It would seem as though raising taxes on the wealthy is unpopular in newsprint today, so the lead stories at the New York Times is about terrorists. I suppose.
...Most famously, though, Darnah (click title to entry - thank you) has a claim to being the world’s most productive recruiting ground for suicide bombers. An analysis of 600 suicide bombers in Iraq by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point found that of 440 who listed their hometowns in a recruiting roster, 52 were from Darnah, the most of any city, with Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 40 times as populous, as the next biggest source, sending 51....
It is the kind of thing I have said before about The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; "It has to be left alone."
...The presence of Islamists (click here) like these amid the opposition has raised concerns, among some fellow rebels as well as their Western allies, that the goal of some Libyan fighters in battling Col. Gadhafi is to propagate Islamist extremism....
Certainly, hating Russia in Afghanistan didn't do the USA any good, now did it? When it came to Libya the Russians stated, "It is not our concern." They saw no reason to be involved nor stand in the way at the United Nations Security Council. Russia may very well have squandered its good will in the Middle East, but, that is a folly every burgeoning capitalist has to learn.
The question remains, "Did the government create the extremist, or did the extremist create the government?"
Probably neither, The Gun Economy created the extremist. Rarely does one find an extremist without a gun, even in the USA. There is something about 'the power' of killing at the single pull of a trigger that secures an understanding "I am powerful over life." Sort of like God.
This is the tightrope First World countries run when they attempt to be benevolent. It is a known fact that the CIA uses rebels all the time for their own purposes. That isn't anything new. The slaughter in South America decades ago occurred, 'in the name of freedom.' What the average citizen doesn't know or doesn't care to know about their own country is rather profound. That isn't the topic though. The topic is 'Was Gadaffi actually an ally of the USA and did we move into Libya for the "W"rong reasons?" Basically, did the USA within the alliance of NATO begin another 'hell on Earth' war we will regret in the long view?
What if I said it never really matters.
Americans have this 'delusion' they own the world. Our allies, the Europeans have a very different view of the world. They don't have an ocean 'between' them and the countries with unstable government and social oppression.
In the American understanding of 'security' lies the 'idea' that we can impose 'our will' at 'will' on any country on Earth and when they don't comply we can make them comply. That is a faux arrogance, and when stated as such, it is viewed as extreme in and of itself, so it never is stated.
Countries the USA relies on for energy and products to the economy are primarily not democracies. China is not a democracy and Saudi Arabia is a kingdom. Those are only two examples, yet the USA 'trades' with them. As a matter of fact, Nixon went to China, while "H.W." was ambassador to China. It was viewed as a great diplomatic victory. Today, it is regarded as a plight on the country. The USA turned a 'closed society' into its primary banker. To say the Chinese learned well is an understatement.
But, back to the 'idea' that The Libya No Fly Zone was a mistake. What do you want? Do you want to spread democracy in hopes 'all works out, okay" or do you actually want a transition into a change in governming principles?
Seriously.
The USA armed the rebels in Afghanistan and they turned out to be able to give sanctuary to al Qaeda to nurture the largest terrorist attack in history. The truth is that the Russians were actually ready to leave Afghanistan anyway, but, the resistance prodded them to leave earlier. Honest. The tribes of these nations are tenacious and we are witnessing that example in Miserata, Libya. There is no changing those people. Libya has some of the most wealthy peasants in the world. Seriously, There is no poverty in Libya, it is just to an American point of view there appears to be. Egypt is different. Egypt has profound poverty. So, which is it? Poverty and mistreatment that breeds extremism or it is 'inherent' to the nature of the tribal system of these countries? There are the two extremes right there. Egypt with poverty and Libya without.
The point and this is something no one except academicians study and that is there is a 'logical transition' to changes in 'governing processes,' That is correct. The populous of countries move themselves into positions where democracy can take place. So, does The West assist these processes, in the name of morality, freedom and liberty. That is horseshit. That is an impetus to 'using' the American electorate for purposes of profit.
The reason the USA is involved with Libya is because of UN Resolution 1973. It is a humantarian mission and it is working. There are people alive today from a dictator that is afraid of becoming Murbarak. That is the truth. The UN Resolution worked. It worked well and the goal is now, what exactly? To kill Gadhaffi.
WE ARE NOT ARMING REBELS. We have instituted a "No Fly Zone" for humanitarian purposes. It is working. We are not going to assassinate Gahaffi to turn loose rebels that are of questionable LOYALITY to their ? allies ? If UN Resolution 1973 provides for the bombing of Gadaffi himself and his compound because he is ordering more deaths of citizens, then so be it. We will have stopped the killing by Gadhaffi. Will it result in an AMERICANIZED Libya? Hell, no. But, will it provide a new venue for change in Libya that will reduce the people that want to kill Americans? Maybe?
The test of American policy, oddly enough, is not 'what we can control,' but, what we can influence and how we influence it.
Once the government of Libya is replaced, no different than the 'freedom and peace movement' in Egypt and other nations will resutl in a NEW RELATIONSHP between governments. That means 'the foreign policy' process starts all over again. The people at the leadership to the government in Libya nearly doesn't matter. It is the 'relationship' that develops that matters. It might be hostile, it might not. But, at the very least Libya is now disarmed and poses no real threat to the USA or its allies or its neighbors. Where we go from here will be the test of time, not the people we deal with. The new relationship with the new government cannot be any worse than the relationship with Gadhaffi over the past four decades.
It's a wash. People have to live somewhere and how the international relationships develop is always interesting. But, the American people are highly 'diluted' to believe they can fend off every danger by 'owning' the world. It simply is unrealistic.
One other thing.
Saudi Arabia has one of the most aggressive programs to reduce 'the occurence' of extremism. They have a list of 'candidates' for recruitment and criminality and they 'round them up' annually. It seems to work for them.
...Most famously, though, Darnah (click title to entry - thank you) has a claim to being the world’s most productive recruiting ground for suicide bombers. An analysis of 600 suicide bombers in Iraq by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point found that of 440 who listed their hometowns in a recruiting roster, 52 were from Darnah, the most of any city, with Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 40 times as populous, as the next biggest source, sending 51....
It is the kind of thing I have said before about The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; "It has to be left alone."
...The presence of Islamists (click here) like these amid the opposition has raised concerns, among some fellow rebels as well as their Western allies, that the goal of some Libyan fighters in battling Col. Gadhafi is to propagate Islamist extremism....
Certainly, hating Russia in Afghanistan didn't do the USA any good, now did it? When it came to Libya the Russians stated, "It is not our concern." They saw no reason to be involved nor stand in the way at the United Nations Security Council. Russia may very well have squandered its good will in the Middle East, but, that is a folly every burgeoning capitalist has to learn.
The question remains, "Did the government create the extremist, or did the extremist create the government?"
Probably neither, The Gun Economy created the extremist. Rarely does one find an extremist without a gun, even in the USA. There is something about 'the power' of killing at the single pull of a trigger that secures an understanding "I am powerful over life." Sort of like God.
This is the tightrope First World countries run when they attempt to be benevolent. It is a known fact that the CIA uses rebels all the time for their own purposes. That isn't anything new. The slaughter in South America decades ago occurred, 'in the name of freedom.' What the average citizen doesn't know or doesn't care to know about their own country is rather profound. That isn't the topic though. The topic is 'Was Gadaffi actually an ally of the USA and did we move into Libya for the "W"rong reasons?" Basically, did the USA within the alliance of NATO begin another 'hell on Earth' war we will regret in the long view?
What if I said it never really matters.
Americans have this 'delusion' they own the world. Our allies, the Europeans have a very different view of the world. They don't have an ocean 'between' them and the countries with unstable government and social oppression.
In the American understanding of 'security' lies the 'idea' that we can impose 'our will' at 'will' on any country on Earth and when they don't comply we can make them comply. That is a faux arrogance, and when stated as such, it is viewed as extreme in and of itself, so it never is stated.
Countries the USA relies on for energy and products to the economy are primarily not democracies. China is not a democracy and Saudi Arabia is a kingdom. Those are only two examples, yet the USA 'trades' with them. As a matter of fact, Nixon went to China, while "H.W." was ambassador to China. It was viewed as a great diplomatic victory. Today, it is regarded as a plight on the country. The USA turned a 'closed society' into its primary banker. To say the Chinese learned well is an understatement.
But, back to the 'idea' that The Libya No Fly Zone was a mistake. What do you want? Do you want to spread democracy in hopes 'all works out, okay" or do you actually want a transition into a change in governming principles?
Seriously.
The USA armed the rebels in Afghanistan and they turned out to be able to give sanctuary to al Qaeda to nurture the largest terrorist attack in history. The truth is that the Russians were actually ready to leave Afghanistan anyway, but, the resistance prodded them to leave earlier. Honest. The tribes of these nations are tenacious and we are witnessing that example in Miserata, Libya. There is no changing those people. Libya has some of the most wealthy peasants in the world. Seriously, There is no poverty in Libya, it is just to an American point of view there appears to be. Egypt is different. Egypt has profound poverty. So, which is it? Poverty and mistreatment that breeds extremism or it is 'inherent' to the nature of the tribal system of these countries? There are the two extremes right there. Egypt with poverty and Libya without.
The point and this is something no one except academicians study and that is there is a 'logical transition' to changes in 'governing processes,' That is correct. The populous of countries move themselves into positions where democracy can take place. So, does The West assist these processes, in the name of morality, freedom and liberty. That is horseshit. That is an impetus to 'using' the American electorate for purposes of profit.
The reason the USA is involved with Libya is because of UN Resolution 1973. It is a humantarian mission and it is working. There are people alive today from a dictator that is afraid of becoming Murbarak. That is the truth. The UN Resolution worked. It worked well and the goal is now, what exactly? To kill Gadhaffi.
WE ARE NOT ARMING REBELS. We have instituted a "No Fly Zone" for humanitarian purposes. It is working. We are not going to assassinate Gahaffi to turn loose rebels that are of questionable LOYALITY to their ? allies ? If UN Resolution 1973 provides for the bombing of Gadaffi himself and his compound because he is ordering more deaths of citizens, then so be it. We will have stopped the killing by Gadhaffi. Will it result in an AMERICANIZED Libya? Hell, no. But, will it provide a new venue for change in Libya that will reduce the people that want to kill Americans? Maybe?
The test of American policy, oddly enough, is not 'what we can control,' but, what we can influence and how we influence it.
Once the government of Libya is replaced, no different than the 'freedom and peace movement' in Egypt and other nations will resutl in a NEW RELATIONSHP between governments. That means 'the foreign policy' process starts all over again. The people at the leadership to the government in Libya nearly doesn't matter. It is the 'relationship' that develops that matters. It might be hostile, it might not. But, at the very least Libya is now disarmed and poses no real threat to the USA or its allies or its neighbors. Where we go from here will be the test of time, not the people we deal with. The new relationship with the new government cannot be any worse than the relationship with Gadhaffi over the past four decades.
It's a wash. People have to live somewhere and how the international relationships develop is always interesting. But, the American people are highly 'diluted' to believe they can fend off every danger by 'owning' the world. It simply is unrealistic.
One other thing.
Saudi Arabia has one of the most aggressive programs to reduce 'the occurence' of extremism. They have a list of 'candidates' for recruitment and criminality and they 'round them up' annually. It seems to work for them.
