Posted on 08/22/2011 6:37:21 PM PDT by nickcarraway
NATO's invasion of Tripoli prompts discussion of a potential occupation of Libya where the people of Libya could experience the suffering of Iraq.
Press TV talks with Jeff Steinberg, Executive Intelligence Review, in Washington who claims this is a heavy NATO invasion of Tripoli not the outcome of a civil war and that similar misery is set to befall the Libyan people as NATO moves ever toward an occupation of another oil rich Muslim country. Following is a transcript of the interview.
Press TV: What do you think of the new developments in Libya?
Jeff Steinberg: First of all this is not an action by the rebels as an independent force; this is a NATO action. The NATO air cover has been a decisive factor and if the reports about what has happened on the ground are true mainly that Muammar Gaddafi and his sons have either been captured or surrendered then this is not some internal event in Libya, but is a decision primarily made by Britain and France And Italy with full backing from the US to bring Gaddafi down.
A similar thing happened in March of 2003 in Iraq and within several months what we found was that the forces that were part of the old system had basically realized that they couldn't win the fight and they went into resistance mode with weapons and capabilities and they began to whittle away at the occupation.
And of course for a two to three year period after the initial 'dramatic success' - Bush on the USS Abraham winked and said, “Mission accomplished". It turned out it was a real asymmetric warfare slug fest that went on for quite some time. And it is yet to be seen if the US will be the big winner or the big loser in Iraq.
I think it's important to bear that recent history in mind as we see the events unfolding at this moment in Libya.
This was not an internal development; the rebel opposition had no capacity to take Tripoli on their own. It was on the basis of the US and key NATO allies really in this case driven by a political commitment to replace Gaddafi on the part of the British and French and Italians that we're in this situation right now.
So, do a little bit of historical research and don't jump to any hasty conclusions prematurely, that's my basic point today.
Press TV: Are you saying that the facts that are coming and news of Libyan rebel forces controlling Tripoli except Az Zawiya are not correct?
Jeff Steinberg: It probably is correct; but it is not the result of the outcome of an internal civil war; it's the result of a NATO-directed invasion and overthrow of a regime and instillation of a government that may or may not have a real prospect of survival.
What we don't know and what is going to play out in the months ahead is whether or not forces loyal to Gaddafi have decided to go into an asymmetric resistance mode because of the NATO factor and that they realize that they're not going to win in a direct showdown over who controls Tripoli.
Remember, it was considered a miraculously affective invasion and takeover of Iraq in March/April of 2003. But by June of 2003 a very effective resistance movement surfaced and the big casualties for the American occupation force in Iraq occurred long after the, quote 'successful invasion' had been completed.
So we don't know what is going to happen on the ground in Libya at this point. We know that the rebel opposition could never in a million years have taken Tripoli and consolidated control and, presumably if the reports are accurate and I can't even say that they are, captured Muammar Gaddafi and his sons including Saif al-Islam who is the designated successor.
Whether it's true or not it really remains to be seen whether or not a stable government is stood up in Tripoli and whether Libyan oil begins to flow again at some point in the not too distant future.
So this is not some kind of end of a civil war like Lincoln defeated the Confederacy and the civil war ended and the nation of the US was reunited. This is something quite different...
Press TV: Yesterday in his speech, Gaddafi said that the tribes and the people should march to Tripoli and “purify the city” - this is according to Libyan state television and he said also, “The West will not protect you” and “Tripoli will be destroyed”.
Today a spoke men for Gaddafi said, “The number of deaths that have occurred; NATO is causing this. Gaddafi is our leader and he will take control”.
So far over 10,000 have died although we don't have exact numbers and now after six months of fighting Gaddafi and his men want to sit down for peace negotiations. What do you think about that?
Jeff Steinberg: It's over. The whole idea of these negotiations back and forth was always a sham. The issue was the decision made by western NATO forces that Gaddafi would be brought down. And in the recent period the Russians and to some extent the Chinese even sort of accepted the fact that it's now inevitable that Gaddafi is going to be gone from power.
And nobody wants to lose altogether their impact and influence and economic ties in Libya. So, I think the rhetoric of the last few days will be very quickly forgotten.
Thanks nickcarraway.
More likely another satellite of Iran or just another terrorist supporting country. Can’t see anything good coming with this so-called victory...
Admin Mod - The title of this thread was altered. (which is against Free Republic policy) Can you please restore it to original state, and remove the pro-Obama spin? Thanks.
PressTV is state-run by Iran.
Executive Intelligence Review is run by Lyndon LaRouche.
Let's be careful out there.
I thought Obama ran against Iraq in 2008
All the more reason we should pay attention. This isn’t just a prediction - coming from where it does, it’s a threat.
He said in a speech in 2002 he wasn’t anti-war, he was against dumb wars. Dumb wars are wars started by someone else. Smart wars are wars he is waging.
Libya is about 97% Sunni with almost no Shia population, so there won't be the power struggle between the two sects as there was (and still is on a reduced basis) in Iraq.
The almost nil Shia population will also make it difficult for Iran to get any kind of control in Libya.
I see Libya going more like Egypt at this point.
The building of the pan-Northern Africa Islamic monolith adds another building block.
From Algeria to Egypt will be an Islamic, pro Al-Qaeda, anti-Israel, anti-American belt of countries that will benefit the dreams of the Caliphate.
The silly talk about “freedom” and the “Arab Spring”, by useful idiots like John McCain tonight on Greta’s show is poppycock.
Northern Africa is now officially destabilized.
And that was Obama’s plan all along.
A lot of what happened in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad could have been mitigated by not disbanding the Iraqi army.
We could have purged the officer corps and re-trained the remainder. Rumsfeld screwed the pooch big time with that decision. He made some serious blunders in the prosecution of the war.
I do not think the natural divisions in Libya are so much religious as a Shia-Sunni division as they are historically tribal. If there is chaos in the aftermath they will want to kill each other for who they are not what they believe.
I think it will be the next Somalia.
It’s probably part of the plan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.