After obtaining a United Nations Security Council resolution establishing a “no fly zone” and authorizing “all necessary measures” to stop Libyaʻs military assault on rebel forces, the U.S. and European began their attack on Libya.  The AP wrote:

The U.S. claimed initial success two days into an assault on Libya that included some of the heaviest firepower in the American arsenal — long-range bombers designed for the Cold War — but American officials on Sunday said it was too early to define the international military campaign’s end game.

The New York Times reported:

American and European forces began a broad campaign of strikes against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi on Saturday, unleashing warplanes and missiles in a military intervention on a scale not seen in the Arab world since the Iraq war.

The mission to impose a United Nations-sanctioned no-fly zone and keep Colonel Qaddafi from using air power against beleaguered rebel forces was portrayed by Pentagon and NATO officials as under French and British leadership.

But the Pentagon said that American forces were mounting an initial campaign to knock out Libya’s air defense systems, firing volley after volley of Tomahawk missiles from nearby ships against missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli, the capital, and the western cities of Misurata and Surt.

And while the Pentagon is reporting that the initial missile and bombardment campaign was successful, the U.S. strategy is unclear.  Another AP article reports that the western campaign in Libya could last “a while”:

The U.S. military, for now at the lead of the international campaign, is trying to walk a fine line over the end game of the assault. It is avoiding for now any appearance that it aims to take out Gadhafi or help the rebels oust him, instead limiting its stated goals to protecting civilians.

Britain also is treading carefully. Foreign Secretary William Hague refused Monday to say if Gadhafi would or could be assassinated, insisting he would not “get drawn into details about what or whom may be targeted.”

“I’m not going to speculate on the targets,” Hague said in a heated interview with BBC radio. “That depends on the circumstances at the time.”

So, the legal and moral justification for the military intervention is “humanitarian”, to protect civilians. But the real objective is regime change.   As Global Research reports, the Security Council resolution was not unanimous; Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India abstained from the vote.   A Russian commentator also remarked that the “humanitarian” bombing of Yugoslavia was the precedent for the latest U.S. attack on Libya and that Libya was the fourth country in twelve years to be directly attacked by the west. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin criticized the UN Security Council resolution authorizing military attacks against Libya:

“The Security Council resolution is deficient and flawed; it allows everything and is reminiscent of a medieval call for a crusade,” Putin told workers at a ballistic missile factory in the Urals region. “It effectively allows intervention in a sovereign state.”

Analysis from Stratfor suggests that while the immediate objective is regime change, the long term strategy in Libya is unclear:

The Libyan war has now begun. It pits a coalition of European powers plus the United States, a handful of Arab states and rebels in Libya against the Libyan government. The long-term goal, unspoken but well understood, is regime change — displacing the government of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and replacing it with a new regime built around the rebels.

The mission is clearer than the strategy, and that strategy can’t be figured out from the first moves. The strategy might be the imposition of a no-fly zone, the imposition of a no-fly zone and attacks against Libya’s command-and-control centers, or these two plus direct ground attacks on Gadhafi’s forces. These could also be combined with an invasion and occupation of Libya.

The question, therefore, is not the mission but the strategy to be pursued. How far is the coalition, or at least some of its members, prepared to go to effect regime change and manage the consequences following regime change? How many resources are they prepared to provide and how long are they prepared to fight? It should be remembered that in Iraq and Afghanistan the occupation became the heart of the war, and regime change was merely the opening act. It is possible that the coalition partners haven’t decided on the strategy yet, or may not be in agreement. Let’s therefore consider the first phases of the war, regardless of how far they are prepared to go in pursuit of the mission.

Rick Rozoff points out in Global Research that the war on Libya is NATOʻs first direct African conflict as well as the first war for the newly created  U.S. African Command (AFRICOM).   He also points out that the humanitarian war justification for the attack on Libya has not been applied consistently the current wave of protest in the Arab world:

The U.S. has conducted secret military operations in Yemen to hunt Al-Qaeda in Yemen.    Last year it was reported Yemenʻs President Saleh and General David Petraeus, Commander of the US Central Command held closed door meetings during which arrangements were made for the U.S. to establish a military base on the Yemeni island of Socotra.

The following appeal was sent by the New Japan Womenʻs Association calling for an end to the billions of dollars Japan pays to the U.S. to cover the cost of foreign military bases.

>><<

Dear our friends in the U.S. peace community,

This is Emiko HIRANO, international section head of the New Japan Women’s Association (Shinfujin).

Thank you very much for solidarity, compassion and support you have been extending to us, in this most difficult time in our postwar history. You keep reminding us that we are not alone in enduring and recovering from the unprecedented tragedy.

President Barack Obama said in his statement on Thursday, “We will stand with the people of Japan as they contain this crisis, recover from this hardship, and rebuild their great nation.” We are grateful that the president of our ally is ready to do whatever it can to help us out of this tragedy.

The New Japan Women’s Association calls on our sisters and brothers, friends of the U.S. peace and just movement to ask your president to return the money he receives from the Japanese government, that is our taxpayers’ money, to cover the 75 percent of the cost of the U.S. military stationing in Japan. We have over 130 U.S. military bases and facilities with about 40,000 personnel. The expenses for the maintaining the U.S. military in our country is called “sympathy budget,” (host nation support in your media) because it covers far beyond the Japan’s obligation under the Security Treaty; it includes the salaries of the Japanese employees working in the bases, as well as heating, electricity and water, and even dry-cleaning charges of military families. In 2010, the expenses totaled nearly 190 billion yen (about $1.6 billion), and Japan covers 50 percent of all the cost of U.S. military stationed around the world.

With the unprecedented scale of damage in Tohoku region, well-known for its fishery and agricultural products, and the possible radiation contamination, we need money for the rescue work and for assisting the people who barely survived to recover. In the long run, Japan will need more and more money not only for the reconstruction of the disaster-stricken areas but also for recovering from the economic and human losses we are facing as a whole nation. We cannot afford sustaining U.S. military bases and daily life of the military families any more while we need money to help our fellow people living in sorrow, grief and fear to get back to their normal life as soon as possible, although life will not be the same as it used to be.

Please tell your president to show his support by saying that he kindly declines to receive the “sympathy budget.” Please tell your congresswomen, congressmen and senators to present a resolution to this end.

Here in Japan, the New Japan Women’s Association, urges the Japanese government to stop spending the Japanese people money for maintaining the U.S. military and to reallocate the budget for human need, with immediate focus on the assistance to the Tohoku population. We believe this will lead to the drastic cut in military spending to make our world safer for all and more sustainable.

HIRANO Emiko

****************************************

International Section Head

New Japan Women’s Association

5-10-20, Koishikawa, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-0002 JAPAN

Phone: +81-3-3814-9141

Fax: +81-3-3814-9441

E-mail: s-intl@shinfujin.gr.jp / hiraemi@concerto.plala.or.jp

URL: http://www.shinfujin.gr.jp

+++

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/76139.html

U.S. moves to calm Okinawa’s anger by sacking Maher over remarks

TOKYO, March 10, Kyodo

The United States moved Thursday to calm anger in Okinawa ignited by alleged disparaging remarks about local people made by a senior U.S. official, sacking him and offering an apology to Japan over the incident.

The U.S. government replaced Kevin Maher as head of the Office of Japanese Affairs at the State Department with Rust Deming, a former deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo.

Visiting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell offered his personal and the U.S. government’s ”deepest regret for the current controversy” concerning Maher’s alleged remarks when he met with Japan’s new Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto.

Satoko Norimatsu of the Peace Philosophy Centre posted the more information about the derogatory comments made by State Department official Kevin Maher about Okinawans:

Anger Spreads Over Kevin Maher’s Derogatory Comments on Okinawans

Kevin Maher

On December 3, 2010, Kevin Maher, Director of the Office of Japan Affairs and former U.S. Consul-General of Okinawa gave a lecture to the fourteen students of American University (Washington, DC) who were going to visit Okinawa to learn about the issues surrounding US military bases there. Kyodo News Agency, Okinawan newspapers Ryukyu Shimpo and Okinawa Taimusu, and other media reported it on March 7, 2011, and anger quickly spread through Okinawa over Maher’s numerous derogatory remarks about Okinawa and its people. The March 8 edition of Ryukyu Shimpo ran almost five full pages of special reports, analyses, an editorial that calls for dismissal of Maher, a response from US Embassy in Tokyo saying Maher’s views did not represent the US government at all, and critical comments from former Governor of Okinawa Ota Masahide, citizens, politicians and scholars in Okinawa and Japan. Ota says Maher is one who “endorsed the Henoko plan, so we should use this opportunity to crush the plan.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE INCLUDING THE TEXT OF THE NOTES TAKEN BY AMERICAN UNIVERSITY STUDENTS FROM MAHER’S TALK

Rolling Stone published an expose of U.S. Army psyops against visiting members of congress.  If they are using these tactics against elected officials, why should we not expect that they would use the same techniques against members of the public? According to the article:

The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in “psychological operations” to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.

The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as “information operations” at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.

“My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave,” says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. “I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line.”

Holmes consulted a JAG attorney:

On March 23rd, Holmes emailed the JAG lawyer who handled information operations, saying that the order made him “nervous.” The lawyer, Capt. John Scott, agreed with Holmes. “The short answer is that IO doesn’t do that,” Scott replied in an email. “[Public affairs] works on the hearts and minds of our own citizens and IO works on the hearts and minds of the citizens of other nations. While the twain do occasionally intersect, such intersections, like violent contact during a soccer game, should be unintentional.

But what really is the difference between “public affairs” and “information operations” besides the titles?  In Hawai’i, the Army has paid big bucks to Native Hawaiian consultants to conduct “public affairs” and win hearts and minds in the Native Hawaiian community.

After questioning the illegal orders, the article describes, Holmes came under investigation for trumped up charges, which he believed were in retaliation.  The final outcome?

As for the operation targeting U.S. senators, there is no way to tell what, if any, influence it had on American policy. What is clear is that in January 2011, Caldwell’s command asked the Obama administration for another $2 billion to train an additional 70,000 Afghan troops – an initiative that will already cost U.S. taxpayers more than $11 billion this year. Among the biggest boosters in Washington to give Caldwell the additional money? Sen. Carl Levin, one of the senators whom Holmes had been ordered to target.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE

READ A RELATED ARTICLE  ON “RUNAWAY GENERAL” STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL

READ A RELATED ARTICLE ON “KING DAVID” PETRAEUS

Finian Cunningham reports in Global Research that:

Bahrain’s uprising against the US-backed ruling elite is gathering critical mass, with the Persian Gulf island state seeing the biggest demonstration ever last night. Some 200,000 people took the main highway leading to the financial district in the capital, Manama, shouting in unison for the regime to go.

Their protest is now firmly established at Pearl Square, where tents have been erected and basic amenities installed to cope with the thousands who now camp there nightly. In deliberate replication of the demonstrations at Tahrir Square in Egypt’s capital, Cairo, the protesters in Bahrain are saying that they are not moving until their demands are met.

Men, women and children have lost their fear. After a brutal crackdown by the state last week, which resulted in seven civilians murdered and hundreds injured, failed to crush the uprising, the people are now increasingly emboldened and determined to demand the overthrow of the Al Khalifa regime.

People have found their voice to demand what they have been wanting for many decades – for, what they see, as an imposter regime to go; to get out of their lives and their island.

The origin of the conflict is a 200 year old occupation by a foreign tribe that came to occupy the island:

Bahrainis have long memories regarding the nature and origin of the regime. Over and over, the protesters will tell you that they have had enough of the Al Khalifas’ predatory rule.

One small, makeshift placard held by a group of young teenagers said in Arabic: “The visit is over”.

Many indigenous Bahrainis (about 600,000 of the total one million present population) can trace their family origins back to the time of “Prophet Issa” (Jesus) and beyond.

They view the ruling Al Khalifa family as something of an imposter that has abused the civility of the Bahraini people for the past 200 years. It is not a gross oversimplification of history when Bahrainis relate how the Al Khalifas originated from a Bedouin tribe in what became central Saudi Arabia and voyaged around the Persian Gulf as pirates and renegades seeking a base.

After being kicked out of Zubarah (later Qatar), the Al Khalifas settled in Bahrain. With the help of the British Empire, they became rulers of the island in return for British “protection”. Bahrain, as an ancient trading hub, bestowed on the indigenous people a certain cosmopolitan, civilized attitude. They were fishermen, farmers, boat makers and artisans who were able to make a good living from the island’s rich natural resources, which included abundant freshwater aquifers.

The impact on the native people of the island is reminiscent of conditions in Hawai’i and other small islands under foreign occupation:

“When I was a boy, my family used to fish here. We always had plenty to eat and we would sell fish at the market. Now I don’t have any work.” He pointed to the ground beneath the skyscrapers and said: “This used to be sea. This is where we used to live.”

Bahrain also happens to be the site of a major U.S. military base and home to the 5th Fleet.    It is not clear how demonstrators feel about the U.S. bases, but it’s a good bet that the uprising is making U.S. elites nervous.

In “Dictators are “Disposable”: The Rise and Fall of America’s Military Henchmen: History Repeats Itself? From the “King of Java” to the Pharaoh of Egypt”, Michel Chossudovsky cautions against overestimating the role of people power in the toppling of Mubarak in Egypt, lest we overlook the other forces at play.  Reviewing the overthrow of Suharto, the brutal U.S. backed dictator of Indonesia, he argues that the regime change was induced by western powers because Suharto had outlived his usefulness to the global capitalist order.  He draws parallels with events in Egypt:

The outcome of Suharto’s demise was continuity. To this date, the military machine combined with a ruthless form of capitalist development prevails in Indonesia. The country is rich in natural resources. It is an oil producing economy. Yet poverty and unemployment are rampant. The country’s wealth is appropriated by foreign conglomerates with the support of the military machine and police apparatus.

Both Suharto and Mubarak were America’s henchmen recruited from the ranks of the military. They are disposable leaders. When they are no longer needed, they are replaced. In the words of Finian Cunningham in relation to Indonesia (1998), “the country’s military machine continues to operate with brutal efficiency…”

Democratic elections took place in 1999,  Abdurrahman Wahid was appointed president by the Parliament with Sukarno’s daughter Megawati as Vice President. Wahid was later impeached. The illusion of a populist government prevailed with Megawati as a figurehead president (2001-2004).

Meanwhile, the role of the military and its links to the US have remained unscathed. In 2004, a (former) career military commander with close ties to the Pentagon, trained at Fort Benning  and the US Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono became president. He was reelected in 2009.

Egypt: US Sponsored Coup d’Etat?

In Egypt, following Mubarak’s demise, the military machine prevails. Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, Egypt’s defense minister, commander in chief of the Armed Forces and since February 11, 2011 head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, is the de facto Head of State, the Vice presidency is held by Omar Suleiman. Both men are US appointees.