Arming Libyan rebels? The Deaf, Dumb and Blind errors of western leaders

Loading

When Chinese Tendai Buddhists introduced the Taoist Koshin belief to Japan in the latter part of the 10th Century, I doubt they could have foreseen that The Three Wise Monkeys who Hear no evil, See no evil, Speak no evil, could be used so interchangeably with being “deaf, dumb and blind.”. Yet as the beltway fiercely debates arming Libya’s rebels, that ancient proverb, and it’s familiar visual of the three monkeys comes to mind… and not quite in the way the Buddhists’ intended.

Hillary and the Obama admin are Deaf to nation state warnings against arming, effectively rendering the warnings of Defense Sec’y, Robert Gates, a Dumb mute, and Blind to history.

Instead of setting aside such an idea as too risky and out of the question, Obama can’t decide, while both Hillary and Britain’s PM, David Cameron, have already laid the foundation that it can be legitimately done within the current UN resolution’s framework using the broad “any means” to “protect civilians” language.

The French government, which has led the international charge against Colonel Qaddafi, has placed mounting pressure on the United States to provide greater assistance to the rebels. The question of how best to support the opposition dominated an international conference about Libya on Tuesday in London.

While Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the administration had not yet decided whether to actually transfer arms, she reiterated that the United States had a right to do so, despite an arms embargo on Libya, because of the United Nations Security Council’s broad resolution authorizing military action to protect civilians.

In a reflection of the seriousness of the administration’s debate, Mr. Obama said Tuesday that he was keeping his options open on arming the rebels. “I’m not ruling it out, but I’m also not ruling it in,” Mr. Obama told NBC News. “We’re still making an assessment partly about what Qaddafi’s forces are going to be doing. Keep in mind, we’ve been at this now for nine days.”

The last of the trio of fools is France who, according to a diplomat and spokesman, is “adamant” about making sure the rebels are heavily armed.

Needless to say, spokesman for the rebels, Mahmoud Shammam, is frothing at the bit for weaponry.

Like the three monkeys, Obama and western leaders cover their ears to Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, warning this could promote terrorism and was an exceedingly dangerous move.

‘Our view at the moment is negative because there is no party state established at the moment. In our view this could also create an environment which would be conducive to terrorism and that would, in itself, be dangerous.’

Another voice the three western leaders prefer to remain deaf to is China, who raked Sarkozy over the coals, saying that force is not going to work in Libya against Gaddafi.

China’s discomfort has risen as the bombing attacks by the U.S., France, Britain and others have expanded beyond Gadhafi’s air forces to include ground forces as well. In doing so, the now NATO-led bombings are exceeding what Beijing thought would be enforcement of a “no-fly zone” to keep Gadhafi from attacking anti-government forces by air.

At their meeting in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, Hu suggested that proposals for peaceful means, rather than armed force, in Libya had been given short-shrift but were urgently needed.

“The Chinese side supports all political efforts that would help alleviate the situation in Libya and calls on all parties to immediately cease fire and seek a peaceful solution to avoid more civilian casualties and to restore stability to the situation in Libya,” Hu said.

I take that to mean they wouldn’t be supportive of arming the rebels either…

More voices they *should* be listing to is leaders of the Global Islamic Jihad Movements, such as Anwar al-Awlaki who sees the ME revolts as a boost for Islamic fundamentalists..

“Our mujahideen brothers in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Muslim world will get a chance to breathe again after three decades of suffocation,” he wrote, using a term that refers generally to Islamic guerrilla groups or holy warriors.

“For the scholars and activists of Egypt to be able to speak again freely, it would represent a great leap forward for the mujahideen”, wrote Awlaki, who is believed to be hiding in Southern Yemen.
Snip

He said it did not matter what sort of government succeeded Arab autocrats, as these were unlikely to be as repressive. Imagining that only a Taliban-style regime would benefit al-Qaeda was “a too short term way” of looking at events.

“We do not know yet what the outcome would be (in any given country), and we do not have to. The outcome doesn’t have to be an Islamic government for us to consider what is occurring to be a step in the right direction,” he said.

“In Libya, no matter how bad the situation gets and no matter how pro-Western or oppressive the next government proves to be, we do not see it possible for the world to produce another lunatic of the same calibre of the Colonel (Gaddafi).”

oh the irony…one lunatic condemning another.

As I pointed out in my March 2nd post, there is no love lost between the League of Arab Nations and Gaddafi. And, in fact, Gaddafi, himself, warns this is going to spiral out of control and end up as another war between Christians and Muslims.

“If they continue, the world will enter into a real crusader war. They have started something dangerous that cannot be controlled and it will become out of their control,” said a text from Gaddafi, read out on state television.

“The leaders who decided to launch a crusader war between Christians and Muslims across the Mediterranean and who … killed… huge numbers of civilians in Libya, they have been made crazy by power and they want to impose the law of strength on the strength of the law,” it said.

“They have also destroyed the shared interests of their people and the Libyan people and undermined peace and wiped out civilians and they want to return us to the Middle Ages,” Gaddafi was quoted as saying.

Some may say this is Gaddafi, rambling incoherently once again. Others may assume that if he remains in power, he will seek revenge against the very nations he’s been providing aid to since relinquishing his WMDs back in 2003. I’m going to suggest a third option, further down…that this is all part of the more “peaceful” transition to Islamic nations.

Defense Sec’y , Robert Gates, is the recipient of two of the not-so-wise monkey proverbs… The Obama admin officials are Deaf to his advice, disdain his input and appear to favor military strategy delivered from the State Department, Ambassadors and foreign policy wonks with attitudes.

By being Deaf to their expertise, this administration’s direct and public slap has also effectively rendered his military advisors as nothing more than a neutered mute.

A couple of days ago, Gates didn’t expound on questions about arming the Libyan opposition, merely noting that decisions hadn’t been made yet. But today, he drew a deep line in the sand between himself and the Commander in Chief INRE putting any US military boots on the ground as an occupying force. Nor did he support any US role in training.

“My view would be, if there is going to be that kind of assistance to the opposition, there are plenty of sources for it other than the United States,” said Gates. “Somebody else should do that.”

Asked whether the U.S. involvement might inevitably mean “boots on the ground” in Libya, Gates replied, “Not as long as I am in this job.”

Such strong language underlines the divide between Obama and his Defense Department… starting from the moment when Obama decided to engage our military against the advice of Gates, and ratcheted up when Gates countered Obama’s Libyan speech by definitively stating that Libya was not a vital US national interest, on the Sunday talking heads circuit.

Because this POTUS is all too often at cross purposes with the military he commands, it’s unsurprising Gen. David Petraeus, also enjoying less than full support, was found joking with Gates as he landed in Kabul.

Apparently unaware of an open microphone, Gen Petraeus greeted Mr Gates at Kabul airport joking: “Welcome back, sir, flying a little bigger plane than normal … you gonna launch some attacks on Libya or something?”

The US Defence Secretary responded to the comment by laughing and replied, “yeah, exactly”. [Mata Musing: Video at link]

Perhaps the most disheartening of all is that this POTUS and all his advisors, save again Sec’y Gates, is Blind to history. Gates, himself, knows the repercussions of arming questionable rebels. During the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the US funneled most of the arms and cash to Islamic fundamentalist warlord, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. After Russia’s loss, Hekmatyar’s rise to ruling power, along with his Islamic Party of Afghanistan, is well documented. His own brutal treatment of the Afghans gave rise to yet another counter revolution/rebel group, funded by then Pakistan’ PM Benazir Bhutto… the Taliban.

As Mark Steyn said while guest hosting on Rush today, sometimes you don’t have a dog in the fight. And *sometimes*, both dogs in the fight are breeds to be avoided.

Such is the case in Libya. This is one dogfight the US should be avoiding, watching and waiting to see who wins so we know how to adjust our future relations.

Islamic Groups Analyst, Murad Batal al-Shishani, has a very interesting article in BBC News today, wondering if the Libyan rebels are “an al-Qaeda stalking horse”. He goes thru the more violent history of the Libyan Fighting Islamic Group, and how they have shunned al Qaeda’s more violent methods of achieving the same goals – an Islamic nation – and became a “softer”, kinder-gentler force on the level of Muslim Brotherhood…. replete with a new names that reflects the same, the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change (LIMC). (ouch… that “change” word again…)

To overcome this, al-Qaeda has issued statements about Libya to try to inspire Libyans to create their own local branches.

The softer tone is also evident in recent speeches by its leaders, including al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) – which represents the jihadist movement in North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa – recently issued a statement of solidarity with the protesters in Tunisia and Libya.

Al-Qaeda has traditionally exploited unstable regions with little or no government control – Iraq, after the US invasion in 2003, is an obvious example.

Currently, Somalia, Yemen and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region are similar targets for the organisation.

The jihadists claim to be the legitimate resistance against Western occupying powers, most notably the US. They also claim to be fighting against local “tyrant” regimes.

Right….

But this is exactly the new revolution and plans that Zawahiri outlined in his Open Interview in early 2008. The removal of renegade Arab leaders that do not toe the line is part of Zawahiri’s and AQ’s vision for success. As I reminded you in the Arab League post, Gaddafi has opted to stand opposed to many common Arab issues INRE Palestine, and dared to help the western Satan.

From an Open Interview with Zawahiri late 2007/early 2008:

“The fourth question: I request Your Eminence to give us a look at the future of the Jihadi march: i.e. after five or six years, how will the situation be in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, the Land of the Two Sanctuaries, the Islamic Maghrib, Chechnya, Somalia and Darfur?

Fourth: I expect – by the grace of Allah – the spreading of the Jihadi tide and an increase in its influence corresponding to the receding of the influence of the Crusaders, Jews and their agents in the places I mentioned.

8: What is the usefulness of Jihad combat actions against the apostate Arab regimes, which usually target the regimes’ lackeys without severing the heads? And how do you evaluate the results of these actions, especially in Algeria, Egypt and the country of the two Sanctuaries?”

Eighth: I talked before about the Jihadi actions in Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula, and I referred to our practical discretion at this stage, but I would like to add here three notes:

1) The clash with the corrupt regimes must occur sooner or later if we want to set up the Muslim state and liberate the lands of Islam.

2) The overall position is open to adjustment from one territory to another. So for
example, in Algeria the brothers pair targeting of Jewish and Western interests with waging a guerilla war against the hireling government, because their circumstances make it possible for them to do that.

3) Severing the heads isn’t the objective: rather, the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government. And the means of change differ from one territory to another.

Viewed in the context of Zawahiri’s vision to remove apostate Arab leaders – most especially those who cooperate with the US – it makes you wonder if this is what Gaddafi warns the US of when he predicts this will spiral into another Crusades war. It may be that he, a member in disfavor with the Arab League, has a better perspective of who will assume power in the wake of his demise or departure.

Needless to say, the US has gotten itself bogged down in the ultimate quagmire simply because we have a POTUS and CiC who is Blind to history, Deaf to voices of warning, and reduces his military advisors to a Deaf-Dumb mute… preferring to allow the State Department, Ambassadors and foreign policy wonks to do the work of the experienced military.

Deaf, Dumb and Blind indeed. The US lives under a dangerous and naïve leadership. The question is, can this be reversed, or on we on the collision course that Gaddafi claims?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

More of the same: Obama needs the UN sanctions before he can act, but he will still make his own deals if his Vanity War isn’t going well. Will the UN enforce the arms embargo against Obama? A serious question on whether Obama really believes in his UN BS or is it just a crutch to advance the Obama doctrine of choosing despots and wars to engage in; in other words do the wars and tyrants have the Obama seal of approval, if not they must be deposed, with a UN sanction of course.

<blockquoteAdm. Giampaolo Di Paola, chairman of the NATO Military Council and the alliance's most senior military official, said the NATO operation, dubbed Unified Protectorate, entails enforcing an arms-embargo and no-fly zone and protecting civilians, as set out by the U.N. resolution.

"NATO is not in Libya to decide the future of the Libyan people," he told a news briefing in Brussels. "We are helping enforce the will of the international community."

U.S. President Barack Obama has signed a secret order that could facilitate weapons
transfers to rebels. Under the authorization, the Central Intelligence Agency has placed covert operatives on the ground in parts of Libya, officials say.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576234112952203504.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories#articleTabs=article

If obama and co. shove thier heads any further up thier butts they’re going to disapear. This is just sad.

Those who fail to learn from history…

Defence Secretary Gates is vehementally opposed to ground action and he’s being ignored. The precedent should give Gates his Piece Prize.

Just watched Fox News with Shep. Watching the rebels fumbling with a 100mm motar. Base plate is not firmly planted. Its gonna be tough to be consistent, lol. Saw a rocket launcher, nebelwerfer, or katusha, whatever, start a fire in the box of a small Toyota truck. If there’s more rockets laying on the truck bed, the Keystone Cops and the Chinese Fire Drill cannot compete with this. They want to arm these guys?

Mata Article 2, Section 2 of the constitution says that the president and his band of homosexual drug addicts in the executive branch has control of the military:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 8 says that only congress has the power to say thy are at war, or get involved in “kinetic affairs” or get rid of DADT:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

*so what are the repercussions for the offenses of the current administration? Is this peachable?

Its kind of like a dictatorship to do these things. I liked george bush. He was a real dude. We should bring him back.

The current state of affairs in Libya sees Gaddafi regaining the upper hand. While his armaments are old, they are still more powerful than those held by rebels. As time passes, Gaddafi wins.

Time is on his side, and the only element that will reverse the trend, is for coalition troops to arm and support the rebels. Problem: NO ONE can define the nature of the rebels because they are a ragtag mixture of different elements fighting their common enemy, Gaddafi. Some for religious reasons and some for their tribes. Good luck sorting it out. All want to exert some control over the oil fields.

A couple of things will now have to happen. Obama, without admitting it to Americans, will first have to attempt the annihilation of Gaddafi. When that doesn’t work, he’ll have to . . . . wait for it, . . . . put boots on the ground, or he’ll look like a complete fool, that even Diane Sawyer will be unable to protect from fallout.

On Hannity tonight, I heard her thighness, Hillary Rotten Clinton, state that Assad of Syria is a great reformer. We don’t have to arm the rebels because all is lost. That statement is going to make us die laughing.

Where the hell is the Mainstream Media on this?

Such is the case in Libya. This is one dogfight the US should be avoiding, watching and waiting to see who wins so we know how to adjust our future relations.

I agree 100%.

I wonder if we took a poll here how the FA readers would respond to the concept. A few weeks ago it seemed like “dithering” was the word of the day and putting up a no fly zone, even putting troops in was suggested by some (some, with intelligence background) even suggested Gaddafi was going to fall in 12 hours – a month ago).

Obama has made a tremendous error. First he did not get the Congress behind him before action took place (even though I think war resolutions should be passed). Second they have no apparent strategy. What seemed like a “wait and see” (which I preferred) moved to the no fly zone and supporting god only knows who in the rebel faction.

Hard Right says: 2

If obama and co. shove thier heads any further up thier butts they’re going to disapear. This is just sad.

Those who fail to learn from history…

HR:

1. Are you opposed to the US attacking Libya?

2. If Bush was doing it would you be in favor of the war in Libya?

The rebels have no leadership, no training, no discipline, no heavy and practical weapons, no fire discipline- most of their ammo is expended on ghost targets and celebrating wild rumors, tell me how could they lose by being rearmed by Nato(USA)?
CBS News is calling the rebel rout a panicked scramble, as the rebels retreat towards Benghazi. Hillary doesn’t know what the outcome will be? To me it looks like game, set, match-Godaffy.
At Denny’s tomorrow, i’m gonna order a panicked scramble.

And now, the rebels are calling for a conditional ceasefire, good thing since they are on the run, bet they are sincerely hoping Gaddafi takes them up on that.

Gaddafi is calling for the “dumb and blind” “Western leaders that decimated his country to resign.” Oh well, such as it is with the Obama Doctrine, go to war just because like minded toadies “feel” it what they should do, forgetting to “think” it through, it’s more calmly deliberative and nuanced that way.

Now what? Since NATO took over they killed 40 civilians and have told the rebels that they can’t rely on them not to shoot…..them, the rebels. Is this one of those “cluster” things Obama’s got going? Guess we can be grateful this war wasn’t a direct threat to this country and hopefully, there will be only 21 more months left of Obama. Let the desperate spinnin begin.

@Ivan: Ivan, you must not understand English very well. I think most everyone he at FA has commented on their views about Libya. Basically, we agree that the decision was made too late if there was to be intervention. The big issue has been that Obama has showed the world that he is indecisive and gutless when dealing with rogue nations. When he does say something important, no one believes he will follow up. Obama has no clue how to lead. He has no experiences from which to draw. He doesn’t even make his staff officers stay within their lanes. Why is the Sec of State running a war in Libya?

@Mata

@Randy, I will say this. Libya has brought out the divisions in both parties. Conservatives are strewn all over the map, as well as the lib/progs on this one. I think that’s been pretty evident here at FA as well, with some in support, and others opposed.

Yeah, maybe conservatives in the blogosphere are against it, but not in congress, where it matters. Again, the Replicans in DC couldn’t find their A$$ with both hands tied behind their back. You and I both know that this attack is both illegal and morally unjustified, yet our Republican Party can’t find it’s voice on this issue for the life of it.

Once again, the Republicans have sold us out to support Obama, this time in an illegal war.

Do you think this critical aspect will be explored in FA, the appologist website for faux-conservatives? Nope, not on your life.

Randy says: 14

@Ivan: Ivan, you must not understand English very well.

And you must lay off the jerk-pills when you get up in the morning.

The big issue has been that Obama has showed the world that he is indecisive and gutless when dealing with rogue nations.

No, Randy, as usual you can’t see the forest from the trees. The real issue is that a criminal act comitted at the highest levels of office in the US is not being brought into the daylight by the traitorous Republicans in DC.

With this illegal war, Obama has no crossed over the threshold of idiot to criminal. And who has oversight on this conduct? Congress does. And where is Congress on this criminal? No where to be seen. The scum in DC took an OATH, RANDY, AN OATH, to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies-yet you want to drone on and one about little inanities.

But you continue knocking Obama 24/7 Randy, I know it makes you feel great. Go on, keep kicking the retarded kid at lunch.

Ivan the terrible; I do like the republicans in congress right now. I hear them on you tube and many of them sound like great leaders, not all would make good presidents but a strong congress is good. If they agreed on everything that you agree with I think that would make them a bunch of clowns. Its important to have a deverse group who think from many perspectives before they act, that does not make them weak.

I think the war under a different circumstance war may be wise, however their may be a possibility we are supporting bad guys at the moment. The leadership in the white house is the main problem though.

Tell me, why the war is ilegal Ivan?

Coach potatoes

@Mata

Do they pass a House resolution that the troops are pulled from NATO use and the UN resolution? And you think that would pass the Senate as well? The former may not be so easy since we do have obligations as a member of that body. The latter? Don’t care about the UN. But we are a member of the NATO treaty.

Forgive my going off on a tangent here. Stick with NATO, drop the UN. And while we are at it, oust the UN from the U.S., demolish the building, build a park instead, and tell the UN to shove off to somewhere else in the world, preferably far, far away from us. It’s a dream, I know, but a happy one!

Mata I have started putting a reader post together on that subject, I will post it but won’t make any guarantee on when. I have some of my own personal thoughts about military service and citizenship, that I would like to get other people opinions on, so I think it would be interesting.

My question is about the war Powers Act, it says that the president needs to talk to congress about having kinetic actions within 48 hours. I have read that mr Obama did not do this, is this a serious offense?

@MataHarley:

Are we at that “now what?” moment yet? or is it a “put a fork in it?” where do we go to get all that expensive hardware back before the next conservative president is blamed for wasting money on defense when it has to finally be replaced?

when Gates countered Obama’s Libyan speech

This site is interesting, recommended by Michael Barone:

Down the Rabbit Hole, Redux: 43 Notes
Adam Garfinkle

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/contd/2011/03/30/down-the-rabbit-hole-redux-43-notes/

Been very busy lately, but I think someone may have mentioned a Down the Rabbit Hole article, blog(?) a few days ago. Adam Garfinkle offers another version of his critique/counter of Obama’s Libyan speech, again, in footnote form…fer instance, # 6 speaks to Al-Q being active on the Rebel side and stealing surface to air missiles and hiding them in Chad.

#10 explains that Obama did not really need to credit himself in the speech by claiming he sent warships, they were already there, Garfinkle was on one when it left port. Our ships in the Med were already headed that way…on normal patrol.

Anyway, it was quite interesting going through the speech and clicking on each footnoted point, have a few more of the 43 to go though but, just wanted to share.