Tag Archives: Libya

Hillary E-mails Reveal CFR-Clinton-Slaughter-Blumenthal Benghazi Psyop Connections

hillary p-2

The latest CFR Benghazi connection comes to light through Hillary Clinton E-mails with Council on Foreign Relations members Anne-Marie Slaughter and Sidney Blumenthal. The e-mails have Slaughter and Blumental advising Hillary and the CFR run State Department to intervene in the Libyan civil war. Alternative media broke the story two days ago. Council on Foreign Relations run main stream media have been completely silent on the matter.

In 2009 CFR member Blumenthal, a longtime advisor of CFR member President Bill Clinton, joined the Clinton Foundation payroll. The foundation is run by CFR member Bill, his daughter CFR member Chelsea, and Hillary. The Clinton Foundation payed CFR member Blumenthal $10,000 a month. Blumenthal was hired upon former President Clinton request.

Emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server showed Blumenthal sent 25 memos to Clinton about Libya, including one that initially blamed the 2012 Benghazi attacks on a “sacrilegious internet video.” A follow-up email attributed it to a terrorist attack.

Anne Marie Slaughter has sat upon McDonald’s and Citigroup boards and was  a Council on Foreign Relations board member. She is the author of a book literally titled, “A New World Order” whose catch line is “Global governance is here.” In it she argues that such governance is done through “a complex global web of government networks.” Slaughter begins a recent Atlantic article titled “The New Foreign Policy Frontier” by citing “corporations, foundations, NGOs, universities, think tanks, churches, civic groups, political activists, Facebook groups, and others” as the new frontier of foreign policy. CFR member Slaughter fails to point out that this network is controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations. Naná de Graaff & Bastiaan van Apeldoorn of the Department of Political Science, VU University Amsterdam exposes this powerful CFR network in their paper America’s Post Cold War Grand Strategy- Makers and the Policy Planning Network. Upon examination it is obvious to anyone who looks into these “networks” that they represent the Council on Foreign Relations Military Industrial Complex and Banking interests, answer to no one, and apply the rule of law as an arbitrary reflection of their self-serving interests subject to change upon a political whim.

The Clinton/Blumenthal/Slaughter e-mails reveal Clinton’s enthusiasm for intervention in Libya didn’t emerge out of a vacuum but that she was encouraged to back military action early on by two key figures and members of the Council on Foreign Relations Blumenthal and Slaughter:

Joel Gillan, in the National Review reports ““We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton laughed after learning of dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s death. She’s probably less triumphant today, given that Libya is now a failing state. Clinton and other Western officials sold NATO’s intervention in Libya as a humanitarian effort to stop the imminent slaughter of civilians in Benghazi. “Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled. … The cries would be, ‘Why did the United States not do anything?’” Clinton said in an interview in March of 2011. It was the argument President Barack Obama would also use to justify the no-fly zone put forward in U.N. Resolution 1973, which called for “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. Several reports have noted the pivotal role played by Clinton in convincing the president to support the intervention, which was also strongly backed by then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Council on Foreign Relations member Susan Rice, and Council on Foreign Relations member Samantha Power, then serving at the National Security Council, as well as then-Senator Council on Foreign Relations member John Kerry, who invoked Rwanda. (The skeptics, who doubted that vital U.S. interests were at stake, included then-Secretary of Defense Council on Foreign Relations member Robert Gates and other top CFR national security officials who were playing their role as participants in a good old CFR Hegelian Dialectic.)” (Joel was ignorant of the CFR relationship to the story and didn’t identify the Council on Foreign Relation membership of the people in his article – I helped him out – you’re welcome Joel!)

Why isn’t Trey Gowdy and the Benghazi Investigation Committee investigating the CFR role in the Benghazi psyop? Why is the Benghazi investigation being turned into a Democrat vs Republican political side-show? Could it be because both parties are controlled by the CFR Military Industrial complex?

 An alternative Media story follows. It too  leaves the CFR out of the story. I added some of the missing connections.

benghazi whale

Web Only / Features » October 7, 2015

New Hillary Clinton Emails: Anne-Marie Slaughter, Sidney Blumenthal Urged Libya Military Action

The most recent release of Clinton’s emails show the two liberal advisors strongly encouraging U.S. intervention against Libya.

BY Branko Marcetic

hillary 1

Responding to an email from CFR member Slaughter about the Egyptian Revolution, the former Secretary of State told her she would include her points in her upcoming interviews, concluding: “Thx so much. Pls keep the ideas coming!” Meanwhile, when CFR member Blumenthal suggested establishing a no-fly zone over Libya, CFR spouse Clinton forwarded it on to her Director of Policy Planning Jacob Sullivan within 10 minutes, asking him, “What do you think of this idea?”

The latest release of emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server has prompted numerous stories about the former Secretary of State’s battle with an intransigent White House phone operator, her preparations for an appearance on Ellen DeGeneres’ TV show and the fact that even the United States’ top diplomat gets sent the same kind of scam emails that the rest of us do. What hasn’t been reported is how the current Democratic frontrunner was urged by her unofficial advisers to take up the interventionist stance she eventually adopted toward the Libyan civil war during her time in cabinet—with disastrous results.

Back in 2011, the United States, along with a number of other Western powers, intervened in an increasingly violent civil war in Libya, first by imposing a no-fly zone and then by commencing a bombing campaign that forced dictator Muammar Gaddafi to flee the capital. Clinton was reportedly instrumental in not just convincing President Obama to approve the U.S.’s involvement, but in keeping the entire fractious coalition of Western powers together.

After Gaddafi was toppled, Clinton was quick to declare the operation a success, flashing a peace sign in Tripoli and declaring it “Libya’s victory.” She publicly praised the United States’ “smart power,” while privately—as previously released emails revealed—her advisers urged her to take credit for the operation’s supposed success.

But Clinton’s enthusiasm for intervention in Libya didn’t emerge out of a vacuum, as the most recently released emails show. She was encouraged to back military action early on by two key figures and members of the Council on Foreign Relations: former White House official and friend Sidney Blumenthal and former State Department official and columnist Anne-Marie Slaughter.

Blumenthal’s role as Clinton’s confidante is well established at this point, as previous State Department’s email releases have shown. Hundreds of those emails involved advice from Blumenthal on everything from domestic and foreign politics to ideas for speeches.

But Slaughter’s role is less well known. Serving under Clinton as the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning from 2009 to February 2011, Slaughter stepped down and moved into a professorship at Princeton and, later, a role as President and CEO of New America, a think tank. Slaughter remained a consultant to the State Department’s Public Policy Bureau, however, and continued sending emails directly to Clinton about a variety of topics—including the events in Libya.

Slaughter was one of the loudest voices publicly calling for U.S. involvement in the North African state, and she continued this line in her private correspondence with Clinton. In one email dated February 23, 2011, in reference to images of brutality that were emerging from Libya, Slaughter insisted that “with this level of violence, force can only be met by force.”

In fact, as she saw it, intervening in Libya was vital to America’s global standing, as it would “change the image of the United States overnight, particularly with the millions of young people who are watching.” As historical examples to bolster her case, Slaughter picked three that would have been particularly meaningful for Clinton, having occurred during her husband’s presidency: NATO intervention in response to the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia, the NATO bombing campaign against Serb forces in Kosovo and, most significantly, the United States’ and other countries’ failure to act to prevent genocide in Rwanda in 1994.

And the entire world would see, as they saw in Bosnia, NATO forces using force to save Muslims. Remember Rwanda. Even a small deployment could have stopped the killing. … Remember Kosovo.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dancing with the Stars – The CFR Shuffle: Winners Susan Rice & John Kerry Losers: The World

Since the Benghazi Tragedy US President Obama has done some major cabinet shuffling. Out went Council on Foreign Relation’s member Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State wife Hillary in came CFR member Senator John McCain. Out went CFR National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon, in came Obama’s first choice for Secretary of State Council on Foreign Relations member UN Ambassador Susan Rice.  Conspicuously absent from CFR run main stream media coverage of the CFR shuffle is any mention of the CFR.

Jane Harman is the former U.S. Representative for California’s 36th congressional district, serving from 1993 to 1999, and from 2001 to 2011. She is a member of the Democratic Party. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Harman has had a longtime involvement in intelligence issues. In 2006 Democrat Harman defended the Republican Bush CFR run administration‘s use of international warrantless wiretapping through the National Security Agency, saying: “I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.” Ironically In April of 2009 CFR member Harman was caught on an NSA wiretap cutting a deal with an Israeli agent.

Jane Harman’s second marriage was to audio pioneer CFR member Sidney Harman, Undersecretary of the Department of Commerce in CFR member Carter’s administration. On August 2, 2010 CFR member Sidney Harman bought Newsweek from the CFR run Washington Post for $1 and assumed its liabilities.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) controls Main Stream Media operations throughout the world. One of the magazines they controlled is Newsweek. At the end of 2010, Newsweek merged with the online publication The Daily Beast.. The new entity, The Newsweek Daily Beast Company, was 50% owned by IAC and 50% by the CFR members Sydney and Jane Harman. A feature of The Daily Beast is the “Cheat Sheet”, billed as “must reads from all over”. Published daily, the “Cheat Sheet” offers a selection of articles from online news outlets on popular stories. The “Cheat Sheet” includes brief summaries of the article, and a link to read the full text of the article on the website of its provider. Contributors  include Meghan McCain (CFR member John McCain’s daughter), Bilderberger Tony Blair,  CFR member Condoleezza Rice,  Eric Alterman (columnist for CFR member Katrina vanden Heuval’s the Nation), CFR expert Reza Aslan, Fatima Bhutto (grilfriend of CFR member George Clooney), Judith Miller (a CFR “Must Read” WSJ Not-See CFR reporter), Andrew Sullivan (a CFR “Must Read” Reuters Not-See CFR reporter),  Bilderberger David Frum.

Today the Daily Beast published an article titled Susan Rice and John Kerry Will Battle For Obama’s Ear. The article is by Josh Rogin, and Eli Lake. Josh Rogin is senior correspondent for national security and politics for CFR run Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously worked for the CFR magazine Foreign Affairs. Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for CFR run Newsweek and the Daily Beast. Since 2008 Lake has been a contributing editor at The New Republic.The New Republic was founded by Walter Lippmann. Lippmann was a member of America’s first intelligence organization the INQUIRY, attended the Paris Peace Conference after World War I, and was a founding father of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Central to Lippmann’s strategy of achieving government and international relations policy aims were large scale psycho-political operations aimed at the masses. The early work of Lippmann, and another leading pioneer in the field of psychological warfare, Harold Lasswell, were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Not coincidentally the governments national security campaigns usually overlapped the commercial ambitions of Council on Foreign Relations and Institute of International Affairs controlled industries. The Carnegie Corporation and Ford Foundation were principal secondary sources of large-scale communication research funding, operating in close coordination with government propaganda and intelligence programs.

Rogin and Lake make no mention of the Council on Foreign Relations in their article about Rice and Kerry. Both Susan Rice and John Kerry are CFR members. Susan Rice was President Obama’s first choice for Secretary of State was CFR member UN Ambassador Susan Rice. September 11, 2012 the US Embassy In Benghazi was attacked and Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer, and two Navy SEALS, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods were killed. On September 16 CFR member Rice made the rounds of CFR run news shows including  CBS’s Face the Nation , ABC’s This Week, This Week with George Stephanopoulos,[ Meet the Press, State of the Union with Candy Crowley, and Fox News Sunday. On November 19th ninty-seven House Republicans sent a letter to President Obama on saying Rice’s statements were “misleading.”  The house put together a CFR run Accountability Review Board to look into the matter.  The Secretary of State requires Senate confirmation.  Due to her role in the Benghazi tragedy Rice new she would never be confirmed and withdrew her name. Her withdrawal left Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman CFR member John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) with no apparent rivals to take over from Secretary of State. Secretary of State has always been a Council on Foreign Relations job. Hillary Clinton followed CFR member Condoleezza Rice. While Hillary is not a CFR member both her husband President William Jefferson Clinton and her daughter Chealsea, who works for ABC are CFR members.  John Kerry will be the twenty-second Council on Foreign Relations member to be Secretary of State.

pic 1 SOS

On June 5th CFR member Thomas Donilon resigned as President Obama’s National Security advisor and the President announced that CFR member Susan Rice will be his new National Security advisor. Senate confirmation is not required for the National Security Advisor, probably because the job is so unimportant. Susan Rice is the eighteenth Council on Foreign Relations National Security Advisor.

pic 2 NASplus

The CFR has turned every President of the United States since Woodrow Wilson into a CFR puppet. They do this by surrounding POTUS with CFR members who influence his decisions to further Council on Foreign Relations goals. The Council on Foreign Relations profits from the Military Industrial Complex that it controls. While the Council on Foreign Relations makes war bucks from selling weapons millions of innocent men women and children are caught in CFR engineered endless wars. The Daily Beast article follows it has been modified so the reader can easily identify the Council on Foreign relation ties Rogin-Lake left out.

[CFR member] Susan Rice and [CFR member] John Kerry Will Battle For [CFR puppet] Obama’s Ear

by Josh Rogin, Eli Lake Jun 6, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

CFR’s Kerry beat out CFR’s Susan for the Secretary of State job they both wanted. But as National Security Adviser CFR’s Rice will effectively be CFR’s Kerry’s boss, report Josh Rogin and Eli Lake.

Earlier this year, [CFR’S] John Kerry seemed to prevail over [CFR’S] Susan Rice when President Obama selected him to be Secretary of State, a job they both coveted. On Wednesday, [CFR’S] Rice regained the upper hand when she was appointed National Security Advisor, giving her a position that clearly outranks [CFR’S] Kerry’s in the [CFR run] Obama power structure.

pic 3 Rice

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations [CFR member] Susan Rice watches as the voting takes place on the resolution to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority to a nonmember observer state, November 29, 2012. (Henny Ray Abram/AFP/Getty)

Now, in an administration where all foreign-policy decision making flows through the [CFR run] White House and the [CFR puppet] president makes key decisions personally, [CFR’S] Rice and Kerry will be the two senior officials jockeying for influence over the remaining three-and-a-half years of [CFR puppet] Obama’s second term.

They have different styles and different agendas, and [CFR member] Rice’s famously sharp elbows and tough management style may prove a difficult fit in a [CFR run] White House where the [CFR puppet] president values harmony and discourages open infighting. Nonetheless, the two have worked in the past for common policy goals pursued by [CFR puppet] President Obama, such as the targetting of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.

CFR puppet “Obama doesn’t like drama and particularly not public fights among members of his team. Susan certainly knows that,” a former Obama administration official told [CFR member] Harman’s The Daily Beast.

CFR member Rice replaces [CFR member] Tom Donilon, the national security advisor who rarely let the public glimpse his disagreements with senior officials. [CFR member] Rice, by contrast, has reportedly clashed with other administration officials, such as former Sudan Special Envoy Scott Gration.

“Even more so than [CFR member] Donilon…  [Rice] has a temper that needs tempering,” Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote at The Daily Beast Wednesday. “And unlike [CFR member] Donilon, she often rushes to judgment, and then digs in. She’ll have to learn to count to one hundred—I mean one thousand—before making up her mind, and meantime, listen to different views carefully.”

CFR member Rice appeared to be [CFR puppet] Obama’s favorite for the Secretary of State job, but her standing among Senate Republicans was badly damaged following her appearances on Sunday talk shows, when she read from flawed talking points that sought to frame the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benhgazi as a spontaneous event caused by reaction to an anti-Islam video. After trying hard to win over Senate Republicans, she withdrew herself from contention before a nomination was announced.

CFR member Kerry, though, has implicitly disputed the idea that he was a consolation pick, telling the Boston Globe that he was offered the job well before [CFR member] Rice decided to withdraw from consideration.

“He [the president] called me, actually a week before [CFR member] Susan got out of the thing,” Kerry said. “He called me and said, ‘You’re my choice. I want you to do this.’ He asked me to keep it quiet. I did. I sat on it.”

Politicians and pundits weigh in on the appointment of Susan Rice to National Security Adviser.

Now, [CFR member] Rice will be in a position to supervise Kerry. Although the Secretary of State is a cabinet-level official and the national security adviser is just a White House staffer, in the Obama administration the latter job has carried more weight and arguably more influence.

“During the Bush [H.W.Bush is a CFR member] years, Democrats came up with concepts like ‘smart power’ to harness all of the tools of American power—political, diplomatic, economic— and not just the military. A key element was to empower the [CFR run] State Department which was massively overshadowed by the [CFR run] Pentagon,” said Thomas Wright, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. “For better or worse, the [CFR run] Obama administration has killed smart power. Its chosen concept is central power—the idea that everything flows to and from the National Security Council.”

Access to the president and the ability to influence him on major decisions is now key to influencing foreign policy in this administration. [CFR member] Donilon protected that access carefully, for example by never missing his chance to give [CFR puppet] Obama his daily briefing on national security.

The conventional wisdom is that [CFR member] Rice is closer to Obama, having been with him as his premier foreign policy advisor since the 2008 presidential campaign. She is also a close personal friend of both Michelle Obama and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. In this sense, [CFR member] Rice is the ultimate [CFR puppet] Obama-land insider, with a personal friendship with the president as her greatest bureaucratic asset. She worked hard to preserve her relationship with the president while serving as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. for four years, spending more time in Washington than any of her predecessors.

“I know that after years of commuting to New York while Ian, Jake and Maris stayed here in Washington, you will be the first person ever in this job who will see their family more by taking the National Security Advisor’s job,” Obama joked today.

Now, [CFR member] Rice will be in a position to .supervise [CFR member] Kerry

But the [CFR member] Kerry-Obama personal relationship dates back several years as well. It was [CFR member] Kerry who chose then-Illinois State Senator Obama to deliver the keynote speech at his 2004 presidential convention, the speech that catapulted Obama to national prominence and attention for the first time. [CFR member] Kerry was also one of the first U.S. senators to endorse Obama during his primary fight with [CFR spouse] Hillary Clinton in 2008.

When Obama took office, he brought several former [CFR member] Kerry presidential campaign staffers in to fill key positions. Some of those staffers have moved back to [CFR member] Kerry’s team since their old boss took over at State in February. Heather Higginbottom was the Kerry 2004 campaign’s deputy policy director and then was his legislative director in the Senate before she moved over to work for Obama at the White House Office of Management and Budget. She returned to work for [CFR member] Kerry in April and is now his Counselor at the State Department.

Kerry’s chief of staff David Wade was the traveling press secretary for Joe Biden after having worked years for Kerry. Jon Favreau, Obama’s former speechwriter (and now a columnist for [CFR member Harman’s] The Daily Beast) was [CFR member] Kerry’s speechwriter during his 2004 presidential campaign. State Department spokeswomen Jen Psaki and Marie Harf are both former Obama campaign staffers who also have worked with Kerry in the past. Even Marvin Nicholson, Obama’s body man who replaced Reggie Love, was Kerry’s body man before he moved over the White House.

Since becoming Secretary of State, [CFR member] Kerry has placed a lot of emphasis on working directly with Obama and the White House, rather than concentrating on harnessing the resources of the [CFR run] State Department, as did his predecessor [CFR spouse] Hillary Clinton. Aides say there’s constant contact and coordination between the buildings.

“The approach [CFR member] Kerry has clearly has taken is that he wants to work closely and hand in hand with the [CFR puppet] president,” one [CFR run] State Department insider said. “He feels that working closely is going to help him be able to do his job best.”

The working relationship was cemented when the two traveled together to the Middle East in March, during which the president would go out of his way to include Kerry in his daily routine, including middle of the night briefings for the president.

“They can work together on global issues, that there’s a decision making process that weaves through them,” the insider said.

CFR members Rice and Kerry at times have worked closely together. But on some important policy areas they do not see eye to eye.

CFR member Kerry has spent his first months in Foggy Bottom working to repair the U.S.-Russia relationship and use that as a mechanism to find a political solution to the crisis in Syria. [CFR member] Kerry believes he has a close personal friendship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. [CFR member] Rice, by contrast has traded public insults with her Russian counterpart at the U.N.

Regarding Syria specifically, administration officials and other close supporters of the [CFR run] White House say [CFR member] Rice in internal meetings has supported a no-fly zone for Syria. But the incoming national security adviser is also wary of arming the more liberal elements of Syria’s opposition.

“CFR member Susan is not for arming the rebels, but she leans in on the no fly zone,” said one outside adviser to the White House on foreign policy.

CFR member Kerry has voiced several views in recent years on arming the Syrian rebels, but recently he has indicated that [CFR puppet] Obama would lift his objections to sending such lethal aid to Syria’s opposition if Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, boycotts an upcoming peace conference in Geneva that [CFR member] Kerry has worked with the Russians to arrange.

“There will be some conflict at some point between [CFR member] Kerry, [Secretary of Defense Chuck CFR member] Hagel and [CFR member] Rice. They all come from very different world views and different backgrounds,” this source said.

For [CFR member] Rice, who got her start during the[ [CFR member] William] Clinton administration and was seared by the world’s inaction in the face of the Rwandan genocide, her worldview in some ways hews closely with liberal internationalism, or a belief that American power can be used to promote American values through multi-lateral institutions like the United Nations.

That said, other former officials who know CFR memberRice say she is hard to pin down ideologically. “There is no doubt that Rwanda shaped her views profoundly and seeing things go wrong in Iraq has shaped her views as well,” said Heather Hurlburt who worked with [CFR member] Rice at the [CFR run] State Department during the CFR member’s Clinton administration and is now the executive director of the National Security Network. “Seeing the good we did and some of the bad that has come in Libya has also shaped her views and made them more complex.”

Despite the differences in style and worldview however, [CFR members] Rice and Kerry have joined forces under the [CFR puppet] Obama [CFR run]administration before.

John Prendergast, the co-founder of the Enough Project who worked on Africa issues with [CFR member] Rice during the [CFR member Bill] Clinton administration, said [CFR members] Kerry and Rice worked closely on developing U.S. policy to support the referendum vote in Sudan that ended the north-south civil war as well as [CFR puppet] Obama’s decision to send special operations teams to Africa to counter the Uganda based Lord’s Resistance Army.

“They are solutions oriented people and they work often together on outcomes that advance US interests,” Prendergast said. “ [CFR member] Ambassador Rice is a pragmatist. [CFR member] Secretary Kerry is a pragmatist. They are not going to let alleged personal rivalries or alleged past grievances undermine their policy objectives.”

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Josh Rogin is senior correspondent for national security and politics for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously worked at Foreign Policy magazine, Congressional Quarterly, Federal Computer Week magazine, and Japan’s leading daily newspaper, The Asahi Shimbun. He hails from Philadelphia and lives in Washington, D.C.

Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

Tags:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Council on Foreign Relations – The Myth Makers of Endless Undeclared War

The article that follows is by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Micah Zenko. In his article CFR member Zenko identifies the myth makers of war. The CFR controls main stream media (MSM). MSM misinforms its readers regarding the role the CFR plays in the story by leaving the CFR connection out of the story. This is one of the main reasons CFR propaganda campaigns are so successful in shaping public opinion to conform to their goals.  Zenko misinforms his readers by leaving out that the Myth makers are CFR members.

Intervention is a CFR euphemism for undeclared war. The CFR was founded in 1921. It has surrounded every US president since then with hundreds of unelected CFR members who turn the president into a CFR puppet. The CFR tried to establish the League of Nations in 1921. The CFR were successful in establishing the United Nations. The CFR officially took over the US Department of State in 1945 and have run it ever since. CFR member corporations profit from keeping the world in a state of perpetual war. Zenko’s article quotes a US no-fly zone commander “We would fly over the Kurds in F-16s to protect the population and assure humanitarian supplies. Then the Turks would bomb the Kurds with F-16s.”

Zenko’s article has been modified to identify the CFR Myth Makers of Endless Undeclared War by placing <CFR member> before their names so the reader may easily identify them.

The Mythology of Intervention

Debating the Lessons of History in Libya

<CFR member> Micah Zenko

March 28, 2011

Article Summary and Author Biography

In the debate over whether — and how — to intervene in Libya, many commentators and policymakers have relied on a number of garbled lessons from history. Believing in these myths often leads to a more interventionist foreign policy.

This article appears in the Foreign Affairs/CFR eBook, The New Arab Revolt.

MICAH ZENKO is a Fellow at the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of Between Threats and War: U.S. Discrete Military Operations in the Post-Cold War World.

When considering how the United States should deal with persistent foreign policy problems, history can be instructive. Distorted or misremembered history, however, is dangerous. Unfortunately, in the recent debate over U.S. intervention in Libya, journalists and analysts have propagated an array of falsehoods and mischaracterizations about the United States’ uses of military force since the end of the Cold War. Believing in these myths — particularly in their supposedly successful outcomes — leads to a misunderstanding of contemporary problems and to a more interventionist U.S. foreign policy.

The first myth is that the combination of NATO <CFR member James G. Stavridis is NATO‘s Supreme Allied Commander Europe > airpower and a Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) ground offensive drove Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo in 1999. Today, proponents of intervention in Libya, such as Max Boot at the Council on Foreign Relations and Peter Juul at the Center for American Progress, have advocated replicating this supposed success. They argue that Libyan rebel forces, fighting with close air support from Western fighter planes, could wage an effective ground offensive all the way to Tripoli and force Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi from power.

But a U.S. Air Force review of its precision airpower campaign in Kosovo revealed a much darker picture than NATO’s glowing initial assessment: 14 tanks were destroyed, not 120, as previously reported; similarly, 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220, and 20 mobile artillery pieces, not 450, were eliminated. During the campaign, the Serbian military quickly adapted to NATO’s operations by constructing fake “artillery” from logs and old truck axles, and “surface-to-air missiles” made of paper.

Furthermore, the KLA failed to mount a credible and sustained opposition to the disciplined, ruthless, and better-armed Serbian ground forces. Ultimately, it was NATO’s escalation of air strikes against the Serbian military and the civilian infrastructure in Serbia proper — combined with Russia’s withdrawal of its support for Serbia — that caused Milosevic to capitulate.

Even when accurate, historical analogies can be a double-edged sword.

Second, many in and outside of government, including <CFR member> Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and the diplomat and academic <CFR member> Philip Zelikow, have called for a so-called no-drive zone, in which Libyan armored divisions would be prohibited from any movement around the country, or at least from movement against civilian populations. They cite the successful use of such a policy by U.S. forces in Iraq after the first Gulf War. In Libya, this thinking goes, a no-drive zone could be relatively easy to set up and would neutralize Qadaffi’s conventional ground capabilities and alter the military balance between the regime and rebels.

Yet there never was a no-drive zone in Iraq. In fact, in October 1994, Saddam Hussein dispatched 70,000 troops, led by two Republican Guard divisions, toward the Kuwaiti border. There, they joined six Iraqi army divisions already stationed below the 32nd parallel, the geographic marker that cordoned off the southern no-fly zone. To safeguard Kuwaiti and Saudi oil, the <CFR member> Clinton administration responded with Operation Vigilant Warrior, which rapidly deployed U.S. ground forces and armored equipment to the Persian Gulf. Deterred, Hussein quickly pulled his Republican Guard divisions back to central Iraq, where they stayed. In addition, UN Security Council Resolution 949 demanded the “withdrawal of all military units recently deployed to southern Iraq.” Washington and London used that resolution as justification for formal diplomatic warnings to Baghdad that it could not augment its ground forces beneath the 32nd parallel. But this policy applied only to military units that arrived in the region after October 1994: in other words, although Hussein may have withdrawn his two Republican Guard divisions, six Iraqi Army divisions remained and freely attacked foes of the Baghdad regime.

Third, many military analysts, along with <CFR member> U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), seem to believe that no-fly zones protect civilians on the ground. But this is often not the case. Despite the rosy memories of some interventionists, the no-fly zones over Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-95) and northern and southern Iraq (1991-2003) failed to protect civilian populations.

In Bosnia-Herzegovina the no-fly zone went largely unenforced (with one notable exception, when NATO shot down four Serbian planes in February 1994). As <CFR member> Madeline Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote in her memoir: “We voted to enforce no-fly zones, but the Serbs violated them hundreds of times without paying a significant price.” To a lesser degree, Croatian and Bosnian Muslim airplanes and helicopters also violated the no-fly zone. Even if it had been enforced, the no-fly zone would have been impotent against the brutal counterinsurgency attacks conducted by Serbian ground forces, which massacred 9,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica.

Within both the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq, Saddam’s ground forces attacked any group that opposed the regime. In the south, in the years after the failed Shia uprising in 1991, Hussein initiated a brutal counterinsurgency campaign. His troops destroyed the marshlands that were part of the historical ecosystem of southern Iraq, building roadways through some so they could bring artillery within range of Shia insurgents and draining others so as to eliminate rebel hiding places. At the same time, Iraqi security forces cordoned off suspected rebel areas and controlled the movement of people. In the north, in August 1996 — with the no-fly zone in full operational force — Hussein viciously put down a short-lived Kurdish uprising with 40,000 troops, 300 tanks, and 300 pieces of artillery.

Outside powers, meanwhile, routinely violated the Iraqi no-fly zones. In southern Iraq, Iranian jets penetrated Iraqi airspace to bomb camps run by Mujahideen-e Khalq (an armed, Shia, anti-Tehran opposition group), which housed both civilians and fighters. In northern Iraq, Turkish fighter planes repeatedly bombed villages suspected of harboring Kurdistan Workers’ Party terrorists. According to the<CFR run> U.S. State Department’s 2000 report on human rights, in one of these attacks, Turkish planes accidentally killed 38 civilians. As one U.S. commander of the northern no-fly zone told me: “We would fly over the Kurds in F-16s to protect the population and assure humanitarian supplies. Then the Turks would bomb the Kurds with F-16s.”

The fourth myth of U.S. intervention is that NATO established a no-fly zone over Kosovo in the 1990s — which then did not stop Serbian soldiers and paramilitaries from forcibly displacing hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians and killing 10,000 others. In debating a no-fly zone in Libya, commentators in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, among others, invoked this supposed fact, which suggested that no-fly zones were impotent, as a reason why they would fail in Libya.

In reality, after small skirmishes between Serbian forces and the KLA in early 1998, in July and August of that year, NATO debated a number of preventive deployments — such as placing military observers in Albania and Macedonia — and more intrusive measures, including a phased air campaign and the incursion of up to 200,000 NATO troops into Kosovo. Before Operation Allied Force began on March 24, 1999, however, NATO neither debated implementing a no-fly zone over Kosovo nor did it impose one.

Lastly, many believe the myth that killing political leaders neutralizes the threat their regimes pose. Citing the recent success of unmanned drone strikes in killing suspected al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan, many, including British Foreign Secretary William Hague, have asked, “Why don’t we just assassinate Qadaffi?” Although this may appear to be an easy solution, the targeted killing of political leaders does not work.

Recent, comparable efforts to use cruise missiles or bombs to eliminate U.S. adversaries — including Qadaffi himself in 1986 and again by the British last Monday, Osama Bin Laden in 1998, Milosevic in 1999, and Saddam Hussein in 1991 and 2003 — all failed. Despite the United States’ intelligence capabilities, political leaders who believe they are targeted are adaptive, resilient, and hard to kill from a distance. The U.S. record of failure in this regard is even worse than the historical average. Of the 298 publicly reported assassination attempts on national leaders between 1875 and 2004, less than 20 percent were successful. Furthermore, while decapitating the leadership certainly generates confusion, the aftermath is rarely positive — as with the killing of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963, when the United States plunged deeper into a civil war on behalf of incompetent generals in Saigon. However unpleasant a truth it may be, nothing short of a full-scale invasion can assure regime change, as shown everywhere from Grenada to Panama and Iraq to Afghanistan.

Even when accurate, historical analogies can be a double-edged sword. As <CFR member>  Ernest May and <CFR member> Richard Neustadt argued in their book, Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers, well-deployed and critically examined historical references can enhance decision-making (the <CFR run> Kennedy administration relied on the lessons of World War II to avoid a nuclear war with the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis), or degrade it (the <CFR run> Truman administration misunderstood Nazi and fascist expansionism, which led it to miscalculate in Korea).

In the debate over whether, and how, to intervene in Libya, opponents and proponents called on historical examples to bolster their case. Too often, these examples were historically inaccurate and were misapplied to Libya’s unfolding civil war. If the legacy of recent uses of U.S. military force demonstrate anything, it is that regardless of whether the objective is to protect civilians on the ground, precipitate Qaddafi’s removal from power, or stabilize a postconflict Libya, more force, time, attention, and resources will be needed than the international community has thus far proven willing to commit.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized