Some will find it shocking that in order to make peace with
Gaddafi in the wake of 9/11, the British (and Americans) were willing to help
him in his dirty work and eliminate his enemies.
I don't find it shocking at all but I reckon the episode (as reported in this Guardian piece) instructive in this regard. When Gaddafi was an enemy, especially during the
1980's, Britain gave refuge to his political enemies. Washington did the same
as some of the figures opposing Gaddafi were directly supported by the CIA.
When Gaddafi 'flipped' in 2003, abandoned his WMD programmes
and joined the War on Terror, the West turned against the very people, the
dissidents they had been harbouring for so long. No longer needed or deemed
desirable these people were pushed from the scene.
And yet barely a decade passed and these same Western
political forces under the auspices of NATO quickly turned on Gaddafi (their
new ally) and destroyed him as well.
Everyone that had put their trust in the Britain and the
United States ended up marginalised or dead. Both Gaddafi and those that had
opposed him were eliminated.
With some very narrow exceptions. There are the figures
presently involved in the Libyan Civil War, men like General Khalifa Haftar who
have survived these various purges. Of course Haftar wasn't just a dissident
being given asylum. He was quite patently a CIA asset and probably still is.
That said, he's a fool if he thinks the West won't turn on
him too. He is expendable.
This is by no means the first instance of this sort of thing.
The Americans pulled a similar stunt with the jihadi fighters in the Balkans.
They used them in the 1990's to help in the wars with Serbia and as soon as it
ended, they labeled them outlaws and went after them.
There is no honour among thieves.
See also:
There's also the French angle to this story and it ties in with the growing Sarkozy scandal:
ReplyDeletehttps://ericmargolis.com/2018/03/sarkozys-hand-in-the-french-cookie-jar/