A lose-lose situation in Libya

At the National Defense University tonight, President Obama addressed lawmakers, military commanders and the American public to support his decision to encourage the uprising in Libya. While listening, it became increasingly clear that we have learned nothing about the dangers we face when jumping into a conflict and picking sides. This is an executive decision that is merely built on the principle of overthrowing Gaddafi from power with no planning once that mission is accomplished. The simplicity of global affairs in this White House, as well as among the international community, seems to forget about the about-face made by the mujahideen we supported in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Our steadfast support for a cause has put us on a side that can, and most assuredly will, place the region and the Muslim world into a state of relentless chaos.

In 2003, it was the Bush doctrine that motivated Gaddafi's abandonment of a nuclear program which ushered in hopes for a new beginning of U.S.-Libyan relations. For the first time in nearly 40 years, it was President Obama who was the first U.S. president to meet with Gaddafi at the G8 in Italy of 2009, where Gaddafi was the African Union's representative. The picture above documented the meeting between the two leaders.

Without a doubt, when Gaddafi turned guns on protesters the international community should have been quick to act and it has successfully frozen an estimated $30 billion in Libyan assets. There are clear alternatives to force Gaddafi's hand without utilizing the U.S. military in a country where there is no apparent mission. The end goal is clear, a Libya without Gaddafi, but how that is achieved is something the international community is unwilling to support. However, with leaders like Secretary of State Clinton meeting with Libyan resistance, it appears as though we are drawing up plans like kindergartners on paper depicting our fantasies but not having any accomplishment to further this objective.

One thing remains increasingly clear, the risk of holding a maniac like Gaddafi in power are great. His history of using terrorism to retaliate in the Lockerbie bombing is deeply disturbing, and proves that if Gaddafi leaves, it is imperative to remove him from society or he will hold a vengeance.

However, despite the scenarios of where Gaddafi can go and what Libya will look like, the Obama fantasy for a new government led by ? (Who really knows?) completely turns a blind eye to all the atrocities in the region from regimes that have far worse agendas, tactics, and human rights records. Take Syria. The Assad family has held power for 45 years, and President Bashar Assad is notorious for the state he has created. However, from day one President Obama has made it a priority through backdoor channels to mediate with Syria and gradually relax U.S. sanctions and policies in hopes of enticing Bashar to a pro-Western thought. In March 2009, the story leading from the White House was that at the same G8 summit where Obama met with Gaddafi, there was a strong possibility for him to meet with President Assad.

Amongst the killings of protestors in Syria, the same egregious crimes Gaddafi ordered, the U.S. stood silent. Amidst the uprisings in Lebanon where Christians and Hezbollah battled for power, the U.S. stood on the sidelines and watched a terrorist group seize a country. As Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah utilized the Basij to quell their resistance, Obama stated that we would recognize Ahmadinejad as Iran's President. Foreign policy calls for that, a policy. This administration's aspirations put Libya in a dangerous power struggle that leads opportunity for jihadist forces to move in.

The impact of Egyptian Revolution across the Region: A Risk Assessment

As protesters continue to take to the streets of Egypt, the risk of the revolution becoming something it never intended to be increases with the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in what the White House says will "irrevocably change" Egypt. Whether that is for the better or worse nobody seems to care about, the only real issue to Pres. Obama is that Mubarak (a U.S. ally and very, very close partner in the War on Terror) seems to be out. From day one, the strategy for handling this situation has been negligent and dumbfounded at best. We were without hesitation ready to jump on board and push President Mubarak out of power, even before understanding who may succeed his reign.


Now, with the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement in this "democratic revolution", we have handed one of our closest partners in the WoT seemingly over to the jihadists. Egypt is now gone, and there is no turning back. We have betrayed not only the Mubarak administration (if they somehow find a way to hold on), but the military institutions and intelligence service contacts (what else is new, we lost that with Wikigate). The level of embarassment brought on by the Obama administrations' mishandling of sensitive material, partnered with its failure to share vital intelligence that could prove useful to our allies, has weakened the United States and forced our hand into the global arena as a puppet and not a superpower.


Egypt is now the Ground Zero for Muslim revolution, it will be the tipping point for Sharia law being implemented throughout the region, and will most assuredly impact major players throughout the region like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Should the Brotherhood and ElBaradei gain control of the country, the face of the Middle East and the world will change. I do not believe the revolution has so much to do with democratic reform, rather the ousting of a president who has controlled his country for too long and aligned himself with Western influence. This is a bid by radical Islam to topple a necessary ally for the U.S., and force a transformation of Middle East policy.


The issue occurring inside Egypt boils down to one thing - Salafist Islam. Salafist Islam by definition desires to see Islam brought back to its purest roots. Doctrinally, Salafs adhere to a very strict form of Islam that seeks to integrate and praise Allah through all aspects of life. This is what groups like the Muslim Brotherhood seek to perpetuate in broad government reforms that allow violence to be a tool to implement this. Any person who does not believe is wrong to them, there is no other religion in a Salafist state. On the heels of the New Year's Eve bombing of a church in Alexandria, Christians should be alarmed about their religious freedoms. The Brotherhood will advocate, if not utilize, force to crackdown on resistance and alternate religions.


The biggest risk coming from Egypt involves the potential merger between the Salafs and Iran. If you need to see the future of Egypt, just take a look at Mohamed ElBaradei's track record. This man, the presumed post-Mubarak, Brotherhood-partnered, former IAEA director who allowed Iran's undeclared nuclear program to go unchecked under his tenure. ElBaradei will become the new Assad for the Ayatollah, making Egypt an Iranian proxy surrounding Israel and destroying the peace accord. If the Salaf Brotherhood merges with Tehran, the potential is limitless for state-sponsored terrorism to reach unprecedented levels in the region. Terrorism will cross boundaries, governments, terror groups, and it will all flow into a limitless nexus of violence.


This sharing of resources and personnel can empower groups like Hezbollah - which has an arsenal of weapons at least 5x greater than it had with its 2006 war with Israel - to renew violence against Israel and will bring in weakened countries that sat out previously (like Syria) into the mix. The real question now is where is Saudi Arabia? With King Abdullah in a weakened state after receiving back surgery, who will he lend his support to. The last thing the Sunnis want is an Iranian/Shi'a controlled Caliphate. In 2006, with the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, the Saudis provided weaponry and military assistance secretly to Israel through back channels, so as to not risk an uprising at home for giving the Zionists any support.


Egypt is too great a risk to sit idly on the sidelines and wait for a new government to emerge while we pander to the very forces we have declared war on. The Brotherhood is a violent, deceptive group that ultimately seeks to bring about the Caliphate. If we fail to act, we will lose the Middle East and empower Iran. The time to bring about democratic reform is now, but to hand over any hope of those to an organization wishing to implement shariah is far from democratic.

Assessing Iran and U.S. policy under the next administration

Needless to say, the nuclear standoff with Iran lingers on as the West attempts to threaten the Islamic state with more sanctions. Despite its consistent defiance of the obligations listed in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran seems to not be willing to negotiate on many aspects of its "peaceful" nuclear program. As the Bush administration leaves office, it appears Iran will be a situation dealt with by the next U.S. President.


As reports come out that suggest President Bush is willing to give Iran some diplomatic legitimacy by establishing an interests section potentially during his final month in office, one must wonder at what point does a lame duck president sit back and allow his successor to take the reigns. After three years of consistent rhetoric on alienating Iran diplomatically, a sudden reversal of U.S. policy would be detrimental in allowing the next administration to resolve the issue.


While the next administration will likely change the U.S. approach towards Iran, it must continue to declare that an Iranian state that sponsors terrorism and desires to possess a completely unregulated nuclear program is not acceptable. Without Iran providing any reasons to change U.S. policy drastically, preemptively providing a potential incentive to bribe them into coming to the table is not going to be the missing piece to the issue.


The best hope is to potentially pursue paths of alienating Iranian allies such as Syria. By potentially separating an Iranian ally that has historically held an anti-Western approach and providing a new face on U.S. policy in the Mid-East of cooperation with regimes that are willing to change their stance, a new phase of negotiations in this crisis can be achieved. However, if either side too hastily pursues a radical compromise the situation will be exacerbated. The ultimate goal of the U.S. should be to separate state sponsors of terrorism. Without any form of commitment on that regard, U.S. relations should not be pursued with those countries. By removing a strong Iranian ally, the potential to enhance relations could be achieved through Syria's establishment as a comfortable middle-ground and precedent.


Under the new President and his Secretary of State, there is potential for a breakthrough regarding Iran. However, it is necessary that the pressure remains existent on all levels until a reversal of support for international meddling via terror groups is obtained from Iranian leadership. Issues should be addressed one step at a time, and while the U.S. would like to see numerous changes in Tehran, the situation should be dealt with one step at a time. If either side too hastily pursues a radical compromise the situation will be exacerbated. The ultimate goal of the U.S. should be to encourage Iranian participation, not isolation, in international affairs. This issue should be addressed as the primary goal, and could be an issue that if pursued by Iran, could allow easier negotiations on the requirements of its nuclear program.


Only time will tell how Iran will greet the change of American leadership, but it will continue to be a difficult situation so long as each side consistently promotes a division and intolerance for the other. By potentially connecting the cultures in common pursuits, this gap can be overcome. Through forming common partnerships that enhance cooperation in the region, the U.S. can not be seen as an invading force but rather as an ally of the Middle East. The situation is difficult, but there is the hope that doors will open that allow Iran and the West to pursue negotiations and relationships in the future.