Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Pressure on Obama to Push Regime Change in Libya

Republican Party-aligned hawks and some administration allies have applied increasing pressure on the President Obama to push for regime change in Libya.

Inter Press Service

As Libyan strongman Muammar Al-Gaddafi vowed to hang on to power, a close Congressional ally of U.S. President Barack Obama early this week called for an end to his regime.

"The Gaddafi government's use of deadly force against its own people should mean the end of the regime itself," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who frequently acts as a stalking horse for the Obama administration on foreign policy issues.

"It's beyond despicable, and I hope we are witnessing its last hours in power," he said in a statement issued by his office that also called for the administration to pursue a series of bilateral and multilateral measures to expedite Gaddafi's ouster.

Until President Barack Obama’s harsh criticism of the Libyan regime on Wednesday, the administration appeared to be unwilling to say much due to concern over the fate of several thousand U.S. citizens still in Libya and in deference to deliberations of an all-day U.N. Security Council session that took place behind closed doors.

"[W]e feel like when the international community speaks with one voice, it can be most effective, so we are obviously participating fully" in the Security Council meeting, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters while traveling with Obama to Cleveland, Ohio.

The administration's silence before Wednesday was strongly assailed by some lawmakers and commentators – mostly neo-conservatives and other hawks – who called on Obama to speak out publicly against the regime and consider taking more aggressive measures to support anti-government forces, which appear to have gained control of Libya's second-largest city, Benghazi, and most of the eastern part of the country.

"The United States should not remain silent in the face of Qaddafi's egregious violations of human rights," said two Republican senators, Minority Whip John Kyl and Mark Kirk in a statement issued early Tuesday. "We urge the President to speak out clearly in support of the Libyan people in their struggle against the Qaddafi dictatorship."

"We'd …tell the Libyan armed forces that the West will bomb their airfields if they continue to slaughter their people," advised the Wall Street Journal in its lead editorial Tuesday. "Arming the demonstrators also cannot be ruled out."

"Now that the Libyan people are rising against [Gaddafi], they deserve urgent and tangible American support," it added.

As the policy debate gathered steam in Washington, the situation inside Libya itself remained unclear due to cuts in communications links and the absence of independent reporters on the ground.

In a rambling televised address from one of residences, Gaddafi himself vowed to fight to his "last drop of blood" against the demonstrators whom he repeatedly called "rats" and "cockroaches" doing the bidding of foreign powers.

"I have not yet ordered the use of force, not yet ordered one bullet to be fired," he declared in one passage that contrasted strongly with the video and personal accounts that have emerged from Libya over the last five days. "When I do, everything will burn," he declared.

Instability in Libya "will give al Qaeda a base", he warned in a passage that appeared directed at the U.S. and other Western nations that have cooperated closely with Tripoli over the past decade in the so-called "global war on terrorism".

That cooperation helped rehabilitate Gaddafi, who had been treated as an arch-enemy for most of his 42-year reign.

Bilateral ties reached their nadir during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who in 1981 ordered U.S. warplanes to attack targets in Libya and again in 1986 in alleged retaliation for terrorist attacks. The latter incident killed 40 Libyans, including Gaddafi's baby daughter.

Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, also led a successful diplomatic campaign to impose far-reaching U.N. sanctions against Libya for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which all 259 passengers were killed.

In 1999, however, Libya surrendered two Libyans for trial for the Lockerbie bombing in what would become a gradual – if at times erratic – process of rapprochement with the U.S. and Western Europe lubricated in major part by Western interests in exploiting Libya's ample oil and natural gas resources.

That process gathered pace in 2003 when Tripoli accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, agreed to pay compensation and began dismantling weapons of mass destruction programmes.

The administration of President George W. Bush authorised U.S. oil companies to re-open offices in Libya by early 2005, restored full diplomatic relations the following year, and sent then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tripoli to celebrate a "new phase" in bilateral ties in September 2008.

Washington has even offered to sell the regime "non-lethal" military equipment, including helicopters, and to help finance training for Libyan officers, according to a 2009 State Department cable disclosed by Wikileaks.

In his statement, Kerry, who has carried out a number of diplomatic missions for the administration, called on all U.S. and foreign oil companies to suspend operations in Libya and for the Obama administration to consider re- imposing bilateral sanctions; for the U.N. Security Council to impose its own sanctions, including an arms embargo, and provide authorisation for emergency humanitarian supplies and the protection of Libyan civilian centres (presumably through a no-fly zone); and on the Arab League and African Union to take action against the regime.

Meeting in Cairo Tuesday, the Arab League reportedly suspended Libya's membership.

At the same time, George W. Bush's first-term deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, urged the administration in a post on the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) website to seek U.N. approval for, among other things, "recognition of a provisional authority in liberated areas, …imposition of a NATO-supported 'no fly zone over Libya to halt further bombing by Qaddafi's forces; [and] …provision of arms to the provisions authorities."

"When there are so many things that could be done to help the unbelievably brave Libyan people – without any risk to American lives – it is shameful to be sitting on our hands," he wrote.

"If that is not reason enough to act, then we should be thinking about the terrible reputation the United States is acquiring, by its inaction, among the Libyan people and throughout the region," Wolfowitz, a major architect of the Iraq War and now a visiting AEI scholar, concluded.

Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, and Independent Democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman also issued a joint appeal for the U.S. and the European Union, among others, to immediately impose a no-fly zone "to stop the Qaddafi regime's use of airpower to attack Libyan civilians."

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share