Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Counterattack in Benghazi: Exposing the NATO Murderers and the War Criminal Obama

Editors' Introduction
Christopher Stevens arrived in Benghazi, Libya as the US Special Representative to the National Transitional Council, in April, 2011, wielding a program of death and destruction.  

At that time the main goal of Christopher Stevens and the United States government was to subjugate the sovereign nation of Libya.  More than anything else, this meant the removal of Colonel Gaddafi from power, by any and all means.  

Not only were tens of thousands of Libyans murdered in the civil war that Stevens help to orchestrate.  But in October, 2011, Colonel Gaddafi himself was ruthlessly gunned down in the desert: no trial, no civilized justice for the fallen leader of the once-defiant nation.  "We came, we saw, he died."  That is how Hillary Clinton put it.  That about sums it up. 

With Colonel Gaddafi removed, the mission that Christopher Stevens led was immediately deemed a glowing success.  He was rewarded by being appointed the ambassador of this recently conquered country, "post-revolutionary" Libya, having arrived in Tripoli in the spring of the following year to take up his post.  

Christopher Stevens... expert at creating completely fake revolutions and making them seem real ...show biz must be in his nature...

On September 10th, 2012, Ambassador Stevens arrived quietly in Benghazi for a scheduled four-day trip to the city.  There was no grand ceremony waiting for Stevens on this trip; no pomp and circumstance for the U.S. ambassador that, it is said, had "liberated" the country from tyranny.  He came to Benghazi under the cover of darkness, accompanied only by a two-man security detail, having provided no "official" notification that he was even in the city, and without stating publicly why he had come (details which we still haven't learned even today). 

On the following evening, around half past nine o'clock, after Ambassador Stevens reportedly spent the entire day receiving visitors in his walled-off fifteen acre mini-fortress, that's when the attackers arrived.  Within the hour, Christopher Stevens lay unconscious in a smoked-out bathroom, pronounced dead a short time later; murdered in the same city that he occupied during the bloody civil war; a victim of the self-same methods he employed.

The typical Western media narrative on the death of Christopher Stevens omits many of the details and value judgments which we have included above.  In most instances this is because the Western "news" effort surrounding Ambassador Stevens' death also doubled as a deafening propaganda campaign; a campaign which, still to this day, demands that, even if individual opinions about the incident adopt a posture of U.S. government criticism (as they frequently do), this "criticism" must always be limited, never with full license to probe or challenge the central myths and ideological falsehoods that shield aggressive U.S. behavior as it operates around the world.

How can any of us know the substance and motive of U.S. behavior if its most painful details remain excluded from public consideration?  Further still, how can any of us know the substance and motive behind attacks against the United States, the justice of the attacks, or the character of the attackers, if all we know is a glorified rendering of what the U.S. government is and does?

Benghazi has evolved into a war zone--this we now know--a city of over one million left to suffer the results of the glorious revolution sponsored by Western powers.  This has been the norm for several months, since well before the ambassador's hyped death.  Why did we hear nothing of it months ago?  Why do we learn about this only now?

And what of the other cities in "post-revolutionary" Libya, like Tawargha?

Tawargha, just south of Misrata, was once a city of around thirty thousand residents.  In early August, 2011, the whole city fell victim to a sustained terror campaign led by racist armed gangs and backed by NATO bombs.  Many observers have claimed that, if ever a legitimate case of "genocide" existed in Libya, this would be it.  Today the town is empty, barely identifiable on a map.

Perhaps our readers can tell us, how many press releases had been published documenting this tragedy?  How much space did this calamity occupy in the central narrative of the revolution?  Any at all?

Even after the lid on Libya had been lifted, revealing the chaos of Benghazi in recent months; even after so much interest had been generated about the "deteriorating" security situation in Libya, who yet has spoken of Tawargha?  Who has spoken of Bani Walid

Which is to say, who among us has yet learned of the "real" Libya that Christopher Stevens "saved" from tyranny? 

Of course much truth about Libya has been deliberately obscured from Western audiences since before the days of the "humanitarian" intervention, much like in every other war.

It's only due to the fact that Christopher Stevens was in a high-profile position when he was murdered, serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, that Western public opinion leaders brought any attention--any at all--to the deadly violence that now reigns there.

Christopher Stevens was the first sitting U.S. Ambassador to have been killed in the line of duty in over thirty years.   

Within a strictly image-oriented public relations framework, the death of an ambassador meant that Christopher Stevens was already more than an unknown diplomatic soldier falling quietly in the line of duty; already more than a mere footnote in the failures of modern American diplomacy.  This much is obvious.  His death was destined to bring immediate attention and public scrutiny to Obama's foreign policy agenda.  The operative question would be (and still is), what will the public learn?

Will the public ever learn the identity of the Benghazi "compound" attackers?  Will they read sworn testimony from eye witnesses or participants?  Will they watch live video feed, that which supposedly exists documenting the incident?  Will they analyze relevant photos?  Or read signed statements from any "guilty parties" clarifying what motives may have been behind the attacks?

Will the public ever learn that the "Arab Spring" was not a "spontaneous" "wave" of "revolutions" but a well-planned, precisely-timed geopolitically-motivated Pentagon fake?  Will they learn the lessons of the so-called "color revolutions," about how foreign leaders are routinely ousted by U.S. government operatives through false media narratives and clever psychological tricks?

Will the public learn of the numerous massacres and humanitarian crises that enveloped Libya, not because of Colonel Gaddafi, but because of the military invasion--the jet sorties, the heavy artillery--which NATO brought in from the outside?     

And what of the United States' point man in Libya, Christopher Stevens?  Senator Joseph Lieberman said that "[Christopher Stevens] became in fact the bright symbol of America, a heroic and inspiring figure for many Libyans."  Is that what the public is destined to learn?

Maybe the public will learn that our "heroic and inspiring figure" personally blessed the arrival of thousands of machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, professional sadists and torture devices into this region.  Perhaps they'll also learn that, after Libya was ripped apart by the civil war, Stevens then started shipping those same weapons illegally to Syria, a move designed to destroy that country and remove that government, yet another government that now stands in their way. 

Stevens' sudden death at the wrong end of these weapons--and, perhaps, at the hands of the very people he delivered them to--single-handedly multiplied any risk of bringing his vicious mission--his real mission--into sharp public focus.

Without leaving anything to chance, a damage control effort quickly ran into high gear.  The United States propaganda apparatus was forced to respond and to reinforce the "humanitarian" myths which continue to support its mission worldwide, and so it did respond.  The United States must be good, must be benevolent, must be loving, must be paternal, must be caring, must be vulnerable, must be selfless, must be just.  And as the now-dead Christopher Stevens was destined to be the caretaker of these attributes, it was decided that, if the public was to learn anything of Chris Stevens, the public must learn unequivocally that Chris Stevens carried all of these saintly attributes in abundance.

This is how the Chris Stevens we know was born: a man lifted from complete obscurity, then projected to angelic heights; suspended there long enough only for us to marvel, only for us to gasp before we watched him tragically fall, victim to an "act of barbarism" on the colonial frontier.

What really happened? 

We do not claim to know all the answers here.  So many questions remain unanswered; so many have yet to be asked.

Doubtless that, whatever numerous lessons still hide beneath this cartoonish myth, we can only discover them by focusing upon material facts unearthed by a competent, impartial investigation.  

In his excellent essay (below the video), author Maximilian Forte dissected the first of the U.S. government's many unclassified "investigative" reports into the attack.

Are the Republicans really trying to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi?  Or are they protecting a bipartisan agenda through a limited attack
"Manifold are the ways in which the devil has sought to undermine the truth. 
He is now trying to crush it, by pretending to defend it." 
(Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian of Carthage)

The State Department's "Report" on the Attack in Benghazi, Libya: The Effects of Diplomacy as Subversion

Click here to order book online.
By Maximilian Forte
Originally published in Counterpunch
December 20, 2012
Images and captions added by Color Revolutions and Geopolitics

Almost immediately after the armed attack in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, which resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, along with Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty, added to the destruction and looting of the U.S. facility in Benghazi, various columnists immediately took to issuing pronouncements on what had happened in Libya and what it meant. They all sounded so certain. Yet, the only certainty has been the deliberate production of uncertainty, with multiple layers of obfuscation, questions asked and never answered, and some questions not even asked yet. This is largely the case even now, four months after the attack and with the December 18 release of the findings of a State Department investigation into the attack. The report was produced by the “Accountability Review Board” convened by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself, and is thus lacking the impartiality of an independent body without ties to the Obama administration or the vested interests of those in charge of the State Department. The investigation was led by Thomas R. Pickering (a former U.S. ambassador to El Salvador during the height of its dirty war against opposition movements and guerrillas tied to the FMLN), and Admiral Michael Mullen.

Michael Mullen (L) and Thomas Pickering (R).  Interestingly Michael Mullen served as Obama's top military adviser during the entire NATO Libyan campaign.  Sadly this is what the State Department really meant when it demanded an  "independent investigation" into the Benghazi fiasco:  State investigates itself.   What you the citizen want to know; what is of value to you; this you will never learn.

As someone with a background in ethnohistory and archival research of colonial documents, plus seeing that this report is “unclassified” and is thus being circulated to various media, it struck me that the intent of this release was to produce not answers to a problem, but rather the State Department’s preferred version of events as the party to a conflict in Libya that the U.S. internationalized, widened and escalated since February 2011. There is actually little that is new in the report that has not already been presented and debated and left unsettled in the public sphere. Indeed, the report itself ultimately reduces everything to a need for more security measures and better training. This report is a very stark contrast to what some journalists were promising us would be a “State Department bombshell.” Well it’s a dud.

The Untold Story

Imagine this: a government that regularly executes alleged enemies abroad, using drone strikes based on supposed “intelligence,” that routinely claims to kill “terrorist” leaders and prevent “impending” attacks, is still not able—not even four months later—to identify the group responsible for the attack in Benghazi. Not able, or perhaps not willing. Instead, this report refers us to the FBI, which still has an investigation underway. This is the same FBI that was too frightened to send agents to Benghazi to investigate the attack, even weeks after the attack, and well after the “crime scene” had been extensively looted and “degraded.” Instead, this is the state of U.S. intelligence on Benghazi: “the key questions surrounding the identity, actions and motivations of the perpetrators remain to be determined by the ongoing criminal investigation” (p. 2). Even if we take the report at face value, this missing element—who are the attackers—should give anyone reason enough for lengthy pause. The U.S. government is claiming to not know which group attacked its staff in Benghazi, let alone the identities of the individual attackers. This says something about the state of U.S. “knowledge” of Libya. If we do not take the report at face value, then it reads like a deliberate attempt to cover up what the U.S. does not want the public to know.

In this regard, there are many possibilities, and no certainties. The report itself offers passing acknowledgment of the “continued presence of pro-Qaddafi supporters” (p. 15)—but does not even for a moment consider who might have a motive to attack the U.S. facility in Benghazi. The report does not even once mention the presence of CIA agents in its so-called “Special Mission Compound” in Benghazi, even though multiple reports surfaced that the attack had targeted a CIA base, exposing the presence of CIA personnel in significant numbers, and delivered a huge blow to CIA efforts in Libya—and to efforts to illicitly send arms to Syrian rebels via Turkey. And what was the CIA doing there? Reportedly their work focused on “securing” weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals during the NATO war, such as surface-to-air missiles, the SA-7’s. It was also reported that Ambassador Chris Stevens’ work in Benghazi involved the transshipment of heavy weapons from Libya and into the hands of jihadists fighting to overthrow the government of Syria. Is it just a coincidence then that Syrian rebels have started using SA-7’s that they never had before? A CIA operation such as this would thus not only be violating international law, it would also reveal the lie that is Obama’s claim that the U.S. is not supplying Syrian rebels with weapons. This again widens the options concerning the motives of possible attackers, including those who might want to put a stop to such covert operations against Syria.

Under Gaddafi Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa.
What is not clear is why “Islamists” in Libya would want to attack the Benghazi “mission.” After all, these would be some of the same people who benefitted from NATO’s air cover, for which they pleaded, and from Western weapons shipments during the war to overthrow the Libyan government, and who are reportedly benefitting again by being supported by the U.S. and its NATO partner, Turkey, in sending weapons to Syria, with some Libyans already active in that war. How would they gain anything, and would they not lose a great deal in launching such an inexplicable attack against their own partners?

Unmentionable Friends

Indeed this is a major conceptual shortcoming of the report: how it abruptly converts “militias” into “terrorists” (see p. 4). For all of the report writers’ insistence that their job is not to identify the attackers, the report speaks of the activities and nature of Al Qaeda and its affiliates (p. 2). But then a question arises: if “Islamists” and “jihadists” are a problem, why does the U.S. work with them in Libya? Likewise, if they are as “anti-American” as is commonly assumed, why do some actively collaborate with the U.S.? How among what the report acknowledges is a dizzying array of militias, do U.S. officials determine which are the good “Islamists” and which are the bad ones? The report itself provides some interesting answers.

The authors of the report comment on how the U.S. backed war against the USSR in Afghanistan, and the U.S.’ subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq, provided the networks, training, and experience that empowered the “jihadis” that Gaddafi fought, and that continue to destabilize Libya under U.S. auspices. Here there is not even a pause in the report when the former monarchy based in Benghazi, U.S. interests, and jihadists all cohabit the same paragraph, as if they were natural partners (p. 13). Indeed, the report casually notes that the “Special Mission’s Libyan security contingent was composed of four armed members of the February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade (February 17)—a local umbrella organization of militias dominant in Benghazi (some of which were Islamist)” (p. 19). Some of which were Islamist?

U.S. Diplomatic Security agent Mario Montoya trains local Libyan guards within the State Department's "Special Mission Compound" in Benghazi, 2011.

Then there is the assertion of the Libyans’ supposed love affair with Ambassador Stevens. If Stevens, and other foreign officials, had truly “earned the admiration of countless numbers of Libyans” (p. 14) as presented in the State Department’s hagiography, there should not have been a river of attacks (a list of 20 attacks is provided, pp. 15-16, for Benghazi alone) against U.S. and related Western targets, and Stevens should still be alive today. In this inability to get over themselves, the obsessive self-praise of U.S. officialdom, amounting to what often seems like an institutionalized narcissism and hubris, there is no discussion of why the reality of Libya is one where U.S. officials get killed. The report only offers a remarkably simplified picture of two kinds of potential Libyan opponents: protesters and terrorists.

The report, however, does note that a kind of tunnel vision developed among U.S. officials in Libya—perhaps blaming them for their own demise—a vision in which violence against the U.S. and other international targets was normalized and effectively pushed aside. The report comments on the possibility—at least this possibility earns their commentary—that with so many attacks against U.S. and international targets, it all came to be seen as normal: “the longer a post is exposed to continuing high levels of violence the more it comes to consider security incidents which might otherwise provoke a reaction as normal, thus raising the threshold for an incident to cause a reassessment of risk and mission continuation” (p. 16). On the other hand, the concept of “resistance” appears to be forbidden, precluded from discussion. Moreover, as I will discuss below, this line of argument holds no water and is part of a subtle subtext of the report that places the blame for Stevens’ death partly on Stevens himself.

Questionable Friends

It is odd, but not surprising, that the report offers the public no considerations of the risk that results as a blowback effect of U.S. destabilization, just as it erases any notion of resistance. Instead all the U.S. has is friends in Libya. So how did four Americans get killed? They were, we are told, guarded by a local militia, the February 17 militia. Unfortunately, “February 17 militia members had stopped accompanying Special Mission vehicle movements in protest over salary and working hours” (p. 5). Moreover, the investigators “found little evidence that the armed February 17 guards offered any meaningful defense” of the “special mission” (p. 6). As for the Libyan government, the investigators found “the Libyan government’s response to be profoundly lacking on the night of the attacks, reflecting both weak capacity and near absence of central government influence and control in Benghazi” (pp. 6-7). That sounds like the Libyan “government,” such as it is, had no capacity to help—which is quite likely true. However, that does not explain why “an unknown individual in a Libyan Supreme Security Council (SSC) police uniform” was spotted on the day of the attack “apparently taking photos of the compound villas with a cell phone from the second floor of a building under construction across the street to the north” of the “special mission” (p. 19).

Rewriting History

The authors of this report seem compelled to provide the preferred rendition of Libyan history, consistently making remarks that are noteworthy for lacking almost any relevance at all to the nature and purpose of their report. At the same time, the report adds to recent official comments that go strikingly against the Obama narrative at the start of the war in 2011, as if these officials suffered from amnesia and forgot what was in the last set of talking points on the approved and authorized view of Libya.

For example, while Obama repeatedly insisted he was against regime change back in March of 2011, and that international intervention was needed to protect civilians, his sole concern, there is no attempt to maintain this illusion any longer. Thus the report, like Secretary Clinton earlier, points out that Christopher Stevens was the U.S. “Special Envoy” to “the rebel-led government that eventually toppled Muammar Qaddafi in fall 2011,” and that was even before the U.S. publicly recognized that “government” as the “sole, legitimate representative of the Libyan people.” Stevens and his “special mission,” worked to bolster “U.S. support for Libya’s democratic transition through engagement with eastern Libya, the birthplace of the revolt against Qaddafi and a regional power center” (p. 2). Put simply, this was a diplomat actively working to overthrow a foreign government. This was a “diplomat” whose work consisted of regime change—despite early official pronouncements to the contrary—and in addition one whose commitment to Libya was restricted to the eastern portion. Subverting a government was accompanied by pandering to regionalist sentiments that have worked to divide and destabilize Libya since the bloody coup against Gaddafi.

These "humanitarian" myth-makers helped create imagined realities in the service of empire: Christopher Stevens (L), filmmaker Gilles Hertzog (center), and Bernard-Henri Levy (R)

If anything, the report seems to suggest that “diplomacy as subversion” is the State Department’s favored model for international engagement, noting: “significantly increased demands on U.S. diplomats to be present in the world’s most dangerous places to advance American interests and connect with populations beyond capitals, and beyond host governments’ reach” (p. 2). “Beyond host governments’ reach” is a pleasant way of saying that U.S. diplomats advance U.S. interests by circumventing the same legally constituted national authorities that the U.S. officially recognizes because it requires their prior permission to even establish an embassy. However, this model does not necessarily rely on establishing formal embassies, a formality that can be dispensed with in the new American diplomacy. This is the case even with Libya today, after Gaddafi—the so-called “consulate” in Benghazi, as some media called it, “was never a consulate,” and the report states that its presence was “never formally notified to the Libyan government”—the current government (pp. 14-15). Elsewhere the report speaks of the “special mission” as having a “non-status” as a “temporary, residential facility” (p. 5). One wonders how the Libyan government was supposed to come to the rescue of an entity that remained a mystery.

With reference to at least unofficially legitimizing Libyan regionalism, which reaches the point of organized secessionism in eastern Libya, the report acknowledges that “Stevens’ presence in the city [Benghazi] was seen as a significant sign of U.S. support for the TNC and a recognition of the resurgence of eastern Libya’s political influence” (p. 13). The report then validates without any question the Benghazi narrative that, “throughout Qaddafi’s decades-long rule, eastern Libya consistently lagged behind Tripoli in terms of infrastructure and standard of living even as it was responsible for the vast majority of Libya’s oil production” (p. 13). (Perhaps the U.S. should consider moving its capital to Texas.) What the report does not consider is that under Gaddafi other historically much more neglected areas—those that were not the privileged seat of the old monarchy—finally began to receive attention, and this bothered some in Benghazi who then (as now) continue to demand nearly exclusive attention to their own interests.

"Air force" functionary: his photo taken after dropping bombs on people he's never met

There are many other examples of the rewriting of history to better accord with U.S. interests and designs, but none is more glaring than the complete absence of any mention of U.S. and NATO bombings over eight months and the presence of U.S. and British special forces on the ground, along with hundreds of Qatari troops. The war against Libya never happened. Instead we get a pretty portrait of valiant rebels single-handedly defeating Gaddafi, for example: “The TNC continued attacking the remaining Qaddafi strongholds, and Tripoli fell earlier than expected at the end of August” (p. 14). Indeed, Libya had been visited by “a popular uprising” (p. 13), one so popular that it required U.S. intervention because it had no chances of success otherwise. There is a reminder also that the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli shut down merely days after the first street protests began—a curiously rapid decision (p. 13).

“Oh for the love of Chris!”

The production of this report, and its intended public consumption, is part of what might be kindly called the U.S. government’s “public diplomacy” effort, or in more disquieting terms, strategic information operations. The report is largely an exercise in impression management. The result is hagiography. Ambassador Stevens, we are told, “personified the U.S. commitment to a free and democratic Libya” (p. 2). The Americans who were killed possessed “selfless courage” (p. 3), and their duties were also “performed with courage” (p. 7). Lest ye forget, the report writers recommend that government agencies take yet another opportunity “to recognize their exceptional valor and performance, which epitomized the highest ideals of government service” (p. 12). Christopher Stevens was loved, as reflected by “his ability to move in all sectors of the population” (p. 2)—all sectors. Indeed, then he must still be moving. Often the report reads like a self-aggrandizing lobbying effort, self-conscious of its role as a means of marketing State Department goals in a time of reduced budgets, and often seems as if it had been penned directly by Secretary Clinton herself.

What is odd is that at times the report seems to almost blame Stevens for his own death: “Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi” (p. 4). This is despite publicly available evidence to the contrary, with a number of emails from Stevens that have been published, showing that Stevens had issued “multiple warnings” of security threats. The report nevertheless seems to find fault with him—“but you did not persuade me” you can almost hear them say. And yet, elsewhere the report states that Washington gave “unusual deference to his judgments” (p. 6)—so there is a bit of a contradiction that remains unresolved.

Excitement over the "Arab Spring" in Tahrir Square: why are John McCain and Joseph Lieberman so enthusiastic??

As part of the fog of diplomacy, what remains occluded by this report is the real story of “Benghazi Gate.” That Obama may have been keen to cover up any role of Al Qaeda, which he had loudly proclaimed to be decimated and left adrift after the execution of Bin Laden, is possible. His limited symbolic capital going into the last elections, which he barely won, could not stand to be tarnished. What seems more compelling, occurring precisely at the time when Syria is being targeted by the U.S. and its allies, is the role of Libya as a proxy in a covert war against Syria. This is, after all, an administration that is almost neurotic when it comes to maintaining secrecy (except for when leaks serve the greater glory of the leader’s reputation). In a report that does not even conceive of a Libyan resistance, in the midst of so many dubious friends with agendas that may sometimes overlap with those of the U.S. (and others times, not), one cannot expect to find a sober and rational engagement with the realities of a Libya dismantled by U.S. intervention. That would be like accepting blame, and the report is driven by the need to (re)gain credit, at the expense of continuing to sow misinformation and confusion.

Additional Resources:

1.  Illuminating two-part audio interview with Maximilian Forte on "Unusual Sources" (December 2012):


2.  Short video based on Maximilian Forte's book, Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO's War on Libya and Africa.

According to Forte, "this film places the 2011 US/NATO war in Libya in a more meaningful context than that of a war to 'protect civilians' driven by the urgent need to 'save Benghazi'. Instead it counters such notions with the actual destruction of Sirte, and the consistent and determined persecution of black Libyans and African migrant workers by the armed opposition, supported by NATO, as it sought to violently overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and the Jamahariyah. This film takes us through some of the stock justifications for the war, focusing on protecting civilians, the responsibility to protect (R2P), and 'genocide prevention,' and examines the racial biases and political prejudice that underpinned them. The role of Western human rights organizations, as well as misinformation spread through 'social media' with the intent of fostering fear of rampaging black people, are especially scrutinized."

