[Peace-discuss] The OMG administration plays double game?

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Obama/Ms. Clinton/Gates play a double game to contine US control in MENA 
(Mideat/N. Africa). The following is from Craig Murray, former British 
ambassador to Uzbekistan, who was fired for criticizing torture in the Karimov 
regime. --CGE]

The Invasion of Bahrain
by craig on March 14, 2011

A senior diplomat in a western mission to the UN in New York, who I have known 
over ten years and trust, has told me for sure that Hillary Clinton agreed to 
the cross-border use of troops to crush democracy in the Gulf, as a quid pro quo 
for the Arab League calling for Western intervention in Libya.

The hideous King of Bahrain has called in troops from Saudi Arabia, UAE and 
Kuwait to attack pro-democracy protestors in Bahrain.

Can you imagine the outrage if Gadaffi now called in the armies of Chad. Mali 
and Burkina Faso to attack the rebels in Ben Ghazi?

But do you think that those in power, who rightly condemn Gadaffi’s apparent use 
of foreign mercenaries, will condemn this use of foreign military power by oil 
sheiks to crush majority protestors in Bahrain? Of course they won’t. We just 
had Sky News rationalising it by telling us that the Gulf Cooperation Council 
have a military alliance that a state can call in help if attacked. But that 
does not mean attacked by its own, incidentally unarmed, people. NATO is a 
military alliance. It does not mean Cameron could call in US troops to gun down 
tuition fees protestors in Parliament Square.

This dreadful outrage by the Arab sheikhs will be swallowed silently by the West 
because they are “our” bastards, they host our troops and they buy our weapons.

I do hope this latest development will open the eyes of those duped into 
supporting western intervention in Libya, who believe those who control the 
western armies are motivated by humanitarian concern. Bahrain already had 
foreign forces in it – notably the US fifth fleet. Do you think that Clinton and 
Obama will threaten that they will intervene if foreign armies are let loose on 
pro-democracy demonstrators? No they won’t.

Whether this will have any effect on the railroading of public opinion behind 
military intervention in Libya remains to be seen. I am fascinated to hear, for 
example, whether Ming Campbell and Phillippe Sands, who wrote of Our Duty To 
Protect The Libyan People, also believe we have a duty to pro-democracy 
demonstrators in Bahrain to protect them from attack by foreign forces.

We know from Iraq and Afghanistan, Serbia, Lebanon and Gaza that the “collateral 
damage” from the initial bombing of Libyan air defences will kill more people 
than are dying already in the terrible situation in Libya. While a no-fly zone 
would help rebel morale, most of the actual damage rebels are sustaining is from 
heavy artillery; without a no tank, no artillery and no gunboat zone, a no-fly 
zone will not in itself tip the military balance.

It appears that getting rid of Gadaffi may be a longer slog than we would like, 
but an attempt at a quick fix will lead to another Iraq, and give him an 
undeserved patriotic mantle. It was former UK Ambassador to Libya, Oliver Miles 
who said western military intervention in Libya should be avoided above all 
because of the law of unintended consequences. One consequence has happened 
already, unintended by the liberals who fell in behind the calls for military 
attacks on Gadaffi. They helped cause the foreign military suppression of 
democracy in Bahrain. For Clinton and Obama, it is a win-win forwarding US 
foreign policy on both Libya and the Gulf, where they don’t want democracy.

People of good heart should weep.


Link:
<http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/03/the-invasion-of-bahrain/>