OK I ADMIT IT. I''M GLAD FOR OUR NO FLY ZONE

    My head tells me that a war is a war is a war and that the right policy is not to start one.But I know I want to draw a line and prevent the blood bath I fear would result if Quaddafi's troops occupied Benghazi.

    Got to go and see what Juan Cole thinks.

     

    Comments


    Years ago Lady Violet Bonham Carter. reminisced on the BBC about the beginning of the first World War ..

    The British Government,under her father , was a coalition ,split about how it should respond to Germany's threatening  actions. The uneasy  compromise was that Britain would declare war  as soon as Germany.took some offensive action.  But it didn't.

    Finally Asquith capitulating  to pressure from (the always pro-war )Churchill and the other Tories,  instructed the Foreign Secretary to prepare a note declaring   war and send it to the German ambassador. Who it happened was a strong anglophile , who'd been desperately trying to prevent war. Asquith wasn't able to cite some agressive german action so  relied on  some less powerful argument and anticipated  problems ahead with his coalition partners.

    At exactly this moment Reuters telegraphed that a german machine gun post had fired over the border wounding a Belgian. Which was probably true altho it's doubtful any effort was made to confirm it. Acquith immediately ordered  the declaration of War revised to state that the UK was declaring war in response to this intolerable attack on its ally. Lord  Grey  gave it to Harold Nicholson a young attache who's position was chiefly  based on his social connections.Who later told his friend , the then  young Miss Asquith..

    He was directed to deliver the revised Declaration of War  to the German ambassador and  .oh by the way , get back  the first  one...

    As Nicholson crossed London the news was out. Church bells were ringing , Patriotic songs heard from every  pub where the patrons were out on the  patios on this warm summer evening.

    Well known at the ambassador's  having dined there frequently, he was admitted.and when the butler  said the ambassador was upstairs in his bed room Nicholson went up and knocked on the door. A muffled response from within asked why he was there. He said, bringing a note from the Foreign Secretary  that had to be delivered  immediately. The ambassador said " I thought I'd received the last communication  I would ever receive from Lord Grey  ".

    Nicholson entered. The ambassador was lying on his bed, sobbing.,the unopened letter on his table. Nicholson swapped notes and left. And the war began.

    Probably without a No Fly Zone.


    The link is only to Juan's website.  In which post did you read his approval?  The only thing I saw was him asking if it were too late.  I'm curious, because he has been adamant up to now that the US, NATO, should not intervene.  Maybe now that it's a UN decision?


    You're right to question my statement.

    I was reacting to Cole's tone rather than any specific statement. (Having reread him I still feel the same). But in fairness to the readers I should have indicated that I was making a subjective judgement. 

    In his post below Eissenstat's Cole describes a probable murder by Quaddafi of someone of whom Cole approves..  Including that anecdote  seemed to me as Cole's way of  signalling approval. But it was hardly conclusive.

    Good catch.


    Well Juan was speaking of Mousa al-Sadr, who was murdered and martyred by Gadaffi in 1978.  He also pointed out that it was Obama stopping the Brits and the French from interceding all along, meaning at the UN, too.  And it's his administration via Gates and Clinton who are doing nothing in Bahrain since the Saudis, who have brought in tanks and troops to defend the government against those rascally 75% Shia majority democracy-seekers essentailly are untouchable, since they control oil and buy scads of our weapons and fighter planes.

    Yemeni protestors being murdered wholesale?  Not a peep out of Obama and the West.

    You do continue to believe some alternate version of the facts when they don;'t suit you; it's hard to understand or respect.


    I don't agreet I believe some alternate version of the facts when they suit me. Or at least no more than is normal.

    For example I'll copy your text above and indicate where I agree or disagree

    ...............................................................................................................................

    He also pointed out that it was Obama stopping the Brits and the French from interceding all along, meaning at the UN, too.YES

      And it's his administration via Gates and Clinton who are doing nothing in Bahrain YES since the Saudis, who have brought in tanks and troops to defend the government against those rascally YOU MEAN THIS IRONICALLY BUT I THINK IT  POSSIBLE THEY ARE RASCALS OR IF NOT RASCALS ,THEY MIGHT BE BRAVE IDEALISTIC PEOPLE WHO WAN'T TO OVERTHROW  THEIR OPPRESSIVE REGIME BUT HAVING DONE SO INTEND TO OPPOSE US. PERHAPS BY ALLYING THEMSELVES WITH SHIA IRAN.

    75% Shia majority democracy-seekersessentailly are untouchable, since they control oil and buy scads of our weapons and fighter planes.

    Yemeni protestors being murdered wholesale?  Not a peep out of Obama  YES and the West.

    .................................................................................................................................

    SO I DON'T  BELIEVE SOME ALTERNATE VERSION OF THE FACTS.  BUT WE DIFFER IN WHAT WE THINK  ABOUT OBAMA'S PERFORMANCE. YOU BELIEVE HE'S DOING WRONG. I , HE'S DOING WHAT HE THINKS IS RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY.

    IN  ALL THOSE CASES I'D  HAVE LIKED IT IF HE'D DONE DIFFERENTLY.BUT  I BELIEVE THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT HE IS RELUCTANTLY DOING THINGS HE HATES BUT THINKS ARE BEST FOR THE COUNTRY. 

    JUST FOR DISCUSSION,ASSUME YOU''RE PRESIDENT, AND ARE TOLD BY THE CIA THAT  THE BRAVE YOUNG SHIAS  CHALLENGING THE BAHRAIN MONARCHY  IF SUCCESSFUL WOULD ALLY THEMSELVES WITH IRAN AND TOGETHER  THEY WOULD NURTURE TERRORISTS WHO WOULD BLOW UP THE SEARS TOWER 

    WOULD  YOU  RELUCTANTLY DECIDE TO ASSIST THE MONARCHY.?

    WHEN OBAMA ACTS IN A WAY THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM MY PARTICULAR PREFERENCES I DON'T ASSUME THAT MEANS HE'S A BAD MAN, OR A GOOD ONE WHO SOLD OUT. I ASSUME THAT IT'S POSSIBLE  THAT HE HAS INFORMATION THAT I DON'T S0 I SUSPEND JUDGEMENT AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT HIM WHILE WAITING FOR WIKPEDIA OR SOMEONE TO PROVIDE ME WITH FACTS WHICH WOULD CHANGE MY MIND.


    I think where we differ is that what matters to you is whether or not 'Obama is a good or bad man'; what matters to me is whether his policies (and in this case foreign policies) are coherent/good or not.  Mark Levine sheds some light on the history of the democratic movement in Bahrain, and the makeup of those involved culturally, religiously, and other differences.  And no, they are no more rascals (and maybe less so by your nervous characterizations of potential terrorists or whatever, than the rebels in Libya.  I will leave this link and bow out, except to say that what he is NOT doing may determine the fate of northern Africa, and provide some serious consequences to us, that will make us less safe, and endanger many lives in those nations as he keeps doing business with the tyrants.  That's all. 

    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/20113179218339808.html#


    Excellent link, stardust. To a large extent the Shia-Sunni split, like the threat of Al-Qa'ida, is something Mideast autocrats hype to keep the West on their side and any potential opposition fragmented. Here, Saudi King Abdullah actually is coming to the aid of a fellow Sunni despot. But there was no sectarian element to the Egyptian revolt, yet Abdullah was just as keen to fund Mubarak's bid to crush it. Conclusion: tyrants stick together because they fear their own people. Because of oil dependence, they're the allies the U.S. has chosen for itself in the Gulf.


    Canuck; glad you liked it.  Levine has been consistently smart, and seemingly pretty wise in his editorials at Al Jazeera throughout the Arab Spring movements.  He knows the nations and plenty of history well, and has even been a bit prescient in anticipating events and moves by the various players.

    On this thread and others, I’ve been discouraged that some of the old beliefs and memes about the Arabic world are still in place.  Throughout the progression starting with the Jasmine Revolution, we’ve been given such an overwhelming opportunity to open our minds to a different understanding of the histories, not only of which dictatorial regimes have been de facto client states of the US, but the debunking of the theory of Arab Exceptionalism, for instance.  Or that because their leaders had quashed rebellions in the past, that  there were still underground movements training and planning for the days when the winds of freedom might signal critical mass for successful uprisings, even though the end results might take different forms, like for Algeria: a Constitutional Monarchy might be enough for now.

    When I consider Flavius’s trust that the CIA has hipped Obama to certain facts that cause him to reverse his position of support for those seeking democracy in Bahrain, for instance, it depresses me.  One, that anyone with a brain hasn’t learned that the CIA has teamed up with JSOC and private contractors like Blackwater and are essentially running their own agendas (or whomever gives the orders), or if they are under Presidential/Defense orders, they are so covert as to be beyond scary, astounds me.  If the Raymond Davis debacle in Pakistan didn’t prove it, I can’t think what would.

    And two, that the media and the Powers that Be have been so successful about Iranians as Devils Incarnate that some of us can believe that other Shia are about to become Islamist Terrorists, not the Freedom Fighters they actually are.  We seem slower than I’d imagined to grasp that what our leaders assure us is ‘good for our country’ as Flavius mentions might be good for arms and weapons and fighter jet sales, or for securing the oil (that Wall Street will speculate on to increase the prices we’ll pay), but is not healthy for us in the long term, i.e., making enemies of the brown people all over the globe who see our policies as subjugating them in favor of keeping useful dictators in power, or forcing neoliberal economic policies that promote more and more radical wealth disparities.

    Yemen, yeah, I get the administration is almost coherent there: the government pretends they haven’t okayed our drone kills, and keeps the money we send.  So maybe the protestors are inconvenient to our agenda.  Check.  And I’ll dodge the craziness of our actions in Pakistan (not brokering peace between P and India over Kashmir, etc.), but they have NUKES, for godssakes, and we should engage more comprehensively.

    I get why Levine thinks we are becoming irrelevant; but the trouble is that we still have enormous power, thus potential to screw things up even worse, which we seem destined to do.  Mind-boggling.

     


    I'm similarly conflicted. My head tells me about all of the things that go wrong, but my heart is pulling for the rebels (and assuming that they're democratic).


    You guys just resent Gaddafi cause of his cutting edge fashion sense...


    Great link. I am intrigued by this bit:

    Not since fall of 1990, when the UNSC authorized military action to push Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait, has it acted so decisively and exactly in the way its founders had aspired for it in 1945.

    I am just sick of war and wars.

    How many times have we attempted to kill this sonofabitch anyway?


    We sure didn't start this war. And honestly, it seems like France is pushing this cart more than anyone.

    I figure what's the point of being an international pariah if we can't blast Gadaffi's planes out of the sky when they are bombing civilian targets (also, when did we stop spelling it with a "Q?"). In the relative scheme of things, I wouldn't have been too upset if we'd just shot the suckers down without anyone's permission and paid the pilot's families retribution at the outset when it would have made a difference.

    That said, this resolution goes beyond a no-fly zone. They are talking about strikes against ground troops threatening cities too. I will say this, now that this move has been made we have a strong interest in seeing that the guy gets taken out. He can't be left with half a state from which to launch terror attacks, and we KNOW he'd do it in a heartbeat. That's ALL we need ... another Bin Laden.


    "gets taken out"

     

    However this turns out (and I will bet it turns out badly, cause that's how we roll), can we at least abandon this childish imitation of mafia-speak that became the currency of big balled bluster under Bush I & II.


    Ummmm. OK. What euphemism would you prefer?

    He made what can only be construed as threats to retaliate for the "crazy actions" against Libya by "doing something crazy". No matter if imprisoned in the Hague or buried, the interest of America - singled out by name along with Britain - is now clearly aligned with ensuring he and his power base are entirely removed from a position of being able to coordinate international terror attacks (money, contacts and weapons). Wrap it in whatever neoliberal speak for accomplishing that is PC these days if you must ... it boils down to the same national interest.

    And I'd argue as far as Lybians are concerned this has already ended badly. At least it's nice to have folks shooting off fireworks and cheering our help for once.


    What euphemism would you prefer?

     

    I prefer "kill".  It has the advantage of clarity, brevity, and accuracy.

    Of course, it is not nearly as colorful as "neutralize", "take out" "take care of" "remove", or what have you.

    i believe that use of the various euphemisms (as you correctly term them) is entirely too ego syntonic to be appropriate in situations of this gravity.


    In my mind it doesn't have to be "kill" per se. There is an international war crimes investigation opened - he could just as well be handled through that route if he can be taken into custody.

    Where you see "ego syntonic," I see flexibility to accept multiple outcomes meeting our national objectives up to killing him if necessary. It is his ability to credibly pose a threat that must be neutralized. However it is done, the UN just made it one of our top national priorities to ensure the task is accomplished in short order.

    (Although, for the record: I sure don't want to see a repeat of the Saddam bullshit with a Libyan revenge-court!)


    it doesn't have to be "kill" per se.

    i stand corrected.  In that case, there is a term of art:

    deposed.


    Ultimately a lethal approach should not be ruled out. Time horizon is as important as methodology to me maybe even more so. This is someone who in the past blew up a full commercial airliner we're talking about here here.

    I'm still pretty comfortable with "taken out." You may not like it, but it really seems to reflect how I see the objective better than the alternatives you've offered - although, neutralized is a workable second (which technically you don't like either ;-).


    It's embarrassing to admit that I agree with both the above two.

    I'll stick with my position that I agree with our involvement in a no fly zone which could give me a shred of cover if I later wished I hadn't agreed.  But that'a a cop out. Logically if you desire the effect of a no fly zone-and we all know that that desirable end is the end of Mr. Quaddafi- then you have to still desire that effect when it turns out that the no fly zone doesn't achieve it. 

    How unfortunate the phrase, there's no such thing as being half pregnant.

    The lesson of Aghanistan, which I also approved of in the beginning , is that the road to hell is not only paved with good intentions, it probably also runs from Kabul to Kandahar. Conversely the lesson from Sarejevo is that it is worse than pointless to provide just enough assistance to the otherwise losing side so that the war is endless.  

    So, groan, I approve the No Fly Zone and the next round , probably the No Tanks Zone. Followed by the No Troops Zone and then the No Quaddafi Zone.

    In for a penny, in for a pound,


    I hope this UN vote is not offering Libya's rebels the mere illusion of safety. Much can still go wrong: Gaddafi could think twice before attacking Benghazi. Or he could opt to go all-in, aiming at a quick victory before any no-fly zone kicks in.

    And it bothers me that Egypt, the one Arab nation with real military clout in the region, is only surreptitiously helping the rebels to defend themselves. France and the U.K., two former colonial powers, are not the countries you want leading the charge against Gaddafi. Quite righly, neither of them is seen to have spotless humanitarian motives. The U.S. will have to do most of the heavy lifting (and killing). Canada is sending six CF-18s so we can collect some brownie points too.

    I just wish Egypt, after backing the Arab League's call for a no-fly zone, were actively pulling its weight. Best of luck, Benghazi.


    And I wish you weren't calling it OUR no-fly zone, Flavius.


    Yeah It's what used to be called a freudian slip when ...well let's not get into that.

    Correctly I think it should just be  the no fly zone. I think UN no fly zone implies more whole hearted support than it really has

    . I realize I slipped into  our because I suspect- and fear- that we may soon move from being just a participant to doing most of the  participating.


    OK, so acanuck indicates that you are  a Canuck. Got it.


    Libya's initial reaction to the UN resolution was to denounce the vote as a violation of its sovereignty, but to at least nominally comply: it closed Libyan airspace and declared a ceasefire. Listening to Obama this afternoon, I wondered whether and how he would counter that tactic.

    What Obama did was to spell out in specific detail what a ceasefire had to include:

    Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas.  ... Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable.  These terms are not subject to negotiation. 

    News about which side controls what have been murky and conflicting. Like WW II battles in the Libyan desert, there are few meaningful front lines. But what I have gleaned is that Gaddafi's forces do control parts of both Misrata and Ajdabiya: a military base and an oil complex, if not more. As for Zawiya, Gaddafi appears to have recaptured all of it from the rebels a full week ago.

    So Obama is insisting that Gaddafi not only stop his troops' advance but actually abandon territory he currently controls -- and, as the CiC said twice -- it's "not negotiable." That's a poison pill I can't see Gaddafi swallowing. So unless Seif is in last-ditch talks on an exit strategy, the metal is about to hit the fan.


    Latest Comments