Understanding the war in Libya (1/3)

Many people are reacting to the war in Libya and sending us questions. Michel Collon, who has published several books on the U.S. war strategies and the media-lies of the previous conflicts, answers all these questions and presents a global analysis of this conflict. Investig’Action would like to draw your attention to the importance of this text.

Part 1 : Questions to be asked in every war ?

Part 2 : The real goals of the U.S. goes well beyond oil ?

Part 3 : Tracks to act



Questions to be asked in every war

27 times. The United States bombed a country 27 times since 1945. And each time, we were told that these acts of war were "fair" and "humanitarian." Today, we are told that this war is different from previous ones. But this was also said last time, and the time before. It was said every time. Isn’t it time to write down the questions we should ask in every war in order to avoid being manipulated?

Money is always available to start a war?

In the most powerful country of the world, forty-five million people live below the poverty line. United States ‘schools and public services are crumbling because the state has "no money". In Europe too, "no money” for pensions or for creating jobs.?But when the greed of bankers causes a financial crisis, it takes only a few days they manage to find billions to save them. This has allowed these same bankers to distribute U.S. $ 140 billion last year as rewards and bonuses to their shareholders, traders and speculators.?For war too, it seems easy to find billions. However, it is our taxes that pay for these weapons and this destruction. Is it wise to burn hundreds of thousands of dollars for each missile, or wasting fifty thousand euros per hour with an aircraft carrier? Unless war is a good deal for some??Meanwhile, a child dies of hunger every five seconds and the number of poor is growing on our planet despite promises.

What is the difference between a Libyan, a Bahraini and a Palestinian?? ?Presidents, ministers and generals solemnly swear that their objective is only to save the Libyans. But at the same time, the Sultan of Bahrain is massacring unarmed demonstrators with the help of  the two thousand Saudi soldiers sent by the United States! Meanwhile, in Yemen, the troops of dictator Saleh, a U.S. ally, are killing 52 demonstrators with machine guns. These facts have been disputed by no one, but at the same time, the U.S. Minister of War, Robert Gates, has just declared: "I do not think it's my role to intervene in the internal affairs of Yemen [1].?

Why this "double standard”? Because Saleh hosts obediently the Fifth Fleet U.S. the Fifth U.S. fleet and says yes to everything Washington commissions him? Because the barbaric regime of Saudi Arabia is an accomplice of multinational oil companies? There would be "good dictators" and "bad dictators??How can the U.S. and France claim to be humanitarian? When Israel killed two thousand civilians by bombing Gaza, did they establish a "no fly zone"? No. Did they impose any sanctions? None. Worse: Javier Solana, then in charge of Foreign Affairs of the EU said to Jerusalem: "Israel is a member of the European Union without being a member of its institutions. Israel is part of all the programs " of Research and Technology of Europe 27. Adding: "No country outside the continent has the kind of relationship that Israel enjoys with the European Union".

On this point, Solana told the truth: Europe and its arms ‘manufacturers work closely with Israel for the production of drones, missiles and other weapons that cause death in Gaza.?We should remember that Israel has expelled seven hundred thousand Palestinians from their villages in 1948, still refuses to give them their rights and continue to commit multiple war crimes. Under the occupation, 20% of the current Palestinian population has visited or stayed in Israel's prisons. Pregnant women are forced to give birth tied to their beds and immediately returned to their cells with their babies! But these crimes are committed with the active complicity of the U.S. and the EU.

The life of a Palestinian or a Bahraini is not worth that of a Libyan? There would be “good Arabs” and “bad Arabs”?

For those who still believe in the humanitarian war …

In a televised debate I had with Louis Michel, former Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Commissioner for Development Cooperation, the latter swore – hand on heart – that this war was intended to “accord to the conscience of Europe” . He was supported by Isabelle Durant, Belgian leader of the Greens and European. Thus, “peace and love” environmentalists have mutated going to war

The problem is that every time we speak of humanitarian war, and every single time these “left” people like Durant get caught in it. Wouldn’t it be better for them to read what the U.S. leaders really think the instead of just listening to them on television?

Listen for example, about the bombing against Iraq, to the famous Alan Greenspan, who was long director of the Federal Reserve of USA. He wrote in his memoirs: ‘I am saddened that it is politically incorrect to acknowledge what everyone knows : the Iraq war was mainly for oil “ [2] . Adding “Officials from the White House told me : ‘Well, unfortunately we can not talk about oil’.” [3]

Listen, about the bombing against Yugoslavia, to John Norris, director of com Strobe Talbott who was then U.S. Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, in charge of the Balkans. Norris wrote in his memoirs: “What best explains NATO’s war is that Yugoslavia resisted the broad trends in political and economic reforms (it means: refusing to give up Socialism), and it is not our duty to the Kosovo Albanians. “ [4]

Listen, about the bombing against Afghanistan, what the former U.S. Minister of Foreign Affairs Henry Kissinger said: “There are trends, supported by China and Japan, to create a free trade area Asia. An Asian bloc opposed combining the most populous nations in the world with great resources and some of the most important industrial countries would be inconsistent with American national interest. For these reasons, America must maintain a presence in Asia … “ [5]

This confirmed the strategy put forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was in charge of foreign policy under Carter and was the inspiration for Obama concerning “Eurasia (Europe + Asia) remains the chessboard on which the battle takes place for global primacy. (…) The way the United States ‘manage’ Eurasia is critical. The largest continent on the globe is also the geopolitical axis. Any power that controls it, thus controlling two of the three most developed regions and more productive. 75% of world population, the majority of natural wealth in the form of companies or deposits of raw materials, some 60% of the world. “ [6]

The left, didn’t learn anything from the medialies of previous humanitarian wars?

When Obama says it himself, wouldn’t you believe him either??On 28 March, Obama has thus justified the war against Libya, "Aware of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to resolve the many challenges facing the world. But when our interests and values ??are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. Given the costs and risks of the intervention, we must measure our interests whenever faced with the need for action. America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi to defeat those who oppose him. "?Isn’t clear? So, some say "Yes, yes, the U.S. acts as if they find their interest too. Failing to intervene everywhere, at least they will be saving these people. "?False. We will show that only interest will be protected. No values??. First, every U.S. war claimed more victims than there were before (in Iraq, one million direct and indirect victims!). Then, the intervention in Libya is preparing other victims too…

Who refused to negotiate?? ?As soon as you make a doubt about the opportunity of this war against Libya, immediately, you feel guilty: "You refuse then to save the Libyans of the massacre?”?Badly posed question. Let’s suppose that everything we’ve been told really happened. First, should we stop a massacre by another massacre? We know that by bombing, our armies will kill many innocent civilians. Even if, as in every war, the generals promise that it will be "clean", we're used to this propaganda.?Second, there was a much simpler and more effective way to save lives immediately. All Latin American countries have offered to immediately send a mediation mission headed by Lula. The Arab League and African Union supported this approach and Gaddafi had agreed (also offering to send international observers to verify the cease-fire).?But the insurgents and the Western Libyan refused mediation. Why? "Because Gaddafi is not in good faith," they say. Possible. Whereas, the insurgents and their Western protectors have always been in good faith? About the United States, it is useful to recall how they behaved in all previous wars every time a cease-fire was possible …?In 1991, when Bush attacked Iraq because it invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein offered to withdraw and that Israel must also evacuate from the illegally occupied territories in Palestine. But the U.S. and European countries have refused six negotiating proposals. [7]?In 1999, when Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, Milosevic accepted the conditions imposed in Rambouillet, but the U.S. and NATO have added one more condition, one that is voluntarily unacceptable: the total occupation of Serbia. [8]?In 2001, when Bush's son attacked Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden to an international tribunal if they provided evidence of his involvement, but Bush refused to negotiate.?In 2003, when Bush's son attacked Iraq under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has offered to send inspectors, but Bush refused because he knew that the inspectors would find nothing. This was confirmed by the disclosure of the memo of a meeting between the British government and leaders of the British secret services in July 2002: "British officials hoped the ultimatum is drafted in unacceptable terms so that Saddam Hussein rejects them immediately. But they were far from certain that this would work. So, there was a Plan B: the aircrafts patrolling the "no fly zone" throwing many more bombs in the hope that this will cause a reaction that would give an excuse for a broad bombing campaign. [9]?

So, before asserting that "we” always tell the truth while "they" always lie, and also that "we” are always looking for a peaceful solution, while "they" do not want to compromise, we should be more careful … Sooner or later, the audience will learn what really happened during backroom negotiations, and will realize once again that he was manipulated. But it will be too late, and we will not raise the dead.

Libya is like Tunisia and Egypt?? ?In his excellent interview published a few days ago by Investig'Action, Mohamed Hassan asked the right question: "Libya: popular revolt, civil war or military aggression?” . In light of recent researches, it is actually possible to answer all three. A spontaneous revolt, quickly recovered and transformed into a civil war (which had been prepared), served as a pretext for military aggression, which also had been prepared. Nothing falls from the sky in politics. Let me explain…?In Tunisia and in Egypt, the popular revolt grew increasingly in a few weeks, organizing itself gradually and uniting on clear claims, which helped to expel the tyrants. But when analyzing the ultra-fast sequence of events in Benghazi, one is intrigued. February 15, demonstration by relatives of political prisoners during the rebellion of 2006. Event severely repressed, as has always been the case in Libya and other Arab countries. And just two days later, re-demonstration, but this time the demonstrators were armed and passed directly to the escalation against the regime of Gaddafi. In two days, a popular revolt becomes a civil war! Quite spontaneously??To find out, we must examine what lies under the vague term "Libyan opposition". In our opinion, four components with very different interests:
A democratic opposition.


Dignitaries of Gaddafi "returned” by the West.
Libyan clans dissatisfied by the sharing of the wealth.
Fighters with Islamist trend.

Who made this "Libyan opposition"?

In this tangle, it is important to know who are we dealing with. And most important, which faction was integrated in the strategies of the major powers:?

Democratic Opposition. It is legitimate to have claims against the Gaddafi regime, a dictatorial and corrupt one like other Arab regimes. The people has the right to want to replace an authoritarian regime by a more democratic system. However, these claims are far less organized and without specific program. Also Abroad, there are Libyan revolutionary movements, also quite disparate, but all opposed to foreign interference. For various reasons that we will clarify later, It is not these democratic elements that will have much to say today under the banner of the USA and France,
Dignitaries "returned". In Benghazi, a "provisional government" was established and is led by Jalil Mustafa Abud. "This man was, until 21 February, Minister of Justice of Gaddafi. Two months earlier, Amnesty had placed him on the list of the most appalling responsibles for violations of human rights in North Africa” (10). It is this individual who, according to the Bulgarian authorities, had organized the torture of the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor detained by the regime for a long time. Another "strong man" of this opposition is General Abdul Fatah Younis, former Minister of the interior of Gaddafi and former Chief of the political police.

Understandably, Massimo Introvigne, representing the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) for the fight against racism, xenophobia and discrimination, says that these characters "are not the 'sincere democrats' of Obama's speech, but among the worst instruments of the regime of Gaddafi, who aspire to drive Colonel to take his place." (10)

Clans unhappy. As pointed by Mohamed Hassan, the structure of Libya remained highly tribal. During the colonial period, under the regime of King Idris, the clans of the east dominated their oil wealth and advantage. After the 1969 revolution, Gadhafi has relied on the tribes of the west and east has been disadvantaged. It is regrettable, and a democratic government must ensure fairly fight discrimination between regions. One can also wonder whether the former colonial powers did not encourage dissatisfied tribes to undermine national unity. This is not the first time. Today, France and USA rely on the clans of the east to take control of the country. Divide and rule, the old classic of colonialism.

Elements of Al Qaeda. Cables released by Wikileaks warned that eastern Libya was proportionally the largest exporter in the world of "fighters – martyrs" in Iraq. Reports from the Pentagon described an "alarming scenario" on the Lybian rebels of Benghazi and Derna. Derna, a town of barely 80,000 inhabitants would be the first source of jihadists in Iraq. Similarly, Vicent Cannistraro, former CIA chief in Libya, reports among the rebels a lot of "Islamic extremists who can create problems" and that "odds [are] high that the most dangerous individuals can have an influence If Gaddafi is expected to fall." (10).

Obviously, all this was written when Gaddafi was still "a friend". But it shows the complete lack of principles in the chief of the U.S. and its allies. When Gaddafi repressed the Islamist revolt in Benghazi in 2006, it was with the weapons and the West's support that he did it. So, sometimes they’re against the “ben laden’s” style fighters. And, some other times, they use them. One must know.

Among these various "opposition", which element will prevail? It may also be a goal of the military intervention of Washington, Paris and London to ensure that "good" prevail? Good from their point of view of course. Later, they’ll use the "Islamic threat" as the pretext to settle permanently?Anyway, one thing is certain: the Libyan scenario is different the Tunisian or Egyptian scenarios. Over there, there were "united people against a tyrant”. Here, with part of the population supporting Qaddafi, we are in a civil war. And in this civil war, the role played by U.S. and French secret services is no longer so secret…

What was the role of secret services???In fact, the Libyan case didn’t start in February in Benghazi, but in Paris October 21st, 2010. According to the revelations of Italian journalist Franco Bechis (Libero, 24th of March) it is that day that the French secret service had prepared the revolt of Benghazi. They then "returned" (or perhaps even before) Nuri Mesmari, Chief of Protocol of Gaddafi, who was almost his right hand against him. He was the only one who enters the residence of the Libyan leader without knocking. Coming to Paris with his family for a surgery, Mesmari didn’t meet any doctor there, but on the other side, he would talk to several officials of the French secret services and Sarkozy's close aides, according to the latest web Maghreb Confidential.?On November 16th, at the Hotel Concorde Lafayette, he prepared a large delegation that would go two days later to Benghazi.

Officially, this delegation included officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and leaders of the following firms: France Export Céréales, Agrimer France, Louis Dreyfus, Glencore, Cargill and Conagra. But according to the Italian services, the delegation also included several French soldiers disguised as businessmen. In Benghazi, they would meet Gehan Abdallah, a Libyan colonel who is ready to desert, according to Mesmari.?In mid-December, Gaddafi, suspicious, sent an emissary to Paris to try to contact Mesmari, but France arrests him. Other Libyans came visiting Paris on December 23rd, and it is them who will lead the revolt in Benghazi with the militia of Colonel Gehan. Especially as Mesmari provided many secrets to the French about the Libyan defense. From all this, it is clear that the revolt in the east is not as spontaneous as we’ve been told. But that's not all, It's not just the French …?

Who now runs the military operations of the "Libyan National Council" anti-Qaddafi? A man who just arrived from the USA on the 14th of March, according to Al Jazeera. Described as one of the two "stars" of the Libyan uprising by the right oriented British newspaper Daily Mail, hift Khalifa is a former colonel in the Libyan army, who was in the United States. He was among the main military commanders of Libya until the disastrous expedition in Chad in the late 80s. He emigrated after that to the USA and lived in Virginia for the last twenty year. Without any known source of income, but at a small distance from the offices of… the CIA. [11] The world is small.?How a top Libyan military can enter the United States in peace, a few years after the Lockerbie terrorist attack, for which Libya has been condemned, and live peacefully for twenty years next to the CIA? He necessarily had to offer something in exchange. Published in 2001, the book “African Manipulations” by Pierre Péan retraces the connections of Hitler with the CIA and the creation, with the support of the latter, the Libyan National Liberation Front. The only achievement of the said Front will be the organization in 2007, in the USA, of a "National Convention" funded by the National Endowment for Democracy [12], traditional intermediary of the CIA, often used to reward organizations who serve the United States …?

In March this year to a date not disclosed, Obama signed a secret order authorizing the CIA to conduct operations in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi. The Wall Street Journal, which recounts this March 31, adds: "The CIA officials acknowledge that they have been active in Libya for several weeks, like other Western services.”. ?All this is no longer top secret, it appeared since a while on the Internet, and what is surprising is that the mainstream media didn’t even mention it. However, we have already seen many examples of "freedom fighters" as well armed and financed by the CIA. For example, in the 80's, the terrorist militia contras, set up by Reagan to destabilize and overthrow Nicaragua's progressive government. Didn’t we learn anything from history? Doesn’t this "left" European who is applauding the bombing use the Internet??Is it any wonder that the Italian services denounce like this the exploits of their French colleagues and that they denounce then their U.S. colleagues?

Only if one believes the stories about the friendship between "Western allies." We will talk about it…

 

PART 2


Source: www.investigaction.net


Notes


[2] Sunday Times , Sept. 16, 2007.
[3] Washington Post , Sept. 17, 2007.
[4] Collision Course , Praeger, 2005, p.xiii.
[5] Does America Need a Foreign Policy?, Simon and Schuster, 2001 111.
[6] The Grand Chessboard , Paris 1997, p. 59-61.
[7] Michel Collon, Attention Media Brussels, 1992 92.
[8] Michel Collon, Monopoly – NATO to conquer the world, Brussels 2000, page 38.
[9] Michael Smith, The real information memos to Downing Street, Los Angeles Times , June 23, 2005.
(10)
[11] McClatchy Newspapers (USA), March 27.
[12] Eva Golinger, Code Chavez, CIA against Venezuela, Liege , 2006