by Sandy Stringfellow
The Perils of Revolution
Patrick Cockburn wrote an editorial on September 12, 2012, also published in The Independent (UK), with a lengthy header and sub-header that speak volumes: The murder of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens proves the Arab Spring was never what it seemed - Bloody violence in Libya and protests in Egypt should dispel any notion that these revolutions were a vote in favor of Western ideals.
Mr. Cockburn makes the case - not without irony - that a dearth of knowledge and understanding of Middle-East reality among "informed" talking heads of all political persuasions helped perpetuate - through naive cheer leading - a grand illusion that may well result in far more widespread harm than any possible good:
"The Libyan revolution was never quite as it was portrayed by the media, politicians and diplomats at the time. It is true that its leaders in Benghazi were astute enough from the beginning to play down the role of Islamic militants in the uprising which began on 15 February 2011. They had no wish to frighten Western opinion when they were angling for military support. [...] But the opposition to Gaddafi in the 1990s and after had always been primarily religious, strongest in Cyrenaica, eastern Libya...if people were anti-Gaddafi at that moment they were also against the US occupation of Iraq. East Libyan towns provided a disproportionately high number of suicide bombers who went to Iraq."
“...[There's been] a misunderstanding which springs in part from the over-simple and propagandist media coverage of the Libyan rebels during their uprising in 2011. They were presented as white hats and Gaddafi’s forces as black hats, while journalists, and particularly TV channels, uncritically broadcast reports that government troops were involved in mass rape. When such tales of atrocities were discredited by Amnesty International, they were ignored."
“ In reality, the rebels were always more violent and anarchic than was reported. They would hardly have lasted more than a few weeks against Gaddafi without close air support from NATO. Since the fall of Gaddafi many of these militias have turned into uncontrolled bands of thugs."
Political and Military War-Gaming
Those whom study political history know the old Democrat Party is dead and gone. King Barry and his sponsors killed it off and installed their own sympathetic junta of Progressive Marxist ideologues to control the new Democrat Party. There's no existing ideology in American politics today with more experience in applied political strategic thinking or a greater sense of dedication to its' objective than Progressive Marxist counter-cultural revolutionaries.
It should also be mentioned that infiltration of federal and state government and of our institutions by Islamic fascist elements dedicated to the Caliphate and Sharia Law continues to gain momentum and improve its' effectiveness in steering the future direction of policy and judicial doctrine in the United States. Islamists should thank Progressive Marxists for advancing their cause; they've made inroads available that would not otherwise apply without the continued long-term efforts of the Progressive Marxists to break down societal mores and the traditional ideals, values, and principles instrumental to the cultural foundations of Western civilization.
As an example of said infiltration, consider King Barry. The opinion editorial from Investors Business Daily titled How Obama Engineered Mideast Radicalization, published on July 19, 2012, illustrates a simplified timeline of events from 2009; events in which King Barry is the central player involved in the process of fomenting revolution in Egypt and across the Middle East. A quick replay of a few of King Barry's Muslim Brotherhood highlights are as follows:
2010: Obama meets one-on-one with Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who later remarks on Nile TV: "The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim."
2011: The White House fails to back longtime ally Mubarak, who flees Cairo.
2011: White House sends intelligence czar James Clapper to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood's extremism. Clapper testifies the group is moderate, "largely secular."
2011: Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, is given a hero's welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad.
2011: The Brotherhood wins control of Egyptian parliament, vows to tear up Egypt's 30-year peace treaty with Israel and reestablishes ties with Hamas, Hezbollah.
2011: In a shocking first, the State Department formalizes ties with Egypt's Brotherhood, letting diplomats deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo.
It would appear - based upon his words and deeds - that King Barry is not only a Progressive Marxist revolutionary, but is a closet Muslim as well. How special. One must wonder: could the known motivations of these two seemingly disparate collections of anti-Western radicals possibly be problematic in so far as affecting the future well-being of the United States of America? Is the Muslim Brotherhood a benign political influence with good intentions, malleable in direction of thought, or an adversary that has always been at war with the United States? The Muslim Brotherhood's self-described mission statement may provide the answer: "“Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations”
Could this explain why King Barry has illustrated - again, through his actions - that enfeebling our military through budgetary gutting has been one of his top tier priorities, while simultaneously increasing our military engagements around the world? Is it not readily apparent with crystalline clarity King Barry has been using our military men and women in Afghanistan as political bargaining chips to facilitate his greater scheme for America's destruction? One may appreciate the efforts of those attempting to equate King Barry's outward strategy in Afghanistan with a Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement process; however, this is to ignore the verifiable history of transgressions King Barry has committed against the United States: a history that may only be described as overt treason as opposed to the typical liberal propensity of misguided diplomacy. "Soft power" is intellectual gamesmanship; cover to conceal the strategic objectives of King Barry's mission.
A Fast and Furious Connection
The following lines of inquiry regarding the Benghazi mission murders may seem a bit too far off-axis for serious contemplation by some readers - "tin foil hat" time, perhaps - so let us find a corollary news item that may provide enough "shock therapy" to jolt those lacking skepticism from their somnambulant condition; a type of criminal event requiring indisputable collusion at the highest levels of government. Operation Fast and Furious comes to mind as an example of such criminal conduct and abject corruption within the executive branch. Numerous similarities appear in the way Operation Fast and Furious has been handled and the manner by which the Benghazi mission murders are being handled from a strategic standpoint.
Michael Kelley reports in his article Mexican Diplomat Says America Pretty Much Invited The Sinaola Drug Cartel Across The Border, published by Business Insider on October 1, 2012, that leaked e-mails from the private security firm Stratfor cite a Mexican diplomat [confirming] the U.S. government works with Mexican cartels to traffic drugs into the U.S. and has sided with the Sinaola Cartel in an attempt to limit violence in Mexico and thus grease the skids for the 60 billion dollar annual drug business in the United States:
"Many people have doubted the quality of Stratfor's intelligence, but the information from MX1 - a Mexican foreign service officer who doubled as a confidential source for Stratfor - seems to corroborate recent claims about U.S. involvement in the drug war in Mexico. Most notably, the reports from MX1 line up with assertions by a Sinaola cartel insider that cartel boss Joaquin Guzman is a U.S. informant, the Sinaloa cartel was 'given carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago,' and Operation Fast and Furious was part of an agreement to finance and arm the Sinaloa cartel in exchange for information used to take down rival cartels."
Hypothetically, does this not appear to be a Progressive Marxist plan to sew destruction in America by arming the Sinaola drug cartel, reaping political benefits from reduced drug gang violence and a more politically stable Mexico through cooperation with the Sinaola cartel, tapping into the extraneous revenue from a 60 billion dollar U.S. illegal drug market through criminal associations, creating greater demand for illegal drugs by reducing costs through increased availability, thus furthering the erosion of civil society while creating political pressure in the U.S. for more restrictive gun laws, based on the false perception that U.S. gun dealers have been predominantly responsible for selling firearms to criminal elements in Mexico involved in the commission of felonious crimes, heinous atrocities and hundreds of murders? Strategically cunning, is it not? Ergo: "The Chicago Way.”
So let us carefully examine and critically analyze the Benghazi mission murders through the lens of an objective process - based on what's known and unknown - in an effort to isolate possibilities that make sense strategically. The following question is a five-alarm bell-ringer. It's based upon projection of a possible motive, examination of which includes circumstantial evidence and in-depth evaluation of all past behaviors, not just those in the near-term: Did top secret and highly protected inside information become known to Ambassador Stevens, was it damning enough to terminate King Barry's reelection bid, and was "The Chicago Way" deemed acceptable to eliminate a potential threat of discovery and the ensuing avalanche of political damage should such information become widely known?
Next: Part 4, Al-Qaeda in Post-Gaddafi Libya
Sandy Stringfellow is a writer and musician with an interest in history, economics, and politics.