Your tax dollars at work, my fellow Americans:
Libya's top politicians have hatched a deal that would see the Muslim Brotherhood lead the government after the country's first free elections in almost five decades takes place on Sunday.
While the elections for a 200-member National Congress is unlikely to grant a majority to any one faction, the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist allies are confident they can join their counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt at the helm of leadership.
Negotiations between the Muslim Brotherhood and a secular-based political movement led by former interim prime minister Mahmoud Jibril have focused on forming a post-election government as soon as the result is known.
An adviser to Mr Jibril said the former prime minister was likely to take the post of figurehead president with Mustafa Abu Shagour, currently interim deputy prime minister of the Muslim Brotherhood, taking the prime minister's slot as head of government.
The Muslim Brotherhood would dominate the ministries. {...}
Any coalition government would grant a prominent place to the al-Watan party of Abdulhakim Belhaj, sources said. Mr Belhaj acknowledged that the talks were under way. He said: "I negotiate with anyone who cares about Libya and wants to unite it."
Belhaj was the commander of the former Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which had ties to al-Qaeda.
And of course, sharia rule:
The outgoing National Transitional Council, which has ruled Libya since Gaddafi's fall, announced yesterday that Islamic Sharia law should be the "main" source of legislation and that this principle should not be subject to a referendum.
"The Libyan people are attached to Islam, as a religion and legislation ... As such the National Transitional Council recommends that the (next) congress make Sharia the main source of legislation," Saleh Daroub, NTC spokesman, said.
Worth over a billion dollars of our money, wasn't it?
Here's another thing to think about, and those of you who visit this site regularly know I've been saying this for quite some time.
The Brotherhood ruled areas of Egypt and Gaza are economically dysfunctional, with large, mostly uneducated populations they can't feed and no oil money.
Just imagine a new, hardline Islamist Caliphate merging Libya's oil wealth with the territory and population of Egypt and Gaza, all under one banner. And it might even eventually include Tunisia, the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria now ruled by the Palestinian Authority and Jordan, where King Abdullah is hanging on by a thread.
This is what the Brotherhood's founder, al-Banna dreamt about, and it has been handed to the Islamists on a silver platter. Not only that, but the American taxpayer paid for the platter.
The west is going to pay a large price in the near future for President Obama's enabling of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mark my words.
5 comments:
You forgot to add Syria to the list of countries in the new Caliphate, a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syria is another Obama goal, along with his best-buddy, Erdogan.
Syria is essentially a war between the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and Th Iranian led Shi'ite bloc.
I didn't include it because the jury's still out on which way that will end up. Certainly Obama isn't going to get away with a wholesale mini-war the way he did in Libya, although we are shipping the Muslim Brotherhood some weapons via Turkey and Jordan.
OTOH, the Russians are shipping Assad heavy duty items like attack helicopters.
Good call, but we'll see what develops and who wins out.
Regards,
Rob
Add to this that the silver platter the Brotherhood received is already threatened by the Salafists, and with growing poverty it will increasingly be so, and the picture gets even darker.
The general sentiment that support for the MB is unwarranted and unwise is correct, however, this post is not entirely accurate. The US did not exactly hand this to the Islamists on a silver platter.
American contribtutions to the effort simply are not and were not that significant. If they were, perhaps they might owe us something and we might be able to get some cooperation from the MB.
While American assistance appears to have played a role, specifically it likely helped the MB rise to power faster than they would have otherwise, the MB would have risen to power even if the Americans had done nothing to assist. In fact, even if America opposed the MB with all its conventional might, it is very unlikely America could have prevented it.
When faced with such a situation, the best approach for America likely would have been to stay out of this entirely and deal with whomever emerges in as constructive a way as possible. Essentially try and keep interaction to a minimum.
Of course such an approach can lead to additional problems. Say America refueses to be blackmailed and cooerced, the MB and their allies may respond with massive terrorist attacks against the American mainland resulting in the deaths of millions of our citizens. Not an easy situation. As a Syrian Christian leader dscirbed their situation, "we are between two fires." This also describes Aemrica's situation quite well in this situation.
If we had withdrawn our military assets from the ME and redeployed them to areas that make more strategic sense for us, if we had spent money and resoures to develop a manufacturing base, if we had developed more of our own oil and gas reserves, and placed a moratorium on immigratin from the ME long ago among other thngs, we might be in a better postion Now.
Alas, we didn't. Now here we are. Our only hope is to redeploy these forces now and pray and hope for the best. Otherwise we can continue being blackmailed. Of course Mr. Obama is likely to ideologically blind to even realize how dire America's situation really is. There is a saying about manipulation. "Manipulate him against his will and make him like it."
Just what kind of "price" here is the US going to pay do you think, in the near future? For what its worth, I think you are right.
Some prices I think we might pay are as follows. 1.)increased terrorist attacks against American interests perhaps even on the American mainland. Millions of our people could die. 2.)Foreign aid to the ME and many other countries is essentially a form of extortion against America. MB dominated nations may increase the the amount of extortion required to be paid. This could be particularly devestating to America right now, as America is broke and cannot afford to pay any more. Failure to pay the ransom/extortion may result in attacks on America. See price number 1. I can think of other prices we might pay. I'm curious as to what price you had in mind that we might pay?
Recently Mrs. Clinton said that the Russians and Chinese would "pay a pay price" for their support of the Syrian government. Actually it is we who would be the ones to "pay a price" for our opposition to the Russians and Chinese. One does not brow beat the two most powerful countires on earth and expect to get away with it.
While it is true that they brow beat us all the time, they are the most powerful nations on earth. We need to be looking at ways to constructively resolve the conflicts between us and them with the understanding that these are the most powerful countries on earth and will be for quite some time!! As such, I'm more worried about the "price" we would pay for such behavior.
What would have possessed Mrs. Clinton to make such a statement. I'd suggest one of the following possibilties. 1.)The Obama Administration and by extension the American government feel they have enough support from the international community that they think they can overcome the military and economic edges held by Russia and China over America. 2.)Mr. Obama and important members of his team are strong believers in the Muslim caliphate so much so that they are willing to sacrifice America to achieve it. Maybe they think allah will fight on their behalf. 3.)The US government believes in this democracy thingy so much that this has blinded them to reality. 4.)The entire Obama adminstration has gone stark raving mad. Regardless the true reason, not good!!
Post a Comment