David Seaton's picture

    Iraq to Libya, from tragedy to farce?

    By David Seaton on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 1:59pm |

     

     

    MARCH 19, 2011

    OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

    MARCH 19, 2003

    BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...(ht-Drudge)


    Is anyone else as bored with this movie as I am?

     

    The leader who has been making all the running in this fine little war is Nicholas Sarkozy and if there is one leader in the "international community" that I am more skeptical of than I was of George W. Bush it is Nicholas Sarkozy... Oh yes, and he is accompanied by British prime minister David Cameron, who is such a political dwarf that Tony Blair takes on Churchillian proportions when compared to him.

     

    Compared to Iraq, this is like a remake of "Gone with the Wind" with Justin Bieber in the role of Rhett Butler.

     

    Here is how Martin Rowson draws it in The Guardian:

     

     

    All this is happening while demonstrators are being shot down in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen, but why go on? We have seen this movie so many times by now that pointing out all this stone faced hypocrisy over and over again is a waste of breath.

     

    And what few commentators seem to realize is that the possibility of this turning into yet another fiasco are enormous. I don't think many people understand Qaddafi's most elementary mechanisms

     

    He is enjoying all this. He is having fun. 

     

    He has been waiting and preparing for this moment his entire life.

     

    He is as nutty as a fruitcake, but he is a tough old bird and without boots on the ground, which nobody seems to want to put, certainly not the French, he will not simply cave in and disappear.

     

    And they better be quick because if you enjoyed Wikileaks, they'll be nothing compared to Qaddafileaks. This character knows where all the bodies are buried (literally).

     

    And if he holds out defiantly against a combination of the classic imperialists: the US, French and British, for even a few weeks, he'll have the whole third world on his side.

     

    We may end up making him the most popular leader in Africa.

     

    Like I said at the top, I don't know if anybody else is bored by this movie, but I sure am.

    Cross posted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

    Comments

    All this is happening while demonstrators are being shot down in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen

     

    ..............................................and therefore what  Obama should have done about the no fly resolution was to

     

    __________Veto it

           ___________ move to have it include Saudi Arabia, 
    Bahrain and Yemen

          ___________Abstain

         ____________ do exactly as we did. 

     


    by Flavius on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 2:54pm

    I don't believe you're really bored by this movie, David. Like Gaddafi, you're enjoying all this, you're having fun. Nutty as a fruitcake too, though in this case you're right: it could easily turn into a fiasco. The alliance of ex-colonialists and oil autocrats creates a bad first impression. And the hypocrisy and double standard applied to Yemen and Bahrain, well ...

    Still, I don't see Gaddafi managing to cast himself as a Third World hero, try as he might. He won't have time to create a stalemate. The principals in this operation have too much at stake to let that happen, and they have overwhelming firepower. Still, war is full of surprises.

    Personally, I've been embarrassingly inconsistent on intervention: from total opposition, to cautious acquiescence, to buyer's remorse. Now I simply want enough force applied rapidly enough to get it over with. Even with Gaddafi gone, Libya will be a mess for a long time, and I expect the Brits, French and Italians to go into vulture mode. Helluva world!


    by acanuck on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 3:16pm

    I am bored by this movie... it is no fun at all. I am tired and bored by the same old footage of the cruise missiles being fired at night, of the planes endlessly taking off. What is makes it the more horribly boring-nauseating is the sanctimonious hypocrisy that goes with it. What I do have fun with is the English language, which is such a rich and beautiful thing, a tool which most people hardly use with pleasure at all or get any juice from... like owning a Ferrari Testa Rosa just to pick up the kids from soccer practice. What a treasure we have.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 3:06am

    You've got a Testarossa? You rich fucking bastard! I assumed you were a peon like the rest of us.


    by acanuck on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 3:30am

    The English language, our müttersprache, our mamalosha is everybody who speaks its Testarossa.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:16am

    You're saying I've got a Testarossa and didn't know it? Woohoo!


    by acanuck on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 2:46pm

    We may end up making him the most popular leader in Africa.

    I was in Saudi when Ronnie RayGun bombed Libya and what surprised me most was he made Kadafi into an Arab hero...an Arab who stood up against America. All the arabs were smiling ear to ear. Now fast forward to the present day and there's the same camel jockey going up against the same western forces. I'm surprised they don't realize how much more power they're handing over to him. Kill him or defeat him and push him into exile only brings out the rats behind the push to stir up the rabble rousers and give Europe a play toy for the coming election cycle. Then something will fill the political void left over after the country has been raped of its resources and the west won't give a rat's fucking ass about Libya ever again. The Shock Doctrine is working over-time on a global scale.


    by Beetlejuice on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 3:20pm

    My problem with this formula is that the people involved here already had access to the resources. The reason the rebels had no fuel is because all the foreign companies pulled their workers out and there is no production ... notice the state TV was also airing government requests foreign companies return to production. The only way their oil is worth anything is if it's sold outside Libya - they can only drive SO much.

    I guess we could argue it had become politically untenable to keep doing business there so the Europeans had to act to keep a sanction-free government in place? One way or the other  ... I don't see how ANY profit sharing arrangement could rape the Libyan citizens of benefit from oil sales worse than the one in place for the last 30 years or so where it went to service the "royal" family.

    This isn't fitting in the "Bush war for oil" mold to me.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 6:42pm

    Access to the oil and ownership of the oil are completely different...one you pay royalties to the sovereign nation, the other you keep as profit.

    There's a bigger picture in this. May I suggest you check out what Royal Dutch Shell has been up to in Africa...

    Since the Nigerian government hanged 9 environmental activists in 1995 for speaking out against exploitation by Royal Dutch/Shell and the Nigeria government, outrage has exploded worldwide. The tribunal which convicted the men was part of a joint effort by the government and Shell to suppress a growing movement among the Ogoni people.

    url : http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html

    The government is the middleman and if one can get them out of the picture, it's all free...who cares about the people where the oil resides. And Africa has plenty of experienced mercenary veterans looking for work whose loyalty can easily be bought. Have you checked out how profitable the global oil syndicate has been lately? I doubt any of them would have any problem funding a merc force armed with the latest weaponry to repel any local resistance, government forces or other foreign national interest.

    And the rebel forces were a joke anyway...they never stood a chance. They're nothing more than an angry mob with access to some weapons, lacked a coherent plan and are paying the ultimate price. Josh Marshall wrote a piece on his blog...Just a Bad, Bad Idea...and here are some of his points:

    • First, insurrections like these by poorly organized rebel forces depend hugely on momentum and the perceived weakness of the leader.
    • The turning point came when Qaddafi stabilized the front moving into western Libya. Once that happened, once he'd halted the momentum toward collapse, it was very bad news for the rebels because as we've seen Qaddafi had all the heavy weapons and command and control on his side.
    • Second, it's difficult for me to distinguish this from an armed insurrection against a corrupt autocrat that looked to be winning and then lost.
    • This is ugly and it's brutal but a lot of people getting killed in a failed rebellion isn't genocide. It's not. And unlike situations where violence can destabilize the larger region, in this case our presence seems more likely to destabilize the larger region.

    url : http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/at_the_end_of_last.php

    As I said...We're turning Kadafi into an Arab hero again. If he does go down, then some global oil syndicate will fill the void with bribes to whomever is running the country to capture the oil fields for themselves using the Royal Dutch Shell model.

    While it might not fit your mold for a Bu$h war for oil, it does fit Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine model to a tee.


    by Beetlejuice on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 11:15pm

    I understand the argument. It just isn't convincing to me at this point in this case.

    You make it seem like Libya would be moving from a non-Royal Dutch Shell model to a Royal Dutch Shell model. IMO the only reason Libya isn't exactly like Nigeria today is because nobody wants to keep (start) living in the areas where the oil is located so the impacts don't matter much without any original inhabitants to speak of to fight with. Libya was already run exactly like that with Qaddafi playing the bribe-taking role you propose we are going through all this trouble to "impose" on Libya. They were already playing ball and the general population was already getting totally cut out of the deal. Apples and apples. Lots of expense with not much net benefit to the Italian version of Royal Dutch Shell holding primary interests.

