Wednesday, April 23, 2014

American Betrayal


"This explosive book is a long-needed answer to court histories that continue to obscure key facts about our backstage war with Moscow. Must-reading for serious students of security issues and Cold War deceptions, both foreign and domestic."

-- M. Stanton Evans, author of Stalin's Secret Agents and Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies

"[West] only claims `to connect the dots,' which is a very modest description of the huge and brilliant work she has obviously done. ... It is not simply a good book about history. It is one of those books which makes history."

-- Vladimir Bukovsky, author of To Build a Castle and co-founder of the Soviet dissident movement, and Pavel Stroilov, author of Behind the Desert Storm.

"Every once in a while, something happens that turns a whole structure of preconceived ideas upside down, shattering tales and narratives long taken for granted, destroying prejudice, clearing space for new understanding to grow. Diana West's latest book, American Betrayal, is such an event."
-- Henrik Raeder Clausen, Europe News

"No book has ever frightened me as much as American Betrayal. ... It all adds up to a story so disturbing that it has changed my attitude to almost everything I think about how the world actually is."

-- Steven Kates, Quadrant

“What Diana West has done is to dynamite her way through several miles of bedrock. On the other side of the tunnel there is a vista of a new past. Of course folks are baffled. Few people have the capacity to take this in. Her book is among the most well documented I have ever read. It is written in an unusual style viewed from the perspective of the historian—but it probably couldn’t have been done any other way.”

-- Lars Hedegaard, historian, editor, Dispatch International

"Diana West's new book rewrites WWII and Cold War history not by disclosing secrets, but by illuminating facts that have been hidden in plain sight for decades. Furthermore, she integrates intelligence and political history in ways never done before."

-- Jeffrey Norwitz, former professor of counterterrorism, Naval War College

Do not be dissuaded by the controversy that has erupted around this book which, if you insist on complete accuracy, would be characterized as a disinformation campaign.

-- Jed Babbin, The American Spectator

Enlightening. I give American Betrayal five stars only because it is not possible to give it six."

-- John Dietrich, formerly of the Defense Intelligence Agency and author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy.

"Diana West masterfully reminds us of what history is for: to suggest action for the present. She paints for us the broad picture of our own long record of failing to recognize bullies and villains. She shows how American denial today reflects a pattern that held strongly in the period of the Soviet Union. She is the Michelangelo of Denial.”

-- Amity Shlaes, author of Coolidge and The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression

If you're looking for something to read, this is the most dazzling, mind-warping book I have read in a long time. It has been criticized by the folks at Front Page, but they don't quite get what Ms. West has set out to do and accomplished. I have a whole library of books on communism, but -- "Witness" excepted -- this may be the best.

-- Jack Cashill, author of Deconstructing Obama: The Lives, Loves and Letters of America's First Postmodern President and First Strike: TWA Flight 800 and the Attack on America

American Betrayal is a monumental achievement. Brilliant and important.

-- Monica Crowley, Fox News analyst, radio host and author of What the Bleep Just Happened: The Happy Warriors Guide to the Great American Comeback

"If you haven't read Diana West's "American Betrayal" yet, you're missing out on a terrific, real-life thriller."

-- Brad Thor, author of the New York Times bestsellers Hidden Order, Black List and The Last Patriot.

If the Soviet penetration of Washington, D.C., was so wide and so deep that it functioned like an occupation …
If, as a result of that occupation, American statecraft became an extension of Soviet strategy …
If the people who caught on – investigators, politicians, defectors – and tried to warn the American public were demonized, ridiculed and destroyed for the good of that occupation and to further that strategy …
And if the truth was suppressed by an increasingly complicit Uncle Sam …

Would you feel betrayed?

Now available from St. Martin's Press, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character

View Blog
Jan 27

Written by: Diana West
Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:13 AM 

Libya Shield -- a security provider to USA in Benghazi -- and the AQ flag of jihad. As Hillary Cinton testified last week: The United States has to be "effective in partnering with the non-jihadists, whether they fly a black flag or any other color flag."


At Hillary Clinton's House "Benghazi" hearing last week, Rep. Tom Marino brought up the Library of Congress report "Al Qaeda in Libya: A Profile." The August 2012 report was prepared by the Library's Federal Research Division in conjuction with the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office's Irregular Warfare Support Program. Marino wanted to know whether the secretary of state had read it.

Clinton replied by talking about the many reports that cross her other words, no.

Unfortunately, Marino followed up with nothing specific. For example, he could have informed the secretary of state that the report i.d.'s  the leader of Libya Shield militia, Wissam bin Hamid, a reported veteran of the Iraq insurgency (Afghanistan, too), as a suspected leader of Al Qaeda in Libya. To be sure, bin Hamid's Libya Shield militia fights and parades under the black flag of Al Qaeda (above), and bin Hamid is a vocal proponent of sharia over all in Libya ("Islamic shariah is a red line. We will not cede one rule of it....") It was Libya Shield members, not incidentally, who met -- squabbled with and delayed -- the small contingent sent to Benghazi from Tripoli on the night of September 11, 2012 (just another security shocker not noted in the Benghazi hearings). In the final cable Amb. Christopher Stevens signed on 9/11/12, bin Hamid is further id'd as having threatened US personnel with withdrawing security from the US compound if a Muslim Brotherhood candidate didn't win upcoming Libyan elections.

Wouldn't it have been logical for Marino and his colleagues to have asked: Mme. Secretary, how can it be that the United States government permitted an out-and-out jihadist, a suspected leader of Al Qaeda in Libya, to provide security for US interests in Benghazi? What were US interests in Benghazi, anyway? Why was Amb. Stevens even there on 9/11/12? In fact, could you explain what American interest is served by the administration's "Arab Spring" policy that allies the US with jihadists?

What difference does it make?! Mme. Secretary might well have responded. Anyway, bin Hamid is merely a former automobile workship owner, -- the NYT said so.

Marino went on to display photos of Al Qaeda flags from protests around the Muslim world, eliciting a classic, if grossly underreported, Clinton response:

“The United States has to be as effective in partnering with the non-jihadists, whether they fly a black flag or any other color flag, to be successful.”

The Secretary of State just declared herself blind to AQ's flag of jihad.

And Congress? It seems eqaully as to the implications of Obama-Clinton policy: that  Uncle Sam has furthered the jihad over the course of "Arab Spring," and particularly in Libya and Egypt, with spillover now visible throughout the region.

This logical conclusion is getting pushback from one of the leading busybodies in the world, French "philosopher" Bernard Henri Levy, who credits himself (and made a movie about it) as having singlehandedly connected Libyan "rebels" with France's Sarkozy, who then brought along the UK and the US to join in overthrowing Qadaffi. (He even seems to be right about his role to a shocking extent.) Levy denies any connection between events in Libya and events in Mali and Algeria.

Levy writes:

Supposedly, putting an end to Gaddafi’s dictatorship opened Pandora’s box in Africa.

Which would mean that Nicolas Sarkozy, Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, and a few others are supposedly responsible, directly or indirectly, for the rise of Islamism in the Sahel, for the collapse of the failed states of the sub-region, and for the deaths at the In Amenas gas plant in Algeria.


Just wait a little longer and, when the time comes to begin complaining about the quagmire in Mali, they will still be to blame.

Ordinarily this argument could be laughed off.

But because imaginations are running wild and all are having their say on the great “destabilization” allegedly resulting from the Libyan intervention, it is vital that we dot the i’s and cross the t’s.

OK, BHL (as he likes to refer to himself): Take your best shot.


1. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was not an after-effect of the assault on Benghazi. It first appeared six years ago, a successor to the old Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, which itself was a splinter group of the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria. At that time, it claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombings, savage hostage-takings for ransom, and attacks on airports and embassies. Like many of his lieutenants, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the mastermind of the In Amenas operation, is an Algerian national, a veteran of the early days of terrorism who has nothing to do—zero—with Libya.

To be sure, AQIM is mainly comprised of Algerian nationals and it indeed predates the assault on Benghazi. So what? How do those facts prevent events in LIbya, which Levy, improbably enough, helped advance, from energizing and even advancing the jihad in Africa?

Let's see what the LOC August 2012 report, "Al Qaeda in LIbya: A Profle," has to say about AQIM and Libya. The report's preface opens:

This report attempts to assess al Qaeda's presence in LIbya. Al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL) and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) have sought to take advantage of the Libyan Revolution to recruit militants and to reinforce their operational capabilities in an attempt to create a safe haven and possibly to extend their area of operations to Libya.

Sounds like the overthrow of Qaddafi was a boon to all branches of AQ, non?

Reports have indicated that AQSL is seeking to create an al-Qaeda clandestine network in Libya that could be activated in the future to destabilize the government and/or to offer logistical support to al- Qaeda’s activities in North Africa and the Sahel. AQIM has reportedly formed sleeper cells that are probably connected to an al-Qaeda underground network in Libya, likely as a way, primarily, to secure the supply of arms for its ongoing jihadist operations in Algeria and the Sahel. This report discusses how al-Qaeda and its North African affiliate are using communications media and face-to-face contacts to shift the still-evolving post-revolutionary political and social dynamic in Libya in a direction that is conducive to jihad and hateful of the West.

Onto pp. 36-37:

Like AQSL, AQIM has shown great interest in the Libyan Revolution. AQIM’s leaders have praised and congratulated the Libyan rebels for their victory, referring to them as mujahidin and “grandsons” of ‘Umar al-Mukhtar, an anticolonial figure, as a way of linking the Libyan Revolution with anticolonial jihad, which is a central tenet of AQIM’s jihadist discourse. While they called on Libyans to distrust NATO, AQIM’s leaders promised to join in combat only in case of a foreign ground invasion and did not take credit for any participation in the Libyan rebellion, probably in an attempt to demonstrate support without giving the impression of meddling in the internal affairs of the Libyan rebels.71

Probably in line with AQSL’s penchant for secrecy, AQIM has denied any direct involvement in the Libyan rebellion, and its message is inclusive of all rebels. Its apparent intent is to focus on local alliances, likely with militias close to its Islamist paradigm, as a way of extending its safe haven and procuring weapons for its ongoing jihadist operations in Algeria and northern Mali.

For instance, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the AQIM leader in the Sahel, was reportedly in Libya and allegedly attended the al-Qaeda–type parade in Sirt as the guest of Wisam Ben Hamid, the leader of Katiba al-A’hrar Libya [Libya Shield].

What was that about Mokhtar having "zero" -- nussing -- to do with Libya? He was in Libya last spring as Grand Marshal of US security coordinator Wissam bin Hamid's "Al Qaeda-type" parade! Meanwhile, the LOC report goes on:

Belmokhtar was the first AQIM leader to acknowledge the Libyan Revolution’s advantages for his organization, specifically in terms of procurement of weapons, and the two movements share a commitment to jihad for the sake of establishing the rule of God on earth.72

That would be "Allah," by the way. And this is the common thread, the thread of jihad, that Hillary Clinton and Monsieur Levy close their eyes to. NATO made war in Libya believing that eliminating  Qaddafi (like eliminating  Mubarak in Egypt) would unleash Western(ish) values yearning to be free, or something. This same see-no-Islam view led us to expect the same basic thing to take place in the wake of "the surge" in Iraq and nation-building in Afghanistan. (Wrong again.) You can actually see the nub of this Libyan policy taking shape in Wikileaks cables written by the late Christopher Stevens in 2008, which begin to feature the particularly eastern Libyan desire to remove Qaddafi as a means to neutralize local "radicalism." (Eastern Libya sent more jihadists to fight Americans in Iraq per capita than anywhere in the world.) The elimination of Qaddafi pleased the "radicals" of eastern Libya, all right, but eliminating Qaddafi didn't eliminate jihad. On the contrary, it served jihad, which now continues, energized. And now they run from it -- Levy denying it outright, Mrs. Clinton now talking "spreading jihadist threat" like she's been a tough guy all along. Obama ... saying nothing.

The LOC report continues:’s clandestine network in Libya will probably continue to provide critical support to AQIM, especially with regard to arms procurement and safe passage of militants, which are essential to sustain AQIM’s war in northern Mali. These arms and militants are critically needed to maintain the strategic advance that AQIM and its allies, the Movement of Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJWA) and Ansar-Din (Supporters of the Religion), achieved when they expelled the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (local name for the territory historically inhabited by the Tuareg) from the main cities in the north of Mali in June 2012. Since then, AQIM and its allies have controlled the northern two-thirds of Mali, and the region has become an autonomous land in which terrorists roam, train, and plot.

More, alas, to come.


Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West