http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/
June 18, 2011 Was Libya attacked because of its attitude toward AFRICOM?<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/> Filed under: Libya <http://en.wordpress.com/tag/libya/> — louisproyect @ 10:07 pm As the latest attempt to provide an *ex post facto* explanation for the imperialist attack on Libya, Ismael Hossein-Zadeh’s Counterpunch article “Why Regime Change in Libya? <http://www.counterpunch.org/zadeh06172011.html>” breaks no new ground. Trawling Global Research and other pro-Qaddafi websites, the author strings together tendentious arguments made elsewhere. Among them is an attempt to portray Qaddafi as a great anti-imperialist leader resisting AFRICOM, the American bid to build military bases in Africa. Hossein-Zadeh writes: To the chagrin of US imperialism, Libya’s Gaddafi also refused to join the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), designed to control valuable resources in Africa, safeguard trade and investment markets in the region, and contain or evict China from North Africa. “When the US formed AFRICOM in 2007, some 49 countries signed on to the US military charter for Africa but one country refused: Libya. Such a treacherous act by Libya’s leader Moummar Qaddafi would only sow the seeds for a future conflict down the road in 2011″ [5]. When you go to footnote 5, make sure you don’t click the URL because it takes you to the article cited in footnote 4. You should also be aware that all of the footnotes that follow 5 are bewilderingly numbered 3. Frankly, it is difficult to figure out whom to blame for this mess. Either Professor Hossein-Zadeh is too lazy to review his submission or Cockburn and St. Clair are editors in name only. I still think that Counterpunch is worth supporting despite its infuriatingly slipshod character. Thankfully, Hossein-Zadeh did supply the URL for the article cited above. Just paste http://21stcenturywire.com/2011/04/12/2577/<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24562>into your browser and you will be able to read an article by Patrick Henningsen titled “West vs China: A New Cold War Begins on Libyan Soil”. Unfortunately, Henningsen does not give the reader any more information than the words quoted by Hossein-Zadeh. Someone with an inquiring mind might ask which 47 countries? And so on. Well, using my trusty weapon Lexis-Nexis, courtesy of my gig at Columbia University, I went back and searched for information on “Libya” and “Africom” in major newspapers between 2007 and 2008. (There were no results for this search combination in 2009 and 2010.) This is what turned up. A Guardian article dated June 26, 2007 and titled “Africa united in rejecting US request for military HQ” would belie the notion that Libya stood alone even if you read no further than the headline. It states: A US delegation led by Ryan Henry, principal deputy under-secretary of defence for policy, returned to Washington last week with little to show for consultations with defence and foreign ministry officials in Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Djibouti and with the African Union (AU). An earlier round of consultations with sub-Saharan countries on providing secure facilities and local back-up for the new command, to be known as Africom and due to be operational by September next year, was similarly inconclusive. Well, now, how about that. It seems that Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Djibouti and the African Union were as cool to the idea of AFRICOM as Libya. If one’s attitude toward AFRICOM is a litmus test on anti-imperialism, then Mubarak should have ended up on the White House shit-list as well. In 2008 AFRICOM got off the ground but barely so. There were only a token number of American troops in Africa and the only tangible result was a training program for Liberian soldiers. The resistance to a Western military presence was as strong as it was the year before. An April 11, 2008 Christian Science Monitor article titled “U.S. military expands role in West Africa” recognized the forces at work on the ground that made further expansion problematic: Regional powers such as South Africa, Libya, and Nigeria have rejected outright the idea of more US troops on African soil (there are already 1,500 at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti) and the question of which country might play host to a headquarters with at least 1,000 staff has dominated the AFRICOM debate. Only Liberia’s president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, has lobbied to host AFRICOM in the hope that it would bring security and economic benefits to her poor and battered country. She welcomed the US military enthusiastically last month even braving the lurching waves to become the only head of state to go onboard the Fort McHenry during its deployment. So apparently Thabo Mbeki, the neoliberal ex-President of South Africa, and Nigeria’s Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, a perfectly decent soul but without any “anti-imperialist” credentials who died in office 2 years later, stood shoulder to shoulder with Qaddafi on the need to block US troops on African soil. If the imperialists felt the need to “get back” at South Africa and Nigeria because of their opposition to AFRICOM, it somehow escaped my attention. But let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth to get an idea of how AFRICOM saw Libya. On September 28, 2009, the AFRICOM Public Affairs Office issued a press release titled “Libyan Delegation Makes Historic Visit to Africa Command <http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=3486>”. Here are a few excerpts from this most revealing item. STUTTGART, Germany, Sep 28, 2009 — A delegation of three senior Libyan military officers visited U.S. Africa Command headquarters as part of an orientation program to explain the command’s mission, Sept. 21-24, 2009, as the two countries continue to build their military relationship. The officers held meetings with senior staff members to discuss the command’s programs and activities, met General William E. ward and his two deputies, and traveled to Ramstein Air Base to meet Major General Ron Ladnier, the U.S. Air Force Africa commander, and his staff. The command hosts African military delegations frequently, but “certainly with regard to Libya, it is quite historic,” said Kenneth Fidler, Africa Command Public Affairs Office, which hosted the Libyan team. Two of the officers in the delegation write for the official magazine of the Libyan armed forces, called Al-Musallh. Colonel Mohamed Algale is the chief editor, and Colonel Abdelgane Mohamed is the space and aviation editor. The third member of the party, Colonel Mustafa Washahi, represented the Libyan Ministry of Defense. The officers also toured AFN-Europe studios in Mannheim, Germany, and met with editors of the European Stars and Stripes in Kaiserslautern, Germany. “They (Africa Command officials) clarified everything,” Abdelgane said in an interview with AFN-Europe. “And they are making our mission easier … to rise up the level of understanding between the militaries … and to move for further cooperation to the benefit of both countries.” In January 2009, Libya and the United States signed a defense cooperation memorandum of understanding, which provides the framework for a military-to-military relationship and cooperation on programs of mutual interest. After the signing of the MOU, a forum called the Council of Colonels met for the fourth time since 2007. These meetings set the tone for Libya-U.S. military relations and is the primary venue for discussing potential security cooperation opportunities, such as ship visits and information exchange programs. Now of course none of this will matter to those who have their minds made up that Qaddafi is some kind of anti-imperialist leader. It is much more useful for them to either make things up or ignore the mountain of evidence that imperialism saw Libya as a useful ally from around 2002 to February 2011 when Benghazi erupted. The friendship and close political and economic ties between Italy’s rightwing sleazeball Berlusconi and Qaddafi is well documented, just as was Blair’s intercession on behalf of Libya early on. These relationships are swept under the rug as people like Ismael Hossein-Zadeh go pouring through the garbage looking for rotting fish-heads to submit to Counterpunch. When I returned to New York in 1979 after 11 years in the Trotskyist movement, I had made up my mind to devote myself to writing novels. I would pick up the Village Voice each week (this was long before the paper turned into an unreadable freebie) to see what movies would be worth seeing. Despite my intention to put politics behind me, I found myself galvanized by Alexander Cockburn’s “Press Clips” column. This was when he was in his prime and when he was able to couple superlative investigative reporting with a scintillating prose style. The target of his investigation obviously was the bourgeois press itself that was beginning its slander campaign against the unfolding Central American revolution. This led me to join CISPES eventually and then to work with Tecnica in Nicaragua. Reading “Press Clips” sensitized me to the need to uphold journalistic scruples. The enemy class was guilty of propaganda and lies, not us. Our job on the left was to stick to the truth and let the chips fall where they may. It is really regrettable that in the interests of defending an indefensible proposition—namely, that Qaddafi was an “anti-imperialist”—that some of our sharper minds have lost their way. Comments (3)<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/#comments> Like<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/?like=1&_wpnonce=fcefac80ed> Be the first to like this post. 3 Comments »<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/#postcomment> 1. Cockburn’s gotten so lazy he doesn’t even use a spell checker before he posts his articles. Just look at how many glaring errors appear in his latest screed: http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06172011.html Comment by Karl Friedrich — June 18, 2011 @ 11:00 pm<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/#comment-54746> 2. I would say it’s not just AFRICOM, but there seemed to be a “let’s not re-enact Rawanda” vibe to the beginning of the assult on Gazzafi, coupled with opportunism by the NATO states to show their (dwindling) might. At this point I don’t know if it would’ve been better to let Gazzafi win and let the issue be dealt with by Libya’s neighbors, because the air bombardment has been spastic and