Quote Originally Posted by Lemur View Post
While I share most of PJ's reservations about our third simultaneous undeclared, unfunded war against an arab nation, I think the AQ connection sounds overblown and sensationalized. There are plenty of reasons to be wary of our new BFFs in Benghazi without invoking the universal boogeyman.
I was of the same belief until even the administration and military acknowledged it, seemingly the last group of people who would want the public to know about any al-Qaeda presence in the region.

This goes deeper than many may realize. Apparently, Libya's al-Qaeda allied faction, Libya Islamic Fighting Group, was fighting a losing battle against Gadaffi's regime in the mid to late '90s. As that insurgency crumbled, some fled to Algeria and others went to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan against the United States. (The largest percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq per capita were Libyan.) Now they're back, looking to finish what they started - all under the cover of US airstrikes.

The question is - after Gadaffi is gone, how will the democrats and the Islamists reconcile their conflicting visions for the future of Libya... the same way they did in Iraq? What is the West's responsibility to a post-Gadaffi Libya? After having removed the current government, are we then going to be comfortable watching it descend into violent chaos and/or Islamic fundamentalist control? Maybe al-Qaeda has decided to enter the democratic process in Libya () or maybe their numbers are small enough where they can be easily policed (we have seen the carnage a relatively small number of AQ can cause in other wars), but I think there are valid concerns regarding the nature and future of the revolution.