During a severe protest against anti-Islam Movie, a provoked mob attacked on the US mission in Benghazi, exactly on the day of September 11, an anniversary day of 9/11, in which four Americans, including ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a high level meeting convened by Ban Ki-Moon, appeared to suggest for the first time that militants close to al-Qaeda were linked to an attack on a US mission in Libya. She also warned that vast desert area was becoming a powder keg with militants moving into the lawless area and creating instability.
Were Americans so innocent, they did not know, the rebel groups they were supporting, also enjoying the support from al-Qaeda? OR are they now pretending so to mislead the World just as a strategy to proceed further with their Geo-Political and Economical goals in North Africa? Both questions give a lot of stuff to discuss in the context of situation prevailing in post-Qaddafi Libya and a statement of a Senior State Department official saying “Don’t read more into what the secretary said than she actually said, What she actually said is that al-Qaeda in the Maghreb is working with other violent extremists to try to undermine democratic transitions under way in Africa”.
It’s now a general opinion that US-led NATO campaign in Libya was and is all about Oil simply to have a control over export of oil from Africa to Asia and particularly to China. To move on discussion, it’s necessary to understand why the fall of Gaddafi was necessary for NATO?
As a well-known fact, Qaddafi, an adherent of Arab Socialism, spent oil revenue on public welfare. Health and Education were free. Each Libyan family was granted amount of $50,000 for buying a new house. All bank loans were interest free. Libya was a debt free country. NATO intelligence operatives used opposition tribes and engaged militants from surrounding states by spending heavy financial resources to penetrate into main Libyan cities and start violence, protest and egging on people against government. NATO strengthened those militants and tribes financially and also weaponised them to combat on government. NATO also supported them through air strikes on cities to shake relation of Qaddafi with his people. Qaddafi was never ever a threat or trouble person for West or America. His luxurious life style proved him a “liberal” person far away from any religious extremism. Then why NATO targeted him? The Secret plan, according to strategic experts, keeping up an eye on NATO campaign in Libya, was to move on next phase leading to a futuristic naval blockade of vital raw material sources across Northern Africa to new rising regional powers in Asia. Qaddafi’s special favor and ideological inclination toward China and Russia were the major hurdles to West so they allegedly thought to use new phenomena of terrorism and terrorist forces against Qaddafi who also indicated several times that rebels against him were actually al-Qaeda backed forces brought by NATO in the name of Democracy against his government but nobody in World then listened and believed him.
NATO deliberately provided space to militants to make Libya their stronghold despite knowing that those militants might have strong back and support from al-Qaeda and other regional terrorist groups. Who can now stop anybody saying that militants in Libya and NATO are allies who helped each other to get rid of Qaddafi?
If Hillary Clinton is showing concern “Now with a larger safe haven, and increased freedom for maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions” then only America and NATO could be held responsible. If militants in Libya are undermining “democratic transitions” under way in Africa then it means NATO has lost control over rebels. Their operation in Libya has not only destroyed Libya but also made another stronghold for militants along side Afghanistan. Ms. Clinton’s statement has left behind at least two questions for entire World to think about…. Is US concern over Libya a serious threat and preparation of another military deployment? OR Is it merely a diplomatic move to get advantage of situation and to frighten and control Northern Africa after Afghanistan?