"As the United States and its major allies were gearing up for a no-fly zone over Libya, a senior U.S. general was asked over a private dinner whether the strained American military was up for another Middle East conflict. We could easily impose a no-fly zone, he replied, according to one of his tablemates, but what would the objective be?
More than a month and hundreds of coalition airstrikes later, the answer has remained elusive, and the war goes on.
Under the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which on March 17 authorized Western air operations over Libya, NATO aircraft are bombing to protect civilian lives. But according to increasingly explicit statements from European leaders, they are also deployed to help an armed rebellion defend its positions and pressure Moammar Gaddafi and his sons to give up power in Tripoli.
The equivocation, according to observers inside and outside the alliance, has fostered frustration in European capitals at what seems increasingly to be a stalemated ground war along the sandy expanses of Libya’s Mediterranean shore. Moreover, it has strained the cohesion of NATO’s 28 member countries, some of which insist on sticking strictly to the civilian protection mission while others say the only way to protect Libya’s population is to get rid of Gaddafi."
Frustration about achieving goals, this is the cover story for a whole different reality. Naked colonial aggression for resource control and geopolitical positioning is making a lot of people uneasy with it's blatant hypocrisy and lies. Lots of punk politicians will take bribes to sign onto stink like this but when the going gets hard they'll get cold feet. After all, these idiotic "humanitarian" reasons for war on Libya are blown out of the water by news that the "rebels" are CIA stooges and the munitions dropped on the Libyan people will keep North Africa radioactive for quite some time.
"Protecting civilian lives" indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment