Philip Giraldi


Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi discusses the threat of US military intervention in Libya, and why it shouldn’t happen; how the overweening National Endowment for Democracy screws up political revolutions all over the world; how successful and (relatively) peaceful Mideast uprisings against tyrants undermine the violent fundamentalism promoted by al Qaeda; the US sweating bullets about CIA employee Raymond Davis spilling the beans to his Pakistani captors; the weak case for Davis’s diplomatic immunity; and why Pakistan’s government may fall if it fails to prosecute and convict Davis, in the face of repeated US calls for his release.

MP3 here. (21:55)

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a contributing editor to The American Conservative and executive director of the Council for the National Interest. He writes regularly for

17 thoughts on “Philip Giraldi”

  1. Certain commentators , if anyone else is watching Al Jazeera English, they are pushing for a no fly zone. (US, UN, Europe or whoever) Do we need to be CNN-gulf war style pushed into a confrontation just for ratings. Can't the Al Jazeera army take the lead? Its ok for anchors to ask biting questions, but…
    The most damning thing, Mr Giraldi says is "It seems to be a genetic defect that we (Americans) meddle in a way that we can comprehend. " How many times are we going to repeat the mistake, until we get smart?

    1. Jazeera has recently serving their own interests by avenging regimes that don't allow their channel. A no fly zone would not benefit anyone except the oil companies. They would monitor and attack anyone who is a threat to the pipeline and flow to the sea.

  2. Somewhere, lost in my history, during the recent coverage on Libya, I saw a report that a General Dynamics contract with Gaddafi was approved 2 years ago.

  3. The UN has an obligation to impose a no-fly zone to defend the civilian from atrocities. Of course, it shouldn´t be NATO and by no means the US but the UN. They must stop the madman´s killings of innocent unarmed protesters.

    1. The UN doesn't have airplanes of its own. The UN is not an organization like the Red Cross.

      Unlike the Red Cross, the UN is just a table around which the nations of the world are supposed to convene.

      And the UN gets most of its funding from the US.

      If a no-fly zone is to be enforced, the only entities capable of providing the resources are either NATO or the US.

      Logistically, an aircraft carrier will have to be used — or at the very least a few long-range refueling tankers — as neighboring countries like Egypt or Tunisia and Algeria will prefer to stay neutral and fighter jets will need a place to land for refueling or maintenance.

    2. if the west can establish a no fly zone in Libya, then why not GAZA as well.
      In GAZA, someone is murderd or maimed by the IDF every day.

  4. Mr. Giraldi is correct in mentioning america's continued interference with the situation in Egypt. It should be noted that Mubarak has not yet completely surrendered. The american regime remains hopeful that Mubarak can somehow withstand the current revolution and some suspect that america is working covertly to re-install him (or his right-hand man, the torturer in chief) as the leader of Egypt. Perhaps this is at least partly the reason that america is currently making so much noise about Libya. The value of Libya as a distraction cannot be overstated.

    Meanwhile, america faces a real problem in Libya. There, the people are "actually succeeding" and this is something america simply cannot tolerate. Interference and sabotage are definitely on the menu here. Sure, the administration makes vague comments as to supporting the rebels, but support for the rebels is not what's driving america. Weigh america's b.s. putative concern for the freedom of Egyptians against america's concern for the freedom of Gazans and you'll begin to get the idea. "Every international move america makes must be pre-approved by, or take into consideration, a certain foreign power." as stated in my previous comment, linked here;

    Thus, we can all be assured that america's feigned lack of interest in Egypt is due to america's expectation that the situation there will return to normal. i.e.: a dictatorship controlled by america and designed to make israel happy. If anyone thinks that america is not currently involved, in a covert manner, with the Mubarak regime, that person needs to wake up. I find it inconceivable that america has not been called to duty to help re-establish the Mubarak regime (or a clone thereof) in light of the recent opening of the border at Rafa. Allowing Iranian ships to pass through the Suez canal was a clear indication that the people who are behind the rebellion are not comfortable with the american / israeli strategy of treating Iran as a pariah. You can safely bet that america is not finished in Egypt yet.

    We can also be quite certain that america's interest in Libya is due to the fear that real democracy might be achieved by the Egyptian people. This is something that israel will not tolerate – and by association (a master and servant relationship, really), america will not tolerate it either. Dictatorships of the pro-israel kind are acceptable. Likewise for puppet regimes that falsely purport to be democratic – these are acceptable and quite useful. However, real democracy, and the freedom of a nation to make its own choices will not be tolerated. After all; a truly free nation could, conceivably, make a decision that was not favorable to israel.

    It's america's job to ensure that no such democracy is founded in northern Africa. In plain fact; it's america's job to push the israeli line throughout the world. From prosecuting ninety year old men for alleged war crimes to funding the stupid Iron Dome project, america will faithfully carry out the tasks assigned to it by its masters in israel. Ensuring that israel is relieved of having to deal with a truly functional democracy anywhere in "its" region is just part of the job.

  5. It's already happening. According to an article on Prison Planet, “The three Western states (US, UK, France) have landed their special forces troops in Cyrinacia and are now setting up their bases and training centres,” in a bid to bolster rebel forces resisting Gaddafi’s militia in the surrounding region." They are "training" the rebels to fight better and perhaps to run a government, despite the rebels saying they do not want any such help.

    In other words, they are trying to take over the revolution and use it to reinstate Western rule over Libya. Interestingly, this is exactly what Gaddafi's government said would happen.

    1. The only discernable force who is playing to the US tune in Libya, probably without realizing, is… Gaddhafi.

  6. Although Philip Giraldi is mostly right, I would like to point out that it's not the case that Arabs as a whole hate Turks because of the Ottoman empire. In don't know specifically about Libya, but I know that in the Gulf, Turkey is not hated at all. A lot of foodstuffs are imported from Turkey, many people travel to Turkey during the summer, the Arabs love Turkish TV series, and Prime Minister Erdogan is VERY highly respected. (Lawrence of Arabia movie notwithstanding, lol)

    1. Since the Ottoman empire collapsed about a century ago, Arabs in the region have certainly moved on.

      I believe Dr. Giraldi's information on that issue dates back to the 1980s when he served as a CIA field officer in Turkey, a time when Turkey was trying to restore its relations with the US and the west after Turkey's involvement in Cyprus. It was also a period when Turkey attempted to steer clear of the Soviet bloc — including allied Arab countries — and move closer to the US, however.

      In recent years, especially after Turkey's criticism of Israel's massacre in Gaza, Arabs in the region have been recognizing Turkey's key role as an economic and political ally. Since the EU rejected Turkey's bid for membership, Turkey has been inching closer to partnerships with Syria and the Arab region as a whole.

  7. Apologies all around – I did indeed over-emote on the subject of Turkey. Probably due to my having been bedridden last week with a cold and having re-read Lawrence's "Revolt in the Desert." Avi is indeed correct that while Turkey had rough relations with many Arab states in the 1980s, Erdogan is currently widely respected throughout the Mideast and North Africa.

  8. Hey Scott, you wanna know what I think about Bin Laden's opinion towards what's happening now in the Middle East? His opinion is that he doesn't have one because he died before 9/11 happened. After all, you can't just go and knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes and leave the supposed mastermind behind these operations alive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.