On September 11th 2001, a number of commercial passenger airliners were flown into civilian and military installations within the continental United States. The 'attacks' were claimed by the United States to have been the work of Al Qa'ida 1, a network of armed political organisations operating within various Mujahedin armed groups in Afghanistan and linked to many other Mujahedin groups throughout the Arabian Peninsula and wider Middle-East region. The event has come to be known as 9/11.
The relationship between the United States and the Mujahedin was formed extensively throughout the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan 2 between 1979 and 1989, in which the United States played a pivotal role in organising, funding, arming and collating the Mujahedin in its efforts to de-stabilise the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the then Soviet Union (USSR).
The policy was formally sanctioned by the US Government as part of its 'strategy of tension' between the US and the USSR throughout the 'Cold War', itself shorthand for the underlying industries of the arms-race of which both nations were, at the time, financially inculcated. For the Communist Soviet Union, a centralised rigid political economy, the arms race was a financial burden. For the United States, with its liberal politico-capitalised and de-centralised economy, the arms race was highly profitable.
After the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan ended and the industrial arms-race came to an end, the USSR floundered and broke into pieces. But for the United States, the end of the arms race left it with a quasi politico-militarised economic system dependent on a military industry that had no political leverage in the form of a foreign opponent.
Twelve years after the self-imposed 'balkanisation' of the USSR, the so-called War on Terror 3 was declared by the United States against Al Qa'ida, and by association, against the wider Mujahedin dispersed throughout the entire resource rich Middle-Eastern region. In every area in which the Mujahedin were and are present, knowledge of their existence became and has become of paramount strategic importance to the United States. In the absence of an equally sized partner belligerent to operate against in the form of the defunct USSR, the United States had found an unquantifiable and stateless opponent with which to drive its post arms-race military domestic economy.
The Cold War effect.
After the collapse of the USSR, the United States began to re-position itself on the international stage as natural successor to the USSR and presented much of its resultant cold war victory capital into the ideological sphere of economic theory. For the United States, Capitalism was the engine of its success over the vanquished Soviet Union and it set about the process of exploiting this victory around the world in the pursuit of expansion of its Capitalist credentials into strategic arena's both on the near and far horizon. During the period between 1989 and 1999, the United States forged ahead with a program of economic systems development of its privatised infrastructure and quickly became overextended on the international stage. Throughout this period, and primarily as a result of tactical and strategic flaws in its planning systems, the United States failed to dissipate its military systems and was eventually forced to embark on wholesale reform of its military planning provisions.
This led to a change in military systems planning away from large-scale military deployments using large standing armies, heavy tanks and personnel carriers such as tanks, and heavy field artillery and toward highly mobile but much smaller units of fast moving agile specialist's supported by close quarter tactical air support 4. As a result, the United States incurred very large redundancy in its overall military arsenal in a very short period of time, redundancy it was unable to dissipate through the process of economic collapse. And it was here the United States economic system became, just as the Soviet economy had during its collapse, stressed and unbalanced. The collapse of the cold war for the USSR had been caused by excessive dependency on arms proliferation with the United States, but the success of the United States in its victory over the USSR in that same period of arms proliferation went on to have exactly the same degenerative effect on the US economic systems.
The Cold War had claimed both of its antagonists as victims.
The modern United States in the post Cold War era.
After a period of economic re-engineering the modern United States became a loose and legally unbound confederation of businesses, corporations, investitures, private and public industry and existent, but legally distant local and national elected authorities. These collective entities are now organised around an internal monetary system which is legally unbound from the national legislature and executive.
This collection of entities is overseen by a state-level legislature which reports directly to a national legislature which in turn reports to a national executive. Although the national executive reports itself to its electorate as an executive body politic in its own right, it is more properly identified as non-political personification of the underlying collective entities. Therefore, the national executive's primary role, is to communicate to the electorate the wishes and concerns of business, industry, corporations, investitures and private and public industry.
The national executive retains control over these entities, by funding and controlling an extensive armed militia in the form of the US military. Throughout its life, the United States national executive has deployed this militia into areas, both domestic and foreign, perceived by business and industry as critical to its economic strategic welfare. In times of economic growth or where balance of trade and payments is healthy, the United States has a tendency to restrict deployment of its militia. In times of economic decline or where balance of trade and payments is lifeless, the United States has a tendency to deploy its militia abroad, for economic effect at home.
However, from the end of the cold war, the United States has experienced persistent decline of its domestic economic system and this decline has accrued in tandem with a chronic dependency on foreign credit and debt 5. Over the course of the past decade, this debt has increased dramatically to such a degree that the domestic infrastructure is no longer able to generate sufficient funds, in sufficient time, to be able to manage this debt.
In a static world where US hegemony can be guaranteed on the back of favourable 'parity' with other currencies, balance of payments is a predictable science. But in an age where the gross domestic products of nations is narrowing, and where the wealth of the world is becoming more evenly spaced, balance of payments in the American monetary system can no longer maintain favourable currency conversions through the international banking system. As a direct result, the United States is unable to convert at previous rates and is experiencing the general descent of the value of its currency.
As a result, the United States is now completely dependent on the deployment of its militia abroad, in order to service its economy at home. These modern age deployments, are noticeable for being of substantially longer duration that deployments in the past. At present, the United States has its militia deployed abroad in two theatres both determined by the international community to be in a state of ongoing warfare, the United States is now the nation with the highest foreign debt in the world and has seen its GDP relative to other nations enter a permanent period of severe decline.
Attitudes of American's to the War on Terror.
From the start of America's so-called War on Terror a great deal has been said and published about attitudes of ordinary American's in the aftermath of the assaults on its sovereignty. Ranging from concerted and deliberate diatribes about the role US hegemony plays in the affairs of other nations, through to the populist vitriol of nationalists and so-called patriots.
In amongst the welter of polemic, a great deal has also been made of the views of the US military common grunt. The narrative has always followed a tight, rehearsed belligerence. In almost all instances, the ordinary US serviceman and woman has defaulted to the narrative that they live to avoid war, but when the war cry sounds, they will be first in line to answer its call. A contradiction almost always lost on those who utter the words. For many in the US military, moral imperative very rarely exists.
For most, service in the US military is an economic consideration only and usually concurrent with social factors such as high unemployment or poor education and, therefore, few opportunities to follow any other career path. While a great deal of animosity has been directed at the ordinary US grunt, very little has been properly coached in ways that the grunt can understand given that poverty of education. For most US servicemen and women, the required educational standard to understand the finer points of international diplomacy and strategic peace keeping on the international stage simply does not exist. Bereft too is the impetus to understand this logic in an institution fundamentally undemocratic by its very nature.
Among the general populace, the standard of education is equally poor. In the United States, national unemployment of the labour force currently stands at 9.1% and in the very near future is almost certainly likely to become a full 10% and more. In this environment of lifeless stagnation, opinions about the role America plays on the world stage are unlikely to improve to any great degree. In this environment, the US government are able to handily extend the required domestic animosity against the Muslim world and can continue to manufacture domestic enmity with relative ease.
For all Americans, implicit within them is a firm understanding that the US populace lives well beyond its means and that foreign intervention is a part of the structure of their very existence. Without foreign intervention, the US populace is forced to face up to its severe domestic problems and is forced to revert to understanding the world for what it is, rather than what it is defined to be by its government. In all areas of the social fabric of the US, understanding of US foreign policy is racked with polemic, diatribe, vitriol and laced propaganda.
In every military deployment since the declaration of the so-called Global War on Terror on October 7th 2001 in Iraq 6, Afghanistan 7 and Libya 8; oil and gas reserves or security of transit routes for these resources have been persistently present in those places where military deployments of the United States and minor partners have occurred. In areas where Al Qa'ida are claimed to have operated 9, but where no reserves or security of transit routes have existed, no 'tactical' military deployment has occurred. In all cases, the views of ordinary American's in the post 9/11 War on Terror environment, serve to accommodate the pursuit of terrorist's and toward support of all military deployments abroad, whether they be in the actual pursuit of Al Qa'ida, or not.
Proxy conflict, the public and private wings of terror.
In its prosecution of the so-called War on Terror, the United States exhibits within its strategy, compelling flaws that betray its underlying motives. One of which is the role that private mercenary militia's play in executing the day-to-day 'security' of combat operations. Private military corporations have, over the course of the so-called War on Terror's prosecution, moved from the periphery of international politics in the form of arms smuggling, criminal mercenary activity and acts of terrorism, into the mainstream of the domestic politic.
Private militia's 10 are now fully inculcated into the political mainstream to such a degree that a number have been responsible for serial human rights abuses and war crimes while providing armed support for US diplomats in War on Terror theatres such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The primary purpose of these private mercenary forces, is to provide deflection away from the United States publicly funded sectors, such as the US military and government, and onto the private sector. This tactic allows for those private entities to simply ignore outside interference in its affairs that, were it to be directed toward the public sector, would yield information that could be used as evidence in prosecutions for the victims of American violence, either inside, or outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
Within this tactical policy of 'deflection', it is possible to see the economic system governing the United States brought forward to motivate the human rights abuses evident in the battlefields of war. In this time of apparent national emergency, the United States has appealed to every part of its superstructure to aid and assist its foreign policy. Consequently, its public sector has come to rely on the private sector for deflected accountability and its private sector has come to rely on the public sector for contracts and trade. The intermixing of these sectors, now comprises a twin motivator that even the government of the United States is unable to reign in or control. And it is here, that the United States military planners place their tactical faith.
After the September 11th attacks in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, the US government enacted its defences in the form of its own domestic militia and supplemented those forces with private corporations. One of which was a company trading as Blackwater Security Consulting. The company was formed in 2001 and sought to bring together a number of mercenary contractors operating inside and outside the United States working in tandem with the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
It has never been clear to what extent these operatives had been previously involved with Mujahedin fighters in the Middle-east and neither has it been fully clear to what extent these operatives have been involved with so-called terrorist attacks against US security installations both on and off-shore.
Prior to Blackwaters formation, many operatives had been privately funded not by US corporations, but by foreign entities that had previously been financially 'attached' to the US governments financial system of foreign bonds and foreign transit of funds through the payroll systems of US embassies and diplomatic 'out-houses' around the world, a number of which were managed by the US corporation 'First Data', known to be responsible for electronic transit of funds between embassy staff, diplomatic staff, security and intelligence staff and bulk payment processing of regulated payments from the Pentagon to named account holders outside of the United States. Upon Blackwaters founding, many of those account holders took up employment within the company.
What followed was a series of confrontations that ended with the removal of the men, but also the burning by fire of British soldiers by an assembled crowd. The images that emerged from the incident were quickly flashed around the world and did irreparable damage to the Iraq mission. To this day, Iraqi authorities maintain that the two soldiers were attempting to detonate a car bomb in central Basra revealing that the British government, like their US counterparts, were engaged in indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Iraq in an attempt to keep the city in a state of constant conflict.
Throughout the so-called War on Terror, the United States has come to heavily rely on mercenary armies to provide security for US politicians and occupation forces within the national boundaries of those countries they have elected to occupy, chief among them, Blackwater. As of 2008, the United States were officially funding or operating 1,574 12 officially recognised private armed mercenaries in close proximity to large civilian populations. As a result, persistent numbers of civilians have been killed or maimed.
The United States operates formal and informal policy provision to prevent prosecution of mercenaries which it enforces locally often at gunpoint. This is a small percentage of the overall contractor private army the United States is operating in theatre. For instance, in Iraq alone, the total combined number of private 'contractors' the United States is funding is almost 160,000 supplied from almost 200 separate private companies. In addition to the current US militia deployment of 46,000 regular troops, the number of armed US belligerents in Iraq alone stands at almost a quarter of a million.
While a great deal is made of arguments surrounding troop numbers in the ongoing conflict that is Iraq, any drawing down of troop numbers announced in distant America is almost completely ignored by ordinary Iraqi's themselves. For ordinary Iraqi's, US military deployments in their country by numbers the US State Department are putting forward is simply the difference between troops wearing combat fatigues and those dressed in jeans and tee-shirts. Whatever statements the Whitehouse choose to reveal regarding troop numbers in Iraq, Iraq will always be left with a very large contingent of armed antagonists to bedevil the civilian population. In this environment, the so-called War on Terror will leave a pest in Iraq for many years to come.
At the primary end of the political propaganda spectrum, and in direct contravention of its political mandate to bring 'democracy' to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military operates a sophisticated, but horribly ineffective campaign of psychological warfare in theatre's in which it is operating. In a document entitled "Doctrine for Joint Psychological Operations" 13 published by the US military in 2003, the full weight of the imposition of the military in theatre's related to the execution of the so-called War on Terror are outlined to an alarming degree. In this document, the US military state the role of Psyops to be:
PSYOP are an integral part of military operations and, as such, are an inherent responsibility of all military commanders. There are three categories of military PSYOP, strategic, operational, and tactical, which are used to establish and reinforce foreign perceptions of US military, political, and economic power and resolve.+Strategic PSYOP are international information activities conducted by US Government (USG) agencies to influence foreign attitudes, perceptions, and behaviour in favour of US goals and objectives during peacetime and in times of conflict.+These programs are conducted predominantly outside the military arena but can utilize Department of Defense (DOD) assets.- Doctrine for Joint Psychological Operations, U.S. Military 2003.
While much of the science of Psyops tends to concentrate on bending the will of locals to the material and tactical aims of the United States, through the international and local media, one telling segment from the document refers to this policy being enacted most usually through the execution of military missions via artificially invoked crisis. Here the document outlines the strategic process at work:
As a crisis begins to develop, one of the first elements deployed to a supported commander is the PSYOP assessment team (POAT). The POAT provides staff support to the operations directorate (J-3) of the joint force. The POAT assesses the situation, confers with the commander, develops the PSYOP objectives, and recommends an appropriate combination of personnel, equipment, and support provided by Service components to accomplish the mission.+If the POAT assesses that significant PSYOP forces are required to support the JFC's objectives, the POAT recommends to the JFC that a JPOTF or PSYOP support element be established.- Doctrine for Joint Psychological Operations, U.S. Military 2003.
PSYOP are involved in all three types of planning processes for joint operations: campaign, deliberate, and crisis action. Experience has repeatedly demonstrated that PSYOP planners must be involved throughout the planning process and that bringing PSYOP in early to the process can significantly improve the PSYOP contribution to the overall operation.- Doctrine for Joint Psychological Operations, U.S. Military 2003.
The overall function of PSYOP is to cause selected foreign audiences to take actions favorable to the objectives of the United States and its allies or coalition partners. PSYOP forces are the only DOD asset given the authority to influence foreign target audiences (TAs) directly through the use of radio, print, and other media.+PSYOP personnel specifically advise the supported commander on methods to capitalize on the psychological impacts of every aspect of force employment to achieve the overall campaign objectives. Their duties are wide-ranging but include, as a minimum, advising on the psychological impacts of planned operations, the identification of foreign TAs, and any psychological weaknesses.- Doctrine for Joint Psychological Operations, U.S. Military 2003.
In the following extract, the document outlines how the US government (USG) executes military planning to exploit all assets in theatre to collectively bring about the 'all instruments of national power' doctrine. This includes the use of Psyops, NGO's (Non-Governmental Organisations) private agencies and the US military in concerted fashion to maximise the presence of the US military and extend onto the local populace the will of the United States.
Military operations must be synchronized with operations of other agencies of the USG as well as with foreign forces, NGOs, and regional and international organizations for the purpose of accomplishing an objective. Success will depend to a large extent on the ability to blend and engage all instruments of national power.+These actions must be mutually supporting and proceed in a logical sequence. Interagency coordination forges the vital link between the military instrument of that power and the economic, diplomatic, and informational entities of the USG as well as NGOs and international organizations. Successful interagency coordination enables these agencies, departments, and organizations to mount a coherent and efficient collective operation.- Doctrine for Joint Psychological Operations, U.S. Military 2003.
Wholesale collapse of civil Liberties.
In the past decade, over 120,000 people have been arrested under the welter of global anti-terror legislation that has swept throughout the international community as a result of the declaration of the Global War on Terror by the Republican government of the United States. Of those arrestees, over 35,000 14 have been successfully convicted of offences relating to that 'localised' legislation. Since September 11th 2001, the United States has taken over 54,000 combined casualties and around the world the total casualty rate in other countries is ranged at a conservative 1,180,000. This includes dead, injured, maimed, crippled, disabled or otherwise missing.
A recent report undertaken by the Associated Press News Agency dated 3rd September 2011, gathered evidence and data from freedom of information requests in 100 countries where such provisions in law exist. It found that:
In the first tally ever done of global anti-terror arrests and convictions, The Associated Press documented a surge in prosecutions under new or toughened anti-terror laws, often passed at the urging and with the funding of the West. Before 9/11, just a few hundred people were convicted of terrorism each year.+The sheer volume of convictions, along with almost 120,000 arrests, shows how a keen global awareness of terrorism has seeped into societies, and how the war against it is shifting to the courts.+But it also suggests that dozens of countries are using the fight against terrorism to curb dissent and throw political opponents in jail.- Associated Press News Agency Special Report, 3rd September 2011.
The AP used freedom of information queries in dozens of countries, law enforcement data and hundreds of interviews to identify 119,044 arrests of terrorism suspects and 35,117 convictions in 66 countries, accounting for 70 percent of the world's population. The actual numbers undoubtedly run higher because some countries refused to provide information. That included 2,934 arrests and 2,568 convictions in the United States, which led the war on terror - eight times more than in the decade before.- Associated Press News Agency Special Report, 3rd September 2011.
The report goes onto outline and reveal how the so-called War on Terror has injected itself into judicial systems around the world and has acted to harmonise anti-terror legislation internationally:
After 9/11 the U.S. and the U.N. declared war not just on al-Qa'ida, but on terrorism worldwide. The U.N. immediately sent millions of dollars in foreign aid and lucrative contracts to press countries to adopt or revise their anti-terror laws. The term "global war on terror" was born. Since then, almost every country has passed new or revised anti-terror laws, from tiny nations like Tonga and Luxembourg to giants like China.- Associated Press News Agency Special Report, 3rd September 2011.
As can be seen from this research into the welter of legislative legal devices now operating in dozens of countries around the world in service to the so-called War on Terror, arrests and convictions for terrorism related offences have increased dramatically as a direct result of US foreign policy being enacted by proxy through the United Nations. In tandem with this global enactment of synchronised 'policy' legislation, large scale funding has been put forward to aid countries to introduce this legislation into their own judicial systems, a fact that has led to arrests for threats of violence, actual violence, protest, civil disorder, dissent, separatism and even dissemination of ideas and motives at odds with local and regional political diktat. As a direct result, the number of offences committed in relation to terrorism offences has substantially increased globally as has the reporting of those arrests and convictions, predominantly within the domestic media of the United States and her allies.
Financial Collapse of the antagonists.
Of those nations excessively involved with the prosecution of the so-called War on Terror, every last one stands close to financial ruin or has seen the episodic collapse or disruption of their internal financial systems. In many cases, severe or chronic debt now exists where previously healthy balance of payments existed. In January 2010, US President Barack Obama claimed that the value of monetary relief notes given over to the US banking system had been recovered 15 after the sudden de-stabilisation of its internal markets in 2008, and that the United States was in a position to accelerate away from its internal economic problems and into a post-crisis period of economic growth and re-stabilisation. In August 2011, the United States international 'credit-rating' was downgraded 16 after its legislative houses failed to approve adequate measures to overcome chronic domestic unemployment, severe deficit in public spending and its loss of control of domestic interest rate and inflation rate markers.
In the United Kingdom, the Bank of England remains in a state of paralysis unable to make any changes to the nations internal interest rate markers with its underlying rate of interest set at 0.5% for 29 consecutive months 17 in a row. From the second quarter of 2008 to the third quarter of 2009, total losses to UK GDP (Gross Domestic Product) were 7.1 percent. From the fourth quarter of 2009 to quarter two of 2011, total gains were 3.2 percent, leaving the UK economy 3.9 percent short of the total losses incurred as a result of the financial collapse of markets in the later part of 2008. This indicates that if the UK domestic economy recovers at a steady rate of 0.5 percent from the third quarter of 2011, the British economy will not fully recover its losses until September 2013. The United Kingdom continues to suffer a stagnant unemployment rate of 7.8% of its labour force, stagnant interest rate markers and a concurrent with unemployment inflation rate stagnation of 4.4% 18.
The War on Terror and ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka.
After 25 years of civil war in Sri Lanka, and after the Tsunami of 2005 had reduced Sri Lanka to something approaching a failed state. Mahinda Rajapaksa, the nationalist leader of the Sinhala majority came to power as President of the small island nation. He immediately set about building his own domestic re-enactment of a localised War on Terror. He set about a policy of arms proliferation and set his nationalist cadres on the road to persecution of the Tamil minority who were engaged in their separatist fight in the North of the Island of Sri Lanka. Over the coming years, tensions between the government and the Tamil separatists were encouraged and all the while, the Sri Lankan military were fed weapons and stories of hatred about the Tamils. Over the course of the following 3 years, the Sri Lanka military government took control of much of the population in the south of Sri Lanka and begun a policy of fighting its own so-called War on Terror. Specific to this policy was removal of all foreign media from the north of the island, closing of all vehicles that might affect humanitarian aid, the seeking of international consensus to prosecute an extreme policy of nationalist violence against the Tamils and their leadership, along with concurrent fabricating assurances from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) 19 to deliver aid and assistance to the government to remunerate its expenses after the operation had concluded.
Throughout 2009, Sinhala forces loyal to the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) carried out sweeping human rights abuses throughout the Island and engaged, with the full consent of the government, in atrocities against men, women and children. They pushed forward against the Tamil defences with little or no concern for the loss of life and throughout the campaign, dealt with those who had been captured, by stripping them naked, binding their hands behind their backs, and executing them at point blank range with high calibre rifles 20. During the summer of 2009, as many as 1500 Tamils were dying on the island per day. Sexual assaults, rapes, murder, child abuse and defilement of corpses were routinely engaged in by the GoSL. Throughout the north of the island, the bodies mounted up and mass graves were identified by overhead satellite's especially moved into place to take the place of international observers that were absent.
The Sri Lankan government operated a sophisticated policy of media control throughout the campaign often sending its cadres into the foreign media environment to sow disinformation and false reports that would deflect attention away from the violence they were undertaking toward the object of their enmity, the Tamils. A key part of that campaign, and a key characteristic of the wider so-called War on Terror, was taking control of the online environment in order to disrupt, derail and hamper criticism of Sri Lanka and its government while these atrocities were in motion. This 'media' war ran alongside the conduct of its nationalist supporters on the ground who engaged in the spreading of disinformation at street level in order to proscribe and demonise 21 the Tamils and their supporters in amongst the Sinhala community. In the immediate lead-up to the worst of the violence, Sinhala agents and nationalist supporters engaged in attacks against their own citizens in order to fabricate the demonisation of the Tamils in the north.
During the military campaign waged by nationalist forces of Rajapaksa, many Tamils were subject to a propaganda war and were encouraged to leave the Tamil leadership and move toward safe-havens set up by nationalist forces. When they arrived, they were immediately shelled with heavy weaponry.
The so-called War on Terror becomes the "Overseas Contingency Operation".
Throughout the penultimate period of the so-called War on Terror, attempts have been made globally to reverse its effects and lessen the 'proscriptive' elements contained within it. After the election of the US President, Barack Obama in 2009, the United States carried out a re-branding exercise in which the so-called War on Terror was renamed the "Overseas Contingency Operation" 22. However, the fundamental properties of the so-called War on Terror remain in place including 'proscription', targeting of political groups according to the ideology of terrorism and domestic reporting 'impudence' at home targeted against the domestic populations of those nations engaged in its prosecution.
In 2011, the US President gave a press conference claiming that US forces had successfully entered Pakistan airspace and flown to Abbotabad province just north of Islamabad. The soldiers arrived at the scene and, according to the US President, entered a private residence finding and killing Osama Bin Laden. The operation to kill the Mujahedin leader ended with a ceremony in accordance with Islam to prepare the body for burial. The President then claimed the body of Bin Laden was flown south to the Arabian gulf, where the body was dumped into the ocean. Despite the obvious need for the United States to offer proof of the death, the United States failed to provide evidence of Bin Laden's death.
During the operation a number of people in the private residence were killed with gunshot wounds to the heads or backs and a helicopter being used by the US crashed after colliding with a low perimeter wall adjacent to the compound.
The United States and her allies continue to fabricate and manufacture domestic and foreign threats and criminal operations carried out by local law enforcement operatives continue to be coached in terms of threats to the national security. The United States and her allies continue to remain deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2011, attempts to qualify the re-branding of the so-called War on Terror by re-pointing its ideology toward 'humanitarian intervention' began.
In the earlier part of 2011, Libya began to experience domestic subversion and protests against the Ghaddafi (also Khaddafi) regime originating from internal nationalist movements determined to rid the country of the ruling elite. Over the course of the middle part of 2011, the United Kingdom and the United States along with France, began to press for aid and assistance to the rebels and once again approached the UN for legislative assistance to proscribe the Ghaddafi regime in order to mandate military deployment of NATO forces into Libya. The resultant UN motion permitted NATO to retard Libya's internal military by the use of overhead airborne military action. As a result, the rebels were able to successfully receive into their ranks externally supplied military supplies, and were therefore able to deploy that hardware unimpeded by local government forces. Over the course of the following months, the rebel forces were able to make sufficient territorial gains and finally entered Tripoli, the nations capital, in August 2011. As the rebels arrived, the bodies of Ghaddafi's so-called victims began to mount up in the streets. A large number of migrant workers from the surrounding African nations were hunted down by the rebels and killed, tortured or expelled as claimed mercenaries operating in league with the government. Among the carnage, and away from the limelight of the international media, the military commander of the rebel forces slipped into the city.
Abdel Hakim Belhadj 23, a former Mujahedin fighting in Afghanistan, arrived in Tripoli at the head of the rebel forces and effectively took de-facto control of the city.
Libya is a nation with moderate oil reserves amounting to around 2% of world production. While the reserves do not constitute sufficient quantity to sell in trade on the open market to raise usable revenue, 2% 24 is enough to have an impact on the global price of oil. Small quantities of a commodity sold in open market at less than the market price, can have the effect of 'classifying' prices in line with the 'market-leader'. By such measures, are depressed economies enlivened.
The end of the so-called War on Terror.
As can be seen throughout this entire decade, the nations of the United Kingdom and the United States have persecuted a war against terrorism, in order to prosecute a war for resources. Throughout this conflict, the UK and US have continually deployed their military into resource rich nations around the world in pursuit of Al Qa'ida. The welter of legislative 'anti-terrorism' provisions dropped onto the civilian populations around the world by governments in league with the foreign policy initiatives of the United States has not been to curb the effects of Al Qa'ida, but to sterilise domestic resistance to the resource wars the US and UK are embroiled in. Wherever the United States goes, there ahead of it is the ghost-like Al Qa'ida and ahead of it, is oil, gas and the pipelines and instrumentation of their supply and distribution.
Throughout, a psychological spectre has stalked not only the peoples of those countries invaded and exposed to the violence of occupation, but here in the home of the west, it has been used relentlessly against the domestic populace to exaggerate and inflate the dangers we face from an enemy that is stateless, unquantifiable and distant at all times. In the United Kingdom, explanation after explanation has been given to justify the adventure not on the back of the sound and cogent language of international diplomacy, but by the ethnic-religious perversions of populist grandees fundamentally contemptuous of our collective capacity to reason.
A practice fundamentally at odds with the motives of the collective British and American people in an age in which, for the first time in our history, we are collectively and technologically aware of our governments motives through the medium of international electronic communications. Those same communication channels have laid bare the fundamentally contrived nature of this conflict in providing for a retaliatory environment in which the United States has been able to respond to the attacks in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania on September 11th 2001. In larger part, the people of the United States have always required an 'enemy' to fight against and have required this domestic enmity to be supplied in a world in which, for many, pan-regional conflict is neither desirable, or any longer possible. In providing for this malevolent politic, both the United States and British government have cleverly used the tools of state to fabricate on the one hand the voluntary slaughter of almost a third of a million innocents, but have arranged its forces and strategic deployments around the world in resource rich regions under which, US and British corporations have been able to thrive.
A decade after it began, the so-called War on Terror is in a state of momentary stasis brought about by the financial hardships of monetary collapse of sovereign wealth. Within 18 months, that stasis will pass and once again, the United States and her allies will push forward with disjointed foreign policy decisions based on tactical insertion of US and UK self-interest into the affairs of other nations around the world in order to prop up failing and ideologically static economies. The so-called War on Terror is not over, but will become the standard political imprint for an entirely new generation of western desperado's.
The so-called War on Terror, is now a permanent fixture on the political map of the west, and will undoubtedly lead to its eventual military presentation against a future coalition of those nations looking for the right circumstances in which to reveal themselves on the international stage. For us in the west, the so-called War on Terror is a template for decline, artificially accelerated using those qualities within us for which we have no natural, ideological, political or faith-based defence