Muslim Brotherhood and New Dark Ages

Photo by: REUTERS/Mohamed Abd El-Ghany

Terra Incognita: The revolution wont’ be democratic

By SETH J. FRANTZMAN

There was never a second Arab Awakening as it was never bounded by ideas, not even the democratic-Islamic ones.

There will be no great democratic revolutions in Egypt, Libya or Tunisia a year from now. What are the signs? Let’s start with the obvious. US President Barack Obama has wished the people of the Middle East a happy Passover. He claims that the story ofPessah is being relived today in the “modern stories of liberation” taking place in the Middle East: “This year, that ancient instruction is reflected in the daily headlines, as we see modern stories of social transformation and liberation unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa.”

If Obama said it, there’s good reason to think it won’t happen. It isn’t because I don’t like Obama. Obama is great; a great orator, a crowd pleaser, a man who warms the hearts of many. But he tends to speak rather than do, in the apparent belief that history will record his words and forget that they were empty. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize without doing anything peaceful. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay, and that didn’t happen (it would have been a real Pessah miracle if he had brought terrorist inmates from the American base in Cuba to trial). He talked about getting America completely out of Iraq and doing something about Bin Laden in Pakistan, and that hasn’t transpired either.

But it isn’t just because Obama has been talking about freedom that we can be assured freedom is far away. If we go back and read the headlines about Egypt, we see that the usual good-natured, well-intentioned souls were telling us about how exciting it was to see what was happening in Tahrir square.

REMEMBER LARRY Derfner’s claim that “the incredibly brave people in Egypt inspire just about everyone in the world except us [Israelis].” Or Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, claiming that “a crude stereotype lingers that some people – Arabs, Chinese and Africans – are incompatible with democracy… [but] The record is that after some missteps, countries usually pull through.”

Let’s just put it mildly: those people who are inspired by the Egyptian revolution are the people I’d least trust to tell me which way the wind is blowing.

Why? Because they are so often wrong. Some of them are part of the same Michael Foucault dialectic that thought the Iranian revolution was going to produce progressiveliberal democracy. Today’s Foucault – the anti-Israel University of California feminist philosopher Judith Butler – has claimed that “If the Muslim Brotherhood is elected to positions in [the Egyptian] government, and the elections are free and unconstrained, then that is a democratic outcome.”

The same progressive feminist philosopher has claimed “understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important.”

If the Butlers and Foucaults are so often on the side of totalitarian religious fanaticism in the guise of democratization, then it is hard to believe that we will see democracy in the Middle East, precisely because totalitarian religious fanaticism is not conducive to democratic institutions. In fact, this is what people have missed in Indonesia, which has often been held up as an example of where the Middle East might go.

Indonesia is not a great democracy. It is a country where ethnic and religious hatreds are common. Just recently, pornography was banned – not anti-democratic in itself, but part of a larger conquest of the public square by moralizing Islamists. A 19th-century Islamic religious movement called Ahmadiyya, that has many followers, has been banned in parts of the country. Democracies, at least the good ones, generally don’t ban whole religious sects.

The New York Times has done some excellent reporting on what the masses of inspired people got wrong about Egypt. Michael Slackman documented in late March that “religion has emerged as a powerful religious force” in politics, and the Muslim Brotherhood has been “transformed into a tacit partner with the military government.”

It turns out that all those who shouted, like canaries in the mine, about the role of the Brotherhood are being vindicated.

THE LATEST actions of the military in Egypt, banning Mubarak’s political party and jailing a blogger who “insulted” the military, are not very democratic. The same is true in Libya. The Times reporter C.J Chivers noted on April 6 that Libyan rebels are “less an organized force than the martial manifestation of a popular uprising.”

Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera thinks “They are the worst army I’ve ever seen in the field, absolutely incompetent.”

How are things going in Tunisia? We don’t know. Syria? There, the nepotistic leaders are killing people, and neither Al- Jazeera nor the US State Department seem to care. Bahrain? The kingdom is on the brink of outlawing its Shia opposition, and is sending thugs house–to-house to roust them out. The failure of the revolutions in the Middle East is not the fault of all the well-wishers. It isn’t really the fault of the secularprogressive youths, the rock throwers, the Islamists or the feeble boastful rebels in Libya with their bulging ammo belts. The fault lies in the fact that there was never a second Arab Awakening. It was never bounded by ideas, not even the democratic-Islamic ones that Judith Butler tells us we should embrace. Sometimes riots produce successful revolutions, witness the Boston Tea Party in 1770 or the bread riots before the French Revolution.

But rebellion without ideas is like mortar without bricks – just a bunch of grey crap.

The writer has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies.

French Reach-Out To American/British “Islamists”

[News items such as this confirm that we are definitely in the beginning of the "end game," the period of turmoil when the "gloves (really) come off" and expediency becomes more important to the fascist Zionist global regimes than maintaining the image of benevolence.  The American war against the world began when Reagan's plan to seize control of the world got underway with the first fabricated "Islamists" in Afghanistan, calling his mujahedeen "Freedom Fighters," in the great tradition of American anti-colonialists.  The plan for global conquest then entered the next phase, after the fall of the Soviets, and expediency demanded that Western interests implement a state of "plausible deniability," where it appeared that Americans had separated themselves from their "Islamist" creation.  

Now the great mind-twisters have determined that the "Islamists" are to regain their status as "freedom fighters," as they come out of the shadows and openly serve Imperial plans.  If even the French feel safe enough to jump on the "Islamist" bandwagon, then it would appear the end is closer than we realize.  The great apparent contradiction seen in the new ploy of waging war against "al-Qaeda"-related groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while supporting other al-Qaeda related groups in Africa, is all the truth we need to expose the American state terrorism.  The problem arises in looking for allies against the great lying, mass-murdering tyranny.  As it is, we stand alone against the greatest, most subtle form of evil ever to plague mankind.  

The great question is--how do we use the American need to maintain the mask of benevolence to our greatest advantage, in the remaining time frame, before they bring the hammer down full-force?  After they are no longer restrained by the need to preserve the humanitarian image, there will be no other recourse but meting violence with violence.  Motivating the Mindless--is it even possible? ]

France in Major U-turn on Islamists

OnIslam & News Agencies

“Let us speak to everyone, let us speak to the Muslim Brotherhood,” Juppe said

PARIS – In a major shift on Islamists following popular uprisings in the Arab world, France has said that it is open for talks with all Islamic groups, including the powerful Muslim Brotherhood.

“We are willing to talk to everyone,” Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told a group of journalists in Paris, Reuters reported.

“Let us speak to everyone, let us speak to the Muslim Brotherhood,” he added, in reference to Egypt’s most powerful opposition group.

Established in 1928 in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is a group working to promote Islamic values among people. It has affiliates in several countries.

For years, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned and its leaders were repressed by governments in countries as Egypt and Tunisia.

But the group is now expected to play a major political role in those countries after popular uprisings that toppled Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia.

France, like most Western countries, has long held a suspicious view of popular Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Western countries often supported Western-friendly Arab leaders as a bulwark against extremism.

But after popular protests that swept the Middle East, many Western states have begun to change their positions on Islamic groups.

Explaining the policy shift, Juppe said France had been duped by leaders who made Muslim movements out as the devil.

“We believed them and now we can see the result,” he said, referring to the slowness of France’s reaction to budding popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.

Building Image

The U-turn is seen as a French bid to build early ties with political groups that could take power in some Middle East states once the dust settles from political upheaval.

“Alain Juppe is indeed trying to rebuild a positive image of France in the Arab world and in the hearts and minds of Arabs everywhere,” Pascal Boniface, a researcher at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations, told Reuters.

France, home to six million Muslims, has won the ire of many Arabs and Muslims around the world over laws restricting the Muslim code of dress.

In 2004, France banned hijab, an obligatory code of dress, in public places. Many European countries followed suit.

Earlier this month, France enforced a law banning the wearing of face-veil in public places.

Under late president Charles de Gaulle, France was long seen as a friend to Arab peoples due to criticism of Israeli policy and the sheltering of late Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat and opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But France has since dispensed with this image.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has been an open supporter of Israel and took a so-called “pragmatic” position with regard to autocratic Arab leaders like deposed Tunisian president Ben Ali, who was often described in France as a moderate reformer.

France’s new diplomatic tone suggests Sarkozy is favoring democratic aspirations — and the hope of forming ties with a new generation of Arab leaders — over stability.

“The fact we favored stability brought by authoritarian regimes proves turned out not to be a good option because in the end, the stability disappeared,” a French diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

A stronger accent on democratic aspirations is likely to please the United States, as long as it does not come at the expense of France’s support of Israel.

“It’s very much along the lines of what we’d like to hear,” a Western diplomat said.

The Lucifer Principle

The Lucifer Principle.pdf

Who is Lucifer?

Then Lucifer set forth to conquer the earth, using as his pawn a fresh godly invention, an innocent pair Jehovah had planted in a
garden–Adam and Eve. The Great Seducer tempted Eve with the apple of knowledge. She could not resist the Luciferian fruit. Eve’s sin
against God corrupted all mankind. Ever since that time, man has aspired to the Lord, but found himself a victim of the devil.
Marcion the heretic said God was responsible for evil. Mainstream Christians absolved the Almighty of responsibility by blaming all that’s
wrong on the Prince of Darkness and on man. But, in a strange way, Marcion had a better handle on the situation than the more
conventional followers of the church, for Lucifer is merely one of the faces of a larger force. "Evil" is a by-product, a component of
creation. In a world evolving into ever higher forms, hatred, violence, aggression and war are a part of the evolutionary plan. But where do
they fit? Why do they exist? What possible positive purpose could they serve? These are some of the questions behind The Lucifer
Principle.
The Lucifer Principle is a complex of natural rules each working together to weave a fabric that sometimes frightens and appalls us. Every
one of the threads in that tapestry is fascinating. But the big picture is more astonishing still.
At its heart, The Lucifer Principle looks something like this. The nature scientists uncover has crafted our viler impulses into us–in fact,

they are a part of the process she uses to create. Lucifer is the dark side of cosmic fecundity, the cutting blade of the sculptor’s knife.
Nature does not abhor evil; she embraces it. She uses it to build. With it she moves the human world to greater heights of organization,
intricacy and power.
Death, destruction and fury do not disturb the mother of our world. They are merely parts of her plan. Only we are outraged by the Lucifer
Principle’s consequences. And we have every right to be. For we are casualties of nature’s callous indifference to life, pawns who suffer
and die to live out her schemes.
One result: from our best qualities come our worst. From our urge to pull together comes our tendency to tear each other apart. From our
devotion to a higher good comes our propensity to the foulest atrocities. From our commitment to ideals come our excuses to hate. Since
the beginning of history, we have been blinded by evil’s ability to don a selfless disguise. We have failed to see that our finest qualities are
often the generators of the actions we most abhor–murder, torture, genocide and war.
For millennia men and women have looked at the ruins of their lost homes, at the people precious to them whom they will never see alive
again, and they have asked that spears be turned to pruning hooks and that mankind be granted the gift of peace. But prayers are not enough.
To dismantle the curse that mother nature has built into us we need a new way of looking at man, a new way of reshaping our destiny and
undoing the secret pleasure we take in the shedding of blood.
We must build a picture of the human soul that works. Not a romantic vision that nature will take us in her arms and save us from
ourselves, but a recognition that the enemy is within us, and that nature has deposited it there. We need to stare directly into nature’s
bloody face and realize that she has saddled us with evil for a reason. And we must understand that reason to outwit her.
For Lucifer is almost everything men like Milton imagined him to be. He is ambitious, an organizer, a force reaching out vigorously to
master even the stars of heaven. But he is not a demon separate from nature’s benevolence. He is a part of the creative force itself.
Lucifer, in fact, is mother nature’s alter ego.

Geopolitical Implications of the World Economic Crisis

By Daniel SAARINEN (USA)

Introduction

The world economic depression is a dire threat to the national security of the United States. To date, little or nothing has been done to address the causes of the depression and rebuild the economy. With the lack of leadership and vision in the western world, the depression will continue until the Anglo-American economic system known as the Washington Consensus self-destructs. This is occurring rapidly, and the Beijing Consensus is being asserted to replace it. At some point during this process the center of world politics, economics and military power will shift to North East Asia. This shift will not happen peacefully, and system wide warfare is the likely outcome if this breakdown crisis is allowed to run its course.

Let us be clear that we are in a depression on par with the Great Depression, not a downturn, a slowdown, a rough patch or a recession. Housing values have already fallen on average 26%, and during the Great Depression they fell 25.9% (1). We are not at the bottom for real estate by any means either. Unemployment the way it was measured back then was at least 24.9% (2). Today by those measures it stands at about 23% (3). Let there be no mistake, we are in an extreme crisis. The purpose of this passage is to emphasize the magnitude of the crisis. Calling it by other names and creating a false propaganda reality will only delay the actions needed to combat the depression. The longer our leaders delude themselves, the more severe the crisis will become.

Derivatives are the Cause of the Depression

The origin of the crisis lies in deregulated credit derivatives of various types. The proper way to understand derivatives is that they are some form of paper based on paper. Anytime we are more than one step removed from an underlying asset we are dealing with derivatives. The Bank of International Settlements admits that there are around ~$600 trillion in derivatives out there (4). This is more than ten times the entire GDP of the Earth, which is about ~$58 trillion. Other sources indicate that the outstanding amount of derivatives of all types approached ~$1.5 quadrillion, and has now fallen to a mere ~$1 quadrillion (5). A dangerous feature of derivatives is that they are zero sum instruments, in that there is always a winner and a loser. This means that every derivative represents some amount of debt that someone will have to pay at some point in the future, with the notional fulfillment value much higher than the market value of the instrument.

These derivatives are controlled by globalized finance oligarchs based primarily in New York and London. These oligarchs dominate the governments of most western countries, and they have abused their power by making the sole mission of the state that of propping them up. All of the other concerns of the nation states of the world are regarded as secondary to the effort to rehabilitate the cancerous mass of $600 trillion-$1.5 quadrillion of derivatives. The United States cannot recover until Wall Street is stopped and put into receivership by the federal government, and the derivatives are liquidated in bankruptcy proceedings. The Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) Neil Barofsky reported to Congress that as of 2009 the potential public liabilities from the banking bailouts of various types were already at $23.7 trillion just for the United States (6). The Wall Street banking cartel, and the London oriented Inter-Alpha Group of Banks are already bankrupt. They exist as economic wards of the state, and survive only because of vast amounts of public money. The deregulated markets that they need in order to operate are also responsible for tremendous instability around the world. Here is the example of Federal Reserve (The Fed) Chairman Bernanke’s Quantitative Easing II (QE2) bailout program, and how it is contributing to the destabilization of the world.

Banker Bailouts Destabilize the World

QE2 is by no means the only liquidity vehicle being used to recapitalize the banks, but it is a discrete example that can be used in the space available here. All of the money coming from the other unmentioned credit facilities is subject to the same logic presented here on QE2. QE2 involves the Federal Reserve engaging in open market operations to monetize ~$110 billion per month of treasury securities in the 7-10 year range, and this is ongoing. This means they print the money and give it to the banks, and the treasury securities go onto the Fed balance sheet.

The money that the banks get is not regulated, and they can use it anyway that they want to. Since the Fed maintains its interest rate at .25%, the banks have a hard time making any money in the United States. This money becomes flight capital because of this. The banks send it to speculate in emerging markets, commodities exchanges, foreign exchange markets and derivatives. Emerging markets are experiencing speculative booms and busts because of this hot money, and this is destroying jobs and social order across the third world. This constant huge influx of flight capital is driving up the currencies of exporting nations like Brazil and Japan, and stoking high inflation in China because of the Renminbi peg to the dollar. The Finance Minister of Brazil has stated that currency war has already broken out around the world (7). This analysis of QE2 is supported by Joseph Stiglitz in an interview with the London Telegraph (8).

When this money hits deregulated commodities markets we see speculative booms in prices to unprecedented levels, and this includes food stuffs. Food prices are at all time highs, and have risen dramatically in the last year (9). Much of the unrest across North Africa and in the Middle East is the result of massive increases in food prices. In areas where large sections of the population survive on $2 per day or even less, this is a matter of life and death. Chairman Bernanke’s banking bailout activity is destroying the geostrategic position of the United States around the world as friendly regimes fall, or are destabilized and weakened. America’s influence throughout the entire third world is now seen to be in decline because of the depression. The growing un-governability in the United States may drastically accelerate the crisis as well.

The approaching danger here lies in the destabilization of the US Treasury market. Brief explanation is required. The only source of US dollars in the world is here in the US, not in China, or anywhere else. Congress first appropriates money into existence to do various things, and second authorizes bonds to be issued by the treasury. The media deceives people into believing that it is the other way around, and this leads to confusion. Part of the money appropriated into existence goes to fund the trade deficit with China. The bonds that are issued from the treasury allow China a place to invest those dollars without driving up prices in other markets. Limiting the availability of bonds to soak up these dollars is dangerous to the international currency system, and the mass of derivatives associated with it.

The House Republicans are playing a game of brinksmanship with President Obama and the Democrats over the US debt ceiling this spring. This is an ideological and demagogic exercise. If the ceiling is not raised, no new bonds can be issued. This does not stop congress from spending money, because the government is the sole source of new dollars in the world. It also does not stop the trade deficit from continuing either. It just means that as the deficit continues, and treasury bonds are naturally redeemed over time, there will not be enough new bond issues to roll over into. In order to have economic stability in a situation like this the federal deficit would have to quickly fall to an amount equal to interest payments on the debt plus bond redemptions, and there would have to be no trade deficit. This would allow enough month to month roll over room to keep the current dollar supply locked up in bonds.

Since that level of cutting cannot and should not happen, it means that hundreds of billions of dollars that are currently locked up in the secondary treasury market will suddenly be forced to start competing for scarce goods and services around the world. This could cause a dramatic currency crisis, and bring a new wave of mass panic to nations around the world. With the world economic system already battered from the depression, there is no telling how the system would react to this potentially huge shock. Our leaders would be wise to back away from the abyss, and not test the theory.

Anglo-American Institutions in Crisis

The post-WWII international financial institutions dominated by the Anglo-Americans are also collapsing. The World Bank, dominated by the Washington Consensus, has fallen behind the Chinese in lending to developing countries. The World Bank loaned out ~$100 billion from mid-2008 to mid-2010. The Chinese Development Bank and Export Import Bank lent ~$110 billion during a comparable period of time (10). This means that western influence is waning all across the third world. Africa, Latin America and South Asia are turning increasingly to Beijing and not Washington for economic development. This translates directly to loss of strategic position and influence around the world.

China is overtaking the United States economically at an alarming rate. Chinese financial institutions have overtaken the World Bank in lending to developing countries. In 2010 China surpassed America in total energy consumption (11). China is projected to pass America in manufacturing either this year or in the next few (12). America has been the greatest manufacturing nation in the world for 110 years, and when we took the crown from Britain we became the greatest nation in the world. America will cease to be the greatest nation in the world when it is surpassed in industrial capability by China.

The GDP measurement appears to give America some breathing room with the US at $14.6 trillion and China at $5.7 trillion. GDP measurement should not fool anyone though, because it is a fraudulent measure of economic strength. This is because GDP counts everything that goes on in an economy. In the world of physical economy and national greatness many things do not count: narcotics trafficking, money laundering, gambling, pimping and prostitution, lawsuits, and generally all forms of Wall Street related speculative activity. In real physical terms the Washington Consensus is being defeated by the Beijing Consensus, and the change over in domination of the world system is not likely to be peaceful.

John Mearsheimer argues convincingly that potential military power derives from economic power, and potential economic power derives from population size. The unproductive activities listed above contribute to GDP, but not to potential military power and therefore should not be counted economically from the point of view of strategy. If American leaders make the mistake of believing the GDP measure, they will believe that the nation possesses more potential military power than it actually does. When leaders believe that they have significantly more power than they actually do, it is easy for otherwise rational actors to commit huge blunders.

China, Russia, and the many nations looking to them for help and protection will assert their national interests more and more against the United States over the coming years. As the crisis deepens in these countries, problems will have to be blamed on someone. Some of the problems will really be their own fault, some really will be America’s fault and it will not matter which is which. In America similar demagogic things are happening already. The obsessive, compulsive focus on the Chinese Renminbi exchange rate is a prime example. This is a mask for the larger problems of free trade, globalism and deregulation that lie at the heart of the system here. These problems will not be addressed, so there must be a suitable stand in to be blamed for all of our ills. Years of this type of propaganda on both sides sets the stage for escalating levels of confrontation. The danger of system wide warfare is real.

There is no certainty in how this conflict will play out. Of course, the apocalyptic scenarios are possible, featuring direct confrontation between great powers. The more likely scenario is already in play, and involves decades of low level guerilla war and regional scale war. The first decade of this is already completed, and in the books. These wars will prohibit industrialization and economic development across the third world, and allow the real culprits behind the crisis to fade into the background unpunished. China and Russia will begin to intervene by proxy in these brushfire wars and coups across the third world. As time goes on, the reasons for the collapse of world civilization will become less and less clear as the wars take on lives of their own. An entire generation doomed to falling standards of living, and even immiseration, will fight a thousand small endless wars as fascist corporatism dominates the formerly free nations of the West.

The only way for the United States to avoid this fate is to return to its economic traditions. End globalization, the free trade mania and bring back the protective tariff. Break up finance capital with a new Glass-Steagall Act. Bringing industrial development back to this country will automatically put tremendous internal pressures on rival nations when they are no longer able to rob America blind for free. This will preserve the reserve currency status of the dollar, and stabilize markets around the world. Force the Chinese economic engine to fuel itself, and the Chinese Miracle will be shown to be an empty illusion.

__________________________________________
(1) Curnutte, Katie. “Home Value Declines Surpass Those of Great Depression”, 1/11/2011. Zillow.com. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(2) Vangiezen, Robert and Schwenk, Albert. “Compensation from before World War I through the Great Depression”. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1/30/2003. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(3) Williams, John. “Unemployment (U3 & U6) vs SGS Alternate”, 1/2011 data. Shadow Government Statistics. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(4) Bank of International Settlements. “Table 19: Amounts Outstanding of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives”. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(5) Matai, D.K. “Derivatives Quadrillion Play: How Far Away Are We From A Second Financial Crisis?” SeekingAlpha.com, 3/23/2010. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(6) Office of SIGTARP. “Quarterly Report to Congress, July 21st 2009”, Page 4. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(7) Wheatley, Jonathan. “Brazil in ‘Currency War’ Alert”. Financial Times, 9/27/2010. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(8) Trotman, Andrew. “Joseph Stiglitz: America’s QE2 ‘poses considerable risks’”. The Telegraph, 12/10/2010. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(9) Lubin, Gus. “Global Food Prices Just Hit Their Highest Level Ever”. Businessinsider.com, 2/3/2011. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(10) Dyer, Geoff and Anderlini, Jamil. “China’s Lending Hits New Heights”. Financial Times, 1/17/2011. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(11) Smith, Grant and Schmollinger, Christian. “China Passes U.S. as World’s Biggest Energy Consumer, IEA Says”. Bloomberg, 7/20/2011. Accessed on 2/11/2011.
(12) Isidore, Chris. “China Close to Chatching U.S. in Manufacturing”. CNN Money, 6/21/2011. Accessed on 2/11/2011.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

US Dollar, Wall Street, Yuan

Contact the author

Kermit the spook and the making of the modern Middle East

Intelligence agency efforts have often gone badly awry

BY JONATHAN MANTHORPE, VANCOUVER SUN

Andre Gerolymatos looks at the fumbling efforts of British and American intelligence agencies to manipulate the MiddleEast.

Photograph by: Arlen Redekop, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Sun

Castles Made of Sand: A Century of Anglo-American Espionage and Intervention in theMiddle East

By Andre Gerolymatos

Thomas Dunne Books, 330 Pages, $26.99

- – -

There’s always an assumption that foreign correspondents are spies, in large part because the job has so often been used as convenient cover by various intelligence agencies.

So, I was not surprised at the reaction a while ago when I was putting some pointed questions to the most senior aide to a prime minister.

He moved in close, looked me firmly in the eyes and said: “Are you a spy?”

Then, after a moment’s cold stare he answered his own question. “No, you’re too clever for that.”

It was a nice compliment, but it also pointed at an important truth, especially when coming from a man whose daily job was to help his prime minister to decide courses of action based on information coming down a number of pipelines, including from his country’s intelligence agencies.

Despite the hype of Hollywood, successful novelists and the popular proclivity to believe conspiracy theories, the role of intelligence agencies in any sensible administration is strictly limited.

That’s because their information is often capable of multiple interpretations and of questionable value.

Their analysis of information from public sources is usually no better or worse than that of anyone else.

Information from secret sources can be very useful for immediate situations. An excellent example is the pointers that led to the uncovering last month of the two printer ink cartridges converted into bombs and sent by an al-Qaida operative in Yemen to synagogues in Chicago.

But as a guide to long-term strategic foreign policy-making, only a very foolish head of government would use information and analysis from national spy organizations as the dominant factor in judgments. Unfortunately, there are some leaders who do just that.

Just as frail is the usefulness of intelligence agencies and espionage operations as instruments of foreign policy. There is little record of success for covert actions or campaigns of duplicity and subversion by the America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Britain’s MI6, the old Soviet Union’s KGB, China’s Ministry of State Security or any other of the world’s spy agencies.

In his new book, Castles Made of Sand, Simon Fraser University history professor Andre Gerolymatos looks at the fumbling and often counter-productive efforts by Britain’s intelligence agencies and Washington’s CIA to manipulate events in the Middle East.

In researching this book, Gerolymatos has clearly expended a huge amount of time and effort — strained, it is suggested in his notes on sources, with a lot of frustration — using freedom of information legislation to get access to previously classified documents.

The result is an often fascinating account of the American and British interventions in the Middle East after the collapse of the Turkish Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War.

Gerolymatos tracks the efforts of the many British intelligence officers — T.E. Lawrence and the creator of Iraq, Gertrude Bell, among them — to stir up the Arab revolt against the Turks in 1914-18 and then London’s complicity with the French to divide the postwar Middle East into spheres of influence. The French took Lebanon and Syria and the British most of the rest.

But from the start, Gerolymatos contends, the British in particular and later the Americans made the mistake of trying to use religious leaders and Islamic fundamentalism as agents to control or defeat the rise of Arab nationalism.

With this thread, Gerolymatos tracks British and American support for the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt 50 years ago as a counter to the Arab nationalist President Gamal Abdel Nasser to the rise of al-Qaida and the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

The links arguing that MI6 and the CIA have prime responsibility for the rise of militant Islam are not always convincing.

But sometimes they are.

The ousting of the Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 in a coup engineered by the CIA’s Middle East specialist and grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt, is perhaps the best example.

The installation of the regime of terminally deluded Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi by the CIA inevitably led to the 1979 “Islamic Revolution” of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Iran’s deplorable internal and external politics today.

This story follows a well-trodden path and Gerolymatos, probably sensibly, doesn’t spend too much time on it.

This book is at its best when Gerolymatos stays away from trying to make a case for this or that defining influence on historical events and instead just tells the stories that his copious research has turned up.

There’s a fascinating chapter, which in some ways sits uneasily in the broader context of the book, on the ambivalent relationship between the British and the Jews intent on the creation of Israel.

Another compelling tale is the story of the CIA funnelling captured German members of the Nazi SS and Gestapo into programs to train Egyptian security forces, and even the radical Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s.

Jonathan Manthorpe is The Sun’s international affairs columnist.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Is Muslim Brotherhood a threat to Egyptian democracy?

By David A. Ridenour

One person, one vote, one time doesn’t make a country democratic. If the Muslim Brotherhood wins the election promised for later this year, one election may be all Egyptians ever see.

Former President Jimmy Carter assures us that the Brotherhood need not be feared because it will be “subsumed in the overwhelming demonstration of desire for freedom and democracy.”

I’m not comforted by words from a man known for his spectacular foreign policy miscalculations. Surely, he also believed democratic forces would prevail in Iran and Nicaragua when he allowed U.S. allies in both countries to be overthrown by fanatics in 1979.

Popular uprisings can be hijacked by organized and committed ideologues.

The ideologue-filled Brotherhood is Egypt’s best organized political group. Its objectives are incompatible with democracy, as it seeks an Islamic empire and to govern by Sharia law. In 2008, Muhammad Madhi Akef, then-Brotherhood Supreme Guide, said his organization supports democracy, but only the “right kind … one that honors Sharia.”

Whenever democracy and Sharia law conflict, the Brotherhood eschews democracy. Its Palestinian branch, Hamas, says in its charter: “Any procedure in contradiction of Islamic Sharia … is null and void.”

Although the Muslim Brotherhood claims to have renounced violence, its words and deeds suggest otherwise. One of its most infamous members, Abdurahman Alamoudi, is in U.S. federal prison for, among other things, planning with Libya to assassinate Saudi King Abdullah when he was crown prince.

The Brotherhood was also implicated in the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat. Sadat was killed by members of the Islamic Jihad, an offshoot of the Brotherhood, after Brotherhood-linked Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called “Blind Sheikh” who would later be convicted for planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, issued a fatwa ordering that Sadat be killed.

When Sadat died, so too did much of Egypt’s democratic progress.

Yusuf al-Quaradawi, arguably the Brotherhood’s most influential cleric, has repeatedly called for violence, saying homosexuals should be stoned and Israeli children murdered, lest they grow up to become soldiers.

Muhammad Mahdi Akef, who made international headlines a few years ago by labeling the Nazi holocaust a myth, said the Brotherhood “…will send fighters to join the resistance in Iraq and Palestine,” if permitted to do so by the Egyptian government. Now, the Brotherhood is closer than ever to taking over Egypt’s government and the power to grant itself permission to send its fighters to Iraq — fighters who could kill Americans.

The organization’s current Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badie, said just last October that Islamists must raise a “jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.” How the Muslim Brotherhood would behave should it assume power in Egypt is no mystery. Consider how it’s governed in Gaza.

After winning a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006, Hamas took, according to Human Rights Watch, “extraordinary steps to control, intimidate, punish and at times eliminate their internal rivals.” Last year, the group charged Hamas with “egregious crimes” for ordering attacks on Israeli civilians.

Believing the Brotherhood to be a peaceful, democratic, civic organization reminds me of what Samuel Johnson said about remarriage: The triumph of hope over experience.

David A. Ridenour is vice president of The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank in Washington.

Stinking Brits!

Britain sends military advisers to Libya: this is what mission creep looks like

By Benedict Brogan

HMS Cumberland in Benghazi – not the only British “boots on the ground”

The Foreign Office has announced that it is sending 10 ‘mentors’ to beef up the embryonic British presence in eastern Libya. Mentors? That’s the word used by the centre to describe what are in fact military advisers being sent in to help the rebels. The Government says it’s all well within the terms of UN Resolution 1973, and they are not a “fighting force”. They are there to advise on helping civilians, not on military training. The Telegraph reported recently the view inside the MoD that the rebels, while lacking nothing in enthusiasm, coudn’t fight their way out of a paper bag. Without outside help in arms and possibly international back-up they will not be able to accomplish what everyone wants – getting rid of Col Gaddafi. With the Libyan effort bogged down, Gaddafi still in place, and no sign of any momentum to force him out, it is no wonder that those allies still committed to this adventure are looking for ways to help the rebels get on with the job. Italy is talking of sending military help. David Cameron and his ministers have tied themselves in knots to avoid ruling out military help. And now we have it. The Prime Minister will have to face unavoidable charges that this is mission creep, and it will be tempting to recall how John F Kennedy started with military ‘advisers’ in Vietnam.

This is William Hague’s statement:  “The United Kingdom is strongly committed to the effective implementation of the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973. With the Libyan people still faced with continuing attacks by Gaddafi’s forces, the need to protect civilians in Libya is our highest priority. UNSCR 1973 authorises member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack from Gaddafi.

“The UK’s substantial and early military contribution to the enforcement of UNSCR 1973 has helped saved the lives of thousands of civilians threatened by Gaddafi’s murderous regime. As the scale of the humanitarian crisis has grown, so has the urgency of increasing our efforts to defend civilians against the attack from Gaddafi forces.”

Mr Hague added: “This deployment is fully within the terms of UNSCR 1973, both in respect of civilian protection and its provision expressly ruling out a foreign occupation force on Libyan soil. Consistent with our obligations under that resolution, our officers will not be involved in training or arming the opposition’s fighting forces. Nor will they be involved in the planning or execution of the NTC’s military operations or in the provision of any other form of operational military advice.”

American Reich Dictates Terms For Afghan Surrender of Sovereignty

[The longer we occupy Afghanistan, the more we reveal the true nature of the ravenous American Beast.  We are neo-Nazis, plain and simple.  The sooner we accept that reality, the sooner we can get on with total world domination.  Our corruption of the world extends even into the English language, by semantic distortions of basic definitions of words like "permanent" and "peace."  That Clinton bitch can merrily proclaim that we do not desire permanent bases along the strategic Afghan oil corridor, since she is only speaking about the next 25 years, not forever.  If there were even one honest government left in the world, they would resist this aggression, whatever the costs--but the whole world has been corrupted with soon to be worthless US dollars, meaning that every govt has a stake in a successful American/Nazi aggression.  Imagine that.]

Talks on U.S. Presence in Afghanistan After Pullout Unnerve Region

By ROD NORDLAND

KABUL, Afghanistan — First, American officials were talking about July 2011 as the date to begin the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Then, the Americans and their NATO allies began to talk about transition, gradually handing over control of the war to the Afghans until finally pulling out in 2014. Now, however, the talk is all about what happens after 2014.

Rodrigo Abd/Associated Press

American soldiers played video games at Kandahar Airfield. The United States will begin drawing down its forces in July.

Afghanistan and the United States are in the midst of negotiating what they are calling a Strategic Partnership Declaration for beyond 2014.

Critics, including many of Afghanistan’s neighbors, call it the Permanent Bases Agreement — or, in a more cynical vein, Great Game 3.0, drawing a comparison with the ill-fated British and Russian rivalry in the region during the 19th and 20th centuries.

It is without doubt a delicate process, and one that comes at a critical time. Afghan officials have expressed concern that the negotiations could scuttle peace talks with the Taliban, now in their early stages, because the insurgents have insisted that foreign forces must leave the country before they will deal. That they are already talking is an indication they are willing to compromise on the timing of a withdrawal — but it is hard to imagine Taliban acceptance of a lasting American presence here.

Formal talks on a long-term agreement began last month under Marc Grossman, the official who has replaced Richard C. Holbrooke, the diplomat who died in December, as the Obama administration’s envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a delegation visited Kabul under the direction of Frank Ruggiero, a State Department official who ran the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team until last year.

The reaction regionally was immediate. The Iranian interior minister made a rushed visit to Kabul, followed shortly by the national security advisers of India and Russia.

The Russians, though generally supportive of NATO’s role in Afghanistan, were alarmed at the prospect of a long-term Western presence.

“The Russian side supports the development of Afghanistan by its own forces in all areas — security, economic, political — only by its own forces, especially after 2014,” said Stepan Anikeev, a political adviser at the Russian Embassy here. “How is transition possible with these bases?”

American officials have hastened to assure Russia and other neighbors about their intentions after 2014. Mr. Grossman made a visit late last month to Moscow to do so. And officials from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on down have insisted that any presence after 2014 would not mean permanent bases.

It is a “long-term framework for our bilateral cooperation,” Mrs. Clinton said in a speech to the Asia Society on Feb. 18.

“In no way should our enduring commitment be misunderstood as a desire by America or our allies to occupy Afghanistan against the will of its people,” Mrs. Clinton said, adding, “We do not seek any permanent American military bases in their country.”

The Russians, however, have complained that any talk of a foreign troop presence in Afghanistan after 2014 violates international understandings, including one made in a joint statement by President Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev on June 24 supporting a neutral status for Afghanistan.

Afghan officials have acknowledged, however, that the talks do countenance some sort of long-term bases after 2014, if only for the purpose of continued training of Afghan troops. “What we’re discussing is a long-term strategic framework agreement,” said Ashraf Ghani, an adviser to President Hamid Karzai who is one of the Afghan negotiators. “The U.S. has many 10- to 25-year-long agreements, a wide range of agreements.”

“The important thing now is that the sense of abandonment that was in the air last year is gone now,” he said.

One person’s long-term base is another’s permanent base, however — and in the region many people took Mrs. Clinton’s assurances as proof that the United States was not leaving, whatever the bases are called.

“A 10- or 20-years agreement can be prolonged at any time,” Mr. Anikeev said. “And we have no guarantee they’re not permanent.”

“The Americans have not been honest about this, even among themselves,” said Mullah Attullah Lodin, deputy chairman of the High Peace Council of Afghanistan, which is charged with leading reconciliation efforts with the Taliban. “One says we are not building bases, another says we are building them, and it’s very confusing.”

The big concern, he said, was that if any such agreement were reached, it would make it that much harder to enter into serious peace talks with the Taliban. “That is the first thing the Taliban demand is the withdrawal of foreign troops,” Mullah Lodin said.

Rangin Dadfar Spanta, the national security adviser to Mr. Karzai, disagreed. “Reconciliation and a strategic relationship, they are not contradictory to one another. We have the same goals, peace and stability in Afghanistan, and elimination of sanctuaries and bases for terrorism, that is for the common good.”

Despite such worries, American and Afghan officials are negotiating on an accelerated timetable, with the Americans hoping to come to an agreement by July, when the first withdrawals of some American troops are to start, diplomats say.

“The Afghans are very worried about after 2014,” said a European diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic delicacies. “They’re trying to extract from the West as much as they can now.”

Mr. Ghani said that Afghan officials were hoping to win agreement on the transfer of Provincial Reconstruction Teams, which dispense aid from the United States and NATO countries directly to projects in the Afghan countryside, to Afghan government control. In general, the Afghans want to see more aid money funneled through their government, and they also want to see a reduced presence of the United Nations.

Then there is the issue of how the Afghans will be able to pay for their greatly enlarged police and military, which by some estimates will require $10 billion a year to sustain come 2014 — 10 times the Afghan government’s annual tax revenues.

“The whole mindset is to get as much as possible in the course of the next couple years,” the European diplomat said. “They really understand that they won’t get as much as they used to get, and they’re desperate to get as much as they can.”

One regional diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity for similar reasons, said the Americans were equally concerned to keep a long-term or permanent foothold in Afghanistan for their own interests as well.

“There was a time when the Americans were struggling to find one base in Central Asia,” he said. “Here is a place where they can have all the bases they want, and Afghanistan is a place between two potential nuclear Islamic powers, Iran and Pakistan.”

“There are forces of reaction who are itching to fire the starting gun on Great Game 3.0, and the insurgents will try to exploit this,” said Mark Sedwill, the NATO senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, in a recent speech.

Reaching accord among the diplomats on a Strategic Partnership Declaration will only be a first step. Mr. Karzai has already said any such agreement would have to be put to a nationwide loya jirga, a tribal assembly that acts as referendum on important issues.

“In general, people in Afghanistan are against foreign forces,” Mullah Lodin, the negotiator, said. “I don’t think the loya jirga will ever support foreign forces in the country.”

Mr. Spanta recognized the difficulty. “We have to convince the Afghan people there is something for us in this,” he said.

France had right to halt migrant trains from Italy – EU

[The hypocrisy of the French knows no bounds.  They are doing everything in their power to reclaim colonial possessions in Africa under the pretense of "humanitarian intervention," yet they will not tolerate "Africans" in French society. SEE: Camp of the Saints]

The Italian government insists the migrants have the proper paperwork to enter France

France acted within its rights when it halted trains carrying North African migrants crossing its border from Italy, the European Commission says.

Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem said French officials had cited “public order reasons”.

An EU spokesman also said France was not obliged to grant entry to people with the temporary residency permits given to some migrants by Italy.

Italy complained that the move violated EU rules on the free right to travel.

For those legally living in the 25 countries in the Schengen Area – to which France and Italy belong – no travel documents are required.

‘Strong protest’

Earlier on Monday, the French interior ministry said the rail link between Menton, France and Ventimiglia, Italy, was operating normally.

It said there had been an “isolated problem” caused by hundreds of activists on one train planning an “undeclared demonstration” in France, and posing a problem to public order that was temporary in nature.

“At no time was there a… closing of the border between France and Italy,” spokesman Pierre-Henri Brandet said.

He estimated that up to 10 trains may have been affected by the disruption, five on each side of the France-Italy border.

The statement came after the Italian ambassador in Paris was instructed by Foreign Minister Franco Frattini to lodge a “strong protest” of the blocking of the trains. The ambassador called the move “illegitimate and in clear violation of general European principles”.

While Mr Frattini acknowledged that the activists might have given them a cause of concern, he insisted it was not a “sufficient reason to justify sealing one of the most heavily used and sensitive European borders”.

The migrants had the proper paperwork to enter France, he added.

Italy has been giving temporary residence permits to many of the 26,000 Tunisians who have entered the country illegally to escape the unrest in the region in recent weeks, overwhelming refugee centres. Many have ties to France, and Italy says they should be able to travel there.

Large numbers of North African migrants have been landing on Italian shores

France has said it will grant entry to migrants holding the permits only if they can demonstrate that they can support themselves financially.

At a news conference on Monday afternoon, Ms Malmstroem said she had received a letter from France explaining the “temporary” disruption was the result of “public order reasons”.

“It may be that this is not covered by the Schengen border code rules. But it would seem that they had the right to do this,” she said.

EU spokesman Michele Cercone also said the residence permits were not visas, and France was under no obligation to admit people having neither EU visas nor EU passports.

LIBYA MUST NOT BE PARTITIONED

Horace Campbell

2011-04-14

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/72590

cc BRQ NetworkThe debates raging at the highest levels of the US National Security establishment and NATO over the military ‘stalemate’ in Libya conceal an even more competitive effort on the ground in Libya, by petroleum interests keen to divide up the territory to ensure access to the country’s vast oil resources, writes Horace Campbell.

The raging debates at the highest levels of the US National Security establishment and various interests within NATO over the current military ‘stalemate’ in Libya conceals an even more competitive effort on the ground in Libya by petroleum interests who are keen on dividing up the territory to ensure access to the vast oil resources of Libya. At the forefront of this aggressive partitioning effort is the French military, political and oil establishment that has not only recognised the transitional government in Benghazi but has also been the most pushy on advancing military options even in the face of opposition from other NATO members such as Germany, Greece, Spain and Turkey. Although in public the US military and the opportunistic force of the US Africa Command are supporting the military option, in Congressional testimony and in press reports in the United States, the secretary of defense, Robert Gates has stated that any oresident who would commit ground troops to a place such as Libya ought to have his head examined. Gates has also noted that the events in Libya were ‘a real formula for insecurity.’ These comments were restated by the ‘New York Times’ in the same paragraph where the paper stated that ‘Mr. Obama’s decision to join the military intervention in Libya may well be judged a failure if the initial result is a muddle or a partition of the country.’

Who will benefit from partitioning Libya? Why did the same US foreign policy establishment pour cold water on the peace initiatives of the African Union? Why did the head of the CIA proclaim early after the start of the rebellion that Gaddafi and his family will prevail? These questions are urgent in the face of the clear political and ideological weaknesses of the transitional authority of Benghazi who have failed to inspire the urban oppressed inside Tripoli to rise up and demand freedom. Instead, this political leadership continues to call for support from the military forces of NATO, even after NATO bombed their convoy, claiming ‘mistaken identity.’ Some sections of this rebellion hope to overcome inexperience and disorganisation through the involvement of ground troops and Special Forces from NATO. These ‘rebel’ leaders have forgotten the most recent history of the Chalabis and those Iraqis who pushed vigorously for US military involvement in Iraq. Those sections of the US military who understand clearly that the United States cannot afford to be seduced into another creeping war are opposed to the current NATO military exercise while those sections of the military/intelligence forces allied to Israel and the oil interests view the Libya operation as forward planning to be able to thwart the maturation of the Egyptian revolutionary process as it unfolds.

The tinderbox of the evolution of the changed politics of Africa and the Middle East contain the seeds of a wider conflagration if peace and justice forces do not actively oppose the partitioning of Libya and the planning for war and counter-revolution. I will join with those forces in Africa calling for the African Union to be more forthright in its initiatives for peace and call upon Brazil, Russia, India, China and Vietnam to press the Security Council to withdraw the open ended mandate of Resolution 1973 that called for ‘all necessary measures to protect civilians.’ France, Britain and the USA have gone beyond the mandate and Africans at home and abroad must rein in the NATO forces and call on the UN Secretary General to replace NATO with UN peacekeepers that are not compromised by petroleum interests. This secretary general is coming up for re-election and should be aware that European and US political interests are not the same as those who want peace. The partitioning of Libya will not support peace and reconstruction in Africa and it is in the face of this partitioning where the forces of pan African unity and peace must advance the ideas of people centered unity to isolate militarists within and outside Africa.

FRANCE’S DOMESTIC AND REGIONAL IMPERATIVES FOR WAR AND RE-COLONISATION

At the same time while the French political establishment was pretending to support democratization and rebellion against injustice in Libya, the French society was in the midst of implementing laws that targeted the dress of women who followed the Islamic faith. President Sarkozy who has not hidden his racist ideas about Africans and Arabs had given the green light to the neo-conservative and far right elements within France by courting the support of the neo-fascist National Front electorate. In a society where the impact of the economic recession was taking its toll on French workers with manifestations all over the country, Sarkozy was championing anti-immigrant sentiments and claiming that French involvement in Libya was to prevent a flood of Africans from crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Sarkozy is facing re-election in the coming year and is setting out a robust domestic and foreign policy based on xenophobia and French imperialism in Africa and the Middle East.

In his vision of Grandeur, France had proposed a Mediterranean Union to counter the growing influence of the United States in North Africa after Libya moved dramatically to cooperate with the neo-conservatives in Britain and the United States. Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had brought in Gaddafi on behalf of the US oil company Chevron to thwart German and Italian influence, and after 2005 US oil companies were awarded most of the contracts on offer at the first open license auction in Libya. France seethed in the face of this competition and sought to build an alliance with Lebanon in the east and Morocco in the West to counter the United States. France proclaimed to the Islamic world that it could end the Israeli-Palestine struggles. This posture belied the fact that France was the most forceful in opposing the independence of the peoples of the Western Sahara. In order to buy Morocco’s support, France opposed all efforts of the UN to bring an end to the colonial status of the Western Sahara also known as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The United States on the other side remained neutral on the question of full independence for the peoples of Western Sahara because the US wanted cooperation from Algeria in the claims to fabricate terrorism in the Maghreb. With a firm foothold in Tunisia, France wanted to achieve more influence in both Egypt and Libya. In order to curry favor with Libya, Sarkozy had invited Gadaffi to France for a grand state visit with the ‘brother leader’ shining in pomp and grandeur with a delegation of more than 500 strong.

FRENCH AND ITALIAN STRUGGLES IN LIBYA

But the diplomatic issues over the proposed Mediterranean Union paled into insignificance when compared to the urgency of French oil companied to get a bigger share of the oil from Libya. As a former colonial exploiter, the Italians had maintained close ties with the Gaddafi regime even during the years when Gaddafi was accused of being a sponsor of terrorism. Oil was discovered in Libya in 1959 and Italian capitalists were never far from the exploitation of the oil resources. Ten years later, King Idris was overthrown in a coup led by the 27-year-old Muammar Gaddafi, and the Italians showed clearly what their permanent interests were. These interests were based on oil and commercial ties. During the rise of the semi-fascist Berlusconi government, Libya embarked on a radically new chapter in its history of relationship with the former colonial power. Gadded visited Italy on 8 state visits and the Italians emerged with the largest stake in Libyan oil. By the time of the rebellion in February there were estimates that 32 per cent of Libyan oil went to Italy, 14 per cent to Germany, 10 per cent to France and China, 5 per cent to the United States with smaller percentages going to Austria, Canada, Norway, Spain, Brazil, India, Australia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and others. Other writers have written extensively on the skillful ways in which the Libyan National Oil Company learnt from the Malaysians and Indonesians to play different countries in the oil business.

Berlusconi worked hard to ensure that Italian capitalists remained a force within Libya to the point where Italy publicly apologised for the crimes committed by Italians during the colonial era. In 2008, this was a small price to pay when US oil companies were gaining most of the contracts for new explorations. The Berlusconi regime not only apologised for the crimes of colonialism, it returned stolen artifacts and pledged US$5 billion for infrastructural and housing projects in Libya. The Italian prime minister could pledge this US$5 billion with the full knowledge that this was a pittance compared to what was being reaped from the Italian oil companies in the Libyan desert. Moreover, as soon as Libya earned the money, it was recycled back to Europe with Italian companies being the beneficiaries of the wealth of its former colony. This recycle was through the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), a ‘sovereign wealth fund’ set up in 2006 to spend the country’s oil money, which has an estimated US$70 billion of assets. Italy received more opportunities to glean wealth out of Africa. Gaddafi and his family ploughed billions into strategic Italian enterprises. It is not yet known how much stake the Libyans had in Italy’s biggest oil company, Eni. The LIA invested in the Italian aerospace and defense group, Finmeccanica; Lafico is thought to retain more than 2 per cent of Fiat and almost 15 per cent of a quoted telecommunications company, Retelit. Before the rebellion, the Libyan state capitalists also owned 22 per cent of the capital of a textile firm, Olcese, with the best known investment as a 7.5 per cent stake in the Serie A soccerside Juventus. There was also s another 7.5 per cent interest in Italy’s largest bank, Unicredit.

Anglo-American capital salivated as they worked vigorously to compete with Italy in Libya and Tony Blair, former British prime minister, became the emissary for BP, construction and university enterprises. US hedge fund managers also joined the queue to Tripoli as Gaddafi signaled preference for US oil companies so that after 2005 US oil majors were the most successful in the bids to enter the Libyan oil market. Occidental, in conjunction with different consortiums, had a total of nine successful bids, while Chevron (the company associated with Condoleezza Rice) was not far behind. Other US oil companies, including Marathon, ConocoPhillips, and Occidental were busy bidding even though the Libyan leaders made it clear that the promised compensation for the families of the Lockerbie plane bombing would be paid from monies from US oil companies.

France under Sarkozy watched and seethed as Gaddafi supported a robust African Union while opposing the Mediterranean Union. When the Tunisian revolution removed the Ben Ali family, the political leadership was caught on the wrong side of history by promising early to send reinforcements to crush the revolution. Conservative and counter-revolutionary forces in France represented the revolution in North Africa as the openings of floodgates of immigrants from Africa in order to counter the inspirational images and lessons that were coming from Tahrir Square. When the rebellion in Libya exploded seven days after the departure of the Mubarak family, France jumped in to support the rebellion and was the first and only country to recognise the government in the east.

LIBYA EFFECTIVELY PARTITIONED?

French forward planners and strategists had been in touch with opposition elements in Libya and it was the calculation of Sarkozy that a quick application of power from the air would tip the balance, and the Libyan rebels would do the drive triumphantly into Tripoli. Britain succumbed to French activism not wanting to be left out and tried to find a middle ground between the Pentagon and France. Inside Europe, German, Turkey, Spain, Greece and Austria seethed and dithered as Italy supported the aerial bombardment while at the same time supporting the Gaddafi family with logistics and other forms of support under the radar. When it was reported that the Transitional Council was starting to export oil from terminals on the East at Tobruk, Italian oil interests not wanting to be left behind traveled to Benghazi to secure the dominance of the Italian companies in the oil business. Eni chief Paolo Scaroni flew to Benghazi, where he ‘had contacts with the Libyan National Transitional Council to restart cooperation in the energy sector and get going again the collaboration with Italy in the oil sector.’ After the start of the bombing campaign on March 18, an interim government was formed by the council on 23 March 2011. This interim government has so far been officially recognised by France, Qatar, The Maldives and Italy.

The Italians had to move swiftly because the US Treasury had made clear that opposition oil sales would not be subject to the sanctions imposed on Col Gaddafi’s government. With the full understanding of the potential from France to seek to have oil from the east sold in the Euro currency, US Treasury officials have cautioned leaders of the Transitional Council that the dollar should be the currency for the oil trade. Of course, the US Treasury was too sophisticated to say this openly, instead used language that ‘the rebels would have to create a payment mechanism’ that was acceptable.

The Obama administration was caught between three competing interests. The first was represented by the oil forces that have experience in working on both sides of partitioned societies. Their position had been echoed quite early by the head of the CIA who had contradicted Obama when he said that Gaddafi had to go. James Clapper told the US Senate that Gaddafi’s superior military force would prevail over the long term. Also, Mr Clapper said one possible outcome could be the splitting of Libya into three autonomous states. The same CIA that was deploying Special Forces to Libya to fight beside the ‘rebels’ was sending a signal to its assets in the Gaddafi circles that the CIA would still be keeping in close touch with them. The head of the CIA predicted that Gaddafi would prevail even while the head of Obama’s NSC was on the phone every day calling on Moussa Koussa to defect. The anticipation was that this defection would trigger internal opposition to Gaddafi. Moussa Koussa predicted a Somali type partitioning if there was no political solution to the uprising.

The second position of the Obama administration came from the sectors of the Pentagon who did not want to fight for oil companies. The opposition to the US involvement came clearly from chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen and Robert Gates, who had testified before Congress that he US military capabilities were too high to be involved with the training of the opposition army. Yet, nearly a week after boasting of their satellite capabilities, the NATO forces bombed a convoy of tanks that had been used by the transitional authority in the East. After boasting of their capabilities there were attacks on the rebels involving at least two deadly friendly-fire airstrikes. Rear Admiral Russ Harding from NATO Joint Force Command ‘apologised’ and said ‘it was hard to tell rebel fighters apart from Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s troops – after all, they generally wear the same uniforms and have similar weaponry and vehicles.’

The third position of the US administration came from the Humanitarian hardliners, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton. These were the forces who have been trumpeting the call for the exit of Gaddafi even though the US does not have a mandate for ‘regime change’ under the UN resolution. The Obama administration in the absence of leadership to oppose the partitioning of Libya gave publicity to professors who warned that, ‘Humanitarian wars, like all wars, tend to escalate.’ From inside Africa Mahmood Mamdani underlined the farce of this so called humanitarian bombing and pointed to the farce of the NATO position. He rightly noted:

‘Iraq and Afghanistan teach us that humanitarian intervention does not end with the removal of the danger it purports to target. It only begins with it.

‘Having removed the target, the intervention grows and turns into the real problem. This is why to limit the discussion of the Libyan intervention to its stated rationale – saving civilian lives – is barely scratching the political surface.

‘The political and diplomatic leadership offered by the Africa Union must now be supported in light of the partitioning of Libya between Western oil companies, especially in the struggles between France and Italy.’

THE PEACE INITIATIVE OF THE AFRICAN UNION IN LIBYA

At the outset of the uprising in Libya the Africa Union was divided over its response, primarily because many of the leaders feared rebellions in their own societies while others had been compromised by their close and fawning relationship with Gaddafi. As the rebellion changed its form and character from urban street protests to armed confrontation, peace forces in Africa sought answers to the question of the ideological and political orientation of the would be revolutionaries. Answers were not far off when there was no organisation, no clarity of ideas or clear leadership lines as emerged from the ranks of the workers and students in Egypt. Because of the treatment of millions of workers from sub-Saharan Africa who worked in all parts of Libya, there was soon clarity that those fighting to remove Gaddafi were not anti-racist in their own ranks. African workers who were caught in the crosshairs of this battle between Gaddafi and his opponents were labelled as ‘mercenaries’ and persecuted. Tales of this persecution percolated across Africa as those who were fortunate to leave reached their homes from Nairobi to Accra.

Despite this information, the peace and justice forces opposed the massacres by Gaddafi and called for humanitarian assistance in the cities that were under siege. It was this call for assistance that persuaded the African Union Peace and Security Council to support efforts by the United Nations to offer humanitarian assistance even while deliberating a collective African response. When France called the meeting in Paris to give diplomatic cover for the impending military bombing campaign, the AU Commission chairman Jean Ping refused to participate in the meeting, stating in public that he was not going to Paris for a photo opportunity.

This was a clear criticism of the stamp of approval given by the Arab League to the Paris meeting. Days after the massive bombing campaign of the British, French and US forces; even the Arab League recoiled from its earlier endorsement of the open ended UN Security Council Resolution. Those members of the UN Security Council such as Brazil, Russia, India and China who had abstained during the discussion of ‘all necessary measures to protect civilians’ belatedly opposed the bombing campaign without offering concrete alternatives for humanitarian assistance.

The Peace and Security Commission of the African Union did not retreat but worked patiently to deliver an alternative to the NATO military campaign that led to the (permanency of the military stalemate between the forces of Gaddafi and those of the Transitional National Council in reality) a de facto partition of Libya. Initially when the rosy images of NATO military missions were being sold to the world, the forces of NATO opposed the request of the African Union to fly into Libya to mediate. However, as the partitioning became clearer with the implications for creeping war, sections of the US National Security Council overrode the objections of France and gave permission for the AU mission to fly to Libya. This they did on 10 April 2010. At once, the Libyan leadership that had been desperate in the hour of isolation accepted the African Union plan. The plan called for: The cessation of hostilities, stoppage of the aerial bombardment of Libya, opening of safe corridors for delivery of humanitarian aid and talks between Libyan authorities and the rebels.

The roadmap had been drawn up following a meeting Saturday 9 April in Nouakchott, Mauritania, after which the delegation proceeded to Libya. The delegation included presidents Jacob Zuma of South Africa ,Denis Sassou N’Guessou (Congo), Amadou Toumani Toure (Mali), Mohamed Ould Abdelaziz (Mauritania), Ugandan Minister of Foreign Affairs Henry Okello Oryem, AU Commission Chairman Jean Ping, and the AU Commissioner for Peace and Security, Ramadan Lamamra. After discussions in Tripoli, the delegation flew to meet the leaders of the Transitional National Council in Benghazi. The political leaders of the rebellion rejected the African Union saying it did not meet their basic demand that Muammar Gaddafi, his sons and his inner circle leave immediately. These same leaders did not demonstrate what mechanisms other than Western military involvement that they were going to mobilise to ensure the immediate departure of Gaddafi and his lieutenants. The French press gave publicity to this rejection as France continued to be the only state that gave diplomatic recognition to the Transitional National Council.

Despite the rejection of the AU mediation efforts, the permanent members of the Security Council, especially Russia and China, along with the other non-permanent members such as Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa can collectively act to end the disproportionate bombings and the so called ‘mistakes. If Gaddafi is to be removed because of his oppression of the Libyan people, it is the task of the Libyans to lead their own rebellion.

Obama must lead the opposition to the partitioning of Libya and support the United Nations to pursue diplomatic and political alternatives to the NATO bombing campaign. Obama was reminded by one section of the media that hope is not a strategy.

A strategy for peace will undermine the forward planners who are deadly afraid of the outcomes of successful revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Horace Campbell is professor of African American Studies and Political Science at Syracuse University. He is the author of ‘Barack Obama and Twenty First Century Politics: A Revolutionary Moment in the USA’. See www.horacecampbell.net.

Qadhafi’s Missiles and Tanks Hidden in Great Man-Made River Tunnels

Intelligence: Al-Qadhafi has outwitted the NATO military equipment hidden in underground labyrinths

Ground forces of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s almost not suffered a loss as a result of NATO bombing, British intelligence found out. According to them, heavy weapons, including tanks, missile launchers and missiles, safely hidden in the underground labyrinths of the world’s longest irrigation system which is officially called the Great Man-Made River.

ITAR-TASS, referring to the newspaper The Sunday Times , this system was established in Libya in 1980 to ensure delivery of fresh water from underground deposits of southern Libya to the largest cities in the north. Tunnel diameter reaches 4.5 meters.

But now there is a military technique of government troops, so that they are practically invulnerable to NATO aircraft. Thus, the Qaddafi regime has the resources to maintain its power in the country, concludes weekly.

US Economic “Shock Warfare” Boomerangs, Credit Rating Precarious

US warned on top credit rating by Standard & Poor’s

Republicans are pushing for plans to massively cut US government spending

The US has been warned that the credit rating on its government debt could be cut by Standard & Poor’s.

S&P is concerned that Democrats and Republicans will not be able to agree a plan to reduce the growing US deficit.

It has downgraded its outlook from stable to negative for the first time, increasing the likelihood that the rating could be cut within two years.

The US Treasury responded that S&P had underestimated its ability to tackle the national debt.

The surprise move sent US and European shares lower. The S&P 500 fell the most in a month, and the US dollar dropped against the euro and Swiss franc. Oil was also sharply lower.

In Europe, the main UK, German and French indexes all fell by at least 2%.

The US federal deficit currently stands at $1.4tn (£858bn) and is expected to reach $1.5tn in the current fiscal year.

Budget battle

President Barack Obama suggested that the world could plunge into a new recession if the ceiling on money the US can borrow is not raised in the next few weeks, before the current debt limit of $14.3tn is reached.

Mr Obama and the Republicans are locked in a battle over the extent of spending cuts.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has passed a 2012 budget plan that aims to cut $6.2tn in spending by the government over the next decade.

But the bill is not expected to make it through the Democrat-led Senate.

The current fight is over spending from 1 October onwards. Last week, Congress passed a budget bill that would cut $38.5bn in government spending over the rest of the current fiscal year, to 30 September.

Last week, Mr Obama laid out his plan to reduce the budget deficit by $4tn over 12 years.

‘Political judgment’

Austan Goolsbee, the chief economist of the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, dismissed the change in outlook while making the rounds on US cable networks.

“What the S&P is doing is making a political judgment and it is one that we don’t agree with,” he told CNBC.

The S&P outlook cut comes after the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned last week that the size of the US deficit created instability in the financial markets.

In a statement, S&P said: “We believe there is a material risk that US policymakers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013.

“If an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then, this would in our view render the US fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer ‘AAA’ sovereigns.”

‘Slow death’

The US has the top AAA credit rating on its long-term bonds.

Since the US is the world’s largest economy, and its debt is considered the backbone of the world’s financial system, any concern over the US ability to pay its debt creates huge ripples in the world economy.

“The US may be in the last throes of being a safe haven, and the notion of the Treasury being a risk-free asset may die a slow death from here,” said Kathleen Brooks, research director at Forex.com.

But the US Treasury responded strongly to the change in outlook.

“We believe S&P’s negative outlook underestimates the ability of America’s leaders to come together to address the difficult fiscal challenges facing the nation,” it said.

Standard & Poor’s has been rating US government debt since 1941 and has given it a AAA rating with a stable or positive outlook throughout that time. This is the first time that S&P has shifted the outlook to “negative”.

Of the other leading ratings agencies, Moody’s has never changed the US outlook from stable, while Fitch briefly had a negative outlook between November 1995 and April 1996.

The Pakistani Army and Subservience to the American Raj

Its not merely about “requesting” and “objecting”

Mostaque Ali

Pakistan has been a failed state since its inception in 1947. A large part of that initially was the nature of its birth in 1947, starved of institutionalized resources and logistics; 90% or more of which went to India, either by default or deliberate British policy. Munitions meant for the Pakistan army from the huge armaments depots in South India built up during WWII, were found dumped in the Arabian sea, and trains carrying logistics for the state never arrived……due to it was said “Partition” and “border” problems.

Pakistan should never have been created.

Gandhi should have called the British Raj bluff and unusually high pressure tactics, and not acceded to a partitioned India.(“OK we’re leaving India right now, no time to loose, going right now…….1948 is too late for us…….Jinnah will die by then, so we’ve been told……..so what if we’ve been in the region for 200 years…..we’ve got to go, massacres will follow and escalate if you don’t make a quick hasty ill judged decision now) But he was shaken by the Bengal communal riots, organized by the Muslim League in 1946 (British Raj).

But that was 63 years ago.

Since 1951, when the Pakistan military carried out a soft/hard coup, the ONLY source of Pakistan’s failed nature have been the Pakistan military, through the ISI…..the military’s think tank and chief strategist…………………………..set up by the British in 1948, with a British General running it from 1948–56(58?).

To make Pakistan stable the ISI would have to be disbanded; cut ALL military ties with the USA/UK……and cut the size of the Pakistan military with its 191 multi-millionaire generals, and 1,100,000 military machine which probably eats up around 8–10% of the real unofficial GDP(Ayesha Siddiqa”Military Inc—Inside Pakistan military economy”)

Unfortunately in Pakistan, as in many nations around the world, the military think they are the rightful and only custodians of national security and defense of their country…….and for this to be fully appreciated and realized, THEY must actually run the government of the country either directly (Indonesia, where the generals wear civilian jackets, with ties) or from the back seat…Pakistan where they basically decide Pakistan’s security, and foreign policy—the civilian government has little or no power and simply cannot compete against an armed organization of 1,100,000 men……3,000,000 reserves and retirees…and finally 500,000 trained, armed Islamic Fundamentalists such as the LeT, HuJi, Taliban…at its back and call. FINALLY, the diplomatic and financial backing of the USA.

This is all good for the Pakistan military, with lots of military equipment, hardware, but not good for the Pakistan STATE, with its people of 180 million.

The Pakistan military strategically, acting for itself, guided by the gora via the ISI over cocktails in Pindi/Islamabad “pushes” and “shakes” the state for its particular interests……but each time it does so, it FAILS Pakistan one notch further:

1. 1951—1958—-destabilization of civilian governments, after the soft/hard coup of 1951. GREAT for the Pakistan military because with each destabilization it brought them closer to power, BUT extremely bad for a new unstable young nation struggling to survive and legitimate itself……through the normal avenue of civilian government.

2. Signing a Security Pact with the USA in 1954, as an anti-Communist bloc country. Great for the Pakistan military where most of the $1 billion aid promised was defense related. But bad for Pakistan the young struggling nation state because it could now be interfered with politically by the USA using military aid/training as a leverage unto the present 2011.

3. 1965 war, where the Pakistan military committed to war against more powerful India, with their American supplied arms and 1 weeks worth of military spares and ammunition……hoping to i) defeat India, ii) Capture Kashmir iii) Hold Kashmir/Repulse Indian counter attacks. What actually happened was failure of i and ii objectives obviously, and failure of iii when India decided to crank it up, but saved by USA diplomatic intervention. STRATEGICALLY, India very naturally then focused on East Pakistan defended by a lone weak division, from 1965–1971.

4. The 1971 Civil war in East Pakistan, organized and conducted by the Pakistan military as the leading actor in the tragic drama. East Pakistanis cannot rule Pakistan; East Pakistanis cannot rule themselves(1958–1971)……so said the gora run Pakistan military. Just to prove that point we’ll destroy East Pakistan, its infrastructure, and its people……in the name of defending Pakistan.

5. Over throw of the democratically elected government of Bhutto in 1977. For the first time the Pakistan military acted on the direct orders of the USA, overtly. From 1977 to the present, it became common currency for ALL who may have had a slight interests in power in Pakistan to kiss gora ass. To this day, because of the events of 1977 where the Pakistan military killed Bhutto for the USA, senior politicians and generals alike go the American embassy, like serfs visiting the high emperor. If this is not a fundamental destabilization of national politics, I don’t know what is?

In such a scenario will the Americans listen to the Pakistani Coolies? Generals, politicians or civilians.

6. The backing of hardline Islamic Fundamentalists, over more moderate Afghan’s against the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan between 1977–1994 by the Pakistani military/ISI. Psychopaths such as Hekmatyar and Geelani would never make good rational leaders of a war torn country. The USA of course backed all this, as it was now all in favor of Islamic Fundamentalists, such as the Islamic Brotherhood, and the mullah’s of Iran, from the 1970′s, using them in specific arena’s.(Egypt, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan)

7. The backing of the Taliban for “strategic depth” by the Pakistan military at the behest of the USA, from 1994 in Afghanistan. The backing of the ‘al-Qaeda” hologram for the USA, conducting military ops, and capturing ‘al-Qaeda’ members for sustaining the USA hologram. The Pakistan military must take sole responsibility for allowing Pakistan to be named terrorist hub number one. A source of shame for most nations, but not for the millionaire Pakistani generals who hope to make more money as the useful dogs of the fake USA war known as GWoT.

Good for a few Pakistani generals, but not good for Pakistan the nation state.

8. Pakistan is a failed de- legitimated state. Its President did prison time for corruption, and is known as Mr. 10%….with $3 billion worth of looted state funds. The nations future looks bleak as it embarks on a ceaseless, American backed war against ‘terrorists’ who in the American defined sense don’t exist. The Pakistan state faces massive population and other socio-economic threats which need to be addressed calmly, strategically and logically…….working side by side, honestly, sincerely with India.

HOWEVER in a nation where the military lie through their teeth to the Pakistan people, day in day out as an exercise in cleverness….and secretly collaborate with JEWSA geo-strategy in Pakistan, which is destructive to Pakistan all too evidently…..then such a state has no future, no future except self destruction.

CIA Panetta says he is doing his duty for his country launching drone strikes into sovereign Pakistan territory……..which has killed 1500 innocent civilians, and a few purported Taliban people, ratio of 1:50. The Taliban and ‘al-Qaeda’ are the responsibility of the USA, nobody else. Certainly large number of innocent civilians should not be killed in the process of fighting these two CIA created and run creatures in AF/Pak. Bombing Cambodia to fight the Vietcong should not be repeated in Pakistan.

What then is the true Duty of the Pakistan military?

The Pakistan Military, with its 63 years of “strategic genius”……how long is this fake USA show going to go on for on Pakistani soil?

The drone strikes are bad; they kill innocent dirt poor fourth world people. What is far far worse however is the American GWoT narrative, which says Pakistan is terrorist hub number one; The Taliban is a global challenge as is ‘al-Qaeda’ in Pakistan. The drone strikes reinforce that image, which for the long term is very very dangerous for Pakistan……given what is happening around the world, and neo-colonialism.

For the largely Punjabi Pakistani generals, they make money, they get arms aid for the loss of some Pashtun civilians. In their world this might be an acceptable loss…in a nation of 180 million. Whats a few Pashtuns to them? Whats a few Baluchis to them? Whats a few East Pakistanis to them? whats a few civilians to them? Whats a few soldiers to them (Kargil 1999, 4000 Pakistanis killed—derail any chances of an Indian/Pakistan peace deal—-peace with India, no need for big military in Pakistan)

But the sum total of their thinking is destroying Pakistan.

Shuja Pasha does not need to merely “Object” “argue” and “request” to the USA about drone strikes in Sovereign Pakistan territory; he needs to take real action.

1. Drone strikes cannot take place on Pakistani soil, unless the Pakistani military provide the coordinates first. Stop assisting the JEWSA killing innocent Pakistani civilians.

2. It is past incredibility that the Pakistan military, with its ISI, the ‘best intelligence service in the world” do not know the where abouts of American covert operatives!!!!!! The ISI with its previous British Raj legacy and 150 years experience has a very long record of tracking warring tribals in the NWFP certainly, if not the rest of Pakistan. How difficult is to spot a gora, for fuck sakes? Pakistanis on average aren’t cosmopolitan people…….they should be able smell a gora from a mile off. More dis-information from the Pakistani military geniuses. Americans wearing make-up should be easily spotted.

3. 70-80% of supplies to the Occupation forces in Afghanistan go through Pakistan. CUT IT OFF. If that’s difficult, squeeze the supply to 30-40%.

4. Go to the Pakistan Media and tell the real story of the Taliban, and ‘al-Qaeda”. Instead of repeating the American false lies lets tell the truth that OBL is dead; “al-Qaeda” does not exist; the Taliban is a force created by the USA…….side with the Pakistan people and their interests, BEFORE a peoples revolution and not AFTER, where you have less control.(Egypt—-Mubarak a former airforce general, 82, old, being prosecuted by his former colleagues in the Egyptian military, who otherwise benefited under his regime, because that is what the mob in Tahrir Square wants)…..and the Americans, and the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood there NOW.

CIA Coup-College

UPDATE: CANVAS has moved and renamed their Cooperation and Supporters web-page. It can now be found under “External Links.”

Recycled revolutionary “props.”
by Tony Cartalucci

First noted by geopolitical analyst and historian Dr. Webster Tarpley, some suspicious similarities could be seen between the Egyptian unrest and another, known US-backed uprising in Serbia. Serbia’s Otpor, or the “resistance,” was funded to the tune of millionsby the US National Endowment for Democracy. Its signature clenched fist logo adorned flags, signboards, and t-shirts carried by the US State Department-laid astro-turf until the ousting of Slobodan Milošević in 2000.

The exact same logo would turn up 11 years later across the Mediterranean Sea in the streets of Cairo, illustrating further the preposterous, foreign-backed nature of the Egyptian uprisings. Could it just be just a coincidence and Dr. Tarpley’s take mere speculative conjecture? Not even close.

After its success, Serbia’s Otpor would continue receiving funds from the West and become a “CIA-coup college” of sorts, under the name CANVAS, or “Center for Applied Non-Violent Action and Strategies.” It appears that after the Egyptian April 6 Youth Movement finished attending the US State Department funded confab in New York City in 2008, it would make a trip to visit CANVAS in 2009. From there, it took CANVAS’s “curriculum” and apparently their logo, and began assembling a US-funded mob in Egypt.

Amongst CANVAS’s current “partners” are the Albert Einstein Institution, Freedom House, and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The IRI includes amongst its board of directors John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Brent Scowcroft. When John McCain says “We should have seen this coming,” in regards to the unrest in Egypt, he obviously isn’t talking about himself since he helped make it happen.

See with your own eyes, the absolutely shameless hoax foisted upon you, the general public, by your corporate owned mainstream media, the US State Department, and all the disingenuous leaders who have feigned ignorance and surprise over the premeditated and meticulously planned unrest still unfolding throughout the Middle East today, and NEVER believe a word they say again.

Serbia’s US National Endowment for
Democracy funded ”Otpor”

Serbia’s “Otpor,” a model for future
US-backed color revolutions.

Serbia’s “Otpor.”

Serbia’s “Otpor,” US ready-made mob.

Serbia’s “Otpor” or “Resistance.”

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement,” note the EXACT same
fist logo, most likely brought back from Serbia by April 6
members studying the CANVAS “curriculum.”

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement” recycling
US-funded revolution “props.”

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement” banner with painted in
Egyptian flag to give the “Otpor-fist” some local flavor.

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement”
sporting yet another identical “Otpor-fist.”

Bahrain’s “Youth for Freedom” may have attended
the CIA-coup college as well. BBC’s canonizing of
Bahrain’s protesters as heroes surely indicates
establishment approval.

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement” witlessly
displaying foreign funded propaganda as they
prepare to overthrow their country’s government
and make way for a Soros-funded constitution.

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement”
banner with a slight variation.

A final note to consider is that CANVAS is on record in Foreign Policy magazine’s article “Revolution U,” assisting the “Rose Revolution” of Georgia, the “Orange Revolution” of the Ukraine, and is currently working with networks from Belarus, Myanmar (Burma) and 50 other countries. Taking a look at their activities and the overall globalist agenda, it is clear they are involved in regime change that will directly assist the globalists in theirencirclement of Russia and China.

John McCain went on to say of the unrest his IRI had helped fund in Egypt, “I would be a little less cocky in the Kremlin with my KGB cronies today if I were Vladimir Putin. I would be a little less secure in the seaside resort [of] President Hu and a few men who govern and decide the fate of 1.3 billion people.”

McCain’s careless comments, begotten of either senility or the utter contempt he holds the general public in, let slip the true nature of the game being played out via US-fueled color revolutions unfolding around the world. Indeed, this is about exacting concessions and forcing the integration of sovereign nations into the Anglo-American, unipolar world empire.

U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition: report

(Reuters) – The State Department has secretly funded Syrian opposition groups, according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, The Washington Post reported on Monday.

The cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million since 2006 to a group of Syrian exiles to operate a London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, and finance activities inside Syria, the Post said.

Barada TV began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria that began last month as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad the Post said.

The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after political ties with Damascus were frozen in 2005, the newspaper said.

The financial backing has continued under President Barack Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad, the Post said. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.

The article said it is unclear whether the United States was still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside at least through September 2010.

An uprising against Assad’s authoritarian rule have spread across large parts of the country. Rights groups put the death toll at more than 200 people. Syrian authorities blame the violence on armed gangs.

The previously undisclosed cables show that U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus became worried in 2009 when they learned that Syrian intelligence agents were raising questions about U.S. programs, The Washington Post said.

An April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the time read Syrian authorities “would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change,” the Post reported.

“A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programing that supports anti- factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive,” the cable said.

The Post said the State Department declined to comment on the authenticity of the cables or answer questions about its funding of Barada TV.

(Reporting by JoAnne Allen; Editing by Philip Barbara)

A futile balancing act

By Jalees Hazir | Published: April 17, 2011

Recent statements of senior US officials indicate very clearly that the global bully is least interested in addressing the concerns of its Pakistani partners in the so-called war on terror, and that it has no intention to rethink, or so much as even scale down, the dangerous murderous games it is playing in our country. It is obvious that the pleading and protesting of Pakistani authorities on drone strikes and activities of CIA operatives have failed to produce any results. In fact, this supine attitude has emboldened the rogue superpower to carry out its illegal and subversive activities with more impunity and more blatantly. Obviously, to bring an end to this oppressive one-sided relationship, the United States needs shock-therapy: an end to this no-good partnership. Only then can we hope that, at some point in the future, a relationship between the two countries based on mutual interests and respect could be established.
The CIA Director is reported to have told his ISI counterpart that his fundamental responsibility was to protect the lives of American citizens and that he would not halt operations that support that objective. He was talking about the covert subversive activities of his operatives on the Pakistani soil and, of course, to the drone strikes that have killed thousands of innocent Pakistani civilians in our tribal areas. But then, American governments are known to do things like that: killing millions of innocent non-Americans on the pretext of saving their own citizens. What is disturbing is the fact that such blatant aggression directed against Pakistani citizens does not prick the conscience of those running our affairs. Is it not their fundamental responsibility to protect Pakistanis? Or do the Pakistani taxpayers pay their salaries and afford them honourable high offices so that they could facilitate the protection of American lives, while those they are supposed to protect are butchered mercilessly?
In any case, there are numerous reasons to believe that all this death and destruction unleashed on Pakistan and various other countries has nothing to do with protecting the lives of American people, but is actually an excuse to grab the resources of targeted countries and to define the geographic and political contours in the targeted regions that would facilitate this criminal greed for the wealth of others. In the process, hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayers’ money find their way to the arms industry, the shady intelligence operations, private security contractors and powerful construction firms. Fed by the perpetual media propaganda and intimidated by legislation like the Homeland Security Act, brainwashed to chase the illusion of the American dream and distracted by the worship of deranged celebrities, the American citizens that are supposed to be protected are led to believe this hogwash. The question remains: Why does the Pakistani leadership continue to play the role of a slave in this murderous farce?

Obama’s UnConstitutional Self-Created U.N. “Authority” Is Most Dangerous Precedent

[This is clearly grounds for impeachment.  Is Congress going to honor the commitments made to defend and protect the American people and their Constitution, or will We the People have to do this ourselves?  This is some deadly serious shit people.  We are witnessing a war of lawyers, who frame the crimes that they are committing on a daily basis as "humanitarian" actions to stop genocide, when it is a fact that what is happening on the ground is criminal, papered-over with a thin veneer of legality.  Barack Obama has corrupted the United Nations, turning it into an instrument of aggression, to be used for his own hidden agenda, which is characterized by a an aura of lawlessness and messianic delusions of grandeur.  It will get no clearer than this.  It is only a matter of time before the US military is called into action in the American homeland itself in the service of this megalomaniac obsession with total control.]

Obama’s U.N. Authority?

Only the elected representatives of Congress, not the U.N., can authorize the United States to use military force against another nation.

Louis Fisher All Articles

The National Law Journal

Libyans stand on the wreckage of a US F15 fighter jet. 
Photo: AP / Anja Niedringhaus

President Obama has yet to explain to Congress and the American people how he received authority from the United Nations Security Council to initiate military operations against Libya. On March 21, he informed Congress that “at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.” An April 1 memo by the Office of Legal Counsel states that Security Council Resolution 1973 “imposed a no-fly zone and authorized the use of military force to protect civilians.” Because Libya did not comply with the resolution, the OLC concluded that President Obama was justified in using military force against Libya to maintain “the credibility of the United Nations Security Council and the effectiveness of its actions to promote international peace and security.”

May the U.N., rather than the elected representatives of Congress, authorize the United States to use military force against another nation? Is it possible to transfer the constitutional power of Congress to an international body? The answer to both questions: No. Authority under law and the Constitution must come from Congress. Statutory law, dating to 1945, speaks unambiguously about the use of American troops in a U.N. military operation: “The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution.” 22 U.S.C. 287d.

What is the history of this law? Why was it ignored when President Harry Truman went to war against North Korea in 1950 without seeking or obtaining authority from Congress? The record plainly demonstrates that he violated the Constitution, the 1945 statute and his own public pledge to the Senate. The record also shows that members of Congress have failed to protect the Constitution, their own institutional powers and the rights of citizens who elected them to office.

During World War II, the United States and allied nations agreed to create an international body to act against military aggression. The result was the U.N. Charter of 1945. The drafters of that document appreciated the need to protect the war powers of Congress. They knew why the United States had failed to join the League of Nations. The Versailles Treaty was rejected by the Senate in 1919 and again in 1920 because President Woodrow Wilson refused to accept reservations offered by Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge. A key amendment stated that the United States assumed no obligation to engage in wars authorized by the League unless “Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.”

Wilson opposed the Lodge reservations, claiming that they “cut out the heart of this Covenant” and represented “nullification” of the treaty. Personal spite and rigidity caused Wilson to dig in his heels. As newspapers reported, “The President has strangled his own child.” Wilson had no principled objection to Lodge’s language on the war power. On March 8, 1920, Wilson wrote to Sen. Gilbert Hitchcock, acknowledging that whatever obligations the U.S. government undertook in a League military action “would of course have to be fulfilled by its usual and established constitutional methods of action.” The Constitution, Wilson said, requires that “Congress alone can declare war or determine the causes or occasions for war, and that it alone can authorize the use of the armed forces of the United States on land or on the sea.”

Those who drafted the U.N. Charter did not want a repeat of the Versailles Treaty. The charter provides that whenever member states agree to participate in a U.N. military operation, nations must act in accordance with their “constitutional processes.” During Senate debate on the charter, Truman from Potsdam wired this note to Sen. Kenneth McKellar on July 27, 1945, pledging: “When any such agreement or agreements are negotiated it will be my purpose to ask the Congress for appropriate legislation to approve them.”

To implement the charter, it was necessary for Congress to pass legislation that satisfied U.S. constitutional processes. The language in § 6 of the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 did precisely that. Agreements “shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution.” Statutory language could not be written more clearly. The legislative history of this provision, including hearings, committee reports and floor debate, all point to the same result: The president must seek congressional approval in advance.

With these safeguards in place to protect the Constitution and congressional powers, Truman on June 26, 1950, announced that the U.N. Security Council had acted to order a withdrawal of North Korean forces to positions north of the 38th parallel, and that “in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council, the United States will vigorously support the effort of the Council to terminate this serious breach of the peace.” At that point he made no commitment of U.S. military forces.

On the following day, he informed the nation that the Security Council had called upon all U.N. members to provide assistance and that he had “ordered United States air and sea forces to give the [South] Korean Government troops cover and support.” The military commitment deepened. At no time did Truman seek authority from Congress. Secretary of State Dean Acheson claimed that Truman had done his “utmost to uphold the sanctity of the Charter of the United Nations and the rule of law.” In fact, Truman had violated the Constitution, the U.N. Participation Act and his own pledge to the Senate five years earlier.

Other presidents have built on Truman’s precedent. In November 1990, President George H.W. Bush obtained a U.N. resolution to act militarily against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, claiming that he did not need congressional authority. Nevertheless, Congress passed authorizing legislation in January 1991. President Bill Clinton used U.N. resolutions to act militarily against Haiti and Bosnia. At no time did he seek authority from Congress.

Presidents have some discretion to use military force without advance congressional authorization, including repelling sudden attacks and rescuing American citizens. None of those justifications apply to Libya. America was not threatened or attacked by Libya. Obama has called the military operation a humanitarian intervention that serves the national interest. Yet launching hundreds of Tomahawk missiles and ordering air strikes against Libyan ground forces, for the purpose of helping rebels overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi, constitutes war. Under the U.S. Constitution, there is only one source for authorizing war. It is not the Security Council or NATO. It is Congress.

Louis Fisher is scholar in residence with the Constitution Project. He worked for Congress as professional staff from 1970 to 2010 and is the author of Presidential War Power (2004). His articles and congressional testimony are available at www.loufisher.org.

Dissent should be heard

Column: Dissent should be heard

Written by

REKHA BASU

Early this month in India’s capital, a retired Navy admiral, a newspaper columnist and an anti-nuclear activist from Maharashtra told the press of their concerns about plans for the construction of the world’s largest nuclear-power park, in Maharashtra. Six reactors of 1,650 megawatts each would be designed and built by a French nuclear energy company.

The press conference, which I attended, was nine days before disaster struck Japan’s nuclear reactors. Speakers warned of environmental and health disasters in a biodiverse coastal farming and fishing area. The plants’ design, they said, never has been tested or cleared by any country’s nuclear regulatory agency. They also decried the undermining of democracy in the Indian and state governments’ promotion of the plan, through heavy-handed tactics including forcing the reactors on a population that doesn’t want them and then trying to silence dissent through arrests. The retired admiral, L. Ramdas, and several high courts’ former justices were among opponents banned from the area. The group charged that environmental impact information has been withheld. “Anything to do with atomic energy is secret,” said Ramdas.

The remark soon would be echoed in Japan. “Everything is a secret. There’s not enough transparency in the industry,” the Associated Press quoted a Japanese former nuclear power plant engineer as saying of that country’s industry. The Japanese are frustrated their government has downplayed the severity of radiation discharged from the damaged plants, even as U.S. inspectors had far worse assessments. They have reason to be wary, given Japan’s history of cozy relationships between the energy industry and nuclear regulators, secrecy and cover-ups.

Secrecy and heavy-handedness seem to be hallmarks of the nuclear power industry, going back to the days of Karen Silkwood. The late employee of the Kerr-McGee Corp. in Oklahoma testified to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1974 about serious violations, alleging the company had falsified inspection records. She died under mysterious circumstances while going to meet a New York Times reporter.

We’ve had enough warnings now that to move ahead on nuclear power without taking a hard look at what dangers we could be inviting would just be reckless. Recently, President Obama said he will order the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do a comprehensive safety review before proceeding with nuclear expansion. Yet some Iowa lawmakers are determined to proceed with legislation paving the way for MidAmerican Energy to build a 1,000- to 1,600-megawatt nuclear plant in Iowa. The bill says nuclear power “has a long-term proven record of providing a safe, reliable and secure source of electricity in the United States.”

Former Gov. Chet Culver in 2010 signed a law allowing MidAmerican to charge Iowa customers $15 million for a three-year nuclear feasibility study. Nine Democratic senators now want a vote delay. About 100 opponents gathered, hoping to speak at a Senate subcommittee meeting, where MidAmerican’s president spoke. They couldn’t.

The industry and lawmakers can marginalize opponents, thanks in part to the money imbalance between the sides. Anti-nuclear activist Jane Magers says her group has no funds to place ads. But shouldn’t consumers, who are paying for the study, at least be heard? This isn’t a partisan issue but a health and safety one, with key democratic principles at stake.

Basu can be reached at rbasu@dmreg. com.

Dept. Justice Claims Obama Can Kill Whoever He Wants, Waging War for the UN, Not Congress

[We owe it to the world to bring down the corrupted man who would appoint himself king.  Overthrow the budding monarchy and the would-be aristocrats.  What the hell are we waiting for?]

DEPT OF JUSTICE SAYS PRESIDENT OBAMA CAN SEND U.S. TROOPS TO DO THE UN’S BIDDING BY DECREE WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL

04-16-2011 5:37 am – Ben Johnson – FloydReports.com
The Justice Department has decided: it is perfectly acceptable for the president to send American troops into foreign military adventures without so much as consulting Congress, as long as he is carrying out the will of the United Nations.

Just before Barack Obama’s speech on the budget on Wednesday, the White House revealed that American jets have continued to bomb Libya, after giving the impression this would end. Since the “hand-off,” U.S. troops have operated under NATO command. And some figures are beginning to catch on that there is no evidence the Libyan intervention prevented genocide.

With the evidence piling up, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel weighed in on Obama’s war-by-decree in Libya. Although figures as diverse as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have declared the military adventure is grounds for impeachment, the OLC found that Obama acted within his “constitutional authority.” James M. Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations mentioned the report on the CFR’s blog last Friday. The OLC’s opinion states:

As we advised you prior to the commencement of military operations, we believe that, under these circumstances, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad, even without prior specific congressional approval.

It states “a variety or national interests…alone or in combination, may justify use of military force by a President.” Among them is “maintaining the credibility of United Nations Security Council mandates” or “enforcing UNSC mandates,” citing such national mistakes as Haiti, Bosnia, and Somalia. Libya involved “the combinations of at least two national interests…preserving regional stability and supporting the UNSC’s credibility and effectiveness,” and this “provided a sufficient basis for the President’s [sic. -- government entities always capitalize their titles as though they were Oriental deities] exercise of his constitutional authority to to order the use of military force.”

This means two things:

1) Barack Obama had time to consult with the OLC, as well as the Arab League, NATO, and the United Nations Security Council before war, but not Congress; and

2) the OLC could not care less about the Founding Fathers’ interpretation of our founding document.

Indeed, the OLC says as much in its opinion. The president’s top legal advisers state their “understanding of the President’s constitutional authority reflects not only the express assignment of powers and responsibilities to the President and congress in the Constitution, but also, as noted, the ‘historical gloss’ placed on the Constitution by two centuries of practice.”

Under this scheme, violations of the Constitution become as important as the words of the Constitution.

The opinion cites legal precedents as hoary as…1941, offered by then-Attorney General Robert Jackson, later a New Deal judicial activist on the Supreme Court. To flesh out this “historical gloss,” the OLC refers its readers to Richard F. Grimmett’s “Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2008,” a virtually comprehensive list of military incursions overseas.

Upon reading the list, one is struck by the reality that the overwhelming majority of instances are instant retaliation for some attack upon American citizens. Instances of attack without congressional authorization are underwhelming. Grimmett’s list includes, e.g., an instance in 1831-2 in which a captain “investigated the capture of three American sealing vessels.” That’s it. Investigated. Another case is Commodore David Porter 1824 attack upon a Puerto Rican town, following which he “was later court-martialed for overstepping his powers.”

Apparently, even instances worthy of the brig “prove” the acceptability of ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s clear wording on which branch of government possesses war-making powers.

To buoy its argument, the OLC states the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is “proof” Congress has no interest in overseeing “more limited engagements.” The War Powers Act — which stands on dubious constitutional grounds — specifically limits the president’s ability to send U.S. troops into “hostilities”:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to:

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. (Emphasis added.)

Clearly, intervention in a Muslim civil war does not meet those grounds.

The DoJ is not completely averse to the Constitution. It acknowledges “one possible constitutionally-based limit on this presidential authority to employ military force in defense of important national interests — a planned military engagement that constitutes a ‘war’ within the meaning of the Declaration of War Clause may require prior congressional authorization.” Possible? May? Even these weak, shifting, murky grounds are “satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period.” What if there is “substantial risk” for a short period? What if estimates are wrong and casualties force an escalation to full-blown war? We never get an answer to these questions.

Thus, the Attorney General’s boys find themselves in the odd position of arguing that the airborne destruction of an entire sovereign nation’s air force, the bombing of the leader’s compound, and a none-too-coded declaration from NATO leaders that they will push for regime change (“It is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power”) is not a war.

How waging an undeclared, unauthorized war on behalf on North African Muslims advances American interests is anyone’s guess. But it clearly cements the president’s role as a king-like figure able tasked with carrying out the bidding of the United Nations, whether the people back home like it or not.

————————

http://floydreports.com/doj-obama-can-send-u-s-troops-to-do-the-uns-bidding-by-decree/?utm_source=Floyd+Reports&utm_campaign=a52bf9fcc0-FR_04_15_20114_15_2011&utm_medium=email

Libyan rebel’s story shows links to Taliban, Al Qaeda, NATO

‘We are Libyans fighting for Libya,’ said the rebel fighter, whose life led him to all sides so he could continue his battle against Kadafi.

Abdul Monem Muktar Mohammed, left, seen with some of his men, was leading a convoy of 200 cars west of Ajdabiya, Libya, when a bullet struck him in the chest, his aides say. (Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times / April 16, 2011)

By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times

April 17, 2011

Reporting from Ajdabiya, Libya—

He once lived under theTaliban‘s protection, met with Osama bin Laden and helped found a group the U.S. has listed as a terrorist organization. He died in a secondhand U.S. military uniform, ambushed byMoammar Kadafi‘s men as he cleared a road after an airstrike by his new NATO allies.

Aides to Abdul Monem Muktar Mohammed say the Libyan rebel fighter was leading a convoy of 200 cars west of this hotly contested strategic city Friday when a bullet struck him on the right side of the chest. He opened his passenger door and jumped out. A rocket-propelled grenade exploded nearby.

“Don’t wait, go,” he yelled to his men. Then he got to his feet, staggered a few steps and fell.

Mohammed’s final days were a mirror of his past, of a life that saw contradictions and intersections with U.S. policy, ones that could return to haunt the United States.

He arrived in Afghanistan in 1990 at the conclusion of the mujahedin’s silent partnership with the United States against the Soviet-backed Afghan regime. The following decades saw him become an international pariah, operating in an underground world of armed training camps and safe houses.

But with the revolt against Kadafi that started in February, he once again found himself in an uneasy alliance with the United States.

*

Five days before he died, with gray in his hair and bags under his eyes, Mohammed climbed a concrete tower on the outskirts of Ajdabiya and phoned in positions to the rebel government so NATO could drop bombs on Kadafi’s forces.

Putting down his Thuraya satellite phone, Mohammed waved a shiny black 9-millimeter pistol on a road filled with empty bullet casings and waited for the explosions.

A few hours later, Mohammed and his Omar Mukhtar brigade, one of the new military units officially sanctioned by the opposition government, rejoiced as blasts shook the city. A few started dancing and singing “God is great.”

“I have never been Al Qaeda now or in the future,” Mohammed said as he watched his men clap. “We are religious and ordinary people. We are Libyans fighting for Libya.”

The onetime holy warrior boasted that he even wanted a close battlefield relationship with NATO. But he also bristled at Western double standards. Why, he grumbled, does NATO so readily bomb the Taliban in Afghanistan but hesitates against Kadafi? Still, he would take any firepower he could get. He wished he had his own direct line to NATO rather than communicating through middlemen.

He laughed and said, “Give me their number.”

Rebel leaders are sensitive to criticism by some in the West that Al Qaeda “fellow travelers” are deeply involved in the fight against Kadafi. With some defensiveness, they say Afghan veterans such as Mohammed, 41, were pushed to extremes by Kadafi’s authoritarian rule, and that with freedom, the danger of a homegrown militant extremist threat has faded.

But there are many unanswered questions about Libya’s anti-Kadafi forces, with at least 20 former Islamic militant leaders in battlefield roles, according to the rebel army, and hundreds of Islamists participating or watching from the sidelines. All speak of unity and brotherhood, but in the new state, will they be tempted by a once-in-a-lifetime chance to overpower Libya with a conservative Islamist vision?

The fighters themselves might not even know their answer, caught up in the moment’s revolutionary fervor and vacillating between a longing for peace and their dreams of achieving an Islamic state.

*

Mohammed’s journey started at age 20, when he left his home in western Libya and traveled across the border to Algeria, flew to Frankfurt, Germany, then to Pakistan, and made his way with four Libyan friends to Afghanistan in early 1990. The year before, more than a 1,000 Islamists had been jailed in Libya, and Mohammed decided it was better to leave and try to follow a righteous path.

He fell in love with the mountains and the Afghans’ fighting prowess. With the fall of the old Soviet-backed Afghan regime in 1992, he and a group of other Libyan fighters decided to return home.

They slipped across the borders. The veteran mujahedin called themselves the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, and vowed to kill Kadafi, declaring their ambition to form an Islamic state. Mohammed lived in the southern city of Sabha under an assumed name. He didn’t dare contact his family. He hated Kadafi for detaining hundreds of Islamists and remembered the yearly public executions of political detainees and students.

“Hitler was a good man compared to Kadafi,” he said.

A first assassination plot, in 1994, involved planting bombs at a celebration for Kadafi, but the explosives failed to go off. Two years later, he was involved in another botched plot when a man hurled a dud grenade at Kadafi. Mohammed acknowledged without a hint of embarrassment that he picked the bomber and the weapon.

Mohammed escaped, first to Tunis, the Tunisian capital, and then to Turkey. He married an Algerian woman; they set up a home in Istanbul and had their first child. But when a colleague was detained and handed by the Turkish authorities to Libya, Mohammed fooled them with a fake Tunisian passport and fled.

On the run, he learned that his family was paying the price for his failed plot against Kadafi. One of his brothers, whom he had met secretly for 30 minutes in 1996, had been jailed and would be locked up for eight years.

There was only one place for Mohammed to go: back to Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban. He spent time studying in military camp, and in classes on politics and Islam. About 100 members of the LIFG congregated in Kabul, the capital, longing for the day when they could kill Kadafi and rule Libya in accordance with Islam.

Here Mohammed would have his encounter with the two men who shaped the future of radical Islam: Bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman Zawahiri.

In 2000, he said, he met the two men twice, once at a funeral and another time at a guesthouse. They exchanged pleasantries and nothing more, he said. Bin Laden later sent an emissary requesting that the LIFG join Al Qaeda, but Mohammed said the Libyan group refused.

“Before 9/11, Bin Laden wasn’t infamous. Everyone had their own projects and people. He was a wealthy man. Our project was to kill Kadafi. They offered for our group to join, but we were focused on Libya.”

Mohammed remembered a brief meeting when the group debated whether to join Al Qaeda. He said they disagreed with Bin Laden’s theory that if the United States was weakened, its Arab allies would fall.

“We were concerned with Libya and nothing else. We didn’t believe in killing civilians or fighting the United States,” he told The Times on Tuesday.

But there are disputes about whether the group ever did, in fact, pledge allegiance to Al Qaeda. In November 2007, Zawahiri and a senior Libyan Al Qaeda member with close ties to the LIFG said the group was joining the terrorist network. The LIFG followed with a strong denial.

Mohammed insisted that the Libyan insurgents knew Bin Laden’s 9/11 attack was a disaster for them. He was sure Kadafi would use the assault on the U.S. to hunt them down and woo Washington to his effort.

“Sept. 11 caused a big problem for us,” he said. “We rejected Sept. 11. It hurt our group. Kadafi was so happy.”

Within two days, the Libyans sent their wives to Pakistan and followed soon after. Mohammed left for Pakistan and then sneaked across the border to Iran. But instead of giving him a warm welcome, the Iranians imprisoned him for 7 1/2 years. At the time, Iranians were suspected of detaining Al Qaeda members for use as bargaining chips with the Americans.

Other leaders were captured by the Americans in Thailand, he said, and then sent to Kadafi’s jails in Libya. After his release, he lived quietly in Iran. The humiliation caused his voice to rise. “Don’t ask me about this period,” he said.

When the Libyan revolt started in February, Mohammed came back almost immediately.

After arriving in Benghazi, the rebels’ stronghold, he met with heads of the rebel council and was made the leader of his own fighting brigade. The council issued him an ID badge proclaiming him “a general of the revolutionaries” and head of the Omar Muktar brigade, which he said had 150 members.

Members of Mohammed’s group, the LIFG, are scattered throughout the new volunteer army. Its leaders keep a low profile but met shortly after the uprising began to rename themselves the Islamic Movement for Change.

On a recent day, Mohammed sat in an empty villa in Ajdabiya, on a residential street decorated with a pink flower hedge. He had just come back from manning battle positions. Three fighters slept on a couch, cradling their rifles. He fiddled with his phone and wolfed down some boiled chicken and pasta.

He said that, when the fighting is done, he dreamed of returning to his birthplace and being left alone.

“I want to hand in my gun and be with my children,” he said. Then he walked to his olive-green pickup, followed by his men.

ned.parker@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times