As in Libya, So in Syria: The Folly of Interventionism

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
August 26, 2014

The United States has been inching its way toward intervention in Syria since hostilities began in 2011. From the beginning the US State Department admitted that terrorist armies were waging war against Damascus, but both the US government, its allies in Europe, and prominent media organizations across the West repeatedly claimed that the conflict was not an invasion by multinational terrorist organizations, but rather a "pro-democracy uprising." Now, years into the conflict, the US is finally at the threshold of direct military
intervention, announcing that it would begin flights over Syria to gather "intelligence."

As in Libya...  

The familiar narrative taking shape should sound strikingly familiar to the lead up to NATO intervention in Libya in 2011. There, just as in Syria, heavily armed terrorists, not "pro-democracy activists" were waging war against Tripoli. Intentionally misrepresenting the facts on the ground and the greater geopolitical context the Libyan conflict fit into, NATO successfully sold direct military intervention in Libya to the world. The "democratization" of Libya included daily NATO sorties into Libya, bombing the North African nation from air, while terrorist armies marched below, fully armed and equipped by NATO member states.

As the conflict drew to a close, with the Libyan government decimated, infrastructure nationwide destroyed, and very real atrocities (including genocide) unfolding just as NATO had falsely claimed were being perpetrated by Tripoli months earlier, it was clear that decimation, not democracy was the end result. Years after the decimation of Libya, the country remains in flames. There exists no stable government and the "pro-democracy freedom fighters" NATO assisted into power are now clearly exposed as sectarian extremists.

Ebola and the Absent "Humanitarians"

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
August 18, 2014

The US spent over two billion dollars during NATO's armed assault on Libya both in ordnance used during months of aerial bombardment and in covert support for terrorists used as proxy ground forces in the overthrow of the Libyan government. The United Kingdom is estimated to have spent even more. Hundreds of millions were spent by other NATO members throughout the duration of the assault. The "protection of civilians" was repeatedly cited as the altruistic justification for such an expenditure in manpower and financial resources.

In the wake of the conflict, it was revealed that NATO's "humanitarian intervention" left entire cities filled with unarmed civilians encircled by Al Qaeda-linked militants and relentlessly bombarded by NATO sorties while food, water, gas, and power were intentionally cut off to "starve" the inhabitants into submission. It was also revealed that the threat to civilians cited by NATO members was fabricated by those NATO chose to replace the targeted Libyan government with.

Similar scenarios have played out in Syria, Ukraine, and even North and West Africa. At the cost of hundreds of millions, French troops have invaded and occupied several African nations over the course of the past 3 years, including five of their former colonies, namely Mali, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad. And while the French government claims their justification is fighting terrorism and improving security (hundreds of miles from their own shores) much of the terrorism is a direct result of NATO's intervention in Libya and the intentional arming of immense terrorist networks in the process that have proliferated money, arms and all the strife that follows, across the region.

Enter Ebola