- America's media, Britain's state-controlled BBC, other
Western sources, and Al Jazeera are spreading unverified or false reports
on Libya's uprising.
-
- On February 25, writer Madhi Darius Nazemroaya, a Middle
East/Central Asian specialist, based on reliable in-country contacts, headlined
an important article, "Libya: Is Washington Pushing for Civil War
to Justify a US-NATO Military Intervention?"
-
- Access it through the following link:
-
- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23375
-
- For greater readership, this article covers key information
in it. Its entirety explains much about what's ongoing - what major media
accounts misreport or suppress, especially television reaching large audiences,
presenting distorted managed news. It shouldn't surprise. Representing
powerful interests, carefully filtered sanitized reporting substitutes
for the real kind.
-
- Gaddafi indisputably is despotic, governing by "fear
and cronyism," treating Libya as his "private estate," and
spawning "an entire hierarchy of corrupt officials," disdainful
of popular interests.
-
- Nonetheless, something is "(r)otten in the so-called
'Jamahiriya' (state of the masses) of Libya." Popular anger is justified
and real. At issue is whether it's spontaneous or externally generated,
and, if so, by whom and for what reasons.
-
- Western powers, especially America, gladly support despots.
They only fall into disfavor by forgetting who's boss. Mubarak forgot.
So did Gaddafi, long targeted for removal despite rapprochement with America
and Western nations. As a result, in-country reports lack credibility without
verifiable proof. Much of it is lacking.
-
- At issue is removing an outlier while keeping his regime
intact, one friendly to Washington and Western interests. Acquiescence
assures support for the world's most ruthless tyrants. Straying gets them
in trouble. Gaddafi strayed, leaving him vulnerable for removal.
-
- Comparing Yugoslavia to Libya
-
- In the 1990s, "pack (or) advocacy journalism"
substituted for the real kind, including by promoting the 1999 US-led NATO
war of aggression to complete Yugoslavia's long-planned balkanization,
characterized as "humanitarian intervention," the same theme
repeated now.
-
- From March 24 - June 10, 1999, daily attacks were relentless.
Around 600 aircraft flew about 3,000 sorties, dropping thousands of tons
of ordinance as well as hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles. Its
ferocity to that time was unprecedented. Large numbers were killed, injured
or displaced. Vast destruction was inflicted. Two million people lost their
livelihoods, many their homes and communities, and for most their futures
under military occupation.
-
- Diana Johnstone's "Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO
and Western Delusions" remains the definitive Balkan wars history,
explaining what Western media reports suppressed. For America and European
powers, it was about deterring Slobodan Milosevic's "Greater Serbia"
ambitions, a gross mischaracterization about 1990s events, culminating
in naked aggression.
-
- Libyan turmoil appears headed for a similar resolution,
driven by unverified misreporting of events on the ground. In Yugoslavia,
it was about removing Milosevic for a more accommodative replacement. In
Libya, Gaddafi appears headed for the same fate, again by raw force, Washington's
alternate "diplomacy," the same kind used to "liberate"
Iraq and Afghanistan, destroying both countries, causing millions of deaths
as well as vast devastation and despair.
-
- Libyan Analysis in Bullet Points
-
- -- Unlike Tunisia, Egypt, and other regional allies,
"upsetting (Libya's) established order is a US and EU objective,"
by replacing one despot with another.
-
- -- the West "seek('s) to capitalize on the revolt"
for new leadership it controls.
-
- -- Heavy weapons are coming in.
-
- -- Destabilizing Libya affects its vast energy reserves
and neighboring states, perhaps the entire region.
-
- -- Tensions among Libyan factions complicate matters
further, including between Gaddafi's son, Saif Al-Islam, "and his
father's circle of older ministers. Libyan ministers are generally divided
amongst those (close to Said) and" member's of the "old guard."
-
- -- Other tensions exist between Gaddafi and his sons,
perhaps one generation against another, each with its own ideas incompatible
with the other.
-
- -- Gaddafi spent years purging opposition. Even so, "little
loyalty is felt for (him) and his family." Fear alone gives them power.
Now it's gone, denunciation of his regime openly stated. "Aref Sharif,
the head of Libyan Air Force," renounced him. Ministers and ambassadors
resigned, some going abroad. "Defections are snowballing amongst the
military and government." Yet what's ongoing may differ significantly
from unverified or willful major media misreporting, including by Al Jazeera.
-
- -- Authentic opposition is real, but not organized. It's
"been encouraged and prompted from outside Libya through social media
networks, international news stations, and events in the rest of the Arab
World." As a result, major media reports are suspect. Accept nothing
from them at face value.
-
- -- Internal opposition leadership comes "from within
the regime itself." However, corrupt officials aren't populists. They
oppose Gaddafi but not tyranny, corruption, and other trappings of power
and privilege. Some of them, in fact, wish "to save themselves, while
others" want to "strengthen their positions." It's also
possible or likely that they've allied with Western powers for their own
self-interest.
-
- -- Major media reports, including by Al Jazeera, "about
Libyan jets firing on protesters in Tripoli and the major cities are unverified
and questionable....No visual evidence of the jet attacks has been shown."
Gaddafi, in fact, controls cities reported to be occupied by opponents.
Moreover, some accounts of violence are spurious. Stories are invented
to "justify no-fly zones," perhaps heading for war led by America
and NATO.
-
- -- Corporate and Western interests in Libya, not despotism,
explain what's ongoing. They're fueling civil war to replace one despot
with another, one they control. "Chaos in the Arab World has been
viewed as beneficial (to) Washington, Tel Aviv," and other Western
powers. Balkanization may be planned, similar to Yugoslavia, culminating
as explained above - "liberation" for control, not democracy
America won't tolerate, including at home. If it happens, regional destabilization
may follow, leaders everywhere wondering who's next.
- -- Henry Kissinger once said: "to be an enemy of
America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal." If balkanization
is planned, friends and foes alike may be targeted if thought unreliable.
Libya's chaos also affects Europe and global energy issues, including price,
for oil heading over $100 a barrel and maybe much higher, threatening fragile
economies with deeper crisis.
-
- -- Washington wanted Gaddafi replaced for years. Former
NATO commander General Wesley Clark once included Libya among future targeted
countries besides Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Divide,
conquer and control, a game way pre-dating modern America.
-
- -- Libya conducted secret negotiations with Washington
in 2001. Formal rapprochement followed, but doing business with imperial
powers is dangerous, and in Gaddafi's case perhaps fatal with no safe haven
if civil war or NATO ousts him. Either "provides the best cover"
for controlling Libya's "energy sector and to appropriate (its) vast
wealth."
-
- -- Libyans should be wary. America and Western powers
play hardball against popular interests throughout the region.
-
- -- "Actions of opposition to Gaddafi are strong,
but there is no strong organized 'opposition movement.' The two are different."
Moreover, no opposition force wants democracy.
-
- -- Serious discussion suggests a Yugoslav-type "humanitarian
intervention." A "no-fly" zone is mentioned, an act of war
if imposed, giving Western powers the right to intervene militarily the
way Iraq was bombed in the 1990s. Invasion and occupation, in fact, could
follow to replace the already weakened regime. Libya's assets would be
plundered, its people left with one despot replacing another.
-
- A Final Comment
-
- For decades, Gaddafi denied Libyans democratic freedoms.
Imperial occupation, however, is worse, creating nightmarish conditions
for Iraqis, Afghans, and others experiencing US-style rule, exceeding the
worst of regional despots' harshness, making some look benign by comparison.
-
- Under more populist leaders than Gaddafi and internal
opposition forces, mobilized resistance may prevent it, but not easily
or quickly. Libyans must now liberate themselves, independent of Western
powers wanting to exploit them for their own self-interest.
-
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays
at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs
are archived for easy listening.
-
- http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
|
