West Eyes Recolonization Of Africa With Endless War; Removing Gaddafi Was First Step

Authored by Dan Glazebrook via RT.com,

Exactly six years ago, on October 20th, 2011, Muammar Gaddafi was murdered, joining a long list of African revolutionaries martyred by the West for daring to dream of continental independence.

Earlier that day, Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte had been occupied by Western-backed militias, following a month-long battle during which NATO and its ‘rebel’ allies pounded the city’s hospitals and homes with artillery, cut off its water and electricity, and publicly proclaimed their desire to ‘starve [the city] into submission’. The last defenders of the city, including Gaddafi, fled Sirte that morning, but their convoy was tracked and strafed by NATO jets, killing 95 people. Gaddafi escaped the wreckage but was captured shortly afterward. I will spare you the gruesome details, which the Western media gloatingly broadcast across the world as a triumphant snuff movie, suffice to say that he was tortured and eventually shot dead.

We now know, if testimony from NATO’s key Libyan ally Mahmoud Jibril is to be believed, it was a foreign agent, likely French, who delivered the fatal bullet. His death was the culmination of not only seven months of NATO aggression, but of a campaign against Gaddafi and his movement, the West had been waging for over three decades.

Yet it was also the opening salvo in a new war - a war for the militarily recolonization of Africa.

The year 2009, two years before Gaddafi’s murder, was a pivotal one for US-African relations. First, because China overtook the US as the continent’s largest trading partner; and second because Gaddafi was elected president of the African Union.

The significance of both for the decline of US influence on the continent could not be clearer. While Gaddafi was spearheading attempts to unite Africa politically, committing serious amounts of Libyan oil wealth to make this dream a reality, China was quietly smashing the West’s monopoly over export markets and investment finance. Africa no longer had to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for loans, agreeing to whatever self-defeating terms were on offer, but could turn to China - or indeed Libya - for investment. And if the US threatened to cut them off from their markets, China would happily buy up whatever was on offer. Western economic domination of Africa was under threat as never before.

The response from the West, of course, was a military one. Economic dependence on the West - rapidly being shattered by Libya and China - would be replaced by a new military dependence. If African countries would no longer come begging for Western loans, export markets, and investment finance, they would have to be put in a position where they would come begging for Western military aid.

To this end, AFRICOM - the US army’s new ‘African command’ - had been launched the previous year, but humiliatingly for George W. Bush, not a single African country would agree to host its HQ; instead, it was forced to open shop in Stuttgart, Germany. Gaddafi had led African opposition to AFRICOM, as exasperated US diplomatic memos later revealed by WikiLeaks made clear. And US pleas to African leaders to embrace AFRICOM in the ‘fight against terrorism’ fell on deaf ears.

After all, as Mutassim Gaddafi, head of Libyan security, had explained to Hillary Clinton in 2009, North Africa already had an effective security system in place, through the African Union’s ‘standby forces,' on the one hand, and CEN-SAD on the other. CEN-SAD was a regional security organization of Sahel and Saharan states, with a well-functioning security system, with Libya as the lynchpin. The sophisticated Libyan-led counter-terror structure meant there was simply no need for a US military presence. The job of Western planners, then, was to create such a need.

NATO’s destruction of Libya simultaneously achieved three strategic goals for the West’s plans for military expansion in Africa. Most obviously, it removed the biggest obstacle and opponent of such expansion, Gaddafi himself. With Gaddafi gone, and with a quiescent pro-NATO puppet government in charge of Libya, there was no longer any chance that Libya would act as a powerful force against Western militarism. Quite the contrary - Libya’s new government was utterly dependent on such militarism and knew it.
Secondly, NATO’s aggression served to bring about a total collapse of the delicate but effective North African security system, which had been underpinned by Libya. And finally, NATO’s annihilation of the Libyan state effectively turned the country over to the region’s death squads and terror groups. These groups were then able to loot Libya’s military arsenals and set up training camps at their leisure, using these to expand operations right across the region.

It is no coincidence that almost all of the recent terror attacks in North Africa - not to mention Manchester - have been either prepared in Libya or perpetrated by fighters trained in Libya. Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, ISIS, Mali’s Ansar Dine, and literally dozens of others, have all greatly benefited from the destruction of Libya.

By ensuring the spread of terror groups across the region, the Western powers had magically created a demand for their military assistance which hitherto did not exist. They had literally created a protection racket for Africa.

In an excellent piece of research published last year, Nick Turse wrote how the increase in AFRICOM operations across the continent has correlated precisely with the rise in terror threats. Its growth, he said, has been accompanied by “increasing numbers of lethal terror attacks across the continent including those in Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Tunisia.

In fact, data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland shows that attacks have spiked over the last decade, roughly coinciding with AFRICOM’s establishment. In 2007, just before it became an independent command, there were fewer than 400 such incidents annually in sub-Saharan Africa. Last year, the number reached nearly 2,000. By AFRICOM’s own official standards, of course, this is a demonstration of a massive failure. Viewed from the perspective of the protection racket, however, it is a resounding success, with US military power smoothly reproducing the conditions for its own expansion.

This is the Africa policy Trump has now inherited. But because this policy has rarely been understood as the protection racket it really is, many commentators have, as with so many of Trump’s policies, mistakenly believed he is somehow ‘ignoring’ or ‘reversing’ the approach of his predecessors. In fact, far from abandoning this approach, Trump is escalating it with relish.

What the Trump administration is doing, as it is doing in pretty much every policy area, is stripping the previous policy of its ‘soft power’ niceties to reveal and extend the iron fist which has in fact been in the driving seat all along. Trump, with his open disdain for Africa, has effectively ended US development aid for Africa - slashing overall African aid levels by one third, and transferring responsibility for much of the rest from the Agency for International Development to the Pentagon - while openly tying aid to the advancement of “US national security objectives.”

In other words, the US has made a strategic decision to drop the carrot in favor of the stick. Given the overwhelming superiority of Chinese development assistance, this is unsurprising. The US has decided to stop trying to compete in this area, and instead to ruthlessly and unambiguously pursue the military approach which the Bush and Obama administrations had already mapped out.

To this end, Trump has stepped up drone attacks, removing the (limited) restrictions that had been in place during the Obama era. The result has been a ramping up of civilian casualties, and consequently of the resentment and hatred which fuels militant recruitment. It is unlikely to be a coincidence, for example, that the al Shabaab truck bombing that killed over 300 people in Mogadishu last weekend was carried out by a man from a town in which had suffered a major drone attack on civilians, including women and children, in August.

Indeed, a detailed study by the United Nations recently concluded that in “a majority of cases, state action appears to be the primary factor finally pushing individuals into violent extremism in Africa.” Of more than 500 former members of militant organizations interviewed for the report, 71 percent pointed to “government action,” including “killing of a family member or friend” or “arrest of a family member or friend” as the incident that prompted them to join a group. And so the cycle continues: drone attacks breed recruitment, which produces further terror attacks, which leaves the states involved more dependent on US military support. Thus does the West create the demand for its own ‘products.'

It does so in another way as well. Alexander Cockburn, in his book ‘Kill Chain,' explains how the policy of ‘targeted killings’ - another Obama policy ramped up under Trump - also increases the militancy of insurgent groups. Cockburn, reporting on a discussion with US soldiers about the efficacy of targeted killings, wrote that:

“When the topic of conversation came round to ways of defeating the [roadside] bombs, everyone was in agreement. They would have charts up on the wall showing the insurgent cells they were facing, often with the names and pictures of the guys running them," Rivolo remembers. "When we asked about going after the high-value individuals and what effect it was having, they’d say, ‘Oh yeah, we killed that guy last month, and we’re getting more IEDs than ever.’ They all said the same thing, point blank: ‘[O]nce you knock them off, a day later you have a new guy who’s smarter, younger, more aggressive and is out for revenge.”’

Alex de Waal has written how this is certainly true in Somalia, where, he says, “each dead leader is followed by a more radical deputy. After a failed attempt in January 2007, the US killed Al Shabaab’s commander, Aden Hashi Farah Ayro, in a May 2008 air strike. Ayro’s successor, Ahmed Abdi Godane (alias Mukhtar Abu Zubair), was worse, affiliating the organization with Al-Qaeda. The US succeeded in assassinating Godane in September 2014. In turn, Godane was succeeded by an even more determined extremist, Ahmad Omar (Abu Ubaidah). It was presumably Omar who ordered the recent attack in Mogadishu, the worst in the country’s recent history. If targeted killing remains a central strategy of the War on Terror”, De Waal wrote, “it is set to be an endless war.”

But endless war is the whole point. For not only does it force African countries, finally freeing themselves from dependence on the IMF, into dependence on AFRICOM; it also undermines China’s blossoming relationship with Africa.

Chinese trade and investment in Africa continues to grow apace. According to the China-Africa Research Initiative at John Hopkins University, Chinese FDI stocks in Africa had risen from just two percent of the value of US stocks in 2003 to 55 percent in 2015, when they totaled $35 billion. This proportion is likely to rapidly increase, given that “Between 2009 and 2012, China’s direct investment in Africa grew at an annual rate of 20.5 percent, while levels of US FDI flows to Africa declined by $8 billion in the wake of the global financial crisis”. Chinese-African trade, meanwhile, topped $200 billion in 2015.

China’s signature ‘One Belt One Road’ policy - to which President Xi Jinping has pledged $124 billion to create global trade routes designed to facilitate $2 trillion worth of annual trade - will also help to improve African links with China. Trump’s policy toward the project was summarised by Steve Bannon, his ideological mentor, and former chief strategist in just eight words: “Let’s go screw up One Belt One Road.”

The West’s deeply destabilizing Africa policy - of simultaneously creating the conditions for armed groups to thrive while offering protection against them - goes some way toward realizing this ambitious goal. Removing Gaddafi was just the first step.


totenkopf88 Mon, 10/23/2017 - 03:43 Permalink

Let the Chinks have it- the Darkie Continent is a bigger Graveyard of Empires than Afghanistan ever dreamed of being- Roland, the Headless Thompson Gunner, knows all about it.

BennyBoy svayambhu108 Mon, 10/23/2017 - 05:57 Permalink

 Africa: lots of oil and gas and valuable minerals.All free stuff big corps want. But people are in the way and want to be paid. So its murdering time! Time to call anyone who objects ISIS, taliban, alQueda, al shabaab, or a new african sounding name. Really just patriots defending their homes against the invaders just like the middle east. Except for the CIA sponsored terror groups, which will be 90% of them.Time to give Africa "democracy"!

In reply to by svayambhu108

doctor10 BennyBoy Mon, 10/23/2017 - 07:24 Permalink

Sending the likes of Albright, Rice and HRC out to Gaddafi for 15 years -and expecting anything other than what has happened-is the definition of stupidity. You want Muslim men to do what you need them to do-you send them your alpha males-especially if you expect them to trade their oil in your dollars.Someday schools of diplomacy-in the rest of the world -will look back upon all this as the very definition of hubris-upon which the American Empire stumbled and fell.  It is diplomatically unrecoverable-andmost probably militarily as well.The best future for the USD lies in the natural dissolution of the EU-which merely needs some gentle and strategic nudges to quicken.

In reply to by BennyBoy

ThinkAgain Mon, 10/23/2017 - 07:07 Permalink

All is escape forwards, needed to keep a model of zero growth (with a financial system that needs growth to stay afloat) alive. Another step the Global West will take due to this is http://www.planck.org/publications/Global-West-Common-Currency-Union. The europeans are blinded by transatlantic propaganda to see how they will be sacrificed by all of this. A pity the Global West does not understand http://www.planck.org/publications/Global-West-Economic-Adulthood. Recognizing that would save their future, which is now going down the drain.

Ecclesia Militans Koba the Dread Mon, 10/23/2017 - 08:11 Permalink

I assert that this article evidences nothing more than cognitive dissonance on the part of the author which I felt was obvious in my remark since any reasonable person with critical thinking skills could have gleaned my intent.  There is no evidence supporting the author's assertion that US policy (creation of AFRICOM or the deposition of Libyan despot) is driven by an overarching goal of destabilizing Africa (thus this entire article is an argumentum ad ignorentium.)

In reply to by Koba the Dread

rwe2late Ecclesia Militans Mon, 10/23/2017 - 13:49 Permalink

 I assert that you created a "straw man" argument ("overarching goal of destabilizing")and then attempted to refute it with a lame and untrue contention('there is no evidence"). If you read more carefully, the article contends that US policy is destabilizing.You need to drop the pseudo-patriotic blinders and recognize that US policy is drivenby a goal of full-spectrum dominance and preventing the rise of any "adversay" that couldthreaten that dominance. Overthrowing Gaddafi, forestalling and containing China,protecting the Petrodollar, destroying Syria, are all connected to  overall policy.

In reply to by Ecclesia Militans

Weisshorn Mon, 10/23/2017 - 03:58 Permalink

This article is balderdash.  Zato is not acting for the good of the "west".  The goal is one world government subject to Noahide laws ruled out of Jarusalem.

not dead yet Weisshorn Mon, 10/23/2017 - 05:27 Permalink

Having followed Libya for quite a few years now the article is pretty much on the money contrary to those who don't know squat about the situation and call it bunk. Whatever the supposed ultimate goals of whether it be NATO or one world government it doesn't change the fact that Libya was destroyed and Qaddafi dead because both were standing in the way of the US and AFRICOM in AFrica. The only quarrel I may have with the article is that the UN backed government is only in charge of part of the country. Other factions control other areas.Qaddafi kept a lid on the refugee traffic to Europe and as we all know it's been a flood since his death with no end in sight especially when Soros is chartering the boats. One can say that the US wanted the flood of refugees into Europe and the huge increase of terrorists in the region. With the track record of the US it's entirely possible they never gave any thought to what would happen with Libya and Qaddafi gone and the aftermath surprised them. Of course the US took advantage of the situation and ran weapons and jihaidsts from Libya into Syria to knock off Assad.

In reply to by Weisshorn

not dead yet not dead yet Mon, 10/23/2017 - 05:43 Permalink

If one would look a little deeper into the situations in Africa, Venezuela, North Korea, and some others one would find the Russians and or Chinese there. The US is using these countries and their people as cannon fodder to keep it's top dog, and the only dog that counts, status in the world trying to stifle if not eliminate their competitions march to a multipolar world with the US just another bystander. It won't be easy unless the US commits lots of it's own troops with the resulting body bags coming home. The US has not won a war, except the Gulf War, since WW2 because the other side won't quit until they are all dead. We get some delusional people who claim we could have won Vietnam but there was no way it was going to happen as long as there were Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotions still alive. Even JFK knew the Vietnam war was unwinnable and was going to pull out the troops.

In reply to by not dead yet

IronForge not dead yet Mon, 10/23/2017 - 12:39 Permalink

You forget the Petroleum Trade in the Gold Dinar introduced by Colonel Quaddafi.This Racket is simply Infernal. The Hegemony trying to screw over Europe, Africa, and Asia in their own bids  for Prosperity and Security. IMHO, I am now comfortable with referring to Bannon, HRC, and Obama as Treacherous (Wh/N)iggers.Too many Sociopaths piling on at the Top and along the rest of the Totem Poles of Politics, Power, and Money.

In reply to by not dead yet

beijing expat Mon, 10/23/2017 - 04:00 Permalink

After the failure of the Iraq invasion and the Syrian gambit, the empire has adopted a new strategy to maintain its predominant position as the global hegemon.

The strategy is to reduce the ME, Africa, and SE Asia to zones of chaos and violence where it is impossible for any strategic competitor to gain access to resources and thus to generate global power.

It's pure evil, but then, so is the empire.

Here is an outline of the strategy.


It's a NeoCon plan and thus will be very costly in terms of blood and treasure, and since it has nothing to offer anyone, it's a bad deal, and is likely to fail, leaving the empire in an even more precarious strategic position, both at home, and abroad.

At home because the White working class, the backbone of the army, is fed up with war for the sake of empire rather than for the sake of the Republic, and abroad because NeoCon dogma dictates that diplomacy will never be conducted in good faith, but rather for fleeting tactical advantage. Basically they will only succeed in pissing everyone off while their strategic competitors can offer long term stability and development.

This strategy has been adopted because war with strategic competitors is not an option in the nuclear age.

Personally, I would argue that the window of global hegemony has closed, and the smart thing to do would be to roll back the empire and go back to the founding fathers vision of being a trading powerhouse.

Americas geography makes it an impregnable fortress so there is no realistic scenario where anyone can harm them. Except in the event of Nuclear War.

CONCEPTPOLITICO beijing expat Mon, 10/23/2017 - 09:05 Permalink

I would encourage you and others to do a little research on Erik Prince vision for U.S. military economic power in the 21st century.  It is modeled off of client state systems of old, the East Indian Company and is a iteration of his former Black Water company.  Basically U.S. global power will be underpinned by troops from strong men cliential states where in return for U.S. support dicators and giving them cover and advocacy in the U.N, IMF, WHO etc, they will provide the Anglo-Zio-American Company troop for her their wars of resource conquest and proping up of the petro dollar.  The primary military  dictatorial client states include Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and at a lessor extent Columbia, Angola, South Africa.  It is already happening and Somalia is a test case.

In reply to by beijing expat

CONCEPTPOLITICO beijing expat Mon, 10/23/2017 - 09:05 Permalink

I would encourage you and others to do a little research on Erik Prince vision for U.S. military economic power in the 21st century.  It is modeled off of client state systems of old, the East Indian Company and is a iteration of his former Black Water company.  Basically U.S. global power will be underpinned by troops from strong men cliential states where in return for U.S. support dicators and giving them cover and advocacy in the U.N, IMF, WHO etc, they will provide the Anglo-Zio-American Company troop for her their wars of resource conquest and proping up of the petro dollar.  The primary military  dictatorial client states include Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and at a lessor extent Columbia, Angola, South Africa.  It is already happening and Somalia is a test case.

In reply to by beijing expat

css1971 Mon, 10/23/2017 - 04:03 Permalink

"Deeply destabilising Africa"

 In all my life, not...But throughout known history. Has Africa ever been stable? Not that I'm aware of.

Rebelrebel7 Mon, 10/23/2017 - 04:56 Permalink

It is becoming extremely embarrassing to be an American with this blood thirsty MIC!This will be the end of them though! Bet on it! With the Chinese there already, and Saudi Arabia's  new partnership with Russia things will change so fucking fast you will be shitting BRICS, MIC and establishment! Do you honestly expect China, Russia, and ISIS, to sit idly by?Check mate establishment and MIC! THE PARTY'S OVER!THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR MURDERING AND LYING, DUMB FUCKS! 

not dead yet Rebelrebel7 Mon, 10/23/2017 - 05:58 Permalink

With the way so many illegals who make it past the border spread out all around the country it shows that there is a well organized Fifth Column at work. It can easily be used by ISIS and others to infiltrate and stay under cover while the time is ripe to strike. The FBI likes to tout their "success" in setting up not too bright suckers to do terror attacks, doubful they would follow through, and then arrest them "in the nick of time" to keep us safe. The real pros go deep and stay there until the time comes.

In reply to by Rebelrebel7

africoman Mon, 10/23/2017 - 06:27 Permalink

Who actually sponsors numerous terrorist org in Africa? where do Isis, Boko Haram, al shebab and others get their supplies from? why is AFRICOM in the first place Reposting:While sheeple are requesting the assassination of JFK and his brothers in 60's, CIA just gave some junk that keeps puzzling even moar.However, the killing of leaders/activist still continued these days only the way is sophisticated and the methods are highly secretive, the news/questions buried by MSMHere is the greatest of all in which we never gonna know the declassification of them in our time: Three African leaders got killed under highly mysterious circumstances around same time, two of them after attending G-8 summit, sitting togetherIn July 2012, both the Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi Assres and Ghana’s president John Evans Atta Mills died few months after visiting Washington, at G-8 meeting.Strangely enough, Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi also died/killed the same year.When do we gonna catch up what is going on, CIA or whoever involved is ahead of us at least 75 Years?

BennyBoy Nightjar Mon, 10/23/2017 - 06:13 Permalink

 How pure white are you?DNA tested for racial purity? Got brown eyes, hazel or brown flecks in blue eyes, Brownish hair? You're not pure enough, but a mixed race bastard.Do you tan not burn? Too much melanin makes you a darkie.And what have you and your giant "white" intellect accomplished?Fortress europa is anything but that. When is one of you superior assholes gonna turn on the other superior asshole and invade and kill millions of superior whites again?

In reply to by Nightjar

Rubiconsiatista Mon, 10/23/2017 - 06:22 Permalink

I watch our news which is total crap and doesn't have a smidgeon of anything important. This article is reality. How long are parents going to put up with sending their kids into wars? When are the sheep going to wake up. Personally I feel powerless to do anything but watch the loss of freedoms and the constant violence all around us. Has anyone noticed that for a few days now, the Generals on Tv are telling us that Isis is defeated? That was quick! Makes you wonder what new threat is being dreamed up and who the new enemy acronym de jour is.

FBaggins Rubiconsiatista Mon, 10/23/2017 - 10:47 Permalink

Without a strong sense of right and wrong this article would not have been written or printed and most of the comments would not have been made. It is the establishment, the state, the public educational system, the MSM and the entertainment industry which has systematically stripped way the people's  traditional norms of right and wrong, replacing them with moral relativism, situation ethics, cultural Marxism, with a constant Satanic theme of "Might is right.".  

In reply to by Rubiconsiatista

AurorusBorealus Mon, 10/23/2017 - 07:18 Permalink

Ghaddafi nationalized the oil fields.  The prime minister of Iran (who was ousted by a CIA-backed coup) nationalized the oil fields.  Chavez in Venezuela nationalized the oil fields.  Gazprom and Roznef (the largest oil company in Russia) are primarily state-owned and state-controlled.  The issue is not as complex as the author makes it appear. It is about control oil and gas and the petrodollar.  It is always about the petrodollar.  It is not that the U.S. is trying to create chaos as a scorched-earth policy as their empire collapses.  The petrodollar is the basis of the empire's wealth.  It is what allows imperial Washington and Wall Street to print a few trillion here and a few trillion there without suffering inflation or collapse.  The massive surplus of funny money is simply exported as "reserves" and inflation is held at bay.  It is how the dollar remains incredibly overvalued everywhere in the world and why Americans receive much better wages and live better than their contribution to the economy permits.  It is why a fast-food worker in the U.S. is paid better than an electrical engineer in India or Argentina. The petrodollar is the source of American wealth and the cornerstone of the empire.  It has been the policy of the U.S. to sustain this petrodollar since 1972 everywhere in the world and at all costs.