Quick question about arming rebels

Does the administration’s decision to arm the Libyan rebels remind you of anything?  It does me.  It reminds me of the Reagan administration’s decision to arm the rebels in Afghanistan.

Back then, the rebels were not our enemy, and they were fighting a sworn enemy against whom we’d been engaged in myriad proxy wars for decades.  This time, the rebels are our enemy, killing our civilians and soldiers all over the world, and they’re fighting a government that hasn’t does us any active harm in recent years.

Somehow, despite our pure and fairly reasonable thinking back in 1980s, I seem to recall that our decision to arm and train radical Islamists proved to have bad and lasting consequences for us.  (Hint:  the Taliban.)  This time around, we don’t even have the excuse of ignorance.  The Libyan rebels we’re arming, comprised of useful idiots, Al Qaeda operatives, and Muslim brotherhood members, were our active enemy yesterday; they’re our active enemy today; and tomorrow, pumped up with our weapons and supplies, they’ll still be our active enemy, only more dangerous.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • SFC Dave

    It actually reminds me more of Nicaragua.  There are very clear parallels with the US activity in Central America in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

    SFC Dave
    “Le plus ca change…”

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    It reminds me that Obama is anti-American and he always supports America’s enemies against our allies, or even potential allies.

    Look to the Left. Love all that they hate. Respect all that they scorn. And if they should support a dictator, search deeper for the real reason. And if they should overthrow a dictator, search deeper for the real reason. Never trust what they claim as their reason. Never accept their words as truth.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    There were various types of rebels in Afghanistan, Book. The NOrthern Alliance did in fact become our ally against the Taliban after 9/11. Massoud, their leader that AQ assassinated because they used the “guise of journalists looking to record a story (Never Ever Trust Journalists)”, fought in the Afghan war vs the Soviets.

    As usual, the real story is always more variegated and complex than the black and white propaganda the Left likes to feed people with. 

    I dare say the Northern Alliance did more to defeat the Soviets than religious idiots called the Taliban.

  • suek

    The thought has occurred to me that since it appears that many of the rebels are simply AQ members in different clothing (?), arming them somewhat might not be a bad idea.
    Better they should fight with Ghaddafi’s troops than with ours.

  • http://furtheradventuresofindigored.blogspot.com/ Indigo Red

    NATO today ruled out arming Libyan rebels and says mission is protecting civilians from attacks by anyone. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576234112952203504.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

    Arming the rebels is not a good idea and will absolutely backfire if done.

  • Oldflyer

    I recall that during the effort against the Russians in Afghanistan there were a few voices of warning.  They pointed out that we were training and equipping hard-core Mujahadin from all over the Muslim world, and that it would come back to bite us in various ways.
    They were right.

  • 11B40


    One of the mainstays of my thinking about the Muslim East came from Fouad Ajami’s assessment that those are the lands of “I against my brother (one of the Joys of Polygamy); my brother and I against our cousin; and my cousin, my brother and I against the stranger”.  When combined with a modicum of my Bronx-bred cynicism, I’m okay with arming them as they will, sooner or later, start slaughtering each other.  Just stay the hell out of the way.

  • Danny Lemieux

    A historical note, Oldflyer: there were seven independent Mujahadin groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. We only armed and supported two of them. We had nothing to do with the fundamentalist ones associated with Saudi Arabia.

    I only bring this up because this chapter has been so distorted by the Left claiming that we armed and supported the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Not true.

  • http://shakeypete.blogspot.com Peter

    Bear in mind also that the weapons we armed the Afghans with were not rifles and handguns but complicated weapons that required upkeep. The Soviets supplied the simple weapons like AKs and RPGs. The Stinger missiles that brought down those Russian helos were all gone or no longer servicable by the time the bad guys got their hands on them and tried to use them against us.

  • http://home.earthlink.net/~nooriginalthought/ Charles

    There is another problem that I foresee with arming the rebels in Libya; that is that the Democrats will arm them but not follow through.  Just hand over weapons without any conditions on how and when they will use them. There will be no setting up some sort of alliance with the US.

    In Afghanistan, it is also important to remember that the US did not DIRECTLY arm or support any of the rebels.  It was all done through Pakistan.  While this might sound like a minor point I think it is important to remember that we didn’t have direct control over who got what.  Let’s hope that the US does not make the same mistake again.

  • Jose

    It there is any truth to this report, we should be hammering the rebels instead of arming them:

    “Senior Libyan rebel “officers” sold Hizballah and Hamas thousands of chemical shells from the stocks of mustard and nerve gas that fell into rebel hands when they overran Muammar Qaddafi’s military facilities in and around Benghazi,”


  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    And this is why Qaddafi did a military crackdown on the terrorists. Because they were a serious threat in his side. Qaddafi, like many dictators who were told lies by the US State Department, probably thought the US wasn’t going to do a Damn Thing. After all, the US did not do a DAMNED THING in Iran and Iraq either when those dictators were stomping on their people. Qaddafi had every reason to expect the US to ignore his little domestic insurgency problem.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Ah, but Qaddafi forgot to think. Obama is anti-American. He only supports America’s enemies. He forgot that little important detail.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Of course, in Qaddafi’s shoes, he had limited options. If he did nothing, the Islamo fascists would roll over him and his country and his power base, which constituted the tribes which demanded military protection in return for providing political power.

    The Left used the “violence” in Libya as a pretext for war and bombing people.That’s basically. The “violence” which their alliance started and INSTIGATED in the first place. Create an emergency and don’t let coincidental serendipitous emergences go to waste. Isn’t that their SOP.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Better they should fight with Ghaddafi’s troops than with ours.

    They’re not fighting Ghaddafi. The US is fighting Ghaddafi. And that means AQ will win. And then you’ll have another Iranian regime sending terrorists over to kill Americans.

    Better? In no way shape or form is that better. Paying for AQ’s victories, so that AQ can create more American casualties is in no way, shape, or form “better”.