[Peace-discuss] FW: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war

[David Johnson]

>From the Facebook of Dennis Kucinich - Who is quoted extensively in the
article 

 

Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war

Joint Chiefs, key lawmaker held own talks with Moammar Gadhafi regime

 

By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/jeffrey-scott-shapiro/>  and Kelly
Riddell <http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/kelly-riddell/>  - The
Washington Times - Wednesday, January 28, 2015 

Top Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  officials
and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/> 's 2011
march to war in Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  that
they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an
effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings
recovered from Tripoli <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tripoli/> .

The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the
participants, chronicle U.S. officials' unfiltered conversations with Col.
Moammar Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/> 's
son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  had
developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without
adequately weighing the intelligence community's concerns.

  _____  

  _____  

"You should see these internal State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  reports that
are produced in the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  that go out to
the Congress. They're just full of stupid, stupid facts," an American
intermediary specifically dispatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the
Gadhafi regime in July 2011, saying the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  was
controlling what intelligence would be reported to U.S. officials.

At the time, the Gadhafi regime was fighting a civil war that grew out of
the Arab Spring, battling Islamist-backed rebels who wanted to dethrone the
longtime dictator. Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  argued that
Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  might
engage in genocide and create a humanitarian crisis and ultimately persuaded
President Obama, NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  allies and the United Nations
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/>  to authorize
military intervention.

 
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/1_282015_ap070725083953-582
01jpg/> Description: Losing control: Col. Moammar Gadhafi ruled Libya with
an iron fist, but U.S. military leaders were looking for a way to avoid a
power vacuum.

Losing control: Col. Moammar Gadhafi ruled Libya with an iron fist, but ...
more
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/image/1_282015_ap070725083953-582
01jpg/>  >

Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/> 's son and
heir apparent, Seif Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/seif-gadhafi/> , told American
officials in the secret conversations that he was worried Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  was using
false pretenses to justify unseating his father and insisted that the regime
had no intention of harming a mass of civilians. He compared Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/> 's campaign
for war to that of the George W. Bush administration's now debunked weapons
of mass destruction accusations, which were used to lobby Congress to invade
Iraq <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iraq/> , the tapes show.

  _____  

  _____  

"It was like the WMDs in Iraq <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iraq/>
. It was based on a false report," Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  said in a May 2011
phone call to Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dennis-j-kucinich/> , an Ohio
Democrat serving at the time. "Libyan airplanes bombing demonstrators,
Libyan airplanes bombing districts in Tripoli
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tripoli/> , Libyan army killed
thousands, etc., etc., and now the whole world found there is no single
evidence that such things happened in Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> ."

Seif Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/seif-gadhafi/>  also
warned that many of the U.S.-supported armed rebels were "not freedom
fighters" but rather jihadists whom he described as "gangsters and
terrorists."

"And now you have NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  supporting them with ships, with airplanes, helicopters, arms,
training, communication," he said in one recorded conversation with U.S.
officials. "We ask the American government send a fact-finding mission to
Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> . I want you to see
everything with your own eyes."

The surreptitiously taped conversations reveal an extraordinary departure
from traditional policy, in which the U.S. government speaks to foreign
governments with one voice coordinated by the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/> .

Instead, the tapes show that the Pentagon
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/> 's senior uniformed
leadership and a congressman from Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/> 's own party
conveyed sentiments to the Libyan regime that undercut or conflicted with
the secretary of state's own message at the time.

"If this story is true, it would be highly unusual for the Pentagon
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  to conduct a separate set
of diplomatic negotiations, given the way we operated when I was secretary
of state," James A. Baker III, who served under President George H.W. Bush,
told The Times. "In our administration, the president made sure that we all
sang from the same hymnal."

Mr. Kucinich <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dennis-j-kucinich/> ,
who challenged Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  and Barack
Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, acknowledged that he
undertook his own conversations with the Gadhafi regime. He said he feared
Mrs. Clinton <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>
was using emotion to sell a war against Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  that wasn't warranted, and
he wanted to get all the information he could to share with his
congressional colleagues.

"I had facts that indicated America was headed once again into an
intervention that was going to be disastrous," Mr. Kucinich
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dennis-j-kucinich/>  told The Times.
"What was being said at the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  - if you look
at the charge at the time - it wasn't so much about what happened as it was
about what would happen. So there was a distortion of events that were
occurring in Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  to
justify an intervention which was essentially wrong and illegal."

Mr. Kucinich <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dennis-j-kucinich/>
wrote a letter to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  in August
explaining his communications in a last-ditch effort to stop the war.

Clinton <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>
blocks Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>
outreach

On the day the U.N. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/>
resolution was passed, Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  ordered a
general within the Pentagon
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  to refuse to take a call
with Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/> 's son
Seif <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/seif-gadhafi/>  and other
high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the
secret recordings reveal.

A day later, on March 18, Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  called for a
cease-fire, another action the administration dismissed.

Soon, a call was set up between the former U.S. ambassador to Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> , Gene Cretz, and Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  confidant Mohammed
Ismael during which Mr. Ismael confirmed that the regime's highest-ranking
generals were under orders not to fire upon protesters.

"I told him we were not targeting civilians and Seif
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/seif-gadhafi/>  told him that," Mr.
Ismael told The Times in an telephone interview this month, recounting the
fateful conversation.

While Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  urged the
Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  to cease its
communications with the Gadhafi regime, the intelligence asset working with
the Joint Chiefs remained in contact for months afterward.

"Everything I am getting from the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  is that they
do not care about being part of this. Secretary Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  does not
want to negotiate at all," the Pentagon
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  intelligence asset told
Seif Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/seif-gadhafi/>  and his
adviser on the recordings.

Communication was so torn between the Libyan regime and the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  that they had
no point of contact within the department to even communicate whether they
were willing to accept the U.N.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/> 's mandates, former
Libyan officials said.

Mrs. Clinton <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>
eventually named Mr. Cretz as the official U.S. point of contact for the
Gadhafi regime. Mr. Cretz, the former ambassador to Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> , was removed from the
country in 2010 amid Libyan anger over derogatory comments he made regarding
Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  released
by Wikileaks. As a result, Mr. Cretz was not trusted or liked by the family.

Shutting the Gadhafis out of the conversation allowed Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  to pursue a
solitary point of view, said a senior Pentagon
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  official directly
involved with the intervention.

"The decision to invade [Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> ] had already been made, so
everything coming out of the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  at that time
was to reinforce that decision," the official explained, speaking only on
the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

As a result, the Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>
went its own way and established communications with Seif Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/seif-gadhafi/>  through one of his
friends, a U.S. businessman, who acted as an intermediary. The goal was to
identify a clear path and strategy forward in Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  - something that wasn't
articulated by the White House
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/>  or State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  at the time,
officials said.

"Neither the intervention decision nor the regime change decision was an
intelligence-heavy decision," said one senior intelligence official directly
involved with the administration's decision-making, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity. "People weren't on the edge of their seats,
intelligence wasn't driving the decision one way or another."

Instead of relying on the Defense Department or the intelligence community
for analysis, officials told The Times, the White House
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/>  trusted Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/> 's charge,
which was then supported by Ambassador to the United Nations
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/>  Susan E. Rice and
National Security Council member Samantha Power, as reason enough for war.

"Susan Rice was involved in the Rwanda crisis in 1994, Samantha Power wrote
very moving books about what happened in Rwanda, and Hillary Clinton was
also in the background of that crisis as well," said Allen Lynch, a
professor of international relations at the University of Virginia. "I think
they have all carried this with them as a kind of guilt complex."

Humanitarian crisis was not imminent

In 2003, Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>
agreed to dismantle his weapons of mass destruction and denounce terrorism
to re-establish relations with the West. He later made reparations to the
families of those who died in the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over
Lockerbie, Scotland.

News media frequently described the apparent transformation as Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  "coming in from the cold."

Still, he ruled Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  with
an iron grip, and by February 2011 civil war raged throughout the country.
Loyalist forces mobilized tanks and troops toward Benghazi, creating a
panicked mass exodus of civilians toward Egypt.

Mrs. Clinton <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>
met with Libyan rebel spokesman Mahmoud Jibril in the Paris Westin hotel in
mid-March so she could vet the rebel cause to unseat Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/> . Forty-five
minutes after speaking with Mr. Jibril, Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  was
convinced that a military intervention was needed.

"I talked extensively about the dreams of a democratic civil state where all
Libyans are equal a political participatory system with no exclusions of any
Libyans, even the followers of Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  who did not commit
crimes against the Libyan people, and how the international community should
protect civilians from a possible genocide like the one [that] took place in
Rwanda," Mr. Jibril told The Times. "I felt by the end of the meeting, I
passed the test. Benghazi was saved."

So on March 17, 2011, the U.S. supported U.N. Security Council Resolution
1973 for military intervention in Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  to help protect its people
from Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/> 's
forthcoming march on Benghazi, where he threatened he would "show no mercy"
to resisters.

"I have been contacted by an intermediary in Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  who has indicated that
President Muammar Gadhafi is willing to negotiate an end to the conflict
under conditions which would seem to favor Administration policy," Mr.
Kucinich <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dennis-j-kucinich/>  wrote
on Aug. 24.

Neither the White House <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/white-house/>
nor the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  responded to
his letter, he said.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  declined to
provide any comment about the recordings.

The State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  also declined
to answer questions about separate contacts from the Pentagon
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  and Mr. Kucinich
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dennis-j-kucinich/>  with the Gadhafi
regime, but said the goal of Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  and Mr.
Obama was regime change in Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> .

"U.S. policy during the revolution supported regime change through peaceful
means, in line with UNSCR 1973 policy and NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  mission goals," the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  said. "We
consistently emphasized at the time that Moammar Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  had to step down
and leave Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  as an
essential component of the transition."

'President is not getting accurate information'

Both inside and outside the Obama administration, Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  was among
the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat
Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/> . Joining
her in making the case were French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sen. John
McCain, Arizona Republican, and her successor as secretary of state, John F.
Kerry.

Mrs. Clinton <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>
's main argument was that Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  was about to
engage in a genocide against civilians in Benghazi, where the rebels held
their center of power. But defense intelligence officials could not
corroborate those concerns and in fact assessed that Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  was unlikely to
risk world outrage by inflicting mass casualties, officials told The Times.
As a result, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/> 's
recommendation to use force.

If Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  runs for
president next year, her style of leadership as it relates to foreign policy
will be viewed through the one war that she personally championed as
secretary of state. Among the key questions every candidate faces is how
they will assess U.S. intelligence and solicit the advice of the military
leadership.

Numerous U.S. officials interviewed by The Times confirmed that Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/> , and not
Mr. Obama, led the charge to use NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  military force to unseat Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  as Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> 's leader and that she
repeatedly dismissed the warnings offered by career military and
intelligence officials.

In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the
Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  told a Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  aide that Mr.
Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  "is all Secretary Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/> 's matter"
and that the nation's highest-ranking generals were concerned that the
president was being misinformed.

The Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  liaison
indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to
Adm. Mullen, "does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State
Department <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/>  and
CIA, but there's nothing he can do about it."

In one conversation to the Libyans, the American intelligence asset said, "I
can tell you that the president is not getting accurate information, so at
some point someone has to get accurate information to him. I think about a
way through former Secretary Gates or maybe to Adm. Mullen to get him
information"

The recordings are consistent with what many high-ranking intelligence,
military and academic sources told The Times:

Mrs. Clinton <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>
was headstrong to enter the Libyan crisis, ignoring the Pentagon
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/> 's warnings that no U.S.
interests were at stake and regional stability could be threatened. Instead,
she relied heavily on the assurances of the Libyan rebels and her own memory
of Rwanda, where U.S. inaction may have led to the genocide of at least
500,000 people.

"In this particular country - Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  - at this particular moment,
we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," Mr. Obama
declared in an address to the nation on March 28. "We had a unique ability
to stop that violence: An international mandate for action, a broad
coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries and a plea for
help from the Libyan people themselves."

Yet Human Rights Watch did not see the humanitarian crisis as imminent.

"At that point, we did not see the imminence of massacres that would rise to
genocidelike levels," said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the
Middle East and North Africa division for Human Rights Watch. "Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/> 's forces killed
hundreds of overwhelmingly unarmed protesters. There were threats of Libyan
forces approaching Benghazi, but we didn't feel that rose to the level of
imminent genocidelike atrocities."

Instead, she said, the U.S. government was trying to be at the forefront of
the Arab Spring, when many dictator-led countries were turning to democracy.

"I think the dynamic for the U.S. government was: Things are changing fast,
Tunisia has fallen, Egypt has fallen, and we'd better be on the front of
this, supporting a new government and not being seen as supporting the old
government," Ms. Whitson said.

"Our big thing was: 'What's a good way out of this, what's a bridge to
post-Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>
conflict once the military stops and the civilians take over, what's it
going to look like?'" said a senior military official involved in the
planning, who requested anonymity. "We had a hard time coming up with that
because once again nobody knew what the lay of the clans and stuff was going
to be.

"The impression we got from both the businessman and from Seif was that the
situation is bad, but this [NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  intervention] is even worse," the official said, confirming the
sentiments expressed on the audio recordings. "All of these things don't
have to happen this way, and it will be better for Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  in the long run both
economically and politically if they didn't."

Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  looks for a way
out

The Pentagon <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/>  wasn't alone
in questioning the intervention.

The week the U.N. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/>
resolution authorizing military force was passed, Sen. Jim Webb, Virginia
Democrat, expressed his own concerns.

"We have a military operation that's been put to play, but we do not have a
clear diplomatic policy or clear statement of foreign policy. We know we
don't like the Gadhafi regime, but we do not have a picture of who the
opposition movement really is. We got a vote from the Security Council but
we had five key abstentions in that vote."

Five of the 15 countries on the U.N. Security Council abstained from voting
on the decision in Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>
because they had concerns that the NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  intervention would make things worse. Mrs. Clinton
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-rodham-clinton/>  worked to
avoid having them exercise their veto by personally calling representatives
from Security Council member states.

Germany and Brazil published statements on March 18, 2011, explaining their
reasons for abstention.

"We weighed the risks of a military operation as a whole, not just for Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  but, of course, also with
respect to the consequences for the entire region and that is why we
abstained," Germany said.

Brazil wrote, "We are not convinced that the use of force as contemplated in
the present resolution will lead to the realization of our most important
objective - the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians.

We are also concerned that such measures may have the unintended effect of
exacerbating tensions on the ground and causing more harm than good to the
very same civilians we are committed to protecting."

Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., told The Times
that history has proved those concerns correct.

"The U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  was meant to create a no-fly
zone to prevent bombing of civilians," said Mr. Kislyak. "NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  countries that participated in this intervention were supposed to
patrol the area. However, in a short amount of time the NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  flights - initially meant to stop violence on the ground - went far
beyond the scope of the Security Council-mandated task and created even more
violence in Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> ."

On March 19, the U.S. military, supported by France and Britain, fired off
more than 110 Tomahawk missiles, hitting about 20 Libyan air and missile
defense targets. Within weeks, a NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  airstrike killed one of Gaddafi's sons and three grandsons at their
the family's Tripoli <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tripoli/>
compound, sparking debate about whether the colonel and his family were
legitimate targets under the U.N.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/>  resolution.

Mr. Gates, the defense secretary, said the compound was targeted because it
included command-and-control facilities.

Even after the conflict began, U.S. military leaders kept looking for a way
out and a way to avoid the power vacuum that would be left in the region if
Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  fell.

As the intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs kept his contacts
going, one U.S. general made an attempt to negotiate directly with his
Libyan military counterparts, according to interviews conducted by The Times
with officials directly familiar with the overture.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the U.S. African Command, sought to set up
a 72-hour truce with the regime, according to an intermediary called in to
help.

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Charles Kubic, who was acting as a business
consultant in Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  at the
time, said he was approached by senior Libyan military leaders to propose
the truce. He took the plan to Lt. Col. Brian Linvill, the U.S. AFRICOM
point of contact for Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> .
Col. Linvill passed the proposal to Gen. Ham, who agreed to participate.

"The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military
forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then
to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans
would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was
honored," Mr. Kubic said, describing the offers.

"[Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/> ] came
back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition
government, but he had two conditions," Mr. Kubic said. "First was to insure
there was a military force left over after he left Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  capable to go after al
Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family
and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time,
everybody thought that was reasonable."

But not the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/> .

Gen. Ham was ordered to stand down two days after the negotiation began, Mr.
Kubic said. The orders were given at the behest of the State Department
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/department-of-state/> , according to
those familiar with the plan in the Pentagon
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/> . Gen. Ham declined to
comment when questioned by The Times.

