Skip to comments.Ominous Signals on Libya: A Response to Andrew Sullivan
Posted on 03/28/2011 5:19:42 AM PDT by SJackson
Andrew Sullivan takes exception to my observations that we are on a fools errand in Libya and a dangerous one. The other day I took issue with neo-conservatives who had learned nothing from failed attempts to create Western-style democracies in Muslim cultures. I had pointed to recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza (let alone Turkey) and warned that our military invasion of Libya could lead to the creation of an al-Qaeda aligned totalitarian state. Here is how the Atlantics Andrew Sullivan characterized these thoughts:
It looks as if David Horowitz has left the neocons and become an anti-Islam nationalist; . he looks at the eruption in the Middle East and wants the dictators back.
Nice spin Andrew.
First, I am not against people whose religion is Islam. Im just a pragmatic realist who notes that in fifteen hundred years Islamic cultures have a very poor track record in creating democracies and that the emerging Islamic movements in the Arab Middle East are without exception totalitarian, jihadist and also Jew-hating, women-hating and gay-hating. These realities are apparently not enough to deter Andrew from supporting the exceptionally deceptive aggression, which is being led (sort of) by the dithering amateur in the White House in an audaciously deceptive campaign to put the Libyan rebels in power. As it happens at least one rebel commander already has been identified as a Guantanamo alumni (thank you liberals) and a jihadist veteran of the war in Afghanistan against us. How many more such rebel commanders might there be? Andrew doesnt know (and neither does his leader) but that does not deter his hair trigger slander of a critic of this misguided war.
Obamas war has been authorized as an effort to establish a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Libyan airstrikes against civilians. But everyone knows this is a lie. The Libyan air force has already been destroyed but the strikes go on because the real agenda is to help the (al-Qaeda?) rebels to win. Despite Obamas assurance that there would be no American ground troops, there are reports that ground troops are already being sent in. To protect civilians does Obama propose to occupy the country and ensure that the rebels do not establish a regime more bloodthirsty than the present one? Is he interested in ensuring that a new regime would not be a terrorist state as in Gaza and Lebanon, or would not ally with al-Qaeda, whom Gaddafi at least opposed? Andrew will of course twist this into a claim that I am pro-Gaddafi. For the record I wish that some brave Libyan or secret agent would kill him. What I do not want to see is the American military invading Libya with no idea of what they are doing or why, which is the position into which the present commander-in-chief a classic pragmatic realist conservative in Andrews wonderland has put them.
The doctrine under which Hillary Clinton persuaded Obama to invade a sovereign country and thereby to disregard his Secretary of Defense (an actual pragmatist on Obamas ship of state) is called Responsibility to Protect. It is the invention of NSC adviser Samantha Power and her patron George Soros. Soros describes the doctrine like this:
If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states borders to protect the rights of citizens.
The right to penetrate nation-states borders. Now where have we heard this excuse for a big power stomp on a little nation before? Czechoslovakia 1938 perhaps? Wasnt Hitler, by his own lights, protecting the rights of German-speaking citizens at the time? If Obama really means to protect the rights of Libyans he would have to occupy the country for a decade, rewrite its constitution, re-educate its population and institute a democratic educational system. Is that what Sullivan really wants or has he just not thought this through?
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/26/ominous-signals-on-libya-a-response-to-andrew-sullivan-2/
That's what I say! Many good points in this article.
Good article and exactly right. Besides the fact that AQ is a the least somewhat and probably heavily involved in Libya, we seem to have forgotten that our the first Iraq war which was entirely justified was used by Bin Laden as a recruiting tool. I’m sure the jihadist’s are smacking their lips over the future martyrs they’ll get from this present idiocy.
Anyone out there who truly believes that anything resembling a western style government will come out of what’s going on needs to take a history lesson.
We had no business getting involved in Libya’s mess and we’re going to suffer for it.
How does it feel to have your President think that you’re actually that stupid. We went through atleast 10 years straight of No Fly Zones in Iraq. Obama thinks we do not know.
Iran will control radical islamist client states across the middle east in a few years.
We are walking into a minefield with our eyes closed.
I am. Every man is his religion. You can't fight a man but not be against his cells.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
First of all, he is not my Preident. He is the occupier of the white House. As far as the stupid part goes, he was elected by the traitors to America, American haters in America, fools, idiots, and parasites in America.
He is laughting at those who voted for him. He, himself cannot believe that they were actually that stupid, but, that being the case, he has full knowledge that if they are that stupid, in 2012, he will be able to fool them again.
I’m beginning to wonder if maybe Gadaffi has something on Obama that’s really damaging. Perhaps Obama is a Muslem Brotherhood or maybe Gadaffi knows something about why there’s a missing birth certificate.
America’s been slapped in the face so much under Obama... why a war now and why is it suddenly with Gadaffi.
Last month Obama was requesting an increase up to $1.7 million dollars of military aid for Gadaffi!
I fear that no matter who ‘wins’ in Libya, the U.S. (and hte West) will lose.
I think that you are on to something. This thing with Gadaffi came up all of a sudden. The leaders of Saudi Arabia should be getting nervious.
Well I don’t see the nation rising up against this, do you?
I mean our nation.
Old cliche: “Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to relive them”.
“Responsibility to Protect” Was indeed the excuse Adolph Hitler used to march into the Sudatenland. Also, his public reason for the dispute with Poland was access to the German Civilians “cut off” in East Prussia. Hitler demanded an open corridor to Danzig, and to obtain it started WWII.
The world should remember that Hitler did NOT delcare war on France and England until AFTER Chamberlain stated that, “A state of war now exists between our two countries”.
Hitler’s claim was his “Responsibility to Protect.”
That said, after a more than 20 year orgy of slaughter of civilians over the entire African continent, why suddenly is there an urgent “R2P”?
I don’t see a problem with an Al-Qaeda country. The problem the US has had is not knowing where to find these guys or thier financial assets. That country was never going to be an ally, so make it a fly trap and get Al-Quaeda all in a bunch and then level them. Part of the problem is then solved.
Sarah Palin is my President!!!
I would say that is a good choice. The way things stand at this time, I will either write in her name or check her box in 2012.
You are on to something. Khadaffi gave huge amounts of money (illegally of course) to Obama’s election campaign.