INTEL FROM DEEP DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE
1) Bill Clinton and his dark cabal cronies have allegedly bought an island in the Bahamas and building a city. This is to be a refuge from international forces trying to arrest them. Security is allegedly being provided by Moss ad, French and US Navy Seals.
2) All the world's central banks controlled by Rothschild s have been served papers for genocide yesterday and have been instructed to close down. Rothschild bankers and associates are being hunted down and arrested worldwide.
This intel is from the highest level and credible. No jello here!
Friday, April 13, 2012
Great American Adventure Part 1 Free Download --- Must Read
http://www.4shared.com/office/Nn_Qpb8_/THE_GREAT_AMERICAN_ADVENTURE-P.html
THIS IS A MUST READ BY JUDGE DALE
THIS IS AWESOME TRUTH FINALLY--- DISTRIBUTE TO EVERYONE
THIS IS A MUST READ BY JUDGE DALE
THIS IS AWESOME TRUTH FINALLY--- DISTRIBUTE TO EVERYONE
Vote for Ron Paul
Now that Santorum has dropped out, who will you vote for? Vote Now
Half way down the page:
Fox News says Ron Paul is the biggest threat to Barack Obama. Not Mitt Romney
Ron Paul Beats Obama 44 to 43 in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll 04-12-2012
Sent: 4/13/2012 11:48:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Evangelicals turn to Ron Paul
Subj: Evangelicals turn to Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILg9ZcBtMCI&feature=youtu.be
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/evangelicals-turn-to-ron-paul/
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/evangelicals-turn-to-ron-paul/
Evangelicals turn to Ron Paul
In the wake of Senator Rick Santorum’s departure from the presidential race there are signs that some evangelical leaders are refusing to jump on board the Mitt Romney bandwagon and are turning to Congressman Ron Paul instead. The Texas congressman spoke to several thousand people last night at the Will Rogers Auditorium in downtown Fort Worth but met quietly afterward with evangelical leaders.
Why Ron Paul? And why now, when the race is being declared “done” by the main stream media?
“Because you don’t give away your support without getting something in return,” says a former congressman who has been at the heart of the Christian right movement since its beginning. The longer that Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich stay in the race, the more likely that Romney will be forced to take a evangelical conservative as his vice presidential nominee. Why not turn to Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Catholic who is a former Southern Baptist, with views that resonate with evangelicals? “If we had to do it over again, we should have gone with Gingrich,” one of Santorum’s supporters told me today. But if we switch to Gingrich now we risk another drop out.” The former Speaker reportedly has debts of $ 4.2 million and has asked the Romney campaign for help in retiring them. Romney reportedly declined.
Meanwhile, the Ron Paul campaign, with cash on hand, has begun airing television ads in Texas and launches another moneybomb this weekend.
“I have one question for you,” one of the ministers reportedly said in the private meeting last night with Dr. Ron Paul, “Are you going to drop out? Or will you stay in all the way to Tampa?”
“I’m in,” the Texan replied.
“That’s all I need to know,” the minister said.
The evangelical community began reaching out to Dr. Paul almost immediately after Senator Rick Santorum dropped out of the presidential race. Yesterday, Pastor Steven Andrew of USA Christian Ministries announced his support of the congressman, calling for a day of prayer and fasting. Andrew released a statement saying that, “After Santorum, Ron Paul is the most God-fearing Presidential candidate [and] the Republican party should e“They will now try to repeat the same thing with Romney and are already in the news laying the fandidate, Christians should look elsewhere – even to a third party.”
The Christian Wire service ran an article yesterday saying that Christians like the fact that Ron Paul “opposes tyranny, would cut the deficit and is pro-life.”
A prominent television evangelist , speaking on the promise of anonymity, says that there was great disappointment in Rick Santorum’s withdrawal from the race. “No one faults a man for being a good father, and dropping out to take care of a child, but it hurts many of us very deeply. We were counting on him to lead our cause.”
Foster Freiss, the Wyoming billionaire who financed the Santorum Super Pac, has publicly said he will now help Mitt Romney.
Meanwhile, evangelical leaders are skeptical of any of their brethren who are now pledging to Romney. “They are trotting out the same old bought and paid for names, Richard Land and Jay Sekulow, and acting like they are new.”
A Gingrich supporter who is quite vocal about his disappointment with the Santorum campaign suspects that evangelical leaders who supported Santorum, did so in return for donations to their nonprofit organizations. “They will now try to repeat the same thing with Romney and are already in the news laying the foundation for their appeal. It is appalling.”
But the rank and file evangelicals are not for sale and many seeking an end to the corruption in Washington see Ron Paul, a born again Christian, as their best voice of protest and the best way to force
Romney to deal with them.
Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition and a GOP national committeeman, is dumbfounded that the Romney’s campaign had so far made no effort to reach out to evangelicals.
“The presidential race is likely to be truly competitive,” Mr. Scheffler said, “in about a dozen states, including Iowa, and the Republicans will need to motivate people to volunteer at calling centers and put up signs. I don’t think there’s much room for error.”
Meanwhile, the Ron Paul people continue to fill the vacuum. In Iowa they are helping Scheffler and other Santorum people get re-elected to their positions. They can afford to be generous, they have everything else.
Says Brian Jacobs, a former consultant to Billy Graham and to evangelical leaders such as Kenneth Copeland, “Ron Paul is a born again Christian who is untainted by this corruption that has engulfed Washington. It should be no big surprise that evangelicals are discovering him.”
Why Ron Paul? And why now, when the race is being declared “done” by the main stream media?
“Because you don’t give away your support without getting something in return,” says a former congressman who has been at the heart of the Christian right movement since its beginning. The longer that Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich stay in the race, the more likely that Romney will be forced to take a evangelical conservative as his vice presidential nominee. Why not turn to Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Catholic who is a former Southern Baptist, with views that resonate with evangelicals? “If we had to do it over again, we should have gone with Gingrich,” one of Santorum’s supporters told me today. But if we switch to Gingrich now we risk another drop out.” The former Speaker reportedly has debts of $ 4.2 million and has asked the Romney campaign for help in retiring them. Romney reportedly declined.
Meanwhile, the Ron Paul campaign, with cash on hand, has begun airing television ads in Texas and launches another moneybomb this weekend.
“I have one question for you,” one of the ministers reportedly said in the private meeting last night with Dr. Ron Paul, “Are you going to drop out? Or will you stay in all the way to Tampa?”
“I’m in,” the Texan replied.
“That’s all I need to know,” the minister said.
The evangelical community began reaching out to Dr. Paul almost immediately after Senator Rick Santorum dropped out of the presidential race. Yesterday, Pastor Steven Andrew of USA Christian Ministries announced his support of the congressman, calling for a day of prayer and fasting. Andrew released a statement saying that, “After Santorum, Ron Paul is the most God-fearing Presidential candidate [and] the Republican party should e“They will now try to repeat the same thing with Romney and are already in the news laying the fandidate, Christians should look elsewhere – even to a third party.”
The Christian Wire service ran an article yesterday saying that Christians like the fact that Ron Paul “opposes tyranny, would cut the deficit and is pro-life.”
A prominent television evangelist , speaking on the promise of anonymity, says that there was great disappointment in Rick Santorum’s withdrawal from the race. “No one faults a man for being a good father, and dropping out to take care of a child, but it hurts many of us very deeply. We were counting on him to lead our cause.”
Foster Freiss, the Wyoming billionaire who financed the Santorum Super Pac, has publicly said he will now help Mitt Romney.
Meanwhile, evangelical leaders are skeptical of any of their brethren who are now pledging to Romney. “They are trotting out the same old bought and paid for names, Richard Land and Jay Sekulow, and acting like they are new.”
A Gingrich supporter who is quite vocal about his disappointment with the Santorum campaign suspects that evangelical leaders who supported Santorum, did so in return for donations to their nonprofit organizations. “They will now try to repeat the same thing with Romney and are already in the news laying the foundation for their appeal. It is appalling.”
But the rank and file evangelicals are not for sale and many seeking an end to the corruption in Washington see Ron Paul, a born again Christian, as their best voice of protest and the best way to force
Romney to deal with them.
Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition and a GOP national committeeman, is dumbfounded that the Romney’s campaign had so far made no effort to reach out to evangelicals.
“The presidential race is likely to be truly competitive,” Mr. Scheffler said, “in about a dozen states, including Iowa, and the Republicans will need to motivate people to volunteer at calling centers and put up signs. I don’t think there’s much room for error.”
Meanwhile, the Ron Paul people continue to fill the vacuum. In Iowa they are helping Scheffler and other Santorum people get re-elected to their positions. They can afford to be generous, they have everything else.
Says Brian Jacobs, a former consultant to Billy Graham and to evangelical leaders such as Kenneth Copeland, “Ron Paul is a born again Christian who is untainted by this corruption that has engulfed Washington. It should be no big surprise that evangelicals are discovering him.”
Ron Paul speaks to 3,000 at Will Rogers Auditorium, Ft. Worth, Texas, 4/11/12.Obama and his vacations ----
Barack
Obama, who is known for jetting off to exotic vacations at taxpayers’ expense,
often even sending his family on ahead – also at taxpayer expense, got a little
testy when a reporter questioned him about the practice.
The comments came in an interview with Larry Conners of KMOV-St. Louis, who asked: “The economy is a big issue and concern for folks. I mean, the unemployment, trying to make ends meet, gas prices, food prices going up. Some of our viewers are complaining, they get frustrated, even angered, when they see the first family jetting around, different vacations and so forth, sometimes maybe they think under color of state business and that you’re out of touch, that you don’t really know what they’re experiencing right now.”“I think most folks understand how hard I work and how hard this administration is working on behalf of the American people,” he said.
Obama tried to minimize the
question, “Well, I don’t know how many viewers you’re talking about that say
that.”
“We do hear from some,”
Conners said.
“I hear from all kinds of
viewers about everything,” Obama said.
“I’m sure you do,” the
reporter said.
“The fact of the matter is I
think if you look at my track record, I’m raising a family here. When we travel
through Service Service and Air Force One, that’s not my choice. I think most
folks understand how hard I work and how hard this administration is working on
behalf of the American people.”
The reporter noted that Obama
“side-stepped that question.”
“No one is questioning his
need to travel on Air Force One or have security. The questions being raised
are the first family taking so many vacations, when and where, at taxpayer
expense.”
That issue made headlines
temporary just days ago when one of Obama’s daughters took a trip to Mexico,
accompanied by dozens of security officers. The White House reportedly asked
news outlets not to report on the trip.
Before that, according to the
Washington Examiner, the Obamas had taken 16 vacations at
taxpayer expense.
They include a President’s
Day 2012 ski trip to Colorado, an extended stay in Hawaii at Christmas 2011, a
Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., vacation during summer of 2011, a trip to Africa and
Botswana in June 2011, another Colorado ski vacation on President’s Day 2011,
Christmas 2011 for an extended trip to Hawaii.
Before that it was Florida,
Chicago, Spain, Martha’s Vineyard again, Mount Desert Island, Maine, Chicago,
New York City, Hawaii, Yellowstone National Park, Grand Canyon and Martha’s
Vineyard again.
The report defended the Obama
trips, citing 30 visits President Bush made to his Texas ranch.
“But his have become more
controversial because of the costs associated with moving the first family to a
public vacation spot, unlike the Bushes to their remote ranch in Crawford,
Texas. For example, the Hawaii Reporter said the first family’s 2011 Christmas
vacation in Hawaii would exceed $1.5 million.”
The report continued,
“Critics and even some in his own party say the vacations present a bad image
at a time when many Americans are struggling to get by during the recession.”
The Examiner cited a Harris
poll revealing only three on 10 Americans say they plan to take a vacation
lasting longer than a week over six months.
Hang In There Folks - Intel Update
Today April 13, 2012 and yesterday evening April 12 2012
All I can say is hang in there. There is more information to suggest that the below information is correct even though other articles have been circulating that suggest rv in july and possibly two years from now, all suggestive of political maneuvering. Since the BRICS are taking control of the world's financial situation because the US could not act as a creditor or a leader for that matter and get it done but instead, acted like the supreme debtor that it is, applying stall tactics and excuses to delay the inevitable,, the fall of the fiat debt currency commonly known as the USD. The change in the new currencies and revaluations around the world has caused untoward delays which has cost much discomfort for many. Hang in there as we are all rapidly approaching incredible change never seen before in our nations and much of the world's history where so many currencies are changing at one time.
We are also at the same time witnessing unprecedented arrests and many to commence in this country most likely related to chicanery behind keeping the debt system alive, and orientation towards a new world system and thwarting our prosperity programs as well as a return to integrity amongst independent nations rather than an orientation to a one world system.
All this PLUS a new (as the case of the US or us of a) currency or revalued currency across other nations = complexity unmatched so hang in there,, it is coming for the benefit of all mankind and their individual prosperity. It is soon,, it is on top of us. It is minute by minute ,, we have all waited a long time, some years some months but we have all been part of this neo prosperity program,,, a prosperity Renaissance so to speak and involving 195+ countries most of which voted to rid themselves of the debt system. The FED is dead,, what goes with it (IRS) (UN) a crooked Congress and Vatican are yet to be determined pending the arrests that are imminent. The arrests and the resignation of the bankers and CEO's were the bottom of the barrel. We shall see remarkable change in a short time.
Hang onto your hats and what pennies you have, buy some canned foods, seeds, rice and bottled water for stock up for 3 months at least. I know i say this and have not done it myself because I have a storage issue at the moment but for those that dont have those problems, get yourself in gear while waiting for this global event to unfold in weeks/months to come.
Blessings
Unknown Author
All I can say is hang in there. There is more information to suggest that the below information is correct even though other articles have been circulating that suggest rv in july and possibly two years from now, all suggestive of political maneuvering. Since the BRICS are taking control of the world's financial situation because the US could not act as a creditor or a leader for that matter and get it done but instead, acted like the supreme debtor that it is, applying stall tactics and excuses to delay the inevitable,, the fall of the fiat debt currency commonly known as the USD. The change in the new currencies and revaluations around the world has caused untoward delays which has cost much discomfort for many. Hang in there as we are all rapidly approaching incredible change never seen before in our nations and much of the world's history where so many currencies are changing at one time.
We are also at the same time witnessing unprecedented arrests and many to commence in this country most likely related to chicanery behind keeping the debt system alive, and orientation towards a new world system and thwarting our prosperity programs as well as a return to integrity amongst independent nations rather than an orientation to a one world system.
All this PLUS a new (as the case of the US or us of a) currency or revalued currency across other nations = complexity unmatched so hang in there,, it is coming for the benefit of all mankind and their individual prosperity. It is soon,, it is on top of us. It is minute by minute ,, we have all waited a long time, some years some months but we have all been part of this neo prosperity program,,, a prosperity Renaissance so to speak and involving 195+ countries most of which voted to rid themselves of the debt system. The FED is dead,, what goes with it (IRS) (UN) a crooked Congress and Vatican are yet to be determined pending the arrests that are imminent. The arrests and the resignation of the bankers and CEO's were the bottom of the barrel. We shall see remarkable change in a short time.
Hang onto your hats and what pennies you have, buy some canned foods, seeds, rice and bottled water for stock up for 3 months at least. I know i say this and have not done it myself because I have a storage issue at the moment but for those that dont have those problems, get yourself in gear while waiting for this global event to unfold in weeks/months to come.
Blessings
Unknown Author
Insider Drake: After Mass Arrests, Ron Paul Might Be Our New President!
The Rumor Mill News Reading Room
Insider Drake: After Mass Arrests, Ron Paul Might Be Our New President!
Posted By: Jordon [Send E-Mail]
Date: Friday, 13-Apr-2012 09:02:50
Date: Friday, 13-Apr-2012 09:02:50
|
NATO activities in Africa
FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2012
http://alcuinbramerton.blogspot.com/2012/01/altnews8-1ab-alcuin-httpalcuinbramerton.html
Alcuin Bramerton Twitter .. WikiLeaks Master Mirror Sites .. #1ab archive
Alcuin Bramerton profile ..... Index of blog contents ..... Home .....#1ab
Picture: Did Mali lose Timbuktu because NATO saved Benghazi?
The intentional misreading of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 resulted in NATO's violent, though predictable, Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya last year. Not only did the action cost many thousands of lives and untold destruction, it also paved the way for perpetual conflict - not only in Libya, but throughout the North African region.
Mali was the first major victim of NATO's intervention in Libya. It is now a staple in world news, and headlines such as "The Mess in Mali" serve as a mere reminder of a bigger African mess.
On Thursday 17th March 2011, resolution 1973 resolved to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. On 19 March, NATO's bombers began scorching Libyan land, supposedly to prevent a massacre of civilians. The next day, an ad-hoc High Level African Union Panel on Libya met in Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania, and made one last desperate call to bring NATO's war to an immediate halt. It stated: "Our desire is that Libya's unity and territorial integrity be respected as well as the rejection of any kind of foreign military intervention."
The African Union (AU) is almost never considered a viable political player by the UN, NATO or any interventionist Western power. But despite lacking in efforts to effectively challenge NATO's war assignment in Africa, AU members were fully aware that NATO was barely concerned with human rights or the well-being of African nations. They also knew that instability in one African country can lead to major instabilities throughout the region. Various North African regions are glued together by a delicate balance - due to the messy colonial legacy inherited from colonial powers - and Mali is no exception.
"Is this all NATO's fault?" asked Dan Murphy in the Christian Science Monitor. "Not exactly. But the law of unintended consequences is (as usual) rearing its head. In this case, the successful popular uprising against Muammar Gaddafi's regime in Libya, which was substantially aided by the air power of NATO members, has sent Mali tumbling back into chaos, something that neither France nor the US (two of the major backers of the war to oust Gaddafi) are happy about."
It is perhaps too early to talk about winners and losers in the Mali fiasco, which was triggered on Thursday 22nd March 2012 by a military coup led by Army Captain Amadou Haya Sanogo. The coup created political space for the Tuaregs' National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) to declare independence in the north a mere two weeks later. The declaration was the culmination of quick military victories by MNLA and its militant allies, which led to the capture of Gao and other major towns. These successive developments further emboldened Islamic and other militant groups to seize cities across the country and hold them hostage to their ideological and other agendas. Ansar Al-Din, for example, had reportedly worked in tandem with the MNLA, but declared a war "against independence" and "for Islam" as soon as it secured its control over Timbuktu.
More groups and more arms are now pouring through the ever-porous borders with Mauritania, Algeria and Niger. Al-Tawhid wa Al-Jihad, along with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are now making their moves across Mali. New alliances are being formed, and new emirates are being declared, making Mali a potential stage for numerous permanent conflicts.
"Did Mali lose Timbuktu because NATO saved Benghazi?" asks Gregory Mann in Foreign Policy. "It is undeniable that, as a consequence of the Libyan campaign, a stronger, more intense insurgency in the Malian Sahara was not only predictable but predicted. Everyone who was watching saw it coming from afar."
Speaking to The Guardian, former UN regional envoy Robert Fowler railed against NATO: "Whatever the motivation of the principal NATO belligerents (in ousting Gaddafi), the law of unintended consequences is exacting a heavy toll in Mali today and will continue to do so throughout the Sahel as the vast store of Libyan weapons spreads across this, one of the most unstable regions of the world."
Considering that the inevitability of post-Libya destabilisation was obvious to so many from the start, why the insistence on referencing a law of unintended consequences?
Even chaos has its own logic. For several years, and especially since the establishment of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2008, much meddling has taken place in various parts of Africa.
Writing in Foreign Policy, Mann pointed out that Sanogo, the leader of the coup in Mali, "had American military training, and briefly affected a US Marine Corps lapel pin." He said that these details "are surely less important than the stunning fact that a decade of American investment in Special Forces training, cooperation between Sahalien armies and the United States, and counterterrorism programmes of all sorts run by both the State Department and the Pentagon has, at best, failed to prevent a new disaster in the desert and, at worst, sowed its seeds."
The details are hardly less important, considering that Sanogo called for international military intervention against the newly declared Tuareg republic, referencing Afghanistan as model.
True, regional African countries and international institutions have strongly objected to both the military coup in the capitalBarnako, and the declaration of independence by the Tuaregs in the north, but that may prove irrelevant after all. The Azawad succession appears permanent, and the US, although it suspended part of the aid to Mali following the junta's takeover, has not severed all ties with Sanogo. After all, he too claims to be fighting Al-Qaeda and their allies.
It is difficult to believe that despite years of US-French involvement in Mali and surrounding region, the bedlam wasn't, at the very least, predicted. The US position regarding the coup was precarious. "The Obama administration has not yet made a formal decision as to whether a military coup has taken place in Mali," wrote John Glaster at AntiWar.com. Per US military definitions, this is still a "mutiny, not a 'coup'", and US army personnel - referred to as 'advisory troops' - were in fact dispatched to Bamako after the 22nd March 2012, according a statement by Nicole Dalrymple, an AFRICOM spokeswoman.
What is clear is that the mess in Mali might be an opportunity for another intervention, which mainstream media sources are already rationalising. A Washington Post editorial on the 5th April 2012 counselled: "NATO partners should perceive a moral obligation, as well as a tangible national security interest, in restoring Mali's previous order. The West should not allow its intervention in Libya to lead to the destruction of democracy - and entrenchment of Islamic militants - in a neighboring state."
Unintended consequences? Hardly.
Source here (12.04.12). Background news and commentary here(12.04.12) and here (12.04.12).
Alcuin Bramerton Twitter .. WikiLeaks Master Mirror Sites .. #1ab archive
Alcuin Bramerton profile ..... Index of blog contents ..... Home .....#1ab
Picture: Did Mali lose Timbuktu because NATO saved Benghazi?
The intentional misreading of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 resulted in NATO's violent, though predictable, Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya last year. Not only did the action cost many thousands of lives and untold destruction, it also paved the way for perpetual conflict - not only in Libya, but throughout the North African region.
Mali was the first major victim of NATO's intervention in Libya. It is now a staple in world news, and headlines such as "The Mess in Mali" serve as a mere reminder of a bigger African mess.
On Thursday 17th March 2011, resolution 1973 resolved to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. On 19 March, NATO's bombers began scorching Libyan land, supposedly to prevent a massacre of civilians. The next day, an ad-hoc High Level African Union Panel on Libya met in Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania, and made one last desperate call to bring NATO's war to an immediate halt. It stated: "Our desire is that Libya's unity and territorial integrity be respected as well as the rejection of any kind of foreign military intervention."
The African Union (AU) is almost never considered a viable political player by the UN, NATO or any interventionist Western power. But despite lacking in efforts to effectively challenge NATO's war assignment in Africa, AU members were fully aware that NATO was barely concerned with human rights or the well-being of African nations. They also knew that instability in one African country can lead to major instabilities throughout the region. Various North African regions are glued together by a delicate balance - due to the messy colonial legacy inherited from colonial powers - and Mali is no exception.
"Is this all NATO's fault?" asked Dan Murphy in the Christian Science Monitor. "Not exactly. But the law of unintended consequences is (as usual) rearing its head. In this case, the successful popular uprising against Muammar Gaddafi's regime in Libya, which was substantially aided by the air power of NATO members, has sent Mali tumbling back into chaos, something that neither France nor the US (two of the major backers of the war to oust Gaddafi) are happy about."
It is perhaps too early to talk about winners and losers in the Mali fiasco, which was triggered on Thursday 22nd March 2012 by a military coup led by Army Captain Amadou Haya Sanogo. The coup created political space for the Tuaregs' National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) to declare independence in the north a mere two weeks later. The declaration was the culmination of quick military victories by MNLA and its militant allies, which led to the capture of Gao and other major towns. These successive developments further emboldened Islamic and other militant groups to seize cities across the country and hold them hostage to their ideological and other agendas. Ansar Al-Din, for example, had reportedly worked in tandem with the MNLA, but declared a war "against independence" and "for Islam" as soon as it secured its control over Timbuktu.
More groups and more arms are now pouring through the ever-porous borders with Mauritania, Algeria and Niger. Al-Tawhid wa Al-Jihad, along with Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are now making their moves across Mali. New alliances are being formed, and new emirates are being declared, making Mali a potential stage for numerous permanent conflicts.
"Did Mali lose Timbuktu because NATO saved Benghazi?" asks Gregory Mann in Foreign Policy. "It is undeniable that, as a consequence of the Libyan campaign, a stronger, more intense insurgency in the Malian Sahara was not only predictable but predicted. Everyone who was watching saw it coming from afar."
Speaking to The Guardian, former UN regional envoy Robert Fowler railed against NATO: "Whatever the motivation of the principal NATO belligerents (in ousting Gaddafi), the law of unintended consequences is exacting a heavy toll in Mali today and will continue to do so throughout the Sahel as the vast store of Libyan weapons spreads across this, one of the most unstable regions of the world."
Considering that the inevitability of post-Libya destabilisation was obvious to so many from the start, why the insistence on referencing a law of unintended consequences?
Even chaos has its own logic. For several years, and especially since the establishment of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2008, much meddling has taken place in various parts of Africa.
Writing in Foreign Policy, Mann pointed out that Sanogo, the leader of the coup in Mali, "had American military training, and briefly affected a US Marine Corps lapel pin." He said that these details "are surely less important than the stunning fact that a decade of American investment in Special Forces training, cooperation between Sahalien armies and the United States, and counterterrorism programmes of all sorts run by both the State Department and the Pentagon has, at best, failed to prevent a new disaster in the desert and, at worst, sowed its seeds."
The details are hardly less important, considering that Sanogo called for international military intervention against the newly declared Tuareg republic, referencing Afghanistan as model.
True, regional African countries and international institutions have strongly objected to both the military coup in the capitalBarnako, and the declaration of independence by the Tuaregs in the north, but that may prove irrelevant after all. The Azawad succession appears permanent, and the US, although it suspended part of the aid to Mali following the junta's takeover, has not severed all ties with Sanogo. After all, he too claims to be fighting Al-Qaeda and their allies.
It is difficult to believe that despite years of US-French involvement in Mali and surrounding region, the bedlam wasn't, at the very least, predicted. The US position regarding the coup was precarious. "The Obama administration has not yet made a formal decision as to whether a military coup has taken place in Mali," wrote John Glaster at AntiWar.com. Per US military definitions, this is still a "mutiny, not a 'coup'", and US army personnel - referred to as 'advisory troops' - were in fact dispatched to Bamako after the 22nd March 2012, according a statement by Nicole Dalrymple, an AFRICOM spokeswoman.
What is clear is that the mess in Mali might be an opportunity for another intervention, which mainstream media sources are already rationalising. A Washington Post editorial on the 5th April 2012 counselled: "NATO partners should perceive a moral obligation, as well as a tangible national security interest, in restoring Mali's previous order. The West should not allow its intervention in Libya to lead to the destruction of democracy - and entrenchment of Islamic militants - in a neighboring state."
Unintended consequences? Hardly.
Source here (12.04.12). Background news and commentary here(12.04.12) and here (12.04.12).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
