Deadly Attack in Libya Was Major Blow to C.I.A. Efforts … The attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans has dealt the Central Intelligence Agency a major setback in its intelligence-gathering efforts at a time of increasing instability in the North African nation. Among the more than two dozen American personnel evacuated from the city after the assault on the American mission and a nearby annex were about a dozen C.I.A. operatives and contractors, who played a crucial role in conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed militant groups in and around the city. – New York Times
Dominant Social Theme: It is a dangerous time in the Middle East and hopefully the West's Intel agencies remain healthy.
Free-Market Analysis: The New York Times explains that the recent burning of the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya was a CIA disaster but how can this be when the West controls Libya via Qatar?
One of the little-known facts about the Libyan invasion by the West (it was not an uprising) is that in addition to recruiting al Qaeda types (young mercenaries and "fundamentalist Muslims"), NATO worked closely with thousands of Qatar troops.
These troops spearheaded the Libyan ouster of former leader Muammar Gaddafi and remain today, providing the bulk of the real power behind what cannot be conceived of as anything but a Western takeover of Libya. A re-conquest, if you will.
Now, don't just take our word for it. Here's an excerpt of an October 2011 article in the London Evening Post:
Qatari forces to remain in Libya after NATO leaves … Hundreds of Qatari soldiers joined rebel forces as they battled Muammar Qaddafi's troops, a military official said yesterday, shedding fresh light on the extent of the country's military involvement in Libya …
Major General Hamad bin Ali Attiya's comments yesterday at a meeting in Doha of military allies of Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) mark the first time that Qatar has acknowledged it had troops on the ground in Libya.
"We were among them and the numbers of Qataris on the ground were hundreds in every region," the Qatari chief of staff told Agence France-Presse. The Qataris had been "running the training and communication operations", he said. "Qatar had supervised the rebels' plans because they are civilians and did not have enough military experience. We acted as the link between the rebels and Nato forces," Maj Gen Al Attiya said.
His comments follow claims that Qatar's military involvement in Libya had gone far beyond the use of its air force in the NATO campaign. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Qatar had flown 18 weapons shipments into Libya over the spring and summer with the blessing of Western intelligence services. The majority of these went to militias run by Islamist leaders such as Abdel Hakim Belhaj, the commander of the Tripoli Military Council, rather than through the NTC, the newspaper reported.
We can see from this catastrophically frank article exactly how the invasion REALLY worked. First, al Qaeda types were recruited to fight in Libya and overthrow Gaddafi. Then Qatar officials, under NATO supervision, supported and organized the rest of the invasion.
It was Qatar army troops that equipped the al Qaeda types. It is Qatar army men who are in charge in Libya TODAY.
How can the New York Times write that the loss of the embassy in Libya is a "catastrophe" for the CIA? Presumably, the CIA is intimately involved in the disposition of Qatar troops – troops that basically keep the current "government" of Libya in office.
Qatar is a huge ally of the West. The West put the current ruler in power and helped organize the Al Jazeera "independent" news network that the Qatar leadership supposedly organized and bankrolled. You can see an article on that here:
The Western brain trust occupying Libya knows no more and no less about what is going on today than yesterday. They know a good deal about the tribes opposed to Gaddafi's tribe – because these tribes were allied with those that fought against Gaddafi. They know little about Gaddafi's allies today – but no less than yesterday.
There are other problems with the current narrative, the most outstanding one being that there apparently IS no US embassy in Benghazi. There is one in Tripoli, but the two cities are separate and not the same. We have no explanation for this of course and encourage our readers to do their own research.
There is also the issue of the little "movie" made in America that supposedly ignited these riots. The film is evidently a flimsy American Intel operation. We wrote about it here:
The narrative being propounded via Libya is that the US and the West are fighting against an implacable Islamic enemy. It is so implacable that no distinction is made between the Iranian Shia and the Middle Eastern Sunni. These two groups hate each other but no distinction is made in current propaganda between them. Islam is supposed to be monolithic.
Nor, of course, is there any explanation forthcoming about the ridiculous film that the US administration blames for the violence. … Nor is there any explanation forthcoming for the presence of Qatar troops that make up the bulk of security in Benghazi and elsewhere. Qatar virtually RUNS Libya at the behest of the US and NATO.
None of this is being made clear by Western mainstream media, which keeps losing ads and clout because it is not truthful. Here's more from the New York Times:
"It's a catastrophic intelligence loss," said one American official who has served in Libya and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the F.B.I. is still investigating the attack. "We got our eyes poked out."
The C.I.A.'s surveillance targets in Benghazi and eastern Libya include Ansar al-Sharia, a militia that some have blamed for the attack, as well as suspected members of Al Qaeda's affiliate in North Africa, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
Eastern Libya is also being buffeted by strong crosscurrents that intelligence operatives are trying to monitor closely. The killing of Mr. Stevens has ignited public anger against the militias, underscored on Friday when thousands of Libyans took to the streets of Benghazi to demand that the groups be disarmed. The makeup of militias varies widely; some are moderate, while others are ultraconservative Islamists known as Salafis.
Of course, the Salafis come out of Saudi Arabia and have links to Wahhabi fundamentalist Sunni. And Saudi Arabia is a US proxy. It is the US that has nurtured the fundamentalist idiocy of Wahhabism – which is nothing like ordinary – peaceful – Islam.
Wahhabism was cultivated to provide a dialectical opposite to the less radical Sunni approach espoused by such groups as the Muslim Brotherhood that the CIA is busy entrenching in almost every Islamic state it has recently overthrown – including Egypt and eventually, no doubt, Syria.
Whether the Muslim Brotherhood is then built up into a vociferous enemy of Western values remains to be seen. We think it will be, as it has been already. There are also signs that the Brotherhood is now being contrasted with fundamentalist Islam and is being portrayed as a more "reasonable" alternative.
What IS clear is that much of the current violence, like the wars themselves – and ultimately the phony war on terror itself – are being souped up by the West. It is hard to see through all the layers of lies but the idea that the CIA has lost its "eyes" because of the destruction of an apparently non-existent US embassy really doesn't pass the smell test.
It is evidence of the desperate arrogance of the US Intel community that after repeated exposures by the alternative 'Net media it simply does not seem to care anymore. The lies get bigger and more outrageous as Western powers-that-be push the Middle East toward whatever (violent) climax they have in mind.
We don't have to believe the promotions. Thanks to what we call the Internet Reformation, we don't.