Posted by MataHarley on 31 March, 2011 at 2:23 pm. 23 comments already!


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.

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.


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
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x