16 per cent of Americans want to abolish the central bank

FT notices gold's rise in favor, Fed's fall, if ever patronizingly

Submitted by cpowell on Wed, 2011-03-23 21:13. Section: Daily Dispatches

Utah Raises Standard in Anti-Fed Campaign

By Robin Harding and James Politi
Financial Times, London
Wednesday, March 23, 2011

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/906b7668-557a-11e0-a2b1-00144feab49a.html

Shops in Salt Lake City will soon be able to accept gold Buffalo and Eagle coins (no foreign-minted Napoleons or Krugerrands allowed) after a bill to make gold and silver legal tender passed Utah's House and Senate.

The state does not trust the US Federal Reserve. However, visitors need not weigh down their pockets just yet.

The bill, which is under review by the governor, ends state taxes on the transfer of gold -- they currently treat it as an asset and not as money -- but until the federal government does the same, its green paper will have the edge.

This proto-gold standard in the American west is a rebuke and challenge to the Fed, and a reminder that easy monetary policy since 2007 has won the central bank many more enemies than friends.

"They’ve been a disaster," says Jeff Bell, policy director of the American Principles Project, a conservative lobby group that has helped the Utah legislators and favours a return to the gold standard. "Mr [Ben] Bernanke, ever since he got on to the Fed, has been a force for fighting deflation and bringing interest rates down to the disappearing point."

Some conservatives believe this has devalued the dollar.

The Fed is unpopular with the US public, and several other states have recently been considering -- with varying degrees of seriousness -- legislation similar to Utah's.

From 2003 to 2009 the percentage of people saying the Fed does a "good" or "excellent" job fell from 53 to 30 per cent, according to Gallup. A Bloomberg opinion poll last year found that 16 per cent of Americans want to abolish the central bank outright -- although it did ask a leading question.

The Fed's popularity is unlikely to increase any time soon. Rising fuel and food prices make inflation feel high to the public. At some point it will have to sell the extra bonds on its balance sheet and in the process it may suffer accounting losses. Such losses have little real meaning but the disgust of opponents will be no less heartfelt.

"There is a lot of public anger at the Fed and politicians are trying to channel that anger, though they don't always do it in a coherent way," says Vincent Reinhart, a former Fed official at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

"The Fed is seen as a vehicle for unfairness. When people see 'too big to fail' they see 'I'm too little to be helped.'" In addition, Mr Reinhart says in reference to the disproportionate impact on poor and middle-class Americans, "quantitative easing as a design principle is generating some inflation. It's an unfortunate fact that the prices that are most sensitive have some uneven incidence."

The question is whether Fed unpopularity matters. One reason that politicians created an independent central bank was to soak up the blame for economic pain. Fed officials sigh and shrug about public opinion but say their duty is to the bank's dual mandate on employment and inflation.

They have, however, been trying to become more engaged and communicative about monetary policy than in the past. But that outreach does not always turn out as intended.

This month Bill Dudley, president of the New York Fed, travelled to Queens, a borough of New York City, to discuss the economy and the workings of the central bank. But the audience was unimpressed with his assurances that, even as food and energy costs were rising, "today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 and is twice as powerful." One attendee quipped: "I can't eat an iPad."

Nevertheless, the Republican leadership seems to have rethought the value of an "end the Fed" crusade by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, an outspoken critic of US foreign and monetary policy, now that they have won the House of Representatives. Stirring up libertarian votes while in the minority was helpful; calling secessionists to testify to Congress is not the message they want to send. It appears that Mr Paul's subcommittee on monetary policy will not be allowed to summon Mr Bernanke to testify.

But even if public dislike does not affect immediate monetary policy decisions, unpopularity leads to politicisation, which is a greater danger to the Fed. That is shown by Republican Sen. Richard Shelby's determined effort to block the appointment of Nobel-prize winning economist Peter Diamond to the Fed Board of Governors.

And the wave of discontent with the Fed may have its limits. In the American west, Jay Kaplan, an economics instructor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, says he is not witnessing much anti-Fed fervour in his money and banking class of 160 students.

"There's no big discussion of the evils of central banking," Mr Kaplan says.

Currency market rigging

Currency market rigging on a vaster scale than ever

Submitted by cpowell on Wed, 2011-03-23 21:02. Section: Daily Dispatches

Yen Action Sets Scene for Return of Carry Trade

By Peter Garnham and Lindsay Whipp
Financial Times, London
Wednesday, March 23, 2011

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/177c9adc-5572-11e0-a2b1-00144feab49a.html

The billions of dollars in yen sold by the world's most powerful central banks have sent a strong message to speculative investors. Those daring to bet that the Japanese currency will again test Y76.25, the record high against the dollar it hit last week before the G7's intervention, better have deep pockets.

Indeed, now that the world's richest nations have pledged to back Tokyo in its efforts to halt the yen's appreciation, some strategists are predicting a new set of trading patterns in foreign exchange markets. The yen, they say, could make a return as investors' currency of choice for making so-called "carry trades."

The carry trade, in which the purchase of riskier, higher-yielding assets is funded by selling low-yielding currencies, is a popular investment employed by investors to take advantage of rising asset markets.

Before the financial crisis, the low-yielding yen was widely used to fund investments in a wide range of risky assets such as equities, commodities, property, and higher-yielding currencies such as the Australian dollar. This sent the yen down to multi-year lows against a raft of currencies.

But the wave of deleveraging that followed the credit crunch saw the yen rally sharply as asset prices tumbled. Investors abandoned carry trades funded in the Japanese currency. The yen has risen more than 30 per cent against the dollar since Lehman Brothers’ collapse in 2008.

All that, though, could be about to change if the belief that central banks have imposed a ceiling on the yen gains traction. And a return of the carry trade would have the potential to lift prices of risky assets -- equities and commodities are already well into a bull run -- even further, analysts say.

"There is another wave of global liquidity in the making, this time coming out of Japan. This liquidity will not stay in Japan and will boost asset prices elsewhere," says Hans Redeker at BNP Paribas

The impact of currency intervention, if sustained, could have a similar effect to the US Federal Reserve's preparations in the summer of 2010 for a second round of "quantitative easing," its huge bond-buying programme to kick-start recovery. The Fed's action lifted shares and weakened the dollar.

"This time it will be the yen funding another rush into global assets," says Mr Redeker. "We buy aggressively into risk and see the yen moving lower."

Mansoor Mohi-uddin at UBS says yen-funded carry trades are likely to make a comeback as other central banks outside Japan prepare to tighten monetary policy while Tokyo keeps conditions ultra-loose to deal with the effects of this month’s earthquake and hold the yen in check.

The Fed is due to end its "QE2" programme in June and the European Central Bank is expected to raise interest rates as early as next month, while the Bank of England is forecast to tighten policy later this year. The success of a carry trade investment strategy requires not just stability in asset markets but a steadily weakening funding currency. The joint action from leading central banks to intervene to stem strength in the yen could help to provide both.

Traders cite a range of factors that led to last week's spike. These include expectations that Japanese institutions would repatriate funds to pay for post-earthquake reconstruction costs and speculative momentum as traders taking advantage of the move upwards forced buying by investors squaring bets against the yen. "Should it have continued, it risked a significant destabilisation in the financial and economic foundation of Japan," says Camilla Sutton at Scotia Capital.

Ms Sutton says the G7 stepped in to weaken the yen not so much because the value of the Japanese currency had become extreme but because the yen-dollar trading pattern had become disorderly and threatened global economic and financial stability.

"This type of volatility in currencies threatens much more than the economic recovery of the world's third-largest economy. Above all the G7's role was to stabilise global markets," she says. The action, which drove the yen down to Y81, where it has stayed, helped shares recover their poise after a volatile week.

Expectations of further currency intervention to come, combined with the Y40,000 billion asset purchase programme announced by the Bank of Japan, means yen liquidity can only grow in coming months. Thus the G7 has stabilised not only the asset side of the yen carry trade but the funding side too.

Mr Mohi-uddin says the G7's efforts to weaken the yen are also likely to succeed because they are consistent with the expectations for future interest rate changes outside Japan. "So investors should should forget about yen strength," he says. "Instead carry trades are clearly making a comeback as reduced investor risk aversion following the G7 intervention allows hawkish central banks to consider raising interest rates."

Of course, any evidence of widespread yen repatriation by Japanese institutions may yet trigger renewed yen strength. For now, though, a return of the carry trade should come as welcome news in Tokyo as Japan tries to rebuild.

UBS is charging storage for imaginary silver

Class-action suit accuses UBS of charging storage for imaginary silver

Submitted by cpowell on Wed, 2011-03-23 18:25. Section: Daily Dispatches

2:26p ET Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold (and Silver):

A class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in New York accuses UBS Financial Services of misleading investors in silver and charging them storage fees for metal that was never actually purchased, segregated, and stored for them.

The lawsuit resembles one against Morgan Stanley that the investment house settled for $4.4 million three years ago:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/12/idUSN1228014520070612

The lead plaintiff in the suit against UBS is Ramsey Personal Trust, which is represented by the law firm of Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 19 Fulton St., New York, N.Y., 10038. Handling the case is lawyer Samuel P. Sporn. Precious metals investors who are concerned about storage fees they have paid to UBS and seek more information about the lawsuit can telephone Sporn at 212-964-0046.

The lawsuit can be found here:

http://www.gata.org/files/RamseyV.UBS_.pdf

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

Mystique of the Marshall Plan

The Enduring Mystique of the Marshall Plan

SpectreZine, March 9, 2011 9:39 | William Blum

in:

• War

Amidst all the stirring political upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East the name "Marshall Plan" keeps being repeated by political figures and media around the world as the key to rebuilding the economies of those societies to complement the political advances, which hopefully will be somewhat progressive. But caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.
During my years of writing and speaking about the harm and injustice inflicted upon the world by unending United States interventions, I've often been met with resentment from those who accuse me of chronicling only the negative side of US foreign policy and ignoring the many positive sides. When I ask the person to give me some examples of what s/he thinks show the virtuous face of America's dealings with the world in modern times, one of the things mentioned — almost without exception — is The Marshall Plan. This is usually described along the lines of: "After World War II, the United States unselfishly built up Europe economically, including our wartime enemies, and allowed them to compete with us." Even those today who are very cynical about US foreign policy, who are quick to question the White House's motives in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, have little problem in accepting this picture of an altruistic America of the period 1948-1952. But let's have a look at the Marshall Plan outside the official and popular versions.
After World War II, the United States, triumphant abroad and undamaged at home, saw a door wide open for world supremacy. Only the thing called "communism" stood in the way, politically, militarily, and ideologically. The entire US foreign policy establishment was mobilized to confront this "enemy", and the Marshall Plan was an integral part of this campaign. How could it be otherwise? Anti-communism had been the principal pillar of US foreign policy from the Russian Revolution up to World War II, pausing for the war until the closing months of the Pacific campaign, when Washington put challenging communism ahead of fighting the Japanese. This return to anti-communism included the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan as a warning to the Soviets. (1)
After the war, anti-communism continued as the leitmotif of American foreign policy as naturally as if World War II and the alliance with the Soviet Union had not happened. Along with the CIA, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the Council on Foreign Relations, certain corporations, and a few other private institutions, the Marshall Plan was one more arrow in the quiver of those striving to remake Europe to suit Washington's desires:
1. Spreading the capitalist gospel — to counter strong postwar tendencies towards socialism.
2. Opening markets to provide new customers for US corporations — a major reason for helping to rebuild the European economies; e.g., a billion dollars of tobacco at today's prices, spurred by US tobacco interests.
3. Pushing for the creation of the Common Market and NATO as integral parts of the West European bulwark against the alleged Soviet threat.
4. Suppressing the left all over Western Europe, most notably sabotaging the Communist Parties in France and Italy in their bids for legal, non-violent, electoral victory. Marshall Plan funds were secretly siphoned off to finance this endeavour, and the promise of aid to a country, or the threat of its cutoff, was used as a bullying club; indeed, France and Italy would certainly have been exempted from receiving aid if they had not gone along with the plots to exclude the communists from any kind of influential role.
The CIA also skimmed large amounts of Marshall Plan funds to covertly maintain cultural institutions, journalists, and publishers, at home and abroad, for the heated and omnipresent propaganda of the Cold War; the selling of the Marshall Plan to the American public and elsewhere was entwined with fighting "the red menace". Moreover, in its covert operations, CIA personnel at times used the Marshall Plan as cover, and one of the Plan's chief architects, Richard Bissell, then moved to the CIA, stopping off briefly at the Ford Foundation, a long time conduit for CIA covert funds. One big happy family.
The Marshall Plan imposed all kinds of restrictions on the recipient countries, all manner of economic and fiscal criteria which had to be met, designed for a wide open return to free enterprise. The US had the right to control not only how Marshall Plan dollars were spent, but also to approve the expenditure of an equivalent amount of the local currency, giving Washington substantial power over the internal plans and programs of the European states; welfare programs for the needy survivors of the war were looked upon with disfavour by the United States; even rationing smelled too much like socialism and had to go or be scaled down; nationalization of industry was even more vehemently opposed by Washington. The great bulk of Marshall Plan funds returned to the United States, or never left, to purchase American goods, making American corporations among the chief beneficiaries.
The program could be seen as more a joint business operation between governments than an American "handout"; often it was a business arrangement between American and European ruling classes, many of the latter fresh from their service to the Third Reich, some of the former as well; or it was an arrangement between Congressmen and their favourite corporations to export certain commodities, including a lot of military goods. Thus did the Marshall Plan help lay the foundation for the military industrial complex as a permanent feature of American life.
It is very difficult to find, or put together, a clear, credible description of how the Marshall Plan played a pivotal or indispensable role in the recovery in each of the sixteen recipient nations. The opposing view, at least as clear, is that the Europeans — highly educated, skilled and experienced — could have recovered from the war on their own without an extensive master plan and aid program from abroad, and indeed had already made significant strides in this direction before the Plan's funds began flowing. Marshall Plan funds were not directed primarily toward the urgently needed feeding of individuals or rebuilding their homes, schools, or factories, but at strengthening the economic superstructure, particularly the iron, steel and power industries. The period was in fact marked by deflationary policies, unemployment and recession. The one unambiguous outcome was the full restoration of the propertied class. (2)
The rising up of the people ... and the conservative mind
James Baker served as the Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan's first administration and in the final year of the administration of President George H.W. Bush. He was also Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and Secretary of State under Bush. Thus, by establishment standards and values, inside marble-columned institutions, Baker is a man to be taken seriously when it comes to affairs of state. Here he is on February 3, during an interview by our favourite TV station, our very own shining beacon of truth, Fox News:
"We want to see the people in the Middle East have a chance at democracy and free markets ... I'm sorry, democracy and human rights." (3)
Baker has a record of speaking his mind, whether Freudian-slip-like or not. When he was Secretary of State, on an occasion when the Middle East was being discussed at a government meeting, and Jewish-American influence was mentioned, Baker was reported to have said "Fuck the Jews! They don't vote for us anyway."( 4)
They couldn't resist, could they?
News flash: "Judge Mustafa Abdel Jallil, the Libyan justice minister who resigned last week in protest over the use of force against unarmed civilians, said he has proof that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. He would not disclose details of the alleged evidence." (5)
Hmmm, let me guess now why he wouldn't disclose details of the alleged evidence ... hmmm ... Ah, I know — because it doesn't exist! How could Gadhafi's many enemies in Libya resist kicking him like this when he's down? Or perhaps the honourable judge is simply protecting himself from a future international criminal tribunal for his years of service to the Libyan state? If you read any more of such nonsense — and you will — reach for some of the antidote I've been providing for more than twenty years. (6)
The empire's deep dark secret
"In my opinion, any future defence secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined," declared US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates on February 25.
Remarkable. Every one of the many wars the United States has engaged in since the end of World War II has been presented to the American people, explicitly or implicitly, as a war of necessity, not a war of choice; a war urgently needed to protect American citizens, American allies, vital American "interests", freedom, or democracy. Here is President Obama speaking of Afghanistan: "But we must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity." (7)
This being the case, how can a future administration say it will not go to war if any of these noble causes is seriously threatened? The answer is that these noble causes are irrelevant. The United States goes to war where and when it wants, and if a noble cause is not self-evident, the government, with indispensable help from the American media, will manufacture it. Secretary Gates is now admitting that there is choice involved. Well, Bob, thanks for telling us. You were Bush's Secretary of Defence as well, and before that 26 years in the CIA and the National Security Council. You sure know how to keep a secret.

William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, from the website Killing Hopewww.killinghope.org . The photograph shows General George Catlett Marshall entering Harvard University on 5 June 1947 to give the speech that launched the Marshall Plan.

1. See William Blum's essay on the use of the atomic bomb
2. For discussion of various aspects of the Marshall Plan see, for example, Joyce & Gabriel Kolko, The Limits of Power: The World and US Foreign Policy 1945-1954 (1972), chapters 13, 16, 17; Sallie Pisani, The CIA and the Marshall Plan (1991) passim; Frances Stoner Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the world of arts and letters (2000) passim
3. Crisis in Egypt - James A. Baker III on Middle East Political Change
4. The Guardian (London), December 12, 2000; Haaretz (Israel), November 14, 2008
5. McClatchy Newspapers, February 26, 2011
6. The Bombing of PanAm Flight 103: Case Not Closed
7. Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, August 17, 2009

News stories related to the World Bank and IMF

A selection of news stories related to the World Bank and IMF, brought to you by the Bretton Woods Project:

World Bank to rethink Middle East but not sure when or how
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14935744,00.html
Deutsche Welle, 22 March 2011

World Bank could back Kremlin fund
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/world-bank-could-back-kremlin-fund/433362.html
Moscow Times, 21 March 2011

Cambodia: Botched World Bank project leads to thousands of evictions
http://ipsnews.net/newsTVE.asp?idnews=54888
IPS, 17 March 2011

VII Convegno sul denaro-debito a Bergamo

VII Convegno sul denaro-debito a Bergamo

DEBITORI DALLA NASCITA
un libro di Rossano Orlando
presso
Il caffè Letterario
Via S. Bernardino, 53
24126 Bergamo

Convegno ispirato agli studi
del Chiar.mo
Prof. Giacinto Auriti
venerdì 25 marzo 2011
ore 20.45
presso
Il caffè Letterario
Via S. Bernardino, 53
24122 Bergamo

PROGRAMMA
20.45 – 20.50 Pierantonio Locatelli
Segretario di Giustizia Monetaria

20.50 – 21.20 Matteo Mazzariol
Presidente di Giustizia Monetaria

21.00 – 22.00 Rossano Orlando
Autore di “Debitori dalla nascita”

22.00 – 22.45
Discussione aperta al pubblico

22.45 – 23.00
Conclusioni

DEBITORI DALLA NASCITA

“Debitori dalla nascita”: questa frase non è
solo il titolo del nuovo libro del giornalista
Rossano Orlando, ma la fotografia di una
condizione cui tutti siamo soggetti.
Ogni cittadino, dal neonato al pensionato, è
infatti oggi gravato da un debito di 30.000
euro. Questa somma incontestabile deriva
dalla divisione del debito pubblico, che a
gennaio 2011 ha toccato il record di 1879,9
miliardi di euro, per il numero della
popolazione della nostra penisola.
Si tratta di un fenomeno tutto e solo
italiano? Certamente no! Basta, infatti,
prendere in considerazione i dati
sull’indebitamento pubblico e privato di
paesi quali l’Inghilterra, la Germania, la
Francia, la Spagna, gli Stati Uniti per
rendersi conto immediatamente che il
debito non è una realtà italiana ma
pressoché ubiquitaria: tutte le nazioni, sia
quelle del mondo industrializzato sia quelle
del terzo mondo, sono affette da questo
grave male sociale, che colpisce
indistintamente i conti pubblici degli Stati, i
privati cittadini, le aziende.
A questo punto una domanda si impone:
come è possibile che siamo tutti indebitati?
Indebitati verso chi? Se c’è un debito di
norma deve esistere anche un credito. Chi
sono allora i creditori verso cui siamo
indebitati?
Il libro di Rossano Orlando cerca di dare
una risposta a queste domande, sulla base
dei dati e delle informazioni oggi in nostro
possesso, guidandoci con la bussola del
senso comune all’interno di un mondo che
a primo acchito sembra complicato ma in
realtà non lo è: il mondo del denaro.
L’apparente complessità della questione
monetaria si semplifica infatti non appena
venga posta la questione centrale: chi è il
proprietario del denaro al momento della
sua emissione e quali sono le conseguenze
economico-sociali di ciò?

Scopriremo così che oggi la moneta viene
creata dal nulla (fiat money) dal sistema
bancario, che poi lo impresta a terzi, Stati e
cittadini.
Scopriremo che il debito pubblico non è un
incidente di percorso di un sistema per il
resto perfettamente congegnato, ma
l’ineluttabile e nefasta conseguenza del
fatto che tutto il denaro nasce come debito
e pertanto gli Stati devono chiedere in
prestito la moneta che gli spetterebbe di
diritto.
Scopriremo ancora che tasse e debito
pubblico sono due fattori strettamente
correlati, perché là dove lo Stato è
costretto ad indebitarsi non potendo
disporre della propria moneta, sarà anche
costretto ad imporre tasse per pagare i
debiti contratti con chi ha il monopolio di
creare il denaro, e cioè il sistema bancario.
Il libro di Rossano Orlando però non ci aiuta
solo a capire le radici e le cause profonde
dell’indebitamento generalizzato; seguendo
il pensiero del Prof Giacinto Auriti, ci indica
anche la via per una possibile soluzione al
problema, quella stessa via che il Prof
Irving Fisher, dell’Università’ di Yale, Stati
Uniti, tracciò nel lontano 1934 durante la
“Grande Depressione”: restituire allo Stato
ed ai cittadini la proprietà della moneta al
momento dell’emissione ed impedire al
sistema bancario di creare denaro, come
invece succede ora.
In un momento di così grave crisi
economico-sociale pensiamo sia opera
quanto mai utile riflettere insieme su questi
temi e invitiamo pertanto la cittadinanza
bergamasca a partecipare numerosa.

Bankenstein's War On Libya

Imperial War On Libya
By Stephen Lendman
3-21-11


On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a White House Office of the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:

"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to (attack) Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," he, in fact, doesn't give a damn about. "That action has now begun," he added, claiming military action was a last resort.

In fact, it was long-planned. All military interventions require months of preparation, including target selections, strategy, enlisting political and public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict plans.

Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya, enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western aggression for imperial control. More on it below.

A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces Press Service release announced America's led "Operation Odyssey Dawn," saying:

"Coalition (of the willing) forces launched "Operation Odyssey Dawn" today to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country's ruler....Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people."

False! In fact, Washington-led naked aggression was launched to replace one despot with another, perhaps assassinate Gaddafi, his sons and top officials, colonize Libya, control its oil, gas and other resources, exploit its people, private state industries under Western (mainly US) control, establish new Pentagon bases, use them for greater regional dominance, perhaps balkanize the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq, and prevent any democratic spark from emerging.

According to DODspeak, Libya is being attacked, its people killed, civilian targets destroyed, and a humanitarian disaster created to save it. In other words, "destroying the village to save it" on a nationwide scale like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, and Korea in the 1950s since WW II alone. Besides numerous proxy wars in Central America, Africa and elsewhere. Wherever America shows up, blood spills followed by horrific human suffering, what Libyans can now expect.

Military and government targets include:

-- command-and-control centers;

-- air defense systems;

-- Gaddafi, his sons and senior officials;

-- communications systems;

-- government buildings and other facilities; and

-- military air fields, tanks, artillery, other weapons, munitions, fuel depots, mobile and other targets.

About 25 US, UK, French, Canadian and Italian ships are involved, 11 from America, including three nuclear submarines. The Pentagon is providing command, control and logistics support. Air and surface-launched munitions are being used, including against Tripoli, the capital and Gaddafi stronghold.

Moreover, invasion and perhaps occupation may follow, despite official denials.

Either way, widespread death and destruction is likely. Surgical war is an oxymoron. Expect considerable "collateral damage," the Orwellian designation for war crimes against noncombatants and civilian targets.

In his 1992 book titled, "Beyond Hypocrisy," Edward Herman referred to "nuclear chicken analysis," defining "collateral casualties" as "civilians killed as a regrettable 'spillover effect' of a nuclear attack on a military target' more generally, allegedly unintended casualties" of any type attack.

In other words, "inadvertent and tragic errors" that, in fact, constitute wanton murder and destruction of schools, hospitals, vital infrastructure and other non-military targets.

Pack Journalism Promotes War

A previous article explained how it enlists public support for imperial war, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/pack-journalism-promotes-war-on-libya.html

Western media, including BBC and Al Jazeera incite it, no matter how lawless, mindless, destructive and counterproductive. Smell it. It arrived again because inflammatory journalism stoked reasons to attack. As a result, America, Britain and France primarily readied strikes. Ground and submarine-launced cruise missiles inflicted widespread destruction. In addition, French jets struck "targets of opportunity," preceded by exaggerated/unverified/inflammatory reports like the following:

On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Reports Say Attacks by Regime Against Rebels Continue," saying:

Unverified "(r)eports indicated that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces were continuing to press their attacks despite warnings that such moves would provoke military action."

On March 19, Financial Times writer Tobias Buck headlined, "Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi," saying:

Forces loyal to Gaddafi attacked "in violation of the regime's promise of a ceasefire."

Libyan state TV channel, Al Jamahiriya, reported it differently, saying "the people of Benghazi have risen up against the rebels and raised the flag of Libya over the government building in the middle of the city."

On March 19, New York Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:

"American, European and Arab leaders began the largest international intervention" since 2003 against Iraq, omitting the illegality of both aggressions.

On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrich and Elisabeth Musmiller headlined, "France Sends Military Flights Over Libya," saying:

Flying reconnaissance missions, it's "the first sign" of premeditated war, launching new hostilities against a war-torn region, without explanation why.

On March 19, Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:

Hostilities began to stop "Qaddafi's war on the Libyan opposition," after a no-fly zone was established.

As a result, war arrived preemptively. French President Sarkozy said it's to stop Gaddafi's "murderous madness," no matter that he responded to violence. He didn't instigate it. So would Sarkozy, Obama or any leader against armed insurrection.

Love or hate him, Gaddafi said:

"Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans. This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe. You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs."

Hours earlier, he pledged a ceasefire. Conflicting reports disagree if he honored it. Is he or Western intervention stoking violence? US media reports point fingers one way.

Washington, Britain, France, other NATO allies, and complicit Arab States back armed anti-Gaddafi insurrection. They're promoting it, inciting it, funding it, arming it, with clear imperial aims. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/washingtons-un-war-resolution-on-libya.html

On March 19, ahead of intervention, Al Jazeera headlined, "Gaddafi forces encroaching on Benghazi," saying:

Gaddafi unleashed "a fresh act of defiance even as the United States and its allies prepared to launch military attacks on Libya."

Unverified "(r)eports from Libya say pro-government forces have entered the western outskirts of the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, with the city also coming under attack from the coast and the south."

Unnamed "(w)itnesses....said they heard large explosions....Government troops reportedly bombed the southern Benghazi suburb of Goreshi among other places."

No verification was given, except to quote Mustafa Abdel Jalil, opposition National Libyan Council leader. More on him below. Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley reported "a lot of jittery people...a lot of activity and a lot of firing going on."

In contrast, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told the BBC that "the ceasefire is real, credible and solid. We are willing to receive (international and NGO) observers as soon as possible." He insisted no air strikes were launched.

Hours later Al Jazeera headlined, "Airstrikes begin on Libya targets," saying:

"French warplanes hit four tanks....on a day when opposition fighters in (Benghazi) reported coming under constant artillery and mortar fire." Expect sustained strikes to follow.

Al Jazeera and other media reports don't explain that "opposition" officials from organizations like the National Libyan Council and National Front for the Salvation of Libya have close Western ties, pretending they're credible. More about them below.

Headquartered in Qatar, moreover, Al Jazeera noticeably abstains from criticizing its government, now part of Washington's anti-Gaddafi coalition-of-the-willing, complicit in illegal aggression.

On March 18, Obama stopped short of declaring war, announcing "all necessary measures" against Gaddafi without full compliance with UN Resolution terms, including an immediate ceasefire, withdrawing his forces, reestablishing essential services to all parts of the country, and letting in "humanitarian assistance," including foreign imperial forces opposed to his leadership.

In other words, impossible terms to accept to be followed by others likely demanding he step down, permit balkanization, predatory Western investment, US bases, and free exploitation of his resources and people. Imagine comparable demands made on America - non-negtiable to be followed by military action for non-compliance.

On March 18, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rogh Rasmussen signaled war, saying the alliance was "completing its planning to be ready to take appropriate action in support of the UN resolution as part of the broad international effort."

Launched the next day, the resources of another resource-rich Arab state will be divided among Western belligerents, to benefit Libyans, they claim.

On March 20, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Qaddafi Pledges 'Long War' as Allies Pursue Air Assault," saying:

"On Sunday, American (stealth) B-2 bombers were reported to have struck a major Libyan airfield," following initial attacks against Libya's air defense systems, "missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli," Misurata and Surt.

Reuters said "US fighter planes backed by electronic warfare aircraft" attacked Gaddafi's ground troops and air defenses. A Pentagon statement stated:

"US Navy Growlers provided electronic warfare support over Libya while AV-8B Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted strikes...."

Parliamentary secretary Muhammad Zweid said attacks "caused some real harm against civilians and buildings." According to an unnamed US official, Libya's air defenses are now "severely disabled."

As of Sunday morning, visible destruction also included 14 tanks, 20 armored personnel carriers, two or more trucks, rocket launchers, dozens of pick-ups, and exploding munitions. Ahead of cruise missile attacks, France initiated reconnaissance flights and aggression.

On March 19, Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's Global Research.ca article headlined, "Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed," saying:

Regime change-planned naked aggression was launched. "The war criminals are back at it again," Washington, of course, in the lead. On March 19, "sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic. These were civilian facilities."

Targets attacked included Al-Tajura and Saladin hospitals as well as a clinic near Tripoli, unrelated to military necessity, distant from combat areas. Moreover, civilian air facilities were struck as well as "all Libyan military bases" - air, naval and ground. In addition, "a vast naval blockade around Libya has now been imposed," America the lead belligerent.

