Althouse: We're fighting for al Qaeda?

March 26, 2011

We're fighting for al Qaeda?

The Libyan disaster.

44 comments:

Beldar said...: Not to worry. The Administration is still debating whether to give them TOW anti-tank missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, or just pepper spray and Tasers.; 3/26/11, 9:02 AM
Fen said...: No need.

"al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".; 3/26/11, 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: My view is that international conflicts will not have any role in 2012 elections. The only things that will be include the following:

- How GOP busted the Unions? Both sides will be energized.

- How GOP is cutting R&D? Both sides will have their talking-points.

- How GOP candidates lack support from liberal press?

That's all. No issue about Libya or even Iraq.; 3/26/11, 9:03 AM
KCFleming said...: "We're fighting for al Qaeda?"

Plausible deniability.; 3/26/11, 9:04 AM
Fen said...: My view is that international conflicts will not have any role in 2012 elections.

Except for the sarin attack at the Democrat National Convention. But yah, other than that, no role in the 2012 elections.; 3/26/11, 9:05 AM
Fen said...: The real fight is in Syria.

Belmont Club has detail:

"with the fires burning ever closer to main magazines of the region, US forces are committed elsewhere. Having missed the opportunity to get on the side of the Iranian demonstrators when Tehran was tottering, the administration may now miss a similar opportunity in Syria."

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/03/25/deraa/2/; 3/26/11, 9:07 AM
Tank said...: Not just fighting for them, but arming them, so they can use our weapons to kill our troops in Iraq, Afgan., and Libya.

Yay !!!!

Thank you President Stupid.; 3/26/11, 9:08 AM
PaulV said...: WTF is the Obama Doctrine?; 3/26/11, 9:12 AM
rhhardin said...: I propose an international disturbances desk at the State Department.; 3/26/11, 9:12 AM
traditionalguy said...: When Al Qaeda gets control over the Libyan oil revenues and its weapons purchasing power there need be no problem. Obama will simply offer them windmills and high speed trains in exchange for stopping dirty energy Libyan oil production...the exact same offer Obama has made the USA take. So which is it: Obama is either a confused man with no brains, or Obama is the #1 enemy of the USA in the world today. Hmmm.; 3/26/11, 9:13 AM
Fen said...: WTF is the Obama Doctrine?

It has something to do with the NCAA quarterfinals.; 3/26/11, 9:14 AM
virgil xenophon said...: This is what happens when a nation is in the grip (both its leadership cadres and the public-at-large) of Wilsonian Idealism. More cold-blooded, gimlet-eyed "Perfidious Albion" is wanted in situations like these--unfortunately the touchy-feely zeitgeist of the times--of earnest idealism-- precludes this.; 3/26/11, 9:15 AM
rhhardin said...: I recommend upping the calls to prayer to 40 or 50 a day and see what happens.; 3/26/11, 9:18 AM
Beldar said...: @ Fen: Yeah, but that's the old crappy Russian stuff. Not nearly as good as Stingers or TOWs.

It's great that we've ruled out killing the one person whose death would end this all.

But we definitely want to make sure there are more weapons, distributed more widely, in Libya, we just can't decide how deadly they should be.

What could possibly go wrong?; 3/26/11, 9:20 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Smart power.; 3/26/11, 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: My view is that international conflicts will not have any role in 2012 elections.

Jesus Christ, I had been waiting breathlessly for your view!

Before it is obviously the most authoritative view west of Decatur, Illinois and east of Indianapolis.

Don't hesitate to tell us your latest view, Politico! Cause we're riveted to our chairs in anticipation.; 3/26/11, 9:28 AM
ricpic said...: Uh, you seriously think Hussein hadn't been briefed about the Al Qaeda connection before dragging our military into kinetic action?; 3/26/11, 9:30 AM
Lucien said...: Don't tell anyone, but we were actually allied with Stalin in fighting Hitler. Shocking, no?

It's no secret that al-Qaeda is opposed to lots of dictatorships in the Arab world, including those that are monarchies. Sometimes we are, too. Surprise!

Not only that, but some of the folks now in al-Qaeda were kind of on our side in fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.; 3/26/11, 9:30 AM
KCFleming said...: Of course, Al Qaeda will now be our friends, in thanks for US help.

Right?; 3/26/11, 9:31 AM
David said...: All revolutions arise because there is a broad spectrum of rebels opposing the regime, each with their own agenda and reasons for revolt. Just which group will come out on top if the rebellion is successful is always unpredictable. In China, for example, the last dynasty was overthrown in 1912, and only in 1949 did the communists consolidate power over the country.

Predicting the course of rebellion in Libya is a fool's game. Our involvement certainly makes it more likely that the rebellion will succeed. But we are very unlikely to have great influence on the shape of the country after the revolt is over. Our expressed prohibition on "boots on the ground" further limits our leverage, as no faction will fear more direct intervention.

The best chance to overthrow the dictator was missed a month ago, when he was staggering and trying to consolidate support. Actually, it wasn't really missed, because Obama's fundamental beliefs would not permit prompt intervention. There is some value in the coalition he has tried to create, but there is also significant cost.

Obama will continue to be surprised by events in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East. It's a hard process to get ahead of for any President. Harder for him with his inexperience and inherent passivity.; 3/26/11, 9:35 AM
Moose said...: Just like el Salvador in the 80's. Nice to see Obama getting sucked into the same traps, making deals with the devil to support his political objectives.

So much for Mr. Nuance.; 3/26/11, 9:50 AM
Ironclad said...: The smartest path to follow in this mess would be the strategy used during the Iran Iraq war - balance the scales to insure no one wins and let them bleed themselves dry. Cynical perhaps, but considering the snakes nest on both sides of this conflict, perhaps the most practical solution to the problem.

A few "missed" air strikes on the leaders of the rebels might help too. Just to say thanks for all the "help" they gave in Iraq.

The Europeans would object to this since it would interfere with the oil shipments from Libya, but the war zone there might prevent a lot if migration from Africa into Europe. Maybe the refugees could go to Egypt or Algeria and destabilize those places. Win-Win!; 3/26/11, 10:03 AM
Unknown said...: The post should really be titled, "How Obama Finally Lost Me".

Hannity was saying this at mid-week (that these guys were not freedom fighters), but only because the rebels would yell, "Allahu Akbar", everytime they hit somebody. The suspicion was there for a while and a lot here were openly asking the question.

shoutingthomas said...

My view is that international conflicts will not have any role in 2012 elections.

Jesus Christ, I had been waiting breathlessly for your view!

He also thinks unemployment and inflation will have no effect, either.; 3/26/11, 10:16 AM
Rialby said...: AP: My view is that international conflicts will not have any role in 2012 elections.

AP, you do the most dead-on parody of the most brain-dead progressive. Truly brilliant. Thanks for sharing.; 3/26/11, 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: There's a difference between fighting "with" someone and fighting "for" them.

Your blog post title seems to be intended to conflate one with the other, Professor!

However... linguistic carefulness first thing on a Saturday morning is not nearly as fun as throwing some red meat to the Althouse-hungry masses, so I understand.; 3/26/11, 10:27 AM
Rialby said...: JC: "There's a difference between fighting "with" someone and fighting "for" them"

That would be all well and fine had the Left not been arguing for the last 10 years that Bush, Rumsfeld, Reagan and Caspar Weinberger were responsible for the creation of Osama bin Laden because we supplied rebels in Afghanistan with weapons to fight the Soviets. It's tragic how all of your arguments are shown to be completely based in opportunism and hatred of America.; 3/26/11, 10:29 AM
jerryofva said...: It appears that Susan Powers'"right to protect" ests on three principles:

(1) The country can't be a friend (Qutar)

(2) It has to be easy to get to (Libya)

(3) And it must appear on TV to pluck the heart strings (not Syria)

This intervention is the product of emotion and not thoughtful consideration.; 3/26/11, 10:30 AM
Rialby said...: I should add... we were supplying al Qaeda with weapons to fight wars before we knew who they truly were. NOT AFTER. Like your brilliant President.; 3/26/11, 10:31 AM
Chip S. said...: There's a difference between fighting "with" someone and fighting "for" them.

I trust that you'll adhere to this nuanced view the next time the subject of racist teabaggers comes up.; 3/26/11, 10:37 AM
Jon said...: Lucien said: "Don't tell anyone, but we were actually allied with Stalin in fighting Hitler."

a) We weren't allied with Stalin in fighting Hitler, at the same time were fighting Stalin somewhere else

b) We allied with Stalin against Hitler, because Hitler was judged to be the greater/more immediate threat. Was Gaddafi a greater/more immediate threat to the USA than al-Qaeda?; 3/26/11, 10:46 AM
PaulV said...: Lucien, even Sarah Palin knows that neither AQ nor the Taliban existed during tha Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Why are you so stupid?; 3/26/11, 10:51 AM
Unknown said...: Jon said...

Lucien said: "Don't tell anyone, but we were actually allied with Stalin in fighting Hitler."

a) We weren't allied with Stalin in fighting Hitler, at the same time were fighting Stalin somewhere else

We weren't? You might want to tell George Marshall and Winston Churchill that.; 3/26/11, 10:55 AM
Cedarford said...: Beldar said...
@ Fen: Yeah, but that's the old crappy Russian stuff. Not nearly as good as Stingers or TOWs.

====================
Crappy Russian design stuff was still good enough to kill 4400 Americans, plus 38,000 casualties inc. 4800 "stumpy people" in Iraq. Not to mention the carnage such "crap" inflicted on the locals.

But you might have a point - if you argue that we managed to kill and maim a lot more Libyans we are now fighting on the side of in Libya - than the killing and maiming they did on US troops as "volunteers" in Iraq and Afghanistan.; 3/26/11, 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: It's Kosovo all over again.

Then we attacked a proud Christian people who for centuries had stood guard on the border between Christendom and oriental despotism, all in favor of a bunch of al Qaeda aligned miscreants.

We attacked Belgrade and handed Kosovo, the nexus of Serbia culture, over to the descendants of Serbia's oppressors. It was like bombing Tel Aviv in order to hand Jerusalem to the PLO or Hamas. Shameful.; 3/26/11, 11:05 AM
Fen said...: There's a difference between fighting "with" someone and fighting "for" them.

Cue libtard whining about how the US gave bio-weapons to Saddam (a lie, btw). Followed by pics of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. Blah blah blah, ie. if there was no difference between fighting "with" and "for" when Bush was in charge, there's no difference now.

For 8 years we put up with this nonsens.; 3/26/11, 11:07 AM
Cedarford said...: Leo Ladenson said...
It's Kosovo all over again.

Then we attacked a proud Christian people who for centuries had stood guard on the border between Christendom and oriental despotism, all in favor of a bunch of al Qaeda aligned miscreants.

We attacked Belgrade and handed Kosovo, the nexus of Serbia culture, over to the descendants of Serbia's oppressors. It was like bombing Tel Aviv in order to hand Jerusalem to the PLO or Hamas.

==========
Worse, as the lands were where Serbs had always lived, vs. a people who had recently immigrated a la the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist "Right of Return".; 3/26/11, 11:38 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: "We're fighting for al Qaeda?"

Yes we are, and always have been, and until we get somebody on our side in the White House, we always will be:

PALIN2012; 3/26/11, 12:22 PM
tree hugging sister said...: I recommend upping the calls to prayer to 40 or 50 a day and see what happens.

And implementing "virginity checks" when the wimmins do that uppity shit they're prone to lately.; 3/26/11, 12:24 PM
Paul said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/26/11, 12:25 PM
Paul said...: BHO: "What? AQ is on the rebel's side? Now that's change I can believe in! We're in!"; 3/26/11, 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: edutcher wrote:

We weren't? You might want to tell George Marshall and Winston Churchill that.

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood Jon's point. I think what he meant to say was:

We weren't allied with Stalin in fighting Hitler at the same time we were fighting Stalin somewhere else.

Allies don't go to war with one another. When we and the USSR were allies in World War II we weren't also fighting the USSR.

In other words, as long as we're directly fighting al-Qaeda, the possibility that we and al-Qaeda might independently be fighting a third party does not make us "allies."; 3/26/11, 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: "WTF is the Obama Doctrine?"

The Obama Doctrine: Always use a driver on any par five.; 3/26/11, 1:31 PM
Kirby Olson said...: Intelligence, since Carter, no longer exists. Even cleverness is apparently too much to ask. A thousand Mogadishus.; 3/26/11, 4:04 PM
Paul said...: No we are fighting Obama's war.

When a country is beset with many a grave internal problem a unscrupulous leader will START A WAR TO DISTRACT THEM FROM THE PROBLEMS.

And that is what Obama, Hillary, and Gates have done.; 3/27/11, 4:16 PM