MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Helena Cobban is one of the best informed commentators on the Middle East.
It is extremely unclear what the political outcome inside Libya of the tripartite (western) assault against the country will be. It is unclear, too, what political outcome the leaders of the three countries are aiming at in Libya.
In my experience, all wars are anti-humane and anti-humanitarian. But according to "Just War" theory, Clausewitz, Gen. Sherman, and other definers of the western pro-war canon, wars can only ever be justified if they are fought to bring about political outcomes that are clearly defined, compellingly desirable, and highly probable. If you can't even define the desired political endgame, then launching a war is ipso facto immoral. Launching a war just to "prove some kind of a point" is doubly immoral.
The only things that are clear as of today are that the politics not just of terminating this war but also of fighting it are extremely muddled; that this degree of muddle can be expected to grow; and-- given the passions that the war has already ignited-- that the escalation of violence that it represented will be very hard indeed to tame, de-escalate, and finally bring under control.(...)
(...)Before the tripartite assault, Turkish PM Rejep Tayyip Erdogan was working hard to try to mediate a political resolution to the contest between Qadhdhafi and the rebels-- one that would have involved Qadhdhafi stepping aside and a peaceful resolution of all outstanding differences.
The news out of the ongoing NATO summit in Brussels is all over the place. (Reuters 1, Reuters 2, Reuters 3.) Bottom line: No-one in NATO seems really able to figure out what it is they want to achieve or who it is they want to achieve it.
Oh boy, it looks as if the world is in for a nasty, ill-planned, very damaging, and quite possibly long-drawn-out war in Libya.
How come no-one told Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and their bellophilic friends from Washington's large aviaries of liberal hawks that this is, indeed, the nature of war? I guess the U.S. military-- and SecDef Gates-- had tried to.
But launching this war was not, in the end, a decision that was taken by Clinton, Powers, or Rice. It was taken by Barrack Obama. Shame on him.
Comments
It is fairly obvious to me that the whole point of this ill conceived situation is to take Gadaffi out with it LOOKING like THEY took Gadaffi out. In other words getting rid of any and all obstacles that would get in the way of the so called rebel alliance to get rid of him. And say "Here ya are. Give it a go."
by cmaukonen on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 5:47pm
Holy crap; was this a Freudian blunder from Ham? "... "I have a very discreet [discrete] military mission, so I could see accomplishing the military mission and the current leader would remain the current leader," Ham said.
But seriously, preventing the African Union from talking to Gadaffi (if he's around), to arrange him stepping down? And blocking Erdogan from the same? Bad form and all that. African Union can legitimize the op, but not do what they might do best to end it. (They say Gadaffi identifies most as an African nation, not an Arab nation.)
by we are stardust on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 6:00pm
Nigeria, Gabon and South Africa voted for the recent resolution on Libya, they are current members of the Security Council, so the motion did have significant African support.
by NCD on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:48pm
Did you read the link? About the African Union and the Turkish emissaries being prevented from talking to Gadaffi?
by we are stardust on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:26pm
Well, at least it looks like the coalition has found a consensus on whom the U.S. will hand off command and control to. NATO will co-ordinate the military operations, under political direction by a new group made of reps from the participating countries. Presumably it will have a fancy name and acronym, better thought out than Odyssey Dawn. Will it be one country/one vote, or weighted by contribution, or will decisions require NATO-like consensus? Unclear. Interestingly, the military command could still go to an American general. Still, Obama can say he isn't running the war -- sorry, intervention.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/us-nato-libya-operation-infighting
by acanuck on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:26pm
Though my personal belief is that operation names are too sick for words, I 'll say that for this one, they should go with the link's name: Operation Infighting.
by we are stardust on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:47pm
Odyssey Dawn
I remember Odyssey Dawn--she was a dancer at the OFarrell Theatre back when the girls could work the audience naked. She was a Rajneeshi, one of the hundreds who came south after Rajneeshpuram folded up. they revolutionized the sex industry...
by jollyroger on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 2:18am
What? Wait, Libya? Oh...well, never mind then, carry on.
by jollyroger on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 2:20am
Arma virumque cano*
On his very long journey back to the long suffering (and knitting) Penelope that wily Odysseus may have landed there. But the one who did for sure was Aeneas . Should have been called Aeneid Dawn.
* translation provided upon request
by Flavius on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 9:04am
Or maybe Augean Dawn since, before it's over, a shovel and some stables could well be involved.
by acanuck on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 12:03am
It's also clear that Qaddafi didn't occupy Benghazi
by Flavius on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 8:53am
so many times we attempt to kill Khadhaffi, Qaddaffi,.....i really have no idea how to spell this animal's name.... hahahahahah
Then we arm him to the teeth thru international corporations with our country's consent (?).
If the guy is killed who the frick cares?
But the innocents will always be killed in the end.
All I know for sure is the more wars the merrier wars!
by Richard Day on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 7:00pm