Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Lista posturilor afişate
Nu eşti autorizat sã scrii pe acest panou.Pentru a putea adãuga mesaje trebuie sã ai nivelul de (0)
> There is absolutely no intel to confirm the Benghazi attack was a peaceful protest > (inspired by a video) that somehow erupted into violence. The Libyan leaders knew it > was a planned attack and our state department knew it was a planned attack.
The Benghazi attack is the result of a foreign policy which follows a failed principle: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The Obama administration is using a foreign policy principle which had its birth during the Cold War and which was refined during the Reagan administration.
If "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", then I can give this "friend" money, weapons and training to attack my enemy so that I may achieve my foreign policy objectives.
Some 15,000 posts ago I mentioned that at the time the government in Chad had claimed that western intelligence agencies were recruiting mercenaries out of Chad's insurgency, a paramilitary group organized by Al Qaeda to overthrown governments in North Africa. Al Qaeda in the Magreb had been trying to overthrow the governments of Egypt, Algeria, Lybia and Chad for the better part of 8 years. At the time nobody paid heed to Chad's claim and my post went for the most part unnoticed.
I also posted something alarming that had happened in Lybia. The opposition claimed that a lot of weapons were disappearing. Nato was supplying the oppositiong with weapons and those weapons were vanishing into thin air.
I also posted another thing that said that there had been two incidents of "friendly fire" in which Nato forces bombed opposition forces "mistakenly" thinking that they were part of Gaddafi's army.
Adding two and two together it is obvious that Al Qaeda had infiltrated the Lybian opposition, it had stolen weapons from them, and in an attempt to solve the problem Nato decided to bomb the culprits. Obviously Nato failed.
Now Al Qaeda is free to roam Lybia since Gaddafi is not there to stop them. People forget things easily. Not long ago (3 years?) Prince Andrew was havily criticized for going to Lybia and signing business deals with the Lybian government. Both France and the UK were eager to do business in Lybia and to buy Lybian oil from Gaddafi. Why would they have been willing to do so when Gaddafi was the enemy? The reason is that Gaddafi was not the enemy. He was an ally in the War on Terror. Part of extraordinary rendition was sending detainees to third countries to be tortured and interrogated. Two of the main destinations were Lybia and Syria. Gaddafi was quite happy to crush Al Qaeda because Gaddafi wanted to maintain his secular government.
So we see the great intelligence failure: the enemy (Al Qaeda) of my enemy (Gaddafi) is my friend. Now that Gaddafi is gone, Al Qaeda sees an opportunity to attain their objective and destabilize the Lybian government until it collapses.
The attack in Benghazi was carefully planned. It is impossible to attack an American diplomatic mission without a plan because American diplomatic missions are heavily guarded.
It is not the first time that Western intelligence agencies completely fail in using this style of foreign policy. The Moujahaideen were America's allies against the Soviet Union. Now they are the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The US used opposition groups in Iraq against Saddam Hussain. Now Al Qaeda is alive and well in Iraq, even though it had never been Iraq prior to the war. In Lybia Al Qaeda is now armed and dangerous and the Benghazi attack is probably not the last. The Syrian and Lebanese governments are now claiming that the Syrian opposition has been infiltrated by Al Qaeda. In spite of that western intelligence agencies are giving money and weapons to the opposition.
The pattern is clear, and the Obama administrations failure is in repeating the same pattern that started with Ronald Reagan, continued in full with George W. Bush, and now is turning the Middle East into an even bigger mess under the Obama administration. The question is whether Obama will change his approach or whether Romney would do any better.
Übergeek 바둑이: [ It is not the first time that Western intelligence agencies completely fail in using this style of foreign policy. ]
I believe you already know that the purpose of intelligence agencies are to gather information, and it's the politicians responsibility to make decisions and formulate policy based on that information. The Benghazi disaster was not an intelligence failure, it was a failure to respond to that intelligence and take measures to insure the safety of our people in Libya. No one needs a comprehensive history lesson to understand that if you get information about an attack being planned on your people in a country like Libya, where simply being an American means you are at risk, then it would be wise to take that information seriously. The diplomat was advised to NOT make that request, because it was known beforehand that it would be turned down, but he did it anyway. And it's a good thing he did. Because even though he is now dead, the request is a part of the record and everyone knows that the request was made and what happened as a result of the request being ignored.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is more of a rule of thumb if you will than any kind of useful proverb. IMO it's a machiavellian principle that has very limited usefulness. If the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy, then that would be like saying the mountain lion fighting the bear that was trying to eat me is my friend. The mountain lion is only your friend because he has engaged the bear and given you an opportunity to escape. It doesn't mean the mountain lion is your friend, and wouldn't harm you if he manages to defeat the bear. The idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend has an extremely limited shelf life, and doesn't always work even when those limited circumstances are well understood.
Subiectul: Re:The idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend has an extremely limited shelf life
Iamon lyme: It was used significantly at the time of the American revolution.. The French helped you. It has been used throughout history, by various groups.. Like when the Dutch became allies with great Britain regarding the Spaniards.
Throughout the cold war it was used by various governments.. even in the NI troubles, it was significant that the UK army was passing on info regarding IRA members and supporters to the loyalist paramilitaries.. who then 'executed' them.
When the US peeved off Gaddafi, he got back by supplying the IRA with weapons.
Shakespeare in his plays you'll find instances... The stories of the Greek Gods are laden with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."