians since the campaign to topple the Taliban in 2001.U.S.-led airstrikes killed dozens of Afghans, including women and children, the Red... more
-
-
Is this the way adults are supposed to play?
We're sorry, No WE"RE sorry, No WE....you get it.
I'm sure this sticks in alot of people's crawl, but making nice with Germany, Japan, and Vietnam did too.
Too bad the middle easterners, and the Baltic brothern can't learn from this.Is this the way adults are supposed to play?
We're sorry, No WE"RE sorry,... more
-
-
Iraqi Police said a U.S. airstrike killed a family of six in northern Iraq, but the U.S. military described it as an attack targeting insurgents that killed one "armed terrorist." Police said Tuesday night's strike, just north of Tikrit, also wounded four people.
Police said a man went outside and fired warning shots after hearing people moving around his house. U.S. troops thought it was hostile fire and responded.
The U.S. military said troops were targeting al Qaeda in Iraq insurgents "when they were attacked by small-arms fire." The troops returned fire and surrounded nearby buildings when they saw an armed man enter one of them, the military said. U.S.-led coalition forces surrounded the buildings and urged the man to come out, but he refused, according to a military statement.
The military said police identified the man as an "armed terrorist" and found no other casualties. It said four women in another building received minor injuries in the strike.
Other deaths Wednesday also brought conflicting accounts from U.S. and Iraqi officials.
Iraqi Police said a U.S. airstrike killed a family of six in northern Iraq, but the... more
-
-
Pakistan has expressed outrage at a U.S. airstrike in a disputed region along the Afghan border that it says killed 11 of its forces who were cooperating with the U.S.-led war on terror.
The U.S. military said it carried out an airstrike and fired against "anti-Afghan forces" shortly after they attacked coalition forces in Afghanistan's Konar province on Tuesday. The military statement did not say where the airstrike occurred, but stressed that coalition ground forces did not cross into Pakistan.
A U.S. official said that Tuesday's airstrike targeted suspected militants who had fled into Pakistan after conducting an ambush on the Afghan side of the border.
The official said Pakistani military officials worked with the U.S. forces to track the militants as they fled across the border into Pakistan. He said the mission was permitted under the rules of engagement which allow "hot pursuit" across the border of suspected militants when locations are verified.
But Pakistan's military -- which described the airstrike as a "completely unprovoked and cowardly act" -- had a much different account of what happened.
The top spokesman for Pakistan army's Gen. Athar Abbas said the airstrike happened after U.S. forces were called in by Afghan troops who had engaged in a border clash with Taliban forces.
Pakistan's military and Foreign Ministry have issued an official protest with the Tripartite Commission -- a group made up of senior military and diplomatic representatives from Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States -- condemning the attack, Abbas said.
A Pakistani military statement said the strike "hit at the very basis of cooperation and sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the coalition in war against terror."Pakistan has expressed outrage at a U.S. airstrike in a disputed region along the... more
-
-
A number of people have been killed in a US air strike in support of Iraqi forces fighting Shia militants in the town of Hilla, south of Baghdad.
US forces said four militants were killed, but Iraqi security sources have given casualty estimates ranging from 11 to up to 60 dead.
The strike came when SWAT agents were engaged in a firefight in the town of Hilla after the wave of violence emanating in Basra spread north to Baghdad. Major Allayne Conway, described the attack.
"The Hilla SWAT guys were on the ground. They were engaged. Our attack helicopters were called in. They engaged," she said.
This comes just a day after the Iraqi PM gave the Mehdi Army a 72 hour deadline to lay down their weapons in a ceasefire. Read more about it at the link below.
http://current.com/items/88876468_iraqi_pm_issues_ceasefire_deadline_for_mehdi_army
A number of people have been killed in a US air strike in support of Iraqi forces... more
-
-
It has been reported that there has been another missile strike in Pakistan, this time three bombs, apparently dropped by an American aircraft, have killed nine people and wounded nine others in the tribal area of South Waziristan, an area that reportedly provides sanctuary to al Qaeda and the Taliban.
This attack, which according to reports, is the third American attack on suspected terrorists in Pakistan’s tribal area in less than three months, could signal a 'stepped up' program by Washington in a bid to hit militants who use the area as a base to fight American and NATO forces across the border in Afghanistan.
Following Saturday's bombing, which saw one Turkish lady killed and 11 injured, four of which were FBI agents, some Pakistani reports claim that recent bombings in the region could be a direct retaliation to an increase in American activity in the area.
It has been reported that there has been another missile strike in Pakistan, this time... more
-
-
It has been reported that four Afghan civilians have been killed and one injured in an airstrike called in by British forces.
It is understood two women and two children died in the incident in Helmand Province on Tuesday, following a Taliban ambush which prompted the British military to call for backup.
undisclosed location in the southern part of the war-ravaged province.
Speaking in a statement the MoD said:
"We can confirm UK forces were involved in an operation in the south of Helmand Province.
"We deeply regret that this incident happened and do everything we can to mitigate this from happening.
It has been reported that four Afghan civilians have been killed and one injured in an... more
-
-
Coincidence? And of course these hits are always positioned against terror "suspects." Coincidence? And of course these hits are always positioned against terror... more
-
