The Libya Update

Khalifa Haftar’s personal vision and ambition for the future of Libya as a citizen

Diplomacy, military rebuilding, media, democratic statehood, and national reconstruction after the defeat of terrorism

Interviewer: Egyptian journalist and writer Ahmed Ibrahim Amer

I first met Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar in March 2016 to conduct an interview for Al-Ahram Al-Arabi magazine. The meeting was scheduled for just twenty minutes. Still, it stretched into two uninterrupted hours – enough time for me to realise I was sitting across from a seasoned officer whose depth of knowledge and sharp intellect commanded attention, whose charisma inspired admiration, and whose candour reflected an unshakable self-confidence. Quick-witted and mentally alert, his words revealed both pride in what he had accomplished for his country and an unrelenting patriotism rooted deep within him – coupled with boundless ambition for Libya to become a model of progress, prosperity, and peace.

In that moment, I understood that I was not speaking merely to a military figure, but to a leader of a rare calibre – one forged by decades of trials and challenges into a man for great missions and formidable tests. Over the years, I would describe him in my articles as “the Iron Warrior,” “the Endgame General,” and “Haftar al-Mukhtar.” He is the Commander-in-Chief of the Libyan National Army, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar.

My visits to Libya, particularly to the city of Benghazi, became frequent as I served as a war correspondent for Egypt’s Al-Ahram Press Establishment. I was present alongside officers and soldiers on all battlefronts during Operation Dignity against terrorism – an operation led by Haftar – and I documented the Libyan National Army’s victories. Over the years, I had the privilege of being the only journalist worldwide to conduct more than nine formal interviews with him, in addition to dozens of off-record encounters that allowed me to know Khalifa Haftar, the man, up close.

In October 2017 – three months after the official liberation of Benghazi – I published my Arabic-language book, Diary of a Correspondent: 700 Days in Benghazi. Eight years on, it remains a significant record of Operation Dignity, which later came to be known as the “Dignity Revolution” for the profound transformation it brought to Libya’s reality and political landscape. The book has become one of the most important references for researchers, academics, and postgraduate studies examining the fight against terrorism in Libya. Driven by the conviction that the story deserved a global audience, I translated it into English and French – ensuring it stands as a witness before the world to one of the fiercest battles ever fought against terrorism.

It was with that same sense of mission that I proposed to Field Marshal Haftar the idea of a new, exclusive interview to be featured at the opening of this translated edition – an interview that would give the book international resonance and reach. As always, he agreed without hesitation.

In this interview, the Field Marshal reflects on the defining moments of Operation Dignity, offering his perspective on reality and vision, the decision-making process, international diplomacy, building the army, the role of the media, the foundations of a civil democratic state, and Libya’s reconstruction after the defeat of terrorism.

Here, in his own words, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar recounts the key chapters of Libya’s Dignity Revolution – along with his hopes and ambitions for the future – making this a truly exceptional interview.

Q: Let me begin by asking what was going through the mind of Colonel Khalifa Haftar as you made your way back to Libya in 2011. What drove you to decide to return?

Returning was a national duty that had to be fulfilled. In truth, it was not so much a “decision” as it was a stance that left no room for alternative choices – a complete alignment with the will of the Libyan people, who had risen in pursuit of change. I did not need to deliberate for a moment over whether to come back. My duty to my people and my homeland was beyond question or hesitation. When the time came and the homeland called, my response was instinctive, without pause – born from the depths of my conscience.

From that moment on, I never looked back. My gaze was fixed on Libya stepping into a bright new era. I envisioned it as a model of freedom, progress, revival, and peace – a destiny the Libyan people both deserved. I were capable of achieving, endowed as they are with the natural resources to realise their ambitions. That was the image in my mind throughout the journey home.

At the same time, I was under no illusion that the transition would be easy. My hope had been for change to come peacefully – without bloodshed, and without opening the door to foreign interference. But, as we know, not every hope can be realised. Despite all the setbacks that followed the change, even up to this day, there have been significant positives and achievements. We continue to do everything within our power to reach the model we aspire to: a democratic civil state governed by law and institutions, a state that safeguards Libya’s unity and sovereignty, and ensures a life of dignity for every Libyan citizen.

Q: On 14 February 2014, you issued your first public statement from inside the WAHET ELNAKHIL HOTEL, announcing the suspension of the Constitutional Declaration and the General National Congress, along with the formation of a presidential authority and a defence council. Official bodies described the move as a military coup against legitimacy, and orders were issued for your arrest – though they were never carried out. What was the purpose of that statement? And was there, in fact, a military plan to enforce it by force?

The statement was nothing more than an initiative aimed at resolving the political crisis, which by then had begun to escalate and pose serious threats to the safety of the nation. This was the result of the General National Congress’s refusal to adhere to the limits of its mandate. The hostile forces that dominated the scene at the time deployed their propaganda machines and media outlets to distort the statement’s intent, portraying it as a military coup and an act of rebellion against authority. But here we must ask: how can it be called a coup when the statement itself explicitly described it as an initiative? How can it be a coup when it called for power to be transferred to the Supreme Judicial Council? How can it be a coup when there was absolutely no accompanying military action on the ground?

Anyone listening to the statement would recognise it as a peaceful initiative to resolve nothing more than a political crisis. There was never any plan to impose it by force. However, the extremist factions that clung to power beyond their legal term – determined to monopolise authority and decision-making indefinitely – saw the statement as a threat to their project, one built on holding onto power at any cost.  They reacted with fury. The hotel from which the statement was broadcast was shelled with artillery, and security forces raided it in an attempt to arrest me. But by God’s will, their efforts failed utterly. Had they responded positively to the proposals in that statement from the outset, Libya would have overcome its political crisis back then. We would have completed the building of the state through a purely home-grown effort, and we would have already made great strides in development and revival across every sector. But such is the nature of extremism: to pull the country backwards and obstruct any progress forward. In truth, it was they who overthrew the democratic process by refusing to hand over power when their mandate expired. They were the coup-makers – not us.

Q: During the height of terrorist control in Benghazi, a large crowd gathered outside your home in the Al-Zaytoun district, chanting “Hayeha, Khalifa! Hayeha, Khalifa!” – a direct call urging you to do whatever you could to save the city and its people from the grip of terrorism. Do you consider that moment the true beginning of the “Dignity Revolution”? And was the gathering spontaneous or pre-arranged?

Benghazi suffered under terrorism in ways that defy description. Assassinations and bombings took place daily, in broad daylight, with cold-blooded impunity. Even the mosques – the houses of God – became scenes of horrific atrocities. Terrorists would behead people in mosque courtyards in front of children. Have you seen the footage they proudly circulated, playing football with human heads? Yes, they did that. They would open fire on worshippers as they knelt in prayer.

Anyone they suspected of having even the faintest connection to the army, the police, or any security agency was executed on the spot. Civilians – journalists, lawyers, civil society activists, men and women alike – were prime targets for their treacherous bullets. Thousands of innocent people were arrested and tortured in detention centres. Victims were crucified on electricity poles along public roads for days at a time.

These terrorists inflicted the most degrading forms of humiliation on ordinary citizens. They violated sanctities, displaced families, and turned the city into a human slaughterhouse. They openly and arrogantly declared on television, “We have come to you with slaughter.” They had no agenda for progress, development, or construction – only killing and the spilling of blood. It was the doctrine of savagery: decapitation, executions, and broadcasting the killings live on television. And this did not happen in Benghazi alone – it spread to other cities such as Derna, Sirte, and beyond.

This is what drove the crowds of Benghazi residents to gather outside my home, urging me to lead the fight against these criminal terrorists. It was a sincere call, and in that moment, I knew the time for confrontation had come – a moment that could not be delayed. It was either victory or martyrdom. In those crowds, I saw an unparalleled passion born of deep suffering and harsh circumstances under terrorism, and a readiness to fight and sacrifice for dignity. I realised that our free-spirited youth could be relied upon in the confrontation with the terrorists. And indeed, that moment was the starting point for the Dignity Revolution.

Q: You have previously mentioned that the first military operation launched from the Al-Rajma heights began with only 317 officers and soldiers, while the number of militants in the terrorist organisations opposing you was estimated in the thousands. These groups had received the highest levels of weapons training and guerrilla warfare tactics. Can you walk us through the details of your military plan? And did you view it at the time as a near-suicidal mission that could not realistically succeed, given the vast disparity in capabilities between your forces and theirs?

The battles of Operation Dignity exceeded 200 engagements – and we prevailed in every one of them. The operation lasted more than four continuous years, so the full details of our military plans would require volumes of books to cover; they cannot be condensed into a few lines. But I can point to two fundamental elements we relied on in every confrontation with the enemy.

The first was our principle that attack is the best form of defence – executed through surprise strikes, particularly against enemy command centres, as we did in the opening assault on the very first day of Operation Dignity. This tactic proved decisive: it disoriented the enemy, disrupted their balance, and spread fear in their ranks. The element of surprise created the strong impression that we possessed overwhelming forces encircling them on all sides, which shattered their morale, left them unable to control their units, and deprived them of the ability to plan an adequate response.

The second element was to encircle them from multiple fronts, preventing them from retreating to high ground, forests, or mountainous terrain where they could hide and regroup. This ensured that their movements and concentrations were constantly exposed to us. Every attack we launched forced them to retreat in the direction we wanted – towards the sea – where they would be trapped on the shoreline with no cover, no refuge, and no escape. There, we eliminated what remained of their forces. When we decided to confront them, our starting point was to fulfil our national duty: defending our land, our honour, and our dignity. Victory, ultimately, comes from God. We did not seek war, but it was forced upon us. We had no choice but to take up arms and fight to the last drop of our blood.

We could never have stood by as passive observers while terrorists committed such gruesome massacres against innocent civilians. We could never have compromised or hesitated in saving the homeland from destruction and from falling into the hands of these criminal outlaws. The decision to fight was never based on calculations of success or failure, victory or defeat. It was based solely on the fact that it was a national duty. Our faith in God, in His support, and the legitimacy of our struggle was stronger than anything the enemy possessed in terms of weapons and matériel – and stronger than all the internal and external support they received. And that is why we prevailed.

Q: On 15 July 2017, you announced the liberation of Benghazi. What was the feeling in that moment?

When you lead a major military struggle on the scale of Operation Dignity – an operation aimed at saving and liberating the nation under the harshest of conditions, against terrorists stripped of even the most basic sense of humanity – and in the course of it you lose convoys of martyrs and wounded, yet see the people stand with you, not merely clapping or chanting slogans, but fighting alongside you on the battlefield… and when all of that is crowned with victory and the defeat of terrorism – words fall short of capturing the emotions. But to put it briefly: I felt absolute joy. With the liberation of Benghazi, life returned to every corner of Libya. Benghazi was, and will always remain, the key to Libya’s security and stability. I felt that the doors to a prosperous future had opened before the country. I felt pride that we had not let our people down – that the trust they had placed in us was well-founded, and that we had lived up to their expectations. I felt personal satisfaction and immense pride in our officers, soldiers, and the supporting forces, and in everyone who contributed to that historic epic. Libya had been shrouded in total darkness while Benghazi lay under the grip of terrorism. With the victory of Operation Dignity, that darkness lifted and the sun rose again. That is the truth. So, you can imagine the feeling when light replaces darkness.

International Military Relations

Q: As the army advanced on the battlefield, achieving one victory after another, recognition of the Libyan National Army and its leadership began to grow. But the first phase was undoubtedly exceptional – perhaps even critical – particularly given the United Nations and Security Council’s insistence on imposing an arms embargo against you. Were there countries that supported you during that time? Who were they, and how was the coordination managed?

When we decided to confront terrorism, we did not engage in any form of international coordination whatsoever. We relied first on God, and then on ourselves, fully aware of the vast disparity between our modest capabilities and the immense resources available to the terrorists. We also knew the considerable material support they were receiving from various quarters. We have always maintained that true strength lies not in the weapon itself – no matter how lethal or advanced – but in the fighter who wields it. That is why the arms embargo did not prevent Operation Dignity from launching or from succeeding. We prepared for the terrorists with whatever resources we could muster, and it was enough to defeat them.

Operation Dignity was born in defence of a sacred national cause, and those who joined its ranks were prepared to give their lives. They forbade themselves from retreating or falling back, except for tactical reasons dictated by the military plan under specific circumstances. The cause was worth that level of sacrifice – and from that sacrifice came their strength. Their willpower was their accurate weapon, for their cause was not about wealth, power, or prestige, but about dignity, honour, and homeland. By contrast, the enemy’s creed was built on falsehood; they had no sacred cause to fight for. They were nothing more than bands of terrorist criminals – failures in life, uneducated, uncultured, without morals, stripped entirely of humanity, their empty minds and dark souls consumed by evil and satanic impulses. In their creed, killing existed only for the sake of killing.

As the battles began, some countries took note of our determination to eradicate terrorism and realised that if terrorism were to prevail in Libya, its reach would expand – perhaps even to their territories. They chose to stand with us in support and solidarity. More importantly, some countries stood by us out of brotherhood and Arab solidarity, such as Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, which saw it as their national duty to support the Libyan people. This was only natural. Could we imagine, for example, that the Egyptian people and their leadership would simply stand by while the Libyan people next door were being slaughtered by terrorists? Such a scenario is unthinkable. Conversely, there were some countries, regrettably, that supported terrorism against us, and others that chose neutrality, watching from a distance for reasons of their own.

Q: You have undoubtedly achieved greater openness in military relations with many Arab, African, and Western states, the most recent example being the joint military exercises conducted between the Libyan National Army and the U.S. military in Sirte. What is the value of such exercises? And can we now say that the Libyan Army has completed its building phase and entered a stage of stability and capability development?

Any country wishing to conduct joint military exercises with us in the context of combating terrorism is welcome. Likewise, suppose we receive an official invitation from any country – whether the United States or others – to participate in military exercises on their soil to fight terrorism. In that case, we will not hesitate to respond through the proper official channels.

This kind of exercise serves the interests of all parties, far removed from political or economic agendas, because terrorism is the enemy of all humanity. It is borderless, has no friends except devils, and anyone who aligns with terrorism in any form is, in truth, aligning with the devil. Civilised nations must unite against it and fight it with every means at their disposal to eradicate it.

Such exercises enhance our capabilities and combat readiness to confront terrorism, which can emerge suddenly, at any time and in any place. They are part of strengthening both the defensive and offensive readiness of our armed forces. The responsibility of defending the homeland is, without doubt, one of the most difficult and vital tasks of all, and it cannot be performed to the fullest unless the armed forces are at the highest levels of training, equipment, and preparedness. Building an army has no end. It is a process of continuous development, shaped by changes in the environment and events, as well as advances in technology and military science. You cannot reach a stage of completion and then stop; the wheel of development must keep moving forward. We work tirelessly – day and night – to keep pace with modern technologies in weaponry, training, qualification, and planning, so that we are ready for any contingency affecting national security.

This is by no means as easy as some may think. We have come a long way in building and developing our forces, by God’s grace, through hard work, sweat, patience, and perseverance. But the work continues and will never stop, despite all the challenges and difficulties we face. The army is the safety valve and the foundation upon which nations are built. Without it, the state collapses, and the fate of both the people and the homeland is placed in jeopardy, with terrorism being the first to benefit from such a vacuum.

Army Building

Q: During the early days of the Dignity Revolution, a large number of officers and soldiers joined your ranks, alongside tribal youth from across all Libyan cities. But it is only natural that you would have faced serious challenges in the matter of armament. How did you overcome those obstacles?

Weapons are essential in battle, but they are not everything. For example, you could possess an enormous arsenal of lethal weaponry and still lose the war if you lack sound military planning suited to the nature of the conflict. You could be defeated if you lose control over the battlefield, regardless of how much weaponry you have. You could also be defeated if your officers and soldiers lose their morale and national motivation to fight, regardless of the arms they possess. History offers countless examples of such defeats. Conversely, you can achieve victory with modest military resources if you plan well, exploit the enemy’s weaknesses, and manage to uncover their military secrets. My point is that the factors of victory do not rest on weaponry alone, despite its undeniable importance.

I repeat: we did not win with weapons alone, but with brave and heroic men, with willpower, patience, and sound planning before relying on arms. If one were to consider weapons as the sole guarantor of victory and compare what we had to what the terrorists possessed – along with the uninterrupted support they received – the conclusion would have been that we were doomed to a crushing defeat from the very first days of Operation Dignity. And yet, we won every battle.

With each victory, we seized vast quantities of enemy weaponry – light, medium, and heavy. In fact, during the war, we would openly say in our speeches to the parties supplying the terrorists with weapons: double your shipments, because they will end up in our hands anyway.

At the same time, we made strenuous efforts to create alternative sources of arms, most of which were successful – no small feat under the unjust arms embargo imposed upon us, not to mention the lack of sufficient funds to purchase weapons. But when the fate, security, and stability of the homeland are at stake – when the dignity of Libyans and the liberation of Libya from terrorism are on the line – then every means of securing arms becomes legitimate, drawing its legitimacy from the justice of the cause we were fighting for. And for us, that cause was sacred.

Q: From the earliest weeks of Operation Dignity, you adopted the slogan “One hand fights, the other builds.” You established the Al-Abyar Training Centre, then the Military Academy in Tokra, and you sent hundreds – later thousands – to military colleges abroad. Some believed this was premature, given that the battle was fierce, unresolved, and far from guaranteed. On the other hand, you faced severe financial shortages – perhaps even a complete lack of funding. Yet, in the tenth-anniversary celebrations of Operation Dignity, we witnessed an impressive and grand military parade: vast quantities of advanced equipment and weaponry, and endless formations of officers, NCOs, and soldiers from all military branches. Some estimate the size of the Libyan National Army today at 100,000 personnel, trained to the highest standard. How was this achieved?

Not everything concerning the army can be made public. The military has its secrets, and those secrets must be kept within the narrowest possible circle. An army that exposes its secrets is a defeated army. How can you surprise your enemy and defeat them if you are an open book before them? A military institution is fundamentally different from a civilian one. The disclosure of any military matter is done with the utmost care, under special authorisation, and only when it serves military objectives. This is why the armed forces strictly forbid their personnel from making any public statements without prior approval from the highest military command. This is not unique to our armed forces – it is standard practice in all countries. Anyone who violates this rule faces severe penalties under strict military law.

For the public, the only thing that matters is seeing their army in a constant state of readiness. That is the primary purpose of military parades: they are always only a sample of the army’s true strength. They serve to reassure the people on one hand, and to deter the enemy on the other. We always keep sufficient force in reserve, concealed as part of our military secrets, to surprise the enemy when the time for confrontation comes. Given the exceptional circumstances Libya has been living through, we have often found ourselves compelled to resort to extraordinary methods to secure the needs that achieve our objectives – without violating the fundamental rules established by law. We have friends and allies with whom we share mutual interests, and for us, developing our military capabilities is at the top of those interests. The international relations we worked tirelessly to establish have played a significant role in advancing our military capabilities – both in armament and in training.

The Political Diplomacy of “Dignity”

Q: The Dignity Revolution did not initially have an official governmental political or diplomatic backing, due to the complexities of Libya’s political scene – starting with the existence of two governments since the signing of the Skhirat Agreement in Morocco in December 2015 and continuing to the present, despite the Geneva Conference’s attempt to form a unified government, which ultimately ended with a return to political division. At what point did you realise that the General Command had to develop its direct diplomacy and enter the political arena at both the domestic and international levels? And to what extent have you succeeded in this political engagement?

Yes, from the very beginning, we recognised the serious harm that an unstable political landscape could inflict on the performance and future of the armed forces. We often said that we neither sought nor desired to enter the political arena – but politics forced itself upon us and compelled us to engage.

It became necessary for us to assert ourselves in the political field to protect the military institution from any political decisions or agreements that might, between the lines, undermine the armed forces. There are many examples of this. One I recall is the effort by certain parties intent on dismantling the army to place the armed forces entirely under the authority of a civilian power born of international agreements – in other words, to make the Presidential Council, created by a political accord and recognised internationally, the supreme commander of the armed forces.

On the surface, this proposal might seem logical and in line with the principles of modern democracy. In reality, however, it was a calculated attempt to weaken the army, reduce its size, limit its capabilities, and erode its effectiveness. This is something we can never permit. We adhere to one principle, without deviation or compromise: the supreme commander of the army can only be the president of the state, directly elected by the Libyan people in free, fair, and transparent elections. Anything else is a blatant conspiracy to undermine the army. This is a force that was built from nothing, born in the battlefields of our fight against terrorism. We paid for its creation with pure souls and sacred blood. Under no circumstances can it be subjected to any authority that has not been chosen by the people. The army is a trust in our hands, and its supreme command will be handed over only to whomever the Libyans elect – because it is the people’s army, not the army of political agreements made in closed rooms.

Anyone who claims to be the supreme commander of the Libyan Army is deluding himself, deceiving others, and denying reality. Such a person cannot move even a single soldier in our armed forces from one barracks to another, no matter what decrees or instructions he issues – all of it remains ink on paper. This example makes clear why we impose our will in political affairs. There are many political issues with which we keep our distance. But if politics encroaches upon the army, it will find us at the centre of the circle, and our word will be final. The reason is simple: we are determined to protect our achievements, we act from firm national principles that we will never relinquish or bargain away, and we are fully aware of our duties, our objectives, and the schemes our enemies plot against us.

Q: Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, we have observed that you frequently hold official meetings and engagements both domestically and abroad. Yet, these events often go unreported through statements or press releases. Are all of these meetings entirely confidential, or can you share some of their key contents with us?

The discussions are numerous and varied in scope. Some involve the exchange of views to arrive at a broadly consensual vision, where we show sufficient flexibility to make progress. Others require us to take a firm and uncompromising stance because they touch on national principles. Other types of talks are more specialised, dealing exclusively with purely military and security matters. We are always open to dialogue and discussion on all issues affecting the nation. For example, our talks with the United Nations Support Mission in Libya were entirely consultative, aimed at reaching a comprehensive vision to address the political crisis that Libya has been suffering from for more than a decade.

Throughout these discussions, we supported the mission’s efforts, urged it to act with seriousness and greater diligence, and insisted it take a firm stand against those obstructing peaceful political solutions. We emphasised our commitment to the democratic path by holding free, fair, and transparent presidential and parliamentary elections. We made clear that we are ready to protect electoral districts, that candidacy should be open to all Libyans, and that the criteria for eligibility should not be monopolised or imposed by any particular group – no matter who they are – to serve their interests or tailor the rules to their preferred candidates. The decision rests with the people, and the ballot box is the ultimate arbiter.

This is democracy: not to impose yourself as a guardian over the people, but to recognise that the people are their guardians, free in their decisions and choices, determining their fate with their own free will. Who are you to set the conditions for candidacy? Do you have a mandate from the people? Is the citizen so incapable that he cannot put the rules himself and cast his vote accordingly? By what right do you appoint yourself as custodian of the people’s will? We have consistently urged the UN mission to follow this approach and not to listen to a small faction – rejected by the public – that knows full well that free and fair elections will remove them from the political scene. For them, such elections are political suicide, and so they place obstacles in the way. This transparent democratic vision – which gives all authority to the people – is the same position we present in our meetings with heads of state, their envoys, and ambassadors. In all these encounters, we have warned of the dangers of stalling the political process, delaying elections, and allowing the current state of affairs to persist. Our position reflects our alignment with the people, our confidence in their awareness and ourselves, our belief in freedom, and our commitment to the democratic path – in direct contrast to those who are working tirelessly to obstruct the electoral process.

Q: Observers have noted that you have managed to develop your relations with the outside world through the continuous visits of high-level international delegations to your office – including heads of state, prime ministers, and ambassadors – as well as through the warm receptions you receive during your visits abroad. What is the secret behind this success?

One of the achievements we are most proud of is building strong international relations based on mutual respect and aimed at serving common interests. These relationships did not come about by chance, but through work and effort. Nations do not grant you respect as a gift – you earn it through your positions, your vision, and your tangible achievements on the ground.

A key factor that contributed to building these relations was Operation Dignity itself. Its success did not only bring gains for Libyans but also for the world as a whole. The countries following developments on the ground as we fought terrorism never imagined we would prevail. They did not expect that we would be willing to pay such a high price in sacrifice for freedom and dignity. They understood the harsh conditions under which Operation Dignity was launched and assumed we would suffer a crushing defeat in the very first battles.

Overcoming those conditions and challenges – and then defeating terrorism – revealed to the world the true nature of our armed forces. Nations, especially what we call the major powers, came to recognise the professionalism of our military, the courage and discipline of its officers, NCOs, and soldiers, and the immense, unwavering popular support they and their leadership enjoyed among Libyans. Added to this were the security, stability, and revival in construction and development achieved across most of the country under the leadership of the armed forces. Together, these factors earned us the world’s respect and became the foundation for our relations with other nations. We are open to the world and extend our hand to all peace-loving states that wish to build constructive relations with us in pursuit of legitimate interests that serve both the Libyan people and the peoples of those nations. Furthermore, the discussions we hold with delegations from many countries – at the highest levels, as you mentioned – on both Libyan and regional matters have strengthened our international relations. Through these direct talks, those delegations have seen for themselves that we are the opposite of the distorted image perpetuated by misleading media outlets. This has encouraged those countries to deepen their ties with us and to build long-term partnerships.

The Role of the Media in the Dignity Revolution

Q: In the first months of Operation Dignity, there was an international media blackout on the battles waged by the army against terrorism. This was followed by an aggressive campaign from some of the world’s largest and most influential news agencies, newspapers, and television networks – the same outlets from which much of the global media takes its lead – attacking Operation Dignity in an attempt to obscure the reality of what was happening on the ground. As your victories mounted, some Arab and international media outlets began to shed light on those successes. How do you, Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, view the importance of the global media, and how do you deal with it?

My humble understanding is that the primary role of the media is to convey the truth and to refute lies. It has a noble and vital mission: to raise public awareness of what is happening around them. Unfortunately, however, it is often used to mislead public opinion, to construct imaginary scenes that appear to the audience as reality, all in service of political, military, or other agendas.

The media has also been exploited to ignite social discord, and in many cases, it has been a direct cause of civil wars. Despite the existence of local and international laws regulating media activity, no media institution truly abides by them, as most were established from the outset to serve only the interests of their founders. From that point on, such outlets lose the honour of the profession and become subject to the agendas and policies of the entities they serve.

The negative influence of misleading media in informed and discerning societies is minimal, and to be effective, it requires high professional skill and advanced technical capabilities. International media – and here I mean European and American media in particular – plays a significant role in influencing government decisions and shaping public sentiment. This is why we must have an active media presence in the European and American arenas: to convey to them the truth of what is happening in our country, and to respond to every fabricated rumour or distortion that misrepresents reality and leads to decisions that harm us. Regrettably, we currently lack any organised media activity in those arenas.

Q: Turning to the local media: very early on, the first channel supporting Operation Dignity was launched from Cairo under the name Al-Karama TV, but it quickly went off the air. Was this due to financial reasons, or, as was claimed at the time, because certain parties opposed to Dignity tried to take control of it to attack the army?

These are operational details I am not in a position to answer. But in general, the local media is entirely directed to serve specific political factions. It has little to do with conveying the truth or raising public awareness. Neutral local media that respect the noble mission of journalism are scarce.

Regrettably, the local media has played a highly negative role in covering the events and changes the country has experienced – spreading false news and obscuring the truth. For example, while we were fighting terrorism, certain outlets funded by states supporting terrorism portrayed us as committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, claiming the terrorists were innocent civilians – mostly women, children, and the elderly – being bombarded by Dignity forces with artillery and rockets.

The reality was that we were fighting a gang of terrorist criminals who committed the most heinous atrocities against residents. One scandal that exposed their lies was when they broadcast footage of a young girl whose face had been altered with makeup to appear burned, presenting her on their pitiful channels as a victim of “Dignity’s” fire. It was soon revealed that the entire scene was fabricated and staged for the cameras. They also depicted us as seeking to seize power by force, as the embodiment of dictatorship, and as obstructing the democratic process. The truth is quite the opposite. We were the first to call for elections. When nominations opened, I submitted my candidacy file to the High National Election Commission, meeting all the legal requirements, just like any other candidate. We defend the people’s right to determine their destiny without guardianship or proxy from anyone. In all our speeches, we have called for a civil state, freedom, and democracy. There are countless examples of the local media’s role in misleading the public.

Despite all this, the public has reached a high level of awareness and now possesses the ability to analyse and uncover lies, reducing the impact of misleading media. Specific disturbed individuals claim to be cultured and well-informed, yet their behaviour and fabrications are driven by deep-seated resentment. They appear on television screens and social media, inventing fictional stories to tarnish our image in the eyes of public opinion. Some are paid by foreign intelligence agencies for this role, others are official agents for such agencies, and some suffer from incurable psychological complexes and hostility towards the military – conditions no medical advancement can treat. There are even those afflicted with what has come to be known as “Haftar Syndrome.”

They are a handful of bitter, foolish individuals who believe they influence public opinion, when in reality the people mock them all, turning them into a public joke and an object of ridicule. Unfortunately, that is the state of the local media – except for the rare few who have remained true to the profession.

Q: In 2018, while you were receiving medical treatment in France, a rumour spread widely that you had suffered a sudden health crisis that led to your death. Was this rumour politically motivated at the time? And why did you not move quickly to deny it to avoid confusion among the public and officials? It also caught everyone’s attention that the military institution was not affected by the rumour.

We always rise above petty matters and pay no attention to what is repeated by the spiteful and malicious, whose hearts and minds are consumed by hatred, because we know the people do not listen to them. We are too busy with matters far more important than responding to rumours. As a Libyan proverb says: “He who hates you will dream you a bad dream.” Frankly, we pitied them when they howled, and we prayed that God would guide them to the right path. They exhausted themselves trying to harm us, but in every case, God turned their schemes against them. Have you ever heard of Dignity forces spreading a rumour that one of our opponents had died or fallen seriously ill? Or gloating over the death or illness of an adversary? Such a thing could never happen. We would be ashamed to do so; our morals would never allow it. Death is a matter of divine decree, and life is in God’s hands. There is no gloating in death, and illness is part of the human condition.

We devote our efforts to fulfilling our national duty in defending the homeland, and nothing distracts us from that. If we were to exhaust ourselves responding to every rumour, we would have no time left to carry out our military responsibilities – and their fabrications, rooted in lies and falsehoods, never stop. What is strange is that they never learn their lesson, never take heed, and never realise that the people mock them every time they throw such rumours into their failed media. And as you have already answered in your question, the army remained steadfast. We were not surprised – because our army was built on professionalism, discipline, vigilance, and awareness. It cannot be shaken by a rumour launched by someone who is both mentally unstable and morally diseased.

Q: The media role of online news platforms is essential, and their reach is rapid. Do you have a vision for creating an English-language news website for the Dignity Revolution to serve as a key source for Western audiences, especially during the reconstruction phase?

I believe it is an idea worth considering, but I cannot simply answer with a yes or no. We have a Directorate of Moral Guidance, a specialised media office, and teams of highly competent and experienced media professionals in this field. We will present the idea to them for study, assessing its feasibility, the resources it would require, and developing a comprehensive proposal. Based on that, we will make our decision.

The Libyan Tribes and Their Role in the Dignity Revolution

Q: Field Marshal, in most of your speeches, you have praised the role of Libyan tribes and the youth of various regions in supporting the army. We saw this clearly during the liberation of the Oil Crescent, in the South, and during the liberation of Benghazi. What was the role of the tribes and supporting youth in the battles to defeat terrorism?

In every society, the state is the protective shield of the entire community – the refuge under whose umbrella the citizen finds safety. It enacts the laws that regulate daily life and is responsible for safeguarding rights. When the state collapsed with the fall of the former regime, the citizen was left without that protection, and the only entity remaining to turn to was his tribe. This is how the tribe’s role emerged so prominently in the Libyan scene. Libyan society is essentially a network of tribes, so when we speak of the Libyan tribes, we are speaking of Libyan society – the Libyan people.

When terrorism invaded our country, brutalising the population and committing the most heinous crimes, the tribes felt a deep sense of responsibility toward the nation. This was in the absence of functioning state institutions – foremost among them the army – and with what institutions did exist being fragile, weak, and ineffective. At that stage, we could not call upon the army to fulfil its role in confronting terrorism because, in truth, there was no functioning army to speak of. The tribes stepped forward to fill this vacuum, reaching out to me directly through their sheikhs, elders, and wise men – and also through their youth – urging me to lead the fight against terrorism. They pledged to send their sons to take up arms and face the enemy in the field, ready to sacrifice whatever was necessary to defeat terrorism, save the nation, and restore dignity by force if need be. From the moment Operation Dignity was launched, the tribes proved to be its strongest supporters. This also included the youth of neighbourhoods inside the cities, who played a pivotal role in eliminating large numbers of terrorists within Benghazi itself, forcing the remainder to abandon the residential areas where they had been hiding and retreat into open ground – where our forces were ready and waiting to deal with them – until the city was fully and completely liberated.

Q: In the early phase of Operation Dignity, there was a severe shortage of both funds and weapons. Did civilians contribute to meeting some of the army’s needs?

When Operation Dignity began, there was no army in the true sense of the word. There were only a limited number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, along with a group of civilian youths – all united by a single goal: confronting terrorism. At the outset, we had no official source of funding or state budget whatsoever. We had no weapons depots. Financing and armament were entirely self-reliant; we raised funds to purchase weapons through personal connections and donations. With the launch of Operation Dignity and the start of engagements with the terrorists, support from the tribes increased. However, it was still less than we needed given the amount of ammunition, weaponry, and financial resources in the enemy’s possession. Over time, as we made progress on the battlefield, the situation improved thanks to the war spoils we seized from the enemy. We do not deny that, at a later stage, the government formed by the House of Representatives played a role in supporting us. In addition, we initiated international contacts that contributed to improving our level of armament. But achieving that was by no means easy.

Q: The popular base has always been – and still is – the most important weapon of the General Command of the Libyan National Army. How do you assess the rise and fall of public support, and its relationship with the General Command?

Without a doubt, we derive our legitimacy and our strength directly from the Libyan people. The army is the people’s army, and we have earned their trust and support because we deliver results on the ground. The achievements of the armed forces have cemented the people’s confidence in the army and its leadership. Libyans remember well the state of the country when terrorism had control, dictating every aspect of life and turning it into a living hell – and they know it was the army that defeated terrorism. They understand that the army is the sole guarantor of preventing its return. They recognise the weight of the national responsibility we bear, and they feel pride and a sense of safety when they see a military parade showcasing advanced weaponry, realising then the scale of the effort we have invested in building our armed forces and that we have not been complacent in doing so.

The stability enjoyed by most parts of Libya did not happen by chance, by magic, or through sheer luck – it came through the tireless work of the armed forces around the clock. Thanks to the army, state institutions have been able to operate freely and within the framework of the law, without fear of threats or blackmail from any party, because they are under the protection of the army. These are just a few examples of the bond between the Libyan people and their army. I assure you that no matter how difficult the circumstances, they have never – and will never – weaken this relationship. Talk of any decline in public support for the army is pure fiction, merely an echo of what is propagated by the misleading media.

The Army and the Tripoli Operation

Q: On 4 April 2019, the world was taken by surprise when the Libyan National Army advanced on Tripoli without prior warning. What were the motives and objectives behind this operation?

First, the operation as a whole was not an “attack.” Tripoli had already been attacked from within when militias took control of it, and it was attacked again – without even realising it – when terrorists infiltrated the city, establishing it as their alternative base after we defeated them in Benghazi. The army’s move toward Tripoli was to liberate it, not to assault it. Second, it must be made absolutely clear that we do not differentiate between Libyan cities. We treat all of them with the same sense of responsibility. The Libyan National Army is the army of the entire nation, defending every inch of it without the slightest hint of regional bias. The best proof of this is that the armed forces do not select their recruits based on the city of their birth, but on their age, physical fitness, educational qualifications, willingness to serve as soldiers, and their ability to adapt physically and mentally to military life. If you look at the rolls of the armed forces, you will find officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers from every Libyan city – including Tripoli. A recruit’s place of birth has no bearing whatsoever on acceptance into the armed forces.

From this perspective, Tripoli – with its residents, institutions, and infrastructure – is no different to us than any other city. However, it has the added significance of being the nation’s capital, which means a great deal. The capital is the nerve centre of the state. If that nerve is damaged, the entire body of the state suffers, and there is a major disruption in fulfilling its responsibilities toward all its citizens, wherever they live. When the capital falters, the pace of life across the entire country is affected, inflicting serious harm on citizens – whether they live in Tripoli in the far northwest, in a central city, in the east, or the deep south. In short, it is the capital, not an independent state, that we can leave to its fate. And no one can deny the state of affairs that Tripoli has endured from that period until today.

Tripoli, with all its institutions and facilities, has been under the absolute control of armed militias. Sovereign and other institutions that claim legitimacy and independence are, in reality, entirely subservient to militia orders – not the other way around. The capital is carved into zones, each one under the absolute rule of a particular militia. A citizen whose car is stolen, for example, does not turn to the police, but to the militia controlling the zone where the incident occurred, where he is subjected to all forms of extortion and exploitation. The state has no presence there. Only armed gangs hold power, operating their own detention centres and prisons. They loot, kidnap, torture, and act with complete impunity. These armed groups have grown in influence over time, focused solely on amassing wealth through threats and blackmail.

Hundreds of millions in public funds are spent without oversight from the state treasury, channelled instead to these militias. Does this not impact the economic situation of the entire country? The rights of citizens have been left at the mercy of the militias’ power. Decisions on running the state and its affairs are not issued, nor implemented, without being presented to these militias for approval. We have even witnessed militias granting military ranks and promotions to their members. This is beyond belief – and utterly unacceptable.

Worse still, minor disputes between militias quickly escalate into full-scale armed confrontations between them, using every type of weapon. Militia rockets and shells are fired indiscriminately, day and night, without the slightest concern for civilian casualties or the destruction of property. Buildings and roads are reduced to rubble, and the capital becomes a literal battlefield – a living hell. Can any professional army in the world allow its capital to remain in such a state? Even the highest-level political decisions affecting state-building and its political future have been entirely in the hands of the militias. We saw this clearly during the political negotiations, from the Skhirat Agreement to the present day. No sovereign institution in Tripoli, no matter how senior, can decide without first consulting the militias and gaining their approval.

In effect, the militias have become a supreme authority – akin to a “Supreme Guide” – when it comes to making political decisions. This is a reality that no one can deny. And the problem is not just the militias. After terrorism was defeated in the east, centre, and south, many terrorists fled to Tripoli, using it as a base to reorganise themselves. This posed a direct and serious threat to the security and stability of the country.

All of these factors together were the basis for our decision to move our forces toward Tripoli and besiege it. The objective, simply put, was to restore the capital to its rightful state as the seat of the nation, to free it from the grip of the militias, to relieve the suffering of its residents who had endured the worst under militia domination, and to prevent the terrorists who fled to Tripoli during the battles of Dignity from reorganising themselves. Yes – pursuing the terrorists was one of the primary objectives of that operation. And you can imagine what it would mean for a country if terrorist organisations were to take control of its capital.

Q: Did the General Command take into account that such a large-scale operation could take a long time?

We could have overrun the capital within hours, were it not for our concern for the safety of civilians and the protection of public and private infrastructure. The army that defeated some of the world’s most formidable terrorist forces – ISIS, Al-Qaeda, those calling themselves Ansar al-Sharia, and the Shura Councils – was undoubtedly capable of annihilating militias whose only knowledge of warfare amounted to indiscriminate shelling.

Instead, we chose to encircle the city from multiple fronts, gradually tightening the siege to wear the militias down. We issued strict orders to our forces not to open fire unless necessary. You can listen to our very first statement on this operation: it expressed our hope that the militias would come to their senses and surrender their weapons peacefully. We offered them every guarantee of humane treatment in return. They refused, spurred on by various parties with vested interests in keeping the militias in place, as well as by certain states actively working against Libya’s security and stability, pouring limitless funds into the militias’ hands. We regarded militia members as misguided Libyan citizens who had been influenced by deceptive propaganda. Some were not even of legal age. We were determined to protect their lives – and this was one of the reasons the siege lasted as long as it did. Our forces did enter Tripoli, advancing to within reach of the capital’s heart. But we decided to withdraw at the right time for strategic reasons.

Q: Everyone expected Tripoli to fall at any moment, but you suddenly decided to withdraw. Why?

The international community was closely monitoring developments on the ground. Some countries believed that the army’s capture of the capital would run counter to their interests. Others began spreading false propaganda internationally, claiming that the army’s objectives were political – to topple the expired Presidential Council – and framing the operation as a military coup against the authorities. Some argued that the army’s entry into the capital could result in large-scale destruction, prompting an intense international campaign urging an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of our forces, and the launch of a political negotiation process.

At the same time, our intelligence reports and field assessments made it clear that certain foreign powers had begun planning military operations to seize oil fields and ports in the eastern region, taking advantage of the army’s engagement in Tripoli. This posed a serious threat to vital strategic facilities. Those powers hoped the army would remain in Tripoli and refuse international calls for a ceasefire, thus providing them with the pretext and international backing for direct military intervention against our forces – exploiting the weakness of the expired Presidential Council and its willingness to sign agreements well beyond its legal authority, to protect itself and remain in power.

Given these circumstances, we faced two options: ignore the international calls for a ceasefire, continue the military operation, take control of Tripoli, and leave the eastern oil ports and fields vulnerable to occupation – thereby exposing our forces in Tripoli to a possible armed confrontation with foreign powers waiting for exactly such an opportunity; or issue orders to withdraw, secure the oil fields and ports, and deny those foreign powers the pretext they sought to attack our forces under the cover of their illegal agreement with the Presidential Council. It should be noted that any decision that denies the enemy the opportunity to achieve one of its objectives is, in itself, a victory. That was the rationale behind the decision to withdraw.

Q: An intense media campaign was launched by outlets inside Tripoli, portraying the event as a defeat for the Libyan National Army. How do you respond to that?

Suppose you look at the operation through the narrow lens of defeat and victory. In that case, the real loser is the one who called upon foreign powers for rescue, surrendered national sovereignty in return, and spent billions of public funds for protection. We, on the other hand, decided to withdraw of our own accord – to achieve strategic objectives and avoid allowing the operation to escalate into a regional war.

Withdrawal is one thing; defeat is another. In military science, withdrawal is a recognised phase of combat – it does not signify defeat. If our army had been defeated, it would have ceased to exist, as happened with terrorist groups after their loss. Instead, the army remains standing, proud, evolving, and performing its duties to the fullest.

We decided to withdraw to achieve objectives that were far more important than entering Tripoli, and to avoid a confrontation with the international community that would serve no interest of ours, particularly as that community demanded negotiations in return. Let me give you an example: Did U.S. forces withdraw from Afghanistan because they were defeated? In other words, was their withdrawal across thousands of kilometres a defeat? The answer, without question, is no. The U.S. administration concluded that remaining in Afghanistan served no further purpose, carried excessive costs, and was not in its interest, so it simply decided to withdraw. That is precisely the logic behind our decision to withdraw from Tripoli.

Q: Did the Tripoli operation achieve any gains?

We did not decide to send our forces to Tripoli out of luxury or to showcase our strength. The decision was based on fundamental reasons tied directly to the national cause, as I mentioned earlier. It was a national duty that no army loyal to its homeland could shirk.  What we did proved to the Libyan people that this army belongs to all Libyans and will never hesitate to carry out its mission, no matter how dangerous. When Tripoli became a garrison for militias and a haven for terrorists, we did not stand by as spectators. The operation reassured the people of Tripoli that the Libyan National Army would not abandon them to remain forever at the mercy of militias.

It also drew the attention of the international community to the reality of our armed forces – that they are fully aware of their responsibilities and ready at any moment to move to any part of Libya if they sense it is under threat. This forced the world to take the LNA seriously and deal with it as a professional, disciplined institution worthy of respect. The Tripoli operation changed the way the world viewed the Libyan National Army, from the most extensive powers to the smallest, including the United Nations mission and other international organisations. All came to recognise that the LNA is a decisive factor that cannot be bypassed in any political talks or negotiations concerning Libya. That, in itself, is a direct step toward restoring national sovereignty.

As a result of the Tripoli operation, the international community rushed to call for political dialogue. Talks were held in Geneva, which led to the dissolution of the Presidential Council and the formation of what became known as the Government of National Unity. Regardless of that government’s performance, the change was an inevitable necessity imposed by the Tripoli operation.

Although militias and the so-called legitimate authority under their control still dominate the capital – due to the international community’s insistence on a peaceful resolution – we are confident this situation will not last. The day will come when Tripoli’s shackles are broken, and its people enjoy freedom and development under a united Libya, just as is the case in the cities where we have defeated terrorism.

Reconstruction and State-Building in the Era of Operation Dignity

Q: After the announcement of a halt to fighting in mid-2020, you turned to the reconstruction issue, with the pace accelerating notably after the devastating Storm Daniel and the heavy losses it caused, particularly in the city of Derna. This has sparked an ongoing wave of reconstruction across all Libyan cities under the control of the Libyan National Army. Do you believe, Field Marshal, that the timing for starting reconstruction was appropriate?

The two most essential conditions for launching a process of development and reconstruction are security and stability. Once those two conditions were achieved – thanks to the armed forces – there was no reason for us to wait. Wait for what?

We believe in tangible achievements on the ground and are deeply committed to avoiding any waste of time. We race against the clock in everything we do because the country has gone through years in which life was not only brought to a standstill but was pushed backwards. This compelled us to double our efforts to make up for lost time and catch up with the progress achieved by many other nations in various fields. Despite the level of security and stability we have attained, the path of reconstruction and development has not been easy, given the complex political crisis the country has endured for over a decade. We could never afford to wait for a comprehensive resolution to that crisis, especially as it grows more complicated with time. We had to begin, regardless of all challenges – and today, the results speak for themselves.

Q: Your ambitions have always exceeded reality, and with strong, wise determination, you have achieved what once seemed impossible. How was it possible to accomplish all this reconstruction in such a short time?

What you see today in terms of development and reconstruction – impressive as it may seem – represents only the initial stage. What has been achieved so far on the ground in this field is not the end of the road. The journey ahead is still long, and our ambitions know no limits.

We are determined to elevate Libya to the highest levels of progress and advancement in every sector. By the grace of God, we have the skilled human resources, the capabilities, and the natural wealth to place Libya at the forefront of nations across all fields. In the coming years, Libya will, God willing, witness a genuine revolution in housing, agriculture, roads and transportation, education, healthcare, and more – delivering to the Libyan people the dignified life, prosperity, security, and stability they aspire to. Operation Dignity carries a long-term vision that goes far beyond the defeat of terrorism. Eradicating terrorism was merely the starting point for building a bright future – for constructing a modern, advanced state in the fullest sense of the term.

Q: Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, Commander-in-Chief of the Libyan National Army – the unyielding warrior. I have had the honour of interviewing you many times during military operations. In one of those interviews, you told me verbatim: “My heart weeps blood for every martyr, but it is the price of dignity and freedom.” You said it with the look of a strong, confident leader in your eyes. We also saw you at the inauguration ceremony of Benghazi Stadium, with a tear in your eye that you could not conceal. Was that a tear held back for the martyrs, or was it a human moment in which your mind replayed the events Operation Dignity had gone through?

What I recall is that I was at the height of happiness during that celebration you mentioned, and I did not feel that my eyes had teared up. And if they did, then they were certainly not tears of sorrow.

Q- And finally – though not the last – when will you, Field Marshal, write your memoirs? And if your answer is yes, I would be honoured to have the privilege of recording, writing, and drafting them for you.

I have never once thought about this matter. But if I ever decide to do so, it will be entrusted to you.