Why do intervention proponents insist on calling them rebels when they call themselves mujahideen — Muslim warriors fighting a jihad?
At Pajamas, John Rosenthal has details of a report by French jounralist Marc de Chalvron, who was embedded with the Libyan “rebels” before they were turned back by Qaddafi’s forces. They refer to their battle as “the jihad” — Islamic holy war. (At least that’s what they interpret jihad to mean. They apparently haven’t gotten the memo from Georgetown that jihad is really a peaceful internal struggle for personal betterment, a solemn commitment to brush after every meal, or whatever ISNA is calling jihad this week).
The French report shows the “rebels” proclaiming that “Now, the time of jihad has arrived!” and, of course, screaming, “Allahu Akbar!” as they fire their guns into the air.
But, as Speaker Boehner says, “the United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom and self-government for their people.” Sure it may be the Islamic notion of freedom (i.e., perfect submission to Allah) and the sharia form of self-government, but hey, details, details. By all means, let’s put these guys in charge, the sooner the better.
Andrew,
What do you really think is the roots of situations like this? (i.e. wherein we commit resources and make pronouncements seemingly without knowing the details, have a plan, etc...)
I am a firm believer that the root cause of most things can be attributed to "Incompetence or Conspiracy" with incompetent usually winning the day.
But, what is the root cause of the incompetence? Is this all a result of the "Internet age" and the need and desire for instant gratification? Is it that Type A personalities feel impelled to act, even in the absence of information or deliberation, because "the phone is ringing"? Is it that in this age of incessant bombardment of data, information and/or knowledge (or theory passed off as knowledge) there is a sense of pressure to do anything in response of the stimulus?
I heard and read the complaints that it took The POTUS "too long" to make a decision and that he acted without having all the facts. The valuable time was wasted and that we don't have a strategy.
Now, in my view, I would like to think that the State Department and the Intelligence Agencies already had profiles and analysis about Lybia and the region and with the flash fires of "revolution" sweeping the area, they would've been updating them. That's not to say that the data and resultant information is correct but there is data and information the POTUS could use to make a decision.....but I have no evidence of that. The lack of goals and strategy gives me pause to wonder at the extent of incompetence. Or perhaps, I am looking in the wrong places for an understanding of the driving goals and philosophy behind the decision. Perhaps it is only really about the next election....and he has to, in his mind, thread the needle between his base and independents and conservatives. Or perhaps he wants to show the world that the US, greatest nation in the history of man and the only superpower, is more than willing to be second fiddle and do their heavy lifting without the need or desire to be in charge?
I don't get the sense there is any real foreign policy behind the decision to involve ourselves here nor do I see any real humanitarian concern. That is merely justification.
Is it purely incompetence or is it all part of the conspiracy to be re-elected and disregard any long term impacts in the world or for America in that pursuit?
okay, rant done. I just needed to vent this. IT is inconceivable to me that we would go to war (sorry, intervene military to "protect" the peoples...) without knowing who is in charge of the rebels and what their end-game is or how this benefits us in the short and long term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBarry Obama is presiding over the Islamist-ization of africa, the middle east and southwest asia. If not encouraging it and hoping for it.
Does anyone starting to think that this is what could have happened to Europe had Charles Lindberg been elected President in 1940?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI say again:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo U.S. blood for sharia!
Maybe we should let the editors have a do over of their editorial praising our intervention. The "rebels" probably deserve the same end of our military action as Qaddafi.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease, they are rebels because they are rebelling from a Dictator. That makes them rebels there is not a hidden agenda rebels are the right label for them.
Second why not put them in charge if only all other enemies could be ousted so quickly. If the new leaders of Libya are as bad or worse than the current one we can work to overthrow them too. All enemies of the US should know that one day either now or even in forty years they will be ousted and thrown in the dustbin of history. NOT taking this opportunity to get rid of Qaddafi on the cheap would be crazy. Get rid of all proven enemies before we worry about future possible enemies.
Also because of the sad, sad state of Arabic civilization today war time rhetoric and what passes for "Patriotic" slogans in Libya will always should tinged with Jihadist posturing. That does not mean the new regime in Libyan will be an enemy of ours. If they do prove to be an enemy than they will know what will happen to them at least.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's a reality gap in Washington. This isn't foreign policy, it's a postmodern mimetic contagion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndy's Libya posts are spot-on. Please, Mr. McCarthy, keep 'em coming.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn Iran, leftist rebels(who called themselves 'democratic') and Islamic rebels allied to overthrow the shah. The leftists thought that they'd be able to contain the jihadis because they had faith in their leftist rhetoric--including that part of leftist rhetoric that is behind the 'we know better than you' attitude. The Islamic rebels thought they could get rid of the Shah and the leftist rebels because they had faith in the power of massacres. Corpses don't plan rebellion--and a big enough pile of them gets everyone submitting to Allah.
Egypt? Same thing. Libya....? What do you think?
And now we're helping them out. Qaddafi is right. We're helping leftists and jihadis.
We're helping enemies fight an enemy. What good can come of this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the administration had spent 1/10 of the time and effort used on the U.N. and Arab League, to get permission from our own congress, I'd be ok with this…not happy, just ok. Since we do nothing to mentor true democrats to foster any real freedom movement, we should limit our military actions to teaching tyrants a lesson and moving on rather than re-building a nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince this is apparently too subtle for the author of the piece to grasp, I will explain it with small words he can understand.
Jihad means war. It is the actual word "war" in Arabic. It doesn't mean "crusade". It doesn't mean holy war to establish shariah law. It doesn't mean the dictatorship of the proletariat either. It is a simple word in a foreign language for the exact concept covered in the English language by the 3 letter word of old high Germanic origin, "war". It is about 6 centuries older as a word than "war" is, in fact.
Does that clear things up at all? When an Arabic speaker says "it is time for jihad" he is saying it is time for war. That's simply what the word means.
Why is this hard to grok?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, "hharb" is the word for "war." "Jihhaad" is the word for "struggle."
So stop chatting rubbish, acting like you know arabic, you know nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, "hharb" is the word for "war." "Jihhaad" is the word for "struggle." And "grok" is from the Freelover dialect of Martian, from which it was borrowed into Fanboyish.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe are dropping bombs in support of the same terrorists that perpetrated 9-11. It is no secret that some of these jihadis are al-Queda.
We now fight on the same side as Abu Yahya al-Libi (the Libyan)...go ahead, google that name.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI feel like we are in one of the Star Trek Next Generation episodes about time loops. Remember the one where the Enterprise gets destroyed time after time? Surely there is a solution to this interminable problem? Anybody? Anybody?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI feel like we are in one of the Star Trek Next Generation episodes about time loops. Remember the one where the Enterprise gets destroyed time after time? Surely there is a solution to this interminable problem? Anybody? Anybody?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis just in: If you're a muslim and you rebel against your oppressive dictator you are not a revolutionary; no, you are a muslim extremist who has just declared war on all non-muslims in a global holy war.
I don't care for islam or the culture of the people who practice it but this is just asinine.
Oh wait, I heard they were saying the arabic equivalent of God is great.... This changes everything. I was wrong these people really are evil; let Qaddafi slaughter them, he is just fighting the war on terror.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse