First time visitor? Learn more.

Samantha Power and the War in Libya

by 1389AD ( 13 Comments › )
Filed under Africa, Albania, Balkans, Barack Obama, Bosnia, Germany, Headlines, Iraq, Kosovo, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Muslim Brotherhood, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia at May 28th, 2011 - 7:52 pm

Russia Profile Weekly Experts Panel: A War With Libya?

Introduction by Vladimir Frolov 03/25/2011

The UN Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 1973 on March 17, authorizing “all necessary measures” against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the establishment of a no-fly zone, which includes the possible use of military force, against pro-Gaddafi forces. Ten UNSC members voted for the resolution, including the United States, Great Britain and France, while Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India abstained. Is Russia right in tacitly accepting the use of force by not exercising its veto power in the UNSC? What does Russia gain by taking a position that opens the door for intervention without fully pledging its support for the West?

Here is the contribution by James George Jatras:

James George Jatras
Director, American Council for Kosovo,
Deputy Director, American Institute in Ukraine,
Washington, DC:

From an American perspective, almost as dismaying as the fact that president Obama has now mimicked his predecessors and blundered into his very own ill-advised foreign intervention, is puzzlement about the decision of Russia (and of China, which presumably followed the Russian lead) not to veto the Security Council resolution authoring force in Libya.

To address the Russian question first: it didn’t take a “Kristol ball” to guess that the Western powers would immediately exceed the UNSC’s mandate, in effect treating Resolution 1973 as a carte blanche to intervene in the Libyan civil war. Perhaps president Medvedev didn’t want to disappoint his “reset” partner, president Obama. Or perhaps Moscow was applying some geopolitical judo in facilitating America’s tumble into yet another sand-trap, and then criticizing us for it. (For all of Paris’ and London’s grandstanding and Riyadh’s and Abu Dhabi’s prodding, accusing fingers again will be pointed at the United States for lots of dead Muslims served up for Al-Jazeera’s cameras).

Evident disarray at the top militates against the likelihood that the Russian move was calculated. Prime Minister Putin castigated the Western campaign as reminiscent of a “medieval crusade” –an inapt characterization, first because the Libyan operation (as will be seen below), far from being anti-Islamic, instead is furthering the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and their ilk.

Secondly, Putin should appreciate that as a historical matter, the real Crusades were a legitimate if flawed Christian counterattack against centuries of jihad aggression, not an episode to be used as a term of opprobrium. Then, to further tangle things, Medvedev criticized him just for uttering the word “crusade,” the mere sound of which offends delicate Muslim ears and aggravates the “clash of civilizations.” In short, what the Russians really have in mind is not at all clear.

But the muddle in Moscow pales beside the latest outbreak of imbecility along the Potomac. The report is that Samantha Power, National Security Council special advisor to Obama on human rights and one of Obama’s campaign advisors on foreign affairs, was primarily responsible for convincing her dithering boss to proceed, with support from U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and, of course, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Power became an obsessive advocate of “humanitarian intervention” during her stint as a journalist in Bosnia and advocates a philosophy called “responsibility to protect” (RTP), with military intervention ostensibly to protect human rights raised to a cardinal principle of American foreign policy. She outlined RTP in her 2003 book “A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” that Richard Holbrooke of Balkan infamy commanded his underlings to read. Power’s militarism is boundless. For instance, at the height of the Second Intifada in 2002, she advocated military action against Israel to create and protect a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. On the other hand, nobody’s holding his breath waiting for Power to demand we bomb Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates over Saudi and Emirati abuses against Bahraini Shia protesters).

In any case, the Power-Clinton-Rice triumfeminate was sufficiently potent to squelch cautionary advice from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough.

The U.S.-led action follows calls by the international Islamic party Hizb-ut-Tahrir, whose members have long been suppressed and killed in Libya, for Gaddafi to be overthrown by the Egyptian army, and for his assassination by a leading figure of the Muslim Brotherhood active in the successful Egyptian revolt. As an indication of the likely beneficiaries of Western help in overthrowing Gaddafi, a 2008 West Point analysis of a cache of al-Qaeda records discovered that nearly 20 percent of foreign fighters (actually, mainly suicide bombers) in Iraq were Libyans, and that on a per-capita basis Libya was nearly double Saudi Arabia as the jihadis’ top country of origin. Almost all of them were from the eastern region of Cyrenaica (Benghazi, and especially Derna), a stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda and, not coincidentally, of the anti-Gaddafi insurgency.

While the spectacle of the Western powers and Islamic militants, including al-Qaeda, acting effectively as allies, may come as a surprise to some, it shouldn’t to observers of U.S.-led interventions since America supported Afghan mujahidin against the Soviet Union. Not only did Washington help create al-Qaeda itself during the anti-Soviet war, the pattern was set for subsequent “pro-Muslim” interventions: in Iraq (twice, under George H.W. Bush in 1991 and George W. Bush in 2003), in Afghanistan (Bush in 2001), Bosnia (Bill Clinton in 1995), and Kosovo (Clinton in 1999). In each case, an armed intervention justified as “rescuing” or “liberating” Muslims paradoxically resulted in greater Islamic rage against the United States. In each case, the hoped-for “democracy” – at least recognizable to Western eyes – eluded us. And in each case the resulting social order was more oppressively Islamic, as measured by treatment of women and non-Muslims.

For example, in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Islamic militancy was suppressed (along with other opposition forces) and women went unveiled. Now, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, half of Iraq’s Christian population has fled in terror from Muslim militants and women had better cover up if they know what’s good for them. Similar patterns can be discerned in the venues of other interventions, notably the near-eradication of Orthodox Christian Serbs in areas of Kosovo under the control of Muslim Albanian drug, slave, and organ-traffickers. Already in post-Mubarak Egypt constitutional “reforms” favored by the Muslim Brotherhood have been approved by referendum, and fears are rising for the future of Coptic Christians – the largest remaining Christian population in the Middle East. Aside from the serendipitous fact that Libya has few Christians to persecute, prospects for a post-Gaddafi “democracy” in that country are decidedly slim.

However, in Western thinking, the repeated failure of a policy evidently is considered insufficient grounds to abandon it. With respect to Libya, perhaps policy-makers in Washington, London, and Paris calculate that this time for sure the Muslims will love us, no matter how many of them get killed along the way. This time for sure, when Gaddafi is gone, Islamic “democracy” will look a lot like Switzerland. (Just as it has in Gaza, where “democracy” has empowered Hamas, or in purple-fingered Lebanon, now under a Hizballah-led coalition). Each time we are surprised and disappointed, but we never learn. When the Muslim Brotherhood takes power in Egypt – and in Libya, in Yemen – Power and company will also be very surprised and disappointed.

http://russiaprofile.org/experts_panel/34077.html


Tags: , , ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

13 Responses to “Samantha Power and the War in Libya”
( jump to bottom )

  1. Philip_Daniel
    1 | May 28, 2011 8:19 pm

    Prime Minister Putin castigated the Western campaign as reminiscent of a “medieval crusade”

    That’s how Russia has characterized the West ever since the Teutonic Knights encroached on the Republic of Novgorod — which led Alexander Nevsky to surrender obsequiously to Tatar overlordship, before the Tatars turned Islamic, of course.

    Of course, the truth is that Russia, a target of the resurgent medieval Jihad At-Talab Wa’l-Ibtida’i, is also subsidizing it.

    I fail to see how America supporting Mujahideen, just as Russia does, is tantamount to a Crusade; I’d rather compare it to the shameful Franco-Ottoman Alliance (with French assistance, the Ottomans crushed the Balearics, Corsica, and Nice) — by the Battle of Saint Gotthard (1664), however, the French were sensibly enough to disregard this, at least partially, by siding militarily with their inveterate foes the Austrian Hapsburgs against their Ottoman allies (though it must be said that Louis XIV cheered Kara Mustapha on as he besieged Vienna and occupied her suburbs).


  2. Speranza
    2 | May 28, 2011 8:26 pm

    Our next Sec. of state will be Samantha Power (if Obama wins) and Susan Rice will be our next National Security chief.


  3. Philip_Daniel
    3 | May 28, 2011 8:27 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Our next Sec. of state will be Samantha Power (if Obama wins) and Susan Rice will be our next National Security chief.

    Where does Valerie Jarrett Al-Shirazi fit into all of this?


  4. 4 | May 28, 2011 8:45 pm

    Philip_Daniel wrote:

    That’s how Russia has characterized the West ever since the Teutonic Knights encroached on the Republic of Novgorod — which led Alexander Nevsky to surrender obsequiously to Tatar overlordship, before the Tatars turned Islamic, of course.

    In all fairness, I would say that the Teutonic Knights really had no more business attacking the Russians than the Western Europeans of the Fourth Crusade had any business attacking Constantinople.


  5. 5 | May 28, 2011 8:46 pm

    Philip_Daniel wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    Our next Sec. of state will be Samantha Power (if Obama wins) and Susan Rice will be our next National Security chief.
    Where does Valerie Jarrett Al-Shirazi fit into all of this?

    In that event, we are all doomed.


  6. Philip_Daniel
    6 | May 28, 2011 8:49 pm

    1389AD wrote:

    In all fairness, I would say that the Teutonic Knights really had no more business attacking the Russians than the Western Europeans of the Fourth Crusade had any business attacking Constantinople.

    I agree completely. But I fail to see how their actions were in the spirit of the Gospel, as some would have us believe. In contrast, the Tatar raids and Turkish invasions were grounded in Koran and Sunna and ‘Ijma and Shari’ah…


  7. Philip_Daniel
    7 | May 28, 2011 8:51 pm

    @ 1389AD:

    By the way, tomorrow marks the 558th anniversary of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and the final destruction of their vassal, the once-magnificent Eastern Roman Empire.


  8. Philip_Daniel
    8 | May 28, 2011 8:59 pm

    @ 1389AD:

    I don’t think Alexander Nevsky is honorable for submitting obsequiously to Tatar suzerainty and all that subsequently entailed in terms of radically-diminished sovereignty, from pledging allegiance to the khan, to tribute payments (yasak, later jizya), to relinquishing control of foreign policy, to harmonizing domestic policy so that it matches Tatar interests, to answering to a baskak (Tatar overseer), to receiving a yearly letter of investiture (yarlik) from the Khan during each annual tribute payment (in a very humiliating manner, may I add, with prostration and crawling and feeding a horse out of one’s helmet). Nevsky, by the way, was ruthless when it came to crushing revolts within his feudal domains, and apparently used Tatar contingents in doing so. Then again, he was the “blood-brother” or Sartaq, son of Batu. This was all before the Horde was Islamized.


  9. 9 | May 28, 2011 9:24 pm

    Philip_Daniel wrote:

    @ 1389AD:
    By the way, tomorrow marks the 558th anniversary of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and the final destruction of their vassal, the once-magnificent Eastern Roman Empire.


  10. 10 | May 28, 2011 9:28 pm

    @ Philip_Daniel:
    Did he have enough resources to fight a war on two fronts? It’s hard to second guess what someone did unless you know what he had at his disposal by way of loyal troops, other allies, food, weaponry, transport and logistical support, and so on and so forth.


  11. Speranza
    11 | May 28, 2011 9:34 pm

    Philip_Daniel wrote:

    Where does Valerie Jarrett Al-Shirazi fit into all of this?

    Chief-of-Staff probably.


  12. Philip_Daniel
    12 | May 28, 2011 10:12 pm

    1389AD wrote:

    @ Philip_Daniel:
    Did he have enough resources to fight a war on two fronts?

    No he did not. I never said otherwise.


  13. 13 | May 29, 2011 5:27 am

    Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Shrillary: The Unholy Trinity of Scrunts.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David