Monthly Archives: October 2011

Iraq War’s Lessons and War on Libya

“The war in Iraq has meant the death of more than 4,400 U.S. troops and come at a cost of more than $700 billion.” report

In Libya case, “America spent $2 billion and didn’t lose a single life. This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has in the past.” Biden comparing the regime change unfolding in Libya with the Bush administration’s approach to Iraq.
“Thanks” to Nato Brothers, “The real Libyans” and their International Friends
In Case You Missed it:

BTW, The amount Paid by the US during th 8 months war on Libya can hardly cover the expenses of two weeks in Iraq.

Now meet Jim W. Dean – The VT DEAN who have so many old Intel people here, (EX-CIA and there….who may have participated in old Gaddafi assassination Plots.) spotting shills, or at least the smell of them, is a finely hone occupational talent.”introducing, Uri Aveney, the Old settler, whose career starts with the 40′s the terrorist organization, the Irgun, and ended according to Dean a true blue a peacenik as you can find on the planet”

But the “Salomnik” worried because “Obama on the wrong side of history, Uri is not?” worried  because Egypt will change his lives
The Salomnick who imagined “posters condemning Binyamin al-Assad and Bashar Netanyahu.”should rejoice the death of Gaddafi, most likey because Gaddafi called for ISRATINE

Iraq War’s Lessons Lost on US
by , October 29, 2011
 In a White House Statement on Oct. 21, U.S. President Barack Obama pledged that his country would finally withdraw forces from Iraq. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” he said.
Providing some context to Obama’s announcement, a published on the same day stated, “The war in Iraq has meant the death of more than 4,400 U.S. troops and come at a cost of more than $700 billion.”

The U.S. media is now failing to process any facts aside from the losses suffered by the United States, which wrought war and destruction on a country in urgent need of peace and humanitarian assistance. For over a decade prior to the war, Iraq was reeling under U.S.-led U.N. sanctions, which left the country’s infrastructure in a state of near collapse.

In her introduction to former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark’s important book, “The Impact of Sanctions on Iraq: The Children Are Dying,” Sara Flounders wrote, “Sanctions are a weapon of mass destruction. Since sanctions were imposed on Iraq, half a million children under the age of five have died of malnutrition and preventable diseases. Sanctions impose artificial famine. A third of Iraq’s surviving children today have stunted growth and nutritional deficiencies that will deform their shortened lives.”

In 1999, I was one of those who directly witnessed the impact of the sanctions on Iraqi children. I came back from the country with heaps of photos and memories that haunt me to this day. Oddly enough, it was not sanctions as “a weapon of mass destruction” that inspired action to end the siege, but alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that invited another disaster to an already devastated nation.
It might take us years to truly understand the magnitude of what has since transpired in Iraq. Death and destruction have hovered over the country, killing and wounding hundreds of thousands, sending millions into exile and millions more have been classified by U.N. agencies as Internally Displaced Persons (IDP). It was a horror show that cannot be captured with the language of reason, but every moment of it was experienced by millions of ordinary people, punished severely for a crime they never committed.

The last U.S. forces will depart the country by Jan. 1 “with their heads held high, proud of their success,” according to Obama. This is the very president who, in a speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, stated that “unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice.” What is there to be proud of in a devastating war of choice, Mr. President?

Before the U.S. House of Representatives on Jan. 18, 2007, Texas Congressman Ron Paul — presently running for the Republican presidential nomination — fittingly remarked, “Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons (for) the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.”

But it is ending, simply because it was militarily unwinnable, financially unsustainable and politically indefensible. “Supporting the troops,” however, will continue to serve as an escape route for those who still refuse to discuss the Iraq war from a moral and legal viewpoint. For them, it is essential that the cover-up persists, so as not to deny the U.S. the opportunity to instigate other wars of choice whenever suitable.
In a press briefing shortly following Obama’s end-of-war announcement, Antony Blinken, national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, remarked on whether the war was worth it. He answered, “history is going to have to judge.”

But Iraqis don’t need to wait for U.S. history books to demonstrate to them the depth of their tragedy. The Lancet survey had already determined that between March 2003 and June 2006, 601,027 Iraqis died violent deaths. Opinion Research Business survey said that 1,033,000 died as a result of the conflict from March 2003 to August 2007. In one single revelation, WikiLeaks stated that “its release of nearly 400,000 classified U.S. files on the Iraq war showed 15,000 more Iraqi civilians died than previously thought.”

Equally important is the fact that the violent mentality that insists on war — as opposed to diplomacy — to further U.S. interests is still deeply rooted among U.S. elites. Reporting from Washington, Jim Lobe recently wrote, “Key neoconservatives and other rightwing hawks who championed the 2003 United States invasion of Iraq are calling for military strikes against Iran in retaliation for its purported murder-for-hire plot against the Saudi ambassador here.”

Blogging for Foreign Policy website on Oct. 21, Dalia Dassa Kaye wrote, “The martial rhetoric from inveterate hawks was predictable. But even President Obama suggested that the United States would not take any ‘options off the table,’ a phrase that is understood to leave open military options.”
The rhetoric buildup for another conflict received a big boost during Leon Panetta’s first visit to Iraq as U.S. defense secretary on July 1. He said then that his country “will act ‘unilaterally’ to confront what he said were Iranian threats to U.S. interests in Iraq.” The U.S. was “very concerned about Iran and the weapons they are providing to extremists here in Iraq,” he said.

It will not be easy to reconcile Panetta’s comments with Obama’s end-of-war announcement, which states that “Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security” and that the relationship between the U.S. and Iraq will be that “between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

There are no signs of the neoconservatives altering their views. The appetite for conflict also seems well and alive among Washington’s influential elites, who still brazenly propagate that the U.S. war brought good to Iraqi society, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The official website for the U.S. Forces in Iraq,, is adorned by the following statement under the banner, The New Face of Iraq: “The nation of Iraq has undergone sweeping political, economical and social changes since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Elected officials are now in power, overseeing the continued development of security, infrastructure, education, security and finance.”

With that apparent “success” in mind, the neocons can always advocate another military intervention or full scale invasion, whenever possible and affordable.
“The tide of war is receding,” said Obama. One has serious doubts.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 30, 2011 in Uncategorized


Killing Gaddafi: Longstanding US Policy

Absent reliable independent proof, some sources believe a double was killed, not Gaddafi. More on that below.

Nonetheless, clear evidence shows Washington wanted him dead for years.

On October 27, Algeria ISP headlined, “Libya – On what Sarkozy and Obama killed Gaddafi?”saying:

“It’s confirmed, Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy have indeed ordered (Gaddafi’s) assassination….”

“According to Le Canard Enchaine (on October 26), the Americans had located (him) on October 19.”

Claude Angeli’s article “is unambiguous.” Titled “Gaddafi condemned to death by Washington and Paris,” it said both leaders ordered his extrajudicial killing because he knew too much. Preventing a public show trial was key.

US and French Special Forces were involved. Numerous bombing attempts failed. War still rages across Libya. The country “has entered a no man’s land policy, an area of (unpredictable) turbulence….This should worry” Western and regional leaders because eight months of fighting resolved nothing.

Toppling foreign leaders by coups or assassinations is longstanding US policy. William Blum’s done some of the best research on it. His books, including “Rogue State,” are must reading.

He documented dozens of successful and failed US interventions post-WW II, including:

  • toppling Iran’s Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, its first successful coup after an initial failure;
  • ousting Guatemala’s Jacobo Arbenz in 1954;
  • failing to kill China’s Chou En-Lai in 1955;
  • failing numerous times to kill Fidel Castro;
  • failing to kill France’s Charles de Gaulle; and
  • plotting Gaddafi’s assassination for decades.

Media Freedom International reported how “US and British Intelligence Have Repeatedly Tried to Kill Qaddafi – CIA Involved in Libya’s Civil War,” saying:

In the early 1990s, former UK MI5 operative David Shayler said “he paid a sum of over ($100,000) to Al Qaeda” to kill him.

“A bomb was placed inside what was thought to be (his) vehicle.” It wasn’t and the plan failed.

From 1978 – 1987, CIA operatives were involved in Chad’s intermittent wars with Libya.

In 1981, CIA elements established the anti-Gaddafi National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) and its militant wing called the Libyan National Army based in Egypt near Libya’s border. It was directly involved in NATO’s campaign to oust and kill Gaddafi.

In 1995, the CIA was instrumental in establishing the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) to topple Gaddafi. Ideologically allied with Al Qaeda, latter day elements fought Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

In December 2004, the State Department designated LIFG a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Its members were accused of being allied with bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

In 2007, the State Department said “Libyans associated with the LIFG are part of a broader international terrorist movement. The LIFG is one of the groups believed to have planned the Casablanca suicide bombings in May 2003….The LIFG constitutes a serious threat to US interests and personnel.”

The State Department also said they were responsible for a failed 1996 Gaddafi assassination attempt. At the time, CIA and MI5 operatives were involved. America strategically uses Al Qaeda, LIFG, and other groups as allies and enemies.

Allied with CIA in the 1990s, LIFG often clashed with Libyan security forces. Former LIFG members joined Anti-Gaddafi rebel rats.

Led by US, UK, French and other special forces and intelligence operatives, they comprise the main anti-Gaddafi fighting force.

Well before bombing began on March 19, US Navy Seals, UK SAS Forces, and French Legionnaires were active in Libya with CIA and MI5 elements.

They enlisted, armed, trained and funded opposition fighters in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, as well as fundamental international and US constitutional law.

Their mission involved regime change and killing Gaddafi. In 1986, Washington falsely accused him of bombing a Berlin discotheque.

In April, Ronald Reagan tried to kill him. At the time, he said US air and naval forces “launched a series of strikes against (Gaddafi’s) headquarters, terrorist facilities, and military assets, (carefully) targeted to minimize casualties among the Libyan people with whom we have no quarrel. From initial reports, our forces have succeeded in their mission.”

In fact, over 100 died, mostly civilians, including Gaddafi’s infant daughter when his personal compound was bombed.

In addition, dozens were wounded, including two of Gaddafi’s young sons. The French, Swiss, Romanian and Iranian embassies were damaged. So were Japanese and Austrian diplomatic residences.

Dozens of residential buildings were also damaged or destroyed. Libya’s Central Hospital reported up to 100 people needing treatment for serious injuries, including infants.

In 1988, Gaddafi was falsely accused of downing Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. So was Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi. Scottish judges knew he was innocent but convicted him under pressure.

Gaddafi never admitted fault. He took responsibility solely to have international sanctions removed. To this day, he and al-Megrahi stand falsely accused. Likely CIA /MI6/and/or Mossad involvement is never mentioned.

Media Lens contributor Richard Keeble discussed “The Secret War Against Gaddafi,” saying:

Soon after he assumed power in 1969, Gaddafi “became the target of massive covert operations by the French, US, Israeli and British” to oust him.

Britain’s 1971 invasion plan failed badly. In 1980, French secret service head Col. Alain de Gaigneronde de Marolles “resigned after a French-led plan ended in disaster when a rebellion by Libyan troops in Tobruk was rapidly suppressed.”

In 1982, the Reagan administration helped install Chad’s Hissene Habre to “bloody Gaddafi’s nose.” It was Reagan CIA head William Casey’s first covert operation. Moreover, “throughout the decade, Libya ranked almost as high as the Soviet Union” as America’s bene noire.

Habre got considerable US military and financial aid to topple Gaddafi. Other countries funding him included Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Iraq, and Morocco. A May 8, 1984 plan to kill him failed. In 1985, Reagan officials asked Egypt to invade Libya, but Mubarak refused.

During the decade, Washington recruited a secret anti-Gaddafi army. Britain was heavily involved.

For decades, America, France and Britain wanted him ousted and killed. Nothing tried earlier worked. NATO’s 2011 war was launched to undue past failures. Nothing so far is resolved. Jamahiriya loyalists continue their liberating struggle valiantly. They’ve tied down NATO’s killing machine for over eight months.

Its rebel rat army would have been routed long ago without air and special forces ground support and direction. NATO claims Operation Unified Protector will end October 31. Its name may change, not daily air and ground attacks against loyalists wanting to live free.

Eight months of terror bombing and rebel rat atrocities took a horrific toll. NSNBC said hardly any Libyan hasn’t lost a loved one and/or friend.

Gaddafi – Dead or Alive?

On October 27, headlined, “Dry your tears and continue the fight: the one you were shown was not Muammar Al-Gaddafi,” saying:

Videos and photos reputed to be Gaddafi have “been identified as….Ali Majid Al Andalus….” A Sirte resident, he closely resembled “the brother Leader of the El Fateh Revolution.”

“The man in the photo with the bullet hole in the head was not (Gaddafi), but his double.” Examining his face closely shows noticeable differences.

Mathaba calls its source “reliable.” Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, and TNC officials know “they did not kill” him. However, their purpose is served if people believe it.

Mathaba endorses information written in French. Since Gaddafi’s announced October 20 assassination, it’s been skeptical about official reports, not least because accounts shifted from one version to another.

NATO’s credibility is in tatters. Nothing it reports is reliable. Nor are regurgitated major media accounts. Throughout the war, their daily lies were exposed. They continue to be about a war far from resolved. It rages across Libya.

Evidence Mathaba found showed Gaddafi “was no where near Sirte on 19 – 20 October.” He’s also taller and older than the man killed. Photos used are suspect. Specific Gaddafi marks weren’t visible.

An emailer to this writer said here’s “proof” Gaddafi’s alive, saying:

  • his 1971 appendectomy scar was absent in photos;
  • the dead body shown isn’t “a 70 year old man who lived in the desert all his life;”
  • “Gaddafi almost always sent doubles on official business, and almost always remained in secret due to (numerous) assassination attempts;”
  • Gaddafi has (had) a “distinct look, distinct eyes, and that is why his doubles almost always wore sunglasses;”
  • only about 10% of public photos shown are him; nearly all are doubles;
  • “Gaddafi was too smart to walk around looking like a ‘Gaddafi double’ in the middle of” NATO’s war; and
  • he never would have exposed himself in a convoy, let alone 75 vehicles speeding out of Sirte under attack.

A previous article said hopefully he’ll have the last word on Syria’s Arrai TV. It aired previous recorded remarks he made.

If so and he discusses October 20 events, he’ll confirm what some believe is true. Millions of Libyans hope so.

1 Comment

Posted by on October 30, 2011 in Uncategorized


Gaddafi Phony Welfare State Unmasked

Uri Avnery – Bury Gaddafi’s Myths with Gaddafi, & Good Riddance

by  Jim W. Dean, VT Editor              …featuring  Uri Avnery,  Gush Shalom


Will Gaddafi’s Ghost be Driven From Libya?

The Ghost of Gaddafi is still roaming the Libyan sands and the fake Alternative Media websites, but not for long.

For some reason the Gaddafi hypesters seem to want to go down with the departed ship of state and its bevy of war, and we here are Veterans Today are only too glad to throw a goodbye party for them.

Because we have so many old Intel people here, spotting shills, or at least the smell of them, is a finely hone occupational talent.

After “following the money,” we found the email chains touting Gaddafi’s “welfare state” come from the same fantasy-mills now attacking “OCW” as ”hippies and terrorists.”

For those who don’t already know, Uri Avnery is about as true blue a peacenik as you can find on the planet.

In his 80s, he remains in Israel as the strongest critic of Likudist policies against Palestinian rights, a notoriety that has put his life on the line more than once.  Uri’s career dates back to the 40′s with the terrorist organization, the Irgun, eventually to a seat in the Knesset and then to open warfare against Israeli injustice.

Uri Avnery with the IDF in the Sinai – 1948 War

Uri’s piece below on the death of Gaddafi is another one of his gems. I admit I am biased. I love wisdom, and over the years have learned that the old folks seem to have a much bigger dose of it than the rest of us.

Uri is one of us, a combat vet, not the only one of us to regret aspects of our service, as VT represents veterans from 28 countries.

Only a combat veteran knows war, death and injustice, really knows it.  The reality of the senselessness of war learned first hand is an education many have shunned.

We were just aghast when we witnessed the so-called anti-imperialist Left jumping on the Gaddafi bandwagon wholesale. It was all too quick, the same talking points, too organized, and too many of them conveniently blind to what was obvious for anyone wanting to see.

Uri’s First Book – Been There – Done That

It did not take long to discover the river of cash that Gaddafi’s PR people had to buy media coverage. For cash poor Lefties, Gaddafi was the summer Santa Claus.

But Veterans Today was right again. Uri Avnery has the proof.  He independently supports all of our main Libyan Revolution editorial themes and reporting.

And we can pass a lie detector test that we have never even talked on the phone with Uri nor taken six figure bribes from him to run his work here.

Unlike the Alt Media shills, Veterans Today had people on the ground there, not only with the Rebels but behind the lines in Tripoli and Misrata, but in Sirte while that last and wasteful battle was ongoing.  One of our writers was there when Gaddafi was captured.

While we drive the stake through the heart of the Gaddafi regime beast with Uri’s help today, the Libyan people will be putting the nails in the coffin.

We shall work hard to make sure the Alt media phonies are buried along with the fake Gaddafi myths.

The New Libyan people own the story now, they paid for it with the blood of the martyrs. And eventually the Alt Media shills will be hearing from them, of that I am sure.   Jim W. Dean


A View from the Villa   …Uri Avnery     October 29, 2011


Gaddafi on Display in Misrata – Where He Killed so Many

The killing of Muammar Gaddafi and his son Muatasim was not a pretty sight. After seeing it once, I looked away when it was shown again and again on TV – literally ad nauseam.

Commercial TV exists, of course, to make money for the tycoons by appealing to the basest instincts and tastes of the masses. There seems to be an insatiable appetite for gruesome sights.

But in Israel there was another motive for showing these lynch scenes repeatedly, as the commentators made abundantly clear.

These scenes proved, to their mind, the primitive, barbaric, murderous nature of the Arab peoples, and, indeed, of Islam as such.

Ehud Barak likes to describe Israel as a “villa in the middle of a jungle”. By now this is accepted by the great majority of our media people.

They never miss an opportunity to point out that we live in a “dangerous neighborhood” – making it clear that Israel does not really belong to this neighborhood. We are a civilized Western people, sadly surrounded by these primitive savages.

As I have mentioned many times, this goes right back to the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, who wrote that the future Zionist state would be a part of “the wall of civilization against Asiatic barbarism”.

Since this attitude has far-reaching mental and political implications, let’s have a closer look.

Uri – First Assassination Attempt

I am against the death penalty, in all its forms. Executions, whether in Texas or in China, disgust me. I would have much preferred Gaddafi to be tried in a proper court.

But my first reaction to the sight was: My God, how much a people must hate its ruler if they treat him like that!

Obviously, the decades of abominable terror inflicted on the Libyan people by this half-crazy despot have destroyed any remnants of mercy they may have felt. His fanatical defenders to the last, members of his tribe, seem to be a tiny minority.

Uri – Second Assassination Attempt

His clownish appearance and foreign adventures diverted the attention of world opinion from the murderous aspects of his rule.

From time to time, on a whim, he let loose waves of horror, torturing and killing anyone who had so much as voiced a hint of criticism, trying them in football stadiums, where the roar of the maddened crowds drowned out the pitiful pleading for mercy of the condemned.

On one occasion, his thugs shot all the 1200 inmates of Abu Salim prison in Tripoli.

True, he spent some money on building schools and hospitals, but that was a tiny part of the huge amounts of oil revenue squandered on his bizarre adventures or stolen by his family.

This immensely rich country has a poor population, a single narrow road from Egypt through to Tunisia and a standard of living that is a third of ours.

You did not have to be an Arab barbarian or Muslim arch-terrorist to do what was done to him. Actually, the highly civilized Italians (Libya’s former colonial masters) did exactly the same in 1945.

Italian Communists Also Did Not Want a Trial for Mussolini

When the partisans caught the fleeing Benito Mussolini, he pleaded piteously for his life, but they killed him on the spot together with his mistress.

Their bodies were thrown into the street, kicked and spat upon by the crowd, and then hanged by their feet from meat hooks from the roof of a gas station, where the public threw stones at them for days on end.

I don’t remember anybody in civilized Europe protesting.

Contrary to Mussolini and Gaddafi, Adolf Hitler was not caught while ignominiously trying to escape. He chose a much more dignified exit.

But during his last weeks Gaddafi rather resembled Hitler, living in a world of crazy delusion, moving nonexistent troops around on the map, sure to the end of the boundless love of his people.

Nicolae Ceausescu, another bloody tyrant, had his day – or hour – in court. It was a charade, as such trials are bound to be. The kangaroo court condemned him to death and he was shot forthwith, together with his wife.

Gaddafi’s demise puts an end to the debate that started months ago.


Ceausescus Meet Their End by Machine Gun Firing Squad – Elena Insisted on Being Shot With Her Husband ” We Have Lived Together – We Will Die Together ”

There can be no doubt any more that the vast majority of the Libyan people detested Gaddafi and welcomed the NATO campaign that helped to remove him. It was an important contribution, but the actual heavy fighting was done by the ragtag people’s army.

Libya liberated itself. Even in Tripoli, it was the people who put an end to the tyranny.

I was sharply attacked by some well-meaning European leftists for blessing the awful monster called NATO. Now, in retrospect, it is quite obvious that the overwhelming – if not unanimous – opinion of the Libyans themselves welcomed the intervention. [Editor’s Note: Veterans Today was also…by the same crowd.  Jim Dean]

Uri – Whiffing Tear Gas and Ducking Rubber Bullets at 85 !!

Where did I differ from these leftists? I think that they have sewn themselves into a kind of ideological straightjacket.

During the Vietnam war they arrived at a world view that was appropriate for that particular situation: there were good guys and bad guys.

The good guys were the Vietnamese Communists and their allies. The bad guys were the US and its puppets. Since then, they have applied this schema to every situation around the world: South Africa, Yugoslavia, Palestine.

But every situation is different. Vietnam is not Libya, the South African problem was much more simple than ours.

Great power politics may remain constant, and very unattractive at that, but there are huge differences between the various situations.

I was very much against the US wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, and very much in favor of the NATO campaigns in Kosovo and Libya.

For me, the starting point of every analysis is what the people concerned want and need, and only after that do I wonder how the international schema applies to them. Working from the inside out, so to speak, not from the outside in.

Also, I have never quite understood the dogma which seems to answer all questions: “it’s all about oil”. Gaddafi sold his oil on the world market, and so will his successors, on the same terms. International oil corporations are all the same to me. Is there much of a difference between the Russian Gazprom and the American Esso?

Putin – Dictatorship of Himself ?

Some former Communists seem to have a kind of inherited attachment to Russia, almost automatically supporting its international positions, from Afghanistan to Serbia to Syria.

Why? What is the similarity between Vladimir Putin and the Soviets? Putin does not subscribe to the dictatorship of the proletariat, he is quite satisfied with a dictatorship of himself.

If Gaddafi’s savage end has reinforced all the Islamophobic obsessions in the West, the elections in Tunisia have made matters worse.

Help! The Islamists have won the elections! The Muslim Brotherhood will win the elections in Egypt! The Arab Spring will turn the whole region into one vast hotbed of Jihad! Israel and The West are in mortal danger!

This is all nonsense. And dangerous nonsense at that, because it may derail any sensible American and European policy towards the Arab world.

Sure, Islam is on the rise. Islamic parties have resisted the Arab dictatorships and were persecuted by them, and therefore are popular in the aftermath of their downfall – much as European Communists were very popular in France and Italy after the defeat of Fascism. From there on, support for these parties declined.

Islam is an important part of Arab civilization. Many Arabs are sincere believers. Islamic parties will certainly play an important role in any democratic Arab order, much as Jewish religious parties play – alas – an important role in Israeli politics. Most of these Arab parties are moderate, like the governing Islamic party in Turkey.

Uri at Work With Begin and Sadat

It is certainly desirable that these parties become a part of the democratic order, rather than turning into its enemy. They must be inside the tent, otherwise the tent may collapse.

I believe that this is in the best interest of Israel, too. That’s why my friends and I favor Fatah-Hamas reconciliation and advocate direct negotiations between Israel and Hamas, and not only for prisoner exchanges.

Our media are outraged: the interim Prime Minister of Libya has announced that Islamic law – the sharia – will guide the enactment of new laws in his country.

It seems our journalists are ignorant of the existence of an Israeli law that says that if there are legal questions for which there are no ready answers, the religious Jewish law – the Halakha – will fill the void.

Moreover, there is a new bill before the Knesset that states unequivocally that the Halakha will decide legal disputes.

The outcome of the Tunisian elections was, to my mind, very positive. As expected, the moderate Islamic party won a plurality, but not a majority. It must form a coalition with secular parties and is willing to do so. These parties, totally new and practically unknown, need time to establish their identity and structure.

A White Haired Uri Avnery with a Younger Arafat

To add a personal note, Rachel and I went to Tunisia many times to meet Yasser Arafat, and rather liked the people.

We were especially taken by the many men we saw in the streets wearing a jasmine flower behind the ear. No wonder that such people could make an almost bloodless “jasmine revolution”.

If elections in other Arab countries follow this pattern, as seems probable, it will be all for the best.

The Obama administration was clever enough to jump on the bandwagon of the Arab revolutions, though at the very last moment.

We Israelis did not have this sense. Our Islamophobia has caused us to miss a golden opportunity for a new image among the young Arab revolutionaries.

Instead, we contrast our goodness with the barbarism of the Libyans, who have once again shown the true nature of the jungle surrounding our villa.

They Say Behind a Good Man is a Good Woman

In Memorium:  Rachel Avnery – 1932-2011

The staff and writers of Veterans Today would like to send out condolences to Uri on the death of his long time love and partner who stuck by him through thick and thin. May we all be so fortunate to experience a bond like this in our lives.

From Wikipedia…

In 2001, Avnery and his wife Rachel Avnery were honoured with the Right Livelihood Award, sometimes called the “Alternative Nobel Prize”, “… for their unwavering conviction, in the midst of violence, that peace can only be achieved through justice and reconciliation”.[16]

In 2006, settler activist Baruch Marzel called on the Israeli military to carry out “a targeted killing” against Avnery.[17]

After she died, I sat for an hour with my eyes fixed on her face. She was beautiful. A GERMAN friend sent me a saying which I find strangely comforting. It translates as:

“Don’t be sad that she left you, Be glad that she was with you for so many years.”

YouTube – Veterans Today –


Leave a comment

Posted by on October 30, 2011 in Uncategorized


The Libya American’s never saw on Television

The Libya American’s never saw on Television
You know I have to wonder if Americans know anything about Libya at all. There are many from other countries that don’t seem to know much about it either I am afraid.

Comments on different news sites tell me how mislead many are. One of the most predominant comments is now Libya will come out of the Dark Ages.
Well I am not sure what dark ages they are talking about as Libya was quite advanced.
NATO has blown them back to the dark ages,
So take a tour of Libya with me and see how things were before US/NATO intervention and tell me if they lived in the Dark Ages.
Videos of how Libya was before the invasion are below. Definitely they did not live in the dark ages.
Before we start the tour there are a few things you need to know however.
1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.
2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at zero percent interest by law.
3. Having a home considered a human right in Libya.
4. All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 dinar (U.S.$50,000) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.
5. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25 percent of Libyans were literate. Today, the figure is 83 percent.
6. Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kickstart their farms are all for free.
7. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need, the government funds them to go abroad, for it is not only paid for, but they get a U.S.$2,300/month for accommodation and car allowance.
8. If a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50 percent of the price.
9. The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.
10. Libya has no external debt and its reserves amounting to $150 billion are now frozen globally.
11. If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession, as if he or she is employed, until employment is found.
12. A portion of every Libyan oil sale is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
13. A mother who gives birth to a child receive U.S.$5,000.
14. 40 loaves of bread in Libya costs $0.15.
15. 25 percent of Libyans have a university degree.
16. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Manmade River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.
17 Women’s Rights: Under Gaddafi, gender discrimination was officially banned and the literacy rate for women climbed to 83 per cent. The rights of Black’s were also improved.
To add to problems now facing those in Libya are the tons of DU dropped on them by US/NATO forces.
There was no DU before to make people sick, so now there will be numerous health problems never before seen in Libya.
1. Libya is Africa’s largest exporter of oil, 1.7 million tons a day,
which quickly was reduced to 300-400,000 ton due to US-NATO bombing.
Libya exports 80% of its oil: 80% of that to several EU lands (32%
Italy, 14% Germany, 10% France); 10% China; 5% USA.
2. Gaddafi has been preparing to launch a gold dinar for oil trade with
all of Africa’s 200 million people and other countries interested.
French President Nickola Sarkozi called this, “a threat for financial
security of mankind”. Much of France’s wealth—more than any other
colonial-imperialist power—comes from exploiting Africa.
3. Central Bank of Libya is 100% owned by state (since 1956) and is thus outside of multinational corporation control (BIS-Banking International Settlement rules for private interests). The state can finance its own projects and do so without interest rates
4. Gaddafi-Central Bank used $33 billion, without interest rates, to
build the Great Man-Made River of 3,750 kilometers with three parallel pipelines running oil, gas and water supplying 70% of the people (4.5 of its 6 million) with clean drinking and irrigation water.
5. The Central Bank also financed Africa’s first communication satellite with $300 million of the $377 cost. It started up for all Africa, December 26, 2007, thus saving the 45-African nations an annual fee of $500 million pocketed by Europe for use of its satellites and this means much less cost for telephones and other communication systems.
Some of the numbers above vary a bit from web site to web site but all are relatively close.

Great Man made River Project Libya Absolutely Amazing

The Great Man-Made River is a network of pipes that supplies water from the Sahara Desert in Libya, from the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System fossil aquifer. Some sources cite it as the largest engineering project ever undertaken.
The Guinness World Records 2008 book has acknowledged this as the world’s largest irrigation project.
According to its website, it is the largest underground network of pipes and aqueducts in the world. It consists of more than 1300 wells, most more than 500 m deep, and supplies 6,500,000 m³ of freshwater per day to the cities of Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirt and elsewhere. Muammar al-Gaddafi has described it as the “Eighth Wonder of the World.

Great Man Made River Project Libya

Libya – Great Man Made River Project

Libya Telecom and Technology (LTT)

Libyan Farm–This is about half an hour driving from Tripoli,

Libya Footage

Libya footage II

Libya footage II.V

Libya Footage III

Photos around Tripoli, Libya

1. “Severan Arch, Leptis Magna”
2. “All roads lead to …”
3. “Detail of Severan Arch, Leptis Magna”
4. “Oration, Leptis Magna”
5. “Arches, Leptis Magna”
6. “Carved marble Leptis Magna”
7. “Detail on marble column, Leptis Magna”
8. “Doorways, Leptis Magna”
9. “Forest of columns Leptis Magna”
10. “Front terrace Villa Silin”
11. “Gargoyles on arches, Leptis Magna”
12. “Granite columns Leptis Magna”
13. “Leptis Magna”
14. “Majestic columns, Leptis Magna”
15. “Grave, Leptis Magna”
16. “Check the surf, Villa Silin”
17. “Market Leptis Magna”
18. “Market place Leptis Magna”
19. “Modern meets ancient”
20. “Tumbling into the ocean, Leptis Magna”
21. “Statues”
22. “The Latrines”
23. “View to the ocean Leptis Magna”
24. “Gum tree, Leptis Magna”

Photos from Libya

The Green Mountain of Libya

Libya as you never seen it

Libya Tourist Attractions

Libya’s beautiful beaches

Tripoli, Libya

Visit to Tripoli/Libya A walk about.

Libya 2009

Pro Gaddafi Rally in Benghaziin May 2011

Massive Anti-NATO-Rebel Demonstrations in Tripoli, July 1, 2011 1.5 million people were at this rally.

Translation of Gaddafi speech today, translation by Karim Budabuss:
The leader is talking now. He is saying that this is a historical day, and he is challenging Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama to switch on their TVs and watch the crowds and he is saying that they will find out that they are delusional because they entered a war which they never win, he also says if you continue targeting our houses we can do the same coz Europe is not far away but he said lets not do this and watch the crowds , kids and women.
They are not here because i ordered them to, it is they are free will. in this war you are not facing me you are facing these crowds. I am nothing, if you want peace with Libyans, it is up to the crowds.
If you want any thing , negotiate with the crowds. The regime is not Gaddafi regime, it is a Libyan regime . Even if many got scared, defected and escaped, the Libyans will remain, and each coward will be replaced with a hero.
Is it a democracy to bomb the civilans, we don’t want a democracy which comes with bombs. The socialist Jamahyria will win, the real democracy which serves the people. I advice you to stop bombing, and stop becoming mercenaries for some rebels.
The Libyans said their words, they marched, their tribes made it clear that the future is for Libyans, the oil is for Libya, Libya is ours. You are delusional, a group of traitors convinced you that Libya is easy to get, you hired mercenaries , propaganda, psychological war all that didn’t allow you to make any progress on the ground.
Turn on ur TVs and watch the longest Libyan flag 4.5 km, I didn’t make this flag, people donated to make this flag. Those rebels are no different from who betrayed Libyan during the Italian invasion.
Libyan people go in millions without weapons to liberate the regions under rebel control. You Libyan people are the only one who can finish this war with a victory. If they want to negotiate we welcome that, otherwise we are continuing and they are definitely losing no matter how many weapons they drop with parachute to the rebels.
We will not betrayed our history nor our children and their future. The glory is for you brave Libyans, the struggle will continue. (end of speech)

The Real Reason Why Gadaffi Was Killed & Why We’re In Libya

They also want the oil and water from Libya as well. The want to privatize everything they can so their companies make profits.
The US and EU hate not having their profiteers in a country and the IMF and World Bank also want their piece of the pie as well. They in essence steal everything from countries they can. They could care less about the people.

Cost of war to Libyans about $200 Billion

Over 800 Bodies Dumped in Libyan Cemetary by Rebels

Criminal State – A Closer Look at Israel’s Role in Terrorism/NATO and US supporting the Rebels who are actually terrorist on the US/NATO Terrorist list. I thought the war was against terrorist not to help them. I guess they have been helping the Terrorists all along. Anything to keep the wars going for the profiteers.

Racist murders in Libya at the hands of rebel forces

There is also some Video of Canadians who went to Libya on vacation on the link below.

Libya war lies worse than Iraq

UN chief Ban alarmed over rising civilian toll in Libya

John Bolton Admits All Of These Wars Are For Oil

NATO’s 26,000 sorties, including 9,600 strike missions, destroyed, water, schools, hospitals, food, and many other necessities needed by civilians. They also killed many civilians. These are War Crimes.



River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 27, 2011 in Uncategorized


NATO’s Massacre of Innocents in Libya

 Share on Twitter Facebook
The UN has been silent about the way in which so-called “Kadhafi loyalists” are being hunted down and killed in cities and towns across Libya.

Since the collapse of the USSR caused the Cold War to end, the NATO powers have been responsible for the death and maiming of hundreds of thousands, beginning with the many afflicted by the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq after Operation Desert Storm.These had zero effect on Saddam Hussein and his family, but caused havoc within the vulnerable sections of the Iraqi population, who had to do without medicines and other necessities of life.

Although several within the UN protested at the genocidal nature of the sanctions, the US, France, Germany and the UK refused to dilute them sufficiently to allow the vulnerable within Iraq to subsist. “They ought to be taught a lesson for accepting a man like Saddam Hussein as their president”, was the rationale offered to this correspondent in Washington by a Clinton administration official.

That the people of Iraq had no say in either the coming to power of Saddam Hussein or his continuance in office mattered little to this individual, who spoke approvingly of the way then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had “faced down the softies in the UN bureaucracy who wanted the sanctions to be lifted”.The multitude who perished as a result of Albright, Blair and other champions of the Iraq sanctions regime will press on their conscience on the Day of Judgment.

But clearly not before. Whether it is Henry Kissinger of “Bomb SE Asia” fame or Albright (who may yet be given the Nobel Peace Prize), they travel the world as champions of human rights, in yet more evidence of the fact that history is always written by the stronger side. And now they have been joined by Nicholas Sarkozy of France and David Cameron of the UK, who – along with Hillary Clinton – are responsible for the situation in Libya.

Reports from the field speak of hundreds of presumed “Kadhafi loyalists” being shot or tortured, most because of tribal and other rivalries than because of the colonel. In both Sirte as well as Bani Walid, hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed by the ceaseless bombardment of both towns by the Sarkozy-appointed “Transitional Council” forces.

Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-moon has been silent about the way in which so-called “Kadhafi loyalists” are being hunted down and killed in cities and towns across Libya. Some estimates claim that at least 9,000 have been killed in this way, while others give higher figures.

Although their UN mandate was to “protect civilians”, NATO forces from the start took sides in the civil war, and actively participated in the destruction of lives and property of those whom its spies denounced as “pro- Kadhafi”.

More than $800 million in infrastructure has been destroyed by NATO bombing, yet there is no talk of restitution, there is talk only of French, British and US companies getting oil contracts at concessional rates.

As for BBC and CNN, which used to be hysterical about the “loss of civilian lives caused by Kadhafi”, these days they tiptoe in silence across the graveyard that much of Libya has become.

They seem to believe that the thousands of NATO-supplied rockets and artillery shells fired into so-called pro-Kadhafi areas have the miraculous quality of killing only military personnel, when in fact each such projectile is putting at risk dozens of innocent civilians.

Today, Libya has become a hell, with much of the country going without sanitation, electric power or employment. However, any complaint is met by detention as a suspected “Kadhafi loyalist”. Interestingly, most of the anti-Kadhafi fighters are also against the NATO powers, which is why they are ensuring the concealment of large quantities of lethal weaponry supplied to them by NATO to kill the other side.

These will get used in the years ahead, against the very countries that supplied them in the first place. A few days ago, Hillary Clinton was in Libya in a bid to recover these weapons. She failed, because those she is dealing with have no control over the actual fighters, who control territory in Libya the way warlords once did in Afghanistan, and still do in some parts of that ravaged country.

As in Afghanistan, NATO has armed those who will in the future strike them.

Why does the International Court not take suo motu action against the killings in Libya of so-called “pro-Kadhafi” elements? Because it has never been international. In effect, the Court is controlled by NATO powers, who use it to diplomatically intimidate foes while ignoring the misdemeanours of themselves and their friends.

This has been facilitated by the fact that so many so-called “international” institutions are headquartered within Europe. Why should a single continent (and a small one at that) have a monopoly over the numerous global institutions, including the IAEA, the WHO, the ILO, the International Court of Justice and so many others?

Such a location makes it impossible for 99% of the people of the poorer countries to access them, for Europe is a high-cost destination to which visas are only sparingly given. Had such institutions been located in poorer countries, then they would have been much more accessible to the world’s poor.

US Presidential candidates from the Republican Party are demanding that their country stop giving funds to the UN. The reality is that the UN spends more (directly and through the expenditure of its well-paid staff) in the US than it gets from that country. Hence hopefully funds will indeed be cut, thereby ensuring that the UN Headquarters move to another country, one that is more representative of the majority of the global population. A good candidate would be Mauritius, in the Indian Ocean.

Nearly two years ago, this columnist was invited to the International Interfaith Dialogue meeting in Geneva. This is an initiative of the Muslim World League, which has been tasked by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to promote dialogue between people of different faiths. Not only was the hotel in Geneva prohibitively expensive (although the rooms were such that even ordinary hotels in India offered more amenities) but the Swiss embassy in New Delhi gave only a 10-day visa, thereby making it clear that they did not want any Third World trash (such as this columnist) lingering around in their country or in their continent.

Fortunately, the next conference is being held in a country that is more friendly to those of average income than Switzerland. As yet, countries in Asia have not retaliated for the barriers on movement of people, goods and services to Europe.Rather, Asia has become the only expanding market for high-cost (and low value) luxury goods from France, Italy and Germany. Over the coming years, Asian countries need to coordinate their trading decisions, the way the EU does, so that retaliation can take place over transparent efforts to block Asian goods from European markets, even if (and especially if) these be cheaper and better than local alternatives.

That Asian countries are beginning to understand the importance of a unified stance is becoming clear from a very healthy development, which is the discussion now taking place between India and Pakistan over trade. Both countries are natural partners of each other, and economists estimate that more than 2 million jobs can be created were trade barriers to get lifted between Delhi and Islamabad, 40% of which will be in Pakistan. In an era of economic turmoil, it is important to gain synergy wherever it can be found, and India-Pakistan is one of the last holdouts to better trade relations. This year, India is expected to sign a Free Trade Agreement with ASEAN, and soon afterwards, with the EU, once that grouping drops its insistence on a one-sided pact that gives all the pain to India and all the gain to its manufacturers. As NATO will soon find in Libya, trade is a much better way of getting geopolitical benefits than bombings and barrages.

It should not be forgotten that it was an oil company – Unocal – that bankrolled the Taliban. In Libya as well, it is French banks and NATO oil companies that have led the charge against Muammar Kadhafi, who negotiated much fairer agreements with them than they liked. The use of military power to seize assets, the way it has happened in Iraq and now Libya, will soon come back to bite the NATO oil companies. Winning a war on the battlefield is easy. Holding back the civilian population is not. And in both Libya and Iraq, the people of these two ancient civilisations will ensure that efforts at grabbing their resources by force will fail.Peace is not simply the best way, it is the only way to Prosperity through Equity.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 25, 2011 in Uncategorized


Libya and Iraq: The Price of Success

By George Friedman

In a week when the European crisis continued building, the White House chose publicly to focus on announcements about the end of wars. The death of Moammar Gadhafi was said to mark the end of the war in Libya, and excitement about a new democratic Libya abounded. Regarding Iraq, the White House transformed the refusal of the Iraqi government to permit U.S. troops to remain into a decision by Washington instead of an Iraqi rebuff.

Though in both cases there was an identical sense of “mission accomplished,” the matter was not nearly as clear-cut. The withdrawal from Iraq creates enormous strategic complexities rather than closure. While the complexities in Libya are real but hardly strategic, the two events share certain characteristics and are instructive.


Libya After Gadhafi


Let us begin with the lesser event, Gadhafi’s death. After seven months of NATO intervention, Gadhafi was killed. That it took so long for this to happen stands out, given that the intervention involved far more than airstrikes, including special operations forces on the ground targeting for airstrikes, training Libyan troops, managing logistics, overseeing communications and both planning and at times organizing and leading the Libyan insurgents in battle.

Perhaps this length of time resulted from a strategy designed to minimize casualties at the cost of prolonging the war. Alternatively, that it took seven months to achieve this goal might reflect the extent of the insurgents’ division, poor training and incompetence. Whatever the reason, the more important question is what NATO thinks it has accomplished with Gadhafi’s death, as satisfying as that death might be.

The National Transitional Council (NTC), the umbrella organization crafted to contain the insurgents, is in no position to govern Libya by any ideology, let alone through constitutional democracy. Gadhafi and his supporters ruled Libya for 42 years; the only people in the NTC with any experience with government gained that experience as ministers or lesser officials in Gadhafi’s government. Some may have switched sides out of principle, but I suspect that most defected to save themselves. While the media has portrayed many of these ex-ministers as opponents of Gadhafi, anyone who served him was complicit in his crimes.

These individuals are the least likely to bring reform to Libya and the most likely to constitute the core of a new state, as they are the only Libyans who know what it means to govern. Around them is an array of tribes living in varying degrees of tension and hostility with each other and radical Islamists whose number and capabilities are unknown, but whose access to weapons can be assumed. It also is safe to assume that many of those weapons, of various types of lethality, will be on the black market in the region in short order, as they may already be.

Gadhafi did not rule for 42 years without substantial support, as the tenacity of those who fought on his behalf suggests. (The defense of Sirte could well be described as fanatical.) Gadhafi is dead, but not all of his supporters are. And there are other elements within the country who may not be Gadhafi supporters but are no less interested in resisting those who are now trying to take charge — and resisting anyone perceived to be backed by Western powers. As with the conquest of Baghdad in 2003, what was unanticipated — but should not have been — was that a variety of groups would resist the new leaders and wage guerrilla war.

Baghdad taught that overwhelming force must be brought to bear in any invasion such that all opposition is eliminated. Otherwise, opponents of foreign occupation — along with native elements with a grudge against other natives — are quite capable of creating chaos. When we look at the list of NTC members and try to imagine them cooperating with each other and when we consider the number of Gadhafi supporters who are now desperadoes with little to lose, the path to stable constitutional democracy runs either through NATO occupation (unofficial, of course) or through a period of intense chaos. The most likely course ahead is a NATO presence sufficient to enrage the Libyan people but insufficient to intimidate them.

And Libya is not a strategic country. It is neither large in population nor geographically pivotal. It does have oil, as everyone likes to point out, and that makes it appealing. But it is not clear that the presence of oil increases the tendency toward stability. When we look back on Iraq, an oil-rich country, oil simply became another contentious issue in a galaxy of contentious issues.


The Lesson of Baghdad


Regarding Libya, I have a sense of Baghdad in April 2003. U.S. President Barack Obama’s announcement of a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq gives us a sense of what lies at the end of the tunnel of the counterinsurgency. It must be understood that Obama did not want a total withdrawal. Until just a few weeks before the announcement, he was looking for ways to keep some troops in Iraq’s Kurdish region. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta went to Iraq wanting an agreement providing for a substantial number of U.S. troops in Iraq past the Dec. 31 deadline for withdrawal.

While the idea did appeal to some in Iraq, it ultimately failed. This is because the decision-making structure of the Iraqi government that emerged from U.S. occupation and the war is so fragmented it has failed even to craft a law on hydrocarbons, something critical to the future of Iraq. It was therefore in no position to reach consensus, or even a simple majority, over the question of a continued presence of foreign troops. Many Iraqis did want a U.S. presence, particularly those concerned about their fate once the United States leaves, such as the Kurds and Sunnis. The most important point is not that the Iraqis decided they did not want troops; it is that the Iraqi government was in the end too incoherent to reach any decision.

The strategic dimension to this is enormous. The Iranians have been developing their influence in Iraq since before 2003. They have not developed enough power to control Iraq outright. There are too many in Iraq, even among the Shia, who distrust Iranian power. Nevertheless, the Iranians have substantial influence — not enough to impose policies but enough to block any they strongly object to. The Iranians have a fundamental national security interest in a weak Iraq and in the withdrawal of American forces, and they had sufficient influence in Baghdad to ensure American requests to stay were turned down.

Measuring Iranian influence in Iraq is not easy to do. Much of it consists of influence and relationships that are not visible or are not used except in urgent matters. The United States, too, has developed a network of relationships in Iraq, as have the Saudis. But the United States is not particularly good at developing reliable grassroots supporters. The Iranians have done better because they are more familiar with the terrain and because the price for double-crossing the Iranians is much higher than that imposed by the United States. This gives the Iranians a more stable platform from which to operate. While the Saudis have tried to have it both ways by seeking to maintain influence without generating anti-Saudi feeling, the Iranian position has been more straightforward, albeit in a complex and devious way.

Let us consider what is at stake here: Iran has enough influence to shape some Iraqi policies. With the U.S. withdrawal, U.S. allies will have to accommodate themselves both to Iran and Iran’s supporters in the government because there is little other choice. The withdrawal thus does not create a stable balance of power; it creates a dynamic in which Iranian influence increases if the Iranians want it to — and they certainly want it to. Over time, the likelihood of Iraq needing to accommodate Iranian strategic interests is most likely. The possibility of Iraq becoming a puppet of Iran cannot be ruled out. And this has especially wide regional consequences given Syria.


The Role of Syria


Consider the Libyan contrast with Syria. Over the past months, the Syrian opposition has completely failed in bringing down the regime of Presiden Bashar al Assad. Many of the reports received about Syria originate from anti-Assad elements outside of Syria who draw a picture of the impending collapse of the regime. This simply hasn’t happened, in large part because al Assad’s military is loyal and well organized and the opposition is poorly organized and weak. The opposition might have widespread support, but sentiment does not defeat tanks. Just as Gadhafi was on the verge of victory when NATO intervened, the Syrian regime does not appear close to collapse. It is hard to imagine NATO intervening in a country bordering Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon given the substantial risk of creating regional chaos. In contrast, Gadhafi was isolated politically and geographically.

Syria was close to Iran before the uprising. Iran has been the most supportive of the Syrian regime. If al Assad survives this crisis, his willingness to collaborate with Iran will only intensify. In Lebanon, Hezbollah — a group the Iranians have supported for decades — is a major force. Therefore, if the U.S. withdrawal in Iraq results in substantial Iranian influence in Iraq, and al Assad doesn’t fall, then the balance of power in the region completely shifts.

This will give rise to a contiguous arc of Iranian influence stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea running along Saudi Arabia’s northern border and along the length of Turkey’s southern border. Iranian influence also will impact Israel’s northern border directly for the first time. What the Saudis, Turks and Israelis will do about this is unclear. How the Iranians would exploit their position is equally unclear. Contrary to their reputation, they are very cautious in their overt operations, even if they take risks in their covert operations. Full military deployment through this region is unlikely for logistical reasons if nothing else. Still, the potential for such a deployment, and the reality of increasingly effective political influence regardless of military movement, is strategically significant. The fall of al Assad would create a firebreak for Iranian influence, though it could give rise to a Sunni Islamist regime.

The point here, of course, is that the decision to withdraw from Iraq and the inability to persuade the Iraqi government to let U.S. forces remain has the potential to change the balance of power in the region. Rather than closing the book on Iraq, it simply opens a new chapter in what was always the subtext of Iraq, namely Iranian power. The civil war in Iraq that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein had many dimensions, but its most strategically important one was the duel between the United States and Iran. The Obama administration hopes it can maintain U.S. influence in Iraq without the presence of U.S. troops. Given that U.S. influence with the presence of troops was always constrained, this is a comforting, though doubtful, theory for Washington to consume.

The Libyan crisis is not in such a high-stakes region, but the lesson of Iraq is useful. The NATO intervention has set the stage for a battle among groups that are not easily reconciled and who were held together by hostility to Gadhafi and then by NATO resources. If NATO simply leaves, chaos will ensue. If NATO gives aid, someone will have to protect the aid workers. If NATO sends troops, someone will attack them, and when they defend themselves, they will kill innocents. This is the nature of war. The idea of an immaculate war is fantasy. It is not that war is not at times necessary, but a war that is delusional is always harmful. The war in Iraq was delusional in many ways, and perhaps nowhere more than in the manner in which the United States left. That is being repeated in Libya, although with smaller stakes.

In the meantime, the influence of Iran will grow in Iraq, and now the question is Syria. Another NATO war in Syria is unlikely and would have unpredictable consequences. The survival of al Assad would create an unprecedented Iranian sphere of influence, while the fall of al Assad would open the door to regimes that could trigger an Israeli intervention.

World War II was nice in that it offered a clean end — unless, of course, you consider that the Cold War and the fear of impending nuclear war immediately succeeded it. Wars rarely end cleanly, but rather fester or set the stage for the next war. We can see that clearly in Iraq. The universal congratulations on the death of Moammar Gadhafi are as ominous as all victory celebrations are, because they ignore the critical question: Now what?
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 and Iraq: The Price of Success is republished with permission of STRATFOR.”

Read more: Libya and Iraq: The Price of Success | STRATFOR

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 25, 2011 in Uncategorized


The ‘rebel’ assassination of Muammar Gaddafi: a NATO operation from A to Z

Muammar Gaddafi – revolutionary leader of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya – was assassinated on Thursday 20 October, 2011, in the Libyan city of Sirte.  The precise circumstances surrounding his death have been clouded with mystery and contradicting reports, but the media consensus is that NATO’s ‘rebel’ stooges captured and killed him.  This has lent the unelected and universally despised NTC occupation government a decisive propaganda victory in the war on Libya.  However, a picture is emerging as to the actual circumstances of his death, one that puts NATO special forces – likely the British SAS – in the centre of the frame.

SAS squads hunting Gaddafi for weeks

NATO special forces including the British SAS have been on the ground in Libya since February – long before the beginning of the Orwellian ‘no-fly zone’.  These forces set up bases in Libya from which they trained and directed the poorly-trained ‘rebel’ mercenaries being used as pawns to overthrow Gaddafi.  The Libya war would not have been possible without the presence of these special forces.  NATOairstrikes have been coordinated by these operatives on the ground.  Further to this, the incredibly inept ‘rebels’ have proven themselves utterly incapable of achieving and holding a single military or strategic victory against the overwhelming size and breadth of the indigenous Green Libyan Resistance.  Operation Mermaid Dawn, coordinated and overtly carried out by Western special forces and soldiers, was an indication of the sheer ineptitude of the tribalists, terrorists and extremists fighting for NATO as ‘Libyan rebels’.

After Operation Mermaid Dawn in August, British SAS soldiers, dressed in civilian Arab garb and carrying the same weaponry as the ‘rebels’, refocused their efforts towards hunting down Muammar Gaddafi.  Furthermore, the British media was replete with reports of this special forces activity on Libyan soil.

A matter of days ago on Thursday 20 October, 2011, NATO’s war on Libya culminated in the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi.  As could have been predicted for a war replete with brazen psychological warfare, the ‘official’ story was that the ‘rebel’ forces had captured Gaddafi cowering in a sewage pipe, and he subsequently died in their custody.  This story was betrayed by the fact that NATO themselves admitted to bombing the revolutionary leader’s convoy as it was travelling in the Sirte area on that morning.  U.S. officials confirmed that an American Predator drone fired on the convoy, as did French aircraft.  In reality it is not justifiable to claim a ‘rebel’ victory here, when NATO bombs were instrumental to Gaddafi’s capture, as they were to the entire war.

Knowing that NATO had targeted Gaddafi’s convoy, and knowing that the British SAS had been hunting him for weeks, a logical person will deduce that NATO would have been tracking the convoy during and after the strike, and an SAS squad would have been rapidly sent to the location.

This theory is bolstered by a recent report from the well-connected Israeli intelligence outfit DEBKAfile.  In a report titled ‘After helping to kill Qaddafi, NATO prepares to end Libya mission‘, DEBKA reveals that its military sources indicate Gaddafi was captured and shot by NATO special forces:

DEBKAfile’s military sources report mounting indications that a NATO special forces unit – although of which nation is unknown – located and captured Muammar Qaddafi in the Sirte area.

They aparently shot him in both legs to prevent his escape and informed a Misrata militia of his whereabouts, knowing they would kill him in view of the town’s long reckoning with the former Libyan ruler. NATO was guided by two considerations: First not to comprise the presence of ground troops in the battle zone in breach of the alliance’s UN mandate; and second, to give the Libyan rebels a psychological victory – especially after they failed in battle to capture Qaddafi’s home town of Sirte.”

Qatari special forces are known to have a long relationship with the British SAS, dating back 20 years.  Qatari special forces were involved in Operation Mermaid Dawn.  NATO’s inclusion of Qatari forces allows the occupying forces to: a) minimise the chance of Western casualties and the resulting political fallout, and b) more easily impersonate indigenous Arab Libyan fighters.

In light of the known SAS involvement in coordinating airstrikes and hunting Gaddafi – in addition to DEBKA’s report – it is highly likely that British special forces (or Qataris led by the British) captured Gaddafi and handed him over to the occupation ‘rebel’ forces after callously shooting him to prevent escape and ensure his eventual death.

The media consensus however paints an entirely false picture of a ‘rebel’ victory.  These occupation stooges have been unable to hold a single city without NATO’s bombs, bullets and hellfire missiles first razing everything in their path.  Every single decisive event in the war on Libya has been achieved by NATO while being fraudulently attributed to this group of witless, power-hungry rats.  Even the ultimate ‘victory’ of capturing and murdering Muammar Gaddafi, was handed to them on a plate by foreign forces – the real face behind the so-called Libyan ‘uprising’.


Posted by on October 23, 2011 in Uncategorized