This report has obvious connections to the Wagner-Blackwater
story run by The Intercept. It only furthers the point I've been making that there
are significant sectors within the US that are keen to support Haftar.
These splits between official arms of the US government like
the State Department and parallel policies run out of Langley or the Pentagon
are not without precedent.
One could not help but be reminded of the Edwin Wilson
episode in the 1970's and 1980's when private security contractors (affiliated
with the CIA) went into Libya under the guise of being oil and gas engineers
and explorers. In reality they were running arms, explosives and providing
training to the Gaddafi regime. It's a fascinating episode that defies the
conventional 'State Department approved' reading of US-Libya relations – as
well as the official history with regard to Gaddafi.
I've often wondered if Prince isn't playing a similar role –
the dirty game being played by someone with obvious intelligence agency
connections – but privatised, with the buffer of 'plausible deniability' for
the agency and anyone within the White House or on the National Security
Council. While not exactly the same as Prince or perhaps Wilson, a figure like
Oliver North played a similar role – pursuing a highly illegal policy in the
shadows, which in reality was supported and ordered by higher-ups within the
Deep State.
The Al Jazeera piece struck me as omitting some rather
important information. For example Lancaster6 has previous connections to Erik
Prince. Headed by Australian (former RAAF) pilot Christiaan Durant, the
mercenary firm was being considered by Prince for Afghanistan operations,
especially during the early days of the Trump administration.
Al Jazeera ties Lancaster6 to the UAE – ignoring the
company's patent Five Eyes (Western) connections. The United Arab Emirates is
where it's based but the company does not necessarily represent UAE interests
or take orders from the Emirate. It's a Western-connected firm and the
mercenaries are Western. That's the real story here – the fact that there's a
bifurcation between official policy (for example in Washington) and what's
actually happening vis-à-vis the Anglo-American sector and its support for
Haftar – which given the legalities makes perfect sense.
In fact Al Jazeera seems (in the article) to deliberately
misrepresent the nature of these companies and ties them to UAE state policy.
It's a case of shoddy journalism – and we're seeing more of it from Al Jazeera
these days. For example the network seems completely on board with the Western
line with regard to Syria and Libya – especially when there's a chance to call negative
attention to Russia and anything it might be involved in with regard to the
region. Of course there's a real reporting dilemma in Libya as the US Deep
State and the Kremlin are backing the same actor – General Haftar.
While the UAE (among many others) is indeed involved in
Libya, the story misses the salient point with regard to these firms. Strangely
(or not), it functions as providing cover.
I also happen to find it more than a little noteworthy that Lancaster6
and Opus Capital (the latter of which is a front company for the former) find
their connections not so much in Dubai or Abu Dhabi but in places like
Washington, London, Canberra, and in former UK colony of Malta. Its Washington
lobbyists are connected to Congress and the National Security Council. These
realities really cast the story in a very different light. These are not rogue
companies.*
Al Jazeera has become much more friendly to the Western
Establishment in recent years – and it has been granted considerable access as
a result. Once a pariah network, Al Jazeera shifted and tried to enter the US
market with its failed Al Jazeera America channel. The channel failed because
it did not connect with American audiences and previous fans of the channel
sensed something had changed. Al Jazeera was trying to enter the mainstream.
And once the AJ America project was scrapped – and American audiences were able
to return to AJ English (the international English channel), we knew something
had changed. This reporting on Libya puts the changes on display. The channel
is still a good source of information but it's not what it was back in 2008. It
has certainly become less trustworthy.
----
*The lobbying itself looks suspicious to me – like a token
gesture to get them 'on the books' as a gas and oil exploration/extraction
company.
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.