The American General Wesley Clark and NATO's Intervention in Libya

The Arab Spring in Libya, and the subsequent NATO intervention, is one of the building blocks of many communist and nazi conspiracy theories. The statements of the American General Wesley Clark, regarding NATO’s interventions around the world, are also an integral part of these conspiracy theories. General Clark supposedly said that NATO wants to break the world into pieces and things like that, accusing the United States.

Picture Wesley Clark

I must say that Wesley Clark is a member of the Democrats and not a member of the Republicans, and that his father was of Jewish origin, even though he is a Christian, like his mother. See Wikipedia “Wesley Clark : Early Life”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Early_life_and_education

What Wesley Clark did actually say is that the US should not intervene in Libya, because the US is not buying oil from Libya, and therefore the US had weak interests in Libya and should not get involved in a new war with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars still open. See the 10^th paragraph of the following Washington Post article “Gen. Wesley Clark says Libya doesn't meet the test for U.S. military action”, March 2011.

10^th Paragraph

How do we apply this test to Libya? Protecting access to oil supplies has become a vital interest, but Libya doesn't sell much oil to the United States, and what has been cut off is apparently being replaced by Saudi production. Other national interests are more complex. Of course, we want to support democratic movements in the region, but we have two such operations already underway - in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there are the humanitarian concerns. It is hard to stand by as innocent people are caught up in violence, but that's what we did when civil wars in Africa killed several million and when fighting in Darfur killed hundreds of thousands. So far, the violence in Libya is not significant in comparison. Maybe we could earn a cheap "victory," but, on whatever basis we intervene, it would become the United States vs. Gaddafi, and we would be committed to fight to his finish. That could entail a substantial ground operation, some casualties and an extended post-conflict peacekeeping presence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031103244.html

Moreover what you will never hear from communist and nazi propaganda is that once the Arab Spring broke out in Libya, the Arab League i.e. the council of the Arab countries, was putting a lot of pressure on NATO asking for an intervention, while the United States was too hesitant to get involved in a new war. See Huffington Post “Arab League Asks UN For Libya No-Fly Zone”, March 2011.

1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th Paragraphs

The Arab League called Saturday for the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, a surprisingly rapid and aggressive move for a bloc known more for lengthy deliberations than action.

Analysts said the call reflected both a widespread dislike of Libyan autocrat Moammar Gadhafi and member nations' attention to the wave of pro-democracy protests sweeping the Middle East, which has toppled leaders in Tunisia and Egypt and threatens others.

The 22-member Arab bloc, which had already barred Libya's government from taking part in League meetings, said Gadhafi's government had "lost its sovereignty." It also said the bloc would establish contacts with the rebels' interim government, the National Libyan Council, and called on nations to provide it with "urgent help."

Western diplomats have said Arab and African approval was necessary before the Security Council could vote on a no-fly zone that would be imposed by NATO nations such as the U.S., France, Britain and Italy to protect civilians from air attack by Gadhafi's forces.

The U.S. and other countries have expressed deep reservations about any action that could draw them into the conflict. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has cautioned that establishing a no-fly zone would require an attack to take out Libya's anti-aircraft capabilities, but on Saturday he said setting up a restricted zone was possible.

15^th Paragraph

That stance appeared to be part of an attempt to win over the deeply Arab nationalist government of Syria, which has smarted against foreign intervention into Arab affairs. Still, Syria voted against the no-fly zone, as did Libya's neighbor Algeria and Mauritania in West Africa.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/12/arab-league-asks-un-for-libya-no-fly-zone_n_834975.html

I must also say that the Arab countries had forbidden Muammar Qaddafi from attending the meetings of the Arab League. As you can read at the above Huffington Post article, the only two Arab countries that did not want a NATO intervention in Libya were Syria and Algeria. Syria I guess due to her alliance with Iran, and Algeria due to her alliance with Libya against Morocco, on the issue of the independence of Western Sahara, which could allow Morocco to send to Europe oil and gas from Western Africa. Morocco was an economic threat for both Libya and Algeria.

Map 1 Western Sahara

Remember that Syria and Libya were the only Arab countries that supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). For the reasons Syria and Libya, two Arab countries, supported Iran and not the other Arab countries, see “Libya and Syria : The 2 Arab Allies of Iran”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/libya-syria-the-2-arab-allies-of-iran/

Also remember that it was the French and not the Americans that were leading the attacks against Qaddafi in Libya. See Washington Post “France fires first shots against Libya after Gaddafi’s forces enter Benghazi”, March 2011.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-allies-prepare-military-action-against-libya-as-gaddafi-forces-continue-attacks/2011/03/18/ABLAOfs_story.html

Also remember that Turkey was very upset about the French lead, and insisted that NATO should be in charge. Turkey was afraid that France could have a greater influence in post-Qaddafi Libya. See Financial Times “Turkey attacks France on Libya crusade”, March 2011.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fe514f9c-5631-11e0-8de9-00144feab49a.html#axzz3zgafAfdJ

Therefore how can communist and nazi propaganda be accurate, when it says that the Arab Spring in Libya was an American conspiracy, when it was the Arab League that insisted on NATO’s attack against Qaddafi, and when it was France leading the attack? One might say “ok, the Arab Spring was not an American conspiracy, but it was a French conspiracy”.

But how could that be true, when we know what happened in 2010 during the Arab Spring in Tunisia? In Tunisia the French supported the Tunisian socialist dictator Ben Ali, a strong French ally, and also an ally of Saudi Arabia, and the French had to apologize to the Muslim World after Ben Ali was overturn and had to flee to Saudi Arabia. The post Ben Ali Tunisia did not forget the French support to Ben Ali, and Nichola Sarkozy had to apologize publicly for his support to Ben Ali. See Guardian “Sarkozy admits France made mistakes over Tunisia”, January 2011.

1^st and 2^nd Paragaphs

Nicolas Sarkozytoday admitted he had underestimated the anger of the Tunisian people and the protest movement that ousted President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.

France's support for the dictator right up to the moment he fled has caused outrage in Tunisia and weakened the former colonial power's diplomatic standingin the region.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/24/nicolas-sarkozy-tunisia-protests

The wrong French calculations about Tunisia, made Sarkozy to quickly support the rebels when the Arab Spring broke out in Libya, in order to prove to the Muslim World that France was a strong supporter of democracy, hoping that France would be treated favorably by the post-Qaddafi regime. Remember that Libya is the richest African country in oil reserves, and the 10^th richest country in the world in terms of oil reserves. Libya was very important for France, and Sarkozy did not want to repeat the mistakes he made in Tunisia. See Time magazine “How Libya Became a French and British War”, March 2011.

1^st Paragraph

As the military action against Libya to give teeth to U.N. Security Council resolution 1973 began, one question kept nagging away: Why, precisely, were the governments of Britain and France in the lead? Why were their armed forces taking part in the military action, and why had their diplomats done the grunt work in the negotiations that led to adoption of the resolution?

7^th Paragraph

Getting back in people's good books? Sarkozy started off on the wrong side of the Arab Spring, his government staying cozily entwined with that of Tunisia when the street had turned against it. I've heard it suggested that he's taking the lead on Libya so as to recover France's reputation in the Arab world. If so, this is a mighty risky way of going about it: military intervention in Libya is not guaranteed to be a success, and nor is it uniformly popular among Arabs, even those who have been demonstrating for democracy around the region.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2060412,00.html

I hope that all the above will be enough to convince silly people who read communist and nazi propaganda, many times without even realizing what they read, that the Arab Spring is mainly a Muslim thing, and it mainly involves the conflicts and the power struggle of the Muslim World.