When they destabilized Libya and overthrew strongman Muammar Gadhafi in 2011 the U.S. and its Canadian and European allies unleashed a series of events that accounts for the steady flood into Europe of migrants from North Africa. There are, purportedly, “up to 1 million” poor, uneducated, possibly illiterate, predominantly male, and by necessity violence-prone individuals, poised to board rickety freighters in the Libyan ports of Tripoli and Zuwarah, and make the perilous journey across the Mediterranean, to southern Italy. The 900 migrants who perished off the coast of Libya when their vessel capsized embarked in Zuwara.

Zuwara has always been “famous for people smuggling,” notes Richard Spencer, Middle East editor of The Telegraph. “The modern story of Zuwara and its trade in people,” says Spencer, whose newspaper has documented the genesis of the exodus well before the U.S. press awoke to it, “was a key part of the late Col. Muammar Gadhafi’s relationship with the European Union.”

The “indigenous, pre-Arab inhabitants of North Africa,” Berbers, as they are known in the West, have long since had a hand in human trafficking. As part of an agreement he made with Silvio Berlusconi’s government,” Col. Gaddafi had agreed to crack down on the trade in people.” For prior to the dissolution of Libya at the behest of Barack Obama’s Amazon women warriors—Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power—Libya had a navy. Under the same accord with the Berlusconi government (and for a pretty penny), Gadhafi’s admiralty stemmed the tide of migrants into Europe.

Here’s an interesting aside: Because he cracked down on their customary trade, the Zuwarans of Libya rose up against Gadhafi; the reason for this faction’s uprising, in 2011, was not the hunger for democracy, as John McCain and his BFF Lindsey Graham would have it.

Back in 2007, Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair also shook on an accord with Gadhafi. Diplomacy averse  neoconservatives—they think diplomacy should be practiced only with allies—condemned the agreement. The “Deal in the Desert,” as it came to be known derisively, was about bringing Libya in from the cold and into the 21st century. In return, and among other obligations, Gadhafi agreed to curtail people smuggling.

Ever ask yourself why so many northern and sub-Saharan Africans flocked to Libya? As bad as it was before the West targeted it for “reform”—and thus paved the way for the daily privations of the Islamic State—Libya was still one of the mercantile meccas in this blighted and benighted region.

As dumb as “W” was in unseating Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, he acted wisely with Gadhafi. Both George Bush and Bill Clinton, before him, saw to it that, in exchange for a diplomatic relationship with the U.S., Gadhafi abandoned terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

Africa has always provided what the cognoscenti term “push factors” for migration: “Poverty, political instability and civil war … are such powerful factors,” laments Flavio Di Giacomo, a spokesman for the International Organization of Migration in Italy. More recently, the Middle East has been the source of the flight. The chaos and carnage in Iraq is ongoing—has been since the American invasion of 2003. Of late, the civil war in Syria, in which the U.S. has sought to topple another strongman who held it all together, has displaced 4 million people. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey have absorbed hundreds of thousands of these refugees, as they should. But there are at least 500,000 more war-worn Syrians ready to be put to sea.

Programmed from on high, Europeans, like Americans, are bound by the suicide pact of political correctness to open their borders to the huddled mass of Third World people, no matter the consequences to their societies. Gadhafi was without such compunction. In 2010, he openly vowed to “turn Europe black,” unless the neutered Europeans rewarded him handsomely for doing the work they refused to do: patrol and protect their coastline.

“Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black,” roared Gadhafi, “as there are millions who want to come in. We don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent, or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.”

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton cackled barbarically when she learned of the demise of Col. Gadhafi, but the colonel is having the last laugh.

©ILANA Mercer
WND, JungeFreiheit, Target Liberty, Quarterly Review,
Praag.org, The Libertarian Alliance,
The American Culture,  & LewRockwell.com.
April 24, 2015

“Us against al-Qaida”: This has been—still is—the narrowly conceived narrative among neoconservatives. As the politically provincial neoconservative foreign-policy paradigm has it, those were the forces that played out in the Benghazi affair, in which the American mission was left undefended, resulting in the slaughter of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans (who, given the pecking order in the Empire, generally go unnamed).

Hillary Clinton, the woman who cracked the whip at Foggy Bottom at the time, had clearly resolved to run the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, as one would an open community center. This was meant to signal that her war on Libya had been a success, when in fact Hillary’s adventure there had as much “host-nation support” as George Bush’s faith-based forays into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Indeed, “a central figure in the attack,” reports David D. Kirkpatrick of the New York Times, “was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala.” Once persecuted and imprisoned by Gadhafi, Abu Khattala is a Libyan Islamist from the el-Leithi region, who considers “the United States not far behind Col. Gadhafi on his list of infidel enemies.”

Understandably, Fox-News neocons have been fuming over “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi,” Kirkpatrick’s exposé in the Times. In their focused blindness, Republicans believe religiously that, to quote Kirkpatrick, “Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by al-Qaida to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before.” Accordingly, the Obama administration has been “covering up evidence of al-Qaida’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.”

Uncovered by The Times’ investigation, however, was a very different reality in Benghazi—”murkier than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi,” contends Kirkpatrick, “was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”

In particular are neoconservatives fulminating over the findings that “turned up no evidence that al-Qaida or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,” and that “the attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Col. Gadhafi.”

How can that be? Easily: The history of Libya is festooned with similar ransacking and burning of consulates by angry local mobs. Alas, in the ignorance it cultivates about the past, America is Cicero’s perpetual child. By the definition of the great Roman statesman, “Not to know what happened before one was born is to be always a child.”

Based on the annals of U.S. intervention in the region, it is fair to say that, to the extent the American-made video lampooning Islam triggered the hatred harbored by the invaded Libyans for the invading Americans—to that extent it is true that the YouTube clip, more so than the mythical al Qaida, was a catalyst for the attack on our embassy in Benghazi.

Still, the NYT has hardly been unsparingly honest. Rather, the Gray Eminence is as dishonest and politically provincial as the opposing faction.

Discounted in the Kirkpatrick essay is that al-Qaida has devolved into many decentralized operations that mirror the aspirations of the indigenous population to be free of meddling Westerners—unless of course said militia and tribesmen (the Ansar al-Shariah, for example) can get us to bankroll their Baksheesh economy.

Predictably, the double-crossing neoconservative and neoliberal entities cross-pollinate each other.

So wrong was the Times on Iraq that the reporter who piped lies straight from the Bush White House to her Times readers was recruited to Fox News: She is Judith “Chalabi” Miller. (Ahmed Chalabi was the Iraqi exile who agitated for American intervention in Iraq. In the ramp-up to war, Chalabi fed Ms. Miller, the New York Times’ birdbrain now perched at Fox News, with the pro-invasion “intelligence” she then presented to the public.)

The facts in the Benghazi affair have likewise been unwoven and retied into two contradictory narratives to suit the respective sides.

Think of lab rats racing through a maze, as you watch the sub-intelligent, dual-panel “dialogue” conducted on the teli. Hosts Stephanie Cutter (left-wing, social-democratic rat) and S. E. Cupp (right-wing, social-democratic rat): Each rat runs with a designated, neatly bifurcated (Republican or Democratic) political orthodoxy. Each is a “maze-bright” rat, and not the possessor and giver of any truth.

“Left” and “right” are bamboozling you on Benghazi.

He vetoed a draft United Nations Security Council resolution calling on President Bashar Assad to step down. Such a resolution, he argued, would serve as a ruse for the US to do a Libya in Syria.

He made the case that the “Syrian crisis would be better resolved by Syrians themselves,” and that the West should confine itself to brokering a ceasefire in that country, and encouraging dialogue between the feuding factions.

And, “Six months ago,” by the Daily Star’s telling, he “vetoed an earlier draft resolution threatening Damascus with sanctions.”

He is Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president elect. And he has done nothing that Ron Paul, president of America’s libertarians, would not have done: work to avert another ill-conceived, idiotic American intervention in a country in which it has no business, advocate for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, and oppose economic sanctions, which always and everywhere do more damage than good.

A just course of action is a just course of action irrespective of the actor.

The Sino-Russian alliance has been promoting the idea of an accord, involving “all the Syrians, the government and all opposition groups,” or so the Washington Post framed their side. NATO (nee the US) was champing at the bit to take the battle for Syria away from the Syrians and put it where they believe it belongs: the US military and its proxies.

Now, out of the blue, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pretending that the United States and its Arab and European allies have always supported such a civilized solution in Syria, and were merely waiting on the Russians to get with the peace program. This is the same woman who came close to squatting on Gadhafi’s corpse, in honor of her country’s custom of peeing on its dead enemies.

Yes, one minute the Obama Administration and its UN and Arab-League lickspittles had been itching to oust Assad. The next, the same coalition was dusting Kofi Annan off and dispatching him, as a UN envoy, to mediate a resolution to Syria’s civil war.

What’s going on here?

Let us look at the Libyan precedent. Col. Muammar Gaddafi had pleaded with the powers that played him like a puppet; he wanted to negotiate a resolution to the conflict in his country. The only one to listen was South African President Jacob Zuma, who zoomed into action, embarking on two tours of duty in Libya to broker a ceasefire. Zuma’s mission? To get the Libyan leader to say and do the requisite things that would pacify the USA’s new buddies, also known as The Rebels, Allah bless their bonny heads.

Speaking in Tripoli, Zuma divulged that he and “the tyrant” (to quote the Mail Online—and that paper’s idea of an impartial report) had “discussed the necessity of giving the Libyan people the opportunity to solve their problems on their own.” Obama and his paternalistic pals poopooed that ludicrous notion. The American media hardly dignified these African efforts at keeping it in the Continent.

The African Union had toiled to get the Über dogs of war to leave Libya alone. Instead, America rebuffed Gaddafi’s requests, killed the Colonel’s son and a couple of his grandchildren, and then joined its French friends to fly sorties up over The Rebels, as the latter lynched Gaddafi on camera to the sounds of blood-curdling harangues of “Allahu Akbar.” “NATO is deprived of all morals and all civilization,” concluded the Libyan government spokesperson, Moussa Ibrahim. And who could argue with him?

That’s how we roll. That’s how we were about to roll in Syria. But something happened on the way to Syria.

A few days before Kofi was called in—on March 19, to be precise—Al Arabiya News first reported that “Russian special forces arrived in the Syrian Mediterranean port city of Tartus.” The news agency’s front-page featured an image of western-looking soldiers, appended to which was the following caption: “A Russian ship carrying a unit of ‘anti-terrorist marines’ is reportedly docked at the Syrian port city of Tartus.”

DEBKAfile, the “Israeli-based, open-source military intelligence website,” confirmed that the Russians had dropped anchor:

“Two Russian naval vessels have anchored at the Syrian port of Tartus, Russian Black Sea headquarters at Sevastopol reports. Their mission and identities were not disclosed, except that one was carrying a unit of ‘anti-terrorist marines’ and the other, a military tanker which joined ‘a Russian naval reconnaissance and surveillance ship already tied up in Tartus.”

Currently, Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, is being coy. He denies “media reports alleging a Russian military buildup in Syria.”

We know better. For too long, the US has been operating upon the premise that American men and matériel should be capable of reaching and controlling all corners of the world.” This was a bully’s universe.

Putin put down his foot.

America will never admit it, and Russia can’t afford to rub our faces in it—but I suspect that the events some of us watched closely last week were a successful attempt by the Russians at replacing bully power with a balance of power.