Are You Ready For a World Governed by Islamic Law?

“I have been ordered to fight the people until they all say: ‘None has the right to be worshiped other than Allah.’” — Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59

Are you ready for a world dominated by Islamic law? On July 9, the international political group Hizb ut-Tahrir will meet for the “UK Khilafah Conference” in London. During the gathering, meetings will focus upon ways in which a caliphate can be instituted. A caliphate is an Islamic state that draws its authority from, and is based upon, Sharia law.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, which stands for the “Party of Liberation” in English, is an international political organization that seeks one, unified Muslim state that is dominated by Muslim law. This particular group stands firmly planted against the United States, accusing the Super Power of colonization, among other offenses.

Additionally, the group would like to see Israel, which it deems “illegal,” be dismantled. Below, you can see a graphic that the group is using to promote the conference.

You can watch the conference’s “trailer” for more. In it, you’ll notice that the group targets Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, among others, for assisting in “colonialism” and “oppression.” Also, look out for the words, “An Islamic call spanning the globe.” Watch below:

Sometimes a word, like a faded Hollywood starlet, makes a surprising return to the spotlight and so it is for caliphate. The word owes its renewed popularity to Glenn Beck, who first raised the possibility of a new caliphate on his Fox television show. Suddenly, the word went from relative obscurity to become one of Google’s most searched words, as revolution erupted in Egypt and the world began to wonder what would emerge from the anger in Egypt’s streets.

Simply, a caliphate is a form of government. More precisely, it is an Islamic state that draws its authority from, and is based upon, Sharia law. Get used to hearing the word; it is the form of government advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

What exactly a caliphate looks like depends on whether you are a Sunni or a Shia Muslim. Sunnis believe a caliphate should be a constitutional republic, whose leaders are elected by Muslims. Shias believe the head of state is divinely chosen via a lineage of religious clerics called Imams. Within Egypt, Sunnis outnumber Shias. But, either way will involve the rule of Sharia law, its just a matter of how it is imposed.

Those who dismiss the idea of a caliphate in Egypt are discounting the country’s history. Egypt is hardly a stranger to such a form of government; it was part of the Ottoman Empire from the early 16th century until in the late 19th century. The Ottoman Empire was the last great caliphate. It didn’t transition to a secular government model until 1924.

With almost four hundred years of history as a caliphate, it’s not surprising then that Egypt’s penal code is written and based upon Islamic law. Perhaps this is to be expected in a country where an estimated 90% of the people are Muslim. What is surprising is that Egypt’s government is, or at least has been, a secular model. But will it remain so?

Given the country’s history and the religion of the overwhelming majority of its people, the stage may be set for the return of a caliphate, rising out of the present turmoil. And what that means to you probably depends on who you are. A caliphate may sound fine if you are Muslim. It might chaff a little if you’re not. Christians and Jews were treated as second-class citizens under the Ottoman Empire. Certainly to the American mind, raised to believe in the “wall of separation between church and state” as articulated by Thomas Jefferson, a caliphate is an anathema. Under a caliphate of any color organizations like the ACLU, Code Pink, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Alliance (LGBT). There are no civil liberties and homosexuality is a crime punishable by death under Sharia.

If the possibility of a caliphate in Egypt sounds improbable, consider these facts: Egypt’s current government is in collapse, the largest and most organized opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood, champions Islamic law and Egypt was once part of a caliphate.

It never works out well to ignore history or facts. The dramatic changes in Egypt cannot be denied nor can the implications for the entire region. An improbable word has made a comeback. The government it represents might not be so far behind.

Historically, Caliph (Khalifa) is the title given to those individuals who succeeded Muhammad after his death as the leader of the Muslims. The Arabic word khalifa means successor, and the full title khalifatu rasulil-lah means “successor to the messenger of Allah”. The Caliph is to be the political, military and administrative leader of all Muslims. The Caliph is the Pope, President and General of the Islamic world all wrapped into one. The office and government of the Caliph is known as the Caliphate (Khilafat). The Caliphate is the only form of government fully sanctioned within early Islamic theology. The purpose of the Caliphate is to govern the Islamic world under the Islamic Sharia law. Caliphs were also referred to with other titles such as Imam al-Ummah (leader of the Muslim community) or Amir al-Mu’minin (Commander of the Faithful).

From Muhammad’s death until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, various Caliphates or dynasties ruled the Islamic world. The most significant Caliphates in historical order were the Rashidun, the Abbasid, the Umayyid, and finally the Ottoman. At times in Muslim history, there have been rival claimants to the title Caliph in different parts of the Muslim world. Although the purpose of the Caliphate is to unify all Muslims worldwide, rarely has this genuinely been the case. Islamists however often downplay this fact and instead portray the first thirteen hundred years of Islam through a highly idealized lens:

From the first moment of its creation, the Islamic State implemented the Sharia comprehensively, conducted the affairs of the society solely according to Islam, and propagated Islam throughout the world for over thirteen centuries. Occasionally internal tensions fractured the integrity of the State, but incidents were short-lived. Throughout its thirteen centuries of existence, the Khalifa continued as a single indivisible entity that united all the Muslims under a single authority.

Today the Caliphate does not exist other than as a theoretical government that would govern the Islamic world under Islamic law. It was on March 3, 1924 that the last Caliphate—the Ottoman Caliphate—was officially abolished by the first President of the Turkish Republic, Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. It is essential that anyone trying to understand the present global Islamic movement understand the psychological impact that the abolition of the Caliphate has had on Muslims worldwide and how these factors are presently playing out throughout the Muslim World.

All Muslims regard themselves as members of one ummah, or community of Muslim believers. This concept dominates the Muslim world and mind. This sense of community and loyalty to Muhammad and Allah extends even beyond family and other societal ties. Thus, we find that Muslims do not hesitate to kill family members who give up the Islamic faith despite being their own blood and flesh. They consider it their duty to do so.

Add to this the simple fact that the Islamic sacred traditions are filled with prophecies foretelling the triumph of Islam over the whole world:

Muhammad said, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they all say: ‘None has the right to be worshiped other than Allah.’” —Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 59, Narrated Abu Huraira.

The eventual conquest and complete Islamicization of the earth is as natural of an expectation for most Muslims as the rising of the Sun. Theologically, Muslims have a sense of divine entitlement, believing that complete world domination is their calling and destiny. Therefore, for the past eighty plus years, since the actual abolition of the Caliphate, the Muslim believer has a felt a deep disorder in the power balance of the world. Rather than a united Islamic Empire under a Caliph, the Islamic World has existed as a network of underachieving and defeated nation states. They see the modern Muslims states in the Middle East as a product of the evil of the Western powers (despite being secular states, Muslims often see the West as being exclusively Christian nations) who divided up the Islamic Caliphate. This was Osama bin Laden’s view of the west and one of his big issues was to drive the United States and other western powers out of Saudi Arabia. It is also the goal of the al-Qaida and al-Qaida in the African Peninsula (AQAP).

At the same time, too often they have been ruled by corrupt third-rate dictators, like Moammar Qaddafi, who live in luxury while their people live in difficult circumstances. Again, they often see these tyrants as being installed or supported by the evil Western powers. A people who viewed themselves as the world’s foremost superpower for over thirteen hundred years have been a divided network of backwater nation states for nearly a century now with many existing on the oil they produce. And to compound this emotional blow, this humbling has taken place during the 20th century, a time when numerous other nations—particularly those founded on Judeo-Christian principles—have excelled in everything from government to human rights, scientific breakthroughs, prosperity, education, military and who can list everything else? So it has been the combination of the relative prosperity and advancement in so many parts of the non-Muslim world contrasted with the complete deterioration of the once thriving Islamic Empire that has been on display as the shame of the Muslim World. Add again to all this the fact that the Muslim world is an Eastern culture, where honor and shame mean everything. All in all, the psychological impact and the resentment of the Muslim world regarding all that we have discussed is nearly all consuming.

And of course, where does this resentment and pent-up anger fall? For in such a drastically disordered world, conspiracy theories and blame-shifting are the only tools sufficient enough to cope. Muslims then blame all of their ills on Israel (or as it is so often referred to as: “The World-Zionist Conspiracy”) as well as the various imperialist Western colonizing powers of the last and previous centuries. In order to remedy their shame and refusing to entertain the truth of the real root of their problems, many Muslims have seen no alternative other than painting themselves as victims of Western imperialist “crusader” forces.

Looking back upon the pre-colonial days of Islamic Empire, two thoughts are often seen to emerge in the modern Muslim mind: The first is to recapture the former glory, and the second is to punish those who have withheld it for so long. All of these aspirations are most often summarized negatively in the overthrow and destruction of Israel and the West, while they are expressed positively in the messianic expectations concerning the coming of the final Caliph, referred to as the Mahdi.

For additional comments and video you can visit Joelstrumpet.com where there is an interesting video on the coming of the Anti-Christ.

Why is NATO like McHale’s Navy?

“NATO was facing collective military irrelevance after years of inadequate defense spending by most of its members.” — Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, June 10, 2011

On June 10, 2011 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said before a meeting of Europe security experts in Brussels:

“In March, the alliance unanimously backed the decision to go to war in Libya to protect civilians from forces loyal to Moammar Gaddafi but less than half of NATO's 28 members were participating in the military operation and fewer than a third are conducting airstrikes against ground targets.

"Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they cannot, the military capabilities simply aren't there."

You can read more by clicking here

Anyone old enough remembers the 60s sitcoms Gomer Pyle -USMC, F Troop, and McHale's Navy. A review of DVDs of those fine, funny shows of yore should be high on anyone's list who's been following NATO's misadventure in Libya. Incoming Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta may want to take a look-see. After watching a few episodes of each show, you'd swear Gomer Pyle is leading McHale's zanies and F Troop fumblers across Libya's desert sands in side-slapping futility — all set to laugh track guffaws.

Okay, NATO doesn't have boots on the ground in Libya, so Gomer and his goofs aren't zigzagging across North Africa. NATO, you see, can't make up its collective mind to put boots on the ground. NATO can't make up its collective mind to dispatch Muammar Gaddafi, either. One day the irascible Muammar is on NATO's hit list, the next day he's off — sort of. It's all high, humorous, and deadly incompetence, this game of whack-a-dictator that NATO is playing with Gaddafi.

Gaddafi pops his head up in some hamlet or village and NATO launches a barrage of missiles or drones or whatever's left in its dwindling munitions stockpile. Gaddafi escapes but some poor fellahin who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time gets a one-way ticket to paradise to meet some virgins.

NATO's Libyan adventure is premised on a lie — or, at least, a semi-lie. The lie is that NATO has intervened in Libya to protect innocents from Gaddafi's ghoulish depravity. NATO's leaders — so-called — might as well have declared that they're in Libya for the chil'ren's sake. "The chil'ren" is the all-purpose throwaway line that progressives use to justify any and every use or expansion of government, so why not use it to justify war?

The truth is that the Europeans who conceived the Libyan mess are a more cynical lot; they're using a humanitarian cover to protect vital Western European oil interests in the Middle East, but they're doing very poorly. You see, national self-interest is long out of vogue among progressives — European and American. Oil is too practical and tawdry a concern. The West must be about upholding selfless ideals. Hence, the need for Florence Nightingale to ride into Libya on the back of a Tomahawk missile or in the cockpit of an F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Though NATO's dithering incompetence in the Libyan fight might make for a few laughs for us observers, it's far less humorous and more instructive to NATO's and America's enemies (Opps — competitors; we must be scrupulously PC).

The Chinese, Russians, and Iranians — chief among the world's black hats — are watching avidly as NATO stumbles and bumbles in Libya — or never gets to Libya with troops in the first place, since the Great Libyan Humanitarian Intervention of 2011 is being run by committee (you know, committees, those wonderful collections of human beings tasked with designing elephants but concocting camels instead).

The military brass in China, Russia, and Iran must be licking their chops and taking copious notes. The once-mighty NATO can't make quick work of Gaddafi and his tiny semi-professional army. The United States — the world's remaining superpower, for the time being, anyway — and the NATO member capable of galvanizing resolve and leading the coalition to a swift victory in Libya is sitting on the sidelines — kind of. The U.S. is helping out, but halfheartedly. President Barack Obama, a thoroughly Kool-Aid drinking progressive, says the U.S. is weary of being the world's leader; let NATO's Barney Fifes figure out how to shoot straight and beat the bad guys.

Let's not forget that the Brits and Americans have had tougher fights in North Africa. Generals Montgomery and Patton drove Rommel and the tough-as-nails Germans out of North Africa during World War II. Are the Michael Jackson lookalike Muammar Gaddafi and his AK-47 wielding thugs tougher than Rommel and his Panzer divisions?

No one is suggesting that Libya is America's fight. There is no discernible vital American interest at stake in the overthrow of Gaddafi and the establishment of a new government there. Yeah, Gaddafi is a bad guy; everyone remembers Lockerbie, and most everyone knows that Gaddafi has given a helping hand to terrorists (militants for Islam - PC again). There are ways of exacting revenge for Gaddafi's deadly gambits like taking the guy out surgically and covertly without full-blown war. If we did it to Osama bin Laden we could do it to Gaddafi.

Or perhaps we could send in three or our four jeep teams with four SAS types and a .50 caliber Browning attached to each jeep like the 60’s series The Rat Patrol.

Yet, you can bet your bottom ruble that Putin and his gangster-cohorts are gaming moves to make against a weak and wavering Western Europe in light of NATO's impotent Libyan performance. Empire is in every Russian's DNA; Putin is certainly no exception. And Russians have a very Asian sensibility; they'll wait for exploitable opportunities, even if that's years down the road.

The Chinese are aggressively building blue water navy, and not to provide humanitarian relief in far-flung corners of the world, but to dominate the Asian Pacific region — and, perhaps, one day, say, the Indian Ocean. Mr. Obama's shoulder shrugs and masked hostility to U.S. global leadership is on full display in the NATO-Libyan imbroglio. The Chinese aren't dopes.

Chinese Leader Hu Jintao and Generals Liang Guanglie and Chen Bingde must be wondering if Mr. Obama's "We are the World — not Leaders" oath marks a permanent departure for the U.S. in global affairs, especially those involving military elements. A less assertive U.S. makes China's strategic and tactical moves — backed up by a strong military and the will to use it — much easier in the coming years.

And Iran? Despite the “marvelous” European and American team effort to shutdown Iran's nuclear weapons program, Iran's mullahs and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continue to intrepidly push ahead. The Iranians have already drawn a bead on Western impotence. The Libyan comedy starring NATO can only affirm that the Iranians need only finish making the bombs that they hope to kill Israelis with while cowing Europeans and Americans in the process.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are gambling men, and from their perspective, NATO's Libyan bog is a green light to keep rolling the dice. Can you say mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv? If so it will be a tribute to the Europeans and Americans.

Consequences? Not always a pleasant word in global affairs. Even with an eventual victory in Libya, NATO has already botched it. NATO's enemies have a predator's keen eye and instincts. NATO's Libyan pratfalls and tail-chasing have been fully registered in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran. The consequences longer term can't be good — and that goes for the U.S., too.

As Michelle Bachmann said in last night’s GOP debate:

“Our policy in Libya is substantially flawed. It's interesting. President Obama's own people said that he was leading from behind. The United States doesn't lead from behind. As commander in chief, I would not lead from behind.

We are the head. We are not the tail. The president was wrong. All we have to know is the president deferred leadership in Libya to France. That's all we need to know. The president was not leading when it came to Libya.”

NATO Is Failing In Libya And The U.S.Is Paying The Bill

"It is a happy circumstance in human affairs that evils which are not cured in one way will cure themselves in some other." — Thomas Jefferson

Today Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) walked out of a secret behind closed doors briefing to the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs where he is the chairman and announced that NATO has seriously degraded Coronel Muammar Gaddafi’s ability to survive and that the rebels are winning he fight against his loyalist troops.

Leahy’s committee is responsible for recommending the level of appropriations for the continuation of our involvement with NATO’s efforts to oust Gaddafi from Libya. Leahy’s comments are in direct contradiction to the latest reports coming out Libya and those of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at yesterday’s SDA meeting in Brussels.

Fox News reported today that more than 20 were killed as Gaddafi’s forces shelled the rebel-held town of Misrata. Their report states:

“A hospital physician in Misrata says Libyan government forces are pounding the outskirts of the rebel-held city and have so far killed at least 22 people.

The doctor at Hikma Hospital, who would only give his first name, Ayman, said Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces were using tanks, artillery and incendiary rockets in the bombardment of Dafniya, about 18 miles west of Misrata. He said at least 61 people were wounded. The attacks began about 10 a.m. local time Friday.

Rebels tell Reuters that pro-Qaddafi forces shelled their positions in the Western Mountains region.

"They are shelling Zintan with Grad missiles. There have been no NATO air strikes for a week," a rebel spokesman told Reuters.

This latest violence comes as Norway says it will scale down its fighter jet contribution in Libya from six to four planes and withdraw completely from the NATO-led operation by Aug. 1.

Defense Minister Grete Faremo said she expects understanding from NATO allies because Norway has a small air force and cannot "maintain a large fighter jet contribution during a long time."

The Scandinavian country's air force says Norwegian F-16 jets have carried out about 10 percent of the NATO airstrikes in Libya since March 31.

The parties in the center-left coalition government had been at odds over whether to extend the Norwegian mission, which was scheduled to expire June 24. The most leftist faction in the government, the Socialist Left Party, opposed an extension but a compromise was reached to stay in the operation until Aug. 1 with fewer planes.

"It is wise to end the Norwegian fighter jet contribution. Now Norway should apply its efforts to find a peaceful solution in Libya," Socialist Left Party lawmaker Baard Vegar Solhjell said.

While Norway announces the end of its involvement in Libya, the Dutch government extended its forces' role in the NATO campaign of air strikes in Libya until the end of the three month extension the alliance recently announced.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates this week urged NATO allies including the Netherlands to do more in Libya to share the burden with France and Britain, which are carrying out most of the air strikes.

The Dutch government, however, is still refusing to let its six F-16 fighter jets involved in the mission to carry out airstrikes. Instead they will continue to enforce the no-fly-zone above Libya.

In addition, the government announced Friday it will send experts in psychological operations and legal affairs to join the mission.”

The Obama administration is struggling to keep Congress on board as it appeals for patience in Libya, with lawmakers in both chambers moving to check the president's war powers as the cost of the operation rises.

The Senate fired a warning shot on Wednesday with a bipartisan-backed resolution chiding President Obama for failing to provide a "compelling rationale" for the mission. The measure is similar to one that passed the House last week — however; this one is tougher in that it calls for the president to seek permission from Congress to remain in Libya.

The challenge of selling Libya got even harder Thursday as a Financial Times report claimed the Pentagon is pegging the monthly cost of the operation at about $60 million, as opposed to the $40 million a month officials had estimated earlier. A Pentagon official told Fox News that $40 million a month is still the working projection but said the number could rise.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last month the operation could cost $750 million through the end of September — it's now clear that unless the mission ends soon, it will cost at least $90 million more than that even if the cost remains at $40 million each month.

According to the Financial Times:

“Although it is working under NATO, the U.S. is by far the largest contributor to operation “Unified Protector”. As of mid-May it was conducting 70 per cent of reconnaissance missions, over 75 per cent of refueling flights and 27 per cent of all air sorties.

The U.S. has about 75 aircraft, including drones, involved in the operations and since the end of March has conducted about 2,600 aircraft sorties and about 600 combat sorties. In addition the U.S. military can call on a number of naval assets in the Mediterranean.

As well as its contribution to the NATO operation, US spending on Libya includes its twelve day operation Odyssey Dawn that took place before NATO took over.

In total the US military has fired about 228 missiles as of mid-May. For comparison the US Navy plans to buy 196 or so missiles this year for about $300m or about $1.5m each, according to U.S. budget documents.”

If this is leading from behind as Obama claims that I wonder what the costs would be if we were leading from the front. What is the contribution from the French, Italians and British? It is no doubt nowhere near the money we have spent and it’s their war!

Fox News reported today:

“In the face of mounting discontent, administration officials are pledging to work with Congress while insisting U.S. forces stay until the job is done — without defining exactly what the endpoint would look like.

"We have seen the regime weaken significantly. We have seen the opposition make gains both in the East and the West," CIA Director Leon Panetta, Obama's pick to replace Gates, told a Senate panel Thursday. "I think there are some signs that if we continue the pressure, if we stick with it, that ultimately (Muammar) Qaddafi will step down."

Gates told NATO on Thursday that "we're in this thing with our allies to the finish."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also said the president will "endeavor to answer" all the questions about the mission the House posed to the White House with its resolution last week.

But while claiming consultations with Congress have been "extensive and constant," he also described the Senate's latest resolution as unhelpful.

The Senate resolution, like the House resolution, makes a blunt threat in stating Congress has the "constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed Forces." It also calls on the White House to provide information on 21 separate issues within 14 days of enactment.

It's unclear whether and under what conditions Congress would start to use funding as leverage.

Christopher Preble, foreign policy analyst with the Cato Institute, noted that it would be "rare" for Congress to follow through on a threat to cut off funding for military operations -- and he said the Pentagon budget is so large the military could potentially shuffle money around to keep the mission going.

He described the congressional debate as a "principled argument," but one worth having.

A key concern of lawmakers is that the president has flouted the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to seek congressional authorization for military intervention within 60 days.

More than 80 days into the mission, resolution co-sponsor Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said the president has "clearly" violated that provision. He expressed concern that the White House is setting a risky precedent.

"We're faced, in my view, with the prospect of a very troubling, if not downright odd, historical precedent that has the potential to haunt us for decades," Webb said on the floor of the Senate.

"The issue for us to consider is whether a president, any president, can unilaterally begin and continue a military campaign for reasons that he alone has defined as meeting the demanding standards of a vital national interest worthy of risking American lives and expending billions of dollars of our taxpayers' money."

As Webb and his colleagues push their resolution, the Senate apparently has put on hold a separate resolution meant to express support for the mission. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had intended to work on the measure Thursday, but with discontent bubbling to the surface he has postponed the action likely to next week, according to a panel member.

Some lawmakers are urging the United States to step up its military effort with the express goal of forcing Qaddafi from power. And they caution against the move to rein in the president.

"In Libya, there are signs that Qaddafi may be starting to crack. But the odds of a stalemate remain far too high. I believe U.S. strategy should be to reduce those odds as much as possible and quickly force Qaddafi to leave power rather than hoping we achieve that objective with minimal effort," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday at the Panetta hearing.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at the same committee hearing asked Panetta about the consequences of Qaddafi remaining in power.

Panetta said that outcome would send a "terrible signal" and indicate that the United States' "word isn't worth very much."

Graham agreed with Panetta, and said he couldn't wait to vote for him.”

According to the Pew Research Organization more Americans blame wars than domestic spending or tax cuts for nation's debt:

“Far more Americans say that the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed a great deal to the nation's debt than say that about increased domestic spending or the tax cuts enacted over the past decade.

Six-in-ten (60%) say the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed a great deal to the size of the debt. About four-in-ten (42%) say the same about the condition of the national economy.

By comparison, just 24% say increased spending on domestic problems has contributed greatly to the nation's debt and even fewer (19%) cite the tax cuts enacted over the past decade. While half or more say spending and the tax cuts contributed at least a fair amount to the debt, 31% say increased domestic spending did little or nothing to increase the debt and 38% say the same about the tax cuts.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 25-30 among 1,509 adults, finds widespread opposition to number of proposals aimed at reducing the deficit and the national debt, including reducing funding for the states for education and roads (73% disapprove) and gradually raising the Social Security retirement age (59%).”

In another report from Pew Americans say they remain wary of global engagement:

“Major events in the Middle East -- including tensions between the U.S. and Israel, growing political unrest in many Arab countries, and the death of Osama bin Laden -- have had little effect on public attitudes toward the region.

Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, far more Americans continue to say they sympathize with Israel rather than the Palestinians (by 48% to 11%). These opinions are little changed from recent years.

A plurality (50%) says Barack Obama is striking the right balance in the Middle East situation, while 21% say he favors the Palestinians too much. There has also been no change in these views over the past year; in April 2010, 47% said Obama struck the right balance and 21% said he favored the Palestinians too much.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 25-30 among 1,509 adults, finds that the public continues to cast a wary eye on the turmoil sweeping the Middle East.

Just (23%) say the changes occurring in the Middle East will be good for the United States; about as many (26%) say the changes will be bad and 35% say they will not have much effect.

There also is considerable skepticism that people in the Middle East will benefit from the protests and calls for change: 45% say these actions will not lead to lasting improvements for the people living in these countries while 37% say they will lead to lasting improvements. In early April, the public was split over whether the protests and calls for change would lead to lasting improvements for people in the region (42% will lead to lasting improvements, 43% will not).”

While foreign wars have cost us billions they are not the main cause for our $1.65 trillion deficit or the $15 trillion dollar national debt. The public is not seeing things as they really are. They are victims of the old cognitive dissonance syndrome — ignoring facts in order to keep their closely held beliefs.

Our involvement is Libya was not directly addressed in the Pew polls, but I would guess that the public opinion would run about the same as it does for Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East on the whole.

Obama has not made a convincing case for our involvement Libya. We are carrying the bulk of NATO’s water in Libya with no clear mission or exit strategy. I the American public could not buy George Bush’s reason for getting rid of Sadam Hussein I cannot see them buying the reason for eventually spending a billion dollars to rid the world of Muammar Gaddafi.

NATO, the U.N. and Humanitarian Wars

“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws—the first growing out of the last... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” — Alexander Hamilton

Humanitarian war-making (an oxymoron, indeed) is on full display in Libya. Reports persist that the Libya intervention, as it's commonly referred to, is bogged down. Is anyone really surprised?

There's been talk of the U.S. sending in ground troops as part of an international force to aid Libyan rebels, among whom are, undoubtedly, jihadists — jihadists, as in enemies of the United States and the entire Western world. But if the U.S. doesn't pony-up troops, NATO may. Never mind that a humanitarian war was supposed to protect innocents, not support rebels. Doesn't taking sides violate a tenet of humanitarian war? Or will the U.N. sanctioned coalition overtly help the rebels in the name of humanitarianism?

Just today Obama signed off on the use of Predators Drones to support the “rebels’ in Libya. Fox News reports; “The U.S. is not at war with Libya and has not taken sides, but President Obama nevertheless has signed off on the use of armed predator drones in the North African nation that has been torn by a weeks-old bloody conflict, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.”

"What the president has said that where we have some unique capabilities, he is going to use those, and in fact he has approved the use of armed predators, and I think today may have been in fact their first mission," he said.”

“The president approved the use of two unmanned aircraft around the clock to pick off targets in urban areas in Libya. The U.S. military tried to launch them Thursday but turned them back due to bad weather.”

“Obama already uses the drones to target terrorists along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. Gates said the drones will enable more precise attacks against Col. Muammar Qaddafi's forces.”

“The move carries political risks as it could further alienate the president's anti-war base as he ramps up his re-election campaign. And several members of Congress already feel spurned by the president because he launched "limited" military operations without consulting them first. Stepping up the U.S. effort there could draw more ire from them.”

Who knows about humanitarian war's tenets? Liberals, being good relativists, are situational; aims are always malleable. But we do know this: winning at war — or articulating victory as the goal of war — is to be dismissed. Have President Obama and those mealy-mouthed functionaries at the State Department claimed victory as a war aim? Winning — as in defeating an enemy — defines traditional war, which liberals disdain. Traditional war is about protecting or advancing vital national interests, but national interests are narrow, squalid concerns.

The opening shock and awe phase of the Libyan fight was supposed to either kill Moammar Qaddafi (despite Orwellian pronouncements to the contrary) or send him packing, tail tucked between his legs. Instead, Gaddafi is proving wily and tenacious — to a point. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is warning not to underestimate Qaddafi (as reported in the Washington Times). Of course, neither should anyone overestimate the progressives who are running this war.

Why can't the mighty Western militaries that comprise the coalition quickly do-away with Qaddafi and his humble military? Answer: they aren't tasked to do so. It's not part of the U.N. mandate. Instead, coalition forces pursue a one foot in and one foot out plan that needlessly and inhumanely protracts the Libyan war. Inconclusiveness is the great killer in war.

It Turns out air power’s not enough in heavily populated urban areas, a development that was totally foreseeable, actually. And since no one’s eager to send in ground troops, we appear to be stuck. “We rushed into this without a plan,” a retired Army general told the LA Times. “Now we’re out in the middle, going in circles.”

Says Eli Lake, the Washington Times’ national security reporter, “At this point if NATO was in a fight with the Broadway production of CATS, would you bet on NATO or CATS?”

NATO officials acknowledged that they are having trouble destroying Gadhafi’s mortars and rocket launchers from the air, for fear of inadvertently harming civilians in such strikes. “There is a limit to what can be achieved by airpower to stop fighting in a city,” said NATO Brig. Gen. Mark van Uhm. He said his forces have destroyed more than 40 tanks and several armored personnel carriers there.

Adm. Giampaolo Di Paola, chairman of NATO’s military committee, said that even though NATO operations have done “quite significant damage” to the Libyan regime’s heavy weaponry, what Qaddafi has left is “still considerable.”

Rebels trapped in Misrata grumbled yesterday to the Washington Post that they feel “let down” by NATO’s unwillingness to bomb buildings where Qaddafi’s snipers are holed up. One of them, referring to the UN mandate to protect Libyan civilians, said, “If they cannot do it, they should say they cannot do it.” Today they’re taking a different tack, calling on the coalition to do the one thing no one wants to do:

“We need a force from NATO or the United Nations on the ground now,” said Nouri Abdullah Abdulati, of the city’s 17-member judicial committee, speaking to a handful of reporters”.

“We did not accept any foreign soldiers on our land. But that was before we faced the crimes of Qaddafi,” Abdulati said Tuesday. “We are asking on the basis of humanitarian and Islamic principles for someone to come and stop the killing. The whole Arab world is calling for the intervention of the West for the first time in history.”

“Abdulati said the committee would want British or French troops to fight alongside rebel fighters in Misurata, both to protect civilians and to fight off Qaddafi forces.”

Believe it or not, the EU’s actually toying with the idea of sending in ground troops — but only to escort humanitarian relief convoys, which isn’t quite necessary yet since the port of Misrata remains open for shipments. (Qaddafi’s promising to fight any such force that shows up.) France and the UK are also sending very small squads of military trainers to Benghazi to help the rebels get better organized. It’s escalation by inches, in other words, but escalation all the same to preserve what little remains of European military prestige. A simple question, then, per Lake’s snarky comment up top: At this point, is there any way to really preserve European prestige? The best possible outcome for the EU would be to get cracking on that larger “humanitarian escort” force and send it in to try to intimidate Qaddafi into choosing exile. But that’s a huge gamble: If, as he’s said, he chooses to fight and manages to hold off the European advance for awhile, it’ll be even more crushing to their prestige. He might relish the idea too, given his own ideas of himself as an African king and the European legacy of colonialism on the continent. A gloss:

“By the U.S. taking a back-seat role, it has a psychological effect on the mission,” said Dan Fata, a former Defense Department official who was responsible for overseeing NATO issues during the George W. Bush administration. “If I’m Qaddafi, I’m thinking I can probably wait the Europeans out.”

The humanitarian war in Libya is full of half-measures with incrementalism lurking in the wings. In the U.S., liberals' war-making was previewed in Vietnam decades ago. Didn't liberals learn anything from that long, bloody, losing affair? Also liberals have not learned about high taxes and big spending government either. Americans, however, should know better on both counts. As Sun Tzu, the ancient military tactician and philosopher said; “There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.” (This can also be said of Afghanistan — another NATO and U.S. debacle).

Barack Obama's humanitarian war gambit in Libya is part of a grander scheme, of course: the transformation of the United States from world leader to just one voice among many. Diminishing the United States at home and abroad is gospel to the left. Obama, the left's long-awaited anti-Reagan, is dutifully going about trying to overturn every demonstrated Reagan success in domestic and foreign policy. This deliberate effort to un-Reagan the nation isn't just unhinged — figuratively, it's criminal. America may end up paying for decades in untold ways for Mr. Obama's and the left's chicanery.

So the United States, under Mr. Obama, has ceded leadership of the Libyan war effort to the U.N. and NATO. Smart anti-Qaddafi Libyans might just want to apply for refugee status now and get out of Dodge, unless they care to continue to gamble their lives on the U.N. and NATO.

The U.N. has its very own ruinous four horsemen: incompetence, corruption, impotence, and fecklessness. Expecting the U.N. to save Libyan innocents is like having expected the U.N. to save innocents in Darfur or Rwanda.

And NATO? The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was charted to stop Russian aggression during the Cold War, not serve as an all-purpose force to save the world. NATO may not have entirely outlived its purpose — one never knows about the Russians — but it's proving what the United States Postal Service proves in the United States: governmental organizations find ways to continue even when their missions no longer exist.

Is NATO being used principally by Western Europe to safeguard its energy interests in the Middle East? If the humanitarian war in Libya is just a cover for Western Europe to protect its vital interests, then the Libyan fight gives the lie to the very concept of humanitarian war, where disinterest to gain or advantage is a premium. But gain or conquest under a guise is nothing new to nations in the annals of history — most definitely in the annals of modern history, where communist regimes waged wars of conquest in the name of the proletariat.

The Libyan intervention (let's get the language straight, shall we?) could well be a mish-mash of intentions, which fit nicely with the inadequate, mish-mashed coalition operations underway; is folly in the offing? Wars without clear-cut aims and a definitive end-game are nothing more than killing fields. Killing fields are moral abominations.

A muddled Libyan war, full of half-measures and partial solutions like no-fly zones and a dictator permitted to slip the noose, is worse than inhumane; it holds out hope — a cruel hope — to a suffering people that may never be fulfilled. But such is the record and promise of progressivism in the world; words and intentions trump hard results. Just doing a little something in Libya should make everyone feel good. Something was done toward righting injustice; some food and medicines were gotten to Libyan innocents; some protection granted. But the hard slog to victory? Missing are the hard sacrifices that come with waging war and trying to build a durable, truly just peace? Heavy-lifting isn't part of the progressive feel good crowd's M.O.

Nor are consequences listed on the progressive agenda. That humanitarian war might leave matters worse than what they were aren't factors to the progressive mind. They don't appear to be in Libya. Long range calculations don't matter a lot; they may force considerations and actions that demand too much.

The United States — President Obama, in particular — had no business committing to what seems to be a travesty in Libya. Doing so is morally inexcusable. Progressives, not particularly God-fearing, haven't accepted that the way to hell is paved with good intentions — or, perhaps, intentions masquerading as good. In either case, progressives' notion of war-making hurts a lot of decent people, spends blood and treasure for naught, and leaves the world in a worse, not better, place.

The Good War

“No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.” — Abraham Lincoln

A few years ago Studs Terkel wrote a Pulitzer Prized winning book titled “The Good War.” the book is a firsthand account of people involved before, during and after the war. The book mainly consists of interviews with people who lived the events that went from the beginning of America's involvement in World War II, Pearl Harbor, to the end.

According to Terkel WWII was a war that needed to be fought and was the last “good war”. All subsequent wars the United States has been involved since WWII should be considered “bad wars” — that is according to today.

How times have changed! The United States isn't the imperialistic, blood-for-oil war machine that it was just a few years ago. We've shed the "I ride alone" image and become acceptable in the world community. Every charge levied against the United States following the Iraq invasion is yesterday's news and America can again wage a “just war”. All we needed was a change of party at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Remember the arguments against President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein? Those arguments aren't heard today, now that a Democrat administration has led us to war in Libya. Oh, I know President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton don't consider the Libyan no-fly zone a war, but it is a war. When bombs are dropping, missiles are launching, guns are firing, and people are dying, that's a war. No question about it. Ask any Korea or Vietnam veteran to describe a "police action."

While hardline pacifists are stridently against the administration's "rush to war" in Libya, they have gained little traction compared to their efforts to demonize the Iraq War. Dennis Kucinich, Code Pink, Michael Moore, and the usual culprits are screaming. But few among the Democrat leadership and their media allies seem to care. The reason is that their opposition to the Iraq War was political, not principled. Now, to borrow from Jeremiah Wright, the Democrats' chickens have come home to roost. Factually, George Bush was on much firmer ground with Iraq than Obama is with Libya.

Bush's detractors accused him of rushing America to war with no clear objective. Actually, Bush's agenda was quite clear. The United States would depose Saddam Hussein and then help Iraq hold elections and establish a constitution. Those goals were accomplished. Admittedly, not all subsequent events unfolded as planned. Iraq's elections produced Shiite majorities, which is the same ideology that holds sway in Iran, and their constitution amounts to Sharia Law. But each goal was reached.

President Obama has no clear objective in Libya. First he said Col. Gaddafi must relinquish power. Then he said Gaddafi could remain in control if he promised to play according to Hoyle. Obama has since reversed course again, and Gaddafi must go. We're unsure of our objective, if indeed we have one. Even identifying our enemy is harder than in Iraq. Gaddafi is a loon no doubt, an unpredictable despot with a terrorist history. But the rebel forces we aid in Libya are linked to al-Qaeda and could prove worse than Gaddafi.

Bush was accused of acting unilaterally in Iraq. But his coalition for the Iraq War included more countries (30) than Obama's coalition (16) in Libya. What's more, Bush built his allies. Obama joined a work in progress and is quite comfortable passing the leadership role to NATO.

Did Iraq attack America? According to Democrats and their media lapdogs, Iraq did not. However, reality intercedes with their convenient fantasizing. Iraq did attack the United States and our interests. Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait, a move outside their borders that threatened international trade shipping routes. Hussein agreed to cease-fire terms upon Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait. He violated those terms flagrantly and, yes, attacked American forces directly. No-fly zones were established over Iraq as part of the cease-fire. Iraq, however, fired on American aircraft patrolling those zones, directly violating the agreement.

Gaddafi's government hasn't directly attacked U.S. interests in years. In fact, in the last ten years the Libyan government acknowledged responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to restitution for the victims, renounced terrorism (supposedly) and abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons program. Furthermore, Bush's critics charged him with involving America in Iraq's civil war. So what's happening in Libya? Vacation Bible School? Obama bears more guilt for interceding in a sovereign civil war than did Bush.

The Iraq War began without congressional authorization. Or did it? Congress adopted a resolution granting President Bush the authority to use force, at his discretion, to combat terrorism wherever he determined it existed. And Congress authorized President Bush to use force directly against Iraq to ensure compliance with resolutions outlined in the Gulf War cease-fire pact.

The Obama administration simply began dropping bombs and firing missiles into Libya. No consent was sought from Congress. No strategy is evident and there's no meaningful definition of victory. All we really know is that American forces are preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya where a mad dictator is killing his subjects. Wasn't the same true in Iraq?

Does anyone honestly believe Saddam Hussein didn't kill his own people? Tell that to the Kurds, upon whom he used chemical weapons. Tell that to the victims of the torture chambers U.S. troops uncovered after Hussein's fall. What's more, if humanitarianism serves as criterion for American air strikes, the bombs should soon fall on Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, North Korea, and a host of other unruly nations and authoritarian regimes.

The arguments used to implicate Bush as an international war criminal should also apply to Obama's decision to bomb Libya. I'll concede that America entered Iraq with some unrealistic expectations, but we weren't meddling in their affairs. Hussein's actions demanded our response. But even Robert Gates has found no compelling U.S. interest in warring with Libya.

Nothing mentioned thus far should promote sympathy for Muammar Gaddafi. He is a despot and an enemy of the United States. I'll lose no sleep if he disappears beneath a Tomahawk missile. I also support our troops' safety and their mission's success. Alas, there's no appearance of a mission to support, no clear objective. The rebels receiving our support may be a worse enemy than Gaddafi; Obama has abandoned our military leadership role to NATO, bypassed Congress, and surrendered our sovereign authority to wage war to the United Nations.

The outrage that greeted the hawkish Bush has dissipated. The peace marchers who were the darlings of dissent when Bush was the target are today as irrelevant as Keith Olbermann. Few people, if any, are denouncing American imperialism or Obama's military-industrial complex. Obama hasn't been labeled a Nazi, and I've yet to see the first effigy go up in flames.

What a difference a war can make or, in the words of Studs Terkel, this is a good war.

Obama’s Slippery Slope to War and Beyond

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” — Sun Tzu

On Monday night President Obama told us we would turn over command of the no-fly zone to NATO and we would not have boots on the ground. He also told us Gaddafi should go, but there were no plans for the U.S. to take him out. Obama assured us that our role would be limited and we would be leaving Libya as soon as possible.

All of this ballyhoo was delivered 24 hours before Gaddafi, knowing what our plans were, began seriously attacking the rebels and driving them back towards Benghazi. Without heavy weapons and fuel for their Toyota and Nissan pickup trucks the rebels are beginning to succumb to the forces loyal to Gaddafi.

Now the White House has “leaked” a classified document stating that Obama has authorized a covert action to take Gaddafi out — a real Mitch Rapp type of assassination, or will he use predator drones with hellfire missiles.

Fox News has reported that; “President Obama has signed a secret presidential finding authorizing covert operations in Libya, a U.S. official told Fox News, although the administration says it still hasn't decided whether to arm rebel forces there.”

“The presidential findings establish a framework of legal authorities for covert action. They can authorize specific actions, such as arming the rebels, or establish authorities under which future actions might be taken after permissions are given to undertake them.”

“In other words, covert actions won't start until the president signs off again.”

“Another senior American official, however, says CIA operatives are already on the ground in Libya and are currently gathering intelligence and aiding rebel forces.”

“The Pentagon has begun drafting plans for arming the rebels if needed, sources told Fox News, but officials caution that no decision has been made because not enough is known yet about.”

Note that last paragraph where the issue of arming he rebels is being considered. This would definitely be an escalating step, something contradicting what Obama told us on Monday night.

US involvement in the Kosovo War was based on a principle first espoused by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain — "We have a responsibility to act." President Bill Clinton wasn't convinced at first, but after Blair's unyielding campaign to sell his idea, Clinton went along. It was the world's first "humanitarian war", and to this day the guiding principle of Western leaders boils down to a single, undefined phrase — "We have a responsibility to act."

President Obama had nothing to do with the principle's creation, but he used it Monday night in a speech at the National Defense University in Washington to explain why the US went to war with Libya. His speech was aimed as much at the peoples of the world as it was at the American people, and he left no doubt in anyone's mind that nations of the world "have a responsibility to act" to defend suffering humans wherever they may be.

Like socialism, in theory it sounds wonderful — the right thing to do, but in practice, it's full of holes because it is such an open-ended, nebulous concept. The problem with the principle begins to break down with the first word, "we." Who is "we"? Is it the UN? Is it NATO? Is it the quartet? No one has yet clarified who "we" are, but if the "we have a responsibility to act" principle is going to be our guiding global principle, someone will have to. In due course, you can bet that someone will.

The "we have a responsibility to act" principle becomes even more problematic when the word "responsibility" is introduced. What is "responsibility"? Is it a duty, a task, or a job? If it is, then who gave it to "us"? The UN? In Libya's case, the answer is yes, but in other instances the answer is no. Take Iraq, for example. The US and its allies were going to take action in Iraq. That was clear from the beginning, but the UN didn't go along. In the end, a "coalition of the willing" simply assumed responsibility, invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam Hussein, and replaced his dictatorial Baathist regime with a democratic government. We are still enmeshed in that struggle, but the "we have a responsibility to act" principle is no clearer now than it was in the 1990s when it was first introduced.

The final problem with the "we have a responsibility to act" principle lies in the definition of the phrase "to act." Broadly defined, "to act" can mean anything from invasion to no-fly zones to embargos of various sorts to anything the "we" decides is their "responsibility." People who have dedicated their professional lives to law enforcement realize how thorny this arrangement is because it violates every principle of jurisprudence that we have come to accept and respect. It's the global equivalent of vigilante justice, and it can't and won't survive.

To become a legitimate guiding principle, the "we have a responsibility act" principle must clearly define "we," "responsibility," and "to act." Absent those definitions, the "we have a responsibility act" principle leads to chaos and potential repression on a global scale by a "coalition of the willing" or the UN or any other group that sees as its duty the responsibility to take any action it chooses to bring about any outcome it desires.

Will the "we" be the UN? Maybe, but it's doubtful given the UN's current configuration, its spotty record, and its propensity for manipulation by individuals and groups with dark agendas. Will it be NATO or a similar group? Not likely because NATO and groups like it are simply alliances of nations, subgroups of "the nations of the world." In the end, defining "we" will challenge the very concept of "sovereign nation" because if the "we" has a "responsibility to act," then nations by definition can't be sovereign.

We are in the process of defining what has come to be known as "one world government." In due course, the questions I've posed will have to be answered, and they will be answered. When they're answered we will have a "one world government" with laws, regulations, taxing authority, and enforcement powers — everything a global government will need to operate.

I'm not telling you this because I think it's the right thing to do. I'm bringing it up because it's inevitable, and it's taking place right now. This is something Obama has preached since 2009.

So what will be the solution for Libya if the “rebels” cannot beat off the counter attacks by Gaddafi’s loyalists and we cannot take him out? My guess it would be a divided Libya, a divide that dates back to the Roman Empire when the region was called Cyrenaica and Tripolitania with Cyrenaica in the east going to rebels and Tripolitania in the west staying with Gaddafi.

An analysis by Stratfor states; The Gadhafi regime has effectively lost control of the east, where opposition forces are concentrated in and around the cities of Benghazi and Al Baida. The opposition is also encroaching on Libya’s dividing line, the energy-critical Gulf of Sidra, with the directors of several subsidiaries of the state-owned National Oil Corporation announcing they were splitting from Gadhafi and joining the people.

To the west, Gadhafi and his remaining allies appear to be digging in for a fight. Residents in Tripoli, many of whom turned on Gadhafi after witnessing the gratuitous violence used on protesters, are reportedly stockpiling arms, unsure of what will come next, but expecting the worst.

A swath of nearly 500 miles of desert lies between the opposition and Gadhafi strongholds. And herein lies the historical challenge in ruling Libya: the split between ancient Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. The Cyrenaica region has a long and rich history, dating back to the 7th Century B.C. This is a region that has seen many rulers, including Greeks, Romans, Persians, Egyptians, Ottomans, Italians and British, and has long been at odds with the rival power base of Tripolitania, founded by the Phoenicians. At the time of Libya’s independence and through the reign of King Idris I (whose base of power was Cyrenaica), Libya was ruled by two capitals, Tripoli in the west and Benghazi in the east. For most Cyrenaics, Benghazi — and not Tripoli — is seen as their true capital.

It was not until Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s 1969 military coup that overthrew the monarchy that the Tripolitanians could truly claim dominance over the fledgling Libyan state. But in a country divided by myriad dialects, tribes and ancient histories, Tripolitanian power could only be held through a complex alliance of tribes, the army’s loyalty and an iron fist.

The divided state was an artifact of the Cold War in which nations conquered or liberated at the close of WWII were partitioned into zones controlled by the Western Allies on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other. These included East and West Germany and North and South Korea, with Vietnam partitioned into northern and southern halves in 1954. The Germanys merged through the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989. Only Korea remains divided, a circumstance that may be corrected at any time.

We are now facing the possibility of an East and West Libya. Hostilities over the next few weeks are likely to fall into stalemate, with Coalition air power preventing Gaddafi from utilizing his armor and heavy artillery to sweep aside the rebels, and the rebels unable to take Tripoli or the surrounding cities due to their hodgepodge composition and simple military realities (operations become harder for an attacker as he enters the enemy's home territory, partly due to simple geometry — acting along "interior lines" makes it easier for the defender to maneuver — and the morale advantage of fighting in defense of "home."

Both factors are widely attested to in military history — like northern Virginia in 1863-1865 or the German-Soviet front in 1945. There are things that air power alone can't do, and taking ground is one of them. American or European ground forces would annihilate Gaddafi's loyalists, but it seems unlikely that they will enter combat. That being the case, we can look forward to the seesaw battles of the past few days settling down into a stalemate over the next week or two, one that can only be broken by serious military effort or a diplomatic coup. Both, in my opinion, are unlikely.

We will then have the de facto states of East and West Libya, one based on Tripoli, the other on Benghazi, with Sirte acting as the rough demarcation point. Interestingly, this almost duplicates the old imperial Roman division into the provinces of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. This means the U.S. and Europe are in for the long haul, exactly the case as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The no-fly operation will have to be maintained until further notice, probably with added efforts to assure that Gaddafi remains bottled up.

We could argue that neither state is viable in the customary sense, but that doesn't matter. In the end, it turned out that neither East Germany nor South Vietnam was viable in the circumstances facing them. This is probably also the case with North Korea. But all of them managed to hold on for a lengthy period, South Vietnam for thirty years, East Germany for forty-four years, while North Korea exists still. They hung on for the same reason — outside support. The two Libyas can do the same. East Libya will be supported by the U.S. and the EU, while Gaddafi's kingdom will have to do with support from pariahs such as Mugabe and the Sudanese military clique and possibly China. Cash flow will not be a problem. Both sides have access to the country's oil, the preponderance of active fields going to the rebels, who also possess more refining and storage capability. (Did I hear someone say that Gaddafi's share of the oil can be interdicted? You can Google "Oil for Food".)

Without exception, the divided states acted as flashpoints throughout the Cold War period. South Vietnam embroiled both France and the U.S. in lengthy, failed wars. East Germany (particularly as regarded West Berlin, located far behind the East-West borderline) served as a picture window that the Soviets could toss a brick through every time they wanted to create an uproar. North Korea fills the role of international pest to this day, uttering threats, firing missiles, and sinking patrol boats whenever the dear leaders feel they aren't getting enough attention.

We could expect the same from a divided Libya, perhaps from both sides. Gaddafi, needless to say, will want revenge, and he is a man who knows how to get it. He has an effective intelligence service capable of any style of covert action. He can also reach out to Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and what have you, any of which will be delighted to work with him. (Even Al Qaeda, with which the colonel has had issues in the past.) If Gaddafi is not taken down, expect much more in the way of exploding airliners and falling buildings. Keep in mind that Gaddafi is not only brutal and cunning; he is, by any ordinary measure, not quite sane.

Amanda Marshall reports in Fox News; “Despite the forward march, however, historically al Qaeda has long maintained a strong underground presence in predominately Sunni Muslim Libya. According to the CIA World Factbook, 47 percent of the Sunni population is made up of people age 25, nearly half of whom are unemployed.”

“In 2007, The West Point Terrorism Report concluded that the second largest number of foreign fighters in Iraq, traveling through Syria, came from Libya, second only to Saudi Arabia. Of those, the report concluded that the majority came from the Northeast, particularly the coastal towns of Darna and Benghazi where the rebel groups have been strongest in the current fight.”

As for East Libya, its status as number two source (behind Saudi Arabia) for Jihadi fighters, and the news that precisely such people are involved in the rebellion, should have been reported on more than it has. An East Libya under UN protection could serve as an excellent staging area for any given Jihadi group. No doubt we'll have a lengthy speech from Obama explaining why this is necessary.

We can avoid much of this outcome simply by assuring that Gaddafi is eliminated as soon as possible. This does not necessarily entail an armored division roaring down the road toward Tripoli a la Montgomery and the 8th Army, welcome though such a sight would be. My suggestions would include covering Tripoli with leaflets promising a million bucks and legal immunity to whoever knocks off the colonel. But there are other alternatives — a decapitation strike by way of B-2 Spirit, or a Predator Drone. Gaddafi is at bay, and one way or another, he can be taken out. The Western stance that his person is somehow inviolate after decades of crimes against his own people and the world at large is simply a public-relations move, an opportunity for Obama and the Europeans to adapt a moral pose by asserting, "We go by the rules, even with someone like Gaddafi." This is asinine. Medieval culture had a category for the Gaddafi type: the outlaw, the man whose crimes put him beyond the law's protection and who could be killed by anyone as they pleased. Gaddafi is an outlaw and should be treated as such.

Through their unwillingness to stand up to Josef Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and his advisors (along with Winston Churchill in this case), created an unstable, dysfunctional, and blood-soaked postwar world. A student of FDR in all things, Obama (and let's not kid ourselves as to who's really calling the shots here) is recreating an identical situation.

As reported in the Daily Telegraph; “In transferring command and control to NATO, the US is turning over the reins to an organization dominated by the US itself, both militarily and politically. In essence, the US runs the show that is taking over running the show.”

“This is not inevitable, and can be corrected with quick and decisive action. Sun Tzu wrote, "In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." We've seen enough in the past few years to verify that dictum. We don't need yet another lesson.

And so we wait. Opposition forces in the east will conduct quiet negotiations in the west to determine who will defect and who will resist; the United States and Italy will be lobbied endlessly by the opposition to enforce a no-fly zone over the country; the external powers will continue to deliberate among a severely limited number of bad options; and Gaddafi and his remaining allies will dig in for the fight.

As Stratfor states; “If neither side can acquire the force strength to make a move, Libya will return to its historic split between Tripolitania and Cyrenaica with separate bases of power. If one side takes a gamble and makes a move, civil war is likely to ensue. Sometimes it really is that simple.”

The “I” Man Doth Speak

"The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." --American statesman and Senator Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

Monday night President Obama took to the airwaves to rebut the criticism and confusion surrounding his decision to send U.S. troops to Libya.

It was an interesting speech, but a lame attempt to make the Libyan circumstances seem unique to his presidency.

President Obama's biggest challenge was to attempt to step up to the podium and somehow convince the American people of an idea that even his own Defense Secretary refused to go along with when given the chance to do so on Sunday. (On every network except Fox.)

As the first Tomahawk missiles rained on Libya, armchair generals rushed to define "The Obama Doctrine." Most assessments focused on Obama's antiwar statements as a candidate and decisions by past presidents to take military action in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

By that I mean his supreme confidence in his own vision and powers to remake the world. Fueled by a mixture of hubris and faculty-lounge idealism, his words and actions suggest he believes his presidency is exempt from the lessons of history and human nature. The Obama Doctrine Is All About Obama. In Monday night’s address to the American people Obama used the personal pronoun “I” 25 times.

Just as he claimed his election would mark "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal," his wars defy traditional military doctrine. For example, his approach in Libya, as in Afghanistan, features a promise of timed withdrawal, but not a clear mission. In both he talks of "success" but not "victory," leaving the yardstick vague. The refusal to be precise reflects a belief that his intentions are virtuous, as distinct from his predecessors', and that he should be judged on that basis, not on results. His goal in Libya is so abstract that he refuses to call it a "war." That would make it sound brutal — and ordinary. We thus meet the term "kinetic military action" as a White House talking point.

Despite the endless efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and despite objections from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other brass, the president was confident that Libya would be easy in, easy out and that a civil war in an oil-rich tribal nation would be settled in days. After bypassing Congress and the public to cut a deal at the United Nations, we could fire missiles from ships at sea, drop bombs from 30,000 feet and be home in time for dinner.

It would be so surgical, the commander in chief could take his family on a trip to Brazil and points south while the military went into battle. We wouldn't need a single boot on the ground and could hand command to NATO or France or anybody who wanted it.

Obama neglected to mention the 2,000 U.S. Marines already on station in the Gulf of Sidra or the 2,200 Marines that are being deployed to support the NATO effort. He also made no mention of the special operations troops already in Libya calling in the air strikes and gathering intelligence for a possible deployment of U.S. ground forces into the fray.

Meanwhile, after 42 years in power, a brutal and mad Muammar Gaddafi would see our righteousness, lay down his weapons and quit his throne. Presto, that's how a just war should end, and this time it would — because of Obama.

The president’s speech Monday night left more questions than it gave answers. He talked a lot about how and why we got involved in Libya, but said almost nothing about how we get out. But two things do seem clear:

We could be doing more of these humanitarian interventions in the future, and we’re going to be involved in Libya for a long time.

The president made the case for involving American forces on humanitarian grounds and because our allies and Libya’s neighbors asked us, and the U.N. endorsed it. He said we couldn’t get involved every time a situation like this happens in the future, but that begs the question of why not if the same conditions exist? Why Libya but not Sudan, or the Ivory Coast, or Syria or even Iran?

The president announced that we would be turning the operations over to NATO in a few days but frankly, this is a distinction without a difference. NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander is an American Admiral on the short list to be our next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. NATO may be in charge going forward, but as long as we’re responsible for communications, logistics, intelligence, search and rescue we remain the backbone of the Libyan War. If the contrast drags on, so will our involvement.

So when do we leave? Despite what President Obama said, we still don’t know because there is no defined end state or conditions which must be met for us to go home.

So let's fill in the blanks and hypothesize how this might end. It boils down to two possible scenarios: Gaddafi goes or Gaddafi stays. Either way we’re there for a long time.

The good scenario – that Gaddafi goes – could unfold in a number of ways. He’s assassinated, he's killed as ‘collateral damage’ in a bombing raid, he’s abandoned by the Libyan military, his sons desert him, or he’s forced out by the rebels. This scenario could unfold quickly, or after a prolonged fight involving somebody’s boots on the ground, and building and arming a rebel military.

The bad scenario – that Gaddafi stays – could also happen in a number of ways. Gaddafi flees, goes underground and organizes and insurgency, Iraq style. Or Gaddafi hangs on to western Libya, and the rebels keep the east, and Libya is split in two with the peace enforced by an outside military force. Or there is a possibility that Gaddafi manages to hang on, offering amnesty to the rebels, and starting down the road to reform — until the coalition loses interest, goes home and Gaddafi goes back to his evil ways.

With either the good or the bad scenario, America is likely to be involved in Libya for a good while. In the good scenario we will either be nation-building, albeit in a secure environment. In the bad scenario, we stay involved militarily fighting Gaddafi, building and arming the rebels.

If there is one thing we should have learned in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts: this is a part of the world where they don’t think of peace as an end state; they tend to see it merely as a lull in the fighting.

Here are a few of the Facts Obama either neglected to mention or was less than honest about. You can read the entire list by clicking here.

OBAMA: "Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and no-fly zone. ... Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role."

THE FACTS: As by far the pre-eminent player in NATO, and a nation historically reluctant to put its forces under operational foreign command, the United States will not be taking a back seat in the campaign even as its profile diminishes for public consumption.

NATO partners are bringing more into the fight. But the same "unique capabilities" that made the U.S. the inevitable leader out of the gate will continue to be in demand. They include a range of attack aircraft, refueling tankers that can keep aircraft airborne for lengthy periods, surveillance aircraft that can detect when Libyans even try to get a plane airborne, and, as Obama said, planes loaded with electronic gear that can gather intelligence or jam enemy communications and radars.

The United States supplies 22 percent of NATO's budget, almost as much as the next largest contributors — Britain and France — combined. A Canadian three-star general was selected to be in charge of all NATO operations in Libya. His boss, the commander of NATO's Allied Joint Force Command Naples, is an American admiral, and the admiral's boss is the supreme allied commander Europe, a post always held by an American.

NATO has declared it will delay in taking command of the Libyan operation while UN Ambassador Susan Rice is contemplating arming the rebels. This would be in direct contradiction to UN resolution 1973.

OBAMA: "Our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives."

THE FACTS: Even as the U.S. steps back as the nominal leader, reduces some assets and fires a declining number of cruise missiles, the scope of the mission appears to be expanding and the end game remains unclear.

Despite insistences that the operation is only to protect civilians, the airstrikes now are undeniably helping the rebels to advance. U.S. officials acknowledge that the effect of air attacks on Gaddafi's forces — and on the supply and communications links that support them — is useful if not crucial to the rebels. "Clearly they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking," Navy Vice Adm. William Gortney, staff director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday.

The Pentagon has been turning to air power of a kind more useful than high-flying bombers in engaging Libyan ground forces. So far these have included low-flying Air Force AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft, and the Pentagon is considering adding armed drones and helicopters.

Obama said, "We continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people," but spoke of achieving that through diplomacy and political pressure, not force of U.S. arms.

OBAMA: Seeking to justify military intervention, the president said the U.S. has "an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful -- yet fragile -- transitions in Egypt and Tunisia." He added: "I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America."

THE FACTS: Obama did not wait to make that case to Congress, despite his past statements that presidents should get congressional authorization before taking the country to war, absent a threat to the nation that cannot wait.

"The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," he told The Boston Globe in 2007 in his presidential campaign. "History has shown us time and again that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Sunday that the crisis in Libya "was not a vital national interest to the United States, but it was an interest."

OBAMA: "And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi's deadly advance."

THE FACTS: The weeklong international barrage has disabled Libya's air defenses, communications networks and supply chains. But Gaddafi's ground forces remain a potent threat to the rebels and civilians, according to U.S. military officials.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, the top American officer overseeing the mission, told The New York Times on Monday that "the regime still overmatches opposition forces militarily. The regime possesses the capability to roll them back very quickly. Coalition air power is the major reason that has not happened."

Only small numbers of Gaddafi's troops have defected to the opposition, Ham said.

At the Pentagon, Vice Adm. Gortney said the rebels are not well organized. "It is not a very robust organization," he said. "So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that.

Just today the rebels have been driven back. AP reported; “Rebels retreated from the key Libyan oil port of Ras Lanouf along the coastal road leading to the capital Tripoli after they came under heavy shelling from Qaddafi ground forces.

Qaddafi's forces were shelling Brega, another important oil city to the east. A rebel soldier, Col. Abdullah Hadi, said he expected the loyalists to enter Brega by Wednesday night.

"I ask NATO for just one aircraft to push them back. All we need is air cover and we could do this. They should be helping us," Hadi said.

NATO planes flew over the zone where the heaviest fighting was under way earlier Wednesday and an Associated Press reporter at the scene heard explosions, but it was unclear whether any airstrikes hit the area. U.S. Marine Corps Capt. Clint Gebke, a spokesman for the NATO operation aboard the USS Mount Whitney, said he could not confirm any specific strikes but Western aircraft were engaging pro-Qaddafi forces in areas including Sirte and Misrata, the rebels' last significant holdout in western Libya.

The retreat Wednesday looked like a mad scramble: Pickup trucks, with

mattresses and boxes tied on, driving east at 100 mph (160 kilometers per hour). [Source: Fox News]

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Qaddafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S.

Presidents typically pick their fights according to the crisis and circumstances at hand, not any consistent doctrine about when to use force in one place and not another. They have been criticized for doing so — by Obama himself.

In his pre-presidential book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama said the U.S. will lack international legitimacy if it intervenes militarily "without a well-articulated strategy that the public supports and the world understands."

He questioned: "Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?"

So the Obama Doctrine, the Doctrine of “I”, appears to be confusing at best and downright disingenuous at the worst.

You can read a more detailed article on American Spectator by clicking here