I searched the paper looking for explanations for this murder and could find none. It was as if NATO believed that it could act with impunity. This killing comes on the heels of an earlier attempt by NATO to actually kill Qaddafi himself.
Though in no way a supporter of Qaddafi, I am angered at what some people are calling "mission creep." Though the United Nations unfortunately passed a resolution calling for a "no fly zone" over Libya, allegedly as a humanitarian gesture in defense of civilians, NATO has displayed an increasingly audacious approach toward intervention in what is an internal conflict of the sovereign nation of Libya.
Many well-intentioned progressives, including some friends of mine, supported the NATO intervention in the name of protecting civilians from being massacred by forces loyal to Qaddafi. In addition to there being a serious question as to whether a massacre was ever just over the horizon, it is now important for progressive and democratic-minded people to assess what is going on in Libya and what the intentions of the NATO forces happen to be, not to mention the impact of the NATO intervention on the pro-democracy forces within Libya.
It is worth noting that the NATO countries felt it was important to go to the United Nations in order to secure a mandate in order to implement an intervention under the cover of a "no fly zone." Yet that resolution did not call for support of regime change and it definitely did not call for the assassination of Qaddafi and his family. Yet, despite a slowly growing international chorus of criticism of NATO for these aggressive actions, NATO feels no compulsion to explain what it is doing or to cease and desist from the efforts that it is undertaking.
While it is quite possible that some individuals in the administrations of NATO countries believed that they were embarking on a humanitarian effort, it is impossible to accept that this is what has been guiding their strategy. The actions of the NATO countries have been hypocritical in the extreme. Instead, it is more likely that NATO aims to set up a reliable client state in Libya, thereby thwarting the efforts of the Libyan people to introduce democratic rule. Since it remains unclear how the revolutionary process will continue to unfold in Tunisia and Egypt (or whether it will be set back), and since Algeria remains a potential flashpoint, Libya, even a divided Libya, could serve the NATO countries well as an outpost in the midst of what the West sees as chaos.
NATO must withdraw from the conflict, and do so immediately.
Cross-posted at Black Commentator