USA wants to keep troops in Libya & Iraq for years on the pretence of fighting terrorism

US Will Keep Ground Troops in Libya

Mattis Wants Troops in Iraq ‘For Years’

Commander: Troops Needed to ‘Degrade’ ISIS Forces

In a press briefing at the Pentagon today, African Command leader Gen. Thomas Waldhauser announced that the US intends to keep ground troops in Libya for the foreseeable future to support “friendly forces,” and to “degrade” the ISIS forces that remain in the country.

Waldhauser did not specify how many US troops are in Libya now, or how many will stay, but did estimate that there were less than 200 ISIS fighters left in Libya. The US had announced the end of the anti-ISIS campaign in Libya back in December, but never fully withdrew from the country.

The US forces were in Libya trying to help the “unity” government defeat ISIS in the city of Sirte. US officials repeatedly claimed the city was totally surrounded, and that no ISIS fighters would get away, though when the fighting finally ended, a substantial number of ISIS fighters did in fact get away.

Waldhauser hinted that the US operations in Libya would primarily be airstrikes going forward, saying that the US needs to have troops on the ground for “precision airstrikes” and “close-air support operations.” He added that the last US airstrikes, in January, involved US troops meeting face-to-face with allies on coordinating the strikes.

Insists Keeping Troops in Iraq Is in the ‘National Interest’

With US officials still hopeful that Iraq’s ongoing offensive in Mosul is the beginning of the end of ISIS’ presence in that country, top Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary James Mattis, are also eager to point out that it’s not going to mean the end of the US military presence in Iraq.

In comments to Congressional committees over the course of the week, Mattis was very clear about the need to keep US troops in Iraq, calling it a “national interest” and insisting US forces need to stabilize Iraq, while downplaying the idea that this would be nation-building.

It’s not going to be a short process either. While Mattis wasn’t very specific on how long this post-ISIS US military presence would last, he made it clear that it would be “years,” and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Joe Dunford said the same thing later.

Pentagon officials have been insisting since last year that the deployment to Iraq this time is more or less permanent. That they are couching this as a matter of “years” now does not necessarily mean that the timespan is going to be finite, but that they don’t want to admit, believing the war is closer to ending, that they intend to stay in an open-ended manner.

What America’s Coup in Ukraine Did

What America’s Coup in Ukraine Did

By Eric Zuesse,

Armée Ukraine USA

On March 23rd, Gallup headlined “South Sudan, Haiti and Ukraine Lead World in Suffering”, and the Ukrainian part of that can unquestionably be laid at the feet of U.S. President Barack Obama, who in February 2014 imposed upon Ukraine a very bloody coup (see it here), which he and his press misrepresented (and still misrepresent) as being (and still represent as having been) a ‘democratic revolution’, but was nothing of the sort, and actually was instead the start of the Ukrainian dictatorship and the hell that has since destroyed that country, and brought the people there into such misery, it’s now by far the worst in Europe, and nearly tied with the worst in the entire world.

America’s criminal ‘news’ media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began planning for a coup in Ukraine, and that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside the U.S. Embassy there, and that they hired members of Ukraine’s two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties, Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or “Svoboda” instead), and that in February 2014 they did it (and here’s the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. ‘news’ media misrepresented as ‘democracy demonstrations,’ though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today’s U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine’s corruption — which instead actually soared after his coup there).

The head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor said it was “the most blatant coup in history” but he couldn’t say that to Americans, because he knows that our press is just a mouthpiece for the regime (just like it was during the lead-up to George W. Bush’s equally unprovoked invasion of Iraq — for which America’s ‘news’ media suffered likewise no penalties).

When subsequently accused by neocons for his having said this, his response was “I told the business journal Kommersant that if the US were behind a coup in Kiev, it would have been the most blatant coup in history,” As I pointed out when writing about that rejoinder of his, he had, in fact, made quite clear in his Kommersant interview, that it was, in his view “the most blatant coup in history,” no conditionals on that.

Everybody knows what Obama, and Clinton, and Sarkozy, did to Libya — in their zeal to eliminate yet another nation’s leader who was friendly toward Russia (Muammar Gaddafi), they turned one of the highest-living-standard nations in Africa into a failed state and huge source of refugees (as well as of weapons that the Clinton State Department transferred to the jihadists in Syria to bring down Bashar al-Assad, another ally of Russia) — but the ‘news’ media have continued to hide what Obama (assisted by America’s European allies, especially Poland and Netherlands, and also by America’s apartheid Middle Eastern ally, Israel) did to Ukraine.

I voted for Obama, partly because the insane McCain (“bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”) and the creepy Romney (“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe”) were denounced by the (duplicitous) Obama for saying such evil things, their aggressive international positions, which continued old Cold-War-era hostilities into the present, even after the Cold War had ended long ago (in 1991) (but only on the Russian side). I since have learned that in today’s American political system, the same aristocracy controls both of our rotten political Parties, and American democracy no longer exists. (And the only scientific study of whether America between the years 1981 and 2002 was democratic found that it was not, and it already confirmed what Jimmy Carter later said on 28 July 2015: “Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members.” But yet our Presidents continue the line, now demonstrably become a myth, of ‘American democracy’, and use it as a sledgehammer against other governments, to ‘justify’ invading (or, in Ukraine’s case, overthrowing via a ‘democratic revolution’) their lands (allies of Russia) such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and maybe even soon, Iran.

Here are some of the events and important historical details along the way to Ukraine’s plunge into a worse condition than most African nations:

“Yanukovych’s Removal Was Unconstitutional”

“Obama Definitely Caused The Malaysian Airliner To Be Downed”

“War on Donbass was planned to ignite a major war in Europe.”

“Our ‘Enemies’ In Ukraine Speak”

“Meet Ukraine’s Master Mass-Murderer: Dmitriy Yarosh”

“Ukrainian Soldier Explains Why He Enjoys Killing Russians”

“Russia’s Leader Putin Rejects Ukrainian Separatists’ Aim To Become Part Of Russia”

“Gallup: Ukrainians Loathe the Kiev Government Imposed by Obama”

Please send this article to every friend who is part of the majority that, as a Quinnipiac University poll published on March 22nd reported, “A total of 51 percent of voters say they can trust U.S. intelligence agencies to do what is right ‘almost all of the time’ or ‘most of the time’” (and that level of trust was far higher than for the rotten press and for the rotten politicians), even after the CIA’s rubber-stamping Bush’s lies to invade Iraq, and after the FBI’s shameless performance on Hillary Clinton’s privatized State Department emails even after her smashing their cell-phones with hammers, etc., and all the other official cover-ups, with no American officials even so much as being charged for their rampant crimes against the American public.

Besides: ever since the CIA’s founding, it has had an “Operation Gladio” that specializes in organizing terrorist acts so as for them to be blamed on, first, communist countries when they existed; and, then, after the end of communism, on allies of Russia. Did the American dictatorship begin right after FDR died in 1945? How much longer will these lies succeed?

For the people of Iraq, and of Syria, and of Ukraine, and many such countries, this dictatorship has destroyed their lives. Trusting the ‘intelligence’ services of a dictatorship doesn’t make any sense at all. They’re all working for the aristocracy, the billionaires — not for any public, anywhere; not here, not there, just nowhere. Should the cattle trust the feedlot-operator? Only ignorance can produce trust, under the conditions that actually exist.

So, unless the idea is that ignorance is bliss, pass along the truth, when you find it, because it is very rare — and the system operates to keep it that way.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Gaddafi warned about influx of refugees & Islamist attacks on Europe

 

Flashback 1. Colonel Gaddafi: Immigrants will invade Europe

Padraic Flanagan — Daily Express March 8, 2011

Gaddafi with his spy chief Abdullah al-Senussi (left). Click to enlarge

Gaddafi with his spy chief Abdullah al-Senussi (left). Click to enlarge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He spoke after more than 1,000 refugees landed on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa in just 12 hours.

Gaddafi stormed: “Thousands of people from Libya will invade Europe. There will be no one to stop them any more.”

His rant came as he attempted to regain lost territory with air strikes against the rebels.

The United Nations has launched a £100million emergency appeal to set up camps for the million foreign workers trapped in the war-torn country.

Meanwhile, rebel fighters faced increasingly tough resistance from Gaddafi loyalists as they battled to move westwards from their stronghold in Benghazi.

Residents fled fighting at Ras Lanuf. The oil-producing town had its port closed after Gaddafi’s pilots launched a series of air strikes, including one on a car carrying a fleeing family.

“The inside of the car and parts of the outside are splattered with blood and children’s shoes are scattered inside,” reported eyewitness Mohammed Abbas.

There was also heavy fighting in the western town of Misrata, where rebels have resisted onslaughts despite heavy losses.

Gaddafi’s forces were reported to have regained control in Bin Jawwad, 110 miles east of his birthplace of Sirte.

Fighting was also under way in Zawiya, 30 miles from the capital Tripoli, as rebels struggled to repel Gaddafi forces.

British and French diplomats at the United Nations were last night drawing up a resolution on a no-fly zone, despite hints that Russia would resist any intervention.

Source

Flashback 2. Gaddafi warned Blair of Islamist attacks on Europe

Robert Mendick — Telegraph.co.uk Jan 7, 2016

Tony Blair and Libya's Colonel Gaddafi in 2009. Click to enlarge

Tony Blair and Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi in 2009.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi issued a ‘prophetic’ warning to Tony Blair that jihadists would attack Europe if his regime was allowed to collapse, phone conversations reveal.

Gaddafi’s dire prediction was made in two desperate telephone calls with Mr Blair on February 25, 2011 – as civil war was engulfing Libya.

In the first call at 11.15am, Gaddafi said: “They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe.”

Excerpt from Col Gaddafi's 2011 phone conversations with Tony Blair. Click to enlarge

Excerpt from Col Gaddafi’s 2011 phone conversations with Tony Blair. Click to enlarge

In the call, lasting half an hour, Gaddafi insisted he was trying to defend Libya from al-Qaeda fighters. The presence of al-Qaedas would later be superceded by the rise of the so-called Islamic State.

“We are not fighting them, they are attacking us, ” he said, “I want to tell you the truth. It is not a difficult situation at all. The story is simply this: an organisation has laid down sleeping cells in North Africa. Called the Al-Qaeda Organisation in North Africa… The sleeping cells in Libya are similar to dormant cells in America before 9/11.

“They have managed to get arms and terrify people. people can’t leave their homes… It’s a jihad situation. They have arms and are terrorising people in the street.”

In a second call made a little over four hours later, Gaddafi told Mr Blair: “I will have to arm the people and get ready for a fight. Libyan people will die, damage will be on the Med, Europe and the whole world. These armed groups are using the situation [in Libya] as a justification – and we shall fight them.”

Col Gaddafi warns of attacks on Europe in phone conversations with Tony Blair. Click to enlarge

Col Gaddafi warns of attacks on Europe in phone conversations with Tony Blair. Click to enlarge

Mr Blair had made two calls to Gaddafi to try to negotiate the dictator’s departure from Tripoli as civil war engulfed the nation. Three weeks later, a Nato-led coaltion that included Britain, began bombing raids that led to the overthrow of Gaddafi. The dictator was finally deposed in August and murdered by a mob in October.

Mr Blair had a developed a friendship with Gaddafi and had visted the Libyan leader at least six times after leaving Downing Street in 2007.

He cleared the phone calls with both David Cameron and Hillary Clinton, the then US Secretary of State, in an attempt to persuade Gaddafi to leave Libya with safe passage and to avoid further conflict.

The existence of the phone calls emerged last year and Mr Blair passed the transcripts to the Foreign Affairs Committee which is investigating Libya’s collapse. The committee of MPs published the transcripts on Thursday.

In the calls Mr Blair told Gaddafi: “If you have a safe place to go you should go there because this will not end peacefully and there has to be a process of change, that process of change can be managed and we have to find a way of managing it.

“The US and the EU are in a tough position right now and I need to take something back to them which ensures this ends peacefully.”

Mr Blair ended the call by saying: “i would like to offer a way out that is peaceful… keep the lines open.”

Gaddafi’s warnings appear to have been born out. Libya has collapsed following his overthrow. The country remains in the grip of civil war and much of it is in the control of Islamist extremists linked to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

Terrorists sent by Isil to France were responsible for the attacks on Paris in November amid growing concern jihadists are crossing into Europe from north Africa and the Middle East.

.

Crispin Blunt MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “The transcripts supplied by Mr Blair provide a new insight into the private views of Colonel Gaddafi as his dictatorship began to crumble around him.

“The failure to follow Mr Blair’s calls to ‘keep the lines open’ and for these early conversations to initiate any peaceful compromise continue to reverberate.

“The Committee will want to consider whether Gaddafi’s prophetic warning of the rise of extremist militant groups following the collapse of the regime was wrongly ignored because of Gaddafi’s otherwise delusional take on international affairs.

“The evidence that the Committee has taken so far in this inquiry suggests that western policy makers were rather less perceptive than Gaddafi about the risks of intervention for both the Libyan people and the western interests.”

Source

How Obama helped Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra & ISIS destroy the most prosperous country in Africa, Libya

Obama’s Legacy in Africa: How Libya, a Prosperous Nation in Africa was Destroyed by America’s First African-American President

By Timothy Alexander Guzman,

Barack-Obama discours

Barack Obama’s last day of pillaging the earth is on January 20th, 2017. The Obama administration’s era of “hope and change” has come to a close. The last 8 years with Obama has led to more wars of aggression that has caused countless deaths and destruction of numerous sovereign nations. Obama will be gone into the pages of history as warmongering Commander-in Chief just like his predecessor before him, George W. Bush.

Obama kept his promises to his corporate masters not to the people who had high hopes for change in domestic and foreign policies. Obama will be remembered as the president who authorized the destruction of Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, the Ukraine and Honduras (Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was removed from power with help from his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton).

Obama’s drone strikes in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen has caused the deaths of innocent men, women and children because of the “War on Terror.” A report based on secret military documents obtained by investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept called ‘The Assassination Complex’ published in late 2015 confirmed the toll on innocent civilians:

The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble”

Obama’s “hope and change” was “smoke and mirrors” as the world became worst under an administration that created more wars and in the process created useful terrorists to overthrow governments including Syria. On September 20th, 2016, Obama’s last speech at the United Nations where he described where the world stood on the global economy, terrorism, censorship and war:

We see it in the headlines every day. Around the world, refugees flow across borders in flight from brutal conflict. Financial disruptions continue to weigh upon our workers and entire communities. Across vast swaths of the Middle East, basic security, basic order has broken down. We see too many governments muzzling journalists, and quashing dissent, and censoring the flow of information. Terrorist networks use social media to prey upon the minds of our youth, endangering open societies and spurring anger against innocent immigrants and Muslims. Powerful nations contest the constraints placed on them by international law.

This is the paradox that defines our world today. A quarter century after the end of the Cold War, the world is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before, and yet our societies are filled with uncertainty, and unease, and strife. Despite enormous progress, as people lose trust in institutions, governing becomes more difficult and tensions between nations become more quick to surface

From “financial disruptions” to the ongoing wars in the Middle East, Obama claims that the world is now “less violent and more prosperous than ever before.” What planet is President Obama living on? It was the Obama administration that has elevated the war in Syria by supporting the “moderate rebels” comprised of terrorists from Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State and others that have committed numerous atrocities. Obama also mentioned that “many governments muzzling journalists, and quashing dissent, and censoring the flow of information” as he himself called for the prosecutions of Chelsea Manning (although he just pardoned Manning), Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers who exposed corruption is just pure hypocrisy. However, President Obama presided over the destruction of Libya caused by America’s first African-American president whose father was originally from Kenya.

Libya, a Once Stable and Prosperous Nation Destroyed by the Obama Administration

Libya was once a stable nation under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The Obama administration ordered the removal of Gaddafi with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was ecstatic when she heard that Gaddafi was overthrown and then killed by the opposition, she said “We came, we saw, he died” with laughter. That was the mindset of Washington under the Democratic Party that managed to destroy one of the wealthiest nations in Northern Africa under the guise of “humanitarian intervention”.

Libya had the highest GDP per capita and reduced the number of people living below the poverty line and had the highest life expectancy in all of Africa. Obama destroyed that. In 2011, the Obama administration with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton ordered the US-NATO coalition to bomb Libya that resulted in more than 30,000 deaths with over 50,000 injured during the civil war that lasted several months. The “humanitarian intervention” (is what the Obama regime proudly called it) has destroyed what Gaddafi had built under his government. Under Gaddafi (although through dictatorial power) having your own home was a natural right. A university education whether at home or abroad was paid for by the government and everyone in Libya had access to universal healthcare. If a Libyan wanted a farm, they were given a farmhouse with land plus live stock and seeds free of charge.

Libya’s own state bank provided loans at 0% interest by law, so whatever you borrowed, you had no worries about repaying the bank with high interest rates as you would normally do in the West. Even electricity was free for the Libyans. However, a civil war began between the Gaddafi government and the anti-Gaddafi opposition forces with links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It was another case where Washington provided support to terrorists to remove Gaddafi from power by any means. In a 2014 article by The Daily Mail ‘Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report’ based on an independent report by The Citizens Commission on Benghazi from former members of think tanks, the military and the CIA stated the following:

‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

‘Some look at it as treasonous moves,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research. ‘And our men and women had to follow what many purport as, qualify as treasonous moves’

Washington was complicit in removing Gaddafi from power but also allowed for the weapons in Benghazi to find its way into the hands of the “moderate rebels” in Syria in an attempt to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power. “Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, one of the commission’s sources, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now ‘all in Syria” according to The Daily Mail report. Hillary Clinton spoke about the civil war in Libya in Paris, France on March 19, 2011. Clinton said the following:

Colonel Qadhafi’s campaign of violence against his own people must stop. The strong votes in the United Nations Security Council underscored this unity. And now the Qadhafi forces face unambiguous terms: a ceasefire must be implemented immediately – that means all attacks against civilians must stop; troops must stop advancing on Benghazi and pull back from Adjabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; water, electricity, and gas supplies must be turned on to all areas; humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. Yesterday, President Obama said very clearly that if Qadhafi failed to comply with these terms, there would be consequences

And consequences there were. The war on Libya was about its natural resources that includes oil, gas, water (Libya has one of the largest water irrigation systems in the world) gold and silver holdings. Gaddafi’s dream was to free the entire continent of Africa from Western financial dominance by issuing the ‘Gold Dinar’, a gold-backed African currency threatening U.S. dollar hegemony and the Western central banking system. For Washington and their European partners, Gaddafi had to be stopped. The plan to remove Gaddafi was set years before the civil war erupted. Wesley Clark, the retired general and the supreme military commander of NATO admitted in 2007 that a “high ranking” pentagon official told him that Washington planned to “take out seven countries in five years” with Libya on that list.

Obama, the first African-American President of the United States was the man to stop Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Obama’s legacy in Africa will be remembered as one that has destroyed one of the last remaining prosperous and wealthiest nations in Africa. The fact is that there was nothing humanitarian about Obama’s “humanitarian intervention” in Libya and that is something history will teach future generations to come.

Russia looking to clear Libya of terrorists groups just as they did in Syria

Source

By | TUNIS

TUNIS A visit to a Russian aircraft carrier by Libya’s Khalifa Haftar has given the eastern–based commander a symbolic boost while also signaling Moscow’s interest in a greater role in the region following its intervention in Syria.

Haftar is a figurehead for east Libyan factions who harbors national ambitions, and his renewed engagement with Russia comes at a time when the U.N.-supported government in Tripoli that he has shunned is once more in crisis.

Russian support could embolden Haftar in making a play for power in Tripoli, a move likely to fuel conflict and represent a major setback for genuine unity government in Libya.

Western states say the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) provides the best chance of reversing Libya’s slide into anarchy and warfare.

But as splits and resistance have weakened the GNA in the capital, Haftar has gained momentum in the east, with support from foreign allies who back his fight against Islamist groups.

He enjoys close ties to Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, and has cultivated his friendship with Russia, visiting Moscow twice last year to ask for help in his anti-Islamist campaign.

His tour of the Admiral Kuznetsov in the Mediterranean on Wednesday was Russia’s most overt show of support to date.

In a video-conference call from the ship reported by Russian media, Haftar and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu discussed the fight against “terrorist groups”, also one of Moscow’s stated targets in its Syria campaign.

Haftar’s advisers declined to comment on the aircraft carrier visit and what it might mean for relations with Russia.

But following its intervention in Syria, Russia sees Libya as a way to anchor its return to the Middle East, said Alexei Malashenko, the chief researcher at Dialogue of Civilizations Institute, a think-tank with close ties to the Russian leadership.

“One single Syria is not enough. That’s why we need one more state for the Russian presence not only in Syria but generally in the Middle East. Libya is a convenient territory for it. It’s complete chaos and you can always say that Russia helps to fight terrorism.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin may also take an interest in restoring his country’s influence in Libya, analysts say. Before he was overthrown, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had been a long-standing Russian ally and Putin opposed the NATO campaign that helped to topple him.

Russia did not use its U.N. Security Council veto to block the resolution authorizing military action, and Putin, who was out of presidential office at the time, took the risk of demonstrating a split in Russian leadership by publicly criticizing it.

CONTRACTS

Russia has outwardly backed U.N. mediation in Libya, and says it will abide by an arms embargo on the country. But it could eventually stand to recover billions of dollars worth of weapons and energy deals lost when Gaddafi lost power in 2011.

A parliament and government in eastern Libya that are allied to Haftar have no direct control over oil revenues. But they have maintained rival branches of the central bank, which has had Libyan dinars printed in Russia, and the National Oil Corporation (NOC), which has tried unsuccessfully to circumvent U.N. resolutions and sell oil independently of Tripoli.

“We hope for a return of the Russian state to its role as a support of Libya’s armed forces, which have been abandoned by most countries in their war against terrorism,” said Abdallah Bilhaq, a spokesman for the eastern parliament, citing some $4 billion in pre-2011 arms contracts.

Naji al-Maghrabi, appointed to head the NOC by the eastern government, told Reuters his office had signed 29 contracts, including recent ones with major states such as Russia and China. He did not give details.

So far, Russia’s support for Haftar appears to be mainly symbolic, said Karim Mezran, a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, though that could change if Haftar tries to take Tripoli, as his opponents in western Libya fear he is actively preparing to do.

“If he is getting signs of possible tribes or groups or militias who are really ready to switch to his side he might take the Russian encouragement and move,” he said.

The GNA has been hamstrung by its failure to win endorsement from Haftar’s allies, and its leaders have appeared increasingly isolated and dependent on Western backing since arriving in Tripoli in March.

At the start of January, one of its deputy prime ministers resigned, citing a failure to unite rival factions and tackle a collapse in living standards.

On Thursday, the head of a self-declared government sidelined by the GNA claimed he had regained control over several ministry buildings.

A general electricity blackout in western and southern Libya, on top of chronic security and economic problems, has pushed public frustration to new highs.

Haftar, a one-time ally of Gaddafi who returned from exile to join the uprising that toppled him, has largely shunned attempts to shore up the U.N.-mediated deal that created the GNA just over a year ago, accusing the government of aligning itself with some of the Islamist-leaning forces that took control of Tripoli in 2014.

In the east, his self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA) has been tightening its grip, ousting Islamist-led opponents from most of Benghazi, appointing military governors, and extending its control over oil facilities.

As the LNA’s profile has risen, Western envoys have begun to recognize its gains, while publicly insisting that the U.N. agreement is the only way to bring stability to Libya.

Hoping for more support for his anti-Islamist stance from incoming U.S. President Donald Trump, Haftar is positioning himself to talk to the new U.S. administration from a position of strength, said Mezran.

