A huge hidden motive, overlooked

Richard Haass, who is using his stint as president of the Council on Foreign Relations as the first in his 12-step recovery program of Bushies Anonymous, made a powerful case on "Meet the Press" this morning against American intervention in Libya. To distill his varied concerns, I'd say Haass's overall worry is that of the United States missing the clicheish "big picture"; that Libya is of little strategic interest, that its oil reserves as a percentage of the world's are minor, that this is a civil war whose future we can't fathom, and so on -- all billowing up to his central point: By concentrating on Libya, we're missing not only the big picture, but the bigger picture.  

David Gregory, who is using his stint as host of "MTP" as the first in his 12-step recovery program of Lazy Journalists Anonymous (Gregory's indignation at Scott McClellan's What Happened, which charged White House journalists of the W. era with near criminal negligence, was truly a sight to behold), visibly thrilled at Haass' pushback on the Obama administration. (My apologies for this hateful paragraph. But I've reserved in my heart a special place of resentment toward David Gregory ever since I witnessed his phony outrage at McClellan's intensely obvious accusation -- Why, we were constantly querying the Bush administration, how dare McClellan question our professionalism, responded a truth-hurt Gregory.)

At any rate, Haass' case was so powerful, it retriggered in my mind the countervailingly powerful observation of: President Obama knows all that, he weighed those factors, and he cannot have possibly mistaken a miniature for a broad canvass; so why the shift, what bigger big picture, which Haass is in fact missing, could he have in mind?

My speculation is this: Obama's intervention has little to do with Libya, but a lot to do with American counterpropaganda efforts against al Qaeda. Our intervention on the side of Libyan insurrectionist forces, which may very well contain Qaeda associates, could eviscerate the latter's anti-American street cred.

Reported the Wall Street Journal on Friday: "Groups such as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb are active in Algeria and other countries in the region and have sought to bolster the opposition to Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi." Indeed, how embarrassing for al Qaeda as it finds itself fighting in cahoots with rebels that a U.S.-U.N. coalition is attempting to rescue from otherwise certain slaughter? The Western propaganda value of such odd bedfellows is, as they say, priceless.

White House counter-terrorism official John Brennan "told reporters Friday that the U.S. is trying to make sure that 'the terrorist elements' active in the region don’t 'take advantage of the situation,' " adding that "the U.S. recognizes that some leaders of the Libyan rebellion are simply trying to throw off 'the yoke' of dictatorship, and the Obama administration wants to work with those people."

I'll bet. And "those people" will not only be more receptive to Western influence in the wake of a successful revolution, their would-be Qaeda comrades will have American-provided egg all over their red faces.

Comments

[Alli]

Dude you are on a roll.

[Marc McKenzie]

Good points, PM.

Here's a question to ask of those against intervention in Libya: if nothing were to have been done, and Quadaffi slaughtered the rebels and kept power...then what? Would you then turn and accuse Obama of sitting on his hands and letting Libya become the next Rwanda?

Of course, at Salon, the Greenwald mindset of "This is some imperialist act!!" has set in.

I have my doubts about the current moves in Libya, but I have to look at it this way...the Arab League called for action, the UN Security Council authorized it, and now US, UK, and French forces are carrying out strikes, and Obama is calling on the Arab League to lend a hand. There's still cries about that this is the US and Obama trying to outdo Bush (or some weird babble to that effect) but my earlier question stands.

The funny thing is, I really would not expect an answer to it.

[majii]

@Marc,

I've already heard some on the left try to tie what is happening in Libya to Rwanda and try to equate President Obama's decision on Libya to GWB. It's hogwash, and the ones making these claims know it. The main problem they seem to have is that they think the president should listen to them instead of the experts whose salaries we pay to assist the president. It's a cry for attention that's not being addressed by the president, so they cry, scream, and whine louder and louder. It seems to me that they should have learned by now that they are not party to the meetings that go on in the WH and so should stop trying to impose their will on President Obama. IMO, when they do/say these kinds of things, they're no better than those on the right who also try to impose their will on the president.

[Alli]

@Marc;

Yes, yes they would.