Al-Qaeda Allies in the War…on Terror?

The discovery of old intelligence files in Tripoli is yet another example of hypocrisy and America’s extremely shortsighted foreign policy. While Libyan and American intelligence sharing and cooperation was not a secret, the cache of files reveals how deeply connected the CIA and the Libyan Intelligence Agency were. Colonel Gaddafi, a self proclaimed fighter of imperialism, took part in the extradordinary rendition programs that were harshly criticized by human rights organizations [.pdf]:

[H]undreds of other people are still deprived of their liberty, under American authority but outside the national territory, within an unclear normative framework. Their detention is, in any event, altogether contrary to the principles enshrined in all the international legal instruments dealing with respect for fundamental rights, including the domestic law of the United States (which explains the existence of such detention centres outside the country). The following headline appears to be an accurate summary of the current administration’s approach: prefers to interrogate bigger fish in terrorism cases rather than charge them.

The report made no mention of Libya, suggesting that rendition in Libya was very much a well kept secret. The documents also suggest that Gaddafi began the renditon program in 2004 after he came clean about “unconventional weapons” and spoke about the dangers of them. It appears that many of those who were renditioned were memebers of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The LIFG was loathed by the Gaddafi regime, especially after an assassination attempt in 1996. Fearful of their links with al-Qaeda and cals for an Islamic state, Gaddafi ruthlessly cracked down on the group. It does not appear, therefore, that Gaddafi was an unwilling participant in the rendition program.

What is really interesting, however, is just how shortsighted American foreign policy has been. Gaddafi, who was relentlessly villified until he changed his bad habits, was pragmatically used as an ally in the neverending War on Terror. The tit for tat games played with Moammar abruptly came to an end during the Arab Spring when the United States and NATO seized the opportunity to oust the not so reliable dictator. Just like the Taliban were American allies during the Red Scare and are now mortal enemies in the midst of a decade long war, former enemies that endured the American-Libyan rendition program are now allies. Particularly alarming are the seedy “allies” that the United States now has:

Two days later, an officer faxed the Libyans to say that Mr. Sadiq and his pregnant wife were planning to fly into Malaysia, and the authorities there agreed to put them on a British Airways flight to London that would stop in Bangkok. “We are planning to take control of the pair in Bangkok and place them on our aircraft for a flight to your country,” the case officer wrote.

Mr. Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch said he had learned from the documents that Sadiq was a nom de guerre for Abdel Hakim Belhaj, who is now a military leader for the rebels.

As Pepe Escobar noted last week, Belhaj is a former al-Qaeda asset and he, along with his militia of Berbers proved to be the most efficient fighting force in the Libyan conflict. A mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation, Belhaj was undoubtedly a recipient of loads of weapons and other assistance provided by the American government. In addition to this, Belhaj and the “Tripoli Brigade” were covertly trained by US special forces for two months, hence the group’s lethality. Training and arming such men with extensive contacts to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations such as the LIFG hardly seems to fit the spirit of the Arab spring, democracy and freedom. Lest it’s forgotten, the Zetas that are wreaking havoc on behalf of the drug cartels in Mexico are so lethal and precise because of their training by the American government. If demands of an Islamic state are not met, which certainly seems to be the case, the Tripoli Brigade will be ready to pounce and ruthlessly wipe out its opponents.

It’s already becoming increasingly clear that the Tripoli Brigade will be a very short-lived ally of the United States. The Tripoli Brigade will bring pain and blood to any of its opponents. Whether or not this will be limited to the Libyan Transitional Council will not be clear until the UN, NATO, or the United States decides whether or not to pacify the war torn country with a few boots on the ground.

Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | September 2, 2011

Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | September 2, 2011

Help us meet our fund-raising goal! Help keep the War Party at bay by making a tax-deductible donation today!

Don’t forget to sign the open letter to Obama and Congress to end the wars: ComeHomeAmerica.us

IN THIS ISSUE

  • Rebels struggle as NATO keeps bombing Libya
  • War crimes in Iraq
  • Afghanistan’s deadliest month
  • Assad may be losing it
  • The decade since 9/11
  • Assorted news from the empire
  • What’s new at the blog?
  • Columnists
  • Antiwar Radio
  • Events

Round Up the Blacks, Continue the Bombs

Continue reading “Antiwar.com’s Week in Review | September 2, 2011”

Minneapolis Message to Obama Was Clear: Bring the War $$ Home

As usual, most of the mainstream media did not do a very good job reporting on Obama’s August 30 speech in Minneapolis nor on the protest outside the National Convention of the American Legion to whom he spoke (Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minnesota Public Radio, FOX News.com). The alternative media (and here) did no better in understanding that the real story is about Americans of all backgrounds and political ideologies (libertarians, greens, progressives and fiscal conservatives) uniting in their alarm about the destructive consequences of runaway militarism. Even normally pro-war American Legion members are beginning to recognize the enormous blowback upon military veterans. Certainly environmentalists wanting government to fund projects for sustainable forms of energy agree the war $ should come home. So it was too bad that reporters’ questions mostly stayed within the confines of the two party electoral framework and the political ping pong that keeps the big war game going no matter which lesser-of-two evil politician(s) win. Maybe we should be happy that given the egregious costs of war and bankrupting debt being suffered, there was at least some mention of the wars as a main issue in spite of the contrasting political spins.

2011-09-01-obamaatAmerLegionbannersprotestersweb.JPG

Maybe the media will do a better job three weeks from now covering the protest when we get to revert back to focus on the great “Decider” who was first to lie us into the disastrous, illegal wars, the more familiarly-despised face of George W. Bush who has reportedly accepted to come speak at Beth El Synagogue (same synagogue that feted Condoleezza Rice about two years ago) in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. (Synagogue organizers of the upcoming Bush event are apparently selling three tiers of tickets to wealthy supporters to share hors d’oeuvres with Bush on September 21: the Bronze level ticket is $1250, Silver is $2500, and Platinum is $3600. The latter two get preferred seating and a picture with Bush.)

We welcome suggestions for creative signs (especially those transcending counter-productive political partisanship) to display outside the upcoming George W. Bush’s Beth El Synagogue Fundraiser and Rewriting of History! Better yet, stop by and help Come Home America and other advocates of peace and liberty hold banners the evening of September 21 (from 4 -7 pm) outside the Synagogue fundraiser.

Photos below were taken outside Obama’s speech to the American Legion.

2011-09-01-obamaprotestamericanlegionwarisalieweb.JPG
Vets for Peace had a great message for Obama.

2011-09-01-obamaatAmerLegionWrongWayWarPresidentweb.JPG

2011-09-01-obamaamlegionwantadweb.jpg

2011-09-01-obamaamlegioncoleenhopedope.jpg (When people ask me what’s the difference between “HOPE” and “DOPE”, I tell them not much, just one letter.)

2011-09-01-obamaprotestamericanlegionbannersweb.JPG (Come Home America message on display before others came.)
(Originally submitted to Huffington Post.)

WordPress Suspends ‘Stop NATO’ news site

From Antiwar.com writer and ally Rick Rozoff:

WordPress suspended the Stop NATO site from posting any new material earlier today, with this announcement:

“Warning: We have a concern about some of the content on your blog. Please click here to contact us as soon as possible to resolve the issue and re-enable posting.”

Repeated efforts to contact them have produced no result.

A year ago Military Times threatened the Stop NATO e-mail list with legal action and, after contacting them and assuming the matter resolved, they got Yahoo Groups to threaten to shut down the list and even cancel my personal e-mail account.

Material on the WordPress site has been backed up, and everything posted to date is still accessible, but it’s not certain for how long.

As everyone familiar with both the site and the list know, no incitement to violence or other illegal action, no attempt to solicit money and no derogatory statement toward any demograhic group have ever appeared on either the mailing list or the news site.

The sole “crime” of which both are guilty is of being anti-war and anti-militarist.

Yours for peace,
Rick Rozoff

State Dept Cable: Microsoft’s War With Vietnam

A cable labeled 04HOCHIMINHCITY367 Sensitive and For Official Use Only describes the 2004 efforts by Microsoft to convince US officials of the importance of pressuring the Vietnamese government to switch entirely to Windows as an operating system.

