Obama’s Libyan War Leads to War on Women in Libyan University

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Mixité interdite

Remember that time Obama decided to invade Libya and implement regime change, handing the country over to Al Qaeda and various Islamic militias? Aside from the murder of four Americans, attacks on Africans, Christians and Sufis, he has killed whatever existed of Libyan academia. (via Religion of Peace)

Under Libya’s monarchy and Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, schools and universities in Libya had always been co-ed. However, in Derna, located in eastern Libya, male and female students are about to be separated for the first time. A local militia is building a wall in the middle of the university campus in order to segregate them.

The wall will be finished in two weeks, and then classes will resume at Omar al-Mokhtar University in Derna. The construction of this wall is the result of an agreement between the university administration and a local Islamist militia known as Buslim, which will provide security inside the school.

Zohra (not her real name) is a former professor at Omar al-Mokhtar University in Derna.

“This wall is the result of two years of pressure from Islamist militias on the city, and more specifically on the university. Derna is even more conservative than the big Libyan cities like Tripoli or Benghazi. Islamists settled here following Gaddafi’s fall.”

“They have been putting pressure on the university administration and the school’s female students. They criticise co-ed classes, the outfits of some female students, and some disciplines that are, according to them, an offence to Islam. The law department in particular is being targeted because it teaches the laws of this world, and not Sharia law – even though Libyan laws are inspired by Islam!”

“These extremist militias didn’t just lambast the university; they also threatened professors and female students via street graffiti close to the university.”

“The militias then offered the university administration a deal: they would provide security on campus in exchange for the introduction of an “Islamic” dress code for female students and the construction of a wall to separate men and women. The university’s president, as well as Derna’s local council, accepted this proposal.”

Among all their other many accomplishments, Hillary and Obama can take credit for building a Berlin Wall for women on campus.

Hillary. She really is breaking the glass ceiling.

  • Bamaguje

    And Obama wanted to do the same in Syria.

    • 4arepublic

      Putin put the mojo on Hussein Oblahblah. Case closed.

  • trickyblain

    The US did not “invade” Libya. In terms of the plight of Libyan women, why not mention that exactly the same thing has been occurring since 2003 in a country we did indeed “invade” — Iraq.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Bombing another country and sending personnel inside to help implement regime change counts as invading it.

      Liberals did make that critique of Iraq. So they had no excuse for claiming that they didn’t know what would happen in Libya.

      • Rick

        Either way counts as hostile action, a war.

        If we had used air power against Assad and he survived, he’ll look for revenge. It might be voting against us in the UN or it might be unconventional warfare a.k.a asymmetric war.

        Of course Assad would use asymmetric warfare because he knows he cannot go head to head with the U.S. So he will use terrorists groups or support our enemies.

        He’ll support Hezbollah and then deny culpability when they blow something up. That little bit of flimsy deniability is all some Kool-aid drinker like trickyBlain needs to coddle Assad and blame the U.S.

      • trickyblain

        Not by the standard English definition. The US was bombing and sending plenty of operatives into western Europe in WWII prior to June, 1944. However, the “invasion” of western Europe started with the invasion of Normandy.

        The worry about loss of American life/treasure with little return on Investment was hardly absent in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. My position has been consistent since 9/11; kill the terrorists but the hope for a Western-friendly democratic Islamic mid-East is a pipe dream. Getting rid of crazy Ghadafi was not neccessary, but it was one heck of a lot less expensive than occupying Iraq. I do chuckle when folks on the right call him an “ally.” He was an ally on in the same sense as Saddam was in the ’80′s.

        • 4arepublic

          You probably still think Benghazi was about a video. “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

          • trickyblain

            You probably never knew a place named Benghazi existed before a bunch of hacks cynically took advantage of a tragic diplomatic SNAFU.

          • 4arepublic

            You probably never knew Obama was a mooslime, idiot. Prove me wrong.
            PS. I am well aware of the location of Benghazi. After all, Obama and Shrillary did. I am smarter than either of them.
            PSS. Nice try at misdirection, but it ain’t working, libtard.

          • trickyblain

            You probably never knew Reagan worshipped the Devil while wearing goatskin.
            Prove me wrong.
            PS. Nice to see you have a high opinion of yourself, but your writing style and logic screams sub-90 IQ.
            PSS. Misdirection? There’s a handy thing online called a “dictionary.” Use it. (Hint: misdirection isn’t talking about Libya in a discussion about Libya. Calling Obama a “mooslime” in said discussion is.)

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Right.

          I hear Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman either.

          Bottom line, liberals did the same exact thing in Libya they spent years denouncing Bush for doing in Iraq.

          • hiernonymous

            Well, no , Libya wasn’t exactly like Iraq. That’s not to say that there are no grounds for criticizing our approach to Libya, but there are a couple of significant differences that must be acknowledged.

            The most significant is that the Libyans were actively seeking to overthrow Qadhafi before we got involved. In Iraq, we stood by and watched as the 1991 insurrection was crushed. Over a decade later, we launched a deliberate invasion of the same state with the purpose of toppling a Saadam who was facing no other serious threat to his rule. In this, our approach to Libya was closer to our attack on Afghanistan than on Iraq, in that we were supporting indigenous combatants rather than carrying the brunt of the fighting ourselves.

            Libya was also a genuinely multinational effort, rather than the U.S.-UK war in Iraq. In this, Libya was also more like Afghanistan.

            The U.S. did not attempt to occupy Libya and engage in an extended nation-building effort.

            One might argue that one similarity to Iraq lay in unrealistic expectations about the probability of a secular democratic government succeeding the old regime.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Libya was as mulitnational as Iraq, it was another Coalition of the Willing.

            Saddam still had an extensive Shiite opposition. The difference is the Shiite opposition was somewhat less radical than the LIFG Obama got into bed with in Libya.

            But the most significant difference, relative to the topic, is that in Iraq we tried to manage the consequences of regime change.

            In Libya, we implemented regime change and let Al Qaeda take over.

          • hiernonymous

            “Libya was as mulitnational as Iraq”

            Not really. Unlike Iraq, in Libya we got other countries to bear the brunt of the fighting.

            “The difference is the Shiite opposition was somewhat less radical…”

            No, the difference is that the Shiite opposition had already risen in armed rebellion and been ruthlessly crushed.

            “But the most significant difference, relative to the topic, is that in
            Iraq we tried to manage the consequences of regime change.”

            No, not really. We were pretty blind to the consequences of regime change, and expected our Phase IV operations to be minimal. We were very slow to recognize that the end of hostilities wasn’t, and we never committed the level of force necessary to “manage the consequences.” You may or many not recall that, years after the fall of the regime, we couldn’t keep the electrical grid safe from attack long enough to provide 24 hour electricity to the capital. Though, to be fair, part of that failure was that “managing the consequences” involved punishing Germany for not being part of the “Coalition of the Willing” by excluding the German firms that had actually made the equipment the electrical grid ran on from the task of repairing it. So I suppose that, in a sense, you’re right – we actively mismanaged Iraq in a way we avoided in Libya.

            “In Libya, we implemented regime change and let Al Qaeda take over.”

            Al Qa’ida has taken over in Libya?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Considering that the fighting was risk free, that’s not much of an achievement.

            We didn’t get everything right in Iraq, but we did take responsibility and we tried. That’s more than Obama did in Libya.

            Al Qaeda has taken over parts of Libya. Islamist militias, often of unclear alignment, run much of the country.

          • hiernonymous

            “Considering that the fighting was risk free…”

            Spoken like a man a very comfortable distance from the risk-free fighting, but no matter.

            “We didn’t get everything right in Iraq, but we did take responsibility and we tried. That’s more than Obama did in Libya.”

            Was it? What, exactly, do you suppose Amb Stevens was doing in Benghazi?

            “Al Qaeda has taken over parts of Libya.”

            So al Qa’ida hasn’t taken over Libya? That’s a relief. I thought you’d rather overstated your case earlier.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Note that the US was at war with Germany, when it was bombing it, and sending operatives into Western Europe. If operatives means “spies”, then every major power makes use of them, peacetime or war.

          Except for Israel, a Western-friendly democratic mid-East is, definitely, a pipe-dream. The problem with the rest of the Middle East is Islam, which does not allow for democracy, except as a means of enforcing Islamic authority.

          Qadaffi was never an ally of the United States. However, he started to play “nice” after the loss of one of his children, and his own near-death, in a US bombing raid.

          • hiernonymous

            “However, he started to play “nice” after the loss of one of his children, and his own near-death, in a US bombing raid.”

            Yes, he addressed the “thank you” note to Lockerbie.

    • TrickyBlame

      As a bleeding heart liberal in good standing, you should appreciate general Colin Powell. He said if “You break it, you own it.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule

      We could have defeated Sadam Hussein with air power and arming the Shia with antitank weapons, machine guns, mortars and rifles. If we had done so and then it fell apart you would be whining about it.

      If we had left Hussein in power, you would have whined about it. No matter which we go, you are a guaranteed whine (unless a Democrat is in the White house).

  • Fast Edddy V.

    Great Wall of Derna
    Alinsky’s Rules of rRadicals
    Fix the target
    Lampoon the Target
    Only difference is that we do not have to lie.
    When the Muslims countries cry out that they we backwards because they destroyed their country, they’ll have themselves to blame.

  • worldwatchman

    Obama, Hillary and their cohorts should be flown to Libya and given parachutes and tossed out the door of the plane. They have their heads so far up their keesters, they probably wouldn’t notice a thing. Screw all Democrats and their supporters.

    • Gee

      Okay I’ll bite why the parachutes?

  • liz

    If things go on as they are with this president, this will all be happening in the USA in the not too distant future. Wonder what the leftist academics will do then? Burqas will suddenly become fashionable, I guess.

  • CaoMoo

    provide security… gotta love the muslim mafia.

  • Gee

    Where is the US State Department – there is graffiti on the wall!!! That is as bad as murder – oh wait they can’t blame a Jew for it.
    Sorry for getting too excited