Selling the Libyan rebels the rope
There is a famous quote from Lenin that shows a remarkable understanding of the West:
The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.
Lenin was talking about the urge to do business. And of course he was wrong about who would hang whom first—at least, so far. But he was correct about the West’s lack of instinct for shrewd self-preservation, particularly today.
Case in point: Libya. When the uprising first spread to that country, I wondered in my very first post on the subject about the answer to a simple question: who are the rebels? It seemed not tangential to the issue, but basic.
If we as a country are going to put blood and treasure behind a movement in a civil war, we’d best know what that movement represents. In Libya, the fact that our government does not seem to know, and that pundits are answering the question with facts that are very, very troubling, is shocking (even though I thought my capacity to be shocked by what Obama does had been worn out).
In the Telegraph, one can find this description of al Qaeda influence in the movement. Andrew McCarthy takes up the topic in greater detail in National Review (please read the whole thing):
…[T]he rebels are a mixed bag. The strongest faction, particularly in ideological influence, is the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been in Libya for 70 years. There are also militant groups, such as Hasadi’s LIFG, that have ties to al-Qaeda, though they do not necessarily agree with bin Laden’s decision in the 1990s to take the violence global. In addition, there are Islamist organizations (such as the National Front for the Salvation of Libya) that claim to be non-violent and that oppose Qaddafi because they have come to regard him as non-Muslim, an apostate whose eccentric brand of Islam is seen as heterodox, and who persecutes his Muslim people. Moreover, there are undoubtedly al-Qaeda operatives in the mix, because al-Qaeda goes wherever the action is.
To describe these factions is not to discount the existence of some secular opposition to Qaddafi: some leftists who see an opportunity, and even some Western-influenced freedom fighters. Interventionists delude themselves, though, when they portray the latter as predominant, as the face of the rebels…
We’ve seen this show before. The rebels are not rebels ”” they are the Libyan mujahideen. Like the Afghan mujahideen, including those that became al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the Libyan mujahideen comprise different groups. What overwhelmingly unites them, besides opposition to Qaddafi, is sharia. The Libyan mujahideen will exploit us but never befriend us. If they succeed, so be it. But we have no vital interest in orchestrating that success, even if it would mean a thug like Qaddafi finally gets his just deserts. If we empower them, we will eventually rue the day.
Mark Steyn has a more colorful way of putting it:
Now suddenly [Qaddafi’s] got to go ”“ in favor of “freedom-loving” “democrats” from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya ”“ which, according to West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center, has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq. Perhaps now that so many Libyan jihadists are in Iraq, the Libyans left in Libya are all Swedes in waiting. But perhaps not. If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan, the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less-attractive pathologies, we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them.
Steyn also has some more general observations on the new American way of war. I happen to be in agreement; I believe that limited involvement and commitment are inherently problematic:
There are arguments to be made for being on the other side of the world for decades on end if you’re claiming it as sovereign territory and rebuilding it in your image, as the British did in India, Belize, Mauritius, the Solomon Islands, you name it. Likewise, there are arguments to be made for saying, sorry, we’re a constitutional republic, we don’t do empire. But there’s not a lot to be said for forswearing imperialism and even modest cultural assertiveness, and still spending 10 years getting shot up in Afghanistan helping to create, bankroll and protect a so-called justice system that puts a man on death row for converting to Christianity.
Libya, in that sense, is a classic post-nationalist, post-modern military intervention: As in Kosovo, we’re do-gooders in a land with no good guys.
I have never believed that the rebels in Libya (or for that matter, even the protesters in Egypt) are controlled or led by “good guys.” Oh, there may be some in that crowd, but they are probably in the minority (perhaps even the vast minority, for all I know). What’s more, however many they are, they are very likely to be overpowered in the chaos to come by the bad guys. Iran is the template, although the winners in Egypt and Libya will not look exactly like the ayatollahs of Iran.
But we will have sold them the rope with which they will attempt to hang us.
Two questions:
1. Has Obama considered that we might be playing a role analogous to assisting the Bolsheviks in 1917?
2. If so, would he look on playing such a role with satisfaction or horror?
neo, I know you speak of selling in a mostly metaphorical sense, but it’s worth noting that when the chaos of war overwhelms a country, even one as unpleasant as Qaddafi’s Libya, some things become free for the taking. (Especially when there are no boots on the ground.)
I posted this link on another thread, but I think it’s worth repeating here.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/al-qaeda-snatched-missiles-in-libya/story-e6frfku0-1226028543204#ixzz1Hffm5oRa
One of the jobs done by Qaddafi was to control things like this. Though we suspected him of arming terrorists, there’s no instance I’m aware of where he handed over this sort of weapon to anyone.
Even assuming many/most of the rebels are embryonic Tho. Jeffersons, there is no organization on their side performing this function.
How soon before one of these missiles shows up in Afghanistan? Or Gaza? Or Europe? Or at Sky Harbor in Phoenix?
Occam’s:
1. Yes.
2. Satisfaction.
I’ll say it again: When Muslims are killing Muslims, we should stay out of their way and let them get on with it. It will save us some trouble later on.
Obama is our Lenin. Lawerly phrases leading to cold blooded murder, yet too much of a coward to get his pinkies dirty. I hope all who voted for the man child enjoy the Gulag
A month ago every thing was as it has been.
There were some protests for freedom, we’re told, by over-educated yuppie wannabees.
Withing weeks they the yuppies were a well-trained irregular army marching to Tripoli.
They retreated and today they started taking towns back!
That’s the fastest yuppie to disciplined soldier turnaround time in the history of history.
Note Again: Obama throws the weight of American military support behind the rebels in Libya. They will be our enemy again. Maybe worse than Q. But nothing about the protesters in Syria. That is because they might be better than Assad and open things up for Lebanon, Israel, and possibly us.
If you are Iran or Syria, you are on your own against two of the most oppressive and vicious regimes in history.
If you are Libya you’re golden.
We know who the foes of America are. One of them resides at 1600 Pennsy avenue. He may yet defeat this great country.
Lenin: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
I wonder if Allende ever said that.
Actually there is a way of assuring the Al-Qaeda types are marginalized. The French used to give their former colonies independence but left a few of their people around just to keep them friendly. A battalion or two of foreign legionnaires could serve the same purpose in the new Libya, out of sight but not out of mind. The tribal divisions within the country could be exploited to enable a government that would retain their presence. Of course the main player here would be France. If wimp- traitor in Chief ever figured out what was going on he’d have a stroke.
Gerard Vanderleun is right: Hussein Obama is acting from deep malice against our nation.
Once you realize that, all his actions make sense.
I wonder how long until we’re told that we have to conduct ourselves in a manner that wins the “rebel’s” hearts & minds. The better question is, have they won our hearts and minds? They have not won mine – I want nothing to do with them.
Whatever happened to those good old days when Obama said revolutions should be composted or organic or whatever it was he said? Maybe on Monday Citizen-of-the-World and Peace Prize winner will pronounce the kinetic action “wholistic”. I’m just not smart enough to keep up with the smartest President ever!
I want him to address the issue of what we’ll do if France surrenders.
I’m just beginning to feel that the entire Muslim world, especially the Arab world, is not worth the bones of a single American soldier. After a while the relentless backwardness and barbarism of these people just gets to you, and all you can feel is ice cold hatred for them.
Abdul7591 . . .
That’s what I think too. The Arabs, with their unending whining and Jew-baiting, have used up all my supply of sympathy.
It’s time for Arabs and Muslims-in-general to decide to try to join modern civilization. Otherwise, the hell with them.
If a single American soldier dies in Libya, I will be very very angry. Obama is backing the Muslim Brotherhood. Our president is a traitor and should be treated accordingly.
its not so much a case of selling the rope. For things like this the thing we miss is the object. and the object is to put the ball in play. ONCE its moving THEN you can steer it, but until its in play, not much can be done. THIS is why they mobilize young people and so forth to cause havoc or protest, NOT because the young people can succeed, quite the opposite since they do not organize and are easily manipulated. the point of it is to put the ball in play, once that is done then something can be grabbed.
cant whack the mole unless the mole sticks its head up, and whoever gets the moles to stick their head up, may or may not be who will be prepared to do the whacking.
in this way, students are key enablers of despotism and totalitarian change. historically speaking they have never been enablers of anything else.
“As in Kosovo, we’re do-gooders in a land with no good guys.”
No, Mr. Steyn, your analogy fails. Libya now is Muslim vs. Muslim (black spy, white spy, same same but different triangle-nosed spy), while Kosovo then was Muslim vs. non-Muslim. Intervention in Libya now is a waste of money and (God forbid) American troops, while Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo was also a crying shame, a scandalous provision of aid to enemies (as all Muslims are) against those who, even if you couldn’t consider them friends, were no enemies.
The Serbs were wronged. They had been libeled by the hostile media, then assaulted by outside politicians all too ready to believe the media’s lies. It grates on me personally because my country is being subjected to the same process.
It is time, now, to exploit the division between the atheistic Utopians and the Muslims. (I mean the term atheistic in the sense of denying the personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Many communists have traded in strict materialism for a “human potential” outlook.)
This conflict shows in Obama. He’s not really a Muslim because he’s just not submissive enough. “Muslimity” for him, is just a means to an end. I don’t know, perhaps he thinks he could pose as the 12th Imam, the final revelation. He sure did suck up all the worship our welfare recipients and “want to be” slaves gave him.
But Islam has its book, its founder, its dogma. It is extraordinarily fluid and rightly considered more a political ideology like Nazi fascism than a religion–but it can’t be stretched as far as the Utopians would stretch it. Perhaps, just as in WWII, the greatest amount of slaughter will occur between those two parties.
Another place we sold rope: At home. We turned into Communists and then hung ourselves.
Evil laughed when Atlas shrugged. It’s what he intended.
Evil’s laughter would not be ironic, just triumphant. There’s only one place that tells us, unequivocally, that although this laughter will occur, it will never occur as a final end.
ziontruth says, “The Serbs were wronged. They had been libeled by the hostile media, then assaulted by outside politicians all too ready to believe the media’s lies.”
I agree, the Serbs were demonized. They did commit atrocities in some cases, as did the Croats and the muslims in the aftermath of the break up of Yugoslavia; that is what happens when there are multiple ‘tribes’ fighting for control of a piece of real estate. The so-called liberation of Kosovo was inspired and backed by Albanian separatists. Clinton decided to act as their air force.
For some reason many people are unable to accept the idea that in some situations there are no good guys or bad guys and we should keep our nose clean. As rickl notes, “I’ll say it again: When Muslims are killing Muslims, we should stay out of their way and let them get on with it. It will save us some trouble later on.
“It grates on me personally because my country is being subjected to the same process.”
This is one of Obama’s goals, that seems plain as day to me. However, in this case there are also plain as day real bona fide good guys and bad guys.
OT: What if the Republicans tried this?
“Biden Staff Stuffs Pool Reporter into Closet At Event”
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/JoeBiden-Fundraiser-Reporter-ScottPowers/2011/03/27/id/390850?s=al&promo_code=BF41-1
“What if the Republicans tried this?”
It would mean the evil republicans were committing war crimes, destroying democracy, shredding the Constitution, instituting a police state, and feeding the poor to the rich.
Beverly, actually, I kind of like the mental image of a MSM reporter going docilely into the closet. Imagine Ernie Pyle, Ed Murrow, or one of the old lions doing that. For anyone.
My belief, as callous as it sounds, is that when muslims are killing muslims, we should fall back on our capitalist roots and open popcorn concessions.
Now when it comes to Libya, we should have killed Qadhafi years ago. Other than that, we should stay out of the place, unless they go exporting that terror stuff again. In that case, we should use our air superiority to take out whoever they have that passes for leadership. Then promptly leave.
I’m beyond caring about muslims anymore. Especially when they’re killing each other.
The islamists are organized, but the rebellion was economic. Most Arab nations (and most muslim nations in the world) have horrible economies. Poplulation has increased dramatically without any similar increase in economic growth. Most muslim countries have little oil, and those that do have not managed it well.
There are two things necessary for stable, growing economies, A large amount of personal economic freedom and a robust rule of law (which tends to minimize corrouption). No Muslim country has these two elements. Islam is a strong break against both. The current cycle of rebellion will not likely change this.
Here’s an explanation for Libya that I am ashamed to say I hadn’t considered since one of the debates in my time there was ‘relevance.’
Apparently Libya gives NATO relevance as the military arm of the UN at a time when it has no real mission in Europe. In other words, we can look for more of this.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/28/nato-reconsidered/print