Five years ago, Barack Obama embarked upon what he dubbed "the Arab Spring". He claimed it was to give full flower and fruition to "Muslim democracy" - which, it is true, was President Bush43's original gimmick - and that produced the only thing it could produce: a rising tide of Islamic Fundamentalism and jihad across the Middle East and Africa.
The most direct action his Regime took was the "behind-led" air war against Muammar Qaddafi, on the ostensible grounds of preventing him from carrying out a "genocide" of some group or other, but which had the effect of decapitating his government ("We came, we saw, he died," crowed Hillary Clinton, bloodthirstily). The One claimed that Operation "Lead From Behind" was the ideal and perfect model for U.S. interventions forevermore.
Part of that model was, of course, not cleaning up the mess that his unauthorized, illegal act of unprovoked aggression left behind. No U.S. boots on the ground to hold territory, ensure that a pro-U.S./pro-Western government would be instituted in Qaddafi's place, and keep Libya from falling into the hands of the jihadist savages that he had been suppressing for decades. Yes, it would have quite likely led to an Iraq-like "insurgency," but that's the price of intervention admission. "You break it, you bought it," in other words. We applied that lesson in post-Nazi Germany, post-imperial Japan, South Korea, and in post-Saddam Iraq....until Barack Obama came to power, abrogated that lesson, and threw away that accomplishment, paving the way for Iraq to become the failed state (or Iranian vassal, take your pick) that Libya subsequently became through Red Barry's malign neglect. And they both met the same fate: conquest by the most bloodthirsty and demonic of jihadist gangs, the Islamic State, leading to the Benghazi debacle we all know, lament, and loathe.
Just as the Islamocommunist POTUS intended.
And now, amazingly, that same Islamocommunist POTUS is ramping up for yet another unauthorized, illegal Libya intervention in the context of his phony "war" with ISIS:
The shaky debut last week of a new unity government in Libya brings Western nations, including the United States, much closer to a renewed military mission there, and to a host of obstacles that will test their ability to secure a country gripped by Islami[c [Fundamental]ism and civil war.
Tensions ran high on Wednesday after Fayez Serraj, a little-known Libyan technocrat selected as prime minister in a United Nations peace process, arrived by boat in Tripoli from Tunisia. Western officials hailed his installation in the Libyan capital as a sign that the country’s two-year political divide is finally coming to an end — despite the existence of rival governments in Tripoli and the country’s east. [emphases added]
Understand two things about this, folks: Serraj is the figurehead of what the White House is hailing as a "unity government," and he had to be snuck into the country in the proverbial dead of night to avoid being slaughtered by Libya's REAL rulers.
The United States and European allies, including Italy, France and Britain, have made the unity government’s establishment a key precondition for launching twin missions to begin an international stabilization effort and help combat a growing Islamic State affiliate there.
Each of those tasks will be strained by tensions among militia factions that Western nations hope will form a unified front against terrorist groups and by strong reluctance among European nations to wade into Libya’s chaos — even among those countries most threatened by the Islamic State’s growth across the Mediterranean. [emphasis added]
And what incentive at all is Barack Obama giving these rival "militia factions" to "form a unified front against terrorist groups:? Answer: None whatsoever, or Western nations wouldn't be "hoping" for it, they'd actually be doing something about it. Heck, how much overlap is there between the "militia factions" and the "terrorists"? Most likely a helluva lot more than the White House wants to admit.
And, of course, it goes without saying that there will be no more U.S. boots on the ground than there were the last time:
Planners at the U.S. Africa Command are now developing dozens of targets across Libya that American or European warplanes might strike. They range from the coastal city of Sirte, where the [jihad]ist group has established a refuge, to Ajdabiya, Sabratha and the [jihadist] stronghold of Derna. U.S. jets have carried out strikes against the group there twice since last fall.... [emphasis added]
i.e. the same deliberately futile "pinpricks" as have been "pricking" for almost two years, to absolutely no effect.
Actually, not even that much:
Ben Fishman, who was a White House official responsible for Libya earlier in the Obama administration, said the U.S. campaign against the Islamic State in Libya is likely to be much more modest in scope than ongoing U.S. and allied operations in Iraq and Syria. [emphasis added]
The difference, of course, being the identity of the enemy. The Obamunists actually wanted to get rid of Qaddafi, same as they did Hosni Mubarek next door, and for the same reason: to benefit and elevate their jihadist friends, al Qaeda (and now its ISIS successor) in Libya, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The same dynamic was behind their professed demand that Bashar Assad "must go," until they chickened out on doing the job themselves on ISIS's behalf and then the Russians intervened to prop him up. But now the targets would be O's jihadist clients, and since he has no intention of betraying THOSE allies, this intervention will have a lot less sound and fury to it.
More like, "Schlock and awwwwwwww...."
No comments:
Post a Comment