France’s Self-Inflicted Refugee Crisis. The Result of NATO-Led Wars & France’s support for terrorists


By Ulson Gunnar,


FUNDED Rebels, AKA Radical Terrorists, To Overthrow

instead of helping fight terrorism chose instead to arm and fund the terrorists

This is why is a magnet for terrorists attacks, the French Gov’t supports Islamist terrorists in

Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent “al-Nusra terrorists doing a good job in

January ’15 Hollande ‘France supplied arms to Syria Takfiris’



Following rhetoric regarding Europe’s refugee crisis, one might assume the refugees, through no fault of Europe’s governments, suddenly began appearing by the thousands at Europe’s borders. However, this simply is not true.

Before the 2011 wave of US-European engineered uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) transformed into Western military interventions, geopolitical analysts warned that overthrowing the governments in nations like Libya and Syria, and Western interventions in nations like Mali and the Ivory Coast, would lead to predicable regional chaos that would manifest itself in both expanding terrorism across the European and MENA region, as well as a flood of refugees from destabilized, war-racked nations.

Libya in particular, was singled out as a nation, if destabilized, that would transform into a springboard for refugees not only fleeing chaos in Libya itself, but fleeing a variety of socioeconomic and military threats across the continent. Libya has served for decades as a safe haven for African refugees due to its relative stability and economic prosperity as well as the Libyan government’s policy of accepting and integrating African refugees within the Libyan population.

Because of NATO’s 2011 military intervention and the disintegration of Libya as a functioning nation state, refugees who would have otherwise settled in Libya are now left with no choice but to continue onward to Europe.

For France in particular, its politics have gravitated around what is essentially a false debate between those welcoming refugees and those opposed to their presence.

Absent from this false debate is any talk of French culpability for its military operations abroad which, along with the actions of the US and other NATO members, directly resulted in the current European refugee crisis.

France claims that its presence across Africa aims at fighting Al Qaeda. According to RAND Corporation commentary titled, “Mali’s Persistent Jihadist Problem,” it’s reported that:

Four years ago, French forces intervened in Mali, successfully averting an al Qaeda-backed thrust toward the capital of Bamako. The French operation went a long way toward reducing the threat that multiple jihadist groups posed to this West Africa nation. The situation in Mali today remains tenuous, however, and the last 18 months have seen a gradual erosion of France’s impressive, initial gains.

And of course, a French military presence in Mali will do nothing to stem Al Qaeda’s activities if the source of Al Qaeda’s weapons and financial support is not addressed. In order to do this, France and its American and European allies would need to isolate and impose serious sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two nations who exists as the premier state sponsors of not only Al Qaeda, but a myriad of terrorist organizations sowing chaos worldwide.

Paradoxically, instead of seeking such sanctions, the French government instead sells the Saudi and Qatari governments billions of dollars worth of weaponry, proudly filling in any temporary gaps in the flow of weapons from the West as each nation attempts to posture as “concerned” about Saudi and Qatari human rights abuses and war crimes (and perhaps even state sponsorship of terrorism) only to gradually return to pre-sanction levels after public attention wanes.

The National Interest in an article titled, “France: Saudi Arabia’s New Arms Dealer,” would note:

France has waged a robust diplomatic engagement with Saudi Arabia for years. In June, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visited France to sign deals worth $12 billion, which included $500 million for 23 Airbus H145 helicopters. Saudi and French officials also agreed to pursue feasibility studies to build two nuclear reactors in the kingdom. The remaining money will involve direct investment negotiated between Saudi and French officials.

The article would also note that Saudi Arabia’s junior partner in the state sponsorship of global terror, Qatar, would also benefit from French weapon deals:

Hollande’s address was delivered one day after he was in Doha, where he signed a $7 billion deal that included the sale of 24 French Rafale fighter jets to Qatar, along with the training of Qatari intelligence officers.

In order to truly fight terrorism, a nation must deal with it at its very source. Since France is not only ignoring the source of Al Qaeda’s military, financial and political strength, but is regularly bolstering it with billions in weapons deals, it is safe to say that whatever reason France is involved across MENA, it is not to “defeat” Al Qaeda.

The refugee crisis that has resulted from the chaos that both Western forces and terrorists funded and armed by the West’s closest regional allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is a crisis that is entirely self-inflicted. The rhetoric surrounding the crisis, on both sides, ignoring this fundamental reality, exposes the manufactured and manipulative nature of French government and opposition agendas.

The chaos across MENA is so significant, and terrorism so deeply rooted in both Western and their Arab allies’ geopolitical equations that even a complete reversal of this destructive policy will leave years if not decades of social unrest in the wake of the current refugee crisis.

But for anyone genuinely committed to solving this ongoing crisis, they must start with the US, European, and Gulf monarchies’ culpability, and resist blaming the refugees or those manipulated into reacting negatively to them. While abuses carried out by refugees or locals are equally intolerable, those responsible for the conflicts and for manipulating both sides of this crisis are equally to blame.

Until that blame is properly and proportionately placed, and the root of the crisis addressed, it will only linger and cause further damage to regional and global security.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

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



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.


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 –

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:

“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.”


Libya is a Complete Western Disaster, Finds a British Parliamentary Report (Not to mention Iraq & fact they want to add Syria)

Libya is a Complete Western Disaster, Finds a British Parliamentary Report

435342312312312Three years ago, NATO declared that the mission in Libya had been “one of the most successful in NATO history.” Today, this statement is a proven lie that was fed to the public at large in the West.


A recently published report of British parliament’s foreign affairs committee has categorically acknowledged that the Western intervention in Libya in 2011 was not only based upon flawed intelligence but also directly paved the way for the resurgence of Islamist terror groups in the country. What had initially been propagated as a sort of “humanitarian intervention” to “protect” civilians from the “tyranny of Gaddafi” soon exacerbated into the notorious game of regime change and led to the subsequent disaster, proliferation of Islamist groups and Libya’s downfall from a reasonably stable state to a fragmented one. The report’s findings are, as such, highly critical in terms of the way the West, particularly the US, has been projecting the utmost necessity of NATO’s intervention.

Even if we were to agree to the Western proposition that Gaddafi regime was inflicting atrocities on its people and that the real goal, as a recent article published by the corporate-funded Brookings Institute argues, was to protect people, the report finds it to be wrong. It unambiguously states:

“Many Western policymakers genuinely believed that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered his troops to massacre civilians in Benghazi, if those forces had been able to enter the city. However, while Muammar Gaddafi certainly threatened violence against those who took up arms against his rule, this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi. In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as “an intelligence-light decision.”

Exposing the hollowness of the propagated “truths” that Gaddafi regime was indiscriminately killing his countrymen and that he would have continued to do so “in large numbers if that’s what his survival required”, the report states that nothing of this sort was happening at the time of intervention or was likely to follow. Intervention happened not because Gaddafi was inflicting atrocities but because he was winning the fight against Western and Arab funded militias:

“Despite his rhetoric, the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence. The Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011.”

The report goes on to state that:

“On 17 March 2011, Muammar Gaddafi announced to the rebels in Benghazi, “Throw away your weapons, exactly like your brothers in Ajdabiya and other places did. They laid down their arms and they are safe. We never pursued them at all.” Subsequent investigation revealed that when Gaddafi regime forces retook Ajdabiya in February 2011, they did not attack civilians.”

Contrary to this situation was the mantra of “protecting” people that was officially projected for public consumption, while the real goal was to send Gaddafi home and to re-design Libya’s future in which Gaddafi or his affiliates would have no role to play. The report states:

“When the then Prime Minister David Cameron sought and received parliamentary approval for military intervention in Libya on 21 March 2011, he assured the House of Commons that the object of the intervention was not regime change. In April 2011, however, he signed a joint letter with United States President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy setting out their collective pursuit of “a future without Gaddafi”.

That the goal was always to impose a new regime on the people of Libya is evident from another finding that no option other than that of military intervention was explored and considered:

“The Government rapidly developed a new policy of intervention to protect civilians as Muammar Gaddafi’s forces approached Benghazi in mid-February 2011. It did not explore alternatives to military intervention such as sanctions, negotiations or the application of diplomatic pressure. In pursuing regime change, it abandoned a decade of foreign policy engagement…”

What the West wanted to achieve by regime-change?

As could be expected of the West, the real goal was to extend Western influence in the African continent. Libya was to be the gateway for that. However, as long as Gaddafi was there, this objective could never be realized. Hence, the anti-Gaddafi propaganda and the development of “pro-democracy” discourse in the West that paved the way for NATO-led intervention. The report enlists following critical objectives, which were of crucial importance for France’s Sarkozy, behind the military intervention and change of regime in Libya:

1. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production.

2. Increase French influence in North Africa,

3. Improve his internal political situation in France,

4. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world.

5. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.

Therefore to achieve these objectives, a dual strategy was implemented. On the one hand, NATO intervened and on the other hand weapons were allowed to be distributed to the Islamist militias. The report categorically states:

“….the international community turned a blind eye to the supply of weapons to the rebels. Lord Richards highlighted “the degree to which the Emiratis and the Qataris…played a major role in the success of the ground operation.” For example, Qatar supplied French Milan antitank missiles to certain rebel groups. We were told that Qatar channelled its weapons to favoured militias rather than to the rebels as a whole.”

Who were the “rebels”?

While it is largely believed that that crisis in Libya were linked to a general uprising linked with the so-called “Arab Spring”, this is far from the truth. For one thing, a general popular uprising against an autocrat regime could not possibly have descended into a pure chaos but for the involvement of foreign funded extremist groups. This is precisely what happened in Libya. The critical question, therefore, is: were the Libyan rebels really “rebels”? The report disputes the Western official narrative that it was a general uprising and that extremists got involved at some alter stage. Contrary to the official narrative, the report concludes:

“It is now clear that militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from February 2011 onwards. They separated themselves from the rebel army, refused to take orders from non-Islamist commanders and assassinated the then leader of the rebel army, Abdel Fattah Younes.”

That the West had “turned a blind eye” to the support certain militias were receiving from Arab countries is, in fact, an indication of the Western complicity in facilitating the rise of Islamist groups in Libya. And as the report states yet again:

“We asked Lord Richards whether he knew that Abdelhakim Belhadj and other members of the al-Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were participating in the rebellion in March 2011. He replied that that “was a grey area”. He added that “a quorum of respectable Libyans were assuring the Foreign Office” that militant Islamist militias would not benefit from the rebellion. He acknowledged that “with the benefit of hindsight, that was wishful thinking at best.” 

What is Libya today? A disastrous mess

It is a mess, a victim of Western conspiracy and its notorious cold-war era policy of imposing regime change in countries that refuse to abide by their rules of global politics. Libya, today, is a disaster. Facts speak for themselves: In 2010, Libyan economy was generating US$75 billion in GDP, with an average per capita income of US$12,250, roughly equal to an average income in some European countries. As of 2016, however, Libya is likely to experience a budget deficit of some 60% of GDP. The United Nations ranked Libya as the world’s 94th most advanced country in its 2015 index of human development, a decline from 53rd place in 2010.

Thanks to the Western intervention which was, to say the least, not only ill-informed and a result of propaganda against Gaddafi but also motivated by purely geo-political considerations. Thanks to the Western intervention that has ‘successfully’ transformed Libya from the richest African state under Gaddafi to a failed state under Western supervision.

Its various experiments in Libya have failed to transform it into a pure Western vessel. And as the reports indicate, the US in now trying to install one of its long term assets, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya’s new dictator and then help the West in transforming Africa’s political economy into a disastrous the kind of which Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan today are.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Obama’s confession: Post-Gaddafi Libya is a mess, but it doesn’t stop him wanting the same for Syria


Obama's confession: Post-Gaddafi Libya is a mess

Claiming a lack of planning for the aftermath of the Libya revolution, US President Barack Obama has called it the “the biggest mistake” during his Presidency

World Bulletin / News Desk

Should the West have intervened in Libya to overthrow the “Kafkaesque” regime of strongman Moamer Kadhafi?

Surveying the chaos in the north African country five years on, with rival authorities and factions vying for power, many now concede a disastrous lack of planning.

US leader Barack Obama has cited the Libya intervention as the worst mistake of his presidency, telling Fox News that he regretted having failed “to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya”.

In Britain, a scathing parliamentary report last month found former prime minister David Cameron “ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy”. 

Nicolas Sarkozy, who is angling to win back the French presidency next year, has defended France’s role in Kadhafi’s ouster, while admitting that after the country held elections in 2012 “we let Libya drop”.

A European diplomat who was in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in 2011 said “there was no doubt” that Libya’s second city would have suffered a bloodbath without the intervention.

“There was a real revolution. People did not want to live a minute more under Kadhafi’s Kafkaesque regime,” he said.

Today, the UN-backed unity government is struggling to assert its authority nationwide since arriving in Tripoli in March, with a rival parliament in the east refusing to cede power to it.

In the aftermath of Kadhafi’s overthrow, the dictator’s arsenals were looted, fighters fanned out through neighbouring Niger, Mali and Tunisia, and ISIL gained a foothold on Europe’s doorstep.

A major operation is still under way to oust IS fighters from Sirte, Kadhafi’s hometown, which the rebels seized in June last year, with fears that they will regroup elsewhere in the country.

 Broad support 

In March 2011 the West, led by Britain and France and backed by NATO, enjoyed broad support for the intervention to support the revolution.

After taking up arms in February on the heels of the uprising in Libya’s northwestern neighbour Tunisia, the rebels faced a vicious backlash from Kadhafi.

The entourage of the strongman who had been in power for 42 years promised “rivers of blood”, especially in Benghazi, the birthplace of the revolt.

A UN Security Council resolution with Arab backing — Russia abstained — authorised the use of “all necessary means” to protect civilians and enforce a ceasefire and no-fly zone against Kadhafi’s forces.

It opened the way to Western and Arab air strikes, leading eight months later to the overthrow and death of Kadhafi, who was lynched after his convoy was hit by a NATO air strike.

By then, the conflict had claimed more than 30,000 lives, according to the former rebel National Transitional Council (NTC).

 No follow-up 

The NTC transferred power to an elected national assembly in August 2012, the first peaceful transition in Libya’s modern history, but rival forces have failed to coalesce into a single authority.

Regional powers jockeying for influence have also added to the instability.

Five years on, Chadian President Idriss Deby is just one of the regional leaders to accuse the West of failing to follow up on the overthrow of Kadhafi.

“You forgot about after-sales service,” he has often said.

A European diplomat said: “In retrospect, we… should not have washed our hands of it collectively. There was a sort of guilty detachment.”

But he said the new leadership “made it clear that they didn’t want foreign forces, including UN peacekeepers” in the country.

Libya expert Mattia Toaldo recalls that the Libyans repeatedly turned down Western offers of help, “saying they could manage on their own”.

Mahmoud Jibril, who was part of the rebel NTC, remembers the early post-Kadhafi days differently, telling AFP: “We warned them we needed them to rebuild our institutions after Kadhafi’s death, but everyone told us ‘our mission is accomplished’.”

 What about Syria? 

 Many point to the devastating war in Syria as a counter-example.

“War is claiming hundreds of thousands of lives in that country,” Toaldo said. “In Libya it is ‘only’ tens of thousands. And a political process is under way, however difficult it is.”

The repercussions are also felt in relations with Russia, with President VladimirPutin defending Moscow’s role in Syria where it backs strongman Bashar al-Assad.

“Some of the responsibility for what is happening… lies especially with our Western partners, above all the US and its allies,” Putin told French television.

“Remember how everyone rushed to support the Arab Spring? Where is that optimism now?” he asked. “Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organisations were destroyed as states?”

%d bloggers like this: