Libyan Liberation Movement Strikes Back as NATO Comes to the Rescue

The leadership of the United Nations-authorized No-Fly Zone over Libya will pass from the US to the 28 nations of NATO, after an agreement was hammered out with skeptics such as Turkey and Germany. Since the US is part of NATO, it will still be involved in the effort, but the leadership will be NATO as a whole.

Aljazeera English reports on the continued UN air mission:

In the meantime, signs are emerging that isolated pro-Qaddafi forces may be seeking negotiations with the Benghazi-based liberation movement. Politics in tribal societies is often fluid and fast-changing rather than institutionalized and rigid, which is why descriptions of the conflict in Libya as a concrete struggle between well-defined groups is an error. The million-strong Warfalla tribe appears to have flipped allegiance twice already in the past month and could easily do so again. The tendency to quick switches in allegiance also make it less important that the rebels have so few trained troops. My guess is that people-power will be decisive in most cities if Qaddafi’s tank brigades can be neutralized– i.e. the rebels may not make many conventional conquests.

NATO is buttressed by the Arab League with regard to the UN-authorized No Fly Zone. The United Arab Emirates has now committed 12 fighter-jets to doing patrols, joining Qatar, which has pledged to begin flying missions this weekend. The French insist that the No-Fly Zone will be a relatively short-lived affair, measured in weeks rather than months.

Beneath the level of the No-Fly Zone is the further directive from the UN Security Council that civilians be protected from attack. This effort requires occasional bombardment of aggressive pro-Qaddafi armored and artillery units making a drive on rebel cities, as with France’s destruction of the tank brigade heading for Benghazi last Sunday. NATO will not direct this task, since Turkey and Germany think it goes too far in the way of intervention, so a sub-NATO UN alliance will pursue it, probably led by France.

The “No-Drive Zone” policy pursued by France, Britain and the United States is already bearing fruit on the ground. There were three major aggressive campaigns being waged by the Qaddafi forces as the UN allies began intervening– Zintan in the southwest, Misrata just to the east of Tripoli on the coast, and Ajdabiya in the east, south of rebel HQ Benghazi. Two of them ceased on Thursday, forestalling further massacre of civilians in these major population centers and allowing supporters of the liberation movement to come out of hiding. Ajdabiya remained an arena of contest, but the liberation movement now controls most of th is oil city and there were reports of negotiations.

libya3.25.11

Libya 3.25.11

The liberation movement in Misrata, a city of 570,000 and Libya’s third-largest, are claiming to have retaken it. They describe battles with pro-Qaddafi snipers, in which the locals took out the rooftop shooters. They used stairwell bombs to strand some on the roofs before targeting them. Some pro-Qaddafi tanks remained in the city. But tanks outside it were targeted by the UN allies on Wednesday night and the rest appear to have decided to stop firing on the city center and at the hospital lest they attract unwelcome attention from the skies. The ‘No-Drive Zone’ effort is therefore apparently having a psychological effect already, and is responsible for Thursday’s quiet in Misrata, which had seen a week-long, vicious tank campaign to take it by Tripoli. French fighter jets destroyed a pro-Qaddafi plane near Misrata that violated the No-Fly Zone.

Likewise, Qaddafi’s tanks appear to have drawn back from the rural southwestern city of az-Zintan (pop. 100,000), near Yafran, which is a major rebel center. (The Zintan tribe declared against Qaddafi). The city is no longer surrounded or actively being bombarded, though some 30 tanks remain outside it. Since pro-Qaddafi forces around Zintan have not been bombarded by the UN allies, it is not known why they ceased fighting on Thursday, but it may be fear that violating Resolution 1973 will bring down sidewinder missiles on them.

There are reports of renewed fighting in the western cities of Zawiya and Zuara, which were taken last week in major tank offensives by Qaddafi, but the populations of which had earlier declared in the tens of thousands for the liberation movement. The transitional governing council in Benghazi alleges that Qaddafi’s troops committed a massacre in Zawiya.

The Telegraph reports that a liberation movement commander and former Libyan air force colonel named Ahmed Omar Bani has said at a news conference that Qaddafi’s forces at Ajdabiya have lost contact with their commanders in Tripoli and are seeking a way to withdraw. He said that Muslim clerics (ulama) had been used by Benghazi to negotiate with the tank brigade that controls part of the oil city of Ajdabiya but which is far from the Qaddafi lines and vulnerable to further UN allied air strikes. According to the Telegraph Col. Bani said,

“Some of the Ajdabiya militias have asked to surrender to be left alone and to go back home … We are trying to negotiate with these people in Ajdabiya because we are almost sure that they have lost contact with their headquarters…”

Aljazeera English reports that opposition fighters now control most of Ajdabiya, with the exception of two tank formations near the southern city entrance:

44 Responses

  1. This war was conceived for political reasons by Sarkozy, Cameron and Clinton. It is as much a spat amongst leaders who were recently training each others bodyguards, swapping prisoners and providing weapons as it is an internal Libyan dispute.

    The tactic of calling the other side in a domestic conflict genocidal and encouraging Sarkozy, Cameron and Clinton to intervene has spread to Yemen, I notice. Its just not a good way to resolve conflicts and will likely lead to years of bitter civil war.

    The best way is for people to resist courageously and peacefully, to discuss and negotiate, to struggle to improve society and change the minds of their opponents.

    This war in Libya is another massive diversion of attention from the real problems in the world of poverty, inequality and disease – as well as the immediate problem of the nuclear reactors at Fukushima which is where all spare resources should currently be directed.

    • and the poverty and disease rates in Libya, for instance, have nothing to do with the administration of the autocrat-in-chief? Negotiate with him? Right; we’ve seen how that worked.

      • Hi KRM – Without wanting to defend Qaddafi, I wasn’t talking about Libya in regards to poverty and disease – according to the Human Development Index, Libya is above Turkey, top in Africa and amongst the highest in the arab world: link to hdrstats.undp.org and link to en.wikipedia.org

        As I understand it, the rebels refused to negotiate and called for foreign intervention from the start and the rebel council is led by the former Libyan Interior Minister link to bbc.co.uk.

        A genuine democratic revolution can be won by persuasion and people power through courageous non-cooperation – a long-term process which we can see underway in Egypt – where the slogan of many of the protestors is sensibly:

        “Peaceful, peaceful”

        The Tunisian and Egyptian demonstrators and people built solidarity and a mass movement appealing to all their people, were inclusive of different faiths and ethnicities and refused outside interference. In this respect the Tunisian and Egyptian people have developed an effective strategy of Satyagraha. link to en.wikipedia.org

        The Libyan rebels, in sharp contrast, appear to be sectarian, dominated by former officials of the regime, hierarchical and committing some major human rights violations themselves: (link to latimes.com)

    • It is my recollection (perhaps flawed) that in Libya peaceful demonstrations were quickly met with armed suppression.

      If this “war” was the result of French/British/American machinations, what does that make the rebels or was their status transformed, delegitimized, when they asked for help?

      I’ve seen people commenting elsewhere that their (the rebel’s) tactical miscalculation is not “our” problem … that they SHOULD have organized better, thought ahead, etc. I suspect such comments are attempts to justify NOT making any effort — something like “survival of the fittest” or “learning process” — and allowing “nature to take its course” — in this case Qadaffi following through on his promise to exact vengeance definitively.

      Yes, Libya is tribal … so to deliberately seek to depopulate other clans can, I think, legitimately be called “genocidal.” The intention to decimate a Libyan clan may not stir your heart … but it still “counts” …

      Personally, I’ve been expecting to hear whispered allegations that the “rebels” received prior CIA backing/financing and/or Blackwater/Xe training … though their disorganization and lack of skill suggests otherwise. Gosh, perhaps they simply succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and didn’t realize they had “overstepped” … possibly because “they” was never an organized entity … Should we have instead sat back on our comfy couches and watched Qaddafi punish them?

      Yes, it has felt like this middle east chaos was becoming a spectator sport … shameful.

      • @Susan Sunflower.

        To clarify something about tribalism in Libya.The tribalism card in Libya has been overplayed somewhat in the media. Yes it is a tribal society, with tribal power structures, but those tribes are intermarried & are spread across the country in many cases. I myself like many Libyans do not identify with a tribe, but with being Libyan. Gadaffi is openly killing people from certain regions & cities which have thrown off his rule, not certain tribes as such. These regions may happen to have more people from a certain tribe living there, but as the killing is indiscriminate the victims are chosen for the location they live in rather than the tribe they come from.

        In Tripoli a city which he “controls” there have been stories of many young men kidnapped, their fate unknown. Chosen for their age and the threat of dissidence rather than tribal group.