“He expects this political agreement to fail and in his mind he thinks the only solution will be a military takeover, and in the end he thinks the West will side with him,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Maria Tsvetkova in Moscow and Ayman al-Warfalli in Benghazi; Writing by Aidan Lewis; Editing by Giles Elgood)

Russians will arm Libyan general Haftar in challenge to West, according to his aides – The Times & The Sunday Times

Libyan army commander Haftar signs $2 billion arms deal with Russia despite UN sanctions, according to Libya Express – defenseworld.net

RAI TV reports that Haftar signed an agreement whereby Russia would build two military bases near Tobruk and Benghazi – Al Jazeera

Obama is illegally bombing in Syria and trying to oust Assad yet complains that Russia meddled in the election

Obama is bombing Syria and trying to oust Assad yet complains that Russia meddled in the election

Yes. That is how stupid things are today.

America has been in the business of ‘nation building’ for generations – installing and deposing of nations leaders whenever they felt like it.
The whole Arab Spring was the US meddling and creating the situation for the upheaval that happened in those countries. Now Obama is whining that maybe Putin hacked some emails.

Obama and the CIA have MURDERED nations leaders.

On 60 Minutes, President Obama flatly stated the US plan for Syria leaves no room for President Assad, the democratically-elected leader of the country. As Obama backs away from his “no boots on the ground” promise, he drops a bomb on the American people as big as any that have hit Syria. Image credit: wikimedia.org

“We are not going to stabilize Syria under the rule of Assad.”

It’s very clear that the United States’ plan is to remove the ISIS threat and stabilize the country. To say that it will not be done under Assad means only one thing: it is the US government’s plan to remove him from power. The US media obediently ignored this statement, allowing the President to quietly tell the American people that the United States is headed towards another regime change operation followed by a lengthy occupation. This is not a simple statement indicating that the United States will not cooperate with Assad’s government during the war. It is a direct statement showing that the United States is planning to have Assad out before the country is stabilized.

The Clintons and Obama have made many powerful enemies. They are surrounded by liars who say no one is more powerful than America that America will protect them, and they will never suffer direct consequences. These advisors constantly give them false assurance that they will never be a victim, only a victimizer.

There are literally now millions of people with means of inflicting hurt directly and indirectly on American ruling class elites.

American elites leave a digital trail of their crimes without regard then appear shocked when their well documented crimes are hacked and exposed.

The big mistake was when Obama and the Anglo Israelis made their move on Khadaffi and ripped off China in Libya. Yeah they gave him butthurt when Clintons deathsquad shoved that knife up Khadaffi’s ass. Hilly got a little cackle from that.

The media should have been mortified, but they are so twisted mentally, they are just actors. Not journalists.

Have you ever heard such a dishonest statement? UK says 2011 Libya intervention ‘saved civilian lives’

UK says 2011 Libya intervention ‘saved civilian lives’

The British government defended its decision to militarily intervene in Libya in 2011 and help to topple long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi, after criticism was directed at it in a parliamentary report.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee published a report in September that harshly criticised the decision made by then-prime minister David Cameron to join France in a military intervention to save the lives of civilians during the revolt against Gaddafi’s regime.

The committee described the British intervention as “based on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

It also accused Cameron’s government of selectively taking the threats of Gaddafi at face value, suggesting that Gaddafi was full of bluster and did not seriously mean his threats.

The government responded today, stressing that its actions “undoubtedly” saved civilian lives in Libya, adding “Gaddafi was unpredictable and had the means and motivation to carry out his threats. His actions could not be ignored, and required decisive and collective international action.”

The critical report stated that Cameron should have been aware that “extremist Islamists would try to exploit the popular uprising,” noting that it did not find evidence that the British government had “correctly analysed” the nature of the various rebel factions.

On its part, the government stated in its response that the overwhelming majority of Gaddafi’s opponents have no links to the so-called Islamic extremism, noting that “Daesh are now on the back foot in Libya.”

 

%d bloggers like this: