The UK Telegraph posted an article on Friday about Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader. Mr. al-Hasidi has stated that jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
The article reports:
"Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader"."
I don't mean to be difficult here, but NATO and the US were asked to come to the aid of the rebels in Libya. We were essentially dragged in kicking and screaming. We are not invaders. Why were we considered 'invaders' in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet asked to get involved in Libya?
The article further points out:
"Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.
"US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996."
"Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.
"Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country."
I understand that there are humanitarian reasons for intervening in Libya right now. What I am concerned about is the sort of government Libya will have when the dust clears. Will we replace a secular tyrant with an Islamic tyrant? Why would that be considered an improvement?
Leave a comment