Boko Haram A Blessing For Imperialism In Africa:

The Americans now admit they are training battalions of African Rangers and counterinsurgency troops. The next step is the proliferation of death squads in West Africa, as the U.S. did in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Nigeria’s schoolgirls may or may not be rescued, but U.S. and European “humanitarian” military interventionists have already gained more than they could have imagined.

“NATO’s aggression against Libya begat the sub-Saharan chaos that justified the French and U.S. occupation of Mali and Niger.”

Militarily, Africa is fast becoming an American continent. Barack Obama, who has been president for all but the first year of AFRICOM’s existence, has succeeded in integrating U.S. fighting units, bases, training regimens, equipment and financing into the military structures of all but a handful of African nations. The great pan-Africanist and former Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah’s dream of a militarily united Africa has been all but realized – with Americans and Europeans in charge. Under the guise of “humanitarian” intervention, Obama has vastly expanded Bill Clinton and George Bush’s African footprints, so that only a few patches on the continental map lie outside Washington’s sphere of operations. Eritrea and Zimbabwe are the notable exceptions – and, therefore, future targets.

Africa is occupied territory. The African Union doesn’t even pretend to be in charge of its own nominal peace-keeping missions, which are little more than opportunities for African militaries to get paid for doing the West’s bidding. China and Brazil may be garnering the lion’s share of trade with Africa, but the men with the guns are loyal to AFRICOM – the sugar daddy to the continent’s military class. U.S. troops now sleep in African barracks, brothers in arms with African officers who can determine who will sleep next week in the presidential mansion.

The pace of U.S. penetration of West Africa has quickened dramatically since 2011, when Obama bombed Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan government out of existence, setting a flood of jihadists and weapons streaming east to Syria and south to destabilize the nations of the Sahel. Chaos ensued – beautiful chaos, if you are a U.S. military planner seeking justification for ever-larger missions. NATO’s aggression against Libya begat the sub-Saharan chaos that justified the French and U.S. occupation of Mali and Niger. Hyperactive North African jihadists, empowered by American bombs, weapons and money, trained and outfitted their brethren on the continent, including elements of Nigeria’s Boko Haram. The Hausa-speaking Islamic warriors then bequeathed AFRICOM a priceless gift: nearly 300 schoolgirls in need of rescuing, perfect fodder for “humanitarian” intervention.

Nobody had to ask twice that Obama “Do something!”

The heads of Nigeria, Chad, Niger, Benin and Cameroon were summoned to Paris (pretending it was their idea) where they declared “total war” on Boko Haram, as “observers” from the U.S., France, Britain and the European Union (Africa’s past and future stakeholders) looked on. French President Francois Hollande said “a global and regional action plan” would come out of the conference.

“The heads of Nigeria, Chad, Niger, Benin and Cameroon were summoned to Paris where they declared ‘total war’ on Boko Haram.”

Of course, the five African states have neither the money, training, equipment nor intelligence gathering capacity for such a plan. It will be a Euro-American plan for the defense and security of West Africa – against other Africans. Immediately, the U.S. sent 80 troops to Chad (whose military has long been a mercenary asset of France) to open up a new drone base, joining previously existing U.S. drone fields in Niger, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Seychelles Islands, Djibouti (home to a huge French and American base), and CIA sites that need not be disclosed.

The new West African security grouping became an instant imprint of NATO, an appendage to be shaped by imperial military planners to confront enemies chosen by Washington and Paris.

What a miracle of humanitarian military momentum! The girls had only been missing for a month, and might not be rescued alive, but five neighboring African countries – one of them the biggest economy on the continent – had already been dragooned into a NATO-dominated military alliance with other subordinate African states.

It soon turned out that AFRICOM already had a special relationship with the Nigerian military that was not announced until after the schoolgirls’ abduction. AFRICOM will train a battalion of Nigerian Rangers in counterinsurgency warfare, the first time that the Command has provided “full spectrum” training to Africans on such a scale.

With the American public in a “Save our girls” interventionist frame of mind, operations that were secret suddenly became public. The New York Times reveals that the U.S. has been running a secret program to train counterterrorism battalions for Niger and Mauritania. Elite Green Berets and Delta Force killers are instructing handpicked commandos in counterinsurgency in Mali, as well. The identity of one Times source leaves little doubt that the previously secret operations are designed to blanket the region with U.S. trained death squads. Michael Sheehan was until last year in charge of Special Operations at the Pentagon – Death Squads Central – where he pushed for more Special Ops trainers for African armies. Sheehan now holds the “distinguished chair” at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center. In the 1980s, he was a Special Forces commander in Latin America – which can only mean death squads.

“AFRICOM will train a battalion of Nigerian Rangers in counterinsurgency warfare.”

U.S. Army Special Forces have always been political killers, most often operating with the CIA. The Phoenix Program, in Vietnam, which murdered between 26,000 and 41,000 people and tortured many more, was a CIA-Special Forces war crime. From 1975 to deep into the 80s, the CIA and its Special Forces muscle provided technical support and weapons to killers for Operation Condor, the death squads run by a consortium of military governments in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil, believed responsible for 60,000 murders. Sheehan was probably involved in Operation Condor and its Central American component, Operation Charly, and has perfected the art of political murder, ever since. If he is happy and feeling vindicated by events in Africa, then U.S.-trained death squads are about to proliferate in that part of the world.

There is no question that Obama is enamored of Special Ops, since small unit murders by professional killers at midnight look less like war – and can, if convenient, be blamed on (other) “terrorists.” However, history – recent history – proves the U.S. can get away with almost limitless carnage in Africa. Ethiopia’s 2006 invasion of Somalia, backed by U.S. forces on land, air and sea, resulted in “the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa” at the time, “worse than Darfur,” according to UN observers, with hundreds of thousands dead. The U.S. then withheld food aid to starve out Somali Shabaab fighters, leading to even more catastrophic loss of life. But, most Americans are oblivious to such crimes againstBlack humanity.

U.S. ally Ethiopia commits genocide against ethnic Somalis in its Ogaden region with absolute impunity, and bars the international media from the region. Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama – each of them with help from Susan Rice – have collectively killed six million Congolese since 1996. The greatest genocide since World War Two was the premeditated result of the chaos deliberately imposed on mineral-rich Congo by the U.S. and its henchmen in neighboring Rwanda and Uganda. Paul Kagame, the current leader of Rwanda, shot down a plane with two presidents aboard in 1994, sparking the mass killings that brought Kagame to power and started neighboring Congo on the road to hell. America celebrates Kagame as a hero, although the Tutsi tribal dictator sends death squads all over the world to snuff out those who oppose him.

“The U.S. can get away with almost limitless carnage in Africa.”

Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni, a friend of the U.S. since Ronald Reagan, committed genocidal acts against his rivals from the Acholi tribe, throwing them into concentration camps. Joseph Kony was one of these Acholis, who apparently went crazy. Kony hasn’t been a threat to Uganda or any other country in the region for years, but President Obama used a supposed sighting of remnants of his Lords Resistance Army to send 100 Green Berets to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Rwanda, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan. Just last month, Obama sent 150 more troops and four aircraft to central Africa, again claiming that Kony was lurking, somewhere.

Actually, the American troops were deployed near South Sudan, which the U.S, Britain and Israel had destabilized for decades in an effort to split it off from the larger nation of Sudan. South Sudan became independent, but it remained unstable – not a nation, but a place with oil that the U.S. coveted. Many tens of thousands more are certain to die in fighting in South Sudan, but few Americans will blame their own country.

As the carnage in Congo demonstrates, whole populations can be made to disappear in Africa without most people in the West noticing. The death squads the Americans are training in Nigeria, Niger, Mauretania and Mali, and those that will soon be stalking victims in Cameroon and Benin, will not be limited to hunting Boko Haram. Death squads are, by definition, destabilizing; they poison the political and social environment beyond repair, as Central Americans who lived through the 80s can attest.

Yet, that is U.S. imperialism’s preferred method of conquest in the non-white world. It’s what the Americans actually do, when folks demand that they “Do something.”

By Glen Ford 

Meddling In Other People's Business

Mehdi Hasan Goes Head To Head With Bernard-Henri Levy On The Rights and Wrongs Of Foreign Intervention.

Courtesy Of Al-Jazeera

From Bosnia in 1994 to Syria today, via Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Mali, is western military intervention ever justified?

In this episode of Head to Head at the Oxford Union, Mehdi Hasan challenges one of the world’s most renowned public intellectuals, Bernard-Henri Levy, on the rights and wrongs of liberal intervention, and the difference between humanitarian concerns and the pursuit of special interests.

Levy is France’s most famous philosopher, a journalist and bestselling author of more than 30 books, with Left in Dark Times: A Stand Against the New Barbarism being his most recent book. He is the founder of the New Philosophers' movement and a leading thinker on humanitarian intervention.

Levy has undertaken important missions for the French government in the world's most troubled areas and was famously instrumental in getting NATO to act quickly and decisively in Libya. He now wants the same to be done in Syria: “Bashar al-Assad is a paper tiger because he’s weak, therefore it is doable,” argues Levy, “We cannot let the blood bath go on like this!”

“When I hear liberal interventionists make this case it always seem to be either we bomb or we do nothing,” replies Al Jazeera's Mehdi Hasan. “Is there no middle ground? Is there no coercive diplomacy?”

Joining this discussion are: Dr Rama Mani, an expert on peace, justice and human security and a senior research associate of the University of Oxford’s Centre for International Studies, she has also co-authored a book onResponsibility to Protect: Cultural Perspectives from the global South  and has formed part of peace-building missions across Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan; Peter Oborne, a broadcaster who has made documentaries on Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a political commentator for The Spectatorand The Daily Telegraph , the author of The Rise of Political Lying, And A moral Duty to Act amongst others; and Salma Yaqoob, a former leader of the Respect Party, a socialist political party in the UK, and one of the founders of the Stop the War Coalition , she is also a critic of indiscriminate liberal interventionism.

World Plans Post-Assad Syria Deployment

Exclusive Al Jazeera Report Details World Body's Plans For Troop Deployment If Bashar Al-Assad's Regime Falls.

For more than two years, the world has stood by as the violence in Syria has intensified.

Both Bashar al-Assad's government and the opposition seem determined to fight to the death.

Arab and Western capitals have watched the events with horror, but there is little appetite for intervention: Neither the humanitarian price of well over a million registered refugees - although the real figure is much larger - nor a death toll of at least 70,000 have proved to be "tipping points" for the international community.

Nevertheless, world leaders have been drawing up contingency plans in case the situation in Syria decisively changes.

Most commentators believe that in the end, Assad's regime will collapse. Opposition forces have been regularly capturing small villages and patches of land, and the Assad regime has lost effective control of large parts of the country and many of its supply lines.

Conversations in recent weeks with ministers, ambassadors, international leaders and military commanders make clear that detailed planning is now being carried out for what comes next.

Here is what the main stakeholders in Syria are planning in the event of a major change in the conflict:

UNITED NATIONS

The United Nations has a project codenamed "Syria - The Day After". Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has put his deputy, Jan Elliason, in charge of the response. After wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies have no appetite to get directly involved in the reconstruction of Syria, meaning that by default, the UN will probably have to take the lead.

UN planners have been looking at a range of options. They fear that if Assad is eventually defeated, there could be widespread retribution against his minority Alawite sect, and the swift deployment of human rights observers and UN monitors is one possibility.

UN peacekeepers held by fighters near Syria

Humanitarian and medical supplies are being stockpiled in the region. Officials are well-aware that Syrians are dying not only as a direct result of the fighting, but due to lack of treatment for battlefield injuries and from disease.

UN officials would even consider deployment of a peacekeeping force in Syria as another option if the circumstances were right. But deploying such a force would take considerable time, and would require the authorisation of the UN Security Council, which continues to be deeply divided on all Syrian matters.

The UN has a great deal of experience working in Syria. It has had one peacekeeping operation, the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), in the Golan Heights for almost 40 years. UN and Arab League Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has one of his headquarters in Damascus. In neighbouring Lebanon, the UN has a major logistical hub, and another, larger peacekeeping force in the south of the country.

But the UN's experience in Syria in recent weeks underlines the daunting task it faces. Last month, 21 UNDOF peacekeepers were taken hostage. They were freed after negotiations, but the Japanese and Croatian contingents have already withdrawn from the mission, and much of its patrolling work is now no longer possible. And Brahimi's international staff was withdrawn from Damascus last month due to safety fears.

Many UN officials believe the next chapter in the Syrian conflict could be bloodier than this one. They will not deploy any personnel if they believe the risks are too great.

"Our humanitarian workers have already paid a price," Elliason told Al Jazeera. "We have lost … eight to nine people in our operations. It's very dangerous; to reach the most difficult areas is a risky project."

THE WESTERN POWERS

Despite growing calls on Capitol Hill for some US involvement, the Obama administration has shown no inclination towards intervention.

France and the UK are toying with the idea of sending arms to the opposition, but are currently prevented from doing so by European Union rules.

Military planners are left with the unenviable task of "second-guessing" their political masters. They know that when there is eventually an abrupt shift on the ground in Syria, events could suddenly move extremely fast, in which case they will need to have plans.

Some fear Syria could eventually split into a number of different fiefdoms, creating the possibility that the borders of surrounding countries may also be redrawn.

Securing Assad's arsenal of chemical weapons is seen as the top priority for Western powers. They fear these weapons could be used in a "last stand" by the Assad regime, or captured by armed groups. The Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah is widely thought to have operatives in Syria. A number of opposition groups, particularly those that fight under the banner of Jabhat al-Nusra, share the ideology of al-Qaeda.

It is also feared that some within Assad's military or the opposition may be ready to sell chemical munitions to the highest bidder.

In recent weeks, some US units have been involved in chemical warfare training. But Western military sources believe Assad's chemical arsenal is dispersed across numerous sites in Syria. Recovering them all would require a major military operation, involving hundreds of troops. One official told me: "The danger is that this would look like a full-scale invasion."

The US and its allies are deeply concerned about the crisis spreading. The growing humanitarian crisis could overwhelm Syria and Jordan. Last month, the number of refugees - both those registered and those awaiting registration - topped one million. As of April 1, the figure stood at more than 1.2 million.
The refugee crisis has caused worries about the stability of Syria and neighbouring countries whose borders were carved out of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. Some fear Syria could eventually split into a number of different fiefdoms, creating the possibility that the borders of surrounding countries may also be redrawn.

NATO has categorically repeated over the past two years that it has no plans to intervene in Syria. However, if any of its major member nations decided to intervene, NATO may be pressured to rubber-stamp the operation.

TURKEY


This NATO member has more at stake than any other, and is deeply concerned about the situation across its southern border. The conflict has left Turkey with nearly 300,000 Syrian refugees, and there are thought to be many more unregistered refugees inside Turkish cities.

Ankara is also concerned about the course Syria's Kurdish minority will take, and will want to have a role in shaping the future of its neighbouring country, which is awash in weapons and increasingly hardened fighters.

Some generals in the Turkish military, which has the second-largest army in NATO, have drawn up contingency plans to take control of parts of Syria. Some reportedly have what has been described as "Ottoman ambitions".

However, there remains great distrust between the AKP, Turkey's ruling party, and the country's generals. As a result, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan may not trust the military enough to authorise some of its more expansionist plans.


THE GULF STATES

The Gulf nations, particularly Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are deeply involved in the Syrian conflict. There are no indications that they intend to put their own troops on the ground, but they will try to influence the future direction of the country with flows of money and weapons to the opposition.

ISRAEL


Israel is deeply worried about the situation in Syria. Bashar Assad, and his father Hafez before him, publicly declared themselves to be implacable enemies of Israel. Yet the reality is that since end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Syrian front has been one of Israel's quietest.

A closer relationship with Turkey is a major part of Israel's plan to protect itself from fallout in Syria.
Israel has been particularly unnerved by the collapse of stability in the Golan Heights, which it occupies. The UN force (UNDOF) is virtually confined to its base, and a number of Syrian opposition groups have been firing towards Israel. On one occasion, the Israeli military responded with a rocket strike.

The Israelis maintain that they do not want to enter Syria. But Al Jazeera has been told there are contingency plans for "containment zones" inside Syria, and, if needed, in southern Lebanon too.

RUSSIA

Russia has been a strong ally of Syria for decades, and is believed to be providing supplies for Assad's military.

Talk to Al Jazeera: Nabil el-Araby

Russia has military personnel inside Syria at its Tartus naval base on the Mediterranean Sea.

Despite a number of evacuation missions, there are still believed to be many Russian citizens living in Syria. Getting all of their citizens out in the event of a decisive change in Syria will be a key priority for Russia.

Despite the vastly divergent views on Syria held by the US and Russia, and the deadlock in the UN Security Council, there is at least one open channel of communication.

So-called "3B" meetings have taken place regularly over the last two years. The meetings are named after the three participants: UN and Arab league envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov. They are believed to have discussed a wide range of issues pertaining to Syria, including the securing of chemical munitions.

IRAN


Iran has long been Syria's closest ally. There are always representatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Damascus, and it is safe to assume they continue to be present, providing advice.

Lebanese Shia party Hezbollah is believed to have fighters in Syria, particularly in the border areas.
If Assad falls, Iran will be concerned about loss of influence in both Lebanon and Syria. It is unlikely to take an overt military role, but instead will rely on proxy armed groups and covert action.

Iran, like Russia, knows that if Assad is toppled, or if his regime loses control in Damascus, things could change very fast. The regime has remained strong for so long because of its apparatus of control and repression, particularly in the capital. Once that crumbles, a new chapter will have begun in Syria. But many fear this new phase could be just as violent.

French Military Presence In W Africa After Mali War

France has devised a scenario to station a rapid reaction force in West Africa after its war on Mali ends, UN-based diplomats privy to the plan say.

French diplomats have started briefing the UN, the US and other major powers on a plan for a so-called “beyond the horizon” force which will purportedly be tasked with conducting necessary future operations against the fighters in Mali. 

France has not informed its allies of the exact location of the force, but diplomats say it will probably be stationed in Senegal, Niger, or Chad, where France has military bases. 

On January 11, France launched a war in Mali under the pretext of halting the advance of fighters who had taken control of the north of the West African country. The United States, Canada, Britain, Belgium, Germany, and Denmark have aided France in its war on the African country. 

Meanwhile, French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud has been in contact with his counterparts to inform them that France does not intend to abruptly end its military presence in Mali over the coming weeks but plans a gradual withdrawal.

Via: "Press TV"

Devastation In Mali Under French Attack

After François Hollande's victorious trip to Timbuktu, the three major cities in northern Mali have been declared "liberated" from rebels - although the Sharia law and Islamic extremism they enforced will not soon be forgotten. 

Nevertheless, this victory is a partial one. The militants have merely retreated and fled, and the suffering in this war has been disproportionate to its success. 

We're learning what happened in battle day by day. The small town of Konna in the Mopti region was seized by the Muyao tribe. They then fled to the north when French troops showed up. 

But it's reported that the cost of that liberation was high. French planes killed only two rebels, and the number of civilian casualties was an estimated 14. 

"I wasn't home when the bombing began. I started praying when I learned my house was under the attack. They ruined everything I had - my family and my livelihood. My wife's name was Aminata. She was 40. My son Ali was 11. Adam was 10 and Seinogu was 6. They all died", says Idrís Meiga, a farmer from Konna. 

People like this farmer, Idrís, ask themselves if the result was worth it. 

The Kampó family suffered badly. When the bombing began, everyone scattered. The Kampós lost two of their sons - they drowned in the river because they could not swim. The young mother died from shell splinters, leaving three children behind. One was a newborn baby. 

"The village was a complete mess, it's impossible to describe. I'll only discuss things I know for sure, and I can say that all we had is gone," says Mohama Kampó, a local resident. 

"Some kids came running up to us and said their mum had died. I brought them to our house. Their mother died after an hour clinging to life. The children have nobody else but us," neighbor Abdul Kampó says. 

Disaster visited every house in the town. People reject anything the military says about victory, and believe that their war crimes must be prosecuted under the Geneva Convention. 

Towns like Konna want more than just compassion. People who suffered at the hands of terrorist groups and drug traffickers are now facing the misery inflicted by war.

How Western Leaders Terrorized Muslim World Using A Fake Clash of Civilizations

By Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja  

Courtesy Of "Information Clearing House"

A "war of religion" is unfolding, with a view to justifying a global military crusade. In the inner consciousness of many Americans, the "holy crusade" against Muslims is justified. While President Obama may uphold freedom of religion, the US inquisitorial social order has institutionalized patterns of discrimination, prejudice and xenophobia directed against Muslims.” Michel Chossudovsky, ”America's Holy Crusade against the Muslim World”, Global Research, 8/30/2010

Does the US war strategy require other nations to follow the American policy lead of war against all - the terrorism of war instigated by the Clash of Civilizations theory? Stephen Lendman (“America's Permanent War Agenda” 3/01/2010), an American political intellectual and a man of universal conscience puts the history in one nutshell:

“America glorifies wars in the name of peace, what historian Charles Beard (1874 - 1948) called "perpetual war for perpetual peace" in describing the Roosevelt and Truman administrations' foreign policies - what concerned the Federation of American Scientists when it catalogued about 200 post-1945 conflicts in which America was, and still is, the aggressor”

Many contemporary politicians having small wisdom coupled with big common sense information could lead or mislead the masses. People are always the end recipient of the political dramas and onslaughts. Samuel Huntington (“The Clash of Civilizations” 1993, and subsequently, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1995), argued many things to many minds. It was a time fraught with political tragedies and unthinkable changes after the demise of the former USSR from the global theater of ideological confrontations. It happened out of the nowhere sending shock waves to the Western political mythologists and self-made experts who would become irrelevant in their mastery of pretensions to pursue the ideological warfare between the USSR and USA.

Islam and China were at the epic center of the Huntington’s theory of the Clash of Civilizations. To many Western mythologists, it was a blessing in disguise to substantiate the continuity of their expertise with changed notions of militancy against Muslims and Islam as the next bloc of forces maintaining the “bloody borders.” Americana and European policy makers denied its existence but used its mythology and substantial framework to wage a new war according to George Bush ‘crusade’ against Islam. Huntington’s thoughts and warning were critical to the foreign policy makers operating under the influence of Western strategic priorities. There were visible political scenarios of clash of civilizations between the West and China-Islam axis, but the War on Terrorism served the purpose of all cherished policy objectives lasting more than a decade.

The Western economies desperately needed new markets to dump their obsolete military hardware and know-how for expansion of businesses. But critical of all were the abundance of natural resources available across the Middle East to grab for future political hegemony and military control over these nations. Divided as they were, the Arab tribal clan-based rulers and other people of interest in the Muslim world made subservient to the American- West European political interests, were readily available to bring a Western dream of power and manipulation into reality.

From centuries of European colonization to the so called freedom time span after the WW2, Arabs and other Muslim societies had neither educated and intelligent leadership nor institutions to analyze the global affairs objectively and to develop a policy of mutual interests and strategic equilibrium in relations with the former Masters of the Western world. They were naïve and coward then, and they are proven dummy and stupid to this day. They willingly followed the George Bush dictum of military threats unless they should fully submit to the American doctrine of War on Terror. The US bogus War on Terror used the false pretext of the 9/11 attacks to pursue its pre-planned wars against the Muslim world.

Michael Meacher (“This War on Terrorism is Bogus.” Guardian, UK: 9/6/2003), British MP and Environment Minister in PM Tony Blair cabinet from May 1997 to June 2003 explain that the 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) written by the neo-conservatives in September 2000 before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis.

John J. Mearsheimer (“Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism: Open Democracy: 5/18/2005), Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago and author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001) ponders into reasoning of the neo-conservatives belief that the US must show its power to manipulate the world:

Neo-conservative theory – the Bush doctrine – is essentially Wilsonianism with teeth. The theory has an idealist strand and a power strand: Wilsonianism provides the idealism, an emphasis on military power provides the teeth……The key to understanding why the neo-conservatives think that military force is such a remarkably effective instrument for running the world is that they believe that international politics operate according to “bandwagoning” logic. Specifically, they believe that if a powerful country like the United States is willing to threaten or attack its adversaries, then virtually all of the states in the system – friends and foes alike – will quickly understand that the United States means business and that if they cross mighty Uncle Sam, they will pay a severe price. In essence, the rest of the world will fear the United States, which will cause any state that is even thinking about challenging Washington to throw up its hands and jump on the American bandwagon.

The War on Terror had wide range of unspecified agendas for long time to come:

• to occupy the Arab heartland and to offer extended strategic and political supremacy to Israel in the Middle East,
• to control and manage the oil and gas resources of the Arab Middle East,
• to inject fear and powerful hegemonic influence of the Western culture and varied civilizations,
• to divide and rule the Arab and Muslims people from distance powerhouses,
• to create new markets for the dollar and to block trade-business entry of China into the exclusive American Middle East market,
• to entice ignorant Arab population with false imagery of freedom, liberty and social justice and make the mindless rulers fearful of the US-Europe influence in their future-making,
• to distract attention from the decadent Western cultures and civilizations as Huntington warned them of its crumbling and immediate implication for the future,
• To dismantle the socio-economic and political infrastructures of the Arab-Muslim world, encouraging internal strife and sectarian bloodsheds and making them subservient to the US-European military and economic subjugation.
• And so many other short-long terms implications

Across the Western world, the mainstream news media propaganda campaigns made common folks fearful after the 9/11 attacks in believing that the Clash of Civilizations hypothesis was true and credible. The Arabs and Muslims authoritarian rulers elsewhere had no capacity or leadership to challenge the American political and military hegemony. The Arab and Muslim world was naïve and perplexed unable to THINK rationally or to challenge the West either in moral and intellectual domains and to question the relevance of the War on Terror. Even some of the leading Islamic thinkers failed miserably to understand the consequences of the bogus war on terrorism and to oppose the American policy and practices to attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. To date, the American led wars have killed approximately three millions people in Iraq, close to million in Afghanistan and million more displaced and made refugees in foreign lands, and some 40,000 to 50,000 civilians across Pakistan and continuing drone attacks bring horrifying details of daily killings of innocent children and women in Waziristan tribal belt of Pakistan. Should this deliberate genocide not be the major concern to the mankind?

Michael Meacher (“This War on Terrorism is Bogus.” Guardian, UK: 9/6/2003), British MP and Environment Minister in PM Tony Blair points out the planning of the war strategies and how it will encircle the other Muslim countries:

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001). The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.

Huntington warned of the coming of new age of disharmony is dawning and that the West lacked an ‘ennobling animosity’- from an economic perspective, the ‘golden age’ of low birth rates and aging population as reasoning contributing to Western moral and cultural decadence. But the match-maker political opportunists have come up with many answers to Huntington’s concerns and curiosities. Now, there are increasing trend of degeneration - more gay rights claims and marriages are making headways - gay priests and gay politicians - gay parades, women are replacing the work of men from sexual enlightenment to unknown domains of leisure and enjoyment. Secretary Panelta announced that America will strike a balancing act and recruit more women to enhance opportunities in front line military combat operations. But nobody seems to question that by nature women are not made aggressive or to stir animalistic killing skills, their feminism is more an embodiment of love, attractive nature of things and beauty to bless the physical, moral, spiritual and intellectual fabric of human life. Why should they be manipulated against their very Nature? Are women a commodity at the strategic market place to be defined by economic men of interests or military rules of engagement? Nobody talks what able men will do in their spare times and moments of self-reflection if there are no longer attracted to beautiful women. John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hitman) tells us first hand that Arab Prince love to have the companionship of blond American women. Would America consider this romantic strategy to built-in with its military sale package to the oil exporting Arab rulers? Ironically, none of the leading political thinkers appear to talk now if the Western culture is progressive or more decadent? Huntington must be speechless and wondering what to say next.

The global political affairs are not managed by rational people, with rational thinking, doing the rational practices for the interests of global citizenry. The 1% global elite – men of king operate the international institutions - the perverted insanity lacking basic understanding of the Human Nature and of the working of the splendid Universe in which we enjoy coherent co-existence. The mankind continues to be run down by the cancerous ego and cruelty of the few Western warlords. Killing unjustifiably one innocent human being is like killing of the whole of the humanity. The global warlords represent cruel mindset incapable to see the human side of the living conscience. Madness of the perpetuated war on terrorism and its triggered insanity knows no bound across the global spectrum. 

Animals do not commit massacre of their kind and species, nor set-up rape camps for the war victims, the Western led wars against the humanity have and continue to do so at an unparallel global scale without being challenged by any global organizations or leaders. Torture and massacres of innocent civilians are convenient fun games to be defined as “collateral damage” and a statistic. Perhaps, they view humanity just in digits and numbers, not as the living entities with social, moral, spiritual and intellectual values and progressive agendas for change and development. Every beginning has its end. It is just that most powerful nations have failed to learn from the living history- a slap to EH Carr’s precious thoughts of human history. Einstein (“The World as I see it”) made it known that he was against military campaigns, killings and destruction of the natural environment: "This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor... This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!.”

According to British MP and Minister Michael Meacher (“This War on Terrorism is Bogus.” Guardian, UK: 9/6/2003):

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

Muslims were not born in the eye of the storm to threaten anybody. They are not the societies breeding terrorism against the West or anybody else. All Arab-Muslim rulers are subservient to the Western political-military dictates. Those individuals who were alleged to have attacked America for the 9/11 were the by-products of American warfare sponsorship and CIA indoctrination. Terrorism originates from the Western imperialism and military aggressions against the poor and helpless people. Time and encompassing opportunities warrant New Thinking, New Leaders and New Visions for change and the future-making. But change and creativity and new visions will not emerge from the obsolete, redundant and failed authoritarianism of the few insane leaders, be it the Western leaders or Muslim rulers.. None have the understanding of neither peace nor respect for human life and co-existence in a splendid Universe. 

To challenge the deafening silence of the US and Europeans for global peace and security, the humanity must find ways and means to look beyond the obvious and troublesome horizons dominated by the few warlords and continued to be plagued with massacres, barbarity against human culture and civilizations, destruction of the habitats and natural environment as if there were no rational being and people of Reason populating the God-given Universe. The informed and mature global community looks towards those thinkers, educated and honest proactive leaders enriched with coherent unity of moral, spiritual and intellectual visions and abilities to be instrumental to rescue it from the planned encroachment of the few Western warlords.

American historian Harry Elmer Barnes ("Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and It's Aftermath”) offered this stern warning to American politicians if the US led wars continue leading to man’s annihilation from this planet:

"If trends continue as they have during the last fifteen years, we shall soon reach this point of no return, and can only anticipate interminable wars, disguised as noble gestures for peace. Such an era could only culminate in a third world war which might well, as Arnold J. Toynbee has suggested, leave only the pygmies in remote jungles, or even the apes and ants, to carry on 'the cultural traditions' of mankind."

French Colonialism In Africa

One of the most amazing aspects of theAfrican resource wars is that within their own countries, most western powers have been able to stifle opposition for their participation. An incredible achievement considering the state of their economiesand the number of wars that they have been involved in in the last two decades(2011–present, 2003–2010, 1990–2002).

Let’s take France as an example since it appears to have the backing of its citizens in taking the lead role in therecent wars which are set to determine the future of Africa.

“French companies must go on the offensive and fight the growing influence of rival China for a stake in Africa's increasingly competitive markets, France's Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici said on Saturday…

“‘It's evident that China is more and more present in Africa...(French) companies that have the means must go on the offensive. They must be more present on the ground. They have to fight,’ Moscovici told journalists during a trip to Ivory Coast…

“‘Africa is booming. Sub-Saharan Africa will have the second highest regional growth after Asia in 2012 with a rate of 5.5 percent,’ he said. ‘The new phenomenon is that African growth has the potential to stimulate growth in France. We want to be present there.’”

To have a full appreciation for the magnitude of the folly of France’s decision to attempt a “total reconquest of Mali” under the supervision of the United States by getting involved in what David Cameron has predicted to be a multi-decade conflict, all we need to do is recap a little history and extrapolate to the present.

“‘It will require a response that is about years, even decades, rather than months, and it requires a response that is patient, that is painstaking, that is tough but also intelligent, but above all has an absolutely iron resolve; and that is what we will deliver over these coming years,’ [David Cameron] said.”

Colonialism in 10 Minutes: The Scramble For Africa:

During the colonial period, France’s domain in Africa was spread across the continent, numbering 20 regions at its peak, and its most important colony was Algeria, which it ruled with an iron fist from 1830 to 1962.

“Long-term French colonization of Africa began in earnest in 1830 with the French invasion of Algeria. The long duration of French occupation, its intense violence, and the large numbers of European colonial settlers made Algeria—in law, in political cultural, and in administrative fact— an entirely unique case in the French colonial world. Indeed, an administrative decree in 1878 ended the status of Algeria as a colony, ostensibly integrating it as part of metropolitan France. This decree merely served to reinforce the two-tiered political system that accorded rights to European settlers while denying them to Algerians, and Algeria largely remained, in fact if not in law, a colony.”

click to enlarge - Source

“The Algerian War of Independence against France lasted from approximately 1954 to 1962. Politically, socially and militarily, this was a multi-layered conflict for the French, one that ultimately led to both Algeria’s independence after 132 years of French colonization, and eventually, the collapse of the French Fourth Republic in 1958.”

“This is where the story of political Islamism in North Africa begins: In the historical flashpoint that was the Battle of Algiers, one sees the spark of ideological opposition and the beginning of armed insurgency against the West.”

What took place in Algeria is brilliantly depicted by the following 1966 movie, ”The Battle of Algiers”. It is a cinematic masterpiece and “the only film in Oscar history to be a nominee in two separate non-consecutive years”.

Battle of Algiers Trailer:

As for what the effects of this insurgency were on the French psyche, I believe the following 7-pages posted below from “Ordinary Victories” by Manu Larcenet depict an accurate account.

“Pretending that one can dissociate torture from war or abjection from massacre is the lie of the powerful”: ’Ordinary Victories’ by Manu Larcenet

The pages deal with the consequences of atrocities committed for lies. Ignore the period referenced if you wish, project to the date of your choice, and adjust the scale of the atrocities accordingly.

Via: "Chycho"

History Of French Military Interventions In Africa

[All links forward to french articles unless otherwise stated] 

The French military intervention in Mali, known as Operation Serval [en] started on January 11, 2013 following the advance of terrorists groups towards Bamako. Lauded by a substantial part of the Malian population [en] and many outside observers, the military intervention diverts, however, from the non-interventionist line professed by French President Hollande in Africa.

View L'intervention militaire étrangère au Mali in a larger map
Google interactive map of the Malian conflict by Jeune Afrique

Francis d'Alençon wonders why French interventions in Africa do not raise protests around the world:

Bizarre, bizarre… L’intervention française au Mali ne dérange personne alors que des actions américaines similaires soulèveraient des tempêtes de protestation… De l’avantage de ne pas être une super puissance.

This is odd… The french intervention in Mali does not bother anyone whereas similar actions by the USA would have raised a storm of protests.. There are perks to not being the world's top super power.

To illustrate his point, he quotes from the Cech newspaper Lidové noviny :

Les Français sont intervenus plus de 50 fois en Afrique depuis 1960. Ils ont combattu au Tchad, dans la guerre non déclarée avec la Libye, protégé les régimes de Djibouti et de République Centrafricaine des rebelles, empêché un coup d’état aux Comores, sont intervenus en Côte d’Ivoire. Que ce soit pour préserver des intérêts économiques, protéger les ressortissants français ou démontrer le statut de grande puissance du pays, les locataires de l’Élysée, de gauche comme de droite, ont fréquemment manifesté leur penchant pour les actions unilatérales. … Pourtant personne n’a jamais protesté. … Si les États-Unis intervenaient avec une telle véhémence, il y aurait des protestations interminables en Europe. Et les ambassades américaines verraient défiler des diplomates fâchés, à commencer par les Français.

The French have now intervened more than 50 times in Africa since 1960. They fought in Chad, in the war with Libya, protected regimes in  Djibouti and the Central African Republic from rebels, prevented a coup in the Comoros and intervened in Côte d'Ivoire. Whether to preserve economic interests, protect French nationals or showcase the still imposing power of France, the main tenants of the Palais de l'Élysée, either from the left or from the right wings, have frequently expressed their penchant for unilateral action. But … nobody has ever protested. If … the United States intervened in such a manner, there would be an endless sequence of protests in Europe. U.S. embassies would see angry diplomats coming through their doors, starting with the French ones.

Map of the Tuareg rebellion in Azawad, Northern Mali showing rebel attacks as of April 5, 2012 (CC-BY-3.0)

Below is a chronology of these interventions [There are indeed quite a few of them but contrary to what the Cech newspaper stated, there were less than 50 french interventions in Africa ]. It is based on two articles:  one is a review written by  Nestor N’Gampoula  for Oeil d'Afrique and  another one by Jean-Patrick Grumberg for Dreuz Info. Grumberg adds that most of the French interventions in Africa took place on former colonial soil :

In 1964, airborne french troops landed in Libreville, Gabon after an attempted coup against the regime back then.

From 1968 to 1972, French troops took part in the fight against the rebellion in the Tibesti region in northern Chad.

In 1978 in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo), 600 French legionnaires went into the town of Kolwezi, in the south-east to help thousands of Africans and Europeans threatened by Katangan rebels. The mission was in response to a call for help made by President Mobutu Sese Seko to help his country. The operation cost the lives of five legionnaires, but allowed the evacuation of 2700 Westerners.

In 1979 in CAR, Emperor Jean-Bedel Bokassa is removed by French paratroopers during the Operation Barracuda.

From 1983-1984 in Chad, France undertook Operation Manta, a 3,000 men strong operation to face armed rebels supported by Libya. Two years later, another French military action, composed of mostly aerial attacks called “Operation Epervier“, was deployed after an anti-government attack.

In Comoros in 1989, after the assassination of President Ahmed Abdallah and the takeover of the country by the French mercenary Bob Denard, about 200 French soldiers arrived in the country to force them to leave the country.

In 1990, Paris sends troops to Gabon in Libreville and Port-Gentil in reinforcement of the French contingent after violent riots erupted. The operation allowed the evacuation of some 1,800 foreigners.

In 1991 in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo), the Belgian and French troops managed to evacuate foreigners after violent riots and looting occurred in the country.

In 1991 still, French troops based in Djibouti help the Afar rebellion to disarm Ethiopian troops that had crossed the border following the overthrow of Ethiopian President Mengistu Haile Mariam.

In 1994, French and Belgian soldiers evacuate Europeans while Rwanda Hutus massacred hundreds thousands of Tutsis. Later in the year, some 2,500 French soldiers, supported by african troops, launched “Operation Turquoise“, described as a humanitarian effort, in Zaire and in eastern Rwanda.

In 1995, a thousand men involved in Operation Azalea ended another attempted coup against Comorian President  Said Mohamed Djohar by Bob Denard.

In 1996 in the Central African Republic (CAR), operation Almandin secured the safety of foreigners and the evacuation of 1,600 people after the army mutinied against President Ange-Félix Patassé. The following year in 1997, specifically after the murder of two French soldiers, a French operation against the mutineers was mandated in Bangui (Central African Republic).

The same year, 1997, some 1,200 French soldiers rescued French and African expatriates during fighting between the Congolese army and supporters of the military leader Denis Sassou Nguesso, now President of the Republic of Congo.

In 2002, French forces undertook Operation Licorne to help Westerners trapped by a military uprising that effectively divided Côte-d’Ivoire in two regions.

In 2003, Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo), Operation Artemis in Ituri  secured the area and put an end to ongoing massacres. This was followed by the deployment of 2,000 peacekeepers,  80% of which were French.

In 2004 in Côte-d’Ivoire, France destroyed the small Ivorian airforce after government forces bombed a French base.

In 2008 a new French intervention strengthens the regime of Chadian President Idriss Deby and evacuated foreigners while rebels from neighboring Sudan attacked.

In March 2011 in Libya had the French airforces were the first to bomb Gaddafiforces after the vote at the United Nations authorized intervention in Libya to protect civilians caught up in the rebellion against Gaddafi. NATO took command of the overall mission on March 31, a mission that helped the Libyan rebels to defeat the forces of the government and take power.

In 2011 in Côte-d’Ivoire,  French forces alongside UN forces tip the balance in favor of Ouattara during the civil war. The war broke out after the refusal of Laurent Gbagbo to resign and accept the verdict of the election that pronounced Alassane Ouattara as president.

France had decided to break with his role as “policeman of Africa” by refusing to intervene again in the Central African Republic  where François Bozizé (former army chief who came to power by overthrowing the elected president Ange-Félix Patassé on March 15, 2003) faced a rebellion uprising. Little did he know that the events in Mali would force his hands :

In 2013 in Mali,  French bombarded Islamist rebels after they tried to expand their powerbase  towards the Malian capital, Bamako. France had already warned that control of the north of Mali by the rebels posed a threat to the security of Europe.

At the same time, France has mounted a commando operation to try to save a French hostage held by al Shabaab militants in Somalia, also allied with al-Qaeda.The hostage was  killed by the militants.

Via: "Global Voices Online"