How Western media sidelined NATO war role in Libya catastrophe, mayhem
According to Responsible Statecraft, the 2011 invasion of Libya only exacerbated the catastrophic events that led to the floods.
According to Gregory Shupak of Responsible Statecraft, the devastating floods caused by Storm Daniel in Libya, which have killed up to 10,000 people, are both natural and man-made.
He explains that during the week following Storm Daniel, most of the media coverage cited "war" as one of the reasons the country was unprepared to deal with the disaster, ignoring NATO's role in the years of invasion that took place on Libyan soil.
Scientists characterized Daniel, which developed in the eastern Mediterranean, as the deadliest and most expensive storm to ever affect the Mediterranean and Africa.
Shupak added that during the NATO-backed uprising against Muammar Gaddafi in February 2011, US media touted claims that Libya's airforce bombed protesters despite never presenting evidence and the Pentagon reporting "no confirmation whatsoever" that it took place.
Like in countless other countries, Western media and officials accused Gaddafi of "mass execution" against his own people with no proof provided. Ironically, they themselves were engaged in this behavior they accused others of, invading the country to the heart of Benghazi, using the UN Security Council resolution 1973 of "all necessary measures" under the guise of "protecting" Libyans.
Britain, US, France overthrew Libyan government
Shupak expresses that NATO, particularly Britain, the US, and France, took it upon themselves to overthrow the Libyan government and conducted 9,700 airstrikes, dropping over 7,7000 precision-guided bombs.
The bombing, according to him, killed thousands of Libyans NATO claimed to be saving. In addition, it allowed for tens of thousands of weapons to be trickled down through Libya, the Sahel, and even in Syria, according to Shupak.
Shupak expresses that of course NATO bombing did not directly cause the dams to collapse in Derna, but the war on Libya led to the "destruction of the Libyan state and social fabric, helping bring about years of warfare, one consequence of which has been the inability to maintain critical infrastructure."
This view, according to him, has not been expressed in any mainstream media outlets, even those that mention "war".
Shupak noted that he looked for material in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post throughout six days, finding that 40 of the 67 results he got, which included the words “Libya” and “floods" variations, also included the word "war".
In addition, only 3 of the 40 documents that included the word "war" also contained words such as "NATO" and two articles included the words "NATO" but not "war" and called NATO's role an "intervention", something he believes does not give readers real insight into NATO's responsibility in Libya's instability.
Shupak concludes that this insight is particularly important in our day when NATO has been so heavily involved in the war in Ukraine and ultimately helped exacerbate the chain of events that led Russia to initiate its military operation.