Posts Tagged ‘middle east’

The US media has been playing down the connections between Al Qaeda and the Libyan Rebels for a while now, but today Byron York tackles it:

Take Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, a leader of U.S.-supported rebels in the fighting for Adjabiya. His hometown, Darnah, has produced many jihadis, and after the Sept. 11 attacks al-Hasidi traveled to Afghanistan to fight the “foreign invasion” — that is, the U.S. military. According to a report in Britain’s Daily Telegraph, al-Hasidi says he was later captured in Pakistan, handed over to the U.S., then held in prison in Libya before being released in 2008.

In addition to fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan, al-Hasidi also says he recruited about two dozen men to fight the U.S. in Iraq.

What is more amazing than those two sentences is the response of the NYT to this:

“No one seems all that frightened by him,” the New York Times wrote of al-Hasidi after a visit to Darnah in early March. Al-Hasidi, the paper reported, “praises Osama bin Laden’s ‘good points’ but denounces the 9/11 attacks on the United States.” And besides, the Times reported, al-Hasidi finds it amusing that the government of Moammar Gadhafi considers him an al Qaeda terrorist. “He promised to lay down his arms once victory is won and return, he said, to teaching,” the Times reported.

Whenever Afghanistan comes up on Morning Joe he repeats the mantra that there are only a few Al Qaeda present there. Apparently there are a lot more Al Qaeda in Libya and we are saving them from Gaddafi.

Now given that we are there now, and fighting we should fight to win, but it’s one thing to fight and win in Libya with Al-Qaeda at our side, it’s another thing to arm this guys:

But Sky News now understands the US is looking at a legal framework to allow limited supplies of arms to the rebels, if they can prove they need them to defend themselves from attack.

Mark Kornblau, spokesman for US Ambassador Dr Susan Rice, confirmed it was a possibility.

Uncoverage is not amused:

There is good reason to believe, from many reliable sources, that they are organized by radical Islamists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Given that, how can it be that United States U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice can possibly even consider arming the rebels with our weapons?

If we are stupid enough to do this as a nation then we will deserve all we get from it.

Advertisements

You actually have people on Morning Joe debating if it is a war and Pat Buchanan used the line above to answer the question.

The most amazing thing is listening to Donny Deutch and Charles Blow talking about leaving too soon after fighting is done will leave a vacuum.

Do ANY of those people remember what they said about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Reading the speech of the president I’m wondering, if Gaddafi didn’t say aloud that he would have kill the people of Benghazi would we have intervened? In Iraq the mass graves were found by us after we were there, were those mass graves acceptable because we didn’t see them? It is the images not the mass graves that offended him.

And I find the false implication that we didn’t have allies in Iraq offensive, but it’s necessary for this president as a fig leaf for the left.

I have to say I’m with Pat here, if we are in, we should be in to win, period.

Update: The Obama doctrine: “We will intervene to prevent pictures that make me look bad.”

Update 2: Instalanche: hi all. Lots to See here. SEE: Byron York talk Al Qaeda in Libya while Susan Rice talks arming them, SEE racial incidents involving dems not worth covering. SEE that happiness is a clean Fedora. And remember Saturday 10 to noon on AM 830 WCRN’s DaTechGuy on DaRadio is the battle of the Bloggers: Robert Stacy McCain vs Little Miss Attila on Feminism and conservatives. Don’t miss it!

Update 3: How bad does it have to be for the left when even Joe Scarborough is calling BS on them.

If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?

And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.

For the American Left nothing is immoral if it is done by The One™.

Says Mrs. Clinton. Michael Totten who apparently knows more about Syria than anyone in the administration is picking his jaw up from the floor:

He’s actually a totalitarian state sponsor of terrorism with American, Israeli, Lebanese, Iraqi, and Syrian blood on his hands. And some of that Syrian blood is still warm on the streets.

and as Gateway pundit reminds us:

And, don’t forget that for years this “reformer” Assad allowed terrorists on his soil who had been moving, arming, and funding foreign jihadists traveling through Syria into Iraq in cooperation with al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

The actual difference is that one is an Iranian satellite who’s opposed us in Iraq and the other gave in to us when it came to WMD after Iraq fell.

Of course as Israel matzav writes it could be a question of fear:

Though no one is yet talking about a no-fly zone over Syria, Obama administration officials acknowledge the parallels to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Some analysts predicted the administration will be cautious in pressing Mr. Assad, not because of any allegiance to him but out of a fear of what could follow him — a Sunni-led government potentially more radical and Islamist than his Alawite minority government.

Frankly we aren’t in a position to intervene in Syria even if we want to, but why not simply be ambiguous? Just say: “All options are on the table.” Make Syria and Iran sweat? Make Assard think he has to give concessions?

This is what comes of judging based on what others want than our own national interest. 2012 can’t come fast enough.

Libya: Is it the right thing to do?

Posted: March 24, 2011 by datechguy in opinion/news, war
Tags: , , , ,

At Patterico a relevant question has been asked concerning Libya that is not being asked enough concerning president Obama’s decision to go to war in Libya.

But before we hammer the President too hard, ask yourself a simple question. Is he right, right now? Forget what he said when he represented one of the most liberal jurisdictions in America, but is he right, right now?

The answer: It depends on how you look at it.

If you look at is in terms of preventing a slaughter, then yes. Our actions prevented an immediate slaughter and are thus worthwhile in the short term. The trick will be to keep it from becoming a bigger slaughter in the long term.

If you look at it in terms of dealing with troublemakers then perhaps. As a general rule if you have a chance to get rid of an enemy (Gaddafi) one should take the opportunity, however the time to have acted was when the rebels were outside of Tripoli not when Gaddafi was outside of Benghazi.

If you look at it in terms of national interest then frankly the answer is No. The rebels who are fighting him seem to also be fighting us elsewhere. If we give over Libya to a different set of enemies they can use that state to sponsor war against us. This is a very bad idea. Additionally historically we have gotten little payback when we have stuck our necks out for Arab countries in general.

All of this is pretty moot now that we are in, WE ARE IN. The real question is what will be the result of our actions. Here are the three possible results

#1. Gaddafi wins: I think this is the least likely outcome. As long as there is some kind of no-fly zone it becomes a ground fight, Benghazi can still fall but if his armor heads toward Tobruk it is very vulnerable from the air. If the west is willing to take out his tanks and armor then Gaddafi can’t finish the job. Of course if the west gets cold feet this goes from the least likely outcome to the most likely outcome, but I think that England and France have too much invested for them to let this happen.

#2 The Rebels win: This has a better chance of happening because you can’t be sure how loyal the forces supporting Gaddafi are. As long as the money holds out the hired guns from the south will stay loyal, but the loss of air superiority makes a huge difference. Of course it’s also a question of taking back cities held by the government which I think is not possible unless Gaddafi and his sons are dead. The question becoming if the rebels win, will they be grateful or will they use the new Libya as an Islamic state to support our foes internationally?

#3 The partition/administration of Libya. Almost certainly the final result. The west without US leadership doesn’t have the staying power or the willingness to actually win the war or commit the ground troops necessary to do so. Sans such will the end result will be a deal to save face for the west that allows Gaddafi’s family in charge of the east where his tribe lives and the rebels in charge of the west. That allows Gaddafi to claim a victory over the west while the west claims success in its mission even as the east is purged of supporters of the rebellion.

And of course this result is the worst of all possible results for the US. We will have a Gaddafi family looking for revenge by proxy in the east while in the west the rebels, who never liked us in the first place, will blame us for the failure to take the country and the purge of their supporters in the east. Since they were already supporting wars against us they will now have a nation to do so with, and it will be a nation “supported’ by the UN.

This is a mess full of bad choices and results. We can only hope it is done wisely.