New Leader Says Libya to Have Sharia Law

The fruit of Arab Spring

When news came last Thursday that Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi had bee killed, Obama quickly touted the news as the beginning of a new time for Libyans and as vindication of his administration’s backing and participation in the NATO military intervention war in Libya which began on March 19, 2011. The official name for the U.S. campaign is the optimistic Operation Odyssey Dawn.

In the name of the protection and securing of “human rights,” the legal basis for NATO’s “military intervention” is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was adopted on 17 March 201 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. [Read the full text of the Resolution here.]

Now that the “military intervention” presumably has ended with Gaddafi’s death, Obama welcomed the declaration of liberation by Libya’s new leaders yesterday (Oct. 23) and urged the transition government to respect human rights and work toward democracy.

That same day, Libya’s transitional leader declared the newly liberated country to be an Islamic state where Sharia law will rule.

The Associated Press reports, Oct. 23, 2011, that in a keynote speech at the declaration of liberation ceremony in the eastern city of Benghazi, the birthplace of the 8-month uprising against Gaddafi, Libya’s transitional government leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil laid out a vision for the future with an Islamist tint.

Abdul-Jalil first declared that “This revolution was looked after by God to achieve victory.” Henceforth, Islamic Sharia law would be the “basic source” of legislation. Existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.

Abdul-Jalil outlined several changes to align with Islamic law:

• New banks would be set up to follow the Islamic banking system, which bans charging interest as a practice deemed usury. For the time being, interest would be canceled from any personal loans already taken out and less than 10,000 Libyan dinars (about $7,500).

• An existing family law that limits the number of wives Libyan can take will be annulled because it contradicts the provision in the Muslim holy book, the Quran, that allows men up to four wives.

• Libyans are urged to hand back money or property taken during the civil war.

In a gesture that showed his own piety, Abdul-Jalil urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing guns in the air, but rather to chant “Allahu Akbar,” or God is Great. He then stepped aside from the podium and knelt to offer a brief prayer of thanks.

The transitional leadership has said it would declare a new interim government within a month of liberation and elections for a constitutional assembly within eight months, to be followed by votes for a parliament and president within a year.

For his part, Obama congratulated Libyans on their declaration of liberation: “After four decades of brutal dictatorship and eight months of deadly conflict, the Libyan people can now celebrate their freedom and the beginning of a new era of promise.”

Using Sharia as the main source of legislation is also stipulated in the constitution of neighboring Egypt.

So much for the much-heralded Arab Spring that began with mass protests nearly a year ago.

~Eowyn

Flashback 2008 – Qaddafi Campaigned for Obama

Following are excerpts from a public address delivered by Libyan Leader Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi marking the anniversary of the U.S. air raid on Libya. The address aired on Al-Jazeera TV on June 11, 2008.

~LTG

Smart Power: Gaddafi Still Winning Despite NATO Presence

In today’s edition of The Best News Ever, we learn that NATO forces in Libya seem to be dawdling around ineffectively.

The Wall Street Journal has the scoop:

“There’s something strange about the way he attacked us today,” said Abdullah Abdel-Jalil, a 31-year-old ambulance driver told the AP. “The Grad rockets, the tanks, the quantity of it all, he’s stronger than we thought. It’s way too intense.”

Explosions were heard after planes of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization flew over the zone where the heaviest fighting was under way, the AP reported. Whatever air support NATO provided, however, didn’t appear to turn the situation at all to the rebels’ advantage.

Something about this smells strange to me as well. How does NATO not know the extent of Gaddafi’s power by now? And if this rebellion is as populist as the media claim, where is Gaddafi getting enough soldiers to wage total war, and how does he have enough resources to continue dumping ammunition?

There are three possibilities:

1)      Despite all evidence from Tunisia, Egypt, and Iraq, Gaddafi supporters are delusional enough to defy NATO’s force.

2)      Someone told Gaddafi he’s not really leaving.

3)      Gaddafi has reason to believe NATO will chicken out.

Meanwhile, Britain and America continue to kick around ideas of either arming the rebels directly or allowing them to sell oil for their own profit. But if Gaddafi resumes control over the oil rigs because NATO can’t stop him – at least one of those ideas is out the window.

That leaves the plan to give arms to the rebels. But then there’s a tiny little sticking point about Al Qaeda operatives allegedly leaving Iraq to join the more interesting war zone in Libya.

No one seems to be discussing why Al Qaeda thinks it a wise use of money/personnel to help fight Gaddafi, especially with NATO presumably there to dispose of him already. Either Al Qaeda is expecting to influence the new government, or it suspects that free weapons are coming. Rest easy tonight knowing that Hillary Clinton is in charge of the outcome.

Stuff like this is exactly why we criticized Obama and Clinton for not having a metrics-driven plan. People can discuss whether the intervention was needed, but now that we are there, everyone agrees there should have been an actual strategy. Because this right here is some embarrassing leadership.

-Candance

 

3 Facts You Should Know About Obama’s War

Obama inherited two wars from his predecessor – Iraq and Afghanistan. But he can’t blame Bush for the war he initiated more than a week ago against the Gaddafi regime in Libya. That’s Obama’s War, even if he obfuscates by calling it a “Kinetic Military Action” — an Orwellian euphemistic New Speak that no one in the MSM has the elemental courage to point out. A war by whatever name smells just as foul.

Obama couldn’t be bothered to consult Congress — the institution that alone has the Constitutional authority to declare wars. From his junket in South America, as Commander In Chief, he gave the “go” signal to our military to fly those F-15 jets and fire those Tomahawk cruise missiles on Libya. He rattled on at length about his March Madness basketball picks, but nothing about his kinetic war.

On Monday night, His Wordiness finally deigned to give the American people an accounting — a justification — for his war with a speech containing 3,362 words. To save you time (April 15th is only 17 days away!), Fellowship of the Minds cut through his verbiage. Here are THREE things you really need to know about Obama’s War:

Fact No. 1:

On March 28, 2011, Obama’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States HAS NO VITAL INTERESTS in Libya.

Fact No. 2:

On March 28, 2011, the Pentagon said that the cost to US taxpayers of Obama’s “kinetic military action” war in Libya was $600 MILLION for the first week:

• U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have unleashed at least 191 Tomahawk cruise missiles to the tune of $268.8 million.
• U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens of thousands of dollars each.
• A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million to replace.
• Operation of the war craft, guzzling ever-expensive fuel to maintain their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could reach millions of dollars a week.

Fact No. 3:

On March 29, 2011, at approxmately 7pm, west coast time:

• The U.S. national debt is OVER 14 TRILLION DOLLARS: $14,262,703,284,888.
• US gross domestic product is $14,639, 682,230,000 (which means our national debt is almost the equivalent of our GDP!)
• Debt per citizen is $45,949.
• Debt per taxpayer is $128,383.

Put simply:

1. America is broke.
2. Obama’s War serves no national interest.
3. We can’t afford Obama’s war.

Got it?

~Eowyn

The Palin Doctrine: Obama’s Job is to Promote America First

Following President Obama’s national speech to defend Libyan intervention, Sarah Palin took to Fox News for an eight-minute segment that utterly clownstomped him (click on image to launch video).

Watching this reminded me why I ♥ Palin so much. Unlike some partisan Republicans who have hypocritically become peace doves, she still agrees with the premise of using military power to protect America’s interests.

And unlike certain Republican presidential names (cough, Mike Huckabee) who are not out there articulating their beliefs right now (cough, Newt Gingrich) she is criticizing Obama very effectively.

The main points outlined in the segment are such:

-If humanitarian aid is the only reason we are there, someone should go tell the people in Darfur why they are somehow not as important as Libyans.

-If American interests are the real reason we are there, someone needs to explain why European countries are leading the charge.

-If American interests are not the reason we are there, we are there for the wrong reason. Our military exists to promote our own country, plain and simple.

- Obama can’t inspire the American people to support it because there is nothing inspirational about pandering to Muslim power grabbers.

-If we let Gaddafi stay after this intervention, he will swear revenge and fund more terrorism against America.

-Inconsistency with Libya will set the stage for randomly spastic interventions elsewhere.

Thus in less than ten minutes, Palin laid out the best, most articulate, most comprehensive criticism of the Obama administration – more effective than the rest of the Republican party combined.

And she went on Greta less than three hours after the speech. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney promises to let us know his opinion as soon as the campaign committee tells him what to say.

-Candance

Obama Administration Preparing To Arm Libyan Rebels

No need to send American soldiers into a war zone… we’ll just give their weapons to the rebels and hope for the best. What could go wrong?

Via Drudge, the British media tell us what the American media won’t:

But Sky News now understands the US is looking at a legal framework to allow limited supplies of arms to the rebels, if they can prove they need them to defend themselves from attack.

Mark Kornblau, spokesman for US Ambassador Dr Susan Rice, confirmed it was a possibility.

I wish someone would just unplug that phone cord in the White House so those 3 AM phone calls can be routed elsewhere.

-Candance

Clinton’s Kosovo Do-Over

From the beginning of the unrest in North Africa, your humble blogger held the opinion that America would get involved and it would be carried out along the lines of our action in Kosovo.

If you take the time to see the connections, this is indeed the most accurate comparison. Observe:

1986: Albanian majority (who just happens to be Muslim) are reportedly oppressing Serbian minorities (who happen to be mostly Christian). The slow collapse of the Soviet Union is leaving a power vacuum likely to be filled with whoever can buy the most guns.

1987:  Slobodan Milosevic, new political leader of the region, visits Kosovo. Persecuted Serbs have been pouring out of the area, hampering the economy and causing tension in the streets. Milosevic’s government removes local leadership to impose more political control.

1989: Mass protests and organized strikes slow down the economy. Persecution of Serbs gets worse. Labor unions, communists, and other “community organizers” are encouraging the drama. Unemployment hits 59 percent.

1990: Police have violent confrontations with rioters. Milosevic’s government claims radicals infiltrated the Albanian population. Officials claim they want to bring harmony but can’t because of the radicals. Milosevic imposes a curfew and other steps to oppress Albanians.

1992: Serbs and Albanians are essentially living in segregation. Milosevic gains more power in a new election.

1996:  Hardline Muslims, radical revolutionaries, and defected soldiers drift toward each other and eventually come to be known at the Kosovo Liberation Army. This group claims to be made of oppressed Albanians looking to destroy Milosevic’s control. Government officials offer evidence that Islamic mercenaries from the Middle East have infiltrated. The KLA begins guerilla warfare tactics of bombing buildings and vandalizing offices.

1997: America initially labels the KLA a terrorist group. The armed insurgency steals military equipment and wages urban warfare against Milosevic’s government.

1998: Both sides kill each other in haphazard violence. Human Rights Watch documents civilian massacres carried out by both hands. America deems the government violence more egregious, removes the KLA from the terror list, and begins to side with the rebels.

January 1999: The Serbian military massacres 45 Albanian civilians. NATO decides to take military action against Milosevic’s government.

March 22, 1999, President Clinton gives this public statement to justify American military action in the region:

It is 12 years to the day that NATO bombing began in Kosovo. The campaign lasted almost three months before Milosevic forfeited.

In the aftermath, Russian forces, supposedly there to retain the peace, seized a major airport and immediately began to jockey for control of the region. American General Wesley Clark was furious by the move and ordered NATO forces to repel the Russian unit. According to BBC News, Clark was outnumbered by other generals who were afraid that a direct attack on Russian troops would start World War III.

Last December, the UK Guardian revealed ongoing investigations that former KLA operatives, who now work in the Kosovar government, had funded the rebel campaign through drug trafficking, arms dealing, and other illegal ‘mafia’ activity.

Today, the United Nations remains in Kosovo while political planning continues. America and Western allies recognize a two-state arrangement of the Republic of Serbia sitting next to the Republic of Kosovo. Shockingly, some other UN members do not recognize these as independent nations. I’ll give you one guess as to who those people might be.

In 2011, what do we have? A Clinton running the show while NATO forces side with Muslim rebels to oust an abusive government. Russia and China are opposed to NATO intervention. The American media side against the government, fill the airwaves with images of Gaddafi’s war crimes, and show very little of the radical influence within the rebellion.

I’ll give you one guess as to how this operation will probably end up.

-Candance

 

US F-15E Fighter Jet Crash Lands in Libya; Pilots OK

BREAKING NEWS

 

Exclusive Telegraph picture shows locals inspecting an American F-15 E Strike Eagle jet that crashed in a field 

 

American jets have been flying over Libya as part of a coalition enforcing a no-fly zone over the country 

 A man inspects part of the American F-15 E Strike Eagle jet 

Libya: US fighter jet crash lands in field near Benghazi

A US warplane has crash landed in a Libyan field in the area around Benghazi, The Telegraph can disclose.

By Rob Crilly, James Kirkup and Rob Winnett – The Telegraph – march 22, 2011

The two crew members on the F-15E fighter jet both ejected and are said to have minor injuries. One has already been recovered by US forces, who say they are in the process of rescuing the other. [UPDATE: both pilots ejected and are reported to be safe.]

It is understood that at least one of the crew members was initially rescued by rebel Libyan soldiers after ejecting from the aircraft. The crashed plane was discovered by a Telegraph journalist reporting in and around Benghazi, the rebel-held city. It is thought the F-15E fighter jet came to ground after suffering a mechanical failure.

The US military confirmed that one of its jets had crash landed but said that it had not been shot down. Vince Crawley, a spokesman for the US military’s Africa Command, said that one crewman had been recovered and one was “in process of recovery”. Both crew members suffered minor injuries. Crawley said the crash occurred “overnight.” He declined to give the location of the incident and also would not say how the rescued crewman was picked up.

This is the first coalition aircraft to have crash landed during the Libyan conflict following the third night of air strikes.

[Meanwhile, Obama's undeclared war on Libya is becoming a keystone cops operation as no one seems to know what exactly is the purpose of the  "Coalition's" and the U.S.'s attacks on Libya. ~Eowyn]

The developments comes after British ministers yesterday contradicted senior military commanders by suggesting that coalition forces in action over Libya can legitimately target Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen Sir David Richards, flatly insisted that seeking to hit the Libyan dictator was not allowed under the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. But after Defence Secretary Liam Fox suggested over the weekend that Col Gaddafi could be a “legitimate target”, No 10 sources insisted it was legal to target anyone killing Libyan civilians….

At a Ministry of Defence briefing, Gen Richards’ spokesman, Major Gen John Lorimer, stressed that the international military intervention was in support of the UN no-fly zone. “It is very clear that, in support of the United Nations Security Council, we are there to implement and enforce the no-fly zone,” he said. “The targets we are attacking are command and control facilities and the integrated air defence system. They are legitimate military targets.”

Earlier however, Foreign Secretary William Hague refused to rule out an attack on the Libyan leader. “I’m not going to speculate on the targets,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “That depends on the circumstances at the time.”

James Arbuthnot, the Tory chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, said Mr Cameron had agreed in the House that the aim of protecting Libya’s civilians could not be achieved without the removal of Col Gaddafi. “We accept that the aim of the resolution is to protect civilians and not to change the regime,” he told BBC Radio 4′s The World at One. “Nevertheless we won’t be able to protect the civilians in my opinion – and obviously the Prime Minister’s and that of most leaders of the countries in the region – while Gaddafi remains in place.”

In a statement, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “We are not going to go into operational details on military targets. “Our clear aim is to implement UNSCR 1973 – that means saving lives and protecting the civilian population of Libya.”

The talk of targeting Col Gaddafi also appeared to alarm the Americans, with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates warning that it could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone. “If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect,” he said. “I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.”

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said Dr Fox’s comment was “irresponsible in many ways” and could harm efforts to harness Arab opinion in favour of the military effort. “I support the Government’s decision on Libya but I think Liam Fox’s comments are irresponsible in many ways,” he wrote on his blog. “His view that the aim of our military effort is to bring about regime change is outside what is a very broad UN resolution. It is wrong but also counterproductive at a time when we are trying to maintain a broad coalition, including Arab opinion, to talk in such a way. I agree with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who said, ‘If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem’. Gaddafi is a tyrant, but it is up to the people of Libya to decide what happens next in their country and not for any single foreign government. Our government needs to have one clear policy on this.” He confirmed that he was the Labour figure who told a Sky News reporter that Dr Fox should be “put back in his box”….

Meanwhile, Downing Street published a note on the legal advice given by Attorney General Dominic Grieve which concluded there was “a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution’s objectives”….

~Eowyn & Steve

Libyan Rebels Request Military Intervention, Gaddafi Calls It Al Qaeda Conspiracy

It’s easy to dismiss everything Muammar Gaddafi says. The man is delusional, arrogant, and controlling – Saddam Hussein with a Libyan accent. There is evidence he was behind the Lockerbie bombing. And now that his country descends into chaos, he is clearly willing to use deadly force to stay in power.

So when he warns the West that siding with the rebels would result in Al Qaeda controlling African oil, it’s hard to know what to make of it. Is this a delusional tyrant saying what he knows will frighten us, or is this a case of no honor among thieves?

Much of the Western media have been laughing at Gaddafi’s accusations of terrorist influence. Yet while speaking Wednesday, he repeated his theory in more specific terms, claiming “How did that all begin? Small, sleeper Al Qaeda cells.”

He went on to say the civil unrest was a pretext for “colonization” of northern Africa:

“There is a conspiracy to control the Libyan oil and to control the Libyan land, to colonize Libya once again…Do they want us to become slaves once again like we were slaves to the Italians … We will never accept it.”

Leaders in Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, and other places have sung the same tune.

Clever propaganda, or a legitimate worry? Don’t expect the American BLM to help you find answers. Observe, for example, this convoluted bit of journalism from the NY Times Sunday. First we are told that Al Qaeda is distinctly absent from the protests:

For many specialists on terrorism and the Middle East, though not all, the past few weeks have the makings of an epochal disaster for Al Qaeda, making the jihadists look like ineffectual bystanders to history while offering young Muslims an appealing alternative to terrorism.

And yet exactly seven paragraphs later, we are told this:

There is evidence that the uprisings have enthralled some jihadists. One Algerian man associated with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the network’s North African affiliate, welcomed the uprisings in a weekend interview and said militants were returning from exile to join the battle in Libya, arming themselves from government weapons caches.

“Since the land is in chaos and Qaddafi is helping through his reactions and actions to increase the hatred of the population against him, it will be easier for us to recruit new members,” said the Algerian man, who uses the nom de guerre Abu Salman. He said that Libyans and Tunisians who had fought in Iraq or Afghanistan were now considering a return home.

Something even more disturbing was tucked inside the report and quickly glossed over:

The breakdown of order could create havens for terrorist cells, at least for a time — a hazard both Colonel Qaddafi and Mr. Saleh have prevented, winning the gratitude of the American government.

Yet this report was published on the very same day President Obama debuted his decision to demand that Gaddafi step down. The Pentagon deployed transport ships to the Libyan coast within 48 hours.

Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton spoke to the House Foreign Affairs committee Tuesday and launched a new warning that Iran was working behind the scenes to co-opt political power in chaotic governments.

That’s weird. It almost looks like the Obama administration kept Gaddafi in power just long enough to position a military strategy.

And now the rebels seem to have a crazy idea that foreign interventionists will take their side:

“We are probably going to call for foreign help, probably air strikes at strategic locations that will put the nail in his (Gaddafi’s) coffin,” Mustafa Gheriani, a spokesman for the rebel February 17th Coalition, told Reuters.

What’s making these people even float the idea that NATO/UN forces would launch air strikes on their behalf? Are they making stuff up to scare Gaddafi’s government, or do they really think someone would be open to that request?

Again, if you’re looking for someone in America to give you an answer, don’t hold your breath. Defense Secretary Robert Gates keeps saying the Obama administration is reluctant to use military force, yet he consistently stops short of promising it won’t happen.

So what are we to make of all this? Your humble blogger doesn’t present these things to presume any kind of answer – this is simply an effort to bring the pieces together and offer a glance at the big picture. We leave you to draw your own conclusions.

For now, all we can do is watch the news closely, use our God-given common sense, and hope that our governments and media outlets are giving it to us straight.

And while I don’t want to plant any undue doubt in readers’ minds, I do want to mention the Kosovo mistake of 1999. Sometimes even the intelligence on the ground gets it wrong.

God help us navigate this long windy road.

-Candance

 

Fantastic: Libyan Parliament on Fire, Gaddafi Leaves Town, Oil Goes Up

It’s déjà vu all over again.

Photo Courtesy Daily Mail

Looks like Libyan activists are following the Egypt model to a tee. The UK’s Daily Mail claims protestors stormed the state television studio and set fire to the Parliament building [heed my words: disturbing photos at the link]. Getting there cost over 300 lives as the military opened fire several times.

Meanwhile, oil field workers have decided to go on strike, forcing oil companies to halt production and evacuate Western staff. USA Today reports oil has already gotten more expensive as those in the industry begin to fear the worst.

Gaddafi is said to have left Tripoli. His son assumed public leadership and released a statement, but no one is confident in his ability to stop this.

In each country that springs up next, the riots get more violent. If you thought Cairo was a war zone two weeks ago, that was child’s play compared to last night’s all-out urban warfare in Tripoli.

And what is the American government doing? Trying to decide on the “appropriate response.”

You’re welcome for the leadership, folks.

-Candance