Further, Libyan sources report "two French jets were also shot down....near Janzour" plus another "near Anjile." Washington and co-belligerents "are creating a real humanitarian disaster," waging war for peace, killing civilians to save them, and destroying Libya by "humanitarian intervention."

Moreover, Washington enlisted Egypt and Saudi Arabia to supply "opposition forces" with weapons, in violation of Resolution 1973 prohibiting any sent. Of course, international and US law forbid aggressive war, but that never deterred imperial America from preemptively attacking, invading, occupying and colonizing nations illegally, Libya its latest target.

Libya's So-Called "Opposition"

Included are the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, its officials with ties to the CIA and Saudi Arabia. Also, Muhammad as-Senussi, Libya's so-called heir to the Senussi Crown, concerned only for his own self-interest.

Central is the National Libyan Council (NLC), announced on February 26, established officially on March 5, led by former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, a Western-allied opportunist.

NLC is an umbrella group of local so-called opposition leaders headquartered in Benghazi. Bogusly, it claims to represent all Libyans. Abdel-Jalil calls it a "transitional government" ahead of future elections after Gaddafi is deposed.

At the same time, Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, a Benghazi lawyer, refuted his leadership, calling himself NLC's official spokesman. Both men, however, have similar aspirations, including controlling Libya by ousting Gaddafi.

As of now, Abdel-Jalil remains NLC's official head, Ghoga its spokesman, and Omar El-Hariri in charge of military operations. General Abdel Fattah Younis may be another key member, his status, however, not confirmed. In total, NLC has about 30 members. Most aren't named. Two known include, Mahmoud Jebril and Ali al-Essawi, former Libyan ambassador to India in charge of foreign affairs.

On March 5, Reuters headlined, "Rebel National Libya Council sets up (a three-member) crisis committee," saying:

In charge of military and foreign affairs, members include Omar El-Hariri, Ali al-Essawi, and Mahmoud Jebril as leader.

Western Hypocrisy - Denouncing Violence While Backing It

At Obama's behest, about 1,000 Saudi troops invaded Bahrain guns blazing, attacking peaceful protesters, arresting opposition leaders and activists, occupying the country, denying wounded men and women medical treatment, and imposing police state control in support of the hated monarchy.

Not an angry Western demand was heard to stop hostilities and leave. Nor against similar Egyptian army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily against Palestinians.

On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital, when security forces attacked thousands, demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down.

Ally turned bete noire Gaddafi was targeted for removal. In contrast, Saleh is supported because of Yemen's strategic location near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia's southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.

Instead of denouncing his brutality, Obama endorsed it, calling on "all sides (to pursue) a peaceful, orderly and democratic path to a stronger and more prosperous nation."

Friday's massacre was the bloodiest since resistance erupted in mid-February. Security forces and plainclothes police opened fire on demonstrators, shooting to kill, hitting some in the back of the head as they fled. Afterward, Saleh imposed a state of emergency and nationwide curfew.

Demonstrations, nonetheless, persist, Yemenese wanting his 32-year dictatorship ended. Achieving it, however, entails overcoming Washington's imperial grip on regional client states, all run by favored despots.

A Final Comment

On March 19, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry Arab.com headlined, "Bush Doctrine revised: Obama puts his stamp," saying:

"Western/Saudi/Qarari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent." Under Bush, ousting regimes for democracy "was a bloody farce...." Obama's model may be installing puppets "without having 'boots on the ground,' " but don't discount them. He expanded Bush's Afghan war, began his own in Pakistan as well as in Somalia, Yemen and Bahrain, backing favored despots besides the Saudi monarchy.

AbuKhalil calls NLC's Abdel-Jalil "a useful idiot." Moreover, "Western enthusiasm for (Libyan) intervention" was never properly explained beyond nonsensical platitudes about "humanitarian intervention" to protect civilians.

In contrast, "why (didn't) the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia....warrant" similar outrage, let alone Israel's Cast Lead, occupation and daily aggression against defenseless Palestinians.

Intervening militarily is Libya "is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers, (and) abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain (Yemen and Saudi Arabia) of today (are) the vision for Libya for tomorrow," Western-dominated, of course.

Will it work? Love or hate Gaddafi, Libyans know what Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians endure. Moreover, its society is fractious, divided by tribal loyalties, suspicious of Western intervention, and long-governed locally as well as nationally.

Against them is America's military might under leaders not shy about using it. As a result, Libyans are experiencing firsthand what's ahead under Western control, what makes Iraqis yearn for Saddam, almost saintly compared to Washington.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.