[D66] Britain and France escalate war in Libya

[Antid Oto]

Intensified bombing, military “advisers” on the ground
Britain and France escalate war in Libya
By Patrick Martin
20 April 2011

Great Britain and France, the two European powers spearheading the war against
Libya, are taking new steps to escalate the military intervention. British
Foreign Minister William Hague announced Tuesday that as many as 20 British
military officers were going to Benghazi to direct the forces fighting Libyan
ruler Muammar Gaddafi. France has deployed additional air capability, including
the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle.

The British decision is the most fateful, since it is a clear signal that the
NATO powers, including the United States, will be ultimately driven to send
ground troops if the campaign of air strikes and poorly organized rebel attacks
fails to oust Gaddafi.

There were conflicting reports on the advisers, with the British newspaper
Guardian describing it as “a joint British-French military team”, while other
news services said it was British only. The Guardian added, “The UK-French team
will advise the rebels on intelligence-gathering, logistics, and communications.
In an indication of the serious nature of the move, the team will be run by a
joint force headquarters…” In other words, the NATO officers, not the rump group
of ex-CIA, ex-Gaddafi and ex-Al Qaeda operatives, will exercise real command and
control over the operations of the so-called “rebels.”

Foreign Minister Hague was at pains to deny the obvious—that the dispatch of
NATO officers is a major step down the road that leads logically and inexorably
to the invasion of Libya by the imperialist powers.

Referring to the new British mission, he said, “They will advise the National
Transitional Council on how to improve their military organizational structures,
communications and logistics, including how best to distribute humanitarian aid
and deliver medical assistance.”

Despite the references to non-combat functions, the arrival of British officers
signifies the official conversion of the “rebel” force into an imperialist-led
military operation, and the dropping of any pretense that the Benghazi-based
council represents an indigenous resistance to the Gaddafi regime.

The “rebels” are no more independent of the imperialist powers than the Northern
Alliance in Afghanistan, which was utilized by the Bush administration in 2001
to oust the Taliban and establish the puppet regime still headed by the US
nominee, President Hamid Karzai.

Hague did not explain how intelligence-gathering responsibilities—necessarily
connected with the direction of ground operations and targeting for NATO air
strikes—could be squared with his presentation of the mission as purely
humanitarian.

He claimed, “This deployment is fully within the terms of UNSCR 1973, both in
respect of civilian protection and its provision expressly ruling out a foreign
occupation force on Libyan soil. Consistent with our obligations under that
resolution, our officers will not be involved in training or arming the
opposition’s fighting forces. Nor will they be involved in the planning or
execution of the NTC’s military operations or in the provision of any other form
of operational military advice.”

Only those who are hopelessly naïve or willfully blind can believe such
self-evident rubbish. British military officers are not the Salvation Army.
Their profession is to plan and execute combat missions. They are going to
Benghazi, not to remedy a humanitarian crisis—there is none in that city, which
is well equipped with food and medical supplies, and not under military
attack—but to address the obvious military incapacity of the anti-Gaddafi
forces, who possess neither technical skill nor combat discipline.

The Gaddafi regime contemptuously dismissed Hague’s statement. Deputy Foreign
Minister Khaled Kaim told a news conference in Tripoli, “If there is any
deployment of any armed personnel on Libyan ground, there will be fighting. The
Libyan government will not take it as a humanitarian mission. It will be taken
as a military mission.”

The British move may actually be intended to provoke such a response. In the
event that the British officers come under fire from Gaddafi’s troops, NATO is
likely to use this as a casus belli to justify the deployment of ground forces,
in the name of “self-defense” for the “humanitarian” mission.

Hague’s announcement of the deployment of British officers to Benghazi has
sparked a debate in the British capitalist press on the logic of the escalation.

Former foreign secretary David Owen, now a Liberal peer, writing in the Times of
London, publicly called for the creation of “safe havens” modeled on previous
imperialist interventions in Bosnia and the Kurdistan region of Iraq, beginning
with an exclusion zone around Misrata. “Just as Benghazi was saved within hours,
so must Misrata be,” he wrote. “We have probably only a few days.”

Writing in the Guardian, columnist Simon Tisdall observed, “By suggesting that
Benghazi, facing destruction last month by Gaddafi's forces, would have been a
new Srebrenica but for the intervention, the allies must now, logically, offer
the same level of protection to Misrata and other desperate towns. This may only
be achieved by ground-based intervention.”

In a statement quoted in the British press, Lord Dannatt, former head of the
British army, described the dispatch of military advisers as “an entirely
logical further step to achieve legitimate aims.” Rebutting criticism of the
move by some British MPs, he added, “Some will always say ‘mission creep’, but
[Britain should] interpret the UN mandate broadly to avoid mission collapse.”

Preventing “mission collapse” is the principal motive for the escalation of the
bombing of Libya, agreed on by NATO foreign ministers at a meeting last Friday
in Berlin. According to press reports. NATO commanders have revealed that the
bombing was being extended from overt military targets like tanks and artillery
to include satellite communications systems and even telephone exchanges, in the
name of striking at “command and control” installations.

By this logic, any facility that could be used for communications purposes
between the Libyan government in Tripoli and its armed forces anywhere in the
country is a target for bombs and missiles.

The NATO foreign ministers heard a plea for additional strike aircraft to
supplement those mobilized by France, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Norway and
Belgium, the six countries actually fighting the air war in Libya. NATO
officials told the press that France has taken up the slack, providing
additional jets and moving the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle closer to the
Libyan coast and placing its aircraft under NATO command.

Britain also stepped up its role in the air war, with the submarine HMS Triumph
firing cruise missiles at Libyan targets on Monday and Tuesday. Britain has also
supplied war materiel to the anti-Gaddafi forces, including 1,000 sets of body
armor and 100 satellite phones.

Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini said NATO would also consider sending
technical equipment like radars and communications interception systems.

In an interview with Al Jazeera English on Tuesday, EU foreign policy chief
Catherine Ashton confirmed that the EU had formally offered to deploy 1,000
soldiers to Libya’s third-largest city, Misrata, which is held by the opposition
but under siege by Gaddafi’s troops. She said that all that was required was a
request from UN officials in charge of humanitarian relief operations in Misrata.

This is different from a new mandate from the UN Security Council, where Russia
and China would likely oppose authorization of the deployment of NATO ground
troops in Libya. A Russian government adviser, Azhdar Kurtov of the Institute of
Strategic Studies, blamed France for escalating the war because it has failed to
oust Gaddafi.

“Gaddafi firmly remains in power,” he said. “Each day that passes, the cost of
the operation increases, and this is spurring Paris into using other methods of
waging the anti-Gaddafi war.”

Brigadier General Mark van Uhm, chief of allied operations for NATO, said the
air strikes have destroyed more than 40 tanks and numerous armored personnel
carriers mobilized by pro-Gaddafi forces. He said that more than 30 percent of
Gaddafi’s forces had been “eliminated,” an estimate that suggests that the
bombing has killed thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Libyan soldiers and
militia members—a death toll that dwarfs even the most farfetched claims of
civilian casualties in the civil war.

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/liby-a20.shtml