The New York Times reported in “Arab Nations Strike in Libya, Surprising U.S.” that:
“CAIRO — Twice in the last seven days, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have secretly launched airstrikes against Islamist-allied militias battling for control of Tripoli, Libya, four senior American officials said, in a major escalation of a regional power struggle set off by Arab Spring revolts.”
First, it seems “odd” that Muslim nations like Egypt and the UAE would launch secret attacks into other Muslim nation like Libya. Clearly, any previous façade of Arab unity is disappearing. Muslims may wish to kill Christians and Jews, but first—they want to kill every other Muslim whose faith is different from their own. Civil wars are always the worst.
Second, it’s likely that the primary cause for the “Arab unity” that we’ve come to expect for the past 60 years has been the nation of Israel. It’s been the presence of the dreaded Jew in Israel that’s served as a rallying cause for the Muslims of the world. Given the need to exterminate the Jews, the Sunnis needed the Shiites and the Shiites needed the Sunnis. Therefore, as much as the Sunnis would like to behead the Shiites (and vice versa), they worked together in seeming spiritual harmony since the creation of Israel in A.D. 1948.
But now, for whatever reason, the Muslims’ façade is unity is dissolving and the Sunni’s and Shiites, or perhaps the secular “Muslims” (who hold power) and the Muslim “fundamentalist”(who want power) have decided to say “screw the Jews—we’ll kill them later,” while they first fight to settle intra-Muslim differences in faith and power.
If that’s true, this marks a major shift in the Middle East. We may be watching the onset of civil war among Muslims.
In the midst of such civil war, we can even expect one Muslim faction or another to seek aid from Israel. There is already evidence of a growing alliance between Saudi Arabia (which is predominately Sunni) with Israel (which is predominately Jewish—or perhaps predominately secularist).
It’s conceivable that we may soon see Israel openly assisting some Muslim nations to attack others.
What a show, hmm?
Who says we don’t live in interesting times?
The New York Times continues:
“The United States, the officials said, was caught by surprise: Egypt and the Emirates, both close allies and military partners, acted without informing Washington, leaving the Obama administration on the sidelines.”
It appears that President Obama may have been relegated to the role of “little man behind the curtain”. No one is paying much attention to him.
The failure to inform Obama may be evidence that the world is waking up to the fact that US is insolvent and less able to start—or stop—wars. The US is, to some degree, becoming irrelevant.
Alternatively, the failure to inform Obama may be evidence that Obama’s failure to devise a coherent Middle East policy has left the US in a kind of diplomatic chaos where one hand neither knows nor cares what the other is doing.
For example, the Obama administration helped create the ISIS rebels to help overthrow the Syrian government, but now seeks to bomb ISIS rebels in Iraq who are also seeking to overthrow the US-sanctioned government in Iraq.
Judging from the ISIS debacle, at least one of two things must be true. Either: 1) the US policy in relation to ISIS is contradictory; or 2) the US is intentionally trying to play both ends against the middle in order foment civil war and chaos in the Middle East.
Neither possibility can inspire Middle East nations to place much confidence in Obama administration.
Unable to perceive a coherent US policy for the Middle East, Middle East countries don’t know if Obama is with them or against them. Therefore, they may be naturally reluctant to inform Obama of their plans because Obama may inform their adversaries of their plans to attack.
Well, not knowing if Obama is with them or against them, Egypt and the UAE decided to bomb targets in Libya without informing Obama.
As more Middle East nations “go rogue” and do what they believe is best—without regard for US input or approval—any supposition that the US can broker peace in the Middle East will be seen to be a fantasy. The Middle East is going up for grabs, and no nation—including the US—has enough influence or power to stop it from happening.
The post-WWII Pax Americana is over.
“The strikes in Tripoli are another salvo in a power struggle defined by Arab autocrats battling Islamist movements seeking to overturn the old order.”
So it’s the “autocrats” versus the Islamists, hmmm?
Well, what does the word “autocrat” mean?
Are “autocrats” people who own automobiles? Are the Muslims who own automobiles fighting against Islamist fundamentalists who insist that camels are the only prophet-approved way to travel?
In fact, “autocrat” is just a fancy word for dictator, despot, or even tyrannical aristocracy. An “autocracy” is a tyrannical form of government.
The New York Times article offers a little more clarification:
“Since the military ouster of the Islamist president in Egypt last year, the new government and its backers in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have launched a campaign across the region — in the news media, in politics and diplomacy, and by arming local proxies — to roll back what they see as an existential threat to their authority posed by Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.”
In other words, the Middle East is on the verge of being torn up by a fight between the Muslim fascists (who currently rule) and the Muslim fanatics (who want to rule).
Who do you think will win?
The Fascists or the Fanatics?
If either side wins, how will the world be helped or harmed?
Does it really matter if Muslims are ruled by Fascists of Fanatics? In either case, won’t the people have lost any semblance of freedom?
Is there a Muslim “gene” that predisposes the Muslim people to despise freedom and seek out leaders who are tyrants—regardless of whether they are Fascist tyrants or religious-Fanatic tyrants?
Do Muslims love tyranny? Or are Muslims so innately unstable that they intuitively understand that the only way their societies can be held together is by means of overt oppression?