A Problem of Legitimacy: The US Role in Libya

The Libyan rebels have apparently achieved control of almost all of Gadhafi’s last stronghold in the capital Tripoli, although some scattered fighting is still sporadically cropping up. While the whereabouts of Gadhafi are still unknown, the consensus seems to be that there is an effective fall of the regime, or will be very soon. The chairman of the National Transitional Council has announced as much. The mainstream media is depicting the rebel celebrations in the center of Tripoli as a jubilent  liberation and a victory for the rebels, already being “exploited by American war advocates to delegitimize domestic objections to the war.” But as Noah Shachtman at Wired reminds us, after 19,751 NATO sorties, this is largely a US-NATO victory:

The operation was massive, at one point involving 13,000 troops from 18 countries. Italian Reaper drones and other intelligence aircraft told the rebels where pro-government forces were, and what the Gadhafi-ites were saying. Plus, the drones did some damage of their own; U.S. Predators struck 92 times since late April. Apache gunships, launched from the carrier HMS Ocean, took out Gadhafi checkpoints, to “encourage rebel fighters in the east to move forward,” according to the Independent. Qatari Mirage jets helped enforce the no-fly zone, while a half-dozen Norwegian F-16s dropped 542 bombs in 2,000 hours of flight time. The frigate HMS Sutherland was one of several ships blocking suspicious vessels from possibly resupplying the regime. B-1 bombers flew all the way from South Dakota to get in on the action, destroying 100 targets in one 24 hour stretch. Then there were the more than 220 Tomahawks.

More than just a military triumph, the US-NATO also lays claims of victory over the intentions of this war. That is, regime change. The US has done it again, managing to hold out long enough for everybody to forget that this war was waged in violation of the law. The US-NATO almost immediately abandoned their stated goals of protecting civilians from Gadhafi’s attacks, switching to ousting him.

Stephen Walt warns against another “Mission Accomplished” gaffe, and as I lay out in my piece today, there is indeed a strong likelihood that (1) the rebel council proves incompetent at laying any foundations for a just and humane government and (2) there will be pressure for costly US support and even ground troops/occupation.

As for the first point, just consider the words of one of the most interventionist (and influential) members of Congress:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) who has been an active supporter of the TNC throughout the Libya war, called on the Obama administration to increase its contacts and support for the TNC, now that they appear to be on the verge of taking power. He laid out a long list of tasks for the TNC if they are able to secure and hold Tripoli.

“In particular, we must support the new Libyan authorities to ensure they are able to prevent acts of retribution, initiate a credible process of national reconciliation, secure weapons depots and critical infrastructure, protect vulnerable populations, establish security and rule of law in Tripoli and throughout Libya, and begin the broadest possible outreach across Libyan society for an inclusive and transparent political transition,” Lieberman said in a statement Sunday evening.

Senators McCain and Graham issued similar statements. Again, especially after the Obama administration and virtually everyone who counts in Washington, formally recognized the TNC as the official and legitimate government of Libya, it is still unclear to what extent the Libyan population supports the rebels. I can think of at least a few obstructions in the way of the rebels gaining legitimacy.

The rebel group is not a cohesive assemblage, but made of disparate factions. The main rebel group, based in Benghazi in the country’s east, consists of former government ministers who have defected, and longstanding opposition figures, representing a range of political views including Arab nationalists, Islamists, secularists, socialists and businessmen. Their military forces are a hodge-podge of armed groups, former soldiers and freelance militias, including amateur neighborhood gangs and former members of an Islamist guerrilla group crushed by Gaddafi in the 1990s.

An example of their divisions made headlines at the end of July, when rebel military commander Abdel Fattah Younis was assassinated by his fellow comrades on suspicion of being disloyal and having perhaps been responsible for an inadequate rebel performance in the east. More than division, the rebels have accumulated a record of extrajudicial executions, suppression of free speech, beatings, and thievery, which have their Western enablers worried about their ability to run a just and humane country.

And such a task will be monumental. The economy is ruined, infrastructure has been bombed and destroyed, communications are disrupted, public services are damaged and heavily armed gangs loyal only to themselves are likely to remain at large. Political tasks, like a significant refugee problem and a looming division of the country between eastern and western tribes, are also complicated undertakings, to say the least.

But also, what legitimacy has the US in Libya? The actions of the Obama administration were not approved by Congress, so that excludes any real legitimacy for it here at home. But the US conduct in the war (which includes war crimes) also leads to questions about what right they have to choose sides in Libya now.

Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | August 19, 2011

Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | August 19, 2011

Help us meet our fund-raising goal! Help keep the War Party at bay by making a tax-deductible donation today!

Don’t forget to sign the open letter to Obama and Congress to end the wars: ComeHomeAmerica.us

Continue reading “Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | August 19, 2011”

After 20 Years, Still Hiding the Truth About US Collusion in Salvadoran Atrocities

Yesterday, the Boston Globe reported on a renewed legal case against Inocente Orlando Montano, “a former Salvadoran government minister accused of colluding in the infamous killing of six Jesuit priests in El Salvador two decades ago,” who has apparently been living a quiet life in Everett, Massachusetts.

The international indictments issued in May seek justice for the clergymen, five of them Spaniards; their housekeeper; and her 16-year-old daughter, who were roused at night from their beds on the campus of Central American University in San Salvador and executed by an elite unit of the Salvadoran military.

Most of those accused of the notorious war crime have never faced justice.

The article goes through Montano’s charges thoroughly, top to bottom. It details the Jesuit massacre he was allegedly involved in, plots to assassinate other members of the church that the Salvadoran government and military junta suspected of “supporting leftist rebels,” even the Salvadoran civil war which was “riddled with atrocities” and resulted in the deaths of “about 75,000 people.” It even quotes Massachusetts Representative James McGovern as saying “I find it unbelievable and unconscionable that somebody involved in this crime is in the United States.’’

One important element, though, completely left out of the Globe article is that these crimes were committed with the support and direct involvement of the United States. McGovern finds it unbelievable that Montano was even in the country, never mind his side having been allied with Washington at the time of these atrocities. Going back to the Carter administration, the U.S. had been actively supporting, equipping, and training the brutal Salvadoran government and military. In 1980, the Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Romero, sent a letter to Carter pleading with him to not “send military aid to the junta,” saying it would be used to “sharpen injustice and repression against the people’s organizations” which were struggling “for respect for their most basic human rights.” A few weeks later, Romero was murdered. Then the war escalated. As did support for atrocities from Washington. A more honest history lesson can be found here:

The Jesuits were murdered by the Atlacatl Battalion, an elite unit created, trained and equipped by the United States. It was formed in March 1981, when fifteen specialists in counterinsurgency were sent to El Salvador from the US Army School of Special Forces. From the start, the Battalion was engaged in mass murder. A US trainer described its soldiers as “particularly ferocious….We’ve always had a hard time getting them to take prisoners instead of ears.”

In December 1981, the Battalion took part in an operation in which over a thousand civilians were killed in an orgy of murder, rape and burning. Later it was involved in the bombing of villages and murder of hundreds of civilians by shooting, drowning and other methods. The vast majority of victims were women, children and the elderly.

[…] In another case, an admitted member of a Salvadoran death squad associated with the Atlacatl Battalion, Cesar Vielman Joya Martinez, detailed the involvement of US advisers and the Salvadoran government in death-squad activity. The Bush administration has made every effort to silence him and ship him back to probable death in El Salvador, despite the pleas of human rights organizations and requests from Congress that his testimony be heard. (The treatment of the main witness to the assassination of the Jesuits was similar.)

The results of Salvadoran military training are graphically described in the Jesuit journal America by Daniel Santiago, a Catholic priest working in El Salvador. He tells of a peasant woman who returned home one day to find her three children, her mother and her sister sitting around a table, each with its own decapitated head placed carefully on the table in front of the body, the hands arranged on top “as if each body was stroking its own head.”

The assassins, from the Salvadoran National Guard, had found it hard to keep the head of an 18-month-old baby in place, so they nailed the hands onto it. A large plastic bowl filled with blood was tastefully displayed in the center of the table.

Present-day reports on such events around the world obviously leave it out when the U.S. is responsible, or involved in any way. They wouldn’t dare expose incumbents like that. But why, after more than 20 years, can’t the mainstream press report the truth about these atrocities in El Salvador?

Call for Assad to Step Down Isn’t Much Change, Still Illustrates Washington Hypocrisy

The moral color of the Obama administration’s call for Syrian President Bashar al Assad to step down is a bit unnerving. First of all, today’s announcement is being hailed as huge news, but it barely differs from previous statements that Assad must reform or get out of the way, that he is “not indispensable,” that he has “lost legitimacy.” So, the rhetoric is about the same, and the policies are only slightly more pitted against the regime: an executive order with harsher sanctions and a suggestion that the International Criminal Court consider Assad for crimes against humanity. Again, not big changes, but the statement is being made out as if Washington is just fed up with Assad’s brutality, which they could have easily tolerated had politics dictated so, as other U.S.-supported atrocities clearly demonstrate.

The air of moral authority against such violence is giving Washington an opportunity also to shore up anti-Iran sentiment, singling out the Iranian regime as the only one still siding with Assad. Well, that’s actually not true: as far as has been reported at this point, Russia is still insisting on its right to continue its arms sales to Syria. Clinton did mention this too (although the media focuses on her more prominent Iran comment), but the virtuous call for Assad to go can’t exactly be couched in terms of stopping arms sales to the brutal regime. After all, the U.S. arms trade to Arab tyrannies actively suppressing pro-democracy protests is a favorite hobby of the Washington elite. (See overall facts and figures and some recent sales).

Update: Assad has reportedly told U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that military operations against Syrian people have stopped, although Assad has previously made such comments, only to have people blink and go right back to shelling cities and towns.

Also, see Daniel Larison at the American Consertive on how such gestures as the U.S. is now making towards Assad can “pave the way for war.”

Pushing the Military in Latin America

The Posse Comitatus Act is one of the most important measures in this country imposing restrictions on the federal government and Executive power. It essentially prohibits the federal government from using the military for law enforcement, which, despite the problems with law enforcement, has helped solidify a separation of the army and police. This is why the Bush administration’s post 9/11 attempts to cripple that law were so disgusting and dangerous. It is a vital safeguard against outright militaristic rule here at home.

But, as this report from the Washington Office on Latin America details, the U.S. encourages very different practices in its drug war throughout Latin America. It “lays out the United States’ persistent, century-long tendency to help the region’s militaries take on internal security roles” and that this tendency “continues with today’s ‘wars’ on drugs, terrorism, and organized crime.”

Despite the occasional examples of disputes and over- reaching discussed in Section I, the Posse Comitatus model has served the United States well. U.S. military and police institutions alike have benefited from the clear separation between their roles and missions.

It is unfortunate and alarming, then, that Washing- ton has supported almost the exact opposite course in Latin America and the Caribbean. For the past century, and continuing today, U.S. assistance has encouraged the Western Hemisphere’s militaries to assume internal roles that would be inappropriate, or even illegal, at home.

[…] The U.S. government is by far the largest provider of military and police aid to Latin America and the Caribbean. Arms and equipment transfers, training, exercises, presence at bases, and military-to- military engagement programs send strong messages about military and police roles. So do diplomatic inter- actions with the region.

Instead of exporting the principle to which the United States adheres, though, these efforts often do just the opposite: encourage Latin American govern- ments to use their militaries against their own people. This is a longstanding tendency in U.S. policy toward Latin America, though it rarely gets framed in terms of the United States’ much different domestic model.

Take the Merida Initiative in Mexico as an example:

Following his election in 2006, Mexican President Felipe Calde- rón sent tens of thousands of soldiers into the streets in zones under the dominion of hyper-violent drug drug-trafficking organizations. Especially in cities near the U.S. border, Mexico’s Army now works hand-in-hand with police forces, and at times supplants them completely. The Bush administration rushed to endorse this model with a multi-year aid package, now totaling over $1.4 billion and mostly made up of military and police assistance. The largest items in the aid package – helicopters and surveillance aircraft – are for Mexico’s Army and Navy.

Mike Riggs, at Reason, blogged about recent updates of the Merida Initiative, explaining that it is expanding, continuing at least beyond 2012. Part of the expansion is a plan to have “local U.S. cops to train local Mexican police,” although there aren’t signs this will shift the anti-Posse Comitatus style status quo:

The Webb County Sheriff’s Department has never been bombed, its officers do not face daily the likelihood of execution, and they have never felt the urge to quit their jobs en masse for fear of execution. If the State Department believes local U.S. cops can help the situation in Mexico, they should explain how, especially since the U.S. military has been training Mexican cops and military members for years, with more mass graves and cartel in-fighting as the only measurable result. […] Thirty thousand people have died “in recent years” due to the increased pressure the U.S. has applied to Mexico’s cartels. If that’s winning, then yes, the U.S. is winning.

Another interesting example which clearly reveals Washington’s preferences for internal military control throughout Latin America isthe case of Honduras. The illegal military coup in June of 2009 was supported by the Obama administration despite having recognized it as unconstitutional and illegitimate, according to WikiLeaks diplomatic cables. The military basically kidnapped the President and forcibly removed him from power probably in the interest of a few rich thugs. What followed were a whole host of human rights violations – including 3,000 people killed in Honduras including journalists, lawyers, and leaders of popular organizations – most of which were never investigated. Nevertheless, Obama administration had “representatives from the U.S. Department of State [meet] with de facto president Porfirio Lobo Sosa to convene a working group in charge of the implementation of the Merida Initiative/CARSI.” A nice little anecdote to illustrate who Washington wants to reign over “the backyard” and why.

Corporatist Drug War Foreign Policy

Via the Just the Facts blog, this U.S. Trade and Aid Monitor* details the corporatist approach to drug war foreign policy. The Department of Defense is extending a privately contracted five-year global counter narcotics program valued upwards of $15 billion. The program employs five primary corporations in the military industrial complex: Blackwater Lodge & Training Center, Inc.; Lockheed Martin Integrated SystemsARINC Engineering Services, LLC;Raytheon Technical Service Company; and Northrop Grumman/TASC, Inc. The countries in which these taxpayer-funded rent-seekers and mercenaries have been and will be operating in include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Colombia, and Mexico.

The extended program would again be granted for a five-year period, beginning on or about June 1, 2012, and would continue to support the CNTPO’s mission to “disrupt, deter, and defeat the threat to national security posed by illicit trafficking in drugs, small arms and explosives, precursor chemicals, people, and illicitly-gained and laundered money.

[…] Specific details about the extended program have not been released, but the announcement did include four attachments (attachments 2-5) detailing projects anticipated under the follow-on contract…

Those four attachments are worth exploring. They detail the program’s projects – which include everything from training and equipping counter-narcotics forces, to construction of high-tech facilities and equipment for border and airport security, to language lessons and media training – within the above mentioned countries.

See recent drug war coverage at Antiwar.com:

Latin America Beware: The Imperial Pretext Is Changing

US-Trained Guatemalan Forces Tied To Drug Gangs

Interventionism South of the Border: Teaching Drug Cartels How to Kill

CIA, DEA, Contractors Operate Secretly Inside Mexico

Mexico Blocks US Extradition of ‘Drug Queen’

Supporting Atrocities in Colombia

Update on US Support for Colombia

US Pledges $300 Million More for Central America Drug War

Drug War Wreaking Havoc in Latin America

*The original language of this post incorrectly described the U.S. Trade and Aid Monitor as affiliated with the Christian Science Monitor.

Update: Jason Ditz writes in the news section on the U.S. hiring Blackwater for the Afghan drug war.