Libya Will Invite EU Into Backyard

Wikileaks released a restricted document today that details the EU's ongoing military action in the Mediterranean Sea called "Operation SOPHIA" designed to nip the migrant and refugee crisis in the bud - the human trafficking a smuggling.

The document is a report drafted by Enrico Credendino, Operation SOPHIA Commander and Rear Admiral of the Italian Navy. Essentially, Credendilo has conveyed that SOPHIA is ready to move forward militarily into the operation's next phase, but is being held back by political discourse. The report urges the EU to strike some kind of deal with Libya so that they may continue with military action against human smugglers.

Phase 1 of the operation was gathering of intelligence regarding routine merchant and fisherman traffic, smuggling networks, embarkment locations, smuggler habits, etc. Operation SOPHIA is presently stuck in it's second phase of operation, or phase 2A (high seas). They have succesfully rid most of the Central and Western passageways from attempted people smuggling, and are now left to dealing with the Eastern passage, through Libyan waters.

 

The Eastern Passage

"One of the main elements within the report is the planned, but still pending transition from Phase 2A (operating in High Seas) to Phase 2B (operating in Libyan Territorial Waters) due to the volatile government situation in Libya, where the building of a 'Government of National Accord' (GNA) is still under way," the document said. Phase 3 is slated to continue operations onto Libyan soil.

When the smugglers first began sending refugees and migrants across the Mediterranean they did not accompany them. This was called phase one, or the "unescorted phase," according to the report. The smugglers were forced into phase 2 of their business-model, or "escorted" phase, since the dinghys and wooden-boats were being stopped on their voyages, and the refugees were being looted by other smugglers.

Smugglers are now in their third phase of adaptation, "territorial escorted," since they have been confined to the Libyan waters to avoid and prevent international banking law from being able to enforce SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) infractions, arresting and prosecuting the smugglers under Italian Organized Crime laws, and of course commandeering and/or destroying their vessels.

Click To Enlarge

"At the height of the surge, nine surface units, a submarine, three fixed wing maritime patrol aircraft, five helicopters and one tactical UAV were deployed to OP SOPHIA."

"Territorial escorted" is necessary for the smugglers since Operation SOPHIA has all but ended any notion of slipping through international waters with perceived undesirable intent. For the massive majority of refugees and migrants, that intent is  to escape poverty, famine, genocide, and war-torn and bomb-riddled communities. While the SOLAS convention was born of benevolent dispositions, using it as justification to prevent human beings from obtaining ultimate safety and security is tragic.

Chapter 5 of the SOLAS convention - which is under the umbrella of the International Maritime Organization:

Chapter V - Safety of navigation

Identifies certain navigation safety services which should be provided by Contracting Governments and sets forth provisions of an operational nature applicable in general to all ships on all voyages. This is in contrast to the Convention as a whole, which only applies to certain classes of ship engaged in international voyages.  

 The subjects covered include the maintenance of meteorological services for ships; the ice patrol service; routeing of ships; and the maintenance of search and rescue services.

 This Chapter also includes a general obligation for masters to proceed to the assistance of those in distress and for Contracting Governments to ensure that all ships shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned from a safety point of view.

 The chapter makes mandatory the carriage of voyage data recorders (VDRs) and automatic ship identification systems (AIS).

The items in bold above are the major issue here. A contract from the Libyan government is required for the EU to have any authority to molest sea-faring vessels in their own waters. The EU has no jurisdiction to enforce maritime law on Libya, or any vessel sailing under the Libyan flag in Libya's waters, if they are not engaged in commerce or business together. They cannot be in business together unless a contract is signed, but a contract cannot be signed if there is not an established government to sign it. A "government of national accord" must be established before the UN can officially negotiate with Libya.

EU HRVP Federica Mogherini and Rear Admiral Enrico Credendito

Credendino's dilemma is that he can no longer use the SOLAS justification, and needs a new UN resolution to arbitrarily grant unprecedented legal authority to prosecute smugglers in Libyan waters without Libya's consent, or cut a deal to get that consent. The smuggling operation is reported to be bringing in roughly €250-300 million annually, so it's got to be something better than cash.

"In November, I held my first meeting with representatives from the Libyan Coastguard in Tunis which was arranged and sponsored by the EU Delegation in Libya," Credendino said. "It is clear from these discussions that they expect the EU to engage more closely with them and develop both their capability and capacity to be able to better manage their borders and tackle irregular migration coming from Libyan shores."

So there it is, not money, but guns, and boats. The EU wants to prop up the "approved" government of national accord with guns, and then they will expect that propped-up and approved government to invite them into their regional waters (Phase 2B)... and then on their land (Phase 3).

 

Migrants waiting to be "rescued" by the EU Naval Force 

Credendino said, "Indeed, through the capability and capacity building of the Libyan Navy and Coastguard we will be able to give the Libyan authorities something in exchange for their cooperation in tackling the irregular migration issue."

Even if the EU can't circumvent their own presently constructed laws (they probably will), they will still know that they can organize multi-faceted operations that include everything of Psyops to clandestine intelligence work.

"In this respect the main message to the International Community is that the EU is capable of launching a military operation in record time, displaying a strong resolve and remarkable unity of intent, as demonstrated by the 22 Member States participating in the operation," Credendino said.

How Propaganda Drives Elections

I was going through some old papers on my computer, and I found a thesis that I wrote my freshman year of college (so excuse the horrible grammar). It's from 2009, but has many parallels to current election tactics. Thought I would share, and hope some will get a little insight into the propaganda-machine that is American politics.

3/14/09

 Mass Media: The Strategies and Effects of Propaganda During the 2008 Elections

      For decades now, mass media has been the prevalent source of information regarding everything from economics, to health and diet, to science, and everything else that will hold the average American’s attention. The mainstream media is the main well of information about politics and political candidates, and most of it is slanted or biased. It is known that the media chooses sides in politics, but to what extent, how far do they really swing their own personal opinions? The answer is truly concerning. “We are witnessing the change of journalism in America today. Journalism was once a profession of unbiased reportage, but is now a channel of propaganda” (Pagay). Journalism has changed, it cannot survive the same way as it used to, because now it needs to report on more than just what is the news, as the news. Now they dig deeper, looking for stories unrelated to candidates and politics, but still detrimental or favorable to one side or another. Consumers are bombarded by too much information rushing in via the internet and television, so newspapers and magazines have begun sensationalizing all their “news” for better ratings and more readers. Mass media has evolved, and was one of the major deciding factors in the 2008 presidential elections by using public opinion and propaganda to the benefit of one party more than the other.

       To understand how propaganda influenced the elections in 2008, you must understand what propaganda is. Simply put, it is information designed to persuade somebody into a particular thought process. Propagandists use many tools to influence thought and perception - often times to subvert truth from reality - which include: symbols, slogans, suggestions, slandering, using connotative language, appealing to pity or emotion, appealing to grandeur, or any other fallacious undertone you can think of. A professional propagandist will use any method of dissemination that is available, advertising is a major method. They also use books, television, movies, posters, billboards, newspapers, magazines, the internet, and Obama just pioneered the usage of social media. The best propagandists know how to make ideas stick in people’s heads, how to make things catchy, and to seem universally appealing.

      “You got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda,” words from former president George W. Bush. The campaigns were the top story in every media outlet in 2008. 33% of stories from newspapers across the country were about the campaigns. 35% of online articles were about the campaigns. 49% of the stories on network TV were about them. 59% of radio, and a staggering 76% of cable TV was dedicated to the campaigns. Overall, the 2008 campaigns attributed to 51% of all news stories in the media for the year (PEJ). It was almost impossible to watch a news program without hearing something about a campaign or a candidate. The election was hard to miss. It set many new precedents in mass media and technological platforms - Obama even had campaign ads in nine different video games (Barrett).

      If one were to take a broad view of the coverage during the 2008 presidential campaigns, they would see a glaring difference in the candidates. They would see an overwhelming biased towards Obama. This is from a plethora of reasons, but the major one was successful propaganda. Obama spent abundantly more money on the media and television than any other candidate. He spent more than $160 million on television advertising alone, including a $21 million expenditure for one 30-minute infomercial during prime time. It helps that the McCain-Palin campaign was openly anti-media; McCain himself calling The New York Times “a partisan rag,” (Dubner). It is interesting that the Obama campaign spent so much time and money on the media, while the McCain campaign was close to shutting them out all together. The Obama campaign dominated air-time throughout the election season, appealing to more and more people everyday, gaining more and more support everyday, while creating a biased - whether intentionally or not - through the bandwagon effect (Goldenberg).

      There is no surprise why McCain had such a vast difference in approval from younger people than Obama did; Obama utilized the outlets that younger audiences gravitate towards. He was the first candidate to have a myspace or a facebook, he ran ads on MTV and VH1, and much more than McCain connected to younger viewers with his rhetoric. Obama had 57% more facebook friends than McCain, he had 39% more subscribers to his youtube channel, he had 33% more visitors to his official website, and he had 39% more total web hours than McCain did during the campaign (Dudley). Those are some intriguing stats, showing a definite favor towards Obama. It could be that since the public was seeing his face everywhere they looked that they were interested in his ideologies and his calls for “change,” but the more likely reason is because he spent so much more money than the other campaigners on online media outlets, and much earlier.

      Even before Obama announced his candidacy he had the clambering support of young people. A week prior to his announcement of candidacy, Obama held a rally at George Mason University, this was more than a typical rally though. This rally was not paid for at all by the Obama campaign or philanthropic fund-raisers, but completely organized and self-funded by a facebook group called “Students for Barack Obama,” and it had the look of a mid-october rally (Graham-Felsen). It is astounding that college-aged students could raise the kind of money, and produce such an event with all the pomp and circumstance of a full-fledged donor rally, for a candidate who hadn’t even announced he was running for president. On top of that, the message it sent to other college aged kids obviously had a positive impact on how Obama was viewed in the public eye.

      McCain did have his share of the media spotlight. He had more viewers for his acceptance speech in St. Paul than Obama did for his in Denver. Sarah Palin drew considerably more viewers for her Vice Presidency acceptance speech than Joe Biden did for his (Silva). This is an anomaly considering how much more time and resources Obama used on the media and for disseminating his message through technological platforms than McCain did. For a while, in the middle of the campaigns, McCain actually took the lead from Obama, as far as number of hits to his youtube channel. McCain used humor and wit to draw in the viewers with his new attack ads that mocked Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the media itself (Dinan).

      Any talk of candidates in the mainstream television media quickly turned questionable based on polarization of the networks themselves, and is where the propaganda really becomes apparent. Of course the major news networks segregated; FOX News, ABC, and the rest of the right-wingers slanting one way, and MSNBC, CNN, and the lefties slanting the other.

 Networks have been known to take sides on the political boarder. The companies will put broadcasters and anchors on their networks that have similar  political views as the network does. On the left there is Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Brian Williams; on the right there is Chris Wallace, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly. These media outlets are indeed watched by people from the left, the right, and the middle, but many viewers are unable to discern between fact and opinion, and can be influenced by subtle propaganda if not acutely aware of the methods in which it is delivered.

      The line between slightly skewed facts and propaganda from media outlets is a very thin one, and in this election was significantly prevalent. Chris Matthews is one of the more prominent left wing voices in the media, and is the host of a political show on MSNBC, “I want to do everything I can to make this new thing work, this presidency work,” Matthews said regarding the Obama campaign (Mason). Anchors usually are supposed to remain unbiased and centered, but more often than not it is clear to see which side they support - the questions they ask their guests is usually the indicator. In this case, Chris Matthews openly chose a side. This in and of itself could potentially sway voters who fall privy to the fallacy of appealing to authority. Not only Chris Matthews, but the whole MSNBC network supported the Obama campaign to the fullest. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell complained about MSNBC’s gross support of Obama when he said, “It was embarrassing, MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign, absolutely embarrassing.” Rendell even called MSNBC “The Tool Shed,” a reference to the tools of propaganda (Calderon).

      MSNBC is not the only network that supported Obama, CNN also contributed their own biased to the campaign. CNN continues to add their own touches of support to Obama. They have recently started selling obvious propagandist Obama T-shirts. The shirts read, “Obama raises hand, lifts a Nation,” with the CNN.com logo implanted to the right of this slogan. CNN also says that these shirts are “some of the most historic shirts money can buy” (CNN Shirts). CNN has completely abandoned any notion of impartialness and leads the media-cult called “Obamamania,” (McLeod). This Orwellian kind of Obamamania could potentially ruin any aspect of unbiased media, if it has not been ruined already. It is propaganda at it’s finest, being played out by one of the country’s biggest media outlets.

      McCain had his supporters too, even if he was an adversary to the media. FOX supported McCain, with one of his most prominent supporters being Bill O’Reilly, of course.

      O’Reilly is either loved or hated by his viewers, but the haters still watch. There is not a whole lot of middle ground with him, and it is clear to see. The way O’Reilly posits his arguments are oft disturbing, grossly over-simplified, and purely propagandist. He consistently uses all the tools of propaganda during his show. A study done of the O’Reilly Factor’s opening segment called “Talking Points,” revealed just how frequently the tools are used just in the first five-minutes. The study found that O’Reilly uses propaganda in one from or another on average 12.91 times per minute. His favorite tool to use is name calling - slandering - average use of 8.88 times per minute, or almost once every seven seconds! O’Reilly also uses glittering generalities - appeals to grandeur - 2.96 times per minute. Some examples of this include referring to coalition forces in Iraq as “the good guys,” and when talking about a brain-dead woman - Terri Schiavo -O’Reilly said that it would “serve the greater good” if she were kept alive artificially (Conway). When the propaganda is this blatant it is easy to see through, and therefore is not as dangerous as the more tacit voices.

      FOX News also conducted polls about the campaign throughout, to gather a general idea and census about the general public perception during the course of election season. Most polls ask questions pertaining to candidates’ views and opinions on different subjects and the consensus feeling about those opinions. FOX News’ polls, however, had obvious biased tones disguised as loaded questions. For example, “How much do you think Obama loves America?,” Another poll question was, “Barrack Obama has distanced himself from his former pastor Jeremiah Wright because of the controversial and unpatriotic comments Wright made. How much does it trouble you that Barrack Obama attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church and listened to Wright’s comments for twenty years?” (FOX). A blatant attempt at guilt by  association against Obama, which can create a skewed sense of character, and in turn a skewed view of the poll results.

      Those questions were obviously slanted towards the negatives of Obama, and are grossly propagandist. FOX was even caught flashing an image of a smiling McCain that many psychologists said was an attempt to use subliminal messaging. Subliminal messaging is a great use of propaganda, it is so effective that it is illegal in the UK, Australia, and here in the United States (Watson).

       Obama’s campaign wasn’t limited to the internet and television though, but included media biased from newspapers and magazines, who ran heavy articles favoring Obama. TIME Magazine even named Barrack Obama it’s “Man of the Year.” TIME was just one magazine that had the now iconic Shepard Fairey created image of Obama gracing it’s covers around the same time. McCain received his fair share of front page exposure as well, he graced the covers of the New York Times and The Washington Post a few times (Rutenberg). Of course, the lesser known candidates did not receive as much coverage in the media, which led to poor turnouts at primaries and caucuses, and inevitably dropping out of the race. This shows that the more media exposure, the better a candidate is suspected to be doing in the polls, as well as in the campaign overall (Issenberg). Obama dominated every facet of media exposure during the elections, and McCain struggled to keep up, doing every thing right after Obama did it. It seemed, at least from a mass media standpoint, that McCain was always a step behind Obama, be it how many facebook friends, or how many commercials and large-market cover-pages Obama had compared to McCain.

      These giant media outlets gave their full support to a candidate, it was not possible to keep that bias out of their lineup of shows. CNN sold T-shirts with Obama propaganda blatantly on them. Hosts of television shows and movie stars gave their support - generating a faulty use of authority - Obama definitely succeeded in “cracking” the media. McCain wasn’t the only loser to Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton struggled against him as well, irritating many Clinton supporters, and Hillary herself. “The Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama,” (Harris).

      Obama won the 2008 presidential campaign, and is now the President of the United States of America, and says “It’s time for change.” How much credit does the media deserve for this? Some say all of it. One thing is for sure, and that is Obama mastered the media-relations game. He reached many different groups since he was seen on so many different platforms. Propaganda the primary mover of public opinion, which concerned some astute viewers, but affected many more. All in all this was one for the books; this campaign was unlike any other, and will shape the way the future campaigns will be ran. Some lessons that can be learned from this campaign are to not be swung, make your own decisions and choices, watch a network with opposing views just to stay balanced, stay vigilant.

Works Cited

Barrett, Devlin. “Ads For Obama: ‘It’s in the Game’” MSNBC Online. 14 Oct. 2008. 18 March  2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27184857/

Calderon, Michael. MSNBC - Obama Propaganda Mill. Hickey Site. 25 Aug. 2008. 20 Feb.  2009. http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2008/08/msnbc-obama-propaganda- mill-eddie.html

CNN Shirt. CNN.com. 20 Feb. 2009. http://www.cnn.comtshirtindex.html#headlines/inaugural/1

Dinan, Stephen. “McCain Takes Lead on Youtube Hits.” 7 Aug 2008. The Washington Times. 17  March 2009.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/07/mccain-takes- leadon-youtube-hits/

Dubner, Steven. “McCain, the Media, Money, and Montesinos (and Obama too).” Freakonomics.  13 Oct. 2008. The New York Times. 18 March 2009. http:// freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/mccain-the-media-money-and- montesinos-and-obama-too/     

Dudley, Eric. “President Election Results Online- Obama vs. McCain.” Marketer Insight. 30 Oct.  2008. 17 March 2009. http://www.marketerinsight.com/online-marketing/campaigns-web-gain-support/

Graham-Felsen, Sam. “Obama’s Impressive Youth Routes.” 15 Feb. 2007. The Nation. 17 March  2009. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070305/graham-felsen 

Goldenberg, Susan. “Final Days of Fight Will See Obama Spend, Spend, Spend.” The Guardian.  11 Oct. 2008. 15 March 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/11/uselections2008-barackobama

Harris, John; Jim Vandehei. “Obama’s Secret Weapon: The Media.” Politico. 18 April 2008. 16  March 2009. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html 

Issenberg, Sasha. “Propaganda of the Year.” Political Intelligence. The Boston Globe. 17 Dec.  208. 20 Feb. 2009. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/12/propaganda_of_t.html

McLead, Julie. “CNN, News front cult called Obamamania.” How the News Became  Propaganda. Canada Free Press. 30 Jan. 2009. 20 Feb. 2009. http:// canadafreepress.com/ index.php/article/8028

Pagay, Sue. “Propaganda in America: The 2008 Presidential Campaign.” News Flavor. 28 March  2008. 20 Feb. 2009. http://www.newsflavor.com/Politics/US-Politics/Propaganda-in- 

 America-The-2008-Presidential-Campaign.100692

PEJ. “Candidate Websites, Propaganda or News?-A PEG STudy” Election 2008.  Journalism.org. 12 July 2007. 20 Feb. 2009. http://www.journalism.org/node/6370

Silva, Mark. “McCain vs. Obama: GOP won TV Viewers.” Young American’s Documenary. 5  Sep. 2008. Pat Dollard. 15 March 2009. http://patdollard.com/2008/09/mccain-vs-obama-gop-won-tv-viewers/

Syria Proxy-War

Looks like it is about to go down in Syria. Turkey says, "massive escalation" in the next 24 hours. Saudi Arabia, leading a coalition of 20 Arab nations, will send 350,000 troops to the Saudi border, for a so-called military exercise, dubbed, "Northern Thunder." This is HUGE.

Russian military advisors have been working directly with the Kurds in Northern Syria to take control of the border. On Tuesday Kurdish and Syrian forces, backed by Russian bombers, recaptured vital infrastructure in Aleppo, for easier control and access to the outlying border regions. 

That does not bode well for these "anti-assad" factions, as they receive almost all of their support from across the Turkey-Syrian border. This is also the main border that refugees are flooding across (more on them later).

These anti-assad factions just so happen to be the "moderate-rebel" organizations like Al Nusra, Martyrs of Syria, the Islamic Front, and possibly hundreds of other offshoots of Al Qaeda, all very much akin to ISIS. These groups are all remnants, or candleholders, of what we destroyed in Iraq and lost countless lives doing. You can kill a man, but not an ideology.

Isis literally cannot exist without the support it receives from other anti-assad factions.

What is truly depressing is the fact that Al Qaeda was a Red Herring, or a distraction, from our (much documented and well-known) real goals in Iraq.

Even more depressing is the fact that the CIA directly funded, armed, and trained Al Qaeda in an attempt to over-throw the Saddam regime... exactly like they are doing now with these "moderate-rebels" and Assad. So if you're being honest, the CIA, whether directly or indirectly, created ISIS. There are no moderate-rebels. These rebels all have one goal in mind, the establishment of Sharia Law, in one form or the other.

They just happen to share a goal of the Western Coalition; got to oust Assad for control of the region.

What these ignorant rebels don't realize though, is as soon as the West is done with their services they will destroy them. Like flees...

That won't happen until Assad is out, though, these are essentially the foot-soldiers of the West for time being, and now Turkey and Saudi Arabia will be behind them with guns-blazing. With Russia, Syria, and Iran all fighting them directly on the ground and in the air.

Russia has seen enough of the establishment of Western hegemony. Putin stamped it out at his doorstep in Ukraine, and has now put his foot down in Syria.

What is extremely scary is if tensions get set off with China, anything could cause it (the world markets are going nuts). They've already started building those islands in the Pacific. They had that massive military parade this summer... they appear to be hedging their bets, it's very hard to tell where they would side, or if they would even take one.

Then you got North Korea puffing their chest with all their missile launches and reported Hydrogen bomb testing. You know what side they're on.

As much as Putin tries to play it down, the sanctions the West has applied since the annexation of Crimea has strained the Russian economy. Russian GDP growth:

There is no "civil war," as the corporate media arrogantly is calling it... It is a proxy-war, plain and simple, and if some of these other super powers start getting hands-on, this entire situation could explode over night. 

We have no business in any of it. Just because we took the shit that is putrifying in the middle east, doesn't mean we should keep sending our future over there to clean it up. We already have untold numbers of special forces in theater. 

Now about those refugees. 

There is about to be a worldwide humanitarian crisis, just you watch! Russia will close the border to Turkey, and these refugees are not going to be able to get out. There will be some that try, and I guarantee you will see it plastered on the corporate news. When Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and whoever else decides they want to start dropping bombs and launching missiles all at the same time, and these civilians cannot get out of the country or the cross-fire, there will be massive casualties.

When the moral-driven west sees these casualties, their immediate inclination will be to rush in to the rescue. That's the emotion we've been conditioned to respond with, through all kinds of media manipulation and social constructs such as organized youth sports. Affectionately, the American exceptionalism, and the oft-misguided hero-response.

Turkey has the refugee card to play to blackmail the European government. They have nearly 2 million refugees, and have threatened to release them into Europe. A threat that could force the EU's hand. 

We must understand, this has all been designed from day one.

The Lindsey Graham (Republican) bill to give the president absolute authority of where, when, and how long to use our troops is horrendously appalling. It would allow the president to circumvent congress, he would not need congressional apporval to send our extremely young men and women into combat. He technically has the power now, but this would also give him direct authority to put boots on the ground against Isis.

It is epecially appalling viewing the current state of the egregiously ambiguous "War on Terror." This bill is being fast tracked by Harry Reid (Democrat). Both sides of the "aisle" are all-too-eager to get this legislation through, that should give every person in America a sense of what's really going on behind the scenes.