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

    Thanks for the hand, but....

    By Desider on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:59am |

    I haven't heard anyone say this yet (but have only read 0.0001% of the total common wisdom out there), but....

    I think when people have a revolution, there's a lot more long-term buy-in to its outcomes when they think they did it themselves.

    (I say "think" because it's not always obvious where the real strings are pulled).

    But my hope that the Arab World would drift towards EU values and membership is a teensy bit set back by the realization that the EU as NATO is now leading the revolution.

    And my model of the EU was a democratic institution of peace.

    And at the end of the day, people do always begrudge a handout.

    So what started out as a health model of self-determination has now turned into another episode of Dudley Do-Wright to the rescue, another damsel in distress chalked up, another Snidely Whiplash getting his mug shot. This never turns out well - it's Halloween Part X1V, Chuckie's back, etc.

    Comments

    Not sure what I think yet, but I do know that external participation in rebellions, revolutions and civil wars is extremely common, with the impact on "buy-in" and such being variable. You know, like the American Revolution, which got some fairly direct aid from outsiders - and in fact, from what were very recently "enemies." 

    In this case, it appears that there the original movement had quite strong local roots, and continues to have active local engagement. The question now is whether they see the outside aerial support as in some sense "equalizing" a local unfairness. and what do we see? Daily stories about the loyalists having hired mercenaries. And using the air force. And dipping into the billions that he stole. 

    So, it may not end well. And the local spin may fail. But it looks to me like the storyline is open for the locals to spin this as an "equalizing" intervention.


    by quinn esq on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:29am

    They may spin it, but they know they got their butts saved.

    Which will lead to petty little ways to show they really did it all by themselves.

    Look at those Greeks - have been insufferable ever since.

    While French were helpful in Revolution, weren't completely indispensable.

    Anyway, gut feeling is this won't help the US side, nor the EU side. Hell, you would have thought Osama bin Laden would have been a bit grateful for our help in Afghanistan. People. Don't lend them your edger, you'll only get back excuses.


    by Desider on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 12:04pm

    While French were helpful in Revolution, weren't completely indispensable

    But I think George Washington himself would call Baron von Steuben indispensable. He came to train the rebels in the arts of war with the big guys.

    (Be sure to check out the 2nd paragraph under Service in Hohenzollern-Hechingen at the wikipedia entry for some fun history facts I suspect you'll enjoy.)


    by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:24pm

    Yes, but he wasn't French, nor Hessian, thus as usual, I'm always right, but thanks, had to check the Wikipedia to be sure.

    And of course you're not saying Baron von Steuben fired cruise missiles into Concord Green, or instituted a no-fly zone over Vermont, har har har, so it's comparing apples to tamelos. I think.


    by Desider on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 6:03am

    So he introduced George Washington proper military cross-dressing and swearing at soldiers (in German and French, just to keep all our bases covered). And taught them how to use ye ole "bayonet". Okay, couldn't resist. But yes, America's a nation built of rejects, so he fit right in.


    by Desider on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 6:14am

    These two American ME scholars see some serious potential drawbacks to foreign internvention in Libya; they make some points I'd never considered. 

    http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/907/solidarity-and-intervention-in-libya

    There have been discussions at various sites about the (largely) non-violent nature of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt compared to the now all-out civil war in Libya, and maybe Yemen to come, now that much of their military is switching sides, and what that bodes for the future not only of the provisional/new governments, but of their relations to other nations.  The imaginings of the geopolitics get torqued by lots of suppositions, like in Egypt now, will the Brotherhood and the NDP win the elections, and who are they, and how will they govern?  So many 'experts' have such strong ideas and beliefs, as in: there will now be a counter-revolution, etc.

    As an aside, I think NATO determined it really couldn't undertake action without a UN mandate, and the NATO chief beleived that the air war requiring a no-fly zone wasn't really the predominat force of Gadaffi's war on the rebels.  I sort of agree; those tanks have been blasting whole buildings flat.

    The above scholars were concerned about the 'help'.  Me, too, given history.  When Clinton met with 'rebel leaders', I wondered which ones and what authority they carried, and what, if any, quid pro quo was discussed, but then I'm pretty cynical by now.  The accepted story line is Powers and Rice convincing Clinton  that we should have done more to prevent genocide in Rwanda and Kosovo, and it's likely that she had regrets from that time, so really heard them now.  The story being leaked is that she's quitting Obama after one term because of his being such a hard-sell isn't one I'm buying yet; we may never know for sure.

    Elements unfolding that will affect the perceptions of the outcome are the African League balking at the extensions of the help past the no-fly zone, and the flap with the French and some of the British ministers mouthing of about taking out Gadaffi, and others walking it back in a big hurry.

    'EU as a democratic institution of peace' -- was Sarkozy the main wild card?  Cameron now?

     

     


    by we are stardust on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:37am

    You might have explained our common antipathy towards France which sure helped us a lot in out revolution.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:40am

    We were down with the French in 1776-1783. It was the British and Hessians that had an unholy union. We even got our Statue of Liberty from France - that'd be worse than a mosque at ground zero 130 years later.


    by Desider on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 12:07pm

    Yeah, we loved them, or at least Jefferson did, and they loved us, or at least the ones who got excited by our success and later revolted against their French government did. But, the love didn't last, from our side at least.

    I'm not really trying to tie those events to the events of today, the comparison just came to mind when I read your blog.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 12:25pm

    Dude, feel free to free associate here all you want. These linear conversations drive me crazy.


    by Desider on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 12:59pm

    Don't know if it deserves a post of its own, but the pollyannish "but civilians would die" bit from Obama is pretty unbearable considering there are plenty of civilians dying in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan....

    But bring out the hankies, it's going to be a tear-jerker.


    by Desider on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 1:11pm