    I never called it genocide. I don't necessarily think a mass-slaughter needs to be genocide in order to stop it. Nor do I think reality is such that the proper dynamic will exist to be able to intercede in every mass slaughter - even ones that do technically rise to genocidal levels. The existence of one case is kind of irrelevant to the other in my mind.

    But let's say your preferred outcome occurs. Bengazi and several other cities are largely sterilized. African mercenaries are given the spoils, citizenship and moved in to the areas in large numbers. Iron rule is imposed yet again. Stable? For how long? So the oil companies will just be able to ignore the UN sanctions and go back to business as usual? Or do you imagine the UN will find that human rights violations and war crime allegations are made moot by Qaddafi prevailing to restore stability and just lift sanctions?

    If the imperative for taking out Qaddafi is related to getting at Libyan oil, the only plausible explanation in my mind is because Qaddafi made it politically impossible to continue to extract and export Libyan oil with his government in power.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 11:55pm

    One huge difference that Libya has with Iraq is there doesn't seem to be any Israeli axe to grind here. If you think Iraq was about "oil" read Meersheimer and Walt


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:19am

    Quadaffi is like a North African Kim Il Jong without the 20,000 artillery pieces sited on Seoul, and without the nukes. Kim Il is neither the most popular guy on the Korean peninsula, nor in Asia.

    Unless the human shields in Tripoli are ready and able to take over the dirty jobs of the tens of thousands of foreign workers who left Libya, they may find the defiant outbursts from the madman in his bunker are less and less satisfying over time as life and business goes downhill. The next phase may be mass arrests of people who are deemed traitors or 'spies' which will only further undermine his support.

    If France, Britain, Italy, the Arab League (at least for a day), and war hero John McCain said stop the guy's murdering mercenaries I don't think Obama could defend the guy. Of course we can't afford it, but at least there is major participation by other countries.


    by NCD on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 3:41pm

    All this is happening while demonstrators are being shot down in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen, but why go on?

    In fact, you should go on because you excluded Syria, where demonstrators are being shot in the street, and you also excluded Iran, where right now the despots have silenced their people.  And I think you exclude Syria and Iran because including those totalitarian dictatorships eviscerates the symmetry in your latest piece of fiction.

    I could readily be convinced that we shouldn't have participated in Libya (I admit I'm not as smart as those who know whether this was right or wrong without reservation) but convincing me has to be based on  reality and not by another story from my favorite ex-pat who loathes his country.  

    Bruce

     


    by Bruce Levine on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 5:18pm

    I admit I'm not as smart as those who know whether this was right or wrong without reservation

    Yeah, the problem is there are people no doubt smarter than me who know this is right, and people no doubt smarter than me who know this is wrong. At the risk of bragging, all I know, like you, is that I don't know.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 9:20pm

    Yes, but those countries are not clients of ours and we have little influence over them. Saudi, Bahrain and Yemen are supposed to be our creatures, aren't they?


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 2:44am

    But then I really don't understand your point--we've not attacked other client states and neither have we attacked non-client states Syria or Iran--we've only agreed to help attack Libya.  I'm still not sure why.  But I think it's simplistic and in your case a symptom of someting more intense and deep-seeded, i.e. your hatred for America, to simply assert like a bull in a china shop (a nice and articulate bull but still filled with rage underneath), that all one need do is draw a straight line from Iraq to Libya.  Besides I thought you accused the Jewish Lobby of starting the war in Iraq--wasn't that your shtick?  You aren't saying that, in Libya too.......Nah even you wouldn't suggest that now.  Wink


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:53am

    An interesting piece by Asli U. Bâli and Ziad Abu-Rish vis Jadaliyah: The drawbacks of intervention in Libya; some points I hadn't considered.

    And Mike Mullen saying the no-fly zone IS in place, and it all may end in a stalemate, given that regime change was not the mission.

    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/03/201132015244765379.html

    And no; it's not boring, it's all very fraught, but as the first piece indicates, a bit suspect given the history and political histories of the nations involved, especially the Arab nations.  Also they point out that no airlifts have been offered for the African migrants or other Libyans who want to get out, and that announcing the referral to the ICC was counter-productive, as it signals to the Gadaffis that they are TRAPPED, and wouldn't be allowed safe passage out of the country.

    Also, that they have been blowing buildings apart with tanks for days and days makes the air war seem almost beside the point.  And their anti-aircraft artillery is mobile.  Arrrgh.


    by we are stardust on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 5:45pm

    Their mobile anti-aircraft guns aren't really a threat to the aircraft we are using unless maybe the are deployed near landing fields or something - we can strike from WAY higher than they can shoot. It is the radar and SAM batteries we need to take out mostly.

    My from-the-hip prediction is France and Brittan will lead Europe and a few Arab allies in taking apart all of the exposed heavy infantry .... at some point there won't be any good targets left and the coalition will "bend to Russia and China" in agreeing to be less aggressive responding to ground skirmishes. The rebel armor previously pinned by air-threat and pro-government armor that manged to get under cover will mobilize against each other ... while Egypt feeds the rebels small arms/ammo and bleed the loyalist resources (depending on how the ending armor match-up is, maybe some anti-tank weapons). The rebels will have access to full theater awareness and 1st-world intel against a government force now essentially operating blind.

    I don't see where the supplies are going to come from to keep this going for as long as everyone is worried about. It seems like any help would have to come overland from Chad or Niger (maybe Algeria?). There's like 1000 miles of openly exposed desert between those borders and final destination in Tripoli or Surt. I'm no Lybia expert, but it really seems there has to be a mathematical final bullet available to the Qaddafi-aligned forces (making me seriously question the policy of randomly firing guns in the air just for the fuck of it - on BOTH sides).


    by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 7:19pm

    Ack; I just mentioned Turkey as the supplier of rifles; you are right...my geography needs help.  I do tend to trust your analysis an org=der of magnitude above my own.  I didn't know that the anti-aircraft artillery was of such little threat; it had been mentioned so often as tough to take out without civilian kills.

    Even though this military was advertised as poorly equipped and not large, wouldn't there be stockpiles of ammo?  And the rebels sure do need food, medical supplies, water and food.  And airlifts out.


    by we are stardust on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 9:39pm

    He must have stockpiles. I don't know how many he controls ... or what's in them. An awful lot of high-ranking people have crossed over to the transitional government. *Someone* willing to give us good information must know - so I assume we must have a ballpark. I don't see how it would be enough to sustain through years of active combat (where the other side has supply lines). With the embargo and "our" absolute control of air/sea routes, I'm just wondering how they see him being resupplied from a logistical standpoint in a long term standoff and by whom ... with what funding.

    I'm pretty sure there is aid staged at the border in Egypt and also ready for delivery by ship to Bengazi. One of the objectives is to provide operating space for humanitarian efforts. I'm guessing it should be a lot easier to move ships in and out of the Bengazi port now that there is a mandate to physically protect vessels in Libyan waters. Boats can move a lot of people too. That, of course, assumes the attack on Bengazi was truly repelled (an AJ report said it was pushed back around 60 miles).

    Fuel was another major point of shortage. It seemed like twisting the knife a bit when Obama demanded fuel supply be restored to the rebel held cities. That would ensure captured military equipment stays mobile. Sort of puts Qaddafi's side in a damned if they do damned if they don't situation were they to actually try and  give a veneer of compliance.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 10:23pm

    Do they even refine their own fuel?  I'm glad you're brain is so excellently tuned to logistics, kgb.  Mine is dead-tired, and I may not be thinking well, but getting people to ports seems hard, given that so  many workers live so far away, and the nation is so huge.  But okay, if they can kill some of the tanks, maybe they can move people by truck to safety or out of the country.  I also hope the rebels have quit harming the African immigrants by mistake.  Wow; I'd better quit; that was an incoherent batch of thinking. 


    by we are stardust on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 10:44pm

    The way I *think* the country is configured is that the bulk of inhabitable land is pretty much along the coast. In the middle are oil wells and I not much water. They move the oil to refineries which seem to largely be on the coasts. Some of 'em have been damaged over the last week or so (In Ras Lanuf at least I think).

    Maybe I have it wrong, but my impression was oil field workers in the middle were evacuated early - so I was sort of visualizing refugees trapped more on the coasts when I made that boat observation. Not sure if that's accurate.

    And yeah ... backlash against peaceful immigrants was a terrible outcome (though hardly unpredictable considering the base-fear dynamic created).


    by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 11:10pm

    While we engage in armchair generalship, let us remember that even if all the contestants finally have to fight with sticks and stones, Qadaffi's people appear to be professionals: better organized, better trained, with real sergeants etc... and  remember that the mercenaries are making more in a day than they would earn in a year in their home countries, with fatter rewards to follow if they win and certain death to follow if they lose. Terrific motivation for a sub-Saharan corner boy.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 3:20am

    Why can't the mercenaries just take the cash they are rolling with (I saw a WAD of American $100s pulled from one of the dead soldiers) and slip off back to Nigeria with 15 years worth of profit? Wouldn't cruise missiles and F-16s change the risk/reward calculus considerably? OTOH, the rebels have nowhere to go unless someone gives them asylum, are facing certain death if they lose with nowhere to run and looking at pretty fat rewards if they win too.

    Armchair generaling it. It seems Qaddafi's military superiority comes down to equipment, recon and communications (training is important too - just not AS significant IMO). He could fly over to see where targets were, radio back via satellite, bring in tanks and make final adjustments through a centralized command and control facility. ALL of that is gone now - and unlike the rebels, they rely on it. Additionally, if we want to feed them recon, the rebels essentially pick up much of the advantage Qaddafi just lost. So life gets easier for the rebels while Qaddafi has to come up with an entirely new set of tactics to coordinate operations without some major systemic command tools he's been relying on to this point - not only is there a capability loss, it requires the entire force to adapt and adopt new tools and tactics (with the infrastructure to easily communicate complex information force-wide crippled).

    They're going to fight like hell to be sure. But again, the rebel side is getting supplied with weapons from Egypt. Already. It was confirmed last week. There isn't a scenario where the rebels end up with sticks and stones. That's the part I don't get in the "this could last forever" drama - Qaddafi needs an equally steady supply of weapons to hold out. That and the where is he going to keep getting greenbacks to pay mercenaries and gun runners with all their money seized up part.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:25am

    Sorry to disagree, but closeup infantry combat, clearing houses etc, is mostly about good training and good sergeants, that and hand grenades, of course. I think they will be able to clear Benghazi of rebels with the stuff they have. The rebels are just a ragtag bunch who get in each other's way. We really don't have a dog in this fight, it's a bit silly to cheerlead in this.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:44am

    The experience of U.S. infantry attempting to clear cities in Iraq, where the U.S. troops had every advantage that training, organization, and equipment can offer, is evidence against what you say here. If the rebeles can be handed rifles they can be given hand held anti-tank weapons which are simple and intuitive to operate. You point and shoot and if you hit the tank or other vehicle it dies. Whithin cities it is pretty easy to get a close-up shot. Move the light armour out of the city and it loses its purpose. Move the tanks with their cannon out where they can only be used as artillery and they become easy targets for aircraft that will not then do so much collatteral damage to those we are trying to protect


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:21am

    I'm pulling for the rebels, too, but the experience of the US infantry in Iraq isn't exactly instructive here, as I'm guessing Qaddafi has no qualms about killing innocent bystanders. Not that our record is spotless, but we at least try to give the appearance that we care about that!


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:30am

    I think it is instructive though obviously not exactly the same. The U.S. had a bigger spread in the areas that David said gave the Qaddafi troops an advantage.I only have a few minutes to read and respond between shower and leaving the house so I threw out a quick thought. Maybe more later.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:43am

    Fair enough. There are definitely lessons there on the disruptive abilities of a ragtag group of poorly organized rebels, from IEDs to the dangers of turning the local populace (even more) against you.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:48am

    Training and noncoms are everything... working through a city house by house is a ballet dance. If Qaddafi could "liberate" Benghazi, it would turn the whole allied operation into a farce.

    Also Qaddafi may very well organize a "green march" (with women and children included) from Tripoli to Benghazi carrying "humanitarian aid" (ambulances carrying arms and ammunition) to the "loyal population of Benghazi". Without allied troops on the ground it would be impossible to monitor this "march" and separate the sheep from the goats.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:47am

    Here is something from Debka:

    http://www.debka.com/article/20786/


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 2:59am

    The air defenses are worrisome. I was reading elsewhere these missiles were more a risk to lower altitude operations. Don't know what to make of it. Do sort of wonder if these reporters can track down where Libyan air defenses *really* are, how come the military can't as well (incompetence can never be counted out). Hope nobody gets shot down ... but someone probably will.

    The analysis would feel more satisfying if it had accounted for: (a) the fact that there is actually a reasonably large (if poorly trained) ground force already engaged - what is the comparative strength between the opposing forces and what level of augmentation would be required to even the field (assuming we wanted to win this for the rebels outright). (b) The fact that prior to military intervention a sizable number (majority?) of Libyan tribes had already rejected Qaddafi to side with the revolution. This treats Libya as a unified national populace facing an external threat and doesn't account for the psychological impact on rebel-aligned tribes who could well view the attacks as supporting their cause; reduced fear of overwhelming reprisals (inability for heavy armor columns to move across the desert or ships to bombard cities) could solidify resolve against the regime. And (c) the reported high percentage of mercenaries fighting for the government vs. a seemingly native uprising. Again, there is a strong case to be made that the nationalist swing should go revolution/coalition while the significant increase in risk from air-strikes could cause someone in it for the money to think really hard about the odds of living to spend it.

    I can see a bazillion ways from Sunday what we're trying here could go totally off the rails ... but it does at least deserve a discussion of how things could fuck up based on the real dynamics that seem to be in play. One big question mark this brings up is if Al Jazeera overstated the tribal support for the revolution - the reported council statements *seemed* pretty solid. If so, Qatar has some 'splanin to do.

    This whole situation seems entirely different than Afghanistan - which is what this article uses as a template (and it isn't alone). Nobody in Afghanistan asked for crap from us - we demanded something, they refused, we invaded. It seems very unlikely looking at reactions there will be a good predictor of Libyan public opinion here. And thinking about it, as we're beyond the point of just stopping with a "never-mind" now, it doesn't matter much how anyone feels about this other than the Libyan people (and longer-term, Americans obviously). If they're happy, I'm happy; today they seem happier than yesterday. If the revolutionaries win they may be our friends - or at least friendly - and like us simply because we helped them (how fucking crazy would *that* be?). Maybe not. But damn. We could do worse things in the world than give 'em a chance rather than just mutter "they were probably terrorists anyhow" and let some despot (who we KNOW will finance terror acts when it suits his purposes) slaughter them. Those people don't seem like they suck to me - maybe I'm stupid.

    This action seems defensible ... until, of course, the powers that be inevitably manage to bumble and botch the whole thing beyond salvageable positive outcome. Still, if our leaders somehow manage to magically not be lame - just this once - it doesn't have to. I'm hoping electoral pressures in Europe result in more effectiveness rather than the logarithmically increasing idiocy America's tend to induce ... seems to go 'bout 50/50 and Sarkozy does kind of have "idiot" written all over him when he gets to doing his politikin' thing.

    (sorry to spew ... sussing out my own opinion, really.)


    by kgb999 on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 5:56am

    On CNN Fouad Ajami speculates that if enough states recognized the rebels as the legitimate government they would have access to $30 billion of Lybian State assets. Presumably that would address their supply shortages.

    Recognition seems pretty distant to me. Without knowing exactly  what they are, I know there are criteria governing recognition and the rebels don't appear to me to qualify . Much tho our State Dept wishes the rebels well I expect it to be reasonably punctilious about extending "recognition" to them. .  

    Ajami demonstrated in 2003 that he could always manufacture a justification for any thing he supports.But right now I doubt that even he could cobble together a justification State could accept. And neither should it.

    I prefer words  to have some meaning and State doesn't mean some terrified opponents of the Government clinging to  a position just inside the border and begging for protection.


    by Flavius on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 10:02pm

    To me, "state" means Libya. The question is if the transitional government can be seen as a legitimate representative body for Libyans - right? Military primacy alone doesn't determine legitimacy;  sometimes governments in full-on exile are recognized. Not predicting a flood by any means - and Obama sure won't be anywhere near the first one to plunge over the edge - but I don't think it's as big a leap as you make it out to be.

    I don't see the rebel side having many supply problems once we get through the next couple of days. Egypt officials confirmed last week they are supplying arms - "mostly" small arms and ammo. Any non-military stuff should be able to flow directly to port.

    It's Tripoli and Surt that I see being a disaster before this all ends. Not sure how they plan to prevent a humanitarian crisis in the government-held areas (which are some of the most populated, I think - or were when all this started).


    by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 10:43pm

    Fouad Ajami? You'd better check that guy out.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:21am

    Let's see. We have a whimpering House majority leader, a Florida governor with a billiard ball head, a Wisconsin governor who looks (and thinks) like he has had far too many head injuries and The Three Stooges and Laurel and Hardy wanting to run for their parties nomination in 2012. Assuming any of then can count that high.

    A democratic party that bears a striking resemblance to The Key Stone Cops and a president that reminds of of John Ritter's role of Chet Roosevelt in Americathon.

    We have not had anyone in the last 20 years or more that I would call a statesman or a leader.

    So is this current fiasco so surprising ?


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 9:25pm

    Just curiosity: off the top of your hear who comes to your mind as a stateman or leader before that.

    Sometimes seems to me that the criterion for true statemanship   is a suitable quantity of dirt on your coffin.


    by Flavius on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 10:10pm

    LBJ, JFK, Hubert Humphry, Mike Mansfield, Nancy L. Kassebaum, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.. To name but a few.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 11:03pm

    Almost forgot Howard Baker and Sam Ervin.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 11:14pm

    Thanks.

    Certainly all serious people who could defend their positions convincingly but also settle for half a loaf when it was time to pass some legislation. I'd add Tip O'Neil , the last  Speaker who  played golf with the Minority Leader.


    by Flavius on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 11:29pm

    To quote George Carlin "where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. No, they come from American homes, American families, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and they’re elected by American voters. This is the best we can do, folks. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out."

     

    In other words judge the American people by the leaders that they choose.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:46am

    That is fair enough... George Carlin is as close as America will ever get to Mahatma Gandhi.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:51am

    LOL....David...that is not a pleasant thought.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:16am

    Oh...and since Dick Day is not here...I render unto you the Daily Dagblog Line of the Day.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:19am

    What are we supposed to believe?

    http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2011/03/farrakhan-shreds-obama-who-hell-do-you.html

    Our Country is going broke;..... but we have millions for war?

    What are we supposed to believe?


    by Resistance on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 10:22pm

    Believe that if there are ships full of Tomahawk missiles floating in the sea ... we already spent millions for this war years ago.

    The question is do we have millions to keep doing it as a matter of diplomatic policy. (and in relation to Farrakhan; are all cases where the objective is regime change honestly trivially equivalent on the level he implies they are?).


    by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 10:52pm

    we already spent millions for this war years ago.

    Is there a shelf life, or will we have to borrow more money to replenish our depleted supply?


    by Resistance on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 3:06am

    This is an interesting conversation.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 3:01am

    Latest Comments