        So it’s not genocide against a minority of the Libyan people, it’s worse than that it’s the Libyan people as a whole he hates. Someone else had a term for it citizencide, where you kill your own citizens.

        Luckily the world hasn’t sat back on it’s collective “comfy couches” and has intervened in the nick of time to limit the bloodshed. With any luck we will have an end to this conflict soon, and the Libyan people can get on with the business of rebuilding the country after 42 years of neglect and abuse.

        • Thanks for the clarification … reporting HAS been very confusing and “contentious” (with a great deal refutation of what “the other guy” said and agenda pushing) … it feels like plate-spinning trying to keep an open mind with few seemingly reliable nonpartisan sources

    • @Mark your analysis is unrealistic with respect to Libya. In Libya, the regime did not negotiate nor discuss. Those who resisted peacefully were threatened or tortured at best, disappeared or killed at worst. Research the 1200 (mostly political) prisoners who were slaughtered in Abu Salim prison in the 1990s.

      Then look at what happened to the families who dared to even ask what happened to their loved ones who died there.

      Then try to find out what happened to the attorney who tried to help those families.

      Then look at how many of the peaceful people who protested his arrest were killed or beaten.

      Then look at how many protesters were killed or beaten for protesting that event.

      Discussing and negotiating only works when the ones with guns see you as human and let you draw as second breath after your first demand. Qaddafi’s militia would have left few alive in Benghazi alive to negotiate with.

    • @Metcalf – what is your source that the US trained Ghaddafi’s bodyguards – never heard of this.

      To diplomatically compel a 42 year dictator with monarchical ambitions to open up his totalitarian state is as credulous as Moses parting the waters of the Red Sea.

      • Hi Mazum

        It was the SAS who were training Qaddafi forces:

        Source Daily Telegraph/BBC via wikipedia

        - link to news.bbc.co.uk

        There was plenty of other cooperation and the presence of the SAS team with explosives near Benghazi has still not been explained.

        Moses did part the seas :)

        • @Metcalf – obviously you are unbalanced. For 42 years Qaddafi has been a vassal of the Soviets and now any other anti-west dictatorship on the planet. His army is a Soviet supplied and trained army. But when the Brits send 14 counterintelligence specialists to Libya, probably in related to the war on terror, you claim that the dreaded security forces of Ghaddafi are trained in the West. And yes, the Japanese Tsunami was caused by that chaotic butterfly in China.

          And no – Moses did not part the sea. Obviously you have difficulty separating fact from fiction. What part of the Ghaddafi security apparatus is western supplied and trained? 14 men is not even a drop in the pool, and there is no evidence that that was related to his “bodyguards”. I call shenanigan on this.

  2. Sidewinder missiles (AIM-9) are typically used against airborne targets. More likely used against ground targets are Hellfire missiles (AGM-114) as they can be laser guided, can be launched from drones and conventional fighter aircraft.

  3. How many civilian casualties have there been in Bahrain since the NFZ in Libya was established? How many imprisonments? Ditto Yemen, Syria.

    • @eCAHNOMICS – what a load of “whataboutary”

      15 people killed in Bahrain
      60 people killed in Yemen
      7500 people killed in Libya.

      Equating these numbers is immoral.

  4. Excellent reportage. I think both you and Al Jazeera are miles ahead of the rest in quality updates and journalism.
    Will stand you both in good stead.

    Bravo

  5. I’m always up for something new: stairwell bombs, I’ve never heard of them but they seem very clever. Sometimes clever beats physically overpowering.

  6. “The United Arab Emirates has now committed 12 fighter-jets to doing patrols, joining Qatar, which has pledged to begin flying missions this weekend.”

    This will be the test of how serious the Arab nations really are in this affair. If Qatar and the UAE begin contributing to enforcement of the “no-fly zone” with their aircraft this weekend, they will demonstrate true seriousness of purpose. If they hesitate, make excuses, or for any other reason do not begin overflights, no amount of Arab League Resolutions or other cheering (no matter how muted) from the sidelines will camouflage the fecklessness of the overall Arab position.

  7. I suppose all of us Old Boys have our favorite wars; mine is the American Civil War and this one must be yours. Anyhow, what’s this I hear about the Felter-Fishman 2007 West Point Study about our new pals in Cyrenaica?

    • Civil war or tribal war is a misnomer. This is a war of liberation intermixed with a religious Jihad with elements of tribalism. Nothing makes you braver than knowing your seat in heaven is reserved.

