Is the CIA on a leash regarding Benghazi?

One would probably do a double-take thinking of the Barack Obama administration intimidating the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi, when the consulate was attacked.

From this report — welcome, CNN, to the world of tough questions instead of the toeing-the-establishment-line — it seems there is a huge secret and all the agents who were there that night are subjected to polygraph tests, to ensure they do not leak out any information to the media.

You will watch this clip, but the threat is not small. They are worried about their families, they know they cannot get away.

And they are not even Edward Snowden, who had access to so much more.



---

In September, 2012, I had written this:

»Can you imagine Libyan pro-democracy group overtaking the headquarters of an extremist organisation, that too to protest against the killings at the American Consulate? This is what happened in Benghazi against the Ansar al-Sharia:

"Thousands of protesters took to the street earlier on Friday, declaring loudly that they represent the real sentiments of the Libyan people, not those who were behind the deadly attack 10 days ago, reports CNN. One man stated: 'I am sorry America. This is the real Libya'.”

At first I was baffled and elated by turns. It sounds nice. In many ways, it is. But, is this the real Libya? Can we forget that the anti-Gaddafi rebels were looting property and striking poses in his and his family’s homes, making a mockery of the democracy they were claiming as their own?

This is probably to gain international attention. The signs read: “The ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya lost a friend.” Christopher Stevens was known to be a good person. However, the United States at one time was quite comfortable with Col. Gaddafi. They, too, were friends, although he was friendlier with others.«

---

Given what's happening with the CIA, one wonders whether it is not just a civil war in Libya after all.

Libya syncing

Can you imagine Libyan pro-democracy group overtaking the headquarters of an extremist organisation, that too to protest against the killings at the American Consulate? This is what happened in Benghazi against the Ansar al-Sharia:

Thousands of protesters took to the street earlier on Friday, declaring loudly that they represent the real sentiments of the Libyan people, not those who were behind the deadly attack 10 days ago, reports CNN. One man stated: “I am sorry America. This is the real Libya.”

At first I was baffled and elated by turns. It sounds nice. In many ways, it is. But, is this the real Libya? Can we forget that the anti-Gaddafi rebels were looting property and striking poses in his and his family’s homes, making a mockery of the democracy they were claiming as their own?

This is probably to gain international attention. The signs read: “The ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya lost a friend.” Christopher Stevens was known to be a good person. However, the United States at one time was quite comfortable with Col. Gaddafi. They, too, were friends, although he was friendlier with others.

The report has thrown up one interesting fact, though:

Tribal leaders are the strongest social force in the country and have come forward to demand that the militias disband. Tribal leaders in Benghazi and Darna even announced this week that members of their tribes who are also militiamen will not have protection from the tribes when faced with anti-militia protests, meaning the tribe will not avenge them if they die.

And they say the civil war is over in Libya…

Libya's Poster Girl

Nisreen in Gaddafi's army

It was only a matter of time before Libya found a totem. The psychological semantics are beautifully laid out. A 19-year-old girl. Attractive. Murderer? Victim? The shadow-play is potent.

Libyan’s leader Muammar Gaddafi always had a female army alongside the traditional male one. So, what sets Nisreen Mansour al Forgani apart? Have the rebels not taken others captive, those who massacred the dissident forces? Why do all such movements feel the need to use such ‘human shields’ to drive home a point that is ironically against the debasement of the human used as shield to prop up dictatorial regimes?

It is essentially the idea of “Gaddafi's girl executioner” that has the appeal of bondage. It is essentially vicarious. Her being shackled to a bed now is a wry comment on how both sides will use an individual, especially if she happens to be an eyeball-grabbing young woman.

The rebels have taken her after she killed 11 of them, many at point-blank range. Her story, as recounted now, is about a girl who enjoyed “dance music”, which the media seems to emphasise, quite forgetting that in Gaddafi’s Libya it was not forbidden. The leader himself was given to many pleasures.

Nisreen who lived with her mother was initiated into the army by Fatma. Besides training in guns, she was also sent off by the lady to a room where military officers raped her and other young women. So, why is Fatma not being held out as the ugly face of the regime? The rebels will make the most of Nisreen. The gut-wrenching account will be for an international audience as they too like to put their best victims out.

Nisreen recounts about Fatma: “She told me that if my mother said something against Gaddafi that I should immediately kill her. If I said anything about the leader that she did not like I would be beaten and locked in my room. She also told us that if the rebels came, they would rape us.”

The rebels did not sexually exploit her, but she is being flashed around in the media. There is pity for her as she gives the details: “The rebel prisoners were tied up and kept under a tree outside. Then one by one they were brought up to the room. There were three Gaddafi volunteers with guns also in the room. They told me that if I didn’t kill the prisoners then they would kill me.”

Wasn’t she trained as a sniper? What did she expect? Weren’t most of the rebels people who opposed the regime? There were many who supported Gaddafi right until the revolution. It is a bit hard to digest that Nisreen now says her family were not supporters of the Gaddafi regime. Are these her political views? What is the genesis of it?

Was she forced to do it, or is she now claiming to be anti-Gaddafi because she fears the rebels who took her prisoner? “I told them (the rebels) what I did. They are angry. I do not know what will happen to me now.”

This is the crux. No one quite knows. If many who followed Gaddafi’s laws had been forced into doing so, then they were victims as well. Do the rebels then have the right to hold them responsible? How will the alternative powers deal with these contradictions?

In a rather macabre conversation, a rebel fighter asked her, “Do you pray?” She said she used to.

“What time of day did you kill them?”

“In the mornings.”

The rebels?

Are the rebels going to base their decision on her devotion? What does the fact that she “used to” pray convey – that she has lost faith, or that she cannot do so physically now? Is the timing important for religious reasons?

The rebels seem to be on a trip of their own. It happened with Nida in Iran, a martyr by default. It will happen with Nisreen. Where did they get the photograph of her before being tied to the hospital bed from? There are others of her weeping. These will be flaunted as part of the victory over Tripoli. The rubble from Gaddafi’s mansion with its joy rides and zoo don’t work as well as a young woman killer in tears.

Manmohan Singh's Soft Stance

They talk about the second independence. It is really another partition of the country – a partition that will last until the next popcorn episode of the soap opera.

Sonia would have handled it with greater maturity, are the whispers doing the rounds. The Hazare cabal is giving us titbits about which minister is more “pliable” and it is supposed to be a good thing. We, who complain about lack of spine in our leaders, now want them to bend over backwards.

This push-the-buttons sort of democracy is detrimental, and now we have sheer desperation:

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday paid fulsome tribute to anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare, calling him the embodiment of “our people’s disgust and concern about tackling corruption” while defending his own record by inviting the opposition to scrutinize properties he or his family members had acquired in his 40-odd years in public life.

No, Sir, he is not. Where was he when Bofors happened? Would the PM say the same thing had he raised that bogey? The people involved here are not disgusted with corruption but how they cannot get their way despite it being around. Big businesses have thrived on corruption – getting permits for their industrial units that they know will go beyond the limit allocated. These corporate houses have the most corrupt practices going on. Newspapers that take money to splash photographs are joining the crusade. Doctors, lawyers, teachers who give ‘extra tuitions’ often transact with cash – does anyone know how much of it is accounted for? And these are the ‘angry people’.

Why should the leader of the largest democracy have to kowtow to an individual? And why is he “hurt” over his reputation being sullied by a bunch of performers? These are ‘non-state actors’. Why was the PM not concerned when there were misdemeanours committed earlier?

“In the course of seven years as prime minister, I may have made mistakes. Who is above making mistakes? To err is human but to accuse me of evil intentions, of conniving at corruption is a charge I firmly repudiate.”

Fine. But as the prime minister, it is not only about him. It is about the whole system, and that includes the sabre-rattlers at the Ramlila grounds. Manmohan Singh has erred by not acting on several occasions. So, why this need to act now, and for whom?

“I respect his idealism. I respect him as an individual. I applaud him, I salute him. His life is much too precious and therefore, I would urge Anna Hazare to end his fast.”

What a sorry comment. There is much of this in op-eds, and I wish people would just say it. Anna Hazare’s movement is opportunistic, and an arrogant one at that. It is being marketed as idealism only because people are gathering around. Every life is precious. As the PM he should be concerned about the many unnecessary deaths due to basic lack of health facilities, due to the heinous crimes committed in the name of religion and honour, due to patriarchal attitudes, due to quiet deaths in prisons. If anything, this shows that those people are not corrupt enough to bribe their way to avoid death by torture. What does the PM have to say about it?

Nothing. Instead we get this:

“…in the two-and-a-half years that is left to us, we will do everything in our power to clean the system of this country.”

Besides being an absolutely ridiculous statement, he appears to be making himself answerable to a group of people who have not fought an election. Does anyone have details about the ‘aides’ – who they are, their source of income, their past record, their future plans?

One of the reasons our PM is trying to work this out is that his constituency is largely made up for these people. The educated, the ‘sensible’ middle clsss and the ‘sensitive’ rich. When was the last time you heard about the small grocer, the farmer, the cobbler bribing anyone?

Has anyone seen the ad for some chips where there is a rally and spotting a pretty girl Saif Ali Khan goes up to her and says, “Candle-light vigil ke baad candle-light dinner?” She is charmed by his munchies. They go crunch-crunch together. The poor ad agency must have thought it was doing a public service campaign, but it has revealed the true nature of this hollow movement’s exclusivist nature.

If it is fairly certain this government does not have a chance, has anyone thought about the alternatives? Will the Bill be written in stone and apply to subsequent governments? Is there any guarantee they will not tamper with it?

Manmohan Singh may want to leave with some glory, but he should do it by standing up for the democratic process as is constitutionally established and not under pressure from an unrecognised group.  It is time he gave statesmanship a chance instead of sticking to good old politicking. (He is not seen as such, but that is the Myth of Manmohan Singh: The Follower as Leader I wrote about.) Even the media heroes are making noises about how while Anna is fasting others are having badaam-pista. So? Are these anchors starving?

And for those who have compared this to the Arab Spring, look at these pictures after Muammar Gaddafi’s mansion in Tripoli was destroyed.

Is this what we want? Or is this already happening without the fire? ‘Rebels’ kicking footballs and posing for pictures with statues?

'Trump'eting and 'Singh'ing

Donald Trump loves America so much that he wants Libya. And China too if he could get past the noodles and fake Rolexes. There was a time when many wanted Donald Trump. Today, in his respectable avatar as a “serious” Republican candidate, he is making rather outrageous comments. No, I don’t have a problem when he says, “this country is a laughing stock throughout the world”, for he assumes that the United States has got the power and ought to use it not to better itself but to get the better of others.

It is his rather facile attitude that makes one wonder what all the fuss is about Sarah Palin.


On Libya

“Look at Libya. Look at this mess. We go in, we don't go in, he shouldn't be removed, we don't want to remove him, we don't want to touch him, but he should be removed. Nobody knows what they're doing on Kadhafi. I'd do one thing. Either I'd go in and take the oil or I don't go in at all. In the old days, when you have a war and you win, that nation is yours."

I am tempted to at least accept his upfront stance. Nobody asked the American administration to go to Libya in the first place. If anyone has to do anything to or with Col. Muammar Gaddafi it is the other political leaders and how the people decide to act. He is pummelling them, but the situation would have been not as bad without outside interference.

Trump has inadvertently revealed that it is all about oil and not to save the poor citizens. Talking about the old days, he need not go very far back in time to figure out that the US went to war with countries it had no skirmishes with. It just landed up there when two other countries or two factions within a country were fighting, or of course to look for weapons of mass destruction or to find a man in a cave or a caveman. None of these qualify as victories because the local people have been most affected. And none of these nations belongs to America even after the ‘win’.


On China

“If you look at what China is doing, they're stealing our jobs, they're taking our money. They're then loaning our money back. It's amazing. They're making all of our products. They are also manipulating the currency that makes it almost impossible for our companies to compete with China.”

China is, undoubtedly, a canny competitor. But the jobs have not been stolen. It was the US that decided to outsource jobs to get cheap labour. If China is manipulating currency and doing a trade yo-yo, then it is merely using sharp business tactics. The US economy has suffered due to the jugglery of its own companies and the policies of the government. Naturally, foreign investors will move to where they get returns. China is not taking American money, unless Americans are choosing to invest there.

And what American products are being made by China? They manufacture cheap stuff of their own or imitations of Swiss watches, German gadgets, Italian mosaic work and even Indian artefacts. Ever heard about Chinese American apple pie? Or Apple?

- - -

Another case of putting the carriage under the horse is Indian PM, Manmohan Singh.

On five things he’d like to achieve with relations to Pakistan:

“Five would be too much. Well, if I can succeed in normalizing relations between India and Pakistan, as they should prevail between two normal states, I will consider my job well done.”

He cannot mention five things and then he wants normalcy. What is normal about these two countries individually, anyway? How would he define it when there are separatist movements all around? What is the yardstick for normal states to be considered normal vis-à-vis each other?

Such obfuscation is not new, but it would have been way better had he mentioned five specific things, even if he said cricket or sweets or films or exchange of camels, because he would certainly not talk about defence issues, Jammu and Kashmir, nuclearisation, prisoners, infiltration, Headley, Rana, Kasab, Raw, ISI. Nope.

So, how do we achieve this normal state between two normal states when the real issues are not addressed? I understand that on a flight to Kazakhstan, where the query was posed, it might not be prudent to go into details, but we have been in denial or employ dithering tactics.

And dear Mr. Prime Minister, this is about India and not you and how “well done” your job is. Is it at stake or is it steak?

Libya, Bahrain and shifting sands

Muammar Gaddafi talking about a holy war is like someone selling halal pork. The Libyan leader is desperate. In a single interview he shifts from “our war is against al-Qaida” to “if they (the West) behave with us as they did in Iraq, then Libya will leave the international alliance against terrorism. We will then ally ourselves with al-Qaida and declare a holy war”.

It isn’t a threat. The al-Qaeda will probably pamper him for a while, but will kick his butt soon. Also, there is no uniform international alliance against terrorism, not unless you snort something that makes you hallucinate. However, his comments should make it clear that there was too much of a rush to declare the Arab revolt a revolution. The initial silence of the West was a flashing neon light. It was like watching dogs fight inside the kennel. The guns are out with greater force. I had written last month:

This would give and has given the military more powers than it ever had, and it is pertinent to note that some of these ousted leaders have had army training and experience themselves. Therefore, the people’s protest has given way to a sneaky military coup or waiting-in-the-wings mullahs. Who will benefit the most from these ‘stopgap’ regimes? Any die-hard conspiracy theorist will tell you that it is the West, mainly the US.

Gaddafi knows what he is doing even if he may turn out to be the pawn in the game.

Now Bahrain, where the poverty paradigm of rebellion does not quite work, has the majority Shias fighting the Sunni establishment. The reason is entirely different. Yet, it is being clubbed together with the rest. The country’s defence forces have taken over with the tacit help of friendly allies like Saudi Arabia (so much for one Arab world) and the US.

Will Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Yemen come to the rescue? No. They won’t and they can’t. They are still fighting their battles after the war. Commentators who went to town about “overthrowing despots in the Great Revolt” are now writing about “the fissures”.

It is even beyond fissures. Again, from my piece:

What will any of these movements achieve besides dethroning the atrophied who even denied people any coherent contemporary history, except as an ode to themselves?

I do not wallow in any cynicism I expressed but as outsiders we need to understand that even when Humpty Dumpty has a great fall, it will remain a smelly eggshell.

Courting Quattrocchi

Well-covered?

The Indian courts are getting too smart for their own good. Or plain cocky. The chief metropolitan magistrate Vinod Yadav of the Delhi court has agreed to the CBI’s plea to withdraw the prosecution against Ottavio Quattrocchi, the controversial Italian under the scanner in the Bofors kickbacks deal.
Is it shocking? No. There was no way the proceedings in this case would indict the man; he has strong political links. However, the manner in which the judgement was pronounced leaves one wondering about how the judiciary perceives such gross acts.

Instead of making the authorities answerable for the dilly-dallying that has been going on for 24 years and has cost Rs 250 crore, the judge said:

“Can we allow this hardearned money of the aam aadmi (common man) to be spent on these types of proceedings which are not going to do any good to them after almost 25 years of the so-called arms deal? The answer will be a big no.”

Your honour, with due respect, I submit:

• How can you answer of behalf of the aam aadmi?

• Where are the courts when such hard-earned money is wasted on other cases – will this set a precedent to close them too because the common man’s money is being used up?

• If the question is about what good it will do to the common man, then we may ask the same about murders, rapes, corrupt deals, scams, property disputes, everything possible where except for the people involved – the criminals and the victims – the judgement may not have any tangible impact on the rest of us.

• On what grounds can you use a term like “so-called arms deal” when Bofors is an arms deal, irrespective of the kickbacks? And weapons are used to defend the country and its citizens, isn’t it? Or do you believe it is for political purposes?

• The case has dragged on for all these years and the CBI says it has not succeeded in extraditing Quattrocchi from Malaysia and Argentina. He was not born there or lived there in the early stages of the probe; in fact, he visited India. Where were the people in charge then? Why did the CBI spend Rs. 40 lakh on just one attempt?

It is easy to close cases, but please do not cite the aam aadmi. The person in the street probably does not fall within the tax bracket, anyway. Those who do are also paying for the upkeep of public services, and that includes the judiciary. We expect it to act. The Bofors deal was worth Rs. 64 crores but you cannot argue the quadrupled amount that the case has incurred is not worth it. Today it would be worth much more.

Besides, justice is not about the price trying a crime entails. It is about making the people involved answerable. Give us value for money, if you will.

- - -


End Note:

There are no surprises that Col. Muammar Gaddafi would be flamboyant in the face of rebellion. It is amazing, though, that while seeking India’s support for his aggressive response to the civil war in Libya, he has told prime minister Manmohan Singh that what he is doing in his country is akin to what India is doing in Kashmir. After this, he expects support? Had there not been such a bloody trail in Libya one would find his brashness truly hilarious.