Skip to comments.R2PAQ (‘Responsibility to Protect Al-Qaeda’)
Posted on 03/29/2011 12:36:17 PM PDT by Kaslin
The supposed responsibility to protect has taken America into a war on the side of the ultimate killers of innocents. (See also "Rebel Libya: Brothers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, now is the time to defend your land!" on the Tatler.)
It was undoubtedly in recognition of his role in promoting humanitarian intervention or lingérence humanitaire in the French original — that the French doctor Bernard Kouchner would be named the first head of the UN protectorate in Kosovo, following the conclusion of the 78-day NATO bombing campaign that drove Yugoslav forces from the then province. The point of the right of humanitarian intervention was to qualify several fundamental guarantees and prohibitions enshrined in the UN Charter: namely, the respect of state sovereignty and territorial integrity and the fundamental prohibition on the use of force in international relations.
In a nutshell, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention held that the aforesaid founding principles of the UN are all very well and good, but when civilian lives are at stake in a domestic conflict foreign states or coalitions of states may intervene anyway. The responsibility to protect appears on first glance to go even further, converting the right of states to intervene into their responsibility to do so. On closer inspection of the relevant UN texts devoted to R2P, the authorization of international military action is far more hedged and the primary responsibility to protect in fact devolves on states vis-à-vis their own citizens.
But, be that as it may, nothing could more clearly illustrate the complete arbitrariness to which the application of R2P is subject in practice than the current intervention in Libya. The invocation of R2P in the Libyan case is based on media reports of attacks on civilians by Libyan government forces at the outset of the unrest in February. Never mind that there were also reports of attacks on civilians by Iranian government forces following the Iranian elections in June 2009. Never mind that there are reports of massive use of violence against civilians in Syria at present. Never mind that the United States itself is constantly accused of killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does no one remember the WikiLeaks Collateral Murder video?
Never mind, finally, that the United States and its NATO allies do in fact kill civilians. Even when the victims of their attacks are predominantly civilians, it is generally assumed that the targets were legitimate military targets, nonetheless, or that the attacks were the result of regrettable mistakes committed in the inevitable fog of war. Both of the two explanations have been used, for instance, to justify the September 2009 German-ordered American air strike near Kunduz, Afghanistan, that left scores of civilians dead.
In November 2004, incidentally, French forces in the Ivoirian city of Abidjan opened fire on a crowd of anti-French protestors killing at least seven people and wounding dozens. By virtually all accounts other than that of the French government, the protestors were unarmed. Around the same time, French helicopter gunships opened fire on civilian protestors elsewhere in Abidjan killing many more. (For a detailed reconstruction, see my The Black Tuesday of the French Army.)
As it so happens, Muammar al-Gaddafi denies that Libyan forces have purposely targeted civilians. Unlike in the cases of Bosnia and Kosovo, there has not been even the pretense of a neutral international investigation to determine the circumstances of the alleged attacks or indeed whether they even occurred at all.
Still more to the point, however, in recent days it has emerged that the anti-Gaddafi rebel-forces from eastern Libya are not only openly supported by al-Qaeda, but indeed themselves include Qaeda-linked elements. I first discussed the evidence for al-Qaedas involvement in the rebellion in my Saving the Libyan Islamists. In the meanwhile, as reported on PJM on Friday, rebel commander Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi has admitted not only that he was detained by U.S. forces in 2002 after fighting against the foreign invasion in Afghanistan, but also that he later recruited Libyans to fight with al-Qaeda in Iraq.
As discussed in my earlier report, according to captured al-Qaeda personnel records, al-Hasadis hometown of Darnah sent more foreign fighters to fight with al-Qaeda in Iraq than any other foreign city or town. Al-Hasadi has noted, moreover, that some of the fighters he sent to Iraq have since returned to Libya and are fighting with the rebel forces whose path to the West is presently being cleared by American, French, and British missiles.
This is to say that in the name of the responsibility to protect civilians, the United States and its European partners have entered into a de facto military alliance with an organization that famously makes no distinction between combatants and non-combatants and whose most characteristic modus operandi consists precisely of terror attacks on civilian targets. Unlike Muammar al-Gaddafi — or, for that matter, American or French military authorities — al-Qaeda does not deny targeting civilians. Targeting civilians is what al-Qaeda does.
The number of civilians deliberately killed in Qaeda-linked terror attacks over the last decade rises at least into the tens of thousands and likely into the hundreds of thousands. These include, of course, the nearly 3000 civilians murdered in the 9/11 attacks, the over 200 murdered in the 2002 Bali bombings, the nearly 200 murdered in the Madrid train bombings, the over 50 murdered in the London transport bombings, and thousands murdered over many years in Iraq in a seemingly incessant stream of suicide attacks. Some of the Iraqi victims will undoubtedly have been killed by al-Qaeda recruits sent to Iraq by none other than Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi.
It is notable that in all the years that al-Qaeda has been spreading terror in Iraq, the responsibility to protect has virtually never been invoked in order to demand the protection of Iraqi civilians. On the contrary, the deaths of Iraqis at the hands of al-Qaeda has typically been construed as somehow Americas responsibility and used indeed as an argument for hastening the withdrawal of American troops.
Reports are coming out of Libya that the anti-Gadaffi forces are now murdering unarmed pro-Gadaffi loyalists. So what the hell is Obama going to do about that?
Under Obammy, we’re going to evolve toward a situation where our military is used to protect the worst human rights abusers in the world from the people they’re preying on. This is the UN model as well, no coincidence there.
... nothin. That is MB democracy at work.
I have been wondering the same thing.
Inevitable really, in any kind of savage civil and intercenine war.
Or we have different standards for some civilians.
Get the leftist media not to report the information and blame Gadaffi for any atrocities that might be reported. Gates has already reported that Gadaffi forces might be placing bodies near coalition air strikes. Who to believe - neither side.
The deceptive lot that are currently our government must be removed, and the reality they have staged eliminated.
Get rid of the Marxists, the UN, and every Marxist infection introduced into our government since Woodrow Wilson’s time inclusive the Fed, the EPA, Dept. Ed., BATFE, and on, and on the list goes. Get the entrenched Leftists the “H” out of our government bureaucracies. Get employment into the free market, out of the government.
Libya is the test case for R2P.
Worked in Kosovo and it looks like France made it work again in Libya.
Apparently, all it takes is a democrat in the White House and America's near universal refusal to admit that we screwed up over Kosovo/FRY.
Parallels between Obama’s intervention and Clinton’s: