Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 4 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 months ago
- artappraiser 7 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- artappraiser 9 months ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 3 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 6 months ago
- artappraiser 6 months ago
- artappraiser 10 months ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 3 months 2 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 2 years 6 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 3 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 years 5 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 years 5 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 years 5 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 years 5 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 6 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 6 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 3 years 6 months ago
Libya Operation "Odyssey Dawn" news & analysis
By artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 4:40pm |Going to use this thread to post information on topic in comments rather than clog up the "In the News" section with multiple posts. And others are welcome to contribute if they'd like.
First item from Al Jazeera's Libya Live Blog:
(All times are local in Libya GMT+2)
Timestamp: 10:12pm
The Pentagon says that the UAE and Qatar will also be involved in military operations in Libya, but will announce their involvement themselves.
The operation falls under the operational command of the US African Command, under General Carter Hamm. Tactical execution is being run out of the USS Mount Whitney, Admiral Sam Locklear commanding.
Off the coast of Libya, there are: 11 vessels from Italy, 11 from the US (including three submarines, each with 100 missiles on board), one from the UK, one from France and one from Canada.
The no-fly zone will encompass Tripoli, Sabha, Natoura, Misurata and Benghazi.
- Add new comment
- 8833 reads
Comments
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 6:36pm
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 6:41pm
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 6:45pm
I can't think why you believe that Obama isn't in charge; all I read is that he IS, and that the rest is cover, though I do get that he was reticent. I also know you like Pepe Escobar, and just ran into his 'Club Med War' piece. Haven't read it yet.
by we are stardust on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 7:00pm
Once the Obama administration changed its mind, only a couple of days ago, and decided to push for the UN vote, it was a fait accompli that the U.S. military would be chosen for the command. Especially as NATO was not, because of Turkey. (I see on Google news that Turkey's foreign minister has just been muttering something along the lines of we didn't really mean that, we are going to be involved though I was going to wait to post it until someone had more time to write up in more detail what he said.) Simply because we have all the military "infrastructure."
I am still not convinced from what I see about meetings in the hours since the UN vote that the tactical decisions aren't being made via group consensus with the Europeans and the UAE and Qatar. I still don't get a sense that there's a Dictator Obama here as regards what General Hamm was instructed to do., rather it was decided sort of by "committee" with input from all players. So far I even have seen some confused reports about France possibly jumping the gun. (See Juan Cole's post cited below on that.) Certainly France and the UK have been doing some serious military planning on this for weeks.
I do think the U.S. media's natural Amero-centric bent will make it seem like this is a project by the US and everyone else involved is a lackey and checking other media sources will help clarify whether that is reality.
As to Pepe Escobar I think he is a reputable analyst but also one that almost always has an agenda of looking for the worst aspects of US dominance, while ignoring faults in other governments and actors and ending up not looking at big picture because of that agenda I don't always agree with him. If I was looking for an objective analysis about a story, I certainly wouldn't go to him first. I would however eventually look at what he's got because he's got good sources and handles them honorably, he just doesn't try to get all aspects or all sides. He's basically very much of an advocate of a certain ideological position.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 7:55pm
Did you read Escobar, appraiser? Most of his criticisms of the intervention relate to the financial/oil agendas of the countries pushing for a no-fly zone and (in almost equal measure) those of the BRICS countries that abstained. In other words, he's saying humanitarianism may have been a low priority for anyone in deciding which way to go on this issue. The U.S. and Obama get off pretty lightly.
He's just as scathing about the hypocrisy of the Gulf states that are poised to take part, given that they've endorsed Saudi Arabia's crushing of Bahrain's democracy movement. I've made the same points in other threads, though not as trenchantly. All that being said, now that the lines are drawn, I'm hoping the coalition applies enough force to quickly drive Gaddafi from power. It will be a mess in his wake, but it will be a less solvable mess if he stays.
by acanuck on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 11:59pm
Yes I read it. I think anyone who thinks by this date that bleeeding heart humanitarism for the civiilians of Libya, (rather than the ramifications of the results of not trying to help them) was the main motivating factor must be uninformed. So I don't find it particularly astute to say those things, it's just another rant to me. Or I should say just another useless sermon from a writer who thinks he could run the world better than those doing it.
There are other kinds of "humanitarism," like worrying about what will happen to the world economy and the citizens of your own country if you let certain situations spin out of control causing world destabilization. I do not know if the right choice was made, but I doubt from reading that that Pepe Escobar knows either. I certainly would NOT want them to do it only for the reason he says in his first paragraph would be "uplifting":
to support the beleaguered anti-Muammar Gaddafi movement with a no-fly zone, logistics, food, humanitarian aid and weapons. That would be the proof that the "international community" really "stands with the Libyan people in their quest for their universal human rights"
Because that would be following Paul Wolfowitz's view of what foreign policy should be: go around the world supporting democracy movements with firepower.
What don't people get about Gaddafi being a wild card maniac with delusions of grandeur unlike the other dictators in the region who are first and foremost interested in stability to a serious fault? Both are abusing human rights, but if you are to do foreign policy for enlightened self-interest, it's the one with delusions of grandeur that's dangerous to your own citizens future well being, as in, yes, money: trade contracts, food prices, oil prices, as well as other international considerations like policing of terrrorism etc.. He's a human earthquake; the one who won't even make an effort to look like he's working within basic UN standards, the one who tells the UN to go fuck itself.
by artappraiser on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 1:12am
So much to disagree with, appraiser. If you don't mind, I'll skip over your equation of Escobar's mindset and that of Wolfowitz. That I can't begin to wrap my mind around. And get right to your categorization ogf good dictators and bad dictators. Both abuse human rights, we agree. What sets Gaddafi apart is apparently that he's "a wild card maniac with delusions of grandeur." Hey, we all have our faults.
Put yourself in his place. He's spent the past eight years trying (with some success) to live down his youthful bad-boy image. Renouncing terrorism and abandoning WMDs led to warming relations with the U.S., to the point where embassies reopened and John McCain could spend a pleasant evening chatting with him in his tent. For the past five or six years, stability has been Muammar's middle name.
Then suddenly, through no fault of his, pro-democracy movements break out to his east and his west, and suddenly he's told he too needs to quit and go into exile at a minimum, and maybe even face a war-crimes trial. So he lost his cool and said some inflammatory things about "rivers of blood."
Let me play the devil's advocate. When Gaddafi says the UN resolution is interference in Libya's internal affairs, he is absolutely correct. If an armed rebellion breaks out in one part of your country, any government has the right to suppress it. If the rebels prevail, they were right. If you win, you were right. Gaddafi's only mistake is that, over his 40-plus years in power, he's pissed off so many people that he has no real allies in the Arab world. Or anywhere, really.
But that's not an indication of insanity; it's just a very, very bad strategic miscalculation. One he'll pay dearly for. By contrast, little Bahrain can turn for aid to big brother Saudi Arabia, which in turn has the U.S. by the energy balls. Genocide? Why the hell not?
by acanuck on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 2:18am
To play devil's advocate back. The international community really did sit by while he imported a LOT of mercenaries from other countries because his own people had rejected his rule ... then he attacked those cities with war planes, ships and rockets. By all rights the "rebels" appear to have overwhelmingly risen up from within their own cities to control the majority of the country. Qaddafi was winning because he placed all significant military assets in units under the direct control of his family members - and in the end winning would require killing thousands and thousands of civilians in every city that rebelled (most of them).
When Qaddafi was at the same point causing civilian carnage as they are in Bahrain (or Egypt - where many were also killed) we were pretty stand-offish on the intervention. That said, a 40% minority importing the Saudi army because they can't legitimately maintain their own country is just as fucked up. I do sort of think maybe we have some other pressure points to work in that situation before asking France to blow up Saudi armored personnel carriers though. IMO, ALL of our allies in that region are kind of sucky at this point (no offense to any non-sucky allies my geographically-challenged butt may not realize exist).
But yeah. Bad, bad miscalculation. Once he lost Italy's support he was done and should have known it. At some point it has become suicidal ... I really do question his sanity at this stage. He should have taken the out to Venezuela when he had a chance. All he did was ensure his children also saw their lives destroyed.
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 3:14am
He's doing what Egypt and Tunisia didn't do...stand his ground. It's not as if no one was aware he ruled with an iron fist so why all of a sudden is everyone getting a hard-on? Oil...pure, sweet and simple. It's an opportune time to wrestle control of Libya's oil fields away for private control. Shock doctrine stuff is behind it all...war is just a means by which they bring about the changes necessary for global corporations to sweep in and take advantage of the situation after the bombs and bullets stop flying for pennies on the dollar.
by Beetlejuice on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 10:00am
Oy, your opinion is shocking for someone that seems to be such a great fan of the Egyptian revolution.. Alas poor poor Mubarak didn't know enough to hire the toughest thugs and mercenaries and keep at it with them until the UN did something about it, and after half of the standard army left him to start an armed rebellion, he could cry an attack on his sovereignity.
And you top yourself with
Then suddenly, through no fault of his, pro-democracy movements break out to his east and his west,
Seriously, "through no fault of his own"?!! Even if you're not saying that in your own voice but in his, it's really ridiculous. I believe he's crazy, but not a dolt. No fault of his own?
Basically, your whole argument is that he's a innocent dolt, who did the best he could as a benign dictator.. I don't agree. I think he's been torturing not just his own people but the entire international community with his games for decades. That's why he has no friends,.
If you wish to respond rest assured you'll have the last word because I don't find this sort of discussion a very good use of time when there's so much good information out there to read and interpret. Suffice it to say I disagree with you. I do very much appreciate your comments regarding news items. To be honest with you, I don't understand why anyone would want to know my opinion on what should be done about this or that, I don't get the usefulness of that. I only answered to be polite because you asked.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 1:57am
I was, as you suspect, answering in Gaddafi's voice, appraiser. That why I began "Put yourself in his place," and got a bit flippant about "rivers of blood." Look, he really did think he'd charted a solid path to international respectability, meeting with world leaders who'd previously shunned him (Sarkozy, McCain, Berlusconi, etc.) and even signing a treaty of friendship with Italy in 2007. (Probably at Seif's urging, but still.) He'd been on his best behavior for the past five-eight years or so, and then Tunisia and Egypt go all democratic, and the contagion spills over into his own country. I'll happily agree that it's karma biting him in the ass, but he's thinking how unfair it all is.So yeah, he blusters about turning the Mediterranean into a lake of fire. Doesn't make him a madman; he's an aging tyrant who suddenly finds his back against the wall, fighting literally for his life. In his position, I'd suggest maybe battling to the death is as rational an option as any other he has.
by acanuck on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 2:59am
In all honesty, Wolfowitz's view of what foreign policy should be was America should push it's global dominance by any means available at it's disposal. When that got leaked to our European allies ... he had to go in for a bit of re-branding.
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 2:47am
Juan Cole:
Worth reading the whole thing for Cole's further summary of what the Egyptian general said on Al Jazeera Arabic.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 7:52pm
I have to admit that I haven't been following this as closely as maybe I should, just because it is just getting to me the edge, but it seems to me the French are really pushing this, and being more highly involved than past "coalition" endeavors over the past decades (so I could be wrong). But what springs to mind is the struggle they have between their secular government approach and the Muslim immigrant population in their country, and is there some connection.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 7:58pm
There are so many possible agendas and vendettas with Gaddafi, one could go as mad as he is trying to psychoanalyze all the players. Because he is just devilish, there's no two ways around that, there's a history of him fucking with nearly everyone else's head. There's Italy all entwined in all kinds of business with him, the scandal over the UK's return of the PanAm bomber to him, the to do about himi wanting his money back from Sarkozy, that the west not so long ago crowing about the new reformed WMD-free Gaddafi. Then what is the deal between him and Lebanon? They ended up happily volunteering to sponsor and co-author the UN resolution...one just could go on and on. Then there's something I saw in the stories from the BBC reporters who were held by Gaddafi forces, the slurs against Palestinians by the Gaddafi bigwig, what's that all about? I had no idea the Gaddafi regime had a hard on about Palestinians for some reason. Certainly the hard core Venezuelan opposition to Chavez would be cheering on his downfall, same for Ortega Now if you check his "letters to Obama and others" above, he seems to be courting Obama and damning the others....
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 8:22pm
One could posit that this maddening matrix of agendas and vendettas (where's Shakespeare when you need him) is alway there, everyday, at every diplomatic champagne gathering, and only once in a while something like Libya in its own way is able pull the curtain back to show us what is happening. Or should I say push back the screens, ala Genet?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 8:34pm
from The Guardian's Libya no-fly zone – live updates, March 19
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 10:12pm
Yeah, appraiser. That's one of the things that has been too lightly reported on: the domestic political calculations that are skewing the whole operation. Foremost is the calculations by electorally struggling Sarkozy and British PM Cameron that a quick little war will gain them popular support, like the Falklands did for Lady Thatcher. Conversely, Obama has to play down (or even reduce) the U.S. role because 6 in 10 Americans oppose further foreign conflicts. Same goes for Merkel. Toronto Star had a piece a few days back saying Canada's participation might be just the ticket for PM Stephen Harper to finally win a majority in the election everyone expects in a few months.
Staging his Paris "emergency summit" photo op so France could get credit for striking first sounds like Sarkozy. He's not alone in his cynical manipulation of other people's lives, though. Remember Reagan secretly telling the Iranians to hold off releasing the hostages till he was sworn in?
by acanuck on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 12:18am
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 8:00pm
On day one, from accounts I've read, the U.S. has fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Those cost half a million apiece back in 1999. So at least $60 million down the drain. That would pay for a lot of teacher pensions.
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 9:33pm
I read your blog on why we shouldn't get involved. And I'm with you. But I'm curious. If you were president, given the public mood, what you do if you were in Obama's position, which in some way translates to how would articulate to the press why you didn't act?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 9:39pm
I think Obama has played this one about right so far. Our logistics and platform are being used as pivotal HQ but we really are kind of in a supporting role in many regards. The situation had reached the point where It would have been more than justifying inaction - we would almost have to come up with an explanation for blocking the actions of France and Britain (and Canada?).
I'm willing to give this one a bit and see where it goes before I start bitching. I see all the competing threads here, and sure not everyone has perfect motivations ... but I'm not of the opinion if we can't/won't intervene in Bahrain it's somehow highest hypocrisy unless we allow the Libyan opposition to be slaughtered as well.
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 3:56am
Tough question. I guess I'd make a few points...
1) We should be winding down wars, not starting new ones.
2) Not right to spend money on Libya while calling for sacrifice at home.
3) Why Libya and not Bahrain or the Ivory Coast?
As for the current political mood... seems that a majority of Americans oppose our involvement in Libya.
by Michael Maiello on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 7:35am
1. Sounds great. Seems to be largely a function of events not entirely within our control though. Good as a rule of thumb bad as a truism.
2. But then, we've already addressed the fact that the calls to sacrifice at home are largely top-end greed based and not particularly based in reality. Kind of an odd thing to hang one's hat on. The solution is to adopt a domestic narrative that is a little less bullshit-based (true regardless action in Lybia).
3. Because there is a confluence of international partners and other real-world factors that make action in Lybia tenable where the other two hypothetical nations you toss out simply are not (or at least I have not heard a plausible intervention scenario floated). If there are three babies floating down the river in a flood - if you could save one, do you let it die anyway because the other two can not be retrieved?
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 12:42pm
I read it's a million apiece these days. On the bright side ... we already paid for 'em anyhow - at least they weren't wasted. :-|
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 4:00am
On Spain, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Denmark, Canada:
From Al Jazeera's Libya Live Blog - March 20
From The Guardian's Libya no-fly zone – live updates, March 19
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 10:00pm
Thanks for this live blogging.
Et tu Turkey?
These announcements are bound to affect those Qaddafi supporters who are simply front runners.I've seen no hard data on that. Ten days ago we read a lot that the Libyan Army was disaffected and might shift sides .That seemed to have been soft peddled since then . But if it's true this drum beat of increasing support might be a trigger. Hope so .
by Flavius on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 10:36pm
The Libyan forces that attacked Benghazi yesterday were two special brigades personally commanded by two of Muammar's sons -- not regular army at all. Col. Gaddafi has never trusted the Libyan military ever since it overthrew King Idris and put him in power. Much of the military in the east of the country has already defected. That jet that got shot down over Benghazi yesterday was being flown for the rebels by a defecting air force pilot. Looks like it was accidentally hit by rebel AA fire.
by acanuck on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 12:30am
We are waiting for you and so are the fishs (sic.)
From Reuters via New York Times video: Gaddafi Backers Defiant as Allies Strike
available @
by artappraiser on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 12:11am
The thing about Libya is that it has way more geography than it has people.
by acanuck on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 12:39am
I think they were gambling on getting heavy armor into all the contested cities before the allies managed to deploy. It seems like the instant the UN resolution was announced they started an all-out sprint.
My guess is they figured once within the cities it would reduce the ability for allied air power to challenge without civilian damage and at the same time seriously undermine claims of uncontested peaceful control by the local populations in upcoming propaganda wars. In the best case, they could demand the ceasefire be enforced on both sides and by default assert legal control/jurisdiction just by being there at the correct moment. They have already started trying to float some arguments along these lines.
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 4:14am
That was definitely the plan. But as I wrote elsewhere, Obama in his speech called for withdrawal of government forces some distance around a number of cities, including Zawiya, which Gaddafi appears to have recaptured more than a week ago -- not likely to happen. Gaddafi has also called for an emergency meeting of the Security Council, presumably to haggle over "details" of the ceasefire. I doubt that request is going anywhere.
by acanuck on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 9:44am
They apparently don't have anyone with standing to request the meeting.
Ali Treki, is staying at the same Tunisian hotel where Ban Ki-Moon is booked when he arrives on Tuesday. Think he's trying to present himself for accreditation ... all process server stylie?
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 12:52pm
The seemingly sanctioned White House narrative.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-s-first-new-war-20110319
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 5:33am
Catching up on Georgia political news this am, found a brief Q&A with Sam Nunn from before the UN resolution. As always on FP, a thoughtful and informative response.
Another version is <<here>>:
Not sure I agree with him on the finance/economics of the thing but he has spent a lifetime on the military / foreign policy issues. And, as I said, he always provides new information or perspectives to news events.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 9:46am
Nunn's smart.
by acanuck on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 9:46am
Very.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 9:49am
Still more Sam Nunn on the Middle East from Political Insider Jim Galloway
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 10:10am
Interesting stuff, however, to access US involvement, one needs access to view what's in the pipeline. Depending on where one looks, the view tells a partial story of what's going on, who the players are, what they're capable of and so forth. It's all missing in these reports. Some of the stuff I read doesn't quite agree with what's I've heard, seen, read and so forth from more reliable resources. Also note...you haven't heard a word about embedded correspondents, have you? The subtly is worth noting over the noise being generated. And note too, the French were the first strikers and there was tons of info about the Brits too gearing up with Tornado's, but nothing much other than naval forces on the US side positioning themselves as well as naval air stations Sigonella and partial reference to Souda Bay giving air support...the US has much more assets that aren't even being mentioned which may or may no be participating.
And just to add some spice to the mix, I suspect the only reason why the US is even involved is because of their NATO membership...if NATO decides it's an issue they need to be involved in, the US has little choice but to follow their lead. Puts US involvement in a whole new ballpark and a whole new game.
by Beetlejuice on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 10:36am
It's not NATO, so far it's three European countries and Canada. Some Gulf Arabs and some Scandinavians may join in later. The National Journal article kgb quotes upthread sounds credible: the Security Council wouldn't have passed a no-fly resolution (much less the robust "all measures" language) if Obama hadn't decided to go all-in. I can see why Obama wants to take the line "We're just facilitators," but it's tough to swallow when the operation has an American commander.
by acanuck on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 12:51pm
Spain and Italy are phrasing their base contributions as as "opening them to NATO" (Italy, at least, committing air assets as well). It kind of looks like Turkey is positioning itself as interlocutor (which actually answers a few nagging concerns - and leaves a way to negotiate exit), but they are recognizing the UN resolution not blocking NATO involvement.
I'm not discounting our participation ... but I'm not seeing this as a unilateralist move by any stretch of the imagination either. I can't find the link but there were nearly a dozen countries with air/sea assets committed for combat missions as of last night - many from across Europe. Germany seems to be the only one not supportive.
by kgb999 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 1:57pm
Germany seems to be the only one not supportive.
Let's just say late last night there were an awful lot of low flying aircraft running with full afterburner and they weren't Americans.
by Beetlejuice on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 2:58pm
Embeds with who? There are no coalition troops on the ground. What might you be thinking of? Embeds with French bomber pilots? Embeds on one of the ships in the Mediterranean? "Embeds" with the rebels in Benghazi?
I guess you could say the reporters in Tripoli are embeds with the Gaddafi goons. They've been complaining about that in their reports for quite some time, i.e., they are not letting us leave the hotel right now, they took us to see another pitiful Potemkin Village demonstration of Gaddafi supporters, etc.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 2:05am
So you have a problem seeing the forest because all those trees are blocking your view, eh?
by Beetlejuice on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 4:54am
It appears that Arab League support for what is taking place might be eroding. Reuter's reports:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-league-strikes-idUSTR...
by Bruce Levine on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 12:30pm
Until somebody else demurs, that's just Moussa. The Gulf states pushed hardest for the no-fly zone, and I'm sure they were kept in the loop as to what the resolution would say, and what it implied. Much like the the UN vote, the Arab League was "unanimous" but with abstentions. I can't see much likelihood of a reversal now. Still, quite an unholy mess.
by acanuck on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 1:03pm
Sarkozy, merci beaucoup, Obama, merci beaucoup:
Uploaded by Al Jazeera English, March 20, 2011
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 12:39am
That bit at the end about them expecting this to be "their air force" now was rather ominous. Pretty high expectations. Ahhh well. Just a few hours ago those people figured they were fucked and had resigned themselves to some flavor of brutal death, they've got to be pretty pumped up.
by kgb999 on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 1:19am
That bit at the end
Maybe a bit of reporter's spin of what they said.. On the other hand, I noticed he was mostly dealing with young guys hanging around the scene after the fact, and hopefully the rebel commanders who are busy with um, other things, especially those that are defectors from the actual military, aren't that naive. Unless they got something similar to the French Resistance in WWII getting secret messages out to the bombers, which I doubt, if there's no communication about where/.what tis going on, there's going to either be a lot of fubar or they are not going to do much more than what was done in the Iraq no fly zone of the pre-W .Bush years. The UN gave them the green light to do more, but I am starting to wonder if they will if they don't have good intel. I'm not that savvy on military ops, though, maybe once they have knocked everything out they can set up communications? I'm sure we'll be finding out eventually.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 2:20am
I spoke too soon:
I still stand by the basic point I was raising,though, which is--this is where it's not so easy to avoid civilian and friendly fire casualties, especially without very good intel.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 3:19am
The coalition forces can get pretty good intel. They already had excellent satellite surveillance, and to the extent they now have near-total air superiority, they can fly reconnaissance missions at will. And that includes helicopters, not just fixed-wing craft. The good thing about choppers is you can land them long enough to liaise with rebels on the ground. I checked the actual UN resolution and it merely rules out "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory." Which I take to mean any permanent troop presence, not a 15-minute stop to confer with the local rebel commander. I have no clue if that's part of the coalition plans; I'm just saying the UN resolution doesn't specifically rule it out.
by acanuck on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 3:21am
On intel from the rebels, the U.S. military strongly and repeatedly denied Monday that they are getting it or using it for strikes. From Bumiller and Fahim's March 21/22 New York Times piece (also cited downthread)
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:52pm
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 1:02am
More on Gaddafi as a target and the regime change questions:
The above covers a lot of bases but I note on Google News just now there is is this new item past the deadline for the above article, countering the U.S. command messages:
though it should be noted that combining "potentially" with "possibility" is an awful lot of qualifiers, suggesting something to me akin to the diplomatic use of : all options remain on the table, i.e., you should fear that we could do things to you beyond your imagination, so just give up whydoncha.
And it also be a case of nobody in charge of the messaging, not exactly an unheard of thing in the recent past as regards more than one government or two much less an ad hoc international coalition.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 5:28am
This "blow by blow" of the Libya business is just another endless replay of the same old shoit we have been living since the end of the Cold War. We are really getting to be a tired old harlot of a superpower, aren't we? I wonder how long we can keep up this bombing people to make them "free"?
BTW... something that was very much noticed outside the USA, but completely ignored by US media is that Lula pointedly didn't attend the lunch that Dilma Rousseff held for Obama and that this was so important for the Brazilian press, that Rousseff had to cancel the joint press conference that she and Obama were scheduled to have held. So that is some interesting fall out from the Libyan affair, POTUS gets stood up by someone he has defined as "the world's most popular politician". This is really important and no American media has even mentioned it.
by David Seaton on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:29am
I looked on-line for some concrete statement that Lula made about the affair, but I couldn't find any (maybe my google-fu is just weak this morning). Do you have a link indicating that Lula "pointedly" didn't attend, or is it just that he didn't attend, and some journalists are speculating that he didn't do so "pointedly"? If the latter, that's less journalism than opinion writing, not that there's anything wrong with that.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:36am
Yeah, if you've got a link, David, please share. Was Lula actually invited to the lunch and declined? Or was there just a widespread expectation in the media that he would be? Rousseff has diverged from some of her predecessor's policies, and I could see a conscious decision on her part to exclude him just to emphasize that she's her own woman. Or maybe it's Lula opting to keep a low profile for once. I don't see how it's automatically linked to the Libya vote; it's not like Brazil voted for the resolution -- which might have justifiably led Lula to snub both Rousseff and Obama.
by acanuck on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 4:35pm
Lula? What office does he hold? Isn't that more or less the same as saying a world leader came to America and George Bush wasn't on hand to greet them?
I hope you are wrong. Aside from what the ex-president being placed in a position to stomp on the new administration's opening foreign policy moves would say about governance in Brazil, acting as you propose would reduce Lula from being the only arguable statesman ever associated with ALBA into pretty much a pathetic little bitch.
by kgb999 on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 1:10pm
Thank you for that; well said.
My opinion is that reality has nothing to do with the continuous Seaton search of the internet for stories to fit the thematic narratives in his head, there must be the patterns he is looking for out there and he must find them. In Brazil, it can't just be that leaders are meeting to discuss economic business like grownups, there has to be some secret underlying plot all about the moral outrage about the Libyan situation.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:48pm
I disagree that this thread is blow by blow. There's a ton of info. missing from it that would be necessary to categorize it as such.
I am glad that the US media did not spend a lot of time reporting on who attended the lunch for Obama. There's a lot more important things going on in the world, and the Libya story is just one of them, Brazil lunch attendees not so much.
As one of your blog commentators recently said: "what does this have to do with Mossad?" Sorry the tea leaves you are looking for are so scarce that you have to search so hard.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:57pm
Surely you have to admit that the details of a lunch in Brazil are far more important than what bombs are dropped where, don't you?
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:20pm
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:18pm
U.S. may already be starting the process of exiting the program?
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:53pm
Rachel Maddow seems to be opening her show this evening on theme of the U.S. is not going to be in charge. She has a slide up of Obama saying U.S. intervention would be over "in a matter of days not weeks," and is talking about how Obama is purposefully not giving Libya his number one attention....along the lines of Bush promised humble foregin policy, but Obama s doing it, that's he actually is "walking the walk," he is far from interested in intervening in another Arab country but was very reluctant and is not afraid to show the reluctance, and that the White House is trying to broadcast that desire for as little interventionism as possible, that the Libya intervention is going to be very short term, and the GOP realizes that and is criticizing it as losing status as the world power, etc. etc.
by artappraiser on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:45pm
Looks like the international press corps is not NEARLY as accommodating of Fox's .... unique ... brand of fact conveyance as their domestic counterparts.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/21/robertson-this-allegation-i...
Those Fox guys are fucking idiots. Playing games gets journalists killed. Don't they realize exactly how much danger all journalists in Libya are facing right now?
by kgb999 on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:05pm
Good on Nic Robertson for calling out Fox News: "This allegation is outrageous and it's absolutely hypocritical." Journalists, especially war correspondents, go out of their way not to step on each others' turf or needlessly embarrass their rivals. That Robertson did so shows how out of line Fox was.
by acanuck on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:00pm
Well, I imagine they are happy when journalists have to leave. They'd like to cover such things from the anchor room so facts from the ground in Libya won't get in the way of the chosen narrative.
Speaking of reporters leaving, some news--
The captured New York Times group of four just got out; their stories are nearly as gruesome as those of the BBC reporters:
Though Addario's reports of abuse touch me as a woman, what really gets me is the mentions of beatings including rifle butts in their back. I think we are desentisized to the whole rifle butt thing from seeing it depicted as in war movies as if doing that can't crack bones and spines and damage organs worse than many bullet wounds. Permanent back pain for the rest of your life, gee what a nice price to pay for angering some thug or soldier. And no doubt it's happened to a multitude of Libyans in the past and is happening now as I write.
To be selfish, I think It is a damn shame for us that Shadid and Farrell have to leave for their own recuperation and safety and aren''t able to cover things there for the Times. Shadid has unique background for this, knows Arabic, is Pulitzer-prize winning quality on that part of the world. Farrell was the one abducted and held by the Taliban for a long spell so he has those insights to draw on. The Times coverage was really shorted these past days by this happening to the inital group, they had to send Kirkpatrick and Fahim to replace them. Kirkpatrick really doesn't have anywhere near equivalent background and ability to develop sources. Also they had to divert a lot of manpower to investigate where the group was to try to get them back and they couldn't share that kind of information with the world until they were safely out. Stuff like this happening automatically censors what we all get to know. The journalists end up self-censoring, the editors and producers second guess who should be sent, where they should be allowed to go, whether security will be too costly, and wonder what should should be withheld from publication or broadcast for safety reasons.
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 8:36am
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:32pm
Obama's War Powers Resolution letter to Congress from whitehouse.gov. My bold highlighting:
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:30am
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 8:54am
Crew members of crashed U.S. jet are safe:
by artappraiser on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:40pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 7:18pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 7:20pm
More clarification of Turkey's stance:
This article from February 25 on Sarkozy's meeting with Gul offers interesting context and suggests things on this front are much more nuanced than they appear:
Then it was Gul arguing that the EU wasn't intervening enough as regards supporting and protecting demonstrators and refugees Sarkozy saying military invention in Libya was not a good idea. Here's what I suspect is a key quote from that article::
Gul suspects motives of Europeans and Sarkozy's flip flop as not just wanting the oil or the business they enjoyed with Libya but also of not wanting to deal with Arab immigrants or refugees
by artappraiser on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 7:50pm
Related from Latest Updates on Libyan War and Mideast Protests, The Lede, March 24, 2011
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:30pm
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:33pm
New Juan Cole:
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:22pm
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 5:38pm
(Yeah I know, it's not about Operation Odyssey Dawn, but I want to be able to find the piece in the future.)
by artappraiser on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 5:37pm
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:52am
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:25pm
Of course, for better or worse, Obama will not be judged (by most people) on what would have happened had he not acted but on what does happen due to his actions. Of course, if he hadn't acted, the reverse would be true. As such, he has to act on what he thinks is the "best" course of action. (Best for whom, of course, is a whole other question.)
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:41pm
The definitive histories are a long way away. Was thinking that if things don't go swimmingly enough in the meantime, we could also see blaming of three witches casting spells-Clinton, Power and Rice.
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:57pm
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:35pm
Found this which certainly changed my perceptions about the Libyan 'rebels':
An oil company and central bank. Sounds like at least some of the rebels have outside contacts.
I followed links back to the original author and post, Why the Libyan rebels will (probably) win, an interesting blogger whose optimism is somewhat dampened by new information that he shares in How it could all go wrong in Libya:
Another reason to wish the gold mythos would just die already.
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 3:39pm
What are the odds that the proceeds of the LOC will go to the Libyan people rather than into the coffers of a select few?
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 3:43pm
Probably zero directly. But indirectly the fact that the select few have gotten their claws on the LOC gives them some extra motivation (nah,they've got motivation enough trying to stay alive) extra bargaining chips to use to buy the allegiance of some of Qadaffi's less devoted followers.
by Flavius on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:38pm
What is the gold mythos?
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 3:54pm
I am also unfamiliar with the term, but a Google search suggests that I should buy Mythos gold! (Somehow, I don't think that's what EmmaZahn is talking about, though.)
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:00pm
I'm pretty sure she means all the gold standard maniac types and beyond that just the value that humans still give it, it makes no sense, its a fetish we hang on to from the ancient past, like there's other metals that are more intrinsicially valuable now and other commdodities that really do have incredible actual value that isn't just in our heads, like er, oil. Hunk of yellow metal, not useful for a whole lot, and people still going crazy over it.....why silver gets so dissed in comparison, it's just as sparkly and you can do more with it....
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:22pm
Actually, gold is an excellent conductor and is very useful in electronics… (but otherwise, I agree completely with the sentiment that it's over-valued)
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:24pm
That a gold and gold-backed currency have some kind of super money power. Why else would Gaddafi have accumulated 143.8 tonne of it?
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:49pm
Why else would Gaddafi have accumulated 143.8 tonne of it?
http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:58pm
That's my point -- the belief, the myth that gold is special is what drove the price up. Well, that and speculators preying on those who so believe.
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 5:04pm
I assume that you use the word "myth" to mean an accepted story passed along by the culture rather than the with the incorrect definition of "false belief". A myth can be true. The myth [story] of golds value against paper currncy has been demonstrated too many times to disregard, IMO.
I believe that every person investing is speculating. If you are thinking of gold and silver merchants stoking fear as "preying" , and some do, I would agree, but in that case the buyer who is scared can still buy at a world commodity price as long as he picks an honest dealer and does not fall for crap hype about coins.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 5:56pm
Neither the gold nor the paper are truly money. They are only symbols representing money.
AFAIK, no one is advocating a return to coins along with a return to a gold standard. Most gold will be held in vaults and paper will be printed with the notation gold certificate to use as a medium of exchange. Very few people will even notice the difference because the money of choice nowadays is plastic with a magnetic strip on the back that links back to a bank account.
The perceived advantage of gold to paper is its limited supply but that is also its own chief disadvantage. Eventually gold hoarders will manage to draw enough actual gold or gold certirficates out of circulation to precipitate a 'crisis' and something will be done.
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 6:50pm
When I spoke of coins I meant gold and silver coins sold at a very high premium over the bullion value for hoarding and/or investment rather than new coins minted for circulation.
Most of gold's value, other than its limited supply is people's perception of its value. A thing is actually worth what you can sell it for.
I don't agree with your last sentence because I don't know of any vital need for gold so having 99% hid under peoples beds won't cause any crisis. I do believe that peoples fear "that something will be done", like confiscation, is the selling point for coins. Silver, on the other hand has many industrial uses and either more is mined or the supply diminishes even without anyone hoarding.
Money is a tough concept for me to get a handle on but if gold and paper money are only symbols of money, what actually is money? I do know that ultimately you cannot eat either one of them.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 7:40pm
Yes, money is very hard to wrap one's head around but in my mind you defined it very well: the perception of value that people give it. Money can be gold or beads or paper or giant stones even distilled corn as long as those things are accepted as either a medium of exchange; a store of value or a unit of account.
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 7:56pm
Thanks. The oil thing may be related to the Turkey not liking France's motives thing. France is the one that had the hots to recognize the rebels.
I was just going to comment on Flavius thread on the oil thing but thought better of it. Short form of what I was going to say was that if there wasn't the question of who is controlling the oil undecided, then you can quit a no fly zone after most of the big weapons are destroyed and just let them have at it, there's no need for planes to keep flying overhead. (Why I didn't comment there--I am not a fan of the moral outrage reaction of "it's all about the oil". Drives me nuts. Because it's like duh, yeah, of course. Oil is power, oil is like land was in past wars, or the search for gold was once, of course it's about the oil, it's got to be if you don't want people blackmailing the world economy with it. That's just reality, if you're going to get outraged about it I hope you're living a 95% oil-less life.) But for the oil problem, where you have to end up with someone stable and not nuts controlling its sale, the intervention could stop with destroying the major weapons and sufficiently (not perfectly) maintaining a weapons blockade and freeze on Gaddafi's funds.
Which bring up your gold point. How liquid or fungible is his pot of gold? Doesn't it devalue it some if you have to sort of fence it if it's in big gold bars? Doesn't he have to fire up a mint and make like collectible coins to pay people outside of Victor Bout types?I don't know, I'm asking. Who could/would take it and would it be at market value?
In any case, isn't it still kinda hard to have one new tank or jet delivered without anyone knowing about it much less several?
I guess you can always have your hired thugs use machetes like in Rwanda....
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:08pm
Could you consider that some moral outrage is warranted when our government continues to involve itself militarily because of oil but says it is for other reasons? I think the "all about oil" conclusion is as obviously correct as you say it is, so when leaders choose to bomb other countries rather than invest the cost of the bombs in alternatives to oil, but they say the bombing is for the benefit of those being bombed, I get pretty damned pissed. Your phrase for that is "moral Outrage'. Why is that moral outrage so tiresome for you? Why, just because you see the "real" reason [a morally outrageous one, IMO] that it is "all about oil" are you only judgmental about the people who are pissed that it is "all about oil"? Or do you think it is okay to go to war for oil while not making an honest effort to position ourselves so that we do not feel the need and the justification to kill for it?
If Saudi Arabia blows up and we try to stabilize it militarily and we are told that we have to go in with every option on the table because it has come to our attention that their women are forced to wear burkas, I will be pissed again. Will you be okay with it just because you know the obvious truth and only be pissed at people who are pissed about something bad that is obviously true?
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:37pm
Your moral outrage does you credit. But do you agree that if you were living in Benghazi ten days ago ,terrified that your wife would be repeatedly raped and your children killed you would have been overjoyed when the US and French planes and missiles saved you ?
I'm not suggesting that that is the end of the discussion. Just trying to see whether you feel the way I do on this point.
by Flavius on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 11:13pm
Of course I would expect to have been overjoyed by any relief from wherever it came if it saved my family. That is because I am a human being putting myself in the place of another scared shitless human being, not because I am a "right thinking American" that knows what is best for other people to do in the world .
I suppose we could go anywhere from here. maybe I would be overjoyed that my family was saved but recognize that the saving was just incidental to other motives on the side of the saviors and could have gone any other way and they wouldn't have given a flying fuck. Not really, because saving me wasn't really their first concern anyway.. I think I might have recognized that.
Look. I am really conflicted as to what to wish for in this case. It looks like a place where we might stop some very significant death and destruction. For a little while. In this case I don't know what I would have decided if I had been in the position of deciding. That hasn't been my situation for quite a few of our wars. I have been confident in what I thought our country should not do most of the time. I have commented almost zero about Libya because of my lack of conviction in this particular case. But, I absolutely do not want to support bombing people on any side based on bullshit concocted reasons fed to me just to so I would buy into a short term solution that might keep us on the same path for a little longer. I am not a pacifist even if my first reflex is to be anti-war. I think we are on a bad path so I think that the sooner we change course the better. I am not trying to say that there is an obvious good or pragmatic course to take but I am thoroughly convinced that we, as a country have taken some that could be seen as obviously bad paths at the time the decision was made to take them. The longer that we stay on what I think is the wrong course the more pissed off comments I will throw out into the cosmos.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 12:46am
Fair enough.Thanks for making the effort to reply.
I support what Obama did but swing from a shamefully adolescent satisfaction that our side is winning , to remembering that our side is killing real human being on the other side.
I'm sufficiently blood thirsty to know I'd be pleased that Qaddafi was killed. But it's not hundreds or thousands versions of Qaddafi who've been killed so far; it's been human beings, many of them mercenaries working at the only job with which they can support a wife and children.
Would those same soldiers have raped and killed if they'd occupied Benghazi?. Some of them- that's what happens when armies fight their way into a town.(When Singapore surrendered the Japanese agreed the occupying force should be was composed of fresh arrivals, not ones who'd fought their way there) .
But , when I am not in that unappealing state of pleasure in our win , I realize that many of the occupiers would have behaved , even have tried to reduce the violence, and among the ones who didn't there'd be degrees of violence.
I never reach the point of even considering "oil" because I don't get beyond this internal conflict about the need to kill in order to reduce the killing- I hope.. .
.
by Flavius on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 8:52am
I really doubt Gaddafi has very much of that gold in pot(s) close to hand. More likely it is in vaults around the globe in safekeeping with gold dealers so transfers would be in some form of paper or electronic medium -- just like regular money. I do not know but would guess that there is a network of fellow thugs Gaddafi can deal with and through who still believe there is something special about gold or gold certificates and belief is really all it takes to make something a medium of exchange.
by EmmaZahn on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 5:02pm
North Korea says: you shouldn't have given up your nuke program, ya moron:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/asia/25korea.html?ref=todayspaper
by artappraiser on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 4:12pm