Despite the fact that UNSCR 1973 doesn’t say anything about taking sides, and supporting a militant group (it’s supposed to be about protecting civilians), NATO, and other UN coalition members say they are now going to give money to the Libyan rebels (where’s the money coming from? taxpayers?).

They’re calling the funds a “temporary financial mechanism”.

The coalition has already recognized the non-elected rebel council as the new government of Libya.

Rebels say they want more weapons as well, but coalition members still say, officially, they are not supplying weapons.  Here’s what one rebel leader said publicly: “We’re discussing weapons deals with countries that officially recognised the council; we’ve been getting positive replies.” They also said: “…participants in the contact group agreed to continue to provide support to the opposition, including material support.”

Sounds to me like the rebels are trying to tell the truth and the coalition members (including the U.S.) are flat out lying.  It makes you question the motive of the coalition for supporting the rebels.   It wouldn’t be the first time western powers supported one group, only to put another group into power once the dirty work was done. 

Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister,  was most honest when he demanded: “…either we make it possible for these people to defend themselves, or we withdraw from our obligation to support defending the population of Libya.” Many analysts say the UNSCR 1973 includes an arms embargo, but Frattini doesn’t interpret the resolution that way.  This is an example of the continued division within the UN coalition, which is proof of the lack of coalition building by Sarkozy and Obama.  Which, again, is another reason to question this whole adventure into North Africa.  Where’s Erwin Rommel?