Susan Rice has blood on her hands: Journalist

Sunday, 15 November 2020 7:25 PM

Video : Former US National Security Advisor Susan Rice speaks at the J Street 2018 National Conference April 16, 2018 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)

By Don DeBar

Susan Rice is another one of the recycled Clinton people, and in fact the Democratic Party had her going back even before that.

Her mother has been around. She helped design Pell Grants. She had been with Brookings since ‘92 which is about when Susan graduated into the Clinton administration (in 1993) and went directly to the National Security Council.

She was with Bill Clinton for his administration. Obama had her – first at the UN, and then as his National Security Adviser (I think). She’s about as inside as it gets. She has blood on her hands in Africa, Rwanda.

The people’s understanding of the Rwandan genocide in the United States is exactly upside down. There was a genocide there, but it was the side that the US-backed, not surprisingly, and that was Susan Rice’s project. She was a member of the National Security Council to do international affairs and that was one big act of the Clinton administration – that move to pivot to Africa, around Rwanda.

It was also the enabling of their so-called humanitarian interventions, and in any way that’s her child.

At the United Nations, she helped bring us the destruction of Libya, enabled the situation in Syria to the extent that she could, and tried to sell authority for the US to bomb the hell out of Syria as well.

It’s going to be more war, really.

Let me remind people when Trump took office in January of 2017 the foreign policy that Susan Rice and Barack Obama and the Clintons, and John Kerry had set in motion had us where we were having war games at Russia and China’s borders from the Baltics to the Korean peninsula, on a constant basis, with a number of international incidents – including NATO members shooting down Russian pilots over Syria – any of which could have escalated, and really turning on a dime into a global thermonuclear war.

Trump for all the things he has done does not leave us – if he’s leaving – in that situation. But what they’re doing is installing the very people who created that condition to start from day one to bring us right back to the brink with Russia and China.

I think it’s very scary that Susan Rice is being considered for this. I don’t think it’s a surprise at all. Anyone who knows who Joe Biden is not surprised.

Obama is pushing Susan Rice for secretary of state job: Sources

Obama is pushing Susan Rice for secretary of state job: SourcesBarack Obama is pushing for Joe Biden to nominate Susan Rice for secretary of state, sources say.

Don DeBar is an American journalist and political commentator based in New York. He recorded this article for Press TV website. 


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

www.presstv.tv

تركيا تقدّم عرضاً لروسيا وإيران

ناصر قنديل

بعد اجتماعات القمّة الافتراضية التي ضمّت الرؤساء الروسي فلاديمير بوتين والإيراني الشيخ حسن روحاني والتركي رجب أردوغان، سادت أجواء إيجابية حول إمكانية تغيير في السلوك التركي في شمال غرب سورية ومحوره حسم مصير الجماعات المسلّحة هناك. وربط الكثيرون بين هذه التوقعات والاهتمام التركيّ بالمواجهة في ليبيا بعد الموقف المصري واحتمالات تطوره باتجاه تدخل عسكري، سيجعل من الصعب مواجهته من دون الخروج التركي من سورية، سواء للحاجة لدعم روسي إيراني أوسع سياسياً يستدعي خطوة بحجم الانسحاب من سورية، أو نظراً للحاجات الميدانية التي ستفرضها المواجهة وما تتطلّبه من نقل كل القوات الموجودة في سورية إلى ليبيا، لكن بعض التحليلات تحدثت عن شيء أكبر ومضمونه عرض تركيّ قدّمه الرئيس أردوغان لكل من روسيا وإيران.

يرتكز العرض التركي على قاعدتين، الأولى الإقرار التركيّ بصراع مفتوح على زعامة سنّة العالم الإسلامي مع السعودية وطلب الدعم الروسي الإيراني لتركيا على قاعدة كشف قدّمه أردوغان عن فشل رهانات موسكو وطهران على مساعي التقرّب من الرياض التي تناصبهما العداء وتنفذ سياسات أميركيّة صرفة، بخلاف تركيا التي تراعي المصالح الروسية والإيرانية ولو ترتّبت عليها مسافة واسعة عن السياسات الأميركية وتحمّل تبعات ذلك، الثاني الاستعداد لرسم مسافة تركية أوسع من العلاقة بالأميركيين تراعي حدود طلبات روسية وإيرانية مثل عدم ربط البقاء في سورية بالبقاء الأميركي، وبالتوازي الاستعداد لمسافة موازية من العلاقة مع كيان الاحتلال في ضوء صفقة القرن ونيات ضمّ الضفة الغربية، والتعاون مع إيران بمساعدة قطر لدعم حركة حماس وتعزيز صمود قطاع غزة أمام الضغوط “الإسرائيليّة”.

المقابل الذي يطلبه الأتراك وفقاً لعرض أردوغان، هو إضافة للتعاون التركيّ السوريّ الروسي الإيراني لإنهاء دويلة الجماعات الكرديّة المسلحة في شرق سورية، فتح الساحات التي تملك روسيا وإيران قدرة التأثير فيها أمام تنمية نفوذ تركيّ في البيئة السنيّة التي تسيطر عليها السعودية، خصوصاً أن تنظيم الأخوان المسلمين موجود بصيغ مختلفة في هذه البيئات، من لبنان إلى العراق وليبيا وسواها، ويتضمّن العرض استعداد أردوغان لضمان عدم تخطّي هذه الجماعات لسقوف يتفق عليها حسب خصوصيّة كل ساحة. وتقول التحليلات إن الرئيس الروسي الذي وعد بالسعي لترتيب لقاءات سوريّة تركيّة بدعم إيراني، أبدى حذراً مشتركاً مع الرئيس الإيرانيّ من اعتبار فتح الباب لدور الأخوان المسلمين في سورية ممكناً في ظل موقف حاسم لسورية من هذا الطرح، بالإضافة لحذر الرئيس بوتين من التورّط في صراع مصريّ تركيّ ترغب موسكو بلعب دور الوسيط وليس الطرف فيه.

المشكلة وفقاً للتحليلات المذكورة، أن السياسات السعوديّة وبنسبة معينة المواقف المصرية، خير نصير لعرض أردوغان. فالسعودية تنضبط بمواقف أميركية و”إسرائيلية” عدائية نسبياً لروسيا ولإيران أكثر، وتقدّم جغرافيتها ونفطها وإعلامها كأدوات لهذه السياسات، ومصر تورطت بخط لنقل الغاز بالتعاون مع كيان الاحتلال نحو أوروبا لمنافسة الغاز الروسي، بينما تشارك تركيا روسيا خطها الأوروبيّ، ونجم عن تدخلها في ليبيا عرقلة الخط المصري – “الإسرائيلي”. وتقول هذه التحليلات إن العقبات التي تعترض طريق الطرح التركي ربما تنخفض أهميتها إذا ارتفع منسوب التصعيد في المنطقة، وتورّطت السعودية في سياسات العداء والتجاهل أكثر وأكثر، خصوصاً أن العروض التركية تتضمن توظيف قدرات قطر المالية للمساهمة في حل بعض الأزمات المالية في لبنان والعراق وفلسطين وسورية.

Watch: Egyptian warplanes and battleships target Libyan border in large-scale maneuver

By News Desk -2020-07-11

BEIRUT, LEBANON (5:20 P.M.) – The Egyptian naval and air forces, along with their special forces, carried out maneuvers along their western border with Libya on Saturday.

During the maneuvers, the Egyptian Armed Forces carried out an amphibious operation, with the support of their air force.

According to the Egyptian army statement, this exercise comes within the framework of the combat training plan for the armed forces’ formations and units in one of the stages of the “Decisive 2020”.

Video Here

They explained that “this maneuver is on the western strategic border, given the sharp and rapid changes that the region is going through.”

The stage began with the implementation of a group of concentrated air strikes through a number of multi-mission aircraft for the enemy’s command centers, in conjunction with the implementation of a parachute to secure the Ras Shore.

Training was also carried out on different fighting methods and selecting the most appropriate to achieve the tasks in the least possible time and with the least possible losses.

EGYPT SENDS WARNING TO TURKEY BY LAUNCHING DRILLS NEAR LIBYA (MAP UPDATE)

Source

Egypt Sends Warning To Turkey By Launching Drills Near Libya (Map Update)

On July 9, the Egyptian Armed Forces started military drills near the Libyan border. The land part of the drills, codenamed Resolve 2020, took place in the northwestern district of Qabr Gabis.

The Egyptian military exercise followed the announcement of own naval drills off the Libyan coast by Turkey. The Turkish drills, called “Naftex”, will reportedly take place off the Libyan coast in three different regions: Barbaros, Turgutreis and Chaka Bey.


Egyptian media already described the Egyptian drills are a message to Turkey, which has been steadily increasing its involvement in the conflict.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Source

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

NATO is a military and political alliance, a security community that unites the largest number of States on both sides of the North Atlantic. During its existence, NATO has expanded 2.5 times. It accounts for 70% of global military spending. It is rightfully considered the most powerful military association of States in the entire history of mankind in terms of combined armed power and political influence. The fact that this year NATO turned 70 years old, which is more than the independent existence of some of its member States, proves an incredible success of this project. However, while the Alliance has successfully resisted external enemies in its history, today it is experiencing significant internal divisions that threaten its existence more than ever.

The founding date of NATO is April 4, 1949, the day 12 countries signed the Washington Treaty. NATO became a “transatlantic forum” for allied countries to consult on issues that affect the vital interests of participating countries. The organization’s primary goal was to deter any form of aggression against the territory of any member state, as well as to protect against these threats. The principle of collective defense, enshrined in article 5 of the Washington Treaty, implies that if one NATO member state is the victim of an armed attack, all other member States of the Alliance will consider this act of violence an armed attack on all NATO countries and will take actions that the organization deems necessary. At the end of the 20th century, the real threat to the West was the Soviet Union.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question arose about the existence of NATO, as an Alliance created to protect against the Soviet threat. The disappearance of the external threat has led to a process of transformation that has been going on for 30 years. Each stage of transformation is directly related to the adaptation of the Alliance to certain changes taking place in the international arena and affecting the stability of the security system in the Euro-Atlantic and the world as a whole. In addition to the collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the key events that affected the development of the Alliance was the terrorist attack of 11.09.2001, which actually allowed the Alliance to be preserved, since then there was a common external threat to the member countries.

Traditionally, NATO’s transformations are considered in the following three areas: geographical changes, political transformations, and processes in the military-technical sphere.

Important political transformations are manifested in adapting to changes in the international arena, which are represented primarily by the disappearance of block opposition. The Alliance remains committed to the principle of collective defense, as set out in article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The main command structures also remain the same. The main transformations are expressed in the form of declarations of new NATO functions: maintaining peace and stability not only on the territory of the member States, but also outside the area of responsibility of the Alliance. The operations carried out in these territories are aimed at maintaining local and regional stability, eliminating ethnic and religious conflicts, maintaining respect for human rights and various national minorities, and, most importantly, fighting international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The “new NATO” is being transformed from a regional organization into a guarantor of global stability, taking responsibility for stability in regions outside its own territories and in situations not covered by article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Assuming global responsibility, NATO is forced to maintain the necessary level of military power, participate in collective planning for the organization of nuclear forces and their deployment on its own territories. New threats encourage NATO to expand geographically.

The expansion of NATO, which implies the inclusion of former members of the Warsaw Pact And the full-scale advance of military infrastructure to the East, represents a change in geography.

Changes in the military-technical sphere imply a General reduction of the Alliance’s collective military forces, their relocation, etc. The main form of transformation of the armed forces was the transition from ” heavy ” military associations to more flexible and maneuverable groups in order to increase their effectiveness in the fight against new threats. The beginning of the economic crisis in autumn 2008 revealed the urgent need for reforms. Member States were forced to reduce their military budgets, which meant abandoning programs involving the development and purchase of precision weapons. In 2010 the plan of the NATO Secretary-General A. Rasmussen’s plan to optimize the budget, and in 2012, the Chicago summit adopted the “smart defense package”, which implies a parallel reduction of funds and increased efficiency.

However, despite all the reforms carried out within the Alliance, today the new missions do not have the same clarity as during the cold war. Options for the purpose of NATO’s existence after the collapse of the USSR vary: the fight against terrorism, assistance in the spread of democracy, nation-building, “world police”, the fight against “soft threats”, the fight against a resurgent Russia. But the main problem of the Organization is that none of the options is universal for all member countries. None of the considered “enemies” unites NATO.

After various stages of transformation, NATO turned out that the condition for its perfect functioning was precisely the situation of structured confrontation. The current unstructured confrontation, which implies that all member countries have different primary threats, makes it meaningless to have a cumbersome and generally rather inert organization.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Illustrative Image

In 2014, NATO had another opportunity to create a common external enemy, the role of which was approached by Russia. The summit held in Wales in 2014 radically changed the agenda of the entire Alliance. The main topic of discussion was the Ukrainian crisis, which led to the conclusion about the need to contain Russia. The final Declaration of the summit notes that ” Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine have fundamentally called into question the vision of a whole, free and peaceful Europe”. “The illegal self-proclaimed annexation of Crimea and Russia’s aggressive actions in other regions of Ukraine” were highlighted as special threats among the spread of violence and extremist groups in North Africa and the Middle East.

The appearance of a ” dangerous external enemy ” entailed not only political transformations. There have also been reforms in the military sphere of NATO. Among the new security challenges were “hybrid wars”, that is, military actions involving an expanded range of military and civilian measures of an open or hidden nature. The adopted Action Plan, which includes the concept of “hybrid war”, was primarily aimed at countering the tactics of warfare used by Russia. Thus, a number of measures included in the Declaration were directed against Russia.

NATO was forced to return to the role of a guarantor against severe security threats, which significantly increased costs for the organization. At the 2016 NATO Warsaw summit, it was decided to further deploy 4 battalion tactical groups to existing military bases in Poland and the Baltic States. In addition, more than 550 tanks and an armored unit of the United States have been transferred to the region. These units are deployed on a rotational basis, which does not contradict the NATO-Russia Founding act of 1997. In the Declaration of the 2018 Brussels NATO summit it is recorded that the “enhanced presence in the forward area” of tactical groups includes a total of 4,500 military personnel, which is approximately equal to one brigade.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP

At the same time, it is clear that Russia does not pose a real threat to NATO. Real foreign policy practice proves that Russia will not threaten Western countries in the next 50 years. The only point of instability today is the Ukrainian conflict, which had no preconditions until 2014, and was in turn artificially created by the American establishment in partnership with Brussels. Russia, for its part, even in this conflict does not seek to expand its influence, and also observes the Minsk agreements that are unfavorable to It.

“The main reason why the United States has assumed the role of arbiter of the fate of Ukraine and its citizens is the allegedly increasing threat from Russia not only to Kiev, but also to Europe and the rest of the world. And this is despite the fact that it was with the help of the United States that mass protests were organized and the elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in 2013-2014, which led to the war that has now unfolded in the heart of Eastern Europe,” writes geopolitical columnist Tony Kartaluchi in the new Eastern Outlook.

In 2016, the RAND organization conducted a study that showed that in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, Russian troops can be on the approaches to the capitals of Estonia and Latvia within sixty hours. The study showed that NATO forces are not sufficient to repel the Russian attack. In an interview, NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller said that the main goal of deploying additional forces in Eastern Europe and Poland is to demonstrate the unity of the Alliance, and to maintain its members ‘ commitment to article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Thus, NATO adheres to the policy of declarative deterrence of Russia, in fact, its forces are not enough to respond to a potential attack from Russia. The NATO administration is well aware that the likelihood of a military conflict with Russia is minimal, but it continues to maintain the image of Russia as an aggressor in order to unite the member countries.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, leave at the end of a joint press conference in Warsaw, Poland, in June 2017. (Czarek Sokolowski/AP)

Moreover, maintaining the image of a dangerous enemy gives the United States the opportunity to promote its own interests in Europe and manipulate its “partners”.

On June 25, Donald Trump finally confirmed that part of the American military contingent in Germany would be transferred to Poland. In the end, the American contingent in Germany will be reduced from 52 thousand people to 25 thousand. According to official data, in Germany there are about 35 thousand US military personnel, 10 thousand civil servants of the Pentagon and about 2 thousand contract workers. Some of the US military will return to America, some will go to Poland to strengthen the deterrence of the “Russian threat”. In addition, according to media reports, Polish President Andrzej Duda and Donald Trump discussed the possibility of transferring 30 f-16 fighters.

“They [Germany] spend billions of dollars to buy Russian energy resources, and then we are supposed to protect them from Russia. It doesn’t work that way. I think this is very bad, ” said Donald trump, accusing Berlin of supporting the Nord Stream 2 project.

When asked whether the US administration is trying to send a signal to Russia, Donald Trump stressed that Moscow was receiving a “very clear signal”, but Washington still expected to normalize their relations. This only underscores the fact that the US is taking advantage of the perceived Russian threat to NATO.

The American leader, by undermining cooperation between Moscow and Berlin in the energy sphere, not only prevents Russia, as one of their enemies in the international arena, from developing a profitable project. The US is also interested in weakening the leading European industries, primarily Germany. The United States does not tolerate strong enemies, but it also does not accept strong allies. It is in the interests of the Americans to prevent the redevelopment of Europe as a self-sufficient and independent center of power in the international arena.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Defense spendings in relation to GDP of NATO member countries

Therefore, Donald Trump is strongly calling on Germany to reimburse the billions of dollars it owes the White House. Trump is dissatisfied with the fact that Berlin does not comply with the promise made by all NATO members to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP. At the same time, Germany has already followed this path, increasing funding to 1.38%. In its turn, the US spends 3.4% of the state budget on the needs of the Alliance.

The problem of NATO funding is very often the main criticism of Berlin. However, in addition to this issue, new problems are emerging in US-German relations.

Washington is very dissatisfied with Berlin’s interaction with Beijing. The White House, which has strengthened the anti-Chinese vector of its policy, blaming the PRC for the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and accusing the Chinese side of “controlling” the World Health Organization (WHO), did not receive sufficient support in Europe, and Germany criticized.

Moreover, Berlin does not support Washington’s sanctions policy on Chinese Hong Kong, which Beijing allegedly takes away its independence from.

The US is particularly dissatisfied with the EU’s desire for a major investment agreement with China. Germany is the main ideologue of this process and seeks to close the deal during its six-month presidency of the EU Council.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
“One Belt, One Road” Initiative

China today, of course, is the main competitor of the United States in the struggle for world hegemony. China also raises considerable concerns among European countries, which is primarily due to economic expansion and the successful development of the large-scale Chinese initiative “One belt, one road”. European leaders are also competing with China for resources in third world countries in Africa and Southeast Asia. In addition, there are ideological differences between the two world regions. However, China does not currently pose a military threat to Europe, which does not allow the use of NATO forces against it.

While Western countries see Russia and China as the main threats, strategically they are primarily concerned about Iran and North Korea. These countries are also a threat primarily to the United States, but their European partners are not ready to conduct active military actions against them at the moment.

The only real dangerous factor that unites almost all NATO member countries remains international terrorism, in the fight against which Western countries act as a united front.70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

The current military and political course of the European Union is determined by the clear desire of its leadership to transform the military and political organization into one of the world’s leading centers of power. The aggravation of political and economic differences with the United States is the main incentive for the implementation of this goal. Thus, the EU’s focus on increasing independence in crisis management in the area of common European interests has had a decisive influence on the development of the common security and defense policy. In order to reduce dependence on the United States and NATO for conducting operations and missions within the framework of “force projection”, the leadership of the Association has stepped up activities to develop its own military component.

France and Germany are the main engines of this process, and are promoting the initiative to create the so-called European Defense Union. However, despite active efforts to expand military and military-technical cooperation within the EU, the declared goals of creating a “European army” with collective defense functions that duplicate the status and activities of NATO seem difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future. This situation is due to the reluctance of the majority of EU member States to transfer control over their armed forces to the supranational level. Moreover, the US opposition to the process of forming the European Defense Union and the limited resources available due to the absorption by NATO structures of the major part of the defense potential of European countries, most of which are simultaneously involved in two organizations, do not allow the full implementation of EU political decisions on military construction. In this regard, it is only possible to talk about giving a new impetus to military cooperation in order to increase the collective capacity to protect the territory and citizens of the States of the region.

Given the lack of forces and resources for conducting operations and missions, Brussels is interested in the practice of involving military formations of third countries in its anti-crisis actions on the basis of bilateral framework agreements. Currently, such agreements have been reached with Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and a number of other States.

Currently, the European Union conducts 16 military and mixed operations and missions in various regions of the world, involving about 4,500 people. The greatest attention is paid to the “zones of instability” in North and Central Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and the post-Soviet space.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg

Thus, NATO today has to do everything possible to support the unity and coherence of actions of all its member countries, which are more than ever under threat. The main European leaders are no longer ready to support US policy and continue to sacrifice their own national interests. If in the case of Germany, this is manifested primarily in support of the Nord stream 2 project, despite the threats of the United States. France today supports its own interests in Libya, which contradict the interests of other countries-members of the Alliance: Turkey and Italy. Certainly, Turkey and Italy have different positions and aspirations in Libya. Italy was previously a traditional ally of France and does not actively intervene in the military conflict. However, now, given the current predominance of Turkey in Libya, Italy is trying to sit on two chairs. On the one hand, Italy, while supporting Tripoli, does not actively help them. On the other hand, in political terms, it clearly stands on the side of Tripoli and Turkey, thereby trying to ensure its share of participation in the next division of Libyan natural resources after the supposed victory of the Turkish-Tripolitan Alliance.

Summing up, today the imaginary Russian threat no longer allows US to unite the Alliance members, but only serves as a method of implementing US interests. The White House, which has always played a leading role in NATO and retains it thanks to the largest percentage of investment in the Alliance, allows itself to more openly abuse its leading position and promote its own national interests and the interests of its elites through the North Atlantic Alliance to the detriment of the interests of partner countries. Thus, article 4 of the Washington Treaty, which implies decision-making by consensus and is the basis of NATO itself, is of less and less importance in practice. The United States cannot renounce its membership in NATO and is interested in preserving it, because it is the Western Alliance that allows the US to give at least a small share of legitimacy to its military actions. A kind of neo-colonial policy, that the United States is used to employ in relation to European countries, and the current significant shift in the political paradigm within the US itself do not allow us to hope that the American leadership will be able to strengthen its position in Europe in the coming years.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

AL-SISI SAYS EGYPT HAS RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN LIBYA, VOWS TO PROTECT SIRTE & AL-JUFRA (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

Source

Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said on June 20 that any Egyptian intervention in Libya has an international legitimacy and ordered his army to be prepared for missions inside or outside Egypt.

Al-Sisi made his remarks while he was inspecting Egyptian troops in the western region. The president toured an air base near Egypt’s border with Libya, where thousands of troops as well as state of the art weapon systems are deployed.

“Be prepared to carry out any mission, here inside our borders – or if necessary, outside our borders,” the President said in a speech to his troops, according to Reuters.

The Egyptian President said his country is working to protect its western border, support security and stability in Libya and stop the bloodshed there.

المتحدث الرسمي لرئاسة الجمهورية

-Spokesman of the Egyptian Presidency5 hours ago

تفقد السيد الرئيس الوحدات المقاتلة للقوات الجوية بالمنطقة الغربية العسكرية صباح اليوم

Image may contain: one or more people
Image may contain: one or more people, people standing, sky and outdoor
Image may contain: 1 person, standing, suit and outdoor
Image may contain: 1 person, standing and outdoor

Al-Sisi went on to call for a ceasefire between the Libyan National Army (LNA) and the Government of National Accord (GNA), warning the latter from attacking the port city of Sirte and the al-Jufra Air Base.

“Let’s stop at the line both sides reached in the western and eastern regions and start a ceasefire … The line of Sirte, al-Jufra is a red line for Egypt and its national security,” al-Sisi said.

The President also revealed that Egypt is ready to train, equip and arm Libyan tribesman in order to defend and secure their own land.

Hinting at the growing Turkish intervention in Libya, al-Sisi called on all foreign forces to immediately withdraw, saying that “illegitimate interventions” are spreading terrorism in the region.

In the last few months, Turkey stepped up its support for the GNA enabling it to secure major gains in northwest Libya. In response, the Egyptian military amassed a large force on the Libyan border. Since then, battles have winded down in Libya, especially around Sirte.

Egypt appears to be determined to stop Turkish expansion in Libya. Nevertheless, Cairo will not likely employ a direct military intervention option before exhausting all diplomatic options.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC:

Massive Libyan Army convoy reaches Sirte for showdown with Turkish-backed forces: video

Source

By News Desk -2020-06-20

BEIRUT, LEBANON (11:10 A.M.) – A massive Libyan National Army (LNA) convoy was filmed this week heading to the Sirte front-lines from a major showdown with the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) forces.

According to the Libyan National Army, their forces deployed to the western countryside of Sirte, where they later took up positions along the front-lines with the Government of National Accord forces and their allies.

A video showing the massive military convoy heading to Sirte was released on RT Arabic’s YouTube channel on Friday; it showed hundreds of vehicles and a large number of soldiers making their way to the strategic port-city.

The Government of National Accord is preparing to storm the city of Sirte for the second time this month, as they seek to reverse all of the Libyan National Army’s gains that were made this year.

Sirte was first captured by Government of National Accord forces during their campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh) in northern Libya in 2016; however, they would later lose the city in early 2020, when the Libyan National Army launched a surprise offensive there.

The GNA has since been able to retake several areas in northern Libya, including a number of cities and towns near the capital, Tripoli.

OVER 2,600 TURKISH-BACKED SYRIAN MILITANTS HAVE RETURNED FROM LIBYA – REPORT

Over 2,600 Turkish-Backed Syrian Militants Have Returned From Libya – Report

More than 2,600 Turkish-backed Syrian militants have returned from Libya where they were fighting for the Government of National Accord (GNA), the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported on June 19.

“The returnees have received all of their financial entitlements after the recent advance by GNA forces in Libya,” the monitoring group’s report reads.

At least 12,100 Syrian militants are still present in Libya. According to the SOHR, Turkey is now working to deploy even more militants there. More than 1,800 Syrians are currently receiving military training in camps inside Turkey ahead of deployment.

The SOHR also revealed that 300 Syrian militants fighting in GNA forces are minors, between the ages of 14 and 18. Most of these minors were recruited by the Turkish-backed Sultan Murad Division.

Despite the relative calm in Libya, the remaining Syrian militants there are still taking part in combat operations. In the last few days, at least 17 were killed. This raised the number of Syrians killed while fighting in Libya to 417.

The deployment of Syrian militants in Libya boosted the offensive capabilities of GNA forces, enabling them to make gains in northwest Libya.

Related Videos

Related News

EGYPT SENDS BATTLE TANKS TO LIBYAN BORDER AS HAFTAR FORCES RETREAT UNDER TURKISH STRIKES

South Front

After capturing Tripoli International Airport last week, GNA forces and Syrian militant groups with a direct support from the Turkish Armed Forces forced the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by Khalifa Haftar to retreat from a number of villages and towns including Tarhuna and Dawun.

Retreating LNA fighters left behind dozens of weapons and pieces of military equipment, including T-55 and T-62 battle tanks and howitzers. Pro-GNA sources also showcased a destroyed Pantsir-S system, which the LNA had received from the UAE. The town of Tarhuna was looted and a large number of buildings there were destroyed by Turkish-backed forces. The residents of this town are known for their support to the LNA. A large number of civilians fled the town with the retreating LNA units.

On June 6, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi announced a new diplomatic initiative for Libya proposing a ceasefire from June 6 and the resumption of the political process. Egypt alongside with the UAE are key backers of the LNA.

Apparently, Anakra and the GNA saw this move as a sign of the weakness. The GNA even announced an advance on the port city of Sirte controlled by the LNA. However, Turkish-led forces failed to reach the city on June 6 and June 7 suffering casualties. According to local sources, over 30 Turkish proxies were killed. A Turkish Bayraktar TB2 combat UAV was also shot down. In response, Turkey shot down a Wing Loong II combat UAV operated by the LNA and conducted a series of airstrikes on LNA positions near Sirte. On June 8, the GNA and its allies conducted another attempt to advance on Sirte. Clashes are ongoing.

Egypt reacted to these developments by sending reinforcements to the border with Libya. At least 2 large columns with Egyptian battle tanks were filmed moving towards the border. The geographic location of Egypt allows its leadership, if there is a political will and a strong decision, to freely employ its ground and air forces to support the LNA in the conflict against Turkish proxies. Cairo could opt to choose the strategy of direct actions if Turkish-led forces capture Sirte threatening the LNA heartland in northeastern Libya.

The modern military political leadership of Turkey, in particular President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his inner circle, has views on the needed structure of the Islamic world, which are to a great extent similar to those of the Muslim Brotherhood. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood thinks that the leading Islamic states should be headed by leaders with a rather strong religious agenda.

Egypt traditionally has a complex and balanced cooperation of the religious and secular parts of their society. In the view of the Muslim Brotherhood, the religious factor should be developed further, even at the cost of the interests of the secular part of the society. This goes contrary to the current reality in Egypt, which is ruled by relatively secular leaders. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood and armed groups affiliated with it are considered terrorist organizations in Egypt. Therefore, Cairo sees the expansion of forces ideologically close to the organization as a direct threat to its national security.

TURKISH ‘NEO-OTTOMAN’ PROJECT SHIFTS FOCUS FROM SYRIA TO LIBYA

South Front

This week, massive Turkish military support has finally allowed the Government of National Accord to achieve some breakthrough in the battle against the Libyan National Army (LNA).

On May 18, GNA forces and members of Turkish-backed militant groups from Syria supported by Turkish special forces and unmanned combat aerial vehicles captured the Watiya Air Base in the northwestern part of the country. LNA troops urgently retreated from it after several days of clashes in the nearby area. They left behind a UAE-supplied Pantsir-S1, an Mi-35 military helicopter and a notable amount of ammunition. The LNA defense at the air base was undermined by a week-long bombardment campaign by artillery and combat drones of Turkish-backed forces.

Additionally, pro-Turkish sources claimed that drone strikes destroyed another Pantsir-S1 air defense system near Sirte and even a Russian-made Krasukha mobile electronic warfare system. According to Turkish reports, all this equipment is being supplied to the Libyan Army by the UAE. Turkish sources regularly report about successful drone strikes on Libyan convoys with dozens of battle tanks. Some of these ‘military convoys’ later appeared to be trucks filled with water-melons.

In any case, the months of Turkish military efforts, thousands of deployed Syrian militants and hundreds of armoured vehicles supplied to the GNA finally payed off. The Watiya Air Base was an operational base of the LNA used for the advance on the GNA-controlled city of Tripoli. If the LNA does not take back the airbase in the near future, its entire flank southwest of Tripoli may collapse. It will also loose all chances to encircle the city. According to pro-Turkish sources, the next target of the Turkish-led advance on LNA positions will be Tarhuna. Earlier this year, Turkish-backed forces already failed to capture the town. Therefore, they seek to take a revanche.

This will lead to a further escalation of the situation in northern Libya and force the UAE and Egypt, the main backers of the LNA, to increase their support to the army. The UAE-Egypt bloc could bank on at least limited diplomatic support from Russia. Until now, Moscow has preferred to avoid direct involvement in the conflict because it may damage the delicate balance of Russian and Turkish interests. Russian private military contractors that operate in Libya represent the economic interests of some Russian elite groups rather than the foreign policy interests of the Russian state.

Additionally, Turkey, which is supported by Qatar and some NATO member states, has already announced its plans to begin oil and gas exploration off Libya’s coast. Ankara has ceased to hide the true intentions and goals of its military operation in Libya. Thus, the internal political conflict turned into an open confrontation of external actors for the natural resources of Libya.

The interesting fact is that the increasing military activity of Turkey in Libya goes amid the decrease of such actions in Syria. Thousands of Turkish proxies have been sent from Syria to Libya. This limits Ankara’s freedom of operations in the main Syrian hot point – Greater Idlib. In these conditions, Turkish statements about some mysterious battle against terrorism in Idlib look especially questionable. Indeed, in the current conditions, Ankara will be forced to cooperate with Idlib terrorists, first of all al-Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham even closer to maintain its influence in this part of Syria. The Hayat Tahrir al-Sham plan to create a local quasi-state in the controlled territory and expand its own financial base by tightening the grip on the economic and social life in the region will gain additional momentum.

As to the Turkish government, it seems that in the current difficult economic conditions President Recep Tayyip Erdogan decided to exchange his “Neo-Ottoman” foreign policy project for expanding in some not so rich regions of Syria for quite tangible additional income from the energy business in Libya.

Related Videos

Related News

Toothless Congress Fails to Limit Presidential War Powers

Toothless Congress Fails to Limit Presidential War Powers ...

Philip Giraldi

May 14, 2020

Some weeks ago, the world woke up to the fact that World War III had just started without anyone being invaded or shots fired. It began when American President Donald J. Trump declared himself to be a “war president” in the fight against the coronavirus, an assertion that now has been followed by a claim that the disease is actually “…really the worst attack we’ve ever had. This is worse than Pearl Harbor. This is worse than the World Trade Center. There’s never been an attack like this,” Pearl Harbor was, of course, the Japanese sneak attack that brought the U.S. into World War II. Invoking the spirit of the war fought by America’s Greatest Generation in the Second World War, Trump has called upon “The people of our country should think of themselves as warriors.”

Fortunately for the U.S. military industrial complex, fighting COVID 19 has apparently not diminished the White House’s zeal to take on other, perhaps better armed and more serious traditional opponents. But of perhaps more interest is the different kind of conflict that has been initiated by the White House in attacking the United States Congress, which has been demonstrating the temerity to deny to the Chief Executive the inherent right to start a war against whomever he feels deserves a bit of “Made in U.S.A.” shock and awe.

This war fought in Capitol Hill in Washington is perhaps more significant than what is going on with coronavirus as its outcome will decide whether post 9/11 executive authority includes a president being able to attack another country that does not directly threaten the United States. Current legislation based on the War Powers Act of 1973 permits a president to respond to an imminent threat without the consent of congress, but the action thus initiated has to be terminated within 60 days. Any conflict lasting longer than that requires a declaration of war by Congress, as is stated in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Trump’s dissent relates to two attempts by Congress to specifically rein in U.S. involvement in the Saudi Arabian aggression against Yemen and also to preempt a possible attempt to attack Iran. On the Yemen resolution (S.J. Res 7), approved last March, the Senate voted 54-46 in favor followed by the House passing the same resolution by a vote of 248 to 177. The Iran resolution (S.J. Res 68), which had bipartisan support through a 55-45 vote in the Senate in February and a 227-186 vote in the House in March, finally reached the president’s desk last Wednesday. Both resolutions were immediately vetoed by the president.

The two resolutions would have limited Trump’s ability to continue an armed conflict or go to war without the specific authorization of Congress. In characteristic fashion, Trump called the latest iteration on Iran “very insulting,” and also criticized its Republican supporters Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, accusing them of helping the Democrats in the lead up to November’s election. In an official statement explaining his veto, Trump stated that “The resolution implies that the President’s constitutional authority to use military force is limited to defense of the United States and its forces against imminent attack. That is incorrect. We live in a hostile world of evolving threats, and the Constitution recognizes that the President must be able to anticipate our adversaries’ next moves and take swift and decisive action in response.”

To be sure, President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contrived to attack Libya even though it in no way threatened the U.S. To do so, the mission was initially framed as humanitarian in nature and NATO was subsequently involved in it so it could be framed as a collective action against a country that posed a potential security threat to the Mediterranean region. President George H. W. Bush and his son George W. likewise were careful to get United Nations authorization for the use of force in the two wars against Iraq and the latter also relied on 2002’s blanket Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) which permitted military action against the perpetrators of 9/11. The AUMF was later expanded to de facto include all “terrorist” groups. Most of those justifications were, of course, nonsense, frequently little more than contrivances based on fabricated intelligence to permit wars of aggression.

Donald Trump’s viewpoint on the authority of the president is somewhat less fastidious, though he has also cited the AUMF. He is currently involved in a litigation going to the Supreme Court over his claim of “temporary absolute immunity” regarding an admittedly politically motivated suit by the Manhattan district attorney to obtain his tax records. He has similarly embraced the idea that he, as commander in chief of the armed forces, can use them as a resource to conduct his foreign policy, an idea possibly put into his head by his belligerent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Conceding that he has that power would grant him de facto authority to intervene anywhere in the world any time based on any pretext. It also ignores the original War Powers Act and Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which gives the sole authority for declaring war to Congress.

Given his propensity to seek military solutions and his belief that he has the absolute authority to do so, Trump has not hesitated to attack Syria several times in spite of there being no imminent treat and his act of war/war crime assassination of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq in January nearly ignited an armed conflict with Iran. Indeed, though Trump has been engaged in “maximum pressure” economic warfare against Iran for the past two years, he and his administration frequently claim that it is only being done to modify Iranian bad behavior.

As there is no chance that Congress will overturn Trump’s veto in an election year in which the Republicans will be counting heads and circling their wagons, we the American people are stuck with a president who believes that he has the authority to use military force as he sees fit. And “as he sees fit” is the danger as “restraint” is not exactly Donald Trump’s middle name. And one has to also recognize that there is another political reality at play. When things are going badly domestically, as with the coronavirus, a war can serve as a great distraction and a demonstration of strong leadership. Let us hope that no one puts that idea into Donald Trump’s head.

انقلاب تركيّ على نتائج الحرب العالميّة الثانية

د. وفيق إبراهيم

يضغط الاتراك عسكرياً وسياسياً لتحقيق المكانة المحورية بين المتصارعين للسيطرة على اعماق البحر الأبيض المتوسط وسواحل بلدانه مع بعض امتداداتها الداخلية في البر.

فما يجري أدرك مرحلة حرب ضروس بين قوى دولية من اوروبا وشرقي المتوسط وروسيا واميركا مع بعض النحيب المصريّ الشجيّ والرقص الإماراتي على حبال اميركية متينة.

مدى هذه الحرب واسع جداً لشمولها المياه الإقليمية والدولية للمتوسط في جهاته الشرقية والجنوبية فتشمل سواحل بلاد الشام في سورية ولبنان وفلسطين المحتلة ومصر الى السواحل الجنوبية في ليبيا وتونس والجزائر والمغرب وتضم أيضاً سواحل قبرص من كل جهاتها وصولاً الى اليونان.

هناك اذاً صراع مفتوح على المتوسط يأخذ شكل حرب عسكرية شرسة في ليبيا بين دولتيها المتصارعتين الغربية للسراج الموالية لتركيا والشرقية الجنوبية لحفتر المدعومة من فرنسا وإيطاليا وروسيا وألمانيا وبريطانيا، والأميركيين المكتفين بالتأييد السياسي، انما مع مواصلة الحوار مع الأتراك ورجلهم الليبي الاخواني السراج.

كما يتجسّد هذا الصراع في ارتفاع حدة التوتر بين تركيا واليونان على غاز ونفط قبرص وأعماق البحر. وهذا الموضوع محكوم باعتقاد تركي ان الأميركيين خصوصاً والغربيين عموماً بحاجة اليهم، منذ زمن الاتحاد السوفياتي، لذلك ترك الغرب تركيا تحتل الجزء المسكون من أتراك قبارصة في الجزيرة المستقلة منذ 1974.

بالمقابل تعتبر اليونان أن قبرص هي جزء من تراثها الإغريقي بالاضافة الى انتمائها القومي الى اليونان، فتتصرف اليونان وكأنها صاحبة الحق المبرم في الجزيرة وثرواتها.

لكن هذا الصراع ليس إلا الجزء البسيط من صراع عثماني – يوناني تاريخي، نجح فيه الأتراك منذ قرون عدة بالسيطرة على جزء نهائي من تركيا.

هذه الصراعات في المتوسط وليبيا تدفع نحو صراعات عالمية الطابع ومياهه الوطنية والدولية. وهذا يشمل الخلاف اللبناني مع الكيان الإسرائيلي المحتل عند الحدود البحرية في الجنوب وخلاف كامن تركي سوري على إمكانات كبيرة من الغاز والنفط في أعماق حدوديهما البحرية.

ما هي الخطة التركية؟

تشرف تركيا على مسافة طويلة من سواحل المتوسط بدءاً من حدودها البحرية مع سورية وحتى بحار اليونان، وأضافت دوراً متوسطياً لها بالسيطرة على قبرص التركية وليبيا «السراج» وتطمح من خلال العلاقة مع حزب النهضة التونسي الذي يمسك رئيسه الغنوشي برئاسة مجلس نواب بلاده. تطمح الى ضم تونس الى نفوذها. فتستطيع بذلك ان تمسك بالحدود البحرية والإقليمية لقبرص الواقعة في منتصف البحر المتوسط. وتمتد الى ليبيا براً وبحراً مع مدياتها الاقليمية، هذا بالاضافة الى ان سواحل المتوسط التركية تبيح لها التنقيب في اعماق المتوسط بين اليونان وقبرص وحتى سواحلها المباشرة، وتعتبر تركيا أنها دولة متوسطية اساسية لها كامل الحق والاولوية في التنقيب في اعماق البحر المتوسط قبالة العالم العربي من المغرب وحتى حدودها الإقليمية مع اليونان وبلغاريا، اي ما يعادل خمساً وسبعين في المئة من سواحل البحر المتوسط وبالتالي أعماقه الدولية.

هذا ما يدفع الى السؤال التالي: أين العرب من كل ذلك وأين الغرب وروسيا؟

معظم العرب في الخليج مرتبطون بالمشروع الأميركي المتريث من جهة والمشترك من جهة أخرى في الحرب عبر التورط الاماراتي في حرب ليبيا بالإسناد وبالسلاح والتمويل لقوات حفتر.

اما اوروبا فمنزعجة من الاستيلاء التركي على دولة السراج الليبية فتدعم حفتر إنما من دون السماح له بالحسم النهائي، لان المفاوضات الدولية على اقتسام المغانم في كامل البحر المتوسط لم تصل بعد الى خواتيمها، ما يتطلب تسعيراً للمعارك بدأ يظهر بالسلاح الأوروبي والإماراتي المتدفق الى بنغازي والجنوب مع قوات روسية تابعة لشركات فاغنر الى جانب دعم مصري مباشر بالخبراء والمدربين وبعض الكتائب العسكرية، بالمقابل تقف قوات تركية مع جيش السراج ومجموعات من تنظيمات سورية إرهابية وأخرى من الاخوان المسلمين. اما العرب المجاورون لليبيا، فمصر تخشى من انتصار الاخوان المسلمين الليبيين ومعها تركيا، فينعكس على وضعها في الداخل المصري، حيث لا يزال الاخوان المسلمون فيها القوة الأساسية بعد الجيش المصري. لجهة السودان فلا يزال غارقاً في خلافاته الداخلية، وتطبيق سياسات منصاعة للأميركيين تجعله من مؤيدي حفتر حيناً وصامت في معظم الاحيان.

لكن تونس يتنازعها تياران، الاول من الاخوان المسلمين يؤيد السراج الليبي والآخر من أجنحة رئيسها قيس سعيّد الذي يدعو الى الحياد.

واذا كان باستطاعة قائد الاخوان في تونس رئيس مجلس النواب الغنوشي الذي يترأس ايضاً اخوان ليبيا بجهاديين متطوعين فإن قيس سعيّد عاجز عن دعم حفتر إلا بالدعاء.

على مستوى البلدان العربية غير المجاورة، فسورية منهمكة بالتصدّي لتركيا واخوانها مع احتلال عسكري اميركي الى جانب الإرهابيين، والمغرب لم يعد يأبه للصراعات العربية. وهذا حال كامل العالم العربي الذي تجتاحه تركيا اما بالوسائل المباشرة كحال العراق وسورية وليبيا وحزب الإصلاح في اليمن وبعض اجنحة الاخوان في السودان والجزائر وتونس، وإما بالسياسة. لذلك فإن المشروع التركي يبدو واضحاً بمحاولة الاستفادة من تراجع الدور الاميركي في الشرق الأوسط وتقهقر الدور السعودي في معظم العالمين الاسلامي والعربي لإعادة العثمانية الاردوغانية الجديدة بوسيلتين: السيطرة الاستراتيجية والايديولوجية والاستيلاء على الغاز والنفط.

ألا يشكل هذا الأمر انقلاباً تركياً على نتائج الحرب العالمية الثانية؟

يعتبر الأتراك ان الاميركيين سمحوا لهم باحتلال ثلث قبرص منذ 46 عاماً. وكان هناك عدو واحد لهم هو الاتحاد السوفياتي، اما اليوم فلديهم عدوان اثنان واكثر من منافس هما الصين وروسيا والمانيا واليابان والهند، لذلك تبقى تركيا حاجة اساسية للنفوذ الاميركي العالمي، واي تخلٍ عنها يذهب نحو تدمير كبير للجيوبوليتيك الاميركي. هذا هو صميم المراهنة التركية التي تجزم بأن الاميركيين لن يعترضوا على دور كبير لها في مياه البحر الابيض المتوسط وسواحل بلدانه، لا يفعل أكثر من صد النفوذ الروسي الصيني.

فهل هذا صحيح؟

لن تقبل دول اوروبا المتوسطية في فرنسا وايطاليا بهذه المعادلة. وقد تتمكن اليونان العضو في الاتحاد الاوروبي من جذب المانيا ومعظم دول الاتحاد الى مياه البحر المتوسط للاستفادة من ثرواته، كما ان الاميركيين لن يذهبوا الى حدود إثارة غضب الاوروبيين من اجل ارضاء اردوغان، وقد يذهبون كعادتهم نحو التوفيق بين تحالفاتهم انما على اساس الاولوية للمصالح الاميركية.

يتبقى العرب وعندما يستيقظون من سباتهم تكون المعركة على ثروات المتوسط اختتمت فصولها وانتقلت للسيطرة على بحار جديدة.

A CLOSER LOOK AT QATARI-FUNDED PROPAGANDA OVER WAR IN LIBYA

ٍSouth Front

A Closer Look At Qatari-Funded Propaganda Over War In Libya

A Libya-related scandal is brewing in Qatar.

A secret letter from the Qatari Foreign Minister to the Qatari Ambassador in Canada was somehow leaked online.

In the letter, the former orders the latter to express support of the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) on social media.

The document explicitly states the allocation of funds for propaganda materials against Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar.

A Closer Look At Qatari-Funded Propaganda Over War In Libya

It also mandates the dissemination of information about the control of territories by the GNA’s Turkish-backed forces.

The Twitter user made a joke out of it, that $6,000 wasn’t a little money and an armored “Tiger” vehicle was also included in the price.

Turkey, and then Qatar are the GNA’s most vehement supporters, with assisting it not only with propaganda in the media, but also with very actual equipment and weapon deliveries. On the part of Ankara, there’s also thousands of fighters being deployed from Syria to fight on behalf of the UN-backed government.

Qatar rejected the declaration by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar that he obtained a “popular mandate” allowing the military to govern Libya, considering this a new affirmation of his persistent attempt to stage a coup against international legitimacy and the Libyan national consensus as well as a clear disdain for the international community which have been watching for a long time without taking any action regarding the crimes committed against the brotherly Libyan people, especially since the beginning of the attack on Tripoli last year.

In a statement, the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed that Khalifa Haftar gave a false pretext in his declaration reflecting his disregard for the sanctity of Libyan blood and the minds of those who listen to him.

“At a time when the world’s efforts are directed to stop the bloodshed in Libya and fight the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, we see the continuation of the militarization of the scene and attacks on civilians and on the political track, without any regard for the tragedy of the children, women, elderly, and displaced persons of the Libyan people,” it added.

The statement called on the international community and actors in the Libyan scene to shoulder their humanitarian and historical responsibility and to prevent Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and his militias from killing more innocents and tearing the Libyan nation apart.

Essentially, it just repeated the same accusations that the GNA-affiliated media, and the Turkish propaganda network has been attempting to propagate for a while.

The Libyan National Army, in response, has repeatedly accused the Emir of Qatar of bankrolling the GNA’s militias.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Over 17,000 Syrian mercenaries are fighting in Libya: LNA

By News Desk -2020-04-27

BEIRUT, LEBANON (11:00 A.M.) – The spokesperson for the Libyan National Army, Ahmed Al-Mismari, said this past weekend that the Turkish-backed Government National Accord (GNA) forces received a major boost in manpower after more than 17,000 Syrian mercenaries traveled to the North African nation.

These Syrian mercenaries have been transported from Turkey to Tripoli as part of Ankara’s promise to the GNA to boost their military cooperation and assistance to them.

According to Mismari, the Libyan National Army is also standing strong at the strategic city of Tarhuna, as their forces have repeatedly repelled the Turkish-backed forces there.

“The militias attempted to attack Tarhuna on seven fronts in a comprehensive operation that saw the participation of Turkish drones and ground forces. They pushed with all they have and could not even come close to the city outskirts,” he told Asharq Al-Aswat.

“Tarhuna will resist those who are fiercely vying to control it and cut off military supply routes,” he vowed. “We are aware of all of the militias’ targets and we are prepared for them.”

At the start of April, the GNA launched a massive counter-offensive in northwestern Libya to retake the areas they lost to the LNA over the last six months.

The offensive has been successful thus far, as the GNA has captured more than 3,000 square kilometres in northwestern Libya.

Related Articles

How the U.S. Pot Calls China’s Coronovirus Kettle ‘Black’

April 08, 2020

How the U.S. Pot Calls China’s Coronovirus Kettle ‘Black’

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog

According to Gallup’s samplings and calculations, the actual number of Americans who had the Coronovirus-19 infection on April 3rd was certainly not the 239,279 which was reported, but instead was probably at least 730,000.

However, three neoconservatives — such as Matthew Pottinger, the top advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump regarding China policy — fed to the neoconservative Michael Bloomberg’s neoconservative Bloomberg News the headline story on April 1st that “China Concealed Extent of Virus Outbreak, U.S. Intelligence Says”, and they reported that, “China has concealed the extent of the coronavirus outbreak in its country, under-reporting both total cases and deaths it’s suffered from the disease, the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a classified report to the White House, according to three U.S. officials” (who were not identified by the billionaire Bloomberg’s propagandists for the U.S. Government against the Chinese Government).

Trump doesn’t want the rotten U.S. intelligence reports which falsely said that he had colluded with Russia to win the White House to be believed, but he does want the rotten U.S. intelligence reports which (we don’t know, true or false) say that China was intentionally undercounting its Coronovirus-19 cases to be believed. But how stupid does a member of the U.S. public have to be in order to believe a U.S. intelligence community which, prior to the liar George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, had told him that proving Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMD would be a “slam dunk” — in other words, that he would confirm exactly what the President wanted the American public to believe? America failed to execute for treason that intelligence official (who served the President by confirming his lies to the public) and the U.S. President who followed-up on this jiggered “intelligence” by then invading Iraq — a country which had never invaded nor threatened to invade the United States. That’s an international war-crime, but Americans protect their international war-criminals, instead of prosecute them. Equally appalling, Americans continue not to despise the CIA and the other lying intelligence agencies for repeatedly lying to the public.

But, then, the German investigative journalist who anonymously blogs as “Moon of Alabama” headlined on April 3rd “China Did Not Deceive Us — Counting Deaths During An Epidemic Is Really Difficult”, and he explained the several very important reasons why obtaining anything other than underestimates of infections and of deaths from a novel virus epidemic is literally impossible to do — any mere count will be an enormous under-estimate, and only an actual estimate can even possibly be approximately accurate.

Whereas Gallup now has informed its readers that in the United States, right now, the extent of this under-estimation is somewhere around two-thirds (i.e., that the figures which are being reported right now are around one-third of the actual totals), Americans are supposed to believe ‘our’ (actually, the U.S. Deep State’s, America’s billionaires’) intelligence agencies, when reporting about foreign countries that America’s billionaires want their Government to sanction, invade, or otherwise conquer, we’re not supposed to believe even U.S. sources such as Gallup when they are reporting that the U.S. Government’s official coronavirus-19 infection figures are systematically and unavoidably way underestimating (by two-thirds) the reality. We’re supposed to believe the U.S. Government, when it unavoidably undercounts a problem inside the U.S., and also to believe the U.S. Government when it intentionally lies to us (as it always does) about a country that America’s billionaires are craving to take over — such as happened regarding Iraq 2003, Syria 2011-now, Libya 2011, Yemen 2015-now, Iran now, Venezuela now, Iraq again, and many other countries. This is U.S. imperialism.

Americans are so accustomed to having been lied-to by our Government, so that it’s routine, and patriotism in this country is now assumed to consist of believing the lies that the Democratic Party puts out if one is a Democrat, and of the lies that the Republican Party puts out if one is a Republican. There are two alternate ‘realities’ that are considered acceptable (or “politically correct”) to Americans: Democratic Party lies, and Republican Party lies. And when both Parties are lying in the same direction — which always happens whenever it’s the neoconservative or pro-U.S.-imperialism direction, which are lies against a foreign country that America’s billionaires want to control — disbelief in such a lie is considered to be ‘unpatriotic’, or even treasonous. Any news which encourages disbelief in those lies is what ‘news’ media like the Washington Post or Fox ‘News’ label as “fake news.” It’s ‘news’ which doesn’t happen to fit that particular billionaire’s Party. Americans are supposed to be like two herds of sheep, both being marched toward the same ultimate abattoir of exploitation, through different paths and gates — different groups of lies, but to the same ultimate ends, the ends of the billionaires of both Parties. Even if Americans have, actually, no foreign enemies at all, the domestic enemies are real, and they are far more than enough, because those enemies are constantly victorious against the vast body of the American public, which they exploit by means of lies.

Instead of America’s ‘news’ media reporting that ALL counts of coronavirus-19 cases are far less than the authentic numbers, we get fed lies saying that counts of such cases can be approximately accurate, and that estimates of such cases cannot be approximately accurate. Such a “pot” has no justification, ever, for criticizing a foreign country’s Government for under-estimating the number of coronavirus-19 cases. Treating the American public as if they are fools might be accurate for many of us, but it is an insult to all of us, and any Government which does it should be despised by every American — and not merely by the ones who are fools.

‘News’-reports such as  “China Concealed Extent of Virus Outbreak, U.S. Intelligence Says” are unsourced (or extremely unreliably sourced) hate-mongering for the purposes of America’s domestic elite, and this elite are themselves the real problem that’s displayed by such dubious ‘news’-reports. And even if China has been more careful than the U.S. Government is to do the counting accurately, the truth (in any country) is a large multiple of whatever this count is. Therefore, ‘news’-reports that are like this, are simply displaying a ‘news’-medium which is untrustworthy — no actual news, at all. They are stenographic reporting of what some highly political liars are asserting, and a granting of entirely unearned credence to it.

The U.S. Government, which has repeatedly been proven to have lied in order to spread hate against a target it seeks to conquer or at least destroy, routinely pontificates against merely alleged lies from such targets. America’s credibility, and that of its mainstream ‘news’-media, is, by now, utterly gone, except amongst the willingly self-deluded (such as any paying subscribers to Bloomberg ‘news’ or to any other mainstream U.S. ‘news’ medium).

Whereas other countries’ Governments might be routinely lying, America’s Government does routinely lie. Only news-reports which recognize and acknowledge this fact whenever reporting what this Government says, might be trustworthy. The others aren’t, not even possibly.

—————

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.

Nearly 500 Syrian mercenaries killed in Libya: LNA

By News Desk -2020-04-02

BEIRUT, LEBANON (2:20 P.M.) – The spokesperson for the Libyan National Army (LNA), Major-General Ahmad Al-Mismari, announced on Thursday that the death toll for the Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries had reached 500 after more than four months of fighting.

Over the past week alone, the Syrian mercenaries have suffered dozens of casualties at the hands of the Libyan National Army.

Many of these casualties in the ranks of the Syrian mercenaries came as a result of the Libyan National Army’s rapid advance through the southern outskirts of Tripoli, which has since come under the control of LNA.

While the LNA reports 500 Syrian mercenaries killed, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) contrasts these figures; instead, they claim approximately 150 of these militants have died in the past four months.

Despite the large deviation in numbers, it still remains that the deployment of Syrian mercenaries to Libya has been a major failure, as they have been unable to slow down the LNA’s large-scale advance across the northwestern region of the country.

The first Syrian mercenaries arrived in Libya at the end of December. Since then, Turkey has transported a large number of them to the North African country, despite territorial losses in Syria’s northwestern region.

Syrian-Libyan relations in a panel discussion: Establishing a strategic partnership that serves interests of the two countries

ST

Created on Tuesday, 03 March 2020 20:59

Libyan Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Abdul- Hadi al-Hawaij and Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Dr. Faisal al-Miqdad  affirmed the compatibility of political views and positions between Libya and Syria regarding various issues, especially the Turkish aggression targeting the sovereignty, unity and independence of the two brotherly countries.

In a political panel discussion  held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates at Al-Assad National Library in Damascus on March 3, al-Hawaij said that the return of normal relations between the two brotherly countries is a historic and important step because our battle, challenges and goals are one, confirming we will win, regardless of the challenges.

Al-Hwaij paid tribute to Syria and its people, army and leadership, noting the great sacrifices made by the Syrian Arab Army in order to defend its homeland.

Al- Hawaij said that Libya is part of the Arab world and the Libyan legitimate government seeks to restore its role.

On the Libyan internal level, al-Hawaij reiterated that his country seeks to eliminate armed militias and achieve security and stability.

Al- Hawaij said that the Libyan government, chaired by Abdullah Al-Thani, believes that Libya is for all Libyans and it provides its services to all of them without discrimination.

Al- Hawaij referred to the battles the Libyan Arab Army led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar in various Libyan regions to liberate from terrorism.

Al- Hawaij emphasized the legitimate government’s rejection of the existence of any American bases on Libyan soil, indicating that the battle that the Libyan Arab Army is fighting is for sovereignty and independence.

Al- Hawaij said that most of the goods  in Libya were imported from Turkey, but the legitimate government wants to change towards the Syrian products and companies.

For his part, al-Miqdad described the results of the talks between the Syrian and Libyan sides as ‘excellent’, indicating that these results would anger the Turkish regime, the common enemy of both brotherly countries, which seeks to separate them.

Al-Miqdad said that the war that the Syrian and Libyan armies are fighting against terrorism and its supporters expresses the unity of the path between the two brotherly countries.

Al-Miqdad said that Syria’s enemies in the United States and the European Union are trying to complicate life in Syria and prevent Syrians from achieving the final victory against terrorism.

Al-Miqdad emphasized that Libyan delegations will visit Damascus during the coming days, and Syrian delegations will also visit Libya  to discuss relations in various aspects and ways of enhancing them, especially the sectors of the economy, tourism, transportation and aviation.

Al-Miqdad stressed that the Libyan people are capable of resolving the crisis that their country is going through without any external interference.

In conclusion, al-Miqdad called on all the displaced Arab citizens not to submit to blackmail by the hostile western powers and Erdogan’s regime and to return to their homeland to live a free and dignified life in it, indicating that the Turkish regime exploits the refugee crisis.

Al-Miqdad, said the two countries agreed to activate eight joint Syrian-Libyan companies as well as 46 bilateral agreements between the two brotherly countries.

O. al-Mohammad / Inas  Abdulkareem

اخبار متعلقة

Listen to Morales at the UN and see why he was overthrown by the Empire

Source

November 15, 2019

This is Evo Morales’ UNSC speech of this Spring:

Hillary accuses both Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein of being Russian agents – Tulsi Gabbard fires back

Hillary accuses both Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein of being Russian agents – Tulsi Gabbard fires back

Source

October 19, 2019

أميركا التي لا تحارب

سبتمبر 28, 2019

توفيق شومان

يسأل العلامة ول ديورانت كاتب قصة الحضارة و قصة الفلسفة : مَن هي أميركا؟

يسأل ديورانت ويجيب: أميركا هي الحصان ورجل الأعمال.

الحصان في المفهوم العام هو رمز الفروسية، إلا أنه في المفهوم الأميركي وسيلة الكاوبوي ، ولا داعي لتفصيل رمزية رجل الأعمال.

جاء دونالد ترامب إلى البيت الأبيض كـ رجل أعمال ، يمتهن عقد الصفقات وإجادتها مثلما قال وأسهب في حملته الانتخابية وبعد تنصيبه رئيساً.

هذا يعيد الأمور إلى فلسفة وصول ترامب إلى رأس الإدارة الأميركية وعلاقتها بصلب الفلسفة العملية ، او النفعية أو البراغماتية، وهي فلسفة أميركية خالصة ومحضة، وإن نشأ بعض جذورها في القارة الأوروبية.

يكتب مؤسس الفلسفة البراغماتية الأميركي تشارلز بيرس 1839ـ1914 مقالة في العام 1878 تحت عنوان كيف نجعل أفكارنا واضحة؟ ، ويذهب إلى إجابة مضمونها بأن الفكرة الواضحة هي الفكرة القابلة للتطبيق والمعبّرة عن آثار حسية.

بعد تشارلز بيرس، يأتي مواطنه وليم جيمس 1842ـ 1910 ليقول إن معنى الحقيقة في قيمتها العملية، وأي بحث عن معنى آخر ضرب من العبث، وأما الأميركي الآخر جون ديوي 1859ـ1952 الذي يكتمل به الثلاثي الفلسفي البراغماتي فيرى أن الأفكار تجارب، وأي فكرة لا قيمة لها اذا تجرّدت من نتائجها العملية.

ما علاقة الفلسفة بالحرب؟

علاقة الفلسفة بالحرب، أن الحديث يدور حول فلسفة أميركية نفعية وحول حرب يمكن أن تكون نفعية ويمكن ألا تكون. وبمعنى آخر، يدور الحديث عن الحرب كفعل أو فكرة تحقق الغاية النفعية للولايات المتحدة أو لا تحققها.

والسؤال المطروح حيال ذلك:

ما الحروب التي خاضتها الولايات المتحدة؟

هذا يفرض العودة إلى عقارب الحروب في القرن العشرين وفي أوراقها التالي:

شغلت الولايات المتحدة مقاعد المتفرّجين في بداية الحرب العالمية الأولى، فمشهد الحرب ومسرحها كان في أوروبا، وفيما ذهب الأميركيون إلى ما يمكن تسميته بـ النفعية العليا خلال السنوات الثلاث الأولى للحرب وعملوا على تزويد الأوروبيين المتقاتلين بالسلاح والملابس والدواء والغذاء. مما أدى إلى نهضة اقتصادية أميركية لا سابق لها، وهذا ما أثار حفيظة ألمانيا، فراحت تهاجم السفن التجارية الأميركية في العام 1917 وتحثّ المكسيك للدخول في الحرب واعدة إياها بإعادة ولايات أميركية جنوبية إلى سيادتها.

كان الأوروبيون يتحاربون والأميركيون يتاجرون في الحرب.

ودخل الأميركيون الحرب في لحظاتها الأخيرة.

لم يختلف الأمر كثيراً في الحرب العالمية الثانية، فالمصانع الأميركية للسلاح والألبسة والدواء والغذاء، ارتفع إنتاجها إلى مستويات أدهشت الأميركيين أنفسهم، إذ باتوا المصدّرين الأوائل إلى أطراف الحرب، فتوسّع رأس المال وتضخّمت المصانع.

هنا جاء الهجوم الياباني على بيرل هاربور في العام 1941، أي بعد ثلاث سنوات من اشتعال الحرب العالمية الثانية، وكان من شأن هذا الهجوم أن يغيّر مجرى الحرب.

مرة ثانية:

كان العالم، شرقاً وغرباً، يتقاتل في الحرب العالمية الثانية وكان الأميركيون يتاجرون في الحرب.

ينتفعون منها.

يكنزون الأرباح والذهب والفضة.

انتهت الحرب العالمية الثانية وقرعت الحرب الكورية 1950ـ1953 طبولها، وهي حرب أميركية ـ صينية بالدرجة الأولى، وخلاصة الحرب يفسّرها أحد أهم الخبراء الأميركيين في الشؤون الصينية، هـ. ج. كريل، في كتابه المعروف الفكر الصيني من كونفوشيوس إلى ماو ، حيث يقول: كان ثمة تصورات خاطئة لدى الخبراء العسكريين في شؤون الشرق الأقصى، فقد كانوا يتصورون أن الصيني لا يحارب .

هذا خطأ في التصورات.

ربما يضاهي خطأ ألمانيا في الحرب العالمية الأولى

ويوازي خطأ اليابان في الحرب العالمية الثانية. ويساوي خطأ الزعيم النازي ادولف هتلر حين هاجم الاتحاد السوفياتي في الحرب الثانية أيضاً، فانقلب ظهر المجن عليه.

ويوازن خطأ نابوليون بونابرت حين غزا روسيا في العام 1812، فأصابه ما أصاب براقش، فجنى على نفسه وأسدل الستار المأساوي على حروب التوسع النابوليونية.

خطأ في التصورات قد يؤدي الى حرب.

ذاك موجز الحرب الكورية.

ماذا عن حرب فيتنام؟

هي نظرية الدومينو التي كشف عنها الرئيس الأميركي دوايت ايزنهاور في العام 1954، وموجزها يكمن في التصور الأميركي القائل بأن سقوط فيتنام في قبضة الشيوعية، سيؤدي إلى قيام أنظمة رفيقة في كمبوديا ولاوس وتايلند والفيلبين وأندونيسيا واليابان وأوستراليا.

هذه النظرية ما فتئت محل نقاش حارّ في الولايات المتحدة وعما إذا كات مدرجة في سياق التصورات والحسابات الخاطئة أم أنها كانت أمراً محتوماً لا فرار منه، خصوصاً بعد استعار المواجهة مع الرايات الحمراء التي طرقت أبواب القارة الأميركية مع فيديل كاسترو وتشي غيفارا، وما نجم عن ذلك، من تداعيات كان في طليعتها غزوة خليج الخنازير في العام 1961 و أزمة الصواريخ الكوبية في العام 1962.

الجدل حول نظرية الدومينو ما زال قائماً.

والإجابة غير قاطعة لغاية الآن.

ولكن ماذا عن الحروب الأميركية الأخرى في أواخر القرن العشرين ومطلع القرن الحالي؟

بعد حرب فيتنام، انخرطت الولايات المتحدة في حروب الوكالة ، والتي تعني الارتكاز على حلفاء محليين لمواجهة الخصوم أو الأعداء. وهكذا كان أمرها مع حرب أفغانستان الأولى إثر الاجتياح السوفياتي في العام 1979، فراحت تقاتل بـ غيرها ، وهي الحال نفسها في أفريقيا وأميركا اللاتينية.

المشهد عينه، سوف يبرز في حروب أميركية لاحقة. فخلال حرب افغانستان الثانية في العام 2001، كانت ركيزة الحرب الأميركية قائمة على الحلفاء المحليين . وهذا ينطبق على العراق في العام 2003، وعلى ليبيا في العام 2011، مع فارق بين الحربين الأفغانية والعراقية وبين الحرب الليبية، أن الولايات المتحدة اعتمدت في افغانستان والعراق مبدأ القيادة من الأمام ، وفي ليبيا القيادة من الخلف .

ثمة دروس فائقة الأهمية في الحروب الأفغانية والعراقية والليبية خلاصتها وإجمالها في التالي:

ـ خاضت الولايات المتحدة حربها الأفغانية بوجه دولة ممزقة.

ـ خاضت الولايات المتحدة حربها العراقية بوجه دولة محطّمة.

ـ خاضت الولايات المتحدة حربها الليبية بوجه دولة مشرذمة.

عملياً، كان العدو ضعيفاً ، وكأن الولايات المتحدة كانت تبحث عن حرب مع الفراغ، ولذلك كان إسقاط الأنظمة القائمة سهلاً.

الحرب السهلة لأجل النصر السهل.

ذاك عنوان قد يكون مناسباً لحروب الولايات المتحدة في دول الإقليم، وبصرف النظر عن التعقيدات والمآلات التي تلت مقدمات تلك الحروب ومفاصلها الأولى، فما بعد المقدمات والمفاصل حديث آخر.

هل يمكن الخروج بقراءة عامة لحروب الولايات المتحدة؟

لنلاحظ التالي:

ـ في الحربين العالميتين الأولى والثانية لجأت الولايات المتحدة إلى مبدأ الانتظار ، ولم تدخل الحربين إلا بعدما تهالك وتآكل المتحاربون، وهو مبدأ يشكل ذروة النفعية.

ـ في الحرب الكورية، تورّط الأميركيّون في التصورات الخاطئة.

ـ حول الحرب الفيتنامية ما زال الأميركيون يتجادلون حول الخطأ والضرورة.

ـ في حروب افغانستان والعراق وليبيا اعتمد الأميركيون مبدأ الاستناد إلى الركيزة المحلية.

ـ في حروب أفغانستان والعراق وليبيا استغل الأميركيون واقع الأنظمة الهشة.

ـ في الحربين العالميتين الأولى والثانية وفي حرب أفغانستان الثانية، كانت مبررات الحروب الأميركية: قصف الغواصات الألمانية للسفن التجارية الأميركية ـ الهجوم الياباني على قاعدة بيرل هاربور العسكرية ـ تفجيرات تنظيم القاعدة في واشنطن ونيويورك، أي وقوع الولايات المتحدة تحت مرمى الاستهداف المباشر.

ـ في حرب العراق 1991، اعتبر الأميركيون احتلال الكويت عبثاً بالجغرفيا السياسية وخرائطها.

أي حالة تنطبق على ايران؟

ولا حالة.

ولا مبرر.

ولا نفعية ولا منفعة.

وفي تفصيل هذه الحالات ، يمكن القول إن الأميركيين لا يمكنهم اعتماد مبدأ الانتظار ليدخلوا الحرب مع ايران في لحظاتها الأخيرة، كما في الحربين الأولى والثانية، فإيران ليست في حالة حرب مع أي دولة، كما لا يمكن للأميركيين خوض حرب مع إيران بالوكالة، فلا وجود لقوى محلية إيرانية تشكل ركيزة للحرب، ولا توجد قوى اقليمية يمكن أن تشكل الركيزة المفقودة، وفوق ذلك فإيران دولة متماسكة وليست دولة هشّة على ما كانت عليه حالات افغانستان والعراق وليبيا.

يبقى التصوّر الخاطئ.

هل يمكن ان يخطئ الأميركيون بتصوراتهم؟

هذا احتمال ضعيف، بل هو أضعف الاحتمالات، وفي القياس النفعي يفرض السؤال نفسه: ماذا يجني دونالد ترامب من الحرب مع إيران؟

لا شيء مضمون سوى أن النفوذ الأميركي في الخليج سيكون محل سؤال استراتيجي كبير، وهل يبقى على حاله ام تنقلب أحواله سلباً وتراجعاً؟

إذا لماذا الحرب والنتائج غير مضمونة؟

تحت طيات هذا السؤال ربما يعيد الإيرانيون قراءة أمثالهم القديمة.

ربما واحد منهم يردّد المثل الإيراني القديم:

لا تقتل الأفعى بيدك

اقتلها بيد عدوك.

Cynthia McKinney to ST: Peace has a chance only with a peace leader in national security adviser position or no one at all in it

ST

Wednesday, 11 September 2019 12:03

Former US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has said that it might be better for the position of the national security adviser to remain vacant, hoping that President Donald Trump is about to begin to keep his campaign promises about the folly of the US fighting wars for Israel.

In a statement to the Syria times e-newspaper on the effect of the defenestration of John Bolton as President Trump’s third national security adviser, McKinney said: “Given the President’s poor staffing choices, it might be better for the position to remain vacant. Any appointment from the swamp will continue the same pro-Israel, warmongering, swamp policies.”

She believes that peace has a chance only with a peace leader in that position or no one at all in it.

“Even then, the Lobby for war spans both sides of the aisles, both Republicans and Democrats. I have repeatedly made suggestions for Trump of individuals who understand the swamp and are repulsed by what it is today,” she added.

Asked about the reason behind the defenestration of Bolton, McKinney replied:

“Bolton blew the President’s peace initiatives with North Korea, Syria, and Afghanistan. Let’s hope that the President is about to begin to keep his campaign promises about the folly of the US fighting wars for Israel.”

Yesterday, President Trump pushed out John R. Bolton, his third national security adviser.

Cynthia McKinney is an international peace and human rights activist, noted for her inconvenient truth-telling about the U.S. war machine. She was held for seven days in an Israeli prison after attempting to enter Gaza by sea and traveled to Libya during U.S. bombing and witnessed the crimes against humanity committed against that country’s people. In addition to Libya, she has traveled to Cuba, Syria, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and as she puts it:

“Wherever U.S. Bombs are dropping or U.S. sanctions are biting.”

She is the author or editor of three Clarity Press books: she has written one book Ain’t Nothing Like Freedom and edited The Illegal War On Libya and the 2018 book, How the U.S. Creates Sh*thole Countries.

In 1992, McKinney won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. She was the first African-American woman from Georgia in the U.S. Congress. She was the first Member of Congress to demand an investigation of the events of 9/11/2001. McKinney was criticized and as a result, she was defeated in 2002; however, she ran again and was re-elected in 2004.

In December 2008, Cynthia made international headlines when her boat was rammed by the Israeli military as she was attempting to deliver medical supplies to Gaza. In 2009, Cynthia attempted to reach Gaza again, this time armed with crayons, coloring books, and school supplies. Her boat was overtaken in international waters by the Israeli military and she was kidnapped to Israel where she spent 7 days in an Ramleh Prison. Finally, Cynthia entered Gaza by land in July 2009 with George Galloway’s Viva Palestina USA.

She has over 100,000 followers on FaceBook and more than 30,000 followers on Twitter who live in countries all over the world—from Argentina to Zimbabwe, according to Tweetsmap as of January 2019.

Interviewed by: Basma Qaddour

%d bloggers like this: