By Finian Cunningham
Source: Strategic Culture
Now we know how France secured a $3 billion arms deal from Saudi Arabia – by bestowing a senior Saudi prince with the Legion of Honor. For many French citizens the Legion of Honor symbolizes France’s national soul. And now the French government has put a grubby price tag on it.

The move by Paris to grasp the chance of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia also comes a week after the European Union parliament voted for an embargo on weapons supply to the kingdom over mounting human rights concerns.

Again, the French authorities – despite lofty proclamations about human rights and international law – don’t seem to have any scruples when it comes to clinching a $3 billion arms contract.

That contract was reportedly in the balance last week because of a diplomatic spat between Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, where the French weapons, paid for by the Saudis, were destined for.

Then, to the relief of the French government, the Saudis announced that they were going ahead with the arms purchase. In the new arrangement, the Saudis said that they would be taking consignment of the weapons supply from France – for their own use, thus cutting out the Lebanese national army, which had been originally designated as the beneficiary of the defense upgrade.

A day later, on Friday, Saudi deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Nayef is received in Paris at the French presidential Élysée Palace and duly awarded the Legion of Honor.

To ascribe coincidence to these developments would be impossibly naive. The quiet, almost secretive, way in which the heir to the Saudi throne was awarded the honor shows that the Paris authorities knew that granting of the medal could prove to be embarrassing.

News of the accolade only came out through reports that were carried in the Saudi official media outlet, whose House of Saud rulers were of course delighted with the grand French «honor».

France’s presidential office was obliged to confirm the award two days later – on Sunday – after the news had been broken by the Saudi media. Why the coy official French manner? No doubt, Paris was all too aware that it would appear that the gong was bestowed because it was a tawdry pay-off to the Saudis for their arms purchase going through.

The awarding of the prestigious French medal – considered to be the nation’s highest honor – has sparked public furor in France and around the world because of Saudi Arabia’s horrendous human rights record. «Disgraceful», «Shame», «Worthless», are just a few of the words of condemnation to have erupted across news and social media.

On the same weekend that the Saudi minister – a nephew of King Salman – received his French honor, the absolute, unelected rulers executed the 70th person so far this year from among the country’s burgeoning prison population. Most executions in the oil-rich kingdom are carried out by beheading with a sword. Often the decapitated corpse is subsequently hung by crucifixion in public view as a macabre warning to would-be offenders.

There is also widespread public outrage over Saudi Arabia’s ongoing bombardment of neighboring Yemen where thousands of civilians have been killed in Saudi-led air strikes over the past year. The Saudi campaign – supported by the US, British and French governments – claims to be aimed at putting down an «Iranian-backed rebellion» led by Houthi fighters.

But those claims are dubious. Yemen looks to many observers like a case of illegal foreign aggression by the Saudis on the poorest country in the Arab region. In any case, as the United Nations has declared in several dire humanitarian warnings, most of Yemen’s 24 million population are suffering from a Saudi military blockade, with reports of children starving from lack of food, water and medicines.

Furthermore, while the French presidency claimed that the Legion of Honor was awarded to Mohammed bin Nayef, the country’s interior minister, for his role in the fight against terrorism, the official citation strains credibility and contempt.

There is abundant evidence to show that the Wahhabi Islamist Saudi rulers have been prominent financial and ideological sponsors of al-Qaeda-linked terror groups over many years. Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted the Saudi terror connection back in 2009 in diplomatic cables leaked by whistleblower source Wikileaks. These same Saudi-backed terror groups are a central element in the Western-backed covert war for regime change in Syria since March 2011.

But getting back to the French-Saudi arms deal. Only last week that deal looked set to be cancelled after the Saudi rulers announced that they were not going ahead with a $4 billion aid grant to Lebanon’s government. That offer was reportedly made to Lebanon back in November 2014 by Saudi Arabia. Most of it – some $3 billion – was slated to be spent on French weapons and other military equipment in order to upgrade the Lebanese national army.

Last month, the Saudis backed away from the grant to Lebanon because they claimed that the Beirut-based Hezbollah Shia resistance movement was exerting too much influence over the Lebanese government, of which it is an elected coalition party.

The Saudis were irked, for instance, after the Lebanese government declined to support Riyadh in denouncing Iran over an attack by protesters on its embassy in Tehran. That incident followed the execution by Saudi Arabia of Shia cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr in January this year, along with 46 other prisoners.

The real reason for Saudi petulance is that Hezbollah militia fighting in Syria have been a major military factor in why Syrian president Assad’s army has managed to turn the strategic tables on the anti-government insurgents there. Russian air power and Syrian army ground forces backed by Hezbollah and Iranian militia have salvaged Syria from a proxy war for regime change that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Western governments had fomented over the past five years.

Cancellation of the military grant to Lebanon by the Saudis was also accompanied by other diplomatic slights towards Beirut, including travel warnings and a fresh declaration by Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf cronies against Hezbollah as a «terrorist organization».

Thus there can be little question that the abrupt Saudi cut-off of military aid to Lebanon is part of its proxy war in Syria.

That cut-off, however, appeared to leave France out in the cold as the weapons supplier. Until, that is, Saudi Arabia subsequently announced that it was going ahead with the French arms purchase, with the equipment being shipped to Saudi Arabia instead of Lebanon.

With the French economy languishing under sluggish growth, sagging trade and budget deficits and record unemployment, the news of the Saudi $3 billion arms deal would have been met with intense relief in Paris.

And so the red carpet at the Élysée Palace was rolled out – «discreetly» mind you – for the Saudi dictator’s nephew.

The Legion of Honor is supposed to be France’s highest national accolade, awarded to outstanding citizens and foreign dignitaries. It was created in 1802 by emperor Napoleon Bonaparte.

At the same time that Saudi deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Nayef received his medal from French president Francois Hollande in Paris, the Legion of Honor was also awarded separately to British veterans of the Second World War for their courage during the D-Day landings in 1944.

No wonder then that the juxtaposition of the awards has sparked public anger in France and England, with protesters claiming that the accolade has been grossly devalued for those deserving recipients – men and women who gave their lives to save France and Europe from fascist despotism.

If the Legion of Honor is taken as a symbol of French national soul, then it is understandable that many are disgusted that France’s soul is flogged for an arms deal with the one of the world’s most despotic regimes.

It should not be surprising, too, that French president Hollande and his government are viewed with such increasing contempt, both nationally and internationally.

Hollande’s corroding credibility is a problem that is shared by other Western governments, Washington and London in particular, who are likewise seen to be corrupt. Because, like Paris, they are consorting with despotic regimes for the same sordid self-interests of selling weapons and trying to destabilize foreign states.

By Sharmine Narwani
Source: Veterans News Now
The terror in Paris is due entirely to France in Syria.

Let’s not beat around the bush.

The terror attacks in Paris last Friday shook the globe, even in countries where these acts are sadly the norm. Europe hasn’t seen carnage on this scale, with this degree of planning, for decades. But was this political violence entirely unexpected?.

Perhaps not. When French commentators railed against the perpetrators for “an attack on our values, our way of life” they couldn’t have been more wrong.

The Paris attacks had one source only and that was the Syrian conflict. True, the alleged terrorists, ISIS, were able to recruit angry, young, European Muslims to the task because of years of disenfranchisement and voicelessness in the heart of their continent.

But there would have been no calling, no urgency, no engine driving the recruitment frenzy, out of context of the Syrian storyline.

Nearly five years ago, several regional and western states utilized the larger-than-life symbols of the Arab Uprisings to create regime change in Syria. Syrians had already hit the streets in small numbers, galvanized by the fearlessness of their fellow Arabs to demand political and economic reforms. But it was only when shots rang out and Syrians fell dead that demands turned to rage and larger numbers mobilized.

With the benefit of time and disclosure, we have since learned that Syrian security forces were also being killed from the earliest days – 88 soldiers in the first month – and that there were armed elements shooting at both sides, to stir up conflict for the explicit purpose of effecting regime change in Syria. (1)

In a 2015 report on ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the US-think tank Brookings Institution wrote:

“Presented with an opportunity to inject violence into what had been a peaceful revolt, Baghdadi sent one of his Syrian operatives to set up a secret branch of the Islamic State in the country that year. The branch, later known as the Nusra Front, initially followed the Islamic State’s playbook by attacking civilians as part of a clandestine terror campaign to sow chaos.”

And chaos they sowed.

Chaos, of course, is a goal for radical, Salafist, militant groups. It creates a political and security vacuum that they are well-equipped to fill. These practices and experiences were honed at the expense of Afghans three decades ago, when the Saudi-funded and CIA-trained Mujahedeen learned how to create, then exploit, power vacuums.

The US-led invasion of Iraq, however, was the pivitol event that began the seeding of these extremist terror networks far and wide. Baghdadi is an Iraqi and ISIS is borne from Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) which then merged into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), the precursor to ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham).

During the course of the Syrian conflict, we have seen the ease of movement between extremist groups. Free Syrian Army (FSA) members join ISIS, Ahrar al Sham militants join Jabhat al-Nusra, they fight with each other, they break up and re-form under new leadership – avowed enemies fighting on one front form security pacts when fighting on another. And thousands of these western-backed rebels have fought alongside ISIS and Al-Nusra, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria.

“Armed moderates” are practically non-existent in Syria, despite countless efforts by western media, analysts and politicians to whitewash the “rebels” and pretend ignorance on the radical character of the militants they armed and assisted. Former US Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn admitted in August that his government and western allies had taken a “willful decision” to support the establishment of a “Salafist principality in Eastern Syria” – the same area now controlled by ISIS. (2)

At the forefront of the foreign intervention that has supported, financed, armed and assisted militants in Syria are three western states, the US, UK, France, and three main regional states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar (UAE too).

In August 2012 when the Syrian conflict ratcheted up to a whole new level of armed political violence, I visited Zaatari Camp in Jordan, near the border with Syria where refugees were encamped. Right outside the camp entrance was a French military hospital, which I was told was providing emergency medical assistance to civilian refugees.

Later, we learned that the French facility was involved in patching up rebel fighters who would then return to the Syrian military theater. These were still early days in the Syrian conflict – around 10,000 dead compared to the 250,000-plus death toll today. (3)

But by the end of 2012, the proactive French role inside Syria was clearly detectable. British daily The Guardian wrote in December 2012:

“France has emerged as the most prominent backer of Syria’s armed opposition and is now directly funding rebel groups around Aleppo as part of a new push to oust the embattled Assad regime. Large sums of cash have been delivered by French government proxies across the Turkish border to rebel commanders in the past month, diplomatic sources have confirmed. The money has been used to buy weapons inside Syria and to fund armed operations against loyalist forces.” (4)

At this point, an EU arms embargo on Syria was in effect, but direct French weapons shipments to rebels were also secretly taking place. According to the 2015 book “In the corridors of French diplomacy,” French President Francois Hollande told author Xavier Panon, a diplomatic and military specialist, that France’s “services” were delivering “lethal weapons” to Syrian rebels in the second half of 2012. These arms shipments included canons, machine guns, rocket launchers and anti-tank missiles, and were, according to Hollande, ostensibly earmarked only for vetted FSA militias.

France and the UK teamed up to push through a lifting of EU weapons sanctions on Syria in May 2013, and the following month, at a ‘Friends of Syria meeting’, Paris committed to further increasing military aid to rebel groups. Furthermore, the French government was arguably the biggest cheerleader for launching airstrikes against Syria in August 2013 – efforts that were ultimately thwarted by widespread public pressure against military intervention in the US and UK.

We know that French funds ended up in the hands of Islamist militant groups like Liwa al-Tawhid for the purchase of ammunition and undoubtedly other military necessities. We also know that a slew of other weapons connected to France have shown up in the Syrian military theater, whether directly or indirectly. These include MILAN anti-tank missiles, Russian Igla anti-air missiles (reportedly transferred to Syria via Libyan Al Qaeda members who claim they were trained by the French), APILAS anti-tank weapons, SNEB rockets, FAMAS assault rifles and others lethal arms.

And just this month, photos of the APILA rocket launcher originally supplied to rebels were spotted in ISIS’ possession. (5)

Why were the French so determined to pursue a policy of military escalation in Syria – given that the proliferation of weapons in the Syrian theater was clearly leading to massive casualties, widespread destabilization and the exacerbation of a humanitarian crisis?

One need only to look at another of Hollande’s foreign policy and economic initiatives to understand his Syria policy.

To bolster a lagging economy, the French president dove headfirst into a series of mega arms deals with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Persian Gulf states – selling sophisticated weaponry to despotic, sectarian regimes neck-deep in dealings with jihadi and Salafist networks spanning the Middle East and North Africa.

Last year, US Vice President Joe Biden exposed the dangerous game being played by some of these states – he names Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE in these comments:

“They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad except that the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” (6)
While Hollande was raking in the Euros from arms deals with these very states, he was turning a blind eye to their activities in Syria.

France’s weapons exports in 2014 were just over 8 billion Euros. By May of 2015 alone, that number had skyrocketed to 15 billion Euros, primarily due to a $7 billion sale of military hardware to Qatar. The French ministry of defense claimed that 30,000 jobs would be created by this one sale – but at what cost?

And last month, the French inked an additional $12 billion in contracts with the Saudis, including major military hardware and parts.

France isn’t alone in these arms sales – the UK and US are right alongside competing for Persian Gulf petrodollars. Never mind that one of the biggest recipients of weapons is Saudi Arabia (today the number one weapons importer in the world), which has instigated the horrific carpet-bombing of Yemen that has killed thousands and decimated the already impoverished country. Worse yet, the main beneficiaries of the Yemeni bombing campaign appear to be Al Qaeda, who are de facto allies of the Saudis against the Houthis, and have used the chaos to move into new territory throughout the south of the country.

On Monday, the US White House announced a further $1 billion sale to the Saudis of air-to-land munitions for their Yemeni campaign – under the guise of “counter-terrorism” no less – ironic, given that Al Qaeda gains each time the Saudis drop a bomb.

Two years after the September 11 terrorist attacks that claimed almost 3,000 victims in the United States, the US Senate’s Judiciary Committee held hearings on terrorism and its connection to Wahhabism (state religion of Saudi Arabia and Qatar). During the hearings, Saudi Arabia was called the “epicenter” of terror funding for “principally Al Qaeda but many other recipients as well.” The Saudis, according to Senate transcripts, had contributed a whopping $70 billion over 25 years to the funding of “what they call Islamist activities.” (7)

In 2009, a secret US State Department cable signed off by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claims: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide…Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT (Laskhar-e Taiba), and other terrorist groups…It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.”

Hollande’s government is hooked on the profits derived from its Persian Gulf allies. But this relationship has also made him hostage to short-term rewards – in exchange for turning France’s foreign policy into a subservient arm of Saudi-Qatari geopolitical objectives.

The Paris attacks were surely undeserved, but never unexpected. Over the past three decades we have seen, over and over again, that Salafist extremists bite the hand that feeds its ranks. While mentor states enjoy the fact that militants are convenient foot soldiers and proxies who can fight their foreign battles, they do not yet see the inevitable blowback as a deterrence. Rather, they hunker down when a terror attack heads their way, cut off further civil liberties under the guise of fighting “terrorism,” drop a few bombs and scapegoat an ethnic or religious minority group until the anxiety fades. Then it is back to old business.

In Paris, on Friday, the perpetrators – whether ISIS or another radical Salafist group – had little to lose and much to gain. Chaos is their game, and their goals, operations and cells are easily shifted. Not so France.

Hollande reacted by declaring war, stomping his feet in outrage…and dropping some bombs on Syria. He is not a visionary, but a cog in a business wheel. Under his governance and prior to the Paris attacks, France had conducted all of five airstrikes in their “war on ISIS” in Syria. And collected a lot of cash for it.

No, ISIS/Al Qaeda/Nusra Front/Whomever doesn’t give a fig about French “values” and “way of life.” The terror in Paris is due entirely to France in Syria.

References
1. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/157412-syria-hidden-massacre-2011
2. http://levantreport.com/2015/08/06/former-dia-chief-michael-flynn-says-rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-and-defends-accuracy-of-2012-memo/
3. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-081113.html
4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/07/france-funding-syrian-rebels
5. https://twitter.com/MuradoRT/status/662723467737886720
6. http://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/
7. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/256561-sunni-threat-middle-east-stability/

* Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Middle East geopolitics.

By Finian Cunningham
Source: Sputnik News
Almost everyone now recognises that Russia’s military intervention in Syria to defeat the so-called Islamic State terror group was the right call to make. Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t crowing about it. He doesn’t have to.

Putin’s vindication was made clear by the enthusiastic reception afforded to him at the summit of G20 leaders in Turkey last weekend. The Financial Times headlined: “Putin transformed from outcast to problem solver at G20”.

The paper went on to note that: “An audience with the Russian president was one of the hottest tickets in town, as Western leaders were forced to recognise the road to peace in Syria inevitably runs through Moscow.”

Even US President Barack Obama was seen to confer with Putin as the two leaders held an impromptu and earnest face-to-face discussion on the sidelines of the summit.

It was a constructive encounter with none of the antagonism that Washington has all too often displayed towards Putin over the past year. The Paris terror assault – with 129 dead and hundreds wounded in simultaneous gun and bomb attacks – no doubt concentrated the minds of world leaders attending the G20 conference, held in Turkey’s Antalya only two days after the mass killings.

The atrocity was claimed by the Islamic State terror network (also known as ISIS or ISIL), with seven of its operatives killed in the suicide attacks. Days later, the conclusion by Russian investigators this week that a terrorist bomb was the cause of the

Russian civilian airliner crash on October 31 over Egypt’s Sinai desert – with the loss of all 224 people onboard – has only added to the grim public realisation about ISIL and its affiliates. French President Francois Hollande – who skipped the G20 summit due to the emergency situation unfolding at home – appealed this week for a “global coalition to defeat Islamic State”.

This was made during a special address to both upper and lower houses of the French parliament at the Palace of Versailles. The French leader called on the US and Russia to join forces, along with France and other countries. Hollande is to fly to Washington on November 24 to discuss with Obama how to coordinate efforts at combating ISIL in Syria and Iraq.

Two days after that, the French president is due in Moscow to hold the same discussion with Putin. Putin has already acknowledged the appeal from Hollande, saying that he welcomes closer cooperation, adding that Russia has been consistently calling for a greater joint effort in combating terrorism.

Putin has even reportedly offered Russian naval coordination with the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the eastern Mediterranean for future airstrikes against ISIL. Within days of the Paris massacre, French warplanes launched extensive strikes against Islamic State bases in eastern Syria.

Russia and its Syrian ally have pointed out that previous military strikes by the US and France are in violation of international law since these operations do not have consent from the government in Damascus. It remains to be seen then how Russia would coordinate military operations with France in Syria owing to the legal implications.

Since the Paris mayhem, several French political figures and former military intelligence personnel have urged Hollande to re-think policy on Syria.

Opposition leader Nicolas Sarkozy, among others, said that “to not coordinate with Russia is absurd”. A think-tank, CF2R, with close links to French military intelligence, also advised the Hollande government to view the Syrian leader not as the enemy, and to dedicate efforts, in conjunction with Russia, on destroying the ISIL and related groups.

In other words, Russia is being proven right about its intervention in Syria. The most effective way to defeat the terror networks of ISIL and other jihadist groups like the Nusra Front is to support the Syrian state, to coordinate with the Syrian Arab Army on the ground, and to target the militants with a full-on campaign.

That is why Putin was received at the G20 summit with a newfound respect among other leaders. When Putin ordered the Russian military intervention in Syria, beginning on September 30, it was not done in half-measures. In a matter of weeks, the Russian air force has achieved more in terms of wiping out terror groups than the US-led coalition did in more than a year of airstrikes.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted in an interview this week that the US-led bombing supposedly against the Islamic State has been ineffective due to its conflicting priorities. Lavrov said that since August 2014, the Western so-called anti-ISIL coalition was focused on “weakening” the Damascus government and therefore it did not strike decisively at ISIL formations because they are seen as assets in the Western effort for regime change.

Some analysts go further and argue that the Islamic State and associated jihadist mercenaries are the result of covert Western sponsorship of these groups.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf Arab states are also known to have been major funders and facilitators of the jihadist brigades. Putin highlighted these links at the G20 summit when he announced that the financing of the terror networks in Syria has come from “40 states, including members of the G20”.

Thus, while Russia has been vindicated in its strategy and tactics on Syria, the appeal for a “global coalition” against terror has intrinsic limits. This is because key Western powers and their regional allies are committed in principle against such a Russian-defined front.

The United States, Britain and France are among those states insisting that the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has to relinquish power, sooner or later. Russia rejects that demand as a violation of Syrian sovereignty.

These Western states are also known to have supplied weapons, at least indirectly, to the jihadist terror groups.

British leader David Cameron complained at the G20 summit that Russia has hit “non-ISIL opposition to Assad – people who could be part of the future of Syria.” But who or where are these “non-ISIL” groups that Cameron says “could be part of the future of Syria”?

When Russia has asked the West for information and locations on “moderate rebels” to avoid in its airstrikes, the West has refused to provide any details.

France is as guilty as any other of the foreign states for fuelling a covert war in Syria that has spawned the terror problem of Islamic State and its affiliates. A problem that has, in turn, rebounded with horrific results outside of Syria’s borders, killing hundreds of French and Russian citizens in only the past three weeks.

Vladimir Putin has demonstrated true leadership on tackling terrorism in Syria and beyond. As the old English proverb goes: cometh the hour, cometh the man.

However, the more troubling problem is this: how many other statesmen are ready and willing to do the decent thing and follow the Russian lead? Russia’s policy on Syria is the morally and legally correct one.

The Paris and Russian airliner massacres, as well as other recent terrorist atrocities in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and other countries, cry out for a real anti-terror effort based on respecting sovereignty and abiding by international law.

That challenge will expose those states that have built their policies on Syria out of deeply criminal objectives and methods.

By Tony Cartalucci
Source: New Eastern Outlook
The terrorist attacks carried out in the heart of the French capital, either coincidentally or intentionally, have served as the perfect point of leverage for the West on the very eve of the so-called “Vienna talks” regarding Syria.

With its serendipitously strengthened hand and with France taking a more prominent role, the West is attempting to reassert not only its narrative, but its agenda regarding the ongoing conflict in Syria, an agenda that has – as of late – been derailed by Russia’s military intervention and recent gains made on the battlefield by Syrian military forces. The London Guardian stated in its article “Paris attacks galvanise international efforts to end Syria war” that:

The Isis attacks in Paris have galvanised international efforts to end the war in Syria, with a new deadline set for negotiations between the warring parties and for a country-wide ceasefire.

There is still no sign of agreement, however, on the key question of the future of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.

It should seem extraordinary to the global public that even after the attacks in Paris, the West still insists on undermining the Syrian government toward its goal of “regime change,” which includes continued material support to armed militants – all of which are extremists, and many of which have either coordinated with, or fought under the banner of Al Qaeda and even the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS).

This is also considering the fact that the Syrian government is now currently engaged in battle with ISIS in and around Aleppo, and is currently threatening to sever its supply lines leading out of NATO-member Turkey’s territory.

Regarding this point, the Guardian would even report:

It was clear, however, that Russia and the US have again had to agree to disagree about Assad. The Paris attacks “show that it doesn’t matter if you’re for Assad or against him,” said the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. “Isis is your enemy.”

However, to explain the West’s apparent failure to prioritize, the Guardian claims:

Isis, in their [the West’s] view, is a symptom of political failings in both Iraq and Syria. The Vienna participants are to meet in Paris before the end of the year to review progress toward a ceasefire and the selection of delegations for the Syrian talks.

In reality, ISIS is not a “symptom of political failings.” It is the result of concerted, immense, multinational state-sponsorship. Entire armies of the immense scale ISIS operates on do not rise out of “political failings,” they rise from huge, preexisting financial networks, region-wide logistical support, multinational political support, intelligence networking, and experienced military planning and organizational skills.

The West and its regional allies, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, clearly constitute this immense multinational state-sponsorship ISIS has so far enjoyed. A look at any map depicting the Syrian conflict shows ISIS supply lines running directly out of NATO-member Turkey’s territory and in numerous reports, even out of the West’s most prominent papers, it is even admitted that ISIS is supplied in Syria, via Turkey.

It is clear then that “political failings” are not the “cause” of ISIS except only in the sense that the “failure” to exact regime change in Syria has prompted the West to continue propping up ISIS and other terrorist groups until the government in Damascus falls – and only when Damascus’ regional and global allies abandon it.

The West Got What it Wanted in Libya – And Created ISIS in the Process

The West’s claims during the Vienna talks that if only they get their way in Syria, the threat of ISIS will subside, is betrayed by the events surrounding the very rise of ISIS in Syria in the first place.

Just before the conflict reached critical mass in Syria during 2011, the US, UK, France, other NATO members, as well as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), were already in the process of fully dividing and destroying Libya in pursuit of regime change.

They insisted that regime change was the only way to end the bitter fighting that had swept the country – regime change that just so happened to fulfill the long-held desire by Washington and Europe to see Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi ousted from power.

Through arming what the West called “rebels,” and through direct military intervention which included large-scale, nationwide airstrikes, naval bombardments, and even special forces, NATO devastated the country and turned it over literally to Al Qaeda. The West’s “rebels” turned out to be sectarian extremists all along, and in fact – with NATO’s help – they promptly took their weapons, fighters, and cash to begin the invasion of northern Syria via Turkey later that year.

The Business Insider would report in its article, “REPORT: The US Is Openly Sending Heavy Weapons From Libya To Syrian Rebels,” that:

The administration has said that the previously hidden CIA operation in Benghazi involved finding, repurchasing and destroying heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, but in October we reported evidence indicating that U.S. agents — particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens — were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

There have been several possible SA-7 spottings in Syria dating as far back as early summer 2012, and there are indications that at least some of Gaddafi’s 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles were shipped before now.

On Sept. 6 a Libyan ship carrying 400 tons of weapons for Syrian rebels docked in southern Turkey. The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi” who worked for the new Libyan government. The man who organized that shipment, Tripoli Military Council head Abdelhakim Belhadj, worked directly with Stevens during the Libyan revolution.

Belhadj, it should be mentioned, was the commander of US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) – which is literally Al Qaeda in Libya – and was so before, during, and after the 2011 Libyan war. Belhadj was also reportedly aligned with ISIS as it officially established itself in the shattered North African state. Fox News would report in its article, “Herridge: ISIS Has Turned Libya Into New Support Base, Safe Haven,” that:

[Catherine] Herridge reported that one of the alleged leaders of ISIS in North Africa is Libyan Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was seen by the U.S. as a willing partner in the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

“Now, it’s alleged he is firmly aligned with ISIS and supports the training camps in eastern Libya,” Herridge said.

It is clear that despite Western claims that regime change in Libya would be the beginning of the end for Libya’s violence and instability, it was only the end of the beginning – and not only for chaos in Libya – but for other nations across North Africa and in Syria itself.

Using Another 9/11 to Justify Creating Another Libya

NATO’s intervention and regime change in Libya did not avert a refugee crisis, it helped create one. NATO’s intervention and successful regime change in Libya did not make the region or the world safer, it turned the entire nation into a breeding ground for terrorist organizations with so-far unprecedented reach and operational capacity. NATO’s goals in Libya did not prevent the refugee crisis, it helped start it. And with all of this in mind, having seen this and taken full stock of Libya’s outcome, the West has nonetheless moved forward with precisely the same agenda in Syria.

In all reality, the West has no intention of bringing peace or stability to Syria. Their goal is to leave Syria as divided and destroyed as Libya, and to use the chaos and instability fostered there as a springboard for other targets of the West’s proxy warfare – most likely Iran, Russia, and targets deeper in Central Asia.

The West promises that it will end the chaos in Syria, just like they promised it would end in Libya. It will not end in either.

With Libya’s fate in mind, and a repeat performance clearly taking shape in Syria should the West get its way, it must be made clear that no matter how many innocent people are killed by terrorists the West itself helped create and perpetuate, they will not get an opportunity to turn Syria into the “Libya of the Levant,” no matter how convenient and well-timed these killings are, no matter how deep they are within the heart of Europe or North America, and no matter how tragic and regrettable the aftermath is.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine“New Eastern Outlook”.

By Vladislav Gulevich
Source: Global Research
In 2011 the aviation of France and Great Britain bombed Libya. Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of the country, was brutally murdered. Now Europe is considering plans to intervene in Libya again. On May 13, the Guardian published an article devoted to a European plan for a military campaign to smash the migrant smuggling networks operating out of Libya. The scenario envisages the use of ground forces.

The 19-page strategy paper for the mission, obtained by the Guardian, focuses on an air and naval campaign in the Mediterranean and in Libyan territorial waters. But it adds that ground operations in Libya may also be needed to destroy the smugglers’ vessels and assets, such as fuel dumps. Federica Mogherini, the EU’s chief foreign and security policy coordinator, reiterated that position on May 13.

«We are not planning in any possible way a military intervention in Libya,» she said. According to her, establishing control over the territorial waters of Libya is enough to destroy the smugglers’ infrastructure. But the assurances that there will be no boots on the ground sound unconvincing. It’s clear that the West is serious about what it plans to do. For instance, Great Britain is going to send amphibious transport dock HMS Bulwark, the flagship of Royal Navy, to fight small smuggler’s boats. Air and naval forces are to bear the brunt of the mission. The operations conducted ashore by special operations forces teams are not excluded, no matter the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy says otherwise. Media outlets started to examine the public opinion.

The plan obtained by the Guardian says ground operations in Libya may be needed. EU governments have still to discuss and decide on the planning document. A joint session of EU foreign and defence ministers is to decide on the mission on May 18, followed the next day by a meeting of defence chiefs from European Union countries. The military package would then need to be given a green light by heads of government at an EU summit slated for June. Ten European Union members have already expressed their approval, including Great Britain, France, Spain and Italy. According to Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya’s United Nations ambassador, his government has been left out of the urgent international discussion of the migrant crisis. This is the legacy of colonial past. Europeans still view Libya as a colony.

Federica Mogherini has already visited New York to discuss prospects for a UN Security Council resolution allowing the use of force against the smugglers. The Guardian reports that that the UK has prepared a draft document on behalf of the EU «that is believed to call for the ‘use of all means to destroy the business model of the traffickers’. Mogherini sounded optimistic about adoption of UN Security Council resolution allowing the use of force against the smugglers, but also made plain that if that proved impossible, the EU would still mount a military mission in the Mediterranean outside of Libyan territorial waters and airspace.

A question pops up. Creating obstacles on the way of flows of unfortunate people leaving Libya for Europe – is it the only goal pursued by the planned military operation in the Mediterranean Sea? The Libya’s shoreline is some 1,100 miles (1,800 km) in length. A large naval force is needed to control it. The chances for destroying the smugglers’ infrastructure are slim. Too many people are involved in this business. After the overthrow and murder of Muammar Gaddafi Libya has plunged into the quagmire of chaos. It has joined the list of most unstable countries in the world which are primarily located in Africa. The political turmoil inside the country is kind of free for all –
different groups are fighting each other. One government rules the country in Tripoli. Another government functions in Tobruk. There are other «governments» spread around the country. Under the conditions, Libya cannot be called a state in the full meaning of the word.

Under Gaddafi Libya boasted high living standards. From point of view of people’s wealth it was a leader in the Arab world. Today the country has spiraled towards total disorder. There is no whatsoever control on the part of government. Large chunks of national territory have fallen under the control of the Islamic State and other extremist groups. Libya is an oil rich country but the production is low with numerous criminal gangs thwarting the process. Cyrenaica, the oil rich eastern coastal region of Libya, demands autonomy. The country if falling to pieces. The Libya we once knew is no more.

Flows of refugees from Arab and Black Africa transit through Libya on the way to Europe. There is little Europe could do under the circumstances but use military force to stop the flows. Brussels has made all of the European Union members to partner up on policies such as EU immigration. Poland is situated far from Africa but it has to host 1200 refugees. Latvia is to provide shelter to 220 fugitives, Estonia is to host 326 of them. 207 evacuees are to be taken care of by Lithuania. But this policy does not offer a solution to the problem.

In 2015 Libya expects 135 thousand people to be born on its soil, but the population of the country will not increase due to the fact that about the same number of people leave the country. Libya is a transit country for refugees from Algeria, Mali, Niger, Chad, Sudan, Senegal, Ghana and Eritrea going to Europe. The sources in Rome say a surge of immigrants will flood Europe soon. As many as 5,000 migrants a week could arrive in Italy by sea from North African ports in the next five months unless something is done about it, according to an interior ministry projection. The figures, published on April 23 by the Rome newspaper Il Messaggero and confirmed by a ministry source, estimated that as many as 200,000 could arrive by the end of this year.

There should harbor no illusions. One can hardly imagine the West admit responsibility for dire results of the
policy aimed at «democratization» of Libya.