similar to the “Baedeker Raids” the Luftwaffe carried out against Britain in 1943-44. In any case the bloodshed and destruction both Gazzafi, NATO* and the rebels have accomplished will leave deep scars on Libyan society for years. @Karl Friedrich Cockburn is a classic case of burn-out and the typos (which are very common on the CounterPunch website) are the smallest portion of the problem. Last I heard (so correct me if I’m wrong) he has become a climate-change denialist, and he seems to be aiming towards supporting guys like Ron Paul (he has Paul Craig Roberts, a Lew Rockwell associate, writing/being republished for the online version of CP.) I think US politics have driven AC around the bend, and he needs some time off to figure out what his positions are now. ___________________________ * I include the “Yes, we’re in – No, we’re out!….Hi! We’re back!” US as well; America has the stamina to stay with the fight but not the political will. Comment by Strelnikov — June 18, 2011 @ 11:58 pm<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/#comment-54747> 3. Strelinikov: I could kinda understand the argument for invading Libya at first considering how much Qaddafi was barelling down on protesters, but now I think sanctions for Qaddafi would have been best since it wouldn’t lead to the violent monopolization of the revolt by the transnational council who have been pretty brutal themselves: http://www.economist.com/node/18652159?story_id=18652159 http://angryarab.blogspot.com/search?q=Libyan+Transitional+Council+ Comment by Jenny — June 19, 2011 @ 12:29 am<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/#comment-54748> 4. The Qaddafi regime took IMET funding from the US in 2008,2009 and 2010 and has other special training programs. Also the US General in charge of AFRICOM met with the so called “Great Leader” twice. http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=3080 U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Boutwell Arrives in Tubruq, Libya Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe-U..S. Naval Forces Africa To read more about the Libyan delegation’s visit to U.S. Africa Command, visit http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=3486&lang=0. U.S. Africa Command waited to publish the transcript until the article appeared in Al Musellh magazine. The Arabic version of the transcript is posted at: http://www.africom.mil/file.asp?pdfID=20091215182659. The complete English transcript of the interview is available below: COL. MOHAMED: First thing I would like to ask you about: During your last visit to Libya, you have met with our leader al-Qaddafi. We would like to ask about, what’s your impression of the leader Muammar al-Qaddafi? How was your meeting with him? And what are the results of that visit? GEN. WILLIAM E. WARD: Okay, well, during my last visit to Tripoli I had a very good meeting with the Leader. He and I were able to talk about my command; we were able to give him some thoughts on the United States Africa Command and what the command is about. And I think because of that, we gave him additional information that enabled him to have a better understanding of the command. It was explained to him that we were there not to threaten the sovereignty of any nation; that we were there to work in close cooperation but only among those things that the nations wanted us to do. And to all of those purposes, it was about trying to enhance the stability and the security of the nations that we work with — North Africa, as well as the entire continent of Africa. I think the Leader was happy to hear that; I think he had a greater understanding following our conversation and he appreciated the information that I gave him about the command. And I think we also discussed issues that concern security matters in Africa and how we look forward to working together in ways that help us achieve those common objectives for peace and stability. And I think the leader was appreciate of that as well, and I told him that I was committing myself to working as closely as we could where our foreign policy permitted those relationships; working with the nations, working with the regions, working with the African Union. And the leader was appreciative of that, as well. So we had a very good meeting. It was a cordial meeting, it was a friendly meeting and it was one that I certainly appreciated very well to have the opportunity to spend time with him to talk about those things that were important to both of us in the cause of peace. COL. MOHAMED: Okay, because we see a deep understanding. Do you expect another visit to be done in the near future or something like that? GEN. WARD: Well, I don’t know. In the last six months I’ve already had two visits to Libya, and you are here, and so I think that as we continue to move forward we will have the opportunity for more visits to be sure. Source: AFRICOM Public Affairs —————————— IMET Program 2008 US Africa Command- Libya in article http://www.africom.mil/fetchBinary.asp?pdfID=20091019124205 Comment by Cort Greene<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/www.marxist.com>— June 19, 2011 @ 12:55 am<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/was-libya-attacked-because-of-its-attitude-toward-africom/#comment-54749> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