3.  The first two parts of a 4-part video series about the fraudulent legal (and public relations) case which justified the NATO intervention in Libya called The Humanitarian War, directed by Julien Tiel (2011): 

4.  Civil war and social chaos has been turned into a fashion statement!  Bizarre truck advertisements we discovered in a foreign language version of Esquire magazine in December, 2011:

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/13/168415/no-protest-before-benghazi-attack.html#storylink=cpy

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Ambassador Chris Stevens: Servant to Evil: How Propaganda Works for Empire

Ambassador Chris Stevens: Servant to Evil: How Propaganda Works for Empire
By Eric Pottenger and Jeff Friesen
Special Report for Color Revolutions and Geopolitics
September 26, 2012

It is compassion and love that guides United States foreign policy in North Africa and the Middle East and there can be no doubt about it.

At least that has been the strange and wonderful idea sold to the English-speaking world these past weeks after the death of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens.  Just like Jesus, Christopher Stevens offered the people of Libya his selfless love and received death in return.  Why couldn't Libyans see this miracle of love?  Why couldn't Libyans see this miracle of self-sacrifice?  Maybe it's because there was no miracle.  Maybe it's because Christopher Stevens was a vicious scumbag and at least one group of Libyans showed him the door.

It is precisely for this reason--to resurrect that faux miracle--that Washington's propaganda machinery joined with the corporate media to lay waste to any notion of material "truth," clubbing fact-seekers with cartoonish depictions of a saintly ambassador, working tirelessly for a saintly cause on behalf of a saintly government.  

The purpose of this essay is to show--at least in this one instance--how this propaganda machinery performed its craft and why.  Because the event in question was largely unanticipated, and because, by its very nature, it had to be addressed immediately, we have found that Ambassador Stevens' death has provided us with a rare opportunity to see propaganda formation at its most raw and revealing. 

Selling Ambassador Christopher Stevens

In the days since Ambassador Stevens was killed, much has been spoken and published about this previously-obscure American diplomat, the overall effect being that angry, confused, ignorant Arabs killed one of the greatest human beings that has ever existed.

Below is the short list of descriptions we plucked from a mere handful of articles (published in the immediate aftermath of his death).

According to the sources cited, Ambassador "Chris" Stevens was:

"...one of the smartest men I ever knew."
"...the model American diplomat, committed, idealistic, willing to take risks." 
"...funny and charming with a broad smile and wide curiosity."
"...always smiling, unruffled..."
"...friendly, casual, and rarely rattled." 
"...the best of the best."
"...very inclusive of everyone."
"...one of the least judgmental."
"...the best person I have ever worked for."
 "...the coolest guy in the room."
"...cool and calm."
"...so intelligent, but never lost that human touch."
"...a brilliant young diplomat."
"...beautifully even-tempered."
"...calm and easy and people loved him."
"...a courageous man of action."

Chris Stevens had "humility, integrity and a willingness to listen"; "an unflappable character and unrelenting empathy."  He was a "tennis player and a Laker fan."  And "when you got him one-on-one, he was just funny."

Concerning his relation to Libya, North Africa and the Middle East, we read that he:

"...had a yearning to mingle with Arabs."
"...[was a] friend to all Libyans."
"...[was] in love with the Middle East."
"...loved that part of the world, he loved the people, he spoke the languages and he really loved his job."
"...risked his life to stop a tyrant."
"...[was] one of Libya's best friends."
"...[was] on the rebels side while the revolution was at its most vulnerable."
"...[was] among those who were pushing for a stronger commitment by the United States, both in the air and, through the special forces on the ground."
"...was murdered by the people he loved...the people he was trying to help."

And especially that "he has probably done more than anybody on the planet to help the Libyan people." 

As we digest these selected encomiums, let us also remind ourselves of the obvious: that Ambassador Stevens was in fact a senior-level "diplomat"--a paid liar, an artificial person.  This public relations aspect had been especially crucial to the work Christopher Stevens was performing in the past year, first representing the United States as their top liaison to the NATO-backed "rebels" (as that international coalition of aggressors waged their proxy "regime change" war against Libya), then later after the country was removed as a threat to totalitarian global rule, he was rewarded as the first ambassador to the now-destroyed sovereign state.  First the aggressor, then the viceroy of a new colony he created.

To many observers both within Libya and elsewhere, it was the United States that pushed Libya into civil war.  The challenge then became to convince Libyans--and to leave no doubts whatsoever about this--that U.S. policy had been guided by purely "humanitarian" motives.

Exactly what the United States was hoping to project about itself (through its ambassador) is revealed in this short video below, produced by the State Department, intended to be shown to a Libyan audience.  A word of caution: do not show this video to young children or gullible adults...permanent brain damage and possible falling in love with Christopher Stevens may occur (we're not kidding).

Now that we've read the eulogies; now that we've seen the sunshine, the budding flowers and the smiling faces, do we think that we have been brought any closer to the truth?  Most of us want really badly to believe there's truth in these words and images (most of us are victimized by this imagery and so we cannot do otherwise but to believe).  And yet what is the material source of this belief?  Eulogies given by those from his own culture, from his own social circles, from his own government offices; those sharing many of the same prejudices and political aims as he did?  Photos taken by people that are paid to massage a delicate political climate with shallow finesse?  Words from the mouth of a man that is paid to monitor and control his own image projection?  Can it be said that we are now any closer to knowing the "real" Christopher Stevens?

Perhaps there are people out there that could offer a different, less appreciative story of the man and his work; or at least a truly balanced account of his life and work?  Where would we find these people?  And why haven't they been asked to speak?   

Didn't anyone get angry when NATO war planes pounded civilian population centers in Libya last summer?  Didn't anyone get angry when patriotic Libyans and innocent civilians were rounded up, traumatized, some beaten, some tortured and then murdered for speaking on behalf of (and defending) their country from a foreign-backed invasion?  Didn't anyone get angry when Muammar Gaddafi--the main architect of Libya's transition into the modern world--the leader of this sovereign nation--was ruthlessly gunned down without so much as a trial, without so much as a cry of injustice from media in "civilized" nations?

Of course many were angry.

And Christopher Stevens lived and worked at the center of all this violence, murder and mayhem.  His job was to demand a widening of this violence; his job was to exploit indigenous social divisions; to promote civil war; and to subjugate the country (and the people) he is said to love.

Chris Stevens was the bag man for the United States.

Any reasonable "journalism" would have highlighted these controversial aspects of his history and legacy; any reasonable "journalism" would have presented balance, if only because this balance might offer readers important clues to understand what secrets lurked behind his death.

But this was not to be.  Our "journalism" ignored balance and unbiased perspective.  Our "journalism" told us fairy tales instead.

Compassionate "Loving Heart" of U.S. Policy: Here is the Conceptual Territory that the Propagandist Creates and Defends to Advance the Goals of Empire

There is a slick methodology at work here, one which we call "Creating and Protecting the Compassionate Loving Heart of United States foreign policy."

Think of this "loving heart" as a location in some larger amorphous conceptual space in your mind--call it an "ideological" space--call it the mental battlefield where war is waged against your common sense and good judgment about the very world you live in--call it the place where 'matter' turns into concept and meaning--or the lens through which you see and judge manifestations in the political world.

The United States government, through its propaganda apparatus, has a motive--always--to be tinkering in this larger conceptual space.  The propagandist really wants to own this territory; wants to select, limit and define what "facts" and impressions should be included in this territory; wants to dictate which parts of these "facts" and impressions should be considered "good" and which parts should be considered "evil"; which parts are "sane" and which should be considered "crazy"; which parts can be reasonably debated and which cannot.

Make sure to get that flag in the picture...
It is within this space that a "loving heart" (or brand image for the United States) has been created and nurtured, it functions as the lens through which we look directly at (and judge) U.S. policy.  If the United States government does anything--build; destroy; kill; save; help; hurt; enable; penalize--the function of the "loving heart" is to convince public opinion that the U.S. government does so, not out of greed or ignorance or malevolence--not out of self-interest or group interest--but out of self-sacrifice, compassion and love.

More pointedly, if the United States bombed Libya and killed its leader last year, it did so out of self-sacrifice, compassion and love.

Since his death, Christopher Stevens has become the centerpiece of this "loving heart" propaganda scheme.  He has been transformed into an idea, irrespective of any actual behavioral traits, both Christopher Stevens and the United States will continue to be shown to the world as the embodiment of a loving "humanitarian" mission.  When Christopher Stevens smiles, it is the United States that smiles.  It is the United States that speaks the language and pays respect to the culture; it is the United States foreign policy apparatus that lays claim to friendship; the United States government is "in love with the Middle East"; the United States government "risked [its] life to stop a tyrant"; the United States government has "probably done more than anybody on the planet to help the Libyan people"; and the United States government has been martyred at the hands of those it sacrificed itself to "save."

No One Ever Dislikes the United States

When we read about a country that we've never visited, that we know little about; a place where the nuance of its language or culture is completely unknown to us; and against which a decades-long ideological and cultural war has been waged...is it any wonder that our public opinion leaders can ignore "reality" and replace it with a fictitious narrative of their choosing?

According to senior U.S. officials and the corporate media apparatus, there are two generic versions of what happened in Benghazi, Libya on the evening of September 11 of this month, each of them slightly different.  But perhaps what's more important than their differences is what they both have in common.  Both reinforce the two-pronged myth that the United States is in Libya to "help" the "Libyan people," and that the "Libyan people" love the United States.

The White House's generic version was crystallized last Friday, September 14, by Press Secretary Jay Carney:

The underlying idea here is "spontaneity" and a focus on "protesters" and "victims."

Common sense dictates that the whole "Libyan people" cannot be said to love the United States and their self-sacrificing "democracy" mission if there are calculated, military-style acts of political violence directed against it.  Calculation presupposes careful logic and sophistication.  The successful assault against an American consulate and the killing of an American ambassador presupposes planning and organization.  It might even be indicative of deep-seated hatred and resentment on the part of "the people" the United States claimed to "save."

The 'spontaneity' narrative has been designed to deny Libyans a deep-seated hatred or a legitimate expression of political violence.  The focus here is, instead, on emotion and reaction; and on "protesting," a legitimate form of "democratic" expression.  These "spontaneous wave of protests" were brought about, not because of anything real, not because of anything with genuine political value, but because of that crudely-made Youtube video, the one that nobody has seen and nobody can reasonably vouch for, the one that is said to insult the Prophet Mohammad.  Which is to say, the "Arab people" are victims here, not culprits, not killers (never mind that this reading implies an insult to the Arab: intellectual dunces, emotional weaklings, incapable of even basic political discernment; dragged into the streets by their own violent rage, victims of past insults and residual misunderstandings, unable to exercise control over their physical bodies...zombies fixated on the "Great Satan"...always with a lot of signs in English and always with a serious flag collection at their disposal).

"Extremism" is the culprit of both the protests and the armed attacks: either right-wing racist bigots (the supposed filmmakers) or "terrorists" "linked to al Qaeda."

These "extremists" are not representative of the true Libya or of true Western sentiment, it is said.  True Libyans love the United States and cling to their "democratic" expression.  True Americans and true Westerners love Libyans and want to help them succeed in their "democracy."  Like so many other places, "al Qaeda" (a foreign terrorist element) "hijacked" a completely legitimate "spontaneous protest" and tried to make it their own.

There is another "official story" circulating, however.  This one has been sponsored by both the Libyan government and the United States Department of Defense.  This one claims that the assault on the American consulate in Benghazi was well-coordinated, well-organized, not connected to the protests at all.  This one says the violence was planned and carried out by "Muslim extremists."

United States Senator John McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had this to say:


The underlying idea behind this alternative narrative is to focus on the culprits; to define them and judge them.  This narrative is also designed, we imagine, to answer questions about how the (guarded) United States compound could be penetrated; how the ambassador of the most powerful country in the world could be reached, and could be killed.

"Al Qaeda" is implicitly the central character of this narrative and what is ridiculously implied is that only they could logistically pull off such a planned assault, not any faction from within Libya itself.  And, anyway, why would "Libyans" want to attack the U.S. consulate?  What reason would they have?  The United States loved and saved this country from an evil "dictator."  The United States gave this country "democracy."  No, the "Libyan people" had neither the means nor the motivation to carry out an attack of this kind.

It is indeed curious how two competing narratives are able to be sold simultaneously to the public by members of the same administration, the same power apparatus.  Will there ever be one definitive version that will survive?  And if so, which one will it be?

While we cannot be certain of this answer, we do know that for a whole year since the killing of Gaddafi, all "news" about Libya disappeared completely from Western public consciousness.  Libya was "liberated" and then strangely Libya did not exist.  All that was really happening in Libya--the murders, the chaos, the real power struggle, the real social and political challenges--all this was conveniently damned to darkness and obscurity.  Nobody was "selling" Libya anymore and so nobody was asked to care.  It was only because of an ambassador's death--no more, no less--that the bloody mess that has become modern Libya has reemerged for public consideration.  And what a Libya we discover!

And so we ask again, will there ever be one definitive version of the event that will survive?

When Libya gets damned back to obscurity again, will anybody even care?

Imagined Reality Versus Physical Reality

A performance artist?  Is this street theater?
"Libyans,""the Libyan people" and "Muslim extremist" are actually brands: the "Libyan people" live within the "loving heart" concept, which means that whoever gets defined as the "Libyan people" are always "good" and an object of United States' paternal love and compassion.  The "Muslim extremist" lives outside the "loving heart," which means that whoever gets dubbed "terrorists" are always "bad" and deserve the wrath of the powerful United States military apparatus.

Welcome to the simple mathematics of imperialism in the modern world.  Obviously imperialism would not work as well if its caretakers were telling us the truth: if they told the world, for example, that the reason why they have killed Colonel Gaddafi and bombed Libya is because they want oil and gold, support for military bases in Africa, monopolization of the Mediterranean, or greater diplomatic and economic leverage on the African continent.  For most of us--and especially for those in Libya--this kind of salesmanship just will not do.

And so there has been created a salesman's reality, a liar's reality, one that successfully packages unpopular behavior in a language that we simply cannot resist.

We Don't Know

So who really killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and why?
Here is the question that almost everyone is orbiting around--every political analyst, every essayist, every blogger, every talking head--those in the alternative and mainstream media alike--and almost everyone has put forth an elaborate answer or speculation.

Mark Robertson and Finian Cunningham recently published a short list of the most visible of these "claims, counter-claims and disinformation."  They wrote:

The Obama regime says “protesters” irate over an anti-Islam video did it.
The NATO-installed bureaucrats in Libya say that “foreign extremists” did it.
US Congressmen say “Al Qaeda did it”. So does CNN, as well as the alternative media web site Prison Planet, which denounces any reference to the Green Resistance as “absurd”.
Media outlets, such as the UK Guardian, say “an organized terror network did it”.
Turkey’s government says “Syria’s Assad did it”.
Israel says “Hezbollah did it”.
The Sunni monarchs of the Gulf Cooperation Council oil sheikdoms say “Iran did it”.
Even reputable alternative media writers and progressive bloggers have attributed the attack to “the Benghazi Islamists”, and that this is “blowback from imperialism”.
Wikileaks says the attack happened because the US had backed Britain’s threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London and remove Julian Assange. (2)
Some media outlets claim that “Al Qaeda” carried out the attack in revenge for the supposed death in Pakistan (by US drone strike on 4 June 2012) of Libyan-born Abu Yahya Al Libi (aka Hassan Mohammed Qaid) who was supposedly a key aide to Osama bin Laden, and was supposedly the “number two man” in Al Qaeda.

But what can we really know if our speculations are not grounded by material details?

And considering the sorry state of the corporate-controlled media environment today, what details can we reliably trust?

Tonight we sit, the two authors of this essay, thousands of miles away from Libya, neither of us able to speak or read Arabic, neither of us ever having visited Libya... limited by time... limited by resources... limited by our own intelligence...

...and yet, still, both of us pawing through news reports...

...news reports provided by our information handlers...

...looking for a single solitary detail...

...looking for a story to tell...a story with real insight and value...

And here's what we find: "thousands of Libyans enraged by the lawlessness of armed militias and the killing of the popular US ambassador, have stormed the compounds of Islamist groups in Benghazi, driving them out of the Eastern city."  "We demand justice for Stevens," one protest sign is claimed to have said.  "Libya lost a friend," said another. [emphasis ours]

Can we really vouch for the truth of this event?  Or the perspective from which it came?

How about we, instead, pause and take a step back?

Because last year we did not discover one mainstream "news" article that offered journalistic balance to Colonel Gaddafi's legacy in Libya... not one article that offered journalistic balance to the means and purpose of NATO's role... nothing even remotely critical of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine... not one challenge to the myth of the "humanitarian war."  

Gaddafi as post-colonial liberator: an idea that has been excised from memory

And there's certainly nothing we have discovered about our media to suggest that anything has changed.

Is this observation not true enough?  Certainly there is value in acknowledging that.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Syria Under Attack by the Mind Managers: The Dark Satanic Mills of Propaganda

Covering Syria: The Information War
By Aisling Byrne
Originally published in the Asia Times
July 12, 2012
Images and captions added by Color Revolutions and Geopolitics

The narrative that has been constructed by the Western mainstream media on Syria may seem to be self-evident from the scenes presented on television, but it is a narrative duplicitously promoted and coordinated so as to conceal and facilitate the regime-change project that is part of the war on Iran.

What we are seeing is a new stage of information war intentionally constructed and cast as a simplistic narrative of a struggle for human rights and democracy so as deliberately to exclude other interpretations and any geo-strategic motivation.

The narrative, as CNN puts it, is in essence this: "The vast majority of reports from the ground indicate that government forces are killing citizens in an attempt to wipe out civilians seeking [President Bashar] al-Assad's ouster" - the aim being precisely to elicit a heart-wrenching emotional response in Western audiences that trumps all other considerations and makes the call for Western/Gulf intervention to effect regime change.


But it is a narrative based on distortion, manipulation, lies and videotape.

In the first months, the narrative was of unarmed protesters being shot by Syrian forces. This then evolved into one of armed insurgents reluctantly "being provoked into taking up arms", as US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explained, to defend peaceful protesters.

It was also a narrative that from the outset, according to a recent report in Time magazine, that the US has facilitated by providing training, support and equipment to Syrian opposition "cyber-warriors".

Reports confirmed by leading Syrian opposition leaders in April 2011 reveal that in addition to cyber-training, weapons and money from Syrian exiles, as well as from a "major Arab Gulf country" and a Lebanese political party, were being distributed to "young demonstrators". The former head of Russian intelligence, Yevgeny Primakov, similarly noted that the Syrian conflict "started with armed revolts against the authorities, not peaceful demonstrations".

Ironically, one of the most accurate descriptions of the sectarian conflict we are witnessing in Syria comes from an assessment by the neoconservative Brookings Institute in its March 2012 report "Assessing Options for Regime Change in Syria", one option being for "the United States [to] fight a "clean" war ... and leave the dirty work on the ground to the FSA [Free Syrian Army], perhaps even obviating a massive commitment to Iraq-style nation-building".

"Let the Arabs do it," echoed Israeli President Shimon Peres. "Do it yourself and the UN will support you." This point was not lost on one leading Turkish commentator, who noted that US Senator John McCain "said that there would be no American boots on the ground in Syria. That means we Turks will have to spill our precious blood to get what McCain and others want in the States."

In the wake of the failures at state-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, direct intervention, with all the responsibilities this would entail, would not go down well in cash-strapped Western nations. Better to get others to do the "dirty work" - pursue "regime change by civil war".

"The United States, Europe and the Gulf states ... are starving the regime in Damascus and feeding the opposition. They have sanctioned Syria ... and are busy shoveling money and helping arms supplied by the Gulf get to the rebels," Joshua Landis, director of the Center of Middle Eastern Studies, wrote in Foreign Policy in June.
With regional allies prepared to do the "dirty work" of providing increasingly sophisticated weapons clearly geared for purposes other than "self-defense", and the FSA and its jihadist allies doing the "dirty work" within Syria (their salaries paid by Saudi Arabia), the US and European nations can proffer their clean hands by limiting support to communications equipment, intelligence and humanitarian aid, and of course to providing the moral posturing required to topple the Syrian system and implant a regime hostile to Iran and friendly to Israel. Having "clean hands" enables the US, France and Britain to pose as abiding by UN standards, while at the same time flouting the UN Charter by promoting an attack on a member state.

Time magazine reported last month that the administration of US President Barack Obama "has tiptoed across an invisible line. [It] said it will not actively support the Syrian opposition in its bid to oust Assad ... [but] as US officials have revealed, the administration has been providing media-technology training and support to Syrian dissidents by way of small non-profits like the Institute for War & Peace Reporting and Freedom House.


"Viral videos of alleged atrocities," noted Time, "have made Assad one of the most reviled men on the planet, helping turn the Arab League against him and embarrassing his few remaining allies almost daily."

It is a position that reeks of hypocrisy: as US columnist Barbara Slavin notes, "Without a UN Security Council mandate, the prospects for US military intervention in Syria are minimal ... the provision of communications gear frees up others to provide weapons."

A US official quoted by Associated Press was more frank: Washington's equipment and medical supplies to the opposition "can now be easily augmented with weapons from other donors. Smuggling lines are smuggling lines. We use the same donkeys," he said, pointing out that routes are in essence the same for bandages as they are for bullets.

And while various Western governments are helping "document crimes" committed by Syrian forces, these same governments have refused to investigate their own killings of civilians in attacks by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Libya. NATO "created its own definition for 'confirmed' deaths: only a death that NATO itself investigated and corroborated could be called confirmed", enabling the alliance to conclude: "We have no confirmed reports of civilian casualties."

Britain was the only country involved in the bombings to conduct its own inquiry. Its report accepted "that coalition forces did their best to prevent and minimize civilian casualties ... We commend them for this approach."


Marie Colvin
For every tragic story like journalist Marie Colvin's final dispatch before she was killed while embedded for British media with the FSA ("In Babr Amr. Sickening. Cannot understand how the world can stand by. Watched a baby die today. Shrapnel: doctors could do nothing. His little tummy just heaved and heaved until he stopped. Feeling Helpless"), there are other similar tragedies, committed by the insurgents, that are rarely reported in the mainstream Western press.

You won't read in the mainstream press of foreign jihadists increasingly pouring into Syria to fight their holy war; you won't read that some ultraconservative Salafi sheikhs in Saudi Arabia are running their own military network inside Syria; you won't read how Assad's support during the 14-month crisis has if anything increased in light of the insecurity gripping the country; you won't read comments like those of the Lebanese Christian Maronite patriarch who said that while "Syria, like other countries, needs reforms which the people are demanding ... the closest thing to democracy [in the Arab world] is Syria".

You won't read how the head of the opposition in Turkey, a former ambassador to Washington, Faruk Logoglu, has said that what Turkey is doing hosting armed FSA fighters and allowing them to carry out attacks in Syria is "is against all international norms; against all neighborly relations ... It is a basic rule that countries must respect the sovereignty of others."

You won't read how armed insurgents used the Arab League observer mission's ceasefire to "reinforce themselves and bring supplies from Lebanon, knowing the regime would be limited in its ability to obstruct them at that time", or how they have used the Kofi Annan plan to prepare for larger attacks.

While we have seen extensive demonization of Assad, his wife and family, with the president depicted recently in the British press bathing in blood, you won't read articles demonizing the Saudi or Qatari regimes, or highlighting the hundreds of millions of dollars they have poured into political parties and groups, particularly Salafists, across the region in their "counter-revolution" against change; or the recent declaration by the official Saudi Mufti for all churches in the Arabian Peninsula to be demolished (which was not covered by a single Western mainstream news outlet); or as a senior Sunni political figure told me recently, the more than 23,000 detainees in Saudi prisons, a majority of whom (a recent report notes 90%) have degrees (to be fair, Chatham House did comment on this in a recent report that this "is indicative of the prevalence of a university education").

The images above are only some of what we find when we do an image search for "Assad" and "bloodbath."  Seriously.  Who has commissioned these bullshit images?  Someone has obviously been paid to make them.  Someone has obviously written a check to have each of them made.  We say to the many producers, "Ye are of your father the devil...there is no truth in him...he is a liar, and a father of it."

You won't read how Saudi Arabia and Qatar have bullied satellite hosting channels in the region to stop broadcasting "pro-regime" public and private Syrian television channels; or that the Syrian opposition has set up 10 satellite channels, all with an Islamist orientation and which take a strong sectarian line - calling on the FSA to "kill Iran's mice" and "the rats of the Lebanese devil's party" (Hezbollah); or how Russia has been attempting to facilitate a political process of reconciliation with the internal opposition since the onset of the crisis.

There is clear duplicity in the deliberate unwillingness of the Western mainstream media to acknowledge the nature of those who are the West's allies in the regime-change project - particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar - and the danger they pose in the region through their arming and firing up of jihadist Salafist groups in Syria and across the region. Rare are articles in the mainstream Western press that highlight this hypocrisy.
A critical piece in the British press by Peter Oborne, The Daily Telegraph's chief political correspondent, was an exception: "Washington never ceases to complain about the connection between the Pakistani intelligence services and the Taliban. But we never hear a whisper of concern about the connection between Saudi intelligence and Salafi movements across the Middle East, of which al-Qaeda is the best-known offshoot."

The essential components of what we do see daily in the Western press have changed little during the conflict: in effect, all violence and terror are apportioned to one side only - the Syrian government and its purported "ghostly shadowy" shabiha forces.

Any violence committed by the "peaceful protesters" and the Free Syrian Army is purely for defensive purposes - all of which comes straight out of the color-revolution/regime-change text book; daily figures for those killed are based almost exclusively on "reports by activists and YouTube footage" (unverifiable, it is claimed, because the Syrian government does not allow free movement of journalists) and are described simply as "people" - dead insurgents do not appear; Al-Qaeda-type jihadist groups are played down (reports in leading media outlets like The Guardian continue to question whether they exist at all); and any weapons or equipment supplied to the "opposition" is, according to Saudi leaders, to help Syrians "defend themselves".

Embedding journalists on their side is an asset that the FSA, activists and their Western and regional partners have clearly learned from the experience of the US Army in the wake of its attacks on Fallujah in 2004. A US Army intelligence analysis leaked by WikiLeaks revealed that "in the military's opinion, the Western press are part of the US's propaganda operation. This process was facilitated by the embedding of Western reporters in US military units". In their second attack on Fallujah in November 2004, the US Army "got many reporters ... to embed with US troops, so that they could act, as the intelligence report calls for, as the propaganda arm of US forces".

The fundamental pillar of this Western narrative relies almost exclusively on claims and "evidence" provided by "activists" and opposition-affiliated groups, particularly the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Are we seriously to believe that this outfit, reportedly run from Coventry by a man who, according to Reuters, part-time runs a clothes shop with his wife, then "sits with a laptop and phones and pieces together accounts of conflict and rights abuses before uploading news to the Internet", is the primary source of daily casualty statistics on the 14-month Syrian conflict - the key geo-strategic conflict of the time?


Readers!!  This man is head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and he is starving!  Can you spare 25 bucks for a large pizza?   He is the lone wolf fighting Assad...from London...  Obviously this is your cause.
It is clearly the front office of a large-scale (dis)information project - when Russian diplomats asked to meet with the organization, they were refused. Senior political figures in the region have told me, as other reports indicate, that the Observatory is in fact funded from a Dubai-based slush fund and is a key component of the regime-change project.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted that it was in the opposition's interest "to provoke a humanitarian catastrophe, to get a pretext to demand external interference", so it is not surprising that analysis of the Observatory's figures, including claims of "massacres", consistently show a significant inflation in numbers of casualties, sometimes wildly so.

As Al-Jazeera journalist Nir Rosen, who spent some months embedded with the Free Syria Army, explained: "Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many ... reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described ... as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes."

Analysis I did of what was reported to be the "deadliest day of the nine-month uprising" (December 20, 2011), with the "organized massacre" of a "mass defection" of army deserters widely reported by the international press, and opposition Syrian National Council claims of areas "exposed to large-scale genocide", showed that figures differed so significantly (between 10 and 163 armed insurgents, nine to 111 unarmed civilians and zero to 97 government forces), that the "truth" was impossible to establish. Similarly, analysis of The Guardian's data blog on casualties as of December 2011, based solely on press reports largely from opposition sources, contained basic inaccuracies and made no reference to any killings of armed insurgents during the entire 10-month period.

So the Observatory and "activists" provide doctored figures, the Western media report these figures uncritically, and the UN provides reports on the basis of opposition and activist sources alone. The December 2011 UN Human Rights Commissioner's report was based solely on interviews with 233 alleged "army defectors"; similarly, the first UN report to accuse the Syrian government of crimes against humanity was based on 369 interviews with "victims and witnesses". The spokesman for the UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights explained that while "getting evidence from victims and defectors - some who corroborated specific names", the UN "is not in a position to cross-check names and will never be in a position to do that ... The lists are clear - the question is whether we can fully endorse their accuracy."

British public-service broadcaster Channel 4 has championed the cause of Syrian "video journalists" who it claims are leading a "Syrian media revolution". The channel's foreign-affairs correspondent Jonathan Miller wrote: "Each report is datelined; exact location and date, [which] doesn't in itself necessarily authenticate the report, but combined with other reports from other districts of the same attack filmed from a different location, the reports have the effect of corroborating each other." The channel even made a documentary of activists exaggerating the "truth" - "even if it means embellishing events".

During the early months of the Syrian conflict, activists like the now-notorious Danny and Khaled Abou Salah were regularly interviewed in the Western media - that is until footage found by the Syrian army in Homs after the attack on insurgents showed them, among other things, preparing child "victims" for interviews and until their "witness statements" lost all credibility. The New York Times' Neil MacFarquhar, reporting from Beirut, almost exclusively bases his reports on "activists speaking by Skype" and "video posted on YouTube".


New York Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar showing signs of moral turpitude beneath his usual "objective journalist" veneer.

Described as "the most horrific video" yet by Britain's Daily Mail, a YouTube clip of an opposition member being "buried alive" was found most likely to be fake. Perhaps more telling than the use of the actual photo by the British Broadcasting Corp of hundreds of body bags from Iraq in 2003 that was used for the story of the al-Houla massacre three weeks ago was the caption beneath the photo: "Photo from Activist. This image - which cannot be independently verified - is believed to show bodies of children in Houla awaiting funeral."


Anatomy of a psyop (click on images to enlarge): the top image is a screen shot of the BBC's  "Houla Massacre" story (May 27, 2012).  The striking image was used by the BBC to sell this "massacre" to the world.  The perpetrators of the supposed "massacre" were immediately reported by Western news agencies (without real evidence we soon learned) to have been members of the Syrian army.  Notice the attribution "photo from activist" at the bottom of the top image above.  Is this why the image was deemed sufficient by "journalists" and numerous "news agencies" to accompany their reportage of the event?  Whatever the case, use of this image has helped, in the court of public opinion, turn the legal government of Syria into "butchers of its own people."  

It turns out that, within 24 hours of the story breaking, the image above was discovered to have been taken in Iraq in 2003 in a town called Al Musayyib (the 2nd and 3rd images attest to this fact) by a photographer named Marco Di Lauro!! 

This psyop is one of many reasons why the majority of us in the West, without having spent one single day on Syrian soil, without knowing a damn thing about the Syrian political system, its history, its triumphs or challenges, what it's up against ...nothing... we find ourselves HATING Assad...he is a butcher...he is a murderer...he is evil...  We parrot those blood-sucking reporters on television...and the countless vampires who write the editorial columns of newspapers (those we know are war mongering whores) ...and yet we STILL parrot THESE PEOPLE and say, without hesitation, that it's imperative that Assad must go!    

Nevertheless, activist-supplied videos and statements continue to provide the basis for unquestioned reports in the mainstream press: in the wake of the Houla massacre, for example, The Guardian ran a front-page story - "among the most important of the testimonies" from an army defector reportedly on leave at the time. From his house 300 meters away, the man saw and heard the massacre, despite there being persistent shelling at the time. He claimed to have seen men "he knew to be shabiha "riding into Taldous village in cars, motorbikes and army trucks, shouting: 'Shabiha forever, for your eyes, Assad.'"

This is not to argue that Syrian security forces and some supporters of the Syrian government have not committed abuses and killings; they have admitted this to be the case. "Don't put me in a position of defending brutality and knifing people," former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said about Syria recently. "Frankly that is not the issue. We do know these things happened, and they are horrible. They also happened on a much larger scale in many other countries in which we have not intervened."
What we are witnessing is a new generation of warfare - an information war where, by using what is in effect propaganda, the aim is to construct a consensual consciousness to provide overwhelming public support for regime change.

Not to be outdone by Senator McCain (described by a leading US foreign-policy magazine as one of the "three amigos ... who have rarely found a country they didn't want to bomb or invade"), The Guardian itself noted in March: "If you think Guardian readers are a peace-loving bunch, think again. In an online poll, more than 83% [13,200 votes] have so far backed John McCain's call to launch air strikes against Syria."

While The Guardian describes the so-called shabihain what appears to be a piece of pure propaganda - "according to demonstrators" it interviewed - as "large lines of plain-clothed or khaki-clad men and boys armed with submachine-guns" who appear "awaiting an excuse to intervene" and who fire on protesters, a senior European diplomat based in the region told me that it is not in fact clear who the shabiha are, or whether they actually exist.

The diplomat told me of an instance when the UN monitors were filmed by activists as they were inspecting an insurgent-blocked subsidiary road; they later saw footage of themselves at the same ditch on the international news spliced in such a way as to make it appear that there had been bodies in an excavated area and that the UN monitors were watching bodies being removed, whereas in fact it was no more than a ditch across a road that they had been filming.

Human rights are a fundamental component of this information war that is a cover for regime change. By in effect taking a one-sided approach to events in Syria, leading human-rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are, willingly or unwillingly, being used as an integral part of this information war on Syria.

Despite publishing the odd report on abuses, torture and killings perpetrated by the insurgents, they cast the conflict in Syria as a simple one-sided case of aggressors and victims, lamenting, along the lines of John Bolton and McCain, "Why is the world doing nothing?" Amnesty International's Eyes on Syria site, for example, exclusively documents "the scale of torture and ill-treatment by security forces, army and pro-government armed gangs", harassment of "pro-reform" Syrians, and deaths in government custody.

A notable exception has been the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has continually criticized the militarization of humanitarian assistance. When former French president Nicolas Sarkozy and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for the creation of "humanitarian corridors", the ICRC publicly criticized a move that would inevitably involve the deployment of armed forces to enforce the zones.

The use of propaganda as a tool in war is an old one. During World War I, in the wake of British propaganda of "babies [with] their hands cut off ... impaled on bayonets ... loudly spoken of in buses and public places ... paraded, not as an isolated instance of an atrocity, but as ... a common practice", a member of Parliament wrote: "In Parliament there was the usual evasion ... the only evidence given was 'seen by witnesses'."

What we see now in coverage of Syria has echoes of 2003 - Western governments and the Western media accept at face value the claims of exiles living in the West. Paul Pillar, a former official of the US Central Intelligence Agency now at Georgetown University in Washington, notes that the neocon case for arming the Syrian opposition "is a continuation of the same patterns of neoconservative thinking that led to [president George W] Bush's war [on Iraq]. There is the same wishful thinking substituting for careful analysis about consequences."

Charged with defining the future of warfare, the US deputy chief of staff for intelligence [pictured below] in 1997 defined this "conflict between information masters and information victims ... We are already masters of information warfare ... we write the script," he wrote. "Societies that ... cannot manage the flow of information simply will not be competitive ... Emotions, rather than strategy, will set the terms of struggles." Against such an onslaught, there is little the Syrian government can do to defend itself - Assad has already said that Syria cannot win the media war with the West.


"Emotions, rather than strategy, will set the terms of struggles."  So wrote Ralph Peters in his infamous article, Constant Conflict, published in the summer of 1997.  Perhaps it's also helpful to point out that this same Ralph Peters was also the author of a new map of the Middle East, one where the boundaries of extant nation-states have been dramatically redrawn, made into smaller, ethnically homogeneous, and doubtlessly less independent "micro-states."  

As Syria tips into the next more violent stage of sectarian war, with the SNC/FSA and their foreign backers increasing the ante with possible supplies if heavy weapons by the US, leading to more violent attacks, and the Syrian government (with its Republican Guard and the Syrian Army's powerful 4th Division still held in reserve) cracking down on "all armed groups", we should expect to see the "crusaders" in the mainstream media follow suit with their onslaught on Syrian government "atrocities" - massacres, use of children as human shields, claims of the imminent collapse of the Syrian government, etc.

But we would do well to acknowledge that there are two competing narratives out there. The BBC acknowledged recently that while "video filed by the opposition ... may provide some insight into the story on the ground ... stories are never black and white - [they are] often shades of grey", and Channel 4's Alex Thomson's near escape after being set up by the Free Syria Army prompted him to say: "Do not for one moment believe that my experience with the rebels in al-Qusair was a one-off." It makes you wonder, he wrote, "who else has had this experience when attempting to find out what is going on in rebel-held Syria". The narrative, however, complete with myths, has established a virtual reality that is now set in stone.

Sixteen months into the conflict, it is too little, too late to acknowledge that there are "shades of grey" at play in the Syrian context: for 16 months, The Guardian, Channel 4, the BBC and others have presented the conflict, using largely spurious "evidence", in exactly the black-and-white terms that increasingly people are now questioning. Peter Oborne, writing some months ago in The Daily Telegraph, warned that by presenting the conflict as a struggle between the regime and "the people", British Prime Minister David Cameron is either "poorly briefed or he is coming dangerously close to a calculated deception of the British public".

The Takfiri jihadists and their backers have been allowed to define and dominate the crisis. The crisis is now symbolized by car bombings, assassinations, mutilations and atrocities. This empowering of the extreme end of the opposition spectrum - albeit a minority - has in effect silenced and pushed to the sidelines the middle ground - that is, most of the internal opposition. One key internal opposition leader recently told Conflicts Forum that, like other leaders, he has had close relatives assassinated by the Salafists. The internal opposition has acknowledged the stark choice between two undesirables - either a dialogue that currently is not realizable, or the downfall of Syria, as Al-Akhbar, one of the leading independent newspapers in the region, recently reported.

With weapons of war, words and ideology, the self-appointed "Friends of Syria" have done everything they can to tiptoe around the UNSC and to undercut all attempts at an intra-Syrian political dialogue and a negotiated end to the conflict, of which the Annan mission is the latest attempt. The West/Saudi/Qatari "dirty war" on Syria applies as much to its (dis)information campaign as it does to getting others to fight and kill for them.

As was no doubt the intention, Clinton's "spin" that Russia was supplying attack helicopters to Syria went a long way - the US Congress, the British government and the mainstream media all fell into line calling for action. A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote to the US defense secretary calling the Russian state arms firm "an enabler of mass murder in Syria", and Cobra, the British government's emergency security committee, met several times.

It turned out, however, that what the New York Times described as "the Obama administration's sharpest criticism yet of Russia's support for the Syrian government" was, according to a senior Defense Department official, "a little spin" put on the story by Clinton so as "to put the Russians in a difficult position". It was three helicopters of "marginal use militarily", explained the Times, returning from routine servicing in Russia.

For their part, the mainstream media bear some responsibility for the slide toward sectarian war in Syria, the victims of which, as always, are civilians. The media's conceptualization of victims and oppressors has in effect eliminated the space for negotiation. Lavrov has warned: "Either we gather everyone with influence at the negotiating table or once again we depart into ideology, where it is declared shamelessly that everything is the fault of the regime, while everyone else are angels and therefore the regime should be changed.

"The way the Syrian crisis is resolved", he advised, "will play an important role in the world tomorrow; whether the world will be based on the UN Charter, or a place where might makes right."