Horace Campbell


cc BRQ Network
The 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.


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.


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.


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.’


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.


* 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

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

Тяжелые вооружения, включая танки, пусковые установки и ракеты, надежно укрыты в подземных лабиринтах самой протяженной в мире ирригационной системы, имеющей официальное название Великая рукотворная река

Наземные силы ливийского лидера Муаммара Каддафи практически не понесли потерь в результате бомбардировок НАТО, выяснила британская разведка

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

US Speaker of the House John Boehner speaking at a press conference on Friday 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

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”

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…… 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

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 “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

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)