The cable, which was titled “IN VIETNAM, THE GOVERNMENT IS MICROSOFT’S FIRST TARGET,” features arguments from Microsoft that the government’s switch of some of its systems to Linux was de facto piracy because no one could possibly be happy with Linux and they’d all just switch back to a pirated version of Windows. Microsoft claimed to have data showing that the average Linux user goes back to pirated Windows in a few months.

Even the State Dept. found Microsoft’s arguments “self-serving” but seemed convinced by the claim that “there would be a massive compatibility problem — most of the world uses Windows, and the Government of Vietnam could find themselves in a position where it might be different to communicate and share data between their Linux systems and everyone else’s MS systems.”

Of course this was 2004 and the desktop situation was a little different back then, but Microsoft was still determined to see, with US government help, 100% Windows adoption in the Vietnamese government within 5 years.

Fast forward to 2009, Vietnam’s government orders every single government computer to switch to Linux.

The More Things Change…

I’ve written a guest blog over at the Silver Circle Underground, a blog related to a forthcoming sci-fi film about a future revolt against the Federal Reserve. I was asked to write about what US foreign policy will be like in 2019, when the film is set. I’ve cross-posted it below.

The consistency of United States foreign policy is truly remarkable. Since its inception, America’s approach was expansion and control; first with westward annexation – humbly called Manifest Destiny – and then with interventions and impositions to the south through the Monroe Doctrine. But exceptionally since the end of World War II, US policy has remained notably undeviating.

US national security planners understood, correctly, that unlike war torn Europe America would emerge from the war as an economic and military powerhouse with unrivaled security and influence. The world was divided up into war zones and plans were set to implement an Imperial Grand Strategy over a region encompassing the Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the former British Empire, with a high focus on Middle East oil reserves. As a Top Secret National Security Council briefing put it in 1954, “the Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance,” as it “contains the greatest petroleum resources in the world” as well as “essential locations for strategic military bases in any world conflict.”

The primary aim, according to official documents was to maintain “unquestioned power” with “military and economic supremacy,” while ensuring the “limitation of any exercise of sovereignty” by states that might interfere with its global designs. As an illustration of how unchanged the US imperial approach has been, these precise strategies were reiterated in the 2002 National Security Strategy. It was of foremost importance that “our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.” Similarly, in former Secretary of Defense William Cohen’s 1999 annual report to President Clinton, the crucial task was to “retain the capability to act unilaterally” to prevent “the possibility that a regional great power or global peer competitor may emerge” and to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.”

Maintaining global hegemony through the threat or use of military force has been the singular approach in American foreign policy, and it manifests in ugly ways. Regime changes (often just a synonym for international terrorism) in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Iraq and more are prime examples.

So to consider what US foreign policy will look like in 2019, a mere eight years from now, is really to consider how little will change. Some specifics may change, as has happened in this Arab Spring – a hated and feared development in the annals in Washington, as it signifies a potential for the policies of Middle East government’s to more closely reflect the will of the people (something national security planners have been actively preventing for decades). But the fundamentals will prove as durable as they have since WWII.

The United States will still have approximately 900 military bases in 150 countries around the world, although the numbers may increase slightly. Our army is likely to still have a presence in Iraq, and a large-scale military occupation will still be going on in Afghanistan. The likelihood of our 53,960 troops being pulled out of Germany, or the 57,586 in South Korea is next to zero. We will still be supporting tyrannies throughout the Middle East in Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and perhaps even still Egypt. We will continue to impose a power structure subservient to Washington throughout Latin America, probably fighting the same sorts of proxy wars and drug war adventures we are now. We will still have a massive military industrial complex, a sprawling and unaccountable national security state, and a foreign policy largely dictated by the powerful, with help from the banksters.

One aspect of imperial policy that looks to be changing rather rapidly, although simply upholding the same imperial approach, is air power. Increasingly, military technology has developed such that unmanned, remotely controlled aerial vehicles can bomb countries and assassinate enemies of the state without declaring war, asking the permission of Congress, or even making it public at all. Ominously, this could lead the aggressors in Washington to keep wars increasingly secret and unaccountable.

Some perceive the fall of the American Empire just around the corner, with rising powers like China presenting problems for US global hegemony. But the US domain of power is still too far-reaching. And in 2019, we can expect it to remain the most dominant – and the most violent.