dagblog - Comments for "Libya for Dummies: the lipstick doctrine"

Speaking of metaphor, think

brewmn — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 04:02:28 +0000

In reply to Hey Trope. Metaphor. I

Speaking of metaphor, think about what an anti-Seaton could do with this:

http://herald247.com/world_news/europe-world_news/guard-collapses-during...

In the April 7th New York

Flavius — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:09:00 +0000

In reply to I now nothing about them. I

In the April 7th New York Review Nicolas Pelham provides some details on who the rebels are.

Broadest generalization :there is a strong geographical/tribal tinge.With the eastern tribes such as the Zuwaya backing the rebels and the western ones , Qaddafi.

The Islamists are coming to the fore in both halves of the country. But of course, since Qaddafi still controls the west they're chiefly active there in local affairs whereas in the east they are valued members of the alliance. They include jihadists returned from Afghanistan who are not yet prominent but could be biding their time.Army components in the east have allied with rebels but are not in a leading role..

In Benghazi the mosques have efficiently taken over distribution of food and weapons.

So grounds for concern.. But not for scorn.

I now nothing about them. I

Flavius — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 02:19:43 +0000

In reply to Who are they? Do you know? Do

I now nothing about them. I think Juan Cole has some insights into who they are and I expect by now the CIA has accumulated substantial information about them. In any event the rebels are surely a mixture .

Rats, sinking ships... Hadn't

we are stardust — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:35:36 +0000

In reply to From the NY Times:Fears that

Rats, sinking ships...

Hadn't been to Huffpo for awhile; David Bromwich sorta belongs to my ilk, even after one page. Gotta go for now:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/cia-libya-obama-_b_843166.html

He's bullish on Hifter as CIA-friendly, I think. And I still would like to know how the conversations went with Clinton and the 'rebel leaders' in where was it...London? I forget now.

From the NY Times:Fears that

Elusive Trope — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:07:27 +0000

In reply to "Gadaffi envoy in Britain for

From the NY Times:

Fears that the regime could be cracking were deepened further when a second top Libyan official, Ali Abdussalam el-Treki, defected Thursday to Egypt. Mr. Treki had served as both foreign minister and as ambassador to the United Nations, where he was president of the General Assembly.

The capital of Tripoli was alive with rumored defections on Thursday, with the prime minister and the speaker of Parliament, among other top figures, said at various times to be quitting the country. None of those reports could be verified. But the authorities were taking no chances, assigning guards to senior officials to assure they cannot leave, a former Libyan official said.

Certainly I'd like it if our

Flavius — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:02:28 +0000

In reply to What it means is that if we

Certainly I'd like it if our leaders told us the truth.But if I had to choose between that and preventing Qaddafi's occupation of Benghazi, protecting human lives gets my vote.

"Gadaffi envoy in Britain for

we are stardust — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:51:00 +0000

In reply to Libya for Dummies: the lipstick doctrine

"Gadaffi envoy in Britain for secret talks":

"Some aides working for Gaddafi's sons, however, have made it clear that it may be necessary to sideline their father and explore exit strategies to prevent the country descending into anarchy.

One idea that the sons have reportedly suggested – which the Guardian has been unable to corroborate – is that Gaddafi give up real power.

Mutassim, presently the country's national security adviser, would become president of an interim national unity government which would include the country's opposition.

It is an idea, however, unlikely to find support among the country's rebels or the international community who are demanding Gaddafi's removal. (File that under: Well, duh,)

The revelation that contacts between Britain and a key Gaddafi loyalist had taken place came as David Cameron hailed the defection of Koussa as a sign the regime was crumbling. "It tells a compelling story of the desperation and the fear right at the very top of the crumbling and rotten Gaddafi regime," he said.

When I brought up the "no US

Elusive Trope — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:52:11 +0000

In reply to So, as a post-structuralist

When I brought up the "no US intervention, never ever" stance, I used as a means to put forth that the people here are not pushing that agenda. I was bemoaning the nature of the blog comment form which facilitates responses that can be taken to imply that "never" stance even though the person writing it understands the full shades of gray etc.

The Saving Private Ryan popped up when I contemplating the administration's decision making process, not the nature of the rebels. One may assert that I am subconsciously linking the rebels with D-Day soldiers.

And if the actions elsewhere in the Middle East is taken as present tense, I wouldn't change the point I am making there.

I have to run now. But I'll be back.

So, as a post-structuralist

quinn esq — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:34:23 +0000

In reply to I get your point. Yes maybe

So, as a post-structuralist and a post-modernist, doesn't it make you question yourself a bit when your subconscious imagines today's war in Libya as a scene from Saving Private Ryan? I mean, we both know the reality is actually quite different than the D-Day landing - we're dropping hundreds of very powerful bombs from the sky, have no soldiers on the ground, and actually, have no guarantee at all that the rebels are much like our D-Day troops... Interesting to me that you regard your stance as "pragmatic" and yet, your gut/imagination is kicking out "heroic moments in US history."

When this is pointed out, you also had an interesting reaction, Trope. You imagined up someone on the "no US intervention, never ever" stance - and then positioned yourself against them. I would argue that person is in no way relevant, because I'm not that person - and you yourself say that no one at Dagblog appears to be one of these. So... why create such a creature to position yourself against?

Answer? Rhetorically, it repositions you away from the fairytale Saving Private Ryan image, and puts you back where you want to be, in the sensible middle. In short, to defend the reality of your subconscious ("just jumped into your head") dream of what the Libyan war is like... you created a straw man.

But then, 3rd interesting move, you describe US interventions in the ME as though it solely concerned "past actions." I commented here other day on how frequently I was seeing this done by supporters of intervention in Libya. Today's ongoing US wars thus become "past" events, which enables us, in Libya, to... move on. The problem is, in the real, practical, world... Iraq is ongoing, as is Afghanistan, as is Pakistan, as is the funding and arming and supporting torturers ... etc.

So, you believe your views are in the sensible middle, pragmatic, realistic, contexted. Except, you've just pushed today's real, ongoing, actions, by the US... into the past. And brought Saving Private Ryan dream imagery (which was both in the past, as well as being a story.) Created a strawman of the "no intervention ever" ilk, a position held by no one here at Dag.

An interesting set of materials to go into our realistic/pragmatic foreign policy, eh?

Re Suez: Israel didn't simply

acanuck — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:20:42 +0000

In reply to Promoting democracy is great

Re Suez: Israel didn't simply "join" Britain and France in attacking Egypt. In a prearranged tripartite "conspiracy" -- for once, that's not hyperbole -- it drove to the banks of the canal in order to give the two old colonialist powers an excuse to intervene militarily to "safeguard" the canal. In effect to de-nationalize it.

They'd cooked up this plan without informing the U.S. president, who promptly threatened to call in WW II debts if they didn't withdraw. They did, governments fell, and the first UN peacekeeping force replaced occupying troops on the canal. Israel pulled back from Gaza and the Sinai at that time, only reoccupying them 11 years later. After yet another war, the Sinai was traded back to Egypt for peace and recognition. Gaza was left in Israeli hands, although the cabinet was apparently not unanimous on keeping it. Probably should have dumped it back on Egypt.

One major upshot of the Suez crisis was that the West lost virtually all moral standing to denounce or obstruct the Soviet Union's crushing of the Hungarian revolution, which had broken out a few days before. As quite a few have pointed out, this intervention isn't really enhancing the West's moral standing either.