"Misrata is our number one priority"

Some interesting quotes from Al Jazeera:

"Misrata is our number one priority," NATO deputy spokeswoman Carmen Romero told AFP news agency adding that alliance warplanes hit Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's military assets around Libya's third largest city on Monday.
"We have a clear mandate and we will do everything to protect the civilians of Misurata," Romero said, referring to the UN Security Council resolution permitting "all necessary measures" to defend Libya's population.

Al Jazeera's John Terret reported from Washington DC:

General Carter Ham who is the commanding general for all US forces in Africa said he still envisaged a go it alone role for the US and he said that would be if US interests were specifically targeted.
Ham also said later in his testimony that in future should there be any need for a rescue operation in Libya then the US will take the lead on that initiative.

An important question must be: will there now be a marked increase in NATO military activity? Especially after the UN has shown the way in Cote d'Ivoire?

If I was Mr. Gadaffi, I would be doing some rapid re-thinking.

Gadaffi and the banality of evil

Last Thursday (31 March 2011) was the 50th aniverasary of the execution of Adolf Otto Eichmann. He was found guilty of 15 criminal charges, including crimes against humanity and war crimes. He presented a famous defence:  "I never did anything, great or small, without obtaining in advance express instructions from Adolf Hitler or any of my superiors." Hannah Arendt  called him the embodiment of the "Banality of Evil", as he appeared at his trial to have an ordinary and common personality, displaying neither guilt nor hatred. She later went on to expand this remark into a thesis: the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

This view, however, has been challenged by, amongst others, S. Alexander Haslam and Stephen D. Reicher, who have concluded: "Until recently, psychologists and historians have agreed that ordinary people commit evil when, under the influence of leaders and groups, they become blind to the consequences of their actions. This consensus has become so strong that it is repeated, almost as a mantra, in psychology textbooks and in society at large. However critical scrutiny of both historical and psychological evidence ... has produced a radically different picture. People do great wrong, not because they are unaware of what they are doing but because they consider it to be right. This is possible because they actively identify with groups whose ideology justifies and condones the oppression and destruction of others.


As we have suggested, this raises a whole set of new questions: Who identifies with such groups? When does identification become more likely? How do genocidal ideologies develop? What is the role of leaders in shaping group ideology?"

Or, as I would put it: What's a nice boy like Ibrahim Musa doing in a place like this?

An honest change of mind

"We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.

The final report by the U.N. committee of independent experts — chaired by former New York judge Mary McGowan Davis — that followed up on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report has found that “Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza” while “the de facto authorities (i.e., Hamas) have not conducted any investigations into the launching of rocket and mortar attacks against Israel.”

Our report found evidence of potential war crimes and “possibly crimes against humanity” by both Israel and Hamas. That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.
..."

Richard Goldstone

Cancer

My neighbour (friend) has got cancer. This is not something new. He was diagnosed three years ago. Since then he has had his voice box removed and parts of his colon. He has had several sessions of chemical therapy but now is house bound having to feed himself through a tube directly into the stomach. All this sounds really grim. But he has a great sense of humour. He fires off witticism after witticism via SMS; is an avid film buff (watched on some very impressive systems); dabbles on the internet; does all his own cleaning and makes desks and cupboards with expert craftsmanship. It has always been a pleasure and inspiration to be with him.
That is until two weeks ago. Suddenly everything changed. His humour disappeared. He became sullen, depressed, inactive, aggressive (all of the things I would have been had it been me with his illness!). He doe not want to see me, or anyone else. My feelings (which are, of course, of little importance in the scheme of things) are utterly confused. I want to help, but am turned away. I know there is little I can do. This makes for an awful reversal of the subject of concern. I am concerned, without having to emphasise too much, about his condition, but now I also think about what is going on inside me.

We are all weak in our ways.

No arms for Libyan rebels

"No arms for Libyan rebels", says Liam Fox. Who is he kidding? From day one, the USA have been making plans to supply the rebels: "The option of providing military assistance is on the table because no options have been removed from the table," White House spokesman Jay Carney said (Reuters March 5th). David Cameron on February 28th in the House of Commons suggested, "the British government would consider arming the opposition". These sort of signals made by countries that rely so much on making money from their arms industries do not go without a scurrying army of entrepreneurs packing their bags, portfolios and samples bent for the nearest airport.. The logistics for this little business venture were probably in place days before the first aircraft began enforcing the no-fly zone. The only reason I can see for Fox parading his views on the BBC is to ensure that Germany and Turkey fall in line with all the other NATO lands to run this war (I choose my words). As soon as this command structure is established, then watch out.

There are big bucks to be made.

Revenge

Revenge will be a motivation for Gadaffi says justice secretary Kenneth Clarke. And he is right. Revenge for destroying the Gadaffi regime's air force - although supported by UN resolution 1973, with which Gadaffi refuses to comply; revenge for pounding the Gadaffi regime's land army - although supported by UN resolution 1973, with which Gadaffi refuses to comply; revenge for a naval embargo on the Gadaffi regime - although supported by UN resolution 1973, with which Gadaffi refuses to comply. On the other hand is there not an element of revenge in our actions? Revenge for the many deaths caused by Irish terrorists supported by Gadaffi's regime; revenge for the murder of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher; revenge for the deaths of 270 people at Lockerbie? Yes and No. Revenge perhaps, but there is a greater need, that of justice and the protection of the innocent citizens of Libya.

And securing our oil interests.

"..additional measures..."

So NATO are the bosses. Who cares? Well the politicians in the USA seem to be deeply concerned about almost washing their hands. Some anti-USA half-brains might be fooled into thinking that Uncle Sam has now gone fishing. But on the whole the command structure is a realistic depiction of what it must be if this whole operation is to retain some element of morality. To the man or woman on the ground the only thing that really matters is the UN resolution being fulfilled. Are the citizens of Libya being protected? The imprecise answer to this question is the most problematic consequence of the last weeks activity. A consequence that is leading towards an inevitability, for these reasons: 1. It is impossible to protect civilians in a built up area from the air alone; 2. Contingents of marines are on-board ships in the Mediterranean; 3. Ban Ki Moon has warned of "additional measure" that "may" be taken by the UN against the Qadaffi regime.

Troops will be on the ground very soon.