The Obama administration is reportedly actively considering arming the Libyan rebels without even knowing for certain who they really are. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who met on Tuesday in London with a senior rebel leader and made clear that Col. Qaddafi must go, admitted that:
We don’t know as much as we would like to know.
However, what we do know at this point is alarming enough to stop any Commander-in-Chief with America’s best interests in mind from even considering providing arms to these rebels. But not necessarily our current Commander-In-Chief, heralding his new Obama Doctrine of deferring to international consensus on how far we go in fulfilling internationally defined ‘humanitarian’ military missions.
A senior administration official is quoted in the New York Times today as saying:
Al Qaeda in that part of the country is obviously an issue.
The military commander of NATO, Adm. James G. Stavridis, told a Senate hearing on Tuesday that there were “flickers” in intelligence reports about the presence of al Qaeda and Hezbollah members among the rebels.
Flicker is defined as an “inconstant or wavering light.” We know from a West Point report and the admission of a leader of the rebels himself that some of the rebels have al Qaeda sympathies and were sent to Iraq for the purpose of killing our soldiers fighting the insurgency there. We’re obviously dealing with more than just a “flicker. ” But, in any case, shouldn’t even a flickering light bulb go off in President Obama’s head that it is reckless to provide any arms to people who could very well be Islamic terrorists, and who will most likely turn around and use them against Americans?
The Times reported that the French government, which had tried under a different administration to block any military action at all to remove the genocidal dictator Saddam Hussein, is now placing
mounting pressure on the United States to provide greater assistance to the rebels.
According to the previously mentioned Times article, a European diplomat said:
France was adamant that the rebels be more heavily armed.
If the French feel so strongly, then let them arm the rebels themselves. Is Obama so intent on making France and other members of the “international community” happy that he is willing to potentially sacrifice the national security of the United States and the lives of our soldiers by arming rebels who might very well be aligned with al Qaeda? Despite promising to the American people that our military objective was limited to protecting innocent civilians from imminent mass slaughter, is Obama now willing to entangle the United States in a protracted civil war and provide advisors on the ground to train the rebels in how to use the weapons we supply?
If Obama listens to French President Sarkozy and the Libyan hawks within his own administration such as radical Leftist Samantha Powers and provides arms directly or indirectly to the rebels, he would be knowingly providing military aid that could well end up in the hands of enemies of the United States.
Has taking the substantial risk of arming our enemies in the service of an amorphous international “humanitarian” mission become the new Obama Doctrine? If so, Obama is violating his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. And that’s not even to mention his paramount duty to protect the security of the American people. Readers can decide whether knowingly risking the arming of even a “flicker” of our enemy with a track record of trying to kill American soldiers is tantamount to treason.
Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam