Honor The 92nd Anniversary Of The Founding Of The Communist International (March, 1919)- Honor The 91st Anniversary Of The Historic Second World Congress (The 21 Conditions Congress) Of The CI (July-August 1920)
Markin comment:
Some anniversaries, like those marking the publication of a book, play or poem, are worthy of remembrance every five, ten, or twenty-five years. Other more world historic events like the remembrance of the Paris Commune of 1871, the Bolshevik Russian Revolution of 1917, and, as here, the founding of the Communist International (also known as the Third International, Comintern, and CI) in 1919 are worthy of yearly attention. Why is that so in the case of the long departed (1943, by Stalin fiat) and, at the end unlamented, Comintern? That is what this year’s remembrance, through CI documentation and other commentary, will attempt to impart on those leftist militants who are serious about studying the lessons of our revolutionary, our communist revolutionary past.
No question that the old injunction of Marx and Engels as early as the Communist Manifesto that the workers of the world needed to unite would have been hollow, and reduced to hortatory holiday speechifying (there was enough of that, as it was) without an organization expression. And they, Marx and Engels, fitfully made their efforts with the all-encompassing pan-working class First International. Later the less all encompassing but still party of the whole class-oriented socialist Second International made important, if limited, contributions to fulfilling that slogan before the advent of world imperialism left its outlook wanting, very wanting.
The Third International thus was created, as mentioned in one of the commentaries in this series, to pick up the fallen banner of international socialism after the betrayals of the Second International. More importantly, it was the first international organization that took upon itself in its early, heroic revolutionary days, at least, the strategic question of how to make, and win, a revolution in the age of world imperialism. The Trotsky-led effort of creating a Fourth International in the 1930s, somewhat stillborn as it turned out to be, nevertheless based itself, correctly, on those early days of the Comintern. So in some of the specific details of the posts in this year’s series, highlighting the 90th anniversary of the Third World Congress this is “just” history, but right underneath, and not far underneath at that, are rich lessons for us to ponder today.
*********
Markin comment on this post:
As noted in my commentary on the Manifesto of the Second World Congress of the Communist International (1920), reposted below since it also applies to these theses, such documents give the political movement it is addressed to its marching order. In a general sense, at least. These theses codify those general propositions outlined in the manifesto. Note here that this Second Congress took place as the international working class movement was going through a regroupment process right after World War I between the reformist socialists, the emerging communist vanguard, and the bewildered anarchists. Note also the difference in approaches to the more hardened reformist-led socialist parties, and to the ill-formed but more revolutionary-spirited anarchist formations, especially the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, Wobblies) here in America in their good days.
*********
A manifesto, particularly a political manifesto, and especially a revolutionary communist manifesto like the one that issued out of the historic Second World Congress of the Communist International in 1920 should give a cogent analysis of the world political situation. It should also describe the nature of the period (revolutionary, non-revolutionary, heading toward or away from either, an estimation of the enemy’s capacities, and the obstacles in the way both inside and outside the workers movement (out side the treachery of the liberals and inside the perfidy of the labor bureaucracy resting on the labor bureaucracy). In short, give the international proletariat its marching orders. The Manifesto of the Second World Congress does just those things at a time when the fledgling Communist International was trying to consolidate its vanguard position in the world working class movement. The Communist International then, and for some time after, did yeoman’s work in that regard, not always perfectly but from a revolutionary perspective. Even as it degenerated politically toward the middle and late 1920s there were, as the Leon Trotsky-led International Left Opposition held, reasons, good reasons to adhere to its tenets. Only with the debacle around Hitler’s coming to power in Germany did Trotsky throw in the towel. That seemed right then, and now. I would argue that the Seventh (and last) World Congress in 1935 unquestionably put paid to that notion. We did not need a vanguard national party, or a vanguard revolutionary international party for that matter, to give the lead in the political struggle to the liberal bourgeoisie as the popular frontist politics of the CI proclaimed from that time onward (with a few “left” turns). There was an international for that “strategy”, or rather a mail-drop address, it was (is) called the Second International.
********************
Minutes of the Second Congress of the Communist International: Theses
Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Communist International
1. A characteristic feature of the present moment in the development of the international Communist movement is the fact that in all capitalist countries the best representatives of the revolutionary proletariat have completely understood the fundamental principles of the Communist International – namely, the dictatorship of the proletariat and the power of the Soviet – and with a loyal enthusiasm have placed themselves on the side of the Communist International. A still more important and still greater step forward is the completely clear and unlimited sympathy with these principles manifested by the wider masses, not only of the proletariat of the towns, but also by the advanced portion of the agrarian workers.
On the other hand two mistakes or weaknesses have shown them selves in the Communist movement, in spite of its extraordinary and rapid increase. One, very serious and a direct threat to the liberation of the proletariat, consists’ in the fact that a section of the old leaders and old parties of the Second International, partly unconsciously yielding to the wishes and pressure of the masses, partly consciously deceiving them, in order to preserve their former role of agents and supporters of the bourgeoisie inside the Labour movement, are declaring a conditional or even unconditional – affiliation to the Third International, while remaining, in reality, in the whole practice of their party and political work, on the level of the Second International. Such a state of things is absolutely inadmissible, because it demoralises the masses, hinders the development of a strong Communist Party, and lowers their respect for the Third International by threatening repetition of such betrayals as that of the Hungarian Social-Democrats, who so facilely assumed the disguise of Communists. The second, much less important mistake, which is for the most part a malady inherent to the growth of the movement, is the tendency to be ‘on the extreme Left,’ which leads to an erroneous evaluation of the role and duties of the party with respect to the class and to the mass, and a denial of the obligation of the revolutionary Communists to work in bourgeois parliaments and reactionary trades unions.
The duty of the Communists is not to gloss over any of the weaknesses of their movement, but to criticise them openly, in order to get rid of them promptly and radically. To this end it is necessary (1) to establish concretely, on the basis of the practical experience already acquired, the meaning of the terms: ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ and ‘Soviet System'; and (2) to point out in what could and should consist in all countries the immediate and systematic preparatory work for realising these slogans; and (3) to indicate the means of curing our movement of its defects.
I. – The meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the soviet system
2. The victory of Socialism over capitalism – as the first step to Communism – demands the accomplishment of the three following tasks by the proletariat, as the only really revolutionary class:
The first is to lay low the exploiters, and first of all the bourgeoisie as their chief economic. and political representative, to defeat them completely, to crush their resistance, to render impossible any attempts on their part to reimpose the yoke of capitalism and wage-slavery.
The second is to inspire, and lead in the footsteps of the revolutionary advance-guard of the proletariat (the Communist Party) not only the whole proletariat or its large majority, but the entire mass of workers and those exploited by capital; to enlighten, organise, instruct and discipline them during the course of the bold and merciless struggle against the exploiters; to wrench this enormous majority of the population in all the capitalist countries out of their state of dependence on the bourgeoisie; to instil in them, through practical experience, confidence in the leading role of the proletariat and its revolutionary advance guard.
The third is to neutralise or render harmless the inevitable fluctuations between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between bourgeois democracy and the Soviet system, on the part of that rather numerous class in all advanced countries – although constituting a minority of the population – the small owners and proprietors in agriculture, industry, commerce, and the corresponding strata of intellectuals, white-collar workers, and so on.
The first and second tasks are independent ones, demanding each its special methods of action in respect to the exploiters and to the exploited. The third task results from the two first, demanding only a skilful, timely, supple combination of the methods of the first and second depending on the concrete circumstances of each separate case of fluctuation.
3. Under the circumstances which have been created in the whole world, and most of all in the most advanced, powerful, enlightened and free capitalist countries by militarist imperialism, oppression of colonies and the weaker nations, by the universal imperialist slaughter, and the ‘peace’ of Versailles, to admit the idea of a voluntary submission of the capitalists to the will of the majority of the exploited – of a peaceful, reformist passage to Socialism – is not only to give proof of an extreme petty-bourgeois dullheadedness, but it is direct deception of the workers, a disguising of capitalist wage-slavery, a concealment of the truth. This truth consists in the fact that the bourgeoisie, the most enlightened and democratic bourgeoisie, is even now not hesitating at deceit and crime, at the slaughter of millions of workmen and peasants, for the retention of the right of private ownership over the means of production. Only a violent defeat of the bourgeoisie, the confiscation of its property, the annihilation of the entire bourgeois government apparatus, from top to bottom, parliamentary, judicial, military, bureaucratic, administrative, municipal, etc., up to the individual exile or internment of the most stubborn and dangerous exploiters, the establishment of a strict control over them for the repressing of all inevitable attempts at resistance and restoration of capitalist slavery – only such measures will be able to guarantee the complete submission of the whole class of exploiters.
It is the same camouflage of capitalism and bourgeois democracy, the same deception of the workers when the old parties and old leaders of the Second International suggest that the majority of the workers and exploited will be able to acquire a clear socialist consciousness, firm socialist convictions and character under the conditions of capitalist enslavement, under the yoke of the bourgeoisie, which assumes an endless variety of forms – the more refined, and at the same time the more cruel and pitiless in the more cultured capitalist nations. In reality it is only when the advanced guard of the proletariat, supported by the whole class, or a majority of it, has overthrown the exploiters, crushed them, freed all the exploited from their position of slaves, improved their conditions of life immediately at the expense of the expropriated capitalists – only after that, and during the very course of the acute class struggle, will it be possible to realise the enlightenment, education and organisation of the widest masses of workers and exploited, under the influence and direction of the communists, to cure them of their egotism, their non-solidarity, their vices and weaknesses engendered by private ownership, and to transform them into a free association of free workers.
4. In order to win victory over capitalism it is necessary to have the right mutual relations between the Communist Party as leader, the revolutionary class, the proletariat, on the one hand and the masses, that is all of the toilers and the exploited, on the other. Only the Communist party, if it is really the advanced guard of the revolutionary class, if it includes the best representatives of the class, if it consists of perfectly conscious and loyal Communists, enlightened and tempered by the experience gained in the stubborn revolutionary struggle – if this party is able to become bound indissolubly with the entire life of its class, and through the latter with the whole mass of the exploited, and to inspire full confidence in this class and this mass, only such a party is capable of leading the proletariat in the most pitiless decisive last struggle against all the forces of capitalism.
On the other hand, only under the leadership of such a party will the proletariat be able to employ all the force of its revolutionary onslaught which is immeasurably smaller than the proportion of proletarians in the population in capitalist society as a result of its economic structure, nullifying the inevitable apathy and partial resistance of the insignificant minority of the demoralised labour aristocracy, the old Trade Union leaders, etc. Only then will the proletariat be able to display its power, which is immeasurably greater than its share in the population, by reason of the economic organisation of capitalist society itself.
Lastly, only when in practice freed from the yoke of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois state apparatus, only after acquiring the possibility of organising into its own Soviets , free from all capitalist exploitation, will the mass – i.e., the whole of the workers and exploited – employ for the first time in history all the initiative and energy of tens of millions of people, formerly crushed by capitalism. Only when the Soviets become the only State apparatus will effectual participation m the administration be realised for the entire mass of the exploited, who even under the most cultured and free bourgeois democracy remained ninety per cent excluded from participation in the administration. Only in the Soviets does the mass really begin to study, not out of books, but out of its own practical experience, the work of Socialist construction, the creation of a new social discipline, a free union of free workers.
II – In what should the immediate preparation for dictatorship of the proletariat everywhere consist?
5. The present moment in the development of the International Communist movement is characterized by the fact that in a great majority of capitalist countries the preparation of the proletariat to the realisation of its dictatorship is incomplete. Very often it has not even been begun systematically. It does not follow that the proletarian revolution is not possible in the most immediate future; it is quite possible, because the economic and political situation is extraordinarily rich in inflammable material; sparks to light it. The other condition of a revolution, besides the preparedness of the proletariat, namely, the general state of crisis in all the ruling and all the bourgeois parties, is also at hand. But it follows from the above that the duty for the moment of the Communist Parties consists in accelerating the revolution, without provoking it artificially until sufficient preparation has been made. The preparedness of the proletariat for the revolution must be advanced by deeds. On the other hand, the above instance in the history of many Socialist parties, draws our attention to the fact that the ‘recognition’ of the dictatorship of the proletariat should not remain only verbal.
Therefore, the principal duty of the Communist parties, from the point of view of the international proletarian movement, is at the present moment the uniting of the dispersed Communist forces, the formation in each country of a single Communist Party (or the strengthening and renovation of the already existing one) in order to assist in the work of preparing the proletariat for the conquest of state power in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The socialist work usually done by groups and parties which recognise the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet by a long way been subjected to the radical strengthening and renewal which is essential if it is to be regarded as Communist work corresponding to the tasks on the eve of the proletarian dictatorship.
6. The conquest of political power by the proletariat does not Put a stop to its class struggle against the bourgeoisie; on the contrary, it makes the struggle particularly widespread, acute and pitiless. All the groups, parties, leaders of the labour movement, fully or partially on the side of reformism, the ‘Centre,’ and so on, turn inevitably, during the most acute moments of the struggle, either to the side of the bourgeoisie or to that of the waverers, or, most dangerous, add to the number of the unreliable friends of the victorious proletariat. Therefore, the preparation of the dictatorship of the proletariat demands not only an increased struggle against all reformist and ‘Centrist’ tendencies, but a modification of the nature of this struggle.
The struggle should not be limited by an explanation of the erroneousness of such tendencies, but it should stubbornly and mercilessly denounce any leader in the Labour movement who may be manifesting such tendencies, otherwise the proletariat will not know whom it must trust in the most decisive struggle against the bourgeoisie. This struggle is such that at any moment it may replace, and has replaced, as experience has proved, the weapon of criticism by the criticism of the weapon. The least inconsistency or weakness in the denunciation of those who show themselves to be reformists or ‘Centrists,’ means a direct increase of the danger of the power of the proletariat being over-thrown by the bourgeoisie, which will, tomorrow, utilise in favour of the counter-revolution everything which today appears to short-sighted people only as a ‘theoretical difference of opinion.'
7. In particular, one cannot stop at the usual abstract refutation of all ‘collaboration’ between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
The mere defence of ‘liberty and equality,’ under the condition of preserving the right of private ownership of the means of production, becomes transformed under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat – which will never be able to suppress completely all private ownership – into a ‘collaboration’ with the bourgeoisie, which undermines directly the power of the working class. The dictatorship of the proletariat means the strengthening and defence, by means of the ruling power of the State, of the ‘non-liberty’ of the exploiter to continue his work of oppression and exploitation, the ‘inequality’ of the proprietor (i.e., of the person who has taken for himself personally the means of production created by social labour) with the propertyless. That which, before the victory of the proletariat, seems but a theoretical difference of opinion on the question of ‘democracy,’ becomes inevitably on the morrow, after the victory, a question which can only be decided by force of arms. Consequently, without a radical modification of the whole nature of the struggle against the ‘centrists’ and ‘democrats,’ even a preliminary preparation of the mass for the realisation of a dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible.
8. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most decisive form of class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Such a struggle can be successful only when the most revolutionary advance-guard of the proletariat leads the huge majority of it. The preparation of the dictatorship of the proletariat demands, therefore, not only the explanation of the bourgeois nature of all reformism and all defence of ‘democracy,’ which preserves the private ownership of the means of production; not only the denunciation of such tendencies, which in practice mean the defence of the bourgeoisie inside the Labour movement – but it demands also the replacing of the old leaders by Communists in all kinds of proletarian organisations, not only political, but industrial, co-operative, educational, etc. The more lasting, complete and solid the rule of the bourgeois democracy has been in any country, the more has it been possible for the bourgeoisie to appoint as labour leaders men who have been educated by it, imbued with its views and prejudices and very frequently, directly or indirectly, bribed by it. It is necessary to remove all these representatives of the labour aristocracy, or of the bourgeoisified workers, from their posts and replace them by even inexperienced workers, so long as these are in unity with the exploited masses, and enj oy the latter’s confidence in the struggle against the exploiters. The dictatorship of the proletariat will demand the appointment of such inexperienced workmen to the most responsible State functions, otherwise the workers’ government will be powerless and it will not have the support of the masses.
9. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most complete realisation of a leadership of all workers and exploited, who have been oppressed, beaten down, crushed, intimidated, dispersed, deceived by the class of capitalists, by the only class prepared for such a leading role by the whole history of capitalism. Therefore, the preparation of the dictatorship of the proletariat must be begun immediately and in all places by means of the following methods, among others: –
In every organisation, union or association without exception beginning with the proletarian ones at first, and afterwards in all those of the non-proletarian workers and exploited masses (political, professional, military, co-operative, educational, sporting, etc.) must be formed groups or nuclei of Communists – mostly open ones, but also secret ones which become necessary in each case when the arrest or exile of their members or the dispersal of the organisation is threatened. These nuclei, in close contact with one another and with the Central Party, exchanging experiences, carrying on the work of propaganda, campaign, organisation, adapting themselves to an the branches of social life, to all the various forms and subdivisions of the working masses, must systematically train themselves, the party, the class and the masses by such many-sided work.
At the same time it is most important to work out practically the necessary methods on the one hand in respect to the ‘leaders’ or responsible representatives, who are very frequently hopelessly infected with petty bourgeois and imperialist prejudices – these ‘leaders’ must be mercilessly exposed and driven from the labour movement; on the other hand, with respect to the masses who, especially after the imperialist slaughter, are mostly inclined to listen to and accept the doctrine of the necessity of the rule of the proletariat as the only way out of capitalist enslavement. The masses must be approached with patience and caution, and with an understanding of the peculiarities, the special psychology of each layer or profession.
10. In particular one. of the groups or nuclei of the Communists deserves the exclusive attention and care of the party, namely, the parliamentary faction, i.e., the group of members of the party who are members of bourgeois representative institutions (first of all in state institutions, then local, municipal and others). On the one hand, such a tribune has a special importance in the eyes of the wider circles of the backward toiling masses or those permeated by petty-bourgeois prejudices; therefore, from this very tribune the Communists must carry on their work of propaganda, agitation, organisation, explaining to the masses why the dissolution of the bourgeois parliament, the Constituent Assembly, by the National Congress of Soviets was a legitimate proceeding at the time in Russia (as it will be in all countries in due time). On the other hand, the whole history of bourgeois democracy has made out of parliament, especially in the more advanced countries, the chief or one of the chief means of unbelievable financial and political swindles, and the possibility of making a career out of hypocrisy and the oppression of the workers. Therefore, the deep hatred against all parliaments among the best representatives of the revolutionary proletariat is perfectly justified. Therefore, the Communist Parties, and all parties adhering to the Third International, especially in cases when such parties have become formed not by means of a division in the old parties and after a lasting stubborn struggle against them, but by means of the old parties passing over (often only nominally) to a new position, must be very strict in their attitude towards their parliamentary faction, demanding their complete subordination to the control and the directions of the Central Committee of the party; to include in them mostly revolutionary workers; to carry out at party meetings and in the Party Press a most attentive analysis of the parliamentary speeches, from the point of view of their communist integrity; to detail the M.P.s for propaganda among the masses; to exclude from such factions all those who show a tendency towards the Second International, and so forth.
Not even preliminary preparation of the proletariat for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie is possible without an immediate, systematic, widely-organised and open struggle against the group which undoubtedly – as experience has already proved – will furnish plenty of men for the White Guards of the bourgeoisie after the victory of the proletariat. All the parties adhering to the Third International must at all costs put into practice the motto: ‘Deeper into the masses, in closer contact with the masses,’ understanding by the word ‘masses’ the entire mass of workers and those exploited by capitalism, especially the less organised and enlightened, the most oppressed and least accessible to organisation.
The proletariat becomes revolutionary only in so far as it is not enclosed within narrow craft limits, in so far as it participates in all the events and branches of public life, as a leader of the whole working and exploited mass; and it is completely impossible for it to realise its dictatorship unless it is ready for and capable of the greatest sacrifices for the victory over the bourgeoisie. The experience of Russia in this respect has a theoretical and practical importance. In Russia the proletariat could not have realised its dictatorship, nor ‘acquired’ the respect and confidence of the whole working mass, if it had not borne most of the sacrifices and had not suffered from hunger more than all the other groups in this mass, during the most difficult moments of the onslaught, war and blockade on the part of the world bourgeoisie.
In particular, it is necessary for the Communist party and the whole advanced proletariat to give the most absolute and self-denying support to all the masses in a broad, elemental strike movement, which is alone able, under the yoke of capitalism, to awaken properly, arouse , enlighten and organise the masses, and develop in them a full confidence in the leading role of the revolutionary proletariat. Without such a preparation no dictatorship of the proletariat will be possible, and those who are capable of preaching against strikes, like Kautsky in Germany and Turati in Italy, are not to be suffered in the ranks of parties adhering to the Third International. This concerns still more, naturally, those trade union and parliamentary leaders, who often betray the workmen by teaching them to make the strike an instrument of reformism and not of revolution (Jouhaux in France, Gompers in America, and Thomas in England).
12. For all countries, even for most free ‘legal’ and ‘peaceful’ ones in the sense of a lesser acuteness in the class struggle, the period has arrived when it has become absolutely necessary for every Communist party to combine systematically both legal and illegal work, legal and illegal organisation.
In the most enlightened and free countries, with a most ‘solid’ bourgeois-democratic regime, the governments are systematically recurring, in spite of their false and hypocritical assurances, to the method of keeping secret lists of Communists, to endless violations of their constitutions for the semi-secret and secret support of White Guards and the murder of Communists in all countries, to secret preparations for the arrest of Communists, the introduction of agents provocateurs among the Communists, etc. Only the most reactionary petty bourgeois, by whatever high-sounding ‘democratic’ or pacifist phrases he may disguise his ideas, can dispute this fact or the necessary conclusion – an immediate formation by all lawful Communist Parties of illegal organisations for systematic illegal work, for their complete preparation for the moment bourgeois persecution emerges. It is especially necessary to carry on illegal work in the army, navy and police, as after the imperialist slaughter all the governments in the world are becoming afraid of the national armies, open to all peasants and workmen, and they are setting up in secret all kinds of select military organisations recruited from the bourgeoisie and specially provided with improved technical equipment.
On the other hand, it is also necessary, and in all cases, without exception, not to limit oneself to illegal work, but to carry on also legal work, overcoming all difficulties. founding a legal press and legal organisations under the most diverse and, in case of need, frequently changing, names. This is now being done by the illegal Communist parties in Finland, Hungary, partly in Germany, Poland, Latvia, etc. It is thus that the IWW in America should act, as well as all the legal Communist Parties at present, in case the Public Prosecutor starts prosecutions on the basis of resolutions of the congresses of the Communist International, etc.
The absolute necessity of the principle of both illegal and legal work is determined not only by the total aggregate of all the peculiarities of the given moment, on the very eve of a proletarian dictatorship, but by the necessity of proving to the bourgeoisie that there is not, and cannot be, any branch of the work of which the Communists have not possessed themselves – and still more by the fact that everywhere there are still wide circles of the proletariat and greater ones of the non-proletarian workers and exploited masses, which still trust in bourgeois democracy, and which it is very important for us to convince of the opposite.
13. In particular, the situation of the labour press in the more advanced capitalist countries shows, especially clearly, both the falseness of liberty and equality under bourgeois democracy, and the necessity of a systematic blending of legal and illegal work. Both in vanquished Germany and in victorious America all the power of the governmental apparatus of the bourgeoisie, and all the tricks of its financial kings are being set in motion in order to deprive the workers of their press; prosecutions and arrests (or murder by means of hired murderers) of the editors, prohibition of sending by mail, depriving of paper, etc. Moreover, the information necessary for a daily paper is in the hands of bourgeois telegraph agencies, and the advertisements, without which a large paper cannot pay its way, are at the ‘free’ disposal of capitalists. On the whole, by means of deceit, the pressure of capital and the bourgeois government, the bourgeoisie deprives the revolutionary proletariat of its press.
For the struggle against this state of things the Communist Parties must create a new type of periodical press for extensive circulation among the workers:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Lawful publications, in which the Communists, without calling themselves such, and without mentioning their connection with the Party, utilize the slightest possibility allowed by the laws, as the Bolsheviks did in the time of the Tsar, after 1905.
(2) Illegal sheets, although of the smallest dimensions and irregularly published, but reproduced in most of the printing offices by the workers (in secret, or if the movement has grown stronger, by means of a revolutionary seizure of the printing offices) and giving the proletariat undiluted revolutionary information and revolutionary slogans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without a revolutionary fight involving the masses for the freedom of the communist press preparation for the dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible.
III – Correction of the policy and partly also of the personnel of the parties adhering or willing to adhere to the Communist International
14. The degree of preparedness of the proletariat to carry out its dictatorship, in the countries most important from the view-point of world economics and world politics, is manifested most objectively and clearly by the fact that the most influential parties of the Second International, the French Socialist Party, the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Independent Labour Party of England, the American Socialist Party, have gone out of this yellow International and have decided conditionally to join the Third International. This proves that not only the advance-guard but the majority of the proletariat has begun to pass over to our side, convinced by the whole course of events. The chief thing now is to know how to complete this passage and solidly, organisationally strengthen what has been achieved, so as to be able to advance along the whole line without the slightest hesitation.
15. The whole activity of the above-mentioned parties (to which must be added the Swiss Socialist Party if the telegraphic reports regarding its resolution to join the Third International are correct) proves – and any given periodical paper of these parties confirms it – that they are not communist as yet, and frequently even are in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of the Third International – namely, the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and of the Soviet system instead of bourgeois democracy.
Therefore, the Second Congress of the Communist International should announce that it does not consider it possible to receive these parties immediately; that it confirms the answer of the Executive Committee of the Third International to the German Independents; that it confirms its readiness to carry on negotiations with any party leaving the Second International and desiring to join the Third; that it reserves the right of a consultative vote to the delegates of such parties at all its Congresses and Conferences, and that it proposes the following conditions for a complete union of these (and similar) parties with the Communist International:
1. The publishing of all the resolutions passed by all the Congresses of the Communist International and by the Executive Committee, in all the periodical publications of the Party.
2. Their discussion at the special meetings of all sections and local organisations of the Party.
3. The convocation, after such a discussion, of a special Congress of the Party to draw up a balance sheet. Such a Congress is to be called together as soon as possible within a period of four months at the most, following the Second Congress.
4. Purging from the Party of all elements who continue to act in the spirit of the Second International.
5. The transfer of all periodical papers of the Party into the hands of communist editors.
6. Those parties which now wish to join the Third International, but which have not yet radically changed their old tactics, must above all take care that two-thirds of their Central Committee and of their chief central institutions consist of such comrades as have publicly spoken out in favour of affiliation to the Third International before the Second Congress. Exceptions can be made only with the sanction of the Executive Committee of the Communist International. The EC also reserves the right of making exceptions with regard to the representatives of the ‘centrist’ tendency mentioned in paragraph 7.
7. Members of the Party who repudiate the conditions and theses adopted by the Communist International must be excluded from the Party. The same applies to delegates of special congresses.
The Second Congress of the Third International charges its Executive Committee to admit the above-named and similar parties into the Third International after a preliminary verification that all these conditions have been fulfilled, and that the nature of the activity of the party has become communist.
16. In regard to the question as to what must be the line of conduct of the Communists (at present constituting the minority) in the responsible posts of the above-named and similar parties, the Second Congress of the Third International has decided that, in view of the rapid development and the revolutionary spirit of the masses, it would be undesirable for the Communists to leave these parties so long as they are able to carry on their work within the parties in the spirit of recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the criticism of all opportunists and ‘centrists’ still remaining in these parties.
When the left wing of the centre party becomes sufficiently strong it can – provided it considers it beneficial for the development of Communism – leave the party in a body and inaugurate a Communist Party.
At the same time, the Second Congress of the Third International must declare itself in favour of the Communist Party, and the groups and organisations sympathising with Communism in England, joining the Labour Party, although this party is a member of the Second International. The reason for this is that so long as this party will allow all constituent organisations their present freedom of criticism and freedom of propaganda, and organisational activity in favour of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the power of Soviets, so long as this party preserves its character as an alliance of all the trade union organisations of the working class, the Communists ought to take all measures, and even consent to certain compromises, in order to be able to exercise an influence over the wider circles of workers and the masses, to denounce their opportunist leaders from a higher platform visible to the masses, to accelerate the transfer of political power from the direct representatives of the bourgeoisie to the ‘labour lieutenants of the capitalist class,’ so that the masses may be more rapidly cured of all illusions on this subject.
17. In regard to the Italian Socialist Party, the Second Congress of the Communist International recognises that the revision of the programme undertaken by this Party at its Congress at Bologna last year represents a very important stage in the transformation to Communism and that the proposals made to the National Council of the Party by the Turin Section and published in the magazine Ordine Nuovo of May 8, 1920 all correspond with the fundamental principles of Communism.
The Congress asks the Italian Socialist Party to examine at its next Congress, which will take place in accordance with its own statutes and the general conditions of entry into the Communist International, the proposals that have been made and all the decisions of the Second Congress of the Communist International, especially with regard to the parliamentary faction, the trades unions and the non-communist elements in the Party.
18. The Second Congress of the Third International considers as not correct the views regarding the relations of the Party to the class and to the masses, and the non-participation of the Communist Parties in bourgeois parliaments and reactionary unions (which have been emphatically repudiated in the special resolutions of the present Congress), which are defended in full by the KAPD and also partially by the ‘Communist Party of Switzerland’, by the organ of the East European secretariat of the Communist International Kommunismus in Vienna, and by several of our Dutch comrades; also by certain Communist organisations in England, as for instance the Workers’ Socialist Federation, and by the IWW in America, the Shop Stewards’ Committees in England, etc.
Nevertheless the Second Congress of the Third International considers possible and desirable the immediate affiliation of such of these organisations which have not already done so officially, because, in all these cases, especially in the cases of the IWW of America and Australia, and the Shop Stewards’ Committees of England, we have to deal with a genuine proletarian mass movement, which practically adheres to the principles of the Communist International. In such organisations any mistaken views on the question of participation in the bourgeois parliaments, are to be explained not so much by the presence of members of the bourgeoisie advocating their own petty bourgeois views, as the views of the anarchists frequently are, but by the political inexperience of proletarians who are, nevertheless, completely revolutionary and in contact with the masses.
The Second Congress of the Communist International requests therefore all the Communist organisations and groups in the Anglo-Saxon countries, even in case immediate union between the Third International and the Industrial Workers of the World and the Shop Stewards’ Committees does not take place, to carry on a policy of the most friendly attitude toward these organisations, and the masses sympathising with them, to explain to them in a friendly way, from the point of view of all revolutions and the three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century especially, the erroneousness of their above-stated views, and not to desist from repeated attempts to become united with these organisations so as to form one Communist Party.
19. In connection with this the Congress draws the attention of all comrades, especially in the Latin and Anglo-Saxon countries, to the fact that among the Anarchists since the war all over the world a deep theoretical division is taking place upon the question of their attitude towards the dictatorship of the proletariat and the power of the Soviets. And it is just among the proletarian elements, which were frequently led into anarchism by their perfectly justified hatred of the opportunism and reformism of the parties of the Second International, that there is to be noticed a perfectly correct understanding of these principles, especially among those who are more nearly acquainted with the experience of Russia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Germany.
The Congress considers it the duty of all comrades to support with all their strength all the masses of proletarian elements passing from anarchism to the Third International. The Congress points out that the success of the work of truly Communist Parties ought to be measured, among other things, by how far they have been able to attract to their party all the mass proletarian elements from anarchism to their side.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
On The Congressional Anti-War Front- From UJP-Congress Votes 321 to 93 to Continue Afghanistan War
Markin comment:
At this rate of Congressional understanding on the No to the war budget question the Afghan war should be defunded by the Greek calends. Remember that when you think, even for one minute, a minute of weakness to be sure, that anything but fighting the anti-war struggle any place but in the streets, the workplace and the classroom is going to bring this liberal president's damn war to an end.
*****
Congress Votes 321 to 93 to Continue Afghanistan War
Submitted by ujpadmin1 on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:16pm.
March 17 - Rep. Dennis Kucinich won 93 votes today for a measure to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, while 321 representatives voted to continue the war. The 93 who voted yes was an increase from 65 for a similar measure a year ago.
Nine of ten Massachusetts House members voted for the Kucinich resolution. Only Rep. Lynch, who represents the district that stretches from Boston through Needham to Brockton, voted no.
Only nine Republicans voted yes (up from five last year), but CBS News reported that "the discussion over major points of contention today -- such whether the cost of the war is worth it, or whether it's necessary for U.S. security -- took place largely between Republicans in favor of the war and the growing GOP contingent questioning operations in Afghanistan."
At this rate of Congressional understanding on the No to the war budget question the Afghan war should be defunded by the Greek calends. Remember that when you think, even for one minute, a minute of weakness to be sure, that anything but fighting the anti-war struggle any place but in the streets, the workplace and the classroom is going to bring this liberal president's damn war to an end.
*****
Congress Votes 321 to 93 to Continue Afghanistan War
Submitted by ujpadmin1 on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:16pm.
March 17 - Rep. Dennis Kucinich won 93 votes today for a measure to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, while 321 representatives voted to continue the war. The 93 who voted yes was an increase from 65 for a similar measure a year ago.
Nine of ten Massachusetts House members voted for the Kucinich resolution. Only Rep. Lynch, who represents the district that stretches from Boston through Needham to Brockton, voted no.
Only nine Republicans voted yes (up from five last year), but CBS News reported that "the discussion over major points of contention today -- such whether the cost of the war is worth it, or whether it's necessary for U.S. security -- took place largely between Republicans in favor of the war and the growing GOP contingent questioning operations in Afghanistan."
Lies, Damn Lies, and Humanitarian Intervention - by Stephen Lendman
Lies, Damn Lies, and Humanitarian Intervention
by Stephen Lendman
Email: lendmanstephen (nospam) sbcglobal.net (verified) 22 Mar 2011
naked aggression
Lies, Damn Lies, and Humanitarian Intervention - by Stephen Lendman
Masquerading as "humanitarian intervention," Washington launched full-force barbarism on six million Libyans, all endangered by America's latest intervention. More on how below.
Beginning March 19, it was visible. However, months of planning preceded it, including US and UK special forces and intelligence operatives on the ground enlisting, inciting, funding, arming and supporting violent insurrection to oust Gaddafi and replace him with a Washington-controlled puppet like in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The scrip is familiar, playing out now in Libya - full-scale "imperial barbarism," a term James Petras used in a September 2010 article titled, "Imperialism and Imperial Barbarism," saying:
"The organizing principle of imperial barbarism is the idea of total war," including:
-- use of mass destruction weapons, unleashed on Libya as explained below;
-- targeting the entire country and society; and
-- dismantling "the entire civil and military apparatus of the state," replacing it with "colonial officials, paid mercenaries and unscrupulous and corrupt satraps" - puppets, figures As'ad AbuKhalil calls "useful idiots."
Moreover, as Petras explains:
"The entire modern professional class is targeted (and) replaced by retrograde religious-ethnic clans and gangs, susceptible to bribes and booty-shares. All existing modern civil society organizations are pulverized and replaced by crony-plunderers linked to the colonial regime. The entire economy is" disrupted by "shock and awe" bombings and ground attacks, affecting essential civilian infrastructure on the pretext of destroying military and "dual use" targets.
As a result, mass casualties follow, many post-conflict from disease, homelessness, starvation, depravation, and environmental contamination. All wars are ugly, especially modern ones Washington wages, unleashing full force human and overall destruction, mostly affecting noncombatant men, women and children - imperialism's hidden victims.
Already, unknown hundreds of Libyans have been killed, wounded, or disabled, besides countless numbers affected overall. Expect much worse ahead, including violent, US-backed proxy insurgence, perhaps later joined by Pentagon troops if current air and ground attacks don't accomplish "Operation Odyssey Dawn's" objectives.
UN Resolution 1973
Claiming authority under the UN Charter's Article VII, it, in fact, violates Article 51, stating:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Effectively, UN Resolution 1973 authorized war, not peace. Moreover, it denied a sitting government, despotic or otherwise, the right of self-defense. A Western-backed insurgency initiated attacks, permitting a head of state to respond.
Further, the UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion are justified. None exist in Libya.
In addition, Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes, not "shock and awe" attacks. Article 2(4), in fact, prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.
Further, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council - that may not violate its own Charter. In fact, Washington bullied enough members to do so, planning naked aggression in response.
Ostensibly to protect civilians, Resolution 1973's paragraph 4 authorized Member States "to take all necessary measures...." As a result, a giant interventionist loophole was created they knew Washington would exploit.
Under paragraph 6, moreover, "establish(ing) a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians," in fact, harms them by US "shock and awe" attacks.
Further, paragraph 7's authorization for "flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian" denies them because Pentagon-controlled airspace will destroy any encountered Libyan aircraft, claiming it hostile, not delivering food, medical or other essential supplies or personnel.
In addition, supplying insurgents with weapons and munitions violates paragraph 13, "Call(ing) upon Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from" Libya.
In fact, besides covertly supplying its own weapons, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps other regional and/or NATO countries are arming insurgents, at the behest of Washington - violating Resolution 1973.
As a result, Libyans are at the mercy of US imperial aggression, disdaining all international laws, principles and standards. At war, Washington causes mass casualties and destruction. Now begun, expect much more ahead.
In addition, "coalition" participation is fig leaf cover for US aggression. AFRICOM's General Carter Ham has full command authority, directing UK, French and other belligerent partners, besides America's full air, sea and ground might.
Expect protracted conflict, perhaps "boots on the ground," putting a lie to Obama's promise for "humanitarian intervention" to end in "a matter of days, not weeks." Already, insurgency has been ongoing for weeks, perhaps months covertly, the worst yet to come, but already conditions are bad. They always are when Washington arrives.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Used
Since the 1991 Gulf War, Washington used nuclear weapons covertly - in depleted uranium (DU) form. Contaminating exposure is deadly. All US missiles, bombs, and shells have solid DU projectiles or warheads in them. Even bullets because in all forms, DU-tipped munitions easily penetrate armor, irradiating air, ground and water when used. DU, in fact, painfully kills from later contracted illnesses and diseases, including cancer and many others.
When weaponized DU strikes, it penetrates deeply, aerosolizing into a fine spray which then contaminates wide areas. Moreover, its residue is permanent. Its microscopic/submicroscopic particles remain suspended in air or swept into it from contaminated soil.
Atmospheric winds then carry it far distances as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, falling indiscriminately to earth and water. Virtually every known illness and disease may result from severe headaches, muscle pain and general fatigue, to major birth defects, infection, depression, cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer and brain tumors. As a result, permanent disability or death may follow.
Moreover, DU use is illegal under international law. Although no specific convention or treaty bans radioactive weapons, including DU, they're, in fact, illegal de facto and de jure under the Hague Convention of 1907, prohibiting use of any "poison or poisoned weapons."
In all forms, DU is radioactive and chemically toxic, thus fitting the definition of poisonous weapons Hague banned. America is a signatory. As a result, DU weapons use for any purpose violates international law. Moreover, all DU weapons meet the U.S. federal code WMD definition in 2 out of 3 categories:
The US CODE, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40, SECTION 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as follows:
"The term 'weapon of mass destruction' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or radioactivity."
As a result, commanders up the chain of command, including civilian ones to the highest level, authorizing DU weapons use for any purpose are war criminals.
Moreover, under various UN Conventions and Covenants, weapons causing post-battle environmental or human harm are banned. Nonetheless, Washington uses them indiscriminately, including DU. As a result, millions of Iraqi, Serbian/Kosovar, and Afghan nationals, as well as belligerent US troops have been gravely harmed, yet Pentagon and administration authorities deny all responsibility.
Libyans will now be victimized by DU poisoning. Wherever it strikes and spreads, it's unforgiving, disabling and deadly. If enough is used, a future cancer epidemic will follow, too late to help those harmed.
Helen Caldicott calls radiation a "Destroyer of Worlds," doing it by killing people silently, painfully, illegally, and at times genocidally.
In 2005, before his death, no wonder Nobel laureate Harold Pinter condemned US aggression saying:
"(T)he United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious......It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant."
Under Bush, Obama or anyone else, it does what it pleases - the law, human welfare, and environmental considerations be damned.
A Final Comment
On March 21, Reuters said missile and air attacks on Libya continue. The New York Times headlined, "Allies Target Qaddafi's Ground Forces, but Resistance Continues (unconfirmed) Reports Say." The Washington Post said, "Libyan rebels launch offensive; coalition pounds Gaddafi forces," that may be observing a ceasefire. Al Jazeera reported "Rejoicing in Libya's Benghazi," continuing its biased war reporting, siding with anti-Gaddafi forces.
In contrast, independent web sites, analysts, and on-air programming offer detailed, truthful information, including the Progressive Radio News Hour this writer hosts on the Progressive Radio Network.com, featuring distinguished guests, dominant media sources spurn.
Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is one of many reliable sources. On March 20, his Global Research.ca article headlined, "BREAKING NEWS: Libyan Sources Report Italian POWs Captured. Additional Coalition Jets Downed. Qatar has joined the War," saying:
-- unconfirmed "(i)nternal Libyan sources reported....the capture of an Italian vessel and military personnel, who were detained;"
-- Gaddafi's government "started supplying (Libyans) with food rations, medicine, and weapons to defend themselves;"
-- unconfirmed "Libyan sources reported" downing two more "coalition" jets, "identified as Qatari military planes;" and
-- unconfirmed Libyan sources claim five "coalition" jets downed, three attacking Tripoli, two others over Sirt.
March 21 marks day three of a protracted conflict. It's certain to cause widespread deaths, injuries, disabilities and destruction. It's assured when America arrives - on cruise missiles, bombs and shells, not white horses promoting peace and democratic values, what all US administrations disdain.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
See also:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com
by Stephen Lendman
Email: lendmanstephen (nospam) sbcglobal.net (verified) 22 Mar 2011
naked aggression
Lies, Damn Lies, and Humanitarian Intervention - by Stephen Lendman
Masquerading as "humanitarian intervention," Washington launched full-force barbarism on six million Libyans, all endangered by America's latest intervention. More on how below.
Beginning March 19, it was visible. However, months of planning preceded it, including US and UK special forces and intelligence operatives on the ground enlisting, inciting, funding, arming and supporting violent insurrection to oust Gaddafi and replace him with a Washington-controlled puppet like in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The scrip is familiar, playing out now in Libya - full-scale "imperial barbarism," a term James Petras used in a September 2010 article titled, "Imperialism and Imperial Barbarism," saying:
"The organizing principle of imperial barbarism is the idea of total war," including:
-- use of mass destruction weapons, unleashed on Libya as explained below;
-- targeting the entire country and society; and
-- dismantling "the entire civil and military apparatus of the state," replacing it with "colonial officials, paid mercenaries and unscrupulous and corrupt satraps" - puppets, figures As'ad AbuKhalil calls "useful idiots."
Moreover, as Petras explains:
"The entire modern professional class is targeted (and) replaced by retrograde religious-ethnic clans and gangs, susceptible to bribes and booty-shares. All existing modern civil society organizations are pulverized and replaced by crony-plunderers linked to the colonial regime. The entire economy is" disrupted by "shock and awe" bombings and ground attacks, affecting essential civilian infrastructure on the pretext of destroying military and "dual use" targets.
As a result, mass casualties follow, many post-conflict from disease, homelessness, starvation, depravation, and environmental contamination. All wars are ugly, especially modern ones Washington wages, unleashing full force human and overall destruction, mostly affecting noncombatant men, women and children - imperialism's hidden victims.
Already, unknown hundreds of Libyans have been killed, wounded, or disabled, besides countless numbers affected overall. Expect much worse ahead, including violent, US-backed proxy insurgence, perhaps later joined by Pentagon troops if current air and ground attacks don't accomplish "Operation Odyssey Dawn's" objectives.
UN Resolution 1973
Claiming authority under the UN Charter's Article VII, it, in fact, violates Article 51, stating:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Effectively, UN Resolution 1973 authorized war, not peace. Moreover, it denied a sitting government, despotic or otherwise, the right of self-defense. A Western-backed insurgency initiated attacks, permitting a head of state to respond.
Further, the UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion are justified. None exist in Libya.
In addition, Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes, not "shock and awe" attacks. Article 2(4), in fact, prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war.
Further, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council - that may not violate its own Charter. In fact, Washington bullied enough members to do so, planning naked aggression in response.
Ostensibly to protect civilians, Resolution 1973's paragraph 4 authorized Member States "to take all necessary measures...." As a result, a giant interventionist loophole was created they knew Washington would exploit.
Under paragraph 6, moreover, "establish(ing) a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians," in fact, harms them by US "shock and awe" attacks.
Further, paragraph 7's authorization for "flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian" denies them because Pentagon-controlled airspace will destroy any encountered Libyan aircraft, claiming it hostile, not delivering food, medical or other essential supplies or personnel.
In addition, supplying insurgents with weapons and munitions violates paragraph 13, "Call(ing) upon Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from" Libya.
In fact, besides covertly supplying its own weapons, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps other regional and/or NATO countries are arming insurgents, at the behest of Washington - violating Resolution 1973.
As a result, Libyans are at the mercy of US imperial aggression, disdaining all international laws, principles and standards. At war, Washington causes mass casualties and destruction. Now begun, expect much more ahead.
In addition, "coalition" participation is fig leaf cover for US aggression. AFRICOM's General Carter Ham has full command authority, directing UK, French and other belligerent partners, besides America's full air, sea and ground might.
Expect protracted conflict, perhaps "boots on the ground," putting a lie to Obama's promise for "humanitarian intervention" to end in "a matter of days, not weeks." Already, insurgency has been ongoing for weeks, perhaps months covertly, the worst yet to come, but already conditions are bad. They always are when Washington arrives.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Used
Since the 1991 Gulf War, Washington used nuclear weapons covertly - in depleted uranium (DU) form. Contaminating exposure is deadly. All US missiles, bombs, and shells have solid DU projectiles or warheads in them. Even bullets because in all forms, DU-tipped munitions easily penetrate armor, irradiating air, ground and water when used. DU, in fact, painfully kills from later contracted illnesses and diseases, including cancer and many others.
When weaponized DU strikes, it penetrates deeply, aerosolizing into a fine spray which then contaminates wide areas. Moreover, its residue is permanent. Its microscopic/submicroscopic particles remain suspended in air or swept into it from contaminated soil.
Atmospheric winds then carry it far distances as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, falling indiscriminately to earth and water. Virtually every known illness and disease may result from severe headaches, muscle pain and general fatigue, to major birth defects, infection, depression, cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer and brain tumors. As a result, permanent disability or death may follow.
Moreover, DU use is illegal under international law. Although no specific convention or treaty bans radioactive weapons, including DU, they're, in fact, illegal de facto and de jure under the Hague Convention of 1907, prohibiting use of any "poison or poisoned weapons."
In all forms, DU is radioactive and chemically toxic, thus fitting the definition of poisonous weapons Hague banned. America is a signatory. As a result, DU weapons use for any purpose violates international law. Moreover, all DU weapons meet the U.S. federal code WMD definition in 2 out of 3 categories:
The US CODE, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40, SECTION 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as follows:
"The term 'weapon of mass destruction' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or radioactivity."
As a result, commanders up the chain of command, including civilian ones to the highest level, authorizing DU weapons use for any purpose are war criminals.
Moreover, under various UN Conventions and Covenants, weapons causing post-battle environmental or human harm are banned. Nonetheless, Washington uses them indiscriminately, including DU. As a result, millions of Iraqi, Serbian/Kosovar, and Afghan nationals, as well as belligerent US troops have been gravely harmed, yet Pentagon and administration authorities deny all responsibility.
Libyans will now be victimized by DU poisoning. Wherever it strikes and spreads, it's unforgiving, disabling and deadly. If enough is used, a future cancer epidemic will follow, too late to help those harmed.
Helen Caldicott calls radiation a "Destroyer of Worlds," doing it by killing people silently, painfully, illegally, and at times genocidally.
In 2005, before his death, no wonder Nobel laureate Harold Pinter condemned US aggression saying:
"(T)he United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious......It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant."
Under Bush, Obama or anyone else, it does what it pleases - the law, human welfare, and environmental considerations be damned.
A Final Comment
On March 21, Reuters said missile and air attacks on Libya continue. The New York Times headlined, "Allies Target Qaddafi's Ground Forces, but Resistance Continues (unconfirmed) Reports Say." The Washington Post said, "Libyan rebels launch offensive; coalition pounds Gaddafi forces," that may be observing a ceasefire. Al Jazeera reported "Rejoicing in Libya's Benghazi," continuing its biased war reporting, siding with anti-Gaddafi forces.
In contrast, independent web sites, analysts, and on-air programming offer detailed, truthful information, including the Progressive Radio News Hour this writer hosts on the Progressive Radio Network.com, featuring distinguished guests, dominant media sources spurn.
Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is one of many reliable sources. On March 20, his Global Research.ca article headlined, "BREAKING NEWS: Libyan Sources Report Italian POWs Captured. Additional Coalition Jets Downed. Qatar has joined the War," saying:
-- unconfirmed "(i)nternal Libyan sources reported....the capture of an Italian vessel and military personnel, who were detained;"
-- Gaddafi's government "started supplying (Libyans) with food rations, medicine, and weapons to defend themselves;"
-- unconfirmed "Libyan sources reported" downing two more "coalition" jets, "identified as Qatari military planes;" and
-- unconfirmed Libyan sources claim five "coalition" jets downed, three attacking Tripoli, two others over Sirt.
March 21 marks day three of a protracted conflict. It's certain to cause widespread deaths, injuries, disabilities and destruction. It's assured when America arrives - on cruise missiles, bombs and shells, not white horses promoting peace and democratic values, what all US administrations disdain.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
See also:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com
Monday, March 21, 2011
Statement of the International Executive Committee of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)-Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack!
Markin comment
Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack! Down With The U.S.-Led Imperialist Coalition!
20 March 2011
Statement of the International Executive Committee of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)
Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack!
The International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) calls on workers around the world to take a stand for military defense of semicolonial Libya against the attack begun yesterday by a coalition of rapacious imperialist governments. The French, British and U.S. rulers, in league with other imperialist governments and with the blessings of the sheiks, kings and military bonapartists of the Arab League, wasted not a moment in acting on the green light given by the United Nations Security Council on Thursday to slaughter countless innocent people in the name of “protecting civilians” and ensuring “democracy.” French air strikes were quickly followed by U.S. and British missile attacks, while Egypt’s military regime is providing arms to the Benghazi opposition forces. From Indochina and the Korean peninsula to the U.S.-led occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan today, the “democratic” imperialist rulers wade in the blood of millions upon millions of their victims. Recall that Britain and France historically carried out untold massacres in the Near East, Africa and the Indian subcontinent in order to pursue their colonial subjugation of those areas. Recall that Italy, now providing the use of its air bases for the attack, is responsible for the deaths of up to half the population of Cyrenaica in eastern Libya during its colonial rule prior to World War II.
Prior to the current attack, the conflict in Libya had taken the form of a low-intensity civil war, heavily overlaid by tribal and regional divisions, between the Tripoli-centered government of strongman Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi and imperialist-backed opposition forces concentrated in the country’s eastern areas. Workers Vanguard No. 976 (18 March), newspaper of the U.S. section of the ICL, noted that “Marxists presently have no side in this conflict.” But as the article continued: “In the event of imperialist attack against neocolonial Libya, the proletariat internationally must stand for the military defense of that country while giving no political support to Qaddafi’s capitalist regime.” The civil war in Libya has now been subordinated to the fight of a neocolonial country against imperialism. Every step taken by the workers of the imperialist countries to halt the depredations and military adventures of their rulers is a step toward their own liberation from capitalist exploitation, impoverishment and oppression. Defend Libya against imperialist attack! U.S. Fifth Fleet and all imperialist military bases and troops out of North Africa and the Near East!
Recall that the slaughter of well over a million people in Iraq began with the imposition of a UN-sponsored starvation embargo and a “no fly zone” in the 1990s. The latest action by the Security Council, including the neo-apartheid South African regime led by the African National Congress, underscores yet again the character of the United Nations as a den of imperialist thieves and their lackeys and semicolonial victims. The abstention by the representative of China, a bureaucratically deformed workers state, gave tacit approval to imperialist depredation, emboldening the very forces which seek to overturn the 1949 Chinese Revolution.
The crocodile tears shed by the imperialist rulers and their media mouthpieces over the Libyans killed by the Qaddafi regime during the recent wave of protests stands in sharp contrast to their muted response to the continuing massacre of protesters in Yemen—whose dictatorship is a key component of Washington’s “war on terror”—and their ongoing support to the Bahraini kingdom, which hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. To aid in crushing mass protests, Bahrain last week invited in troops from the medievalist and theocratic Saudi monarchy, a key bulwark of U.S. imperialist interests in the region. In the eyes of the imperialist rulers, Bahrain’s Shi’ite majority and the Yemeni masses are less than human, with no rights they are bound to respect.
Numerous social-democratic leftists, typified by the United Secretariat (USec) and the British Cliffite Socialist Workers Party, have done their part to prepare the ground for imperialist massacres in Libya by cheering on the so-called “Libyan Revolution.” Having urged support for the cabal of pro-imperialist “democrats,” CIA stooges, monarchists and Islamists that comprise the Benghazi-based opposition, these reformists now feign to balk at imperialist military intervention in support of the opposition. The New Anti-Capitalist Party, constituted in 2009 by the USec’s French section, signed a call for a demonstration yesterday demanding that the Benghazi outfit be recognized as “the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people”—which French ruler Sarkozy had already done! At the same time, those left groups that have promoted illusions in Qaddafi’s “anti-imperialist” pretensions—such as the Workers World Party in the U.S.—seek everywhere and at all times to chain the working class to a mythical “progressive” wing of the bourgeoisie.
We pledge today, as we did at the time of the U.S. Reagan administration’s bombing of Libya in 1986, to “undertake every effort to propagandize the need for the world working class to take the side of Libya” against its imperialist enemies (“Under Reagan’s Guns in Libya,” WV No. 401, 11 April 1986). In the pursuit of profit and domination, the same capitalist ruling classes that brutally exploit the working class “at home,” only to throw workers on the scrap heap during periods of economic crisis, as today, carry out murderous imperialist attacks abroad. The struggle against imperialist war cannot be conducted separately and apart from the class struggle. Only socialist revolution can overthrow the system of capitalist imperialism which breeds war. Our path is that of the October Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky, which was a beacon of revolutionary internationalism for the proletariat everywhere. We struggle to reforge the Fourth International as an instrument that can lead the working masses, from the Near East to the imperialist centers, forward to new October Revolutions and a world socialist society.
—20 March 2011
Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack! Down With The U.S.-Led Imperialist Coalition!
20 March 2011
Statement of the International Executive Committee of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)
Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack!
The International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist) calls on workers around the world to take a stand for military defense of semicolonial Libya against the attack begun yesterday by a coalition of rapacious imperialist governments. The French, British and U.S. rulers, in league with other imperialist governments and with the blessings of the sheiks, kings and military bonapartists of the Arab League, wasted not a moment in acting on the green light given by the United Nations Security Council on Thursday to slaughter countless innocent people in the name of “protecting civilians” and ensuring “democracy.” French air strikes were quickly followed by U.S. and British missile attacks, while Egypt’s military regime is providing arms to the Benghazi opposition forces. From Indochina and the Korean peninsula to the U.S.-led occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan today, the “democratic” imperialist rulers wade in the blood of millions upon millions of their victims. Recall that Britain and France historically carried out untold massacres in the Near East, Africa and the Indian subcontinent in order to pursue their colonial subjugation of those areas. Recall that Italy, now providing the use of its air bases for the attack, is responsible for the deaths of up to half the population of Cyrenaica in eastern Libya during its colonial rule prior to World War II.
Prior to the current attack, the conflict in Libya had taken the form of a low-intensity civil war, heavily overlaid by tribal and regional divisions, between the Tripoli-centered government of strongman Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi and imperialist-backed opposition forces concentrated in the country’s eastern areas. Workers Vanguard No. 976 (18 March), newspaper of the U.S. section of the ICL, noted that “Marxists presently have no side in this conflict.” But as the article continued: “In the event of imperialist attack against neocolonial Libya, the proletariat internationally must stand for the military defense of that country while giving no political support to Qaddafi’s capitalist regime.” The civil war in Libya has now been subordinated to the fight of a neocolonial country against imperialism. Every step taken by the workers of the imperialist countries to halt the depredations and military adventures of their rulers is a step toward their own liberation from capitalist exploitation, impoverishment and oppression. Defend Libya against imperialist attack! U.S. Fifth Fleet and all imperialist military bases and troops out of North Africa and the Near East!
Recall that the slaughter of well over a million people in Iraq began with the imposition of a UN-sponsored starvation embargo and a “no fly zone” in the 1990s. The latest action by the Security Council, including the neo-apartheid South African regime led by the African National Congress, underscores yet again the character of the United Nations as a den of imperialist thieves and their lackeys and semicolonial victims. The abstention by the representative of China, a bureaucratically deformed workers state, gave tacit approval to imperialist depredation, emboldening the very forces which seek to overturn the 1949 Chinese Revolution.
The crocodile tears shed by the imperialist rulers and their media mouthpieces over the Libyans killed by the Qaddafi regime during the recent wave of protests stands in sharp contrast to their muted response to the continuing massacre of protesters in Yemen—whose dictatorship is a key component of Washington’s “war on terror”—and their ongoing support to the Bahraini kingdom, which hosts the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. To aid in crushing mass protests, Bahrain last week invited in troops from the medievalist and theocratic Saudi monarchy, a key bulwark of U.S. imperialist interests in the region. In the eyes of the imperialist rulers, Bahrain’s Shi’ite majority and the Yemeni masses are less than human, with no rights they are bound to respect.
Numerous social-democratic leftists, typified by the United Secretariat (USec) and the British Cliffite Socialist Workers Party, have done their part to prepare the ground for imperialist massacres in Libya by cheering on the so-called “Libyan Revolution.” Having urged support for the cabal of pro-imperialist “democrats,” CIA stooges, monarchists and Islamists that comprise the Benghazi-based opposition, these reformists now feign to balk at imperialist military intervention in support of the opposition. The New Anti-Capitalist Party, constituted in 2009 by the USec’s French section, signed a call for a demonstration yesterday demanding that the Benghazi outfit be recognized as “the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people”—which French ruler Sarkozy had already done! At the same time, those left groups that have promoted illusions in Qaddafi’s “anti-imperialist” pretensions—such as the Workers World Party in the U.S.—seek everywhere and at all times to chain the working class to a mythical “progressive” wing of the bourgeoisie.
We pledge today, as we did at the time of the U.S. Reagan administration’s bombing of Libya in 1986, to “undertake every effort to propagandize the need for the world working class to take the side of Libya” against its imperialist enemies (“Under Reagan’s Guns in Libya,” WV No. 401, 11 April 1986). In the pursuit of profit and domination, the same capitalist ruling classes that brutally exploit the working class “at home,” only to throw workers on the scrap heap during periods of economic crisis, as today, carry out murderous imperialist attacks abroad. The struggle against imperialist war cannot be conducted separately and apart from the class struggle. Only socialist revolution can overthrow the system of capitalist imperialism which breeds war. Our path is that of the October Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Trotsky, which was a beacon of revolutionary internationalism for the proletariat everywhere. We struggle to reforge the Fourth International as an instrument that can lead the working masses, from the Near East to the imperialist centers, forward to new October Revolutions and a world socialist society.
—20 March 2011
Imperial War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman-Guest Commentary
Markin comment
Hands Off Libya! Down With The U.S.-Led Imperialist Coalition!
Imperial War on Libya
by Stephen Lendman
Email: lendmanstephen (nospam) sbcglobal.net (verified) 21 Mar 2011
naked aggression
Imperial War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a White House Office of the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:
"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to (attack) Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," he, in fact, doesn't give a damn about. "That action has now begun," he added, claiming military action was a last resort.
In fact, it was long-planned. All military interventions require months of preparation, including target selections, strategy, enlisting political and public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict plans.
Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya, enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western aggression for imperial control. More on it below.
A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces Press Service release announced America's led "Operation Odyssey Dawn," saying:
"Coalition (of the willing) forces launched "Operation Odyssey Dawn" today to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country's ruler....Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people."
False! In fact, Washington-led naked aggression was launched to replace one despot with another, perhaps assassinate Gaddafi, his sons and top officials, colonize Libya, control its oil, gas and other resources, exploit its people, private state industries under Western (mainly US) control, establish new Pentagon bases, use them for greater regional dominance, perhaps balkanize the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq, and prevent any democratic spark from emerging.
According to DODspeak, Libya is being attacked, its people killed, civilian targets destroyed, and a humanitarian disaster created to save it. In other words, "destroying the village to save it" on a nationwide scale like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, and Korea in the 1950s since WW II alone. Besides numerous proxy wars in Central America, Africa and elsewhere. Wherever America shows up, blood spills followed by horrific human suffering, what Libyans can now expect.
Military and government targets include:
-- command-and-control centers;
-- air defense systems;
-- Gaddafi, his sons and senior officials;
-- communications systems;
-- government buildings and other facilities; and
-- military air fields, tanks, artillery, other weapons, munitions, fuel depots, mobile and other targets.
About 25 US, UK, French, Canadian and Italian ships are involved, 11 from America, including three nuclear submarines. The Pentagon is providing command, control and logistics support. Air and surface-launched munitions are being used, including against Tripoli, the capital and Gaddafi stronghold.
Moreover, invasion and perhaps occupation may follow, despite official denials.
Either way, widespread death and destruction is likely. Surgical war is an oxymoron. Expect considerable "collateral damage," the Orwellian designation for war crimes against noncombatants and civilian targets.
In his 1992 book titled, "Beyond Hypocrisy," Edward Herman referred to "nuclear chicken analysis," defining "collateral casualties" as "civilians killed as a regrettable 'spillover effect' of a nuclear attack on a military target' more generally, allegedly unintended casualties" of any type attack.
In other words, "inadvertent and tragic errors" that, in fact, constitute wanton murder and destruction of schools, hospitals, vital infrastructure and other non-military targets.
Pack Journalism Promotes War
A previous article explained how it enlists public support for imperial war, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/pack-journalism-promotes-war-on-li
Western media, including BBC and Al Jazeera incite it, no matter how lawless, mindless, destructive and counterproductive. Smell it. It arrived again because inflammatory journalism stoked reasons to attack. As a result, America, Britain and France primarily readied strikes. Ground and submarine-launced cruise missiles inflicted widespread destruction. In addition, French jets struck "targets of opportunity," preceded by exaggerated/unverified/inflammatory reports like the following:
On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Reports Say Attacks by Regime Against Rebels Continue," saying:
Unverified "(r)eports indicated that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces were continuing to press their attacks despite warnings that such moves would provoke military action."
On March 19, Financial Times writer Tobias Buck headlined, "Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi," saying:
Forces loyal to Gaddafi attacked "in violation of the regime's promise of a ceasefire."
Libyan state TV channel, Al Jamahiriya, reported it differently, saying "the people of Benghazi have risen up against the rebels and raised the flag of Libya over the government building in the middle of the city."
On March 19, New York Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:
"American, European and Arab leaders began the largest international intervention" since 2003 against Iraq, omitting the illegality of both aggressions.
On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrich and Elisabeth Musmiller headlined, "France Sends Military Flights Over Libya," saying:
Flying reconnaissance missions, it's "the first sign" of premeditated war, launching new hostilities against a war-torn region, without explanation why.
On March 19, Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:
Hostilities began to stop "Qaddafi's war on the Libyan opposition," after a no-fly zone was established.
As a result, war arrived preemptively. French President Sarkozy said it's to stop Gaddafi's "murderous madness," no matter that he responded to violence. He didn't instigate it. So would Sarkozy, Obama or any leader against armed insurrection.
Love or hate him, Gaddafi said:
"Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans. This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe. You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs."
Hours earlier, he pledged a ceasefire. Conflicting reports disagree if he honored it. Is he or Western intervention stoking violence? US media reports point fingers one way.
Washington, Britain, France, other NATO allies, and complicit Arab States back armed anti-Gaddafi insurrection. They're promoting it, inciting it, funding it, arming it, with clear imperial aims. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/washingtons-un-war-resolution-on-l
On March 19, ahead of intervention, Al Jazeera headlined, "Gaddafi forces encroaching on Benghazi," saying:
Gaddafi unleashed "a fresh act of defiance even as the United States and its allies prepared to launch military attacks on Libya."
Unverified "(r)eports from Libya say pro-government forces have entered the western outskirts of the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, with the city also coming under attack from the coast and the south."
Unnamed "(w)itnesses....said they heard large explosions....Government troops reportedly bombed the southern Benghazi suburb of Goreshi among other places."
No verification was given, except to quote Mustafa Abdel Jalil, opposition National Libyan Council leader. More on him below. Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley reported "a lot of jittery people...a lot of activity and a lot of firing going on."
In contrast, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told the BBC that "the ceasefire is real, credible and solid. We are willing to receive (international and NGO) observers as soon as possible." He insisted no air strikes were launched.
Hours later Al Jazeera headlined, "Airstrikes begin on Libya targets," saying:
"French warplanes hit four tanks....on a day when opposition fighters in (Benghazi) reported coming under constant artillery and mortar fire." Expect sustained strikes to follow.
Al Jazeera and other media reports don't explain that "opposition" officials from organizations like the National Libyan Council and National Front for the Salvation of Libya have close Western ties, pretending they're credible. More about them below.
Headquartered in Qatar, moreover, Al Jazeera noticeably abstains from criticizing its government, now part of Washington's anti-Gaddafi coalition-of-the-willing, complicit in illegal aggression.
On March 18, Obama stopped short of declaring war, announcing "all necessary measures" against Gaddafi without full compliance with UN Resolution terms, including an immediate ceasefire, withdrawing his forces, reestablishing essential services to all parts of the country, and letting in "humanitarian assistance," including foreign imperial forces opposed to his leadership.
In other words, impossible terms to accept to be followed by others likely demanding he step down, permit balkanization, predatory Western investment, US bases, and free exploitation of his resources and people. Imagine comparable demands made on America - non-negtiable to be followed by military action for non-compliance.
On March 18, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rogh Rasmussen signaled war, saying the alliance was "completing its planning to be ready to take appropriate action in support of the UN resolution as part of the broad international effort."
Launched the next day, the resources of another resource-rich Arab state will be divided among Western belligerents, to benefit Libyans, they claim.
On March 20, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Qaddafi Pledges 'Long War' as Allies Pursue Air Assault," saying:
"On Sunday, American (stealth) B-2 bombers were reported to have struck a major Libyan airfield," following initial attacks against Libya's air defense systems, "missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli," Misurata and Surt.
Reuters said "US fighter planes backed by electronic warfare aircraft" attacked Gaddafi's ground troops and air defenses. A Pentagon statement stated:
"US Navy Growlers provided electronic warfare support over Libya while AV-8B Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted strikes...."
Parliamentary secretary Muhammad Zweid said attacks "caused some real harm against civilians and buildings." According to an unnamed US official, Libya's air defenses are now "severely disabled."
As of Sunday morning, visible destruction also included 14 tanks, 20 armored personnel carriers, two or more trucks, rocket launchers, dozens of pick-ups, and exploding munitions. Ahead of cruise missile attacks, France initiated reconnaissance flights and aggression.
On March 19, Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's Global Research.ca article headlined, "Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed," saying:
Regime change-planned naked aggression was launched. "The war criminals are back at it again," Washington, of course, in the lead. On March 19, "sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic. These were civilian facilities."
Targets attacked included Al-Tajura and Saladin hospitals as well as a clinic near Tripoli, unrelated to military necessity, distant from combat areas. Moreover, civilian air facilities were struck as well as "all Libyan military bases" - air, naval and ground. In addition, "a vast naval blockade around Libya has now been imposed," America the lead belligerent.
Further, Libyan sources report "two French jets were also shot down....near Janzour" plus another "near Anjile." Washington and co-belligerents "are creating a real humanitarian disaster," waging war for peace, killing civilians to save them, and destroying Libya by "humanitarian intervention."
Moreover, Washington enlisted Egypt and Saudi Arabia to supply "opposition forces" with weapons, in violation of Resolution 1973 prohibiting any sent. Of course, international and US law forbid aggressive war, but that never deterred imperial America from preemptively attacking, invading, occupying and colonizing nations illegally, Libya its latest target.
Libya's So-Called "Opposition"
Included are the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, its officials with ties to the CIA and Saudi Arabia. Also, Muhammad as-Senussi, Libya's so-called heir to the Senussi Crown, concerned only for his own self-interest.
Central is the National Libyan Council (NLC), announced on February 26, established officially on March 5, led by former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, a Western-allied opportunist.
NLC is an umbrella group of local so-called opposition leaders headquartered in Benghazi. Bogusly, it claims to represent all Libyans. Abdel-Jalil calls it a "transitional government" ahead of future elections after Gaddafi is deposed.
At the same time, Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, a Benghazi lawyer, refuted his leadership, calling himself NLC's official spokesman. Both men, however, have similar aspirations, including controlling Libya by ousting Gaddafi.
As of now, Abdel-Jalil remains NLC's official head, Ghoga its spokesman, and Omar El-Hariri in charge of military operations. General Abdel Fattah Younis may be another key member, his status, however, not confirmed. In total, NLC has about 30 members. Most aren't named. Two known include, Mahmoud Jebril and Ali al-Essawi, former Libyan ambassador to India in charge of foreign affairs.
On March 5, Reuters headlined, "Rebel National Libya Council sets up (a three-member) crisis committee," saying:
In charge of military and foreign affairs, members include Omar El-Hariri, Ali al-Essawi, and Mahmoud Jebril as leader.
Western Hypocrisy - Denouncing Violence While Backing It
At Obama's behest, about 1,000 Saudi troops invaded Bahrain guns blazing, attacking peaceful protesters, arresting opposition leaders and activists, occupying the country, denying wounded men and women medical treatment, and imposing police state control in support of the hated monarchy.
Not an angry Western demand was heard to stop hostilities and leave. Nor against similar Egyptian army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily against Palestinians.
On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital, when security forces attacked thousands, demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down.
Ally turned bete noire Gaddafi was targeted for removal. In contrast, Saleh is supported because of Yemen's strategic location near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia's southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.
Instead of denouncing his brutality, Obama endorsed it, calling on "all sides (to pursue) a peaceful, orderly and democratic path to a stronger and more prosperous nation."
Friday's massacre was the bloodiest since resistance erupted in mid-February. Security forces and plainclothes police opened fire on demonstrators, shooting to kill, hitting some in the back of the head as they fled. Afterward, Saleh imposed a state of emergency and nationwide curfew.
Demonstrations, nonetheless, persist, Yemenese wanting his 32-year dictatorship ended. Achieving it, however, entails overcoming Washington's imperial grip on regional client states, all run by favored despots.
A Final Comment
On March 19, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry Arab.com headlined, "Bush Doctrine revised: Obama puts his stamp," saying:
"Western/Saudi/Qarari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent." Under Bush, ousting regimes for democracy "was a bloody farce...." Obama's model may be installing puppets "without having 'boots on the ground,' " but don't discount them. He expanded Bush's Afghan war, began his own in Pakistan as well as in Somalia, Yemen and Bahrain, backing favored despots besides the Saudi monarchy.
AbuKhalil calls NLC's Abdel-Jalil "a useful idiot." Moreover, "Western enthusiasm for (Libyan) intervention" was never properly explained beyond nonsensical platitudes about "humanitarian intervention" to protect civilians.
In contrast, "why (didn't) the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia....warrant" similar outrage, let alone Israel's Cast Lead, occupation and daily aggression against defenseless Palestinians.
Intervening militarily is Libya "is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers, (and) abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain (Yemen and Saudi Arabia) of today (are) the vision for Libya for tomorrow," Western-dominated, of course.
Will it work? Love or hate Gaddafi, Libyans know what Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians endure. Moreover, its society is fractious, divided by tribal loyalties, suspicious of Western intervention, and long-governed locally as well as nationally.
Against them is America's military might under leaders not shy about using it. As a result, Libyans are experiencing firsthand what's ahead under Western control, what makes Iraqis yearn for Saddam, almost saintly compared to Washington.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
See also:
Hands Off Libya! Down With The U.S.-Led Imperialist Coalition!
Imperial War on Libya
by Stephen Lendman
Email: lendmanstephen (nospam) sbcglobal.net (verified) 21 Mar 2011
naked aggression
Imperial War on Libya - by Stephen Lendman
On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a White House Office of the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:
"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to (attack) Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," he, in fact, doesn't give a damn about. "That action has now begun," he added, claiming military action was a last resort.
In fact, it was long-planned. All military interventions require months of preparation, including target selections, strategy, enlisting political and public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict plans.
Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya, enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western aggression for imperial control. More on it below.
A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces Press Service release announced America's led "Operation Odyssey Dawn," saying:
"Coalition (of the willing) forces launched "Operation Odyssey Dawn" today to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country's ruler....Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people."
False! In fact, Washington-led naked aggression was launched to replace one despot with another, perhaps assassinate Gaddafi, his sons and top officials, colonize Libya, control its oil, gas and other resources, exploit its people, private state industries under Western (mainly US) control, establish new Pentagon bases, use them for greater regional dominance, perhaps balkanize the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq, and prevent any democratic spark from emerging.
According to DODspeak, Libya is being attacked, its people killed, civilian targets destroyed, and a humanitarian disaster created to save it. In other words, "destroying the village to save it" on a nationwide scale like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, and Korea in the 1950s since WW II alone. Besides numerous proxy wars in Central America, Africa and elsewhere. Wherever America shows up, blood spills followed by horrific human suffering, what Libyans can now expect.
Military and government targets include:
-- command-and-control centers;
-- air defense systems;
-- Gaddafi, his sons and senior officials;
-- communications systems;
-- government buildings and other facilities; and
-- military air fields, tanks, artillery, other weapons, munitions, fuel depots, mobile and other targets.
About 25 US, UK, French, Canadian and Italian ships are involved, 11 from America, including three nuclear submarines. The Pentagon is providing command, control and logistics support. Air and surface-launched munitions are being used, including against Tripoli, the capital and Gaddafi stronghold.
Moreover, invasion and perhaps occupation may follow, despite official denials.
Either way, widespread death and destruction is likely. Surgical war is an oxymoron. Expect considerable "collateral damage," the Orwellian designation for war crimes against noncombatants and civilian targets.
In his 1992 book titled, "Beyond Hypocrisy," Edward Herman referred to "nuclear chicken analysis," defining "collateral casualties" as "civilians killed as a regrettable 'spillover effect' of a nuclear attack on a military target' more generally, allegedly unintended casualties" of any type attack.
In other words, "inadvertent and tragic errors" that, in fact, constitute wanton murder and destruction of schools, hospitals, vital infrastructure and other non-military targets.
Pack Journalism Promotes War
A previous article explained how it enlists public support for imperial war, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/pack-journalism-promotes-war-on-li
Western media, including BBC and Al Jazeera incite it, no matter how lawless, mindless, destructive and counterproductive. Smell it. It arrived again because inflammatory journalism stoked reasons to attack. As a result, America, Britain and France primarily readied strikes. Ground and submarine-launced cruise missiles inflicted widespread destruction. In addition, French jets struck "targets of opportunity," preceded by exaggerated/unverified/inflammatory reports like the following:
On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Reports Say Attacks by Regime Against Rebels Continue," saying:
Unverified "(r)eports indicated that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces were continuing to press their attacks despite warnings that such moves would provoke military action."
On March 19, Financial Times writer Tobias Buck headlined, "Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi," saying:
Forces loyal to Gaddafi attacked "in violation of the regime's promise of a ceasefire."
Libyan state TV channel, Al Jamahiriya, reported it differently, saying "the people of Benghazi have risen up against the rebels and raised the flag of Libya over the government building in the middle of the city."
On March 19, New York Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:
"American, European and Arab leaders began the largest international intervention" since 2003 against Iraq, omitting the illegality of both aggressions.
On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrich and Elisabeth Musmiller headlined, "France Sends Military Flights Over Libya," saying:
Flying reconnaissance missions, it's "the first sign" of premeditated war, launching new hostilities against a war-torn region, without explanation why.
On March 19, Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:
Hostilities began to stop "Qaddafi's war on the Libyan opposition," after a no-fly zone was established.
As a result, war arrived preemptively. French President Sarkozy said it's to stop Gaddafi's "murderous madness," no matter that he responded to violence. He didn't instigate it. So would Sarkozy, Obama or any leader against armed insurrection.
Love or hate him, Gaddafi said:
"Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans. This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe. You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs."
Hours earlier, he pledged a ceasefire. Conflicting reports disagree if he honored it. Is he or Western intervention stoking violence? US media reports point fingers one way.
Washington, Britain, France, other NATO allies, and complicit Arab States back armed anti-Gaddafi insurrection. They're promoting it, inciting it, funding it, arming it, with clear imperial aims. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/washingtons-un-war-resolution-on-l
On March 19, ahead of intervention, Al Jazeera headlined, "Gaddafi forces encroaching on Benghazi," saying:
Gaddafi unleashed "a fresh act of defiance even as the United States and its allies prepared to launch military attacks on Libya."
Unverified "(r)eports from Libya say pro-government forces have entered the western outskirts of the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, with the city also coming under attack from the coast and the south."
Unnamed "(w)itnesses....said they heard large explosions....Government troops reportedly bombed the southern Benghazi suburb of Goreshi among other places."
No verification was given, except to quote Mustafa Abdel Jalil, opposition National Libyan Council leader. More on him below. Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley reported "a lot of jittery people...a lot of activity and a lot of firing going on."
In contrast, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told the BBC that "the ceasefire is real, credible and solid. We are willing to receive (international and NGO) observers as soon as possible." He insisted no air strikes were launched.
Hours later Al Jazeera headlined, "Airstrikes begin on Libya targets," saying:
"French warplanes hit four tanks....on a day when opposition fighters in (Benghazi) reported coming under constant artillery and mortar fire." Expect sustained strikes to follow.
Al Jazeera and other media reports don't explain that "opposition" officials from organizations like the National Libyan Council and National Front for the Salvation of Libya have close Western ties, pretending they're credible. More about them below.
Headquartered in Qatar, moreover, Al Jazeera noticeably abstains from criticizing its government, now part of Washington's anti-Gaddafi coalition-of-the-willing, complicit in illegal aggression.
On March 18, Obama stopped short of declaring war, announcing "all necessary measures" against Gaddafi without full compliance with UN Resolution terms, including an immediate ceasefire, withdrawing his forces, reestablishing essential services to all parts of the country, and letting in "humanitarian assistance," including foreign imperial forces opposed to his leadership.
In other words, impossible terms to accept to be followed by others likely demanding he step down, permit balkanization, predatory Western investment, US bases, and free exploitation of his resources and people. Imagine comparable demands made on America - non-negtiable to be followed by military action for non-compliance.
On March 18, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rogh Rasmussen signaled war, saying the alliance was "completing its planning to be ready to take appropriate action in support of the UN resolution as part of the broad international effort."
Launched the next day, the resources of another resource-rich Arab state will be divided among Western belligerents, to benefit Libyans, they claim.
On March 20, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Qaddafi Pledges 'Long War' as Allies Pursue Air Assault," saying:
"On Sunday, American (stealth) B-2 bombers were reported to have struck a major Libyan airfield," following initial attacks against Libya's air defense systems, "missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli," Misurata and Surt.
Reuters said "US fighter planes backed by electronic warfare aircraft" attacked Gaddafi's ground troops and air defenses. A Pentagon statement stated:
"US Navy Growlers provided electronic warfare support over Libya while AV-8B Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted strikes...."
Parliamentary secretary Muhammad Zweid said attacks "caused some real harm against civilians and buildings." According to an unnamed US official, Libya's air defenses are now "severely disabled."
As of Sunday morning, visible destruction also included 14 tanks, 20 armored personnel carriers, two or more trucks, rocket launchers, dozens of pick-ups, and exploding munitions. Ahead of cruise missile attacks, France initiated reconnaissance flights and aggression.
On March 19, Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's Global Research.ca article headlined, "Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed," saying:
Regime change-planned naked aggression was launched. "The war criminals are back at it again," Washington, of course, in the lead. On March 19, "sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic. These were civilian facilities."
Targets attacked included Al-Tajura and Saladin hospitals as well as a clinic near Tripoli, unrelated to military necessity, distant from combat areas. Moreover, civilian air facilities were struck as well as "all Libyan military bases" - air, naval and ground. In addition, "a vast naval blockade around Libya has now been imposed," America the lead belligerent.
Further, Libyan sources report "two French jets were also shot down....near Janzour" plus another "near Anjile." Washington and co-belligerents "are creating a real humanitarian disaster," waging war for peace, killing civilians to save them, and destroying Libya by "humanitarian intervention."
Moreover, Washington enlisted Egypt and Saudi Arabia to supply "opposition forces" with weapons, in violation of Resolution 1973 prohibiting any sent. Of course, international and US law forbid aggressive war, but that never deterred imperial America from preemptively attacking, invading, occupying and colonizing nations illegally, Libya its latest target.
Libya's So-Called "Opposition"
Included are the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, its officials with ties to the CIA and Saudi Arabia. Also, Muhammad as-Senussi, Libya's so-called heir to the Senussi Crown, concerned only for his own self-interest.
Central is the National Libyan Council (NLC), announced on February 26, established officially on March 5, led by former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, a Western-allied opportunist.
NLC is an umbrella group of local so-called opposition leaders headquartered in Benghazi. Bogusly, it claims to represent all Libyans. Abdel-Jalil calls it a "transitional government" ahead of future elections after Gaddafi is deposed.
At the same time, Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, a Benghazi lawyer, refuted his leadership, calling himself NLC's official spokesman. Both men, however, have similar aspirations, including controlling Libya by ousting Gaddafi.
As of now, Abdel-Jalil remains NLC's official head, Ghoga its spokesman, and Omar El-Hariri in charge of military operations. General Abdel Fattah Younis may be another key member, his status, however, not confirmed. In total, NLC has about 30 members. Most aren't named. Two known include, Mahmoud Jebril and Ali al-Essawi, former Libyan ambassador to India in charge of foreign affairs.
On March 5, Reuters headlined, "Rebel National Libya Council sets up (a three-member) crisis committee," saying:
In charge of military and foreign affairs, members include Omar El-Hariri, Ali al-Essawi, and Mahmoud Jebril as leader.
Western Hypocrisy - Denouncing Violence While Backing It
At Obama's behest, about 1,000 Saudi troops invaded Bahrain guns blazing, attacking peaceful protesters, arresting opposition leaders and activists, occupying the country, denying wounded men and women medical treatment, and imposing police state control in support of the hated monarchy.
Not an angry Western demand was heard to stop hostilities and leave. Nor against similar Egyptian army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily against Palestinians.
On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital, when security forces attacked thousands, demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down.
Ally turned bete noire Gaddafi was targeted for removal. In contrast, Saleh is supported because of Yemen's strategic location near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia's southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.
Instead of denouncing his brutality, Obama endorsed it, calling on "all sides (to pursue) a peaceful, orderly and democratic path to a stronger and more prosperous nation."
Friday's massacre was the bloodiest since resistance erupted in mid-February. Security forces and plainclothes police opened fire on demonstrators, shooting to kill, hitting some in the back of the head as they fled. Afterward, Saleh imposed a state of emergency and nationwide curfew.
Demonstrations, nonetheless, persist, Yemenese wanting his 32-year dictatorship ended. Achieving it, however, entails overcoming Washington's imperial grip on regional client states, all run by favored despots.
A Final Comment
On March 19, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry Arab.com headlined, "Bush Doctrine revised: Obama puts his stamp," saying:
"Western/Saudi/Qarari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent." Under Bush, ousting regimes for democracy "was a bloody farce...." Obama's model may be installing puppets "without having 'boots on the ground,' " but don't discount them. He expanded Bush's Afghan war, began his own in Pakistan as well as in Somalia, Yemen and Bahrain, backing favored despots besides the Saudi monarchy.
AbuKhalil calls NLC's Abdel-Jalil "a useful idiot." Moreover, "Western enthusiasm for (Libyan) intervention" was never properly explained beyond nonsensical platitudes about "humanitarian intervention" to protect civilians.
In contrast, "why (didn't) the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia....warrant" similar outrage, let alone Israel's Cast Lead, occupation and daily aggression against defenseless Palestinians.
Intervening militarily is Libya "is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers, (and) abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain (Yemen and Saudi Arabia) of today (are) the vision for Libya for tomorrow," Western-dominated, of course.
Will it work? Love or hate Gaddafi, Libyans know what Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians endure. Moreover, its society is fractious, divided by tribal loyalties, suspicious of Western intervention, and long-governed locally as well as nationally.
Against them is America's military might under leaders not shy about using it. As a result, Libyans are experiencing firsthand what's ahead under Western control, what makes Iraqis yearn for Saddam, almost saintly compared to Washington.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
See also:
Veterans For Peace-Led Action At The White House On March 19, 2011-From YouTube
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube website entry for the Veterans for Peace-led action at the White House (ya, that White House) on March 19th 2011 the 8th (really 20th going back to Iraq I and the subsequent economic blockades) anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
Markin comment:
8 is enough- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries From Iraq and Afghanistan! Add on-Hands Off Libya!
Markin comment:
8 is enough- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries From Iraq and Afghanistan! Add on-Hands Off Libya!
Veterans For Peace-Led Action At The White House On March 19, 2011-From YouTube
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube website entry for the Veterans for Peace-led action at the White House (ya, that White House) on March 19th 2011 the 8th (really 20th going back to Iraq I and the subsequent economic blockades) anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
Markin comment:
8 is enough- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries From Iraq and Afghanistan! Add on-Hands Off Libya!
Markin comment:
8 is enough- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries From Iraq and Afghanistan! Add on-Hands Off Libya!
Veterans For Peace-Led Action At The White House On March 19, 2011-From Youtube
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube website entry for the Veterans for Peace-led action at the White House (ya, that White House) on March 19th 2011 the 8th (really 20th going back to Iraq I and the subsequent economic blockades) anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
Markin comment:
8 is enough- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries From Iraq and Afghanistan! Add on-Hands Off Libya!
Markin comment:
8 is enough- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries From Iraq and Afghanistan! Add on-Hands Off Libya!
From The StopTheseWars Website- Arrests At Quantico Marine Base Rally For Private Bradley Manning-March 20th 2011-Free Bradley Manning!
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of the rally at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia on March 20, 2011 in support of alleged Army whistleblower Private Bradley Manning.
Markin comment:
Quantico was like a war-zone with more police than you could shake a stick at. All in order to show that old-time radicals, Veterans for Peace, codepink women, assorted Quakers, little old ladies in tennis sneakers, little old men in tennis sneakers and others out to protest the outrageous treatment of alleged whistleblower Private Bradley Manning were some threat to civilized society. Damn Obama and his crowd. Free Bradley Manning!
Markin comment:
Quantico was like a war-zone with more police than you could shake a stick at. All in order to show that old-time radicals, Veterans for Peace, codepink women, assorted Quakers, little old ladies in tennis sneakers, little old men in tennis sneakers and others out to protest the outrageous treatment of alleged whistleblower Private Bradley Manning were some threat to civilized society. Damn Obama and his crowd. Free Bradley Manning!
Veterans For Peace-Led Action At The White House On March 19, 2011
Veterans For Peace-Led Action At The White House On March 19, 2011
Click on the headline to link to a StopTheseWars website entry for the Veterans for Peace-led action at the White House (ya, that White House) on March 19th 2011 the 8th (really 20th going back to Iraq I and the subsequent economic blockades) anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
Markin comment:
8 is enough- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries From Iraq and Afghanistan! Add on-Hands Off Libya!
Click on the headline to link to a StopTheseWars website entry for the Veterans for Peace-led action at the White House (ya, that White House) on March 19th 2011 the 8th (really 20th going back to Iraq I and the subsequent economic blockades) anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
Markin comment:
8 is enough- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops and Mercenaries From Iraq and Afghanistan! Add on-Hands Off Libya!
Arrests At Quantico Marine Base Rally For Private Bradley Manning-March 20th 2011.
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of the rally at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia on March 20, 2011 in support of alleged Army whistleblower Private Bradley Manning.
Markin comment:
Quantico was like a war-zone with more police than you could shake a stick at. All in order to show that old-time radicals, Veterans for Peace, codepink women, assorted Quakers, little old ladies in tennis sneakers, little old men in tennis sneakers and others out to protest the outrageous treatment of alleged whistleblower Private Bradley Manning were some threat to civilized society. Damn Obama and his crowd. Free Bradley Manning!
Markin comment:
Quantico was like a war-zone with more police than you could shake a stick at. All in order to show that old-time radicals, Veterans for Peace, codepink women, assorted Quakers, little old ladies in tennis sneakers, little old men in tennis sneakers and others out to protest the outrageous treatment of alleged whistleblower Private Bradley Manning were some threat to civilized society. Damn Obama and his crowd. Free Bradley Manning!
Photos-Arrests At Quantico Marine Base Rally For Private Bradley Manning-March 20th 2011.
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of the rally at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia on March 20, 2011 in support of alleged Army whistleblower Private Bradley Manning.
Markin comment:
Quantico was like a war-zone with more police than you could shake a stick at. All in order to show that old-time radicals, Veterans for Peace, codepink women, assorted Quakers, little old ladies in tennis sneakers, little old men in tennis sneakers and others out to protest the outrageous treatment of alleged whistleblower Private Bradley Manning were some threat to civilized society. Damn Obama and his crowd. Free Bradley Manning!
Markin comment:
Quantico was like a war-zone with more police than you could shake a stick at. All in order to show that old-time radicals, Veterans for Peace, codepink women, assorted Quakers, little old ladies in tennis sneakers, little old men in tennis sneakers and others out to protest the outrageous treatment of alleged whistleblower Private Bradley Manning were some threat to civilized society. Damn Obama and his crowd. Free Bradley Manning!
Arrests At Quantico Marine Base Rally For Private Bradley Manning-March 20th 2011.
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of the rally at Quantico Marine Base in Virginia on March 20, 2011 in support of alleged Army whistleblower Private Bradley Manning.
Markin comment:
Quantico was like a war-zone with more police than you could shake a stick at. All in order to show that old-time radicals, Veterans for Peace, codepink women, assorted Quakers and others out to protest the outrageous treatment of alleged whistleblower Private Bradley Manning were some threat to civilized society. Damn Obama and his crowd.
Markin comment:
Quantico was like a war-zone with more police than you could shake a stick at. All in order to show that old-time radicals, Veterans for Peace, codepink women, assorted Quakers and others out to protest the outrageous treatment of alleged whistleblower Private Bradley Manning were some threat to civilized society. Damn Obama and his crowd.
From The In Defense Of Marxism Website-Support Libyan revolution, Oppose imperialist aggression!
Markin comment
Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack! Down With The U.S.-Led Imperialist Coalition!
From In Defense Of Marxism for a different view
Support Libyan revolution, Oppose imperialist aggression!
Written by Fred Weston
Monday, 21 March 2011
On Saturday afternoon French warplanes were the first to bomb Libya, in what one can only describe as open imperialist aggression. This was followed by US and UK ships and submarines launching 110 Tomahawk Cruise missiles. The French are strengthening their position by sending their Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier into waters off the Libyan coast.
Illustration: LatuffDenmark, Norway, Spain and Canada are also sending planes. Italy is providing air bases and ports, while also preparing its own planes. Qatar is sending four planes making it the first Arab country to provide forces to bomb Libya, while other Arab countries – no doubt Saudi Arabia will be among them – are also preparing to send forces.
Since Saturday there have been further bombing raids, presented to the world as a mission to help the rebel held part of Libya against Gaddafi’s jets. Initially the rebels in the east declared they needed no help from outside. Once it became evident that Gaddafi had managed to hold together a significant force, and the revolution had stalled (See Why has the revolution stalled in Libya?), the idea that a no-fly zone imposed from the outside would be the answer gained ground. However, even the Provisional Council continued to insist that no foreign troops should set foot on Libyan territory. In fact, the revolutionary youth in more than one occasion produced banners against foreign intervention.
This explains why the UN resolution is carefully worded, on the one hand excluding “occupation” – with an eye to what we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan – and on the other authorising the use of “any means necessary” to “protect civilians”. Those who called for the no-fly zone are now getting more than they had bargained for. In revolutions and wars there are no short-cuts.
Already in the first couple of days we can see that this operation is not merely to impose a no-fly zone. They have also targeted troops, tanks and other military hardware on the ground, as well as specific buildings in Tripoli.
As Gaddafi advanced towards Benghazi and other cities, a cry went out that the “international community” must “do something” to help the people of Libya against Gaddafi’s forces. The idea was presented that it would be an operation limiting itself to stopping Gaddafi using his superior air power against the rebels. This was merely the excuse with which they were able to muster UN Security Council support for the operation. It is clear now that their aims go much further than merely imposing a no-fly zone.
Arab League, China, Russia: Having your cake and eating it
Faced with such a massive show of firepower, the Arab League now seems to be having second thoughts, or at least it is showing signs of internal division. Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, has said that the jet and cruise-missile strikes "differ from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone," criticizing the “severity” of the strikes and stating that they were only supposed to “protect civilians”. Only a few days earlier it was the very same Arab League that had voted in favour of a no-fly zone and called on the UN to sanction one.
How does one explain Amr Moussa’s sudden cold feet? It is clear that the sight of what amounts to fundamentally NATO forces bombing yet another Arab country is provoking widespread opposition among ordinary Arabs, and those Arab governments that are seen to be backing the bombings will start to feel the pressure from their own people.
This morning, no doubt after getting his arm twisted by his imperialist masters, Amr Moussa zig-zagged again, playing down any divisions on this question and issuing a joint statement with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, declaring that, "We are all united on the issue of protecting civilians."
China, Russia and India have also criticised the bombings, stating that the “indiscriminate” bombing raids go further than what was stated in the United Nations resolution. A spokesperson of the Russian foreign ministry called for a ceasefire, complaining that the air raids had hit non-military targets, killing many civilians, as well as damaging a medical centre. China said it “regretted” the military action and respected Libya’s sovereignty.
It appears the Russian and the Chinese want to have their cake and eat it. They are two powers that have the right to veto any UN resolution. They preferred to abstain, which in practice amounts to support, as they knew that if they abstained the resolution would get passed. The Indian government has issued a statement that says that, “It regrets the air strikes that are taking place. The measures adopted should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya.”
Reassuring public opinion
To reassure all these concerned ladies and gentlemen, the British Foreign Office has explained that:
"Unlike Gaddafi, the coalition is not attacking civilians. The UN resolution authorises all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people. For the No Fly Zone to be enforced safely, it is necessary to carry out carefully targeted operations against Libyan air defence capabilities. All missions are meticulously planned to ensure every care is taken to avoid civilian casualties. We will continue to work with our Arab partners to enforce the resolution for the good of the Libyan people.”
In clear English, that means “we have UN backing and we are going to bomb whatever targets we feel are necessary”. The resolution passed last week by the UN Security Council was ambiguously worded, precisely so that later it could be used to justify any amount of bombing. The wording "take all necessary measures" already implied that this was going to be more than a no-fly zone. Air strikes and actions such as bombing tanks and other forces on the roads were clearly envisaged as part of the aims of any force being sent to bomb Libya.
The problem the imperialists had was getting sufficient backing from so-called “public opinion” for an all-out war against Gaddafi. Working people in countries like the USA and Britain are tired of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are fully aware of the fact that they were lied to. Remember Blair and Bush banging away about weapons of mass destruction, which could even hit Britain within 45 minutes! Then we were told there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. People rightly do not trust their governments, after so many lies.
Now we are being told that the official aim of the no-fly zone is to stop Gaddafi using his airpower against the rebel held areas of the country. The point is this: Gaddafi’s ground forces are much better equipped and better trained than those under the control of the Interim Council in Benghazi. Let us assume that the imperialists limit themselves to simply hitting Gaddafi’s air forces – something which they have already gone well beyond. Thus weakened, the rebel forces will want to attack the areas controlled by Gaddafi. Should they fail in this, what will the UN-backed force do then? Inevitably they will have to attack Gaddafi’s ground forces, as they already have started doing.
Ground forces inevitable at some stage
Although, some of Gaddafi’s air power will have been destroyed in these first bombing raids, his ability to wage war has been far from removed. Most of his advance towards the east was done mainly by ground forces.
March 4. Photo: Nasser NouriAs an Al Jazeera report explained, “Assumptions of what air power alone can achieve against ground forces have usually turned out to be overrated; witness for example the relatively small amount of damage done to Serbian armoured forces by NATO in 1999. Results in Afghanistan in 2001 were better, but in that case the integration of Special Forces allowed air power to be targeted in the most efficient way.
It later added that:
“…the promise of no ‘boots on the ground’ may eventually have to be revisited, despite the potential repercussions, if only to put Special Forces observers in amongst the rebels. Otherwise it is hard to see how this campaign will be effective, at least within built up areas where most fighting is taking place.” (Al Jazeera, Strikes on Libya - a military perspective, 19 March 2011)
The UN resolution sanctions ''all necessary means" to protect civilians. “Regime change” is not mentioned in the resolution, but in reality that is what they are now aiming at. As George Friedman writing for Stratfor, the online intelligence publication, states:
“Gadhafi’s primary capabilities are conventional armor and particularly artillery. Destroying his air force and isolating his forces will not by itself win the war. The war is on the ground. The question is the motivation of his troops: If they perceive that surrender is unacceptable or personally catastrophic, they may continue to fight. At that point the coalition must decide if it intends to engage and destroy Gadhafi’s ground forces from the air. This can be done, but it is never a foregone conclusion that it will work.” (The Libyan War of 2011, March 19, 2011)
And for all those who may have thought aerial bombardment could alleviate the suffering of the Libyan people, the same writer states coldly the following: “Moreover, this is the phase at which civilian casualties begin to mount. It is a paradox of warfare instigated to end human suffering that the means of achieving this can sometimes impose substantial human suffering themselves. This is not merely a theoretical statement. It is at this point that supporters of the war who want to end suffering may turn on the political leaders for not ending suffering without cost. It should be remembered that Saddam Hussein was loathed universally, but those who loathed him were frequently not willing to impose the price of overthrowing him. The Europeans in particular are sensitive to this issue.
And, contradicting all the statements being made about this being merely a mission to impose a no-fly zone, in another article published by Stratfor we find the following: “The decision has been made that the mission is regime change in Libya. The strategic sequence is the routine buildup to war since 1991, this time with a heavier European component. The early days will go extremely well but will not define whether or not the war is successful. The test will come if a war designed to stop human suffering begins to inflict human suffering.”
The first two days of bombing have already claimed the lives of many civilians. So much for defending the “civilian” population! The imperialists have no real concern for the lives of ordinary people. The fact that they claim to be protecting civilians in Benghazi is merely a ruse to get the backing of public opinion. They will kill many civilians in Tripoli and other areas they feel need bombing. Kevin Connolly, reporting for the BBC from the rebel-held city of Tobruk has already explained that “it is not clear if the allies can attack Col Gaddafi's troops operating in the centre of Misrata without harming the very civilians they have come to save.”
What the imperialists are out to do is remove Gaddafi, as they removed Saddam Hussein in the past. Prior to the Libyan revolution, they had managed to bring Gaddafi on board. He was collaborating with them in all fields and they felt no reason to push for “regime change”. And yet Gaddafi’s was one of the most brutal in the region, with anyone who expressed opposition risking imprisonment, torture and death. What was important for the imperialist was not the nature of the regime, but the fact that Gaddafi was opening up the economy to western investment. The economy had been partially privatized and more was on its way.
With the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and the wave of protests that risk unseating more of their friends, the imperialist felt powerless to intervene. Gaddafi’s Libya has given them the excuse they were seeking. They have used the “humanitarian” card to justify what is outright imperialist aggression against a small country.
This war is aimed at cutting across the revolutionary wave that is sweeping the Arab countries. Obama claims that it will be a short campaign of just a few days, but this is clearly false. A few air raids are not going to achieve their aims. It will require sustained bombing and eventually they will be sucked in even more, possibly with ground troops. In the process many civilians will be killed. No doubt we will soon be hearing statements about the “unfortunate” bombing of civilians. We will hear that disgusting phrase about “collateral damage”.
Imperialist powers jostling for positions
Illustration: Latuff
This war is also about different imperialist powers intervening to carve out their own spheres of influence and also as a counter-weight to their own internal problems. Foremost in all this is Sarkozy, the President of France. A recent opinion poll shows that 71% of French people are unhappy with the performance of Sarkozy, his worst approval rating since he came to office in 2007. He has in fact become extremely unpopular in France, after his government introduced severe austerity measures last year which saw 3.5 million French workers on the streets protesting.
France was the first country to recognise the Interim Council in Libya as the official government of the country. And it was the most vociferous in pushing for the no-fly zone and also the first to actually bomb targets in Libya. We have to see what manoeuvres lie behind this. In recent years, France as a former imperial power has seen it influence dwindle, losing spheres of influence, particularly in Africa. In this they were in conflict with US and British imperialism. By being the most gung-ho in pushing for intervention in Libya, Sarkozy no doubt thinks he can regain some lost influence... and oil in Libya. His actions have nothing to do with humanitarian concerns.
Cameron is in a similar position in Britain, also suffering a sharp fall in public approval in the recent period. His popularity ratings have been “falling over a cliff” as some have put it. As his government continues to push forward with draconian austerity measures, Cameron is facing growing workers unrest, as we will see this coming Saturday in London with what promises to be one of the biggest demonstrations since the 1970s, if not bigger.
Thus both Sarkozy and Cameron could do with something that could distract attention away from the internal problems in their respective countries and direct people’s minds on intervention in Libya. At the same they can strut across the world stage, claiming to defend human rights and democracy around the world. No doubt, the governments of Denmark, Norway, Canada, and even little Qatar, can do with a bit of distraction from their own internal affairs.
The United States was wary of getting sucked into another military campaign in an Arab country. Public opinion has significantly changed towards the war in Iraq, where now a majority considers it was wrong, and the same applies to the war in Afghanistan. That explains why until the last minute [Tuesday of last week] the Obama administration wasn’t so keen on voting for a no-fly zone over Libya.
On Friday, the Wall Street Journal described the situation thus: “Just last Monday, when Nicolas Sarkozy urged Hillary Clinton to get the U.S. behind an international intervention in Libya, she demurred. The U.S. Secretary of State warned the French president that a war could be risky and bloody, say officials from both countries who were briefed on the exchange.
“Yet by the weekend, France, the U.S. and an international coalition stood poised to take ‘all necessary measures’—code for military strikes—in Libya, under United Nations authority.
“In hindsight, the meeting at the Elysée Palace in Paris was the launch point for four frantic days of diplomacy that turned the Obama administration toward intervention, western and Arab diplomats say. A lot of factors drove the shift, they say, including the administration's concern about being out of step with the changes sweeping the Arab world and of being outmaneuvered by the U.K. and especially France, both more aggressive advocates of intervention.” (Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2011) [Our emphasis]
From all this, we can see how this aggression against Libya is not dictated by any concerns for the people of Libya. It is about a group of imperialist gangsters coldly calculating how they can best defend their interests in North Africa and the Middle East.
Do not fall for imperialist rhetoric
Workers and youth around the world should not be fooled by all the rhetoric about the so-called humanitarian aims of the military intervention in Libya. It is always the case that when imperialist powers go to war, they do so by first preparing public opinion. This time it is about the poor people of Benghazi.
In Iraq public opinion was prepared with a barrage of propaganda about weapons of mass destruction, and also that Saddam Hussein was an “evil dictator”, which he was of course, but they conveniently ignored their own past good dealings with the terrible dictator. In Afghanistan, first they backed the Islamic fundamentalists against the Russians, and then when these turned on the Americans in the form of the Taliban regime, they discovered the need to defend the Afghan people. Now they are defending them by bombing them to pieces.
Their hypocrisy is further laid bare when we look at Bahrain, as we have already mentioned in previous articles. The Bahraini regime is using British arms to crush its own people. Where is Cameron’s desire to intervene here?
To be fair on the man, it is true that has intervened… in February in the “democratic” parliament of Kuwait where he admitted that the West had been “wrong” to prop up some of the dictators now in the process of being overthrown. But while Cameron was making his speech more than 100 British companies were participating in a massive Middle East arms fair hoping to do some good business with some of these selfsame dictators. And it was British defence minister Gerald Howarth who was leading the British delegation of entrepreneurs.
In Yemen we have an equally brutal dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, whose security forces last week killed more than fifty people. Any sign of a UN resolution coming up? No, just a few speeches expressing regret at such incidents. Their minds are now concentrated on the situation in Libya.
Effect of bombing on Gaddafi regime
But what has been the effect of the bombing inside Libya, in particular in Tripoli? As we have already explained, the fact that the Interim Council called for a no-fly zone, giving the UN the excuse it needed to intervene, has allowed Gaddafi to use this to present the rebels as stooges of the west, as agents of foreign powers who want to take over Libya. Now that the bombing has started it seems that this effect has been multiplied. As western bombs fall on Tripoli and other parts of the country, undoubtedly killing many civilians and destroying important infrastructure, support for Gaddafi will be strengthened.
In the East meanwhile the leaders of the Interim Council have tied their fortunes to the intervention of imperialist powers. In this they have betrayed the revolution. They have put the fate of the Libyan people in the hands of France, Britain, the USA and other smaller powers. None of these powers are intervening to defend the revolution. And if they should successfully remove Gaddafi, the government they help put in power will not defend the interests of the Libyan workers and youth. How can Cameron and Sarkozy attack the workers in their respective countries and then go and defend the Libyan workers?
The present Interim Council has clearly indicated that it leans towards the west, it wants good relations with the west, and it will guarantee their investments in Libya, and so on. It would end up being a puppet government of the western imperialist powers, nothing more, and nothing less. Whenever and wherever new regimes have come to power on the back of imperialist bayonets, these have not won the freedom of their people, but merely enslaved them to the same old master as before. That is what the imperialists are aiming for. That is why the workers and youth of the world, struggling against their own capitalist classes, must oppose this imperialist aggression of Libya. The task of overthrowing Gaddafi belongs to the people of Libya and to no one else.
Defend Libya Against Imperialist Attack! Down With The U.S.-Led Imperialist Coalition!
From In Defense Of Marxism for a different view
Support Libyan revolution, Oppose imperialist aggression!
Written by Fred Weston
Monday, 21 March 2011
On Saturday afternoon French warplanes were the first to bomb Libya, in what one can only describe as open imperialist aggression. This was followed by US and UK ships and submarines launching 110 Tomahawk Cruise missiles. The French are strengthening their position by sending their Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier into waters off the Libyan coast.
Illustration: LatuffDenmark, Norway, Spain and Canada are also sending planes. Italy is providing air bases and ports, while also preparing its own planes. Qatar is sending four planes making it the first Arab country to provide forces to bomb Libya, while other Arab countries – no doubt Saudi Arabia will be among them – are also preparing to send forces.
Since Saturday there have been further bombing raids, presented to the world as a mission to help the rebel held part of Libya against Gaddafi’s jets. Initially the rebels in the east declared they needed no help from outside. Once it became evident that Gaddafi had managed to hold together a significant force, and the revolution had stalled (See Why has the revolution stalled in Libya?), the idea that a no-fly zone imposed from the outside would be the answer gained ground. However, even the Provisional Council continued to insist that no foreign troops should set foot on Libyan territory. In fact, the revolutionary youth in more than one occasion produced banners against foreign intervention.
This explains why the UN resolution is carefully worded, on the one hand excluding “occupation” – with an eye to what we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan – and on the other authorising the use of “any means necessary” to “protect civilians”. Those who called for the no-fly zone are now getting more than they had bargained for. In revolutions and wars there are no short-cuts.
Already in the first couple of days we can see that this operation is not merely to impose a no-fly zone. They have also targeted troops, tanks and other military hardware on the ground, as well as specific buildings in Tripoli.
As Gaddafi advanced towards Benghazi and other cities, a cry went out that the “international community” must “do something” to help the people of Libya against Gaddafi’s forces. The idea was presented that it would be an operation limiting itself to stopping Gaddafi using his superior air power against the rebels. This was merely the excuse with which they were able to muster UN Security Council support for the operation. It is clear now that their aims go much further than merely imposing a no-fly zone.
Arab League, China, Russia: Having your cake and eating it
Faced with such a massive show of firepower, the Arab League now seems to be having second thoughts, or at least it is showing signs of internal division. Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, has said that the jet and cruise-missile strikes "differ from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone," criticizing the “severity” of the strikes and stating that they were only supposed to “protect civilians”. Only a few days earlier it was the very same Arab League that had voted in favour of a no-fly zone and called on the UN to sanction one.
How does one explain Amr Moussa’s sudden cold feet? It is clear that the sight of what amounts to fundamentally NATO forces bombing yet another Arab country is provoking widespread opposition among ordinary Arabs, and those Arab governments that are seen to be backing the bombings will start to feel the pressure from their own people.
This morning, no doubt after getting his arm twisted by his imperialist masters, Amr Moussa zig-zagged again, playing down any divisions on this question and issuing a joint statement with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, declaring that, "We are all united on the issue of protecting civilians."
China, Russia and India have also criticised the bombings, stating that the “indiscriminate” bombing raids go further than what was stated in the United Nations resolution. A spokesperson of the Russian foreign ministry called for a ceasefire, complaining that the air raids had hit non-military targets, killing many civilians, as well as damaging a medical centre. China said it “regretted” the military action and respected Libya’s sovereignty.
It appears the Russian and the Chinese want to have their cake and eat it. They are two powers that have the right to veto any UN resolution. They preferred to abstain, which in practice amounts to support, as they knew that if they abstained the resolution would get passed. The Indian government has issued a statement that says that, “It regrets the air strikes that are taking place. The measures adopted should mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya.”
Reassuring public opinion
To reassure all these concerned ladies and gentlemen, the British Foreign Office has explained that:
"Unlike Gaddafi, the coalition is not attacking civilians. The UN resolution authorises all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people. For the No Fly Zone to be enforced safely, it is necessary to carry out carefully targeted operations against Libyan air defence capabilities. All missions are meticulously planned to ensure every care is taken to avoid civilian casualties. We will continue to work with our Arab partners to enforce the resolution for the good of the Libyan people.”
In clear English, that means “we have UN backing and we are going to bomb whatever targets we feel are necessary”. The resolution passed last week by the UN Security Council was ambiguously worded, precisely so that later it could be used to justify any amount of bombing. The wording "take all necessary measures" already implied that this was going to be more than a no-fly zone. Air strikes and actions such as bombing tanks and other forces on the roads were clearly envisaged as part of the aims of any force being sent to bomb Libya.
The problem the imperialists had was getting sufficient backing from so-called “public opinion” for an all-out war against Gaddafi. Working people in countries like the USA and Britain are tired of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are fully aware of the fact that they were lied to. Remember Blair and Bush banging away about weapons of mass destruction, which could even hit Britain within 45 minutes! Then we were told there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. People rightly do not trust their governments, after so many lies.
Now we are being told that the official aim of the no-fly zone is to stop Gaddafi using his airpower against the rebel held areas of the country. The point is this: Gaddafi’s ground forces are much better equipped and better trained than those under the control of the Interim Council in Benghazi. Let us assume that the imperialists limit themselves to simply hitting Gaddafi’s air forces – something which they have already gone well beyond. Thus weakened, the rebel forces will want to attack the areas controlled by Gaddafi. Should they fail in this, what will the UN-backed force do then? Inevitably they will have to attack Gaddafi’s ground forces, as they already have started doing.
Ground forces inevitable at some stage
Although, some of Gaddafi’s air power will have been destroyed in these first bombing raids, his ability to wage war has been far from removed. Most of his advance towards the east was done mainly by ground forces.
March 4. Photo: Nasser NouriAs an Al Jazeera report explained, “Assumptions of what air power alone can achieve against ground forces have usually turned out to be overrated; witness for example the relatively small amount of damage done to Serbian armoured forces by NATO in 1999. Results in Afghanistan in 2001 were better, but in that case the integration of Special Forces allowed air power to be targeted in the most efficient way.
It later added that:
“…the promise of no ‘boots on the ground’ may eventually have to be revisited, despite the potential repercussions, if only to put Special Forces observers in amongst the rebels. Otherwise it is hard to see how this campaign will be effective, at least within built up areas where most fighting is taking place.” (Al Jazeera, Strikes on Libya - a military perspective, 19 March 2011)
The UN resolution sanctions ''all necessary means" to protect civilians. “Regime change” is not mentioned in the resolution, but in reality that is what they are now aiming at. As George Friedman writing for Stratfor, the online intelligence publication, states:
“Gadhafi’s primary capabilities are conventional armor and particularly artillery. Destroying his air force and isolating his forces will not by itself win the war. The war is on the ground. The question is the motivation of his troops: If they perceive that surrender is unacceptable or personally catastrophic, they may continue to fight. At that point the coalition must decide if it intends to engage and destroy Gadhafi’s ground forces from the air. This can be done, but it is never a foregone conclusion that it will work.” (The Libyan War of 2011, March 19, 2011)
And for all those who may have thought aerial bombardment could alleviate the suffering of the Libyan people, the same writer states coldly the following: “Moreover, this is the phase at which civilian casualties begin to mount. It is a paradox of warfare instigated to end human suffering that the means of achieving this can sometimes impose substantial human suffering themselves. This is not merely a theoretical statement. It is at this point that supporters of the war who want to end suffering may turn on the political leaders for not ending suffering without cost. It should be remembered that Saddam Hussein was loathed universally, but those who loathed him were frequently not willing to impose the price of overthrowing him. The Europeans in particular are sensitive to this issue.
And, contradicting all the statements being made about this being merely a mission to impose a no-fly zone, in another article published by Stratfor we find the following: “The decision has been made that the mission is regime change in Libya. The strategic sequence is the routine buildup to war since 1991, this time with a heavier European component. The early days will go extremely well but will not define whether or not the war is successful. The test will come if a war designed to stop human suffering begins to inflict human suffering.”
The first two days of bombing have already claimed the lives of many civilians. So much for defending the “civilian” population! The imperialists have no real concern for the lives of ordinary people. The fact that they claim to be protecting civilians in Benghazi is merely a ruse to get the backing of public opinion. They will kill many civilians in Tripoli and other areas they feel need bombing. Kevin Connolly, reporting for the BBC from the rebel-held city of Tobruk has already explained that “it is not clear if the allies can attack Col Gaddafi's troops operating in the centre of Misrata without harming the very civilians they have come to save.”
What the imperialists are out to do is remove Gaddafi, as they removed Saddam Hussein in the past. Prior to the Libyan revolution, they had managed to bring Gaddafi on board. He was collaborating with them in all fields and they felt no reason to push for “regime change”. And yet Gaddafi’s was one of the most brutal in the region, with anyone who expressed opposition risking imprisonment, torture and death. What was important for the imperialist was not the nature of the regime, but the fact that Gaddafi was opening up the economy to western investment. The economy had been partially privatized and more was on its way.
With the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, and the wave of protests that risk unseating more of their friends, the imperialist felt powerless to intervene. Gaddafi’s Libya has given them the excuse they were seeking. They have used the “humanitarian” card to justify what is outright imperialist aggression against a small country.
This war is aimed at cutting across the revolutionary wave that is sweeping the Arab countries. Obama claims that it will be a short campaign of just a few days, but this is clearly false. A few air raids are not going to achieve their aims. It will require sustained bombing and eventually they will be sucked in even more, possibly with ground troops. In the process many civilians will be killed. No doubt we will soon be hearing statements about the “unfortunate” bombing of civilians. We will hear that disgusting phrase about “collateral damage”.
Imperialist powers jostling for positions
Illustration: Latuff
This war is also about different imperialist powers intervening to carve out their own spheres of influence and also as a counter-weight to their own internal problems. Foremost in all this is Sarkozy, the President of France. A recent opinion poll shows that 71% of French people are unhappy with the performance of Sarkozy, his worst approval rating since he came to office in 2007. He has in fact become extremely unpopular in France, after his government introduced severe austerity measures last year which saw 3.5 million French workers on the streets protesting.
France was the first country to recognise the Interim Council in Libya as the official government of the country. And it was the most vociferous in pushing for the no-fly zone and also the first to actually bomb targets in Libya. We have to see what manoeuvres lie behind this. In recent years, France as a former imperial power has seen it influence dwindle, losing spheres of influence, particularly in Africa. In this they were in conflict with US and British imperialism. By being the most gung-ho in pushing for intervention in Libya, Sarkozy no doubt thinks he can regain some lost influence... and oil in Libya. His actions have nothing to do with humanitarian concerns.
Cameron is in a similar position in Britain, also suffering a sharp fall in public approval in the recent period. His popularity ratings have been “falling over a cliff” as some have put it. As his government continues to push forward with draconian austerity measures, Cameron is facing growing workers unrest, as we will see this coming Saturday in London with what promises to be one of the biggest demonstrations since the 1970s, if not bigger.
Thus both Sarkozy and Cameron could do with something that could distract attention away from the internal problems in their respective countries and direct people’s minds on intervention in Libya. At the same they can strut across the world stage, claiming to defend human rights and democracy around the world. No doubt, the governments of Denmark, Norway, Canada, and even little Qatar, can do with a bit of distraction from their own internal affairs.
The United States was wary of getting sucked into another military campaign in an Arab country. Public opinion has significantly changed towards the war in Iraq, where now a majority considers it was wrong, and the same applies to the war in Afghanistan. That explains why until the last minute [Tuesday of last week] the Obama administration wasn’t so keen on voting for a no-fly zone over Libya.
On Friday, the Wall Street Journal described the situation thus: “Just last Monday, when Nicolas Sarkozy urged Hillary Clinton to get the U.S. behind an international intervention in Libya, she demurred. The U.S. Secretary of State warned the French president that a war could be risky and bloody, say officials from both countries who were briefed on the exchange.
“Yet by the weekend, France, the U.S. and an international coalition stood poised to take ‘all necessary measures’—code for military strikes—in Libya, under United Nations authority.
“In hindsight, the meeting at the Elysée Palace in Paris was the launch point for four frantic days of diplomacy that turned the Obama administration toward intervention, western and Arab diplomats say. A lot of factors drove the shift, they say, including the administration's concern about being out of step with the changes sweeping the Arab world and of being outmaneuvered by the U.K. and especially France, both more aggressive advocates of intervention.” (Wall Street Journal, March 19, 2011) [Our emphasis]
From all this, we can see how this aggression against Libya is not dictated by any concerns for the people of Libya. It is about a group of imperialist gangsters coldly calculating how they can best defend their interests in North Africa and the Middle East.
Do not fall for imperialist rhetoric
Workers and youth around the world should not be fooled by all the rhetoric about the so-called humanitarian aims of the military intervention in Libya. It is always the case that when imperialist powers go to war, they do so by first preparing public opinion. This time it is about the poor people of Benghazi.
In Iraq public opinion was prepared with a barrage of propaganda about weapons of mass destruction, and also that Saddam Hussein was an “evil dictator”, which he was of course, but they conveniently ignored their own past good dealings with the terrible dictator. In Afghanistan, first they backed the Islamic fundamentalists against the Russians, and then when these turned on the Americans in the form of the Taliban regime, they discovered the need to defend the Afghan people. Now they are defending them by bombing them to pieces.
Their hypocrisy is further laid bare when we look at Bahrain, as we have already mentioned in previous articles. The Bahraini regime is using British arms to crush its own people. Where is Cameron’s desire to intervene here?
To be fair on the man, it is true that has intervened… in February in the “democratic” parliament of Kuwait where he admitted that the West had been “wrong” to prop up some of the dictators now in the process of being overthrown. But while Cameron was making his speech more than 100 British companies were participating in a massive Middle East arms fair hoping to do some good business with some of these selfsame dictators. And it was British defence minister Gerald Howarth who was leading the British delegation of entrepreneurs.
In Yemen we have an equally brutal dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, whose security forces last week killed more than fifty people. Any sign of a UN resolution coming up? No, just a few speeches expressing regret at such incidents. Their minds are now concentrated on the situation in Libya.
Effect of bombing on Gaddafi regime
But what has been the effect of the bombing inside Libya, in particular in Tripoli? As we have already explained, the fact that the Interim Council called for a no-fly zone, giving the UN the excuse it needed to intervene, has allowed Gaddafi to use this to present the rebels as stooges of the west, as agents of foreign powers who want to take over Libya. Now that the bombing has started it seems that this effect has been multiplied. As western bombs fall on Tripoli and other parts of the country, undoubtedly killing many civilians and destroying important infrastructure, support for Gaddafi will be strengthened.
In the East meanwhile the leaders of the Interim Council have tied their fortunes to the intervention of imperialist powers. In this they have betrayed the revolution. They have put the fate of the Libyan people in the hands of France, Britain, the USA and other smaller powers. None of these powers are intervening to defend the revolution. And if they should successfully remove Gaddafi, the government they help put in power will not defend the interests of the Libyan workers and youth. How can Cameron and Sarkozy attack the workers in their respective countries and then go and defend the Libyan workers?
The present Interim Council has clearly indicated that it leans towards the west, it wants good relations with the west, and it will guarantee their investments in Libya, and so on. It would end up being a puppet government of the western imperialist powers, nothing more, and nothing less. Whenever and wherever new regimes have come to power on the back of imperialist bayonets, these have not won the freedom of their people, but merely enslaved them to the same old master as before. That is what the imperialists are aiming for. That is why the workers and youth of the world, struggling against their own capitalist classes, must oppose this imperialist aggression of Libya. The task of overthrowing Gaddafi belongs to the people of Libya and to no one else.
Those Oldies But Goodies…Out In The Be-Bop ‘50s Song Night- The Shirelles “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of The Shirelles performing the classic Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?.
Markin comment:
This is another tongue-in-cheek commentary, the back story if you like, in the occasional entries under this headline going back to the primordial youth time of the 1950s with its bags full of classic rock songs for the ages.
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? Lyrics
Artist:Carole King
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?
Tonight you're mine completely,
You give your love so sweetly,
Tonight the light of love is in your eyes,
But will you love me tomorrow?
Is this a lasting treasure,
Or just a moment's pleasure,
Can I believe the magic of your sighs,
Will you still love me tomorrow?
Tonight with words unspoken,
You said that I'm the only one,
But will my heart be broken,
When the night (When the night)
Meets the morning sun.
I'd like to know that your love,
Is love I can be sure of,
So tell me now and I won't ask again,
Will you still love me tomorrow?
Will you still love me tomorrow?
*****
Christ, finally a teen-oriented set of lyrics that you can sink your teeth into. A teen angst, teen alienation, teen love question that was uppermost in all our minds, one way or the other, sex. Ya, I don’t know about you but I was getting kind of tired, and Billie, William James Bradley, my old schoolboy friend, elementary schoolboy friend from the old Adamsville projects days was too, of these outlandish side issue things. Like the whereabouts of Eddie, his intentions, his financial condition, his ability to write and so on in Eddie My Love. Or the dumb cluck bimbo, as old Billie called her in Teen Angel who didn’t have enough sense to know that Mr. Right, Mr. High School Right, gave her some cheapjack class ring when she went running back to the car, a car stuck, by the way, on some lonesome railroad track, with the train bearing down as far as we know in the story. Needless to say said bimbo did not make it. Or how about the forlorn lover, almost like in some Greek mythical tragedy, in Endless Sleep who after some spat decided that life was not worth living and goes down to the sea, our homeland the sea, and is ready to desecrate that space by ending it all and then giving a siren call to her lover boy to join her. Even Billie, sympathetic as he was to her plight, had to balk at that one.
No today we are in pure teen angst territory and rightly so. Back in those days what we did not, most of us anyway, know about sex, about the “birds and the bees”, about babies and where they came from, and how to protect against having them, would have filled volumes. Still, we were, most of us anyway, crazy to know more about sex, and do something about it. Whatever that was. Come on now, it was natural, natural as hell. Of course as the lyrics here indicate there was a price to be paid. See kids, meaning about anyone from thirteen to eighteen (maybe older even) were NOT suppose to do it, do the do I mean, and I guess if you listened to parents or teachers not even to think about it. But here is the dilemma in this story. Teens did it, and were anxious about that fact, for lots of reasons.
Obviously the most pressing question in 1960, the time of this song and the time just before the news of “the pill” got out (what “the pill” was you know, or should know, so I won’t go on about that) was getting pregnant, girls getting pregnant. So the disinformation, no information, no talk to your parents about it because they are afraid to talk about information, getting what you know on the streets information, really disinformation all over was part of it. But, and I think this is what the lyrics really speak to, it was as much about reputation, a girl’s reputation, about your good name, and about whether you were “easy.” See guys could be stud-of-the-week and, maybe mother, his mother, wouldn’t like it but everybody under eighteen saw you as cool. But gals were either virgins, known far and wide as such and don’t even bother messing with them, or willing but not wanting to be seen as “easy” held themselves back. And, while I do not know about other neighborhoods although I suspect the same was true, our mainly Irish and Italian working class Roman Catholic, made a very big issue out of the two, at least parents and gossip held forth that way.
Still when you went out on a date, a serious date, maybe to a dance, maybe to some party, maybe just down to the seashore and everything is all right to “pet,” or whatever, this question, this teen question of questions, always came up when the lights went down low. How many "no's" are there in the universe? And then some night some rainy night maybe, or maybe after that last dance and you held each other close, or maybe, you have a shot of booze, or, I don’t know, maybe you just felt like it because it was a warm spring evening and you were young, and life was just fine that day, or maybe your guy asked you to go steady, or some solid, teen solid thing like that, you said, “let’s see what it is all about.” And your guy, your ever-loving’ guy, your ever-loving’ horny guy was more than willing to take you for the ride. But then, in the afterglow, you had your doubts, especially in the wee morning hours when you knew you were going to get hell for being out so late. And maybe, that cold break of day, got you to thinking about what the girls in the "lav" would say, or what your guy will tell his friends, his snickering friends, and you get the nervous doubts about your course. Ya, this song speaks to that whole pre-sexual revolution generation, and maybe not so far off for teens today. Ms. King and friends certainly asked the right question, that’s for damn sure.
Markin comment:
This is another tongue-in-cheek commentary, the back story if you like, in the occasional entries under this headline going back to the primordial youth time of the 1950s with its bags full of classic rock songs for the ages.
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? Lyrics
Artist:Carole King
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?
Tonight you're mine completely,
You give your love so sweetly,
Tonight the light of love is in your eyes,
But will you love me tomorrow?
Is this a lasting treasure,
Or just a moment's pleasure,
Can I believe the magic of your sighs,
Will you still love me tomorrow?
Tonight with words unspoken,
You said that I'm the only one,
But will my heart be broken,
When the night (When the night)
Meets the morning sun.
I'd like to know that your love,
Is love I can be sure of,
So tell me now and I won't ask again,
Will you still love me tomorrow?
Will you still love me tomorrow?
*****
Christ, finally a teen-oriented set of lyrics that you can sink your teeth into. A teen angst, teen alienation, teen love question that was uppermost in all our minds, one way or the other, sex. Ya, I don’t know about you but I was getting kind of tired, and Billie, William James Bradley, my old schoolboy friend, elementary schoolboy friend from the old Adamsville projects days was too, of these outlandish side issue things. Like the whereabouts of Eddie, his intentions, his financial condition, his ability to write and so on in Eddie My Love. Or the dumb cluck bimbo, as old Billie called her in Teen Angel who didn’t have enough sense to know that Mr. Right, Mr. High School Right, gave her some cheapjack class ring when she went running back to the car, a car stuck, by the way, on some lonesome railroad track, with the train bearing down as far as we know in the story. Needless to say said bimbo did not make it. Or how about the forlorn lover, almost like in some Greek mythical tragedy, in Endless Sleep who after some spat decided that life was not worth living and goes down to the sea, our homeland the sea, and is ready to desecrate that space by ending it all and then giving a siren call to her lover boy to join her. Even Billie, sympathetic as he was to her plight, had to balk at that one.
No today we are in pure teen angst territory and rightly so. Back in those days what we did not, most of us anyway, know about sex, about the “birds and the bees”, about babies and where they came from, and how to protect against having them, would have filled volumes. Still, we were, most of us anyway, crazy to know more about sex, and do something about it. Whatever that was. Come on now, it was natural, natural as hell. Of course as the lyrics here indicate there was a price to be paid. See kids, meaning about anyone from thirteen to eighteen (maybe older even) were NOT suppose to do it, do the do I mean, and I guess if you listened to parents or teachers not even to think about it. But here is the dilemma in this story. Teens did it, and were anxious about that fact, for lots of reasons.
Obviously the most pressing question in 1960, the time of this song and the time just before the news of “the pill” got out (what “the pill” was you know, or should know, so I won’t go on about that) was getting pregnant, girls getting pregnant. So the disinformation, no information, no talk to your parents about it because they are afraid to talk about information, getting what you know on the streets information, really disinformation all over was part of it. But, and I think this is what the lyrics really speak to, it was as much about reputation, a girl’s reputation, about your good name, and about whether you were “easy.” See guys could be stud-of-the-week and, maybe mother, his mother, wouldn’t like it but everybody under eighteen saw you as cool. But gals were either virgins, known far and wide as such and don’t even bother messing with them, or willing but not wanting to be seen as “easy” held themselves back. And, while I do not know about other neighborhoods although I suspect the same was true, our mainly Irish and Italian working class Roman Catholic, made a very big issue out of the two, at least parents and gossip held forth that way.
Still when you went out on a date, a serious date, maybe to a dance, maybe to some party, maybe just down to the seashore and everything is all right to “pet,” or whatever, this question, this teen question of questions, always came up when the lights went down low. How many "no's" are there in the universe? And then some night some rainy night maybe, or maybe after that last dance and you held each other close, or maybe, you have a shot of booze, or, I don’t know, maybe you just felt like it because it was a warm spring evening and you were young, and life was just fine that day, or maybe your guy asked you to go steady, or some solid, teen solid thing like that, you said, “let’s see what it is all about.” And your guy, your ever-loving’ guy, your ever-loving’ horny guy was more than willing to take you for the ride. But then, in the afterglow, you had your doubts, especially in the wee morning hours when you knew you were going to get hell for being out so late. And maybe, that cold break of day, got you to thinking about what the girls in the "lav" would say, or what your guy will tell his friends, his snickering friends, and you get the nervous doubts about your course. Ya, this song speaks to that whole pre-sexual revolution generation, and maybe not so far off for teens today. Ms. King and friends certainly asked the right question, that’s for damn sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)