The Libyan Conundrum by *S. M. Hali

The war in Libya, which according to AP, is costing US taxpayers nearly $1 billion, has become a conundrum, because it is not clear what the US is trying to achieve and who is it backing.  In the past, the United States has footed the bill for some costly no-fly zones. In the 1990s, the U.S. participated in Operation Noble Anvil, an air assault in Yugoslavia from March to June 1999, which cost $1.8 billion. After the first Persian Gulf War, two no-fly zones in Iraq to protect citizens from Saddam Hussein's wrath cost about $700 million a year—from 1992 to 2003. The US taxpayers are questioning that after having spent over 1,171,123,022,117 $ so far as the cost of War in Iraq & Afghanistan, both of which descended into unwinnable quagmires, it is not clear where the US is headed.

The current military attack on Libya has been motivated by UN Security Council resolution 1973 with the need to protect civilians. Statements by President Obama, British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Sarkozy, and other leaders have stressed the humanitarian nature of the intervention, which is said to aim at preventing a massacre of pro-democracy forces and human rights advocates by the Qaddafi regime. Simultaneously, many analysts  opine that the anti-Gaddafi forces, which are being strengthened by the Libyan operations, have a definite Al-Qaeda link. A 2007 West Point study by Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman: “Al-Qaida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” and two WikiLeaks documents strongly back this concern. The first secret cable to the State Department from the US embassy in Tripoli in 2008, entitled "Extremism in Eastern Libya" revealed that this area is not only rife with anti-American, pro-jihad sentiment but many eastern Libyans take pride in their participation in the insurgency in Iraq. The second set of documents, titled the “Sinjar Records”, comprise captured Al-Qaeda documents that fell into American hands in 2007. They were duly analyzed by the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point and conclude that Libya provided "far more" foreign fighters than any other country.

Al-Qaeda is not a centralized organization, but a motley crowd comprising fanatics, psychotics, double agents, provocateurs, mercenaries, and other elements. Webster G. Tarpley, in his recent book: ‘9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in USA’ reveals that Al-Qaeda was founded by the United States and the British during the struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Many of its leaders, such as the reputed second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri and Anwar Awlaki, are double agents of MI-6 and/or the CIA. The basic belief structure of Al-Qaeda is that all existing Arab and Moslem governments are illegitimate and should be destroyed, because they do not represent the caliphate described by the Koran. This paves the way for the Anglo-American secret intelligence agencies to attack and destabilize existing Arab and Muslim governments as part of the ceaseless imperialism and colonialism to loot and attack the developing nations. Al-Qaeda emerged from the cultural and political milieu of the Ikhwan (Moslem Brotherhood), a creation of British intelligence in Egypt in the late 1920s. The US and the British used the Ikhwan to oppose the successful anti-imperialist policies of Egyptian President Nasser, who nationalized the Suez Canal and built the Aswan High Dam, contributing to the development of modern Egypt.

Despite much uncertainty, the United Nations and its several key NATO countries, including the United States, have rushed forward to assist the armed forces of this rebel regime with air strikes. It is high time that American and European publics learned something more about this rebel regime which is supposed to represent a democratic and humanitarian alternative to Gaddafi. Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, who promulgated the Islamic emirate of “Barq” at Dernah, a town about 200 kms east of Benghazi, has been a close companion of Osama bin Laden. The Bush administration policy used the alleged presence of Al-Qaeda as a pretext for direct military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. Sifting through the fog of war, one must wade through the spin created by the US that the Al-Qaeda is motivated by a deep hatred of the United States and a burning desire to kill Americans, as well as Europeans on the one hand and Obama’s imprudent choice of taking the side of Al-Qaeda backed rebels in Libya on the other. We have to ponder whether the world will be a safer place with the Al-Qaeda taking control of Libya’s oil wealth and Gadhafi’s fabled gold cache? The world has a right to question!

*S.M. Hali, The author is a retired Group Captain, curently a free lance columnist

Libya: Materiel and Personnel in Place by *Julie Hyland

The United States, Britain and the European powers are deepening their preparations for intervention in Libya, including military action. They hope to exploit the popular revolt against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi to take control of Libya’s oil fields and establish a crucial base for further operations in the region under conditions where dictatorships on which they have relied for years are under siege.

In testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned, “The entire region is changing and a strong and strategic American response will be essential.”

Her statement came as the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise and two amphibious assault vessels complete with helicopters, the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, were taking up positions in the southwestern Mediterranean. A US military official said the aim was to “provide for flexibility once decisions are made” as to what action will be taken against Libya.

Britain is reported to have put in position a naval destroyer and a frigate off the coast of Libya. Echoing the statement of Susan Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations, that Gaddafi was “unfit to lead,” Prime Minister David Cameron stated that Gaddafi’s removal was Britain’s “highest priority.”

Britain’s chief of defence staff, Gen. Sir David Richards, is drawing up contingency plans for military operations, which sources state will include potential ground operations. The missions undertaken by various Western powers to rescue their nationals trapped in Libya will have also been used to drop reconnaissance forces into the country in advance of such a move.

As in the interventions in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, “humanitarian” concerns are being advanced as a disguise for colonial invasion. Tens of thousands of immigrant workers fleeing from Libya have passed into Tunisia and thousands are currently trapped in a no-man’s land on the border. Without shelter and only meagre provisions, the workers—many from Bangladesh, Ghana and Egypt—have little support or means of returning home.

According to the Guardian, “Officials said that the support of US and British armed forces might also be required to protect corridors to channel humanitarian relief into Libya through Tunisia and Egypt, if further conflict brought about a mass displacement of the population and a collapse in the food supply.”

Such “corridors” could potentially be used to position Western troops in three of the nations currently at the centre of mass uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East.

On Tuesday, the UN General Assembly voted to suspend Libya from its Human Rights Council. It followed moves by the US, Britain, Germany and Austria to freeze the assets of Gaddafi, his family and closest associates and the imposition of sanctions by the European Union—the recipient of 85 percent of Libya’s oil exports.

Addressing the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, Clinton said she had discussed with European foreign ministers further measures flowing from the UN Security Council resolution passed at the weekend, which imposed an arms embargo and asset freeze on the Libyan leader and those close to him.

“Nothing is off the table,” Clinton said, after she met with the foreign ministers of France, Germany, the UK and Italy to discuss setting up a no-fly zone over Libyan airspace, ostensibly in order to stop Gaddafi’s forces from attacking civilians.

In recent days, Gaddafi has attempted to take back areas captured by opposition forces in Ajdabiya, Misrata and the strategic port town of Zawiyah, to the west of Tripoli. All efforts were apparently repelled. Gaddafi has lost control of much of Libya’s oil and gas fields to the opposition.

There are reports that Tripoli has sent an aid convoy as an olive branch to rebel-controlled Benghazi, including food and medical supplies. Gaddafi is also said to have appointed Bouzaid Dordah, the head of Libya’s foreign intelligence service, to speak to opposition leaders—an offer that has been rejected. Within Tripoli, hundreds demonstrated Monday in Tajoura, a working class suburb, following the funeral of a protester killed by the regime over the weekend.

“A no-fly zone is an option we are actively considering. I discussed it today with allies and partners,” Clinton said.

Germany and France have indicated their support for no-fly zones, while Italy—the former colonial power in Libya—is said to have agreed the use of its bases for possible action against the country.

France said the zones must be approved by the United Nations, while German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said, “The impression that this is about military intervention must not emerge under any circumstances.” In reality, the no-fly zones are conceived of as the prelude to wider military intervention.

Addressing a Senate hearing Tuesday, General James Mattis, commander of US Central Command, said, “My military opinion is that it [no-fly zones] would be challenging. You would have to remove air defence capability in order to establish a no-fly zone, so no illusions here. It would be a military operation—it wouldn’t be just telling people not to fly airplanes.”

In other words, it would mean bombing Libyan airbases and planes.

The no-fly zone option has been attacked by Russia and China. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that world powers needed to “avoid the superfluous” as regards the Libyan crisis, while the country’s NATO ambassador, Dmitry Rogozin, said, “If someone in Washington is seeking a blitzkrieg in Libya it is a serious mistake because any use of military force outside the NATO responsibility zone will be considered a violation of international law.

“A ban on the national air force or civil aviation to fly over their own territory is still a serious interference into the domestic affairs of another country, and, at any rate, it requires a resolution of the UN Security Council.”

Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, also denounced US and UK calls for military intervention as an “absurdity.” “The Middle East and Africa have been viewed by the West as sources of oil and used as pawns in oil wars for decades,” Erdogan said, warning that this was behind the mass uprisings.

But Al Jazeera stated, “It’s worth noting that UN Security Council resolution 1970, passed on Saturday, did authorise member states to ‘adopt all measures necessary’ to secure the prompt and safe delivery of humanitarian assistance to those in need” in Libya.

In a further indication that the US and Britain are once again preparing to flout international law, the Financial Times said, “Erdogan’s comments suggest it could be difficult for a Western military operation to be conducted under NATO auspices. NATO tends to take decisions on military action by consensus. If it is unable to reach this consensus, the US and UK may be forced to mount a no-fly zone using an informal coalition of willing states.”

The terminology is an echo of the run-up to the 2003 war against Iraq, which proceeded without UN authorisation.

The BBC reported former British Prime Minister John Major stating that “ideally, a UN resolution would be put in place for a no-fly zone, but this ‘isn't absolutely necessary’ in law and order, and a collection of nations could take the decision themselves.”

*Julie Hyland, 42, has been a member of the International Committee since 1979, when she joined its youth organisation, the Young Socialists. She went on to become the YS National Secretary, in which position she led numerous campaigns in defence of the rights of the unemployed, students and young workers. Hyland stood as a parliamentary candidate for the Socialist Equality Party in the 1997 General Election. She is a member of the Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site and a full-time writer on political and social developments in Britain.

Lawrence of Arabia to Neo Cons by *Mansoor A. Malik

Nearly hundred years back when the British Empire was flexing their muscles in the Middle-East and South-West Asia, they had to face two powerful enemies: The Czar of Russia in Moscow and the Ottoman Turks in Istanbul. With the Russian Empire they managed to create Buffer Zones in Afghanistan and Azerbaijan to protect their interests in India and Iran respectively. Apart from this agreement, the British Empire also struck a friendly chord with the Russian Empire to dis-mantle their common enemy which they had mutually termed “The Sick Man of Europe” (Ottoman Turkey). The historical opportunity was provided to the British after the cessation of the First World War (1918) where the Ottoman Turks allied with the German Monarch were badly defeated by the Allied Forces. Lawrence of Arabia from the land and the British Navy from the sea were unleashed to carve out in the 1920s’ and the 1930s’ the existing map of the Middle-East to suit the Imperial Power in London and push the Ottomans back to Anatolia. The Russians regained their vantage position once again in the Balkans and Eastern Europe at the cost of the dwindling Ottoman Empire; whereas, the Union Jack flew all over the territories freed from the Ottoman Turks in the Middle-East. This British Mandate spread across Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, UAE in the Middle-East and through their holding in Iran connected them with their Golden Bird, India in the South/South-West Asia.

Till the dawn of the 21^st century, the map of the Middle-East remained the same as drawn by the British Empire. The new Power Center (USA) which emerged after the Second World War (1945) got its opportunity to enter the Middle-Eastern arena during the Suez Canal Crisis of the 1950s’ by supporting the claims of Egyptian Sovereignty over the Canal and getting the occupied forces from Britain/France/Israel vacate from the territories their armies had occupied after Gamal Abdul Nasser, the Egyptian President declared the Nationalization of the Suez Canal. This was, perhaps, the first and the last time that the Americans stood with the Arabian cause rather than with their natural western allies. In fact, the baton of power in the Middle-East was slowly but surely being passed from the Europeans to the Americans across the Atlantic. The status quo in the Middle-East as defined by the British was preserved by the Americans for the next fifty years or so till the Neo Cons in USA came to power and prepared their New American Century Doctrine.

The first demonstration of the Neo Cons’ policy in the new century was to be carried out by conquering Iraq and making it a model of American Democracy in the Middle-East for which Paul Wolfowitz, the Zionist thinker, implanted in the Department of Defense at the Pentagon was duly commissioned under the fossilized leadership of Mr. Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defense and a senior Neo Con leader. Never before in the history of mankind was a country conquered to make it Safe for Democracy. It could easily be compared with the invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet Union to make it Safe for Communism. As a result, Iraq was destroyed as a country in the name of Democracy and Afghanistan in the name of Communism.

The present indigenous youthful democratic movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and Yemen could provide a lesson or two to the American Neo Cons that Democracy cannot be thrust upon the people through the Barrel of the Gun (ala Iraq) but by the passionate desire of the people themselves. Anything thrust from outside cannot be long lasting unless it has a local flavor. The Neo Cons could have saved trillions of American tax payers’ dollars by winning the hearts and minds of the Middle-Eastern people rather than subjugating them like morons. The epi-center of Democracy in the Middle-East has now shifted from the one imposed in Iraq by the American War Machine unleashed by the Neo Cons to the peoples’ inspired one in Egypt.

The Neo Cons’ American Century has been challenged by the Muslim Youth of Egypt as well as by the majority population of Iraq, which now lies in ruin after ten years of Military Occupation. The majority of the young and internet suave population in the region is now demanding their democratic rights and would not accept the Western Imposed surrogate leaders any more. Political institutions have to be built from scratch in order to dis-courage future Bonaparte’s from taking over the reigns of their countries. The subjugated people have finally spoken after decades of deadly silence and the democratic die has now been casted leaving no chance to go back to the old ways.

The whole Middle-East is presently in a state of flux where the deeply entrenched Military/Civilian Dictators, one after the other, have fallen like king pins, leaving a big vacuum in its aftermath. Democratic and strong Turkey in its Northern Flank and Democratic Nuclear Armed Pakistan in its Eastern Flank along with Iran can provide stability, provided the Counter Revolutionaries aided and abetted by Outside Forces are checkmated and isolated. It would be very challenging for the elected political leaders of Turkey, Pakistan and Iran to guard the aroma of democracy spreading all along the youthful populations’ of the Middle-Eastern countries. In the beginning of the 20^th Century, the European Powers managed to out maneuver the Ottoman Turks to establish themselves in the Resource Rich Muslim lands and implant their surrogate state, Israel, in the heart of Palestine. Will the Democratic Muslim Countries of Turkey, Pakistan and Iran on the fringes of the embroiled Middle-Eastern countries fare better in the 21^st century to help their Muslim Brothers on the road to Democracy? Only time will tell.

*Mansoor A. Malik, has been Director General with over 33 year of experience in planning, establishing and managing national level, strategic, high-tech organizations. Director General, Marketing & Industrial Relations Organization (MIRO). Commandant, College of Aeronautical Engineering, Risalpur.

Muslim World in Leadership Crisis by *Jawad Raza Khan

Rise of European colonialism changed the perception of life wherever it reached. It brought modern Western ideas and concepts to the lands which were not known to them partially or utterly. Some of those new ideas were indeed responsible to bring revolutionary changes in native’s life of the conquered land but what it left on the face of it were divided groups of people with conflicting interests. No doubt, nation-state and its concomitant bureaucratic structure, ambitious political theories, human rights and new economic opportunities came as an excellent package to the new born nations but what they completely lost was their self confidence, identity, cultural values and most importantly potential as a nation to groom honest and dedicated leadership.

The recent uprising of common man in Arab world is indeed a sign of people coming out of a dangerous intellectual crisis, which was forced upon them after the fall of British Empire – Importantly it took nearly a century for them to do it.  Beginning of the end of colonialism and fall of Ottoman Empire happened more or less simultaneously – it changed the world map. The fall of Ottoman Empire immediately after the 2^nd world war dramatically shifted anarchy from Europe to the Muslim world, mainly due to selfish individualism of western and American society pouring and settling in Muslims selfless collectiveness – It took more than two generations to entirely wipe out the ill effects and now the political dynamics of the Muslim world is changing spectacularly and swiftly. The question arises why it took so long? It is yet another point to understand that end of British colonialism was the beginning of American’s neo colonialism in the garb of imperialism. This covert form of colonialism acted as a breather for westerners especially Europeans, which took its effect by controlling the political theater of the world through trained, tamed and corrupt leadership.

From the Islamic Republic of Iran to secular republics in the Arab world or Indonesia, from monarchies in the Arab world, Malaysia, Nigeria (where monarchies rule over provinces), and Brunei, to democracies in Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia, Muslim states include great diversity in politics and the workings of governments. One thing which is a purely common in these states is Islam, not only as a faith but also as a source of identity and an important factor in social relations and politics. The next thing which is more common amongst them is an impurity in the form of democratic dictators or dictatorial democrats with following important character traits.

• Chosen and placed by neo colonial powers by hook or by crook
• Most of them dishonest and corrupt
• Extremely lacking in self confidence for decision making and
• Rule and works for vested interest

It is by and large believed in most of the world that political upheaval in Arab world is a well designed act by Americans and is a continuation of pick and chose theory adopted by Americans since long. Even before the fall of communism, this theory has indeed worked miracles for them – at least in our part of the world. In case of Pakistan, from hanging of Bhutto to crash of Zia and removal of Musharraf, things really moved in right direction for them. The main reason for this unprecedented success is deplorable economic condition of the people of Pakistan which paved their way for this deadly power game for changing leadership. A country where bare minimum essentials of life like Roti Kapra aur Makaan canbecome a wining agenda for a political victory. This environment has also played a pivotal role in depleting the potentials of Pakistan for grooming leadership of their own – who can speak their language and work for their interest – situation in Arab world is little different from here at least in terms of individual and State economy. That is the main reason why most of the people in Muslim world think that turbulent political environment of the Arab world cannot be a case of collective change in Arabs forced or instigated by Americans – obviously all the Arab dictators have not lost their utility and faith for Americans.

As a matter of fact, absence of quality leadership remains imminent in Arabs as well, despite of their booming economics there is no alternative in shape of credible leadership available to do the damage control especially with reference to volatile situation in Egypt and Libya. So all said and done American interests in the region will be taken care of by filling up this vacuum by different viable options prompted and supported by westerners – but on the other hand this quagmire can be a great source of inspiration for a poor but fortunately a democratic country like Pakistan, where vibrant media can trigger the public opinion by realizing them of all pros and cons in case of absence of quality leadership. The media can also do the all important job of awaking masses and can act as a credible institution for political awareness through social means.

* Jawad Raza Khan is a different politico-social analysts of the world, opine in a different manner about division of India.

US: Restoring Economic Sovereignty by *Ellen Brown

"It is time to declare economic sovereignty from the multinational banks that are responsible for much of our current economic crisis.  Every year we ship over a billion dollars in Oregon taxpayer dollars to out-of-state and multinational banks in the form of deposits, only to see that money invested elsewhere. It's time to put our money to work for Oregonians."

– Bill Bradbury, former Oregon Senate President and Secretary of State, quoted  inThe Nation

Responding to an unfilled need for credit for local government, local businesses and consumers, three states in the last month have introduced bills for state-owned banks — Oregon, Washington and Maryland – joining Illinois, Virginia, Massachusetts and Hawaii to bring the total number to seven.

While Wall Street is reporting record profits, local banks are floundering, credit for small businesses and consumers remains tight, and local governments are teetering on bankruptcy.  There is even talk of allowing state governments to file for bankruptcy, something current legislation forbids.  The federal government and Federal Reserve have managed to find trillions of dollars to prop up the Wall Street banks that precipitated the credit crisis, but they have not extended this largesse to the taxpayers and local governments that have been forced to pick up the tab.

In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed had ruled out a central bank bailout for state and local governments.  The collective state budget deficit for 2011 is projected at $140 billion, a mere 1% of the $12.3 trillion the Fed managed to come up with in liquidity, short-term loans, and other financial arrangements to bail out Wall Street.  But Chairman Bernanke said the Fed is limited by statute to buying municipal government debt with maturities of six months or less that is directly backed by tax or other assured revenue, a form of debt that makes up less than 2% of the overall muni market.  State and municipal governments, it seems, are on their own.

Faced with federal inaction and growing local budget crises, an increasing number of states are exploring the possibility of setting up their own state-owned banks, following the model of North Dakota, the only state that seems to have escaped the credit crisis unscathed.  The 92-year-old Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the only state-owned U.S. bank, has helped North Dakota avoid the looming budgetary disasters of other states.  In 2009, North Dakota sported the largest budget surplus it had ever had.  The BND helps fund not only local government but local banks and businesses, by providing matching funds for loans to commercial banks to support small business lending.

In the last month, three states have introduced bills for state-owned banks, following the North Dakota model.  On January 11, a bill to establish a state-owned bank was introduced in the Oregon State legislature; on January 13, a similar bill was introduced in Washington State (discussed in an earlier article here); and on February 4, a bill was introduced in the Maryland legislature for a feasibility study looking into the possibilities.  They join Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, which introduced similar bills in 2010.

Broad-based Support

The bills are widely supported by small business owners.  The Seattle Times reported on February 3 that 79% of 107 business owners surveyed by the Main Street Alliance of Washington supported the Washington bill.  More than half said they had experienced a tightening of business credit, and three-fourths of those said they could create additional jobs if their credit needs were met.

A survey by the Main Street Alliance of Oregon produced similar results.  Their survey, which covered 115 businesses in 28 communities, found that two-thirds of small-business owners had delayed or canceled expansions because of credit problems; 41 percent had been turned down for credit; and 42 percent had seen their credit terms deteriorate.  Three-quarters of the business owners surveyed supported the Oregon bill.

 Also supporting the idea of a state-owned bank is Oregon state treasurer Ted Wheeler, with this twist: he thinks Oregon can unlock additional lending capacity in partnership with existing institutions by creating a “virtual” bank.  The state would not need to build new brick and mortar banks requiring hundreds of new employees to service them.  The new tools afforded the state by being a “bank” could be arranged quickly and cheaply through a framework he calls a “virtual economic development bank.”  In an OpEd posted on Oregonlive.com on February 9, he wrote:

This new model would consolidate Oregon’s various economic development loan programs in one place, and allow state government to step in as a new lending participant, which will help qualified Oregonians to secure additional financing. We also have strategic investment tools such as the Oregon Growth Account that could be better utilized as part of this framework.

Banks “create” money by leveraging their capital into loans.  At an 8% capital requirement, they can leverage capital by a factor of twelve, so long as they can attract sufficient deposits (collected or borrowed) to clear the outgoing checks.  States give this leveraging power away when they put their deposits in Wall Street banks and invest their capital there.

State and municipal governments have assets tucked all over the state in separate rainy day funds, which are largely invested in Wall Street banks for a very modest return.  At the same time, states are borrowing from Wall Street at much higher interest rates and have to worry about such things as credit ratings, late fees, and interest rate swaps, which have proven to be very good investments for Wall Street and very bad investments for local governments.

By consolidating their assets into their own state-owned banks, state and local governments can leverage their own funds to finance their own operations; and they can do this essentially interest-free, since they will own the bank and will get the interest back.  The BND contributed over $300 million to state coffers in the past decade, a notable achievement for a state with a population that is less than one-tenth the size of Los Angeles County.

The growing movement to establish local economic sovereignty through state-owned banks has been a grassroots effort that has grown spontaneously in response to unmet needs for local credit. In Oregon, the push has come from an active volunteer group called Oregonians for a State Bank working with the Working Families Party.  In Washington, a major role has been played by theMain Street Alliance,a project of the Alliance for a Just Society (formerly NWFCO).  The chief legislative champion in Washington State is Rep. Bob Hasegawa.  In Maryland, the campaign was initiated by the Wisconsin-based Center for State Innovation (CSI), working with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Progressive States Network.  Progressive Maryland is a prominent NGO supporter.  Detailed analyses of the Washington and Oregon initiatives and their projected benefits have been done by CSI.  For grassroots efforts in other states and for petitions that can be signed, see http://publicbankinginstitute.org/state-info.htm.

*Ellen Brown is an attorney and the author of eleven books.  In Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money

Resurrecting the Neocons: Marc Grossman in … Richard Perle & Douglas Feith in Queue by *Sibel Edmonds

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has chosen a new special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan: a long-time controversial neocon, a man who has been famous for parading as a foreign agent in the lobby circuit, the scandalous former diplomat Marc Grossman. The not-so-gradual resurrection of the old neocon cabal under the Obama administration, led by Hillary Clinton, should not come as a surprise. According to Washington insiders, Daniel Perle and Douglas Feith have been consulted more than a few times in their ‘unofficial’ capacity, but are not far down in the queue to receive ‘official’ acknowledgement. This shouldn’t come as a surprise; at least to those who’ve been following the steady momentum building at the Obama White House towards a soon-to-come Neocon Easter.

Hillary Clinton appointed Dennis Ross as Special Advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia; a man well-known as a hard-core neocon,  Paul Wolfowitz’ protégé, cofounder of the AIPAC sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and one of the loudest advocates for the Israel lobby. A man who is known to consider himself more Israeli than American; a Jewish American who is known to have spent ‘a lot of time’ in Israel to find his real identity-nationality.

We had Frederick Kagan, a neocon of choice for Mr. Obama, who was hired to manage General Petraeus on Afghanistan. A man whose father was born into a Jewish family in Lithuania; a man cherished by his bosses at the American Enterprise Institute; a man who authored the book, While America Sleeps, arguing in favor of a large increase in military spending and warned of future threats, including the imaginary WMD program in Iraq. We are talking about the man who was one of the main signatories of Project for the New American Century manifesto – the Neocon Bible. The man who was one of the Bush-Cheney administration’s favorite masterminds when it came to perpetual wars.

Let’s jump to our newest and by far the boldest Neocon addition to the Obama-Clinton Whitehouse. Marc Grossman is chosen by the administration to fill the seat vacated by Richard Holbrooke; another Jewish American Neocon who had been a man of choice for every administration in the last four decades. I suggest you read the article titled ‘Obama’s Neocon’ if you want to know a bit more about the old neocon shoes Mr. Grossman will be filling. As for our media’s usual sanitized version for Mr. Grossman’s background, the following by the neocon circle PR machine, the Washington Post, sums it up well:

In a nearly three-decade career at the State Department, Grossman served as assistant secretary of state for Europe and ambassador to Turkey. His last assignment, before retiring from the foreign service in 2005, was undersecretary for political affairs during the first administration of George W. Bush.

He now is vice chairman of the Cohen Group, which advises international business clients on overseas enterprises. Although the consulting group, headed by former defense secretary William Cohen, has several clients with contracts in South Asia, administration officials said they did not foresee any problem in clearing Grossman for the post.

…

From the mainstream media reporting similar to the above, ordinary Americans should at least gather this much:

Mr. Grossman had to be a Bush-Cheney administration favorite to be appointed as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the State Department’s third-ranking official, in 2001. In 2004, Grossman attained the Foreign Service’s highest rank when the President appointed him to the rank of Career Ambassador.

Grossman works for the sin city’s (Washington DC) lobby industry. Not only that, he actually represents foreign governments, foreign businesses and interests. The Cohen Group represents some of the country’s largest weapons manufacturers, companies that stand to benefit from weapons sales: Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Sikorsky…among others. Their list of controversial and or criminal entities includes companies such as DynCorp International. Through their partnership with DLA Piper, the Cohen group also serves foreign clients such as the Turkish government and business interest groups, Australia’s scandalous AWB, India and UAE. 

And here is what many Americans won’t be getting from the US media:

-  The investigative reports on Marc Grossman and his role in planting moles in US nuclear facilities:

An unnamed high-ranking State Department official helps a nuclear smuggling ring connected to Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan and Pakistan’s ISI to plant “moles” in US military and academic institutions that handle nuclear technology, according to FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. The State Department official apparently arranges security clearance for some of the moles, enabling them to work in sensitive nuclear research facilities, including the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico, which is responsible for the security of the US nuclear deterrent. The high-ranking State Department official who is not named by Britain’s Sunday Times is said to be Marc Grossman…

- John M. Cole, a former FBI Counterintelligence and Counterespionage Manager, has publicly confirmed FBI’s decade long investigation the former State Department Official, Marc Grossman:

John M. Cole, a former FBI Counterintelligence and Counterespionage Manager, has publicly confirmed the FBI’s decade long investigation of the former State Department Official Marc Grossman. Cole worked for 18 years in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. According to Cole, as in over one hundred cases involving Israeli espionage activities directed against the US government, the Grossman case was covered up and buried despite mountains of evidence that was collected.

Here is the public response from John Cole after the publication of The American Conserva

tive magazine’s cover story:

“I read the recent cover story by The American Conservative magazine. I applaud their courage in publishing this significant interview. I am fully aware of the FBI’s decade-long investigation of the High-level State Department Official named in this article, Marc Grossman, which ultimately was buried and covered up. It is long past time to investigate this case and bring about accountability…”

-Marc Grossman was the originator of the Plame Leak:

Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, prepares a memo about former ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger to ascertain the truth or falsity of claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from that nation (see February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002). The memo refers explicitly to Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, as a CIA official and identifies her as Wilson’s wife, using the name “Valerie Wilson.” The second paragraph of the memo is marked with an “S,” denoting that Wilson is a covert operative for the agency.

-In late December 2005, Grossman joined Ihlas Holding, a large and alleged shady Turkish company which is also active in several Central Asian countries. Grossman is reported to receive $100,000 per month for his advisory position with Ihlas.
-In May 2010, DLA Piper, one of the world’s largest international lobby-law firms, hired Marc Grossman as their front man for their Turkish operations. The man in charge of one of DLA Piper major accounts-Turkey is none other than our good ole Dennis Hastert. That makes two former FBI criminal targets for one firm;-)
Now, with all these murky qualifications, you’d think the mainstream media would have a field day with Marc Grossman’s appointment by the Hillary-Obama administration; right? Wrong. So far, not a peep from the US media and that includes both the ‘R’ and the ‘D’ fronts. Same goes for the quasi alternatives. Not even a word about the ‘revolving door’ aspect of this scandalous appointment: A Foreign Agent, A Lobbyist, A man on the payroll of a shady foreign company for over $1 million a year…But then again, less than a month ago we witnessed another envoy, another appointment, with a major ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST’ flag rising to its top that went completely censored in the US media. The scandal was widely reported by foreign media, such as the Independent, who actually broke the story, and even after that, we barely heard a peep:
Frank Wisner, President Barack Obama’s envoy to Cairo who infuriated the White House this weekend by urging Hosni Mubarak to remain President of Egypt, works for a New York and Washington law firm which works for the dictator’s own Egyptian government.
The US State Department and Mr Wisner himself have now both claimed that his remarks were made in a “personal capacity”. But there is nothing “personal” about Mr Wisner’s connections with the litigation firm Patton Boggs, which openly boasts that it advises “the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and has handled arbitrations and litigation on the [Mubarak] government’s behalf in Europe and the US”. Oddly, not a single journalist raised this extraordinary connection with US government officials – nor the blatant conflict of interest it appears to represent.
…
Mr Wisner is a retired State Department 36-year career diplomat – he served as US ambassador to Egypt, Zambia, the Philippines and India under eight American presidents. In other words, he was not a political appointee. But it is inconceivable Hillary Clinton did not know of his employment by a company that works for the very dictator which Mr Wisner now defends in the face of a massive democratic opposition in Egypt. So why on earth was he sent to talk to Mubarak, who is in effect a client of Mr Wisner’s current employers?
…
Patton Boggs states that its attorneys “represent some of the leading Egyptian commercial families and their companies” and “have been involved in oil and gas and telecommunications infrastructure projects on their behalf”. One of its partners served as chairman of the US-Egyptian Chamber of Commerce promoting foreign investment in the Egyptian economy. The company has also managed contractor disputes in military-sales agreements arising under the US Foreign Military Sales Act. Washington gives around $1.3bn (£800m) a year to the Egyptian military.

Mr Wisner joined Patton Boggs almost two years ago – more than enough time for both the White House and the State Department to learn of his company’s intimate connections with the Mubarak regime. The New York Times ran a glowing profile of Mr Wisner in its pages two weeks ago – but mysteriously did not mention his ties to Egypt.
…
I find this sentence in the above quotes really funny: “Oddly, not a single journalist raised this extraordinary connection with US government officials” As far as our media goes, what’s odd about that?! They’ve been really consistent at remaining very ‘odd’ when it comes to reporting on ‘crucial, troublesome & very relevant’ facts like this one. And, Marc Grossman’s recent unofficial appointment to be official this Friday is another perfect example:

A long-time neocon, a Jewish-American with questionably strong ties to Israel, a long-term target of FBI counterespionage and counterintelligence investigations, a lobbyist, a foreign agent, an employee of a shady foreign business, a man associated with major treason scandals, Marc Grossman, is making his way back to the ‘new’ administration, following his several other co-species who’ve been sitting inside, leading the way for the rest of the co-species who’ve been eagerly waiting to be granted official entry cards. Thanks to the media, while the public is sitting in the dark, the Obama-Hillary White House is changing color to pastels,  getting ready for their Neocon Easter and the resurrection of the previously, and dubiously, advertised as long-gone and dead breed – Neo-cons.

*Sibel Edmonds is a freelance writer

Arab World: The US in Action by *Wayne Madsen

The Obama administration has ordered the Pentagon and CIA to draw a "line in the sand" to prevent the popular overthrow of other U.S. client dictatorial regimes in North Africa and the Middle East. The order comes after a New York Times report that Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates covertly supported Obama's envoy Frank Wisner, Jr's message of support and encouragement for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak before his ouster by the Egyptian military following the democratic opposition uprising in Egypt.

Using the CIA's and Mossad's contrived constructs of two "straw-man" terrorist organizations — Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) — created to justify U.S. military and security support for the oil states of the Arabian peninsula and U.S. natural gas interests in the Sahel region, the Pentagon has stepped up military support for Yemen's dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh and Algerian leader Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

Under the rubric of the Trans-Saharan Counter-Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP), the United States, with the cooperation of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to Algeria's security police and military. The TSCTP was formerly known as the Pan-Sahel Initiative. The Algerian security police have used U.S.-supplied lethal military and non-lethal crowd control equipment, including night-vision equipment, armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles, global positioning systems, and secure radios, to forcibly put down pro-democracy protesters in Algiers who want the Bouteflika regime to follow in the steps of the Mubarak regime in Egypt and resign. Similarly, in Egypt, security police used U.S.-supplied tear gas and canisters on pro-democracy demonstrators.

Among the chief suppliers of military and security equipment to Algeria are Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, AM General, and Northrop Grumman.

In neighboring Morocco, TSCTP military assistance, including that provided through International Military Training and Education (IMET) programs, has been used to put down demonstrators in Western Sahara, illegally occupied by Morocco, who support the POLISARIO liberation movement. U.S. and neocon propagandists have falsely accused POLISARIO of links with AQIM. Tuareg liberation movements across the Sahara are also accused by the Pentagon and its neocon operatives of having ties to AQIM. However, the charges are a ruse to protect the operations of U.S. and other western natural gas and oil operations in the Sahara, particularly in southern Algeria where the United States has helped set up a regional military command center.

The events in Tunisia and Egypt have also brought out protesters in Morocco who want a curtailment of the powers of Morocco's pro-U.S. monarchy but who face a military and security force armed to the teeth by the United States.

U.S. military training for North Africa's autocratic regimes in provided annually during the Pentagon's OPERATION FLINTLOCK military exercise. Last year's exercise, conducted from May 3 to 22, included military forces from Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal, Niger, Chad, and Nigeria. French and British troops also participated in the operation. Another Pentagon program that is involved in providing security assistance to the Algerian regime is Operation Active Endeavor.

U.S. Special Forces reportedly maintain a permanent presence in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Mauritania where they support local military operations against groups accused of being allied with AQIM and another insurgent group, now thought to be very few in numbers — the Salafist movement and an Islamist group accused of having links to Al Qaeda. The Salafist movement in Algeria, GSPC, was announced by Al Qaeda's Egyptian number two man, Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri, to have merged with Al Qaeda on September 11, 2006, creating AQIM. The announcement appears to have been another U.S. and Israeli intelligence-contrived ruse to justify stepping up U.S. military and intelligence support for the regimes in Algiers, Tunis, Rabat, and Nouakchott. In fact, many of the Islamist "militants" arrested by local military and police forces in the Sahel region and accused of being AQIM and Salafist "terrorists" are merely small-time criminals involved in smuggling drugs and weapons across poorly-protected national borders.

One of the chief Pentagon supporters for U.S. client-dictators across the Sahel to the Horn of Africa is Vicki Huddleston, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for African Affairs, who maintains particularly close connections to Algeria's military and security hierarchy, including Defense Minister-Delegate Abdelmalek Guenaizia and African and Maghreb Affairs Minister Abdelkader Messahel.

Details of Huddleston's October 2009 meeting in Algiers with senior Algerian officials remain shrouded in secrecy, according to the Algerian newspaper Liberté in an October 20, 2009 article. However, many in the Algerian opposition believe that Huddleston was discussing the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Algeria. Huddleston also had a meeting at the Algerian Defense Ministry at which "military and technical cooperation" was discussed. A prior visit by officers of the US European Command to Algiers concentrated on the training of Algerian intelligence, special security police, and gendarmes by Pentagon-and CIA-supplied instructors. There were also reports that Saudi Arabia covertly financed the purchase from the United States of armored security vehicles by Algeria and Mauritania for use against anti-regime activists.

Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, a known supporter of Israeli interests, also has established close ties with Algeria's leaders, notably Foreign Minister Ahmed Ouyahia. Just as with Israel's special relationship with Egypt's intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, Tel Aviv has established close links with the leaders of other Arab dictatorships, including Algeria, using trusted American interlocutors like Feltman and Huddleston. Huddleston has a long resume that includes past postings in locations where the CIA has been engaged in major covert activities: she was George W. Bush's head of the US Interests Section in Havana in 2002 where she was engaged in anti-Castro activities and ambassador to Ethiopia, where she helped provide political and military support to that nation's dictator Meles Zenawi.

As with Algeria, the Pentagon has been supplying the Saleh regime in Yemen with massive amounts of military and security hardware. US Special Operations forces have been training Yemeni security forces who have targeted Shi'a Zaidi tribal members in north Yemen and South Yemeni secessionist forces in the former People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, a formerly socialist nation that was forcibly kept within Yemen in a 1994 civil war, a war in which the Clinton administration provided north Yemeni forces with military hardware and satellite and communication intelligence.

The Pentagon has justified its $150 million in military and security assistance to Yemen for fiscal year 2010 by claiming it is needed to fight "AQAP," another CIA- and Mossad-constructed "Al Qaeda" franchise. The Pentagon has doubled military assistance to Yemen for fiscal year 2011 to $250 million. The assistance, which almost mirrors that given to the Algerian regime, includes night-vision equipment, armored vehicles, Humvees, Huey helicopters, and communications and Internet surveillance systems. Yemeni forces have used their U.S.-supplied military hardware and training to brutally suppress pro-democracy demonstrations in Sanaa, Aden, and other cities in the country.

While the Obama administration offers platitudes to the pro-democracy wave sweeping the Arab world, the military assistance provided by the Pentagon and CIA to repressive regimes speaks for itself. The last-ditch efforts by the Pentagon, State Department, and CIA to save the Mubarak regime in its final days will be repeated in Algiers, Sanaa, and the capitals of other U.S. client states in the North Africa and Middle East region.

FY 2011 official US military assistance to client dictatorships in North Africa and Middle East
Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP)        $20,000,000
IMET – Algeria                                                                                  $950,000
IMET – Yemen                                                                                  $1,100,000
Foreign Military Financing – Yemen                                            $35,000,000

*Wayne Madsen, is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written for several renowned papers and blogs.