"If their goal was to get Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  out of power, then
why not give a 72-hour truce a try?" Mr. Kubic asked. "It wasn't enough to
get him out of power; they wanted him dead."

Libyan officials were willing to negotiate a departure from power but felt
the continued NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  bombings were forcing the regime into combat to defend itself, the
recordings indicated.

"If they put us in a corner, we have no choice but to fight until the end,"
Mr. Ismael said on one of the recordings. "What more can they do? Bomb us
with a nuclear bomb? They have done everything."

Under immense foreign firepower, the Gadhafi regime's grip on Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  began to slip in early April
and the rebels' resolve was strengthened. Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  pleaded with the
U.S. to stop the NATO
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/north-atlantic-treaty-organization-na
to/>  airstrikes.

Regime change real agenda

Indeed, the U.S. position in Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  had changed. First, it was
presented to the public as way to stop an impending humanitarian crisis but
evolved into expelling the Gadhafis.

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta says in his book "Worthy Fights" that the goal
of the Libyan conflict was for regime change. Mr. Panetta wrote that at the
end of his first week as secretary of defense in July 2011, he visited Iraq
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iraq/>  and Afghanistan "for both
substance and symbolism."

"In Afghanistan I misstated our position on how fast we'd be bringing troops
home, and I said what everyone in Washington knew, but we couldn't
officially acknowledge: That our goal in Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  was regime change."

But that wasn't the official war cry.

Instead: "It was 'We're worried a humanitarian crisis might occur,'" said a
senior military official, reflecting on the conflict. "Once you've got
everybody nodding up and down on that, watch out because you can justify
almost anything under the auspices of working to prevent a humanitarian
crisis. Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>
had enough craziness about him, the rest of the world nodded on."

But they might not be so quick to approve again, officials say.

"It may be impossible to get the same kind of resolution in similar
circumstances, and we already saw that in Syria where the Russians were very
suspicious when Western powers went to the U.N.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/united-nations/> ," said Richard
Northern, who served as the British ambassador to Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  during part of the conflict.
"Anything the Western powers did in the Middle East is now viewed by the
Russians with suspicion, and it will probably reduce the level of authority
they're willing to give in connection to humanitarian crises."

Mr. Kucinich <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dennis-j-kucinich/> ,
who took several steps to end the war in Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/> , said he is sickened about
what transpired.

He sponsored a June 3 resolution in the House of Representatives to end the
Libyan war, but Republican support for the bill was diluted after Speaker
John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, proposed a softer alternative resolution
demanding that the president justify his case for war within 14 days.

"There was a distortion of events that were occurring in Libya
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>  to justify an intervention
which was essentially wrong and illegal because [the administration] gained
the support of the U.N. Security Council through misrepresentation," said
Mr. Kucinich <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dennis-j-kucinich/> .
"The die was cast there for the overthrow of the Gadhafi government. The die
was cast. They weren't looking for any information.

"What's interesting about all this is, if you listen to Seif Gaddafi's
account, even as they were being bombed they still trusted America, which
really says a lot," said Mr. Kucinich
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dennis-j-kucinich/> . "It says a lot
about how people who are being bombed through the covert involvement or
backdoor involvement of the U.S. will still trust the U.S. It's
heart-breaking, really. It really breaks your heart when you see trust that
is so cynically manipulated."

In August, Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>
's compound in Tripoli <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tripoli/>  was
overrun, signaling the end of his 42-year reign and forcing him into hiding.
Two months later, Gadhafi
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/> , 69, was killed in
his hometown of Sirte. His son Seif was captured by the Zintan tribe and
remains in solitary confinement in a Zintan prison cell.

Since Gadhafi <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/moammar-gadhafi/>  was
removed from power, Libya <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/libya/>
has been in a constant state of chaos, with factional infighting and no
uniting leader. On Tuesday, an attack on a luxury hotel in Tripoli
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/tripoli/>  killed nine people,
including one American. A group calling itself the Islamic State-Tripoli
Province took responsibility for the attack, indicating a growing presence
of anti-American terrorist groups within the country.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20150131/74dfbff7/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13981 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20150131/74dfbff7/attachment-0003.jpg>