Hillary Clinton - The Real Story Behind Libya's Civil War

Now that the Department of State has released the last of Hillary Clinton's work-related emails from her private server, it's time to take a look at one key email.  This email, dated Saturday, April 2, 2011 and classified as "confidential", has the subject line "France's client and Qaddafi's gold".  

Here's the email:

To help you put the email into the timeline of the Libyan Civil War, it was the protests in Benghazi on February 13, 2011 that started the collapse of Qaddafi's reign over Libya.  This protest was a continuation of the Arab Spring that had brought down the rulers of both Egypt and Tunisia, Libya's neighbouring countries.  By February 22, 2011, Qaddafi and his military  had lost control of large parts of Libya. On February 26, 2011, through Resolution 1973, the United Nations voted to freeze the assets of Muammar Qaddafi and other key members of his regime as well as referring the ongoing violence against Libya's civilians to the International Criminal Court.  In addition, they imposed an arms embargo against Libya.  Despite early gains by rebel forces, government forces loyal to Qaddafi began to regain lost territory, largely because Qaddafi's forces had superior military capabilities, including airpower.  On March 10, 2011, the Government of France recognized the Libyan Transitional National Council in Benghazi as the sole legitimate government of Libya.  On March 17, 2011, the United Nations authorized a no-fly zone over Libya with the express purpose of protecting civilians.  Qaddafi's forces then declared an immediate ceasefire and wished to open negotiations with the opposition forces.  NATO entered the fray on March 19th, 2011 when nineteen French military aircraft began missions over Benghazi.  United States and United Kingdom ships and submarines began to fiver cruise missiles at Libyan military installations.  In addition, NATO ships enforced a naval blockade.  On June 9, 2011, the United States officially recognized the rebel government as the sole representative of the Libyan people.  On Jun 16, 2011, Qaddafi's son announced that Libyan authorities were prepared to draft a new constitution and hold free elections and that his father would resign but not leave Libya.  

Here are a series of maps from NATO showing how the territory held by each side in this conflict changed over the period from March to September, 2011:

After Tripoli fell in August, 2011, Qaddafi fled the capital to regions unknown.  On October 20, 2011, this is what happened after his convoy, located near Sirte, was fired on by NATO aircraft and an American Predator drone:

Now, let's go back to Hillary Clinton's email about the the conflict in Libya.  The aforementioned U.N. resolution 1973 that imposed sanctions on certain key Libyans and that formed the legal basis for NATO military intervention in Libya, was proposed by France, Lebanon and the United Kingdom.    Resolution 1973 was purportedly enacted to protect civilians as you can see here:

"Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties,

Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians,

Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions,

Further condemning acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and urging these authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006),

Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity,

Recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Expressing its determination to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas and the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the safety of humanitarian personnel..." 

Historically speaking, there is a strong connection between France and Libya.  Back in 1967, Libya and France signed an agreement whereby Libya supplied a guaranteed volume of oil in exchange for weapons, particularly 50 of France's Mirage 5 fighters.  In fact, in 1970, France announced that it would sell an additional 50 Mirage fighters to the Libyan regime, much to the chagrin of the United States and the United Nations.  However, as we can see from the email to Hillary Clinton, France had other things in mind for its former trading partner by early 2011:

1.) Gain a greater share of Libyan oil production.

2.) Increase French influence in North Africa, much of which was previously French colonial territory.

3.) Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world.

4.) Improve the internal political situation in France...

...and, most importantly, Libya had stockpiled approximately 143 tons of gold and 143 tons of silver, worth more than $7 billion at the time of the email.  What was of even more concern to the French (and Americans) was the fact that the 26 Francophone African Countries which includes Algeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, the Central African Republic and Cameroon, among others, were heading towards creating a pan-African currency that was based on the Libyan golden Dinar.  Currently, the CFA franc is one of Africa's currencies used in both West African and Central Africa.  A total of 14 nations use the CFA Franc which is backed by the French treasury.

As an aside, you will notice that the French are showing no particular concern about the civilian population in Libya as highlighted in United Nations Resolution 1973.

Obviously, France (and, by extension, NATO and the United States) were increasingly concerned that Libya was leading Africa into economic independence from its former colonial masters as well as the United States since it was prepared to create a currency that would compete with both the euro and the United States dollar.  This brings to mind the moves by Saddam Hussein when he moved to sell Iraq's oil in euros rather than the United States dollar back in 2000.  We all know how that movie ended, don't we? 

Let's close this posting with a look at Africa's potential to produce oil to give us a sense of why the greater world would be concerned about an increasingly independent Africa:

In 2012, North Africa (i.e. Libya, Algeria, Tunisia et al) produced around 5 percent of the world's total oil output and Sub-Saharan Africa produced around 7 percent of the world's total oil output.

Here is a diagram from the U.S. Energy Information Agency showing how African's proven reserves of oil have grown by nearly 120 percent over the last three decades:

Here is a diagram showing how Africa's proven reserves of natural gas have grown by over 140 percent over the past three decades:

Here's where Africa's oil ends up:

As you can see, having Africa develop currency independence from the rest of the world would be completely unpalatable to those who currently control the world's currency and commodity markets, particularly since Africa is so rich in just about any commodity used by the advanced economies of the world.  The moves by Libya to create a pan-African currency with its substantial reserves of precious metals flies in the face of the rest of the world which is quite satisfied to back its currencies with thin air. 

In closing, and lest we forget, here is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's reaction to Muammar Qaddafi's ultimate fate:

Hillary Clinton's Ongoing Adventure in Libya

Remember this commentary on the late Muammar Qaddafi from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton from October 2011?

While the glee that Hillary Clinton shows over a human being's death, even if it was Muammar Qaddafi, is rather disarming, what is even more concerning is what has happened to Libya since the Obama Administration's ill-advised moves to unseat Libya's leadership back in 2011.

A recent briefing by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook gives us a sense of what could come to pass in Libya as the Pentagon attempts to cram the "ISIS genie" that it created in Iraq back into the bottle:

Q: I wanted to ask you about the possibility of the U.S. expanding its counter ISIL efforts into Libya. The chairman traveling in Europe this week said that it was fair to say that the U.S. needed to take decisive military action -- he said, in conjunction with the political events in Libya.

Can you help us understand what he's talking about and what's under consideration in terms of expanding efforts against ISIL into Libya?



MR. COOK: Well, as the chairman has discussed, as the Secretary has spoken on numerous occasions, including just last week in our visit to Paris and our meetings with other members of the ISIL coalition, we are extremely worried about the metastasis of ISIL to other locations, Libya being just one of those locations.

We continue to monitor the situation there. Continue to work very closely with our coalition partners, with others in the region who have similar concerns about the situation in Libya. And I think it's fair to say that we are closely monitoring the situation. As Chairman Dunford has indicated, working with those partners and also continuing to have conversations with people on the ground as to exactly what is happening there and the threat that ISIL poses to the United States and others.



Q: Could we see an expansion into Libya that looks something like what's going on in Iraq and Syria? That is to say, more consistent air strikes and even possibly some limited ground actions?



MR. COOK: We've shown in the past a willingness to strike in Libya. We've taken out a key ISIL leader in Libya in the past. But I think Jamie, it's too soon to say at this point exactly where things will evolve. We're taking a very close look at this situation.

Again, it's not just the United States that's involved here, that has a stake in what happens in Libya. We're continuing, of course, through the State Department, to support the effort to -- to forge a government in -- in Libya, and we think that's a critical step in terms of the governance of the country to trying to address the -- the ISIL threat as well. It's not just a military solution here.

But we're going to continue to monitor it, and -- and as Chairman Dunford indicated, we see this threat in ISIL as a serious threat, and we're going to continue to -- to monitor the situation and consider what options we have moving forward.



Q: Chairman Dunford seemed to indicate that those options might be presented to the president in -- I think he said in -- in a matter of weeks. Are -- so we -- are we talking about seeing some significant stepping-up of the operations against Libya in a matter of weeks?



MR. COOK: I think we're going to continue to assess the -- the threat in Libya and respond accordingly, and the chairman and the secretary will continue to have those conversations with the president's national security team and with our partners as well, as we assess the threat in Libya.



Q: Can you -- can you rule out U.S. boots on the ground going to Libya? Is that (inaudible) discussion?



MR. COOK: You -- you know the situation right now. We've had -- acknowledged that there have been some U.S. forces in Libya trying to establish contact with forces on the ground so that we get a clear picture of what's happening there.

But beyond that, it's -- again, we're going to consider all of our options going forward. Right now, that's not something that's -- that's under consideration....

...Q: Going back to Libya for a second, are there currently U.S. forces on the ground there?

MR. COOK: I'm not going to tell you exactly what the disposition of our forces are there. I can acknowledge that we've had forces on the ground previously as we've indicated, to engage in conversations with local forces to get a clearer picture of exactly what's happening there.

Q: And can you give us a better sense of what that discussion with local forces is? Is that is preparing to organize the kinds of militias we can work with? Is it meeting with political leaders to get a sense of whom supports whom? I mean, it sounds as though it's a very complicated picture with dozens if not hundreds of different kinds of militias. What exactly is the U.S. stance?

MR. COOK: It is a complicated picture and I think you've characterized pretty well what the goal would be and that is to simply get a better sense of who the players are, who might be worthy of U.S. support and support from some of our partners going forward in the fight against ISIL.

It is a complicated picture. And that's why the formation of a government is so central to the future for Libya and to also addressing the issue of ISIL in Libya. And so part of the presence -- the reason for the presence of those troops is to, again, get a sense of the forces on the ground, the players on the ground and exactly what's happening, because it is a muddled picture right now. And we -- that is one of the best ways we can get a better sense of what's happening." (my bold)

Let's look at how long the Pentagon has been sitting on the Libya-ISIS connection.  Here are some quotes from a Pentagon press conference on December 3, 2014 with U.S. Africa Command Commander General David Rodriguez:

"Q: General, if you'll forgive me, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you about a different topic, which -- in your AOR -- which is Libya. I was wondering if you could give us an assessment on what's happening in the battle between General Khalifa's forces and Ansar al-Sharia. Can you give us a sense of how you see the area of particularly eastern Libya, who controls what, and what kind of grip ISIS and other extremist groups have in that part of the country.

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. The challenge in Libya, of course, is the multiple militias, the multiple governments, between the national convention, as well as the House of Representatives and -- quite frankly, a lot of confusion on the ground about who's in charge and not.  The effort over there by the former General Haftar, who has been fighting in the east, as well as Ansar al-Sharia, as you said, you know, continues to go back and forth. It's about who controls the airport, who controls some of the checkpoints. That continues to go back and forth. He continued to control the airport out there.  And ISIL has begun its efforts over in the east out there to introduce some people over there. But we'll have to just continue to monitor and watch that carefully in the future to see what happens or whether it grows on unabated.

Q: Can I just follow up quickly? Control the airport, you're talking to Benghazi airport?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Yes.

Q: And one of the things that we've heard is that ISIS has started to move into western Libya around Tripoli. Is that something that you're seeing, as well?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: We're continuing to watch that. The intelligence community has mixed reports no that right now. But we're continuing to watch that. But most of it is over in the east right now.

Q: Can I follow up on all of that, please, sir?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: Uh-huh.

Q: A couple of -- Libya, in the east. What's your assessment of how many, what kind of ISIL fighters you're seeing in the east? Do they have a network, like are you seeing command-and-control? Or are these stray people wandering in?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: It's mainly about people coming for training and logistics support right now. It's for training sites, and that's what we see right now. As far as a huge command-and-control network, I've not seen that yet.

Q: So you're seeing ISIS training sites in eastern Libya?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: Uh-huh, yes.

Q: A -- a ballpark figure?

GEN. RODRIGUEZ: No, the numbers are somewhere around a couple hundred is the estimate. But, again, we don't have a specific, precise assessment of that right now." (my bold)

Let me repeat that.  Fourteen months ago, the Pentagon was aware that ISIS was moving into Libya and that it was training "a couple hundred" jihadists in eastern Libya.  Now, according to the Department of Defense (via the New York Times), there are between 5000 and 6500 ISIS fighters in Libya and we all know what a few thousand ISIS fighters can accomplish!  Not only is ISIS a problem in Libya but, according to this report, Nigeria-based terrorist group Boko Haram has sent hundreds of fighters to help ISIS capture civil war-torn Libya and it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood (Libyan branch) may be looking to join with al-Qaeda and ISIS to form a united Islamic front.  As well, al-Qaeda affiliates are active in Libya as shown on this map:

This map shows the regions in Libya that were controlled by ISIS back in June 2015:

While the ISIS-controlled region may appear to be relatively small, here is a map showing that the vast majority of Libyans live along the nation's north coast, close to or in the regions that are at least partially controlled by ISIS:

Let's close this posting with this exchange with Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter from January 28, 2016 on the subject of Libya:

"Q: Can I follow up on that for a minute? When you look at Libya and -- and you talked about, you know, the need to protect -- protect ourselves, what's your sense of the real threat that ISIS in Libya does pose at the moment?

What's their capability? What threat do they pose to the United States? Can you talk a little bit about how big this effort is that the --

SEC. CARTER: I'm going to be careful, because I don't want to go into intelligence matters. But as general characterization, they are trying to consolidate their own footprint there, and they're very focused on that.

We're monitoring that. That's a concern to us, because ISIL obviously tries to destabilize places where -- where they are. And ISIL around the world has indicated that part of its ideology is to attack Westerners, including Americans.

So we have to look at this with great concern, and that is why we've taken some action already in Libya against ISIL members, because of the threat they pose to the United States.

Q: When you say consolidate their footprint in Libya, can we make sure we understand what you mean there?

SEC. CARTER: It means -- it means -- it means --

Q: Do you think they're trying to develop a capability, command, control -- be able to launch attacks from Libya? What do -- what do you mean?

SEC. CARTER: Well, they're establishing the -- installations where they train people. They're welcoming foreign fighters to flock there, the way, in years past, they did in Syria and Iraq. And they're trying to take over the reins of -- of the economy and tax it the way you see ISIL doing in -- so you see the same kind of ambitions -- ambitions on their part that you see realized in full flower in Syria and Iraq.

And we don't want to be on a glide slope to a situation like Syria and Iraq. That's the reason why we're watching it that closely. That's the reason why we develop options for what we might do in the future." (my bold)

While the Pentagon bragged about killing ISIS' senior leader in Libya, Abu Nabil, back in December 2015, Libya still lacks a central government that would have the potential to control the spread of ISIS.  In addition, the rest of the current administration's policies toward Libya have been shocking given their haste to rid Libya of its dictator.  Once again, the creation of a geopolitical vacuum in the Middle East has created central government instability which has led to the laying out of the proverbial welcome mat for ISIS.  

I wonder if potential President Hillary Clinton thinks that the situation in Libya is as funny now as it was back in 2011!  In any case, it would appear that it is far, far too late to close the "barn door".