Monday, March 28, 2011

Arm Them Today - Fight Them Tomorrow

After all, they're the same men you were fighting yesterday.
The Telegraph (UK) is running with the story that jihadists who fought our guys in Iraq, and perhaps killed US soldiers or Marines, are now fighting under our protective air cover.  Not "they're members of a group" who fought us, actual jihadis who fought us are in Libya now.
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

If that doesn't give you warm fuzzy feelings, how about this gem:
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".
When these reports first started to surface, they were coming from the government, so we all laughed and said, "That's good ol' Daffy Qa-daffy for you!  Ha ha!".  I don't particularly feel like laughing now.   So, the jihadis don't mind us being there because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  I wonder whom he'll be fighting if they win and his current enemy is no longer there?  So Senator "Maverick" McCain wants to arm them?  If we send them guns, will American forces be looking down the barrels of our weapons in six months?

If you want to know whom to blame for us being involved in this mess, look no further than the darling couple in the White House, Cass Sunstein and his wife Samantha Power.  I couldn't tell you which one is more virulently anti-Israel.  I suspect he's more dangerous, but it could just be I've been studying him longer. She is the creator (one of the creators?) of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) the UN doctrine that's responsible for us being there.  New Zeal has a good overview of this. Samantha Power seems to be driven by angst over the Rwandan genocide, especially angst that her heroes did nothing to stop it.  Her book, "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" lays out the ideas that led to R2P.

Responsibility to Protect has the potential to, or if I may, is intended to, eliminate national sovereignty. 
We can no longer hide behind state sovereignty.
Let that sink in and don't overlook this detail.  Libya itself may be a nothing.  We may be out of there in a few weeks.  The principle and the precedent, though, may just have been established that the US has no right to do what it deems its own national interest, under penalty of international courts.


  1. Didn't we do this in Afghanistan, too? How many Afghan mujahedeen we armed during the Soviet invasion later joined (already were?) the Taliban or Al-Qaeda and have been fighting us in Afghanistan?

    And now we discover that BATF has allowed assault-style rifles to be sold to the cartels in Mexico, which have been used to kill not only Mexican citizens, but also a Border Patrol officer (Brian Terry) and an ICE agent as well. One on each side of the border.

  2. IMO, the US is "out of control". And the UK is just a half-pace behind you.

    I think it's appropriate to use the term "fascism".

    We had a senior general on the radio, yesterday, telling us that it is appropriate to kill civilians in Tripoli (with bombs) in order to nail Gaddafi. He actually used the term "greater good". I can't tell you how incensed I am.

    "I'm sorry madam, you and your family have to die .. but it's for a good cause."

    Today, William Hague is reiterating the assertion that the action is solely about the prevention of civilian casualties ... we're protecting them from Gaddafi.

    So, what happens when the rebels get the upper hand and start to bombard Tripoli? Will our jets and missiles be turned upon the rebels?

    I don't think so.

  3. Anon - the current US Administration is way out of control. I'm afraid I don't follow the situation in the UK very closely, but I keep seeing the leftist riots - like last weekend, and the big one where they trapped Prince whatshisname and his wife. We also see the rampant Islamification of England.

    Many of us in the libertarian blogosphere tend to refer to "once-Great Britain" when we hear the stories that center on self-defense and personal freedoms.

    This Responsibility to Protect is one of those wonderful-sounding programs that progressives love; how can anyone be opposed to stopping genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the rest? The problem is it comes with a very steep price: One World Government - which always seems to work out to be a socialist government not one that allows freedom. A big, overpowering government that does everything "for the greater good", like letting retirees die rather than provide simple, routine medical care.