|
Mar. 31 2011
Evidence grows with each passing week that in Libya the U.S. government and its allies are providing air cover and arms directly to its avowed enemies–including thugs from al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Taliban–those whofve devoted the past decade to slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse, top U.S. and U.K. officials now acknowledge this and condone it.
At this weekfs London conference on the Libyan war, while U.S. Secretary of State Clinton said the tyrant Gadhafi must go, U.K. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg saidthat if Gadhafi were to go, Libya could become a hard-line Islamist state, but the ggambleh was worth it. Above all, both stressed, Western allies must convey ghumilityh and forswear any desire to gimposeh its preferred type of law-abiding government in Libya or anywhere else in the region.
In Foreign Policy magazine two military and terrorism experts describehow gLibya contributed hundreds of the fiercest foreign fighters to Iraqfs al Qaeda-led insurgencyh and ask gShould Washington be worried that itfs now backing these guys against Qaddafi?h In fact, Washington foreign policymakers are more likely to be pleased than worried. For details, see only the vicious theories of Samantha Power, Obamafs national security adviser, who calls herself a ghumanitarian hawkh–much like George W. Bush styled himself a gcompassionate conservativeh while proclaiming Islam to be a ggood and peaceful religion.h Libya is only the latest in a long-term effort by foreign policymakers to encourage, fight for and sponsor Islamic regimes.
This craven and self-sacrificing policy is deadly, yet embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike in the U.S., albeit obscured by quibbles over the timing and tactics of Obamafs invasion. Both believe the world must be made gsafe for democracyh–for mob rule and the almighty ballot–which means, in the Middle East: made safe for the rise and spread of Islamic rule. To gaccomplishh this end the West is to ggambleh the lives and fortunes of its own citizens, while ensuring that secularism, the rule of law, individual rights and constitutionalism have no real chance in the Middle East, since that would entail gimperialistic colonizingh
Democrats and Republicans alike accept the myth that the genemy of our enemy is my friend.h Even if the Christian Right occasionally admits to there being a real enemy, it finds a moral sanction in gturning the other cheekh to evils and threats, while the Relativist Left feels morally sanctified that the glesser of two evilsh isnft really an evil at all, especially since therefs never any clear gblack and white.h Meanwhile Islamic rebels are certain the U.S. and Israel are gevilh–Big Satan, Little Satan–and should be gwiped off the map.h
When cowardly, doubt-ridden disquietude meets irrational, brazen certitude the latter inevitably wins. The civilized West today is unjustifiably cowardly and guilt-ridden, while the Islamic radicals are certain, insane, evil, and dangerous; thus the former provides air cover, arms and moral sanction to the latter. The Islamic radicals specialize in rearing homicide-bombers, but itfs the West that rears the real suicide-bombers, for when the U.S. military bombs Libya–as it did Iraq and Afghanistan–it does so to clear a path for its sworn enemies.
Who exactly are the grebelsh and why are the U.S. and its allies so eager to help them? In Iran in early 1979 the Carter administration couldnft care less about the philosophy or aims of the Ayatollah Khomeini, but only that the pro-Western Shah of Iran be deposed; by March a greferendumh established an Islamic republic; by April scores of prominent Iranians were executed; by December the ruling mullahs declared Khomeini to be absolute ruler for life. Ever since, Iran has been a major sponsor of world-wide terrorism.
In Afghanistan in the 1980s the Reagan administration and a CIA (then led by todayfs Pentagon chief, Robert Gates) helped finance and train al Qaeda, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden in their fight against the invading Soviets (who withdrew in 1989). The U.S. also backed Iraq in its eight-year war against Iran, which failed, yet emboldened Saddam Hussein, and the U.S. fought him later. In the 1990s Afghanistan became a haven for terrorism, which led to the devastation of Sept. 11. In the decade since the U.S. has spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring gregime changeh in Iraq and Afghanistan, which now have Islamic constitutions and are far closer in theocracy and practice to Iran than ever before.
Americans should realize that gthe enemy of our enemyh is not our friend, but our enemy, and that America has many enemies, both at home and abroad. There can be no success in playing off one against the other.
Yet the same suicidal pattern is visible in Pakistan, Egypt and Libya, where military strongmen (and onetime U.S. allies) Musharraf, Mubarak and Gahdafi–not unlike Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq–have faced insurgencies emboldened by U.S. rhetoric and military aid, even though the grebelsh have showed every sign, yet again, of being devoted Islamic terrorists and enemies of America. Amid these grebellionsh few in Washington or the media have bothered to examine the actual make-up or aims of the rebels.
Rebellion is applauded for its own sake. Western cheerleaders claim anything is better than the status quo. Hope! Change! Democracy! The voice of the People is the voice of c Allah! The grim facts become clearer after the dust settles and new leaders and rules take irreversible hold–more fundamentally Islamic than before, closer to Iran than before, more anti-American than before–with the help of the U.S. government.
Thanks solely to the U.S., Iraqfs constitution ensures a gdemocratic, federal, representative, parliamentary republich where gIslam is the state religion and a basic foundation for the countryfs lawsh and gno law may contradict the established provisions of Islam.h Is this why Americans must go to war in the Middle East? The official name of Afghanistan, where the U.S. has fought for a decade, like the failed Soviets, and Obama has boosted U.S. troops to 130,000, ish gthe Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.h Is this why Americans must fight in the region?
Pakistan, with 170 million people (sixth largest in the world, and the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia) has nuclear weapons and is officially the gIslamic Republic of Pakistan.h Itfs also part of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a permanent delegation to the United Nations with 57 member states, all of which are philosophically anti-American and support U.N. missions to ensconce Islamic rebels in the governments of once-U.S. allies. Is this why we fight in the Middle East?
In Egypt this year the Obama administration helped unseat Mubarak, and it is now reported that the terror-sponsoring Muslim Brotherhood is taking over, re-writing the constitution, and preparing the ground for yet another state sponsor of terrorism, aimed directly at Israel. Essam el-Erian, the leader and spokesman, recently got 77% of voters to call for an Islamic state. gThe Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes. . . . It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the non-ideological revolution are no longer the driving political force.h In Libya gthe rebel commander, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, admits his fighters have al Qaeda linksh and that he himself fought the U.S. in Afghanistan before being captured and released to fight another day, now with U.S. help.
Some Western cheerleaders pretend to be chagrined and surprised by all this, while others applaud it precisely because they are anti-Western and antisemitic at root and thus welcome any Middle East regime thatfs more closely aligned with Iranfs mission to rule the world and destroy Israel and the U.S. There should be no surprise that this is what the Quran encourages and demands, but Americans should be asking: Why is this what U.S. leaders–from Carter to Bush to Obama–also seem to encourage and demand?
( Forbes ) |