Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 00:05:47 +0200
Libya Coming Full Circle. When A Deemed “Conspiracy Theory” Becomes Reality
Libya as a Functioning, Cohesive State has virtually Ceased to Exist
By <http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/sam-muhho> Sam Muhho
Global Research, June 18, 2014
In the duration of the “revolutionary frenzy” that categorized western media
coverage of the Libyan Civil War in 2011, public audiences were captivated
with both tales of rebels aspiring for “democracy” and with complimenting
stories of unabated brutality by Gaddafi forces.
Without any serious mainstream criticism, an imperialist mythology centered
on the interventionist doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect” was
cemented in public consciousness with even usually non-mainstream and
“anti-imperialist” figures such as Juan Cole
<http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html>
deliberately misrepresenting the situation in Libya. In Cole’s perspective,
no reference to armed militants from the start of the conflict or the
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/west-point-terror-center-confirms
-al.html> role of extremismand
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/05/libya-at-any-cost.html> western
premeditation found its way into the narrative and he predicted a simplistic
narrative where the overthrow of Gaddafi would lead the region into an era
of unity, prosperity and freedom.
Libya Today
How is Libya today? If one denied the existence of hell, they need not look
further than Libya to observe a case of hell on Earth. Libya as a
functioning, cohesive state has virtually ceased to exist, having been
replaced by a myriad of conflicting factions divided on tribal and religious
lines. While mainstream media tends to obscure the identity of these
factions and their connection to western imperialists, Eric Draitser in his
analysis, “
<http://journal-neo.org/2014/06/09/benghazi-the-cia-and-the-war-in-libya/>
Benghazi, the CIA, and the War in Libya” shows the beyond the fractious
infighting, both primary factions engaging in direct combat have been
beneficiaries of the NATO imperialist powers in their systematic aggression
against the Libyan state.
Battling over the strategic commercial area around Benghazi is the Islamist
Ansar al-Sharia led by Ahmed Abu Khattala fighting against the former leader
of the CIA-backed Libyan National Salvation Front and current renegade
Libyan Army General Khalifa Hifter. The conflict is more complex than merely
conflagration between these two main parties and is interspersed with
competing militias and gangs. As noted by Draitser, the February 17th
Marytrs Brigade, seen as one of the most capable militias in the region, has
received training by western forces and is seen as a reliable security
force, but is recognized by its own members as having anti-American
sentiments.
The Islamist Ansar al-Sharia has been implicated in the September 11, 2012
attack on the American consulate in Benghazi with its leader Khattala
admitting being present but denying leading the attack. With no end in sight
for the war, it appears that the primary gainers in the conflict are the
western
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government
.html> corporate-financier interests who orchestrated the overthrow of
Gaddafi because he was seen an impediment to accomplishing their
geopolitical aims.
Now they Admit the Truth.
On April 24th, 2014, Washington’s Blog published a priceless and concise
piece titled “
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/confirmed-u-s-armed-al-qaeda-topple-
gaddaffi.html> Confirmed: U.S. Armed Al Qaeda to Topple Libya’s Gaddaffi”
with a very astonishing admission by “top military officers, CIA insiders
and think-tankers” confirming the obvious truth that “conspiracy theorists”
have been saying since 2011. The US backed Al Qaeda in Libya and that the
Benghazi attack was a byproduct of this. Washington’s Blog notes that in
2012, it documented that:
The U.S. supported opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/840704
7/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html>
largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.
According to a 2007
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/111001074/West-Point-CTC-s-Al-Qa-ida-s-Foreign-Fi
ghters-in-Iraq> report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center,
the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters – and
bases for sending Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq – prior to the overthrow of
Gaddafi:
The Hindustan Times
<http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Americas/Al-Qaeda-present-among-Li
byan-rebels/Article1-679511.aspx> reported last year:
“There is no question that al Qaeda’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition,” Bruce Riedel, former CIA
officer and a leading expert on terrorism, told Hindustan Times.
It has always been Qaddafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.
Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya. Indeed, Al Qaeda flags were
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/did-we-overthrow-gaddafi-just-to-rep
lace-him-with-al-qaeda.html> flown over the Benghazi courthouse once Gaddafi
was toppled.
What was once deemed conspiracy theory became confirmed reality when the
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War
-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias
-leading-Benghazi-attack.html> Daily Mail reportedas Washington’s Blog
subsequently pointed out:
A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and
think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of
the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been
prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias
throughout Libya a year earlier.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in
Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda
militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former
CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion
United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by
our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez
claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were
coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was
part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United
States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they
were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an
interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a
policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to
topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West
actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’
‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who
participated in the commission’s research.
While Wayne Simmons’ characterization of such actions by the globalist,
imperialist establishment in the United States as “treason” is correct in
the sense that it was a clear violation of not only the Constitution, but
the public interest of America, there is a rather disingenuous factor
involved when some people, especially on the Neo-Con right, attempt to play
the “treason card.”
To perpetuate the false political theater of left-wing vs. right-wing
designed to capitalize on myopic divisions, some Neo-Conservatives involved
with the same
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government
.html> corporate agenda as Obama have taken the time to
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-muslim-ploy-to-cover-up-yea
rs-of.html> jettison responsibility of U.S. financing of terrorism in Syria
and Libya on “Obama the crypto-Muslim.” This charge is found among the likes
of Frank Gaffney who would have you delve into partisan-driven Islamophobia
blaming everything on the “liberals”, Obama’s “foreign policy”, and
treasonous elements within the US government. This, of-course, is done
without insight into how such figures are merely cogs within a bipartisan
machine of globalist aggression.
Interestingly, while the Neo-Con right attempts to distance itself from the
Libyan war, it was one of the most vocal factions, acting in concert with
the Obama administration, in promoting greater US involvement in the war as
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-muslim-ploy-to-cover-up-yea
rs-of.html> Tony Cartalucci points out in this article. He notes that, “In
an
<http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/foreign-policy-experts-urge-house-rep
ublicans-support-us-operations-libya> open letter to House Republicans, the
Foreign Policy Initiative which consists of Gaffney’s fellow
Neo-Conservatives, stated in regards to Libya (emphasis added)”:
We share the concerns of many in Congress about the way in which the Obama
administration has conducted and justified this operation. The problem is
not that the President has done too much, however, but that he has done too
little to achieve the goal of removing Qaddafi from power. The United
States should be leading in this effort, not trailing behind our allies. We
should be doing more to help the Libyan opposition, which deserves our
support. We should not be allowing ourselves to be held hostage to U.N.
Security Council resolutions and irresolute allies.
Clearly the Neo-Con agenda has been
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/globalists-coming-full-circle.htm
l> coming full circle since the first Gulf War in the 1990s. The US
“gun-walking” to jihadis in Syria from Libya, noted by the
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/the-real-reason-behind-beng
hazigate/> Washington Times and New York Times (albeit with partisan spin
and distortion), was actually planned under Bush in 2007 as noted by Seymour
Hersh in “
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?currentPa
ge=all> The Redirection.” It has continued under Obama, influenced by
Council on Foreign Relations figures throughout both administrations from
Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton. Consider the following points from “The
Redirection”:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration
has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In
Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government,
which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken
Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also
taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A
by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist
groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America
and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
To dispel critics’ notions that this is passive, uncontrollable, and
indirect support, consider:
[Saudi Arabia's] Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that
“they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their
message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s
not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them
at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to
work with Hezbollah and Iran.
Neo-Conservative writer Gary Gambill would ride on this wave of terrorist
aggression and pen an article for the Neo-Con “Middle East Forum” titled “
<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/23/two_cheers_for_syrian_isla
mists#.UDbbIXgLrR9.twitter> Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists.” As noted in
the analysis of the piece by Tony Cartalucci titled
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/08/globalist-rag-gives-two-cheers-fo
r.html> “Globalist Rag Gives ‘Two Cheers’ for Terrorism”, one can see how
terrorism is a useful piece of capital of globalist imperialism that is easy
to hide in the sight of inattentive masses with easy ploys of political spin
and plausible deniability.
The Syria Connection
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/08/libyan-terrorists-are-invading-sy
ria.html> Libyan terrorists are invading Syria. They have been doing so
since the influx of jihadis began, enabled by outside powers. These are not
simply rogue networks operating independently but rather include
state-sponsorship, especially of
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/10/al-qaeda-terrorists-pass-us-speci
al.html> NATO-member Turkey and NATO’s criminal proxy government in Tripoli,
Libya. We are told by the media that the regime in Tripoli under the auspice
of the National Transitional Council, and populated with puppets like
Mustapha Abdul Jalil, is a moderate regime distinct from the “marginal
Islamist forces.” However, even in mainstream accounts, one can note that
these “official, moderate” groups are involved with funding terrorism
themselves as many geopolitical analysts have noted.
Tony Cartalucci notes that, “In November 2011, the Telegraph in their
article, “
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/891905
7/Leading-Libyan-Islamist-met-Free-Syrian-Army-opposition-group.html>
Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group,” would
report”:
Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former
leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army
leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official
working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president)
sent him there.”
Another Telegraph article, “
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8917265/Libyas-n
ew-rulers-offer-weapons-to-Syrian-rebels.html> Libya’s new rulers offer
weapons to Syrian rebels,” :
Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya’s new authorities on Friday,
aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President
Bashar al-Assad’s regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials,
the Syrians requested “assistance” from the Libyan representatives and were
offered arms, and potentially volunteers.
“There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters
to Syria,” said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “There
is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see.”
Readers would be wise to note the heavy saturation of Al Qaeda terrorists in
eastern Libya,
<http://tarpley.net/2011/04/03/al-qaeda-pawns-of-cia-insurrection-from-libya
-to-yemen/> particularly in Darna, and whose historical role has been
documented by the
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/west-point-terror-center-confirms
-al.html> US’s West Point Combating Terrorism Center. It is inconceivable
that these forces would not have played a central role of the uprising.
According to a October 2011
<http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1025/Sharia-law-to-be
-main-source-of-legislation-in-Libya> Christian Science Monitor, Mustapha
Abdul Jalil has given a “nod to Islamist fighters” who fought against
Gaddafi by courting Islamist interests and in permitting polygamy, formerly
banned under Gaddafi. He was seen as catering to Islamists by establishing
Sharia law as the foundation of Libya’s future government; under Gaddafi,
Shariah had also played a role with limited, moderate interpretation and in
context to Gaddafi’s own political ideology. There are fears are that
Islamists, repressed under Gaddafi, would make a forceful resurgence, as
they have. The article states:
Gadhafi saw militants as a threat to his authoritarian rule…Islamists are a
small minority among Libya’s population of 6 million, but they were by far
the largest and most powerful faction among the fighters who battled
pro-Gadhafi forces in eight months of civil war. Abdul-Jalil, analysts said,
was likely to have given his address an Islamic slant as a nod to those
fighters who were united with other factions by the common goal of ousting
Gadhafi but now are jockeying to fill the political vacuum left by his
ouster.
Furthermore:
“It may not be quite be the country that
<http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/NATO> NATO thought it was fighting for
(when Sharia is implemented in Libya),” said David Hartwell, a British-based
Libya expert. “But the huge amounts of oil and gas in Libya will make
everyone learn how to reconcile themselves with the new Libya.”
And just for the record, I don’t equate every single Libyan fighter on the
ground as Islamist extremists and I believe there were individuals who felt
disenfranchised and had legitimate grievances. As in any society, you have
an opposition and in the case of Libya, a
<http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:_at_field%28DOCID+ly0114%29>
Library of Congress page that concedes meddlesome US support for opposition
groups, notes that the opposition is, “Divided ideologically into such
groups as <http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/libya/ly_glos.html#Baathist>
Baathists (see Glossary), socialists, monarchists, liberals, and Islamic
fundamentalists…” Islamists, nonetheless, were one of the most critical
driving forces of the conflict on the ground. Gaddafi also had popular
support on the ground, especially in the west and among Black Libyans who
Gaddafi had protected. One must not neglect the role of
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/au-libya-rebels-killing-black-workers/> racist
elements among the opposition fighters targeting blacks under false
accusations of them being “mercenaries” as well as the accomplishment of the
Gaddafi regime in bringing Libya from one of the poorest countries in the
world to a nation that ranked as “high” in the UNDP’s Human Development
Index
Full Circle of Destruction
The globalist agenda wanted Libya out of the equation for its role in
opposing the global financial order envisioned by Wall Street, namely in
challenging the petrodollar by proposing a “gold dinar” currency for Africa
with which to sell oil. This is explained in “
<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/01/are-the-middle-east-wars-really-abou
t-forcing-the-world-into-dollars-and-private-central-banking.html> Are The
Middle East Wars Really About Forcing the World Into Dollars and Private
Central Banking?” which notes the role of banking interests in orchestrating
global aggression. Not to be missed is the “
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8> Wolfowitz Doctrine” proposed in
the 1990s upon which Libya was a nation slated for regime change.
In seeking to reorient the Middle East according to its interests, the
western powers have, in essence, attempted to alter the very forces of
nature and reaped undue consequences. Libya is now a failed-state and a
terrorist safe-haven. Regardless of one’s opinion of Gaddafi and his
short-comings, no one can seriously argue that Libya is better off today.
Innocent people continue to die in order to fulfill the hegemonic ambitions
of the western elite. This will continue unless we collectively rise up,
boycott, and replace these interests.
<http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/real-revolution.html> That is
real revolution.
Sam Muhho is a student of history at Florida State College (FSCJ) and an
advocate of anti-imperialism and anti-globalism. He can be reached at
<mailto:smuhho1_at_gmail.com> smuhho1_at_gmail.com.
Flag_of_Libya.svg
(image/png attachment: image001.png)