Glenn Greenwald: Mission Transformation in Libya -- Now It's Regime Change

[Better Believe It]

Mission transformation in Libya
by Glenn Greenwald
April 15, 2011

Barack Obama, March 28, 2011, explaining America's involvement in the war in Libya:

Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

Barack Obama, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, joint Op-Ed, yesterday:

The bombing continues until Gaddafi goes

Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. . . . However, so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. For that transition to succeed, Colonel Gaddafi must go, and go for good.

Whatever one thinks about this war limited humanitarian intervention on the merits, this is not the mission that Obama cited when justifying America's involvement. It's the opposite: "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake" v. "so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations." To claim that "regime change" is subsumbed under the goal of "protecting civilians" is to define that objective so broadly as to render it meaningless and, independently, is to violate Obama's explicit decree at the start that regime change would not be the military goal. Finally, note the blithe dismissal of the very limited U.N. Resolution that initially justified all this: it does not provide for regime change in Libya by force, acknowledged the three leaders, but that, in essence, is what we're going to do anyway (continue "operations" until he's gone).

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/15/libya/index.html


-------------------------------------------


The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release April 14, 2011

Joint Op-ed by President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy: ‘Libya's Pathway to Peace’

Together with our NATO allies and coalition partners, the United States, France and Britain have been united from the start in responding to the crisis in Libya, and we are united on what needs to happen in order to end it.

Even as we continue our military operations today to protect civilians in Libya, we are determined to look to the future. We are convinced that better times lie ahead for the people of Libya, and a pathway can be forged to achieve just that.

We must never forget the reasons why the international community was obliged to act in the first place. As Libya descended into chaos with Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi attacking his own people, the Arab League called for action. The Libyan opposition called for help. And the people of Libya looked to the world in their hour of need. In an historic resolution, the United Nations Security Council authorized all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya from the attacks upon them. By responding immediately, our countries, together with an international coalition, halted the advance of Qaddafi’s forces and prevented the bloodbath that he had promised to inflict upon the citizens of the besieged city of Benghazi.

Tens of thousands of lives have been protected. But the people of Libya are still suffering terrible horrors at Qaddafi’s hands each and every day. His rockets and shells rained down on defenseless civilians in Ajdabiya. The city of Misurata is enduring a medieval siege, as Qaddafi tries to strangle its population into submission. The evidence of disappearances and abuses grows daily.

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal.

Furthermore, it would condemn Libya to being not only a pariah state, but a failed state too. Qaddafi has promised to carry out terrorist attacks against civilian ships and airliners. And because he has lost the consent of his people any deal that leaves him in power would lead to further chaos and lawlessness. We know from bitter experience what that would mean. Neither Europe, the region, or the world can afford a new safe haven for extremists.

There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya — a future without Qaddafi that preserves Libya’s integrity and sovereignty, and restores her economy and the prosperity and security of her people. This needs to begin with a genuine end to violence, marked by deeds not words. The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misurata and Zintan, and return to their barracks. However, so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds. Then a genuine transition from dictatorship to an inclusive constitutional process can really begin, led by a new generation of leaders. In order for that transition to succeed, Qaddafi must go and go for good. At that point, the United Nations and its members should help the Libyan people as they rebuild where Qaddafi has destroyed — to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic utilities, and to assist Libyans as they develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.

This vision for the future of Libya has the support of a broad coalition of countries, including many from the Arab world. These countries came together in London on March 29 and founded a Contact Group which met this week in Doha to support a solution to the crisis that respects the will of the Libyan people.

Today, NATO and our partners are acting in the name of the United Nations with an unprecedented international legal mandate. But it will be the people of Libya, not the U.N., who choose their new constitution, elect their new leaders, and write the next chapter in their history.
Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.

Barack Obama is the 44th president of the United States, David Cameron is prime minister of Britain and Nicolas Sarkozy is president of France.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/14/joint-op-ed-president-obama-prime-minister-cameron-and-president-sarkozy

[slipslidingaway]

1. knr nt

[Poll_Blind]

2. Recommended.

PB

[crickets]

3. K&R

[ReggieVeggie]

4. kick

[On the Road]

5. It is True That Bombing Until Qaddaffi is Removed

is theoretically not the same as bombing until the government stops killing civilians. In practice, however, the distinction is likely to be moot. I think that's what Obama is communicating. And it is the right policy. I just wish NATO would step up the action against the artillery bombarding Misurata.

[Better Believe It]

6. Do you think more foreign "boots" need to hit the ground in Libya?

[On the Road]

8. Nope

But the UN mission included stopped mass attacks against civilians. That is still going on is Misrata. I think Obama has taken a wise course of action, but if the NATO fighters can't do it, it's time to break out the US Warthogs.

[Fool Count]

7. What "mission transformation"? It was always "regime change".

They are just sensing that this "killing civilians" crap is not flying anymore. That's like when
the "Saddam's WMDs" lie was debunked, they made it look like it didn't even matter and regime
change alone was a worthy cause. Even the wordings are the same: "Of course, there is no question
that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power". Who decided that
"there is no question", may I ask? Or putting "of course" in front is now considered enough to
shut up all the questioning? Is Iraq, and the World, "better off" now with Saddam out of power?
We were told that it will be. I am no so sure about the World, but in my mind there is no question
that Libya will be worse off with a bunch of incompetent nobodies replacing Qaddafi in power.
So much worse, in fact, that there may not even be a Libya then. The only ones who will definitely
by worse off should Qaddafi remain in power are Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama. Why should anyone
believe a word coming out that so transparently Coalition of the Self-serving?