No one on Earth has done more to help al-Qaeda in the last six weeks than Barack Obama. Don’t let the bin Laden assassination thing fool you. Even with the loss of bin Laden factored in, al-Qaeda’s prospects have improved dramatically in recent weeks, and the group has Obama to thank.
Sure, bin Laden is gone, and that was a bit of a PR hit to the group. But Obama more than made up for that by setting up al-Qaeda financially for years to come. One of the first things the U.S.-led coalition did when it invade d Libya in March was to help the radical Islamist led rebels capture the oil fields. Thanks to Obama, they will no longer need to depend on rich Saudi sheiks to fund jihad because they now control oil fields capable of generating $34 billion worth of black gold a year.
Within a week of the takeover of the oil by the rebels, and while the White House was still promising to send the CIA to Libya to “figure out” who the rebels really were, the U.S. and NATO had brokered a sweet deal for them to control Libya’s oil and sell it to Qatar. The rebels sent the first shipment, worth about $100 million, by tanker in the beginning of April.
It’s a windfall that the al-Qaeda infiltrated rebels, led by a former Gitmo detainee and two former jihadists fresh from battle in Afghanistan, couldn’t possibly have achieved without the help of US airpower in Libya . With billions they’ll eventually reap in profits from the oil each year, they could easily wage a multi-front jihad and have plenty of money left over for a bio weapon to wipe out the entire American East Coast. The thought of what these jihadist thugs could do inside our borders with the kind of money Obama and NATO helped secure for them ought to terrify Americans.
There is little doubt that al-Qaeda and like-minded groups are behind the Libyan efforts. Regional leaders tried to warn us that the rebel movement in Libya was al Qaeda-backed and affiliated, but the American media largely brushed that off. This week, as the world sat glued to the TV, taking in the bin Laden assassination story, the Christian Science Monitor reported that al-Qaeda fighters are streaming into Libya to help the Obama-backed rebels. Despite this, the rebels say they are expecting to receive $2 to $3 billion in aid from the U.S., France, and Italy in the coming week.
According to UPI, bin Laden himself was so ecstatic about these developments that he became almost sloppy in the weeks before his death, breaking cover and traveling between Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to “merge al-Qaeda’s war against the West with the wave of uprisings across the Arab world.”
The pattern by the Obama administration is almost eerie. First, al Qaeda-led rebels capture part of a country and declare it an Islamic emirate or caliphate. Then Obama backs the overthrow of that country’s embattled leader, declaring that he must go in the interest of democracy, even when that goes against U.S. interests in the War on Terror.
That’s exactly what happened in Libya. It’s what happened again in Yemen. Within a week of al-Qaeda rebels seizing a province there earlier this year, Obama stunned foreign policy experts by suddenly calling for the ouster of Yemen’s president Ali Abdullah Saleh, a critical ally of ours in the war on terror.
Many of the recent attempted attacks on America were planned in Yemen, which has become a base of operation for al-Qaeda. So it was baffling to many that Saleh was thrown under the jihadist bus by Obama even though his help has been critical to the U.S. in tracking and apprehending the al-Qaeda and jihadist plotters attempting to overthrow Yemen. This raises a question. If Obama isn’t for Saleh in Yemen, exactly who is he for? The options are pretty awful—unless you are partial to radical jihadist thugs.
The whole pattern is similar to what Obama did in Egypt, where he backed a democracy movement that quickly proved to be a poorly disguised vehicle for those sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the country.
Which brings us back to bin Laden. His assassination is the one fact that doesn’t seem to fit Obama’s otherwise perfect pattern of aiding jihadist thugs in the overthrow of relatively stable countries. That’s because taking out bin Laden wasn’t about hurting al-Qaeda. It was about helping Obama get reelected. So far though, al-Qaeda seems to have come out way ahead in the deal.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter