Martin Chulov reports on the elusive Iranian with so much Iraqi influence that Baghdadis believe he is controlling the country There’s a story that the new CIA director, David Petraeus, likes to tell which harks back to his days as a four-star general in Iraq. Early in 2008, during a series of battles between the US and Iraqi army on one side and the Shia militias on the other, Petraeus was handed a phone with a text message from the Iranian general who had by then become his nemesis. The message came from the head of Iran’s elite al-Quds Force, Qassem Suleimani, and was conveyed by a senior Iraqi leader. It read: “General Petraeus, you should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control the policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan. And indeed, the ambassador in Baghdad is a Quds Force member. The individual who’s going to replace him is a Quds Force member.” Petraeus hardly needed to be told. Much of the US military’s work with Iraq’s Shia Muslims had been undermined by Suleimani and the client militias of the Iranian general’s al-Quds force. So too had US government diplomatic efforts elsewhere in the Middle East, especially in Lebanon. Petraeus last year told a thinktank, the Institute for the Study of War, about the problem Suleimani created for him: “Now, that makes diplomacy difficult if you think that you’re going to do the traditional means of diplomacy by dealing with another country’s ministry of foreign affairs because in this case, it is not the ministry. It is a security apparatus.” As he prepared for the job of the US’s most senior spy, Petraeus would surely have been preparing for further shadow boxing. Suleimani’s reputation as the most formidable operator in the region has not diminished in the past three years. By some measures it has actually increased: Syria now also comes within Suleimani’s sphere of influence. The strength of the ties between Suleimani and Iraqi legislators has been revealed during weeks of interviews with key officials, including those who admire him and those who fear the man like no other. Iraq’s former state security minister, Sharwan al-Waeli is one who knows Suleimani well. A formal conversation between the Guardian and al-Waeli last year took on a very different tone as soon as Suleimani’s name was mentioned. The Shia legislator was a known ally of Iran, so much so that he was seen by secularists and Sunnis in parliament as someone prepared to do Iran’s bidding. He denied Iran played a pervasive role in Iraq until he was interrupted with a question that Iraqi officials have long prefered to ignore: when was the last time Qassem Suleimani came to the Green Zone, the fortified government district in the heart of Baghdad? Al-Waeli’s left hand trembled slightly and his brow furrowed. “You mean Sayed Qassem Suleimani,” he said, giving Suleimani an Arabic honorific reserved for the most esteemed of men. He refused to elaborate. In Baghdad, no other name invokes the same sort of reaction among the nation’s power base – discomfort, uncertainty and fear. “He is the most powerful man in Iraq without question,” Iraq’s former national security minister, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, said recently. “Nothing gets done without him.” Until now, however, few Iraqis have dared to talk openly about the enigmatic Iranian general, what role he plays in Iraq and how he shapes key agendas like no one else. “They are too busy dealing with the aftermath,” said a senior US official. “He dictates terms then makes things happen and the Iraqis are left managing a situation that they had no input into.” Suleimani’s journey to supremacy in Iraq is rooted in the Islamic revolution of 1979, which ousted the Shah and recast Iran as a fundamentalist Shia Islamic state. He rose steadily through the ranks of the Iranian military until 2002 when, months before the US invasion of Iraq, he was appointed to command the most elite unit of the Iranian military – the al-Quds force of the Revolutionary Guards Corp. The al-Quds force has no equal in Iran. Its stated primary task is to protect the revolution. However, its mandate has also been interpreted as exporting the revolution’s goals to other parts of the Islamic world. Shia communities throughout the region have proved fertile grounds for revolutionary messages and have formed deep and abiding partnerships with the al-Quds force. So too have several Sunni groups opposed to Israel – first among them Hamas in Gaza. But Iraq has been Suleimani’s key arena. The last eight years have witnessed a proxy war between Suleimani’s Quds force and the US military, the full effects of which are still being played out, as the US prepares for a full departure from Iraq and Iraq’s leaders ponder over whether to ask them to stay. Arabian heartland At stake is no less than who gets to shape the destiny of the heartland of Arabia. “His power comes straight from (the country’s lead cleric Ayatollah) Khamenei,” said one of Iraq’s three deputy prime ministers, Saleh al-Mutlaq, a secular Sunni. “It bypasses everyone else, including Ahmadinejad. “There is a saying in Islam that you should never get angry with your father or mother. The [Shia] interpret that as meaning what (Khamanei, via Suleimani) says has to be respected by every [Shia] inside, or outside Iran. “All of the important people in Iraq go to see him,” said Mutlaq. “People are mesmerised by him – they see him like an angel.” A second MP – a senior member of Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki’s inner circle who regularly meets Suleimani in Iran – said the general has only travelled once to Iraq in the past eight years. He described him as “softly spoken and reasonable, very polite”. “He is simple when you talk to him. You would not know how powerful he is without knowing his background. His power is absolute and no one can challenge this.” Silver-haired, slight and with a perennial serene smile, Suleimani comes across as the most unlikely of warlords. Those who met him during the one time he traveled to Baghdad at the height of the 2006 sectarian conflict say he walked around the compounds of his two key hosts without bodyguards. The
Continue reading …
Rebel security arrest head of group behind killing of Gaddafi defector Abdel Fatah Younis and his two aides The head of the Libyan rebel’s armed forces and two of his aides have been killed by gunmen, the head of the rebel leadership has said. The death of Abdel Fatah Younis was announced at a press conference in the rebel capital, Benghazi, by the head of the rebels’ National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil. He told reporters that rebel security had arrested the head of the group behind the killing. Rebel security had earlier summoned Younis for questioning about suspicions his family still had ties to Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Younis was Gaddafi’s interior minister before defecting to the rebels early in the uprising. Abdul Jalil said Younis had been summoned for questioning regarding “a military matter.” He said Younis and his two aides were shot before they arrived for questioning. Abdul Jalil called Younis “one of the heroes of the 17th of February revolution’, a name marking the date of early protests against Gaddafi’s regime. While he criticised Gaddafi for seeking to break the unity of rebel forces, he did not say directly that Younis’s killers were associated with the regime. Instead, he issued a stiff warning about “armed groups” in rebel-held cities, saying they needed to join the fight against Gaddafi or risk being arrested by security forces. Libya Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Africa guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
He truly is a man of exquisite taste. George Clooney, in his first directorial outing since the sublime Good Night and Good Luck, has made the extremely wise choice of using a fake TIME magazine cover as the poster for his new movie, The Ides of March. To be fair to George (and, well, us),
Continue reading …Steve Hilton policy leaks show Downing Street divide over David Cameron aide
July 28, 2011 No Comment
Despite praise for his ‘blue-skies’ thinking, outspoken ideas man has detractors at heart of coalition government Downing Street and Treasury aides have often been at odds since the autumn over how to boost economic growth after the deepest recession since the war, say senior Whitehall sources. The disclosure that Steve Hilton, the prime minister’s policy guru, proposed abolishing maternity leave was the most powerful example of the battles that have been playing out behind the scenes in Whitehall. “Steve Hilton comes up with lots of ideas – they do not all see the light of day,” said one senior figure who is familiar with Hilton. “Some of his ideas work and some do not.” Tory sources blamed the Liberal Democrats for leaking Hilton’s thoughts, a view which took hold when Vince Cable dismissed his ideas on the airwaves at lunchtime. “That most definitely is not government policy,” the business secretary told Radio 4′s The World at One regarding Hilton’s proposal to abolish maternity rights. “Steve is a fine blue skies thinker but this is not part of what we are going to do. We are looking at labour legislation in general but it has got to be sensible and balanced and I think that particular proposal isn’t.” The leaking of Hilton’s thoughts to the FT appeared to owe more to the investigative powers of the newspaper rather than to an operation by a particular faction in government. But the fact that a series of Whitehall figures felt free to speak in dismissive terms to the FT about Hilton’s ideas show that he has detractors at the heart of the government. A number of Lib Dems around Nick Clegg regard Hilton as a refreshing but somewhat wacky thinker. Furthermore, some figures in the Treasury believe that Hilton’s loose thinking was partly to blame for George Osborne’s failure to create a coherent and compelling message for the Tories’ election campaign. There was much mirth among these groups when the FT reported that Hilton had suggested that maternity rights and all consumer rights legislation should be abolished to help revive the economy. Hilton even suggested that Britain should ignore EU labour rules on temporary workers, much to the annoyance of the No 10 permanent secretary, Jeremy Heywood. “Steve asked why the PM had to obey the law,” one Whitehall source told the FT of a meeting in March to discuss the government’s growth strategy. “Jeremy had to explain that if David Cameron breaks the law he could be put in prison.” Hilton also suggested that Whitehall could do its bit to cut the fiscal deficit by abolishing hundreds of central government press officers and replacing them with a single person in each department who would blog. He also said that Jobcentres should be closed and replaced instead by community groups. One source who works close to Hilton said that many of David Cameron’s team were startled by his proposal in opposition to buy cloudbursting technology to provide more sunshine. Hilton’s fans rallied to his defence. One said: “Steve is brilliant. He has such a fresh and lively mind. He makes boring documents sparkle.” Another said it was important to understand the mindset of one of Cameron’s closest allies who has known the prime minister since their days together at Conservative Central Office in the late 1990s. “You have to realise that Steve is an impatient revolutionary. He really will be furious if, at the end of our five years in government, we have not completely transformed this country and freed people up to run their own lives.” Hilton has been a central figure as No 10 and 11 have struggled since the autumn to develop a coherent strategy for growth. There were reports earlier this week that Downing Street’s two neighbours and their aides were at odds over the government’s core economic strategy – the elimination of the structural deficit over the course of this parliament. This was wrong. But there have been tense discussions dating back to the spending review last autumn over how to stimulate growth. Hilton has lined up in the modernisers’ corner as he lobbies for radical deregulation and a focus on innovative new industries. The Treasury welcomes many of Hilton’s ideas but is more cautious and does not want to lose sight of the importance of established industries. One Whitehall source spoke of “institutional differences” between Hilton’s team at No 10, which was instrumental in the prime minister’s “new economic dynamism” speech to the CBI last October, and the Treasury and the business department. They take what is described as a traditional and “quite corporatist view”. Hilton prevailed in that speech when the prime minister warned that the traditional model of business, in which goods are shipped around the world, has been “blown apart”. He was instrumental in writing this into the speech: “There has been a surge in new, young, high-growth, highly innovative firms. It wasn’t long ago that Apple, Cisco and Google didn’t even exist – now each one has a market value of over $100bn … The impact this change is having on our economic landscape is unprecedented. In 1950, the average life of a company in the S&P index was 47 years. By 2020, it will fall to just 10 years.” Treasury sources say there are no differences with No 10. They point out that in the budget in March, the chancellor announced an entrepreneurial investment scheme and tax break for entrepreneurs. “George thinks it is great that Steve agitates and pushes his ideas,” one source said. “Ideas are discussed and challenged in a process by people who all work very well together.” Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives David Cameron George Osborne Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg Economic policy Welfare Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Keith Ellison Responds to King’s Refusal to Allow Him to Testify in His Upcoming Muslim Witch Hunt
July 28, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Rep. Keith Ellison talked to Keith Olbermann about Rep. Peter King refusing to allow him to testify during his upcoming Homeland Security hearing, which is shaping up just to be another witch hunt, scapegoating Muslim Americans. After Ellison’s emotional testimony during the last one, it’s not all that surprising. As Dave noted in his post on the media’s terrible coverage of the terrorism in Norway : It might actually be a good idea if Peter King wants to hold hearings on domestic terrorism. But it needs to tackle the whole threat, and not just the one our xenophobic myopia readily identifies. The Minnesota Star Tribune gave their take on the upcoming hearings and King’s refusal to allow Ellision to testify here — Short take: Peter King vs. Keith Ellison : U.S. Rep. Peter King takes his last name a little too seriously. The New York Republican is chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and he’s very concerned about Islamic radicalization. So concerned, in fact, that he held yet another hearing on the topic Wednesday as a sequel to a similar session in March. There’s no doubt the subject is worthy of thoughtful, objective congressional scrutiny. Those who too quickly write off the inquiry should take time to study the homegrown radicalization of Twin Cities men with connections to Al-Shabab, the terrorist group with links to Al-Qaida. Earlier this month, a sixth person pleaded guilty in what officials have called “Operation Rhino,’’ the counterterrorism investigation into how local Somalis were recruited to their homeland to fight for Al-Shabab. Since the probe started, at least nine Minnesota men are believed to have been killed while fighting in Somalia. It’s understandable that King’s Homeland Security committee would pay attention. Federal law enforcement officials have had the Twin Cities on the radar for years, and King invited William Anders Folk, a former prosecutor in the Twin Cities, and St. Paul Police Chief Tom Smith to testify. Where King failed the credibility test — in addition to his record of anti-Muslim rhetoric —was in his refusal to hear from those who might disagree with him. In orchestrating Wednesday’s lineup,King stiffed Rep. Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Democrat who pointed out in a letter that his Fifth District has the largest Somali community in the country. King responded that the meeting is an extension of the March hearing, at which Ellison did testify. The Minnesota congressman deserved a seat at the table because of his work with local and federal law enforcement. The fact that he’s Muslim only adds value to his views. Nevertheless, in a clear congressional kiss-off, King denied Ellison’s request and asked him to submit easily ignored written testimony. Given the level of partisan dysfunction in Washington, King’s treatment of Ellison is no surprise. In return, the New Yorker should expect his motives to be called into question. That’s putting it mildly. Keith Olbermann was a bit less charitable to say the least, calling King an “asshole” after his interview with Ellision. I don’t disagree, but also don’t think it’s terribly productive. I think he could have stuck to just calling out his fearmongering and bigotry without making it personal.
Continue reading …House Republicans are not just do-nothings — they’re spinning their wheels furiously
July 28, 2011 No CommentTina Dupuy has an excellent piece in The Atlantic examining how this Republican Congress is on pace to set a modern record for non-accomplishment — while expending endless energy passing bills that have no chance of passing the Senate: One quarter into the 112th Congress’s two-year term, only 14 pieces of legislation originating in the House have become laws (12 bills and two house joint resolutions). Fourteen. Compare that with the House in the 111th, which claimed 254 laws (plus 11 house joint resolutions) over two years. The 110th had 308 (plus 10 house joint resolutions). Even the often-derided do-nothing 109th Congress’s House controlled by the GOP passed 316 (with 16 house joint resolutions). If the current House continues with this trend it will have produced a mere 48 laws by the end of the chamber’s full term. Quick math: The last three Houses have by this time in their tenure produced an average of 76 laws each. But when House Republicans are actually in session, it’s not exactly like they’re doing nothing. They’ve made a point of passing bills that “send a message.” Over and over, they’ve brought legislation to the floor that was doomed to die in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Why? To put taxpayer money where Republican congresspersons’ mouths (and votes) are. Yes, the House Republicans of 112th Congress are having a love affair with the symbolic vote. Dupuy compiled a list of the many bills that have passed the House with no chance of passage in the Senate, including the health-care repealers, defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR, ending the oil-drilling moratorium in the Gulf, and gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Of course, these are the same people demanding that President Obama devise a debt-ceiling plan … even though that’s a responsibility clearly in Congress’ hands. By the way, look for more of Dupuy’s work here at Crooks and Liars. She’s joining the C&L team beginning Monday. (You can also check out her work at her own site .) Welcome Tina!
Continue reading …Press Celebrates Unemployment Claims Drop Below 400K, Ignores Track Record of Upward Revisions
July 28, 2011 No Comment
Two “alert” emails hit my inbox this morning concerning the Department of Labor's just-released unemployment claims report . The one I expected came from CNNMoney.com, which read: “Initial unemployment claims fall below 400,000 for the first time in more than 3 months, dropping 24,000 to 398,000 in latest week.” The other one came from USAToday.com, which does not ordinarily issue alerts when this report appears, took the opportunity to relay the same message, followed by an assertion that today's report is “a sign the job market may be healing after a recent slump.” Over at the Associated Press, Christopher Rugaber joined in the celebration (possibly more permanent link here ): The number of people seeking unemployment benefits dropped last week to the lowest level since early April, a sign the job market may be healing after a recent slump. The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications fell 24,000 to a seasonally adjusted 398,000. That's the first time applications have fallen below 400,000 in 16 weeks. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, dropped to 413,750, the lowest since the week of April 23. Stocks rose after the report was released. Economists cautioned that the lower level only reflects one week of data and that doesn't necessarily signal a trend. The two emails, Rugaber's dispatch, and Annalyn Censky's CNNMoney's report (USAT carried Rugaber's work) all failed to inform readers about the report's history of subsequent-week revisions. In 18 of the past 20 weeks, upward revisions have been 2,000 or more. An increase of that magnitude or greater would of course restore the supposedly broken streak if it takes place next week. The average upward revision for the past 20 weeks from initial announcement to final result has been 4,500: The folks at Zero Hedge, who have been looking at this trend much longer than yours truly and observing similar results, today found it all “quite amusing as next week's upward revision will mean the 400k+ streak will continue.” Well, not for certain. But just as it would be irresponsible for a sports reporter to report a halftime score as final, it's just as irresponsible to claim that a streak has ended without identifying its clearly tentative nature — especially given what's happened during the rest of the game for the past several months. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …
US government conducts ‘integrity inquiry’ on federal biologist amid lobbying by oil firms for Arctic permits It is seen as one of the most distressing effects of climate change ever recorded: a polar bear dying of exhaustion after being stranded between melting patches of Arctic sea ice. But now the government scientist who first warned of the threat to polar bears in a warming Arctic has been suspended and his work put under official investigation for possible scientific misconduct. Charles Monnett, a wildlife biologist, oversaw much of the scientific work for the government agency that has been examining drilling in the Arctic. He managed about $50m in research projects. Some question why Monnett, employed by the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, has been suspended at this moment. The Obama administration has been accused of hounding the scientist so it can open up the fragile region to drilling by Shell and other big oil companies. “You have to wonder: this is the guy in charge of all the science in the Arctic and he is being suspended just now as an arm of the interior department is getting ready to make its decision on offshore drilling in the Arctic seas,” said Jeff Ruch, president of the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “This is a cautionary tale with a deeply chilling message for any federal scientist who dares to publish groundbreaking research on conditions in the Arctic.” The group filed an official complaint on Monnett’s behalf on Thursday, accusing the government of persecuting the (PDF) scientist and interfering with his work. It seeks his reinstatement and a public apology. Monnett was on a research flight tracking bowhead whales, in 2004, when he and his colleagues spotted four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. The scientists concluded the bears, though typically strong swimmers, had grown exhausted and drowned due to the long distances between patches of solid sea ice. It was the first time scientists had drawn a link between melting Arctic sea ice and a threat to the bears’ survival. Two years later, Monnett and a colleague published an article in the science journal Polar Biology, writing: “Drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.” The paper quickly heightened public concern for the polar bear. Al Gore, citing the paper, used polar bear footage in his film Inconvenient Truth. Campaigners focused on the bears to push George Bush to act on climate change, and in 2008, the government designated the animal a threatened species. It was the first animal to be classed as a victim of climate change. In 2010 the Obama administration began an investigation into his work. The scientist was suspended with pay on 18 July. He is said to be under a gagging order and forbidden from communicating with his colleagues. The employee group’s complaint alleges that the investigation is a thinly veiled attempt to disrupt scientific work on the Arctic. Oil firms, which want to drill in the pristine environment of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, have been complaining of delays caused by environmental reviews. This month Obama issued an order to speed up Arctic drilling permits. A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (Boemre) said the government would continue to carry out research on the potential impacts of Arctic drilling, despite Monnett’s suspension. “All of the scientific contracts previously managed by Mr Monnett are being managed by the highly qualified scientists at Boemre,” Melissa Schwartz said in an email. She noted that the investigation was being overseen by the inspector general, which is independent, and that it was being conducted according to the Obama administration’s new guidelines on scientific integrity. However, Peer argues the exercise is intended to discredit Monnett’s brief paper on the polar bear. Other organisations also accused the government agency of a long record of meddling in science. A 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office found huge gaps in Boemre’s research on the impacts of drilling in the Arctic. And the Alaska Wilderness League stated: “Alaska Boemre has continued to ignore science and traditional knowledge in its decision-making about oil and gas development.” Documents posted on the League’s website include a transcript of a conversation between investigators and Jeffrey Gleason, another government scientist on the 2004 trip. Gleason, who works for the government, in the Gulf of Mexico, said he did not necessarily share Monnett’s conclusions that the polar bears were killed as a consequence of climate change. “It’s something along the lines of the changing environment in the Arctic,” he was quoted as saying. United States Arctic Polar regions Obama administration US politics Oil Royal Dutch Shell Oil Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …MSNBC’s Brewer Floats Unconstitutional Idea That Obama Could Unilaterally Raise Debt Ceiling
July 28, 2011 No CommentShortly after noon today, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer followed her colleague Chuck Todd in using the anniversary of the 14th Amendment becoming law to cite the liberal fantasy of a clause in the amendment empowering President Obama to end-run Congress on raising the debt ceiling. Like Todd she got her history and the text of the relevant clause wrong. This occurred during a satellite interview with Rep. Elliot Engel (D-N.Y.) on the debt ceiling debate: BREWER: Let me ask you about another angle this could take. On this date in 1868 the 14th Amendment was adopted into the Constitution. [Rep.] James Clyburn [D-S.C.] is raising the prospect once again of the president using that amendment to raise the debt ceiling on his own without congressional approval. The amendment says in part “the validity of public debt shall not be questioned.” The White House has essentially said look, it's not applicable to this problem. Is there a bigger role for the president in breaking this impasse? Of course, Engel is a huge proponent of such an unconstitutional end-run, so he took the opportunity to then plug his press conference to be held later in the day with other liberal Democrats calling on President Obama to attempt such a maneuver. But Brewer misquoted Section 4 of the 14th Amendment , which reads in full (emphasis mine): The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law , including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reserves to Congress the power to loan money on the credit of the United States and no amendment changes that. The president cannot unilaterally raise the debt ceiling and thereby loan more money on credit of the United States than Congress has assented to. Indeed, even liberal constitutional scholars like Laurence Tribe have dismissed the idea as unconstitutional and as setting a dangerous precedent if pursued. As to the history of the 14th Amendment's adoption, while it's true that on July 28, 1868 U.S. Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation recognizing that the 14th Amendment had been officially ratified , it was 19 days earlier on July 9 that the amendment was actually adopted, when South Carolina's legislature voted for ratification. Article V of the U.S. Constitution makes perfectly clear that proposed amendments “shall be valid to all intents and purposes …when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths” of the states. For a network that repeatedly slams Tea Party conservatives for an alleged sloppy command of history and/or ignorance of the Constitution, it sure could use some brushing up on those subjects. # # #
Continue reading …
Heavy fighting as rebels attack government positions in Ghazaya and Al Jawsh in attempt to clear supply lines Libyan rebel forces in the Nafusa mountains, south-west of Tripoli, launched a major offensive against government positions in an attempt to capture the strategic town of Ghazaya. Reports in opposition media said the rebel fighters had reached the outskirts of Ghazaya with heavy fighting involving tanks and artillery. The town is significant because it is close to the Tunisian border and is a base for government forces shelling roads leading over the border that are used by rebels to bring in supplies. “We have started attacking Ghazaya with rockets and tanks,” a rebel spokesman, Mohammed Maylud, told Reuters. A second town, Al Jawsh, was reportedly captured but then rebels were unable to hold it, despite deploying several tanks captured from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. Nafusa is a narrow chain of mountains running east into Libya which rebel fighters have dominated for more than a month. But, to date, their lightly armed forces have struggled to move off the high ground to capture important roads and towns they need to consolidate their position and pose a direct threat to Tripoli. Radio reports from rebel sources said four fighters had been killed and 18 pro-Gaddafi soldiers captured. One injured pro-Gaddafi soldier, who gave his name as Hassan, told Reuters: “We don’t want to keep fighting. Everybody is against us.” Guma el-Gamaty, the UK co-ordinator of the National Transitional Council (NTC), said he had spoken to military commanders who hoped to “retake and clear” several towns and villages in the mountain area within days. “That will be a strategic shift,” he said, explaining that capture by the rebels would put the towns out of reach of Gaddafi forces’ missiles. He added: “The other strategic benefit of retaking these villages and towns is that it literally clears the way [from the Tunisian border down the coast towards Tripoli].” Yesterday’s offensive came amid confusion surrounding the rebels’ military commander, Abdel Fatah Younis, who was reported to have been arrested and detained at a military base in Benghazi. The former interior minister, who served under Gaddafi until he defected in February, was reported to have been questioned over alleged links with the regime in Tripoli. That could not be confirmed. Al-Jazeera television reported that rebel troops loyal to the general, had returned from the eastern front and were in the streets brandishing firearms and demanding his release. As Libya approaches the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, there is little sign of an imminent resolution to the five-month conflict. Yesterday, el-Gamaty sought to play down any suggestion that the NTC would agree to a settlement that would see Gaddafi staying in the country – a proposal briefly floated in recent days by Britain and France, and by the rebel leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil. “I think we are coming to the end of all these silly political initiatives and all this talk about Gaddafi staying in Libya,” said Gamaty. He added: “Will he be allowed to stay in Libya? Will he not be allowed? Will he resign? Will he not resign? All these political initiatives, if they are not based on Gaddafi and all his sons leaving power and leaving Libya, these are initiatives that are not even worth talking about.” The NTC received another diplomatic boost when Portugal followed the example of Britain and others by saying it had granted official recognition to the rebels. In a statement, the foreign ministry said it supported “the Libyan people’s aspirations in the construction of a free and democratic society”. In London, a day after Hague announced the expulsion of all remaining Gaddafi regime diplomats from the Libyan People’s Bureau, attention shifted to the financial consequences of the recognition. Gamaty said he hoped all the £12bn-worth of Libyan assets frozen by Britain since the start of the conflict would be unblocked. Britain is to attempt to unfreeze some of the assets, running into the hundreds of millions of pounds, but the bulk is expected to remain blocked until Gaddafi falls. “The NTC cannot run two-thirds of Libya on just a few hundred millions … we need billions for that,” said the UK’s rebel co-ordinator. He insisted the money would be used for basic services and medical supplies in the war-torn nation, and not for the purchase of weapons. However observers have said that in practice this would be hard to regulate. Libya Arab and Middle East unrest Muammar Gaddafi Middle East Africa William Hague Chris Stephen Lizzy Davies guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …