I apologize for my failure to post the last couple of weeks. A combination of distractions and computer malfunctions are to blame, but I will do my best to make up for lost time. Stay tuned over the coming week for more posts, but until then here's something to whet your appetite.
It has been a couple of months since Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi became the former Libyan dictator. Now he has officially become the late Moammar Ghaddafi after a chaotic gun battle in his hometown of Sirte resulted in a fatal wound to the head. The interesting part about this story is that Ghaddafi was captured alive and in relatively good condition before being killed "in the crossfire." I've heard a couple of theories from people skeptical of the official story regarding how a healthy captive became a decidedly unhealthy corpse. There are those who think Ghaddafi was killed by his own side in order to save them the embarrassment of being seen as following a criminal (if he was brought to trial). I think that a complete lack of discipline is to blame, either on the side of the insurgents (or new rulers, I guess) or on the side of Ghaddafi loyalists. But it would not surprise me for one second to find out that orders had come down from the very top of what passes for a chain of command among the Libyan revolutionaries that Ghaddafi was to be executed on the spot.
Ultimately finding who is to blame is not important. The die has been cast, and it is too late to turn back. Ghaddafi's death changed the game for the so-called Arab Spring, which until that point had seen the relatively peaceful transfer of power. This could be an important threshold and, unfortunately, we could see an upswing in violence in the remaining revolutions in the Arab world. After all, the revolutionaries will notice that violence took down Ghaddafi, so they must be wondering why it couldn't take down the government of Syria or Yemen?
An interesting question that I have is, "Okay, what is going to happen to the NATO forces deployed to Libya?" Political leaders around the world have been giving speeches about how the Libyans have now achieved their freedom. That makes for lovely little sound bites, but already the country appears to be devolving along regional and ethnic lines. If that happens we could see a significant upswing in violence as disparate groups fight for territory, resources, and influence rather than work together to properly run Libya's government. In such a case there are really two possible outcomes: the new government is too weak to keep the country from collapse or the new government will crack down on any troublemakers to preempt any civil unrest. Remember, the revolutionaries have not won a contest proving that they are more capable caretakers of Libya than Ghaddafi was. They have simply shown that they are willing and able to use violence to achieve their goals. Is there an actual depth to their abilities, or are they a one-trick pony? Look at the celebrations in Libya because Ghaddafi is dead. Not necessarily that they are free, but that their enemy is no longer living. That is a bit chilling when you think about it. When faced with the challenge of running a troubled nation, the gut reaction of the revolutionaries will be the use of force. And the one who can use that force best will naturally rise to the top. That is not to say they are doomed to a dictatorship, merely that the odds lie heavily stacked against them.
Something has seemed off about the Libyan revolution from the very beginning. I do not think that even a man like Ghaddafi deserved to die like he did, but ultimately it was inevitable. While the world cheers (including some of those who cried foul about bin Laden and al-Awlaki), Libya faces a difficult future. I know that there are many Libyans who sincerely seek a peaceful, stable government without oppression. But will they stand by and watch silently as the new government picks up where Ghaddafi left off as long as they are now the ones with power, or will they continue to stand against anyone who would rule by fear and intimidation? More importantly, how will the new government interact with the extreme Islamist elements at work in North Africa and within their own movement? Would they embrace the idea of a Caliphate with open arms or truly stand for independence?
One final thought: Obama made the announcement to the Libyan people that, "You have won your revolution." If Libya collapses into anarchy, and especially if there is a cry for renewed NATO operations, will we hear the media drone on and on about how mistaken Obama's speech was like they did to George W. Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln? Then again, it was the same media that ignored the fact that Bush's speech was actually about how much harder things were going to be in Iraq, so perhaps we shouldn't expect too much from them.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Palestine? What Palestine?
In recent weeks, one of the leading stories around the world has been the Palestinian push for official statehood by the United Nations. Of course, while the world continues to beg the Israelis to "pursue peace" they conveniently overlook the terrorist acts of the Palestinians. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perhaps the most high-profile struggle in the modern world. For generations, world leaders have sought to make their mark on history by resolving the issue. But, time and time again, those same leaders have proven a complete lack of understanding of the reality of the situation. The truth of the matter is simple: Palestinians do not have a "right" to a sovereign state, even if Israel returned to the 1967 borders. A bold statement? Perhaps it seems so, but only because the ability to tell even simple truths has been so lacking among the media and political figures who have controlled the debate for decades. Let's examine some of the reasons I can make that statement.
1. Who are the Palestinians?
The history of the Middle East is a complex and sweeping epic that would (and has) taken entire libraries to fully catalogue, but in the interest of brevity I'm going to keep things simple and relatively recent. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 at the end of World War I, the British took possession of a chunk of real estate in the Middle East. They named this territory "Palestine," which comes from the name the Roman Empire gave to the region: "Palaestina." The British wanted to help create a homeland for the Jewish people, but they decided to divide the territory between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs were to receive the British Mandate lands east of the Jordan River, an area referred to as Transjordan, while the lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River would be used to help create a Jewish homeland. The Transjordan became the Kingdom of Jordan in 1946 while the term "Palestine" would be used to refer to the rest of the British-held territory. It was from these lands that the Zionists would attempt to make a Jewish state, but the division of the land was not finished yet. Not by a long shot.
2. Why didn't the Arabs get a sovereign state alongside Israel?
The short answer is: they did. Or at least, that was the original plan. In November of 1947 the United Nations adopted the Partition Plan to further divide "Palestine" into two distinct states: one for Arabs and another for Jews. For those of you keeping score at home, that is two times that the British "Palestine" got narrowed down in order to give Arabs land so they would accept a Jewish state in their midst. And so, after the Partition Plan everyone shook hands and went home with nothing but love and peace in their hearts. Right? Eh, not so much. In fact, before the ink was dry a war had erupted between the Jews and Arabs (including an army of foreign fighters from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and even members of the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt. Boy, none of those places are causing trouble right now). Despite fighting a numerically superior foe with significant foreign support, the Jews managed to achieve significant victories. In 1948 the British, who had grown tired of getting caught in the cross-fire, decided to pack up and head home for good. On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was officially created as a sovereign nation. The very next day what had been a not-so-civil war became a massive international conflict with the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia invaded the newly created Israel, hoping to eliminate it before it truly had a chance to begin. Naturally, the Israelis looked around at the massive waves of Arabs swarming towards them, yawned, and started to obliterate all comers. The Israeli fighting forces were so effective that they not only survived (obviously) but they captured significant portions of the lands set aside for the Arabs by the 1947 UN Partition Plan. When a ceasefire was declared in 1949, the remaining Arab lands of the Partition Plan were gobbled up by other Arab countries. The West Bank was seized by the Kingdom of Jordan. Meanwhile, the All-Palestine Government was set up in Gaza City by the Arab League, but it was not recognized by any non-Arab country. In reality, the Egyptians ruled the Gaza Strip completely, though they never officially annexed the land. While the Jordanians offered the people of the West Bank citizenship, no such offers were made by the Egyptians who kept the people of the Gaza Strip in refugee communities that relied heavily on the UN. When someone tells you how horrible the Israeli "occupation" is, bring up the Egyptian-run Gaza Strip or even the not-as-brutal Jordanian annexation.
3. If Israel returned to the 1967 borders, who would claim the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
President Obama made quite a stir when he said that the Israelis should expect a return to 1967 borders "with mutually agreed swaps" as part of peace negotiations. But think about it. During the Six Day War Gaza and the West Bank were not part of some Palestinian territory that got bulldozed in the fighting. Gaza was Egyptian territory while the West Bank was held by the Kingdom of Jordan. So, if we were to return to 1967 borders those lands should be returned to the country that owned them before their capture. If a Palestinian homeland is such a big deal, why are the Israelis the only ones expected to give away land? Where were the desperate pleas for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank while those areas were turned into hellholes by the Palestinians' so called "allies" prior to 1967? The answer to that one is easy: prior to the Six Day War, it was believed in the Muslim world that a united Arab army would easily sweep the Jews into the sea and then the Arab world could truly unite and become a world power in their own right (maybe even restore a Caliphate). Only it didn't happen that way. Twice. So Arabs like Yassar Arafat decided to change tactics and began twisting history to tell a tragic tale of stolen lands and trampled rights that played right into the revolutionary mood sweeping across the world in the late '60s and into the '70s, particularly in America, hoping to turn the world's opinion against Israel. After that, it was simple inertia. Decades of propaganda have turned the story of Israel's stand against a sea of totalitarian enemies into a story of Israeli hatred and oppression. It is time we changed that. The tale of Israel is one of miracles, triumph, and hope in a dark world. What greater inspiration is there?
Of course this only scratches the surface of the true history of the Israeli/Arab conflict. I hope that this will be a beginning for you to seek out more of Israel's amazing true history. I have several links I will post at the bottom so you can continue to learn. I will close with a final observation. One of the Arab claims since the failed war of 1948 was that the United Nations had no right to create the state of Israel (which is an oversimplification in itself). Why, then, would the Palestinians go to the United Nations and seek a similar process? Using their own logic, would that Palestinian state not be illegal, as well? Round and round the circular logic goes; when it makes sense, no one knows.
Links-
Who Are The Palestinians? (video)
The Truth About The West Bank (video)
The Truth About The Peace Process (video)
Debunking The Palestinian Lie (video)
31 Opportunities for Statehood Squandered in Favor of Genocide
1. Who are the Palestinians?
The history of the Middle East is a complex and sweeping epic that would (and has) taken entire libraries to fully catalogue, but in the interest of brevity I'm going to keep things simple and relatively recent. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 at the end of World War I, the British took possession of a chunk of real estate in the Middle East. They named this territory "Palestine," which comes from the name the Roman Empire gave to the region: "Palaestina." The British wanted to help create a homeland for the Jewish people, but they decided to divide the territory between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs were to receive the British Mandate lands east of the Jordan River, an area referred to as Transjordan, while the lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River would be used to help create a Jewish homeland. The Transjordan became the Kingdom of Jordan in 1946 while the term "Palestine" would be used to refer to the rest of the British-held territory. It was from these lands that the Zionists would attempt to make a Jewish state, but the division of the land was not finished yet. Not by a long shot.
2. Why didn't the Arabs get a sovereign state alongside Israel?
The short answer is: they did. Or at least, that was the original plan. In November of 1947 the United Nations adopted the Partition Plan to further divide "Palestine" into two distinct states: one for Arabs and another for Jews. For those of you keeping score at home, that is two times that the British "Palestine" got narrowed down in order to give Arabs land so they would accept a Jewish state in their midst. And so, after the Partition Plan everyone shook hands and went home with nothing but love and peace in their hearts. Right? Eh, not so much. In fact, before the ink was dry a war had erupted between the Jews and Arabs (including an army of foreign fighters from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and even members of the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt. Boy, none of those places are causing trouble right now). Despite fighting a numerically superior foe with significant foreign support, the Jews managed to achieve significant victories. In 1948 the British, who had grown tired of getting caught in the cross-fire, decided to pack up and head home for good. On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was officially created as a sovereign nation. The very next day what had been a not-so-civil war became a massive international conflict with the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia invaded the newly created Israel, hoping to eliminate it before it truly had a chance to begin. Naturally, the Israelis looked around at the massive waves of Arabs swarming towards them, yawned, and started to obliterate all comers. The Israeli fighting forces were so effective that they not only survived (obviously) but they captured significant portions of the lands set aside for the Arabs by the 1947 UN Partition Plan. When a ceasefire was declared in 1949, the remaining Arab lands of the Partition Plan were gobbled up by other Arab countries. The West Bank was seized by the Kingdom of Jordan. Meanwhile, the All-Palestine Government was set up in Gaza City by the Arab League, but it was not recognized by any non-Arab country. In reality, the Egyptians ruled the Gaza Strip completely, though they never officially annexed the land. While the Jordanians offered the people of the West Bank citizenship, no such offers were made by the Egyptians who kept the people of the Gaza Strip in refugee communities that relied heavily on the UN. When someone tells you how horrible the Israeli "occupation" is, bring up the Egyptian-run Gaza Strip or even the not-as-brutal Jordanian annexation.
3. If Israel returned to the 1967 borders, who would claim the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
President Obama made quite a stir when he said that the Israelis should expect a return to 1967 borders "with mutually agreed swaps" as part of peace negotiations. But think about it. During the Six Day War Gaza and the West Bank were not part of some Palestinian territory that got bulldozed in the fighting. Gaza was Egyptian territory while the West Bank was held by the Kingdom of Jordan. So, if we were to return to 1967 borders those lands should be returned to the country that owned them before their capture. If a Palestinian homeland is such a big deal, why are the Israelis the only ones expected to give away land? Where were the desperate pleas for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank while those areas were turned into hellholes by the Palestinians' so called "allies" prior to 1967? The answer to that one is easy: prior to the Six Day War, it was believed in the Muslim world that a united Arab army would easily sweep the Jews into the sea and then the Arab world could truly unite and become a world power in their own right (maybe even restore a Caliphate). Only it didn't happen that way. Twice. So Arabs like Yassar Arafat decided to change tactics and began twisting history to tell a tragic tale of stolen lands and trampled rights that played right into the revolutionary mood sweeping across the world in the late '60s and into the '70s, particularly in America, hoping to turn the world's opinion against Israel. After that, it was simple inertia. Decades of propaganda have turned the story of Israel's stand against a sea of totalitarian enemies into a story of Israeli hatred and oppression. It is time we changed that. The tale of Israel is one of miracles, triumph, and hope in a dark world. What greater inspiration is there?
Of course this only scratches the surface of the true history of the Israeli/Arab conflict. I hope that this will be a beginning for you to seek out more of Israel's amazing true history. I have several links I will post at the bottom so you can continue to learn. I will close with a final observation. One of the Arab claims since the failed war of 1948 was that the United Nations had no right to create the state of Israel (which is an oversimplification in itself). Why, then, would the Palestinians go to the United Nations and seek a similar process? Using their own logic, would that Palestinian state not be illegal, as well? Round and round the circular logic goes; when it makes sense, no one knows.
Links-
Who Are The Palestinians? (video)
The Truth About The West Bank (video)
The Truth About The Peace Process (video)
Debunking The Palestinian Lie (video)
31 Opportunities for Statehood Squandered in Favor of Genocide
Monday, October 3, 2011
Slight Delay
Due to unforeseen circumstances, I will have to postpone today's post until Wednesday. I apologize for the delay and hopefully everything will be right on track in the near future.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
The Death of Anwar al-Awlaki
al-Qaeda is having a bad year. On May 1st al-Qaeda's founder and earliest financier Osama bin Laden met his well-deserved end by the hand of the elite SEAL Team Six. Now Anwar al-Awlaki, sometimes referred to as the "bin Laden of the Internet" for his use of 21st century electronic media to spread the jihadist message, has joined bin Laden in the great big harem in the sky. The CIA and United States Joint Special Operations Command wiped the influential terrorist off of the map with a drone strike in Yemen earlier today.
It can be argued that the death of the fiery cleric (a term which now applies quite literally to al-Awlaki) will have a greater operational impact on al-Qaeda than the death of bin Laden almost exactly six months ago. For those of you unaware of al-Awlaki's terrorist resume, he was an incredibly influential imam who was the spiritual mentor of many notorious terrorists. In 2000 al-Awlaki was preaching at a mosque in San Diego attended by Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the 9/11 hijackers. He was investigated by the FBI, but they quickly decided he had no relevant connections to terrorist groups. In early 2001 he moved to Falls Church, Virginia. There he would serve as the spiritual guide for Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour, a third 9/11 hijacker. After praising the 9/11 attacks, al-Awlaki spent a brief stint in the UK before leaving for sunny south Yemen. In 2006 he spent eighteen months in prison on charges of conspiracy to kidnap an American military attache. But al-Awlaki really hit the big time between December 2008 and June 2009 when he exchanged a series of e-mails with Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan discussing the ethics of engaging in the jihad. Hasan, who attended al-Awlaki's mosque in Falls Church at the same time as 9/11 hijackers al-Hamzi and Hanjour, would go on a murderous rampage that would leave thirteen dead and thirty more injured. In December of 2009, about a month after Fort Hood, a Nigerian man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (known more commonly as the "Underwear Bomber") tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner headed for Detroit. Intelligence later revealed that al-Awlaki was involved in the day-to-day operational side of that attack. Abdulmutallab was personally sponsored into a jihadist training camp by al-Awlaki, who then taught the Nigerian techniques for avoiding detection and the precise time to detonate the bomb for maximum casualties. Remember that if someone tries to tell you that al-Awlaki was just a cleric who never actually engaged in terrorism himself.
While al-Awlaki's death has been making the headlines, another important jihadist was killed by the drone strike. Samir Khan, also an American citizen, was the co-editor of al-Qaeda's web magazine "Inspire" before meeting his end courtesy of an American Hellfire missile. Anwar al-Awlaki made a name for himself utilizing the Internet as a recruiting tool for terrorists. His Salafist sermons inspired many zealous Muslims to head to the Middle East and become jihadists. With the release of "Inspire" al-Qaeda was able to give aspiring shaheed, or martyrs, worldwide a training tool that would update regularly. Wannabe terrorists would be able to learn how to execute advanced bombings and other attacks without having to actually go to Yemen or Pakistan (and thus leave a trail for American intelligence agencies). The actual success of "Inspire" is a topic of debate. But whatever way you look at it, the sharp increase in homegrown jihadist threats, such as the attempted bombing of Times Square in May 2010, shows that al-Qaeda hit upon a growing trend. Khan may not get the attention in the media, but he represented a danger to the United States and his work should not be ignored by anyone serious about national security.
Of course, there are those who have released statements condemning the attack. Ron Paul has come out against the strike, telling MSNBC, "I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems." He added, "But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad." To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" Ron Paul also came out against the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, saying the attack "absolutely was not necessary." The main concern in the al-Awlaki case seems to be the fact that the cleric is, or was, a citizen of the United States and thus, the argument goes, an assassination order would violate the Sixth Amendment's right to a trial. And I would agree... to a point. It would be incredibly dangerous to give the President or any government entity the authority to assassinate anyone it deems troublesome. But there are a couple of other points to be made. The Sixth Amendment pertains to criminal prosecutions, not attacks on strategic targets in a time of war. As far as al-Awlaki's citizenship is concerned, the US Code states that voluntarily serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the US is cause for loss of citizenship. Anwar al-Awlaki ran away from the United States to work more directly with al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda is not a nation-state, they are an organization that is certainly at war with the United States. Under that classification, he has engaged in an action that would cause the loss of citizenship. If he forgot to sign a couple of forms, it was because he was too busy inspiring and training people to murder his former countrymen. This type of warfare has no real precedent, and it is situations like this which will decide what actions the United States will be able to take in the future. Operating by the same hidebound traditions designed to fight a different kind of threat led to disaster on 9/11, and a failure to adapt to a savvy enemy will lead to continued defeat. The targeted assassination program should continue, but there should be severe limitations on who can be put onto it. There is no doubt, however, that the world is a better place without the "bin Laden of the Internet" or his cohorts in jihad.
Because there was no post last week, I will put up another post on Monday along with a new poll.
It can be argued that the death of the fiery cleric (a term which now applies quite literally to al-Awlaki) will have a greater operational impact on al-Qaeda than the death of bin Laden almost exactly six months ago. For those of you unaware of al-Awlaki's terrorist resume, he was an incredibly influential imam who was the spiritual mentor of many notorious terrorists. In 2000 al-Awlaki was preaching at a mosque in San Diego attended by Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the 9/11 hijackers. He was investigated by the FBI, but they quickly decided he had no relevant connections to terrorist groups. In early 2001 he moved to Falls Church, Virginia. There he would serve as the spiritual guide for Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour, a third 9/11 hijacker. After praising the 9/11 attacks, al-Awlaki spent a brief stint in the UK before leaving for sunny south Yemen. In 2006 he spent eighteen months in prison on charges of conspiracy to kidnap an American military attache. But al-Awlaki really hit the big time between December 2008 and June 2009 when he exchanged a series of e-mails with Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan discussing the ethics of engaging in the jihad. Hasan, who attended al-Awlaki's mosque in Falls Church at the same time as 9/11 hijackers al-Hamzi and Hanjour, would go on a murderous rampage that would leave thirteen dead and thirty more injured. In December of 2009, about a month after Fort Hood, a Nigerian man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (known more commonly as the "Underwear Bomber") tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner headed for Detroit. Intelligence later revealed that al-Awlaki was involved in the day-to-day operational side of that attack. Abdulmutallab was personally sponsored into a jihadist training camp by al-Awlaki, who then taught the Nigerian techniques for avoiding detection and the precise time to detonate the bomb for maximum casualties. Remember that if someone tries to tell you that al-Awlaki was just a cleric who never actually engaged in terrorism himself.
While al-Awlaki's death has been making the headlines, another important jihadist was killed by the drone strike. Samir Khan, also an American citizen, was the co-editor of al-Qaeda's web magazine "Inspire" before meeting his end courtesy of an American Hellfire missile. Anwar al-Awlaki made a name for himself utilizing the Internet as a recruiting tool for terrorists. His Salafist sermons inspired many zealous Muslims to head to the Middle East and become jihadists. With the release of "Inspire" al-Qaeda was able to give aspiring shaheed, or martyrs, worldwide a training tool that would update regularly. Wannabe terrorists would be able to learn how to execute advanced bombings and other attacks without having to actually go to Yemen or Pakistan (and thus leave a trail for American intelligence agencies). The actual success of "Inspire" is a topic of debate. But whatever way you look at it, the sharp increase in homegrown jihadist threats, such as the attempted bombing of Times Square in May 2010, shows that al-Qaeda hit upon a growing trend. Khan may not get the attention in the media, but he represented a danger to the United States and his work should not be ignored by anyone serious about national security.
Of course, there are those who have released statements condemning the attack. Ron Paul has come out against the strike, telling MSNBC, "I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems." He added, "But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad." To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" Ron Paul also came out against the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, saying the attack "absolutely was not necessary." The main concern in the al-Awlaki case seems to be the fact that the cleric is, or was, a citizen of the United States and thus, the argument goes, an assassination order would violate the Sixth Amendment's right to a trial. And I would agree... to a point. It would be incredibly dangerous to give the President or any government entity the authority to assassinate anyone it deems troublesome. But there are a couple of other points to be made. The Sixth Amendment pertains to criminal prosecutions, not attacks on strategic targets in a time of war. As far as al-Awlaki's citizenship is concerned, the US Code states that voluntarily serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the US is cause for loss of citizenship. Anwar al-Awlaki ran away from the United States to work more directly with al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda is not a nation-state, they are an organization that is certainly at war with the United States. Under that classification, he has engaged in an action that would cause the loss of citizenship. If he forgot to sign a couple of forms, it was because he was too busy inspiring and training people to murder his former countrymen. This type of warfare has no real precedent, and it is situations like this which will decide what actions the United States will be able to take in the future. Operating by the same hidebound traditions designed to fight a different kind of threat led to disaster on 9/11, and a failure to adapt to a savvy enemy will lead to continued defeat. The targeted assassination program should continue, but there should be severe limitations on who can be put onto it. There is no doubt, however, that the world is a better place without the "bin Laden of the Internet" or his cohorts in jihad.
Because there was no post last week, I will put up another post on Monday along with a new poll.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Keys to the Caliphate
I was unable to post last week due to technical difficulties, but we are back on track this week. Enjoy!
March 3, 1924 is a date that is seared into the collective consciousness of the Islamic world. That is the day that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's government officially abolished the Caliphate and brought an end to the Islamic empire. What is not widely known is that a couple of attempts to continue the Caliphate were made after Ataturk abolished it. King Hussein bin Ali of Hejaz claimed the title of Caliph but held onto it for about a year before his dreams of empire were crushed by the ascendant Ibn Saud. The next year a summit was convened in Cairo to determine how to revive the Caliphate, but it was about as effective as an UN General Assembly meeting (I bet the speeches were about the same, too. "We all agree it was the fault of those nasty Jews. Wait, what are we talking about?") Muslims have yearned for a renewed Caliphate for almost a century, but recent events such as the so-called Arab Spring and the rise of Islamism in "secular" Turkey have sparked a discussion among jihadists and Western experts as to the possibility of a reestablished Caliphate. It was Osama bin Laden's dream to unite the Muslim world under the banner of a strong Caliph to challenge the West's superiority, a dream he shared with Islamists all over the world. While he is dead, there are many who are willing to take up his cause. In fact, al-Qaeda even established a timeline broken down into seven stages detailing how Islam would come to dominate the world. Stage Four involved the collapse of the Arab dictatorships throughout the Middle East and was predicted to take place between 2010-2013. That's a little spooky, considering that the document revealing this timeline came out six years ago and the whole "Arab Spring" thing just started last December. The Caliphate would officially be established in Stage Five and would then proceed to make open war on the non-Islamic world.
For the purposes of this article, I am going to skip the whole, "Will they? Won't they?" regarding the chances that a new Caliphate will be formed and will instead work under the assumption that it will. Who will be in charge of this united Muslim world, and where will the seat of power be located? The Caliphate is as much a spiritual entity as a political one. There are four countries that I believe are the strongest contenders for the throne, so to speak, each for a unique reason. Let's take a look at the contenders for the keys to the Caliphate. Here they are, in no particular order:
Turkey
At first it may seem the height of irony that the country which abolished the Caliphate would be the one to call a "do-over." But upon reflection, it would make sense. After all, the Ottoman Turks ruled the Islamic Empire at the zenith of its dominance and had control of the Caliphate for about four hundred years. Modern Turkey has a significant amount of military, economic, and diplomatic power. They have been showing increasing hostility to Israel, which is scoring them big points with Islamists around the world. The Turks are also adept at manipulating the international media and Western governments alike to supporting their points of view. The Turks also control major natural gas and oil pipelines from the East into Europe, giving them an extra bit of leverage in political negotiations or times of war. Turkey is a NATO member that boasts an impressively modern military. Turkey's strong resources, influence, and geographic location would make it a formidable challenger for the seat of the new Caliphate.
Egypt
Egypt has played a significant role in Islamic history, a role that historically-minded Muslims would likely take into account. Cairo was the home of the Fatimid Caliphate from 969 until 1171 and would be able to leverage that history into support from Shia Muslims. Egypt was also the center of the powerful Ayyubid dynasty founded by famed Islamic general Saladin. The connection to the man largely responsible for driving the Crusaders out of the Middle East would serve as a powerful propaganda tool (even Saddam Hussein tried to portray himself as a modern Saladin, which is bizarre considering Saladin is Kurdish). Fast forward to 1928 when Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest Islamist groups still in existence. The Muslim Brotherhood established the framework of Islamic revolution that has lasted for almost a hundred years and spawned huge numbers of copycats or splinter organizations. It is true that modern Egypt is not as strong as Turkey or as wealthy as Saudi Arabia. However, Egypt has really become the centerpiece of the Arab revolutions and Tahrir Square in particular has been cemented in the mythology of this new international Islamist movement. If, as I believe is possible, these revolutions are intended to bring about a Caliphate then the importance of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab revolutionaries of Cairo should not be underestimated.
Saudi Arabia
Of course, one can never forget the desert sands of the Arabian Peninsula. Home to the founder of Islam itself and to the twin spiritual centers of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia holds sway over the religious heart of Islam. Saudi Arabia was also the seat of power for the original Caliphate until Caliph Ali moved it to the Iraqi city of Kufa in 656. And, as mentioned before, the Caliphate survived in the Arabian Peninsula for a brief period after its official abolishment by the Turks.
Islamists may find the best way to get around the problems with the Saudi monarchy is to simply depose them, which would necessarily be a ghastly and dreadfully difficult business but one that could prove inevitable. Should a true Islamist government rise to power, or a coup within the monarchy that would place a more radical member of the royal family on the throne, Saudi Arabia could (and I believe would) put up quite a fight for the right to be the capital of the Caliphate.
Iran
Now, Iran is an interesting case. Persia was always more of an outpost than a real center of political power, despite the fact the Persian empire had been a formidable enemy and the area remained a flourishing cultural center. On a quick side note, both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood have some interesting connections to the Nazis. Iran's real historical connection to a new Caliphate would be the tremendous efforts they have made in order to spread the Islamic revolution since 1979. While the Muslim Brotherhood was working toward the same goals, it was the Islamic Republic of Iran that really showed how a modern Islamic state could operate. Taking advantage of the Cold War, the Iranian government quickly spread their influence throughout the Middle East by supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has made no secret of its desire to acquire nuclear weapons and to drive the Israelis into the sea (which the politicians insist are mutually exclusive concepts). Iran has also been increasingly friendly with Russia and Venezuela, revealing a network of influence that truly spans the globe. The Iranian government also believes it is their task to help pave the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, who would be the ruler of the entire Muslim world (and naturally a Caliph). One challenge that the Iranians face is the fact that they are Shia while the majority of the Muslim world is Sunni and it would be difficult to find common ground when establishing any sort of lasting Caliphate.
What do you think? Is there a country that I missed that you think should be on the list? Which country do you think is most likely to take control of a revived Caliphate? Do you think that a conflict for dominance could lead to open war? Don't forget to send me your Comments!
March 3, 1924 is a date that is seared into the collective consciousness of the Islamic world. That is the day that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's government officially abolished the Caliphate and brought an end to the Islamic empire. What is not widely known is that a couple of attempts to continue the Caliphate were made after Ataturk abolished it. King Hussein bin Ali of Hejaz claimed the title of Caliph but held onto it for about a year before his dreams of empire were crushed by the ascendant Ibn Saud. The next year a summit was convened in Cairo to determine how to revive the Caliphate, but it was about as effective as an UN General Assembly meeting (I bet the speeches were about the same, too. "We all agree it was the fault of those nasty Jews. Wait, what are we talking about?") Muslims have yearned for a renewed Caliphate for almost a century, but recent events such as the so-called Arab Spring and the rise of Islamism in "secular" Turkey have sparked a discussion among jihadists and Western experts as to the possibility of a reestablished Caliphate. It was Osama bin Laden's dream to unite the Muslim world under the banner of a strong Caliph to challenge the West's superiority, a dream he shared with Islamists all over the world. While he is dead, there are many who are willing to take up his cause. In fact, al-Qaeda even established a timeline broken down into seven stages detailing how Islam would come to dominate the world. Stage Four involved the collapse of the Arab dictatorships throughout the Middle East and was predicted to take place between 2010-2013. That's a little spooky, considering that the document revealing this timeline came out six years ago and the whole "Arab Spring" thing just started last December. The Caliphate would officially be established in Stage Five and would then proceed to make open war on the non-Islamic world.
For the purposes of this article, I am going to skip the whole, "Will they? Won't they?" regarding the chances that a new Caliphate will be formed and will instead work under the assumption that it will. Who will be in charge of this united Muslim world, and where will the seat of power be located? The Caliphate is as much a spiritual entity as a political one. There are four countries that I believe are the strongest contenders for the throne, so to speak, each for a unique reason. Let's take a look at the contenders for the keys to the Caliphate. Here they are, in no particular order:
Turkey
At first it may seem the height of irony that the country which abolished the Caliphate would be the one to call a "do-over." But upon reflection, it would make sense. After all, the Ottoman Turks ruled the Islamic Empire at the zenith of its dominance and had control of the Caliphate for about four hundred years. Modern Turkey has a significant amount of military, economic, and diplomatic power. They have been showing increasing hostility to Israel, which is scoring them big points with Islamists around the world. The Turks are also adept at manipulating the international media and Western governments alike to supporting their points of view. The Turks also control major natural gas and oil pipelines from the East into Europe, giving them an extra bit of leverage in political negotiations or times of war. Turkey is a NATO member that boasts an impressively modern military. Turkey's strong resources, influence, and geographic location would make it a formidable challenger for the seat of the new Caliphate.
Egypt
Egypt has played a significant role in Islamic history, a role that historically-minded Muslims would likely take into account. Cairo was the home of the Fatimid Caliphate from 969 until 1171 and would be able to leverage that history into support from Shia Muslims. Egypt was also the center of the powerful Ayyubid dynasty founded by famed Islamic general Saladin. The connection to the man largely responsible for driving the Crusaders out of the Middle East would serve as a powerful propaganda tool (even Saddam Hussein tried to portray himself as a modern Saladin, which is bizarre considering Saladin is Kurdish). Fast forward to 1928 when Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest Islamist groups still in existence. The Muslim Brotherhood established the framework of Islamic revolution that has lasted for almost a hundred years and spawned huge numbers of copycats or splinter organizations. It is true that modern Egypt is not as strong as Turkey or as wealthy as Saudi Arabia. However, Egypt has really become the centerpiece of the Arab revolutions and Tahrir Square in particular has been cemented in the mythology of this new international Islamist movement. If, as I believe is possible, these revolutions are intended to bring about a Caliphate then the importance of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab revolutionaries of Cairo should not be underestimated.
Saudi Arabia
Of course, one can never forget the desert sands of the Arabian Peninsula. Home to the founder of Islam itself and to the twin spiritual centers of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia holds sway over the religious heart of Islam. Saudi Arabia was also the seat of power for the original Caliphate until Caliph Ali moved it to the Iraqi city of Kufa in 656. And, as mentioned before, the Caliphate survived in the Arabian Peninsula for a brief period after its official abolishment by the Turks.
Islamists may find the best way to get around the problems with the Saudi monarchy is to simply depose them, which would necessarily be a ghastly and dreadfully difficult business but one that could prove inevitable. Should a true Islamist government rise to power, or a coup within the monarchy that would place a more radical member of the royal family on the throne, Saudi Arabia could (and I believe would) put up quite a fight for the right to be the capital of the Caliphate.
Iran
Now, Iran is an interesting case. Persia was always more of an outpost than a real center of political power, despite the fact the Persian empire had been a formidable enemy and the area remained a flourishing cultural center. On a quick side note, both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood have some interesting connections to the Nazis. Iran's real historical connection to a new Caliphate would be the tremendous efforts they have made in order to spread the Islamic revolution since 1979. While the Muslim Brotherhood was working toward the same goals, it was the Islamic Republic of Iran that really showed how a modern Islamic state could operate. Taking advantage of the Cold War, the Iranian government quickly spread their influence throughout the Middle East by supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has made no secret of its desire to acquire nuclear weapons and to drive the Israelis into the sea (which the politicians insist are mutually exclusive concepts). Iran has also been increasingly friendly with Russia and Venezuela, revealing a network of influence that truly spans the globe. The Iranian government also believes it is their task to help pave the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, who would be the ruler of the entire Muslim world (and naturally a Caliph). One challenge that the Iranians face is the fact that they are Shia while the majority of the Muslim world is Sunni and it would be difficult to find common ground when establishing any sort of lasting Caliphate.
What do you think? Is there a country that I missed that you think should be on the list? Which country do you think is most likely to take control of a revived Caliphate? Do you think that a conflict for dominance could lead to open war? Don't forget to send me your Comments!
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Updates: Hezbollah, Pakistan, Turkey, Oh My!
Instead of a normal article, this week I will be providing updates on some of the stories that I have covered in the past. These updates are organized in the order the original articles were posted.
Iran's Connections in the Western Hemisphere
It is common knowledge in counter-terrorism circles that Iran has been very interested in expanding their operations in the Western Hemisphere. The relationship between Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has grown even more chummy over the past few months. As the Western world finds itself increasingly under seige, Tehran and Caracas have bonded over their mutual dislike for anything resembling the culture and society that made the West great. Think of them as being the two old hecklers from "The Muppet Show," except they also like to chuck dynamite onto the stage as well to further destabilize the situation.
Iran's proxy Hezbollah has been busy, as well. They have spent several years securing a position in the Tri-Border Area of South America, something the U.S. intelligence community has been well aware of for quite some time. As mentioned in the original article, Hezbollah has established close ties to powerful drug cartels along the U.S.-Mexico border. The instability in Mexico is a great way for Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations to make money, purchase or sell weapons, and trade information and training with the cartels and each other. American and Mexican law enforcement have been tracking increased activity centered around drug and arms trading between terrorist groups and major cartels. To make matters worse, the Cubans have joined in on the game, opening their doors to Hezbollah to establish a real presence on the Caribbean island stragetically located only 90 miles away from the United States. As Iran strengthens its position in the backyard of the most powerful nation on Earth (you don't get to be the "Great Satan" for nothing) it is shocking to see so little attention paid to these stories by the rest of the media.
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Pakistan?
Oh, Pakistan. From your corrupt and strongly Islamist military to the near-constant hell you put your Christian population through, could we really have asked for a better ally? For those of you in the audience that are sarcasm-deficient, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!" Basically anybody would be a better ally at such a crucial moment (maybe even the Turks, though that ship is sailing fast). As America, and the world, prepares to remember the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, you can bet your bottom dollar (go ahead, it's not really worth much anyway) that right around the corner we'll be hearing about the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. While Iraq, the so-called "bad war," has all but wrapped up, Afghanistan continues to waste American lives, money, and resources. Why is that? Are the soldiers in Afghanistan just not as good as those sent to Iraq? Or could the huge safe zone along the border with Pakistan that allows Taliban troops to move with ease and lukewarm support from our supposed ally have something to do with it? Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
In other fun news, an incident occured between Indian and Pakistani forces stationed in Kashmir on Wednesday. The Pakistani's claimed the Indians attacked them without provocation. We should trust them. I mean, it's not like they've lied to us in the past, snuck around our backs to get nukes, or sheltered the most wanted terrorist in the entire history of the world, right? Anyway, a showdown between Pakistan and India would not be in the interest of world peace, but it could provide yet another rallying cry for the global Caliphate that is slowly but surely coming together.
Islamists Flexing Their Muscles in Turkey
And finally, we come to Turkey. On the international front, Turkey's relationship with Israel has become rocky, to put it very mildly. They have expelled the Israeli ambassador because Israel has refused to apologize for the flotilla raid last year. Turkey has also said, in spite of a report from the UN which cleared Israel of illegal activity (I know, I had to read that one again, too), they will continue to demand an apology, compensation to the families of the nine people killed, and an official end to the Gaza blockade. In response, Israel laughed so hard that milk squirted out of their nose. Okay, I may have added that last part, but it wouldn't surprise me if it actually happened.
I mentioned in my previous article that, after Ataturk abolished the Caliphate, it was the constitutional mandate of the Turkish military to prevent the nation from falling back into the grip of Sharia and Islamism. Well, Prime Minister Erdogan will not let a little thing like that stand in his way. Very recently, the head of the Turkish armed forces decided to "retire" at the same time as the officers in charge of Turkey's ground, naval, and air forces. That would be equivilant to the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff deciding to spontaneously resign from their posts at the same time. From another perspective, it would be like the entire Supreme Court (as protectors of the Constitution) deciding to retire at the same time for no particular reason. But this little news story received so little attention I didn't even know about it until a couple of weeks ago. As the movement to restore the Caliphate gains steam, it is more than a little ironic that the same country that abolished the Caliphate is jockeying for position as a possible seat of power should a new one arise.
If you have anything you'd like to add to these stories, or perhaps something I may have overlooked, please leave me some Comments below.
Iran's Connections in the Western Hemisphere
It is common knowledge in counter-terrorism circles that Iran has been very interested in expanding their operations in the Western Hemisphere. The relationship between Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has grown even more chummy over the past few months. As the Western world finds itself increasingly under seige, Tehran and Caracas have bonded over their mutual dislike for anything resembling the culture and society that made the West great. Think of them as being the two old hecklers from "The Muppet Show," except they also like to chuck dynamite onto the stage as well to further destabilize the situation.
Iran's proxy Hezbollah has been busy, as well. They have spent several years securing a position in the Tri-Border Area of South America, something the U.S. intelligence community has been well aware of for quite some time. As mentioned in the original article, Hezbollah has established close ties to powerful drug cartels along the U.S.-Mexico border. The instability in Mexico is a great way for Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations to make money, purchase or sell weapons, and trade information and training with the cartels and each other. American and Mexican law enforcement have been tracking increased activity centered around drug and arms trading between terrorist groups and major cartels. To make matters worse, the Cubans have joined in on the game, opening their doors to Hezbollah to establish a real presence on the Caribbean island stragetically located only 90 miles away from the United States. As Iran strengthens its position in the backyard of the most powerful nation on Earth (you don't get to be the "Great Satan" for nothing) it is shocking to see so little attention paid to these stories by the rest of the media.
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Pakistan?
Oh, Pakistan. From your corrupt and strongly Islamist military to the near-constant hell you put your Christian population through, could we really have asked for a better ally? For those of you in the audience that are sarcasm-deficient, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!" Basically anybody would be a better ally at such a crucial moment (maybe even the Turks, though that ship is sailing fast). As America, and the world, prepares to remember the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, you can bet your bottom dollar (go ahead, it's not really worth much anyway) that right around the corner we'll be hearing about the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. While Iraq, the so-called "bad war," has all but wrapped up, Afghanistan continues to waste American lives, money, and resources. Why is that? Are the soldiers in Afghanistan just not as good as those sent to Iraq? Or could the huge safe zone along the border with Pakistan that allows Taliban troops to move with ease and lukewarm support from our supposed ally have something to do with it? Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
In other fun news, an incident occured between Indian and Pakistani forces stationed in Kashmir on Wednesday. The Pakistani's claimed the Indians attacked them without provocation. We should trust them. I mean, it's not like they've lied to us in the past, snuck around our backs to get nukes, or sheltered the most wanted terrorist in the entire history of the world, right? Anyway, a showdown between Pakistan and India would not be in the interest of world peace, but it could provide yet another rallying cry for the global Caliphate that is slowly but surely coming together.
Islamists Flexing Their Muscles in Turkey
And finally, we come to Turkey. On the international front, Turkey's relationship with Israel has become rocky, to put it very mildly. They have expelled the Israeli ambassador because Israel has refused to apologize for the flotilla raid last year. Turkey has also said, in spite of a report from the UN which cleared Israel of illegal activity (I know, I had to read that one again, too), they will continue to demand an apology, compensation to the families of the nine people killed, and an official end to the Gaza blockade. In response, Israel laughed so hard that milk squirted out of their nose. Okay, I may have added that last part, but it wouldn't surprise me if it actually happened.
I mentioned in my previous article that, after Ataturk abolished the Caliphate, it was the constitutional mandate of the Turkish military to prevent the nation from falling back into the grip of Sharia and Islamism. Well, Prime Minister Erdogan will not let a little thing like that stand in his way. Very recently, the head of the Turkish armed forces decided to "retire" at the same time as the officers in charge of Turkey's ground, naval, and air forces. That would be equivilant to the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff deciding to spontaneously resign from their posts at the same time. From another perspective, it would be like the entire Supreme Court (as protectors of the Constitution) deciding to retire at the same time for no particular reason. But this little news story received so little attention I didn't even know about it until a couple of weeks ago. As the movement to restore the Caliphate gains steam, it is more than a little ironic that the same country that abolished the Caliphate is jockeying for position as a possible seat of power should a new one arise.
If you have anything you'd like to add to these stories, or perhaps something I may have overlooked, please leave me some Comments below.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Libya: Where Do We Go From Here?
2011 has been the year of revolution, particularly in the Muslim nations of the Middle East and North Africa that once formed the core of the Islamic Caliphate. The world watched as dictatorships once thought completely secure were toppled virtually overnight, first in Tunisia and then in Egypt. Things got a little more complicated when other heads of state refused to bow to the pressure of the mob. In particular, Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi proved a little stubborn in the face of "rage and change." Now, thanks to military intervention by NATO, Ghaddafi has been kicked out of Tripoli and the rebels have seized control of the majority of the country. Yay us! Victory for the people over tyranny, and all that. What could possibly go wrong?
Since the beginning of NATO operations in Libya, one question has taken center stage (and refused to leave): why? Oddly enough, that seems to be the question that kept popping up during the NATO campaigns in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia in the Clinton administration. Say what you want about Afghanistan and Iraq, but at least the leadership of both nations actually considered themselves to be our enemies. Libya presented no true threat to any external power, certainly not to any member state of NATO. The only real reason presented was the "responsibility to protect" doctrine adopted by the United Nations in 2005. Libya has been the first practical application of this doctrine, which states that it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene on behalf of oppressed people in a civil war/genocide situation. Of course, you don't see any movement to protect the citizens of Iran or Syria, so I guess the international community is allowed to be picky about who they want to save. It is very possible that this same doctrine could be used against Israel, to "protect" the Palestinians, or even the United States if a politically favored group puts forth the claim that they are being oppressed. Is this idea a bit paranoid? Maybe, but we have plenty of enemies in the UN that would love to use such techniques against us at the first opportunity.
Another problem with the so-called "kinetic military action" in Libya (like the Obama administration had to point out that the military action was, in fact, moving) is that it exposes just how thinly stretched NATO forces are. Military equipment broke down with alarming regularity, and the European members of the coalition actually started running out of precision munitions within the first month of military operations. More recently, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle actually broke down and had to be withdrawn from the area of operation for repairs, putting a major dent in the French ability to project power to Libya. While the United States has not suffered problems anywhere near this magnitude (because, you know, we actually know what it takes to fight a war) the resources and manpower needed to stretch us out into a third theater of conflict are placing further strain on our military at perhaps the worst possible time.
Finally, there is little we can do but wait and see who will take over the oil-rich country. It has been widely known that the Libyan rebels were at least sympathetic to al-Qaeda, but just how sympathetic remains to be seen. It would be more than a little ironic for al-Qaeda, weak and on its last legs, to find a safe haven to rebuild in Libya thanks to the "brave" efforts of NATO. As the jails have been opened by the victorious rebels, hundreds of dangerous jihadists that were mingled in with the political prisoners have been released onto the streets of Tripoli. Of course, the Europeans don't care as long as they get access to exclusive trade deals with the new regime and access to Libya's oil. I guess as long as it's not an American conservative that wants to attack an oil-rich nation, it's completely fine with the international media.
It doesn't take a genius to realize there are forces at work with the situation in Libya that are unfriendly to the interests of the United States and her allies. That doesn't mean that the new rulers are necessarily worse for us than Ghaddafi. But we must be very careful regarding our next move, something the Obama administration has shown no signs of doing. Just one more domino in the Arab world, but one that could have profound consequences.
Since the beginning of NATO operations in Libya, one question has taken center stage (and refused to leave): why? Oddly enough, that seems to be the question that kept popping up during the NATO campaigns in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia in the Clinton administration. Say what you want about Afghanistan and Iraq, but at least the leadership of both nations actually considered themselves to be our enemies. Libya presented no true threat to any external power, certainly not to any member state of NATO. The only real reason presented was the "responsibility to protect" doctrine adopted by the United Nations in 2005. Libya has been the first practical application of this doctrine, which states that it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene on behalf of oppressed people in a civil war/genocide situation. Of course, you don't see any movement to protect the citizens of Iran or Syria, so I guess the international community is allowed to be picky about who they want to save. It is very possible that this same doctrine could be used against Israel, to "protect" the Palestinians, or even the United States if a politically favored group puts forth the claim that they are being oppressed. Is this idea a bit paranoid? Maybe, but we have plenty of enemies in the UN that would love to use such techniques against us at the first opportunity.
Another problem with the so-called "kinetic military action" in Libya (like the Obama administration had to point out that the military action was, in fact, moving) is that it exposes just how thinly stretched NATO forces are. Military equipment broke down with alarming regularity, and the European members of the coalition actually started running out of precision munitions within the first month of military operations. More recently, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle actually broke down and had to be withdrawn from the area of operation for repairs, putting a major dent in the French ability to project power to Libya. While the United States has not suffered problems anywhere near this magnitude (because, you know, we actually know what it takes to fight a war) the resources and manpower needed to stretch us out into a third theater of conflict are placing further strain on our military at perhaps the worst possible time.
Finally, there is little we can do but wait and see who will take over the oil-rich country. It has been widely known that the Libyan rebels were at least sympathetic to al-Qaeda, but just how sympathetic remains to be seen. It would be more than a little ironic for al-Qaeda, weak and on its last legs, to find a safe haven to rebuild in Libya thanks to the "brave" efforts of NATO. As the jails have been opened by the victorious rebels, hundreds of dangerous jihadists that were mingled in with the political prisoners have been released onto the streets of Tripoli. Of course, the Europeans don't care as long as they get access to exclusive trade deals with the new regime and access to Libya's oil. I guess as long as it's not an American conservative that wants to attack an oil-rich nation, it's completely fine with the international media.
It doesn't take a genius to realize there are forces at work with the situation in Libya that are unfriendly to the interests of the United States and her allies. That doesn't mean that the new rulers are necessarily worse for us than Ghaddafi. But we must be very careful regarding our next move, something the Obama administration has shown no signs of doing. Just one more domino in the Arab world, but one that could have profound consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)