THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XIII, Issue # 87, April 6, 2011
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
IDEALS TRUMP INTERESTS IN OBAMA'S LIBYA POLICY
By Raymond Ibrahim
THE PURPOSE & GOALS OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN ISLAMIC NORTH AFRICA: OBAMA EXPLAINING HIS
ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY TOWARD LIBYA VIA SENTIMENTAL & IDEALISTIC PLATITUDES, RATHER THAN ON THE BASIS
OF REALITY, THE LONG VIEW, OR JUST PLAIN COMMON SENSE -- INVOKING MORALIZING INTONATIONS, INSTEAD OF
SPECIFYING CONCRETE U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS AS JUSTIFICATION FOR OUR MILITARY INTERVENTION INTO THE NORTH
AFRICAN CRISES -- OBAMA'S BLIND SPOTS & FAULTY LOGIC, AS REGARDS THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ISLAMISTS RISING TO
POWER IN NORTH AFRICA -- THE RECENT U.S. MILITARY & POLITICAL HISTORY LESSONS THAT OBAMA HAS FAILED TO
GRASP & PROFIT FROM
FULL STORY:
President Barack Obama's recent explanation for militarily engaging Libya is yet another example of how U.S. leaders
increasingly rationalize their policies via sentimental and idealistic platitudes, rather than reality or the long view — or
just plain common sense.
In a speech replete with moralizing intonations, Obama did manage to evoke U.S. "interests" — six times — though he
never explained what these interests are. Instead, we were admonished about "our responsibilities to our fellow human
beings" and how not assisting them "would have been a betrayal of who we are." Further, by juxtaposing America's
"interests" with its "values" — Obama did so twice in his Libya speech — indicates that he may see the two as near
synonymous, though they certainly are not.
The closest thing to a fuzzy "interest" that Obama posited is the need to contain Libyan rebels from fleeing to and
disrupting nearby nations, such as Egypt, a country of "democratic impulses" where "change will inspire us and raise
hopes" — so an overly optimistic Obama observed. While there certainly are constitutional, secular elements in Egypt's
revolution, increasing evidence — from an Islamist-inclined military that opens fire on its Christian minority, to the
recent referendum which serves the Muslim Brotherhood — indicates that, left to itself, Egypt is poised to look more
like Iran than America.
Of course, the Obama administration is not against Islamists rising to power — so long as it is through the "will" of the
people. As the Los Angeles Times put it, the administration "supports a role for groups such as the Muslim
Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government." Even in his speech, Obama said the
U.S.A. must support "the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders"; must support
"governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people." The underlying assumption is that
people always choose liberal, or constitutional, forms of governments — a demonstrably false notion: Nazis, Hamas,
the Mullahs — all came to power through the "aspirations of the people."
As for Libya's nebulous opposition, even before Obama decided to support them, the Washington Post had
reported that "the administration knows little about Libya's well-armed rebels, [and] cannot predict the political system
that might replace Qaddafi's bizarre rule." More recent evidence indicates that the U.S.A. is arming the same jihadists
who, four years, earlier were trying to kill Americans in Iraq.
Yet Obama bypasses all these obstacles by engaging in moral posturing, asserting, for example, that a massacre in
eastern Libya's Benghazi "would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was
not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen." Again, no clarification exactly how an
intertribal massacre — regular occurrences the world over — is "not in our national interest." Moreover, as Jihad
Watch Director Robert Spencer soberly puts it:
"Eastern Libya [Benghazi], where the anti-Qaddafi forces
are based, is a hotbed of anti-Americanism and jihadist
sentiment. A report by West Point's Combating Terrorism
Center reveals that, during the last few years, more
jihadists per capita entered Iraq from Libya than from any
other Muslim country — and most of them came from the
region that is now spearheading the revolt against Qaddafi.
Perhaps Obama simply sees the rebels as "freedom-fighters" — as a recent Examiner headline phrases it:
"U.S. supports Al-Qa'ida 'freedom fighters' against Qaddafi
in Libyan civil war."
If so, it is well to reflect that the U.S. has been down this road before, when it supported Afghanistan's
"freedom-fighting" mujahidin against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, only for Afghanistan to become a terrorist haven
and al-Qa'ida's headquarters, where the strikes of 9/11 were devised.
As opposed to today, however, it was less evident during the Reagan era that Islamists would become a global
headache; plus, the reason for supporting the mujahidin was less idealistic and more to do with actual U.S. interests
— containing Soviet expansion and influence.
Conversely, in Obama's Libyan adventure, we know for a fact that Islamist forces are involved; we know for a fact what
happens when Islamists assume power — whether the Mullahs in Iran, Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, or the
Taliban in Afghanistan: they become anti-American, terrorist breeding grounds. Finally, as Obama explained it, no U.S.
interests are being served either which way.
Indeed, even Obama's humanitarian argument for Libyan intervention is full of holes: if the opposition overthrows
Qaddafi, it will likely be they, the opposition, who inflict a bloodbath on their countrymen — the usual denouement of
intertribal warfare. In this context, whereas U.S. intervention will have saved the lives of eastern Libyans, it will be seen
as complicit in the killing of western Libyans — and, as usual, used as fodder to incite further anti-Americanism in the
region.
Further, Obama's point that, though many people around the world are being oppressed by their governments, "that
cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right," also raises questions: Of all the current global
conflicts where innocents are being massacred, couldn't the Obama administration at least narrow it down to helping
one of the many groups that does not have al-Qa'ida ties and was not fighting Americans in Iraq?
How about "doing what's right" in Darfur, where countless non-Muslims have been butchered by the Islamist regime
in Khartoum for these many years? How about "doing what's right" regarding the persecuted, indigenous Christians
of the Islamic world? (Whereas one of Obama's reasons for intervening in Libya was that mosques were unintentionally
being destroyed — he has been silent in word and deed regarding the numerous churches intentionally being
destroyed in the Muslim world.)
In sum, as he explained it, not only does Obama's decision to intervene militarily in Libya not serve any tangible
American interests; it may directly serve the interests of the Islamist enemy. More ironic, the humanitarian argument is
full of holes. One is left hoping that, for strategic purposes, Obama is not being fully transparent, but does have
concrete U.S. interests in mind — which, of course, is exactly how practically every Arab interprets U.S. intervention.
Hence, the final irony: While Obama's fine platitudes to justify war may satisfy some Americans, they are far from
achieving their objective: winning over the much coveted Arab "hearts-and-minds," two quantities that — as evinced
from the Arabic media to the Arab street — are thoroughly cynical, and thus reject the notion that nations ever militarily
intervene out of sheer altruism.
---------------------------------------------------
Raymond Ibrahim, Hudson, New York, April 6, 2011
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
North Africa -- The Arab States of Islamic North Africa
Tunisia, Islamic North Africa, & the Arab World
Egypt, Arabs, & the Middle East
The Middle East & the Arabs
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Raymond Ibrahim, a historian of Islam, Islamism and the Middle East, is the Associate Director of the Middle East Forum,
a guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College, and the editor of The Al-Qa'ida Reader, a collection
of tranlations of key texts and documents of the Islamist movement. Ibrahim's translations of the religious texts and
political propaganda comprising this collection help readers comprehend the origins, development, history, and serious
danger of the Islamist war doctrines of Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Founders of Al-Qa'ida and
implacable enemies of the U.S.A. and the West.
The foregoing article by Raymond Ibrahim was originally published and can be found on the Internet website maintained
by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle
East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel,
improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's
energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the
Iranian threat. (URL: http://www.meforum.org/2871/ideals-trump-interests-in-obama-libya-policy)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
April 6, 2011
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XIII, 2011
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity