Covert US military support most likely underway from the beginning.
by Tony Cartalucci
Libya's Qaddafi stands between the United States and their campaign of destabilization and regime change across the oil laden region. Not only does this stall the Anglo-American agenda, it also sets a precedence of defiance other sovereign nations may duplicate under similar US-backed instability.
While "all options" are on the table, the US most likelyhas already provided Libya's Ibrahim Sahad's men
with military support - they had already done so in 1984.
There is no doubt that the unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Libya is US-backed. Libyan opposition leader Ibrahim Sahad of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) is literally sitting in front of the White House in Washington D.C. giving interviews, repeating verbatim the talking points covered by propaganda outfits like BBC, CNN, Fox News, and AlJazeera. Meanwhile, a myriad of US organizations are working in tandem with Sahad's calls for UN, EU, US, and NATO intervention.
What form might intervention take and is there a possibility that US military support is already underway? According to Brookings Institute's report "Which Path to Persia?" it is very possible military operations and support were planned well ahead of time.
In regards to sparking a revolution in Iran, Brookings concludes that Iran will most assuredly crush it at any cost, ensuring the revolution's failure. Considering this, Brookings insists certain measures must be taken to diminish Iran's ability to crush such a revolution (p 109, 110):
"Consequently, if the United states is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United states must be ready to intervene to defeat it."
One of the authors of "Which Path to Persia?" globalist RAND policy wonk & 9/11 Commission white-washer, Daniel Byman, has been quite vocal lately regarding Libya. In a piece written in Slate titled, "Things Could Get a Lot Worse in Libya," Byman concludes by saying a massive invasion of Libya is "not going to happen." Rather he suggests the US "organize the opposition to Qaddafi, encouraging a broad political front and urging military leaders to declare their support for this."
It turns out, according to the Library of Congress Federal Research Division archives, that Sahad's NFSL had attempted to violently overthrow Qaddafi in 1984. The Library of Congress document goes on to explain that "according to various sources, the United States Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] trained and supported" NFSL before and after the failed coup. With this back story, it is highly unlikely that US strategists naively expected a "Velvet Revolution" in Libya, and most likely modified their 1984 plans to overthrow Qaddafi with armed rebels.
While President Obama shamelessly lies to the world about US hands being clean of interference with Libya's sovereignty, it appears that the NFSL has a long history of being supported and directed by the US, most apparent with NFSL's leader currently operating out of Washington DC. It also appears that the NFSL is already armed to the teeth and waging a military campaign against Qadaffi on the back of US-stoked regional instability. Even Qaddafi himself is accusing the West of arming the NFSL in this latest round of Libyan unrest.
BBC propagandist unlikely narrative that Qaddafi's security forces were overwhelmed by unarmed protesters first in Banghazi's city center, then nearly 10 miles to the east at Benina International Airport and a nearby army base defies reality. These claims are also admittedly impossible to verify and reminiscent of intentionally deceptive reports of "Russia invading Georgia" in 2008, when in reality, US equipped Georgian troops ignited the conflict under the leadership of US educated (funded by the US State Department Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellowship) President Mikhail Saakashvili, who himself came to power in the 2003 US-backed "Rose Revolution."
BBC continues its campaign of unsubstantiated, unverified reporting to justify the ongoing, US-backed, armed insurrection inside of Libya. They are going through extraordinary measures to misrepresent the Libyan uprising as a spontaneous revolt spurred by the Tunisian and Egyptian protests, regardless of Ibrahim Sahad's premeditated and overt involvement. BBC and other propaganda outfits are also attempting to build a case for US or possibly NATO intervention if Sahad's men are balked once again.
With the desperate shape of the US economy and the prospect of this destabilization effort failing in Libya and emboldening other nations suffering similar fates to fight back, it is an all or nothing gambit for the Anglo-Americans.
Elliot Abrams, (CFR, PNAC) recently issued a personal threat to Qadaffi and his intelligence chief that they would both meet the "same fate as Saddam Hussein," if any American is attacked in the wake of sterner US threats against Libya. Whether he meant Saddam's kangaroo court trial and hanging, or the decimation of his country and the death of a million Iraqis based on fraud and lies, readers cannot be certain. What is certain is the high price Libya will pay regardless of whether it defends its sovereignty or is folded into the degenerate Anglo-American unipolar world order.
by Tony Cartalucci
Libya's Qaddafi stands between the United States and their campaign of destabilization and regime change across the oil laden region. Not only does this stall the Anglo-American agenda, it also sets a precedence of defiance other sovereign nations may duplicate under similar US-backed instability.
While "all options" are on the table, the US most likelyhas already provided Libya's Ibrahim Sahad's men with military support - they had already done so in 1984.
There is no doubt that the unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Libya is US-backed. Libyan opposition leader Ibrahim Sahad of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) is literally sitting in front of the White House in Washington D.C. giving interviews, repeating verbatim the talking points covered by propaganda outfits like BBC, CNN, Fox News, and AlJazeera. Meanwhile, a myriad of US organizations are working in tandem with Sahad's calls for UN, EU, US, and NATO intervention.
What form might intervention take and is there a possibility that US military support is already underway? According to Brookings Institute's report "Which Path to Persia?" it is very possible military operations and support were planned well ahead of time.
In regards to sparking a revolution in Iran, Brookings concludes that Iran will most assuredly crush it at any cost, ensuring the revolution's failure. Considering this, Brookings insists certain measures must be taken to diminish Iran's ability to crush such a revolution (p 109, 110):
"Consequently, if the United states is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United states must be ready to intervene to defeat it."
One of the authors of "Which Path to Persia?" globalist RAND policy wonk & 9/11 Commission white-washer, Daniel Byman, has been quite vocal lately regarding Libya. In a piece written in Slate titled, "Things Could Get a Lot Worse in Libya," Byman concludes by saying a massive invasion of Libya is "not going to happen." Rather he suggests the US "organize the opposition to Qaddafi, encouraging a broad political front and urging military leaders to declare their support for this."
It turns out, according to the Library of Congress Federal Research Division archives, that Sahad's NFSL had attempted to violently overthrow Qaddafi in 1984. The Library of Congress document goes on to explain that "according to various sources, the United States Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] trained and supported" NFSL before and after the failed coup. With this back story, it is highly unlikely that US strategists naively expected a "Velvet Revolution" in Libya, and most likely modified their 1984 plans to overthrow Qaddafi with armed rebels.
While President Obama shamelessly lies to the world about US hands being clean of interference with Libya's sovereignty, it appears that the NFSL has a long history of being supported and directed by the US, most apparent with NFSL's leader currently operating out of Washington DC. It also appears that the NFSL is already armed to the teeth and waging a military campaign against Qadaffi on the back of US-stoked regional instability. Even Qaddafi himself is accusing the West of arming the NFSL in this latest round of Libyan unrest.
BBC propagandist unlikely narrative that Qaddafi's security forces were overwhelmed by unarmed protesters first in Banghazi's city center, then nearly 10 miles to the east at Benina International Airport and a nearby army base defies reality. These claims are also admittedly impossible to verify and reminiscent of intentionally deceptive reports of "Russia invading Georgia" in 2008, when in reality, US equipped Georgian troops ignited the conflict under the leadership of US educated (funded by the US State Department Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellowship) President Mikhail Saakashvili, who himself came to power in the 2003 US-backed "Rose Revolution."
BBC continues its campaign of unsubstantiated, unverified reporting to justify the ongoing, US-backed, armed insurrection inside of Libya. They are going through extraordinary measures to misrepresent the Libyan uprising as a spontaneous revolt spurred by the Tunisian and Egyptian protests, regardless of Ibrahim Sahad's premeditated and overt involvement. BBC and other propaganda outfits are also attempting to build a case for US or possibly NATO intervention if Sahad's men are balked once again.
With the desperate shape of the US economy and the prospect of this destabilization effort failing in Libya and emboldening other nations suffering similar fates to fight back, it is an all or nothing gambit for the Anglo-Americans.
Elliot Abrams, (CFR, PNAC) recently issued a personal threat to Qadaffi and his intelligence chief that they would both meet the "same fate as Saddam Hussein," if any American is attacked in the wake of sterner US threats against Libya. Whether he meant Saddam's kangaroo court trial and hanging, or the decimation of his country and the death of a million Iraqis based on fraud and lies, readers cannot be certain. What is certain is the high price Libya will pay regardless of whether it defends its sovereignty or is folded into the degenerate Anglo-American unipolar world order.
