- As seems to be the usual pattern for US globalist leaders,
whether Republican or Democrat, the humanitarian intervention in Libya
was just a pretext for a broader war that was preplanned even before the
non-spontaneous revolt by opposition leaders. Moammar Gaddafi's air defense
sites and air bases have all been destroyed by cruise missiles, and now
the US and its allies are having trouble finding excuses to continue the
attack. Anything that moves on the ground militarily is now a new target
eagerly sought out, as is Gaddafi's bunker complex in Tripoli. But air
attacks alone aren't going to remove Gaddaffi, who is determined to turn
this into a long and protracted conflict. At some point the US is going
to have to justify an invasion, either directly or by surrogates, and that
won't be easy to do given the mounting opposition to this trumped up and
- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is the man
on the hot seat and he isn't doing a very good job convincing the public
that this is just a minor police action, as he tried to do in the beginning.
Gates admitted mid-week that "there is no timeline for the end of
the US-led assault on Libya" as international opposition to the invasion
continues to grow. In other words, the US is staying in the fight, even
as they claim they want NATO to take over, for as long as it takes to accomplish
- There is also increasing evidence that this was
planned and provoked well in advance, just like the invasion of Afghanistan,
that used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext. Russia Today (RT television) happened
to be filming Gates walking along with General Petraeus in Afghanistan
when the two exchanged this little embarrassing slip: Petraeus asks off-handedly
if they were going to invade Libya? "Yeah, exactly" said Gates,
who is now claiming he was being sarcastic. Yet, during a prior visit to
Cairo, Robert Gates said no one was in a position to predict what would
happen in Libya. Sure!
- Michel Chossudovsky points out the revolt was provoked
by western backed opposition: "the entire Libyan rebel movement has
been backed by the US and UK for nearly 3 years. The initial calls for
a Libyan 'Day of Rage' came not from the streets of Benghazi, but from
the London based National Conference for Libyan Opposition (NCLO). NCLO
leader Ibrahim Sahad was literally sitting in front of the White House
giving an interview to the Western media in the opening stages of the Libyan
unrest, talking about the West's desire to militarily intervene with a
- The Wall Street Journal noted the presence of Egyptian
mercenaries: "...the latest Egyptian operation to arm Libyan rebels
had started several days ago and is ongoing."
- Stratfor, with ties to the CIA, reported that, "While
all this was going on and before final decisions were made,special operations
forces were inserted in Libya on two missions. First, to make contact with
insurgent forces to prepare them for coming events, create channels of
communications and logistics and create a post-war political framework.
The second purpose was to identify targets for attack and conduct reconnaissance
of those targets that provided as up-to-date information as possible. This,
combined with air and space reconnaissance, served as the foundations of
the war. We know British SAS operators were in Libya and suspect other
countries' special operations forces and intelligence services were also
- Former NATO commander General Wesley Clark inferred in
an interview this week that the bombing of Libya has been on the drawing
board of the Pentagon for several years. The Financial Times recorded a
comment by a western official at the NATO negotiations that added fuel
to the provocation fire. When asked whether or not any of them could get
their act together and assume command of the US operation he replied "NATO
countries have beenworking for weeks to have the alliance assume effective
command of the mission." Given that the mission is only a week old,
that means this was planned in advance.
- The source to the Times added that "As we got closer
and closer to closing the deal at Nato, France suddenly blocked everything,
which confused us at first ... But then it became clear -
- [French president Nicolas] Sarkozy wanted to announce
strikes just as he was walking out of his meeting in Paris where he was
leading the show." This is typical of European infighting. Even though
the US has predictable globalists in every major government in Europe,
they are each jockeying for recognition and power with the EU and keep
stabbing each other in the back.
- "French officials denied acting alone in Saturday's
attack, saying the plan had always called for French fighters to kick off
the operation followed by British and American missile attacks, French
diplomats said." This quote strongly implies a closed door agreement
between the US, Britain and France (and probably Italy) that the rest of
the EU was supposed to go along with. That didn't happen.
- While the US is still desperate for someone else to front
for the war, NATO completely failed this week to agree on who should have
command. Turkey was the main stickler, having been kept out of the initial
secret negotiations between the US, Britain and France that had given France
the major glory role. While NATO has claimed as of today that they are
taking over command, other sources revealed that the current coalition
(US, France and Britain) is still "retaining control over certain
aspects." What that means is that the NATO command is a puppet front.
In spite of the show of unity, let me take you through the problems in
the negotiations to show how little unity there really is.
- "After ambassadors of the 28-nation alliance ended
a third day of wrangling in Brussels without a deal, one senior NATO diplomat
said: 'No decision on anything.' Turkey, a Muslim ally, said it did not
want NATO to take responsibility for offensive operations that could cause
civilian casualties or be in charge of enforcing a U.N.-mandated no-fly
zone while coalition aircraft were simultaneously bombing Libyan forces."
That's understandable for the lone Muslim nation in NATO, but the real
reasons have to do with Turkey wanting to exercise her veto for having
been slighted on this and other issues, including failure of the EU to
allow her to join the economic Union in addition to NATO.
- "Turkey, a NATO member that has expressed reservations
about the military intervention, also blocked a move to give the alliance
command and control responsibilities during a Sunday night meeting. The
Turkish government was upset that its representatives had not been invited
to Paris for a summit on the crisis. Other non-European Union members of
NATO, including Norway, were included. Yesterday, Turkey gave in after
being promised unspecified concessions for the future.
- "In desperation after Wednesday's failures, the
French proposed a new political 'committee' to oversee operations--supposedly
giving no one the limelight as leader. That didn't fly either, especially
when the French wanted to have a predominance of members from France and
Britain--a new Anglo-French alliance as in WWII. Sarkozy is posturing for
the limelight as he is in trouble for reelection. In fact, almost every
European leader is under increasing threat of disapproval at home over
the Libyan affair and needs to carve out some political capital from it
if they are going to foot the cost and the blame in the future.
- "Failing to come to an agreement, Germany pulled
out the largest share of its military equipment, two frigates, and an AWACS
surveillance aircraft, but the US is luring them back in with financial
bribes as well. The temporary withdrawal was mainly for show since the
Americans don't trust any but themselves for command and control. The feint
of a withdrawal was a backhanded way of telling the Americans how tired
the Europeans are of playing second fiddle and covering for US black operations.
The Italians, meanwhile, who have had the lion's share of cheap oil from
Libya (a former colony) accused the French of backing the NATO agreement
only with promises of more oil from Libya after its all over. Finally on
Thursday NATO finally had paid off enough of the opposition states to forge
an agreement. However, the show of disunity mares its significance."
- There was also a verbal disagreement between the US and
Britain over whether or not Gaddafi was a legitimate target for assassination.
Canada's PM Harper already let the cat out of the bag that Gaddafi's elimination
was what the US was shooting for. U.K. government officials were mincing
words about killing the Libyan leader, but only if it would prevent civilian
deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution. And how about the deaths caused
by the US bombing? A funeral was held Thursday for civilian victims, but
the US is denying they did it--as usual.
- The Russians and Chinese play both sides, as usual. Russian
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday lashed out at the "steady
trend" of US military intervention around the world, accusing Washington
of acting without conscience or logic.' And yet Russia didn't use its veto,
because it wanted to eavesdrop on US and NATO military operations. But
the Ruskies failed to get any data on the effectiveness of the Russian
supplied anti-aircraft missiles sold to Libya. They were all destroyed
by cruise missiles before any could be launched.
- Is this another no win war? Probably not even though
several U.K. ministers say war could last thirty years. Libya does not
have the terrain that lends itself to a long guerrilla war like Afghanistan
or Vietnam. They aren't self-sufficient in agriculture and now have few
sources of income with oil production and exportation shut down.
- If the US has to start attacking civilian cities--so
much for their humanitarian concerns--they will do so in order to get this
over with. Not because they think what they did was wrong in provoking
this war, but because the current Democratic administration is losing credibility
fast with its core constituency who were promised a change from the aggressive,
interventionist Bush era policies that brought down the Republicans. They
know the American public is getting weary of all these wars.
- For various reasons, I'm suspicious that the US may be
instigating this attack on Libya for reasons other than allowing a radical
Islamic state to emerge. That hasn't panned out yet in Egypt either now
that the military is in charge--and they aren't giving the Muslim Brotherhood
the time of day. That, of course, could still happen both in Egypt and
Libya. We know very little about who the US is backing in the opposition
- All the talk about al Qaeda is just so much
propaganda. Al Qaeda, at the top, is a US and British creation so globalists
can jerk the chain of anti-terrorism any time they want to justify a new
intervention. Ironically, when Gaddaffi cries that he is fighting al Qaeda,
no one gives him any credence. But when the Western press blames something
on al Qaeda, the dumbed down public believes them.
- Now that the US African Command is running this show,
I suspect that the US is about to open another anti-terror and anti-dictator
front in Africa and use Libyan military occupation as a jumping off base
to start dictating to other countries in Africa. The Sudan, just south
of Libya is ripe for intervention. And then there is Somalia. This might
just be the reason the US has been playing soft with pirates and not invading
their safe harbors in Somalia. This might be the time for them to pull
that excuse out of the hat. In short, there's no shortage of countries
in Africa with dictators that the globalists and excuses for intervention.
- Meanwhile, the rest of the Middle East is still
aflame. Protestors were shot dead in Syria, and Yemen is falling to political
unrest. Bahrain has Saudi troops inside the country, and I wouldn't be
surprised if the insurrection starts up again in the Saudi Kingdom itself--after
having fizzled the first time. The "Day of Rage" didn't amount
to much. President Assad made a public statement hinting at giving Syrians
greater freedom to appease the public outcry after the killing of 37 protestors.
- Neoconservative Foreign Policy Still Reigns: The long
term implications of more foreign intervention are not good. Philip
Geraldi expresses the sense of those who are tired of US hegemony:
"One of the enduring mysteries is why neoconservative foreign policy
continues to dominate the Republican Party and also large parts of the
Democratic Party even though that policy has been disastrous for the United
- "No one - not even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
- is willing to call the two land wars currently underway in Asia successful
(there are others) and the hemorrhage of more than $12 billion a month
to support the conflicts does nothing whatsoever for a struggling US economy
unless one is a defense contractor. Yet the view that the United States
must use its waning power to remake much of the globe prevails. The policy
is in some circles underwritten by the myth that the United States is a
special nation that makes it somehow immune to the history of the decline
and fall of past empires."
- It's true. Very few Americans believe the US could fall.
It can and it will if our globalist leaders continue down this path. That
is, in fact, just what they are intending--to foment a huge backlash to
US bullying that will induce a nuclear war someday, attacking America,
giving them the excuse to force us into a New World Order for protection
and the prosecution of another "war to end all wars."
- TEPID REPUBLICAN RESPONSE
- While I find it refreshing that someone other than just
Ron Paul is protesting Obama going to war without Congressional approval,
the Republican opposition is tepid and not intended to stop this continuing
intervention. The key unconstitutional aspects are not be prosecuted.
- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is making
the news with his critique of the attack on Libya, but he is only asking
questions that can easily be answered with diplomatic doubletalk. After
all, this is the same White House he is addressing that told Democratic
and Republican congressional aides Tuesday that the U.S. is "not at
war with Libya." Incredible.
- The media claims Boehner sent Obama a "scathing
letter" that "demands answers to the run-up to engagement in
the region and hits the White House for first consulting the United Nations
and the Arab League, but not Congress." All this just evades the real
issue. If Boehner is only demanding that Congress be consulted, he doesn't
understand the constitution--which gives Congress the exclusive power to
wage war. Perhaps that is why the White House won't admit this is war.
- According to Politico.com "Boehner wrote in the
letter that he is 'troubled' the United States
- military has been engaged in the attacks on Libya 'without
clearly defining what the mission is and what America's role is in achieving
the goal." Only troubled? And, how hard is it for the State Department
to come forward with some esoteric goals to answer his critique? -Even
if they are lies.
- "The questions touch on the U.N. resolution, among
other things. Boehner notes that the U.S. has said Col. Mommar Qadhafi
should step down, but the resolution does not indicate a similar goal.
Given that, Boehner asks if it would be acceptable for Qadhafi to stay
in power, how he'd be removed from power, and why the U.S. would 'commit
American resources to enforcing a U.N. resolution that is inconsistent
with our stated policy goals and national interest.'
- "The speaker asks which nations are in the lead,
if there are clear lines of authority and responsibility and whether the
mission involves attacking 'land-based battlefield activities.' And if
other nations drop their support, Boehner wants to know if the U.S. will
'take on an increased role.' He's also seeking information on when the
Americans will hand over control, and how long after that U.S. forces will
be involved. And if Qadhafi stays in power, how long a no-fly zone would
stay in place."
- These are all nice questions, but equally simple to defer
or evade by saying "we won't know until we get further down the road."
Also, he wants the administration's plans to engage with opposition forces,
also inquiring what 'standards must a new regime meet to be recognized
by' the U.S. government. The budget-slashing Republican leader also wants
to know the cost of the mission, and if the administration will seek a
supplemental funding measure for military actions."
- Boehner knows quite well that there are no answers to
these questions. They all depend on future events unknown. Instead of asking
rhetorical questions, he ought to say "Stop, in the name of the Law
(the Constitution)" Congress will set the parameters and then tell
you if and when you can go to war.
- The cost is already piling up. The Pentagon had to request
emergency funding from Congress to pay for it. The first day of Operation
Odyssey Dawn cost about $100 million for the U.S. in missiles alone."
So, if the Republican controlled Congress objects to not being consulted,
why do they agree to pay?
- The hardcore opposition from Sen. Rand Paul and his father
Congressman Ron Paul are once again going to force Congress to address
a declaration of war. Both will introduce into their respective chambers
a declaration of war on Libya, which they do not intend to support. This
follows after what Ron Paul did during the Iraq war in an attempt to force
Congress to go on record with proper justification--something he knew they
- The earlier attempt by Ron Paul elicited the infamous
retort by House Speaker Henry Hyde that, "There are things in the
Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of
war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.
Why declare war if you don't have to? We are saying to the President, use
your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something
to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called
for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore."
- So not only has Congress informally repudiated its war
powers in Ron Paul's day, but it now is reluctant to even bring it up.
The only thing Paul's protest in committee did was add to our proofs of
conspiracy. Hyde's remarks were edited out of the video tape and the audio
tape of the hearings by two separate entities--one private (C-Span) and
the other public (Congressional Recording Office). Somebody got to both
of them to protect Hyde from having publicly denigrated the Constitution
and his oath of office to it.
- What it adds up to is this: The president skipped town
for a tour of South America so he couldn't be called before Congress to
justify his actions. It was doubtful his hiding was necessary. As a defense,
he could very well have said that the White House did send a team to brief
a "select few" in Congress--which was true. But they were sworn
to secrecy in an intelligence briefing, which hardly constitutes the constitutional
approval of Congress to declare war.
- The more volatile issue that the White House is desperate
to avoid is the resurrection of the video of 2007 when then SeNATOr
Joe Biden was pressed to repeat his position that then President Bush
should be impeached because he went to war without a declaration of war.
Not only did he confirm that this was his position he told Matthews, "I
was head of the Judiciary Committee for seven years. I taught constitutional
law. The president has no constitutional authority to take this country
to war against another country without the approval of Congress."
He then repeated his claim earlier to Matthews that "Yes, this was
an impeachable offense."
- So where is Joe Biden now? Why, he's the Vice President
to Barack Obama who just went to war without the approval of Congress,
and without a whimper of protest from Biden. In 2007 Biden had merely jumped
on the bandwagon attacking Bush for reasons of political expediency but
he's now quite silent. Worse, there are only a handful of Republican statesmen
that countenance a proposal to impeach the president. There would be an
immediate retort, "It just isn't done anymore!" Sad but true.
- The president did TELL Congress he was engaging in military
actions, and someone should at least hold Obama accountable for the soon-to-be-clear
lies he told:
- "On March 19, 2011, at my direction [not Congress],
U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort
authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken
with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian
catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security
by the crisis in Libya."
- We know the humanitarian pretense is a ruse. If the US
were serious, they would have long ago invaded Zimbabwe where thousands
have been killed and tortured under a communist reign of terror and land
confiscation. North Korea is also a much bigger threat than Iran or
Libya,and yet we give them guarantees against any military intervention
and promises not to seek regime change. The Sudan and Somalis also have
much blood on their hands, but there is no invasion there either.
- How can Obama prove that the internal affairs of Libya
constituted a threat to international peace and security? When Libya was
sending thousands of fighters to engage in warfare in Iraq, no such claim
was made about posing a threat to International peace!
- Obama continues, "These strikes will be limited
in their nature, duration, and scope. Their
- purpose is....to support an international coalition as
it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1973." However, the allied response was a partial
violation of its own UN resolutionwhich calls for a ban of ALL weapons
into Libya. But the US and Britain are supplying rebels with weapons.
- Here's the expansion clause: "These limited U.S.
actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners."
That's an open door to invasion and occupation.
- Even bigger than the Biden quote for political expediency
was Obama's campaign statement which directly contradicts what he is doing
now. Fred Lucas of CNS News reports: "As a presidential candidate,
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does
not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military
attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the
United States. Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with
the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances
the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without
first seeking authorization from Congress.
- "'The President does not have power under the Constitution
to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,' Obama responded."
Explain that away.
- In a harshly worded statement Monday evening, Rep. Roscoe
Bartlett (R-Md.) said that "The United States does not have a king's
army... President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force
in Libya is an affront to our Constitution,"
- But those too are hollow words without a bill of impeachment.
But that won't ever come especially with the weasel words of establishment
SeNATOrs like Dick Lugar, a ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and a frequent ally of the president on foreign policy, who called
for a "full congressional debate on the objectives and costs... and
a declaration of war if it goes on." Hearings are always a means to
a cover-up. We'll never see a declaration of war, especially when Gaddaffi
has not done a thing to attack the US.
- Finally, not a few anti-American leaders have called
for Obama's Peace Prize to be revoked. It should never have been given,
except that it served globalist political purposes. I'll end this section
with words from Ben Stein, American political writer, lawyer and author,
who is very upset:
- "Maybe I missed something, but wasn't that The Constitution
of the United States of America that we just laid to rest this weekend?
It was buried in a private ceremony by Mr. Barack Obama of Chicago as he
silently signed America on to the One World Government some of us have
been worried about for decades.
- "Look at it this way: Where did Mr. Obama get the
authority to commit United States forces to war in Libya? There was no
declaration of war. There was no authorizing resolution by Congress allowing
money to be spent on a war against Col. Gaddafi... There was no lengthy
buildup in which the Congress was 'allowed' to express the people's opinion
on whether we want to be in a third concurrent war. There was just a vote
by the United Nations Security Council, a very far from unanimous vote,
and suddenly, the President's Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
solemnly announced that we were at war.
- "But, when did we amend the Constitution to declare
that the United Nations had control over our military? When did we abolish
the part of the Constitution that said Congress had the right to declare
war? Now, I well know that in recent postwar conflicts, we don't have declarations
of war. But we have Congressional debates. We have funding votes. We have
a sense of the Congress or some kind of resolution. This time, zip. Nada.
Nothing. Just France and the U.K. and Norway saying that it's time to go
to war, and off America goes to war. And off Mr. and Mrs. Obama go to a
South American 'fact finding' trip for the POTUS and a fun sightseeing
junket for the Obama girls." Yes, it's enough to make us despair.
But this is just the beginning of wars. It's going to get worse folks.
Be prepared. Don't just be a passive observer.
- World Affairs Brief, March 25, 2011 Commentary
and Insights on a Troubled World. Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations
with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs
- World Affairs Brief, 290 West 580 South, Orem, Ut 84058