At its peak, the 26 of July Movement had some 300 fighters, ill fed
and poorly armed, bitten by mosquitoes and accompanied by the rain.
Against them, Gen. Fulgencio Batista mobilized an army, a navy, an air
force, a coast guard, and the Rural Guard, aside from a network of spies
and irregular bands of enforcers at his command.
How could the 26 of July Movement have achieved victory? The
majority of the people were against Batista and for the 26 of July.
There was also an active underground, and organized resistance among
student, union, and political organizations. Batista fell because he
had no support. Revolutions succeed when the system they replace can no
longer survive.
Libya’s rebels are a different story. A front patched together from
groups of varying interests and ideologies, they were disorganized,
undisciplined, and untrained for battle when they first attacked an army
base and a police station. By themselves, they could have perhaps
achieved negotiations and reforms, but they could not have overthrown
the government.
They still have not achieved the latter goal; fighting continues in
Tripoli, the capital, and elsewhere. They are there now thanks only to
NATO, which has bombed at will Gaddafi’s forces and buildings, including
the residences of Gaddafi families, funded and armed the rebels,
furnished them with intelligence and strategic direction, and provided
them with a worldwide media platform of publicity. In other words: it
is NATO, not the rebel front, that has led the drive to overthrow the
Libyan government.
The US and various European nations declared from the beginning their goal: Gaddafi must go.
They pursued that goal irrespective of Security Council action at the
UN. On August 22, in a possibly premature celebration, the Telegraph published an article from the perspective of the UK’s government entitled “Libya: Secret Role Played by Britain Creating Path to the Fall of Tripoli.”
It cites the declaration of Prime Minister Cameron: “This has not
been our revolution, but we can be proud that we have played our part.”
Indeed, it was not their revolution. Nor was it of the US or of
France or the other European nations, nominally led by Norway in this
effort, that have taken part in the open action to take control of
independent Libya. But it was their war.
On August 23, the Guardian led an article with this simple but informative sentence:
“British and Nato military commanders are planning what they hope will
be a final onslaught on Colonel Gaddafi’s forces to put an end to all
resistance from troops loyal to the Libyan leader.” That’s “British and
NATO” — not Libyan — commanders.
The report noted:
The Guardian has learned that a number of serving British special
forces soldiers, as well as ex-SAS troopers, are advising rebel forces,
although their presence is officially denied. . . .
The Guardian has previously reported the presence of former
British special forces troops, now employed by private security
companies and funded by a number of sources, including Qatar. They have
been joined by a number of serving SAS soldiers. They have been acting
as forward air controllers — directing pilots to targets — and
communicating with NATO operational commanders. They have also been
advising rebels on tactics, a task they have not found easy.
The US, which had supported the rebels with intelligence and satellite images, drones, and armor-piercing munitions, ramped up its own bombings in compliance with the plan for what NATO envisioned as the final assault.
The Huffington Post on August 23 reported that “Libya Post-Conflict Planning Has Major Western Support,”
observing that “[a]ccording to reports in the American and British
press, French and British special operatives have been on the ground
with the rebels, and played a major role in coordinating the final
strategic push into Tripoli.”
The same day, the Boston Globe explained that “Firms Are Eager to Tap into Libya’s Oil Wealth.” It confirmed the obvious:
The fighting is not over in Tripoli, but the scramble to secure
access to Libya’s oil wealth has begun. . . . Western nations,
especially the NATO countries that provided crucial air support to the
rebels, want to make sure their companies are in prime position to pump
Libyan crude. Foreign Minister Franco Frattini of Italy said yesterday
that the Italian oil company Eni “will have a number one role in the
future” in Libya. . . . Eni, with BP of Britain, Total of France,
Repsol YPF of Spain, and OMV of Austria, were all big producers in Libya
before the fighting broke out, and they stand to gain the most once the
conflict ends.
In recent decades we have lived under the overlapping and
curiously-named doctrines of neoconservatism and neoliberalism. We see
now the resurgence of a third related practice: neocolonialism. War at
will is the new standard for NATO.
