Home
Archives
Subscribe
About Us
Contact Us
Links
Special Features
Cartoons
Submissions
 
Our Founding Documents
The United States Constitution
Bill of Rights
Amendments to the Constitution
The Federalist Papers
 
Attack on America
 
 
 

Really? Libya? Why?

April 4, 2011


Does anyone remember Operation Cyclone?

In 1979, Jimmy Carter began arming the Mujahidin in Afghanistan, and ordered the CIA to begin stirring Islamic unrest in the region to “destabilize” the area and help repel the “oppressive” Soviet Union. This action may well have made things more difficult for the Soviets, but it also set in motion the creation of Al Qaida and the Taliban. And, of course, Carter’s policies regarding Iran allowed the creation of the Islamic Republic, now the largest state sponsor of terror on the planet. One could well argue that Carter and his policies were contributory if not causative to the events leading to and following 9-11.

In his first 2 years in office, Barack Obama’s policies toward the Islamic World (and, concurrently toward our allies) have caused a lot of head scratching. It would be a lengthy and distracting tangent to pursue his history in this regard here. Suffice it to say that there are many examples where his foreign policy has been either incoherent or antithetical to our historical understanding of friend and foe.

But with his single-handedly committing to military action in Libya, he has made an epic blunder which will be history-changing. (By single-handedly I mean without congressional consent; UN authorization and the cries of the Arabs notwithstanding!)

Isn’t it interesting that Al Qaida is cheering for our intervention to oppose Khadafy? Why? If Khadafy’s demise is desirable to Al Qaida… isn’t that reason enough to question our complicity with it?

Remember that, despite his being a despotic and brutal dictator (what Islamic nation is not under a brutal and dictatorial regime?) Khadafy was a muzzled mad-dog. After Reagan rang his bell with bombs falling around him he shut up. He did try striking back with the Lockerbie incident, but got slapped down again after that. When he saw what happened to Saddam Hussein… he shut down his nuke research, invited inspectors in, and began cooperating with us by providing intelligence. He kept Al Qaida at bay in northern Africa. So while he was a dictator ruling his country with an iron fist… he was actually serving the US vital interests.

So, with the current unrest – why should we get involved at all? Is there a vital US interest requiring us to commit US blood and treasure? Not according to Secretary Gates. He says we had no vital interests in the region!

President Obama tells us we are acting on the authority of the World Community. (So if the UN says “Jump”, he says “how high?” now?) Isn’t Congress supposed to authorize military action? Is the Constitution now subordinate to the United Nations… that organization that’s been such a good friend and strong defender of America’s Vital Interests? (Sarcasm here.)

Obama claims “This is how the international community SHOULD work”. Really? The UN “authorizes” action and our military acts on their wishes without consent of Congress? Obama touts a “coalition,” yet Bush had twice as many countries on board his coalition when we initiated action against Iraq. Bush sought and received authorization from Congress to use military force. We had authorization from the UN as well, to use military action. Yet Bush was blamed for starting an “illegal” war and a “war for oil.”

(Interestingly, France and England, who were among those calling for a no-fly zone in Libya, did so in their own vital interests in the hope of securing Libyan oil… thus, a war for oil! America imports essentially no Libyan oil so it’s of little to no vital interest to us.)

Joe Lieberman tells us that we’re doing the will of “the Arab street.” Are our military now taking orders from the UN and the Arabs? And what kind of allies have the Arab nations been to the US?

Having failed to make a case for this intervention on the basis of US vital Interests… the Administration is now trying to appeal to America’s humanitarian nature calling it a humanitarian cause to end “atrocities.” They trot out the case of a woman claiming to be raped by pro-Khadafy forces, for example. Tragic, if true, but pick up your local newspaper and you’ll find rapes and murders committed daily! Should we send in Tomahawks to New York, or Detroit, or DC because crimes are committed?

There is not a single Islamic nation on the planet where “atrocities” are not committed on a daily basis. There is civil unrest in most of them. Look at Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Rwanda and the Ivory Coast for example. People are hacked with machetes, limbs are cut off, people are buried to the waist and stoned, and kids have truck driven over their arms. That world is a brutal one. Should we intervene in all of them? (The Ivory Coast is the world’s largest producer of Cocoa… producing more than half the world’s supply. Should we intervene there to insure the free flow of chocolate at market prices? That would be a greater “vital interest of the United States” than is to be found in Libya!)

There is now an effort underway to provide arms to the Libyan rebels. Hearken back to Operation Cyclone. Isn’t that what created the Taliban and Al Qaida? When Khadafy falls, who will fill the void? Who’s going to ultimately follow Mubarak in Egypt? The protesters cry “Democracy,” but what does that mean? Does anyone truly believe that a constitutional republic will be the result of the fall of these regimes?

“Democracy” is Mob Rule – literally! (Look it up!) It has been said that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep taking a vote on what to have for dinner. Let us remember that “democracy” does not necessarily lead to freedom and individual liberty! Look at what happened in Gaza when they had “democratic” elections. They elected Hamas! As a wiser man than I said in this context… “Democracy” means one-man, one-vote, one time! After that they’ll be right back under totalitarian rule… but this time it will be under a theocratic rule and Shari ‘a Law.

So, what is the meaning of all this unrest in the Middle East? Caliphate! Remember, the acolytes of the 12th Imam – the “Islamic Messiah” for lack of a better explanation – believe he will not come until the world is plunged into chaos. Iran’s Ahmadinejad is such a 12th Imam believer and has stated his goal to bring about his return. This “popular uprising” among the Islamic nations has been fomented by Iran and other Jihadi influences. This is not a cry for western-style freedom and liberty. It is a move to establish a world-wide caliphate.

And President Carter 2.0 is playing right into their hands, whether through Carter-like incompetence or intentional complicity. Either should disqualify him from service as our Commander in Chief.

Copyright ©2011 Doug Edelman

 


Home Current Issue About Us Cartoons Submissions
Subscribe Contact Links Humor Archive Login
Please send any comments, web site suggestions, or problem reports to webmaster@conservativetruth.org