The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Damaging the U.N. Brand

    By Desider on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:43pm |

    So let's take a moment to read BBC on the latest from our fearless leaders:

    On Tuesday, the Obama administration and British foreign secretary suggested the UN resolution authorising international action in Libya could also permit the supply of weapons.

    This message was reinforced by Mr Cameron in parliament on Wednesday.

    "UN [Security Council Resolution] 1973 allows all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, and our view is this would not necessarily rule out the provision of assistance to those protecting civilians in certain circumstances," he said.

    "We do not rule it out, but we have not taken the decision to do so."

    But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov disputed that UN resolution 1973 gave a mandate to arm the rebels.

    "The Nato Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen declared that the operation in Libya was being staged to protect the population and not to arm it - and here, we completely agree with the Nato secretary general," he said.

    What's the operative phrase? "Certain circumstances". Meaning, for the uninitiated, "don't try this at home kids" (or if you're China or Russia or Iran or someone worse).

    So we're now devolved from a wave of peaceful protests sweeping the region to arming ragtag rebels with no training and little hope of success to carry out regime change by attacking hundreds of miles across the desert in the name of "protecting civilians".

    I'm sure at some point we'll figure out we could drop an A-bomb on Libya and it would count as "protecting civilians", or as the Vietnam phrase went, "we had to destroy the village to save it".

    But aside from the gobbledy-gook nerf-speak, we've got a major problem with what this means for UN resolutions and missions - they're simply not to be trusted. The UN resolution on Iraq in 2002 was supposed to be to resume inspections - which showed steadily increasing cooperation and an almost certain absence of WMD's - and instead was used as an excuse for war. The signers of this resolution feigned shock, but I'm fairly certain a lot of them were quite okay with the result.

    The current resolution seemed to fit into the US/UK call for regime change from the beginning, just as no one but a newborn puppy would think that "days, not weeks" wasn't an outrageous fib. [quickly upgraded in stages to "maybe by early next year"]. Of course if Qaddafi had shoved off immediately, maybe we wouldn't need to arm rebels so it's all his fault, no?. And can any ruler be faulted at this point for not taking UN guarantees (or the US/UK guarantees in implementing them) seriously? Yeah, yeah, I know, we've passed on command to NATO, right? And NATO's #1 military partner is..... (drum roll)... the US? By 10:1 over the next contender.

    So, let's see, what's our principles of engagement? "Ends justify the means". Or, "we'll see when we get there". Truly inspiring. Can I have February back, when it was just following the peoples' movements from country to country, rather than bankrolling the revolution and picking the winners?

    PS - from Digby, as the situation in Ivory Coast gets worse and worse but no US/UK effort to arm the democratically elected leaders or UN resolution to bomb back the ousted government:

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/value-betrayal.html

    Comments

    I agree that - absent the rapid removal of Gaddafi - this kind of manipulation of UN wording is going to be damaging. But before I walk off into the sunset of despair on how this is unfolding, I have this one... odd... feeling. That somehow they are working like crazy to chisel loose the tribes, the power brokers, the leaders around Gaddafi. I just think that with the population 80% less than Iraq's, with Gaddafi having such a demented demeanour, with the strong tribal roots, and the fact that people likely don't want a repeat of the infrastructure destruction that went with Iraq... This has to be Task One. If they can't do that, I really can't see Gaddafi moving out. He can outwait us. You can feed and house 20,000 troops for a long time on $6 billion in bullion.

    by quinn esq on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:30pm

    From what I can tell, the East-West split is nothing like a Sunni-Shiite rivalry combined with a Kurdish ethnic problem.

    And these are Mediterranean sun folk - more interested in long corsos at warm twilight than endless war. At least I hope. (Note: I think I'm the first to make this observation. If we can turn Benghazi into the next Ibiza or at least another Korfu, the future's excellent. For HIllary.)


    by Desider on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:37pm

    Also makes me think the West should have just said to the ME rebellions, "We gave you Twitter. We gave you Wikileaks. You do the rest, and we'll stay the hell out of the way. P.S. We'd like to buy some oil when you're all sorted."

    by quinn esq on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:34pm

    "Gave" Wikileaks? They gave air cover. Wikileaks sprung from the ground, so to speak.


    by Desider on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:30pm

    Maybe he meant 'we gave you the crap to Wikileak about'.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:15pm

    Ah yes, American diplomacy and secret missives - the gift that keeps on giving.

    In fact Marcie Wheeler at FiredogLake has a blossoming career interpreting internal administration docs and court hearings for us lay people. Just today one of Bush's lackies will be going to jail for countless counts of obstructing justice. The Obama administration did its best to "Just Look Forward" his jail time to 0 time, but alas, sometimes hope and interference is not enough.

