The Thing No One Wants To Say: Why the War in Libya May Not Be Enough

The evidence is clear. The Libyan Army, under control of Gaddafi, is a professional military, with some form of discipline and professionalism. The rebel armed forces, are an ill-equipped, largely untrained, undisciplined, volunteer army, whose only hope for victory is in Allah and enhanced NATO participation against the Gadafi regime.

At every turn, whenever the NATO bombs do not strike Gadafi's loyalists on the battlefield, those Libyans easily force a retreat out of the rebels.

If the Arab League, the West, the UN and NATO truly wish for the rebels to topple Khadafi, the option to just sustain a mealy-mouthed alliance and not delivering much needed arms, defenses and humanitarian supplies to the rebels is non-existent. Further, they must establish official lines of communication, just as France did first, with the rebel government. Finally, they must offer some form of training and coordinate with the rebels, to make sure that their efforts are not in vain. No matter how much NATO bombs from the air, that is unlikely to give the rebels a victory, if they are incapable of mounting any real battles against the regular Libyan army.

Short of these steps, the coalition's efforts may end up merely creating two Libyas, and the need to police both for an undetermined amount of time, at a period when NATO could be much better used in other critical tasks, for example: liberating the people of, say, Syria.

It would be a giant setback to the rebels of Libya if they don't win. It would be an even greater loss for NATO and the UN and all those who back this action against the Ghadafi regime. And it would be a huge victory for all the remaining tyrants and despots who use brutal savagery against their own People.

The truth is that this great Arab Spring revolution has potential to go extremely well or extremely badly. If Gadaffi is not dislodged from power, it will signal to other dictators that they may keep their power, if only by hunkering down and being extremely mad and violent.

One other such dictator is Bashar al-Assad of Syria. If Bashar Assad manages to keep his PR image in the US Congress as that of a "reformer" while he remains a terrorism sponsor who answers to Iran and rules Lebanon by proxy, and uses brute violent lethal force to repress the human rights of his own Syrian People, then he may well keep power and avoid a no-fly zone, destruction of his air, sea, and land defenses, along with untold human carnage of his military.

This could also make it easier for Yemen's President Sallah to keep his grip on power, by demonstrating any form of political reform and urging his friends in Washington to lend a hand to quash that civil unrest.

The ironic thing is that President Obama campaigned against this exact sort of double-standards geopolitics. Obama beat McCain in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections by promising not to maintain the Bush doctrine of making the United States of America a selective world police. That doctrine was driven by capabilities and limits of power, not by popularity. Yet Obama is executing the Bush doctrine, only on a much larger scale than Bush ever did, and he is pretending not to be doing it. President Obama is allowing his global policies, and his moral compass, to be guided by public opinion polls.

President Bush led two wars. All out wars. Not international police actions, along the lines of President Clinton's efforts in Serbia and Kosovo. Wars. President Obama is leading an international police action. Like Kosovo. Like Vietnam. Like Korea. All of these were long, drawn-out conflicts, which did not have to be so long, so ugly, or so costly in terms of blood and treasure.

With all due respect and recognition of the man's intellect, and his capabilities and achievements, President Obama is clearly out of his league, in terms of his grasp of the multi-faceted situation facing the United States, its allies, its interests, and how to handle it all. I am not saying that President Obama is incapable of getting out of this situation with a good mark. I am just saying that so far, he is doing poorly.

If President Obama were indeed a great leader, then he should have been able to go do his little South America trip without having to lose much sleep at night, knowing his political alliance was rock solid, and that the military was doing its job based on a clear policy with clear objectives, and with the full weight of and support of the American government. He should not have to send Hillary Clinton to do the grunt work of any other senior diplomat. There should not have to be a conference requiring so many heads of state, every week or two, just to deal with Gadafi. Libya, in the context of the world, should not have taken so much effort to resolve.

This was a clear cut case. Evil dictator using force against democracy-seeking protesters and rebels. It's America's own history, told in another place and time. This was a perfect opportunity for President Obama to show that his multi-nation alliance and sophisticated diplomacy could do the job quickly, efficiently, and without costing America its reputation abroad, which is what he accused President Bush of damaging by being a unilateralist.

President Obama blew it. Now it's messy, and yes, it's his fault.

If President Obama had wanted to enjoy his visit to Brazil and Chile, he should have admitted that he has adopted the Bush doctrine and done whatever it takes to win, quickly and decisively. He would have formed a Coalition of the Willing, damn the naysayers and routed Gadafi from power within days. Instead, he just kept attacking the Bush doctrine in his rhetoric, while not mounting the all-out assault on Gadafi which is required to win.

Instead, President Obama has promised to be a multilateralist, and has now proven himself to be one in this case. The result of such diplomatic hemming and hawing is the unnecessary lengthening of the war, which now hangs in the balance, with a fractioned alliance, unclear policy, unclear enforcement rules, unclear leadership, unclear milestones going forward, and an unclear end game. Add that all up, and it doesn't sound good.

President Obama, of course, is already campaigning for the 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections. So his interest in being decisive without strong backing in the polls, is very limited. President Obama, a master of How To Win The Presidency Without Really Trying, knows that he doesn't have to worry about those people in Araby fighting tooth and nail for their freedom. He needs to worry about jobs and the U.S. economy for all those electorate votes. Otherwise, he would already be a lame duck.

Yet all hope is not lost for these Pan-Arab protestors and rebels. Despite losses, those who seek peace, freedom and democracy, must remember that there is always a high price to pay for freedom, especially at the outset. Often in history, those who were right suffered for a long time at the hands of those who had might, until eventually those who were right, won.

There may be a great loss in Libya. It may cost thousands of lives. It would be a defeat of morale for pro-democracy supporters, There may be many great losses in the Arab Spring, across many countries. We may yet be just at the start of a long struggle before the Middle East is more settled, and many more people will undoubtedly die as a consequence along the way. Yet for all those losses, it will be necessary for those who yearn for freedom to stand up and take their freedom back from the clutches of those who oppress them.

They did it in Tunisia. They did it in Egypt. They can do it anywhere the hunger for freedom is greater than the fear in their hearts.

As long as there are oppressed people who are willing to stand up and fight against dictators for their freedom and human rights, it is the responsibility of the UN Security Council, and namely the West and NATO forces, to do whatever they can, to see that these freedoms reach all people, all around the world, as soon as possible.

Women in the Public Eye

Geraldine Ferraro passed away over the weekend. She will be remembered not only as the first woman to break the Men's Club of America's National Politics. She will also be remembered as a lifelong fighter for social justice, women's rights, children's rights, and an advocate of Human Rights around the world. Sadly, after a 12 year bout with multiple myeloma - a terrible form of blood cancer, Mrs. Ferraro died on March 26, 2011.

Even President Obama, whom she opposed in favor of Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic National Convention Nomination, praised Mrs. Ferraro as a "trailblazer" whose life of civic duty and breaking through glass ceilings would make the lives of his own daughters, Sasha and Malia, a more equal one in the United States of America.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, mistreatment, harassment, abuse, and even rape all remain part of the reality of politics, protest, civic unrest, and war.

On Saturday, March 26, 2011, in Tripoli, Libya, a woman who said her name is Eman al-Obeidy from the rebel-held town of Benghazi, burst into the international hotel where journalists and other world wide media representatives are being hosted by the government of Muamar Gaddafi, to tell her story of abuse, beatings, and rape at the hands of Gadafi loyalists. She figured that it was the only place she could tell her story where anyone of consequence might hear it. As she yelled and screamed of her horrible mistreatment, Gadhafi minders rushed her, in full sight of the onlooking media, using brute force (by both men and women) to silence her, break the CNN videographer's camera, put a bag over her head, and forcefully lead her out of the hotel and into a car, whereafter she was driven to jail. When pressed for information by reporters on the scene, the Libyan government spokesman (the Deputy Foreign Minister) said she was insane and was taken into custody and was safe. Later when the reporters asked to be taken to her to see that she was indeed safe, the Libyan government spokesman said she is actually not insane and was jailed and that she may be seen again in a few days. Following that, the government spokesman said she was being offered legal aid, and would even be able to bring charges against her accused attackers. All the same, the fact that she was the first person to speak out against Gaddafi's forces in the heart of Tripoli since the anti-Gaddafi protests were quashed in Tripoli some weeks ago, says a great deal about the Libyan propaganda's machine and the ends to which it will go to silence any voice that dares speak against Ghaddafi. Furthermore, the fact that an alleged rape victim was so brutally manhandled by men and women loyal to Khadafi, says a great deal more about how women are treated - or mistreated - in that North African desert fiefdom.

In Egypt, where relatively peaceful protests in Tahrir Square led to the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak after 18 days of protests in the heart of Cairo, a story has broken about the mistreatment and abuse of women who joined the sea of protestors. Reports that dozens of women -- local Egyptians as well as foreign journalists like CBS correspondent Lara Logan, were harassed, sexually assaulted, and in many cases taken away to police detention centers in the Egypt Museum complex, where they were questioned, beaten, electrocuted, tortured, threatened with charges of prostitution, stripped, probed, photographed, and all in plain sight of strange men, continues to raise questions about gender inequality in the heart of Araby. The detained women were subject to "virgin tests" to determine whether or not they had had sex. At least one woman who was "tested" by a male physician was determined to have had sex even though she said she had not. She was then charged with prostitution. Other detained women protestors were charged with public disturbance, destroying public property, and other trumped up charges, all in an obvious attempt to silence their outrage at the Mubarak regime and its political corruptness.

The Middle East may indeed be in the middle of an historic revolution. However, until all people in Araby are treated with equal respect, men, women and children living in those countries will not be able to live in peace, because their own leaders are tormenting them with unabashed barbarism.

This leads me to the point of this post, which is really a question: Who will be the Geraldine Ferraro of Araby?

I for one hope she will come to light as soon as possible, and that women's rights are fully established and respected across the Arab nations.

To quote John Lennon, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one."

Top Ten Reasons Why Egypt will not be the next Iran

Pictured: Anti-Mubarak protesters in Tahrir Square, Friday, February 12, 2011.

10) Egypt does not want to lose its $1.5 Billion per year in foreign aid from the United States.
9) Egypt does not want to endanger the wellbeing of its own people, risking the recovery of $3.6 Billion from Mubarak assets held in Swiss coffers (or the $40 - $70 Billion suspected total of Mubarak's family assets).
8) Egypt wants to feed its own people. They will get the assistance they seek from allies, notably the United States, as long as they remain peaceful and on a path to institutionalized democracy.
7) Egypt can not afford to risk a conflict with its neighbors, especially Israel.
6) Egypt's revolutionaries used mostly peaceful tactics to remove Mubarak from power.
5) Egypt's people did not fight the army.
4) Egypt's army did not fight against the Egyptian people.
3) The revolutionaries did not march a religious leader to power by force. Aside from the religious factions, the only veils Egyptians like to see are the ones worn by belly dancers.
2) Egyptians are all demanding what everyone wants: Greater freedom, respect for human rights, peace and democracy. That, of course, includes uninterrupted Internet and Telecom services.

... and the number 1 reason why Egypt will not be the next Iran:

1) Egypt wishes to remain a Tourist hot spot. ($11 Billion in annual revenues can't be bad).

Hosni Mubarak - Hoisted by his own petard

Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak has gone on the air to announce reforms, a shuffling of puppets in his government, and to declare that he will not resign.

pictured: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak

He did so in response to the sea of Egyptians who took to the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, and scores of other cities across the nation of the Nile, over their discontent with his 30+ years of nearly dictatorial rule over the most populous Arab nation.

Mubarak's reign, the third longest in Egyptian history, might not have faced this popular revolution, were it not for his horrible mismanagement as head of state.

From the moment he stepped in to fill Anwar Sadat's shoes, his presidency was guided by fear of Muslim extremists, financial difficulty, and a population who sought to improve their relatively poor standards of living.

Of course, one can not blame all of Egypt's problems on Hosni Mubarak. After all, presidents -- even those who sit in power unfairly and for far too long -- are not the whole of a country. On the other hand, he is responsible for increasing the nepotism, corruption, and dishonest ways of his government's rule over the people of Egypt, during the last three decades.

Had Mubarak invested in political evolution, national infrastructure, education, healthcare, and increasing the standard of living of average Egyptians, he could have remained in office, without any such mass discontent and riots in the streets of Cairo. Instead, Hosni Mubarak invested in his army, his dictatorship, his way of maintaining the status quo.

To be sure, he has held a strong line against the Islamic extremists. However, he has done so at the expense of his nation's well-being. By making them the bogeyman, Mubarak has kept the middle class impotent, and has firmly resisted any real, legitimate political opposition, by even the most moderate of political actors in Egypt.

To his credit, President Mubarak has also maintained the peace with Israel, and at times even been helpful in trying to advance the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Yet, he has always done so in a most calculating way, playing up the part of diplomat to the Western world, while playing up anti-Israel propaganda on state run Egyptian television and media, in an effort to demonstrate his sympathy for the Palestinians and giving the air of being a man of the people. In other words, he has used the unique position which Egypt enjoys to bolster his presidency, rather than to actually achieve further gains for peace in the Middle East.

If Mubarak wishes to survive politically, he must enact sweeping reforms, starting with human rights, democracy, freedom of expression, and investing in Egypt's infrastructure; roads, tunnels, bridges, hospitals, universities, high schools, elementary schools, agriculture, hi-tech, and other needs of a modern country. He must also open up elections and have them be free, open, accountable and fair.

Naturally, it goes against his massive ego to do any such thing. Mubarak will likely cling to power as long as he can, making gestures and speeches and trying to quell the protests using the Army and all forces at his disposal. That is the nature of despots -- even those who call themselves President.

Mubarak really should have read the tea-leaves in Tunisia better. His obtuseness and love of self so distorted his perception of his own people's anger towards his unjust rule, that he is now the popular symbol of the ills which plague Egypt, and nothing he does (including his fondness for dyeing his hair jet black) is likely to save him from a dishonorable exit. Nothing, that is, except resigning.

I'll bet a big pita that he won't resign. Rather, he will be forced out.

The situation will then leave a political vacuum. Who will take over once the current regime is out? Will it be the Muslim Brotherhood? Former IAEA Head Mohamad El-Baradei? I'm sure even George W. Bush would prefer that annoying bureaucrat to run the government in Cairo over the Islamist movement.

Time will let all the poisons slip out. Until then, and until the next ruler of the Nile ascends the political pyramids of Egypt, it's an interesting time in the history of the cradle of civilization.