Libya: Bombing in the Dark
The news that General Younes, the head of the rebel military forces in Libya, was murdered by members of an "Islamist" group within the rebel fold demonstrates the great problem with the war in which we are involved in Libya. The great problem is that we have no idea about the aims of our allies in the rebel movement.
Michelle Bachmann has argued from the beginning of our involvement in the effort to overthrow the Gadaffi regime that we lack adequate knowledge of the character of our allies. This incident provides powerful evidence that she is correct. We recently recognized the Transitional National Council as the legitimate government of Libya. We know nothing about the rebels other than that they wish to overthrow Gadaffi. It seems awfully stupid to provide support and recognition to the Transitional National Council when we know nothing about its goals and next to nothing about its composition.
I placed "Islamist" in scare quotes because the use of this term in the linked article provides another example of our lack of critical information. What does it mean to be an "Islamist" in Libya? I assume this means that there is an element(s) of the opposition that wishes to establish a regime based on Islamic law. If that is correct, how do we differentiate between the "Islamist" faction and those groups motivated by other interests such as tribal politics? There is no evidence that American politicans who support the rebels are even aware of this issue.
We might also wonder why we are supporting a movement where a man like General Younes can attain prominence. Our ally the general, before becoming a rebel, was head of security under Gadaffi. The linked article notes that he was "responsible for the detention and torture of untold numbers of Libyan dissidents . . . ."
The goal of war is victory. But the meaning of victory must be clearly understood if a genuine victory is to be attained. It is only prudent and just to to go to war if there is good reason to think the situation will be made better rather than worse. Right now we have no reason to believe that the National Transitional Council will be better than the Gadaffi regime. The fact that men like General Younes and "Islamists" are part of the rebel movement should give us pause.
The principal purpose of our social compact is the security of the rights of American citizens. We should demand that our politicians think concretely about how particular foreign policy measures make us more secure. We have yet to see this type of thinking from supporters of the war in Libya.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Libya: Bombing in the Dark
John Grant:
I placed "Islamist" in scare quotes because the use of this term in the linked article provides another example of our lack of critical information. What does it mean to be an "Islamist" in Libya?
You can leave off the scare quotes. An Islamist in Libya is the same as an Islamist anywhere - tis a Universal, um, religion.
I'm sure Mr Obama is on top of this - nothing to worry about.
Oct '10
Re: Libya: Bombing in the Dark
"The principal purpose of our social compact is the security of the rights of American citizens."
I would rephrase this statement to read "The principal purpose of our social compact is the promotion of the mutual liberty and security of American citizens, which shall serve as a demonstration to the world of the superiority of democratic republican government, and provide a model for all those who are willing to embrace the values and principles upon which it is established".
Re: Libya: Bombing in the Dark
You make a good point, but I think what is clear in the abstract is not so clear in practice. For instance, I think we struggle to differentiate between Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Pashtun tribal groupings in Afghanistan.
David Williamson
John Grant:
I placed "Islamist" in scare quotes because the use of this term in the linked article provides another example of our lack of critical information. What does it mean to be an "Islamist" in Libya?
You can leave off the scare quotes. An Islamist in Libya is the same as an Islamist anywhere - tis a Universal, um, religion.
I'm sure Mr Obama is on top of this - nothing to worry about. · Jul 30 at 2:20pm
Aug '10
Re: Libya: Bombing in the Dark
You're acting like it's important that we know what we're fighting for and for whom exactly we are providing air support. However you're completely overlooking that we got the approval of the Arab League.
Sorry to provide such a rhetorical beat down to a fellow member like that but it really gets my goat when people ignore the really important things like that a multilateral institution led by Saudi Arabia gave us its blessing and instead emphasize trivial nonsense like we've gotten ourselves in bed with a bunch of lunatics or that the president is flagrantly violating the War Powers Act.
Some people.
Edited on Jul 30, 2011 at 4:03pmFeb '11
Re: Libya: Bombing in the Dark
Stop expending money to support the rebels in Libya. We can not afford it.
Dec '10
Re: Libya: Bombing in the Dark
Who are the “supporters of the war in Libya?”
What should be expected from them? Our CinC has only requested authorization for “the war in which we are involved in Libya” from the Arab League and UN, not our own Congress.
It appears similar to a Seal Team Six operation in which, by design, Congress happily does not meddle. That’s not a criticism of our historic first Islamic apostate president, but of our Congress.
If members of Congress can live a couple of years without annual budgets, why trouble themselves with what the Oval Office is fomenting with the Arab League and UN?
Tea party movement: faster please.
Re: Libya: Bombing in the Dark
Good point--I have to keep things in proper perspective!
Perhaps we could ask the Arab League to decide how to handle the debt ceiling? I am sure the UN would be willing to tell us what we should do.
anon_academic: You're acting like it's important that we know what we're fighting for and for whom exactly we are providing air support. However you're completely overlooking that we got the approval of the Arab League.
Sorry to provide such a rhetorical beat down to a fellow member like that but it really gets my goat when people ignore the really important things like that a multilateral institution led by Saudi Arabia gave us its blessing and instead emphasize trivial nonsense like we've gotten ourselves in bed with a bunch of lunatics or that the president is flagrantly violating the War Powers Act.
Some people. · Jul 30 at 2:36pm
Edited on Jul 30 at 04:03 pm
Jun '10
Re: Libya: Bombing in the Dark
John, great post. I couldn't agree with you more. We should not use our military for presidential hobby horses. We simply have to destroy this idea that the Left has foisted on the country that we shouldn't involve ourselves in things where it might help us. The opposite is true -- it is immoral to use the U.S. military for anything that is not involved with our direct interests.
Clinton going into Kosovo is one of the most egregious examples in recent years. We simply had no direct interest and those that did -- the Europeans -- should have been shamed into doing something. Either way, we should not have touched that.
Similarly in this example with Libya: no direct interest.
And for anon_academic: What has the Arab League got to do with anything here? Other than to give the Left a reason to swoon. Pathetic. I'm much more interested in what our direct representatives have to say for advise and support. Why didn't Obama consult with congress? The Arab League is the last part needed in any coalition -- and then we dare not turn our backs on them.
Aug '10
Re: Libya: Bombing in the Dark
Larry Koler:
And for anon_academic: What has the Arab League got to do with anything here? Other than to give the Left a reason to swoon. Pathetic. I'm much more interested in what our direct representatives have to say for advise and support. Why didn't Obama consult with congress? The Arab League is the last part needed in any coalition -- and then we dare not turn our backs on them. · Jul 31 at 8:17am
No sarcasm is sufficiently thick and heavy that somebody will fail to appreciate it as such. Read my post again and read John's winking reply and you'll see that I was mocking the administration's failure to consult Congress and general imprudence.
Jun '10
Re: Libya: Bombing in the Dark
anon_academic
Larry Koler:
And for anon_academic: What has the Arab League got to do with anything here? Other than to give the Left a reason to swoon. Pathetic. I'm much more interested in what our direct representatives have to say for advise and support. Why didn't Obama consult with congress? The Arab League is the last part needed in any coalition -- and then we dare not turn our backs on them. · Jul 31 at 8:17am
No sarcasm is sufficiently thick and heavy that somebody will fail to appreciate it as such. Read my post again and read John's winking reply and you'll see that I was mocking the administration's failure to consult Congress and general imprudence. · Jul 31 at 8:33am
Sorry, my mistake. I will read you more carefully in future. I mean: I know about Jimmy Carter and flownover -- now I have to add you to that weird list? OK. OK. Consider me chastened.