The Empire Hits Back
EDITORIAL, 4 Apr 2011
The Libya attack was planned months ago, and Alfred Ross summarizes the history in five points:
 Since 1969, when Gadhafi forced the US military out of Libya the US has been planning to return and overthrow him.
 In 1981 the CIA created the NFSL, the National front for the Liberation of Libya, which launched a series of well-armed attacks in the 1980s, and its own Libyan National army, LNA. It was the CIA armed NFSL, and its spokes-person Ibrahim Sahad (a Nobel Peace Prize candidate?), who launched the demonstrations in February that led to the humanitarian crisis. Unlike in Tunisia and Egypt the demonstrations were quickly militarized.
 The British and French signed a military agreement November 2 2010 and began planning the attack on Libya no later than January 30, 2011. There is a series of military web-sites documenting this.
 The military plan, then, was to attack a “Southern Dictatorship”, “Southland” March 21-25 2011; indicating that the dictator’s son might take over from his father. There is no question that the premeditate target was Libya (Gadhafi’s son loved Chicago).
 The US-Britain and France assured the CIA-created opposition that if they attacked the army of Libya, they on their side had a well developed plan to attack (a number of military web-sites specify the fighter planes to be used).
This is, of course, what we would expect, for instance on the basis of what happened in Tibet a little over 50 years ago:
“In 2002 The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet was published by the University Press of Kansas where the two authors‑‑Kenneth Conboy of the Heritage Foundation and James Morrison, an Army veteran trainer for the CIA‑‑describe how the CIA set up and ran Tibet’s so-called resistance movement. The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA payroll, and approved the CIA’s plans for the armed uprising” (TMS editorial Tibet, 14 April 2008).
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), twice presidential candidate, sent a letter March 29, 2011 to colleagues in the US Congress based on this information, pointing out that Obama had taken time for all the consultations with 28 NATO members, 22 Arab League members, 15 UNSC members, and for extensive coordination with France and Great Britain, but “no time to come to the United States Congress”, “following the Constitutional requirements in Article 1-Section 8”, asking them to cut off funds for Libyan war. But there is more: From past planning, to present action.
Pepe Escobar in Asia Times (www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle East/MD020Ak01.html) outlines the essence of “The US-Saudi Libya Deal: You invade Bahrain and we take out Gadhafi”, struck between the Obama administration and House of Saud. [Escobar’s article is posted on In Focus here]
“Two diplomatic sources at the UN–a European and a member of the BRIC group–independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor–the opposition wants constitutional monarchy, a legitimate parliament, fair elections, no corruption–in exchange for a “yes” vote by the Arab League for a non-fly zone over Libya. The diplomats said that this was the reason for not voting for UNSC 1973; they argued that Libya-Bahrain-Yemen were similar.
Of the Arab League 22 members only 11 were present at the meeting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council members–the US-supported club of oil rich kingdoms/sheikhdoms. Syria and Algeria were against. Saudi Arabia only had to “seduce” three other members to get the vote. There was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.
NATO’s first African war, US-NATO AFRICOM bases in Libya, access to oil in East Libya, a neo-liberal economy. And so on.
Nothing new. US-Western foreign policy is based on interests + pretexts, the latter for the naive. And they have added to the lie about 9/11 being prepared in Afghanistan and Iraq weapons of mass destruction the humanitarian crisis in Libya of their own making, well knowing they could count on a madman like Gadhafi at least to the rhetorical job. What next?
First scenario: Opposition + NATO win the military game they are now playing: see above. But, not that easy: This is a tribal country, the rebels are, like King Idris whose flag they use, with the Senoussi clan, against Gadhafi’s. Bedouin logic puts a prize on courage and honor even if they lose militarily. A beaten Gadhafi may be very dangerous in the longer run, given how his predictions about the Empire (and Fidel Castro’s of 21 February 2011: NATO occupation!) have been fulfilled. Iraq+10 years?
Second scenario: A: a stalemate, dividing the country in an oil-rich East and a Gadhafi West. Much better, B: mediation, Gadhafi steps down as dictator but with honor; democracy; Libya for Libyans, not for the Empire. A deal that Turkey, if given a chance, supported by BRIC+Germany, might be able to bring about.
Third scenario, that which would have happened without NATO: Gadhafi wins. Completely unacceptable for the Empire. Bad enough not to win when they have intervened in favor of a party in a civil war, but even to be beaten by an outcaste: NEVER. Then rather treat Gadhafi the way they handled Milosevic: if you do not give in to our demands Beograd–read Tripoli–will be flattened by carpet bombing. The Finn who conveyed that message got a Nobel Peace Prize, maybe he could be called upon again?
One rational outcome and three irrational ones. In their wake the beautiful Arab revolt against autocracy, cleptocray, empire; for youth and women, is sucked down, drowning. Till next time.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 4 Apr 2011.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: The Empire Hits Back, is included. Thank you.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.