The Australian's Middle East correspondent, John Lyons worries about the rewriting of contemporary Libyan history:
"It began with unarmed protesters throwing rocks at a Libyan military base in Benghazi and ended with NATO, one of the world's most formidable military machines, spending months bombing Muammar Gaddafi's land and military positions. Amid all the celebrations of victory in Libya, the decisive role of NATO is being pushed into the background. But the reality is the toppling of Gaddafi simply could not have happened without the support of NATO." (The rebel fighters claim victory, but NATO offensive was decisive, 25/10/11)
Now just who is pushing the decisive role of NATO into the background?
Could it be... The Australian's foreign editor, Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan?:
"[T]he West's intervention in Libya was well-calibrated... It was enough to protect Gaddafi's enemies. It was enough to enable Libya's rebels to win. The rebels will be grateful for this help, but they won themselves. They own their revolution. They needn't resent their dependence on the US or on anybody else. They shed their own blood." (Vindication for the West's soft tactics, 22/10/11)
And another thing: what's this soft tactics shit?
If months of NATO bombing, which one commentator, former MI5 agent Annie Machon*, claims has taken Libya back to the Stone Age, can be described as soft tactics, one can only speculate where NATO's use of hard tactics may have taken it. To Hell but not back, maybe?
[*'NATO has bombed Libya back to Stone Age', rt.com, 19/10/11]