In last month’s installment I wrote that February 2011 was a month for the history books. It is now apparent that the same can be said for March 2011 and the next upcoming months. The popular uprisings or rebellions, the word one uses for the same events depends entirely on one’s point of view, are continuing in ever widening circles. The fire the young Tunisian, Mohamed Bouazizi, with which he immolated himself in December of last year, has spread to Central and Eastern North Africa as well as Arab states in the Middle East such as Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan and Syria. While the Palestinians have, so far, largely shown restraint it is doubtful that they will do so for much longer because they also have profound grievances.

            The West, and foremost the U.S., is now confronted with a dilemma which is hard to resolve. Ever since Wilson we have preached freedom and self-determination as the desired goal for all people of the world but have found it inconvenient when some emerging nations took us at our word and created governments which were inimical to their former colonial masters; our most trusted allies such as Great Britain and France. Instead they looked for help to the Soviet Union whose interest it was to foster these independence movements because “socialism” could be advanced and the West’s access to the emerging markets thwarted. That was in essence what the Cold War was all about. The Kremlin had its proxies and we had ours in form of military dictators. When one of them stepped out of line a CIA sponsored coup, such as in Viet Nam, Chile, and other countries, could readily rectify the situation although it might need several years as for instance in Nicaragua, or fail as in Viet Nam. But the situation changed drastically in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The bipolar world had disappeared; America had emerged as “the sole superpower” and felt itself free, especially under George W. Bush, to bring “democracy” to the rest of the world. That there is a potential inherent conflict between self-determination, i.e. establishing a nation of one’s own and the form of government this nation subsequently creates was not under consideration.

Our idealistic Wilsonianists, as we might called them, assumed that the emerging nations would choose a democratic form of government but that ignored reality. Nations are born in chaos; various individuals vie for power and whoever gains the most followers at a given time will become the autocratic leader and suppress the losers of the struggle. The winner may or may not legitimize his power grab by elections, after the opposition has been muzzled, until the latter has become strong enough to start a civil war and turn the tables on the ruling circles. Everybody promises democracy, but with few exceptions this promise is hardly ever kept. The situation was compounded in Africa because the colonial borders, with which the new nations were supposed to have been satisfied, frequently bore no relationship to the tribal distribution of the new country. In addition, tribes which for various reasons had been at war with each other for decades if not centuries and had only been held together as a colony by Europeans now felt free to pursue their own goals with the inevitable result of mass slaughter. Although the “developed world” decried these human rights abuses they had no problem selling arms to the various factions because there was money to be made. Individual “merchants of death” were prosecuted, but when the Western world or the Soviet Union did so, no one objected. It’s obviously not the fact that “rebel” groups should not be armed but who does the arming makes the difference. An individual becomes a criminal; a state can do so for “humanitarian” causes or in the “national interest.”

As long as these events happened in sub-Saharan Africa, apart from the southernmost portion of the continent, the West usually paid scant attention, but the situation differs in the Middle East where not only oil and gas are at stake but where there is the additional problem of a Jewish state in the midst of the Arab world. That peace in that area will never be achieved until the Palestinians have at long last obtained their “human rights,” as enshrined in the UN Charter, is obvious even to our governing circles in Washington. But the will, which would be required is lacking because, as has so frequently been pointed out here, domestic elections are at stake. The Jewish vote counts and the Palestinian vote is negligible. These are the realities behind our foreign policy in that part of the world which is at such variance with our professed ideals that it opens us up to the charge of hypocrisy. 

When the Ottoman Empire was dismantled after WWI religious and ethnic communities were thrown arbitrarily together, with Iraq as one prime example. The Kurds in the North are not Arabs and their desire for nationhood has been steadfastly denied because it would mean territorial loss for Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Sunnis and Shiites hated each other for religious reasons and only British occupation held these factions together. Installation of a monarchy under British protection was tried thereafter, but it soon gave way to a military coup with eventually Saddam Hussein grabbing the reins, which were only taken from him recently by the American invasion. We know all this too well but I mention it now because the same situation is playing itself out in Libya where we find ourselves entangled in another military experiment for “regime change.”

Last Monday evening President Obama explained to us why we intervened in what was obviously a local uprising which had developed into a civil war. The cause was noble, he said. We had to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe because Gaddafi was killing “his own people,” a phrase which is a left-over from the “Butcher of Baghdad’s” behavior. The latter had the gall to use the poison gas, which we had sold him, on the Kurds when they sided with the Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war. Since we wanted Saddam to win, rather than the Ayatollah, we did not object at the time, although we complained about it later when it suited our purposes. Yet, it needs to be said that the Kurds were not “his people” in the tribal sense some Middle Eastern and Africans are still caught up in. They were rebel subjects which had to be put down by any and all means. Saddam is gone and apart from the old standby Ahmadinejad, as the bête noir of American-Israeli policies, Gaddafi’s sins of the past are now being resurrected to paint him as a danger to the world which has to be eliminated.

True enough Col. Mouammar Gaddafi is indeed a rather strange person and his unpredictable antics have earned him the epithet of “the mad dog of the Middle East” by President Reagan during a 1986 Press Conference. When one of the reporters then pointed out that this was rather strong language, Reagan smiled and said he had only used the words he had heard from another reporter. Since our hate-love affair with the colonel goes back at least thirty years and I never believe the noble phrases which are given to justify military adventures, I tried to educate myself about the man toward whose political, if not physical, demise we are now spending our tax money.

As a physician and behavioral neuroscientist I am not swayed by propaganda, especially since I had more than my share in adolescence under Hitler, but instead am always looking for motives in human behavior. The fact that I tried to do so even with Hitler in my book War&Mayhem, has earned me some epithets by not so well meaning others, which do not deserve repeating, but failed to deter me from subsequent efforts. The usual way politicians and media pundits deal with someone who stands in the way of one’s own desires is by declaring the adversary as either devoid of morals and thereby no longer belonging to the human race, or providing a psychiatric label which is usually schizophrenia. Every so often the two aspects are combined as is currently the case with Gaddafi. There is no doubt that the man’s behavior is strange, to say the least, but whether or not he is legally or medically insane is another question. In addition, when I read up about him an old German proverb, which again hits the nail on the head, came to mind: Kinder und Narren sprechen die Wahrheit; children and crazies speak the truth. Since the purpose of this website is to discern whatever truth may be gleaned from the wealth of disinformation which is spread, let us now look at Libya and its colonel in more detail.

When one studies the history of the country it is immediately apparent that it has always consisted of two major portions: the Cyrenaica, with Benghazi as the major port and capital in the East, and Tripolitania, with Tripoli as its head, in the West. The Cyrenaica had been settled by Greeks in pre-Roman times while Tripolitania was colonized by the Phoenicians. Eventually they were integrated in the Roman and subsequently Ottoman Empire, but their tribal composition remained relatively distinct. When the Italians came in during the early 20^th century, following the example of the British and French in the quest for colonial glory, they combined the Cyrenaica with Tripolitania plus a swath of southern tribes and thereby created Libya; the country whose people’s freedom we are now defending.

The Italian dream of empire ended with the Second World War. For a while the British took over and then in the true and tried fashion of imperial policy they appointed the Emir of Benghazi as King of Libya and went home. But they were pursued by what has been called Wilson’s Ghost. The Egyptians next door had gotten tired of their King, who had likewise been appointed by the British to keep the Suez Canal out of the hands of undesirables, and the military under Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser deposed him in 1952. The fact that kings can be made to disappear with relatively little effort was not lost on neighboring Libya where another young colonel our Mouammar Gaddafi followed the example in 1969. While King Idris was in Italy for some medical condition Gaddafi led a coup at home and installed himself as the leader of the country. Nasser was his hero and role-model. When the latter had created the United Arab Republic by uniting Egypt with Syria the dream of a secular Arab Umma seemed close to realization and Gaddafi wanted to join the fray. Unfortunately for him, Nasser overreached. First there was the inconclusive war with Yemen and then came the crushing defeat by the Israelis in 1967. It seems that if there was one life-changing event in the political thoughts of Gaddafi this was it. Nasser had failed and it was now up to him to take up the burden of his legacy.

Gaddafi then made several efforts to achieve Union with other African countries (e.g. Egypt, the Sudan, Tunisia, and Morocco) but all came to naught. When he invaded Chad his troops got a bloody nose which was the second major wake-up call. Nasser had failed and now his own troops were worthless. To overcome the problem of personal security he created his private mercenary army and in order to annoy the West he would liberally fund a variety of terrorist organizations. The intent was to destabilize the existing political order which would elevate him to a hero’s position in the eyes of emerging Africa. He was rather indiscriminate in his largesse and even the IRA profited from it. A great deal of money also flowed to the revolutionary Palestinian cause with Abu Nidal as a major beneficiary. That this would bring the ire of the Israelis and thereby America upon him was, of course, a given. The Mossad spared no effort to discredit Gaddafi in the eyes of the West and there is some suggestion of “false flag” operations where Mossad whose motto is “by deception you shall win” was actually responsible for the terror acts.           

            After the bombs which went off at Vienna’s and Rome’s airports as well as the Berlin discotheque, where two American off duty soldiers were killed, Reagan decided to put a stop to these actions and sent some bombers to teach Gaddafi a lesson. Whether or not he learned it is another question because terrorist activities continued with the Lockerbie disaster having been the most egregious example. But after the 2003 Iraq invasion, Gaddafi who is, regardless of what is said about him, at times also a realist felt that his position vis á vis the West was sufficiently precarious and he voluntarily renounced his nuclear ambitions. This, as well as his acceptance of responsibility for Lockerbie and the payment of $1.5 billion to compensate the relatives of the Lockerbie bombing, led to his rehabilitation in Western eyes. Condi Rice paid a visit to Tripoli in September of 2008 and money was again to be made by the West with Libyan companies.

            Under these circumstances one wonders why Gaddafi should all of a sudden have evoked again the ire of the West and especially of the French who were the first to send their aircraft over Libyan soil in support of the Benghazi rebels. We don’t have the definitive answer as yet but some suggestions have been published by Stratfor which will be discussed later. According to Wikipedia the seeds for the uprising itself were sown in Benghazi and other cities in the Cyrenaica during January of this year in a dispute over government housing projects and corruption in general. This was temporarily squelched by providing a $24 billion investment fund. But there were other grievances. The families of prisoners, who had been killed at the Abu Salim prison in 1996, staged a demonstration and when YouTube showed videos they were blocked by the government. Calls for greater freedom then went up and the serious uprising began on February 15. A crowd of 500-600 protesters had gathered in front of the police station in Benghazi chanting slogans to which the authorities, as is common in dictatorships, responded with force. The demonstrators were dispelled and thirty eight were injured. In other towns hundreds of protesters set fire to police and security buildings while calling for an end to Gaddafi’s regime. It should surprise no one that under these circumstances the colonel would send his tanks and aircraft to quell this rebellion in the eastern part of his country. At this point it is noteworthy that the uprising had originated in the Cyrenaica and was largely based on local grievances because Gaddafi’s policies had favored the western part of the country to the detriment of the eastern.

            Gaddafi had, of course, been fully aware of the popular revolts in Tunisia and Egypt but he obviously thought that this would never happen in his country because he regards himself as the friend and liberator of his people. On February 13 Reuters reported a speech by Gaddafi, which was also reprinted by Haaretz, but not in our media. It is noteworthy because it reveals his mindset. The speech was given the previous day in honor of the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday and the major points were: “This is a time of popular revolutions . . . We need to create a problem for the world. This is not a declaration of war. This is a call for peace . . .” Nevertheless he went on to say that the movements in Tunisia and Egypt were a response to Western arrogance and “its hegemony of the Islamic world.” The “green color” should unite against the “white color.” He also stated that while he could understand the reason for the emergence of militant Islamists “the violent acts committed by Osama Bin Laden’s al Qaeda network went against Islam because they killed innocent people.” In regard to the Palestinian exiles who seek a return to their homeland he suggested that “a fleet of boats should take Palestinians … and wait by the Palestinian shores until the problem is resolved [ellipsis in the original].” Furthermore, “All Arab states which have relations with Israel are cowardly regimes.” What is important to note is that he agreed with the revolts because they were in his mind directed against Western supremacy. Three days later reality intruded but since he firmly believes in the love of his people towards him, the rebels must have been, as he declared, on hallucinogens or paid by the West.

The rebellion was initially quite successful. By February 25 most of Libya except for Tripoli, Sirte and Sabha was in rebel hands, and the flag of the previous kingdom, rather than Libya’s current one, fluttered in Benghazi’s breeze. Although Gaddafi was momentarily confused as to his options he had recovered his wits by March 6 and counterattacked. Since the rebels did not have an army, in the true sense of the word, they were soon pushed back and on March 12 or 13, dates vary, his troops had retaken the important oil port of Brega and the road to Benghazi was wide open. Since its fall was regarded as imminent the West sprang into action.

France had already unilaterally recognized the Benghazi government on March 10 as the only legitimate one for all of Libya, and Sarkozy had to do something to prevent a fatal loss of prestige. The UN was mobilized and with U.S. support a no-fly zone was established under the ostensible reason to prevent a massacre of the civilian population in Benghazi. Whether or not such a massacre would have taken place can be questioned because Gaddafi had offered amnesty to all who laid down their weapons, but he also promised “to show no mercy” for those who did not. But the real goal was to get rid of Gaddafi, and since a no-fly zone could not accomplish it, the mission was enlarged to attack all of Gaddafi’s military installations with bombs and rockets. The Security Council had approved the no-fly zone on March 17 but with the abstentions of Germany, Russia, China, India and Brazil. Inasmuch as the entire rationale for the no-fly zone was to protect innocent civilians the UN soon began to have second thoughts how this could be accomplished by bombing, which inevitably would bring about civilian casualties. To pre-empt such concerns the Western powers decided to take the matter out of the UN’s jurisdiction and turn it over to NATO. After Gaddafi’s military forces had been to some extent degraded by air strikes, the rebel forces gained some ground again but came to a grinding halt in the vicinity of Sirte, Gaddafi’s home base. At present the situation on the ground is fluid because the revolutionaries have once more been driven back towards Benghazi.

I have already mentioned President Obama’s speech which tried to explain why we are involved in Libya and what our goals are for that country. In sum and substance: we are to protect the rebels (civilians?) and if possible get rid of Gaddafi. How this can be accomplished by air-power and diplomatic pressure but without putting boots on the ground was left open. Time Magazine of April 4 (for reasons that are not entirely clear, the issues are always predated by a week which means that the dates don’t necessarily match events) asked: Why are we in Libya? The explanations given fell short of substance because they confined themselves mainly to the military operations and left the question how to get rid of Gaddafi open. Furthermore there was no mention of any aspects which Stratfor had reported on March 25.

Stratfor, http://www.stratfor.com, is a somewhat unusual website because they want your Email address to download the articles and they also encourage you to subscribe to their reports. On the other hand the site does provide a great deal of useful information, which is supplemented by charts and tables. The series of articles is headlined as “European Intervention in Libya,” which immediately places the responsibility where it belongs, and then deals with the separate interests of the various European countries. For now I shall deal only with France and the UK because they have been the most active to drag a reluctant President Obama to their side.

As far as France is concerned there are domestic as well as international reasons for its interventionism. On the domestic side Sarkozy experienced a major embarrassment in regard to the Tunisian uprising. The foreign minister Michele Alliot-Marie had initially offered the Tunisian government official help in dealing with the protesters but three days later President Ben Ali had fled and France was discredited in Arab eyes; especially by the large Tunisian minority in that country. The foreign minister had to be replaced and for “Super Sarko,” as he is known at home, it was time for dramatic action to rehabilitate his image towards his Muslim countrymen and the Arab world at large. The presidential election is less than a year away and his prospects for re-election are not exactly bright. But there are also international ramifications which may bode ill for the future. As a result of the European debt crisis austerity measures had to be put in place and these were enforced by Germany, which was supposed to bail out all the debt ridden countries. France was not in major difficulties but as a member of the Euro zone it had to agree to Berlin’s demands. This upset Gallic sense of honor, although Chancellor Merkel had consulted with the French on every step of the way. But France had seen itself, ever since WWII, as the foremost military power in Europe and to have to take a backseat to the solution of Europe’s economic problems by Germany, was hard to swallow. To counter the Germans economic and political power, London and Paris concluded on November 2, 2010 a military alliance. Since France lags behind Germany in economic power she now tries to use her military strength to impress the Arab world with her leadership for liberté and egalité. Fraternité has never lasted longer than a few days anyway.

None of this has been reported by our major media and it is obviously an ominous development because the economic and political rivalry between the Entente Cordiale (France and England) of April 1904, which was directed against Germany, was one of the major causes of WWI. What influence this new “Entente” will have on NATO is now an open question. The reasons for the British to enter the fray were more financial in nature. Just as in France the first weeks of the Middle East uprising were dominated by vacillation. But as it became clear that public opinion in the UK would no longer tolerate making profits through supporting Arab dictators, official policy began to crystallize. This was helped to a considerable extent by BP’s interests. As we well know the Gulf Oil spill has cost the company billions which it now seeks to recoup somehow. This is where Lockerbie comes in again. In order to be able to start drilling in Libya a deal had to be made with that government for the release of Abdel Baset al Megrahi, one of the convicted Lockerbie bombers, from a prison in Scotland. This was achieved for ostensibly humanitarian reasons in August 2009 because the man was regarded as having suffered from terminal prostate cancer although as of now he still seems to be alive. At any rate BP announced that it planned to invest $20 billion in Libyan oil production over the next twenty years. As such, the free access to the development of Libyan energy resources, vast quantities have supposedly as yet remained untouched, is important for the UK’s economy.

How will this play out in terms of an “exit strategy” from the European point of view? France and England would settle for a partition of the country between east and west, keeping the east with its oil and gas, while Gaddafi in Tripoli would no longer have the money to create serious harm. For the Italians the situation looks different since an angry Gaddafi could be a serious thorn in their side. Although the Obama administration has, to use a colloquialism, “no dog in this fight” and would have liked to leave Libya at the earliest opportunity, the Republicans would not allow it. American prestige as the “Leader of the Free World” is at stake and they are already chiding the president for letting others do the heavy lifting. Furthermore, while the Republicans complain about the budget deficit, and insist on spending cuts they seem to have no problem underwriting the future cost of this war. On March 30 it was reported that Obama had signed a “presidential finding,” several weeks ago, which allows the CIA to train and arm rebel forces in addition to providing other logistic support. While military “boots on the ground” have been ruled out, we are now allowing what has been called “shoes on the ground.” This identifies us with the rebel forces and undercuts the legitimacy of the entire operation. It goes counter to the UN Mandate as well as its arms embargo and provides fodder for Gaddafi’s propaganda in the Arab world who had insisted all along that the CIA had instigated the revolt in the first place.

As mentioned earlier the conduct of the war has now been turned over to NATO, which can be regarded as another “mission creep.” The intervention in former Yugoslavia could be justified as having been on European soil. Afghanistan was already a stretch because the Afghans had not attacked us and the justification of the country having “harbored the terrorists” was not in line with the initial goals of the organization. These were spelled out in admirable simplicity by Lord Ismay, the first Secretary General of the alliance: To keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. Inasmuch as this was accomplished by 1991 one wonders what NATO’s future role should be, especially in light of the separate British-French alliance mentioned above. This brings up the question if NATO, rather than existing alongside the UN should become the enforcer of decisions made by the UN? That the latter organization is also in urgent need of overhaul was brought to the attention of the membership of the General Assembly by none other than the centerpiece of this essay: Colonel Gaddafi.

Although the man certainly sounds incoherent he does not seem to be totally devoid of reason. I am basing this opinion on the speech he gave at the UN in 2009, which has been ridiculed by the media rather than accurately reported. One can watch it on YouTube and a Pakistani group which calls itself MetaExistence Organization has published the transcript. The speech was supposed to have lasted 15 minutes but autocrats don’t follow rules. He rambled on for about 96 minutes, literally tore up a copy of the UN Charter, and threw a copy of his “White Book,” which spells out his proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, into the face of the President of the General Assembly. This buffoonery even exceeded the famous shoe pounding of Nikita Khrushchev and one can readily understand why the man is regarded as crazy. But what were the reasons for denouncing the UN, albeit in an uncalled for manner?

            Leaving all rhetoric aside Gaddafi made the following points: The Preamble of the Charter of the UN which calls for equality of all nations, big or small, is vitiated by the subsequent Charter provisions. These were made by the victors of WWII who sought to perpetuate a then existing order. The General Assembly is merely a sounding board with no executive power and as such similar to Hyde Park where orators stand on their soap boxes, give speeches and go home again. The Power resides in the Security Council which serves, however, the interests of the big countries and with their veto they can nullify the just complaints of the weak. Under these circumstances the UN has failed in its primary mission to keep the peace in the world and 65 wars have occurred either with its collusion or in disregard of the organization. The UN is necessary but needs to be reformed. The power should be vested in the General Assembly which should be the decision making body. These decisions should then be referred to the Security Council which will enforce them, instead of just having veto power. The mentioned White Book, published in 2003, declares that only the creation of a bi-national Jewish-Palestinian state called the “Federal Republic of the Holy Land” can solve the conflict. Equal rights are to be guaranteed to all its citizens, there would be free and fair elections, weapons of mass destructions would not be allowed and the Arab League would recognize the state. He also suggested a relocation of the UN since the U.S. cannot be regarded as neutral soil and foreign diplomats can currently be denied entry visas.

            These are not the thought processes of any schizophrenic patient I have known. They are rational and factual but, of course, Gaddafi is the wrong messenger and the way he presented his plan is bound to hurt the cause rather than help it. The “One State” solution for the Holy Land is also no longer as outlandish as one might think because it is under consideration even by some Israelis who prefer peace over the endless state of war. Having said all this there is one more aspect which has until recently not been stressed by our media. Gaddafi is a secularist who heartily disliked al Qaida and all it stands for. He denounced the 9/11 attacks as un-Islamic and has jailed and killed former jihadists when they returned from Afghanistan. But whether or not he will retain this commitment after having been the recipient of Western bombs only time will tell.

While uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa were one focal point of the news, March 11 was a day of catastrophe on the other side of the world in Japan. An earthquake triggered tsunami devastated the northeastern portion of the main island causing serious damage to the nuclear reactors stationed in that part of the country. We don’t know yet the full extent of the damage and the consequent radiation leakage but one aspect is clear. The Japanese have shown outstanding behavior in the face of catastrophe, which can serve as a model for the rest of us. There were several factors which contributed to the absence of riots and looting and that everybody pulled together to help everybody else. In addition to the natural human instinct to do so, which can be seen in all disasters, there were two specific aspects in Japan. One of which is the ethnic homogeneity of the country where what befalls one hurts everyone. The other is the remarkable blending of its religions: Shintoism and Buddhism. Shinto teaches reverence for all of nature. It also includes worship of ancestors and thereby establishes unity between past, present and future. Buddhism teaches the transitory nature of all creation and its concomitant of suffering when one tries to hang one’s heart on a given possession such as home or even family. Since suffering is unavoidable compassion is needed to ameliorate it and in this instance the U.S. military stationed in Japan has been put to good use earning the respect and gratitude of the survivors.

This is what our role in the world should be and in this Easter season it would be useful for our politicians and media pundits to consider what Jesus has really tried to teach us. The key towards a successful overcoming of current difficulties lies in that badly translated admonition: Love your enemies.” As mentioned in these pages and The Jesus Conundrum, the word for “to love” in the original Greek is agapete and in the Latin translation diligete. Both mean the same thing: esteem your enemy! Why should we do so? Because he has a truth to tell us about ourselves, which we frequently don’t want to hear. We need to listen to our enemy and learn from him about “the beam in our own eye.” As the Chinese said: What is a good man? The teacher of a bad man! As long as we teach by bombs and economic sanctions, which hurt the innocent, we can expect payment in the same coin. This will be a hard lesson to learn but learn we must if we want to survive this increasingly dangerous century.

History is on the march again; tectonic plates are shifting. This is not only literally true in the physical world as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis testify to, but it pertains equally to the mental world. The “Spirit of 1776” which had made its way to Paris in 1789 has reached Africa, the Middle East and is likely to unleash revolts in other parts of the world. In the past most revolutions have had serious long term bloody consequences and there is no reason why it should be different now. To adequately assess the challenge America is confronted with, would first require truthful introspection into the complexities which underlie the current turmoil. Thereafter measures should be taken which preserve our neutrality, but at the same time provide genuine help to the victims of these man-made tsunamis with the example having been set in Japan.