By Barry Rubin
It's truly amazing that literally every day the Obama Administration finds a new way to mess up the Middle East. July 14-15, 2011, is a new record since it damaged Western interests and any hope for a stable future in three countries almost simultaneously!
Read more
Showing posts with label libya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libya. Show all posts
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Why Is the U.S. in Libya? Good Question
By Barry Rubin
Listening to President Barack Obama talk about the administration’s Libya policy is a strange experience. He makes various arguments justifying the war there along the lines of: dictator Muammar Qadhafi is a bad guy, he has killed a lot of Americans in the past, and he was threatening to kill his own people so the United States must protect them.
As one listens to this, however, it seems as if even Obama doesn’t believe what his teleprompter is saying. The arguments are ridiculously transparent and if the media wanted to be critical they could tear Obama apart on the issue.
Read more
Listening to President Barack Obama talk about the administration’s Libya policy is a strange experience. He makes various arguments justifying the war there along the lines of: dictator Muammar Qadhafi is a bad guy, he has killed a lot of Americans in the past, and he was threatening to kill his own people so the United States must protect them.
As one listens to this, however, it seems as if even Obama doesn’t believe what his teleprompter is saying. The arguments are ridiculously transparent and if the media wanted to be critical they could tear Obama apart on the issue.
Read more
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Answering Readers’ Questions on Libya, Middle East Democracy and On Islam
By Barry Rubin
I answer reader's questions on:
--Why is the Obama Administration reluctant to go to Congress over the war in Libya?
--What should the U.S. government be doing about democratization in the Arab world?
--How do you tell a moderate Muslim?
--Is there such a thing as moderate Muslims?
Read it all
I answer reader's questions on:
--Why is the Obama Administration reluctant to go to Congress over the war in Libya?
--What should the U.S. government be doing about democratization in the Arab world?
--How do you tell a moderate Muslim?
--Is there such a thing as moderate Muslims?
Read it all
Friday, April 22, 2011
The Plan in Libya (in 100 words)
This article is published in PajamasMedia. The text is presented here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
Here's what's happening now in Libya:
--Western forces bomb Libyan government forces on various pretexts.
--Give intelligence to rebels.
--Give military advisors to rebels.
--Give rebels arms indirectly.
Goal: Rebels win war with no direct Western intervention on the ground or Western casualties. Dictator Muammar Qadhafi falls; Western intervening states say: All we did was protect civilians and have a no-fly zone! We stuck to the UN resolution.
What happens afterward? Not clear anyone has thought that through.
In a few years critics will skewer this operation as deceptive. One hopes they won't also be ridiculing a catastrophic outcome.
By Barry Rubin
Here's what's happening now in Libya:
--Western forces bomb Libyan government forces on various pretexts.
--Give intelligence to rebels.
--Give military advisors to rebels.
--Give rebels arms indirectly.
Goal: Rebels win war with no direct Western intervention on the ground or Western casualties. Dictator Muammar Qadhafi falls; Western intervening states say: All we did was protect civilians and have a no-fly zone! We stuck to the UN resolution.
What happens afterward? Not clear anyone has thought that through.
In a few years critics will skewer this operation as deceptive. One hopes they won't also be ridiculing a catastrophic outcome.
Friday, April 15, 2011
The Mobile Phone Dealer Explains Qadhafi-Zionist Witchcraft
This article is published in PajamasMedia. The text is presented here for your convenience.
By Barry Rubin
An Australian reporter writes the following from Libya:
"Gaddafi's forces have had the upper hand in the desert battle that has raged for more than a month.
"Rebels say this is because of black magic. They invoke Satan. `These are magic papers,' said mobile phone dealer turned rebel Ashraf al Houmi, 25. The papers-185 pages of writing, symbols and numbers-were found near abandoned government tanks.
"`This is the Israeli Star of David and this is some of the Koran backwards. The Koran reversed is Satan,' explained Khaled el Faitouri, 27. "`We know they can do black magic with these drawings.'"
Now I wouldn't have bothered with this except for one thing: the amazing disconnect between being a mobile phone dealer and believing in this kind of thing. Possibly al-Houmi also repairs phones.
Westerners assume that technology and thinking precisely the way they do goes together. Not so. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini pioneered in using tape cassettes for spreading Islamist revolution. Back in 1979 that was the equivalent of using social media. Revolutionary Islamists have used the Internet far more effectively than democratic reformers in the Middle East. Technology does not necessarily mean moderation or democracy.
Then there's Mr. el Faitouri (I'm not responsible for the bad transliteration). He equates "the Israeli Star of David" with demonic powers, taking us back to the Middle Ages. By the way, by saying "Israeli Star of David," makes him an "anti-Zionist" while if he had said "Jewish Star of David" that would supposedly make him an antisemite. Such is the sophistication of the Western intellectual debate on such issues today. But never mind.
The truth is that in the Arabic-speaking and Muslim-majority worlds the attitudes of even educated people toward Jews and Israel are often quite bizarre, a fact usually concealed by mainstream media.
Have no doubt: this kind of thing finds its way into political decisionmaking and public opinion. Reading revolutionary Islamist materials--say, from Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood--is often like reading something from the Spanish Inquisition or Medeival times. Unfortunately, this is the doctrine guiding a steadily advancing doctrine which all too many people in the West believes can be made moderate or is even already moderate.
I remember the first time I experienced this when in university. A very Westernized, cosmopolitan Egyptian student explained that Israel and Idi Amin conspired to create the Israeli rescue at Entebbe Airport of hostages held by airplane-hijacking terrorists in order to make Israel look good. These crazy conspiracy theories and bizarre worldviews are not merely amusing sideshow acts, they are the foundations of people's thinking.
The gap between Mr. el Faitouri, whose cause is now being aided by NATO forces, and Mr.Ahmadinejad,who will soon have nuclear weapons, is not very wide at all.
By Barry Rubin
An Australian reporter writes the following from Libya:
"Gaddafi's forces have had the upper hand in the desert battle that has raged for more than a month.
"Rebels say this is because of black magic. They invoke Satan. `These are magic papers,' said mobile phone dealer turned rebel Ashraf al Houmi, 25. The papers-185 pages of writing, symbols and numbers-were found near abandoned government tanks.
"`This is the Israeli Star of David and this is some of the Koran backwards. The Koran reversed is Satan,' explained Khaled el Faitouri, 27. "`We know they can do black magic with these drawings.'"
Now I wouldn't have bothered with this except for one thing: the amazing disconnect between being a mobile phone dealer and believing in this kind of thing. Possibly al-Houmi also repairs phones.
Westerners assume that technology and thinking precisely the way they do goes together. Not so. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini pioneered in using tape cassettes for spreading Islamist revolution. Back in 1979 that was the equivalent of using social media. Revolutionary Islamists have used the Internet far more effectively than democratic reformers in the Middle East. Technology does not necessarily mean moderation or democracy.
Then there's Mr. el Faitouri (I'm not responsible for the bad transliteration). He equates "the Israeli Star of David" with demonic powers, taking us back to the Middle Ages. By the way, by saying "Israeli Star of David," makes him an "anti-Zionist" while if he had said "Jewish Star of David" that would supposedly make him an antisemite. Such is the sophistication of the Western intellectual debate on such issues today. But never mind.
The truth is that in the Arabic-speaking and Muslim-majority worlds the attitudes of even educated people toward Jews and Israel are often quite bizarre, a fact usually concealed by mainstream media.
Have no doubt: this kind of thing finds its way into political decisionmaking and public opinion. Reading revolutionary Islamist materials--say, from Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood--is often like reading something from the Spanish Inquisition or Medeival times. Unfortunately, this is the doctrine guiding a steadily advancing doctrine which all too many people in the West believes can be made moderate or is even already moderate.
I remember the first time I experienced this when in university. A very Westernized, cosmopolitan Egyptian student explained that Israel and Idi Amin conspired to create the Israeli rescue at Entebbe Airport of hostages held by airplane-hijacking terrorists in order to make Israel look good. These crazy conspiracy theories and bizarre worldviews are not merely amusing sideshow acts, they are the foundations of people's thinking.
The gap between Mr. el Faitouri, whose cause is now being aided by NATO forces, and Mr.Ahmadinejad,who will soon have nuclear weapons, is not very wide at all.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Libya Is To Obama as Iraq Was to Bush
By Barry Rubin
Let's begin with a quote from a Los Angeles Times story:
"The nascent rebel effort in eastern Libya has begun to fray in the face of chaotic battlefield collapses. For many rebel fighters, the absence of competent military leadership and a tendency to flee at the first shot have contributed to sagging morale. Despite perfunctory V-for-victory signs and cries of "Allahu akbar!" (God is great), the eager volunteers acknowledge that they are in for a long, uphill fight."
This is what happens when the United States gets involved in a war without knowing what's going on beforehand. What if the rebels collapse--and the no-fly zone and a few aerial attacks probably wouldn't prevent that.
Faced with a victory for dictator Muammar al-Qadhafi, the West can either:
A. Accept a defeat, help refugees fleeing into Egypt, admit tens of thousands of Libyans into the United States, and face the consequences of a vengeful Qadhafi or...
B. Escalate, send arms and advisors, perhaps some day combat troops to fight a war in Libya. Oh, and by the way, thanks to recent events neither Egypt nor Tunisia will provide a base of operations for such a war. And any American forces on the ground might be murdered by hardline jihadis on "our" side.
Of course, what's most likely for a while is Option C: Continue doing what they are doing now and pretending that everything's going great.
Welcome to Obama's Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Of course, in Iraq, at least the United States started out with an impressive military victory. While the Bush Administration didn't fully understand the forces within Iraq and how to deal with them, it had a higher level of information and cooperation than does its successor in Libya.
The U.S. government has committed itself to protect civilians in Libya. If Qadhafi kills civilians does that trigger an all-out U.S. or NATO invasion of Libya? I'm not taking a position on this, just pointing out that it seems as if the Obama Administration never thought about it, and the media isn't asking this question either!
What happens if the rebels murder civilians? Will the U.S. army attack them?
Let's begin with a quote from a Los Angeles Times story:
"The nascent rebel effort in eastern Libya has begun to fray in the face of chaotic battlefield collapses. For many rebel fighters, the absence of competent military leadership and a tendency to flee at the first shot have contributed to sagging morale. Despite perfunctory V-for-victory signs and cries of "Allahu akbar!" (God is great), the eager volunteers acknowledge that they are in for a long, uphill fight."
This is what happens when the United States gets involved in a war without knowing what's going on beforehand. What if the rebels collapse--and the no-fly zone and a few aerial attacks probably wouldn't prevent that.
Faced with a victory for dictator Muammar al-Qadhafi, the West can either:
A. Accept a defeat, help refugees fleeing into Egypt, admit tens of thousands of Libyans into the United States, and face the consequences of a vengeful Qadhafi or...
B. Escalate, send arms and advisors, perhaps some day combat troops to fight a war in Libya. Oh, and by the way, thanks to recent events neither Egypt nor Tunisia will provide a base of operations for such a war. And any American forces on the ground might be murdered by hardline jihadis on "our" side.
Of course, what's most likely for a while is Option C: Continue doing what they are doing now and pretending that everything's going great.
Welcome to Obama's Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Of course, in Iraq, at least the United States started out with an impressive military victory. While the Bush Administration didn't fully understand the forces within Iraq and how to deal with them, it had a higher level of information and cooperation than does its successor in Libya.
The U.S. government has committed itself to protect civilians in Libya. If Qadhafi kills civilians does that trigger an all-out U.S. or NATO invasion of Libya? I'm not taking a position on this, just pointing out that it seems as if the Obama Administration never thought about it, and the media isn't asking this question either!
What happens if the rebels murder civilians? Will the U.S. army attack them?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Libya: What A Difference A Day Makes!
By Barry Rubin
Monday: President Obama says, "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."
Tuesday: Associated Press reports: Moammar Gadhafi's forces hammered rebels with tanks and rockets, turning their rapid advance into a panicked retreat...."
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Intervention in Libya: A Feel-Good Mirage
The Western intervention in Libya is the kind of thing that makes governments feel good and look good--provided they have a tame media unwilling to ask tough questions--but is of little or no strategic importance.
There are two good rationales for the operation: If Qadhafi survives he is likely to return to a high priority on international terrorism and subversion and if he won he probably would have murdered hundreds, even thousands of people. While Syria and the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip are high-profile terrorism sponsors that U.S. policy accepts, next to them Qadhafi is the worst such figure and he is highly adventurous.
So a case can be made for intervention. Yet there are also points on the other side. Consider the following:
1. The intervention has not brought the civil war one inch (or one millimeter if you prefer) closer to resolution.
2. The intervention has done virtually nothing to bring victory to the opposition and the defeat and departure of dictator Muammar Qadhafi.
3. The intervention has not brought us any nearer to understanding the nature of the Libyan opposition.
The idea that the Libyan rebels are mostly or all al-Qaida and Islamists is absurd and there's no evidence for it. Certainly there are Islamists. And of course, the idea that they are mostly--or are mainly led by--moderate liberal democrats is equally absurd.
What are their motives?
Understandable hatred for a terrible, corrupt, repressive regime led by a madman, horrible even by Middle Eastern, Arab world standards.
Regional antagonisms against domination by western Libyans. This implies, however, that a lot of Libyans in the western part of the country support Qadhafi.
Tribal anger from the feeling that other tribes get the loot. By the same token, Qadhafi has a loyal base of support among the tribes who have received benefits from him.
And of course Islamist influences, too. There is no doubt that there are a few among the rebels with al-Qaida ties and more with Muslim Brotherhood links. But the question is whether these people are dominant in the movement, and the answer is "no."
Tunisia is not Egypt is not Libya. In Tunisia, organized Islamists have a real but limited base, in part because of systematic repression in the past. In Egypt, they have a much larger base given the movement's deep roots and also, ironically, because the Mubarak regime was much more tolerant of the Brotherhood operating than is understood in the West. Libya has more in common with Tunisia in this respect than it does with Egypt.
The problem, then, is not that the rebels are all Islamist radicals. The problem is:
- Nobody has bothered to investigate this issue in the U.S. government, an act of monumental irresponsibility especially before intervening militarily on their side.
- There is not even a glimmer of a strategy to help the least objectionable people and groups against those who might create a post-Qadhafi anti-American, radical Islamist regime.
- Islamists have an attractive ideology and are well-organized so they may well come out first in a post-Qadhafi regime.
- Islamists will also have a lot of international support and funding from the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, etc.
So the problem is not that the Libyan rebels are mostly revolutionary Islamists as a group but that a thoughtless, careless policy might end up installing revolutionary Islamists in power some day. Sort of like...Egypt.
The intervention has not in any way prevented Libyan civilians from being killed or wounded by rifles, machine-guns, artillery, or various other weapons. It has only prevented them from being killed by planes, helicopters, or--to a limited extent--tanks.
Can anyone challenge any of these assertions? No. They can only ignore or distort them.
So what has the intervention achieved in terms of Libya?
It has slowed, but not necessarily stopped Qadhafi's victory. Thus, the war will go on longer. Perhaps the country will be split in two for a long period of time. Oil production will remain largely off-line.
The intervention has also prevented Qadhafi from importing arms, though there is no proof that he needed to do so. Finally, it has prevented Libyan oppositionists from being killed by planes or helicopters.
Finally, it has unintentionally showed that the Western alliance is in tatters and that there is no substitute for American leadership.
By the way, it is pretty horrifying when the president of the United States says, as Obama did, "It is U.S. policy that Qadhafi needs to go." Note the passive form. It says: it's not U.S. policy to get rid of Qadhafi but he ought to leave to spare us the problem altogether. In other words, we aren't going to resolve it so let Qadhafi do so for us by disappearing of his own accord.
The implication here is that he should just decide to move to southern France or that his own colleagues should get rid of him. (The latter idea worked in Egypt, but conditions were different there.) But this phrasing makes the United States an onlooker. It expresses a hope, not a strategy and not an operation to be implemented. Of course, Obama also justifies his policy on international consensus rather than U.S. national interests. And he also justifies it on the basis of a humanitarian defense of civilians, which is not the same as overthrowing governments.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The War in Libya: Unprecedented Strangeness
Please be subscriber 19,237 (daily reader 36,237). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Should the United States and Europe want Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi out of power? Sure. But the real question is how U.S. policy is dealing with this crisis.
1. Nothing could be more obvious than the fact that all of these people talking about how evil Qadhafi is are doing sonly because he is being severely challenged in a civil war. Where were all of these humanitarians when nobody was writing about his repression? Better late than never but let's get real about what has happened here.
2. How can a president go to war without even seeking a congressional resolution? Talk about an imperial presidency! Some in the media are so ridiculously eager to support Obama that one CNN reporter defended him by saying that he had telephoned some members of Congress!
But, for example, both George Bush presidents went to Congress before taking action in Iraq. What is the legislative body governing the United States, the Senate and House of Representatives or the UN General Assembly and Security Council?
3. What is the aim of the war? Overthrowing Qadhafi? Forcing a ceasefire? Protecting civilians? I've never before seen anarchy on the side of a U.S.-led (or is it a French-led?) coalition. From minute to minute the strategy seems to change.
4. Who is the opposition that the West fights to help? Islamists? Tribalists? Regionalists? Moderate democrats? Before you help someone win a war it helps to know who they are.
5. How can people who spent years criticizing the war in Iraq, telling us that war is no solution, decrying civilian casualties from other countries' defensive activities, arguing that such interventions led to getting bogged down, apologizing for past interventions, insisting that there must be an "exit strategy," and claiming that interventions in the Third World made the United States hated as an imperialist bully now plunge the United States into a third simultaneous war in a Muslim-majority country?
6. This war was entered into on the premise that the "Arabs" support it. But now the Arab League says it only supports a no-fly zone war and civilian protection, not an effort to defeat and overthrow Qadafi. This poses the broader question: Has anyone in the U.S. government considered the regional implications?
One might note that the Arab nationalists oppose the intervention while the Islamists support it. That's not a good indication. Indeed, the country most enthusiastic about the operation--even supposedly offering to send military forces to fight alongside the United States--is Qatar, the Arab state closest (with the exception of Syria) to Tehran!
7. Just calling something a humanitarian intervention does not solve all of the problems involved. The U.S. intervention in Somalia--the perfect example of a disaster in this regard--was also humanitarian in motivation.
8. At this point, at least, few are noticing a very interesting point about the Libya affair. Frightened by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Qadhafi abandoned his nuclear weapons' program and went out of his way to cooperate with the United States on this issue, fearing a similar invasion. Giving up a nuclear defense he still got invaded. How does this look to Iran's regime? See, the rulers can now say, if we don't have nuclear weapons there's nothing to protect us from the West!
I have argued that Iran has sought nuclear weapons as a "defensive umbrella for aggression." In other words, as Pakistan and North Korea have shown, if you have nuclear weapons you can do pretty much what you want (attack neighbors, sponsor terrorism against them) and nobody will touch you. Qadhafi's case has now proven this to be the "best" strategy.
9. In terms of timing, the U.S. government waited until the last moment--reportedly due to Obama's indecision--then rushed into a war without proper thought, planning, or definition of the mission there.
10. Instead of promoting unity among Western allies, Obama's abdication of American leadership and general ineptness has promoted conflict. For the first time, NATO allies are openly bickering. Nobody is in charge, there's no agreed plan, different countries are acting in conflicting ways.
Le Nouvel Observateur, a magazine supporting the French left, described the operation as "a boat without a captain." This is no accident since Obana thinks that the world is better off without having America take the lead. The mess became so big and conflict among the participants became so bitter that Germany pulled out altogether.
So this Libya operation has lots of problems, many or most of which could have been avoided by a competent American leadership. At least the Iraq war was a huge success at the start and only later became something of a mess. This war is a mess from the start.
I am not saying that I necessarily oppose military intervention in Libya in principle. My view is that, first, there should have been a serious investigation of the Libyan opposition--this condition has not been met--and if it seemed worth supporting it should be sent arms and equipment.
Instead, we are getting a confused, ill-defined, and seemingly open-ended operation. The real issue is not whether something should be done but how it's being done. As for what the goal is, who knows?
If you want to read something really superb and detailed on Libya, here's Tony Cordesman's report which is the best thing I've read on the subject of the civil war there.
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Should the United States and Europe want Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi out of power? Sure. But the real question is how U.S. policy is dealing with this crisis.
1. Nothing could be more obvious than the fact that all of these people talking about how evil Qadhafi is are doing sonly because he is being severely challenged in a civil war. Where were all of these humanitarians when nobody was writing about his repression? Better late than never but let's get real about what has happened here.
2. How can a president go to war without even seeking a congressional resolution? Talk about an imperial presidency! Some in the media are so ridiculously eager to support Obama that one CNN reporter defended him by saying that he had telephoned some members of Congress!
But, for example, both George Bush presidents went to Congress before taking action in Iraq. What is the legislative body governing the United States, the Senate and House of Representatives or the UN General Assembly and Security Council?
3. What is the aim of the war? Overthrowing Qadhafi? Forcing a ceasefire? Protecting civilians? I've never before seen anarchy on the side of a U.S.-led (or is it a French-led?) coalition. From minute to minute the strategy seems to change.
4. Who is the opposition that the West fights to help? Islamists? Tribalists? Regionalists? Moderate democrats? Before you help someone win a war it helps to know who they are.
5. How can people who spent years criticizing the war in Iraq, telling us that war is no solution, decrying civilian casualties from other countries' defensive activities, arguing that such interventions led to getting bogged down, apologizing for past interventions, insisting that there must be an "exit strategy," and claiming that interventions in the Third World made the United States hated as an imperialist bully now plunge the United States into a third simultaneous war in a Muslim-majority country?
6. This war was entered into on the premise that the "Arabs" support it. But now the Arab League says it only supports a no-fly zone war and civilian protection, not an effort to defeat and overthrow Qadafi. This poses the broader question: Has anyone in the U.S. government considered the regional implications?
One might note that the Arab nationalists oppose the intervention while the Islamists support it. That's not a good indication. Indeed, the country most enthusiastic about the operation--even supposedly offering to send military forces to fight alongside the United States--is Qatar, the Arab state closest (with the exception of Syria) to Tehran!
7. Just calling something a humanitarian intervention does not solve all of the problems involved. The U.S. intervention in Somalia--the perfect example of a disaster in this regard--was also humanitarian in motivation.
8. At this point, at least, few are noticing a very interesting point about the Libya affair. Frightened by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Qadhafi abandoned his nuclear weapons' program and went out of his way to cooperate with the United States on this issue, fearing a similar invasion. Giving up a nuclear defense he still got invaded. How does this look to Iran's regime? See, the rulers can now say, if we don't have nuclear weapons there's nothing to protect us from the West!
I have argued that Iran has sought nuclear weapons as a "defensive umbrella for aggression." In other words, as Pakistan and North Korea have shown, if you have nuclear weapons you can do pretty much what you want (attack neighbors, sponsor terrorism against them) and nobody will touch you. Qadhafi's case has now proven this to be the "best" strategy.
9. In terms of timing, the U.S. government waited until the last moment--reportedly due to Obama's indecision--then rushed into a war without proper thought, planning, or definition of the mission there.
10. Instead of promoting unity among Western allies, Obama's abdication of American leadership and general ineptness has promoted conflict. For the first time, NATO allies are openly bickering. Nobody is in charge, there's no agreed plan, different countries are acting in conflicting ways.
Le Nouvel Observateur, a magazine supporting the French left, described the operation as "a boat without a captain." This is no accident since Obana thinks that the world is better off without having America take the lead. The mess became so big and conflict among the participants became so bitter that Germany pulled out altogether.
So this Libya operation has lots of problems, many or most of which could have been avoided by a competent American leadership. At least the Iraq war was a huge success at the start and only later became something of a mess. This war is a mess from the start.
I am not saying that I necessarily oppose military intervention in Libya in principle. My view is that, first, there should have been a serious investigation of the Libyan opposition--this condition has not been met--and if it seemed worth supporting it should be sent arms and equipment.
Instead, we are getting a confused, ill-defined, and seemingly open-ended operation. The real issue is not whether something should be done but how it's being done. As for what the goal is, who knows?
If you want to read something really superb and detailed on Libya, here's Tony Cordesman's report which is the best thing I've read on the subject of the civil war there.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Middle East on Fire: March 21, 2011
Please be subscriber 19,229 (daily reader 36,169). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Events are happening so fast that I can only summarize, trying to add some analytical depth to each development. So here goes….
Egypt
The referendum resulted in a 77 percent “yes” vote on constitutional amendments to reduce the powers of the president and ensure fair elections. The changes were reasonable ones.
BUT the two leading presidential candidates Amr Moussa (nationalist) and Muhammad ElBaradei (democrat) opposed the referendum. They claimed that the changes would help the Muslim Brotherhood take power. This means the result is a defeat for them both.
The army, which currently rules Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood supported the amendments. So does this mean that the “yes” vote is a victory for the Brotherhood? Yes, in part.
There are three reasons people voted “yes”:
--The amendments are good ones.
--People want to move forward, have elections, and get things back toward a more normal situation.
--They want to show support either for the army or the Brotherhood. Some think this is also a victory for the old regime as well, the former ruling National Democratic Party, though I’m not sure on this last point.
Yet there is no way to avoid seeing this as a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood which, a growing number of pro-democratic people in Egypt worry, has support within the army. That's why the National Democratic Party's resurgence is an idea that's popping up: because people want to believe there is some organized force other than the Brotherhood!
What is important here is that the political forces that seemed to be emerging have undermined their own popularity and shown how few people they can actually mobilize. Remember also the fact that the Brotherhood isn’t going to run a candidate for president and has now fallen out with ElBaradei.
So will Moussa or ElBaradei be president? Who will the Brotherhood support? Where do Egypt’s people stand? Can the nationalists and democrats organize? These are the questions to be determined.
Libya
The United States and other countries are now at war with Libya, now engaged in a third war in a Muslim-majority country (Afghanistan and Iraq)! President Barack Obama has said Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi must go.
But what is the commitment—justified by a UN resolution but not a congressional one!—on this issue?
If it is just a campaign to wipe out Libya's air defenses and stop the regime from using planes in its war effort, why have some Libyan ground forces been attacked? If it is limited to a bombing campaign, that won't bring the rebels a victory or stop Qadhafi from winning the war.
In short, is this a limited but meaningless public relations' oriented feel-good operation to declare "victory" by having a "no-fly" zone that changes little or nothing on the ground?
And is this policy a good thing or a bad thing?
I’m quite sympathetic with the idea of overthrowing Qadhafi but this is precisely the kind of operation that everyone always says should be avoided: no clear objective, no apparent strategy, an open-ended commitment, no serious thought about what happens if “we” win.
Not to mention the fact that deciding on when the United States makes war now seems a function of the UN and not the U.S. Congress. Imagine if President George W. Bush launched a war without even asking for a congressional resolution!
Oh, and guess what! After supposedly endorsing Western intervention the Arab League (predictably!) has condemned it. And who did the condemning? Why none other than the League's leader Amr Moussa, who may become Egypt's president in a few months, a position he will use to bash the United States on a daily basis. It might not be long before Arab media, regimes, nationalists, and Islamists will be condemning "Western imperialist aggression" against Libya.
And the total mess in the decision-making process leading to the war, indecision, and internal conflicts are all readily apparent, too. The situation screams out: this will not end well.
Finally, who the heck is the Libyan opposition? At least in Egypt the administration could pretend to answer the question of to whom it was turning over power, nice Facebook-using equivalents of the Founding Fathers. The U.S. government cannot answer the question about who it is at war to put into power in Libya!
The opposition seems to be a combination of factors: those who (understandably) hate Qadhafi, young people who want to emulate Egypt’s revolution, tribal forces from eastern Libya (for much of history a separate country) that view the regime as an alien presence in their region, and Islamists of various types.
In contrast to the (anti-Islamist, though being a club for dictators) Arab League, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the leading Muslim Brotherhood cleric, has actually supported the Western offensive against Qadhafi! One should not assume that this is an Islamist-led revolt by any means, but who knows? That’s the kind of thing you’d like to understand before launching a war to bring victory to this side, right?
In other words, Obama has just launched a possibly open-ended war to overthrow a dictator and bring democracy to an Arab country, albeit by using the minimal amount of troops. Doesn’t this seem just a bit like his predecessor’s war in Iraq but less planned, less based on U.S. strategic interests, and with less understanding of the country and the forces being supported there?
Even if the goal of overthrowing Qadhafi and to keep him from massacring thousands of people is a good one in principle, the procedure is dangerously inept.
Syria
Despite ferocious repression, the anti-regime demonstrations in Syria have gained momentum. I doubt that they are going to cause the regime serious problems in the end but it is encouraging to see that a lot of the Syrian people are fed up.
Particularly significant is the opposition in the long-discontented Kurdish region, where an ethnic-nationalist impulse joins other factors in prompting opposition. Meanwhile, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which is part of the leading exile opposition group, has shaken up its leadership, perhaps believing it must prepare for new opportunities to challenge the Assad dictatorship.
U.S. policymakers have not—and will not—say one word in support of Syria’s opposition, which is a scandalous omission.
Iran
And speaking of scandalous omissions, you can read President Barack Obama’s Iranian New Year’s statement and note how careful he is to avoid giving support to the Iranian opposition. The administration has clearly decided (this has been clear for a long time) that backing Iran’s dissidents will discredit them in the eyes of the masses (funny, it doesn’t take this into account in every other country—as in Egypt--where it is more likely to be true!)
“The United States,” Obama says, “does not meddle in Iran’s internal affairs,” but merely stands up for “rights that should be universal to all human beings.” What happened to multiculturalism?
Some in the West may misinterpret Obama's message as support for the Iranian opposition but I'm certain no one in Iran will look at it this way. Saying that the Iranian regime is repressive and the United States likes human rights and democracy is hardly backing the regime's overthrow and helping the opposition. On the contrary, it is in line with the policy articulated by Undersecretary of State Burns and which I'd summarize like this:
The United States will help bring down "pro-Western" Arab regimes in order to prevent them from being even more unpopular or overthrown by radical Islamists. They will then become good democracies, in part by integrating most of the Islamists who will become moderate. As good democracies they will then furnish a good example to people living under radical regimes (Iran) who will then overturn their rulers without the United States doing anything.
I'm not satirizing, I'm summarizing.
Compare the Obama and Bush policies:
Obama: Help overthrow "pro-American" Arab regimes (and now, also Libya's dictatorship for humanitarian reasons). Avoid exercising American leadership in the region.
Buth: Help overthrow "anti-American" Arab regimes and Iran. Exercise American leadership in the region.
While both strategies have their flaws, how the heck can Obama say that Mubarak must go and Qadhafi must go but not dare say that the Iranian Islamist regime must go? Mubarak was, after all, a U.S. ally, and Qadhafi was a terrorist troublemaker but who has not bothered the United States much in recent years.
In contrast, Iran is sponsoring anti-American terrorism; killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; harboring al-Qaida; calling for genocide in Israel; and seeking to overthrow every government friendly to America in the Middle East.
How can anyone dare say that the Obama Administration makes sense, at least in a good way?
Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org His blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
Events are happening so fast that I can only summarize, trying to add some analytical depth to each development. So here goes….
Egypt
The referendum resulted in a 77 percent “yes” vote on constitutional amendments to reduce the powers of the president and ensure fair elections. The changes were reasonable ones.
BUT the two leading presidential candidates Amr Moussa (nationalist) and Muhammad ElBaradei (democrat) opposed the referendum. They claimed that the changes would help the Muslim Brotherhood take power. This means the result is a defeat for them both.
The army, which currently rules Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood supported the amendments. So does this mean that the “yes” vote is a victory for the Brotherhood? Yes, in part.
There are three reasons people voted “yes”:
--The amendments are good ones.
--People want to move forward, have elections, and get things back toward a more normal situation.
--They want to show support either for the army or the Brotherhood. Some think this is also a victory for the old regime as well, the former ruling National Democratic Party, though I’m not sure on this last point.
Yet there is no way to avoid seeing this as a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood which, a growing number of pro-democratic people in Egypt worry, has support within the army. That's why the National Democratic Party's resurgence is an idea that's popping up: because people want to believe there is some organized force other than the Brotherhood!
What is important here is that the political forces that seemed to be emerging have undermined their own popularity and shown how few people they can actually mobilize. Remember also the fact that the Brotherhood isn’t going to run a candidate for president and has now fallen out with ElBaradei.
So will Moussa or ElBaradei be president? Who will the Brotherhood support? Where do Egypt’s people stand? Can the nationalists and democrats organize? These are the questions to be determined.
Libya
The United States and other countries are now at war with Libya, now engaged in a third war in a Muslim-majority country (Afghanistan and Iraq)! President Barack Obama has said Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi must go.
But what is the commitment—justified by a UN resolution but not a congressional one!—on this issue?
If it is just a campaign to wipe out Libya's air defenses and stop the regime from using planes in its war effort, why have some Libyan ground forces been attacked? If it is limited to a bombing campaign, that won't bring the rebels a victory or stop Qadhafi from winning the war.
In short, is this a limited but meaningless public relations' oriented feel-good operation to declare "victory" by having a "no-fly" zone that changes little or nothing on the ground?
And is this policy a good thing or a bad thing?
I’m quite sympathetic with the idea of overthrowing Qadhafi but this is precisely the kind of operation that everyone always says should be avoided: no clear objective, no apparent strategy, an open-ended commitment, no serious thought about what happens if “we” win.
Not to mention the fact that deciding on when the United States makes war now seems a function of the UN and not the U.S. Congress. Imagine if President George W. Bush launched a war without even asking for a congressional resolution!
Oh, and guess what! After supposedly endorsing Western intervention the Arab League (predictably!) has condemned it. And who did the condemning? Why none other than the League's leader Amr Moussa, who may become Egypt's president in a few months, a position he will use to bash the United States on a daily basis. It might not be long before Arab media, regimes, nationalists, and Islamists will be condemning "Western imperialist aggression" against Libya.
And the total mess in the decision-making process leading to the war, indecision, and internal conflicts are all readily apparent, too. The situation screams out: this will not end well.
Finally, who the heck is the Libyan opposition? At least in Egypt the administration could pretend to answer the question of to whom it was turning over power, nice Facebook-using equivalents of the Founding Fathers. The U.S. government cannot answer the question about who it is at war to put into power in Libya!
The opposition seems to be a combination of factors: those who (understandably) hate Qadhafi, young people who want to emulate Egypt’s revolution, tribal forces from eastern Libya (for much of history a separate country) that view the regime as an alien presence in their region, and Islamists of various types.
In contrast to the (anti-Islamist, though being a club for dictators) Arab League, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the leading Muslim Brotherhood cleric, has actually supported the Western offensive against Qadhafi! One should not assume that this is an Islamist-led revolt by any means, but who knows? That’s the kind of thing you’d like to understand before launching a war to bring victory to this side, right?
In other words, Obama has just launched a possibly open-ended war to overthrow a dictator and bring democracy to an Arab country, albeit by using the minimal amount of troops. Doesn’t this seem just a bit like his predecessor’s war in Iraq but less planned, less based on U.S. strategic interests, and with less understanding of the country and the forces being supported there?
Even if the goal of overthrowing Qadhafi and to keep him from massacring thousands of people is a good one in principle, the procedure is dangerously inept.
Syria
Despite ferocious repression, the anti-regime demonstrations in Syria have gained momentum. I doubt that they are going to cause the regime serious problems in the end but it is encouraging to see that a lot of the Syrian people are fed up.
Particularly significant is the opposition in the long-discontented Kurdish region, where an ethnic-nationalist impulse joins other factors in prompting opposition. Meanwhile, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which is part of the leading exile opposition group, has shaken up its leadership, perhaps believing it must prepare for new opportunities to challenge the Assad dictatorship.
U.S. policymakers have not—and will not—say one word in support of Syria’s opposition, which is a scandalous omission.
Iran
And speaking of scandalous omissions, you can read President Barack Obama’s Iranian New Year’s statement and note how careful he is to avoid giving support to the Iranian opposition. The administration has clearly decided (this has been clear for a long time) that backing Iran’s dissidents will discredit them in the eyes of the masses (funny, it doesn’t take this into account in every other country—as in Egypt--where it is more likely to be true!)
“The United States,” Obama says, “does not meddle in Iran’s internal affairs,” but merely stands up for “rights that should be universal to all human beings.” What happened to multiculturalism?
Some in the West may misinterpret Obama's message as support for the Iranian opposition but I'm certain no one in Iran will look at it this way. Saying that the Iranian regime is repressive and the United States likes human rights and democracy is hardly backing the regime's overthrow and helping the opposition. On the contrary, it is in line with the policy articulated by Undersecretary of State Burns and which I'd summarize like this:
The United States will help bring down "pro-Western" Arab regimes in order to prevent them from being even more unpopular or overthrown by radical Islamists. They will then become good democracies, in part by integrating most of the Islamists who will become moderate. As good democracies they will then furnish a good example to people living under radical regimes (Iran) who will then overturn their rulers without the United States doing anything.
I'm not satirizing, I'm summarizing.
Compare the Obama and Bush policies:
Obama: Help overthrow "pro-American" Arab regimes (and now, also Libya's dictatorship for humanitarian reasons). Avoid exercising American leadership in the region.
Buth: Help overthrow "anti-American" Arab regimes and Iran. Exercise American leadership in the region.
While both strategies have their flaws, how the heck can Obama say that Mubarak must go and Qadhafi must go but not dare say that the Iranian Islamist regime must go? Mubarak was, after all, a U.S. ally, and Qadhafi was a terrorist troublemaker but who has not bothered the United States much in recent years.
In contrast, Iran is sponsoring anti-American terrorism; killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; harboring al-Qaida; calling for genocide in Israel; and seeking to overthrow every government friendly to America in the Middle East.
How can anyone dare say that the Obama Administration makes sense, at least in a good way?
Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org His blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Crisis and Civil War in Libya: A Self-Interview
Please be subscriber 19,210 (daily reader 36,150). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
What's happening in Libya?
The mad, repressive dictator Muammar Qadhafi is winning.
Who is the Libyan opposition?
I don't know. I haven't seen a single serious journalistic or academic investigation to answer this question.
What is U.S. policy?
U.S. policy doesn't want Qadhafi to win.
What is U.S. policy doing to achieve this goal?
The president made a statement to that effect.
And?
That's about it. U.S. diplomats are discussing the idea of a "no-fly" zone and other measures at the UN.
Would a "no-fly" zone help?
Not much.
When is a "no-fly" zone likely to be implemented?
After all the opposition has been wiped out by Qadhafi.
So then you're saying that U.S. policy doesn't make any sense?
Yes, that's what I am usually saying. Unfortunately, it's usually true.
Why then does the mass media and those who it does--unlike you--interivew not say these things?
You'll have to ask them that question. If you read what officials say to the media it all makes "perfect sense." They are talking about it. But this is what you get when there's no U.S. leadership but merely consultations with everybody else.
But here's something amusing. One of the main articles on Libya was written by someone who I know first-hand has absolutely no knowledge about that country. Once, on a different subject, a friend of mine told this person that she was going on television to be interviewed and was nervous because she didn't know enough about the subject. "Fake it, that's what I always do," he answered. That's how things work in Washington DC.
What should the United States and the West do?
Investigate the opposition--which should already have been done--and if they are genuinely pro-democracy people and not radical Islamists then send them military and financial aid. If the president of the United States says that Qadhafi should go--and given his long record of extremism, terrorism, and anti-Americanism that response makes sense--then do something about it.
Here's how it is supposed to work: The president of the United States quickly consults with allies, announces a policy, and invites others to follow. That should take a total of 3-4 days followed by action. Now we have weeks of back and forth, ending with something watered-down, too little, too late, with too many compromises.
But, to be fair, here's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's response:
I wouldn't favor sending troops. The overthrow of Qadhafi by people who would produce a more democratic and less radical government is in the U.S. interest and in the interest of Libya's people. But every day that nothing is done it is more likely that Qadhafi will prevail. Then the world will watch and say critical words while he executes hundreds, even thousands, of people.
Have we seen this before?
I'm glad you asked! On one hand, in 1991 the United States set the guidelines and put together a coalition to throw Iraqi forces out of Kuwait without standing around doing nothing and waiting for the UN to act. That was a success.
The second lesson of that crisis, however, was that after the U.S.-led coalition triumphed there was a rebellion within Iraq against Saddam Hussein. The United States even imposed a "no-fly" zone, but then basically watched while Saddam unleashed a bloodbath. And a dozen years later, U.S. forces had to go in again to get rid of him.
Is that an important lesson for dealing with Qadhafi?
Yes, get rid of him now as long as you know he won't be replaced by something worse.
What could be worse?
A radical Islamist regime that joined forces with either the Iran-Syria bloc or Muslim Brotherhood forces to overthrow all the region's governments, start new wars with Israel, drive Western influence out of the region, and repress the people even more (though in Libya that last point might be impossible).
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
What's happening in Libya?
The mad, repressive dictator Muammar Qadhafi is winning.
Who is the Libyan opposition?
I don't know. I haven't seen a single serious journalistic or academic investigation to answer this question.
What is U.S. policy?
U.S. policy doesn't want Qadhafi to win.
What is U.S. policy doing to achieve this goal?
The president made a statement to that effect.
And?
That's about it. U.S. diplomats are discussing the idea of a "no-fly" zone and other measures at the UN.
Would a "no-fly" zone help?
Not much.
When is a "no-fly" zone likely to be implemented?
After all the opposition has been wiped out by Qadhafi.
So then you're saying that U.S. policy doesn't make any sense?
Yes, that's what I am usually saying. Unfortunately, it's usually true.
Why then does the mass media and those who it does--unlike you--interivew not say these things?
You'll have to ask them that question. If you read what officials say to the media it all makes "perfect sense." They are talking about it. But this is what you get when there's no U.S. leadership but merely consultations with everybody else.
But here's something amusing. One of the main articles on Libya was written by someone who I know first-hand has absolutely no knowledge about that country. Once, on a different subject, a friend of mine told this person that she was going on television to be interviewed and was nervous because she didn't know enough about the subject. "Fake it, that's what I always do," he answered. That's how things work in Washington DC.
What should the United States and the West do?
Investigate the opposition--which should already have been done--and if they are genuinely pro-democracy people and not radical Islamists then send them military and financial aid. If the president of the United States says that Qadhafi should go--and given his long record of extremism, terrorism, and anti-Americanism that response makes sense--then do something about it.
Here's how it is supposed to work: The president of the United States quickly consults with allies, announces a policy, and invites others to follow. That should take a total of 3-4 days followed by action. Now we have weeks of back and forth, ending with something watered-down, too little, too late, with too many compromises.
But, to be fair, here's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's response:
"The answer to why a UN resolution is because we need to have international support for anything that anyone does on behalf of the opposition and the civilians in Libya. To go unilaterally, whether it was a European nation, the United States, or an Arab nation, would fly in the face of the international community. And it would also limit the kind of support that would be necessary....I think that it is certainly fair to say that it took a while for people to feel that there was going to be international support, including Arab support, for any action. But now that's being considered."
That might well make sense but also note that what she says seems to rule out the United States taking unilateral action on anything, anywhere, any time. It's one thing to decide pragmatically that international support is useful, quite another to set up some ideological test about unilateralism "fly[ing] in the face of the international community," whatever that means.
Oh, by the way, though, European allies are totally confused trying to figure out what is U.S. policy toward Libya. The French are calling for the sending of Western troops there.
Oh, by the way, though, European allies are totally confused trying to figure out what is U.S. policy toward Libya. The French are calling for the sending of Western troops there.
I wouldn't favor sending troops. The overthrow of Qadhafi by people who would produce a more democratic and less radical government is in the U.S. interest and in the interest of Libya's people. But every day that nothing is done it is more likely that Qadhafi will prevail. Then the world will watch and say critical words while he executes hundreds, even thousands, of people.
Have we seen this before?
I'm glad you asked! On one hand, in 1991 the United States set the guidelines and put together a coalition to throw Iraqi forces out of Kuwait without standing around doing nothing and waiting for the UN to act. That was a success.
The second lesson of that crisis, however, was that after the U.S.-led coalition triumphed there was a rebellion within Iraq against Saddam Hussein. The United States even imposed a "no-fly" zone, but then basically watched while Saddam unleashed a bloodbath. And a dozen years later, U.S. forces had to go in again to get rid of him.
Is that an important lesson for dealing with Qadhafi?
Yes, get rid of him now as long as you know he won't be replaced by something worse.
What could be worse?
A radical Islamist regime that joined forces with either the Iran-Syria bloc or Muslim Brotherhood forces to overthrow all the region's governments, start new wars with Israel, drive Western influence out of the region, and repress the people even more (though in Libya that last point might be impossible).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
