Change to Believe in - Benghazi 4 Abandoned


I am a great (or infamous depending on one’s outlook) cross poster of blogs or online news sources. One of my favorite people to cross post is the blogger Danny Jeffrey (older but still active – Freedom Rings 1776 and Fix Bayonets). In fact I have enjoyed Danny’s perspective so much that I noticed I was cross posting a lot of his articles. So I have slowed down on doing this.


I am on the email list of Fix Bayonets and a post crossed my eyes that Danny was sharing his outlook on Benghazigate. You may or may not agree with Danny’s perspective but he is very hard to refute except perhaps conclusions based on opinion more than facts. In the blogging world facts are like math – they don’t lie. However unlike math facts can be massaged to slant toward one’s perspective. Too much massaging may lead to the danger of turning facts into mirages; i.e. something you want to see but really is not there.


Whatever your take on Benghazigate Danny Jeffrey is one of the best sources to build an information base. Enjoy the read.


JRH 3/10/14

Please Support NCCR




By Danny Jeffrey

March 10, 2014 8:42 AM

Fix Bayonets


Last year I wrote an essay about how little people really know about what is going on, due not to a lack of interest, but to the junk sites that from which they tend to get their information. I am about to prove it.

Benghazi is probably the most mentioned city in the world and has been for nearly the last two years. Everyone talks about, reads about it, posts about it and few know anything other than the fact that four men died there and it was due to Obama allowing them to die, for reasons of his own. Beyond those basics there is only confusion and conjecture. Still, in an effort to waken those who are trying to waken others I shall show you what real research can do and then hope you reconsider using some of the sources I provided inWake Up America‘.

In March of 2011 ‘Rebels’ were involved in an attempted overthrow of Qaddafi. I emphasized ‘Rebels’ because most were not rebels as such. The vast majority of these people were paid militias, and a great many of them were Al Qaeda. The powers that be behind the Obama regime thought it best if we helped to topple a dictator and hand his nation over to Islamic radicals. The simple fact of the matter is that Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were opposed to our becoming involved in a war in Libya, citing no national interest. Credit our intervention to three women who overruled the JCS; Samantha Power, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice.

At any rate we became involved, with John ‘Traitor’ McCain leading the cheering section and CIA spook Christopher Stevens helping to arm the forces of Al Qaeda. Stevens arrived in Benghazi in the middle of the night aboard a Greek freighter. He spent the night in a hotel and moved the next day due to a car bomb going off in the parking lot.

I love using links from Obama’s loyal media for when they concede something you know you have a live one on the line.

ABC tells us

Stevens, whose diplomatic foothold were a couple of battered tables, was literally on the rebels’ side while the revolution was at its most vulnerable and in danger of being crushed by Gadhafi’s troops who were moving on the city. The threat was pushed back at the last minute by the intervention of NATO planes which began bombing Gadhafi’s tanks and troops.

At the risk of sounding disloyal I must ask; by what right and in whose interest did we do this? After Ronald Reagan had a bomb dropped in Qaddafi’s front yard that little warlord learned some manners and actually joined us in the war on terror after 911. Not wanting another crater in his yard he had been helping to expose and eliminate Al Qaeda. Then we turned on him, aiding Al Qaeda in his overthrow and murder.

Paraphrasing Julius Caesar Hillary Clinton showed her true worth in this 12 second video as she said laughing We Came. We Saw. He Died.” Qaddafi did not simply die. He was tortured and murdered. Raped with sharpened sticks at the hands of savages we empowered until he bled to death. And her victory chant tells me everything that I need to know about the woman that is being groomed for the Oval Office.

Christopher Stevens was rewarded for his efforts by being appointed Ambassador to Libya and he returned there in May of 2012 assuming his new role.

The following is a brief from the U.S. Department of State entitled ‘Securing Our Embassies Overseas’. It details the planning that goes into the safeguarding of our embassies abroad, its Ambassadors, support teams, and families. If this plan had been followed. Four Americans, now dead, would be alive today. The Obama regime intentionally disregarded all protocol and with malice aforethought allowed these men to be killed.


Following the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) and Nairobi (Kenya) in 1998, security countermeasures for our U.S. missions overseas took on greater importance, and this continues today.

Recall this excerpt as I later present a timeline of events as they transpired, for the State Department was far more aware of the danger than was the Ambassador as they removed his safeguards.


Another link from the State Department, this one describing the two types of mobile defense teams available to protect our ambassadors. One is referred to as a Security Support Team and their duties are described as:

A Security Support Team’s job is to augment and enhance security at U.S. Embassies and Consulates that are faced with civil unrest, hostile hosts or any other threat. Recent deployments included Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Jamaica and Cote d’ Ivoire.

And the Tactical Support Team:

Tactical Support Teams deliver counter-assault capability in high-threat protective details both overseas and in the United States. Missions have included deployments to Niger, Zaire, Mauritania, Mali, Indonesia, the Philippines, Yemen, Pakistan, Tunisia and Jamaica.

One would tend to believe that with such support teams available an Ambassador should feel safe, but the fact of the matter is that the Security Support Team was removed and the Tactical Support Team was ordered to “Stand Down!”

Such executive behavior rings not of leadership but of premeditation.

There are a set of standards applied to any foreign mission site. Among them are three meter high walls topped with barbed wire. The building must be set back from those walls by a minimum of one hundred feet. That building must also be equipped with bullet proof glass, tactical doors, and a fire proof safe room. The site in Benghazi had none of the above and could only be operated under the terms of a special waiver from the State Department.

Again, calling upon one of Obama’s lapdog’s…

From CNN


By leaving the Consulate open for business with a waiver, it essentially meant that no barriers were required, no safe room was needed, and multiple layers of security weren’t necessary.

The State Dept’s waiver was mentioned in the Ambassador’s diary which was recovered by CNN on site as the FBI was weeks getting there.

Then we have this video on the topic from CNN as well. Note that such a waiver on such a facility had to be signed off not only by the State Dept, and Libya, but the Ambassador as well. Why was the Ambassador willing to agree to an unprotected mission in the very pits of hell? More on that topic later.

Recall the basic Security Support Team tasked with protecting the Ambassador. Calling yet again on the Obama loyal:

This from ABC…

U.S. Security Official In Libya Tells Congressional Investigators About ‘Inappropriately Low’ Security At Benghazi Post

I shall use no excerpt from this link as you should read all of it. It is by Jake Tapper, who pulls no punches.

U.S. Security personnel for the Ambassador were limited to three men and they were not allowed to carry weapons as we did not want to offend the ‘sensitivities’ of the Libyans. Their armed support was recruited from the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, but they were nowhere to be found on the night of September 11, 2012. F17MB has a Facebook page.

This from Newsmax…

US Hired Al Qaeda Linked Group To Defend Benghazi Mission


Several entries on the militia’s Facebook page openly profess sympathy for Ansar al-Sharia, the hardline Islamist extremist group widely blamed for the deadly attack on the mission. The State Department did not respond to a Newsmax request for an explanation as to why the February 17th Martyrs Brigade was hired to protect the mission.

This is a one time (sic) cover from their FB page:


al qaeda from facebook


In Part Two the plot thickens. [Blog Editor: Part Two was completed today at 10:04 AM]

Suggested Reading…

Can You Handle The Truth


I have been frequently asked if it is alright to share my essays. By all means please do. The icons on the lower left allow you to email an essay, post it on a blog you follow, post to Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, or Google Plus.




For the sake of long term readers, I must briefly explain my need for a new website:

I have an insurmountable problem with my previous blog that has to do with the ‘feed’. Everything about it works just fine with the exception of it not being able to send Emails to my followers whenever I post a new essay. I have learned what caused the cumulative problem but am still unable to repair it, and so today I turn a new page. Armed with a new knowledge of how to avoid future problems, I am relegating Freedom Rings 1776 to a background archive, totally accessible but no longer serving my needs.

There is also a second reason for what I have begun. My first website was named with a sense of optimism, while this one is from a sense of desperation, for we are most assuredly losing in the political arena. Since Obama was first chosen by the Progressive overlords, we have been subjected to betrayal, deceit, a loss of liberty, and READ THE REST

Mandela is Deserving of Praise in South Africa, but NOT USA

Nelson Mandela

John R. Houk

© December 8, 2013


I have been amazed about how devoted American politicians and the American media has been giving Nelson Mandela a singular picture of praise. It is established that Mandela was a Marxist despite personal denials of Communism. Columnist Trevor Loudon has done a little digging and found out in Mandela’s death the South African Communist Party praised him asserting Mandela’s early membership and SACP joint political support with the African National Congress. Here is an excerpt of Loudon’s discovered quote from the SACP on Mandela’s passing:


At his arrest in August 1962, Nelson Mandela was not only a member of the then underground South African Communist Party, but was also a member of our Party’s Central Committee. To us as South African communists, Cde Mandela shall forever symbolise the monumental contribution of the SACP in our liberation struggle. The contribution of communists in the struggle to achieve the South African freedom has very few parallels in the history of our country. After his release from prison in 1990, Cde Madiba became a great and close friend of the communists till his last days…. (South African Communists Finally Admit Nelson Mandela’s Party Leadership Role; By Trevor Loudon; New Zeal; 12/7/13 3:47 am EST)


Honestly though Nelson Mandela does deserve some exemplary credit. Even with Mandela’s association with the old Soviet Union during the days the ANC was illegal, emerging as the President of the new post-Apartheid South Africa Mandela literally prevented a blood bath between the former White Rulers and the new ruling Black majority. Here is a list of seven legacy moments I have derived from Alastair Jamieson writing for World News from NBC.


1.  ANC figurehead Chris Hani was assassinated by extreme Afrikaner Right Wingers in 1993. Mandela called for interracial calm with his reputation as the then symbolic national leader against the White Supremacism of Apartheid:


Now is the time for all South Africans to stand together against those who, from any quarter, wish to destroy what Chris Hani gave his life for – the freedom of all of us.”


Mandela was elected President in 1994.


2.  Forsaking bloodshed: Mandela representing Black Majority and F. W. de Klerk representing the White Minority took mutual stands to stave off a bloodbath.


3.  Forging a political path: Mandela led South Africa into full enfranchisement for all citizens – Black, White and Brown (i.e. Asian Indians and other smaller racial factions).


4.  Mandela reintroduced South Africa to the Global Stage: Western Powers had engaged in sanctions due to Apartheid. Mandela ended Apartheid thus removing sanctions from the South African economy.


5.  Peace and forgiveness:


Mandela’s biggest influence on the new South Africa was his personal determination that anger over the crimes of the past, including his 27 years as a political prisoner, should not motivate future laws and actions. Key to this was his 1995 establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that investigated historic human rights violations and gave vent to grievances.


6.  A cultural power: Mandela’s “rainbow nation” politically enabled sports on an international basis to again occur in South Africa, including sports that have typically White appreciated sport in South Africa such as Cricket and Rugby.


7.  Mandela’s “A generous soul”:


“… (E)xtensive charitable work, including the creation of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund and 46664 – the HIV-AIDS initiative named after his prison number.”


Clearly Mandela has room for significant praise for his accomplishments in South Africa. And yet still I have a problem with the complete whitewash that Mandela’s anti-American politics in relation to his Marxist affinity for running South Africa politically.


In the spirit of not whitewashing anti-Capitalist and thus anti-American politics here is another update from Cliff Kincaid’s USA Survival News as a part of the America’s Survival, Inc. via email.


JRH 12/8/13

Please Support NCCR


Our New Video Exposing Mandela


By Cliff Kincaid

Sent: 11/6/13 11:08 PM

Sent from: USA Survival News


Dear Friend of America’s Survival:


We have posted a short video highlighting Nelson Mandela’s secret membership in the South African Communist Party and involvement in communist terrorism.


Watch it here:  Comrade Mandela’s Secret Life


You won’t find this information anywhere else. We will be posting a column on this topic on


In addition to the evidence of Mandela’s secret membership in the Communist Party, there is what he said openly. A good source is the book, In the Words of Nelson Mandela, edited by Jennifer Crwys-Williams. The Mandela quotations include:


“For many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa who were prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with us and work with us.”


These words by Mandela were spoken from the dock at the Rivonia treason trial in 1964. It was at this same trial, however, that he categorically denied being a member of the South African Communist Party (SACP). He lied.


·         Other famous quotations from Mandela, included in the book, include:


·         “Islam has enriched and become part of Africa; in turn, Islam was transformed and Africa became part of it.”


·         “The people of Libya shared he trenches with us in our struggle for freedom.” (Spoken at a banquet in Tripoli, Libya in 1997).


·         “He [Moammar Gaddafi] helped us at a time when we were all alone, when those who are now saying we should not come here were helping our enemies.” (Spoken at the start of his 1997 trip to Libya).


·         “My brother leader.” (about Gaddafi).


Gaddafi was the terrorist leader who killed 189 Americans, most of them college students, on Pan Am 103. The year was 1988.


 Mandela and Gaddafi 1997

Mandela praised Gaddafi nine years later.


At the time, the New York Times noted:


Mr. Mandela had twice visited Libya before, this is his first trip since becoming President [of South Africa] in 1994. No Western leader has visited Libya since the sanctions were imposed after Colonel Qaddafi refused to turn over suspects in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.


Richard V. Hurley, President of the University of Mary Washington (Virginia), sent out a message declaring that flags on campus will fly at half-staff in honor of Nelson Mandela.


He said: “Mandela, former president of South Africa and revolutionary leader, activist, freedom fighter, and heroic icon in the fight against apartheid, represented to many the moral voice of a nation, a political movement, and served as the soul of change—creating equality and freedom where none existed.”


This secret communist who lied about his commitment to communism was a freedom fighter?


Hurley went on, “Mandela’s experience shared a common spirit with the U.S. civil rights movement of the ‘50s, ‘60s, and beyond, yet for Mandela his voice and activism resulted in 27 years of imprisonment by the apartheid government in control of South Africa at the time.”


Of course, he was imprisoned for communist terrorism targeting civilians and innocent people.


This guy Hurley is an “educated” man. Watch out.


Be sure to watch our new short video on Mandela and send it to your friends.


Support our efforts to tell the truth. Click here – Donate please.


Send me your thoughts at


For America’s Survival,


Cliff Kincaid, President


Mandela is Deserving of Praise for South Africa, but NOT USA

John R. Houk

© December 8, 2013


Our New Video Exposing Mandela


Cliff Kincaid, President.
America’s Survival, Inc.

The Devil’s Lust

Devil behind BHO

Ari Bussel walks a road of geopolitical consequences that could be the result President Barack Hussein Obama’s foreign policy decisions. Bussel is very critical of BHO’s ouster of Mubarak in Egypt and the BHO compliance to oust an entrenched evil dictator like Qaddafi in Libya.


Bussel then examines the potential fallout of taking on Assad in Syria which will involve the Islamist government in Turkey as well as Syria’s puppet master in Iran.


All this geopolitical dry tinder is just waiting for a spark that could launch a World War. In the midst of a potential wild fire of war is the only Middle Eastern Democracy in Israel. Israel’s is America’s most trusted ally in the Middle East. President BHO is the chairman of a Western Quartet that is forcing Israel to accept an American-hating and Jew-hating sovereign nation that will be named Palestine. The existence of a Palestine is much like an arsonist adding fuel to increase a greater wild fire.


There are nuances that I don’t agree with Bussel, but in the big picture of a World War, I do concur with Bussel.


JRH 6/22/11

President Obama Protect America’s National Interest

Qaddafi Daffy Duck lg

John R. Houk

© March 25, 2011


I finished reading a Norma Zager post that begins with a bit of sarcasm of President Barack Hussein Obama’s decision to establish a No-Fly Zone in Libya that enables the Libyans that wish to be free of a nutcase dictator like Moammar Qaddafi to have a chance at freedom.


Frankly I find it a little amusing that BHO’s Leftist base and Conservatives alike are castigating BHO for this act. The Leftists are upset that Obama may have gotten America involved in a Middle War ala President George Bush. Many Conservatives who correctly do not trust the President Obama agenda rail about the abuse of the Constitution because the President neither had Congressional approval nor a Congressional declaration of war.


Here’s the thing for me. Libyan civilians were being fired upon by Qaddafi’s loyal contingent in the Libyan army as well as by mercenaries hired for the very purpose of killing anti-Qaddafi Libyans. The thing that became too much for Europeans, Americans and the Arab League was that Qaddafi was slaughtering Libyans with aircrafts and big guns such as tanks. It was beginning to look like genocide.


Now I am sure that Europeans (really the French and the British) and the U.S. government began to weigh Qaddafi’s genocide instrumentation in the light of the flow of oil to Western markets – especially Europe. Considerations were probably based on if Qaddafi quickly beat down his opposition perhaps the oil would flow. However, if the Libyans rebelling against Qaddafi’s 40 year despotism succeeded in a protracted civil war perhaps the flow of oil would be stopped up like a dam. I am guessing it was decided that if a protracted period was involved it would be ultimately profitable to get rid of Qaddafi; ergo the decision to wipe out Qaddafi’s air force and to seriously damage Qaddafi’s big guns especially land to air defenses became the politically correct consensus.


As a lowly no-name blogger I can’t prove the reason for America, France and the UK to defend Libyans from genocide was based on the effect of oil flow but I am betting it is a pretty good guess.


Regardless of a coalition of National Interests deciding to attack Qaddafi, the decision to get rid of Qaddafi is just as morally good as it was for President Bush to bring down the butcher of Bagdad Saddam Hussein. I can understand the consistency of American Leftists railing at Obama; however Conservatives should be getting behind BHO’s decision. To not do so is morally reprehensible.


I still regard President BHO as a deceptive Leftist with an agenda to transform America away from its Christian roots and the intentions of the Founding Fathers’ concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whatever the reasoning that inspired the President to proceed with the act of attack, it is a humane action.


On September 25, 2001 the Deputy Counsel in the Justice Department wrote a memorandum to then President G.W. Bush that provided legal precedent, Constitutional analysis and marked events in history in which Presidents acted without a formal declaration of war. It is a quite lengthy memorandum justifying GW’s ability to launch an attack on Afghanistan to seek the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack on American soil. In full disclosure I have to admit I only read half of it.


The key point of that memorandum was a distinction of the Constitution’s use of Congress “declaring war” as opposed to the Executive Branch – President – “making war” without Congressional consent. The distinction being that Congress validates a war by declaring which enables the President to prepare money allocation as seen fit to make war as the Chief Executive and the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. Of course extra funding needed would still need Congressional Approval but the declaration of war enables the President to not have to justify every dot and penny being spent in the execution of a war.


The memorandum also clarifies that the President has authority to defend the Homeland and American interests outside of the nation militarily without Congressional authorization. After the lengthy Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Act (WPA) with the intention of limiting the broad way in which a Chief Executive can embroil America in a war without Congressional input. However later, many critics realized that the WPA actually gave a President unbridled power to wage war for 60 days without Congressional input. This alone would empower President Obama to execute the military operation in Libya; however critics of the WPA maintain there is a Constitutional issue with the WPA not being in the Constitution ergo cannot exist without a Constitutional Amendment.


The memorandum in 2001 pretty much justifies the WPA act in the case of responding to attacks at home and attacks abroad of American National Interests. For example President Carter would have been well within his Executive Power to launch a military attack on Iran without Congressional approval because Iranian lackeys of Ayatollah Khomeini attacked American sovereign space provided for the U.S. Embassy in 1979. Of course Carter did not do so.


Carter won his 1976 election because of the bad taste of the Vietnam War and of President Nixon’s Watergate Scandal which left a huge mistrust of Presidential power in the American public’s mind. Even I voted for Carter. My vote was not based on a Leftist/Right Wing political spectrum but purely on Nixon’s criminal activities which disparaged the Office of President which had a further picture of corruption when unelected President Gerald Ford gave President Nixon a blanket Executive Pardon so that Nixon could never be prosecuted in a non-Presidential capacity.


With great hopes in a President Carter that would transform the Office of President into a trusted Office again, America elected him over Gerald Ford in 1976. Carter’s continuous flip-flopping on domestic and foreign policy soon became evidence of President Carter’s Presidential incompetence. The final nail in the Carter Administration came into fruition of his handling of Iranian unrest over the Shah of Iran that led to the eventual Islamic purist psycho-dictatorship of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini overcame the rivalry of Marxist revolutionaries and secular republic factions to wrest absolute control of Iran from the Shah. How did Khomeini get there?


The Khomeini/Marxist/Secularists received a boost from President Carter who sold out American ally Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi because the Shah used vicious police state tactics of the SAVAK secret police to get rid of anti-Shah Iranians via persecution, torture and murder. Carter was correct that the Shah’s methods were evil; however instead of slow reform Carter pushed for immediate reform which led to displeased Iranians to get behind a greater evil in Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini went on to allow the U.S. Embassy to be invaded which resulted in torture of American citizens that had diplomatic immunity for about a year until the last day of Carter’s Presidency in which President Reagan assumed Office. My evident displeasure with the Carter Presidency is a digressive story of failure. The point is Carter failed to use his power of Commander-in-Chief to plan an aggressive punitive plan to make Khomeini and his supporters suffer for a major breach of international protocol of State sovereignty. There were no contingency plans for the first use of a special force that came into existence to rescue the Embassy Hostages. When it failed Carter was left in the weak position of accepting humiliation from the psycho-Ayatollah about the release of American Embassy hostages. (Incidentally one of the leaders of the Embassy assault was none other than Iran’s current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)


Presidents Reagan and Clinton both used Commander-in-Chief Privilege denying the limitations of the WPA although ultimately both consulted with Congress within the 60-90 period of WPA rendering moot any Constitutional Executive-Legislative confrontations. President George H.W. Bush ultimately had Congressional approval in the First Gulf War against Iraq even though it was not a declared war. President G.W. Bush ultimately had full Congressional approval for Afghanistan and the hotly debated support for the second Iraq War.


In this era when communication is near instantaneous and information about genocide and slaughters are difficult to hide, it is incumbent upon the leader of the most power military in the world to demonstrate acts of military humanitarianism. In America, humanitarianism and Constitutional authority for the Chief Executive are not necessarily a compatible proposition. However, the Constitution does allow the Chief Executive to use military action Constitutionally to protect American National Interests. Arguably the Libyan civil war hampers the oil market which in turns affects everything from gas prices to Wall Street. It is easy to sell the voters on the fact it is a humanitarian military expedition in which America helped initiate but intends to transfer military operations to another military authority. To comply with the U.S. Constitution the President has to demonstrate that the psycho-Qaddafi refusal to leave Libya’s leadership position hurts the American National Interests.


President Obama is a Leftist transformationist in the style of Antonio Gramsci; nonetheless any effort to stop the genocide of Libyan people no matter the actual reasons is a good thing. Let us all pray that BHO does not slip back into appeasement ideology thinking things will mysteriously work itself out via negotiated diplomacy. Negotiated diplomacy rarely if ever works with insane leaders or leadership blocs.


JRH 3/25/11

Libya: Cyrenaica vs. Tripolitania?

Libya in 3 Regions


John R. Houk

© March 21, 2011

The civil war in Libya looked promising in its beginning to force the dictator Moamar Qaddafi out as leader. Then Qaddafi began his counter-offensive making serious dents of the rebel holdings in the east while cause vicious casualties among rebel soldiers and Libyan civilians. Then a coalition that is initially headed by the U.S. Military instituted a No-Fly zone which in effect has stalled at least momentarily Qaddafi’s counter-offensive.

If President Obama had acted earlier more damage may have hampered Qaddafi that would have indeed forced to him to flee; however President Obama is exactly known for his foreign policy guts that would protect American National Interests and benefit potential future allies from Libya. Nonetheless, when the President gave the go the combined coalition forces of America, France and the UK began an operation of pin-point accuracy rattling Qaddafi’s Air Force and anti-aircraft capabilities. That has to be good for the Libyan rebels to regroup and perhaps receive some military aid that could enhance a rebel counter-offensive.

I have been alerted to a STRATFOR article that offers a glimpse into the inner workings of the Libyan rebel leadership and governing apparatus. In this article I discovered that Libya like many Muslim nations is basically divided by tribal influences. In Libya those tribes seem to be divided into two regions. The western region, of which Qaddafi is from, has been known as Tripolitania and the eastern region of Libya, which most of the rebels are from, has been roughly known as Cyrenaica.

Apart from the STRATFOR emphasis on Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, there is a third region in Libya called the Fezzan. I suspect STRATFOR focuses on Tripolitania and Cyrenaica is because those regions are the most populous. The Fezzan is really a backward area of mostly the Sahara Desert. Really western part of Libya is divided into Tripolitania in the Northwest and the Fezzan in the Southwest with the Eastern half of Libya as the region of Cyrenaica. Also you should know that Cyrenaica was the dominant tribal region after Libyan independence. Moammar Qaddafi became the leader of a group of low level Officers that executed a coup against the Western installed King Idris who was deposed. A good short summary explaining the regions of Tripolitania, the Fezzan and Cyrenaica can be found at Middle East News Wire.

The picture then is somewhat of a traditional looking civil war between two sides: Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. The Cyrenaica-Libyan rebels have denied the civil war is a regional civil war but is a war to rid all Libyans of the despotism of Moammar Qaddafi.

The reality is though that there are undoubtedly some tribal elites of Tripolitania that have had a favored status that probably support their native son loony Moammar Qaddafi. If the rebels launch an effective counter-offensive to retake lost rebel territory and it is successful it will be interesting how many Tripolitania-Libyans will get behind the Cyrenaica-Libyan rebels.

JRH 3/21/11

What Might Happen to Libya’s Weapons Cache?

Libyan Rebels 3-10-11

John R. Houk

© March 10, 2011


STRATFOR poses some interesting thoughts concerning Libya’s civil war as it relates to weaponry. The civil war has disrupted the accountability of who possesses Qaddafi’s weapons. Early in the civil war rebels raided arms depots to possess portions of Qaddafi’s arsenal. Plus according to STRATFOR foreign nations are considering arming the rebels with weapons to bring down the Qaddafi dictatorship.


History has shown that aged weaponry has entered into the black market arms market that has been sold as the result of the winners trading captured arms for food, money and arming instruments of destabilization. The instruments of destabilization would be drug cartels, crime lords and terrorists usually of the Islamic type today.


Qaddafi has shown he is not going to lie down and flee from Libya by his efforts of getting his army to counter-attack against Libyan rebels. This is all noteworthy because Libya is an oil producing nation. Who will control that oil? Will control be in the hands of a victorious dictator not afraid to kill his own people to retain power? Will the rebels succeed and become the arbiters of Libya’s oil? Will the Libya civil war degenerate into chaos enabling destabilizing instruments to scarf-up weapons caches cheap in terms of monetary cost? If the rebels beat Qaddafi will their new government become an Islamic form of a democratic government or would they turn Libya into a theopolitical autocracy continuing to hate America and Israel and thus still arm Islamic terrorists?


Check out the STRATFOR analysis and tell me what you think.


JRH 3/10/11