Monthly Archives: August 2011

Why America Lost in Libya

The intervention in Libya by the United States and a handful of its NATO allies was advocated and cheered on by two foreign-policy camps—though not all of their adherents necessarily supported the venture—that disagreed on what and how much needed to be done by Washington. The first group (liberal internationalists) supported President Obama’s initial use of American bombs and missiles to destroy Muammar Qaddafi’s aircraft and air-defense systems, the later lead role played by other NATO participants, and continued U.S. provision of vital reconnaissance, intelligence, targeting information and drone strikes throughout. The second group (conservatives) decried Obama’s policy as too passive and as unbecoming of the United States, and their criticism became more vocal as what was billed in March as a short engagement—against a third-rate adversary—dragged on into the summer. Now both camps are happy that Qaddafi’s regime is done for, though the second is loath to credit a Democratic president with success. In short, there is a consensus among the most prolific, visible, influential and vocal commentators that the Libyan venture needed doing and that it has the potential to shape American policy.

So it’s a good time to register a dissent.

To begin with, the principles invoked to justify the Libyan intervention and the process by which it unfolded raise questions that ought to be debated. NATO, with the Security Council’s approval, acted to avert what was deemed an inevitable bloodbath in Benghazi, the eastern Libyan city that rose in revolt against Qaddafi in February (and was followed soon by the Bayda and Tobruk to its east and by Ajdabiya and Ras Lanuf to its west), no doubt buoyed by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. President Obama said explicitly on March 26 that a “bloodbath” loomed, and he followed up soon after by saying that a “massacre” would have occurred had the United States tarried; the administration suggested that hundreds of thousands of noncombatants would have been killed. But as Steve Chapman shows in an April 4 article inReason magazine, Qaddafi’s March 17 warning that he would show “no mercy” was directed at the armed resistance in Benghazi, which was offered the option of surrendering and receiving a pardon. No bloodbath involving civilians occurred in Benghazi, and Chapman argues that the Qaddafi regime had not perpetrated mass killings of civilians in other cities over which it asserted control. The risk (and not the actual occurrence) of large-scale atrocities against civilians triggered the Libya campaign—a permissive recasting of the logic underpinning humanitarian intervention. While some have interpreted NATO’s move as the application of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P), an elemental principle of R2P is that military force be the last resort, used after diplomacy has been tried and has failed. But there was little diplomacy in evidence, and the United States and its NATO partners were quick to strike. French president Nicolas Sarkozy went one better: in March, he recognized the leaders of a rebellion about whom little was then known (and still is) and who controlled only Benghazi and its environment as the legitimate government of Libya. Soon, a mission mounted to protect civilians had morphed into one whose declared aim was—though the language was often disingenuous—to remove Qaddafi. You’d have to really stretch the March Security Council resolution (1973) to argue that it authorized any such undertaking, something Russia and China and other countries pointed out as the war progressed.

Qaddafi was a megalomaniacal tyrant; this fact, while obvious, bears repeating because criticism of the Libyan campaign is sometimes presented as implying sympathy for him (or for isolationism)—a dodgy maneuver that hinders honest debate about the intervention and what it implies for what the United can and should do in the world. While Qaddafi was a cruel despot, it is also true that, like many other despots, he was the leader of a sovereign state with which other governments—including, in recent years, the United States and the EU—conducted transactions, both political and economic. Besides, governments, ours included, resort to brutal means when they face rebellion, and this raises a question: is the logic underpinning the defense of the Libyan war that we ought to intervene when dictatorial regimes face uprisings?

Evidently not. The Ba’athist killing machine in Syria operates with impunity and without pity, yet there is no talk of military action, even though Assad has killed more people in Syrian cities than Qaddafi did in Benghazi. (Where is the Arab League, which played a decisive role by backing the no-fly zone over Libya?) In Bahrain, the monarchy quashed a grassroots protest by the Shi’a majority, which the Sunni ruling class has long treated as second-class. It did so with fulsome assistance from the House of Saud, which does not allow women to drive, let alone vote, shows disdain for democratic principles and exports not just oil but also violent religious extremists. Such disapproval as there was from Washington and Europe was mild and perfunctory. This dissonance didn’t much bother the NATO states that waged a six-month war to topple Qaddafi, insisting that what occurred in Libya was a nationwide uprising symbolized by the Transitional National Council (even though the organization’s support in Libya at large was hardly self-evident). So did we back a popular rebellion, or did we support localized revolts that then were able to topple the regime only because of NATO’s bombing, training and funding?

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria has hailed the Libya campaign as a new stage in U.S. foreign policy and a savvy move by Obama. Henceforth, apparently, we will embark on Libya-like missions when there is: approval from the Security Council, regional support for using force against an offending regime and robust participation from allies, which together spare the United States the unpopularity and burden involved in acting as a self-anointed global cop. We should be thankful that this prognosis is almost certainly wrong; rarely will these enabling conditions conjoin. If anything, in the future we can expect more Russian and Chinese resistance for UN-sanctioned interventions that ostensibly are designed to end the killing of innocents and then adopt a far grander agenda.

After the Qaddafi regime falls—and once NATO intervened there was little doubt that that would eventually happen; the alliance knew that risked being utterly discredited otherwise—there will be Herculean challenges in Libya. Much outside help will be needed. But here’s the rub. The economic context for Libya’s postwar reconstruction is dramatically different than Iraq’s or Afghanistan’s, not that it was all that great in those instances. This time, there is a global economic crisis and the United States and Europe have neither the money nor the inclination to do very much.

Yet there’s a lot to do. A war—which is what it is, the administration’s legal mandarins’ verbal contortions notwithstanding—that began in March and is still not over has left between 10,000-30,000 dead. Many of those killed were able-bodied men, and their families will now have to carry on with less income. The country’s infrastructure (including Tripoli’s hospitals, now overwhelmed with the wounded and short of doctors and essential supplies), has been hard hit. Oil production has plummeted—before the war it was 1.6 million barrels per day, now it is about 60,000—and will not reach prewar levels anytime soon. In June the UN estimated that 1 million refugees had fled to neighboring countries, primarily Egypt and Tunisia; they will now need help reestablishing themselves upon returning.

Isaiah Berlin famously distinguished between negative liberty (freedom from coercion) and positive liberty (freedom to pursue a purposeful life). The latter has a strong economic (and social) component. It remains to be seen whether NATO, having acted in the name of the former, will stick around and spend what it takes to see the latter advance. Doubtless, we will hear that such worries amount to defeatism or naysaying, that Libya is a rich country awash in oil and will soon ramp up its output and so have its own resources with which to rebuild. Sound familiar?

What makes reconstruction in Libya even more difficult is that it will have to be pursued within a political vacuum. In the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions, which were wholly homegrown in contrast to Libya’s, the defection of the armed forces doomed the authoritarian regimes, but the key institutions of day-to-day governance remained. In Libya, those structures have collapsed altogether, and whether it is keeping law and order, framing coherent policies or allocating resources efficiently, the country faces problems that Egypt and Tunisia—where, in any event, there was no massive economic damage—simply did not. Moreover, the Libyan resistance consists of groups with different leanings and fighters from the west (Benghazi and its environs) and the east (the Nafusa Mountains), who were brought together by their determination to oust Qaddafi and by NATO’s diplomatic pressure. It will now have to display unity of purpose and move from winning war to building peace—a process that requires rather different dispositions and skills and, the record shows, is full of pitfalls.

Some supporters of the war say it was a bargain: a despotic regime was brought down and the United States spent no more than $1 billion. But a bargain by whose standards exactly? Perhaps, to use business-school jargon, the campaign was “cost effective” from the perspective of those privileged to be in the top 10 percent of the nation’s income earners—as most of the high commentariat likely is—but hardly for those Americans who live in poverty (now some 43 million) and without jobs or health insurance (14 million and 52 million, respectively) in what is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and in a country which, in income inequality, ranks 73rd in a list of 125 countries, sandwiched between Ghana and the Cote d’Ivoire. For the latter, one would think, spending $1 billion in six months is no bargain at all, not least because the Obama administration and the proponents of the war have never made clear what American interest was being served by it.

To this, the reply will doubtless be that spreading freedom is a core American interest. The problem is that we proclaim this goal loudly but pursue it sparingly, inconsistently and selectively, comforting ourselves with the bromide that just because we cannot promote freedom everywhere (this excuses the thumb twiddling in the face of the bloodletting in Syria, but not Cambodia, Rwanda or Congo) doesn’t mean we should shirk when there is an opportunity to do so somewhere. The zeal for promoting freedom through military intervention reflects foreign-policy thinking that is alarmingly divorced from the changed domestic circumstances in which we find ourselves, to say nothing about the logic of solvency. The commonplace retort that we spend less than 5 percent of our GDP on defense and that Libya-like operations are insignificant is weak. The more important measure, at a time when many social programs are being cut, is defense spending and related items as a proportion of total discretionary spending: it’s now 50 percent. Moreover, seeing the price tag of interventions misses the point that they have implications for overall American strategy and thus for total defense expenditure. To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we’re talking real money.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 31, 2011 in Uncategorized


Mission Accomplished in Libya?

Even as a major hurricane hit America’s eastern seaboard, the administration was determined to expand the war in Libya while threatening the regime in Syria. Is there any limit to government’s appetite to create more problems for our nation and economy?

Americans may be tempted to celebrate the apparent victory of U.S.- and NATO-backed rebels in Libya, since it seems the Gadhafi regime is overthrown. But I believe any enthusiasm for our Libyan misadventure is premature.

The Obama administration attacked Libya without a constitutional declaration of war, without congressional authorization, without meaningful consultation with Congress — and without a dollar being authorized from the House or Senate. It was a war started by a president who turned to the United Nations for its authority and ignored the authority of the U.S. Congress.

Are we better off as a nation by ignoring and debasing our Constitution? Are we better off having spent more than a billion dollars attacking a country thousands of miles away that had not threatened us? Are we more financially sound having expanded the empire to include yet another protectorate and probable long-term military occupation? Are we more admired throughout the world for getting involved in yet another war?

Still, many will claim that getting rid of Libyan ruler Gadhafi was worth it. They will say that the ends justify the means. As the civilian toll from NATO bombs adds up in a war started under the guise of protecting a civilian population, even the initial argument for intervention is ridiculous. We should not forget that there were no massacres taking place in Libya before the NATO attack. The attack was dubbed a preventive humanitarian intervention. But as soon as NATO planes started bombing, civilians started dying.

Gadhafi may well have been a tyrant, but as such he was no worse than many others whom we support and count as allies. Disturbingly, we see a pattern of relatively secular leaders in the Arab world being targeted for regime-change with the resulting power vacuum being filled by much more radical elements. Iraq, post-Saddam, is certainly far closer to Iran than it was before the U.S. invasion. Will Libya be any different?

We already see grisly reprisals from the U.S.-backed rebels against their political opponents. There are disturbing scenes of looting and lawlessness on the part of the rebels. We know that some rebel factions appear to be allied with Islamic extremists, and others seem to have ties to the CIA. They also appear to have a penchant for killing each other as well as supporters of the previous regime. The tribal structure of Libyan society all but ensures that an ongoing civil war is on the agenda rather than the Swiss-style democracy that some intervention advocates suggest is around the corner.

What is next after such a victory? With the big Western scramble to grab Libya’s oil reserves amid domestic political chaos and violence, does anyone doubt that NATO ground troops are not being prepared for yet another occupation?

Neoconservatives continue to dominate our foreign policy, regardless of the administration in power. They do not care that we are bankrupt, as they are too blinded by their desire for empire and their affection for the entangling alliances we have been rightly counseled to avoid. They have set their sights next on Syria, where the U.S. moves steadily toward intervention in another domestic conflict that has nothing to do with the U.S. Already the U.S. president has called for regime-change in Syria, while adding new sanctions against the Syrian regime. Are U.S. bombers far behind?

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 30, 2011 in Uncategorized


Libya: A Premature Victory Celebration

Israeli-Arab Crisis Approaching


By George Friedman

The war in Libya is over. More precisely, governments and media have decided that the war is over, despite the fact that fighting continues. The unfulfilled expectation of this war has consistently been that Moammar Gadhafi would capitulate when faced with the forces arrayed against him, and that his own forces would abandon him as soon as they saw that the war was lost. What was being celebrated last week, with presidents, prime ministers and the media proclaiming the defeat of Gadhafi, will likely be true in due course. The fact that it is not yet true does not detract from the self-congratulations.

For example, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini reported that only 5 percent of Libya is still under Gadhafi’s control. That seems like a trivial amount, save for this news from Italian newspaper La Stampa, which reported that “Tripoli is being cleaned up” neighborhood by neighborhood, street by street and home by home. Meanwhile, bombs from above are pounding Sirte, where, according to the French, Gadhafi has managed to arrive, although it is not known how. The strategically important town of Bali Walid — another possible hiding place and one of only two remaining exit routes to another Gadhafi stronghold in Sabha — is being encircled.

To put it differently, Gadhafi’s forces still retain military control of substantial areas. There is house-to-house fighting going on in Tripoli. There are multiple strongholds with sufficient defensive strength that forces cannot enter them without significant military preparation. Although Gadhafi’s actual location is unknown, his capture is the object of substantial military preparations, including NATO airstrikes, around Bali Walid, Sirte and Sabha. When Saddam Hussein was captured, he was hiding in a hole in the ground, alone and without an army. Gadhafi is still fighting and posing challenges. The war is not over.

It could be argued that while Gadhafi retains a coherent military force and significant territory, he no longer governs Libya. That is certainly true and significant, but it will become more significant when his enemies do take control of the levers of power. It is unreasonable to expect that they should be in a position to do so a few days after entering Tripoli and while fighting continues. But it does raise a critical question: whether the rebels have sufficient coherence to form an effective government or whether new rounds of fighting among Libyans can be expected even after Gadhafi’s forces cease functioning. To put it simply, Gadhafi appears to be on his way to defeat but he is not there yet, and the ability of his enemies to govern Libya is doubtful.


Immaculate Intervention


Given that the dying is far from over, it is interesting to consider why Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, the major players in this war, all declared last week that Gadhafi had fallen, implying an end to war, and why the media proclaimed the war’s end. To understand this, it is important to understand how surprising the course of the war was to these leaders. From the beginning, there was an expectation that NATO intervention, first with a no-fly zone, then with direct airstrikes on Gadhafi’s position, would lead to a rapid collapse of his government and its replacement with a democratic coalition in the east.

Two forces combined to lead to this conclusion. The first consisted of human-rights groups outside governments and factions in foreign ministries and the State Department who felt an intervention was necessary to stop the pending slaughter in Benghazi. This faction had a serious problem. The most effective way to quickly end a brutal regime was military intervention. However, having condemned the American invasion of Iraq, which was designed, at least in part, to get rid of a brutal regime, this faction found it difficult to justify rapid military intervention on the ground in Libya. Moral arguments require a degree of consistency.

In Europe, the doctrine of “soft power” has become a central doctrine. In the case of Libya, finding a path to soft power was difficult. Sanctions and lectures would probably not stop Gadhafi, but military action ran counter to soft power. What emerged was a doctrine of soft military power. Instituting a no-fly zone was a way to engage in military action without actually hurting anyone, except those Libyan pilots who took off. It satisfied the need to distinguish Libya from Iraq by not invading and occupying Libya but still putting crushing pressure on Gadhafi.

Of course, a no-fly zone proved ineffective and irrelevant, and the French began bombing Gadhafi’s forces the same day. Libyans on the ground were dying, but not British, French or American soldiers. While the no-fly zone was officially announced, this segue to an air campaign sort of emerged over time without a clear decision point. For human-rights activists, this kept them from addressing the concern that airstrikes always cause unintended deaths because they are never as accurate as one might like. For the governments, it allowed them to be seen as embarking upon what I have called an “immaculate intervention.”

The second force that liked this strategy was the various air forces involved. There is no question of the importance of air power in modern war, but there is a constant argument over whether the application of air power by itself can achieve desired political ends without the commitment of ground forces. For the air community, Libya was going to be the place where it could demonstrate its effectiveness in achieving such ends.

So the human-rights advocates could focus on the ends — protecting Libyan civilians in Benghazi — and pretend that they had not just advocated the commencement of a war that would itself leave many people dead. Political leaders could feel that they were not getting into a quagmire but simply undertaking a clean intervention. The air forces could demonstrate their utility in delivering desired political outcomes.


Why and How


The question of the underlying reason for the war should be addressed because stories are circulating that oil companies are competing for vast sums of money in Libya. These stories are all reasonable, in the sense that the real story remains difficult to fathom, and I sympathize with those who are trying to find a deep conspiracy to explain all of this. I would like to find one, too. The problem is that going to war for oil in Libya was unnecessary. Gadhafi loved selling oil, and if the governments involved told him quietly that they were going to blow him up if he didn’t make different arrangements on who got the oil revenues and what royalties he got to keep, Gadhafi would have made those arrangements. He was as cynical as they come, and he understood the subtle idea that shifting oil partners and giving up a lot of revenue was better than being blown up.

Indeed, there is no theory out there that explains this war by way of oil, simply because it was not necessary to actually to go war to get whatever concessions were wanted. So the story — protecting people in Benghazi from slaughter — is the only rational explanation for what followed, however hard it is to believe.

It must also be understood that given the nature of modern air warfare, NATO forces in small numbers had to be inserted on the ground from the beginning — actually, at least a few days before the beginning of the air campaign. Accurately identifying targets and taking them out with sufficient precision involves highly skilled special-operations teams guiding munitions to those targets. The fact that there have been relatively few friendly-fire accidents indicates that standard operational procedures have been in place.

These teams were probably joined by other special operators who trained — and in most cases informally led — indigenous forces in battle. There were ample reports in the early days of the war that special operations teams were on the ground conducting weapons training and organizing the fighters who opposed Gadhafi.

But there proved to be two problems with this approach. First, Gadhafi did not fold his tent and capitulate. He seemed singularly unimpressed by the force he was facing. Second, his troops turned out to be highly motivated and capable, at least compared to their opponents. Proof of this can be found in the fact that they did not surrender en masse, they did maintain a sufficient degree of unit coherence and — the final proof — they held out for six months and are still holding out. The view of human-rights groups that an isolated tyrant would break in the face of the international community, the view of political leaders that an isolated tyrant facing the might of NATO’s air forces would collapse in days and the view of the air forces that air strikes would shatter resistance, all turned out to be false.


A War Prolonged


Part of this was due to a misunderstanding of the nature of Libyan politics. Gadhafi was a tyrant, but he was not completely isolated. He had enemies but he also had many supporters who benefitted from him or at least believed in his doctrines. There was also a general belief among ordinary government soldiers (some of whom are mercenaries from the south) that capitulation would lead to their slaughter, and the belief among government leaders that surrender meant trials in The Hague and terms in prison. The belief of the human-rights community in an International Criminal Court (ICC) trying Gadhafi and the men around him gives them no room for retreat, and men without room for retreat fight hard and to the end. There was no way to negotiate capitulation unless the U.N. Security Council itself publicly approved the deal. The winks and nods that got dictators to leave in the old days aren’t enough anymore. All countries that are party to the Rome Statute are required to turn a leader like Gadhafi over to the ICC for trial.

Therefore, unless the U.N. Security Council publicly strikes a deal with Gadhafi, which would be opposed by the human-rights community and would become ugly, Gadhafi will not give up — and neither will his troops. There were reports last week that some government soldiers had been executed. True or not, fair or not, that would not be a great motivator for surrender.

The war began with the public mission of protecting the people of Benghazi. This quickly morphed into a war to unseat Gadhafi. The problem was that between the ideological and the military aims, the forces dedicated to the war were insufficient to execute the mission. We do not know how many people were killed in the fighting in the past six months, but pursuing the war using soft military power in this way certainly prolonged the war and likely caused many deaths, both military and civilian.

After six months, NATO got tired, and we wound up with the assault on Tripoli. The assault appears to have consisted of three parts. The first was the insertion of NATO special operations troops (in the low hundreds, not thousands) who, guided by intelligence operatives in Tripoli, attacked and destabilized the government forces in the city. The second part was an information operation in which NATO made it appear that the battle was over. The bizarre incident in which Gadhafi’s son, Seif al-Islam, announced as being captured only to show up in an SUV looking very un-captured, was part of this game. NATO wanted it to appear that the leadership had been reduced and Gadhafi’s forces broken to convince those same forces to capitulate. Seif al-Islam’s appearance was designed to signal his troops that the war was still on.

Following the special operations strikes and the information operations, western rebels entered the city to great fanfare, including celebratory gunfire into the air. The world’s media chronicled the end of the war as the special operations teams melted away and the victorious rebels took the bows. It had taken six months, but it was over.

And then it became obvious that it wasn’t over. Five percent of Libya — an interesting calculation — was not liberated. Street fighting in Tripoli continued. Areas of the country were still under Gadhafi’s control. And Gadhafi himself was not where his enemies wanted him to be. The war went on.

A number of lessons emerge from all this. First, it is important to remember that Libya in itself may not be important to the world, but it matters to Libyans a great deal. Second, do not assume that tyrants lack support. Gadhafi didn’t govern Libya for 42 years without support. Third, do not assume that the amount of force you are prepared to provide is the amount of force needed. Fourth, eliminating the option of a negotiated end to the war by the means of international courts may be morally satisfying, but it causes wars to go on and casualties to mount. It is important to decide what is more important — to alleviate the suffering of people or to punish the guilty. Sometimes it is one or the other. Fifth, and most important, do not kid the world about wars being over. After George W. Bush flew onto an aircraft carrier that was emblazoned with a “mission accomplished” banner, the Iraq war became even more violent, and the damage to him was massive. Information operations may be useful in persuading opposing troops to surrender, but political credibility bleeds away when the war is declared over and the fighting goes on.

Gadhafi will likely fall in the end. NATO is more powerful then he is, and enough force will be brought to bear to bring him down. The question, of course, is whether there was another way to accomplish that with less cost and more yield. Leaving aside the war-for-oil theory, if the goal was to protect Benghazi and bring down Gadhafi, greater force or a negotiated exit with guarantees against trials in The Hague would likely have worked faster with less loss of life than the application of soft military power.

As the world contemplates the situation in Syria, this should be borne in mind.

 Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR, at the beginning or end of the report.

Libya: A Premature Victory Celebration is republished with permission of STRATFOR.”

Read more: Libya: A Premature Victory Celebration | STRATFOR

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 30, 2011 in Uncategorized


Libya: The Greatest Betrayal

In handing Libya to Al Qaeda, the line has been forever crossed

Tony Cartalucci  Land Destroyer August 29, 2011

First – let’s not labor under any delusions. Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy are heads of state in name only. It is the depravity and megalomania amongst the banks, corporations, and the institutions they have contrived, that are responsible for the most egregious betrayal in Western history. For 10 years the West’s leadership have stirred up hatred and fear amongst their populations to justify a lengthy and very costly global war that has sent US, British, Canadian, German, French, and many other troops, around the world, into dangerous adversity, and ultimately to their graves to fight “the forces of terror.”

Now, almost as if savoring the irony, the New York Times, on behalf of the corporate-financier oligarchs that presume dominion over the Western world, fully admit that Al Qaeda terrorists, men who literally killed US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan are now in Libya and are the benefactors of billions of dollars in Western aid, diplomatic recognition, training, weapons, the lending of intelligence assets, the full unwavering support of the West’s “media,” NATO-member air support, and even graced with Western special forces fighting side-by-side with them on the ground. This timely confession is also in response in part to revelations that the Libyan rebel commander now filling the streets of Tripoli with indescribable horror is a hardcore Al Qaeda leader, reported first in the Telegraph months ago, and again this week on RT and covered in depth by respected geopolitical analyst Dr. Webster Tarpley.

While naive Americans are brimming with pride as the military machine bankrupting them into destitution rolls over another minute nation an ocean away, they seem ignorant or unable to wrap their minds around how egregiously they’ve been betrayed. After 10 years, thousands of dead troops, tens of thousands broken mentally or physically, an economy diverted to war, occupation, and “nation building” overseas while America’s infrastructure rots beneath her, the corporate-financier oligarchs have decided to betray and infinitely humiliate America’s armed forces in the worst manner imaginable – have them provide air cover, intel, and special operational support for blood-thirsty mercenaries that hunted and killed their brothers in arms for the past decade.

Entire families have been destroyed, communities devastated by the loss of their brothers and sisters, friends, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, fighting what they thought was a war for the very survival of their way of life. Today, in Libya, with Al Qaeda literally being handed a nation-state by these corporate-financiers through their political and military proxies, the leaders we have elected and the corporations we have helped grow to monstrous proportions now squat upon the graves our nation’s fallen and defile their memories and the ideals they believed they were giving their lives for in an unforgivable way.

And while it will be claimed by many that this is “Obama’s War,” it most certainly is not. The very cadre of Neo-Conservatives that engineered the last decade of debilitating global war at the expense of American blood and treasure have been quietly cheerleading the expansion of NATO’s intervention in Libya. This can be seen in unequivocal terms in a letter written to US House Republicans imploring them to end their resistance to the current, unconstitutional war, and instead discard the UNSC resolution and give even more support for the terrorists seizing Libya on their behalf. Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Max Boot, Frederick Kagan, Karl Rove, Ellen Bork, Robert Kagan, Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Dan Senor, and James Woolsey are just some of the names of individuals that affixed their signatures at the bottom of this letter. Quite clearly, this is not exclusively “Obama’s War,” rather one engineered and promoted by the Fortune 500 banks and corporations that include both Obama and America’s most notorious Neo-Conservatives as loyal servants.

If ever there was a time for our military, not just the rank and file, but the officers that lead them and whose hands young fighting men put their lives into, to recall their oath given to the US Constitution and their duty to protect and defend their nation and their people, it would be now. If ever there was a time to recognize our self-proclaimed leadership, crutching their legitimacy along with the facade of “democracy” as the self-serving egregious traitors they are – the time is now. And when the people’s faith in their government falters, let us be vigilant against pretend reformers. Let us make sure military men stepping forward to rectify our nation’s slide into the surreal aren’t corporate-fascist serving Council on Foreign Relationsmembers likeGeneral Stanley McChrystal or General David Petraeus, both of whom are guilty of helping to foist this facade upon the American people at tragic costs to us all.

For the average man or woman in America, now would be a good time to start putting these corporations and banks out of business. Boycott and replace them systematically, day to day, little by little. America has misplaced their faith in these world-spanning corporations and have traded their independence and self-reliance in for the illusion of convenience. It is time to take that independence back. It is also time to vote each and every incumbent out of office that has served these agendas and promoted this war, now exposed as an absolute hoax. Those like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman come particularly to mind. Finally, it is time to start getting organized as a community. Reach out to your neighbors, start a marksmanship club, help each other with starting a garden, and start standing up for one another when this corrupt, parasitic system comes searching for sustenance to continue fueling its dark deeds. By exercising each and every one of your Constitutional rights, collectively as a community and on a daily basis, you ensure their vigor in standing up against tyranny of all kinds.

Now is the time, this far and no further – if not for ourselves, for the thousands of Americans that shed their lives in the belief they did so for a higher cause and whose memories are now being defiled by the despicable actions of Wall Street and London, and the degenerate army of sycophants that serve them, from Europe to North America, from Israel’s leadership, to the corporate oligarchs that manipulate the people of Australia. This evil empire has reached an intolerable height.

For a list of the corporate-financier interests that truly run Western society please see, “Naming Names.” For more information on self-sufficiency please see, “The Globalsits’ Worst Nightmare.” To learn more about why and how to boycott the corporate-financiers that dominate our lives, please see, “Destroy the Globalists.”

Vist Tony Cartalucci’s blog at

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 29, 2011 in Uncategorized


How Libya Was Won, by NATO and Special Forces

By Stephen Morgan

Digital Journal

Last week NATO shamelessly weighed-in on the side of the rebels with the help of special forces on the ground. Without it, the rebels would never have won. There is now talk that NATO has broken international law. So what role did they really play?

“Subka and his unit waited at the rebel frontline, known as Kilometre Sixty, aboard a column of battered, black pickup trucks mounted with heavy machine guns and a few tanks recently captured from Gaddafi’s forces. “We are with the England team,” he told the Guardian “They advise us.”

Special forces from Britain and France are on the ground advising on strategy and tactics for the coming assault and pin pointing targets for NATO airstrikes, in order to clear the path for the rebel advance. Resistance from loyalists has been stiff, but Subka is confident. “We don’t worry about those units – they are Nato’s concern.”

However, on Friday NATO was quick to deny the crucial role it was playing. Al Arabiya reported a press conference at which its spokesperson Lungescu insisted that NATO was sticking to its United Nations mandate, limited to protecting civilians from any attacks. “There is no military coordination with the rebels,” she said.

When asked for his opinion on the statement Shashank Joshi, a Libyan war expert at the Royal United Services Institute in London, pulled no punches. The NATO denials are “absolute rubbish,” he said. “There’s overwhelming evidence that NATO was not only helping the rebels but that it was a decisive and critical partner to the rebels. It was really engaged in a close and intimate level of coordination and support, without which the rebels could not have won this conflict, so I don’t believe a single word NATO is saying,” he added.

More and more information is now coming to light on the decisive role played by NATO in the fall of Tripoli. Moreover, while kept secret until now, we are also learning more about how special forces from Britain, France, Qatar and Jordan helped pave the way for the victory. It is now clear that Gaddafi would probably still be in power without them. 
In an op-ed on Saturday Andrew Rawnsley said “ I asked a member of the National Security Council whether there was any chance that the rebellion could have overthrown Gaddafi without outside assistance. He responded bluntly: “None at all. There’s no chance they could have done it without us.”

Just two weeks ago the situation was entirely different. Everything seemed bogged down in a protracted stalemate on all fronts. The assassination of General Younes had cast doubts over the opposition’s ability to remain united enough to overthrow the regime and conversely, Gaddafi appeared to be more durable than anyone had expected. All eyes were fixed on political efforts to find a negotiated settlement, which seemed the only plausible solution to end the conflict.

What broke the stalemate in Libya was the West’s decision to make a radical change in its strategy of regime change and the character of its military intervention through NATO. With fears about splits in NATO and even doubts about its very existence if the mission floundered, together with the overhanging fear that the West would again be held responsible for another failed state, envoys bent over backwards in talks with the regime to find a way out of the conflict, even to the point of offering Gaddafi the possibility of staying in Libya, exempt from ICC prosecution.

But Gaddafi wouldn’t budge and he evidently had the support of his inner circle, who gave no indication that they were likely to cave in. Caught between a clicking clock and a closed door, the West decided it had no choice but to launch a major military offensive, in the hope that it would force Gaddafi to surrender.

NATO swung into action quickly. Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller from the Washington Post reported that NATO and U.S. military and intelligence officials had revealed that, ”an opposition strategy (was) put in place two weeks ago with the advice of British, French and Qatari special forces on the ground”

Preparations for a possible attack upon Tripoli had, in fact, been going on much longer. British, French, Qatari and Jordanian special forces had spent months training rebels from the Western Mountains for a future attack on Tripoli. Eventually, they succeeded in organizing the raggedy groups of rebels into a cohesive force, which was prepared to follow an organized battle plan, under a central command.

On the key Saturday, August 13, when the rebel forces advanced on coastal and southern towns and rebels in Misrata made a determined push on Zlitan, TIME reported that NATO flew 105 sorties “including 36 strike missions against targets near Tripoli, Brega, Gharyan, Sirte and Zlitan. The targets included military facilities, command and control nodes, and both surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missile sites.”

 A reporter with the rebels described the scene around Zlitan, “Testimony to the deadly effect of Nato’s bombing was evident along the highway leading out of the city. Concrete buildings used as bunkers by Gaddafi’s forces were flattened, while tanks were ripped apart, their turrets and tracks strewn across the road. Further south, all that remained of an ammunition truck was a blackened carpet of splinters.”

When asked if NATO was acting as the rebel’s air force a NATO official acknowledged in a typically oblique way that “the effect of what we were doing was not dissimilar.”

Such precision bombing wasn’t possible without the profession expertise of special forces troops on the ground spotting targets and advising on tactics. This was underlined by another report in the Guardian, which explained that “the information from the ground gave British commanders the confidence to order RAF pilots to release laser and GPS-guided bombs and missiles on buildings identified as being used by Gaddafi forces. (even including a Turkish restaurant!)

However, the Washington Post revealed that these special forces also involved undercover US intelligence units. “CIA operatives inside the country intercepted communications within the government” providing “a deeper understanding of just how badly Gaddafi’s command structure had crumbled.” The effect was devastating. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that NATO had destroyed Gaddafi’s military communications to such an extent that “he is forced to use the TV to send messages to his troops about where to attack and defend.”

Intelligence gathered was, in turn, passed onto the rebels on the ground to facilitate their advance. NATO “provided a lot of imagery on the locations of the Gaddafi forces, so, as the rebels were getting into their positions when they came around the south and up into the west side of Tripoli, (they) had a good sense of where (Gaddafi’s) forces were at.”

In this way, NATO obliterated Gaddafi’s defenses often in advance of rebels reaching each town and/or during key moments in the battles. The BBC reported that “Nato’s relentless pounding of armour and artillery east of Zawiya greatly softened up government units, breaking down much of the resistance that would otherwise have slowed the rebel path.”

Illustrating how effective the attacks were and how grateful the rebels were, the UK Independent printed an interview with a rebel soldier involved in the attack on Sabratha. “Mr Nato came and fired six missiles at seven o’clock in the morning. Boom, boom, boom and it was all over,” “Oh yes, we are all very grateful to Mr Nato here.” Asked why he thought they would win, another rebel replied “I believe in Allah – and Nato.”

However, the preferred policy of the West was still to try to negotiate a political settlement, by surrounding Tripoli and forcing Gaddafi back to the negotiating table on their terms. The Financial Times spelled out Western concerns on August 17, when it warned that “the rebels’ commanders must take care not to jeopardize the stability of the post-Gaddafi state by launching an all-out assault on Tripoli. Even if successful, such an attack would almost certainly result in a bloodbath among rebels, regime supporters and civilians. The seeds of vengeance and anarchy would be sown.”

But by now the situation was no longer in NATO’s hands. The rebels had the wind behind their sails and an unstoppable momentum had built up. Intoxicated with their successes, the rebels sights were fixed on one goal only- getting as quickly as possible to the center of Tripoli and hoisting the rebel flag on Martyrs’ Square. Once reports of uprisings in the capital came through, nothing was going to hold them back. neither NATO nor the NTC, nor even their own commanders.

Consequently NATO had no choice but to go the whole nine yards and hope for the best. As the rebels approached Tripoli, global intelligence agency STRATFOR described the scene “What is happening now is the movement of the forces into attack positions, logistical support being brought in, preliminary targeted artillery fire and air strikes with special operations teams already in place doing careful targeting, and psychological warfare against the defenders.”

Identifying the pivotal role of NATO should not take away from the incredible heroism and tenacity of the rebel fighters. In particular, the final word must go to the courageous people of Tripoli. Had they not risen up, the rebel fighters would probably have been stalled at the gates of the city. As the Guardian stated, “The secret of the uprising’s final days of success lay in a popular revolt in the working-class districts of the capital, which did most of the hard work of throwing off the rule of secret police and military cliques. It succeeded so well that when revolutionary brigades entered the city from the west, many encountered little or no resistance, and they walked right into the center of the capital.”

Worrying pockets of resistance from Gaddafi forces remain, which suggest that the West is not quite won. Indeed, the Libyan “Wild West” will take a long time to be tamed. ‘Order first, then law will follow” was a motto of the earlier American frontier settlers. Bringing order to Libya’s “Wild West” is likely to be a difficult and bloody affair and, until such time as the multitude of different militias and tribes agree to lay down their arms, power and law may well continue to rest mainly in the hands of gunslingers.

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 29, 2011 in Uncategorized


Libya Destined to Become Failed State in Wake of Globalist Success

Now that NATO has bunker busted the Gaddafi regime into submission, it is time for Libya to enter the next phase – order out of chaos.

Like Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya will be fashioned into a failed state wracked by sectarian violence, food and basic necessity shortages, and endless political instability.

Tripoli has become Baghdad: “Food and gasoline are in short supply. Tripoli residents complain of outages of electricity, telephone service and water. Commercial life has ground to a dramatic halt, with nearly all shops and businesses shuttered. As residents broke the Ramadan fast Friday evening, much of the city was dark,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

Like Iraq following the American invasion, Libya is now on the verge of societal breakdown as gangs loot and pillage:

Although young men protect their own neighborhoods, major institutions such as banks, ministries and historic sites remain relatively unprotected. A number of banks and commercial towers have been thoroughly looted. Law enforcement is left in the hands of rebel fighters, some of whom had never been to their country’s capital.

In response to the carnage in Iraq, General Anthony Zinni observed: “There’s some bloodshed and it’s messy. Who cares? I mean we’ve taken out Saddam. We’ve asserted our strength in the Middle East. We’ve changed the dynamic, and we’re not putting any pressure on Israel.”

Neocons and their affinity for violent Arab and Muslim-hating Israeli settlersis only a sideshow for the central dynamic – the clash of civilizations as defined by the elite and the plan to take out anybody who challenges their drive for global domination.

It is not “Islamofascism” – engineered and fostered by British intelligence, the CIA, and their junior partners – that threatens the financial elite. It is religious societies that swear allegiance to Allah and reject the bankster ethic of globalism and world government.

The “Arab Spring” has nothing to do with human rights or the will of the people as hypocritically proclaimed by the likes of Hillary Clinton at the State Department. It’s about establishing a new authoritarian order in the Middle East. The bloody opposition to Mubarak in Egypt led to a dictatorship ruled by an entrenched military.

Libya will soon have its own dictatorship – with the active involvement of al-Qaeda – and the status quo of want and misery will return to the north African country.

The overthrow of the regime in Syria will not result in democracy. It will produce the sort of chaos previously witnessed in Iraq and now unfolding in Libya.

Capturing Libya’s marginal oil reservoir takes a backseat to smashing Gaddafi’s version of pan-Arabism. Gaddafi’s Federation of Arab Republics and the Arab Islamic Republic failed, but he kept alive the ideal of Arab nationalismformulated by Gamal Abdel Nasser. Syria’s Ba’ath Party also espouses Arab nationalism and is therefore a threat to the globalists.

While Gaddafi’s socialism was authoritarian, it did provide health care and a modern civilian infrastructure. Prior to Gaddafi, Libya was a typical African basket case where typhoid and paratyphoid, infectious hepatitis, leishmaniasis, rabies, meningitis, schistosomiasis, venereal diseases, and the principal childhood ailments were epidemic. Like Iraq, it will now experience a return to its previous third world status where malnutrition and starvation are the norm.

Before Bush Senior tricked Saddam Hussein into invading his country’s former southern province, Iraq had 92-per-cent access to clean water, 93-per-cent access to high quality health care and with high educational and nutritional standards. After two invasions and more than a decade of sanctions, Iraq experienced an unprecedented rise in the mortality rate among young children comparable with those of sub-Saharan Africa.

Libya and Syria will also be reduced to failed states unable to meet the basic needs of their people and will thus become candidates for IMF and World Banksterism loan sharking.

Globalism cannot succeed when people are united and struggle for sovereignty and dignity. The success of Libya’s “rebels” – comprised largely of the CIA’s al-Qaeda – will now translate into misery for the Libya people.

In the months ahead, they will wish for the rule of the flamboyant and eccentric Gaddafi the same way many Iraqis wish for a return of Saddam Hussein.

The Infowars Insider

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 29, 2011 in Uncategorized


Libyan Kabuki-Is Truth Reporting News or Restoring Reality?

I have been doing Sunday Morning pieces for some time, on and off.  Libya has been dominating the news but little of it is really about Libya.  This was a closed society for 42 years, much like North Korea.  Anyone talking about pre-war Libya is simply making it up.  Nobody is talking about the new government.  But why are they talking about Libya at all? 

There is a human tragedy there, reported from wildly different perspectives, Gaddafi the “mad killer” or the rebels as “CIA/Al Qaeda” terrorists.  Whatever the truth is, it will come out during the next two weeks.  Gaddafi is gone, too late for those dedicated to saving him for whatever reason.  We can wait for the results and hope some effort is made to help avert what is now becoming another tragedy, one of so many.

The big news coming up is the UN vote on Palestine.  This would give the Palestinian people who were once the vast majority of the people of what is now called Israel a country of their own.  It is our position at Veterans Today to support this effort because it is the right thing to do.  This is the truth.  The reality?  What has been told to the people of the west by the news and popular culture about who Israel is and who the Palestinians are is false.  It is a story invented to justify an apartheid state, stolen land and extremist policies.  Israel has been bad.  Americans have been lied to or fed a continual diet of “holocaust stories” as a form of mind control.  Almost everything Israel has accused Nazi Germany of doing, they are doing, and doing it today.  This is the truth and you won’t read it or see it anywhere but it is true just the same.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

When hundreds of thousands of Israelis began protesting their own government, that had to be stopped.  The timing was all wrong.  How was it dealt with?  Perfectly timed attacks hit Israel, exactly enough when backed by a barage of propaganda to clear demonstrators off the streets, out of their “tent cities,” making them look foolish in the face of a “foreign threat.”  Israel has done this dozens of times, even blowing up a bus filled with corpses flown in from Russia claiming it to be a “devastating terror attack.”

If only I were making this up.  Remember the stories about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction?  The vast majority of terror attacks are what we call “false flag.”  They are either done to rig elections, cover something up stir up a war with a financial profit motive behind it.  There would be none of the wars we have today without “false flag terrorism,” orchestrated by governments themselves and blamed on outside groups, Palestinians, “Al Qaeda,” a CIA creation from day one or ‘suicide bombers,” the hapless victims of the very successful mind control programs we are told don’t exist but see in movies and on TV continually.

Drugs and hypnosis and in 3 days I could get your mother to blow up a Sunday School.

Look at the Detroit “crotch bomber.”  The Justice Department has classified almost everything about his trial because he was so “zoned out” that he required a security escort from Yemen to Ghana to Nigeria to the Netherlands and onto the plane for Detroit.  He was so drugged he had to be placed, no ticket, no visa, not even a passport, in Business Class at the tightest airport in the world, Schipol in Amsterdam, placed in his seat by an intelligence agent of a government with power to override the laws of the NetherlandsAbdul Mutallab was so drugged that they had someone on the plane with him to watch him.  This person was arrested in Detroit and taken past the entire crew and all the passengers but then “disappeared” as did the “well dressed man” that put Mutallab on the plane in front of two Michigan attorney’s who witnessed the entire thing and reported it on a bevy of talk shows.

Now a trial begins and the evidence that a “zombie” was carried onto a plane, set onto a seat with a watcher behind him is “barred” from the proceedings.

Israel invaded Egypt in 1967, a sneak attack, backed by phony news stories.  To get away with it, they tried to sink the USS Liberty, another sneak attack, killing or wounding nearly 200 Americans.  In 1983, they blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans.  We found out it was them, just as we did with the USS Liberty, just as we did with Abdul Mutallab in Detroit or the car bombing in Alexandria or many of the attacks across Iraq and even the recent bombings in Nigeria, the National Police headquarters and the UN building in Abuja.

The biggest issue of the century will be Israeli involvement in 9/11.  For 10 years, real proof has been massed against Israel and an American cabal around former President George W. Bush, showing broad complicity in the planning, execution and coverup of 9/11.  If an American such as Ron Paul were to assume the presidency, it is believed by many that the 9/11 coverup will unravel and Israel will fall.  Anything imaginable will be done to prevent this, destroying Paul for sure, but even more.  Thus Paul, the real Republican front runner by far, one who can take half the Democratic votes as well, is being systematically boycotted and sabotaged in one of the clearest cases of the covert dictatorship American has become showing its hand.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Nobody can say a word.  They will be labeled “antisemites” or reminded of the holocaust.  This is the truth, this is reality.

The vote in the UN will be a waste of time.  Most of the world will support the Palestinians who are not terrorists at all.  They know this.  American will support Israel, blocking Palestine with a veto in the Security Council, because of the powerful grip the Israel lobby has on the US government, one gained through bribery and blackmail, going back generations.  This is the truth.  You may not accept it but it is true just the same.  Once the question of rights for the Palestinian people is settled, it can no longer be used as an excuse by a very nasty group of powerful men, yes, that secret conspiracy you hear about so often.  It exists.

Stop for a second.

The basis for all the wars today is Palestinians and land.  We are told this was the basis for 9/11, for everything, all terrorism since 1947 to today.  How much land, worth how much?  Millions are dead, nations have been ground into the earth, trillions of dollars spent over land no larger than some Texas ranches.  See a problem here?

Certainly Jews didn’t want Palestinians around. Palestinians already owned all of Israel, had legal title to the land, they had to go.  When they were forcibly moved, their land stolen, their homes bulldozed by the tens of thousands, they became angry.  You can’t pay angry people a few cents an hour for slave labor, doing the real work that we are told Israeli’s do on those “kibbutzes.”

So the Palestinians were pushed into Jordan and Lebanon, millions of them.  Others were put in Gaza, an form of concentration camp, like Auschwitz.  Did you know Auschwitz had a movie theatre and swimming pool?  So does Gaza.  Why the comparison, isn’t that “anti-semitic” or disrespectful of the “holocaust?”  Yesterday civilian areas of Gaza were hit by fire bombs from Israeli drones, actually copies of the US designed raptor.  The munitions came from America.

The news, however, reported none of this and the “alternative press,” almost to a man, talked about how “rebels” in Libya were massacring poor Libyan civilians.

An interesting “back story” came out on this a couple of days ago.  The new Libyan government claims it received, from Gaddafi defectors, records of payments made to activists, journalists and even bloggers, payments to create false news stories based on “talking points” written, we now find, by Washington based think tanks.

Careful examination of dozens of stories across the internet, many in the mainstream press, validate this story, with the same “talking point” based press releases being repackaged like a 3rd grade book report and “spun” across the world.

Then we learned more from sources in Lebanon.

To be clear, there is absolutely NO evidence that any journalist or blogger knew of this.

An Islamic Charity run by a Shiite cleric had received millions of dollars to fund pro-Gaddafi propaganda.  The money came from Gaddafi accounts and the operation was organized in Israel by Saif Gaddafi during one of his visits to Tel Aviv.  Several million dollars have been channeled by this operation into a combination of non-profits, front organizations and the press.  The goal is three pronged, an attempt to keep Gaddafi as a power in Lebanon, the destruction of Hezbollah and orchestrating public opinion toward an early attack on Iran.

YouTube – Veterans Today –

In another report, verified by private sources but banned from all mainstream media and also boycotted from the alternative press as well dated March 5, 2011:

Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot, Israel that had been reported, according to diplomatic sources, an Israeli high-informed and that the affairs of Libya’s Saif al-Islam, son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi Muammar Gaddafi, the two days before a quick visit and a surprise to Israel to ask for help to save the system.

The newspaper said that according to the Hebrew source of other Libyan spoke to Arab media outlets, the relationship between Saif al-Islam and Israel has evolved considerably during the current crisis came amid reports that Israeli security firms active in Chad and the recruitment of mercenaries sent to Libya unrealized gains billions of dollars.

Yediot revealed that Saif al-Islam asked senior leaders in Israeli security military assistance munitions and night observation devices, as well as satellite imagery, and in turn, pledged to develop ties between Tripoli and Tel Aviv or what may remain of them under his authority with Israel in the fields of political and economic development.

In another context, had been sources for the Libyan opposition’s newspaper “Al Rai Kuwait” that a group of Israeli experts arrived in Libya on a plane large private landed at the airport, “walked” a few days ago to help the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to regain the initiative in the field against the Revolution overwhelming that the country has seen.

The 50,000 mercenaries never arrived.  The real numbers between 1500 and 3000 have been accounted for, some killed or wounded, some held in detention.  Most surrendered almost immediately upon being confronted by forces of the new government.  Others may still be with remaining Gaddafi forces in remote tribal areas but those numbers are estimated as being very low.

What our sources now tell us is that the deal cut by Saif in Tel Aviv had another aspect to it.  Israel would help Libya with propaganda by having Palestinian organizations they had been secretly controlling through the Mossad, some of which are openly hostile to Hezbollah and Iran, organize ”peace activists” to visit Libya and support Gaddafi.

It was records of payments to some of these “activists” that the new government received days ago.

Gaddafi has secretly worked with Israel against Shiite forces in Lebanon since the 1970s.  In 1978, Shiite leader, Moussa al  Sadr “disappeared” during a visit to Libya.  From Huffington Post:

BEIRUT — Hezbollah has called on the Libyan rebels to help uncover the fate of Moussa al-Sadr, a charismatic Shiite cleric who disappeared during a trip to Libya more than 30 years ago in a case that many blame on Moammar Gadhafi.

The mystery of the missing imam remains a burning issue for Shiites in Lebanon, including leaders of the powerful Hezbollah movement. Framed photos of al-Sadr adorn the shops and homes of Lebanese Shiites, and the day he was last seen, on Aug. 31, 1978, is marked annually in Lebanon.

Most of al-Sadr’s followers are convinced Gadhafi ordered al-Sadr killed in a dispute over Libyan payments to Lebanese militias, but the imam’s family argues he could still be alive in a Libyan jail.

Now that Gadhafi’s regime appears to be crumbling, Lebanon’s Shiite militant group Hezbollah told the rebels that the Lebanese “are looking to you” to locate the imam and his traveling companions.

“We are full of hope that they will be freed on your hands and returned to their families,” according to the Hezbollah statement, which was issued late Monday.

Al-Sadr’s family also released a statement addressed to the rebel leadership.

“We appeal to those who will take over in Libya after the collapse of the tyrant to give special attention to this case,” the statement said.

Al-Sadr is one of the pioneers of Shiite empowerment that has become a force across the Middle East, spurred by the 1979 Islamic revolution in Shiite Iran and more recently by the rise to leadership of Iraq’s majority Shiites after U.S. forces ousted Saddam Hussein and his Sunni Muslim-dominated regime.

Since al-Sadr’s disappearance, Libya has always insisted the cleric and his two traveling companions left Tripoli on a flight to Rome and suggested he was a victim of a power struggle among Shiites.

Hezbollah, closely allied to Iran, was involved in a 34 day war with Israel in 2006.  Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets into Israel, used sophisticated Russian weaponry to knock out Israeli tanks and helicopters and captured two Israeli soldiers.  America spent billions supplying Israel during this period, a war many times that of the current Libyan conflict, one that left much of Southern Lebanon uninhabitable because of cluster munitions and depleted uranium supplied by the United States.

Why is Libya, the oft sworn enemy of Israel, involved against Hezbollah, the only military power in the Middle East ever to force Israel to back down?

Why is Libya, the oft sworn enemy of Israel, working against Iran?  Why would Saif run to Israel on a mission to his father the second “Arab Spring” landed on his door?  The truth, the reality is that there is history there, a history never told in the mainstream media, a history between Gaddafi and the CIA, one that protected him for decades and now makes him a target for destruction:

Then we have history, real history, not the imaginary kind rewritten out of convenience. Do you wonder why everyone wants Gaddafi dead?  Of course he bought governments, Britain, France, Italy and, especially, the United States.  Gaddafi, next to Israel, is the biggest gun in the “neocon” Washington arena. He was the darling of Condi Rice, in fact he wanted her as a wife, he loved Bush, Tony Blair and had every right wing think tank on his payroll.

After Bush got into office in 2001, Gaddafi knew he would be around people of similar mind.

History. Gaddafi came to power in 1969, a devout Marxist when oil was cheap as dirt and fewer than 2 million people lived in Libya. He saw himself as a Cold War “centrist” like Tito or Nassar, even Nehru, able to court both sides, survive, prosper and stay independent when nation after nation fell to CIA plots.

The last day or two, I have been communicating with Trowbridge Ford, one of the eras top intelligence analysts. His piece this week on Richard Helms is quite amazing. I was asking him today about Libya.

Its 1969 and Richard Helms sees a big opportunity in courting Gaddafi. Gaddafi has ambition, Gaddafi is a “player.” Gaddafi is charismatic. His ambitions aren’t just in the Arab world but into Africa, a fertile playground for the CIA, where a dozen wars had been managed over the past decade.

We must also remember, Libya was a tiny country in 1969, very little oil revenue, low production, little infrastructure in place and most oil and gas find in Libya yet unimagined.  Oil was dirt cheap then, prior to OPEC and the Oil Embargo tied to the 1973 war.

The west dictated oil prices and, though Gaddafi made noises about control of oil, the prices were still dictated out of Houston and Zurich.

Gaddafi also sat on the Mediterranean, an American lake, our fleet the only fleet, our military the only military, Soviet ambitions in Syria flanked by Turkey (still).

This was a time of political upheaval, Italy and France threatened by communism, Britain “flat broke” and no European Union. America was still bogged down in Vietnam and, as America withdrew, the capabilities built up in Vietnam had to be discarded or put to use elsewhere in new conflicts.

Thus we return to the subject at hand, Colonel Gaddafi, Libya and his new position, now awash with cash, ambitions no longer dependent on Cold War balancing acts or playing games with the CIA’s Richard Helms, his “protector.”

As few know, Gaddafi was a protege of Richard Helms.

Gaddafi needed Helms to survive and Helms needed a place to park CIA assets, as required by war plan contingencies as outlined in the documents we will never see, not unless Jonathan Pollard, Soviet/Israeli master spy had put you on his personal distribution list.  NATO war plans depended on Libya, not as an ally but as an overt foe that would allow covert operations to be staged from Libya, operations against communist forces in Italy and elsewhere in Europe.  In 1969, Gaddafi and Libya had strategic value far beyond any imagined oil reserves.

When the British tried to oust Gaddafi in 1970, a misunderstanding over the IRA. Helms stepped in. Gaddafi was his “golden boy,” worth a dozen petty dictators. Gaddafi had brains and star quality.  His “clownishness” had yet to emerge and Gaddafi was vicious, a quality the United States appreciated in its friends.

The CIA had owned dozens of dictators, the list itself is exhausting. Gaddafi was smart and the partnership was very good for both. Gaddafi had enemies, some around the world. The CIA would handle them and did so readily.

The CIA had a “double game” to play, IRA, Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof, Black September, PLO, P2-Gladio, a demonstration of force for the KGB, showing them that conquering Western Europe would never be manageable.

However, by 1986, the new CIA, the clone built by Bush with Oliver North and gang, funded by drug money and arms trade with Iran, had pushed Reagan to the point of bombing Tripoli, all in response to false flag attacks orchestrated by a new generation of CIA handlers with a new game, one most conspiracy theorists call the New World Order


Why is all of this important, those lessons we slept through in history, especially the ones near the end of the year when looking out the window was much better than listening in class?  That’s when the 20th century was talked about, if ever.  Sometimes it is simply ignored or rushed through.

There it was and then it was gone.  Something about the Treaty of Versailles making new countries that made no sense, artificial borders that led to generations of war.  Stories about greed and revenge that led to World War 2.  Then things turned into a blur.  The Kennedy’s were killed, Dr. King, the Vietnam War, and from then on everything is about saving Israel from Arab armies.  A line was drawn through history where even the Cold War is forgotten, almost as though the Soviet Union never existed, the Korean War never happened, there was no Cuban Missile Crisis, all history is Israel, the holocaust and Arab terrorists.

Author Jeff Gates calls that “pre-staging,” a form of mind control that has managed to keep America in wars for a decade that nobody remembers quite how they began.

In a few days, we will have a new celebration of 9/11 where we will be reminded.  What we will be told, of course, is fiction, all lies, meant to cover crimes, even start new wars.

47,000 American troops and countless armed mercenaries are still in Iraq, no visible reason we know of.  What does happen there, every day, is terror attacks, car bombs, suicide bombers, all tied to factions that make no sense, attacks that serve no interest other than to push Iraq to keep those tens of thousands of Americans there.

Who does this serve?  It serves whoever stages the attacks that help keep America in Iraq.

Why does America have to occupy Iraq?  The anwer is simple, there can be no attack on Iran without America in control of Iraq.

Plots within plots within plots, oil, bank collapses, manipulation of gold prices, the huge new international drug cartels funding it all and Gaddafi and his tiny country playing their little part to the end, on a stage with players everywhere, too many in masks.

1 Comment

Posted by on August 28, 2011 in Uncategorized