Conflicting Priorities Imperil Effort to Gather Up Gaddafi’s Discarded Arms

It should have been of the utmost importance to NATO to put a plan in place to either secure these depots, or more feasibly, to blow them to kingdom come. Their negligence is criminal. This is a horror story. Ted Belman

By Vivienne Walt, TIME

More than three weeks after Libya’s rebels killed Muammar Gaddafi, arms experts say the task of finding and securing the mountain of weaponry abandoned by Gaddafi’s forces in their final rout has been complicated by a lack of international funding and coordination, as well as conflicting priorities among Western and African governments about which weapons pose the biggest threat.

While U.S. and European officials have sounded the alarm about the threat posted to airliners by looted surface-to-air missiles, arms experts say other kinds of weaponry that may prove far more damaging are receiving much less attention. “I don’t think anybody genuinely has any idea of full scale of the problem, because nobody has had a chance to look at it across the country, and we don’t have the assets to do it,” says Max Dyck, Libya program manager for the U.N.’s Joint Mine Action Coordination Team. The group is charged with disabling thousands of land mines, and securing large stockpiles of ammunition. The U.S. government has offered $40 million to help secure weapons stockpiles, while Canada has pledged $10 million — but those amounts fall far short of what’s needed, according to Dyck.

Once U.N. sanctions were lifted in 2003, Gaddafi spent billions on refurbishing a huge arsenal, making Libya a prized client for Western defense contractors. When the revolt began last February, French engineers had been in Tripoli training Gaddafi’s military in how to use MILAN anti-tank missiles sold to Libya by France; French jets then spent the next eight months helping to destroying them.

The regime’s collapse has seen huge quantities of arms looted from abandoned warehouses, and smuggled across Libya’s borders. Last week the president of neighboring Niger, Mahamadou Issoufou, said his forces had killed six arms smugglers on Libya’s border in early November, in the fourth such clash since February. He warned that Libya’s looted weapons were “being disseminated all over the region,” with al-Qaeda operatives among the recipients. Pieter Wezeman, arms-trade analyst for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) says Libyan weapons are likely to reach long-established insurgent groups in Mali and Chad. “These countries don’t have the capacity to control the borders and stop the weapons flows,” he says.

But the threat posed by looted weaponry is equally serious inside Libya. Shortly after Gaddafi’s death, Human Rights Watch uncovered 70 bunkers south of Sirte containing thousands of guided and unguided surface-to-air weapons, artillery and mortar rounds, and other ammunition and arms. Libya’s interim government has done little to secure those large stockpiles since then, according to Human Rights Watch emergencies director Peter Bouckaert. “We have seen a lot of talk and promises,” Bouckaert told TIME on Monday. “But there is a lack of capacity and control of the Libyan authorities over the groups which did the fighting.” (See why Libya’s migrant population faces uncertainty.)

The scale of the problem was underlined on Monday, when British Prime Minister David Cameron said Libyan authorities had found two stores of chemical weapons, previously unknown to Western governments to which Gaddafi claimed to have had declared all his stockpiles, under the deal that ended U.N. sanctions. It’s unclear why these weapons were never used against the rebellion.

Another growing concern is land mines: Some were used against rebel forces in eastern Libya this year, but arms experts believe millions more could remain buried across a country three times the size of Texas — including about 2 million mines believed to have been laid along the border with Chad during Libya’s war with that country in the 1980s. Thousands more may have been looted from the old regime’s stockpiles. Days after rebels stormed into Tripoli on Aug. 20, Dyck and others received emails from arms brokers offering to sell 100,000 looted land mines at $290 a piece. Dyck says the emails were forwarded to the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, which is now investigating the case.

Then there are the Kalashnikovs: In his final years, Gaddafi bought about 100,000 rifles from Ukraine, and in 2008 negotiated with China to buy 500,000 more, according to SIPRI; it’s not known how many rifles China delivered before the war began and the U.N. Security Council imposed an arms embargo. (See photos of Libyans celebrating liberation.)

Western governments have followed their own priorities in responding to the challenge of Libya’s looted arms. The U.S. State Dept. has contracted the security company DynCorp International to help track missing surface-to-air missiles, which Washington fears could enable terror attacks on civilian aviation throughout North Africa. Gaddafi is believed to have acquired about 20,000 Russian-made SAMs, including Strella missiles purchased during the 1970s and 1980s, and Igla missiles bought in 2010.

But focusing resources narrowly on the missing SAMs may be missing the danger of the potential of the rest of the weapons stocks to arm a future insurgency. Bouckaert says that when he recently briefed representatives of Dyncorp in Tripoli, “their attention dropped to zero when I moved on to other weapons.”

Despite the anxiety over the SAMs, it’s not clear whether they actually work, says James O’Halloran, editor of Jane’s Land-Based Air Defense, a specialist publication. Those delivered during the 1970s and 1980s could well have expired. “The solid propellant which causes the thing to fly will by now be a long, long way out of date,” he explains. He also doubts that terror groups could successfully deploy the newer anti-aircraft missiles. After examining videos and logs of the weapons uncovered since August, O’Halloran believes most lack essential components, and are unlikely to have been smuggled with all the parts required to operate them — the grip stock firing mechanism and the battery that can be used only once and which remains charged only for 30 to 40 seconds after being activated. “The missile on its own is useless,” says O’Halloran, who believes few grip stocks have been looted. If so, “the most you can do with [such] a missile is hit someone over the head.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2099549,00.html#ixzz1e4PtRufV

November 18, 2011 | 16 Comments »

Leave a Reply

16 Comments / 16 Comments

  2. The present administration will quite probably stage a pyrotechnics show over Iran, in one way or another coordinated with Russia and even Iran. That smoke and mirrors show would be planned to serve to stop Israel doing the real job.

  3. The Russian ships could be there as radar pickets, to monitor Israeli and NATO air movements — not in an attack against Syria, but in an attack on Iran.

  4. I looked around, to fetch an idea of how serious a naval force the Soviets are fielding off Syria. I couldn’t find any details, but the following article is interesting:

    Moscow – Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday signaled a dramatic increase for the country’s naval forces, with an announcement the Kremlin will spend 154 billion dollars for new submarines to be added to the country’s Arctic and Pacific fleets.

    — http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1674145.php/Putin-Kremlin-to-spend-154-billion-dollars-on-new-Russian-warships

    With such a hefty commitment to its Arctic and Pacific submarine fleets, I dare say not much money has gone into its Black Sea and Mediterranean fleets — which appear to be pretty old and junky. They may stay afloat long enough to “show the flag”, as the Iranians and Turks are also doing in the Eastern Med; but I don’t see them as a serious intent to confront NATO naval forces, should the latter decide to attack Syria: The Russkis would quickly lose militarily in such an encounter, and suffer tremendous political harm.

    As an effective naval force, this is just bluff. As an instance of “showing the flag”, I believe it represents a serious Russian intention to SHOW solidarity with Syria — very similar to their attempts to show solidarity with Yugoslavia in the Kosovo war. As in the latter case, though, the Russians suffer from geographic isolation: Turkey stands between them and Syria, Turkey will probably form the backbone of any attack, and Turkey is Barack Obama’s darling. I don’t think the Russians could deliver effective help in a timely manner.

  5. “…it can be viewed as psychological warfare, in an attempt to persuade the Iranians to stand down.” On the other hand, Schanzer warns, “Of course, it can just as easily be argued that U.S. officials are spoiling the surprises Israel has in store for the Iranians, which would help the mullahs make contingency plans. This would mean that US officials are actively trying to undermine an Israeli attack.” He concludes that it’s too early to tell which it is.”

    Iran “standing down” is a non-starter. The US spoiling Israel’s surprises is a possiblity. Israeli disinformation is another. The warhead explosion was a real gem — it ought to keep everyone guessing 🙂

  7. Report: Russia warships to enter Syria waters in bid to stem foreign intervention

    Iran’s nuclear Armageddon
    By Alan Caruba

    The failure of the U.S. to develop its own extensive oil reserves will prove to be a massive strategic error. The delay of a proposed Canadian oil pipeline to deliver oil to the U.S. is just one small element of this failure.

    In an August 6, 2009 Jerusalem Post article, Anne Bayefsky of EyeontheUN.org wrote, “The Iranians have already called Obama’s bluff. An Iranian newspaper referred to the American agenda on July 20 this way: ‘The Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran…they have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran. Their strategy consists of begging us to talk to them.”

    Ultimately it will be Israel’s call if U.S. leaders fail to step up to the task and, in the judgment of the Iranians, the U.S. will not. The Israelis have no choice.

    In February 2010 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, addressing a crowd celebrating the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran,said “Iran is now a nuclear state.”

    The world is rapidly running out of time to prevent an Iranian Armageddon.

  11. Panetta Seems More Interested in Stopping Israel Than Iran

    Panetta’s also right that another war in the Persian Gulf would have a big impact on the global economy. But what does he think the consequences of Iranian nukes would have on world finances? An Iranian nuclear bomb would give Iran outsized influence over the world’s biggest suppliers of oil and perhaps give them the ability to hold the world hostage. An Iranian nuclear umbrella over Iran’s terrorist proxies in Lebanon and Gaza would also make the region more dangerous and perhaps set in motion a chain of events that could do just as much damage to the financial world as an effort to prevent the ayatollahs from gaining nukes.

    The United States has no easy choices when it comes to Iran. Russian and Chinese backing for Iran dooms efforts to create meaningful international sanctions. Military action would be costly and messy, as Panetta rightly insists, with unintended consequences that could be complicated.

    But we also know that doing nothing — and it must be said that the Obama administration’s feckless diplomacy on the issue has turned out to be the moral equivalent of nothing — will be just as dangerous and costly. Whatever the United States’ intentions regarding Iran, it’s imperative for Panetta to stop sending signals to Tehran that demonstrate the administration’s unwillingness to act. A series of statements that makes it look as if Washington is more afraid of Israel taking action on Iran than it is of the nuclear threat itself has made the already difficult task of restraining Iran even harder.

    Report: Arab Nations Pressing for Iran Strike
    According to intelligence reports Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies have been pushing the US to strike Iran by year’s end.
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149883

  13. Israel’s Secret Iran Attack Plan: Electronic Warfare

    Israel has been building stealthy, multibillion-dollar electronic weapons that could be deployed if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear sites, U.S. intelligence officials tell Eli Lake.

    That is why, we can discern, Israel is making it very clear to Iran and everyone else that it will take military action on its own if needed. Eli Lake of the Daily Beast reports:

    A U.S. intelligence assessment this summer, described to The Daily Beast by current and former U.S. intelligence officials, concluded that any Israeli attack on hardened nuclear sites in Iran would go far beyond airstrikes from F-15 and F-16 fighter planes and likely include electronic warfare against Iran’s electric grid, Internet, cellphone network, and emergency frequencies for firemen and police officers.

    For example, Israel has developed a weapon capable of mimicking a maintenance cellphone signal that commands a cell network to “sleep,” effectively stopping transmissions, officials confirmed. The Israelis also have jammers capable of creating interference within Iran’s emergency frequencies for first responders.

    It’s hard to tell the motive for leaking this information. Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies e-mailed me: “There’s one way to look at this positively — it can be viewed as psychological warfare, in an attempt to persuade the Iranians to stand down.” On the other hand, Schanzer warns, “Of course, it can just as easily be argued that U.S. officials are spoiling the surprises Israel has in store for the Iranians, which would help the mullahs make contingency plans. This would mean that US officials are actively trying to undermine an Israeli attack.” He concludes that it’s too early to tell which it is.

  14. Canadian forces may be obliged to come to Israel’s defense in case of attack

    My gut tells me that there is at least some anti-Americanism in Canada’s moving closer into the Israeli Orbit. For one it shows some independence from America and it positions Canada as a potential player on the world diplomatic stage. Canadian oil companies may want in on Israels new energy finds and prospects. Economically and militarily it’s might be a good fit. AE must be plotzing over this item. LOL

  15. A little news flash: DEBKA says that the Iranians are concerned that the cause of the double explosion at a missle facility near Tehran was caused by the STUXNET virus.

    “…it means that, in the middle of spiraling tension with the United States and Israel or their nuclear weapons program, their entire Shahab 3 and Sejil 2 ballistic missile arsenal is infected and out of commission until minute tests are completed. Western intelligence sources told debkafile that Iran’s supreme armed forces chief Gen. Hassan Firouz-Abadi was playing for time when he announced this week that the explosion had “only delayed by two weeks the manufacturing of an experimental product by the Revolutionary Guards which could be a strong fist in the face of arrogance (the United States) and the occupying regime (Israel).

    — http://www.debka.com/article/21496/“

    Is that good news or bad? If it’s encouragement for Israel’s leaders to delay an attack on Iran even longer, it might be bad.

  16. War is a fruit-basket upset, wherein all the people and resources of nations suddenly are put on the “auction block” of the occupying forces. After World War II, the British actually re-armed Japanese soldiers under their charge, in order to secure the country from revolutionaries; and in Italy, local Fascist official were kept in office by the allies in order to maintain law and order. Iraq and Afghanistan are more recent examples of jury-rigged governments set up to minimize the chaos immediately following the overthrow of stable governments.

    The time to consider what will happen after a war, is before going to war. NATO knew fully well, before the first missle was fired, that an incredible wealth of weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction, would be suddenly up for grabs by unscrupulous opportunists. This was the price to pay for the BENEFITS of the operation, namely, the seizing of oil wealth (and perhaps the Qadaffi fortune) by the handful of European and American insiders who control NATO.

    Sorry, Israel; but the bottom line is, “Their gain, your pain”. Join the club of the suckers, including 300 million Americans suffering under the Wall Street oligarchy.