[ About | Archive | Network | Latest | RSS/XML Feed]

Grab the Maghreb!

March 29, 2011 7:04 PM

Listening to Obama's Libya speech, which I seem to have correctly identified as a "look at me, I'm a hero" speech, one small statement of Obama's caught my attention: in addition to the "humanitarian" argument for a military incursion into Libya, Obama mentioned that Libya was between Tunisia and Egypt, two ancient nations who have, very recently, experienced popular unrest facilitated by Facebook and Twitter. If I remember correctly, Obama expressed the concern that the Gaddafi dictatorship might destabilize the "progress" towards "democracy" being made in Tunisia and Egypt. My brain, packed with historical and political flotsam and jetsam, sent a message to the neurons where blog-writing occurs: "OMG! Obama wants to grab the Maghreb." And, yes, I believe that is exactly what he is doing.

So, what is the "Maghreb?" Derived from Arabic for "west," which at the time of conquest after Muhammad's death meant the rich nations of North Africa, it means the same today. After the time of Antony and Cleopatra, the Maghreb, a Greek territory, was taken over by Rome. The Persians held some territory for a while (sound familiar?) but ultimately the Saracens (Arab followers of Muhammad) grabbed it and held on, to be replaced by other non-Arab Muslims. Much later, Spain began taking territory in the far western part of the Maghreb in the 1400's, but France and Britain later became the main players, beginning, as I recall, with Napoleon. Mussolini began a Libya campaign in 1922, but the Libyans resisted fiercely (just as they are resisting Gaddafi now), and after much butt-kicking by the Italians, Mussolini took control by 1934. This wistful little paragraph appears in Wikipedia:

"Indeed in 1939, laws were passed that allowed Muslims to be permitted to join the National Fascist Party…"

Of course, Obama, unlike Mussolini, is not going to proclaim that he's a fascist or that his intention is to grab the Maghreb. At present, he won't even say that he intends to use force to remove Gaddafi from power. How is that going to happen? Somehow. (Today Rush Limbaugh opined that Obama needs to get rid of Gaddafi to preserve enough of his hero status to win re-election in 2012.)

If force is used (and how could its use be avoided?) it will be by the International Community, as represented by NATO. Much like the Wizard of Oz, the "man behind the curtain" should not be visible according to the International Community narrative. The other players just happen to be France and Britain. (So far, it seems that Italy is staying out of it.)

Is there any more evidence that Obama wants to grab the Maghreb? Yes: Russia, China, and Iran don't like what he is doing. Neither do leftists like Michael Moore and Ralph Nader. Neither do flamboyant Black Nationalists like Farrakhan and Malik Zulu Shabazz. The Black Nationalists play a minuscule, mostly comic, role on the international stage, but the sensitivity of their nostrils to the odor of old-fashioned White Man's Burden "imperialism" is not to be underestimated.

So: how would this play out? Some kind of "international" entity (controlled by the US?) would be established to stabilize and rule the Maghreb from Egypt through Libya to Tunisia, maybe even eventually including Algeria, Morocco, and Mauretania, all, of course, in the name of "democracy." The foothold would begin in Libya. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood would have a seat at the table. Would Turkey? It's doubtful. Would the Mullahs who control Iran? Hell, no. Would the Saudis? You betcha.

Would Al-Qa'eda cooperate with this plan? It might sound far-fetched, but remember that General Petraeus' success in Iraq was based on buying off Al-Qa'eda elements piecemeal.

So, if my speculation has any ring of truth to it, what do I think about Obama grabbing the Maghreb? It boils down to this: If it were truly in the national interest of the USA to grab the Maghreb, I would have no objection. But is it? What is the evidence? It would undoubtedly be very costly in other people's money, and the other people are you and me.

Should the Republican Party win the 2012 election and a majority in both House and Senate, how would they deal with an American-grabbed Maghreb? Sadly, I think poorly. They don't do their homework and they turn over a lot of power to folks like the Bush family.

That, however, is the least of our problems: look who is probably grabbing the Maghreb now: Barack Hussein Obama, the Anointed One, Hijacker of Hijackers. It is not at all clear that his crown jewel, Obamacare, is going to be stopped by Republicans cowering at the thought that the "Democrats" might close the Washington Monument if a "government shutdown" occurs. What would he do with a huge chunk of what used to be the Roman Empire?

Be that as it may, in my opinion, there is no reason to believe that Obama himself actually originated his Libya policy. It has been attributed to Hilary Clinton, Anne Rice, and Samantha Powers, but I strongly suspect other fingers in the pie. I have written earlier that I view Obama as a sock puppet, and I have not changed that view.

Who, then, could be behind the Maghreb Grab that my overactive brain is contemplating? Obviously George Soros has some role in it, but I don't buy the James Bond Villain theory of geopolitics. Frankly, I don't know who is behind the Maghreb Grab, but I know how I will eventually find out: follow the money.

[Keywords: impeach-them-all.org don't gaddafi grab international libya maghreb obama ]