Eastern Libya’s Tribes, Jihadism: Did U.S. Consider Its Own Libya Intel?
I believe most Americans support military actions that protect the vital interests of the United States. Major American military initiatives, however, especially those involving the military invasion of a Muslim country in the era of the global jihad, have consequences and should only be taken because our vital strategic interests are at stake.
Thus far, no vital American strategic interests regarding Libya have been stated. Rather, official government policy appears to be designed to get rid of Gaddafi because he’s a tyrant, and to protect Libyan citizens on humanitarian grounds.
Our policymakers seem to believe that once this mission is accomplished some benign coalition of pro-democratic leaders will arise and take command, and all will be well.
There seems to be a huge general assumption that anti-Gaddafi forces are pro-American forces that should be armed and organized by the United States, but as you will see below there is documentary proof that at least some of the anti-Gaddafi forces are anti-American and pro-jihadist.
Even more disturbing: I have heard nothing from any policymaker, either political or military, that indicates that any of them have the slightest idea of the nature or make-up of Libya’s tribal society and how this will impact our ability to establish post-Gaddafi governance.
According to Libya expert Hanspeter Mattes of the Institute of Middle East Studies at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Libya is the most tribal of all the Arab states.
The country has not had a constitution since 1977, and there are virtually no democratic civil institutions — such as trade unions or PTAs — in the country, making the 140 tribes, clans, and powerful families key elements of society.
About 30 of these tribal entities have significant political power. Some, like the Maqarha and the Warfalla tribes, are in alliance with the Gaddafi tribe and have dominated the army, police, and intelligence services since Gaddafi took power. Others, such as the Zuwaya, control the key cities in the Gulf of Surt — where oil is exported.
While knowledge of the political power and connections of tribes is a must for any policymaker planning on transforming the country, this isn’t the only knowledge required.
Tribes are notorious for doing only what’s in their interests, which means that they often change sides. This is why the Iraqi tribes in al-Anbar province went from fighting American forces alongside al-Qaeda to joining American forces to kill their Muslim al-Qaeda brothers.
They made this dramatic shift because the U.S. could better serve the tribes’ interests by providing money and services — such as civil projects and government jobs — that al-Qaeda couldn’t deliver.
Another aspect of tribal society that is vital for policymakers to understand are the tribal concepts of honor, humiliation, and revenge. Tribes seek revenge against all who have dishonored them, and an understanding of these dynamics can mean the difference between success and failure when attempting to build tribal coalitions to govern the country.
The importance of tribes and the lack of democratic civil institutions in Libya should have been a huge red flag to any policymaker contemplating an intervention there, especially given the fact that the U.S. has a dismal record of understanding and dealing with tribes. It took our military leaders four years of trial and error in Iraq before they realized that dealing with the tribes of Anbar could give us the leverage we needed against al-Qaeda. Moreover, after more than eight years of fighting in Afghanistan, we still haven’t figured out how to deal with the tribes there. This lack of grounded truth and strategic thinking didn’t work in Iraq, isn’t working in Afghanistan, and won’t work in Libya.
Some of the questions our policymakers should have answered definitively before any serious military attack was contemplated:
Who are the protesters?
What do they want?
How are they organized?
How do they view the U.S.?
Are they likely to work with the U.S. in the region after Gaddafi, or might they side with Iran?
To what extent are they Islamist and have sympathies for the international jihad?
While some of these questions will take time to know, the answer to the last question is completely known, and disturbing.
Has anyone bothered to check the price of sand on the New York Stock Exchange lately?
Could be the CIA is craftier than previously envisaged.
Obama too. What do they have a lot of in Rio? That’s right, sand. It’s so valuable they even name it and write songs about girls who walk on it.
Thanks for the chuckle.
for those who haven’t noticed, obitheboywonder *likes* the crackpot radicals. he ignores Iran’s protesters, but calls for mubarak to step down. he actaully called for qaddafy to step down – but only if there was someoen more radical in the wings.
Two words. Muslim. Brotherhood.
Obama’s seeming inconsistencies in the Mideast are clearly explained by seeing that he always takes the side the Muslim Brotherhood takes.
Haven’t we been told time and again over that past few years that when the Presidency is being run by women, ill-conceived, testosterone-driven involvement in military actions would stop? So now we have ill-conceived, estrogen-driven involvement. Is this supposed to be an improvement?
Radical Imams? That is funny right there.
What folks in America think as radical within Islam, is just following Muhammad, and the Koran for Muslims. There is no extreme in doing so for Muslims, but Muslims not following Muhammad, and the Koran is extreme within the Ummah. See how the lame stream media misleads you?
Finally! Why, and who are we supporting in Libya when the whole lot of them love Muhammad?
Right! Radical suicide bomber is next.
Yeah, and then ‘no-fly zone’.
Muah-ha-ha-ha!
Mary Poppins:
“When trying to express oneself, it’s frankly quite absurd,
To leaf through lengthy lexicons to find the perfect word.
A little spontaniaty keeps conversation keen,
You need to find a way to say, precisely what you mean…
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrosicous!
If you say it loud enough, you’ll always sound precocious,”
(and when you say-hey ‘no-fly zone’ you really mean-hean corpses)
and population of Libya is 6.4million, majority under 21 and religion 97% Islam. Obama knows who his friends are.
When France and the UK agree on something you know something is amiss. Also, does anyone remember the last time the US teamed up to attack a country that had not attacked them? A place called Viet Nam! The US helped France recolonize the area, in return for France’s support for NATO. Long story made short France gets whipped, hands the mess to the US and as a parting slap pulls out of NATO. What’s going on? Europe gets most of it’s oil from . . . wait for it . . . LIBYA!!! I suspect this one will go as those before, the Europeans will be there to hold our coat and soon drop that and go sit on their hands again.
I was under the impression The European Union was the Roman Empire reborn. As such, should they do their own fighting. I mean, how can they be the Roman Empire reborn if they can not even handle a turd world country like Libya? They should hang their heads in shame!
Who is that muslim comedian making a movie called “Good morning Libya”?
Muhammad Williams?
Oh I laughed so hard at that comment. Thank you!
Some people think Obama is crafty. I think his policy reflects ignorance and indifference. Look who his advisers are.
Samantha Power – who suggested invading Israel to solve the Middle East’s problems
James Clapper – who thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is secular
Susan Rice – who thinks the completely corrupt UN Human Rights council is improving
have any expertise in the Middle East. No, they don’t. These are the people advising Obama and Hillary Clinton. Occam’s Razor applies here. The simplest explanation is most likely true. They don’t know and don’t really care that they don’t know.
they do know and they do car and they were placed in positions to ensure the Obama ‘transformation’ is successful and attempted obstruction of the transformation will be delayed or ignored by Attorney General Holder,
These US military actions in Libya are ILLEGAL:
War Powers Resolution of 1973
Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973
Joint Resolution
Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SHORT TITLE
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the “War Powers Resolution”.
PURPOSE AND POLICY
SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
. . .
… We have NO Congressional Declaration of War, nor do we have “attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
NOWHERE in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 does it state that if the ‘UN decides action must be taken, we must respond, and without congressional authorization.’
As well, with the Arab League being an initial big player in requiring some sort of action in Libya against Qa-Ddafy Duck, they need to stop whining about excessive action by US troops, and fork over 110+% cash to fund this little illegal expedition.
Arab nations have tolerated Qa-Ddafy Duck for 42 years, THEY can take care of him THEMSELVES!
There indeed should have been Congressional ‘Declaration of War’ for this US action in Libya, otherwise it’s CRIMINAL ACTION, and Obama is head perpetrator, with UN as secondary agent involved.
We unfortunately have Obama repeatedly making bad decision after had decision. The latest headline I see at Drudge on this is:
WH: Goal to Install ‘Democratic System’…
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/151191-white-house-suggests-regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission?page=1
Obama, you have NO authority to make Libya a ‘Democratic System’ at our expense!
See:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
You need an update.
You’ve tossed me lots of reading, that I’ll plug thru next few hours. Regardless, Obama still belongs in hoosegow, and Arab League needs to learn how to handle their own dictators!
I’m far from a Liberal or anti-war type person, I’m much more an anti-Obama person. And first time in my life I ever considered anything Kucinich had to say as somewhat meaningful:
Kucinich: Libya action ‘impeachable’
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51668.html
Is going to war in contravention of The Constitution grounds for impeachment? Is there really any doubt about the grounds when the outcome of a successful military operation will be to empower the avowed enemies of The Republic? Can the Republic survive a CIC who spends more time on basketball brackets than whether going to war will assist our avowed enemy?
Is there a patriot with the intestinal fortitude to respond to the painful implications of Operation Odyssey Dawn? Colonel West, will you accept this mission?
Loved the post by Patrick ;especially the” NO WHERE ” clause.
I figured we were going into a mess with no purpose when no one could decide how to spell the guys name. Please,CAN WE ALL GET TOGETHER AND SETTLE THE QUESTION OF HOW TO SPELL KADDAFFY, QUADDUFFY, CADAFY, QAA FFADAFY, HELP……..ARGH .
Momar, or Col.
Just plain “Daffy” works for me.
K’Daffy. (You saw here first.)
The US and Britain have been supporting ‘Islamists’ in the ME and beyond (Balkans, Pakistan, etc.) for about 60 years. It is not consistent support, but it has been profound. The US and Saudi Arabia are complicit in the raising/cultivating of al Qaeda in Pakistan during the Soviet Afghan occupation. US and Britain used the MB in Egypt. The British specifically enabled their influence among ‘Palestinian’ Arab elements. The British and US encouraged the Saudi gov’t to use MB operatives and ideology to help maintain ‘devotion’ to that regime. It’s my understanding that very patriotic Americans have referred to the CIA’s role in the ME as ‘oil field security company.’
There is actually an argument to be made, despite Obama’s background, that he is LESS interested in using these awful people to further geo-political aims than were Presidents Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton (Clinton specifically in furthering the breakup of Yugoslavia, supporting Croatia against Serbia, helping Muslim Bosnia come into existence (in part of Bosnia) and enthusiastically supporting Albanian expansion and the amputation of Serbia’s most important province, Kosovo.
None of this matters, though, when you tell an American patriot it’s time to ‘spread freedom.’ He can’t help himself – in some cases, this is a very good thing. In the case of Libya, it is malicious idiocy.
Mr. Fairchild, you make explicit what I consider the major error made by this disastrous administration: the judgement to intervene by direct military action in an emotional reaction: Qaddafi is a brutal despot and we must come to the aid of the brave protesters seeking to displace him, and help bring democracy to Libya; we have seen widely criticized for not aiding protesters in Iran and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Time to stop talking and do something!
No analysis was brought to the matters you so fully delineate, which our intelligence certainly could have provided. Nobody seems to have asked the questions: “What will happen if Qaddafi is defeated and the nation plunged into leaderless chaos?” and “Do we really want reinforce the impression of American Imperialism” or, more cynically “Might the best course, and the least bloody in the end, be to let the Colonel deal with this as a civil revolt?”
No. A “noble Course” prevails and we wind up assisting the cause of Taliban West and broadening our military involvement in the Middle East wen we desperately need to reduce it.
and the IRG camps are located in the no-fly zone-this is brilliant
i forwarded this article to a listserv i’m on and got the following response:
There appears to be a significant disconnect between the suggestions in the first article Richard Landes suggests and publicly available information (mostly from the BBC) about member of the Interim Transitional Council, who have generally been described as “bankers, lawyers and professionals.” Leaked cables from the US Embassy are also somewhat revealing. We have the names, so let the double-checking begin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council
Here’s some additional information about Jalil, the head of the council, and the head of Military Affairs.
Mustafa Abdul Jalil (born 1952)[3] is a Libyan politician. He was the Minister of Justice (unofficially, the Secretary of the General People’s Committee) under Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi.[2] He has been noted in news media for his stance against various human rights violations in that country. During the 2011 Libyan protests, Abdul Jalil has been identified as the Chairman of the National Transitional Council based in Benghazi, which controls much of the country in opposition to Gaddafi in Tripoli..
After graduating from the department of Shari’a and Law in the Arabic Language and Islamic Studies faculty of the The Libyan University in 1975, Jalil was initially “assistant to the Secretary of the Public Prosecutor” in Al Bayda, before being appointed a judge in 1978.[4]
Jalil was a judge “known for ruling consistently against the regime”[5] before becoming justice minister in 2007. In January 2010 he attempted to resign on national television over the government’s failure to release political prisoners….
Omar Mokhtar El-Hariri is a leading figure of the National Transitional Council or Libya and has been designated as the head of the Military Affairs Department.[1] He is in control of the Libyan People’s Army and the Free Libyan Air Force.
El-Hariri was involved in the initial 1969 coup against the monarchy that brought Gaddafi into his 42 year reign over Libya. He organised a plot to overthrow Gaddafi in 1975. … He was imprisoned for 15 years from 1975 to 1990 under a death sentence, with 4 1/2 years in solitary confinement. Gaddafi commuted the sentence in 1990 and El-Hariri was subsequently placed under house arrest until the 2011 revolt.[2]
Mahmoud Jibril – foreign affairs
Before the uprising, Mr Jibril was involved in a project called “Libyan Vision” with other intellectuals, which sought to establish a democratic state. He is also head of the rebel council’s crisis committee, which aims to streamline decision making.
Born in 1952, Mr Jibril has both a master’s degree in political science and a PhD in strategic planning and decision-making from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. After completing his doctorate in 1984, he taught strategic planning and decision-making at the university for several years. He also wrote several books and ran leadership training programmes in several Arab states.
He later became the head of the Libyan National Planning Council. Then in 2009, he was appointed chairman of the National Economic Development Board (NEDB), reporting directly to the prime minister.
A leaked US diplomatic cable from November 2009 written by the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, described Mr Jibril as “a serious interlocutor who ‘gets’ the US perspective”. An earlier US diplomatic cable described Mr Jibril as “reform-minded”.
Note also that yesterday the interim council announced that their finance minister would be a business professor from here in Seattle at the University of Washington.
other sources on the orientation of the council:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12699785
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12698562
comments anyone?