{"id":27530,"date":"2016-08-15T17:57:50","date_gmt":"2016-08-16T01:57:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=27530"},"modified":"2016-08-15T17:57:50","modified_gmt":"2016-08-16T01:57:50","slug":"us-admits-boots-on-the-ground-in-libya-but-will-this-be-gaddafi-2-0","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2016\/08\/15\/us-admits-boots-on-the-ground-in-libya-but-will-this-be-gaddafi-2-0\/","title":{"rendered":"US Admits Boots on the Ground in Libya, But Will This Be Gaddafi 2.0?"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Wednesday, it was reported<\/a> that Libyan militia groups supportive of the GNA, the Government of National Accord \u2013 the interim government installed by the United Nations \u2013 had, with the help<\/a> of the United States via airstrikes that began<\/a> August 1, retaken the northern city of Sirte.<\/p>\n

\u201cPro-government Libyan militias backed by American airpower,\u201d<\/i>wrote the New York Times<\/i>, \u201csaid Wednesday that they had seized the Islamic State\u2019s last stronghold in the country, in the seaside city of Surt.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

The Times<\/i> went on to say that \u201cIf confirmed, the capture would be a severe blow to the militant organization\u2019s expansion into North Africa, and extend the string of territorial retreats it has suffered this year in Syria and Iraq.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

Last Monday, the Pentagon announced<\/a> that the U.S., at the request of the GNA, had begun a campaign of precision airstrikes targeting ISIS fighters in Libya. The strikes, according to Press Secretary Peter Cook, were approved by President Obama in order \u201cto enable the GNA to make a decisive, strategic advance\u201d<\/i> in the chaos<\/a> that is Libya since the US intervention in 2011.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Last week, Underground Reporter<\/i> proposed<\/a> an alternative theory, that the new campaign \u2013 which, according<\/a> to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joe Dunford\u2019s own assessment, comes at a time when ISIS has been weakened in North Africa \u2013 is far less about combating terrorism and far more<\/i> about preventing the rise of another Gaddafi-led regime in Libya.<\/p>\n

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who was Muammar Gaddafi\u2019s favored son and likely heir, was quietly released<\/a> \u2013 without explanation \u2013 from his southern Libyan prison in April. Saif had been captured following the death of his father in 2011, as the Gaddafi family attempted to flee<\/a> the country.<\/p>\n

Saif, who has a doctorate in global governance, was a high society player<\/a> in England, where he lived before the US intervention. He acted as the facilitator between those who wished to deal with oil-rich Libya but didn\u2019t want to be associated with the pariah that his father had become.<\/p>\n

It appears that Saif is now living under the protection<\/a> of one of the two major militia groups, the Zintanis, jockeying<\/a> to fill the power vacuum inside Libya. His sudden release prompted some, such as professor Yehudit Ronen of Israel\u2019s Bar-Ilan University, to ask the question:<\/p>\n

\u201cDoes the Zintan armed militia that released him envision his return to the center of the Libyan political stage?\u201d<\/i> she told<\/a> the Jerusalem Post<\/i>, asking further if the Zintanis \u201cwish to seize his political charisma, experience and diplomatic talents and connections to gain the upper hand in Libya\u2019s chaotic and violent struggle, which has reached in fact a tragic stalemate?\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

Given the evidence, and the fact that the US is suddenly choosing to fight terror groups within Libya at a time when \u2013 according to the New York Times<\/i>\u2019 recent estimate \u2013 terrorists in that country have been severely weakened, this view of the situation is still much more logical.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s another aspect to consider.<\/p>\n

The war in Syria is coming to a close. Government forces, with the support of the Russian military, have encircled the last remaining enemy stronghold in Aleppo. Earlier this week, Syrian and Russian forces pounded<\/a> rebels with airstrikes after the rebels managed to temporarily break<\/a> through the blockade. The siege has since begun to be reestablished, however, and the Syrian government and its allies are seeking<\/a> the surrender of the rebels.<\/p>\n

Writes<\/a> the Gulf News<\/i>:<\/p>\n

\u201cRegime sources in Damascus, speaking to Gulf News, confirmed that if the Syrian army succeeds in taking Aleppo, it would change the dynamics of the entire northern front and \u2018bring the Syria war to a close.\u2019\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

A daily ceasefire<\/a> has been granted by the Syrian government to allow for residents of Aleppo, via previously instituted humanitarian corridors<\/a>, to escape the fighting. The length of that ceasefire may even be increased<\/a> in the coming days.<\/p>\n

All evidence points to the fact that the Syrian government is attempting to give the rebels within Aleppo a chance to surrender without further bloodshed. The rebels, however, appear steadfast. It was recently reported<\/a> that 7,000 fighters are headed toward Aleppo from the southwest.<\/p>\n

Indeed, it seems the last stand of the Syrian rebels may be imminent.<\/p>\n

The US, in the meantime, is left to target<\/a> fledgling pockets of ISIS fighters within the country. Make no mistake, a victory in the Syrian war by the Bashar al-Assad-led government \u2013 particularly with the aid of Russia \u2013 would be a black eye in the face of the United States. Remember, the US tried and failed<\/a> to get a military campaign going against Assad back in 2013.<\/p>\n

Elsewhere in the Middle East, things aren\u2019t going much better for the United States.<\/p>\n

In Afghanistan, already the longest<\/a> war in US history, the fighting drags on<\/a> with no end in sight. In early July, in fact, President Obama admitted<\/a> that more troops than originally planned will be left in Afghanistan by the end of his presidency.<\/p>\n

And in Iraq, the US has committed to a sustained presence. In early July, the Pentagon announced<\/a> that additional troops will be sent to the fight. Days after that, it was reported<\/a> that even more<\/i> military assets would be pledged to the war.<\/p>\n

So as much as the United States\u2019 new campaign in Libya might be about preventing the rise of another Gaddafi-led power in Libya, it may also be about a projection of strength. The US, after all, can\u2019t stand idly by as the world sees a leader it tried to oust \u2013 backed by a country it wants<\/a> to go to war with \u2013 achieve victory.<\/p>\n

Actions by the US in the coming days will be telling. ISIS has just received a \u201csevere blow\u201d<\/i> in North Africa. And since combating terrorism is the reason cited by the Pentagon for the campaign in Libya \u2013 and since Sirte was the terror group\u2019s \u201clast stronghold in the country\u201d<\/i> \u2013 it would seem, logically, that the US involvement<\/a> in Libya should immediately come to an end.<\/p>\n

This article originally appeared on UndergroundReporter.org<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Wednesday, it was reported that Libyan militia groups supportive of the GNA, the Government of National Accord \u2013 the interim government installed by the United Nations \u2013 had, with the help of the United States via airstrikes that began August 1, retaken the northern city of Sirte. \u201cPro-government Libyan militias backed by American airpower,\u201dwrote […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":287,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-27530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27530","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/287"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27530"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27530\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27532,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27530\/revisions\/27532"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27530"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=27530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}