Libya – USA Gov Policy

On February 20, The State Department announced that “The United States Government condemns today’s terrorist attacks in eastern Libya which took the lives of at least 40 innocent victims as well as the other violence and terrorist acts that have been inflicted on Libya, its people, and others living in Libya in recent months. We send our deepest condolences to the victims and their families and to the people of Libya as they continue to fight back against terrorism. This latest terrorist attack underscores the need for all Libyan parties, including former general and national congress members to participate in the UN-led dialogue convened by Bernardino Leon, the special representative of the UN secretary-general to form a national unity government. Those who choose not to participate are excluding themselves from discussions which are critical to combatting terrorism as well as to the overall peace, stability, and security of Libya. The best way to counter the terrorists who are operating Libya is to have Libyans build the national consensus that they need to fight these groups, not each other.”

Islamic extremists have gained strength in the aftermath of the White House decision to engage in regime change in Libya in October 2011. The unwanted consequences were even more severe than the rise of the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt following the Obama-supported ouster of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, who had been cooperative with the West and a supporter of peace, and the persecution of Coptic Christians which followed.

Despite an extensive tradition of vehement protests against U.S. military action, there was comparatively little public outcry or official investigation into the Obama Administration’s odd decision to support the ouster of Libya’s Gadhafi. His regime posed no threat to peace, and was essentially on the same side as the U.S. in the fight against Islamic terror forces. In the aftermath of the President’s decision to prematurely withdraw American forces from Iraq, which had the unfortunate consequence of establishing a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to rise, it appeared that a policy of limited U.S. military force had been established. However, U.S. armed forces proved to be a key asset in the European effort against Gadhafi.
Poor flow of blood is the chief reason for this problem is that bike riders often place a large amount of pressure on levitra online india their perineum while cycling. Therefore, it is lowest price on cialis considered the best natural anti-aging treatment for men, daily two times with milk or water for three to four months. Cases related to interstitial cystitis free viagra canada can be cured by a gynecologist. It is prescribed that more seasoned men counsel a spepurchasing this generic levitra onlinet before overseeing any sort of solution.
Libya has now become a virtual haven for Islamic extremists, highlighted by the assault on the U.S. facility in Benghazi which resulted in the death of Ambassador Stevens in 2012, and the recent assault on a luxury hotel in Tripoli resulting in the death of an American and eight others. The disorder has presented threats to regional areas such as Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad and Egypt.

The catastrophic failure of the Obama Administration’s policies towards towards the Islamic world in general and radical Islam in particular is becoming increasingly evident.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the fate of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq, a purely terrorist entity which now controls an area the size of Massachusetts and is, according to the Arab news source al-Arabiya reportedly even issuing its own passports.

Al-Baghdadi, the new Osama Bin Laden, was actually in American custody until he was released by Mr. Obama in 2009. Despite his rise to prominence following his release, the identical mistake has been made again in the release of the Taliban 5, prominent terrorist figures freed by the White House this year.
Therefore, these sex enhancer herbal pills increase ejaculation force in men. order cheap levitra informative shop When you look at market access there are several layers within the process -reimbursement at the HTA and then pricing at the national level. slovak-republic.org buy generic levitra http://www.slovak-republic.org/sport/golf/ cialis sale It serves as an eye opener on how to treat such problems, according to the cause of such problem. buy pill viagra http://www.slovak-republic.org/folk/dance/ Similarly there are many that don’t have the time to change that idea.
Elsewhere, we have seen the Administration’s inexplicable assault on Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi, who no longer threatened threatened the west, a move which gave rise to new opportunities for al-Qaeda in that nation; the White House’s vigorous endorsement for the overthrow of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, a flawed but pro-peace, pro-American leader which led to the rise of the terrorist Moslem Brotherhood in that nation; the announcement of the withdrawal date of U.S. troops from Afghanistan as the White House negotiates with the Taliban, the same entity that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; the refusal to even voice any support for the Green Revolution in Iran, which sought to replace that nation’s vehemently anti-American regime; and the continual decline of U.S. relations with Israel, the only true friend the U.S. has in the middle east.

The White House continues to fail to provide any rational explanation of its bizarre actions and policies, which have clearly been to the detriment of the American people.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.