Posted on 06/23/2011 10:34:00 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
A new report from two French think tanks concludes that jihadists have played a predominant role in the eastern-Libyan rebellion against the rule of Moammar Qaddafi, and that “true democrats” represent only a minority in the rebellion. The report, furthermore, calls into question the justifications given for Western military intervention in Libya, arguing that they are largely based on media exaggerations and “outright disinformation.”
The sponsors of the report are the Paris-based International Center for Research and Study on Terrorism and Aide to Victims of Terrorism (CIRET-AVT) and the French Center for Research on Intelligence (CF2R). The organizations sent a six-member expert mission to Libya to evaluate the situation and consult with representatives on both sides of the conflict. From March 31 to April 6, the mission visited the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the region of Tripolitania; from April 19 to April 25, it visited the rebel capital of Benghazi and the surrounding Cyrenaica region in eastern Libya.
The report identifies four factions among the members of the eastern Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC). Apart from a minority of “true democrats,” the other three factions comprise partisans of a restoration of the monarchy that was overthrown by Qaddafi in 1969, Islamic extremists seeking the establishment of an Islamic state, and former fixtures of the Qaddafi regime who defected to the rebels for opportunistic or other reasons.
There is a clear overlap between the Islamists and the monarchists, inasmuch as the deposed King Idris I was himself the head of the Senussi brotherhood, which the authors describe as “an anti-Western Muslim sect that practices an austere and conservative form of Islam.” The monarchists are thus, more precisely, “monarchists-fundamentalists.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“If Al Queda gets a base of operation in Libya, which is largely what this “rebellion” is all about, we will rue the day we backed the rebels against Ghaddafi who assisted us in the war on terror and kept Al Queda out of the area. We will have “lost” a great deal.”
If Ghadaffi succeeds in re-establishing power he will revert to his terrorist-funding ways from the 1970s & 1980s - secretly funding anyone willing to point guns and bombs at us - if only for retaliation for our support of the “rebels”.
Ghaddaffi or the rebels; neither party will rule Libya in a manner that will be in our favor.
This was a fight we were supposed to either stay completely out of, or take over in a manner as was done in Iraq.
We have done neither. We will not own the outcome no matter what, and neither victor is going to be our friend and ally.
Get over it. It’s lose lose.
We may have to try to “isolate” Libya no matter who the victors are.
-——It’s lose lose.——
So far there has been no counter attack.
I expect a disastrous counter attack in Europe or Washington against leaders and families. That is Libyan Special Forces with RPG’s or perhaps mortars will raise hell and kill many.
The war will be among the leaders, not the people. The leaders have killed Qadaffi’s family and the counter attack will be tit for tat.
Obama is complacent. He doesn’t know what he has done. Ditto Big Brit, Big France, Big Italy
Sorry, my Country's engaged in an unconstitutional and statutorily illegal war. My Country is supporting my enemies who were responsible for 9/11. I can't, and won't, just "get over it". The weak, effete, Republican elite are pushing me closer each day to abandoning the corruption that has become the GOP.
Trying to lump the monarchists in with the islamists is wrong. Monarchy is a strong force against the Islamists and a restoration of a pro-American monarchy would be a great victory for the USA and for Israel.
Al-Qaeda is against NATO intervention because they know it will ensure that whatever government replaces Kadaffy will be controlled by NATO and the USA.
“Sorry, my Country’s engaged in an unconstitutional and statutorily illegal war. My Country is supporting my enemies who were responsible for 9/11. I can’t, and won’t, just “get over it”. The weak, effete, Republican elite are pushing me closer each day to abandoning the corruption that has become the GOP.”
Illegal as in “Unconstitutional”? Not so. Illegal as in “statutorily” as in the Constitutionally suspect “War Powers Act”? Again; not so.
I have said before that there are lots of reasons we Conservatives would like to rein in the arrogant Mr. Obama. Picking the item of raising the Constitutionally suspect “War Powers Act” as one means of doing so may be emotionally satisfying but (1) it has no chance of succeeding and therefor (2) can be nothing but emotionally satisfying as in: “Well we told him” but to no meaningful affect.
If the GOP thought it had a dozen or so Dem supporters in the Senate, it could try to simply cut off the money for any actions in Libya; but it would not hold against an Obama veto without fully 2/3 in both houses; again not likely. So why are you yelling “effete Republican elite” - they don’t have the votes. Just holding a vote will make you “feel” good, but it will not change the realities.
My point is not that I support the rebels and want them to succeed, and neither do I support Ghadaffi and want him to succeed. I would love it if both sides could fail. But, in the end, one will not fail. We will not “win” either way. We will be left with a Libya that is not “with us” either way.
That is not my wish. That’s just how it is.
You can wish that that was not the case, but wishing it to be so does not change it.
When I say “get over it” I am saying we will have to be prepared to deal with a Libya that will not be our friend and ally, no matter what happens between the rebels and Ghaddafi. That’s not a wish; that’s just the way it is.
Yelling “effete Republican elite” over a measure that the GOP would have zero legislative success with is just silly.
Show me someplace in the Constitution that gives the power to the President to attack another country without congressional approval.
Show me someplace in the War Powers Act that gives the power to the President to attack another country that has not attacked us.
Obama's actions are both unconstitutional and in violation of the War Powers Act. Your merely stating "not so" does not change reality.
The Republicans control the House and a simple majority can impeach the President. They do have the votes if they want to actually wield power instead of the continual caving by Crybaby Boehner and the weak, effete, Republican elite.
If they don't want to stand on principle because the Senate might not go along with them, they need to get out of the way and let someone with a little fortitude lead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.