Fire rises from an oil tank in the port of Es Sider, in Ras Lanouf, Libya, Jan. 6, 2016. A Petroleum Facilities Guards blamed the blazes on attacks by Islamic State militants.
The United States and allied nations are making plans for military support to Libya once a new government is established, officials say, as Western countries seek to halt the growth of the Islamic State’s satellite there and contain worsening instability on Europe’s doorstep.
Defense officials from the United States, Britain, France, Italy and other nations met in Rome this week to advance proposals that, if approved, would help secure a new government, stand up a credible national army, and lay the groundwork for an eventual Libyan assault on the Islamic State.
Read more ....
More News On The Growing Chaos In Libya
Libya says it doesn't want British ground troops to fight Islamic State -- The Telegraph
Here’s What Special Operators Want To Do In Libya -- Defense One
The Islamic State's high command has sent a senior Iraqi enforcer to head its new outpost in Colonel Gaddafi's home city of Sirte, Libya -- The Telegraph
Losses in Syria may force some IS leaders to move to Libya: EU official -- AFP
Fires rage as jihadists attack Libya oil facilities -- AFP
Oil Facility Fires, Set Off by Rocket Attacks, Rage in Libya -- VOA
Whipped for drinking alcohol and executed for stealing: The horrific moment three men are shot dead in front of a mob by ISIS barbarians in Libya -- Daily Mail
Libya factions announce unity government -- DW
Libya now has three governments -- Mail & Guardian
West ignoring grave threat from IS in Libya, Israeli terror experts warn -- Times of Israel
Can ISIS gain power over Libya’s oil? -- Julianne Geiger, USA Today/Oilprice.com
WATCH: 4 New ISIS Videos Threaten Maghreb, North Africa -- Heavy
Libya: The New Unite Or Die Government -- Strategy Page
Libya’s Oil In ISIS’ Crosshairs -- Matthew Reed, Fuse
ISIS is creating another 'resources-rich stronghold' in the Arab world — and it's bad news for Europe -- Elena Holodny, Business Insider
4 comments:
Gaddafi warned of this prior to the time the US (then an ally) overthrew him, and the US penchant for supporting Islamic radicals went awry.
Ambassador Chris Stevens had a role in this, by the way, playing CIA agent for State then and also later when he was in Benghazi, Sep 11 2012, supervising the shipping of arms to radicals in Syria via Turkey.
Hey, we could send Petraeus over to Libya to train their new army. That might work, or not. He could do the same quality work even as a three-star.
The previous intervention in Libya never really made much sense. The Libyan leader had agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program even if we had not gotten around to any way to enforce this, Western European nations had agreed to lucrative oil deals with Libyan government, and as part of the deal the Lockerbie bombers were returned to Libya as heroes.
While the US did raise a meek protest to the last part, likely for domestic political reasons, the deal made sense. We had a concrete change in behavior by an intractable enemy or so it seemed, the Western Europeans got needed oil deals out of this, and releasing the Lockerbie bombers made some sense in this situation. The US needed Western European support, we got a change in behavior or so it seemed from an intractable enemy, and it would have made no sense for the Western Europeans to try and placate a declining power like the United States and lose the oil deals for an up and coming power like Libya who had the potential to supply them with valuable resources.
Then along came the Arab Spring and Western Europe changed sides. I figured out early on the rebels lacked strategic depth to be able to defeat the government forces. Why didn't the Western European governments figure this one out? They may have had access to knowledge I lacked and concluded the rebels were going to succeed regardless what they did and overthrow Khaddaffi and they'd lose everything including their oil deals. The other possibility is ideological blindness. Essentially we support democratic movements at pretty much any cost regardless of our interests. I think this is the most likely possibility.
Essentially good oil deals for the Western Europeans were sacrificed for rebels who were unknown and the US gets pulled into this as a member of NATO. Certainly in retrospect not the brightest decision. Now if the government was going down anyway perhaps it was felt they had little choice in order to protect national interests. Still the action was poorly conceived as it failed to provide adequate security for the population.
Going forward any military action will need to have enough of a force structure to defeat the various Islamic terrorist groups, secure the nation's borders, and provide security for the population. This is likely beyond our ability to provide this and it seems unlikely the Western Europeans could either.
As such, gut wrenching as it is, the best approach is probably to try and wall this off and stop it from spreading by things like border security, limitations on immigration, and blocking financing where and when possible. Since the enemy has vast networks of support blocking financing is going to be problematic at best but each country can secure its borders, screen immigrants, and bar immigrants from countries like Libya. Right now this appears to be the least bad option and it may be our only option.
The news headline is untrue.
Advised by Samantha Power's concept of R2P, Obama immaculately conceived and executed a brilliant intervention.
It was an example of of his SMART Power.
And we all know Democrats a really, super smart!
WNU Editor,
"the West" has been "preparing" to "intervene" in Lybia for a couple years now.
The problem is they don't know which one of the dozen "sides" to intervene for, where to intervene, how to intervene, or what the end goal is supposed to be other than "fluffy democratic puppies".
Post a Comment