July 23, 2013
Musa al-Gharbi On Al-Qaeda's Renaissance
For lack of time just a link to a good writeup of the greater picture in the Middle East. Recommended reading (h/t Sophia): Musa al-Gharbi: Al-Qaeda's renaissance
However, so long as the protests remained peaceful, al-Qaeda
was, in a sense, sidelined. Ironically, the Western
interventions/escalations in Libya and Syria gave them an “in” and
subsequently al-Qaeda has played a decisive and growing role in those
Contrary to Western assumptions (fueled by media disinformation), the Libyans did not rise up in great numbers
to overthrow Gaddhafi, and there were few military and government
defections. Accordingly, the colonel continued to advance on Benghazi
despite the NATO-imposed no-fly zone. Foreign fighters from AQIM rushed in to compensate for the lack of indigenous resistance—but even then the local population refused to provide the rebels with provisions or support, forcing NATO allies to overstep their mandate in UNSCR 1973 (just as they did in UNSCR 1441), likely in violation of international law.
Al-Qaeda was quick to endorse the Syrian "uprising;" they began by bombing targets in Damascus and quickly stepped up their involvement from there. The late Abu Yaya al-Libi called for a “violent jihad”
in Syria without compromise or “illusions of peacefulness” until
President al-Asad is overthrown. The al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front
was primarily responsible for the rebel gains in Aleppo, which marked a turning point in the rebellion—they have since become the most effective and influential fighting force in the Syrian theater.
In Libya and Syria, the U.S. and its allies essentially ceded the
narrative to al-Qaeda, agreeing that there can be no talk of democratic
reforms while "dictators" remain in power. This message is further underscored by the recent military coup in Egypt, and subsequent persecution of the Muslim Brotherhood;
to many Sunni Islamists, these developments serve as definitive proof
that oppressive regimes cannot be purged through a peaceful political
process as they (and their international supporters) have no respect for
the popular will, and they are too corrupt to be reformed.
Posted by b on July 23, 2013 at 02:14 PM | Permalink
Well, I've read the whole article, and the conclusion is:
Rather than the "Arab Spring" rendering al-Qaeda obsolete, the organization seems to be on the verge of a major and enduring resurgence. This outcome was far from inevitable, and was brought about largely through the shortsighted geopolitical ambitions of the United States and its regional allies.
Now we have heard this about a million times before, and we could call it the Shortsightedness Theory Of History. Compare for instance "Devil's Game" by Robert Dreyfuss, which came out in 2005. Doubtless many readers enjoy beating themselves up about this 'shortsightedness', since they can't beat up the people actually responsible, and voting them out of office doesn't seem to help, since the new people display exactly the same 'shortsightedness' as the old ones. Perhaps one could produce a quasi-marxist theory to explain the 'inevitability of bourgeois shortsightedness.' Real marxists would never do anything so crass, though. The explanation has to lie elsewhere, namely that none of this was anything to do with 'shortsightedness'. Al Qaeda is and always has been a western tool. Kurt Nimmo (not someone I agree with otherwise) had the happy idea of calling it 'al CIA-duh'.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 23, 2013 2:44:49 PM | 1
I saw a reference to this article on facebook which caught my eye.
Rumourmill regarding abducted bishops
Anyone some link confirming the Davutoglu thing?
AQ thrives in failed states. See Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, (and as a result of that) Mali. So the article doesn't provide any new insight imho just emphasizes the feeling that it wasn't an arab spring ut an arab fall and winter is about to begin. (yes yes winter is coming for all GoT fans). Since Zawahiri is Egyptian I'll reckon we'll see the first AQ franchise in egypt pop up (so far I've only read about islamist attacks but nothing under the banner of AQ so far).
Posted by: Gehenna | Jul 23, 2013 3:32:03 PM | 2
"Al Qaeda is and always has been a western tool." AMEN!
I get so tired of reading about US/NATO “short sightedness” and mistakes in Libya. It was in fact wildly successful. Gaddhafi was a major, indeed the major, obstacle in the way of Western neo-Imperialistic moves into Africa to counter China's ever increasing presences.
Gaddhafi was an anti-Imperialist Africanist who provided money to various countries, was a major force in African inter-nation organizations and was talking about an African international bank to break away from Western banks.
It is no accident at the same time the US created its first ever African Command Center that he was removed.
France into Mali would have been impossible if he were still in power
In short, the US/NATO lost nothing with his overthrow. The African Command in up and running , the Drone airfields are being built and there is no force on the continent that can counter the West.
Posted by: TomV | Jul 23, 2013 4:29:44 PM | 4
@4 I would add that the proxy war between Saudi and Iran is going quite well too. Nobody wants the real thing which would shut down the Gulf.
Posted by: dh | Jul 23, 2013 4:51:26 PM | 5
just because its the plan doesn't mean its not shortsighted. And I believe Africom is still based in Southern Germany because it might be too tempting a target in Tripoli. like the CIA HQ.
Posted by: heath | Jul 23, 2013 5:15:15 PM | 6
Well, the US says disregard the al-qayadies in all those places because there are still "between 50 and 75" AQ's in Afghanistan, according to General Dunford, and so the US needs 68,000 troops there to combat them. That includes a bunch of generals besides Dunford, and equally as stupid.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 23, 2013 5:18:41 PM | 7
Time for Yahweh to smite everybody I reckon.
Posted by: dh | Jul 23, 2013 5:25:13 PM | 8
I believe you're greatly exaggerating Gaddafi's anti-Americanism and his importance in Africa. To begin with, the dark continent is a hugely disorganized place, and there were no signs that Gaddafi was going to organize it. On top of that, Gaddafi had become a close US ally and had granted various concessions. It doesn't matter what Gaddafi was talking about, his actions were acceptable to the US.
Libya happened, against the Pentagon's advice, because the US has a weak president who got cowed by the French, by the R2P female mafia, and by congressional hawks. The US was much better off with Gaddafi. An American could travel in Libya, for one thing.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 23, 2013 5:27:20 PM | 9
dh @18 wrote:
Time for Yahweh to smite everybody I reckon.
Yahweh or the highweh!
Posted by: Yonatan | Jul 23, 2013 5:32:05 PM | 10
@10 Good one. Have another beer.
Posted by: dh | Jul 23, 2013 5:33:34 PM | 11
@ Don Bacon #9
"you're greatly exaggerating Gaddafi's <..> importance in Africa."
Gaddafi WAS the most important African leader, more than anyone else, including Mendela. Gaddafi was funding and organizing unification of Africa, as well as spending billions in humanitarian help. He was also one of the major reasons why Apartheid regime fell (no, not the Israel one :)
"there were no signs that Gaddafi was going to organize it."
Lots of signs to anyone who is interested. Just because peaceful unification doesnt happen over night with hundreds of thousands of tribes over vast continent, doesnt mean he wasnt doing his part. At least, he was doing more about it in Africa than anyone else in the World that I know of.
"Gaddafi had become a close US ally and had granted various concessions."
Gaddafi was naive, he thought if he plays nice with the West (like removing nuclear program, paying billions for Lockerbie he most likely had nothing to do with, funding Western politicians, etc), - Libya wont be attacked. As soon as his path crossed West's (like dropping Western monetary clout with unified African bank, etc), he was disposed and country destroyed.
Syria and Iran already knew where Western "friendliness" leads to so they knew better, just got yet another confirmation. Ironically, Iran made a blunder themselves by supporting "Libyan rebels", without understanding they soon became "Syrian rebels", and if that mission succeeds - "Iranian rebels" after that. Iran and Syria should have supported Ghadafi and at the very least prolonged the war and made NATO cost significantly higher, i.e. Afghanistan scenario from '90. Maybe after that attack on Syria wouldnt have happened, who knows.
Posted by: Harry | Jul 23, 2013 5:55:18 PM | 12
@Don Bacon 9
Sorry if I'm not getting the joke, but what do you mean by "R2P female mafia?"
Posted by: Crest | Jul 23, 2013 5:55:31 PM | 13
@ Crest #13
"R2P female mafia" - warmongering blood-thirsty bitches (sorry for the rude but nonetheless accurate expression :) like Clinton, Rice, Albright, etc.
Posted by: Harry | Jul 23, 2013 6:01:07 PM | 14
R2P female mafia? eg Hillary Clinton, La Capa di tutta capi.
Posted by: ruralito | Jul 23, 2013 6:05:01 PM | 15
@ Crest #13
R2P is a UN-associated policy meaning "right to protect." It's a western-generated policy to get around the UN Charter and interfere in a sovereign country. R2P on Libya was pushed primarily by Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Ann-Marie Slaughter. It was to prevent the supposed oncoming, widely commented on, totally concocted "massacre in Benghazi" if you recall.
R2P pillar three
# If a State is manifestly failing to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures are not working, the international community has the responsibility to intervene at first diplomatically, then more coercively, and as a last resort, with military force.
So, it's not a joke that you missed.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 23, 2013 6:09:42 PM | 16
@10. Come to think of it Yahweh may not be nasty enough. We need Mrs. Yahweh.
Posted by: dh | Jul 23, 2013 6:19:48 PM | 17
@ 1 -- "Al Qaeda is and always has been a western tool." Rowen B.
This has probably been said in various ways already, but it seems the US needs a strong enemy, and even if Al Q is not an outright tool of the US, the US is using Al Q to keep the fear of the American public at as high a level as possible. Fear of a dangerous -- and growing stronger -- enemy is necessary to keep the public willing to give up civil liberties in order to feel safe. Willing to give up necessary social programs in order to fund the military and the surveillance state in order to think our government can protect us. Can't get a decent job? Well, at least the government is "taking care" (full ambiguity intended) of Al Q.
And the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) is fully vested in assisting the deep state in achieving the public's fear and acquiescence.
What a clusterfuck. And how long will it take Americans to figure out what is being done to them?
Posted by: jawbone | Jul 23, 2013 6:49:08 PM | 18
According to a National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) report, the number of U.S. citizens who died in terrorist attacks increased by two between 2010 and 2011; overall, a comparable number of Americans are crushed to death by their televisions or furniture each year.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 23, 2013 6:52:59 PM | 19
Or just fall out of the bath.
Posted by: heath | Jul 23, 2013 7:41:17 PM | 20
After years of groveling to no avail, finally Qadafi embarrassed the US into taking Libya off its shit list by pulling a sting operation on the nuclear suitcase racket of US's ally, Pakistan. Qadafi may have gotten off the official shitlist, but he was still on the PNAC list for regime change. When the Arab Spring got rolling, Clinton's liberal hawks were only too glad to enact the regime change in Libya for which the neocons had laid the groundwork.
Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jul 23, 2013 8:10:23 PM | 21
Gaddafi's mistake was that he thought he could buy off the west. He was used to just mouthing off and thinking if he just hung on he could continue to make it. He listened to Saif al Islam, who brought in all those snakes in the grass traitors to work in the government.
He believe the western govts would let him create a Dubai in the Mediterranean.
Another error grande was getting rid of weapons that could serve as a credible detterence.
Gaddafi sadly did not realize the danger he was in until far too late.
His country is now plundered, his people ravaged and his weapons used against the son of his former ally, Assad.
Posted by: Fernando | Jul 24, 2013 1:26:41 AM | 22
Harry @ 12.
Spot on - every word of it.
Steve Gowans at What's Left has written lucidly and extensively on Ghaddafi's 'crimes' against the West's vampires and mock-war criminals.
And as RB @ 1 infers, anyone who thinks of Al Qaeda as anything other than al CIA-duh (created in Afghanistan, by the CIA to combat the Russians) will continue to be surprised by its conveniently 'accidental' lubrication of genocidal Judeo-Christian plots; against rulers trying to protect their societies from the poverty and squalor which corporate greed demands as the price of Progress and Modernity.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 24, 2013 1:29:16 AM | 23
Not far off-topic...
It's easy to forget that too much money could never be enough for the 1%.
It's a very powerful weapon.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 24, 2013 1:48:38 AM | 24
#6 agree. US/UK/France are repeating/continuing 19th century colonial techniques - backing different tribes(movements against each other and creating continuous conflict whithout the military advantage on the ground. Therefore #9 an American/European/... can no longer travel in Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, Yemen ... the list is growing. Therefore drone warfare which is one of many war crimes.
They will be backing dictators against Al Qeida again soon.
Posted by: somebody | Jul 24, 2013 2:05:16 AM | 25
The recent upsurge in Al-CIADA activities in their Middle East IS by design..These guys don't just pop up or operate in a vacuum. At this moment in time, they're badly NEEDED in Syria and Iraq. What's there not to like about a little destabilization ops, eh????
The recent jailbreak in Iraq where hundreds of top Al-CIADA dudes escaped was planned/executed by something akin to a powerful intelligence organization.
If Iraq have any desire to live in peace, they MUST first reduce the size of that US embassy to 10 staff, tops. An embassy that employs 1000s of staff is literally out this world. I just feel sorry for the common man on the street that has to suffer for all this power game.
Posted by: Zico | Jul 24, 2013 2:13:07 AM | 26
Add to this that it was used for several bargains:
the Saudis were not happy of seeing the US let down Mubarak, so in exchange they got the head of an "arch-enemy";
the Turks were promessed a big share of a future virtual cake (in Syria or in Iraqi Kurdistan?) if they silently removed their two dozens thousands of workers from Libya (and accept losing the income it represent) without making a fuss...
Posted by: Mina | Jul 24, 2013 6:35:12 AM | 28
@17 Hmmm, maybe. The only way to be certain to call on Yahweh's mama.
Posted by: Yonatan | Jul 24, 2013 8:26:16 AM | 29
I have found this list: www.prism-break.org
Sorry B for the off-topic,
Posted by: anonymous2 | Jul 24, 2013 10:51:04 AM | 30
jawbone @ 18:
> And how long will it take Americans to figure out what is being done to them?
I was reading on Bloomberg yesterday, now that housing market is recovering (sort of: purchases are up, but # of homeowners are down... not to hard to figure) , mortgage rates are going up, people are again gambling with various flavors of variable rate mortgages. Given these things were brick and mortar for for "financial" crisis, and given most Americans still don't comprehend what that was about much less how they're still paying the crooks who orchestrated it...
I think the answer to your question is: don't hold your breath, your life may be over before enough of 'em do.
Posted by: jdmckay | Jul 25, 2013 8:08:08 PM | 31
Damnit. Sorry for (32). wrong thread.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 26, 2013 10:30:55 AM | 33