Humanitarian Disaster

News stories over the past few days have reported on the plight of thousands of Libyan refugees who are fleeing the chaos in their country and trying to sail across the Mediterranean to Italy. Reportedly, over 700 hundred people drowned when their boat sank, and now, predictably, every progressive EU government, every Leftist organization, and the UN is ringing its hands and lamenting "a humanitarian disaster." They're right—it is a humanitarian disaster, but as we'll see, it's a whole lot more.

And besides, it seems I've heard the phrase humanitarian disaster used before where Libya is concerned.

Back when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she and Barack Obama initiated a "Kinetic Military Action" (war) of choice in Libya. The excuse they used was that they wanted to avoid a "humanitarian disaster" that was sure to occur if Mohammar Kaddifi stayed in power. Kaddifi was toppled and Hillary and Barack gleefully celebrated that fact. Unfortunately, with the strongman no longer in control of the the country, Libya descended into chaos.

Now, there is clear evidence that there's more to this "humanitarian disaster," but it's visible if and only if one recognizes that we're at war with radical Islam and the Jihadists that carry its flag. Richard Fernandez notes that Clinton and Obama, along with the EU, inadvertently enabled ISIS to gain power in Libya by eliminating Kaddafi. Sectarian violence escalated exponentially, and a mass migration of hundreds of thousands began.

But here's the thing. Fernandez suggests that the mass migration is an ISIS tactic. He writes:

Chaos, in ISIS’ view, is a weapon and as the refugee report shows, it is a massive weapon. Perhaps not coincidentally, deliberate population displacement largely coincides with Jihadi doctrine.  Management of Savagery, which is the Mein Kampf of the ISIS movement, advises the destruction of ordinary life. It

argues that carrying out a campaign of constant violent attacks in Muslim states will eventually exhaust their ability and will to enforce their authority, and that as the writ of the state withers away, chaos—or ‘savagery’—will ensue. Jihadists can take advantage of this savagery to win popular support …

Management of Savagery advocates destroying people’s lives so they are left with no choice but to build a new world — the Caliphate — because the old world is gone. The Management of Savagery is going to ride the wave of chaos to reestablish the return of true Islam to power.

We must make this battle very violent, such that death is a heartbeat away … When savagery happens in several regions … a spontaneous kind of polarization begins to happen among the people who live in the region of chaos. The people, seeking security, rally around the great personages of the country or a party organization or a jihadi organization or a military organization composed of the remainders of the army or the police of the regimes of apostasy.

Set against a highly sophisticated, albeit perverted strategy that one might call deliberate “inhumanitarianism” and carried out by iron willed terrorists, the half-baked liberal ideology in opposition to it has all the force of wet spaghetti. In many ways the image of jihadi leaders as illiterate rubes in comparison to the sophisticated likes of Hillary Clinton is a complete inversion of the truth. [emphasis mine] The jihadi enemy is quick, intelligent and ruthless by comparison to the EU bureaucracy and the geniuses of the Obama administration. Despite the disparity in material resources the contest is closer than one might think.

The last paragraph quoted above is an excellent and frightening description of the progressive response to Islamic terror in general and ISIS in particular. Obama, Clinton, and Kerry along with their Team of 2s are over-matched in every way. They have no strategy and no resolve. They are neither intelligent nor ruthless and when pitted against hard men, they do, in fact, have the "force of 'wet spaghetti.' "

Now we're asked by Democrats to elect the one of the authors of this "humanitarian disaster" as the president in 2016. It might be worth asking Ms. Clinton to take a short break from her shrill complaints about "income inequality" and the "war on woman" and answer just a few salient questions:

• Why has Libya become a failed state after the kinetic military action she championed as Secretary of State?
• Did bad decisions on the part of her State Department lead to the current humanitarian disaster in Libya?
• Did her decisions lead to increased power and influence for ISIS and al Qaeda in Libya? 
• Did her decisions as Secretary of State lead to greater regional instability?
• Does she even know what The Management of Savagery is? Does she care?

Reasonable questions that any competent journalist should ask. But even if they were asked (that's not likely) Hillary would use the typical Clinton response when substantive questions are asked. It's likely she'd respond that Libya is "old news" and anyway, it's related to Benghazi and we know that's just of phony scandal, don't we? If fact, this whole ISIS thing is just a "distraction" from the clearly more important issues of the day—climate change, "income inequality" and the "war on woman."

Just another example of the failure of software power in a region where hard men rule.