Saturday, 15 November 2014

How Many Times Has Russia Invaded Ukraine? Let’s Add Them Up

Enough already with the lies
Fri, Nov 14 | 

How Many Times Has Russia Invaded Ukraine? Let’s Add Them Up              
  • We found 36 invasions!
  • From Sarah Palin to John McCain, from the NYT to the BBC, - Google delivers over 1.3 million results.
  • Its so old and worn out, people are tuning out to the "boy who cried wolf."
This article originally appeared at Redpilltimes

As we approach the one year anniversary of the “Euromaidan” protests, and eventual coup of President Yanukovych, one meme has dominated the Ukraine headlines ever since, the ‘Russian military invasion of Ukraine.’

Last week Ukraine’s Military spokesman Col. Andriy Lysenko, accused Russia of sending tanks, troops and lot’s of other stuff across the border into Ukraine, as reported by the NY Times:
Speaking in Kiev, the capital, Col. Andriy Lysenko, a Ukrainian military spokesman, said 32 tanks, 16 howitzers and 30 trucks hauling ammunition and fighters had crossed into the Luhansk region from Russia. 
He presented no clear evidence to support the claim, nor did the wealth of social media outlets in eastern Ukraine display any footage of a tank convoy. The Kiev government frequently made such claims that could not be substantiated during intense fighting between Ukrainian government troops and separatists earlier this year.
Neither NATO nor the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which is monitoring a cease-fire, could confirm the report.
Zerohedge’s article on the newest Russian invasion into Ukraine was aptly titled, “The Ukraine Who Cried Wolf: Kiev Reports 32 Russian Tanks Cross Border, Market Completely Ignores.”

So how many times has Ukraine, NATO, Jen Psaki and the main stream media “cried wolf?” Let’s find out.

First off, doing a simple Google search for just the term, “Russian invasion of Ukraine” yields 1,350,000 results. Lots of Russian invasion stories are floating about online.
Let’s get into just how many instances of ‘Russian invasions’ or near ‘Russian invasions’ have been reported this past year, starting from early days of the coup until Col. Andriy Lysenko latest‘invasion’ announcement.

It’s a long, long list…

Thats a lot of invasions, near invasions, possible invasions and fear of invasions going on…and that’s just like 3 pages of Google results.

With all that Russian troop movement west, one would think they would have captured London by now.

Now the truth as spoken by CounterPunch, in a post titled, “What Russian Invasion?”
The agreement to stop the fighting was reached at negotiations organized and led by Russia and held in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. It was reached at the same time that the US was pressing leaders of the NATO countries, at a meeting in Wales, to boost their military spending and to set up more offensive military positions in countries bordering Russia. 
The one thing that did not happen as a result of the cease-fire, and that in fact never even got addressed in the Minsk talks, was a withdrawal of Russian troops from eastern Ukraine. 
There was no withdrawal or even mention of those troops — said to number about 1000 by the US and the Kiev government — because there never were Russian troops invading Ukraine.
Usually when someone cries wolf it’s because they want something, likely a scam or some kind of swindling going down.

In this case Ukraine is crying wolf in order to have EU and US taxpayers front the bill for their expenses…gas, oil, oligarch party funds, Hunter Biden – Igor Kolomoisky benders, etc…
For the main stream media, well they are in bed with the MIC (military industrial complex), so their payoff is more business manufacturing war.

The US and EU leaders who support the invasion meme are also in the pockets of the MIC, so it’s good business…and manufacturing fear is also what helps keep them in office.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

NO ONE IS WILLING TO OWN UP TO THE RECENT IDF DEFEAT IN GAZA

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2014 AT 8:16PM GILAD ATZMON
Reported by Gilad Atzmon
“Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”
John F. Kennedy
No one in Israel is willing to take responsibility for IDF’s recent military blunder in Gaza. Israel was caught unprepared for a war and its elite ground forces were minced by highly motivated and well prepared Hamas combatants. In the last few days, IDF and the Shin Bet (Israel’s Security Agency) openly blamed each other for the fiasco.
Ynet reports today:
According to a report by Israel’s Channel 2 television, Shin Bet officials claimed that they had raised concerns with the political echelons as far back as January, regarding early signs attesting to Hamas preparations for a conflict with Israel. IDF chief Benny Gantz reacted furiously to the report, writing to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Shin Bet officials who had made the claims had “breached every moral and ethical standard.”
The Shin Bet officials said that their reports had piled up, ignored. In April, Shin Bet claimed that its Chief, Yoram Cohen, presented Jerusalem with warnings of a wide-ranging strategic terror attack Hamas was planning to execute within the next few months, sending its militants through a tunnel from Gaza into the Israeli border community of Kerem Shalom…
But IDF sources claimed no warning of a potential conflict had been received from Shin Bet, either in the winter or spring of 2014. Defense officials said the clash erupted between Cohen and Military Intelligence director Aviv Kochavi during a cabinet meeting at the close of Operation Protective Edge in late August.
On Wednesday afternoon Prime Minister Netanyahu hosted Gantts and Cohen in his office. Netanyahu instructed the two men to refrain from publicly debating matters that should be resolved between security forces. 
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

BERLIN VS. JERUSALEM

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2014 AT 8:26AM GILAD ATZMON

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Iraqis prove that ISIS is a paper tiger


Iraqi militiamen walk after a conference on fighting ISIS attended by Iraq's tribal leaders, the army and members of the government, at the al-Asad air base, in Iraq's Anbar province, on November 11, 2014. AFP/Ahmed al-Rubaye
Published Friday, November 14, 2014
A-Akhbar
The Iraqis have done it at last. It took some touches at the level of organization and tactic with the guidance of General Qassem Soleimani to say that ISIS is not invincible, that it is a bogeyman that was inflated deliberately, and that its victory is not inevitable. To understand this, skeptics only have to ask about the ‘epic’ battle in Jaref al-Sakher [Rocky Cliff], which Iraqis now like to call Jaref al-Nasr [Victory Cliff].
ISIS is not a supernatural entity. It is an organization with formidable combat capabilities, yes, and it has thousands of fighters willing to die. But it is not invincible. The bogeyman that it has become, deliberately to make it into an icon of terror that cannot be broken, has indeed been shattered recently. ISIS has been exposed as a paper tiger, provided that it is taken on seriously.
This was proven around 3 weeks ago in Iraq, in the region of Jaref al-Sakher. Of course, the US and Western media will not bother to highlight what happened there, nor will the oil-funded Arab media. However, according to information obtained by Al-Akhbar from sources on the ground there, it is possible to say without hesitation that the ‘epic’ battle that took place there is equivalent in importance to what happened in the Qusair region of Syria, more than a year ago, if not more important.
What happened in Jaref al-Sakher was a historical achievement for the men of the Popular Mobilization group that consists of multiple military factions, which had previously fought the US occupation. They include: Hezbollah Brigades, League of the Righteous, the Badr Organization, and Saraya al-Salam (of the Sadrist movement), in addition to other factions. General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, was the undisputed “hero” of the battle. There have been pictures spreading of the shadowy man, who has been coming out into the light in recent months, and is said to be from Jaref al-Sakher. The man’s role in helping Iraqi forces logistically and even in combat is no longer a secret.
This force – as has indeed happened – can crush the ISIS hordes, even forcing the ISIS leadership there to retreat in humiliation. This is in line with what Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had told Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi last month: “We believe that Iraq, its government and people, especially the youth of this country, have the ability to defeat the terrorists and restore security. There is no need for foreign presence in the country.”
What does Jaref al-Sakher represent and what happened there exactly?
That region, in the province of Babel, is dominated by geographical features that include palm forests and artificial lakes. For ISIS it was a staging ground for an offensive into the Shia south. Jaref al-Sakher is located halfway between Baghdad and Karbala, slightly closer to the second. It is also a southern extension of the Fallujah province, which is one of the strongholds of al-Qaeda and now ISIS in Iraq. This is how that region came to be called the triangle of death after 2003, as it was the source of most car bombs into Baghdad.
In 2010, it became known as the capital of ISIS’ ‘southern state.’ From there, suicide bombers set off to attack civilian communities in Musayyib, Alexandria, Hilla, Karbala, and Baghdad. After the fall of Mosul, ISIS considered Jaref al-Sakher “a dagger in the side of the Shia,” from which they would be defeated in Baghdad, Babel, Karbala, and Najaf, all the way to Basra.
For this reason, ISIS strengthened its military presence in the villages and rural areas of Jaref al-Sakher, and in March, even began moving on the center of Musayyib district center and reached an area several hundred meters from the city's famed roundabout, which is considered the gateway to Karbala in the south. At the time, organized Shia militias repelled ISIS and limited its advance.
Attacks on the pilgrims to the holy Shia city along the road are innumerable. Hundreds of innocents were killed by bombs, machine guns, beheadings, and crucifixions. Many massacres were engraved into the memory of the Iraqis from that region, and yet, received little coverage in the media. On one occasion, throngs of ISIS fighters crossed the road in question and the Musayyib Bridge, forcing the convoys of pilgrims and other travellers to divert their course to Jaref al-Sakher. There, according to reliable sources, indescribable crimes took place against the elderly, children, women, and men. Some women were raped, others were taken salves, and many of them were killed a while after.
Historically, under Saddam Hussein, Jaref al-Sakher was known as a safe haven for criminal gangs, including narcotics dealers and killers. Even Saddam avoided the region, and never raided it. Before Jaref was liberated, according to sources, the US army told the Iraqi side that it would not be able to carry out that offensive. For the Americans, “the Jaref al-Sakher problem was difficult to resolve militarily, given its terrain covered by old palm trees, and the presence of a large ISIS force there.”
In other words, what the Americans could not do, or what the Americans feared to do, was achieved by the forces of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization backed by the Qods Force led by General Soleimani. Soleimani reportedly was involved closely in leading the battle, as happened in other Iraqi regions in the past.
Jaref al-Sakher has an area of approx. 25 km by 4 km. The assault began from three axes, with the area being showered by gunfire to soften the targets for nearly half an hour. The attacking force then advanced from three directions: from the village of Fadiliyah, to isolate the region from Amiriyat al-Fallujah in the north, with the advance from this axis being led by the League of the Righteous. From the south, the Hezbollah Brigades advanced directly from the village of al-Bahbahan. From the center, the remainder of the force advanced to take a number of villages controlled by ISIS including Abed Ways and al-Farisiyah.
The battle began. Close range and even face-to-face combat ensued with ISIS. The fighters of the Popular Mobilization saw firsthand how ISIS fighters could be killed, and how those who survived struggled to flee the area. In the beginning, ISIS terrorists defended their lines using snipers and explosive devices they had planted in large quantities between the palm trees. The line collapsed however, after the concentrated attack by the fighters of the Iraqi factions (who incidentally are not very well trained, but are indeed well organized and followed a tight plan).
Within hours, the attacking force entered the last areas controlled by ISIS, whose fighters were surprised to see they were surrounded and their supply lines cut off. All ISIS’s attempts to hold its ground were futile. In less than 48 hours, the area, which the US and Iraqi armies could not retake throughout the better part of a decade, was liberated.
Sources that closely followed the battle, quoting security officials, say that Baghdadi, after receiving news from the ground about the rout suffered by his forces, gave his orders to prevent anyone from his group to be captured. Dozens of bodies were thus burned or dumped in the river, the sources say. Baghdadi’s message reached his fighters as they were fleeing from Jaref al-Sakher, at the same time the factions of the attacking force coming from multiple directions merged in al-Shahban and al-Hujeir. ISIS fighters left behind 4 APCs and 3 Humvees, and had to retreat on foot or in other words: run.
Though the US mobilized an international alliance against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it could not liberate a single village in Iraq or Syria. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization units are taking the initiative on the ground in multiple regions of Iraq, as happened in Amirli before Jaref al-Sakher, and is happening today in Sad al-Azim, Jalawla, and al-Saadia.
Sources say that the lessons to be learned from all these battles is that morale among the anti-ISIS factions is very high, after the psychological barrier this radical jihadi group built through massacres against its opponents was broken. Sources say the coming days will reveal more about this.
After the epic battle in Jaref al-Sakher, and Soleimani’s photos from the field smiling, a fighter from the Iraqi factions sent a message to his friend to reassure him about the situation. He wrote, “We have leveled the rocks, Qassem.”
(Al-Akhbar)
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Related
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Why is the Palestinian Authority waging a war on the Union of Public Employees?

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas (C) sits next to Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah (L) and Tayeb Abdul Rahim, general secretary of the Palestinian Authority's executive committee, during a ceremony to mark the tenth anniversary of the death of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in the West Bank city of Ramallah on November 11, 2014. AFP/Abbas Momani
By: Amon al-Sheikh
Published Friday, November 14, 2014
The release of the two trade unionists who were detained by the Ramallah government last week does not mean the issue of the Union of Public Employees has been resolved. There is still a presidential decree stating that the union is an illegal entity even though, for years, it was a legitimate representative that reached agreements with successive governments. Suddenly, however, a war was declared on the union when its role of putting pressure on Hamas’ previous government ended and it started crossing the Palestinian Authority’s red lines.
Ramallah – Overnight, the Union of Public Employees in the occupied West Bank became “an illegitimate entity” in the eyes of the Palestinian Authority (PA), even though, successive governments, headed by Salam Fayyad and Rami al-Hamdallah, met and reached several agreements with the union. The Hamdallah government (unity government) waged an “internal war” against the union backed by presidential decrees a week ago. Now, even membership in the union can be cause for an arrest.
The president of the Union of Public Employees, Bassam Zakarneh, and the vice president, Moin Ansawi, were detained in the Baituniya Central Prison for a week before they were released yesterday evening. Furthermore, the preventive security force continues to detain union member Mohammed Hussein (until the writing of this report). At the same time, the cabinet decided to form a legal committee to prepare, once again, a draft law for unions, including the Union of Public Employees. Why did this union – supposedly established in Ramallah to harass Hamas during the tenth government (unity government) – become the mortal enemy of PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Rami al-Hamdallah? 



Yesterday morning, a presidential decree was issued ordering the arrest of the secretary general of the Palestinian legislative council, Ibrahim Khreisheh, who was attacking the prime minister and his policies at a sit-in inside the Council. This turned the case into more than a public opinion issue, especially in light of the decrees issued by Abbas himself. Later on, parliamentary blocs in the Legislative Council held a meeting to protest summoning Khreisheh and the continued detention of the trade unionists. 
MP and member of the political bureau of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Khalida Jarrar, said that Khreisheh remained inside the Legislative Council with sit-in participants, adding that members of the police force went to his house as soon as the summons was issued “then came to the Legislative Council but did not enter the building.” Jarrar told Al-Akhbar that arresting trade unionists and summoning Khreisheh “violates freedom of opinion, expression and union organizing.”
The roots of the case go back to the fact that the Magistrate Court in Ramallah dismissed early this month a lawsuit filed by the former minister of labor, Ahmed Majdalani, against the president of the Union of Public Employees and member of Fatah’s Revolutionary Council, Zakarneh. The court dismissed the case on the grounds that it did not meet the legal requirements. During his trial, Zakarneh, on more than one occasion, called on workers to strike.
It was later rumored that Majdalani pressured Abbas to take action against the union. Sure enough, successive summons were issued and Zakarneh and Ansawi were arrested. This moved the confrontation to the cabinet’s court because seven unions (teachers, doctors, employees in public universities and colleges, pharmacists, dentists, public employees and health professions) issued a statement on October 30 rejecting the government’s decision not to pay employees for the days they went on strike.
Right away, the PA presidency issued a decree stating that the Union of Public Employees is not a legal entity and was not established with any legal basis, “therefore, legally speaking, it does not exist.” The statement said that “the Palestinian president adopted this decree and issued instructions to implement it. Failure to abide by it led to an ongoing state of disorder, violation of the law, obstruction of state administrations and harm to the interests of the nation and the people.”
As soon as the head of the Federation of Health and Nursing Unions, Osama al-Najjar, held an urgent meeting to discuss developments of Zakarneh and Ansawi’s detention, he was arrested, but was released less than 24 hours later. While Zakarneh and Ansawi chose to turn themselves to the police last Thursday, unconfirmed information indicates that Zakarneh was physically assaulted. Besides, the Preventive Security Force arrested Mohammed Hussein two days later without an arrest warrant or prior notification, as Amjad Hussein told Al-Akhbar. Amjad said that a large number of union members were summoned and later released except for his brother. He said they contacted leaders in Fatah but they all said that his brother is “arrested at the president’s order” and that they cannot intervene.
The lawyer for the Union of Public Employees, Mutasim al-Awawda, said that the charges made against Zakarneh include: “Joining illegal associations, professional neglect, and refusal to implement court orders.” He added that Zakarneh “did not answer these charges.” In an interview with Al-Akhbar, Awawda defended his client saying that the papers and documents they have prove that the union existed since 2005, represented the public service sector in and outside Palestine and “has personal correspondence with the president and all the official and unofficial departments, which confirm its legitimacy. However, the public prosecution rejected all of that.” He pointed out that they are waiting for the decision of the High Court of Justice, which will determine if the union is a legitimate body or not “because the presidency does not have the authority to make that decision.” 
Several Palestinian human rights organizations issued statements condemning the decision deeming the union an illegitimate entity and the arrest of the three trade unionists, especially after the deterioration in the health of the union’s president and vice president. Ashraf Abu Hayyeh, an attorney from al-Haq organization, said that even though the arrest of the three trade unionists was done in a legal way,
“the initial arrest procedures were illegal and were not based on a court-issued subpoena.”
Abu Hayyeh told Al-Akhbar that Palestine recently joined international agreements, specifically, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which came into effect and guarantees the right to strike and organize unions. “This gives Zakarneh and Ansawi more legitimacy,” said Abu Hayyeh. 

Political Science professor at al-Najah University, Abdel Sattar Qassem, said that the detention of the trade unionists is an “internal Fatah problem.” He added:
“the unions were operating in a normal way but when they started to criticize the performance of the PA, especially its spending, disagreements between them intensified and the decision deeming the union illegitimate was issued.”

“The unions were operating in a normal way but when they started to criticize the performance of the PA, especially its spending, disagreements between them intensified and the decision deeming the union illegitimate was issued.” – Abdel Sattar Qassem, political science professor


Qassem told Al-Akhbar that the PA president behaves “erratically” because
“there is no clear law that governs the relationship between the people and the institutions. When Zakarneh criticized the PA, he was arrested and when Khreisheh criticized Zakarneh’s detention,
he was summoned too.
 At the same time, Qassem wondered:
“How come these unions were legal when they criticized the Hamas government but became illegal when they criticized the PA?” In any case, he believes the issue will somehow get resolved without anyone knowing how, “like a lot of other issues such as the corruption scandals in the PA.”
The Palestinian cabinet decided in its weekly session to form a legal committee to prepare a draft law for trade unions. One day after that decision was taken, the representative of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine in the Union of Public Employees, Zahi Sawalmeh, was arrested, prompting the Front to call for his release.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, 14 November 2014

THE LESSONS OF LIBYA: A WAR THAT BROUGHT TOTAL SOCIETAL COLLAPSE



by Dan Glazebrook, CounterPunch

Three years ago, in late October 2011, the world witnessed the final defeat of the Libyan Jamahiriya – the name by which the Libyan state was known until overthrown in 2011, meaning literally the ‘state of the masses’ – in the face of a massive onslaught from N ATO, its regional allies and local collaborators.

It took seven months for the world’s most powerful military alliance – with a combined military spending of just under $1 trillion per year – to fully destroy the Jamahiriya (a state with a population the size of Wales) and it took a joint British-French-Qatari special forces operation to finally win control of the capital. In total, 10,000 strike sorties were rained down on Libya, tens of thousands killed and injured, and the country left a battleground for hundreds of warring factions, armed to the teeth with weapons either looted from state armories or provided directly by NATO and its allies. Britain, France and the US had led a war which had effectively transformed a peaceful, prosperous African country into a textbook example of a ‘failed state’.

Yet the common image of Libya in the months and years leading up to the invasion was that of a state that had ‘come in from the cold’ and was now enjoying friendly relations with the West. Tony Blair’s famous embrace of Gaddafi in his tent in 2004 was said to have ushered in a new period of ‘rapprochement’, with Western companies rushing to do business in the oil-rich African state, and Gaddafi’s abandonment of a nuclear deterrent apparently indicative of the new spirit of trust and co-operation between Libya and the West.

Yet this image was largely a myth.

Yes, sanctions were lifted and diplomatic relations restored; but this did not represent any newfound trust and friendship. Gaddafi himself never changed his opinion that the forces of old and new colonialism remained bitter enemies of African unity and independence, and for their part, the US, Britain and France continued to resent the assertiveness and independence of Libyan foreign policy under Gaddafi’s leadership. 

 The African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) – an elite US think tank comprising congressmen, military officers and energy industry lobbyists – warned in 2002 that the influence of “adversaries such as Libya” would only grow unless the US significantly increased its military presence on the continent. Yet, despite ‘rapprochement’, Gaddafi remained a staunch opponent of such a presence, as noted with anxiety in frequent diplomatic cables from the US Embassy. One, for example, from 2009, noted that “the presence of non-African military elements in Libya or elsewhere on the continent” was almost a “neuralgic issue” for Gaddafi. Another cable from 2008 quoted a pro-Western Libyan government official as saying that
“there will be no real economic or political reform in Libya until al-Gaddafi passes from the political scene” which would “not happen while Gaddafi is alive”;
hardly the image of a man bending to the will of the West. Gaddafi had clearly not been moved by the flattery towards Libya (or “appropriate deference” as another US Embassy cable put it) that was much in evidence during the period of ‘rapprochement’. Indeed, at the Arab League summit in March 2008, he warned the assembled heads of state that, following the execution of Saddam Hussein, a former “close friend” of the US,
“in the future, it’s going to be your turn too…Even you, the friends of America – no, I will say we, we the friends of America – America may approve of our hanging one day”.
So much for a new period of trust and co-operation. Whilst business deals were being signed, Gaddafi remained implacably opposed to the US and European military presence on the continent (as well as leading the fight to reduce their economic presence) and understood well that this might cost him his life. The US too understood this, and despite their outward flattery, behind the scenes were worried and resentful.

Given what we know now about what has taken place in Libya – both during the so-called ‘rapprochement’ between 2004 and 2011, and from 2011 onwards – it is appropriate to take stock of this experience in order to see what lessons can be learned about the West’s approach to its relations with other countries of the global South.

Lesson one: Beware rapprochement

As I have shown, the so-called rapprochement period was anything but. The US continued to remain hostile to the independent spirit of Libya – as evidenced most obviously by Gaddafi’s opposition to the presence of US and European military forces in Africa – and it now seems that they and the British used this period to prepare the ground for the war that eventually took place in 2011.

The US, for example, used their newfound access to Libyan officials to cultivate relations with those who would become their key local allies during the war. Leaked diplomatic cables show that pro-Western Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil arranged covert meetings between US and Libyan government officials that bypassed the usual official channels and were therefore ‘under the radar’ of the foreign ministry and central government.
He was also able to speed up the prisoner release programme that led to the release of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group insurgents who ultimately acted as NATO’s shock troops during the 2011 war.

The head of the LIFG – Al Qaeda’s franchise in Libya – eventually became head of Tripoli’s military council whilst Abdul-Jalil himself became head of the ‘Transitional National Council’ that was installed by NATO following the fall of the Jamahiriya.

Another key figure groomed by the US in the years preceding the invasion was Mahmoud Jibril, Head of the National Economic Development Board from 2007, who arranged six US training programmes for Libyan diplomats, many of whom subsequently resigned and sided with the US and Britain once the rebellion and invasion got underway.

Finally, the security and intelligence co-operation that was an element of the ‘rapprochement’ period was used to provide the CIA and MI6 with an unprecedented level of information about both Libyan security forces and opposition elements they could cultivate that would prove invaluable for the conduct of the war.

divide-and-ruin-book-cover
Lesson one therefore is – rapprochement, whilst appearing to be an improvement in relations, may actually be a ‘long game’ to lay the groundwork for naked aggression, by building up intelligence and sounding out possible collaborators, effectively building up a fifth column within the state itself. 

This does not mean it should not be done; it merely means it should be approached with extreme caution and scepticism on the part of states of the global South. It should be understood that, for the West, it is almost certainly a means of waging ‘war by other means’, to paraphrase Clausewitz. This is particularly pertinent to the case of Iran, a current recipient of the poisoned chalice that is ‘warmer relations’ with the West (although this ‘thaw’ may yet be scuppered by a Zionist Congress with no patience for the long game).

Lesson two: For the West, regime change has become a euphemism for total societal destruction

I try to avoid the term ‘regime change’, as it implies a change of one ‘regime’ (usually understood as relatively functional and stable state, albeit a potentially ruthless one) to another. In the recent history of so-called ‘regime changes’ by the West, this has never happened. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, ‘regimes’ have not been replaced by other ‘regimes’, but have rather been destroyed and replaced instead by ‘failed states’, where security is largely non-existent, and no single armed force is strong enough to constitute itself as a ‘state’ in the traditional sense of establishing a monopoly of legitimate violence. This in turn leads to further societal and sectarian divisions emerging, as no group feels protected by the state, and each look instead to a militia who will defend their specific locality, tribe or sect – and thus the problem perpetuates itself, with the insecurity generated by the presence of some powerful militias leading to the creation of others. The result, therefore, is the total breakdown of national society, with not only security, but all government functions becoming increasingly difficult to carry out.

In Libya, not only were various sectarian militia such as LIFG armed and empowered by the US, Britain and France during the war against the Jamahiriya, but their power was then boosted by the new NATO-backed government that followed. In May 2012, Law 38  effectively granted impunity to the militias, making them immune for prosecution not only for crimes committed during the war against the Jamahiriya (such as the well documented slaughter of immigrants and black skinned Libyans), but also for ongoing crimes deemed “essential to the revolution”. 

This law effectively gave a free pass to the militias to murder their real or imagined opponents, building on the boost to the authority that they had already gained two months earlier. In March 2012, many of the militias had been incorporated into a new police force (the Supreme Security Committee) and a new army (the Libya Shield) – not only legitimizing them, but providing them with further material resources with which to continue their violence and their ability to impose their will on the country’s legal – but largely powerless – authorities. Since then, the new militia-run police force has led violent campaigns against the country’s Sufi minority,  destroying several shrines in 2013. 

The same year, they also besieged several government ministries, in a (successful) attempt to force the government to pass a law criminalizing supporters of the former government (a move which will jeopardize security yet further by barring hundreds of thousands of experienced officials from government work). The Libyan Shield, meanwhile, carried out a massacre of 47 peaceful protesters in Tripoli in November last year, and later kidnapped the Prime Minister Ali Zeidan. They are currently involved in a war to oust the newly elected government that has likely cost the lives of thousands since it started this June. This is not ‘regime change’ – what NATO has created is not a new regime, but conditions of permanent civil war.

Many in both Libya and Syria now regret having acted as NATO’s foot soldiers in sowing the seeds of destruction in their own countries. Anyone expecting future ‘regime change’ operations conducted by the West to result in stable democracies – or even stable sharia theocracies for that matter – need look no further than Libya for their answer. Western military power cannot change regimes – it can only destroy societies.
Lesson three – Once Western military powers get their foot in the door, they won’t leave voluntarily until the state has been destroyed

Although the war on Libya was begun under the authorization of UN Security Council resolution (1973), it is important to note that this resolution only authorized the establishment of a no-fly zone and the prevention of Libyan state forces entering Benghazi. This was achieved within days. Everything that NATO did subsequently was beyond the terms of the resolution and therefore illegal; a point that was made vehemently by many who had supported (or at least not opposed) the resolution, including Russia, China, South Africa and even elements within the Arab League.

Regardless of the pretext, once the US and UK are militarily involved in a country on their hit list, they should not be expected to stick to that pretext. For them, UNSC 1973 allowed them to bomb Libya. The precise legal goals became immaterial – once they had been given the green light to bomb, they were not going to stop until the Jamahiriya was destroyed and Gaddafi dead, whatever the original legal reasoning that allowed them to go in.

A useful analogy here is that of a robber going to an old lady’s house posing as a gas man. Once he is inside, he is not going to stick to reading the gas meter – he is going to rob her house.

Obviously, this lesson is most pertinent in Syria, where the US, likely to be soon joined by the UK, are conducting airstrikes ostensibly ‘to destroy ISIS’. Given their avowed long term aim to topple the Syrian state, and their only recent (and arguably half hearted at best), conversion to seeing ISIS fighters as enemies rather than valiant freedom fighting allies, this is to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Lesson four – State destruction cannot be achieved without ground forces
A little noted aspect of the Libyan war (which has, however, been covered in detail by Horace Campbell) is the fact that the capital, Tripoli, was taken largely by Qatari ground forces co-ordinated by French and British special forces (in direct contravention of UNSC 1973). Indeed, no part of Libya was held by the rebels alone for any significant length of time without massive NATO bombardment of Libyan state forces; after the first three weeks, once the Libyan army got on top of the insurgency, not a single battle was won by the rebels until NATO started bombing. Even then, rebels could generally only take towns if NATO forces had completely destroyed the resistance first – and would still often be chased out again by the Libyan army a few days later. This is despite the fact that many of the Misrata militias were under the direct command of British special forces.
This state of affairs meant the taking of the capital was always going to be deeply problematic. The solution was Operation Mermaid Dawn – an invasion of Tripoli in late August by Qatari ground forces, French intelligence and the British SAS, preceded by several days of intensified airstrikes. Whilst it is true that local collaborators joined in once the invasion was on the way, and indeed some rebel units had prior knowledge, the reality is that the fall of Tripoli was overwhelmingly a foreign planned and executed operation.

This is all highly relevant to the situation in Syria right now. For most of this year, momentum in the Syrian war had been on the side of the government, most obviously in its retaking of the former rebel stronghold of Homs in May. Whilst this momentum was to some extent reversed by ISIS following its gains in Iraq, nevertheless it remains clear that hopes of a rebel victory without a Western air campaign seem unlikely. What Libya shows, however, is that even WITH air support, rebel militias are unlikely to achieve victory without an accompanying ground occupation. In Syria’s case, this may be even more necessary, as switching airstrikes from ISIS to Syrian government forces will be far more difficult than in Libya given the sophisticated S-300 anti-aircraft missiles provided by Russia last year. This may make ground occupation the more viable option. With Western media attempting to put pressure on Turkey to mount a ground occupation, there may be hopes that Turkish forces will play in Syria the role that Qatari forces played in Libya.

The Libya war opened the eyes of many – or should have. But the overriding lesson – if it needed reiterating – should be the realization that the US, the UK, France and their allies will stop at nothing, including even the imposition of total societal collapse, in order to attempt to reverse their declining global economic position through military destruction. This is the reality behind all talk of protecting civilians, humanitarianism, and democracy promotion, and all Western military intervention should be seen in this light.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)