PETER'S NEW YORK, Thursday, Aug. 18, 2011--Today's morning broadcast of National Public Radio carried a segment that gave us a glimpse into what NATO has planned in Libya if it defeats Muammar Al Qathafi. When listening to NPR, one must realize that this public radio outlet is better described as a conduit for U.S. State Department policy than as a news source. For example, at the beginning of the so-called "Arab Spring," commentators on its syndicated morning programs did not broach the possibility of military intervention in Tunisia or Egypt, both of which were among the first to experience uprisings earlier this year. But when same thing happened in Libya, the idea of the need for foreign intervention was quickly raised. And sure enough, such military intervention came to pass.
Well, this morning, [Agent?] Lourdes Garcia-Navarro told listeners, in response to an interview by [Station Chief?] David Greene, a host on NPR's morning show, that the capability of the "rebels" to rule Libya was the "million dollar question." [Agent?] Garcia-Navarro noted that there was "a lot of infighting" among the rebels," and speculated that perhaps they "don't have the chops" to run Libya.
"It still remains to be seen if they can bring this country together," [Agent?] Garcia-Navarro told listeners.
You'd have to be a fool not to figure out what all this meant. If the rebels could not bring the country together, then who would? A U.N. peacekeeping force, of course. This is the way one must listen to NPR. The supposedly nuanced hint is a mere justification for the next move by the imperial powers for what they want to do to Libya next.
Interestingly reflective of this hint, today's Council on Foreign Relations website promoted a paper entitled "Post-Qaddafi Stability in Libya." An "overview" of the paper tells us pretty much what we need to know about the document without wading through it in its entirety:
Multiple threats to Libya's stability and public order could emerge if the Qaddafi regime falls. Scenarios range from Qaddafi loyalist forces launching a violent resistance to internecine warfare breaking out among the rebel factions. This instability in Libya could lead to a humanitarian disaster, the emergence of a new authoritarian ruler, or even the country's dissolution.
Note the mention of a "humanitarian disaster." Under the pretext of stopping such a "disaster"-- which NATO created, by the way, by destabilizing the current regime--United Nations troops will rule the country, not the inept rebels. The "overview" continues:
Given these potential consequences, Daniel Serwer recommends in this Center for Preventive Action Contingency Planning Memorandum that the European Union [NATO?] lead a post-Qaddafi stabilization force in Libya. The force preferably should fall under the United Nations umbrella with modest [token?] participation from the African Union and Arab League. The United States should support the stabilization effort with the aim of helping to establish a united and sovereign Libya with inclusive democratic institutions [as it has in other countries?].
Of course America has an excellent track record for carrying out such a mission. With Afghanistan and Iraq firmly implanted in the U.S. resume, it should be a piece of cake to generate support for this new project.
Today U.S. President Barack Obama called for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, or, one supposes, to be booted out of his country or assassinated, judging from America's recent dealings with Qathafi. Comments to a Reuters article posted on Yahoo News were about 90 percent or more opposed to Obama sticking his nose where it didn't belong.
A good many of the comments were calls for Obama to step down. Here are four such consecutive comments:
Larry: Why doesn't he just take hillary and airforce one and fly over there and slap Assad around a bit and make him step down? Oh yeh, I forgot: it's much easier to send Americans there to die.
Give me your stuff: Obama, the new king maker of the world. And the Left is silent. It's Bush's fault. Maybe we will enter war#5 this is how it started with Libya. Maybe it will be over quickly like Libya. Oh wait it's still going on but with Obama media you would never know it. He will say no people (ha ha) just money and weapons to people that want us dead. If they don't attack us or our allies leave them alone. Not our problem.
Captain Carisma: Obama must go !!! It time to stop with the bullshit and send every troop home. Instead of rebuilding countries that try to take us out, we have to rebuild our own country and create f*cking jobs. Assad ? must go, why. He is not the problem why I cannot support my family. You are Mr president.
Judith: Why doesn't Syria Assad, ask OBAMA to step down, demands, why don't he pull out, and start taking care of his own country....
Some readers might claim that critics of intervention in Syria are internet savvy, and these statements do not really reflect the average American in the real world. Why is it, then, that one side of an issue suddenly has the laptop acumen, while the other doesn't? This argument, often used by establishment clones, is rather worn.
The comments quoted above betray a prevalent, underlying dissatisfaction with America's foreign policy for the Middle East and North Africa. But we do not live in an era where with a strong link between popularity and policy. Some may say: "We have a democracy. We can boot the bums out if we really want to." Not so fast. Alas, evidence is strong that American presidential elections are rigged. Do you really think the CIA would allow issues of national security such as the election of a president to be placed in the hands of the average American---the United States being the nation with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world? The reader may have taken note of the recent revelations that the establishment media has conspired to deny coverage to U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's political campaign under the guise that Paul has no chance of winning the Republican nod for the presidency. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
