Libya

Remove all ads!

Frankly, it is likely that the missiles from Yemen story was a canard. **** happens.

So lets get back to a constructive discussion. I'll line up my arguments in a clear and compact way.

My core thesis was and is that the US</font>

• did hype the Libyan so-called “threat” and
• that the Iraq war did not have anything to do with Libya’s disarmament, suggesting
• that Ghaddafi’s say that he was afraid of US action was a Libyan freebie to make the US happy – as the logical conclusion.

That is for the following reasons:

a. The “Libyan Threat”

• Note that there are hundrets of centrifuges actually required to enrich nuclear material in a serious weapons program using centrifuges
• Now that they arrieved in US hands and are on display in Tenessee experts have stated that only two of them actually had rotors, that is, actually were functional, implying that Libya was as far as several years away from actually making a weapon and not close to having one. That sort of takes away the urgency of the claim of a Libyan nuclear program.
• Further, considereing that the nuke program not only was unfunctional, but that Libya offered it's disarmament for four years - it can be concluded that the program was inactive anyway.
• Libyas chemical arsenal consisted of 24 tons of WW-I vintage mustard gas – three truckloads of hazardous waste.

That suggests basically that the US hyped the “Libyan threat” in order to make Libya’s token disarmament of it’s token WMD assets more of a political success, taking advantage from a cooperation process underway already: That is, probably the Bush crew jumped on the train and exaggerated the Libyan WMD element as that was why they were under attack in the case of Iraq. Distraction.

b. By insisting that fear after Iraq forced Ghaddafi’s hand you imply that the US would (again) go to war against a(nother) nonexistent threat, this time against a dictator compliant already. Not only that it would have equaled the US’s final diplomatic suicide, just consider how very much it would have pissed off ally Britain to see another of its diplomatic initiatives they worked on hard, for four years in this case, screwed up by Washington. And there are facts further pointing against this:

• Full lifting of UN sanctions is contingent on Libyan compliance with its remaining UNSCR requirements on Pan Am 103, including acceptance of responsibility for the actions of its officials and payment of appropriate compensation. That is, the determining factor for when Libya would be allowed out of the doghouse was a positive settlement of the Lockerbie compensations. The end of this talks luckily coincided with a time after the US had dealt with Iraq.
• Libya has been in negotiations on these compensations for about four years - well before the national security strategy was written, before Bush was in office and before 911 and well before the hapless invasion of Iraq.
• Right from the start Ghaddafi offered disarmament. How should have Ghaddafi been motivated in his willingness to disarm by seeing Saddam fall, when he actually started negotiating about his disarmament years before that event?
• As a result of occupying Iraq US armed forces would face severe difficulties to start any major military action in the next time, such as conquering and disarming Libya. US forces are overstretched. And considering the compliant Ghaddafi tough US military action simply wouldn't make sense too. For a threat to succeed it has to be credible. So, how credible a threat of a US military intervention did Ghaddafi realistically have to fear when he “surrendered”?

c. After that it is pretty obvious to presume that Ghaddafi declared his “fear” of US intervention as a result of the usual US armtwisting in diplomacy.

And considering the welcome backing it gives to a very disputed strategy of a troubled president it seems that this declaration came in quite convenient, and surprise, that was how it was celebrated by the right wing pundits: Pre-emption works.

Well, I don’t think so. And in particular: Not in the case of Libya. Their conclusion isn’t backed by the facts.

In the end I have three questions for you:</font>

• Did Libya's WMD program pose a threat?
• How afraid must Ghaddafi have been from Bush? Is it credible in face of Ghaddafis record of compliance that fear forced his hand?
• How does Ghaddafi's "I've been so afraid" statement look in face of the facts I lined out above? How credible is it?

You can answer that to yourself.

[ March 26, 2004, 14:14: Message edited by: Ragusa ]