Getting Libya's Rebels Wrong

Don't buy Qaddafi's line: The rebels aren't al Qaeda.

BY NAJLA ABDURRAHMAN | MARCH 31, 2011

The recent remarks by Adm. James Stavridis, NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe, alleging "flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah" among Libyan rebels are indicative of a disturbing trend in much of the discussion -- and reporting -- on Libya over the past several weeks. Ambiguous statements linking Libya and al Qaeda have repeatedly been made in the media without clarifying or providing appropriate context to such remarks. In many instances, these claims have been distorted or exaggerated; at times they have simply been false.

The admiral's comments -- and the subsequent headlines they've engendered -- represent a new level of irresponsibility, constructing false connections, through use of highly obscure and equivocal language, between al Qaeda and Libyan pro-democracy forces backed by the Transitional National Council. The latter is itself led by a group of well-known and respected Libyan professionals and technocrats. Even more far-fetched is the admiral's mention of a Hezbollah connection, or "flicker" as he put it.

Statements of this type are troubling because of their tendency to create alarmist ripple effects. Such perceptions, once created, are nearly impossible to reverse and may do serious damage to the pro-democracy cause in Libya. The fact that Stavridis qualified his comments by stating that the opposition's leadership appeared to be "responsible men and women" will almost certainly be overshadowed by the mention of al Qaeda in the same breath. One must wonder, then, what precisely was the purpose of the admiral's vague and perplexing remarks.

There is a pressing need for officials and commentators to clarify connections drawn between Libya and al Qaeda and to provide more accurate and responsible analysis. And it's not just Stavridis's reference to al Qaeda that is problematic; two similar claims making the media rounds also demand careful scrutiny. One involves an anti-Qaddafi organization called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) that confronted and was crushed by the regime in the 1990s. The second involves disturbing reports of the recruitment of Libyan youth by al Qaeda in Iraq, some of whom left their homes to take part in suicide missions in that country. Neither is connected to the current uprising, but both are frequently mentioned when discussing it.

Let's start with the LIFG, whose activities were recounted to me by a former member of the group's leadership council now residing in London, Noman Benotman, in a lengthy interview I conducted with him in December 2009.

The exact date of the LIFG's formation is unclear, but its roots can be traced back to the 1980s. In preparation for launching attacks against the Qaddafi regime, many members of the still nascent group traveled to Afghanistan to join the U.S.-backed mujahideen in their struggle against the Soviets and to undergo military training before returning to Libya.

In the early 1990s, LIFG members, among them Benotman, Saad Furjani, and others, developed extensive plans to expand the organization and prepare it for armed struggle; these were to be executed in several phases until the group was in a position to confront the regime directly. However, in 1995, the group's activities were prematurely exposed when LIFG members led by Furjani and disguised as state security services stormed a Benghazi hospital and rescued Khaled Baksheesh, a fellow member who had been arrested and was in critical condition after being beaten by police who had discovered a concealed weapon in his possession. In response, state security services began a sweep of the region, and several LIFG cells were eventually discovered in cities throughout the country, including Benghazi, Tripoli, Darnah, Zawiyah, and Sabha. The group's leadership council, most of whose members were in Sudan at the time, elected to declare its presence as an organization in October of that year, making public its intention to topple the regime. Over the next few years, Libyan security forces crushed the would-be rebellion, arresting or killing most of the LIFG's membership.

Given that the Qaddafi regime was attempting to contain a homegrown opposition that threatened its continued survival, its decision to repair its damaged relations with the West beginning in the late 1990s was in essence a pragmatic one. This rapprochement necessitated, among other things, cooperation with Western anti-terrorism efforts: The LIFG was soon declared a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

ARIS MESSINIS/AFP/Getty Images

 

Najla Abdurrahman, a Libyan-American writer and activist, is a doctoral student in Columbia University's Department of Middle Eastern, South, Asian, and African Studies. She lives in New York City.

COMMONSENSEFP

9:52 AM ET

April 1, 2011

So wait, I missed the part

So wait, I missed the part where the author refuted the point that Eastern Libyans played a significant role in AQ in Iraq as she said she intended to do? Also the long held and still common argument that poverty and such causes people to join revolutionary and terrorist groups is wanting of proof; in fact, nearly all evidence points to the opposite.

Overall all though I think the fear that AQ will hijack Libya movement is stupid (though I'd like to see them leave Pakistan and go to Libya to get gunned down by Qaddafi). Most likely the opposition will just either be put down by the regime or overthrow Qaddafi and then begin the real civil war between themselves.

 

WESTERNSKEPTIC

5:30 PM ET

April 1, 2011

Wait, what?

It's funny, I don't remember the last time a revolutionary group was composed of affluent and free individuals. I don't know where you get "nearly all [your] evidence" that poverty and oppression doesn't facilitate violence when when the population is pushed far enough, but I'd sure like to see it.

As for the author's argument, there's a fallacy in the argument that Al Quaeda is not a threat. The author uses statements from the de facto Benghazi administration citing their distaste for Al Quaeda. That merely proves that the rebel leadership is not aligned with Al Quaeda, it does not disprove the threat. Considering that Al Quaeda and Hezbollah have transnational ambitions, it would not be surprising that both groups would have some people on the ground looking to further their cause. It is also likely that these groups would have, or at least have attempted to, infiltrate the rebels in order to gather intel or attempt to shape Lybia's post-revolutionary landscape.

The analysis in this article seems rather simplistic for such a complex problem. It seems to imply that Al Quaeda can only be a threat if they and the rebels are on the same side. The Lybian rebels are united only in their distaste for Gaddafi, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that groups such as Hezbollah or AQ would seek to prepare for a power vacuum should the Gaddafi regime fall.

So really, in this context, Al Quaeda is even more of a threat than if they were with the rebels. That would mean that supporting the Gaddafi regime would stifle the AQ threat. However, AQ is a threat to both sides in this scenario, which means that unless the West decides to commit some security forces to assist a transitional government, the new administration will have a big security problem on their hands.

Considering the rebel leadership can't even control it's own fighters' rampant waste of limited ammunition, it will have a hell of a wake-up call fighting a sophisticated enemy like AQ or Hezbollah. Let's not be too quick to dismiss legitimate concerns or threats in the name of political correctness, or to make a policy decision more appealing politically.

 

FFDGFHGFH

10:22 AM ET

April 1, 2011

accept paypal free shipping

Wonderful.

Share a website with you ,

(======= http://mcaf.ee/6e4ac =======)

Believe you will love it.

accept paypal free shipping

 

SUBVERSIVEMIKE

11:43 AM ET

April 1, 2011

Uh, you are forgetting...

That "Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

Is NAJLA ABDURRAHMAN running interference for the U.S. via Foreign Policy?

- mike

 

MARTY24

1:16 PM ET

April 1, 2011

Opposition Leaders

Let's first see who the actual leaders of the Libyan opposition are, then let's talk about what we do next.

 

NEWTOSCHOOL

3:00 PM ET

April 1, 2011

I agree...

While MARTY24's sentiment seems to have been tossed back-and-forth in the political figureheads that are talking about the issue, I'm wondering why this wasn't done prior to us becoming involved in the first place.

I understand that there are situations that call for immediate action, but this one didn't seem to rise to that level: A government attempting to seize-back power from a relatively unknown rebel force (that early on took 5 of its countries major cities). The mainstream media here in the US failed to talk at any length about who these rebels were (except for referring to them continually as "civilians") or even their accomplishments (of how they were able to take the 5 cities in the first place) or what (besides "freedom", is their ultimate goal).

In all, the public is left with very little to make an informed opinion on the matter. We have the history of Qaddafi to figure out what side of the fence we will end up on. While I cringe at alligning myself with him, until I have another choice, I am very reluctant at jumping in with someone else (especially in the Middle East). Every piece of footage I see from the battles in Libya, I hear the Rebels yelling "Allahu Akbar (and yes I know it literally means God is Great" and acting in the same manner they do when they are attacking US and Coalition forces in Iraq and Afganistan.

It is unsettling to me how fast we have backed a movement so quickly with so little research

 

JLMWILLIAMS

9:55 PM ET

April 1, 2011

Ultimately I read this article

as recognition that what's omitted or blurred in other biased, fear mongering reporting, is the fact that the Libyan people are fighting for democracy. Under an oppressive regime, it's possible for some "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - but not for all.

"Ambiguous and misleading statements like the admiral's do a grave disservice to the Libyan people and their cause by effectively and unfairly lumping them together with al Qaeda in the public consciousness." Abdurrahman, N.

Thank you Abdurrahman and Foreign Policy for attempting to drive this point home.

 

KUMHO

2:50 AM ET

April 12, 2011

Kumho

Libyan opposition are, then let's talk about what we do next.Parça Kontör

 

ZEVZECI

10:40 AM ET

April 12, 2011

Libya

So really, in this context, Al Quaeda is even more of a threat than if they were with the rebels. That would mean that supporting the Gaddafi regime would stifle the AQ threat. However, AQ is a threat to both sides in this scenario, which means that unless the West decides to commit some zevze security forces to assist a transitional government, the new administration will have a big security problem on their hands.