Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == The nature of whatever assistance NATO gave one or another faction in Libya simply could not have matched what the Kaiser's government gave the Russian Revolution. It didn't change the nature of what came out of the process in the end. I'm astounded how oblivious people seem to be that the reality on the ground there are not only still unclear to us from the outside, but that, almost certainly, the aspirations of the people who launched this revolt (which was abolutely NOT the West). have not yet played themselves out. MK ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Mark Lause wrote: You're really going to aregue that, as the Arab spring swept through the > region, NATO had this big conspiracy to get rid of a guy in Libya they > were > getting along with just peach keen. > If you're in denial about NATO intelligence, logistical support, supplies, training, and of course bombs enabling a "rebel" victory that would otherwise have never happened, that's your "conspiracy," not mine. -- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Really, Joseph? You're really going to aregue that, as the Arab spring swept through the region, NATO had this big conspiracy to get rid of a guy in Libya they were getting along with just peach keen. MKL Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Of course, by this criteria, I guess the Germans were responsible for the overthrow of the Kerensky government. Certainly, it wouldn't have happened the way it did and when it did without the Kaiser's government. And, of course, the Kaiser's government was only interested for their own purposes. Maybe the Bolsheviks should have played fair and just stayed out of a clearly corrupted process. After all, they had newspaper articles to write and leaflets to distribute. :-) ML Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: Well, the main agent of imperialist domination is the TNC and the men who > just effectively won the war against Qaddafi state that they are not taking > orders from it. If the TNC is a transmission belt of imperialist domination, > it seems fairly impotent. I think you missed this (fairly obvious) part of the Cockburn article: "For if Gaddafi proved too weak to stay in power, this does not mean that the rebels have overwhelming strength. They were saved from defeat last March by Nato aircraft striking at Gaddafi's armour as it advanced on Benghazi. They are entering Tripoli now only because they have received tactical air support from Nato." The man who just effectively won the war against Qaddafi is Gen. Carter F. Ham, USA. -- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 8/23/2011 2:32 PM, Joseph Catron wrote: I don't know that "boots on the ground" are the best criteria. There are no "Israelis" in the Gaza Strip (on most days) either, but they're still universally considered the occupying power because their overwhelming military dominance and ongoing intervention prevent its self-determination. Can anyone deny with a straight face that the same is now true of NATO in Libya? As the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate, ground wars are for suckers. Well, the main agent of imperialist domination is the TNC and the men who just effectively won the war against Qaddafi state that they are not taking orders from it. If the TNC is a transmission belt of imperialist domination, it seems fairly impotent. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == I would strongly encourage you (and all the comrades) to give the Angry Arab another read. Yes, most of his posts are text message length. But he is a unique source of information puncturing mass media and pseudoradical propaganda, with a unique network of radical informants. On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > > On 8/22/2011 8:55 AM, Andrew Pollack wrote: >> >> And yes, Louis, the US *IS" in Libya. See angryarab.blogspot.com on >> State Department's Feltman meeting with rebels. > > No offense, but I think the Angry Arab is not worth my time. This guy > doesn't write analyses. He twitters and I can't stand twittering. > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 8/22/2011 8:55 AM, Andrew Pollack wrote: And yes, Louis, the US *IS" in Libya. See angryarab.blogspot.com on State Department's Feltman meeting with rebels. No offense, but I think the Angry Arab is not worth my time. This guy doesn't write analyses. He twitters and I can't stand twittering. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == re Dayne and Fred's points: BOTH (imperialist war and the Arab uprising) are key to the situation. That's why I'm having such a hard time explaining it to some of my radical Arab friends. The mass uprising for freedom in the former workers' states had the same dual character. And yes, Louis, the US *IS" in Libya. See angryarab.blogspot.com on State Department's Feltman meeting with rebels. But even if no US diplomat or military officer ever stepped foot in Libya, the US is POLITICALLY the brains behind this war, because POLITICALLY they want to derail and subvert the Arab Revolution. I am NOT joining those who think oil contracts are the key. Libya could have nothing but sand and the US would still have intervened. Imagine now the heyday their "development experts" are having in Cairo telling self-seeking petty bourgeois types how the West is the answer. And how the CIA agents' work in Syria is now made 100 times easier. Which makes our work in supporting Egyptian unions and leftists as a political alternative for the region as a whole more important than ever. On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Dayne Goodwin wrote: > On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Fred Feldman wrote: > . . . >> The imperialist war, not varying estimates of the opposition or its >> components, is the >> pivotal issue concerning Libya today. > > No, Fred, > the pivotal issue concerning Libya is the Arab revolutionary uprising. > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Fred Feldman wrote: . . . > The imperialist war, not varying estimates of the opposition or its > components, is the > pivotal issue concerning Libya today. No, Fred, the pivotal issue concerning Libya is the Arab revolutionary uprising. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 05:28 21/08/11 -0400, Fred Feldman wrote: > >. He >has forgotten to demonstrate where I have ever said that the war was >about "stealing Libya's oil, to curb any supposed 'militant' tendencies >of Gadhafi, etc.. That has never been my position. My apologies. However I was really aiming at the entire wing of the left which promotes such positions, among whom such ad hoc explanations for a supposed "imperialist war" have been offered. I did not mean to put words in the mouth of Fred in particular. > It is true that I >think the war, once begun for whatever conjunctural reasons, tends to >become part of the pattern of US wars in the Middle East . Now think about what you just said: If the REASONS for a war are totally different from previous instances, then how could that possibly be part of a PATTERN? What you are talking about, I'm afraid, is a "pattern of thinking" on our part which is being misapplied in a case where there is only a superficial resemblance. >My >opposition to the imperialist war stems from the fact that it is an >imperialist war This is bordering on circular reasoning. You call it "imperialist" because you are against it. Not due to any analysis of its origins being due to an imperialist motive, or "pattern" if you will. >Jeff turns "prestige" and "embarrassment" into a purely psychological >and personal question for individual imperialists.. No, this is the >psychological background to the fact that they cannot afford to lose >this war, from the standpoint of imperialist viability and morale But that IS what I am saying, that they continue the war because they already began it, not because it was ever in their actual self interest. Thus I don't see it as an imperialist war (in the usual sense) but an imperialist MISTAKE that they cannot easily extricate themselves from and don't want to be seen as losing. That is why they have tried to force a compromise solution with Gaddafi staying in Libya with reduced power, so that they can claim they brought "peace" to Libya. >First of all, imperialist prestige is, again, not a mere psychological >need of individual imperialists, Now I never said anything about "psychology" or "individuals," so please don't put any stupid words in my mouth, ok? > but a necessity of the system in the >struggle for world domination. Well. yes. but what's primary? It's only because of the military and economic might that imperialism gains its "prestige" (that is, its perception of being powerful). That is why I suggest opposing the substance of imperialism (its actual power) rather than mere perceptions of imperialism. (Such as the perception of them fighting for their basic interests in Libya, when that isn't the case). >Jeff cheerleads >for opposition and the "Libyan revolution," but sees no need to >demonstrate that one exists today. I don't know if we're using different definitions, but of course there is a revolution going on throughout the Arab world and an instance of it erupted in Libya. Those involved cannot be blamed for the fact that they met violent suppression from Gaddafi and were forced into a situation of taking up arms. The entire Arab revolution was set back by the negative outcome in Libya (compared to Egypt and Tunisia), while the regimes in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain immediately learned from Gaddafi how to stay in power. >In fact the imperialist intervention, and the rebels' demands for this >intervention have and are put a continuing damper on any tendencies in a >revolutionary direction. Well I surely agree (I'll take "revolutionary direction" to mean "socialist direction"). The revolution has been badly "contaminated" by that association and it may well be that they would have had better success if NATO had just stayed out of it. But they were facing a bloodbath (or at least the perception of one) and took aid that was offered, for better or for worse. > And the imperialists don't plan to halt this >once Gadhafi is gone.The plans are in the works for something like a >European-African-Arab peacekeeping occupation Exactly! That is where the real struggle begins: after Gaddafi is out of the way. > which the opposition >leadership shows every sign of being willing to accept. None of us know very much about the "opposition leadership," let alone any position that it is united around. What counts in a revolution is the struggle of the people, not who is leading it. There WILL be a struggle between different elements, both within and outside of the TNC, and THAT is where the real "anti-imperialist" struggle will be taking place. I can't say I'm optimistic: 99% of revolutions wind up with a state in power that disappoints the participants. But that's better than the failed revolutions wh
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 8/21/11 5:28 AM, Fred Feldman wrote: I continue to regard the defeat of the imperialist war against Libya as the preferable outcome, no matter what that means for the political and other prospects of Gadhafi or the opposition, The imperialist war, not varying estimates of the opposition or its components, is the pivotal issue concerning Libya today. Back in the 1960s I was impressed how the SWP steered clear of "Victory to the Vietnamese" type slogans. The emphasis was on self-determination rather than political identification with the Vietnamese CP. I see even more of a need when it comes to the Arab world where there are no significant revolutionary parties of the left. Looking back at the war in Iraq, the only thing that made sense was to demand the end of American occupation. To have put all your chips on the Sunni resistance was problematic to start with, all the more so when it was effectively bribed to back the occupation during the "surge". The Shias were backed by the USA but to view them as mere puppets was a mistake, especially with the Sadrist militias that were far more anti-imperialist in some respects than the Sunni Baathist formations. Even today, there is some question whether Western oil companies benefited from this war. I am not arguing, I should add, for backing the rebels in Libya only the need for caution and complex thinking. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Jeff wrote: Fred has accidentally spoken a word of profound truth. Namely that the reason for the continued NATO intervention in Libya on the side of the revolution has to do with maintaining PRESTIGE. And avoiding "something worse than" EMBARRASMENT. In other words, all of the made-up explanations for the imperialist intervention, being designed to steal Libya's oil wealth, to curb any supposed "militant" tendencies of Gaddafi, etc. -- all of these explanations that have been cited (but conveniently only after the NATO intervention began) are NOT the reason they continue, BY FRED'S OWN ADMISSION. Jeff wrote:They are trying to KILL him, which is absolutely NOT what the rebels had expected when they accepted (requested?) NATO air strikes in defense of their territorial gains. They surely want to put him on trial! And the imperialists surely don't want him telling all he knows in court, so they are out to kill the witness more than some evil leader they fear. Just as they did with Saddam. I hope they fail and that the revolution succeeds, and that Gaddafi's wish of "dying in Libya" comes true, but not too soon! - Jeff Fred comments: Well, I must admit that I must admit that I am completely blown away by Jeff's devastating expose. However, he has skipped a small step. He has forgotten to demonstrate where I have ever said that the war was about "stealing Libya's oil, to curb any supposed 'militant' tendencies of Gadhafi, etc.. That has never been my position. It is true that I think the war, once begun for whatever conjunctural reasons, tends to become part of the pattern of US wars in the Middle East and North Africa, which have broad pol;itical-, military-, and economic-strategic goals, which include oil as one among a wide range of sub-issues.My opposition to the imperialist war stems from the fact that it is an imperialist war and not on any speculations about the intentions of the imperialists. Their state of mind is not decisive in the decision to oppose an imperialist war. Jeff wrote: They are trying to KILL him, which is absolutely NOT what the rebels had expected when they accepted (requested?) NATO air strikes in defense of their territorial gains. They surely want to put him on trial! Fred comments: All Jeff's statements are wrong here. The oppodition leaders demanded that the imperialists assassinate Gadhafi before the bombing began. And they did not "accept" or "request" but demanded the bombing and, last I heard, were still claiming that it was insufficient. Jeff turns "prestige" and "embarrassment" into a purely psychological and personal question for individual imperialists.. No, this is the psychological background to the fact that they cannot afford to lose this war, from the standpoint of imperialist viability and morale, any more than they can afford to lose in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Somalia. Jeff's political conclusion: Nowhere is there a suggestion that ending their intervention would be a blow against the substance of imperialism. It would, again by Fred's admission, have the effect of embarrassing them, of reducing their prestige. And while it always brings me joy when they are embarrassed or humiliated, I'll be damned if I'm going to abandon supporting a revolution just in order to feed that petty desire. Fred comments First of all, imperialist prestige is, again, not a mere psychological need of individual imperialists, but a necessity of the system in the struggle for world domination. Failure to topple Gadhafi with the resources they have put into it an irrelevancy, nor is the threat that a genuine democratic revolution would take place in Libya. Jeff cheerleads for opposition and the "Libyan revolution," but sees no need to demonstrate that one exists today. In fact the imperialist intervention, and the rebels' demands for this intervention have and are put a continuing damper on any tendencies in a revolutionary direction. And the imperialists don't plan to halt this once Gadhafi is gone.The plans are in the works for something like a European-African-Arab peacekeeping occupation which the opposition leadership shows every sign of being willing to accept. I certainly hope that a Libyan democratic revolution takes place soon, picking up from the possibilities of the first days of the uprising that were substantially dissipated by imperialist intervention and the orientation toward and dependence on imperialism by the opposition leadership. But Jeff ends up portraying the imperialists as giving indispensable and decisive aid to a popular revolution (something they have never done, even in dealings with Ho, Mao and Tito during World War II) and implicitly dismisses calls to end the imperialist war now as cou
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == At 02:05 20/08/11 -0400, Fred Feldman wrote: > >Introductory comments to article from Tripoli > > >The US, France, and Britain have committed their prestige and honor, such as >they are, to removing Gadhafi, dead or alive, from power. For them to appear >to abandon this goal would be a blow to NATO, which is already under >pressure from the European economic crisis. I find it hard to believe that >they can drop this objective without something worse than embarrassment Here Fred has accidentally spoken a word of profound truth. Namely that the reason for the continued NATO intervention in Libya on the side of the revolution has to do with maintaining PRESTIGE. And avoiding "something worse than" EMBARRASMENT. In other words, all of the made-up explanations for the imperialist intervention, being designed to steal Libya's oil wealth, to curb any supposed "militant" tendencies of Gaddafi, etc. -- all of these explanations that have been cited (but conveniently only after the NATO intervention began) are NOT the reason they continue, BY FRED'S OWN ADMISSION. Having heard this now from a vocal left opponent of the Libyan revolution, confirming what I have believed to be the case, now gives me all the more reason to reject the idea that there is any underlying principle involved in concentrating on ending the intervention that should overshadow our support of the Arab revolution of 2011. Nowhere is there a suggestion that ending their intervention would be a blow against the substance of imperialism. It would, again by Fred's admission, have the effect of embarrassing them, of reducing their prestige. And while it always brings me joy when they are embarrassed or humiliated, I'll be damned if I'm going to abandon supporting a revolution just in order to feed that petty desire. Even the imperialist partners themselves have made it clear in their own circles that their intervention in Libya was a MISTAKE in essence, based on an incorrect assessment (one which many of us shared), namely that the eventual fall of Gaddafi was certain, and they didn't want to be on the losing side (still recognizing the legitimacy of Gaddafi as his regime fell). As a result of their mistake, they got in over their heads and now can't be seen as backing down. And they have made it clear that they are not going to repeat that mistake in Syria, where the situation is similar in every important respect. (One caveat: once it becomes absolutely clear that Assad really is going to be overthrown by revolution, which might be the stage we're entering right now, then swooping in to "save" the people of Syria would no longer be a mistake on their part. But they're nervous about reaching that conclusion after their unsettling experience in Libya.). And one telling truth from the article itself. Franklin Lamb: >Assassinating Gaddafi is widely believed here to be the only reason NATO >continues to re-bomb, some as many as five times, the so-called "command >and control center" sites that these days could be just about anywhere in >Tripoli. Exactly. They are trying to KILL him, which is absolutely NOT what the rebels had expected when they accepted (requested?) NATO air strikes in defense of their territorial gains. They surely want to put him on trial! And the imperialists surely don't want him telling all he knows in court, so they are out to kill the witness more than some evil leader they fear. Just as they did with Saddam. I hope they fail and that the revolution succeeds, and that Gaddafi's wish of "dying in Libya" comes true, but not too soon! - Jeff Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 8/20/11 2:05 AM, Fred Feldman wrote: The reported gains of recent days have served to sharply shift attention from the internal problems of the opposition (the assassination by internal forces of the army commander) and the complaints in the imperialist media about their slow progress. Both sides are having "internal problems": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44212657/ns/world_news-africa/# TUNIS— Libya's oil chief, Omran Abukraa, is in Tunisia after deciding not to return to Libya from a trip abroad, a Tunisian official source said Saturday, the third apparent defection this week of a senior figure associated with Muammar Gaddafi's rule. "Libyan Oil Minister Omran Abukraa did not return to Libya after his mission in Italy, preferring to cut his trip short and go to Tunisia," the Tunisian official source told Reuters. The report, if confirmed, suggests more senior figures are deserting Gaddafi's government since rebels seized the city of Zawiyah, cutting off Tripoli from the outside world. A senior security official, Nasser al-Mabruk Abdullah, flew to Cairo from Tunisia Monday with his family. Rebels said Abdel Salam Jalloud, Gaddafi's former deputy who is now out of favor with the leader, defected to their side Friday. Although Libya does not formally give its officials the title of minister, Abukraa represented Tripoli at an OPEC oil ministers' meeting in June. He replaced Tripoli's long-serving oil chief Shokri Ghanem, who defected from Gaddafi's government and said he supported the aims of rebels trying to topple him. Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Franklin Lamb : "Waiting for the endgame in Libya"
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Introductory comments to article from Tripoli I think Franklin Lamb is overoptimistic in projecting that Obama is planning to support a cease fire. But it is conceivable that he will, given the problems he already faces in the 2012, likewise Sarkozy, and maybe Cameron too. But the president also cannot appear to be caving in to the super-demon Gadhafi, which is the way the Republicans and even some Democrats will interpret even a time-buying cease-fire or governmental agreement -- that is, one that quiets the war issue until the US and French elections are out of the way. It seems to me that the US administration and its allies in Europe are also moving in the direction of committing their prestige and credibility to the fall of Assad in Syria. All the usual suspects (including the International Kangaroo Court) are being brought into play. The dynamic pointing towards a major intervention may be motivated in part removing Assad as a long-standing irritant and perhaps more importantly the prevention of an opposition government that might have significant Islamist and radical participation. The US, France, and Britain have committed their prestige and honor, such as they are, to removing Gadhafi, dead or alive, from power. For them to appear to abandon this goal would be a blow to NATO, which is already under pressure from the European economic crisis. I find it hard to believe that they can drop this objective without something worse than embarrassment Two days ago, Counterpunch published another article by Lamb expressing fears that Tripoli would soon face a siege. The rebels have been predicting that the regime would fall in two weeks, and quite a few imperialist outlets are announcing that Gadhafi is going to flee or has already fled. Lamb seems to have calmed a bit, since he is now assuming that the regime will make it till the September meeting of the NATO powers, whose purpose at present is to rubber-stamp continuation of the war. All the major imperialist media outlets are now indicating that the rebels have made significant gains -- most based on reports from rebel commanders. The Guardian reports that they are marching on Tripoli from three sides. But of course these sources are at least as biased in favor of the US-NATO effort or, in the case of some leftists who are opposed to the bombing, of the alleged revolutionaries in the opposition, as Lamb tends to be in favor of Gadhafi. While most may intend to be honest, pretty much all Libya coverage has to be received with caution. I doubt that the opposition as presently constituted can overturn the Gadhafi regime without massive shipments of weapons, a further extension of NATO bombing (more on the Iraq model), a big infusion of weapons and people to use them. I mean here the sending in of at least full special forces units, not just individual "trainers." The reported gains of recent days have served to sharply shift attention from the internal problems of the opposition (the assassination by internal forces of the army commander) and the complaints in the imperialist media about their slow progress. But speculations such as these do not disprove claims that the opposition has won important victories and moving toward Tripoli. But for those of us who are far from the scene (and unable to influence the situation (even through united antiwar protests, of which there are very few, although I favor supporting ALL protests against this brutal imperialist war), only time will tell what is really the situation. I continue to regard the defeat of the imperialist war against Libya as the lesser evil, no matter what that means for the political and other prospects of Gadhafi or the opposition, as the preferable outcome. The imperialist war, not varying estimates of the opposition or its components, is the pivotal issue today. Fred Feldman http://www.counterpunch.org/lamb08192011.html Weekend Edition August 19 - 21, 2011 Hopes and Doubts in Washington Waiting for the Endgame in Libya By FRANKLIN LAMB Tripoli Since this observer is not privy to any secrets around here and would not share them if he were, it's fair enough to engage in frank discussions with former colleagues in Congress and new cyber acquaintances who work on the Hill. I got an ear full this week from sources familiar with John Kerry's Senate Foreign Relations Committee activities about President Obama's semi-private views on what is happening in Libya and the President's doubts about NATO's role in bombing this unlucky country. Contrary to some Washington speculation that Obama's new Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (some Congressional staffers who know him well good naturely refer to his as "Leon the L