  8. “Politics in tribal societies is often fluid and fast-changing rather than institutionalized and rigid, which is why descriptions of the conflict in Libya as a concrete struggle between well-defined groups is an error. The million-strong Warfalla tribe appears to have flipped allegiance twice already in the past month and could easily do so again.”

    Exactly! This is a spot-on observation and illustrates precisely why we should not be sanguine about any leader or government that may follow Qadhafi turning out to be a liberal regime that embraces modernity. It may, it may not. But as the above-cited quote suggests, there will likely be plenty of post-Qadhafi jockeying for power and multiple flips in allegiance. And we haven’t the slightest idea what the ultimate winner’s philosophy of governance will be. Such an opaque future, however, is the price one pays for intervention in a tribal society.

    • That is why Nato is dragging its foot on armor strikes. It is not sure what will emerge after the demise of Ghaddafi. Nato is heavily negotiating with the TNC – but the TNC doesn’t even know what is happening with the Islamic forces. The front lines are greatly accelerating the Islamic radicalization of the fighters.

      Nato wants to make sure that the army remains intact, while Ghaddafi is deposed – similar to Egypt and Tunisia and not so similar to Iran.

      For Nato, the best scenario is a coup against Ghaddafi or his flight.

  9. Scaring news about the ‘Liberation Movement’:
    link to latimes.com

    Nightly manhunts in Benghazi to aprehend thousands of Qadaffi supporters and ‘enemies of the revolution’. Among them hundreds of sub-saharn inmigrants being rounded up and accused of being mercenaries.

    Since this war has a strong component of tribalism, I wonder what is going to happen if these eastern rebels manage to take advantage of NATO support and conquer some southern or western cities where most population is loyal to Qadaffi or belongs to tribes fierly opposed to the Eastern ones. A scenario of rebel massacres does not seem very unlikely.

  10. I am dismayed by the lack of “solidarity” or even vague “rooting for the underdog” I am seeing in the various website I visit wrt to the Libyan rebels … is this because they do not have the access/infrastructure to allow the twitter/facebook exposure to make their story “real” and immediate. Do the rebels have popular support in, say, France or Italy?

    I have been rather sickened by the self-centered objections to the United States’ involvement in the NATO mission (a mission I had and continue to have real concerns about wrt motives and outcomes — but not based on Obama’s misuse of CIC powers or our national debt or crumbling infrastructure or some conjectured plot to control Libyan oil).

    I do not mean to suggest that it is “wrong” to question any of that — or to question what the game plan, exit strategy might be or be shocked at the mixed messages being received from NATO — however, I have found myself thinking that the ever-expanding-list of objections to intervention in Libya echo many of the reasons Bill Clinton believed he could not act wrt Rwanda.

    Oh, and yes, I am still actively interested in whatever became of those 100,000 missing men used to justify NATO’S Kosovo intervention …

    Lack of transparency and consistency of message not only by the Obama Administration but also by Security Counsel and NATO have hurt “support” for this mission which has been compounded by inadequate “nonpartisan” journalistic backgrounding — most everything I have read has been pushing one agenda or another (and there are, I estimate, at least a half-dozen frames for this story).

    I had and have many misgivings and doubts wrt this mission … I hope that the involvement of the African Union, representing Qadaffi, an offer he has accepted, will lead to negotiated settlement, or at least a start of negotiations sooner rather than later. The legitimacy of all that comes “after” will be strengthened if Qadaffi survives and his clan(s)/supporters included at the table.

    Thank you Dr. Cole for generally neither cheerleading or deploring this mission.

    • For the Right, hating on the Libyan rebels is easy, even though they risk everything against a man that the Right wanted dead when Ronald Reagan told them to want him dead. It’s part of the Israeli-backed narrative that Arabs are a race of mad dogs and must not be allowed to have democracy because, well, they will vote their consciences and that’s bad for Israel.

      For the Left, it’s more of a cold contempt for the rebels, and it rarely seems based on any sympathy for Gaddafi as a Marxist. It’s more as if the Libyans ruined everything by shooting back, and then inviting in our Empire to bail them out.

      But there are arguments to be made that the Libyan rebels represent a much more radical change than the Egyptians and Tunisians have been able to wrest from their still-intact Establishment. As long as those countries avoided all-out rebellion, their ruling structures and class system survived. In Libya, the structure is now deeply damaged, the Army divided and now largely ruined, the central bureaucracy replaced by bands of mutinous soldiers and angry civilians struggling to learn how to govern themselves. Anyone far enough to the Left to know about the Zapatistas and the anti-neoliberal rebellions of South America knows that the greatest challenge is getting people engaged in organizing solutions to their own problems. It’s an exciting, high-risk, high-reward time.

      • This is actually a very interesting point! Im a bit shocked by the kneejerk rejection to the UN intervention from the US left in general. Over here in Europe the discussion has been more nuanced.

    • @Susan:

      [i]I am dismayed by the lack of “solidarity” or even vague “rooting for the underdog” I am seeing in the various website I visit wrt to the Libyan rebels … is this because they do not have the access/infrastructure to allow the twitter/facebook exposure to make their story “real” and immediate.[/i]

      No, it’s because they are Muslims, and there’s a deep current of colonialist racism in the current “anti-war” faction (both left and right) that assumes that the Arab nig-nogs are just tribalists who can’t handle freedom and need a strong hand like Gaddhafi to keep them in line. The old “stability” argument for keeping a despot because it’s the devil we know. Of course, if that principle was applied consistently, there’d never be any democratic progress anywhere.

      • Jason and Super390 — Yes, I had an interesting “conversation” this afternoon about how these “rebels” are, according to several sources, likely Al-Qa’ida supporters (according to Qadaffi and some info regarding the nationality of those who migrated to Iraq to fight our occupation) which is actually neither here-nor-there …

        All revolutionary forces have to transition from the energizing fighting-against stance, to the infinitely more difficult governance, growing-a-nation role.

        I said I thought the idea that “we” were protecting these pro-Al-Qui’eda rebels from genocide at the hands of our partner in the Global War on Terror was the kind of America I was raised to believe in … (I still don’t “support” this intervention, but I am willing to hope for best-possible-outcome)

        Yes, I find all sorts of folks go all pear-shaped, balking completely at the idea of self-determinism for the Arab/Moslem Middle East/Afghanistan.

        There are good reasons to doubt that true Wahabbi/Salafi strict sharia (of Taliban ilk) would take hold — even if it achieves some serious representation in society and the government. Most people, the world over, really do not want their personal business inspected and judged, regardless of how religious and/or pious they wish to appear and/or believe others SHOULD be. (This was part of why Iraq was an Al-Qaida failure — the Iraqi’s wanted the technical assistance and balked at the religious policing)

        Shades of China’s cultural revolution — such “reformers” lose their charm and power quickly — even if they do enormous damage in that short term — unless a repressive regieme is willing to devote its fortune to keeping “the people” prisoner.

        I suspect that any new regime tempted to enact too extreme policies will recognize ahead of time that they will face some serious market and social constraints. I regret that we “took out” the Taliban in 2002 (incomplete as that “victory” has proven to be) — it precluded their evolution. Would they have survived? I think they would have been forced to evolve. Between local and global (nonviolent) forces, I suspect their rigid intransigence and bizarre defiance would eventually pall … the costs being just too high.

      • @Jason

        This is true. There are two “red flags” that autocrats (tyrants) in the Middle East have used to scare the West into either outright supporting them financially or militarily OR at least to mute criticism. #1 is the argument that their society is too backward/tribal/poor/unsophisticated to dare allow the masses to actually decide what they want. #2 is that the autocrat is the only thing standing between that raving horde and Israel/The West.

        Unfortunately, we have bought that hook line and sinker and after the cold war began thawing it became one of the primary drivers of our M.E. foreign policy. Someone forgot to tell our policy gurus that tyrants eventually die or citizens eventually overthrow them. And afterward those citizens remember who supported the tyrant.

        We owe it to our own long-term self-interest to apply the same standards to our allies that we expect of our own government…that they do so with the consent of the governed. Otherwise the hypocrisy becomes a foreign policy albatross around our neck down the road.

      • The contributor above writes of “a deep current of colonialist racism” against Muslims as the driving force behind anti-war factions of both the left and right. Resorting to such stale, canned language does not impress those of us who have dutifully read our Edward Said and moved on. A little less post-colonialist cant and a little more imagination would go a long way toward meaningful dialogue.

      • The Left’s antiwar faction is not pro-Qaddafi, it’s anti-American imperialism, anti-West colonialism. It’s seems utterly indifferent to the fact that being against Western intervention of any sort is de facto ini support of Qaddafi. As for those advocating negotiations with Qaddafi remaining in power, who doubts that after such negotiations there won’t be massive roundups of “al Qaeda terrorists” who will then be executed for their “terrorist” actions?

    • @Susan – no you are wrong about legitimacy. No legitimacy will be gained by having this assassin at the table and making him part of the solution. For heaven’s sake the International Criminal Court is after him.

      What happened to lofty moral principles of right and wrong, justice and the rule of law that the Left espouses? Is that a charade? The convenience of a kumbaya solution is to jettison basic human principles out the window? How convenient.

      • let me clarify, Gaddafi’s supporters need to be at the table … Gaddafi’s rule, I believe, is already over wrt “legitimacy” …. However, having watched America’s terrible terrible missteps wrt Iraq, the punitive debaathificaiton, the dreadful husbanding of the drafting a constitution process, the acceptance of the election results which virtually all Sunni’s boycotted, the aiding and abetting of Shi’ia death squads, etc. … all seemingly in a “it’s their turn now” posture wrt to the Shi’ia population we “liberated” and put into power.

        The United States did something similar in Afghanistan by utterly banning the Taliban (and reactivating the warlords)…

        There is a desire for sea change … to “throw the bums out” … but this can create an unwinnable societal chasm imho.

        I was unclear and I did not mean that Qadaffi should be in a position to negotiate his return to power … but that, pragmatically, his clans, his supporters should not be shunned or excluded.

        • @Sunflower

          “the aiding and abetting of Shi’ia death squads, …”

          US coalition in Iraq aided and abetted the Shia death squads? Any source for that or is that more StopWar anti-imperialist urban mythology? I am sure that is what made the Sunnis turn to the US coalition and that is why Moqtada loves the U.S. [sarcasm]! Get your facts straight pls.

  11. link to forbes.com

    Human Rights Watch’s London director Tom Porteus cautioned that even confirmed evidence of civilian deaths did not necessarily mean negligence or malice given the uncertainties of aerial bombardment.

    “Just because you’ve got a civilian body killed in an airstrike, doesn’t mean there’s been a war crime or even a violation of international humanitarian law”.

  12. Dr. Cole, your reporting from Aljazeera Arabic is very informative. I doubt that any of those “pontificating pundits” speak Arabic. Anthony Shadid of the New York Times and yourself are the only both American and pro Arab opinion makers with language fluency that I know of.
    Thanks

  13. But, why not Syria also? Saudi Arabia. Human carnage and brutal oppression are similar. Someone please explain why not Syria also.

    • @Scott good question.

      Willingness of international community to intervene depends on:

      1) How great is the atrocity?
      2) How disliked is the ruler by other countries?
      3) How strategic is the country?
      4) Are assets positioned so we can easily intervene?

      In the case of Libya, it was a perfect storm. Gaddafi was going to slaughter a good portion of his second largest city. He is despised by both the West and Arab nations. Libya is very strategic both for its oil reserves and its location on the Mediterranean, and it is within striking distance of a good half dozen NATO nations.

      Syria so far does not match up on any of those four to the same degree, but is moving that direction.

      Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia’s rulers are considered “friends” by most Arab nations and the West. This keeps us more silent. I will argue that this is setting up a larger future implosion in the name of short term stability. They are, so far, not using heavy artillery against their own cities.

    • More disingenious “whataboutary”.

      If my neighbor beats his wife does that mean I should not be arrested for beating mine?

      There are some universal standards, you know.

      Saudi Arabia is not in the process of killing 10,000 civilians – as in Libya.

    • Well, the violence has not escalated to libyan levels, yet. It could. Saud Arabia will probably never face a UN intervention, having US as its loyal ally. I dont know about Syria.

      • @Steffan – pure baseless speculation. In any case do not worry. Canada has 6 times more oil than Saudi Arabia. The west can afford to “lose” Saudi Arabia. Whoever runs S.A., will have to sell the oil to the markets anyways.

        Pls. set aside the myth that all world conflicts is about S.A. oil. It is not.

  14. Juan, there’s a post by Robert Parry that you would probably be very interested in: link to consortiumnews.com

    It links a report by West Point that suggests that there could be a significant Al Qaida presence in eastern Libya. I’ve posted my skepticism about the reasoning toward that conclusion, but it’s certainly an interesting question.

Comments are closed.