Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Islamists Threaten Libya’s Future

The killing of U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens comes in the wake of a new threat of Islamic fundamentalism that has rocked Libya over the last few weeks.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

The killing of U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens comes in the wake of a new threat of Islamic fundamentalism that has rocked Libya over the last few weeks.

A number of presumed Salafist attacks have been carried out against foreign consulates and interests in Benghazi since the end of the war. Some embassies in Tripoli have recently been threatened.

Radicals have also warned Libyan women to dress conservatively and to cover their hair. Jihadists have called for gender segregation in educational facilities.

Libya is littered with signs of the growing power of Salafists, such as the recent destruction of Sufi shrines. From Tripoli’s Al Mahary Radison Blu Hotel the azure waters of the Mediterranean ocean can be seen lapping along miles of powdery white beaches. But this stunning view is scarred by piles of rubble and bent steel girders in concrete.

The destroyed buildings are not a result of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) bombardment of intelligence or military buildings belonging to the regime of the late Muammar Gaddafi, but an Ottoman-era Sufi shrine and mosque.

IPS witnessed the shrine and mosque being deliberately destroyed by armed Salafists using bulldozers and diggers, as members of Libya’s armed forces and police stood by and guarded them, while barring journalists and blocking the road to traffic.

Salafists follow a puritanical strain of Islam and believe Sufiism (a mystical Islamic sect), and the dancing they partake in, to be heretical.

The destruction was carried out over a three-day period despite public protests, and outrage expressed by some members of the Libyan government who accused the interior ministry of not only failing  to protect the historic sites but also possible involvement in demolishing them.

Some of the Islamists who took part in the destruction are allegedly serving members of the Supreme Security Committee (SSC), an amalgamation of militias and some of Libya’s security forces, comprising approximately 100,000 men, with varying loyalties and differing ideologies. The SSC is believed to have been heavily infiltrated by both Islamists and hard-core Gaddafi loyalists.

Throngs of flag-waving, joyful Libyans had descended once on Martyr’s Square, known as Green Square under Gaddafi, to celebrate Libya’s new freedom after the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime. But this taste of freedom may be short-lived.

Three Sufi shrines in Tripoli, Zliten and Misrata (east of Tripoli) have been systematically destroyed, and a library containing hundreds of historic books and manuscripts was burned down. About 30 Sufi graves in Tripoli’s old city were attacked.

Libyan Interior Minister Fawzi Abdel Al provoked outrage when explaining the failure of security forces to intervene. He said he was not prepared for lives to be lost over “some old graves”. He admitted that heavily armed religious extremists were too many and too powerful for Libya’s weak security forces to confront.

“If we deal with this using security we will be forced to use weapons, and these groups have huge amounts of weapons. They are large in power and number in Libya,”  Abdel Al told journalists.

Emboldened by their “successes” Salafists tried to attack another Sufi mosque near the eastern city of Benghazi, on Friday but this time they were confronted by the army’s Libya Shield Brigade. Three Salafists were killed in an exchange of fire, and seven wounded. Two Salafists were killed on Saturday, and five injured, when they attacked another Sufi shrine in Ajlayat, 80km west of Tripoli.

Salafists have warned of retaliation, in a sign of escalating sectarian warfare.

These latest developments come as analysts increasingly warn that Islamists including Al Qaeda operatives are looking to fill the political vacuum and feed regional conflicts in the wake of the Arab Spring. Earlier speculation that after the first free democratic elections in nearly 50 years in July Libya would buck the Islamist trend in neighbouring countries appears to have been premature.

Daniel Nisman, intelligence manager at Max Security Solutions, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Tel Aviv says, “Emboldened Islamic extremism represents a clear policy failure by the Libyan athorities, who refused to brand the violence as a national threat. Dangerous as they are, Islamists are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ignored threats to Libya’s national security.”

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, sees parallels in growing sectarianism in Libya and Iraq.

“The post-Gaddafi Libyan security forces are being built up in much the same way as the new Iraqi security apparatus was created and developed following the fall of Saddam’s regime. That is, facing a situation of chaos caused by competing militias, the post-Gaddafi Libyan government has pursued a policy of trying to build up the new security forces as quickly as possible – an approach that was also adopted by the United States in Iraq,” says Tamimi in his article for the forum, Rethinking Libya.

“However, the major problem is that the focus is on quantity, not quality, and so political factions and other ideologues can take advantage of the situation, flooding the ranks of the new security forces with their own partisans.”

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney is a vocal critic of Donald Trump, whom Romney he a threat to “a safe and prosperous future.”


Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer and rightwing activist who has argued that the Muslim Brotherhood and a shadowy “Iran Lobby” are working to shape Obama administration policy.


Michael Ledeen, a “Freedom Scholar” at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has long been obsessed with getting the U.S. to force regime change in Tehran.


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney has emerged as the most visible advocate of hardline security policies in the Cheney family.


Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.


Joe Lieberman, the neoconservative Democrat from Connecticut who retired from the Senate in 2013, co-chairs a foreign policy project at the American Enterprise Institute.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


Print Friendly

Trump’s reorganization of the foreign policy bureaucracy is an ideologically driven agenda for undermining the power and effectiveness of government institutions that could lead to the State Department’s destruction.


Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


RightWeb
share