Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.

On 07/26/2014 05:36 PM, Michael Karadjis wrote:
> The problem with this discussion when it comes to Sirte is that, even
> if you convinced yourself that not many civilians were killed there
I didn't say and I don't think that few civilians were killed in the
battle of Sirte. Many were, but not by NATO. The battle of Sirte was
brutal and it was under siege for a long time and heavily damaged by
opposition artillery. Later the pro-Qaddafi forces circulated these
pictures of artillery damage in Sirte but labeled it NATO bomb damage
and began the myth of massive civilian casualties caused by NATO in
Sirte. During the Battle of Sirte, 15 Sept - 20 Oct, NATO carried out 45
strikes on buildings in Sirte, all designated as military
ammunition/storage facilities, command and control nodes, military
vehicle storage facilities, military barracks facility, etc and 117
strikes on vehicles, tanks, missile launchers and radar facilities.

>   bombing the hell out of this city.
That is certainly a Qaddafi friendly way to describe the above air activity.
> then surely such "support" or toleration should only be for the most
> minimum time necessary. 
Would that be for as long as Qaddafi persisted in killing civilians or
only until he brought his targeting of civilians below a certain
threshold? Did NATO's responsibility encompass the siege of Misrata too
or only Benghazi? At what point was NATO relieved of its responsibility
to protect civilians? At what point did Qaddafi stop attacking civilians?
> In fact even Gilbert Achcar, who was essentially misquoted as
> "supporting" (rather than not opposing) the initial intervention to
> protect Benghazi, said within a couple of weeks of that event, that
> once that was done, if NATO settles in for a more prolonged
> involvement, we should vigorously demand NATO out.
That answers my question. Misrata was SOL as far as the "socialists"
were concerned.
> Whatever Gaddafi was, 
meaning even if he was a fascist, racist, mad dog killer.
> I don' think socialists should have supported a 6-month NATO
> intervention fighting on the side of the NTC to help bring it to power
> in Libya.
"socialists" shouldn't support his overthrow once NATO offered to help.
>  Gaddafi fell in August, yet the bloody sieges of Sirte and Bani Walid
> continued for another two full months. 
Micheal may have known he fell in August but that fact wasn't clear to
either the Qaddafi forces or the rest of the world until Sirte and Bani
Walid fell.

>  surely the roles by now were completely reversed: 
In both Sirte and Bani Walid, the Qaddafi regime refused to let
civilians leave the areas under siege. Truly they were using them as
human shields. That is why those sieges were so drawn out. The NTC was
trying to win them with a minimum further lost of life. The true
banality of the Qaddafi regime showed nowhere as in these last two
battles because after the fall of Tripoli it had to be clear to all
involved just how things were doing to turn out. Still the Qaddafi
forces barricaded themselves in these two strongholds, refused to let
the people leave [ and most did want to flee the scene of a battle ] ,
used summary executions to keep them there and forced a series of very
bloody, if hopeless battles at the end. This was not a reversal of
roles, this was a continuation of Qaddafi's same policies even when they
had become irrational. Under these circumstances I don't think NATO's
responsibility to protect would have been served by washing their hands
of these final battles, as Michael wishes, so much as using their air
power and smart weaponry to much more quickly reduce Qaddafi's military
power with considerably less danger to civilians than the NTC's artillery. 

Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu
Set your options at: 

Reply via email to