icon bookmark-bicon bookmarkicon cameraicon checkicon chevron downicon chevron lefticon chevron righticon chevron upicon closeicon v-compressicon downloadicon editicon v-expandicon fbicon fileicon filtericon flag ruicon full chevron downicon full chevron lefticon full chevron righticon full chevron upicon gpicon insicon mailicon moveicon-musicicon mutedicon nomutedicon okicon v-pauseicon v-playicon searchicon shareicon sign inicon sign upicon stepbackicon stepforicon swipe downicon tagicon tagsicon tgicon trashicon twicon vkicon yticon wticon fm

US media eyes invasion option for Libya

The US 6th Naval Fleet, British and Canadian forces are repositioning ships and other forces in the Mediterranean, igniting rumors of a NATO or US lead invasion of Libya.
The nations and NATO have all denied any intervention is imminent, citing a need to place forces in the region in case swift humanitarian assistance is required. The US Department of Defense said the units would be ready to serve in the area in the event of emergency evacuations and to provide humanitarian relief. The US has also said any American involvement in the area would be multinational in nature. Investigative Journalist Wayne Madsen said there are some in the Neocon groups in the US who would enjoy seeing war in Libya. “We [US] have people who remember the 1980’s and would just love to get Gaddafi,” he commented. There is a great divide in US politics, those in the administration who favor a diplomatic and collective approach, and many others involved in US politics who are war-hawks and favor invasive confrontation.US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, however, “If you follow, as we follow, all of the websites that are looking at what's happening in the Middle East, you see a constant drumbeat that the United States is going to invade Libya to take over the oil and we can't let that happen. Well, we are not going to do that.”The US media and many pundits have continued to discuss the possibility of American or NATO intervention. Many seem to be laying the groundwork and making the case for potential invasion options. Some of the chatter on major American networks ranges from speculation to expectation.“We are expecting this coalition of opposition forces to ask the United States to declare and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, is this what that is meant to counter, the idea that Libyan planes are bombing their own cities,” said one CNN morning news anchor.“Hundreds of tanks and anti-aircraft artillery pieces have turned the city of 2 million into a fortress,” said another on MSNBC.And on Fox News an reporter stated, “Anything of value that they [Libyans] did have was stripped from them at the check points being run by Gaddafi’s militias.” Madsen explained Clinton often watches RT, Al-Jazeera and others while overseas and found the coverage of international news more constructive. US media however fails to cover the story properly.“They’re always looking for the next war movie. We saw that with Iraq, we saw it with Afghanistan,” he added. “Now we see some networks trying to do this with the Libyan situation.”Phyllis Bennis, the director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington added that there is a possibility someone could make the “insane decision” to send troops to Libya. “What I think is more likely is that there will be an effort to respond to demands that have been made asking for a no-fly zone,” she said. However, she added, no-fly zones are not always successful, citing the numerous deaths that took place in Iraq where hundreds of civilians were killed by efforts to enforce the zone. Also fresh in their minds is the no-fly zone over Libya in the past which saw the deaths of many civilians and children.“I think people in Libya remember that very well,” Bennis said. “The majority of people in Libya do not want foreign troops.”Moving forward the US is positioning themselves to take some sort of action, and the government has said nothing is off the table.
embed video