WHEN it comes to overseas interventions, decades of history have shown that the stated intents of the US Army are never its real intents. The real intent is never to save humans, but always to save profits and power. US-NATO interventions do not save. They kill.
US-led interventions since the beginning of the century have killed hundreds of thousands, if not over a million innocent people. As The Guardian noted in February 2014, “at least 21 000 civilians [were] estimated to have died violent deaths as a result of the war in Afghanistan”. As for Iraq, by May 2014 “at least 133 000 civilians [were] killed by direct violence since the invasion.”
As for Libya, the mainstream media first lied about the fact that Gaddafi initiated the violence by attacking peaceful protesters, a false narrative intended to demonise Gaddafi and galvanise public opinion in favour of yet another military intervention. The biggest misconception about NATO’s intervention is that it saved lives and benefited Libya and its neighbors. In reality, when NATO intervened in mid-March 2011, Gaddafi already had regained control of most of Libya, while the rebels were retreating rapidly toward Egypt. By intervening, NATO enabled the rebels to resume their attack, which prolonged the war for another seven months and caused at least 7 000 more deaths.
Despite these figures, the media will once again try to convince us that what the world needs most at the moment is to get rid of the terrorist groups. The Guardian reported back in November 2014: The Global Terrorism Index recorded almost 18,000 deaths last year, a jump of about 60% over the previous year. Four groups were responsible for most of them: Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq and Syria; Boko Haram in Nigeria; the Taliban in Afghanistan; and al-Qaida in various parts of the world; al-Shaabab in Somalia.
What the Guardian fails to mention is that all these groups, including Boko Haram and the Islamic State, have been, in one way or another, armed, trained and financed by the US-NATO alliance and their allies in the Middle East.
Thanks to the covert support of Western countries, arms dealers and bankers profiting from killing and destruction, the war on terror is alive and well. The West advocates for endless military interventions, pretending to ignore the real causes of terrorism and the reason why it expands, hiding its role in it and thereby clearly showing its real intent: fuelling terrorism to destabilise and destroy nations, thus justifying military invasion and achieving their conquest of the African continent’s richest lands under the pretext of saving the world from terror.
In the shadows of what was once called the ‘dark continent’, a scramble has come and gone. If you heard nothing about it, that was by design. But look hard enough and you’ll find the fruits of that effort: a network of bases, compounds, and other sites whose sum total exceeds the number of nations on the continent.
So how many US military bases are there in Africa? For years, US Africa Command (AFRICOM) gave a stock response: one, meaning Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. But it isn’t true, of course, because there are camps, compounds, installations, and facilities elsewhere, but the military leaned hard on semantics.
Research by TomDispatch indicates that in recent years the US military has, in fact, developed a remarkably extensive network of more than 60 outposts and access points in Africa. Some are currently being utilised, some are held in reserve, and some may be shuttered. These bases, camps, compounds, port facilities, fuel bunkers, and other sites can be found in at least 34 countries – more than 60% of the nations on the continent.
“There’s going to be a network of small bases with maybe a couple of medium-altitude, long-endurance drones at each one, so that anywhere on the continent is always within range,” says the Oxford Research Group’s Richard Reeve. In many ways, he notes, this has already begun almost everywhere in Africa.
The Obama administration, Reeve explains, has made use of humanitarian rhetoric as a cover for expansion on the continent. “But, in practice, what is all of this going to be used for?” he wonders. After all, the enhanced infrastructure and increased capabilities that today may be viewed by the White House as an insurance policy against another Benghazi can easily be repurposed in the future for different types of military interventions.
Hence, Africa turned out to be at gunpoint of US-NATO weapons which threaten its freedom and sovereignty. This alarming situation demands to take urgent measures to make things right. It must be thoroughly considered at the coming summit of the African Union. It is time to get rid of US and NATO troops until it’s too late.
Confidente. Lifting the Lid. Copyright © 2015