Category Archives: Libya

The Arab Spring Has Become the European Flood

Posted on by

The Arab Spring was the hopeful term for a new beginning when there were anti-government protests and uprisings in the Middle East. I recall universal media support to the decision to provide air support to the rebels fighting Gaddafi’s forces in Libya until he was captured and summarily executed. The Obama Middle East foreign policy, which included the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and killing Gaddafi, has contributed to in a virtual flood of refugees out of the Middle East to Europe. One reporting site records that there are “…nine civil wars now going on in Islamic countries between Pakistan and Nigeria. This is why there are so many refugees fleeing for their lives. Half of the 23 million population of Syria have been forced from their homes, with four million becoming refugees in other countries…Some 2.6 million Iraqis have been displaced by the Islamic State—Isis…”

From a USA Today article, “A record 522,124 migrants and refugees have arrived in Europe by sea this year, the International Organization for Migration said Tuesday. The number is more than double the previous high set only last year. Of the estimated number of migrants who made the hazardous journey by sea, 388,000 arrived in Greece and 130,891 in Italy. They hail from countries that include Syria, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan and Bangladesh, the IOM said. Last year, 219,000 migrants and refugees escaping war and poverty sailed to Europe.”

Many of the images of the flood of refugees are of women carrying or leading children to a safer place. However, many of the images are of young men who are of “military age.” My question is how many of them are Isis who are taking advantage of the situation to infiltrate receiving countries to create mischief or terrorism?

I would be curious whether President Obama thinks his Middle East policy has been a success. .

The Nuclear Jihadist

Posted on by

Front book cover of Nuclear JihadistI was surprised at how much I struggled at finishing this book by Douglas Franz and Catherine Collins. The long subtitle for the book is “The True Story of the Man Who Sold the World’s Most Dangerous Secrets…And How We Could Have Stopped Him.” The dust cover description could substitute for reading the full book. Pakistani’s Abdul Qadeer Khan is described as the “…father of the Islamic bomb, a research scientist who stole European nuclear plans, masterminded Pakistan’s successful atomic program, and then established a network of smuggling technology and blueprints to other countries seeking nuclear capabilities. Intelligence authorities (including especially the U.S.) watched Khan for decades and could have stopped him before Pakistan became a nuclear power, but amazingly, our political leaders consciously chose to watch, wait, and concentrate on what they believed to be more immediate strategic priorities.” I’m struggling to explain why I did not find the book compelling reading. The subject matter was something that I should have found interesting and the book seems very well researched. Perhaps I was just put off by the ineffectiveness of the world’s anti-nuclear proliferation efforts to stop a corrupt man who developed a massive network of associates driven by the quest for lucrative profits.

“Khan started down the nuclear path as a patriot, stealing secret European nuclear designs out of determination to protect his country from its archrival, India. After playing a central role in developing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, he shifted course and employed his global network to sell those same nuclear secrets to some of the most repressive regimes in the world, transforming himself into a nuclear jihadist devoted to payback for real and imagined grievances suffered by Muslims around the world. In the process, Khan grew arrogant, corrupt, powerful, operating with impunity as he amassed a fortune from his black-market deals.” Khan’s network is described as providing technology for enriching uranium and design information for building a nuclear weapon from the enriched material to Libya, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. There were other possible customers including Saudi Arabia. I didn’t find explanation for how he acquired the weapon design information except that it was referred to at least twice as being from a warhead design used in a 1996 Chinese missile test. The CIA learned of Khan in 1975 when it learned he “…had stolen top-secret plans for the latest uranium enrichment technology and taken them home to Pakistan.” The CIA seemed to be more interested in the countries willing to buy from Khan rather than wanting to take action to stop the spread of nuclear technology he was willing to sell. Continue reading →

Refugee Ethics

Posted on by

A reader and frequent commenter sent me an article by Richard D. Lamm that appeared in the Denver Post. The story is told of Martin of Tours finding a starving beggar during a 13th Century ride and dividing his cloak and dinner with the desperate man. The question is asked “What if instead of one cold and starving beggar, there are 100?” Considering the world situation, what if there are thousands or millions? There is another report that ISIS has slaughtered another several hundred people after taking a city in Iraq, and thousands or hundreds of thousands of people are being displaced. I have difficulty imagining there is anyone remaining in Syria other than the various fighting organizations or a place for an “ordinary citizen” to live. Thousands of people are taking the perilous trip across the Mediterranean to escape the anarchy and terror of Libya (and perhaps wishing Gaddafi could return). Lamm mentions increasing population “…and political unrest in most of the Middle East and Africa guarantee continued massive migration from that volatile area. Is Europe’s only ethical response to take them all in?”

Lamm mentions that “…the U.S. has its own substantial pressure from south of its boarder (sic).” He then poses the ethical dilemma. “A moral response to an individual or manageable group might not make sense if there are hundreds of thousands. Sheer numbers can totally change the ethical implications.” “The maximum generosity of the developed world cannot absorb the staggering numbers fleeing political chaos, war, violence, and lack of economic opportunity.” Later in the article he writes, “No nation can be expected to commit social and cultural suicide. No ethics can demand what the ecosystem or social fabric of a society cannot support.”

I have fretted since the first reports of ISIS slaughters in Iraq that we as a nation should feel ashamed. Regardless of your beliefs about the justification of the second Iraq War, we did overthrow Saddam Hussein and established a fledgling democracy. We then decided we were “war weary” and withdrew our soldiers. The situation that evolved was predictable. There was an opportunity, perhaps a slim opportunity, to assist in establishing a stable and perhaps even prosperous country where people wouldn’t be slaughtered because they practiced the wrong religion. We instead chose to fulfill a political promise. Is there anyone out there who continues to believe withdrawing was the right thing to do? We also helped “decapitate” the dictatorship in Libya and then sat behind our comfortable borders while terrorists took over.

Perhaps we should be asking whether we’ve learned anything. Are we going to repeat what we did to Iraq in Afghanistan?   I understand the Taliban developed a motto after the announcements that we were going to withdraw on a schedule. “You have the watch and we have the time.”

The Benghazi Talking Points

Posted on by

Steve Hayes wrote an excellent article in the Weekly Standard about the editing of reports describing the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed the ambassador and three other Americans. The was obviously done to make the narrative “politically acceptable” to the  administration during a Presidential election campaign. Click on the link if you want to be informed about the story. I expect there will be more information revealed as additional journalists decide they have to put aside their desire to protect President Obama and actually perform as journalists. If you chose to read this postings you will find that I consider the most important question that has not been asked is what did the Commander-In-Chief know and what did he do.   Continue reading →

Drones versus Water Boarding

Posted on by

President Obama has won reelection, so it seems appropriate to revisit the politically sensitive question about the treatment of “terrorist prisoners.” First and foremost, it seems the policy of refusing to use the term “terrorism” resulted in the Obama administration putting out false information about what happened in Libya. I’ve read that there was an official policy issued to the State Department after Mr. Obama’s first election that they were not allowed to use the words “terrorism” or “terrorist.” Perhaps that’s why the term “spontaneous riot” was used in the misleading reports. I speculate the desire to not have a national security scandal just before the election also had something to do with it.

What changes to national security policies will we see now that Mr. Obama is safely re-elected? Perhaps we will now what he had in mind when he was recorded telling the Russians he would “have more flexibility” after the election. I’m also wondering whether the policy of targeting terrorists (perhaps he calls them “rioters”) with drones will be continued. It is reported that he meets with a select group of military, national security, intelligence, and political advisors each Tuesday morning to review a list of enemies called the “kill list.” He is then said to personally decide who is to be killed by a drone. The CIA probably operates the drone, because federal law would require public reporting and congressional approval if the military is involved. Drone strikes have killed people in Pakistan and Yemen. Of course people who have misfortune to be near the targeted person are also killed. Continue reading →

Mideast Turmoil

Posted on by

The media infatuation with the “Arab Spring” reminded me of the high hopes when Fidel Castro overthrew Batista in Cuba. There was a celebratory feel to the reporting about that event. The bloom was quickly taken off  when Che Guevara presided over show trials in a sports stadium and the summary execution of large numbers of people. There weren’t that many executions after the overthrow of dictators in the Middle East, although Moammar Gadhafi may have thought there was at least one important execution.

Democracy is always messier than dictatorships, and the recent protests, riots, and U.S. embassy attacks are a good reminder of that. There were two headlines in the Sunday, September 16, 2012 Denver post pertinent to the current events in that part of the world. One that doesn’t require much more explanation is “No Plan for Syria” by Albert Aji of the Associated Press. “The new international envoy tasked with ending Syria’s civil war summed up his first foray to Damascus on Saturday with a startling and frank admission that he has no plan for stopping the bloodshed that he warned could threaten world peace.”

The second headline was “Don’t give up on Arab Spring” by Shadi Hamid. He points out there is irony that Barrack Obama’s decision to intervene in Libya resulted in the overthrow of Gadhafi’s dictatorship. That set up the conditions for the attack on the U.S. embassy and the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stephens and three other Americans. Frighteningly, Mr. Hamid observes that Libya is “…the most pro-American country in the Arab world.” He also says anti-American sentiment “…will almost certainly increase after the NATO operations fades from memory. In fact…U.S. favorability ratings have been lower under Obama than they were in the final years of President George W. Bush’s administration.” There might be wisdom in observations that demonstration of strength results in respect and conciliation results in contempt.

U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is in a terrible mess, and that probably shouldn’t be a surprise in an area where the control provided by brutal dictatorships has been removed. People have learned that they can gain political power with violence. I find it curious that the policies of the Obama administration are not being questioned by much of the U.S. media.  Reports seem to focus on Romney “getting in the way” with comments suggesting our foreign policy should not be based on apologies.