By Nile Bowie
"Indeed, I asked myself, how could
this happen, how could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city
we helped save from destruction."
– Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of
State [1]
The recent armed attack on
a lightly defended United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya that
took the life of Ambassador Christopher Stevens is an alarming reminder of the
disastrous foreign policy direction being taken by Washington. Tired euphemisms
of “liberation” and “freedom fighters” have grossly distorted public opinion
into supporting a narrative that has very little relationship with reality.
Images of the Ambassador being dragged through the streets of Benghazi are the
product of a stark reality that the general public must recognize – one that is
absent of the romance and fervor of televised “revolutions.” For Ambassador
Stevens, an early proponent of the no-fly zone and a staunch supporter of
NATO’s campaign in Libya, the untimely death he was dealt came delivered by the
very militants he enabled in brazen. The pathological reasoning of bombing a
country to “save it from destruction” reflects the unrestrained irrationality
of the foreign policy direction being taken under the Obama Administration and
its rabid Secretary of State.
While mainstream accounts of
the unrest now transpiring in the Middle East credit an incendiary film with provoking attacks on
US diplomatic compounds, sources have claimed the attack in Libya was well-coordinated
and planned in advance, using protests outside the consulate as a diversion. [2] Regardless of
the specifics, the event has provided Washington with a pretext to deploy two
warships carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles to the Libyan coast. [3]
As the militant fighters once supported by NATO persecute ethnic minorities,
loyalists of the Gaddafi regime, and demolish ancient Sufi shrines and
religious sites throughout the country, one wonders what President Obama
alludes to in his assertions that “justice will be done.” [4]
It is within reason that the United States, contrasting its prolonged presence
in Afghanistan to counter the Mujahideen it once supported, may now attempt to
maintain an increased presence in Libya to assist its client leaders in Tripoli
with restoring order.
Events in Libya
are being framed to heighten the perception that Washington is at war with
Islamic militants, not partnered with them to achieve their foreign policy
objectives. Michael Weiss, Research Director of The Henry Jackson Society,
argues in a piece published with the Telegraph
titled, “The
killing of Chris Stevens is not an excuse to attack America's pro-democratic
foreign policy,” that Washington should not let the spoiled fruits of its
operation in Libya hinder its quest to remove Bashar al-Assad, who Weiss
stalely refers to as a “mass-murdering tyrant.” [5]
The support given to militants in Libya and Syria have caused tragic violence
on an enormous scale for the citizens of those nations – the death of
Ambassador Stevens must be a warning that such policy will invariably sow
destruction and irreparable damage not only to those nations, but to the United
States.
In Syria, the dominant
narrative of “an authoritarian government murdering its own people,” as
reported by media outlets such as the BBC
and Al-Jazeera has proven to be a
disingenuous cover for external powers attempting to topple the government in
Damascus. For the past eighteen-months, those nations allied to Syria’s
militant opposition fighters have shown nothing but contempt and disregard for the
principles of international law. Although direct intervention has been blocked
by Russia and China in the United Nations, the Washington Post has confirmed that the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf
States are supplying weapons, funding, and logistical support to rebel forces
in Syria. [6] Despite
official claims that Washington has not yet begun equipping Syrian rebels, The New
York Times confirmed in their June 2012 article, "C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian
Opposition," that President
Obama approved the deployment of a small number of C.I.A. officers to southern
Turkey, who are providing arms to opponents of the Syrian government. [7]
While leaders such as US
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have scolded Assad’s government for failing
to abide by the UN-proposed ceasefire, Washington itself has helped fuel the
increasingly belligerent attacks on civilians carried out by Syrian rebels. Reuters’ April 2012 article titled "Outgunned Syria rebels make shift to bombs," includes admissions from the rebels that they
have been behind the spate of bombings ravaging the country. [8] Western
and Gulf nations have supported the rebel “Free Syrian Army” and recognized its
political wing, the “Syrian National Council” as the legitimate representatives
of the Syrian people, while media outlets owned by those nations have
dishonestly framed their coverage of events to fit their sponsors’ foreign
policy. The BBC has been plagued by
controversy for censoring a news story and video showing Syrian rebels forcing
a captured prisoner to detonate himself in a suicide bombing, a blatant
terrorist tactic and a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. [9]
Human Rights Watch has issued reports condemning Syria’s rebel fighters for conducting a systematic campaign of
kidnapping, torture, and atrocities carried out against security forces,
government supporters, and civilian victims. [10] In late May 2012, 108 people were brutally murdered
with knives and other short-range weapons in the Syrian village of Houla.
Syria’s state-owned news agencies reported that terrorist groups had committed
the atrocities, as it consistently maintained throughout the duration of the
unrest. Before UN monitors even arrived in Houla, the United States and its
allies were already calling for the "international community" to move
against the Syrian government. Rainer Hermann, a correspondent of the German
newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
published an account of the events in Houla, alleging that extremist anti-Assad
Sunni militants carried out the massacre, targeting pro-government civilians
and religious minorities. [11]
Investigations conducted by the
German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) confirmed that al-Qaeda terrorists
carried out “about 90 terrorist attacks” in Syria between late December 2011 and
early July 2012, including the Houla massacre. [12]
Clearly, reports of killings were framed to fit a pre-determined conclusion, in
line with the foreign policy objectives of Western capitals by implicating the
Assad regime in orchestrating violence in order to build popular support for
aggressively toppling the Syrian government. An article published by Foreign Policy in late July 2012 titled,
"Inside the quiet effort to plan for a post-Assad
Syria," lays bare the
methodology being used by the United States to establish a client regime in
Damascus. Washington, through the "United States Institute of Peace"
is working directly with Syrian opposition groups to formulate a new Syrian
constitution. [13] The
United States Institute of Peace is a direct functionary of the American
government, staffed by acting members of the US State Department, hardly a “legitimate
representative” of the Syrian people.
The
dubious objectives of the United States are apparent in the New York Times' article, "US to Focus on Forcibly Toppling Syrian Government,” which confirms that the Obama administration has
abandoned efforts for a diplomatic settlement to the conflict in Syria, and has
instead increased aid to Syrian rebels in an attempt to trigger a “controlled
demolition of the Assad regime.” [14]
Throughout the conflict, independent analysts reported the presence of foreign
mercenaries and al-Qaeda fighters among Syria’s rebel forces. For months,
Western media outlets obfuscated such reports, until their validity could be
denied no longer. Disturbingly, influential think tanks such as the US-based
Council on Foreign Relations have not condemned the increasing presence of
terrorist fighters in Syria; it has whole-heartedly embraced them. Ed Husain,
senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations argues in his August 2012
article, “Al-Qaeda's Specter in Syria,” in favor of al-Qaeda and their inclusion in the
Free Syrian Army:
The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably
weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army
(FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling
abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square
off with the Assad regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda
fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings
discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni
sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the
FSA needs al-Qaeda now. [15]
Husain’s
commentary is a testament to the desperate and bizarre illogicality of the US
position on Syria, characterized by a willingness to sponsor the very monsters
against whom Washington has long cried foul. Foreign Policy’s Gary Gambill followed suit by publishing an
article titled, "Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists," confirming that the violence in Syria is the
work of sectarian extremists, not "pro-democracy activists" as
reported by the Western media. Gambill continues his "two cheers" for
terrorism in perhaps the most perverse statement found to-date in the Western
press on the subject:
Islamists -- many of them hardened by
years of fighting U.S. forces in Iraq -- are simply more effective fighters
than their secular counterparts. Assad has had extraordinary difficulty
countering tactics perfected by his former jihadist allies, particularly
suicide bombings and roadside bombs. So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to
fighting Iran and its Arab proxies, we should quietly root for them -- while
keeping our distance from a conflict that is going to get very ugly before the
smoke clears. [16]
Reuters’ August 2012 report, “Libyan freedom fighters join with Syrian rebels,” confirms that members of the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group (LIFG) are stationed in Syria, and leading offensives against
the Syrian government. [17] The
LIFG is designated as an al-Qaeda affiliate by the United Nations pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011), noting several prominent LIFG
terrorists occupying the highest echelons of al-Qaeda's command structure. The
US State Department's own website features a list of designated foreign
terrorist organizations (FTO) upon which both al-Qaeda (#37) & the LIFG
(#28) are clearly listed. [18] The
misconduct of the United States with respect to aiding and abetting terrorist
organizations in Syria and Libya constitute high crimes and treason. Under the
current definition of United States’ anti-terrorism legislation, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton Senator John McCain, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice can be
charged under USC § 2339A
& 2339B -
Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist
organizations.
Reuters’ August 2012 article, “Securing Syria chemical weapons may take tens of
thousands of troops,” illustrates
the frightening possibility of direct military intervention in Syria,
confirming that the United States is considering sending 50,000 or 60,000
ground forces in Syria to secure chemical and biological weapons sites
following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad's government. [19] Washington
has long talked of “tipping the balance” of the conflict to their favor, and it
appears highly plausible that the threat of chemical weapons and their use may
be used to justify forcibly toppling Damascus. The implications of both foreign
military intervention and regime change in Syria hold unacceptable consequences
for the Syrian people and the entire region. While Damascus has responded to
this campaign of insurgency much like any government would, the lack of
restraint and the individual misconduct of members of the Syrian military have
regrettably contributed to the loss of life.
Any
political transition in Syria must be through dialogue and not through force.
Before any transition occurs, the Syrian government has the responsibility to
restore order and safety to the civilian population. As allied nations convene
together to decide the fate of Damascus, it would appear that the right of
Syria’s own people to decide their political destiny has been overlooked. Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has received harsh criticism from the West for
calling Washington’s position on Syria a “direct endorsement of terrorism.” [20] By acknowledging
the reality that Western nations are supporting mercenary fighters and
extremists, it is the hope that other nations stand with Russia and China in
the United Nations to oppose all forms of foreign military intervention in
Syria. Those who enabled the tragedy of Libya and the continued violence
wrought upon its people as a result of foreign intervention must be punished – not
by sword, but by gavel.
Notes
[1] US
warships steam towards Libya coast, Al-Jazeera, September 13, 2012
[2] US officials
investigating whether Libya attack was timed to 9/11 anniversary, Russia
Today, September 13, 2012
[3] US
officials say 2 warships moving toward Libya, Yahoo! News, September 13,
2012
[4] Obama
on Libya attack: "Justice will be done," CBS News, September 12,
2012
[5] The
killing of Chris Stevens is not an excuse to attack America's pro-democratic
foreign policy, The Telegraph, September 12, 2012
[6] Syrian rebels get influx of arms with gulf
neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination,
The Washington Post, May 15, 2012
[9] BBC Censors Video Showing Syrian Rebels Forcing
Prisoner to Become Suicide Bomber,
Infowars, August 23, 2012
Nile Bowie is a Kuala Lumpur-based American writer and photographer for the Centre for Research on Globalization based in Montreal, Canada. He explores issues of terrorism, economics and geopolitics.
