AQ and Libya: one viewpoint
The UK-based think tank, the Quilliam Foundation, which has an ex-LIFG senior member as a staff member, have published a paper 'The jihadist threat in Libya':
Quote:
Noman Benotman, a senior analyst at Quilliam and a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, said:
‘Gaddafi has tried very hard to give the impression that the Libyan opposition is controlled by al-Qaeda. This ideas flies in the face of all the evidence. The opposition is a diverse coalition of Libyans from many tribal and political backgrounds. Just because some Islamists support the opposition against Gaddafi this does not make the opposition Islamist.
‘At the same time, there are some extremists who want to manipulate the Libyan conflict for their own ends. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is looking for ways to play a greater role in this conflict. Since the start of the year it has tried to move men and arms into Libya from its bases in Niger and Mali, near Libya’s southern border. At the same time, al-Qaeda’s leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan are trying to portray the international intervention in Libya as a ‘crusader’ attack on Muslim in order to further their own agenda.’
James Brandon, Director of Research at Quilliam, said:
‘Although Gaddafi’s claims that the opposition is an al-Qaeda front are utter nonsense, it is clear that the fighting in Libya has created a vacuum in which extreme groups – including al-Qaeda – may be able to operate. There are signs that al-Qaeda leadership, both in Pakistan and in North Africa, believe that events in Libya could be a chance for them to create a second Iraq. The international community needs to work with the opposition leadership in Libya in order to shut out these extremists before they can hijack Libya’s popular uprising for their own ends.’
‘But while there are significant extremist elements active in Libya, we should welcome the fact that many members of the Libyan opposition movement say they are fighting Gaddafi out of religious conviction. If these people sincerely believe that democracy, human rights and freedom are compatible with Islam, this is all the more reason why we should support them in their struggle. Such people are the best antidote to groups like al-Qaeda that believe that democracy and human rights are incompatible with Islam.
‘The small number of extremists fighting against Gaddafi should not distract us from the fact that most of the opposition – and indeed most Libyan people – aspire to create a modern, democratic and open Libya. We need to distinguish between extreme Islamists who dress up their anti-democratic politics in religious language and mainstream Muslims who express their opposition to Gaddafi through religious language and references.
Link:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/im...a24march11.pdf
The UN-democratic are indeed the problem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
I talk here of the ease of establishing a NFZ over a Mickey Mouse country with few military skills and obsolescent equipment. My opinion on what happens later was not covered in that post.
My point is you cannot -- or certainly should not -- ever divorce the two. Such thinking, that divorce, effectively puts the contributing nations and the Libyans (both or all sides /parties) in never-never land...
That flawed thinking has occurred all too frequently in these interventions. Plain old simple backward planning could fix most of that.
Quote:
Clearly we are at odds on this point. One comes before the other. The decision to intervene is made then a military strategy is formulated. Timing is often at a premium so, yes, certainly political interference and the abilities of the units available will count heavily in terms of the potential for success. I wonder how much the military has learned about being prepared for the least expected at the least opportune time?
My reluctance to support such operations is induced by participation in a couple and observation of many more all of which show that the military (generic / worldwide) has learned, or more correctly, instilled little. That and the seemingly almost mandatory vacillation of all politicians...
Noble intent is laudable and desirable; at least marginal competence, consistency and will are desirable and IMO more important. The first will be wasted in the absence of the latter. I believe the Hippocratic dictum of "First, do no harm..." applies.
The usual error is indeed to decide to intervene then direct a 'strategy' or plan be devised. What should happen is that nations who espouse such an interventionist policy should develop a strategy on intervening, insure it is resource and effective and then wait for a need -- but that requires more foresight than most are willing to support.
Quote:
So what you saying here? That it has less to do with the merits of the intervention but rather more to do with your confidence in being able to execute the intervention effectively?
Yes. That is based on the dual premise that failure in not achieving aims and thus potentially doing more harm than good to the affected populace also induces in others a perception of weakness or incompetence on the part of the intervening nation or force that frequently leads to more such 'crises.'
Quote:
And this is only possible with an uneducated electorate?
Sadly, that does seem to be always correct... :(
Quote:
Oh I am concerned about the people but as per the context of my post I am speaking about being concerned about what the dictator or non-elected so-called leader of a captive nation says. This is the problem in the UN.
I got the context but the broader problem is as you say... :wry:
You're right on both those...
Both due in my belief to the fact we've allowed, even encouraged, the inmates to take charge of the institution. :rolleyes:
:D