Manchester, xenophobia and the left's complicity
The horrific Manchester suicide bombing of May 22 is said to have been carried out by a son of Libyan refugees, and speculation is rife that he was linked to militant networks rather than being a lone wolf. The UK's right-wing tabs are responding predictably. The Daily Star screams that Libya has become an "ISIS breeding ground where THOUSANDS of terrorists are created." We are told that the attacker's older brother "was recently arrested in the Middle Eastern country after intelligence suggested he was about to commit an attack there." After thusly revealing that they don't know where Libya is (it's in North Africa, not the Middle East), the Star goes on to sensationalize about the jihadist threat there. Embarrassingly, it cites a UN report from November 2015 (yes, more than a year and a half ago) that warned, "ISIS has clearly demonstrated its intention to control additional territory in Libya."
Whatever ISIS aspired to in November 2015, it hasn't worked out. Sensationalism aside, ISIS controls but a small sliver of Libyan territory outside the city of Sirte, from which it is rapidly being routed by local militia forces. It has steadily been losing territory since 2015. The Star acknowledges that ISIS was driven from Sirte last year, but states (with weasily use of the passive voice): "In January it was revealed up to 3,000 fighters remained dispersed in the country following the fall of Sirte." Revealed by whom? This contention is contradicted by the Pentagon's own estimate of 200 ISIS fighters left in Libya.
Shamefully, this kind of exploitative reaction to the Manchester terror is also heard from the "left" (as it continues to be called, with ever less reason). One Caleb Maupin (a partisan of the Stalinoid Workers World Party, Wikipedia informs us) responds with a YouTube video that starts out by openly shilling for the Qaddafi dictatorship, crowing about the relative prosperity there before his overthrow. But then it was all spoiled when the US and NATO "funded terrorists and extremists to topple the government." The parents of the suspected Manchester perp "opposed Qaddafi" and "got asylum in UK." For Maupin, this is a bad thing. He sees a pattern: the disaffected from dictatorships in the Muslim world "get visas, then their kids come here and they kill people."
Isn't that cute? Stalinists and the right-wing yellow press, united at last. If anything, the prior category are actually even worse. With the usual imperial narcissism, Maupin is incapable of even acknowledging that there was a revolution in Libya. He can only see imperial "regime change" conspiracies, as if the Libyans were all perfectly happy under a megalomaniacal autocrat-for-life, and the country would be a socialist utopia today if those insidious imperialists hadn't gone in and upset the apple-cart. What a profound insult to the Libyans from this self-professed "radical journalist."
However, the rank xenophobia and Islamophobia is common to both Maupin and the reactionary tabs. The Independent informs us that the suspect's father "fled Tripoli in 1993 after Muammar Gaddafi's security authorities issued an arrest warrant and eventually sought political asylum in Britain." This is what pseudo-leftist Maupin opposes—in common with the Daily Star, the Brexiteers, and Donald Trump. How dare anyone in the Arab world oppose dictatorships or escape persecution by seeking asylum in the West! Better that the family had faced Qaddafi's torture chambers than contaminate British shores with their presence. Of course, Maupin's same Workers World party opportunistically professes solidarity with immigrants. Truly stratospheric levels of cynicism.
Tellingly, one Daniel McAdams has a nearly identical rant on the right-wing Ron Paul Institute website, preaching that the Manchester attack "was the product of the US and UK overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya and 'regime change' policy in Syria." The perp "was a radicalized Libyan whose family fled Gaddafi's secular Libya, and later he trained to be an armed 'rebel' in Syria, fighting for the US and UK 'regime change' policy toward the secular Assad government."
Right, the Assad regime, which is carrying out a bloody campaign of sectarian cleansing, is praised as "secular." And the instability in Libya is blamed on Western "regime change" plots rather than dictator Qaddafi completely supressing civil society for the 40-plus years of his autocratic rule.
Yet another example of the current left-right convergence around a program of enthusiasm for dictators, hatred of revolution, and demonization of immigrants and refugees. This Red-Brown politics must be vigorously and vocally rejected.