    (wonder when we'll get the internal report on what our guy was doing killing people in Pakistan, needing us to extricate him using believe it or not - Sharia law and green cards)

    Well, I remember back in the good ol' days of 2007 people worrying about what all the comedians would do with no-drama Obama around. Fortunately, things aren't so dire as Jon Stewart tries to dissect Obama's anti-war war speech for us (hat tip: Digby).

    We've given so much to keep the world in stitches, it's about time we got something back, no?


    by Desider on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:24pm

    DD, if it was the one about Scott Bloch.  Not to be of the boringly repetetive ilk, but the best cynical tweet I've seen on the 'arm the rebels' issue was this: 

    " The good thing about arming Libyan rebels is it lays the foundation for our new war 10 years from now - our Enemies need to be armed."

    I always wondered during the Iraqi WMD debates when someone would just yell, "We know they have them you fucking idiots!  We gave them to them to fight Iran!"  But, no....they may have known Saddam destroyed them all; who knows?


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:45pm

    The section under the interpretation dispute is:

    4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

    Paragraph 9 of R1970 is the section that says no one can supply, transfer or sale arms and related materials.

    So the question is providing the rebels RPGs for instance the right thing to do if it will repel the tanks from coming into the town and slaughtering the townsfolk.  Section 4 seems to say that the protection of civilians is a higher priority than supplying arms. 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:55pm

    If by your last sentence you mean that all necessary measures can include supplying arms, yeah, that's how I read it too. Of course, once you've given the rebels weapons and they attempt to capture Gaddafi-held cities, they're no longer civilians and they're endangering other civilians. So technically they are the ones we should be bombing.

    But I think the exact wording and intent of the UN resolution is quickly fading into irrelevancy. The coalition has too much invested in removing Gaddafi to stop now, and the Benghazi forces clearly can't finish the job. So ... are you going to finish that turd sandwich? 


    by acanuck on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:29pm

    I wasn't advocating the arming of the rebels.  I was merely pointing out a legimate argument can be made that arming the rebels is keeping within the intent and exact wording of the UN resolution.  My understanding of the resolution does not allow for "boots on the ground," and at this point and time there is no indication of that.  As one reporter pointed out, however, to arm the rebels with weapons such as RPGs would also require people to train them in their use.  And then there we (the coalition) are putting boots on the ground.  The boots of "advisors," but we've seen that storyline before.

    I am not sure how far the coalition is willing to go with this.  The public in Europe has been pretty successful in getting their governments to pull back from engagements in the conflicts in Afghanistan, etc.  So I don't know how much the "investment" motivation would take an escalation.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:38pm

    Perhaps if politicians asked the public *BEFORE* it went in, perhaps a survey, perhaps a referendum, perhaps some way of knowing they count....

    Someone said Congress held some kind of vote early on - was the public informed enough ahead of time to lobby yea or nay?

    But still, it's an awful turn of events - just a month ago people were realizing the power of peaceful protest using social media. Now it's "should we give Gandhi RPGs or just air cover?"

    How many stinger missiles did the French supply Martin Luther King with? How many Mirage jets?

    Maybe Tibetan prayer wheels should be automatic .35 caliber - easier to push for peace.


    by Desider on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:53pm

    The reason that the French didn't have to supply MLK with stinger missles is because when he went to give his I Have A Dream speech, the US Air Force didn't attempt to strafe him and the crowd.  Gandhi was successful in part because there was a limit to how far the British would go to suppress him and his movement.

    Unfortunately in this world Andrew Schmookler's The Parable of the Tribes is too real:

    The new human freedom made striving for expansion and power possible. Such freedom, when multiplied, creates anarchy. The anarchy among civilized societies meant that the play of power in the system was uncontrollable. In an anarchic situation like that, no one can choose that the struggle for power shall cease. But there is one more element in the picture: no one is free to choose peace, but anyone can impose upon all the necessity for power. This is the lesson of the parable of the tribes.

    Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what if all but one choose peace, and that one is ambitious for expansion and conquest? What can happen to the others when confronted by an ambitious and potent neighbor? Perhaps one tribe is attacked and defeated, its people destroyed and its lands seized for the use of the victors. Another is defeated, but this one is not exterminated; rather, it is subjugated and transformed to serve the conqueror. A third seeking to avoid such disaster flees from the area into some inaccessible (and undesirable) place, and its former homeland becomes part of the growing empire of the power-seeking tribe. Let us suppose that others observing these developments decide to defend themselves in order to preserve themselves and their autonomy. But the irony is that successful defense against a power-maximizing aggressor requires a society to become more like the society that threatens it. Power can be stopped only by power, and if the threatening society has discovered ways to magnify its power through innovations in organization or technology (or whatever), the defensive society will have to transform itself into something more like its foe in order to resist the external force.

    I have just outlined four possible outcomes for the threatened tribes: destruction, absorption and transformation, withdrawal, and imitation. In every one of these outcomes the ways of power are spread throughout the system. This is the parable of the tribes.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:23pm

    I suggest the Amritsar massacre might be a starting point on research.

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

    The march on the salt mines with hundreds getting fractured skulls as payment is another.

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

    Of course the dates let you know that these were 3 and 2 decades before independence respectively.

    Nonetheless, the power of non-violent resistance is being trumped by "the rebels need RPGs, quick, re-read that UN resolution one more time". This is not people power, it is not a recipe for moral triumph, it's just another rebel war. And if I've seen enough of Liberia and Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and El Salvador, this is unlikely to provide the change needed unless someone's better at crap shoots than I think they are.


    by Desider on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:34pm

    My primary focus while pursuing my history degree was the British Empire, so I am quite aware of the atrocities that done in that part of the world while the British were maintaining their dominance.  The point was is that had the British been willing to take it up a few notches in the arena of brutal and inhumane oppression, they could have probably sustained their control for a little while longer.  While the way of peace is the preferred way, sometimes we find ourselves with no good options, just the lesser of the evils. 

    It is quite possible that the intervention by the coalition will in the end unleash an unfolding of events that will create on the whole roughly a similiar amount of death and suffering as had the coalition just sat back and let it play out by itself.  It is even possible that the intervention in the big picture will make things worse.  Yet there is also the possibility that things will turn out for the better - a possibility that I ain't going to bet the family farm on.  At the same time just because the events here are involving the use military force doesn't mean that it is inherently heading down the crapper.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:07pm

    So as long as they stick to milque toast repression, not over-the-top repression, life will be okay.


    by Desider on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:44pm

    That is not at all what I am saying.  You are bemoaning how the people protesting nonviolenting in the streets has turned to arming rebels RPGs.  That is because Kaddafi had decided to take these things up a notch beyond what the Egyptian et al. governments were willing to do.  This in part has to do with the tribal divisions that existed in Libya and expressed themselves in the protests.  And while some revolutions can be accomplished through relatively little violence, others are no so lucky.

    And so in Libya we had maybe a kind of milque toast repression which some of the people decided they had had enough.  Good for them.  They wanted to toss the repressor and his regime out.  In response, the repressor turned to over-the-top repression.  We in the rest of the world had two options: 1) watch it play out, and seeing how things are going with the air cover we know nowhow it would have ended, or 2) intervene with some level of military action. 

    Given the complications and consequences of the US and NATO intervening in an Arab country again, maybe we should have taken the first option.  But because of what Kaddafi was willing and capable of doing, we can't ignore what the consequences of option would have been.  No matter how much we prefer peace and revolutions that achieve their aims through non-violent means. In other words, no matter how awful the US government was in the sixities, MLK wasn't facing a Kaddafi regime as he led the civil rights movement.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:32am

    It was, I believe, a voice vote in the Senate, a non-binding resolution on March 1:

    http://nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-passes-resolution-calling-for-no-fly-zone-over-libya-20110301?page=1 excerpt


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:23pm

    Did I say, suggest or imply you were advocating arming the rebels, Trope? No.


    by acanuck on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:31pm

    "So ... are you going to finish that turd sandwich?"  might be taken as a sublte implication of such. 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:07pm

    Oh, Lord luv a duck.  DD was on teevee, saying this:

    http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/30/report-obama-signs-order-allowing-covert-support-for-libyan-rebels/

    And writes:

    "But while we studiously examine this option, the White House, according to Mark Hosenball, has created their own reality.

    President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

    Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

    Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

    I wonder if this finding has anything to do with the Libyan expat resident of Northern Virginia, 10 miles from Langley, showing up in Benghazi to command the rebel army?

    (You remember folks wondering about the new Chief of the Rebel Forces from VA.)

    Siun says in the comments that CNN just announced that CIa are on the ground, but that Jay Carney won't confirm the Presidential Finding.  Stay tuned, I guess?

    Oopsie; the update says Clinton is saying this, from TPM ;o) :

    "The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon."


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:32pm

    See, I was already finding this stuff to be less and less confidence-inducing, but now.... ?

    I mean sure, Virginia's nice, and a place many Libyans choose when they have to go into exile, but... really? The new chief of the Rebel Forces? And nobody knows how he's been making a living? Really?  

    Plus the White House Finding on covert support for the rebels? After we had to listen to all that talk about how the US had to be "dragged" into this and was only following the
    International Community? Doesn't it feel, more and more, like... it wasn't so much "dragging," as, "must look like being dragged?"

    And it's like we don't even get a honeymoon period anymore, when backers of The Action get to trot out all their moral nostrums and claim high groundy kinda stuff.

    There's no foreplay anymore. The romance is gone.

    It's just...  intervene... and well, the rest of this little metaphor should probably go unwritten.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:06pm

    Any take on whether or not the Hill-girl was in agreement, or just stating the facts, 'ma'am, just the facts'?  (Hat tip: Dragnet)

    So hard not to be a bit cynical about Kahlifa Hifter.  (Kansas City Star; that's what I are...)

    At least we didn't have to hear about "Harpie Rule" or some crap; seems Hill and Barackie may be on the same page, eh?

    Okay, maybe the Pyramids ain't quite right, but:

     


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:54pm

    And what's the lesson out of this, for other ME nations and despots facing rebellious populations? Seems pretty clear that one line of thinking will be:

    1. Blast the shit out of your own people, rather than run the risk of any slow-building, coalition-creating, ally-absconding, "people power" crap going...

    2. Justify the heavy hand to your own population by arguing that if the rallies had gotten too out-of-control, the Americans would intervene and turn the entire land to rubble...

    3. And all the while figure that the US couldn't heavily intervene anyway, now that it's picked Libya from its To Do list, and will be tired up there for the interim.

    ME Despots, start your engines! 


    by quinn esq on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:23pm

    15 And there was granted it to give breath to the image of the wild beast,(1) so that the image of the wild beast should both speak and cause to be killed all those who would not in any way worship the image of the wild beast. 16 And it puts under compulsion all persons,(2) the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the slaves, that they should give these a mark in their right hand or upon their forehead, 17 and that nobody might be able to buy or sell except a person having the mark(3), the name of the wild beast ......(Revelation 13:15-17) 

    (1) United Nations given the breath of life. 

    (2) ALL Nations will be put under compulsion  

    (3) The Mark of approval will only be given to those who OBEY the image.

    Those who don’t.... will not be able to buy or sell. 

    The One World Government is here; the United Nations is going to get stronger, while those who oppose the image will get weaker.


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 2:17am

    Yay!


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:35am

     “Also, there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and [its] agitation, 26 while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 But as these things start to occur, raise yourselves erect and lift YOUR heads up, because YOUR deliverance is getting near.” (Luke21:25-28)

    I'll say

    Yay!

    If I can be delivered/survive.


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:51am

    I say "yay" to the concept of a democratic-style world government–one without borders or enemies to fight. Unfortunately, the reality is much more sobering. However, I don't believe even remotely (surprise) that the reality has anything to do with a beast, seven-headed or otherwise. Of course, I think even the most literalist Christian understands the beast to be allegorical (which makes one wonder why they can't allow other parts of the Bible to be allegorical), so perhaps I'm playing with straw men.

    Anyways, if we as a civilization exist 1,000 years from now, I think the one-world government that some seem to fear would pretty much be a necessity.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:06am

    Planetary government will only happen if we can still find fuel for blue water navies and air power.


    by Donal on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:11am

    I need to correct an assumption about it getting stronger. it may get more desperate in it's attempts to maintain control..

    It may have already reached it's heights in earlier times. Now on it's "last leg" the ten toes of clay(1) and iron (2)may be what we are seeing in the ME. 

     “And whereas you beheld the feet and the toes to be partly of molded clay of a potter and partly of iron, the kingdom itself will prove to be divided, but somewhat of the hardness of iron will prove to be in it, forasmuch as you beheld the iron mixed with moist clay. 42 And as for the toes of the feet being partly of iron and partly of molded clay, the kingdom will partly prove to be strong and will partly prove to be fragile. 43 Whereas you beheld iron mixed with moist clay, they will come to be mixed with the offspring of mankind; but they will not prove to be sticking together(3), this one to that one, just as iron is not mixing with molded clay. (Daniel2:41-43)

    (1) clay = "offspring of mankind" /Flesh

    (2) Iron =  Political rulership or control ?

    (3) No cohesion.... unrest  ....Unstable Political foundation. 

    Unstable Nations Nuclear?

    When you hear the alarm ....Get under the desk and put your head between your legs.

     END


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 7:33am