Sidney Blumenthal, a long-time friend of the Clintons, claimed David Cameron backed a French plot to create a break away zone eastern Libya
Britain hid secret MI6 plan to break up Libya from US, Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton received several warnings from a friend that Britain was acting deceitfully in Libya Photo: Reuters
By Raf Sanchez, Washington
Britain acted deceitfully in Libya and David Cameron authorised an MI6 plan to “break up” the country,a close confidante of Hillary Clinton claimed in a series of secret reports sent to the then-secretary of state.
Sidney Blumenthal, a long-time friend of the Clintons, emailed Mrs Clinton on her personal account to warn her that Britain was “game playing”in Libya.
Mr Blumenthal had no formal role in the US State Department and his memos to Mrs Clinton were sourced to his own personal contacts in the Middle East and Europe.
Nevertheless, Mrs Clinton seems to have taken some of his reports seriously and forwarded them on to senior diplomats working at the highest levels of American foreign policy.
The first of Mr Blumenthal’s Libya memos – which wereleaked to the New York Times – was sent on April 8, 2011, as rebel forces struggled to make gains against Gaddafi’s troops, and had “UK game playing” in the subject line.
The memo warned that British diplomats and MI6 officers were maintaining secret back channels with the Gaddafi regime “in an effort to protect the British position in the event that the rebellion settles into a stalemate”.
Muammar Gaddafi / Photo: REUTERS
Mr Blumenthal claimed that MI6 spies were in discussions with Saif Gaddafi, the dictator’s son, “regarding future relations between the two countries if he takes over power from his father and implements reforms”.
The memo also claims that the Libyan rebels were deeply suspicious of Britain and suspected that the UK would be “satisfied with a stalemate” in which Gaddafi or his family stayed in power in part of the country.
Their suspicions were stoked when Gaddafi’s foreign minister, Moussa Koussa,defected to Britain in March 2011, Mr Blumenthal claimed. The rebels apparently saw the defection as evidence that Britain had secret lines of communication with the highest ranks of the Gaddafi regime.
Extract from the email:
Eight minutes after receiving Mr Blumenthal’s email, Mrs Clinton forwarded it on to one of her most senior aides. She did not comment on the allegations about Britain. A week later, she met with William Hague, the then-foreign secretary at a Nato summit in Berlin.
Perhaps unbeknownst to Mr Blumenthal, who was working for Bill Clinton’s global charity at the time and not privy to classified information, the CIA was maintaining its own back channelsto Gaddafi.
Michael Morell, the CIA’s deputy director, spoke regularly to Abdullah Senussi, the head of Gaddafi’s internal intelligence service, even as US aircraft were bombing regime forces on the battlefield.
Mr Blumenthal emailed Mrs Clinton about Britain again on March 8, 2012 with the subject: “France & UK behind Libya breakup”.
By this time Gaddafi was dead and his regime had collapsed and a provisional government, the Libyan National Transitional Council, was trying to assert its authority across the country.
Mr Blumenthal told Mrs Clinton that MI6 and its French counterpart, the DGSE, were secretly encouraging rebels in eastern Libya to establish “a semi-autonomous zone” outside the control of the new government.
The plot was allegedly instigated by advisors to the French president,Nicolas Sarkozy, who believed that the new Libyan government was not “rewarding” French businesses for France’s role in overthrowing Gaddafi.
He alleged that MI6 joined in the plan “at the instruction of the office of Prime MinisterDavid Cameron“.
“The French and British intelligence officials believe that the semi-autonomous regime in the eastern city of Benghazi will be able to organise business opportunities in that region,” he wrote.
Extract from the email:
Mrs Clinton seems to have been sceptical about the report and forwarded it on to her aide Jake Sullivan with the comment: “This one strains credulity. What do you think?”
Mrs Clinton’s aides appear unimpressed with the stream of emails coming from Mr Blumenthal and Mr Sullivan replied that the MI6 allegations sounded like “like a thin conspiracy theory”.
Mrs Clinton was asked about the emails during a campaign appearance in Iowa and said Mr Blumenthal had been “a friend of mine for a very long time”.
“He sent unsolicited emails which I passed on in some instances. That’s just part of the give and take,” she said.
The Foreign Office did not respond to a request for comment.
Mr Blumenthal memos have aroused interest in the US because they appear to show a blurring of the lines between Mrs Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation set up by her husband.
Although he had no role in the State Department, he was working for the Clinton Foundation and various political groupsallied with Mrs Clinton, according to the New York Times.
Mr Blumenthal worked in Bill Clinton’s White House and was known for fierce loyalty to both the Clintons and for aggressively confronting their critics.
Aides to Barack Obama prevented Mrs Clinton from bringing him into the State Department in 2009, believing that he would only stir up trouble after the bitterly-fought election battle between Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton.
Libyan fighters drive through a destroyed military base used by Muammar Gaddafi’s army and subsequently bombed by NATO, southeast of Tripoli, September 2, 2011.
In memory of Col. Muammar Qaddafi was that of a Libyan revolutionary and socialist politician who does not beat around the bush, telling it straight to your face and of course such attitude can be perceived by some as dictatorial.
If we look around Africa Continent, the closest to Col. Qaddafi is late Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana who identified that African Continent is partially free politically and most definitely not economically and that Africans need to “emancipate itself from mental slavery and that none but ourselves can free our mind” (Pan-African).
Some of my readers may wonder why the comparison of Gaddafi and Nkrumah? It was what they stood for and not who they are and by that I mean they stood for the unity of Africa as a continent through economic empowerment such as increased trades between countries in the continent as well as political and technological cooperation.
Qaddafi focused on key areas that can help prolong average life span of Libyans such as good road network; good healthcare facilities, better housing so that Libyans will not sleep rough, and he eliminated poverty focusing on those Libyans who are unable to work due to disability or ill health.
Qaddafi’s effort to stabilize Libya by bringing all different tribes together and also working with poverty-stricken West African nations did not gain popularity in the West (news blackout) because it was distorting their (West) plan for Africa and Middle East, hence incitement of tribal unrest and counter coup in Libya in the past.
They (West) use their propaganda machine (Western Media) to turn Gaddafi into Mr. Jekyll and Hyde (man with two faces) in the eyes of his neighbors as well as around the world portraying him (Gaddafi) as a tyrant/dictator/terrorist hated by his own people and the world over.
In their “War against Terrorism,” they finally succeeded to get behind Qaddafi’s skin particularly after 9/11 because he started working with them behind the scenes hence made him more enemies than friends within the Arab community because he allowedthem (West) access to Libya and its facilities (marking the beginning of his downfall).
However, the financial and technical cooperation enjoyed by many West African countries under the government of Qaddafi must be acknowledged, – countries such as Sierra Leone, Guinea-Conakry, Chad, Niger, Mali, Senegal, and Burkina Faso – because it shows the other side of Qaddafi that the world did not see.
The West also enjoyed financial support from him and his family and without a doubt it was a subject on the lips of many European and West African leaders, either they like it or not, and there were individuals who had benefited from different educational funds he supported around the world.
I was fortunate to know Libyans from Benghazi and Tripoli who acknowledged that the government of Qaddafi gave them the chance to be true Libyans because they had peace and were able to move freely as a citizen without fear – unlike now after his demise.
The awakening that gripped Tunisia and Egypt was to the West’s detriment but perfect timing to incite regime change in Libya, because they already had their agents on the ground in Libya, making it easy for them to hijack the awakening and turning it into regime change in Libya.
The people of Benghazi under the supervision of the West seemed to be ideal to start the revolution for regime change; after all they had an old score to settle with Qaddafi even though majority from that part of the nation could vouch for political, economic and social peace enjoyed under Qaddafi and even Qaddafi had a home in Benghazi.
Some Western countries feared that allowing Qaddafi to continue as Libyan leader meant they had a lot to lose and one of such fears was over their financial indebtedness to Qaddafi, his family and people of Libya because repaying this money could deal a bigger blow to their own economy.
Also, deposing him would leave a power vacuum considering the volatile tribal division in Libya and an opportunity for them to have a say in Libya’s oil distribution network, which would in turn help sustain their businesses and economy through the period of Western economic crunch.
Like the situation with Mali, France took the lead and of course there was more than just political undertone for former French president’s involvement in Libya, some of which came out in French press while others did not make it to the print (News blackout?).
It was obvious that Qaddafi had made many enemies in the Middle East, hence not much support came from that direction to help bring political solution, and of course Qaddafi had himself to blame because becoming Mr. Jekyll and Hyde for the West always end in regret.
In the heat of it all, even Libya’s strong ally, Russia, could not do much to resuscitate his government because by this time there had been promises and counter promises madeto Qaddafi’s aides who were breaking ranks more than he anticipated and Western media were splashing news of defection daily, hence his government was doomed.
Qaddafi losing grip on power was a combination of many factors, amongst which was his close ties forged with West during Iraq war when he allowed Libya to be used strategically against al-Qaeda, and by conniving with the West he carved enemies for himself within the Arab community, hence Westcollaborating to oust him seemed imminent because he lacked popular support. It doesn’t matter if he did it to get out of the embargo done to Libya for over 10 years.
The Western media news blackout on turn of events during the Libya revolution and news propaganda about atrocities purported to have been committed by Qaddafi’s supporters did not favour him, hence common conversation in public places around the world was that he must go.
Africa may not have a voice, but comparing news heard from mainstream Western media and online news, it was obvious that the continent is well aware of the Western double standard.
Africa and the Middle East have been creating awareness in the mind of their younger generations that there is double standard in news reporting by the Western media, and one of the ways to identify existence of such double standard is for this younger audience to compare online reporting with mainstream Western media before forming opinion.
The Western leaders censor Western media to only report news they want the world to hear and Western media knows how to put it across nations of the earth fancifully and convincingly with no regards for psychological damage to listeners, and those networks that did not join the bandwagon suffered a witch hunt.
Qaddafi was a victim of such Western news propaganda and spreading lies is a continuous process of reporting by Western media and most recent is the reporting by a Western media showing a picture of mass killings to have been carried out by Syrian soldiers, but it was later proved to be untrue because picture from previous reporting were used.
People from Africa and the Middle East are more aware now that accusation made by the West against activities of leaders or nations may be untrue, hence they now use news comparison for verification before forming opinion.
The Western media have lost its popularity amongst many individuals from Africa and the Middle East, because it has become apparent that Western media through its satellite channels has been feeding them with propaganda and lies, hence they are switching from mainstream satellite stations onto the Internet for latest news and update.
It is ironic to see that Qaddafi, who was a dictator/tyrant hated by his people, could lend money to Western nations and yet they did not refuse to accept the money neither did they decline to use Libya as a base to torture individuals accused of terrorism.
Muammar Qaddafi is dead. Saif al-Islam Qaddafi is incarcerated, hence another news blackout on the real truth behind why the West sped up regime change in Libya using military force and under the disguise of the United Nation Security Council.
The West claimed that Libya is now a free nation with peace and stability after Qaddafi’s death, but there is no stable unity government that includes all tribes in Libya and moreover the United State suffers its first casualty in Libya in 2012.
Libya has been politically volatile since the awakening and while Western media only touch on it after the death of the US diplomat.
Bernard Levy Sneaks into Libya, Meets Khalid Sharif and Terrorist Leaders in Sabratha
Bernard-Henri Lévy, one of the top Zionist Criminals in the world, the “lead-dog” who shows up in foreign countries to start and fund “false flag” revolutions, was secreted into Libya yesterday. The US counterpart to Levy is John McCain who also shows up in foreign countries supporting terrorists cloaked as “rebels”. Levy is a multibillionaire Zionist from France, he calls him self a “philosopher” – seriously? How does a philosopher become a billionaire war monger? (Death and destruction must be his philosophy.) He is the pinnacle around the entire mess in the Middle East and North Africa. He was the perpetrator, funder and co-designer of the fake “Arab Spring”. This man is evil and where ever he shows up you can count on some kind of catastrophe happening. He carries with him the Zionist bankers (who control the world toilet paper MONEY) checkbook. The people of the Middle East and North Africa have figured him out, they know he is the harbinger of destruction and he was ousted by the people of Tunisia a few months ago when he attempted to enter Tunisia to meet with terrorist leaders from Tunisia and Libya. He did manage to have a secret meeting with Abdulhakem Belhaj(Al Qaeda, LIFG leader from Libya) during that short visit. He then attempted to travel to Algeria and that country refused him entry. Everybody knows he is a pariah.
So, Levy sneaks into Libya – he shows up in Tripoli yesterday and is met by Khalid Sharifanother well known terrorist who was put into a ministers position by the past puppet Prime Minister and criminal now in exile Ali Zeidan. A short history of Khalid Sharif , Abdulhaken Belhaj, Sami Al Saadi and Sufian bin Qumo, all known terrorists now in positions of control in Libya.
“According to Kronos Advisory LLC, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in
2001 after 9/11, Khalid al-Sharif escaped Afghanistan to Pakistan, where he
remained until 2003. In 2003 he was captured in Peshawar, Pakistan, and
handed over to the U.S., which later transferred him to Libya in 2005. While
in Abu Selim prison in Tripoli, al-Sharif participated in the reconciliation dialogue with Saif Qaddafi. On March 23, 2010, Khalid al-Sharif, characterized as the “LIFG military commander” by Kronos Advisory LLC,
was released along with LIFG emir Abdel Hakim Belhadj, Sami al-Saadi, the
spiritual leader of the LIFG, and Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the current leader of Ansar al-Sharia, who had been a detainee at Guantanomo. Ansar al-Sharia
took CREDITfor the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.”
Khalid Sharif takes Levy to a place in Libya near Sabratha where he meets the leaders of all the terrorist groups in Libya (Al Qaeda, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Ansar Al Sharia, Muslim Brotherhood and others). It is pretty obvious that there is a problem in the terrorist hold on Libya. They needMONEY, they need weapons, they need mercenaries. The Libyan people by 98% hate these terrorists and want them dead or gone. Libya is standing up for herself and the terrorists are losing so here comes their slithering leader to pass out some orders and someMONEY. The Zionists own all the banks and print all the toilet paper money so passing it out is never a problem for them. Death and destruction is just “acceptable collateral damage”.
It should be obvious to anyone that Levy himself is a criminal, all the upheaval in Libya was caused by the Zionists with their puppets, McCain, Levy, Sarkozy, Obama, Cameron, Clinton, et. al., leading the charge. Their paid army of mercenaries known by such names as Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Ansar Al Sharia and LIFG, are trained by the CIA, MI5, Israeli Mossad and other covert intelligence agencies.The main stream media all over the world, owned by the Zionists, is their dis-information machine. The truth is beginning to come out thanks to great information highway known as the internet, the worst enemy of the Zionists.
The Libyan tribes, the Libyan National army and the legitimate government in Libya (the elected Parliament in Tobruk) are working hard to clean their country of the garbage installed by the evil Zionists. We stand with them and pray for them, they are fighting a powerful enemy but they will WIN, after all it is their country and has been for over 8000 years.
** Editorial Note: If you wonder why there are not articles posted daily, it is because I only post information and facts I receive directly from legitimate Libyan tribal leaders who are living in exile or who are freedom fighters in their own country. This way all of my information is completely accurate. There has been a lot going on and I elect not to jeopardize the lives of any of those brave patriots. Just imagine this country of very few citizens having to fight the Juggernaut of the USA who is following the Zionists orders and supplying the radical Islamists foreign occupiers with money and weapons daily. The great tribes of Libya are fighting with their hearts and their limited weapons for their beloved homeland. They deserve all the support that we can give them.
NEO: On December 4, 2014 Maghreb Confidential, a newspaper published in Paris and focusing on reviewing political and economic events in the North Africa, reported on a secret meeting in Algiers between two iconic Libyan leaders. These are Ali Sallabi, a theologist known for his clerical views, presently the spiritual father of the Al-FajrIslamist coalition, and Mahmoud Jibril, the leader of so-called secular coalition, the National Forces Alliance, NFA. Judging by Mahmoud Jibril’s statements, NFA allegedly supports the new Libyan government in Tobruk.
The Algerian party is reported to have been the initiator of the meeting which had been arranged to facilitate a negotiated compromise between the leaders of various Libyan groups. Since September 2014, the Algerian authorities have been looking for opportunities to establish contacts between the former Gaddafi supporters and moderate Islamists. Noteworthy is the fact that in the early 2000’sAli Sallabi and Mahmoud Jibril were putting lots of effort to have the Islamists included in the Libyan government. As we know, this process had been governed by Seim al-Islam, the son of Muammar Gaddafi.
The fact of meeting itself is interesting because Mahmoud Jibril, besides everything else, is one of the leaders of the Warfalla tribal group considered to be one of the largest and most influential tribal groups in Tripolitania. It stands high with Algeria who sees Warfalla tribe as a protective shield against the Islamists who established their base in Tripoli. The Warfalla still retain neutrality in the inter-Libyan armed confrontation. Western experts believe the outcome of this confrontation depends mainly on the position of the tribe’s leaders.
The meeting between the two leaders was preceded by a series of consultations between Mahmoud Jibril and Mustapha Nouh, the Islamist deputy intelligence chief. Seemingly, conditions of a possible compromise were discussed.
The possibility of Ali Sallabi’s trip to Algeria was most likely discussed by the Islamist leaders in Tripoli and the trip was probably authorized by their military leader, Abdelhakim Belhadj.
By conducting such consultations in its territory, Algeria is trying to seize the initiative from Egypt to resolve the crisis in Libya. Apparently, Cairo is regarding the meeting in Algeria as an attempt to neutralize their protégé – a retired Libyan General, Khalifa Haftar, leading, according to the Syrian information agency SANA, the operations of Al-Karama in elimination of terrorists in Libya. The Egyptians, as a retaliatory move, are ready to release Ahmed Kaddafedam, the leader of Gaddafi-supporters, to have him conduct negotiations with moderate Islamists under the control of Egyptian party.
On December 7, 2014 newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, with reference to an unnamed member of the Government of Abdullah Al-Thani, spread the message that the Libyan government located in Tobruk intends to appoint General Khalifa Haftar commander in chief of the armed forces of the country. Concurrently, there were reports on the latest successes of Abdullah Al-Thani’s supporters in the fight against the Islamists near Tripoli and in the east of the country. Apparently, these steps are Cairo’s response to the meeting in Algiers. Simultaneously, this should be regarded as a signal to all major tribal groups currently maintaining neutrality, including the Warfalla, that it is time to determine which side to take.
Editors note: The article admits that the Illegal war in Libya was a false flag, its what we have been saying since 2011 finally the truth is coming out and going into the mainstream. We the simple people have been writing about it from the beginning and the Mainstream was calling us conspirators, Qaddafi loyalists are some of the names that I can remember. Thanks to all the activists and bloggers who spent hours on end with no financial back up. We have been for the last three years laughed at, condemned at, some were prosecuted, some lost their lives and some are still in hiding as the Libyan Militias have put a price on our heads. I would like to thank the author and his colleagues who took the time to read our articles, videos etc and to decide to write an article about the truth. We still have a long way to go, but its a start.
More than three years after the US and its NATO allies unleashed an “intervention” and regime change in Libya, the US establishment admits they maybe have “got it wrong.” Naturally, there were many of us who were demonized endlessly for speaking out against that war, and against all those politicians, analysts, and “activists” on the left and right, who championed the “humanitarianism” of waging war on Libya. We were attacked as “soft on dictators,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “anti-Americans.” And yet, today it is our voices that still proclaim loudly the immorality and illegality of that war. Thankfully, it seems the establishment is beginning to hear us.
One of the most highly regarded politico-academic institutions in the US – the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University – has issued areport which undermines the established narrative of the war in Libya, laying bare the cold, hard reality of what Libya was at the outset of the war, what really happened in the early days, and what Libya has become today. Of course, responsibility for the tragic and lasting effects of that war should be laid at the feet of Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, and the other participants,in addition to those media outlets and NGOs that deliberately spread lies about the reality on the ground in Libya. All must be held accountable.
Finally Seeing the Light?
The recent report, which is actually almost a year old, was written by Dr. Alan Kuperman, Associate Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin. Dr. Kuperman attempts to shed light on some of the key aspects of disinformation before and during the war in Libya. These important findings contradict every single justification for that war, from the lies and distortions of Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton, to the deluge of propaganda from so-called NGOs such as Human rights Watch and Amnesty International. By examining the obfuscations and outright lies told by these individuals and organs of soft power, Dr. Kuperman makes it quite clear that, just as with Iraq, the people of the United States (and much of the world) have been lied into yet another war.
One of the principal lies told about Libya and Gaddafi was the totally unsubstantiated claim of “massacres” by Gaddafi forces in Benghazi and a few other cities. This claim, perpetrated by Human Rights Watch among others, was repeated ad nauseam by every major media outlet. As Dr. Kuperman writes:
Contrary to Western media reports, Qaddafi did not initiate Libya’s violence by targeting peaceful protesters. The United Nations and Amnesty International have documented that in all four Libyan cities initially consumed by civil conflict in mid-February 2011—Benghazi, Al Bayda, Tripoli, and Misurata—violence was actually initiated by the protesters. The government responded to the rebels militarilybut never intentionally targeted civilians or resorted to “indiscriminate” force, as Western media clai med. Early press accounts exaggerated the death toll by a factor of ten, citing “more than 2,000 deaths” in Benghazi during the initial days of the uprising, whereas Human Rights Watch (HRW) later documented only 233 deaths across all of Libyain that period.
These are indeed significant facts that merit further examination as they completely contradict the standard narrative of the war in Libya and, most importantly, the justifications for it. First and foremost is the question of who initiated violence. The talking points in Western media all through early 2011 held that Gaddafi was “murdering his own people,” and that this justified a humanitarian intervention, to “help the people of Benghazi.” However, the hitherto suppressed truth is that it was the violent “protesters” (who should rightly be referred to as terrorists within the protests) who actually initiated the violence, using protesters as human shields.
Secondly, the notion that Gaddafi’s forces intentionally targeted civilians has been thoroughly debunked. Quite the contrary, the evidence now shows that Gaddafi went to great lengths to make sure that no civilians were harmed in the counter-terrorism operation as can be evidenced by the fact that “Qaddafi avoided targeting civilians…HRW reports that of the 949 people wounded [in Misrata] in the rebellion’s initial seven weeks, only 30 were women or children, meaning that Qaddafi’s forces focused narrowly on combatants.” Rather than ordering the wanton killing of civilians, Gaddafi attempted to maintain discipline among his forces such that they could stamp out insurgency with as little collateral damage as possible.
Third is the simple fact that all death tolls reported by the media leading up to the war were not only inaccurate, but wildly exaggerated beyond the parameters of “margin of error.” In fact, by overestimating the death toll by a factor of ten, Human Rights Watch consciously played the part of public relations clearinghouse for US-NATO. Of course, Human Rights Watch, long since understood to be very cozy with the State Department, Pentagon and CIA, has become increasingly discredited in the eyes of serious human rights investigators and activists. The role of HRW in Libya exposed the organization in ways it had never been exposed before – as an organ of US soft power projection, working tirelessly to justify on humanitarian grounds what is undoubtedly a nakedly imperialist war.
Dr. Kuperman also points out another key aspect of the Western narrative which is a complete fiction, namely that US-NATO’s goal in waging the war was not regime change, but the protecting of civilians. As Kuperman writes:
The conventional wisdom is also wrong in asserting that NATO’s main goal in Libya was to protect civilians. Evidence reveals that NATO’s primary aim was to overthrow Qaddafi’s regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans.NATO attacked Libyan forces indiscriminately, including some in retreat and others in Qaddafi’s hometown of Sirte, where they posed no threat to civilians. Moreover, NATO continued to aid the rebels even when they repeatedly rejected government cease-fireoffers that could have ended the violence and spared civilians.Such military assistance included weapons, training, and covert deployment of hundreds of troops from Qatar, eventually enabling the rebels to capture and summarily execute Qaddafi and seize power in October 2011.
Indeed, the US and its allies abandoned the “protection of civilians” justification almost as soon as UNSC Resolution 1973was passed, authorizing merely a No Fly Zone in Libya which the NATO forces took as a de facto authorization for total war. As Dr. Kuperman describes, NATO forces were clearly engaged in an air war to destroy the military and political institutions of the Gaddafi government, rather than simply protecting civilians and providing support to rebels. Indeed, the NATO forces became the primary driver of the campaign against Gaddafi,allowing the rebels to take territory and, I might add, carry out their massacres of civilians.
Even Human Rights Watch, which vigorously suppressed the truth about ethnic cleansing carried out against black Libyans while it was happening, was forced to admit crimes against humanity in Libya, specifically the forced displacement of the Tawerghaethnic group. Naturally, these revelations came much too late to save the many innocent black Libyans, particularly in the Fezzan province, who were slaughtered by the rebels backed by US-NATO.
Kuperman’s report also highlights a number of other disastrous effects of the US-NATO war on Libya, including the civil war in Mali, the proliferation of weapons to terrorist groups throughout North Africa, and the general chaos and breakdown of all political, economic, and social institutions in Libya. Additionally, Kuperman notes that the US-NATO war prolonged significantly the war. He writes:
When NATO intervenedin mid-March 2011, Qaddafi already had regained control of most of Libya, while the rebels were retreating rapidly toward Egypt.Thus, the conflict was about to end, barely six weeks after it started, at a toll of about 1,000 dead, including soldiers, rebels, and civilians caught in the crossfire. By intervening, NATO enabled the rebels to resume their attack, which prolonged the war for another seven months and caused at least 7,000 more deaths. ****(unfortunately it was not 7,000 deaths the number is a lot bigger to even for someone to grasp it. In these eight months the death toll arrived over 100 thousand people including women and children.)
This is a critical point to highlight. Even by the western investigation number of 7,000 – a gross underestimation in my view, the death toll is likely much higher – the US-NATO war led directly to at least 6,000 additional deaths in Libya. Far from “protecting civilians,” it seems US-NATO was too busy killing them.
While noting some of the critical points, Kuperman’s report also leaves out a number of other shameful outcomes of the war including the deliberate destruction of critical infrastructure (including the Great Man Made River Project), the oppression of women whose rights were protected under Gaddafi, the displacement of many black Libyans and Africans from other neighboring countries who had taken refuge and found employment in Gaddafi’s Libya, and many other deeply troubling developments.
Who Should Pay?
Because the entire narrative of the Libya war has been shown to be a fabrication of the State Department, CIA,International Criminal Court, NGOs and other appendages of US hard and soft power,the question of guilt and culpability comes into play. The United States, along with its allies, has been howling for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, held illegally by the Zintan militia since 2011, to be taken to the International Criminal Court to be tried for war crimes. Now that both mainstream and non-mainstream, western and non-western sources have emerged to challenge this narrative, it’s time we start asking who in the West should be held to account.
First among the criminals must be high-ranking officials in the Obama administration, including former Secretary of State Hillary “We Came, We Saw, He Died” Clinton, and President Obama himself. Not only have they, and their subordinates, blatantly fabricated intelligence leading to an aggressive war(a crime against peace, the most serious of the Nuremburg charges), they deliberately misled the world as to the nature of their operation in Libya. Russia and China certainly feel betrayed by the US and its lies in the UN Security Council. But this is merely the tip of the iceberg.
What price should be paid by media organizations and NGOs deliberately spreading misinformation? Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International should face serious investigations intocriminal negligence, or at least gross misconduct, in terms of their dissemination of lies – lies which were used as the prime justification for the war in terms of how it was sold to the people. Is it a crime to inflate by 1000% casualty figures, the end result of which is a justification for war? If not, it should be, as without such propaganda, the war could never have been sold to the public.
Media organizations, especially some ostensibly on the Left, should also be held to account for their misinformation and disinformation.Democracy Now is at the top of the list of guilty organizations. As Bruce Dixon, Managing Editor of Black Agenda Report, wrote at the height of the war:
So like every other Western reporter, Anjali Kamat [Democracy Now’s Libya correspondent] never sawany “mercenaries,” just their oversized bullets. She never saw any mass graves of the hundreds or thousandsallegedly killed by Qaddafi’s “heavy machine gun fire” either, or that would be on Democracy Now too. It’s not. Nobody’s located the thousands of wounded survivors either, that must have been the result of shooting into crowds killing hundreds of people, and none of this has stoppedDemocracy Now from carrying the story just like Fox News or CNN or MSNBC…Something is really wrong with this picture. We have to wonder whether, at least as far as the war in Libya goes, whether Democracy Now is simply feeding us the line of corporate media, the Pentagon and the State Department rather than fulfilling the role of unembedded, independent journalists.
As Dixon points out, Democracy Now exhibited at the very least poor journalistic practice, and at worst, served as the left flank of the imperial propaganda machine. By faithfully reporting the “facts”, which have now been utterly discredited,Kamat and Democracy Now primed the pump of left progressive support for “humanitarian” war.
Of course, Democracy Now is not the only outlet that should be held responsible. All major media in the US obviously toed the US line on Libya. So too did Al Jazeera, the Qatari-owned news outlet which gained notoriety during the Bush years as a news outlet hostile to US policy in Iraq. However, by the time of the war in Libya, Al Jazeera had purged its staff of anyone truly critical of US foreign policy, particularly as it pertained to the “Arab Spring” narrative. In fact, insiders have told me that a wave of resignations, forced resignations, and firings at Al Jazeera coincided with the refusal by some of the more principled journalists to suppress the truth of what was happening in Libya. It would seem then that, rather than reporting the news, Al Jazeera, like its western counterparts, was more interested in serving powerthan challenging it.
In fact, Al Jazeera was the first news organization to report, and repeat ad nauseam, the liethat Gaddafi’s soldiers were systematically raping women in Benghazi, and that they had been issued Viagra by their commanding officers. This claim, repeated by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay, and many others has since been debunked, with absolutely zero evidenceever surfacing to substantiate the allegation. And yet, it was one of the principal claims used to justify the indictment issued by Luis Moreno-Ocampo as head of the International Criminal Court. This fact, among many others, shows how the irresponsibility of Al Jazeera, and nearly every other journalistic and human rights organization, led directly to the war in Libya.
Sadly, it is unlikely that any of the parties responsible for the criminal and shameful war on Libya will ever be held to account for their crimes in a courtroom. However, they can be held to account in the court of public opinion.Their institutions must be discredited. Their names and faces must be known and repeated the world over. They all share responsibility for the misery inflicted on the innocent people of Libya. And we who have stood against this war from the beginning, we have been vindicated. Unfortunately, there is no solace to be found in a Libyan graveyard.