The fighting in Libya seems to have reached a bit of a stalemate between the pro-Gaddafi and rebel camps and the alliance between the Brits, French and Americans seem to be shaky at best and now news that the United States has began withdrawing its jets, ships and submarines from the operation to secure the no-fly zone over Libya.
The French and Brits seem quite gung-ho to carry on the missions and extending the UN Resolution to include attacking Gaddafi's troops, even arming the rebels, but Obama has been cautious from the start.
We hear a lot about the rebels actions, the media have even been calling them 'pro-democracy' on a few occasions, but finding out exactly what they stand for and what they will do with power once they achieve it has been less reported.
President Obama has admitted that 'Among all the people who are opposed to Qaddafi, there might not be elements that are friendly to the United States and our interests and that's why I think it's important for us not to jump in with both feet with all of them'.
When Obama says not friendly to the United States, could he mean Al Queada?
A Canadian intelligence report by the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre stated in 2009: 'several Islamist insurgent groups were based in eastern Libya and mosques in Benghazi were urging followers to fight in Iraq'.
U.S. Admiral James Stavridis, NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, said there were 'flickers of al-Qaeda in the Libyan opposition'.
Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel said: "There is no question that al Qaeda's Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Qaddafi's biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi.'
A Wikileaks document dated 6/2/2008 reveals that 'a large number of suicide bombers (invariably described as "martyrs") and foreign fighters in Iraq hailed from Derna (East Libya), a fact in which the town takes great pride'. On the fighters return 'they had spearheaded campaigns against many aspects of daily life, such as smoking cigarettes, which they deemed "un-Islamic'.
The Daily Beast quotes an Al Queada commander as saying "This rebellion is the fresh breeze they've been waiting years for. They realize that if they don't use this opportunity, it could be the end of their chances to turn Libya toward a real Islamic state, as Afghanistan once was'.
Obama is right to want to pull back because we seem to be rushing to replace a bad regime with one that the evidence is pointing towards will be full of men who were fighting alongside Al Queada in Iraq a few months ago, is run by religious fundamentalists and have little sympathy for the West or democracy.
A long, hard look at the facts is needed before we continue backing or even worse, arming, these rebels.
4 comments:
Obama: "I think it's important for us not to jump in with both feet with all of them".
Good lord, actually thinking before you give lethal weapons to people? Well, I guess we've already tried not thinking, and that didn't work out so well... This ploy is so crazy that it might just work.
Lucy, you've worked in the media before haven't you? Can you enlighten me, cos I find it incredibly hard to understand how they can attach a label like 'pro-democracy' so quickly and naively... when you only have to do about 7 seconds worth of research before you become aware that this is a load of shite. It seems lazy beyond belief...
Good research Lucy, i haven't heard any of this before. Could be why Obama is getting cold feet over supporting the rebels. Does make you wonder why Cameron and Sarkozy are so keen to back them if they know it is al qeada and islamic fundamentalists though. We could be watching the next Afghanistan being set up before our eyes.
Cheezy - I heard the term 'Pro-democracy forces' on Sky News, i have only heard them called 'rebels' or 'anti-Gadaffi forces' on the BBC so far but i may be wrong.
There are things such as news style guides and in-house guides which give directions but it comes down to the Head of News/Current Affairs, the editorial teams and even the individual journalist. It will be interesting to see if it continues on Sky (or BBC if that is where you heard it) or if others start to use the term because it will show a decision has been taken on high to refer to them as 'Pro-Democracy forces' rather than a decision by a reporter. If they go back to being 'rebels' then someone at Sky has been slapped down. Whether it is lazy, purposely intended to subtly persuade the listener or if the term rebels is considered too negative and pro-democracy forces is considered a halfway line between rebels and freedom fighters is up for debate.
I suspect you're right about decisions about the 'big' (i.e. important) terms coming from high up in these organisations... They definitely do serve to alter people's perceptions, and can effectively frame the debate... so I suspect that most media organisations wouldn't let individual reporters get away with using terminology that the bosses didn't concur with... Cheers for your insight :)
Post a Comment