Gaddafi threatens attacks on Europe

Gaddafi threatens attacks on Europe

By Ernesto Londono, Published: July 1

TRIPOLI, Libya — Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi on Friday threatened to attack Europe if NATO continued bombing his country.

In a recorded message broadcast to a large crowd gathered in Tripoli’s central square, Gaddafi said that Libyans would “target your homes, offices, families, which would become legitimate targets.”

As a long time head of a wealthy oil state and past supporter of terrorism, Gaddafi has the kind of resources that make his threats credible. I am surprised -- or maybe not really surprised but only dismayed -- at the foolish bravado of the "bring it on" chest-thumpers. Of course, they are but the chorus to the lead actors in government that were in so great a rush to indict the man for war crimes before he could be safely captured, (if not killed), that they had to make their grandstanding point nevermind the risks. Doesn't anyone, here or in Europe, worry about consequences anymore?

Gaddafi's doom and NATO's survival

I believe the strategic thinking among the most influential foreign policy elites is that Gaddafi is doomed. He may win military battles but his victories will only force the rebels into a guerrilla insurgency which, under international sanctions, he cannot win. Does this sound like a good outcome? Not to these strategists. It would mean the rebels will have succeeded without Western military support. A no-fly zone will, naturally, be accompanied by "coordination" with the rebels including intelligence sharing and strategic advice, In due course, there will follow weapons and other military supplies and training. By the time the civil war is over, the rebel armed forces will be militarily dependent upon the West and our Generals will have become chums with their Generals. This is the intended result.

Besides, NATO is an enterprise supporting many military careers within itself and peripheral suppliers and organizations. It is in need of new missions to justify its existence. To a large extent, that is what the continued presence in Afghanistan is about, but that effort isn't going so well. Libya would be a second chance.

Libya: an appearance of US stupidity

In today’s WaPo, Stephen Rademaker makes the case that the Obama Administration blundered by (1) endorsing a UN arms embargo that applies to the rebels as well as Gaddafi, locking in the latter’s military advantage and (2) authorizing the International Criminal Court to try Gaddfi for war crimes, backing him into a no-surrender corner. These may not be mistakes at all, especially if the clever Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is responsible. They may be intentionally aimed at creating circumstances where military intervention to rescue to the rebellion becomes (arguably) necessary. The maneuvers to bring about yet another interventionist war may be beyond the merely verbal. It must not be allowed that the rebels should succeed on their own and feel free to pursue their interests independently of Western hegemony.