This is the last article you can read this month
You can read more article this month
You can read more articles this month
Sorry your limit is up for this month
On Friday February 14 92 prisoners escaped from their prison in the Libyan town of Zliten.
Nineteen of them were eventually recaptured, two of whom were wounded in clashes with the guards. It was just another daily episode highlighting the utter chaos which has engulfed Libya since the overthrow of Muammar Gadaffi in 2011.
Much of this is often reported with cliché explanations - references to the country's "security vacuum" or Libya's lack of a true national identity.
Indeed, tribe and region seem to supersede any other affiliation, but it is hardly that simple.
On that same Friday Major General Khalifa Hifter announced a coup in Libya.
"The national command of the Libyan army is declaring a movement for a new road map" - to rescue the country, Hifter declared through a video post.
Oddly enough, little followed by way of a major military deployment in any part of the country. The country's Prime Minister Ali Zeidan described the attempted coup as "ridiculous." Others in the military called it a "lie."
One of those who attended a meeting with Hifter prior to the announcement told Al Jazeera that they simply attempted to enforce the national agenda of establishing order, not staging a coup.
Hifter's efforts were a farce. It generated nothing but more attention to Libya's fractious reality, following Nato's war, which was branded a humanitarian intervention to prevent imminent massacres in Benghazi and elsewhere.
"Libya is stable," Zeidan told Reuters. Parliament was "doing its work and so is the government."
But Zeidan is not correct.
His assessment is a clear contradiction of reality. Hundreds of militias rule the country with an iron fist.
In fact, the prime minister was himself kidnapped by one militia last October. Hours later, he was released by another militia.
Although both, like the rest of the militias, are operating outside government confines, many are directly or loosely affiliated with government officials.
In Libya, to have sway over a militia is to have influence over local, regional or national agendas. Unfortunate as it may be, this is the "new Libya."
Some will find most convenient ways to explain the chaos. "East Libya is inherently unruly," some would say.
"It took a strong leader like Gadaffi to maintain the national cohesion of a country made of tribes, not citizens," others would opine. But the truth is often inconvenient and requires more than mere platitudes.
Libya is in a state of chaos, but not because of some intrinsic tendency to shun order.
Libyans, like people all over the world, seek security and stability in their lives.
However, other parties, Arab and Western, are desperate to ensure that the "new Libya" is consistent with their own interests, even if such interests are obtained at the expense of millions of people.
The New York Times's David Kirkpatrick reported on the supposed coup from Cairo. In his report In Libya, a Coup. Or Perhaps Not, he drew similarities between Libya and Egypt - in the case of Egypt, the military succeeded in consolidating its powers starting on July 3, whereas in Libya a strong military institution never existed in the first place, even during Gadaffi's rule.
In order for Hifter to stage a coup, he would need to rely on more than a weak and splintered military.
Nonetheless, it is quite interesting that the NYT chose to place Hifter's "ridiculous" coup within an Egyptian context, while there is a more immediate and far more relevant context at hand, one of which the newspaper and its veteran correspondents should know very well.
It is no secret that Hifter has had strong backing from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for nearly three decades.
The man has been branded and rebranded throughout his colourful and sometimes mysterious history more times than one can summarise in a single article.
He fought as an officer in the Chadian-Libyan conflict and was captured alongside his entire unit of 600 men.
During his time in prison, Chad experienced a regime change - both regimes were backed by French and US intelligence - and Hifter and his men were released on the US's request to another African country, then a third.
While some chose to return home, others knew well what would await them in Libya, for reasons explained by the Times on May 17 1991.
"For two years, United States officials have been shopping around for a home for about 350 Libyan soldiers who cannot return to their country because US intelligence officials had mobilised them into a commando force to overthrow Colonel Muammar al-Gadaffi, the Libyan leader," it reported.
"Now the administration has given up trying to find another country that will accept the Libyans and has decided to bring them to the United States."
Hifter was then relocated to a Virginia suburb in the early 1990s and settled there. The news is murky about his exact activities living near Washington DC, except for his ties to Libyan opposition forces, which of course, operated within a US agenda.
In his thorough report published in the Business Insider, Russ Baker traced much of Hifter's activities since his split from Gadaffi and adoption by the CIA.
"A congressional research service report of December 1996 named Hifter as the head of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya's (NFSL's) military wing, the Libyan National Army."
After he joined the exile group, the CRS report added, Hifter began "preparing an army to march on Libya."
The NFSL, it said, is in exile "with many of its members in the United States."
It took nearly 15 years for Hifter to march on Libya.
It also took a massive war that was purported to support a popular uprising.
Hifter, as Baker described, is the Libyan equivalent of Iraq's Ahmed Chalabi, a discredited figure with strong allies in Washington DC. Chalabi was sent to post-Saddam Iraq to lead the "democratisation" process. Instead, he helped set the stage for the calamity under way in that Arab country.
It is no wonder that Hifter's return was a major source of controversy.
Since the news of his CIA affiliation was no big secret, his return to Libya to join the rebels in March caused much confusion.
Almost immediately, he was announced by a military spokesman as the rebels' new commander, only for the announcement to be dismissed by the National Transitional Council as false.
The NTC was largely a composition of mysterious characters that had little presence within Libya's national consciousness. Hifter found himself as the third man in the military ladder, which he accepted, though apparently grudgingly so.
Despite the coup's failure, Libya will subsist on uncertainty.
Arab and Western media speak of illegal shipments of weapons arriving into various Libyan airports. The militias are growing in size.
The central government is growing irrelevant. Jail breaks are reported regularly.
And Libyans find safety in holding on tighter to their tribal and clan affiliations.
What future awaits Libya is hard to predict, but with Western and Arab intelligence fingerprints found all over the Libyan bedlam, the future is uninviting.
Ramzy Baroud is an internationally syndicated columnist, a media consultant and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press).
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by joining the 501 club.
Just £5 a month gives you the opportunity to win one of 17 prizes, from £25 to the £501 jackpot.
By becoming a 501 Club member you are helping the Morning Star cover its printing, distribution and staff costs — help keep our paper thriving by joining!
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by become a member of the People’s Printing Press Society.
The Morning Star is a readers’ co-operative, which means you can become an owner of the paper too by buying shares in the society.
Shares are £10 each — though unlike capitalist firms, each shareholder has an equal say. Money from shares contributes directly to keep our paper thriving.
Some union branches have taken out shares of over £500 and individuals over £100.
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by donating to the Fighting Fund.
The Morning Star is unique, as a lone socialist voice in a sea of corporate media. We offer a platform for those who would otherwise never be listened to, coverage of stories that would otherwise be buried.
The rich don’t like us, and they don’t advertise with us, so we rely on you, our readers and friends. With a regular donation to our monthly Fighting Fund, we can continue to thumb our noses at the fat cats and tell truth to power.
Donate today and make a regular contribution.