Responding to Gaddafi: What to Really Do? Risks?

-

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is a clip of my conversation tonight with Rachel Maddow about the costs and benefits of the UN resolution authorizing any measure than occupation to protect the Libyan people from Moammer Gaddafi. I believe that we have some blind spots in our rush to help — but am very open to alternative assessments.
We’ve been in this place before, on the edge of making someone else’s war our own. I think that would be a significant mistake. The cameras are already shifting away from the protesters and rather to pictures of US and NATO warplanes and ships.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

53 comments on “Responding to Gaddafi: What to Really Do? Risks?

  1. Leanspa says:

    We all know that sooner or later, Gadaffi is gonna face defeat. Now the thing that matters is how long will it take to happen.

    Reply

  2. JohnH says:

    “There are more than enough doubts that the US is
    the appropriate specialist to call.”
    It would be interesting to poll Iraqis on whether they think Libya will be better or worse off after the international community liberates them from Qadhafi. They, after all, have first hand experience with such matters…

    Reply

  3. Paul Norheim says:

    This must be the most anti-American response I’ve seen so far to the UN resolution:
    “We can accept that a patient with a brain tumour might desperately need surgery,
    but there is still cause for alarm if Jack the Ripper offers to operate. Both method and
    motive are open to question.
    So while no person with a conscience wants Gaddafi to win his sanguinary battle of
    repression against his own people, there are more than enough doubts that the US is
    the appropriate specialist to call. However, like Jack the Ripper

    Reply

  4. Paul Norheim says:

    From an Egyptian blogger:
    “The Syrian people today revolted for the first time in decades and protests sprung through out the
    country in different areas especially from the South according to the news and tweeps coming
    from there. Protests expectedly started after the Friday prayers in the country and honestly
    knowing the fist of the regime there, I am surprised by the public reaction and also participation. It
    is more than great considering the amount of fear in the country .
    There were protests in Damascus, Aleppo, Daraa, Baniyas, Homs, and Deir El Zor. If you look to the
    map, you will know that we are looking something different we have not seen before. These
    governorates are covering Syria with its distinguished diversified ethnic and sectarian background.
    Today there was no Arab o Kurd, Sunni or Shiite or Christian, today it was a real Syrian day for
    Syria.”
    More here:
    http://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/2011/03/friday-of-dignity-in-syria-start-of.html

    Reply

  5. Ajaz Haque says:

    UN LIBYA RESOLUTION, A LITTLE TOO LATE, A LITTLE TOO MUCH!
    http://blameislam.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  6. Don Bacon says:

    Obama vs. UN
    The Resolution call for a NFZ, a cease-fire and protection of citizens. Obama makes the NFZ conditional on the cease-fire. He also goes beyond the UN and calls for a withdrawal of Libyan forces in the East.
    Resolution
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/un-security-council-resolution
    news report:
    President Barack Obama warned Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi Friday that he must stop attacking civilians or face a no-fly zone enforced with U.S. help.
    Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on the rebel stronghold Benghazi, and pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiya.

    Reply

  7. Don Bacon says:

    excerpt from UN Resolution:
    Authorizes Member States .. to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory,

    Reply

  8. Paul Norheim says:

    As for ground forces, Carroll, perhaps we’re both right (ref. the thread below):
    “Mr. Obama said that with the passage of the Security Council resolution the United
    States would not act alone and that France, Britain and Arab nations would take the
    lead. That is the clear desire of the Pentagon, which has strongly resisted another
    American war in the Middle East. Mr. Obama said flatly that American ground forces
    would not enter Libya.” (NYT)
    He says “American” – that doesn’t mean that not French, British, or Arab ground forces
    to some extent may be employed. But this of course diminishes the risks of the
    American involvement, which was your original point.
    Regardless of our respective opinions on the UN resolution, this is certainly an
    interesting development in world affairs: the US not acting unilaterally, and other
    nations taking the lead – and the actions legitimized by the UN.
    The other noticeable point is that the BRIC countries are skeptical; while the former
    colonial powers take the lead.

    Reply

  9. erichwwk says:

    “different” only in the non-TWN community. Here it seems rather centrist.

    Reply

  10. erichwwk says:

    For those interested in digging a bit deeper, a rather different and thoughtful take by Maximilian Forte: “The Libyan Revolution is Dead: Notes for an Autopsy “, including why he is ending his relationship with Al Jazeera. At Zero Anthropology.
    “Al Jazeera is not the voice of the Arab Spring after all, as some of us thought.”
    http://wp.me/p7UON-3iZ
    “The world policeman

    Reply

  11. JohnH says:

    Let’s not kid ourselves. The “international community” will APPEAR to handle it diplomatically, PUBLICLY urging non violent protest for legitimate grievances and reform on the part of governments. But security is paramount. That means that despotic regimes will be given free hand to adopt nominal reforms but suppress their people, doing whatever it takes to maintain security, including violent repression. We have clear evidence of this in Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco, and Iraq. Egypt and Tunisia are aberrations that will be brought back into line as soon as possible. They will not be allowed to become a beacon unto the Arab world or an inspiration for national interests to subsume Western and Israeli interests.

    Reply

  12. Don Bacon says:

    The U.S. has successfully roped the United Nations into its Saddam-like regime change policy toward regimes it doesn’t like, based on their internal politics and their internal conflicts.
    But I fail to see where the UN has any authority to intervene in the internal affairs of a state. Where will this end, not only in Libya but potentially in other states?

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    Posted by Paul Norheim, Mar 18 2011, 11:55AM – Link
    This is actually interesting: If Baroin, the French government
    spokesman that I quoted above, is correct when he claims that the military action is intended to “allow” the opposition to “go all the way in their drive, which means bringing down the Qaddafi regime” – this implies that the
    West will not take out Gaddafi themselves, but create the conditions necessary for the Libyan opposition to bring him down
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    IMO that is the correct way to go. Gaddafi can’t stay, he must be removed or he will continue to jerk everyone around indefinitely.
    The US has bigger worries than just Libya anyway with Bahrain and Saudi and the whole Sunni vr Shai problem in those countries protest.
    Gaddafi and his forces must be suppressed to the point where the opposition can clean them out and handle any remaining scuffles after they assume control and stabilize their oil operations so we can move on.
    The ME cans of worms has just been opened, the US and others are going to be forced to make a lot of choices on how to handle individual countries and situations and the decisions may vary from country to country. I think most choices will be to handle it diplomatically,urging non violent protest for legitimate grievances and reform on the part of governments. Now, you could imagine intervention in Libya encouraging violent overthrows on the expectation that the US/UN/NATO would then intervene in revolutions favor. Or we could imagine that intervention in Libya would give other rulers pause before responding to non violent protest with force or naturally both.
    It’s highly unlikely the US is going to have a policy of one size fits all..unless it’s along the lines of stepping in only to prevent massacres by mad men like Gaddafi but otherwise only applying pressure to one side or both sides from the sidelines.
    We are in a new ME world of policy by judgement on whatever crisis is at hand.

    Reply

  14. JohnH says:

    It looks like the intervention in Libya will provide the perfect cover for letting all the other despots in the region do whatever they want to suppress their people: 42 killed in Yemen today, Saudi peacekeeping in Bahrain, a huge protest busted violently in Morocco, and huge protests violently broken up in Iraq.
    After it’s all done, Hillary the Horrible expects to scurry around the world telling everyone how much the “international community” has done for the cause of freedom and democracy. Libya will be her poster child. I mean, isn’t a stable democracy in Libya a slam dunk?

    Reply

  15. Paul Norheim says:

    Sorry, forgot to mention that the excerpt above was from Marc
    Lynch’s (associate professor of pol. sci. and int. affairs at George
    Washington University) last blog post at Foreign Policy.

    Reply

  16. Paul Norheim says:

    “I’m conflicted about the intervention, torn between the anguished appeals from Libyans and Arabs desperate
    for support against Qaddafi and concerns about the many deep, unanswered and at this point largely unasked
    questions about what comes next — whether Qaddafi survives or falls. (…)
    The intervention is a high-stakes gamble. If it succeeds quickly, and Qaddafi’s regime crumbles as key figures
    jump ship in the face of its certain demise, then it could reverse the flagging fortunes of the Arab uprisings.
    Like the first Security Council resolution on Libya, it could send a powerful message that the use of brutal
    repression makes regime survival less rather than more likely. It would put real meat on the bones of the
    “Responsibility to Protect” and help create a new international norm. And it could align the U.S. and the
    international community with al-Jazeera and the aspirations of the Arab protest movement. I have heard from
    many protest leaders from other Arab countries that success in Libya would galvanize their efforts, and failure
    might crush their hopes.
    But if it does not succeed quickly, and the intervention degenerates into a long quagmire of air strikes,
    grinding street battles, and growing pressure for the introduction of outside ground forces, then the impact
    could be quite different. Despite the bracing scenes of Benghazi erupting into cheers at the news of the
    Resolution, Arab support for the intervention is not nearly as deep as it seems and will not likely survive an
    extended war. (…)
    The Libya intervention is also complicated by the trends in the rest of the region. There is currently a bloody
    crackdown going on in U.S.-backed Bahrain, with the support of Saudi Arabia and the GCC. The Yemeni
    regime of Ali Abdullah Saleh is currently carrying out some of its bloodiest repression yet. Will the
    Responsibility to Protect extend to Bahrain and Yemen? This is not a tangential point. One of the strongest
    reasons to intervene in Libya is the argument that the course of events there will influence the decisions of
    other despots about the use of force. If they realize that the international community will not allow the
    brutalization of their own people, and a robust new norm created, then intervention in Libya will pay off far
    beyond its borders. But will ignoring Bahrain and Yemen strangle that new norm in its crib?”
    More here:
    http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/towards_military_intervention_in_libya

    Reply

  17. Carroll says:

    Posted by sue, Mar 18 2011, 8:28AM – Link
    Libya has five major tribes and three with the monster. How this
    whole thing is going to end? Any one thought through about that?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I wouldn’t assume Gaddaffi has as much tribal support as reported. All those ‘announcements of support’ are coming from the Libya ‘Government TV’, controlled by Gaddaffi.
    He may have some suport from his own tribe and maybe I missed it, but I haven’t seen any reports of those tribes that supposedly support him joining his military forces against the rebels.

    Reply

  18. Paul Norheim says:

    This one, also from Al Arabiya, could potentially be even more interesting:
    “DAMASCUS (Agencies)
    Syrian security forces killed two demonstrators on Friday in the southern city of
    Deraa as they took part in a peaceful protest demanding political freedom and
    an end to corruption in Syria, a resident said.”
    http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/18/142077.html
    Wait and see whether the demonstrators are encouraged by the resolution
    regarding Libya, and becomes bolder in the coming weeks…

    Reply

  19. Dan Kervick says:

    *Opposition says no compromise possible with Yemen govt*
    *Yemen imposes state of emergency after 42 shot dead
    Friday, 18 March 2011*
    http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/18/142070.html

    Reply

  20. Tank Man says:

    Here we go again, the West, in an effort to assuage its conscience (& sell a few more arms) is about to get entangled in a civil war. The French may take the lead initially, but I

    Reply

  21. JohnH says:

    Yep, the French gutted workers’ retirements. This to allow more money to flow to their military and their adventures. Britain gutted all its social programs. But the military gets to spend whatever it wants.
    This represents a massive transfer of wealth from democratic, civilian society into the hands of its most brutish, authoritarian elements. Of course, this has been happening in the US at an accelerating rate for more than a decade.

    Reply

  22. Dan Kervick says:

    It sure sounds like the French are itching to go, and want to reap the glory from this fight.

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    This is actually interesting: If Baroin, the French government
    spokesman that I quoted above, is correct when he claims
    that the military action is intended to “allow” the opposition
    to “go all the way in their drive, which means
    bringing down the Qaddafi regime” – this implies that the
    West will not take out Gaddafi themselves, but create the
    conditions necessary for the Libyan opposition to bring him
    down.

    Reply

  24. Paul Norheim says:

    “Mr. Cameron told the House of Commons that the Royal Air Force would
    deploy Tornado jets and Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes,

    Reply

  25. Warren Metzler says:

    I am having real trouble understanding Steve and many of the posters on this site. RC, thank for your comment on the basis for Russia’s and China’s abstentions. Resulted in idea in my head that maybe Germany abstained to protect its oil source; what whores, what hypocrits.
    How is that each situation is not assessed on its own merits? With the US having over 700 military bases all over the world, which rarely merits a comment about being concerned about our legacy, now with action in Libya (no fly zone, and other actions), there is this tremendous concern about our image overseas.
    It is clear to me that Kaddafi is a tyrant, and does quite oppressive things to his people. Why is that not sufficient reason to oppose him with all that is possible? Argumentum ad hominem prohibits us from condemning a certain action, solely based on other actions that person / country has taken. So it is impossible for actions the US and other governments take against Kaddafi to be imperialistic, unless over time those countries force the Libyan people to give up resources at less that full market value, or we give support to another tyrant ruler.
    And what is this argument that if we help the opposition fight that makes them less or victors, results in this lacking the wherewithal to effective govern themselves after victory is won? Did France’s assisting us in 1776; which many a historian claims was essential to our victory; make us any less able to create a viable democracy???? I think not!!!!
    Now if the US doesn’t soon take similar actions against Israel in regard to the West Bank and Gaza, that would be real hypocrisy and imperial actions.

    Reply

  26. Paul Norheim says:

    The cease fire talk from Tripoli is just that: talk. Many news
    agencies report that Gaddafi forces have attacked two towns.

    Reply

  27. Don Bacon says:

    So now we have a new function for the United Nations

    Reply

  28. DonS says:

    The ‘tribal’ stuff means ‘we’ can claim symbolic victory with Qadaffi’s scalp (dead or alive/exiled) and still have a vast hornets nest of volatile conflict with unknown potential, none good. But it’s all appearances, right?
    I’m on my way out of town, and eventually to Europe. Hope to be able to check in now and then.

    Reply

  29. JohnH says:

    How is this going to end? Will the UN stop if Qadhafi decides not to advance? Well that means a failed state on the Mediterranean.
    Collateral damage–a $2 Trillion deficit this year? More calls to throw Grandma onto the street but increase “defense” spending? DOD action without any Congressional debate or oversight whatsoever?
    None of this looks very promising to me.
    And why is no one asking about how the bankrupt US government will pay for this?

    Reply

  30. Don Bacon says:

    The U.S. will probably employ Tomahawk missiles launched from the underwater USS Providence, a nuclear-powered submarine, to take out command and control centers with a thousand-pound warhead. The USS Enterprise nuclear aircraft carrier is leaving the scene, possibly due to a perceived Libyan cruise missile threat. There are sufficient land airbases nearby. Libya may also have some old Scud-B ballistic missiles which are operational.
    Libya hasn’t made wide use of aircraft and has mainly used tanks and artillery, so the U.S. may introduce some Predator or Reaper drone aircraft. There has been an AWACS control plane overhead so the U.S. knows where all the radar-emitting targets are. There are also hundreds of aircraft from various NATO countries that could be used.
    The possible risks of a military attack are historic — a probable violent response directed at the enemy depending on capabilities and vulnerability of the enemy. The rebels on the ground in Libya are obviously the most vulnerable, so if the Libya military is badly hurt it will probably take it out on the rebels, and take no prisoners.

    Reply

  31. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Anyone else catch this asshole Poneman on MSNBC this morning?
    Are you comforted by the fact that the Energy Department slut that the White House has sent out to seduce the people knows less about California’s nuclear power plants than I do?
    This is the caliber of people we have “protecting” our interests, and, incidentally, waging war with promises of limited engagement. Tell me, how has that “limited engagement” thing worked out for us this last half a century?
    Gee, I have an idea, lets trust these lying pieces of shit one more time. Gee, it’ll be different THIS time.
    Uh huh.
    And ooooohhhh noooooo, Mr. Bill, this time we ain’t gonna flood the country with CIA, and put on a puppet show. Naaaaahhhh, this time its gonna be different.
    Why?
    Well, because, uh, well, uhm….gee, well, uh……
    Hey, how ’bout that Sheen guy? Think he’s gonna sober up?
    (Getting radiation readings beyond Tokyo now. But don’t worry folks, it can’t happen here, our earthquakes are Nuclear friendly.)

    Reply

  32. Don Bacon says:

    Clinton has said that a no-fly zone requires bombing.

    Reply

  33. rc says:

    I am looking into shame vs. guilt based cultures for another reason but came across this which suggests to me another angle involving the UN giving Muammar el-Qaddafi et al what they wanted — the honor saving (shame avoiding) reason to stop the inter-tribal fighting.
    “Loyalty
    All Arabs belong to a group or tribe. Loyalty to the family tribe is considered paramount to maintaining honor. One does not question the correctness of the elders or tribes in front of outsiders. It is paramount that the tribe sticks together in order to survive. Once again, Arab history and folklore are full of stories of heroes who were loyal to the end.”
    http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Honour-and-Shame-in-Islam.htm
    If so, then things will quieten down quickly — much to the media’s disappointment.

    Reply

  34. Paul Norheim says:

    “Posted by sue, Mar 18 2011, 8:28AM – Link
    Libya has five major tribes and three with the monster.
    How this whole thing is going to end? Any one thought
    through about that?”
    ———————————————
    This is exactly my concern too. I think the West
    misinterprets the facts in Libya just like they
    misinterpreted the facts in Iraq before invading that
    country – or, in Rumsfeld-speak: there is a large number
    of unknown unknowns and known unknowns in Libya too.
    Given the sequence of events, Libya seemed to fit into the
    Arab Awakening narrative of unarmed protesters
    demanding democracy and their tyrant to step down. I
    think Libya only partly belongs to that narrative, but there
    are large parts beyond that narrative that give reasons to
    worry.

    Reply

  35. Paul Norheim says:

    “Assad, Saleh, King Abdullah will think twice before going
    for bloodbath.” (Gloumdalcltich)
    Or their subjects will get encouraged and NOT think twice
    before challenging their rulers – interpreting the actions
    against Gaddafi as a signal that the “world” will support
    them too in a crisis. This will then put pressure on the
    “international community” to intervene in country after
    country… Yemen today, Bahrain tomorrow, and Syria the day
    after…

    Reply

  36. Paul Norheim says:

    Clemons said: “The cameras are already shifting away from
    the protesters and rather to pictures of US and NATO
    warplanes and ships.”
    Steve, given the enormous importance of Al Jazeera in the
    Arab world, I would be less concerned about that part. In
    the good old days, CNN and BBC would have forgotten other
    events in the ME and focused solely on Western attacks in
    Libya 24/7. But I’m sure Al Jazeera will cover events in other
    countries extensively as they unfold – if their journalists and
    cameramen are allowed into the area.
    I share your skepticism with regard to the UN resolution,
    though.

    Reply

  37. rc says:

    “One is tempted to ask: what makes Libya so different from Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.” — Gaddaffi of course! The guy’s a hoot! Real entertainment!
    So the message is clear — back off if you want your hostages back alive.
    BTW: being tribal, they’ll sort it all out with a few goats, camels traded and some women swapped into strategic marriages!

    Reply

  38. DonS says:

    One is tempted to ask: what makes Libya so different from Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.

    Reply

  39. questions says:

    And the 4 journalists from the NYT will be released. Qaddafi backed down big time. Thugs don’t do well when they back down, I’m guessing.
    “TRIPOLI, Libya

    Reply

  40. questions says:

    CNBC is also carrying the Qaddafi cease fire story, from Reuters.
    Would that we could merely make declarations and be done with all conflict…..
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/42148376

    Reply

  41. rc says:

    It’s like watching the Matrix! … Now what?
    <<<<
    Libya ‘to halt military action’
    Breaking news
    Libya’s government is declaring an immediate ceasefire “to protect civilians” in acordance (sic) with the UN Security Council resolution, Libya’s foreign minister says.
    The UN resolution, passed late on Thursday, backed “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, short of an occupation.
    <<<<
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739

    Reply

  42. rc says:

    And I’m sure Chavez is watching very closely.
    Of course an election, with the ex-colonial masters waiting at the gate with the slave ropes, may go to the Gadaffi clans anyway?
    It looks a bit like a ‘pin down Julian Assange’ type strategy — keep a gun to his head and play for time.
    Who knows he might even die from natural causes in due course. What with all those nurses to keep busy.

    Reply

  43. sue says:

    Libya has five major tribes and three with the monster. How this
    whole thing is going to end? Any one thought through about that?

    Reply

  44. rc says:

    Now we know why the Chinese and Russians didn’t bother with too much fuss about a UN veto — yet another mess for US/UK/France to deal with. And more oil/revenue for them if Gadaffi stays in overall control, which must be 50:50.

    Reply

  45. DonS says:

    “But the west will lose interest in Libya and he will be free to enact
    later his purges and retribution. ”
    But, but, Clinton said Quadaffi had to go???

    Reply

  46. Dan Kervick says:

    My concern is that the UN resolution is a “protect innocent civilians” resolution, not a “help the rebels win” resolution. So if Gadaffi simply stops attacking innocent civilians, will the outside powers be forced to accept a permanent standoff?
    The protesters need to take to the streets again,without arms, and bring the regime down Egypt-style.

    Reply

  47. drew says:

    He has to stop fighting unless he is confident that he is well-hidden
    and protected. The first bombing runs will target him personally.
    But the west will lose interest in Libya and he will be free to enact
    later his purges and retribution.

    Reply

  48. questions says:

    Dan,
    Two thoughts — the mercenaries/loyalists who were behind him decide not to be anymore because he no longer looks so tough and won’t protect them, and the protesters “win” by default and figure out what to do at that point.
    Or,
    The fighting continues on a somewhat more one-sided basis and the protesters win mostly because Qaddafi has pulled back support.
    The protesters will have more morale from the international support, and the loyalists will have less because of Qaddafi’s perceived weaknesses. They won’t be protected in a new regime.

    Reply

  49. Dan Kervick says:

    What happens now if Gadaffi simply stops fighting?

    Reply

  50. Cee says:

    The Serbs dldn’t attack the United States.

    Reply

  51. rc says:

    Found it.
    Gaddafi calls ceasefire as tough UN action looms
    Posted Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:27am AEDT
    Libya’s army says it will halt operations from Sunday to allow rebels to lay down their arms, softening repeated threats by Moamar Gaddafi to crush them.
    With urgent talks under way at the UN Security Council, amid warnings of an imminent bloodbath in the oil-rich North African nation, insurgents claimed they had shot down warplanes trying to bomb their bastion of Benghazi and also disputed claims of territorial gains by Gaddafi forces.
    Diplomats at the UN Security Council said a draft resolution being negotiated by major powers calls for all necessary measures short of an occupation to protect civilians, and a meeting was set for Thursday afternoon to discuss it.
    “That is the draft resolution now, but it could still change,” said a Western diplomat, while the French foreign ministry said the draft “widens the scope of sanctions and opens way to the use of necessary means to stop the Gaddafi offensive.”
    In Tripoli, state news agency Jana said “the provisional general committee (ministry) of defence has decided to halt military operations against the armed terrorist bands from midnight on Sunday (2200 GMT) … to give (them) a chance to lay down their arms and benefit from a general amnesty.”
    It was not immediately clear why the regime was softening its stance, when Gaddafi’s son said earlier this week the rebels would be vanquished by Friday and the leader himself had promised the final assault on Benghazi.
    On Wednesday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for an immediate ceasefire, but there was no evidence Gaddafi was acting to honour that.
    AFP
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3167122.htm

    Reply

  52. rc says:

    The UN Security Council has backed a resolution that supports military action in Libya.
    US ambassador Susan Rice said: “This council’s purpose is clear – to protect innocent civilians.”
    “Col Gaddafi, and those who still stand by him, continue to grossly and systematically abuse the most-fundamental human rights of Libya’s people.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12781149
    Too bad it does not also say

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *