Walnut Creek (Calif.)–March 22nd–I was asked recently to sign onto a letter generated by the â€œthink tank,â€ the Center for Islam and Democracy, in Washington D.C., an organization of leading Muslim thinkers and scholars on Islam, asking (U.S.) President Barrack Hussein Obama to support a no-fly zone over Libya.
My decision was not an easy one, for I had vehemently opposed the American wars against the Vietnamese and the Iraqis. I considered the war against Al Qaeda legal under international law because of the prior attack upon New York City and the U.S.A.â€™s two embassies in East Africa. (As for the revisionist theories of D.C.â€™s conspiratorial complicity in the aggression, which has been voiced on these pages, too, and, curiously, on the fringe Leftist press and blogs, I have been less than convinced, but history may lift the fog on those unfortunate and appalling events, and prove me wrong.)
The tragedy of Afghanistan is that Al Qaeda, a non-governmental agency — (not the Afghans or their controversial regime themselves) — â€œ The Baseâ€ ( i.e., an English translation for Al Qaeda) utilized the Taliban government in Kabul and the Afghan people as well as human shields. I do believe that the (U.S.) Chief of State Obama, with his lead General Petraeus in Afghanistan, are progressives. The Commandant for this ruthless terrain holds a liberal personality in regards to Muslims short of following Prophet (s).
The President and his General are both knowledgeable about the aspirations and hopes of mainstream Muslims. Both the President, who was partially raised in Islamic lands, and Petraeus himself are doing their best to make an orderly retreat from the Hindu Kush as has been largely accomplished in Mesopotamia already.
I, personally, do not wish to see the Taliban come into power again, or would even trust them as a part of a coalition government over Afghanistan, but a political settlement amongst the Afghan themselves must be achieved as they see fit! (Further, domestically, in the Metropole, I am concerned over the U.S. Leftâ€™s betrayal of Obama because he has not ordered NATO to retreat in disorder from the Mountains. Obamaâ€™s constraints are more strategic. (How to get his Army out unscathed.) It must be done for the protection of the NATO participants and the defense of the Afghan people themselves (who, ultimately have to pick it up themselves.).
Mr. Obama has been the most knowledgeable president of Muslimâ€™s expectations and goals whereas the only political alternative in the States would be the anti-Islamic â€œTea Partyâ€ as D.C. (the District of Columbiaâ€™s) Commander-in-Chief. This option for American Muslims are demonstrated in the current House hearings (initiation by a â€œTea Party-â€endorsed by Representative King from New York State) on the â€œradicalizationâ€ of American Muslims; in this manner, questioning your loyalties and patriotism; and, thereby, your right to citizenship!
Libya is a much different matter from the three struggles wars mentioned above (two of which are, additionally, against Islamic States). The mass civil struggle is part of the larger regional movement toward (Arab) democracy. Instead of treating it as an internal political matter, Tripoli approached the original civilian street demonstrations, which had broken out in the capital, as a military challenge. The ensuing aggression has degenerated into a brutal civil war. This situation has churned up disgust in the rest of the world against the oil-rich desert State has conducted vile warfare against their own civilians who began demonstrating in the street might metamorphose into untrained combatants.
Obama had been reluctant to commit American resources to the struggle because of the two current conflicts against Islamic nations instituted by the previous incompetent â€œCommander-in-Chief,â€ George W. Bush. There had been an internal diplomatic disagreement between London and Washington over the current no-fly zone. The British demanding direct quick action against the government there in the Maghreb while the District of Columbia calling for restraint. (The American President has avowed that no U.S. ground troops would be employed would be committed to the battle). To which, I hope this declaration will be adhered. Finally, Paris recognized Benghazi (the rebel capital in the east of the country) as the legitimate regime of the Libyan people.
Next, NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) demanded proof of regional support for any intervention. The Arab League meeting in Cairo gave the approval for a no-fly sector at the request of Benghazi. (The first of any warplanes was lost this morning of the 22nd. The first pilot was lifted off the battlefield by a (U.S.) Marine Corps Search and Rescue aircraft stationed off the battle-scarred shores this morning (the twenty-second); the other, fortunately was detain by the opposition. He was hugged and thanked by the insurgents, and safely was repatriated to the Navy (Air Corps.)
His predecessor, George W. Bush, Obama went to the Security Council of the United Nations (U.N.) in the City of New York. This was voted by that body giving legitimacy for NATO to conduct a no fly-zone to â€œprotect the Libyan peopleâ€ from their own army with the African mercenaries serving in it. (The Arab League are beginning to have â€œcold feet,â€ too, on their on their decision to allow the Western Imperials to control the skies over the Arabic-speaking skies, for there is some official opinion within certain Arab capitals who consider that France, the United Kingdom and the United States have gone too far beyond the (Arab) Leagueâ€™s and the Security Councilâ€™s commission the alliance for they have attacked armor and land troops, and have targeted troops directly resulting in co-lateral societal victims. Thus NATOâ€™s charge â€œto protectâ€ the people has been overstep, for there has been common citizen casualties within the attack area.
Further, although the Coalition maintains that they are not aiming for regime change; therefore, they assert that the three power (so far) are not endeavoring to kill Colonel.
The next day it was reported that Gaddafi announced a ceasefire the next day (19th), and, it was reported that his Commanders did not support it, and his general (allegedly) violated it. (Truces are hard to control; so, these incidents may be hard for Gaddafi himself to control.) (Still, The failure of last Saturdayâ€™s [the 19th]â€™s announcement mentioned above encouraged myself to revise my first draft.) Yet, the Libyan military pronounced another cessation the (March 21st) of hostilities and to request talks between Benghazi and Tripoli. Today (the 21st) hopefully, the latest offer of an armistice will lead to a political solution, but hard fighting between the governmentâ€™s army and the rebel dissentersâ€™ militia allowing the citizens of that sandy expanse to break from the realities of their past (actually, I approved of the Colonel when he came to power for he was an (Arab) progressive in the mode of Nasser, but times have change, and the society has to modernize in an (within the Arabic mode) and to discover their own destiny inside the present.
If the NATO puts troops on the ground, or, in anyway imposes regime change externally (like in Iraq), I shall denounce my endorsement. On the other hand, if the people can be protected without political intervention in Libya, I shall be proud of my signature and to allow the people to decide their future!