More Than 12 Million Facing Starvation in Somalia

This just makes me sad. Forget politics and political science theory. I wish we could do something.

At Los Angeles Times, "Somalia famine spreads to 3 new regions, U.N. says":
Reporting from Johannesburg, South Africa

advertisement

With hunger in the Horn of Africa dramatically worsening, the United Nations on Wednesday added three more regions of Somalia to the list of areas it says are stricken by famine.

More than 12 million people are facing starvation, with children particularly vulnerable. The U.N. last month declared that two regions of Somalia were suffering from famine, and it said Wednesday that the famine was likely to spread across most of Somalia in coming months, as well as parts of Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia.

Somalia is struggling with its worst drought in 60 years, and 3.7 million Somalis are in crisis, mainly in the south — creating Africa's most serious hunger crisis in two decades. Refugee camps in the capital, Mogadishu, are now affected as well, U.N. agencies said.

Shocking images of those suffering have resulted in an increase in aid in the last two weeks, after donors' earlier sluggish response, but violence in the south of the country has limited humanitarian agencies' access.

The U.N. is seeking to raise $1 billion to address the crisis.
I'm researching relief agencies, by the way. I'll make a contribution, but so much gets wasted on overhead and corruption I'm wary. More on that later.

Post Title

→

More Than 12 Million Facing Starvation in Somalia

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-than-12-million-facing-starvation.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

East Africa Famine

Go straight away to this photo essay at The Atlantic, "Famine in East Africa."
And at Christian Science Monitor, "International groups accelerate effort to relieve East Africa's famine."

"Pro-Al Qaeda Islamists" are preventing food aid from reaching the starving. Naturally.

Post Title

→

East Africa Famine

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/07/east-africa-famine.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

South Sudan Gains Statehood

When I first saw the news yesterday morning, with images of jubilation among the population, I thought, hmm, how's this going to work out? Sudan is one of the world's most crisis-ridden states, as measured by Foreign Policy Magazine "Failed States Index, 2011."

And see Los Angeles Times, "South Sudan, world's newest nation, is instantly one of the most troubled":
The countdown clock ran out, the flag ascended over the fledgling capital and a new nation born from Africa's longest civil war and the deaths of 2 million people joined the world.

The mood was euphoric Saturday in Juba as the Republic of South Sudan formally declared its independence from the north, its bitter antagonist for generations. For the day, at least, a people weary of conflict were willing to ignore that their nation came into being as one the world's most troubled states.

Dozens of heads of state gathered outside the mausoleum of southern war hero John Garang at a massive ceremony featuring marching soldiers. Thousands of ordinary Sudanese crammed into the parade grounds, singing and cheering.

The man sworn in as South Sudan's first president, Salva Kiir, stood alongside his old nemesis, northern President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes in the western region of Darfur. Bashir's presence was a powerful sign that he has acceded to the partition, however grudgingly.

It is not exactly true to say the country is starting from scratch, because it has been building the rudiments of a functioning government since the 2005 peace deal that made independence possible. But nationhood comes fraught with outsized problems.
More at the link. And see also, New York Times, "After Years of Struggle, South Sudan Becomes a New Nation" (via Memeorandum).

RELATED: From James Traub, at Foreign Policy, "Bashir's Choice."

Post Title

→

South Sudan Gains Statehood

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/07/south-sudan-gains-statehood.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Obama Administration Seeks Warm Relations with Islamists

The Wall Street Journal reports, "U.S. Reaches Out to Islamist Parties":

The Obama administration is reaching out to Islamist movements whose political power is on the rise in the wake of Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.

The tentative outreach effort to key religious political groups—the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Ennahdha in Tunisia—reflects the administration's realization that the spread of democracy in the region requires it to deal more directly with Islamist movements the U.S. had long kept at arm's length.

Speaking to reporters during a visit Thursday to Budapest, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Obama administration is now seeking "limited contacts" with Muslim Brotherhood members ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections slated for later this year.

