Abayomi Azikiwe / Pan-African News Wire , Apr 7, 2011
P. Martin / WSWS, 28 March 2011
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
By Prof. Peter Dale Scott
by James Petras and Robin E. Abaya
http://nstarikov.ru/blog/8569
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/inte-m28.shtml
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - Global Research, 3 aprile 2011
by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
The illegality of the Obama administration's moves to use Libya's national wealth to keep the so-called rebel leadership afloat underscores the colonial character of the US-NATO war to oust Muammar Gaddafi...
http://aurorasito.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/gli-inglesi-spremono-altri-soldi-dai-leader-del-consiglio-ribelle-con-accordi-segreti/
http://aurorasito.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/la-balcanizzazione-della-libia-i-piani-usa-nato-per-dividere-il-territorio-libico/
http://www.megachip.info/tematiche/guerra-e-verita/5897-ecco-tutte-le-bugie-che-ci-hanno-raccontato-sulla-guerra-libica.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFN14FeGVzk
PRIME ADESIONI: http://www.lernesto.it/index.aspx?m=77&f=2&IDArticolo=20771
Globe and Mail - June 10, 2011
NATO’s Libya 'hope' strategy is bombing
We are now in the 84th day of the bombing campaign that the United Nations Security Council authorized to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya in a bid to protect civilians from Moammar Gadhafi’s forces. In a bizarre development, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has said it will extend the campaign for 90 days, surely a first in the history of war when one side “extends the contract” for a set period. This presumably occurred because NATO’s strategy is still based on the flimsy hope that Colonel Gadhafi will see the error of his ways and capitulate before his surroundings and his supporters are bombed back to the Stone Age.
NATO’s obsession with its strategy of hope was tried once before in 1999, with the bombing of Serbia and the breakaway province of Kosovo. A myth that the 78-day bombing campaign persuaded Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo continues to grow despite overwhelming facts to the contrary.
Before that war – and contributing to its start – the international community gathered in Rambouillet, France, and, on March 18, 1999, produced an accord that spelled out a peace plan to deal with the armed insurrection by the Kosovo Liberation Army (designated at the time by the CIA as a terrorist organization).
Unfortunately – but intentionally – the accord contained two poison pills that Mr. Milosevic could never accept, making war or at least the allied bombing of a sovereign state inevitable. The first pill demanded that NATO have freedom of movement throughout the entire land, sea and airspace of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In other words, NATO would have the right to park its tanks around Mr. Milosevic’s downtown office in Belgrade. The other pill required that a referendum be held within three years to determine the will of those citizens living in Kosovo regarding independence. The fact that Kosovo’s population was overwhelmingly Albanian Muslim guaranteed that the outcome of any such referendum would be a vote for independence and the loss of the Serbian nation’s historic heart.
Mr. Milosevic refused to sign the accord, and NATO began bombing Serbia on March 24, 1999, without a Security Council resolution, citing a “humanitarian emergency” – a decision still widely challenged by many international legal scholars. NATO said it would take only a few days of bombing to persuade Mr. Milosevic to withdraw his forces from Kosovo.
As the weeks dragged on, NATO’s strategy of hope appeared to be in serious trouble. Its aircraft, incapable of destroying to any significant degree the Serbian military’s personnel and equipment, had turned to bombing fixed infrastructure: bridges, roads, factories, refineries, TV stations. As in all wars conducted from thousands of feet above the target, mistakes were made and civilians were killed. In one town I visited during the campaign, a medical clinic and a 10-storey apartment building had been demolished, with no “legitimate” targets anywhere to be seen.
With no indication that Mr. Milosevic was going to give in, diplomacy was given a long overdue chance. Led by Russian envoy Vitaly Churkin, Mr. Milosevic was told that, if he withdrew from Kosovo, the two poison pills would be removed from the Rambouillet accord. Within days, Mr. Milosevic agreed.
Myth buster: Diplomacy, not bombing, played the key role in bringing a punitive bombing campaign based on hope to an end.
The same solution should be pursued in the case of Libya. The main obstacle is the rebel leadership. The UN envoy to Libya has requested that the rebels call for a ceasefire, but they have steadfastly refused to do so until Col. Gadhafi is gone. NATO leaders are no longer demanding Col. Gadhafi’s removal as a prerequisite for stopping the bombing. So where do the rebels get off refusing to accede to a request from the very organization that authorized the bombing in the first place? They should be told in no uncertain terms that, if they’re not prepared to negotiate with Col. Gadhafi’s representatives, NATO’s support in the air and at sea will cease.
Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.
New York Times - April 26, 2011
NATO Says It Is Broadening Attacks on Libya Targets
WASHINGTON: NATO planners say the allies are stepping up attacks on palaces, headquarters, communications centers and other prominent institutions supporting the Libyan government, a shift of targets that is intended to weaken Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power and frustrate his forces in the field.
Officials in Europe and in Washington said that the strikes were meant to reduce the government’s ability...link by link, the command, communications and supply chains required for sustaining military operations.
The broadening of the alliance’s targets comes at a time when the rebels and the government in Libya have been consolidating their positions along more static front lines, raising concerns of a prolonged stalemate....
Strikes on significant bulwarks of Colonel Qaddafi’s power over recent days included bombing his residential compound in the heart of the capital, Tripoli — an array of bunkers that are also home to administrative offices and a military command post — as well as knocking state television briefly off the air.
(...)
Senior officers who served in NATO’s previous air war, fought in 1999...said that the current air campaign over Libya drew on lessons from Kosovo.
Gen. John P. Jumper, who commanded United States Air Force units in Europe during the Kosovo campaign, recalled that allied “air power was getting its paper graded on the number of tanks killed” — even though taking out armored vehicles one by one was never going to halt “ethnic cleansing.”
So NATO began to hit high-profile institutional targets in Belgrade, the Serbian capital, instead of forces in the field. While they were legitimate military targets, General Jumper said, destroying them also had the effect of undermining popular support for the Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic.
“It was when we went in and began to disturb important and symbolic sites in Belgrade, and began to bring to a halt the middle-class life in Belgrade, that Milosevic’s own people began to turn on him,” General Jumper said. “They began to question why the whole thing in Kosovo was going on, because it was ruining the country.”
U.S.-British covert operations exposed
The New York Times, the Washington Post and other corporate news sources are now openly admitting that the opposition forces fighting the Libyan government are supported and coordinated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s MI6 with in-country special forces.
President Barack Obama in March signed an order dispatching CIA operatives to identify targets for bombing and to vet potential leaders within the rebel forces in the event of toppling the Libyan government.
Al Jazeera says in a recent article that both U.S. and Egyptian Special Forces are providing training to the rebel groups at a secret facility in eastern Libya. This adds greater clarity to the insistence on the part of the Obama administration that the current leader of Libya, Moammar Gadhafi, be forced from office. The U.S. wants a compliant regime in control of this oil-rich North African state of more than 6 million people.
Egypt’s military receives in excess of $1.5 billion a year from the U.S. for training, equipment and cooperation with Washington. An unidentified rebel fighter described being trained in military techniques by U.S. and Egyptian military forces.
“He told us that Thursday night (March 31) a new shipment of Katyusha rockets had been sent into eastern Libya from Egypt. He didn’t say they were sourced from Egypt, but that was their route through. He said these were state-of-the-art, heat-seeking rockets and that they need to be trained on how to use them, which was one of the things the American and Egyptian special forces were there to do.” (Al Jazeera, April 4)
The fact that the rebel forces are receiving arms and training from U.S., British and Egyptian intelligence and military units illustrates the hypocrisy of the naval blockade being imposed on Libya, under the guise of an arms embargo. The only arms embargo is against the Libyan government, while the imperialist states and their allies in the region are free to provide air and sea support for the rebels.
While Al Jazeera has been supportive of the military and political campaign against the Libyan government, it was forced to admit on April 4 that “since the rebels appear to be receiving covert support in terms of weaponry and training, it is not surprising that they are not inclined to criticize NATO openly.”
U.S. cover story falls apart
The Obama administration claims it does not know who the so-called “rebels” are in Libya. But Khalifa Haftar, officially appointed leader of the military campaign against the Libyan government, has for many years been financed and supported by the CIA. For two decades he lived in Virginia near CIA headquarters in Langley.
A report by the right-wing Jamestown Foundation declares, “Today as Colonel Haftar finally returns to the battlefields of North Africa with the objective of toppling Gadhafi ... he may stand as the best liaison for the United States and allied NATO forces in dealing with Libya’s unruly rebels.”
This same study revealed that Haftar played an important role in June 1998 in establishing the so-called Libyan National Army, the military wing of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya “with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency.” Not only did the CIA set up the LNA but it also created a training camp in Virginia where members of the group were taught counterinsurgency and destabilization tactics by the U.S. government.
The Nation magazine, in an April 3 article entitled, “The CIA, the Libyan rebellion, and the president,” concludes, “An event that Americans were led to believe was an autonomous rising on the model of Egypt turns out to have been deeply compromised from the start, and compromised by American meddling. All the external parties are in Libya for different reasons. Things could not have gotten this far without the CIA.”
The CIA and Africa
While the first clandestine operations of the CIA were directed against leftists in Europe after World War II, it soon focused on weakening oppressed nations, national liberation movements and socialist states. In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup against Mohammad Mossadegh, the elected leader of Iran, who had tried to nationalize the oil industry for the benefit of the people. He was replaced by the Shah, a U.S. puppet, who was finally overthrown in 1979.
The CIA was behind the 1954 overthrow of the progressive Arbenz government of Guatemala. In Cuba in 1961, CIA-trained exile forces landed at the Bay of Pigs in an attempt to topple the revolutionary government of Fidel Castro.
In 1966, the CIA was behind the destabilization and overthrow of the Pan-African and socialist-oriented government of President Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana. Nkrumah had supported national liberation movements throughout Africa and the world and formed close relations with the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and Yugoslavia.
In 1975, the CIA attempted to prevent the consolidation of national independence in the oil-rich Southern African nation of Angola. Agency operatives aided the racist South African Defense Forces and the counterrevolutionary UNITA and FNLA movements. Angola finally was liberated in 1994.
Importance of anti-imperialist perspective
An important role of the CIA has been to foster chaos in order to destabilize and overthrow governments in countries where U.S. imperialism wanted to intervene to protect its strategic interests. Thus it has a long track record of fomenting disinformation and psychological warfare.
The corporate media are always ready to build public support for U.S. imperialist aims and objectives, both domestically and internationally. As Washington sends the CIA, stealth bombers and “Tomahawk” missiles to engineer regime change in Libya, the media have framed this as an act of humanitarian relief designed to protect civilians. They have little to say when Libyans die and property is destroyed.
It is the duty of the anti-war and peace movements in the U.S. and throughout the Western industrialized countries to expose the role of the CIA and other intelligence services and uphold the right of oppressed, post-colonial and revolutionary governments to self-determination and sovereignty.
Any other approach strengthens the imperialists and their intelligence and military apparatuses. It only delays the struggle for international solidarity of the workers and oppressed inside the U.S. and around the world.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@...
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@...
Support independent news DONATE
Voice of Russia - March 31, 2011
Will NATO apply the Balkan scenario to Libya?
NATO is discussing the deployment of multinational forces in Libya, said Admiral James Stavridis, NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. These forces will be under NATO command and will operate as they did in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.
The statement by Admiral Stavridis shifts the possible development in Libya onto a new level. It seems that the U.S. and NATO do not consider rendering assistance to the opposition groups in ousting the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi as a priority. The Admiral believes that, clearly, there is a wide range of possibilities organizing a mission for stabilizing the situation in Libya under the aegis of NATO.
The West no longer considers the opposition groups as a means to oust Gaddafi for several reasons. Firstly, the opposition groups are very weak and divided. Secondly, according to Admiral Stavridis, al-Qaeda terrorists and pro-Iranian Hezbolla militants are among the rebels. In an interview with the NBC, President Barack Obama indirectly admitted this. He emphasized that there is no guarantee that there are no people who are unfriendly towards the U.S. and its interests among the rebels.
However, that the U.S. and NATO plan to carry out the operation in Libya in line with that of the Kosovo scenario has nothing to do with the state of affairs in the rebel camp.
A deployment of multinational forces on a long-term basis under the aegis of NATO paves the way for Brussels to bypass the only restriction imposed by the UN Security Council on an operation in Libya.
Resolution 1973 stipulates the use of all measures against the Gaddafi regime, except an occupation. The transition of the ongoing aerial operation to a multinational mission means, as shown by the Kosovo experience, a shift to an occupation under the peacekeeping slogans.
Similar scenarios have been staged by the U.S., Britain and other Western countries also in Afghanistan and Iraq. "Their military presence remains despite of restrictions imposed by the U.N.," says Alexander Karasev, an expert at the Institute of Slavic Studies in an interview with our correspondent:
“The discussion of problems at the UN Security Council is aimed at finding a decision that will satisfy the international community and at the same time the interested parties. However, the latest developments show that the Western powers have lately learned to bypass formal restrictions imposed on them by the UN Charter and UN Security Council decisions. An allegedly humanitarian intervention by NATO against Yugoslavia in 1999 ended with the deployment of NATO forces in Kosovo and the setting up of the largest U.S. base Bondsteel Camp in the province. The U.S. and NATO may repeat this scenario in Libya,” Alexander Karasev said.
Speaking at the National Defence University, Barack Obama said that "we should not afraid to use our military swiftly and decisively, also unilaterally when there is a need to defend our people, our country, our allies and our innermost interests."
Commenting on the speech, an expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, Stephen Flanagan, emphasized that the President’s speech had reminded him of the one that President Clinton gave during the Kosovo crisis explaining the reasons that led to the launch of the NATO operation in Yugoslavia. Both presidents emphasized the need for defending the American “innermost and other interests and values that were threatened”.
It’s unclear whether all this has anything to do with humanitarian aims and interests of the Libyan people as stated in by the authors of the UN resolution.
Voice of Russia - March 20, 2011
Attack on Libya indiscriminate, disproportionate
Timur Blokhin
Russia, China and India have joined the African Union and the Arab League in denouncing the Western-led attack on Libya as disproportionate and indiscriminate. Indeed, reports speak about mounting civilian casualties in the offensive. At least 65 Libyan civilians are known dead and more than 150 wounded or injured.
One earlier victim of such attacks is Serbia, where NATO warplanes hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and a passenger train during the bombing campaign of 1999.
Dr George Vukadinovic is a political analyst in Belgrade:
"Similarly to the 1999 NATO campaign over Kosovo, the offensive in Libya is fraught with unpredictable political and economic consequences for Europe and the Mediterranean. I believe the European Union showed poor judgment in joining the Libya attack. The Libya resolution of the UN Security Council was the result of haste and unilateral pressure on the members. In the vote on the resolution, the much-hyped European unanimity on major issues showed cracks, with Germany abstaining."
We have a similar opinion from another Serbian analyst, Dr Gostemir Popovic:
"The attack on Libya is a unilateral action led by the United States. Dubbing Gaddafi an aggressor is part of American efforts to justify this war. It has nothing to do with the truth, because it is the attacking force that is killing Libyan civilians and destroying their once prosperous country. This war blatantly flouts international agreements. It must be stopped, and its masterminds brought to international justice. If this is not done, the entire Mediterranean may degenerate into unfettered violence. In 1999, the United States was after separating Kosovo. This time, it appears to be after splitting Libya. The pattern is the same, as is the puppet master behind the scenes."
The anti-Gaddafi coalition claims to have already knocked out 20 of Libya’s 22 air defence installations. It says this improves security for Libyan civilians and creates conditions for bringing aid to them.
Gaddafi, meantime, stays defiant and pledges everything in his power to defeat what he calls a Western aggression against his country. Civilian volunteers on the Gaddafi side are welcome to take up arms and join a popular militia. Gaddafi hopes this force can grow to at least one million within the coming days.
A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels
28 March 2011
The Libyan National Council, the Benghazi-based group that speaks for the rebel forces fighting the Gaddafi regime, has appointed a long-time CIA collaborator to head its military operations. The selection of Khalifa Hifter, a former colonel in the Libyan army, was reported by McClatchy Newspapers Thursday and the new military chief was interviewed by a correspondent for ABC News on Sunday night.
Hifter’s arrival in Benghazi was first reported by Al Jazeera on March 14, followed by a flattering portrait in the virulently pro-war British tabloid theDaily Mail on March 19. The Daily Mail described Hifter as one of the “two military stars of the revolution” who “had recently returned from exile in America to lend the rebel ground forces some tactical coherence.” The newspaper did not refer to his CIA connections.
McClatchy Newspapers published a profile of Hifter on Sunday. Headlined “New Rebel Leader Spent Much of Past 20 years in Suburban Virginia,” the article notes that he was once a top commander for the Gaddafi regime, until “a disastrous military adventure in Chad in the late 1980s.”
Hifter then went over to the anti-Gaddafi opposition, eventually emigrating to the United States, where he lived until two weeks ago when he returned to Libya to take command in Benghazi.
The McClatchy profile concluded, “Since coming to the United States in the early 1990s, Hifter lived in suburban Virginia outside Washington, DC.” It cited a friend who “said he was unsure exactly what Hifter did to support himself, and that Hifter primarily focused on helping his large family.”
To those who can read between the lines, this profile is a thinly disguised indication of Hifter’s role as a CIA operative. How else does a high-ranking former Libyan military commander enter the United States in the early 1990s, only a few years after the Lockerbie bombing, and then settle near the US capital, except with the permission and active assistance of US intelligence agencies? Hifter actually lived in Vienna, Virginia, about five miles from CIA headquarters in Langley, for two decades.
The agency was very familiar with Hifter’s military and political work. AWashington Post report of March 26, 1996 describes an armed rebellion against Gaddafi in Libya and uses a variant spelling of his name. The article cites witnesses to the rebellion who report that “its leader is Col. Khalifa Haftar, of a contra-style group based in the United States called the Libyan National Army.”
The comparison is to the “contra” terrorist forces financed and armed by the US government in the 1980s against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra scandal, which rocked the Reagan administration in 1986-87, involved the exposure of illegal US arms sales to Iran, with the proceeds used to finance the contras in defiance of a congressional ban. Congressional Democrats covered up the scandal and rejected calls to impeach Reagan for sponsoring the flagrantly illegal activities of a cabal of former intelligence operatives and White House aides.
A 2001 book, Manipulations africaines, published by Le Monde diplomatique, traces the CIA connection even further back, to 1987, reporting that Hifter, then a colonel in Gaddafi’s army, was captured fighting in Chad in a Libyan-backed rebellion against the US-backed government of Hissène Habré. He defected to the Libyan National Salvation Front (LNSF), the principal anti-Gaddafi group, which had the backing of the American CIA. He organized his own militia, which operated in Chad until Habré was overthrown by a French-supported rival, Idriss Déby, in 1990.
According to this book, “the Haftar force, created and financed by the CIA in Chad, vanished into thin air with the help of the CIA shortly after the government was overthrown by Idriss Déby.” The book also cites a Congressional Research Service report of December 19, 1996 that the US government was providing financial and military aid to the LNSF and that a number of LNSF members were relocated to the United States.
This information is available to anyone who conducts even a cursory Internet search, but it has not been reported by the corporate-controlled media in the United States, except in the dispatch from McClatchy, which avoids any reference to the CIA. None of the television networks, busily lauding the “freedom fighters” of eastern Libya, has bothered to report that these forces are now commanded by a longtime collaborator of US intelligence services.
Nor have the liberal and “left” enthusiasts of the US-European intervention in Libya taken note. They are too busy hailing the Obama administration for its multilateral and “consultative” approach to war, supposedly so different from the unilateral and “cowboy” approach of the Bush administration in Iraq. That the result is the same—death and destruction raining down on the population, the trampling of the sovereignty and independence of a former colonial country—means nothing to these apologists for imperialism.
The role of Hifter, aptly described 15 years ago as the leader of a “contra-style group,” demonstrates the real class forces at work in the Libyan tragedy. Whatever genuine popular opposition was expressed in the initial revolt against the corrupt Gaddafi dictatorship, the rebellion has been hijacked by imperialism.
The US and European intervention in Libya is aimed not at bringing “democracy” and “freedom,” but at installing in power stooges of the CIA who will rule just as brutally as Gaddafi, while allowing the imperialist powers to loot the country’s oil resources and use Libya as a base of operations against the popular revolts sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.
Patrick Martin
Un comandante della CIA per i ribelli libici
L’arrivo di Hifter a Bengasi è stato riportato da Al Jazeera il 14 marzo, seguito da un ritratto lusinghiero del tabloid britannico violentemente guerrafondaio Daily Mail del 19 marzo. Il Daily Mailha descritto Hifter come una delle “due stelle militari della rivoluzione“, che “era da poco tornato dal suo esilio negli USA per dare alle forze ribelli una certa coerenza tattica.” Il giornale non faceva riferimento ai suoi rapporti con la CIA.
Il quotidiano McClatchy ha pubblicato un profilo di Hifter, Domenica. Intitolato “Il nuovo leader dei ribelli ha trascorso gran parte degli ultimi 20 anni, nelle periferie della Virginia“, l’articolo osserva che una volta fu comandante superiore del regime di Gheddafi, fino “alla disastrosa avventura militare in Ciad, alla fine degli anni ’80.”
Hifter poi si avvicinò all’opposizione anti-Gheddafi, per emigrare infine negli Stati Uniti, dove ha vissuto fino a due settimane fa, quando è tornato in Libia per prendere il comando a Bengasi. Il profilo di McClatchy conclude: “Fin dal suo arrivo negli Stati Uniti, nei primi anni ’90, Hifter ha vissuto nella periferia di Washington, DC, in Virginia.” Viene citato un amico che “si è detto non essere sicuro di quello che Hifter ha fatto esattamente per mantenere se stesso, e che Hifter ha avuto soprattutto l’obiettivo di aiutare la sua numerosa famiglia.“
Per chi sa leggere tra le righe, questo profilo è una indicazione subdola del ruolo di Hifter come operativo della CIA. Come altro poteva, un alto ex comandante militare libico, entrare negli Stati Uniti nei primi anni ’90, pochi anni dopo l’attentato di Lockerbie, e poi stabilirsi nei pressi della capitale degli Stati Uniti, se non con il permesso e l’assistenza attiva delle agenzie di intelligence degli Stati Uniti? Hifter effettivamente ha vissuto per due decenni a Vienna, in Virginia, a circa cinque miglia dal quartier generale della CIA di Langley.
L’agenzia era molto familiare con il lavoro politico e militare di Hifter. Un articolo del Washington Post del 26 Marzo 1996 descrive una ribellione armata contro Gheddafi in Libia e utilizza una variante ortografia del suo nome. L’articolo cita testimoni della ribellione che segnalano che “il suo capo è il colonnello Khalifa Haftar, di un gruppo tipo contra, basato negli Stati Uniti è chiamato Libyan National Army“.
Il confronto è con le forze terroristiche “contra” finanziate e armate dal governo USA negli anni ’80, contro il governo sandinista in Nicaragua. Lo scandalo Iran-Contra, che ha scosso l’amministrazione Reagan nel 1986-87, riguardava la scoperta della vendita illegale di armi degli Stati Uniti all’Iran, e del loro ricavato utilizzato per finanziare i Contras, sfidando il divieto del Congresso. Democratici del Congresso coprirono lo scandalo e respinsero le richieste per mettere sotto accusa Reagan, per la sua sponsorizzazione delle attività palesemente illegali di una cricca di ex agenti dell’intelligence e di consiglieri della Casa Bianca.
In un libro del 2001, Manipulations africaines, pubblicato da Le Monde diplomatique, porta la connessione con la CIA ancora più indietro, al 1987, riferendo che Hifter, allora un colonnello esercito di Gheddafi, fu catturato in combattimento in Ciad durante la ribellione sostenuta dai libico contro il governo sostenuto dagli USA di Hissène Habré. Ha disertato aderendo al Fronte di Salvezza Nazionale libico (LNSF), il principale gruppo anti-Gheddafi che aveva l’appoggio della CIA statunitense. Ne organizzò la milizia, che operava in Ciad fino a quando Habré fu rovesciato dal rivale, supportato dai francesi, Idriss Déby, nel 1990.
Secondo questo libro, “la forza di Haftar, creata e finanziata dalla CIA, in Ciad, sparì nel nulla con l’aiuto della CIA, poco dopo che il governo fosse stato rovesciato da Idriss Déby.” Il libro cita anche un rapporto del Congressional Research Service del 19 dicembre 1996, secondo cui il governo degli Stati Uniti forniva aiuti finanziari e militari al LNSF e che un numero di membri del LNSF vennero trasferiti negli Stati Uniti.
Queste informazioni sono disponibili a chiunque conduca anche una sommaria ricerca su Internet, ma non è stata riportata dai mass media controllati dalle aziende negli Stati Uniti, fatta eccezione della notizia del McClatchy, che evita ogni riferimento alla CIA. Nessuna delle reti televisive, intenta a lodare i “combattenti per la libertà” della Libia orientale, si è preoccupato di segnalare che queste forze sono ora comandate da un collaboratore di lunga data dei servizi d’intelligence degli Stati Uniti.
Né i liberali né la “sinistra” entusiasta dell’intervento USA-Europa in Libia l’hanno notato. Essi sono troppo occupati nel salutare l’amministrazione Obama per il suo approccio alla guerra multilaterale e “consultivo“, apparentemente così diversa da quello unilaterale e da “cowboy” di Bush in Iraq. Il risultato è lo stesso: la morte e la distruzione che piovono sulla popolazione, e la sovranità e l’indipendenza calpestate di un paese ex-coloniale non significano nulla per questi apologeti dell’imperialismo.
Il ruolo di Hifter, giustamente descritto 15 anni fa come leader di un “gruppo tipo contra“, dimostra le vere forze di classe al lavoro nella tragedia libica. Eventualmente ci sia stata una vera opposizione popolare espressa nella rivolta iniziale contro la dittatura corrotta di Gheddafi, la ribellione è stata sequestrata dall’imperialismo.
L’intervento degli Stati Uniti ed Europeo in Libia, è rivolto non a portare la “democrazia” e “libertà“, ma all’installazione al potere di tirapiedi della CIA che governano brutalmente come Gheddafi, consentendo anche alle potenze imperialiste di saccheggiare le risorse petrolifere del paese e d’utilizzare la Libia come base delle operazioni contro le rivolte popolari che spazzano il Medio Oriente e Nord Africa.
http://it.peacereporter.net/articolo/27574/Il+possibile+successore+di+Gheddafi
Questo anonimo tecnocrate sessantenne, finora sconosciuto alle cronache, è stato per anni l'uomo chiave di Washington e Londra all'interno del regime del Colonnello Gheddafi. In qualità di direttore dell'Ufficio nazionale per lo sviluppo economico (Nedb) del governo libico, Jibril lavorava per facilitare la penetrazione economica e politica angloamericana in Libia promuovendo un radicale processo di privatizzazione e liberalizzazionedell'economia nazionale.
Dopo aver studiato e insegnato per anni 'pianif
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)