Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read.  Will someone explain where our U.S. national interest is in this mess?

"In his presidential speech to the nation, Obama defended American use of military force as part of the coalition to protect Libyan civilians, yet as Vanity Fair fittingly described, Obama’s Speech on Libya Leaves Big Questions Unanswered, amounting to “an oddly belated effort to explain the obvious.” A pertinent question about Libya is this: what is the Western alliance backing?

According to analysts of the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the rebel forces opposing Gaddafi– and yes the same ones that America is backing– are comprised of young Al-Qaeda jihadists.  Forget the premature liberal utopianism that peace, human rights and democracy as we know it, is on the horizon in the turbulent Middle East.

[....] The region is crawling with Islamists—from the most violent to the so-called moderate adherents to the Muslim Brotherhood, the latter being confused with democratic freedom fighters by misinformed Westerners.

[....] A quick glance back will remind us that the Taliban swiftly emerged as a so-called reformist force from the Mujahideen warriors that fought the Soviets in the late 90s.   Its founder Mullah Mohammad Umar served as a Mujahideen warrior before advancing to create his own fundamentalist ‘vision’ for Afghanistan, the current menace America faces at war.  While we cheer the fall of tyrants in the Middle East there is no predictability on who or what will replace them at this stage.  With the powerful Islamist influence, this vacuum is ominous and brings with it potential complications to Western interests, particularly with America governed by a vacillating president who needs to focus more on the menace of Iran, while showing greater support for Israel."