"It is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful and committed to nonviolence," Mrs. Clinton said. "We welcome, therefore, dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us."
Seems to me some folks were rejecting the Muslim Brotherhood as a governing party in Egypt just a few months ago. I'll check for a link. Meanwhile, here's this from Frank Gaffney, "The Tipping Point: Embracing the Muslim Brotherhood":
The Obama administration chose the eve of the holiday marking our Nation's birth to acknowledge publicly behavior in which it has long been stealthily engaged to the United States' extreme detriment: Its officials now admit that they are embracing the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan in Arabic). That would be the same international Islamist organization that has the destruction of the United States, Israel and all other parts of the Free World as its explicit objective.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to downplay the momentousness of this major policy shift by portraying it during a stopover in Budapest as follows:

"The Obama administration is continuing the approach of limited contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood that have existed on and off for about five or six years." In fact, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out in a characteristically brilliant, and scathing, dissection of this announcement, Team Obama's official, open legitimation of the Brotherhood marks a dramatic break from the U.S. government's historical refusal to deal formally with the Ikhwan.
Read it all at the link above. And see also, Andrew McCarthy, "The Obama Administration Opens Formal Contacts With the Muslim Brotherhood." And Big Peace, "No Evidence Muslim Brotherhood Is Committed To Democracy."

Post Title

→

Obama Administration Seeks Warm Relations with Islamists

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-administration-seeks-warm.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Presidential War Powers

Harry Reid's a blithering idiot. I have no idea how he was ever elected to public office. It's not so much his position on the War Powers Resolution, but that it's at odds with his claim that the public wants the troops home from Afghanistan. Frankly, Americans are weary of overseas commitments altogether, but at least the Afghan deployment enjoyed broad bipartisan support to begin with, back in the day. With Libya, the administration took the easiest route to do something --- anything --- in North Africa and the Middle East amid the wave of revolutions taking place in the "Arab Spring." And there's been little public consensus on major U.S. role in Libya.

This guy sucks:
Unfortunately, a Ron Paul wing in the GOP is joining with the Dennis Kucinich Demo-nuts to push for action on the Resolution. A lot of folks in the right blogosphere have made something out of this as well, and it goes to the lack of vital national interests at stake, and that's understandable. That said, John Yoo's got a new piece up on the Commander-in-Chief's authority on the use of force, "The GOP Plays Politics With the War Powers Resolution," and Yoo's the man:
Congressional Republicans should not try to outdo Mr. Obama in a game of unprincipled one-upmanship. But that's precisely what key GOP leaders have done. Earlier this week, House Speaker John Boehner sent a letter to the White House accusing Mr. Obama of violating the War Powers Resolution. "The Constitution requires the president to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'" he wrote, quoting the president's responsibilities under Article II of the Constitution. "And one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation."

Mr. Boehner's claim ignores the Constitution's fundamental nature as supreme law. As Chief Justice John Marshall declared in the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Constitution is "a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means," and any act of Congress "contrary to the constitution is not law." If the Constitution gives the president the executive authority to use force abroad, Congress cannot take it away. Surely Mr. Boehner agreed with this proposition before the current president took office. He, for instance, never claimed that President George W. Bush's exercise of broad executive powers in the war on terror violated the Constitution. Nor does he appear to have thought that legislative authorization of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was constitutionally necessary in 2001 and 2002.

Not to be outdone, House Republicans Roscoe Bartlett, Dan Burton, Howard Coble, John Duncan, Tim Johnson, Walter Jones and Ron Paul joined with Dennis Kucinich and other Democrats this week and filed suit in a D.C. federal court seeking to halt U.S. military operations in Libya. They may see themselves as purists, but they are not demonstrating fidelity to the Constitution by launching a legal effort that they know to be utterly futile ....
RTWT.
Added: See Allahpundit's write up on the New York Times' story, "NYT: Obama overruled top Pentagon, DOJ lawyers on Libya war powers" (via Memeorandum). And check JustOneMinute, "Obama Goes Shopping For Legal Advice." It's the hypocrisy that's stunning.

Post Title

→

Presidential War Powers

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/06/presidential-war-powers.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Key Al Qaeda Operative in 1988 Embassy Bombings, Killed in Somalia

At Atlanta Journal Constitution:
NAIROBI, Kenya — The al-Qaida mastermind behind the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania was killed this week at a security checkpoint in Mogadishu by Somali forces who didn't immediately realize he was the most wanted man in East Africa, officials said Saturday.

The death of Fazul Abdullah Mohammed — a man who topped the FBI's most wanted list for nearly 13 years — is the third major strike in six weeks against the worldwide terror group that was headed by Osama bin Laden until his death last month.

Mohammed had a $5 million bounty on his head for allegedly planning the Aug. 7, 1998, embassy bombings. The blasts killed 224 people in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Most of the dead were Kenyans. Twelve Americans also died.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — who was on a visit to Tanzania on Saturday as Somali officials confirmed Mohammed's death — called the killing a "significant blow to al-Qaida, its extremist allies, and its operations in East Africa.

"It is a just end for a terrorist who brought so much death and pain to so many innocents in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and elsewhere — Tanzanians, Kenyans, Somalis, and our own embassy personnel," Clinton said.
More at that link above, although I think the same lessons apply now that applied after the Abbottabad raid: Targeted killings don't kill the Al Qaeda organization. Depending on whom you talk to, global jihad constitutes an amorphous, multi-faceted terror network, with many alliances of convenience and substantial ties to state actors, such as Pakistan. There's lots of work to do in that sense. See, for example, Jayshree Bajoria, "Pakistan's New Generation of Terrorists."

Post Title

→

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, Key Al Qaeda Operative in 1988 Embassy Bombings, Killed in Somalia

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/06/fazul-abdullah-mohammed-key-al-qaeda.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Cynthia McKinney Statement on Libya: 'NATO – A Feast of Blood'

Longtime readers will recall that McKinney spoke at LBCC a few years back. I've been on her list-serve ever since. Normally I delete these, but she's been getting sensational coverage of late, so her latest communique is worth sharing (below).

See also Michelle, "Cynthia McKinney: Islamofascist Tool," and Gary Fouse, "Cynthia McKinney Speaks Out for Ghaddafi":
NATO – A Feast of Blood

While serving on the House International Relations Committee from 1993 to 2003, it became clear to me that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was an anachronism. Founded in 1945 at the end of World War II, NATO was founded by the United States in response to the Soviet Union's survival as a Communist state. NATO was the U.S. insurance policy that capitalist ownership and domination of European, Asian, and African economies would continue. This also would ensure the survival of the then-extant global apartheid.

NATO is a collective security pact wherein member states pledge that an attack upon one is an attack against all. Therefore, should the Soviet Union have attacked any European Member State, the United States military shield would be activated. The Soviet Response was the Warsaw Pact that maintained a "cordon sanitaire" around the Russian Heartland should NATO ever attack. Thus, the world was broken into blocs which gave rise to the "Cold War."

Avowed "Cold Warriors" of today still view the world in these terms and, unfortunately, cannot move past Communist China and an amputated Soviet Empire as enemy states of the U.S. whose moves any where on the planet are to be contested. The collapse of the Soviet Union provided an accelerated opportunity to exert U.S. hegemony in an area of previous Russian influence. Africa and the Eurasian landmass containing former Soviet satellite states and Afghanistan and Pakistan along with the many other "stans" of the region, have always factored prominently in the theories of "containment" or "rollback" guiding U.S. policy up to today.

With that as background, last night's NATO rocket attack on Tripoli is inexplicable. A civilian metropolitan area of around 2 million people, Tripoli sustained 22 to 25 bombings last night, rattling and breaking windows and glass and shaking the foundation of my hotel.

I left my room at the Rexis Al Nasr Hotel and walked outside the hotel and I could smell the exploded bombs. There were local people everywhere milling with foreign journalists from around the world. As we stood there more bombs struck around the city. The sky flashed red with explosions and more rockets from NATO jets cut through low cloud before exploding.

I could taste the thick dust stirred up by the exploded bombs. I immediately thought about the depleted uranium munitions reportedly being used here--along with white phosphorus. If depleted uranium weapons were being used what affect on the local civilians?

Women carrying young children ran out of the hotel. Others ran to wash the dust from their eyes. With sirens blaring, emergency vehicles made their way to the scene of the attack. Car alarms, set off by the repeated blasts, could be heard underneath the defiant chants of the people.

Sporadic gunfire broke out and it seemed everywhere around me. Euronews showed video of nurses and doctors chanting even at the hospitals as they treated those injured from NATO's latest installation of shock and awe. Suddenly, the streets around my hotel became full of chanting people, car horns blowing, I could not tell how many were walking, how many were driving. Inside the hotel, one Libyan woman carrying a baby came to me and asked me why are they doing this to us?

Whatever the military objectives of the attack (and I and many others question the military value of these attacks) the fact remains the air attack was launched a major city packed with hundreds of thousands of civilians.

I did wonder too if the any of the politicians who had authorized this air attack had themselves ever been on the receiving end of laser guided depleted uranium munitions. Had they ever seen the awful damage that these weapons do a city and its population? Perhaps if they actually been in the city of air attack and felt the concussion from these bombs and saw the mayhem caused they just might not be so inclined to authorize an attack on a civilian population.

I am confident that NATO would not have been so reckless with human life if they had called on to attack a major western city. Indeed, I am confident that would not be called upon ever to attack a western city. NATO only attacks (as does the US and its allies) the poor and underprivileged of the 3rd world.

Only the day before, at a women's event in Tripoli, one woman came up to me with tears in her eyes: her mother is in Benghazi and she can't get back to see if her mother is OK or not. People from the east and west of the country lived with each other, loved each other, intermarried, and now, because of NATO's "humanitarian intervention," artificial divisions are becoming hardened. NATO's recruitment of allies in eastern Libya smacks of the same strain of cold warriorism that sought to assassinate Fidel Castro and overthrow the Cuban Revolution with "homegrown" Cubans willing to commit acts of terror against their former home country. More recently, Democratic Republic of Congo has been amputated de facto after Laurent Kabila refused a request from the Clinton Administration to formally shave off the eastern part of his country. Laurent Kabila personally recounted the meeting at which this request and refusal were delivered. This plan to balkanize and amputate an African country (as has been done in Sudan) did not work because Kabila said "no" while Congolese around the world organized to protect the "territorial integrity" of their country.

I was horrified to learn that NATO allies (the Rebels) in Libya have reportedly lynched, butchered and then their darker-skinned compatriots after U.S. press reports labeled Black Libyans as "Black mercenaries." Now, tell me this, pray tell. How are you going to take Blacks out of Africa? Press reports have suggested that Americans were "surprised" to see dark-skinned people in Africa. Now, what does that tell us about them?

The sad fact, however, is that it is the Libyans themselves, who have been insulted, terrorized, lynched, and murdered as a result of the press reports that hyper-sensationalized this base ignorance. Who will be held accountable for the lives lost in the bloodletting frenzy unleashed as a result of these lies?

Which brings me back to the lady's question: why is this happening? Honestly, I could not give her the educated reasoned response that she was looking for. In my view the international public is struggling to answer "Why?".

What we do know, and what is quite clear, is this: what I experienced last night is no "humanitarian intervention."

Many suspect it is about all the oil under Libya. Call me skeptical but I have to wonder why the combined armed sea, land and air forces of NATO and the US costing billions of dollars are being arraigned against a relatively small North African country and we're expected to believe its in the defense of democracy.

What I have seen in long lines to get fuel is not "humanitarian intervention." Refusal to allow purchases of medicine for the hospitals is not "humanitarian intervention." What is most sad is that I cannot give a cogent explanation of why to people now terrified by NATO's bombs, but it is transparently clear now that NATO has exceeded its mandate, lied about its intentions, is guilty of extra-judicial killings--all in the name of "humanitarian intervention." Where is the Congress as the President exceeds his war-making authority? Where is the "Conscience of the Congress?"

For those of who disagree with Dick Cheney's warning to us to prepare for war for the next generation, please support any one who will stop this madness. Please organize and then vote for peace. People around the world need us to stand up and speak out for ourselves and them because Iran and Venezuela are also in the cross-hairs. Libyans don't need NATO helicopter gunships, smart bombs, cruise missiles, and depleted uranium to settle their differences. NATO's "humanitarian intervention" needs to be exposed for what it is with the bright, shining light of the truth.

As dusk descends on Tripoli, let me prepare myself with the local civilian population for some more NATO humanitarianism.

Stop bombing Africa and the poor of the world!
RELATED: At New York Times, "NATO Bombs Tripoli in Heaviest Strikes Yet." And at National Journal, "Heavy NATO Action in Libya, While Rebels Invited to Open D.C. Office."

Post Title

→

Cynthia McKinney Statement on Libya: 'NATO – A Feast of Blood'

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/05/cynthia-mckinney-statement-on-libya.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Lieberman and McCain: Regime Change Should Be Goal in Libya

From my favorite senators, at WSJ, "In Libya, Regime Change Should Be the Goal." After laying out praise for President Obama's stirring words of support for Libya, and also identifying the military and communications requirements needed beyond airstrikes and humanitarian assistance, the senators indicate:


Some critics still argue that we should be cautious about helping the Libyan opposition, warning that we do not know enough about them or that their victory could pave the way for an al Qaeda takeover. Both arguments are hollow. By all accounts, the Transitional National Council is led by moderates who have declared their vision for (as their website puts it) Libya becoming "a constitutional democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its citizens."


If there is any hope for a decent government to emerge from the ashes of the Gadhafi dictatorship, this is it. Throwing our weight behind the transitional government is our best chance to prevent Libya's unraveling into postwar anarchy—precisely the circumstance under which Islamist extremists are most likely to gain a foothold.


We cannot guarantee the success of the Libyan revolution, but we have prevented what was, barely a week ago, its imminent destruction. That is why the president was right to intervene. He now deserves our support as we and our coalition partners do all that is necessary to help the Libyan people secure a future of freedom.

I love the robust moral vision, but after nearly two months of studying change in the Middle East, I'm much more skeptical of the prospects for Western-style democratization. Of course, the U.S. is fully deployed at this point, and despite announcements of a handoff to NATO, the U.S. will continue to play first among equals in this war, and despite Secretary Defense Robert Gates' assertions to the contrary, it's increasingly plausible the U.S. ground contingents could be sent in. Shoot, the CIA could be preparing covert operations as this post goes live. Lots of scenarios are unknown except to those in the highest ranks of power. And I'm not convinced that Lieberman and McCain represent the bulk of thinking on the conservative right. Ann Coulter penned an excellent critique of the administration earlier, and Victor Davis Hanson warns against the deployment at Pajamas Media, "Libya: The Genesis of a Bad Idea." (Hanson does indicate that by now we'd better get Gaddafi or look out for some major blowback.) And at Flopping Aces, "Arming Libyan rebels? The Deaf, Dumb and Blind errors of western leaders."

And to round it out, see Ron Radosh, who's not quite so skeptical, "Our Libyan War: What Position Should Skeptical Conservatives Take?"

More later ...

Post Title

→

Lieberman and McCain: Regime Change Should Be Goal in Libya

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/04/lieberman-and-mccain-regime-change.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Rules Out Ground Forces for Libya

At LAT:
In his strongest statement yet on Libya, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterates that the U.S. would not send ground troops. The administration is still considering whether to provide arms to the rebels, but what opposition forces need most is training, he says.
And at Hot Air, "Gates kinda sorta threatens to resign if Obama sends ground troops into Libya." RELATED: At NYT, "Gates Says Other Nations Should Arm Libyan Rebels" (via Memeorandum).

Post Title

→

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Rules Out Ground Forces for Libya

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/03/defense-secretary-robert-gates-rules.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Obama Authorizes Covert Support for Libya Rebels: Progressives All Messed Up

The Libya campaign is really sorting out a lot of partisan recrimination dating back to the early Bush administration. CNS reports on Barack Obama's 2002 campaign ad that claimed:



"I don't oppose all wars. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

Now the president's saying that it's our responsibility as world leader to "protect fellow human beings" facing extermination at the hands of their own governments.



Oops.



And to top it off, lefties are a little discombobulated that Obambi's authorized covert action in Libya. Seriously. Emptywheel wants "The One" placed before a war crimes tribunal, and Excitable Andrew Sullivan just can't accept the truth:



I simply cannot believe it. I know the president is not against all wars - just dumb ones. But could any war be dumber than this - in a place with no potential for civil society, wrecked by totalitarianism, riven by tribalism, in defense of rebels we do not know and who are clearly insufficient to the task?

Contrast that to Ann Coulter, who's hardly dumbstruck at the president's perfidy, "Obama Cried, Kids Died":



... Democrats couldn't care less about the interests of their own country. Indeed, if there were the slightest possibility that our intervention in Libya would somehow benefit the United States, they would hysterically oppose it.



When it came to the Iraq War -- which actually served America's security interests -- Democrats demanded proof that Saddam Hussein was 10 minutes away from launching a first strike against the U.S. They denounced the Iraq War nonstop, wailing that Saddam hadn't hit us on 9/11 and that he posed no "imminent threat" to America.



What imminent threat does Libya pose to the U.S.? How will our interests be served by putting the rebels in charge?



Obama didn't even suggest the possibility that our Libyan intervention serves the nation's interest. Last weekend, his defense secretary, Robert Gates, said the uprising in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest." So, not a vital interest, but an interest. Like scrapbooking, surfing or Justin Bieber.

Post Title

→

Obama Authorizes Covert Support for Libya Rebels: Progressives All Messed Up

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/03/obama-authorizes-covert-support-for.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Obama Authorizes Covert Operations in Libya!

I confess this is a wow! kinda moment. Obambi basically declared victory in his address to the nation on Tuesday, and now he's going all Nixon-Kissinger on us with some CIA action.

At Los Angeles Times, "CIA officers in Libya are aiding rebels, U.S. officials say." And also ABC News, "President Obama Authorizes Covert Help for Libyan Rebels: Head of House Intel Committee Says Arming Unknown Rebels May Be a Mistake" (via Memeorandum). This part's the best:

Earlier this week, Obama declined in an interview with ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer to rule out arming the Libyan insurgents. When asked by Sawyer whether he would consider sending weapons to the rebels, Obama said, "We are examining all options to support the opposition."

White House spokesman Jay Carney repeated echoed Obama today saying the president is "not ruling something in or ruling something out in terms of lethal assistance to the opposition... We're coordinating with the opposition and exploring ways that we can assist them with nonlethal assistance. And we'll look at other possibilities of assistance as we move forward.

Rep. Mike Rogers, head of the House Intelligence Committee, warned the Obama administration against sending arms to the Libyan insurgents.

"It's safe to say what the rebels stand against," Rogers, R-Mich. said. "But we are a long way from an understanding of what they stand for. We don't have to look very far back in history to find examples of the unintended consequences of passing out advanced weapons to a group of fighters we didn't know as well as we should have."

"We need to be very careful before rushing into a decision that could come back to haunt us," Rogers said.
As always, the fear is that Islamists may end up in power, and thus the U.S. will have backed a (new) regime opposed to American interests and those of our allies, especially Israel. Not only that, the administration's been all over the map, with confused and contradictory statements, and of course a Jello policy on regime change or not. More on that from Melanie Phillips, "Humpty in Toytown and the Arab Boomerang."

Post Title

→

Obama Authorizes Covert Operations in Libya!

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/03/obama-authorizes-covert-operations-in.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Obama's War That Isn't

From ReasonTV (via Theo Spark):
Nick Gillespie is so intellectually attractive, with his careful and deliberate speaking, and his arguments indicating the hypocrisy of it all. But libertarians always short change moral values, so I rarely go all in for them. Not only that, libertarians have strange bedfellows in the America-hating antiwar left, for example, in Freddie deBoer, "An Open Letter to Juan Cole on Libya." I despise the pro-war left as well, but it'd be a shame not to share Freddie's juvenile whining.

Post Title

→

Obama's War That Isn't

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/03/obama-war-that-isn.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Obama's Speech on Libya: 'Wherever People Want to Be Free — You Will Find a Friend in the United States'

After all the fancy words and lofty rhetoric --- and this was one hella lofty speech --- the key question remains unanswered: What if Gaddafi hangs on?

The president said NATO and our European allies would maintain a no-fly zone and continue to monitor threats to the security of the Libyan people. But the mission won't be successful as long as Gaddafi remains in power, free to launch brutal reprisals against the opposition when Western willpower falters. But check The Economist, with one of the best commentaries ever, "The Challenge of Libya: Where Will It End?":


Colonel Qaddafi is the Arab world’s most violent despot. In one day in 1996 his men killed 1,270 prisoners in a Tripoli jail. He has backed terrorism and assassinated dissidents. Western leaders were right to have given him a chance to turn a new leaf after 2003, when he renounced his nuclear programme. But when peaceful protesters marched for change a few weeks ago he shot them—seemingly with relish. Whatever the course of the coming weeks and months, do not forget that the colonel and his sons had vowed to slaughter the people of Tobruk and Benghazi, house by house. In the narrowest of senses, a mission that many said was pointless and too late has already chalked up one success.

Moreover, what happens in Libya, for good or ill, will affect its more hopeful neighbours, Egypt and Tunisia. Farther afield, even Syria is beginning to stir and its government may be tempted to be as ruthless as Libya’s ... If violence prevails in Libya, the momentum for peaceful change across the Middle East may drain away, as both autocrats and protesters elsewhere in the Arab world conclude that violence is after all an essential tool for getting their way.

I'll give it up for Obama on his forceful affirmation of our values. But I'm more critical than William Kristol, who's going all out with effusive praise: "You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby." But there's a split in the neoconservative camp. Jennifer Rubin likes the rhetoric but calls out Obama for weaseling on the exercise of U.S. hard power, "Obama’s Libya speech":


Obama can’t bring himself to embrace the view of those conservatives, you know the ones who pushed to liberate Iraq. (“Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”) Moreover, he won’t, he told us in no uncertain terms — despite all the interests he outlined — use our military to remove Moammar Gaddafi. And this is where he became, frankly, incoherent. WHY aren’t we using our military? Ah, the price of multilateralism.

Post Title

→

Obama's Speech on Libya: 'Wherever People Want to Be Free — You Will Find a Friend in the United States'

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/03/obama-speech-on-libya-people-want-to-be.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Neocons vs. the Anti-Jihad Movement

Editor David Swindle has a nifty post at NewsReal Blog, "David Horowitz on Nation-Building: “I agree with Haley Barbour”." It's a summary of David Horowitz's recent comments on U.S. foreign military intervention. I laid out my position this morning at "Libya's Rebels?" I think things are a little more complicated than Horowitz has laid out, although David Swindle's contrast of the paradigms is excellent --- a conservative divide over regime change and humanitarian intervention:


The divide can be summarized in both movements’ reactions to one fact: 84% of Egyptians believe apostates from Islam need to be executed. The traditional neo-conservative establishment ignored that fact in their embrace of the revolts in Egypt. (Apparently traditional neoconservatives are so eager to remove one tyrant that they don’t care if a worse one steps in to fill the void.) The Anti-Jihad movement was more clear-eyed in realizing that “democracy” in such a country would be many things but “freedom” is not one of them.

Post Title

→

Neocons vs. the Anti-Jihad Movement

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/03/neocons-vs-anti-jihad-movement.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

Libya's Rebels?

John Lee Anderson reports from Benghazi, "Who Are the Rebels?":
Three of the world’s great armies have suddenly conspired to support a group of people in the coastal cities and towns of Libya, known, vaguely, as “the rebels.” Last month, Muammar Qaddafi, who combines a phantasmagorical sense of reality with an unbounded capacity for terror, appeared on television to say that the rebels were nothing more than Al Qaeda extremists, addled by hallucinogens slipped into their milk and Nescafé. President Obama, who is torn between the imperatives of rescuing Libyan innocents from slaughter and not falling into yet another prolonged war, described the same rebels rather differently: “people who are seeking a better way of life.”

During weeks of reporting in Benghazi and along the chaotic, shifting front line, I’ve spent a great deal of time with these volunteers. The hard core of the fighters has been the shabab—the young people whose protests in mid-February sparked the uprising. They range from street toughs to university students (many in computer science, engineering, or medicine), and have been joined by unemployed hipsters and middle-aged mechanics, merchants, and storekeepers. There is a contingent of workers for foreign companies: oil and maritime engineers, construction supervisors, translators. There are former soldiers, their gunstocks painted red, green, and black—the suddenly ubiquitous colors of the pre-Qaddafi Libyan flag.

And there are a few bearded religious men, more disciplined than the others, who appear intent on fighting at the dangerous tip of the advancing lines. It seems unlikely, however, that they represent Al Qaeda. I saw prayers being held on the front line at Ras Lanuf, but most of the fighters did not attend. One zealous-looking fighter at Brega acknowledged that he was a jihadi—a veteran of the Iraq war—but said that he welcomed U.S. involvement in Libya, because Qaddafi was a kafir, an unbeliever...
Be sure to read the whole thing, although it's worth appending the conclusion here:

In Benghazi, an influential businessman named Sami Bubtaina expressed a common sentiment: “We want democracy. We want good schools, we want a free media, an end to corruption, a private sector that can help build this nation, and a parliament to get rid of whoever, whenever, we want.” These are honorable aims. But to expect that they will be achieved easily is to deny the cost of decades of insanity, terror, and the deliberate eradication of civil society.
Hmm.

Reading this, it's clearly an extremely fluid situation in Libya, and intense caution is warranted. Thus, I woudn't quibble much with David Horowitz's latest commentary, "Ominous Signals on Libya: A Response to Andrew Sullivan." No doubt the administration's been caught off guard. Not only have goals been left vague, but should ground troops be deployed, President Obama will have purposely deceived the nation. Most of all, folks like Horowitz worry that extremists will come to power, and an Islamist front could eventually span the region from Tripoli to the West Bank. Andrew Sullivan doesn't care. He's got an epic Obama man-crush going and wants Obama to out-cowboy G.W. Bush on military intervention. But there are differences. Rick Moran builds on Horowitz's analysis, putting things into progressive perspective: "Libya and the Soros Doctrine." And the morally bankrupt Juan Cole does yeoman's work in sitiuating Libya as the center of ideological battle against "evil" conservatives in the Horowitzian mold, whether neoconservative or not: "An Open Letter to the Left on Libya." Add on top of these the freak paleocons at American Conservative and Conservative Times and folks can get an idea of how complicated the politics of foreign policy are at present. As always, my standard remains the expansion of freedom around the world. I may differ from Horowitz and Rick Moran on the immediate tactical agenda, but my friends on the right join me in battle against the progressives, who support the rebels now, and would continue to support Libya should it become, after a change of regimes, a North African front against the U.S. and Israel.

Post Title

→

Libya's Rebels?

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/03/libya-rebels.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection

What is Obama's Mission in Libya?

Ross Douthat comments on President Obama's address to the nation on the Libya intervention, "A War By Any Name":
Tonight, in a speech that probably should have been delivered before American planes began flying missions over North Africa, Barack Obama will try to explain to a puzzled nation why we are at war with Libya.

Not that the word “war” will pass his lips, most likely. In press briefings last week, our Libyan campaign was euphemized into a “kinetic military action” and a “time-limited, scope-limited military action.” (The online parodies were merciless: “Make love, not time-limited, scope-limited military actions!” “Let slip the muzzled canine unit of kinetic military action!”) Advertising tonight’s address, the White House opted for “the situation in Libya,” which sounds less like a military intervention than a spin-off vehicle for the famous musclehead from MTV’s “Jersey Shore.”

But by any name or euphemism, the United States has gone to war, and there are questions that the president must answer. Here are the four biggest ones: What are our military objectives? ...
Keep reading for the rest of it. Interesting though is how divided the administration remains on Libya. Robert Gates saying the mission's not in the vital interests of the United States? Well, check with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I guess, since she's saying Libya's a greater interest to the U.S. than is Syria, or something? Well, what the heck? At least neocon-bashing Juan Cole knows what's going on: "An Open Letter to the Left on Libya." (At Memeorandum.)

Post Title

→

What is Obama's Mission in Libya?

Post URL

→

https://kimberlyinkeldavis.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-is-obama-mission-in-libya.html

Visit Kimberly Fashion for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection