The CIA is at it again!
The recent Raymond Davis scenario gave us all a little peak inside what happens at the world’s most premiere spy agency run by the United States of America. Forward a few weeks and the US along with approval from the UN have gone on full throttle against the Libyan regime of Col. Gaddafi. As the international attack on Libya mounts, newer details released give us a very ‘clear’ idea of how US, and most importantly President Barack Obama plans to run his war.
Now, newer reports have come to light which suggest that the role of the CIA in Libya might be bigger than we’d been told. Just a few days ago, President Obama had said that no US forces would be on the ground in Libya. But it appears the esteemed President might have found a way to deal with that – with the help of the Libyan Rebels.
News reports suggest that only a few days ago, the CIA sent a small team of operatives to Libya to make an assessment of ground realities. After years of supporting the dictator of Libya, General Gaddafi, the United States want Gaddafi out of Libya. Who then, we must ask, should be a replacement? From what Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said, there was no need for a regime change inside Libya. We can’t help but wonder why then, suddenly has the US decided to take Gaddafi out?
While President Obama has been criticized on many levels for moving too slowly (from both people on the left and right inside the US), it is only as the details emerge that we realize, all is not what is being shown to us.
What CIA’s role in Libya is, remains unclear. However, intelligence reports received very clearly point out that the CIA’s role is to ‘engage’ and make contact with opposition and to strengthen it. And if need be, provide the rebel forces battling Gaddafi, with arms and ammunition.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on the presence of CIA operatives in Libya in The Situation Room. While Sen. Graham denied the knowledge of the US aiding the rebels he was very much on the same page as the Obama Administration and said ‘the idea of aiding the rebels pleases me’.
The hour-long program also contained a lot of other gems where Sen. Graham also went on to say, ‘We have a strategy that is eerily similar to Iraq in the sense that we didn't have the right strategy to bring about the right answer. And the right answer is to replace Gaddafi.’ He went on to say, ‘What they would be worried about is having their compounds bombed by the most capable air force in the world, the United States Air Force.’
One question – who gave the United States the right to make a decision about replacing a leader of the country? The right to arm the rebel militants and turn them against their own leader? Bombing hundreds and thousands of square feet of international terrain?
To some the answer might be equal parts simple and complex – the United Nations and the International community.
The US interference goes deeper than that. When Blitzer asked Republican Sen. Graham about the legality of orders for killing Gaddafi, Sen. Graham, in his capacity as a military lawyer stated, ‘I would argue that Gadhafi is an unlawful combatant, not the legitimate leader of Libya. He doesn't have the status of being a nation-state leader and that he would be fair game under my construct. That a radio and TV network helping his unlawful enemy combatant cadre should be taken out to protect the Libyan people from a propaganda machine that puts them at risk.That's the way I would look at Gadhafi, as an unlawful enemy combatant.’
The battle lines, as they say, have already been drawn. With Obama’s own vision clouded by a prospect of a war of his’ own, both the people of Libya and the Libyan dictator, Col. Gaddafi are infinitesimal – as easily disposed off as a commodity.
Wolf Blitzer, as usual, ended on a very thoughtful note – something every one of us, including the citizens of the United States should ponder upon. He said, ‘Sounds to me like you would want to put Gadhafi on the same list as bin Laden’.
Because if you look at it, that’s really what it boils down to.