Many are ready to party about the political demise of the hated, eccentric, and foul Moammar Qaddafi as rebel troops move into Tripoli. I am not partying. Here’s why not.
The NATO intervention in March 2011 was done without due diligence as to who it was in Benghazi that it was helping. To this day, their identity is a mystery. Chances are good that Islamist forces are hiding behind more benign elements, waiting for the right moment to pounce, as roughly happened in Iran in 1978–79, when Islamists did not make clear their strength nor their program until the shah was well disposed of. Should that be the case in Libya today, then the miserable Qaddafi will prove to be better than his successors for both the Libyan subjects of tyranny and the West.
I hope I am wrong and the rebels are modern and liberal. But I fear that a dead-end despotism will be replaced by the agents of a worldwide ideological movement. I fear that Western forces will have brought civilization’s worst enemies to power.
Professor Pipes and David Pryce-Jones have a grip on this Libya mess. Sadly, I don't believe that our State Department and Prez have a clue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Civilization's worst enemies"? I guess that seems a bit rich given that Qaddafi was responsible for Lockerbie. Even if folks like McCain and Graham have been buddying up to him in the last few years, he strikes me as a pretty bad fellow. The worst possible outcome of this is just a new face in the same position. The likelihood that it is better is decent. Additionally, this is a movement of the people... if the US is really a champion of democracy and freedom, it has to take the chance that that freedom will lead people in directions other than our form of liberal democracy. Indeed, we really should acknowledge that there might be alternatives to that form of society that have merits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Additionally, this is a movement of the people." Unfortunately, "the people" in these cases most often end up being subjugated to those with the guns and the will to use them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDemocracy and freedom? It will be a bizarrly ironic note if it turns out that the people we have been blindly supporting in Libya are the same people we have been fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan. Somehow, I don't think we are going to be hearing too much about democracy and freedom..
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusetiredturtle - I must echo my agreement with you. Another interesting question is, how did the rag-tag bunch in Benghazi become the professional soldiers entering Tripoli? Is there some third actor of which we are unaware who has gotten into the act?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not partying either. The government overthrow doesn't mean anything until the Islamists come crawling out of the shadows to exert their dominion over the state. Arab Spring, my foot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am not so confident this will lead directly to Islamist rule. That is a concern, and the Islamists certainly will attempt to play a role, but the Arab world hardly missed the nightmare that Islamists plunged Afghanistan and Iraq into. Zarqawi, in particular, revealed the level of evil that al Qaeda-affiliated Islamist movements could descend to. Likewise with Algeria, where the Islamists destroyed any credibility they may have had with the general population.
Bear in mind, Islamists came into power in Afghanistan only because they were seen as a lesser evil than the bloodthirsty warlords; and likewise, their appeal elsewhere has been based on comparisons with iron-fisted dictators rather than being seen as the ideal solution.
While the Islamists may be well organized, I do not think the voters will line up to support operations that are capable of cold-blooded murder of Muslims and "infidels" alike. I think that any nominally Islamist organizations that come to power are more likely to be populist groups that use the Qur'an as cover for nationalist policies, rather than Takfiri jihadists. Hostile to Israel and unfriendly to the West, quite likely, but nightmare murderous theocracies, not as likely.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRidding the world of Ghaddafy is worth the risk. If another despot pops up in his place, rinse, repeat.
It's the same as the repeated death or capture of regional AQ leaders in Iraq - there's a degradation of quality. E.g.- Take a McDonalds, bump off the manager. Now the Assistant Manager is in charge. Bump him off. Now it's a cashier running things. Rinse, repeat. Eventually you get the fry cook in charge and the customer service goes all to pieces.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's an old saying: better the devil you know. Yes, Qaddafi was behind Lockerbie -- 23 years ago. The question remains: why, after so many years and the recent history of buddying up with his regime, did it become so urgent to support his removal by any means necessary? Nothing internal to Libya had changed, except now there was a "rebel" force, allowing the pro-Islamic international community to celebrate the expansion of the "Arab spring." So we are leading an international coalition that wants to see our power dissipated, from behind, helping install a regime that will most likely not only be more antagonistic to us than Qaddafi and certainly more likely to be associated with the spread of malignant anti-American Islamic militancy. A great victory indeed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“It is just a draft, mind you, and gauging its authenticity at this point is difficult.”
Part One
General Provisions
Article (1)
Islam is the Religion of the State and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The NATO intervention in March 2011 was done without due diligence as to who it was in Benghazi that it was helping. To this day, their identity is a mystery"
That is a very strong statement. Does Daniel Pipes today miss his backdoor information to NATO intelligence? What is the evidence that NATO doesn't know who they are helping? Or is it just that Daniel Pipes doesn't know.
Please supply some evidence, public confirmation by US officials or officials who duck penetrating questions ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI share your concerns in Libya (and Egypt for that matter). Are there reasons to think the opposition forces in Syria might produce a better result?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse