By Pepe Escobar
The imperial juggernaut is once again on a roll in North Africa, with France in the lead. Secular-run Algeria had “better get its US$50 billion in reserves out of Western banks as soon as possible.” But overwhelming arms do not guarantee victory. “The French are on their way to meet the American fate in both Iraq and Afghanistan.”
This article originally appeared in Asia Times [8].
“This will be a protracted nomad war.”
Goooooooood morning, Vietnam! No, sorry, that was another quagmire.
The soundtrack then was Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Motown and Stax. Now it’s Goooooooooood morning,
Mali! Yet the soundtrack can’t be something as transcendental as Rokia Traore’s Dounia [9], or as delightfully psychedelic as Amadou and Mariam’s Dimanche a Bamako [10]. It’s way more menacing. Something like – he’s inescapable – Hendrix in Machine Gun [11].
Timing – as in the expansion of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) – is everything. Carefully choreographed Libyan blowback in the Sahel could not be a better replacement for NATO raising a monster white flag in Afghanistan. There’s no Goooooood morning, Kabul! anymore; there’s just the sorry countdown to see the last NATO helicopter leaving Bagram – Saigon 1975-style.
The Economist – the voice of the City of London – is even promoting “Afrighanistan.” There are nuances, of course. NATO had its ass kicked in Afghanistan by all sorts of Pashtun factions bundled up as “Taliban.” But NATO “won” in Libya. With a certainly foreseen spin-off; the Islamist brigade which attacked the In Amenas gas field complex in the Algerian desert was using NATO-facilitated Kalashnikov AK-104s, F5 rockets, 60mm gun-mortars and, in a nifty NATOGCC fashion touch, the “chocolate chip” camouflage Qatar handed out to the NATO rebels in Libya (yellow flak jackets with brown patches). What next, the cover of Uomo Vogue?
Inevitably, that most convenient of bogeymen – al-Qaeda – is once again back in fashion, the whole nebula of Salafi-jihadi groups and sub-groups promoted by the French-Anglo-American triad as the root of all evil in Northern Africa (but not in Libya, where they were exalted as “freedom fighters”).
Mokhtar Belmokhtar, one of the founding members of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), is for all practical purposes an easily digestible Osama bin Laden remix. Belmokhtar was a classic “Arab Afghan” – part of that multi-national legion trained by the ISI/CIA axis to fight the Soviets in 1980s Afghanistan. When he was back in Algeria in 1993 he joined the local jihad, as part of the Salafi Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC).
AQIM since 2007 was very close to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), whose fighters were also trained in Afghanistan by ISI/CIA. And all the time LIFG was always conveniently manipulated by the CIA and MI6 against Col. Muammar Gaddafi.
“The key point is that Qatar is financing all these people.”
After the targeted assassination of Gaddafi, AQIM was duly weaponized by LIFG, and even presented with scores of jihadis. Thus, unsurprisingly, there were plenty of LIFG fighters involved in the In Amenas raid. On top of it AQIM is also very close to the al-Nusra Front in Syria, which Washington branded as a terrorist organization (but not the eternally bickering “coalition” which wants to topple Bashar al-Assad).
The key point is that Qatar is financing all these people – AQIM, the splinter MUJAO, Belmokhtar’s brigades and the Salafist Ansar Ed-Dine, a bunch of Wahhabi takfiris who have absolutely nothing to do with tolerant
Mali culture.
What does stand out is the absolutely perfect pretext for NATO to get down to the groove in Northern Africa after its humiliating Afghan defeat. But wait; AFRICOM is already there! Still, Algeria – a secular Arab republic who historically has been pro-Cuban and pro-Soviet Union – better beware, and better get its US$50 billion in reserves out of Western banks as soon as possible. Sooner or later, the AFRICOM/NATO hydra is coming to get you.
Islamo-Gangsterism, Anyone?
For now we have the spectacle of Paris involved in the “cleansing” of Mali from not only weaponized Islamists – extraneous to Mali culture – but also indigenous, weaponized Tuaregs with legitimate grievances. The master plan is to support an absolutely corrupt regime in Bamako, led by a military coup plotter, the Fort Benning-trained Captain Amadou Sanogo.
This is the meat of the matter of the new mission civilisatrice, protected by a convenient, UN-enabled smokescreen; a batch of impoverished African countries who will foot most of the bill – and come up with the 5,800 soldiers for another one of those impossibly ridiculous UN acronyms, AFISMA (African-led International Support Mission in Mali). Who pays what is still a mess; there will be a meeting next Tuesday in Ethiopia where they will all be haggling with the proverbial, reluctant “international donors.”
Even in France nobody knows who is fighting who and what are these people, really. Check out the hilarious semantic swamp here [12](in French). Le Monde believes it has solved the riddle; Paris is fighting “Islamo-gangsterism.”
“The master plan is to support an absolutely corrupt regime in Bamako.”
In this Folies de Pigalle in the desert, Washington will be “leading from behind.” Wise move; shadow wars bypass quagmires. It’s the French – with typical Gallic grandeur – who will remain infatuated with the illusion of soon ruling the Mali desert. In fact they won’t even rule algae in the Niger river, because this will be a protracted nomad war. The prospect of a succession of sandy Dien Bien Phus looms.
And the minute most of Mali’s impoverished population – for the moment in favor of getting rid of AQIM, MUJAO, Belmokhtar’s gang and Ansar ed-Dine – feels the slightest whiff of neocolonial occupation, the French are on their way to meet the American fate in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s enlightening to regard all this under the perspective of President Obama 2.0 administration’s foreign policy, as (vaguely) outlined in his inauguration. Obama promised to end US wars (shadow wars are much more cost-efficient). He promised multi-lateral cooperation with allies (while Washington effectively calls the shots), negotiation (as in our way or the highway) and no new war in the Middle East.
To take the president at his word, this translates into no US war against Syria (just the shadow variety); no Bomb, Bomb Iran (just murderous sanctions); and France gets the Mali prize. Or will it? Zero Dark pulp fiction starts now.
Pepe Escobar’s column “The Roving Eye” appears in Asia Times [8].
[13]
AFRICOM Chad French Intervention Mali Libya MAli Niger
Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/zero-dark-mali
Links:
[1] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/africom
[2] http://blackagendareport.com/category/africa/chad
[3] http://blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/french-intervention-mali
[4] http://blackagendareport.com/category/africa/libya
[5] http://blackagendareport.com/category/africa/mali
[6] http://blackagendareport.com/category/africa/niger
[7] http://blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/AQIM.jpg
[8] http://www.atimes.com/
[9] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DydY8bHTyg
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXJYlqUvZfA
[11] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doi07ewYDhc
[12] http://www.rue89.com/2013/01/22/petit-glossaire-de-la-guerre-contre-le-terrorisme-au-mali-238840
By BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
Israel is often described as a regional superpower, but the whole world knows that’s only because the Jewish State is backed to the hilt by the global superpower: the U.S. The fruits of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, “the carnage, the broken bodies, and the dead children can all be laid at America’s door.”
“In the eyes of the rest of the world, the American people become complicit in Israel’s crimes.”
Ever since Israel was founded in 1947, Americans have been fed a steady diet of propaganda which tells us that we have no better friend in the world than the zionist state. As always in foreign policy issues, it isn’t clear how “we,” that is to say the average citizen, is ever better off because of machinations emanating from Washington. The truth is exactly the opposite. The average American is worse off, much worse off because of Israel’s role as the undeclared 51st American state.
In every presidential election Americans who can’t support the two major party candidates are advised to get with the program and choose “the lesser of two evils.” There is no lesser evil in American politics, not when this country has doomed itself and its people by supporting nations like Israel which use state sponsored terror against millions of human beings in order to get what they want.
Israel is once again killing people [5] in Gaza, a reported 139 so far and most of these victims are women and children. Of course this carnage is carried out with impunity, because Israel knows that the United States will support whatever actions it takes, no matter how awful they are. While the world community may rail at Israel when it kills people in Gaza, or Lebanon or wherever else it may choose, the U.S. uses its United Nations security council veto power to keep that body from taking even the most cosmetic and useless action. In the eyes of the rest of the world, the American people become complicit in Israel’s crimes.
“Israel knows that the United States will support whatever actions it takes, no matter how awful they are.”
The reward for the countless humiliations is more disrespect. America’s “friend” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quite openly supported the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney. There was not even a pretense of diplomatic niceties or respect for the country without whom Israel wouldn’t exist. Romney traveled to Israel with one of his chief fund raisers, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, to recieve Netanyahu‘s blessing. Adelson spent nearly $50 million in support of Republican candidates across the country and Romney was only the most visible. As always, rich Americans use their influence to insure that no one gets any ideas about straying outside the sanctioned lines of discourse.
The openly evil Netanyahu does not suffer subtlety gladly. Despite Obama’s constant support of Israel, he cannot get any love back from the Israelis. So Netanyahu used the aftermath of an American election to make his point that he will do whatever he wants. He wins even if he seems to lose.
Israel also has an upcoming election to be held in January 2013. Israeli elections are very dangerous for neighboring people, who bear the brunt of that nation’s viciousness whenever it is time for the Israeli public to be appeased and comforted by the sight of dead Arabs.
“Israel would not be able to act without American arms and money.”
Barack Obama has a different problem. He must appear at least somewhat diffident about slaughtering people and give the impression of being a peace maker reluctant to do battle. Of course Israel makes his efforts all the more difficult by killing people in earnest when the president traveled to Myanmar. Despite his peace prize laureate photo ops, he was forced to back Israel in its terror directed at Gaza. “There is no country on earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders,“ said the man who routinely sends drones to Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to carry out his kill list orders.
It isn’t clear at all how Obama or any other American president can be thought of as the lesser of two evils when he publicly gives the go ahead for slaughter. No matter how reluctant American presidents seem to be in endorsing periodic Israeli killing sprees, Israel would not be able to act without American arms and money.
The carnage, the broken bodies, and the dead children can all be laid at America’s door. The United States is the world’s only super power and the perpetrator of this crime is America’s friend. Perhaps there will be no more silly questions about why “they” hate us. It isn’t because they don’t want democracy or hate our way of life. They hate us because we keep killing their people. “They” don’t see anything lesser about our evil.
Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. [6] Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.
Israel attacks Gaza Netanyahu backs Romney Obma supports Israel
Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-american-guilt-gaza
//
Book Reviews—
Maximilian C. Forte, Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, Baraka Books, Montreal, ISBN 978-1-926824-52-9. Available November 20, 2012. http://www.barakabooks.com/
The next time that empire comes calling in the name of human rights, please be found standing idly by
By Stephen Gowans, What’s Left
Maximilian C. Forte’s new book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa (released November 20) is a searing indictment of NATO’s 2011 military intervention in Libya, and of the North American and European left that supported it. He argues that NATO powers, with the help of the Western left who “played a supporting role by making substantial room for the dominant U.S. narrative and its military policies,” marshalled support for their intervention by creating a fiction that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was about to carry out a massacre against a popular, pro-democracy uprising, and that the world could not stand idly by and watch a genocide unfold.
Forte takes this view apart, showing that a massacre was never in the cards, much less genocide. Gaddafi didn’t threaten to hunt down civilians, only those who had taken up armed insurrection—and he offered rebels amnesty if they laid down their arms. What’s more, Gaddafi didn’t have the military firepower to lay siege to Benghazi (site of the initial uprising) and hunt down civilians from house to house. Nor did his forces carry out massacres in the towns they recaptured…something that cannot be said for the rebels.
Citing mainstream media reports that CIA and British SAS operatives were already on the ground “either before or at the very same time as (British prime minister David) Cameron and (then French president Nicolas) Sarkozy began to call for military intervention in Libya”, Forte raises “the possibility that Western powers were at least waiting for the first opportunity to intervene in Libya to commit regime change under the cover of a local uprising.” And he adds, they were doing so “without any hesitation to ponder what if any real threats to civilians might have been.” Gaddafi, a fierce opponent of fundamentalist Wahhabist/Salafist Islam “faced several armed uprisings and coup attempts before— and in the West there was no public clamor for his head when he crushed them.” (The same, too, can be said of the numerous uprisings and assassination attempts carried out by the Syrian Muslim Brothers against the Assads, all of which were crushed without raising much of an outcry in the West, until now.)
Rejecting a single factor explanation that NATO intervened to secure access to Libyan oil, Forte presents a multi-factorial account, which invokes elements of the hunt for profits, economic competition with China and Russia, and establishing US hegemony in Africa. Among the gains of the intervention, writes Forte, were:
1) increased access for U.S. corporations to massive Libyan expenditures on infrastructure development (and now reconstruction), from which U.S. corporations had frequently been locked out when Gaddafi was in power; 2) warding off any increased acquisition of Libyan oil contracts by Chinese and Russian firms; 3) ensuring that a friendly regime was in place that was not influenced by ideas of “resource nationalism;” 4) increasing the presence of AFRICOM in African affairs, in an attempt to substitute for the African Union and to entirely displace the Libyan-led Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD); 5) expanding the U.S. hold on key geostrategic locations and resources; 6) promoting U.S. claims to be serious about freedom, democracy, and human rights, and of being on the side of the people of Africa, as a benign benefactor; 7) politically stabilizing the North African region in a way that locked out opponents of the U.S.; and, 8) drafting other nations to undertake the work of defending and advancing U.S. political and economic interests, under the guise of humanitarianism and protecting civilians.
Forte challenges the view that Gaddafi was in bed with the West as a “strange view of romance.” It might be more aptly said, he counters, that the United States was in bed with Libya on the fight against Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists, since “Libya led by Gaddafi (had) fought against Al Qaeda years before it became public enemy number one in the U.S.” Indeed, years “before Bin Laden became a household name in the West, Libya issued an arrest warrant for his capture.” Gaddafi was happy to enlist Washington’s help in crushing a persistent threat to his secular rule.
Moreover, the bed in which Libya and the United States found themselves was hardly a comfortable one. Gaddafi complained bitterly to US officials that the benefits he was promised for ending Libya’s WMD program and capitulating on the Lockerbie prosecution were not forthcoming. And the US State Department and US corporations, for their part, complained bitterly of Gaddafi’s “resource nationalism” and attempts to “Libyanize” the economy. One of the lessons the NATO intervention has taught is that countries that want to maintain some measure of independence from Washington are well advised not to surrender the threat of self-defense.
Forte, to use his own words, gives the devil his due, noting that:
Gaddafi was a remarkable and unique exception among the whole range of modern Arab leaders, for being doggedly altruistic, for funding development programs in dozens of needy nations, for supporting national liberation struggles that had nothing to do with Islam or the Arab world, for pursuing an ideology that was original and not simply the product of received tradition or mimesis of exogenous sources, and for making Libya a presence on the world stage in a way that was completely out of proportion with its population size.
He points out as well that “Libya had reaped international isolation for the sake of supporting the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the African National Congress (ANC)”, which, once each of these organizations had made their own separate peace, left Libya behind continuing to fight.
Forte invokes Sirte in the title of his book to expose the lie that NATO’s intervention was motivated by humanitarianism and saving lives. “Sirte, once promoted by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi as a possible capital of a future United States of Africa, and one of the strongest bases of support for the revolution he led, was found to be in near total ruin by visiting journalists who came after the end of the bombing campaign by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). “ This,” observes Forte, “is what ‘protecting civilians’ actually looks like, and it looks like crimes against humanity.” “The only lives the U.S. was interested in saving,” he argues “were those of the insurgents, saving them so they could defeat Gaddafi.” And yet “the slaughter in Sirte…barely raised an eyebrow among the kinds of Western audiences and opinion leaders who just a few months before clamored for ‘humanitarian intervention.’”
Among those who clamored for humanitarian intervention were members of the “North American and European left—reconditioned, accommodating, and fearful—(who) played a supporting role by making substantial room for the dominant U.S. narrative and its military policies.” While Forte doesn’t name names, except for a reference to Noam Chomsky, whom he criticizes for “poor judgment and flawed analyses” for supporting “the no-fly zone intervention and the rebellion as ‘wonderful’ and ‘liberation’”, self-proclaimed Africa expert Patrick Bond may be emblematic of the left Forte excoriates. Soon after the uprising began, Bond wrote on his Z-Space that “Gaddafi may try to hang on, with his small band of loyalists allegedly bolstered by sub-Saharan African mercenaries – potentially including Zimbabweans, according to Harare media – helping Gaddafi for a $16,000 payoff each.” This was a complete fiction, but one Bond fell for eagerly, and then proceeded to propagate with zeal, without regard to the consequences. As Forte notes, “the only massacre to have occurred anywhere near Benghazi was the massacre of innocent black African migrant workers and black Libyans falsely accused of being ‘mercenaries’” by the likes of Bond.
Forte also aims a stinging rebuke at those who treated anti-imperialism as a bad word. “Throughout this debacle, anti-imperialism has been scourged as if it were a threat greater than the West’s global military domination, as if anti-imperialism had given us any of the horrors of war witnessed thus far this century. Anti-imperialism was treated in public debate in North America as the province of political lepers.” This calls to mind opprobrious leftist figures who discovered a fondness for the obloquy “mechanical anti-imperialists” which they hurdled with great gusto at anti-imperialist opponents of the NATO intervention.
“NATO’s intervention did not stop armed conflict in Libya,” observes Forte—it continues to the present. “Massacres were not prevented, they were enabled, and many occurred after NATO intervened and because NATO intervened.” It is for these reasons he urges readers to stand idly by the next time that empire comes calling in the name of human rights.
Slouching Towards Sirte is a penetrating critique, not only of the NATO intervention in Libya, but of the concept of humanitarian intervention and imperialism in our time. It is the definitive treatment of NATO’s war on Libya. It is difficult to imagine it will be surpassed.
//
One hundred eighty years after abolishing slavery, the United Kingdom is coming clean about fortunes founded on slave ownership and the slave trade.
