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

    Libya - Was Obama Right?

    By NCD on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 8:04pm |

    Following are excerpts from Dagbloggers on the Libya intervention from March through 1 June. Who got it right? Who got it wrong? What do the naysayers of a few months ago say now?

    In my opinion Obama did make the right call here.  He insisted the Europeans take the lead in aerial operations as they have done for months through NATO. Although there has been a large loss of life, NATO has not lost anyone, and a fanatical dictator may be close to removal without US 'boots on the ground' with no US casualties.   The 'ragtag' rebels are in the streets of Tripoli, not the Marines.

    Why are the Republicans (and Dagblog) dead quiet on how this conflict has gone?

    Following are passages from the linked Dagblog pages:


    Why We Shouldn't Intervene In Libya
    by destor23 3/16/2011

    ...The first is that U.S. soldiers will surely die in the effort.....  In Somalia, in the 90s, we had aircraft shot out of the sky by rag tag militias.  The battle to extract trapped soldiers was so fierce that it was memorialized in the book and movie Black Hawk Down.......Of course, the idea of sticking it to Gadhafi and using military magic to free an oppressed people has a certain appeal...
    by Destor 3/16/2011

    I'm going to throw in a real politik concern that you didn't mention in your column. Many experts are skeptical that a no-fly zone will stop Gadhafi's advance in any case. If the no-fly zone failed to stop Gadhafi, what options would that leave us?
    by Destor 3/16/2011

    If the no-fly zone failed to stop Gadhafi, what options would that leave us?
    a) Invasion
    b) A crazy, oil-rich Arab despot who hates us (again)
    I used to be more idealistic in my beliefs about the benign use of U.S. military power, but I've come to believe that short of stopping genocide, intervention costs too much (in money and lives, ours and theirs) and produces too little.
    by Genghis 3/16/2011

    I'm generally wary of saying a military operation will or won't work since I'm just guessing.  But, boy... the people who say it will work don't have the best track records of accuracy by my accounting.
    by destor23 3/16/2011

    1. The slippery slope: As Gates and co. keep saying, a no-fly zone implies taking out Libyan air defences -- an act of war. Plus, nothing says a no-fly zone tips the balance. Gaddafi's forces are on a roll, and I think it will take trained, organized, well-equipped boots on the ground to stop them. Who's up for that? Because the alternative might be having a no-fly zone in effect, and nobody left alive to protect.......
    by acanuck 3/16/2011

    I guess I take the narrow focus on American lives and treasure........
    by destor23 3/16/2011

    Seems to me that they have a giant military that they need to keep busy.
    by Donal 3/16/2011

    Nobody with any smarts in the international diplomatic community is going to send out a laissez faire or isolationist message at this time. Doesn't mean they plan on doing anything , they just have to sound like they might, depending on what happens. Because sounding like they might do something could do a lot just in itself. I think they are watching what happens and they have to be ready to do all kinds of things.
    by artappraiser 3/16/2011

    I don't want the US to put troops in Libya.  And I doubt that a no-fly zone would be effective......I also wish that Barack Obama hadn't shot his mouth off about how Gadaffi "must go" and "must leave now" - not if he wasn't prepared to back up his talk with action....  
    by Dan Kervick 3/16/2011

    Obama made a big mistake by saying that.  Maybe he made a backroom offer of that island that Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos lived on for his retirement and thought Gadhafi would go for it?  Or, more likely, he heard Republicans criticizing him for his silence on the issue and he fell right into their trap. Again.
    by destor23 3/17/2011

    I've argued pretty consistently (above, and on related threads) against U.S. intervention in Libya. One of my basic assumptions was that China and/or Russia would veto any no-fly resolution at the Security Council. But there's been a flurry of activity at the UN, with reports of a possible vote as early as this afternoon, and a change in tone from the White House and State Dept. That suggests China and Russia may have signaled they'll abstain, or at least not exercise their vetos. That changes things a lot; legality still carries a certain amount of weight.

    by acanuck 3/17/2011

    If Sarkozy wants to act, pay the bill and face his own voters, fine with me.
    But I'm pretty sure that the US will wind up doing everything and paying for it.
    by destor23 3/18/2011

    Iraq to Libya, from tragedy to farce?
    by David Seaton 3/20/2011 - 1:59 pm

    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.
    by David Seaton 3/20/2011

    ...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.
    by Beetlejuice 3/20/2011

    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 3/20/2011 - 3:41 pm

    I could readily be convinced that we shouldn't have participated in Libya .....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 bslev 3/20/2011

    I don't see where the supplies are going to come from (for Gadaffi) to keep this going for as long as everyone is worried about.
    by kgb999 3/20/2011

    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 3/21/2011
     
    Wouldn't cruise missiles and F-16s change the risk/reward calculus considerably?
    by kgb999 3/21/2011

    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.
    by David Seaton 3/21/2011

    Libya, Obama, and the Just War Theory

    Barack Obama's decision to join the attack on Libya is very much of a piece with his Nobel Prize acceptance speech....
    Doctor Cleveland  3/23/2011

    I find it actually worrying that the US can increasingly go to war without it costing anything in terms of blood or treasure. The drone-bombings in Yemen and Pakistan, for instance - no one cares...
    by Obey 3/24/2011

    The Ongoing Lies In Libya
    by destor23 5/31/2011

    ....NATO has decided that there will be no ceasefire until Qaddafi steps down.  But that's partly because the Libyan rebels will accept nothing less than that.  If he stays in power, they keep fighting.  Since they're the civilians that NATO was sent to protect, that means NATO has to keep fighting too.  In effect, NATO is now an arm of Libya's rebellion.  What bothers me about this is not NATO taking sides against Qaddafi, it's that these rebels in Libya, with unclear political agendas, are really making the policy decisions for NATO, while citizens of NATO countries will get stuck with all of the costs.
    America's citizens never had a public debate about supporting a military action to depose Qaddafi.....America should have been told right from the start that the purpose of these operations was to push Qaddafi out of power.  NATO should ask the UN for a new, more honest, resolution.  The President should seek Congressional approval for this new goal......
    by destor 5/31/2011

    I am still wondering what Qaddafi did to alienate global bankers enough that they so openly sided against him.  A functional central bank requires access to the global banking system.
    by EmmaZahn 5/31/2011

    I'm not convinced it will be long either. I've been hoping from the start that we peel off the inner circle and the key tribes from around Gaddafi, and wrap this thing the hell up. The problem is, there's no guarantee on that, and every day it lasts means more death, which means more anger afterward, more retaliation, etc....
    by quinn esq 6/2/2011

    I agreed with intervening to protect Benghazi. Then we should have stopped......
    by Flavius 6/1/2011

    LATEST NYT: TRIPOLI, Libya — Rebels surged into the Libyan capital Sunday night, meeting only sporadic resistance from troops loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and setting off raucous street celebrations by residents hailing the end of his 42 years in power. The rebel leadership announced that insurgents had captured two of Colonel Qaddafi’s sons.....

     

    Comments

    Happy to have been wrong about the loss of US lives and happy to have been wrong about thinking this would be a quagmire. I should word things more carefully where the future is the issue. But I maintain, with evidence, that the US role was larger than is generally understood and we certainly spent millions on this while debating fiscal austerity at home. More importantly, I stand by the belief that we entered into this without proper public debate and I do believe that the War Powers Act was violated. Happy for a favorable result but not pleased at all by the abuse of law and process, which I think is more important.

    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 8:57pm

    Destor, you sound like a Republican, very few of whom would have voted with Obama on this NATO action.

    Almost all of the Republicans, of course,  voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq, without 'public debate', without facts but with lies, a few weeks before an election, and with little or no concern about US lives or any other lives lost or destroyed.

    I am sure folks like you could have argued on the 'law and process' of this action down to the last person's life in Benghazi or Libya, and then blamed it all on Obama.

    If anyone you know at News Corp. has the scoop on 'the US role' being 'larger than is generally understood' please let us know the facts.

    Frankly, you sound a lot like a typical Fox News 'people say' blowhard, which I suppose isn't surprising as you work for a Murdoch publication.


    by NCD on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 9:20pm

    Come on NCD, I don't have any special information!  I base my statement on public statements made by the U.S. military's Africa command. Our planes have been flying a lot of missions.  The mission is under NATO command, but U.S. assets have been used since day one.  Nobody can deny that.

    You mention the legality of the war in Iraq. Well, I think that the Congress and people were lied to about the clear and present danger there and that the was was illegal from the start based on that.  But, the Congress did, sadly, vote for it, and that includes prominent Democrats who ran for the Presidency in the years that followed, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.  Good on Obama for not being fooled when it first came up.

    You say:

    "I am sure folks like you could have argued on the 'law and process' of this action down to the last person's life in Benghazi or Libya, and then blamed it all on Obama."

    I wouldn't have done that.  But I do think that the legitimacy of the War Powers Act is the more important issue here and I think Obama violated it. Would the Republicans in Congress have gone along with him on this?  Probably not.  They don't go along with him on anything.  But that's not really the issue, is it?  The issue is the law.  You go into a  potential war with the Congress you have, not the Congress you want, to coin a phrase.

    Now, to the personal stuff:  I write a column for a News Corp. publication, yes.  I used to be a staff writer and editor at Forbes.  I was also once an intern at Mother Jones.  Now work by day outside of journalism for a staunch Democrat who is an impressive Obama donor.  Funny thing about capitalism -- a guy needs a job!

    But I do write honestly, here, there and where I can find an audience.  I've never insulted you, NCD, and yet you call me a blowhard.  I suppose I must be, to spout off the way I do and the way I have, even on Fox, but it seems rotten of you to post here calling me names over a friendly disagreement. 


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:21pm

    I didn't say you were a blowhard, I said in this case you sounded like one. I also don't believe it is 'nasty' to recall commentary made on this site (a comment below). Obama made a tough call over complaints from the left and right, he seems so far to have gotten it right, and a country has a chance for freedom, without one American casualty.

    The talk of 'process' by some seems to mimic the GOP ranting about Libya, which even led to calls to impeach Obama. 'Process' on Libya would have turned into a circus on the Hill, raised risks, and cost more lives, while the GOP played partisan games. 

    3/2011 - Conservative Media Agitate For Obama Impeachment Over Libya Intervention

    Now McCain and Graham are complaining Obama didn't use enough US air power, while just a couple months ago Boehner was writing Bills to cut off funding for Libya operations. 

    Obama's handling of this has reinforced my opinion that in spite of all his faults and failures, he can make some very good calls in foreign policy and the use of our armed forces.


    by NCD on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 12:31am

    Of course, Obama's political opponents are going to attack him by whatever means they have at their disposal.  You might recall that during the Clinton presidency, Republicans were suddenly anti-war regarding the Balkans.  Actually, at the time, I had some Serbian friends whose innocent families were on the receiving end of NATO's bombs and so I was against that war too.  But I think there's a difference between being anti-war, as I am in almost all cases, and just taking any opportunity to attack the president, which is what the Republicans are doing.

    Let's face it, if Obama came out with an idea to not tax income over $1 million, the very Republicans who you'd assume would love the idea would find a reason to hate it.  They are trying to undermine him.  My objections, I think, are ideological.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:26am

     

    Why do you denigrate "law and process," NCD? Much of our difficulty over the last decade or so can be traced to politicians who ignore, or manipulate them. Have you concluded they are passé?


    by Red Planet on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:57pm

    The entire history of civilization is those in power ignoring and manipulating law and process - i am really tired of people acting as if what is happening today is somehow something new.  The only difference is the information through the web, etc. has accelerated the people's discussion of the fact.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:04pm

    This.

    But, also, as you said, more of us are in on it now, because of the new media.  So, people are right to be outraged, even newly outraged.  We have to have this out some time.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:13pm

    But what is the alternative?  The People's Government?  That isn't saying people shouldn't be outraged, but simply that the outrage be reasonable.  Which is an unreasonable expectation. Welcome to the human condition, I suppose.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 12:19am

    If you're going to excerpt me, excerpt me for real:

     

    There are various grounds on which a reasonable person could object to the Libya strikes . . . . But the decision absolutely fits within a coherent and very traditional moral philosophy.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 9:21pm

    And, of course, this post: http://dagblog.com/politics/only-1000-soldiers-9579

    One of the frequent talking points about the Libyan rebels is that they only have about a thousand trained soldiers in their ranks. As the meme went around, it sometimes turned into only 1000 soldiers, period, which is clearly not true. And the "1000 men" meme has been used to shore up certain anti-intervention talking points, even though it undermines others.

    The most obvious use of the "only 1000 soldiers" point was to imply that intervention was hopeless, because there was no way the rebels could win. That argument doesn't look as good this morning, after the rebels have taken Ajdabiya and pushed onward ....

    by Doctor Cleveland on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 9:27pm

     

    What's happening in Tripoli tonight is promising for Libyans. Let's hope they are able to create a representative government to replace Ghaddafi.

    But America's involvement was illegitimate and disingenuous. Tonight doesn't change that.

    Was Obama right to ignore the U.S. constitution and, by executive decree, initiate another American backed war in the Middle East? No. Tonight doesn't change that.

     


    by Red Planet on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 9:47pm

    Glad to see you here, RP, and also glad to see NCD's passionate and provocative post promoted to Dag's homepage. I think you have it right -- no tears for the dictator, but serious questions about who has what authority here in the U.S.  The right result can be reached by the wrong methodology.  That should not justify the methodology.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:24pm

    This is a timely post, Destor. Will be interesting to follow the commentary. I'm a bit taken aback by the triumphalism, and the overt support for Obama's dismissal of "law and process."

    Maybe IOKIYAD now.


    by Red Planet on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:41pm

    I fear that there IS some IOKIYAD going on right now, while people are threatned.

    I've also been afraid that some are of the mindset that "it's okay if you're Obama."

    But I always thought that we liberals held our politicians to a higher standard.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:56pm

    We should. Or at least we did. Seems to me, I remember FDR had to perform some shenanigans to get us into the European part of WWII.

    It is also true, that sometimes we have to, er, bend the rules to do what is right.

    That said, it bears close scrutiny when a President, and especially a Democratic one, crosses the line, and there is no doubt that President Obama did. If he was right to do so is a question for posterity. I do not believe it is possible to answer that now.

    Just sayin'.

    ​I think it is absolutely right to call this decision out and question it.


    by bwakfat on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 12:31am

    Exactly this. There might be a time and place to bend the rule of law, but it should always be scrutinized and always challenged. I would draw a parallel to civil disobedience: you should be willing to go to jail for what you believe is the right thing to do. If the President thinks this was absolutely the right thing to do, then he should be willing to be impeached for doing so. Note, I'm not arguing that we should impeach him, just that he should only bend the law when he the consequences are so grave that he is willing to be impeached for doing so.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:22am

    Good grief! Well this is distressing.

    I can't help but feel, NCD, that you could have made your point in a myriad of other ways. I think this way is unnecessarily nasty.

    Who was right about Libya? I'll let you know in 20 years. Until then, seems to me the point is moot.


    by bwakfat on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:44pm

    Since I wasn't excerpted, I don't if I should grace this blog.  What?  Am I chopped liver?

    Really all this comes down to is whether the US should ever use the military to impact the geo-political landscape.

    If one believes there is a time and place for such actions, then Obama did right,.

    If one believes there is never a time and place for such actions, the Obama did wrong.

    Probably the looming question on the periphery at places like dagblog is whether one can agree with the former viewpoint and still consider oneself a liberal.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:54pm

    Good final question, Trope.  But of course one can identify with either view, or even one between them, and identify as a liberal.  I've obviously made my views on this clear  but there is the issue of a whole lot of people not being dominated by a dictator anymore.  That's a good thing.  I worry that it was achieved in a manner that will have bad consequences.  But you can be anywhere on this spectrum and still celebrate the cause of human freedom.  There's a lot of room to be wrong and right here without calling each other names.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:02pm

    • I think you asked whether it is possible, at dagblog, for one to both a) think that it is sometimes okay to use the military to impact the geo-political aspect and b) still consider oneself a liberal.

      Yes, of course it is.

      Your question is one of political philosophy. But there's a more important question, especially given our military history over the past decade, which is whether any president can ignore the US Constitution and the War Powers Act, as Obama did, and make war against a foreign power by executive decree.

      No matter how the hostilities turn out, that will never be right.


    by Red Planet on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:10pm

    No matter how the hostilities turn out, that will never be right.

    Exactly.  It's no excuse that the trains ran on time.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:15pm

    How's this: can a liberal believe that the War Powers Act is, in its current form, not aligned with the needs to further the rights of the oppressed in today's 21st century world?  And that a president who ignores the Act in order to achieve greater liberty and freedom for the oppressed is in the end no different than any act of civil disobedience by the most liberal of activists?

     Because if you want to claim total adherence to the laws of the land, then you cannot back those who act against any laws no matter how righteous they believe their cause to be.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 12:27am

    But "the most liberal of activists" have not taken a solemn, public oath to uphold the laws and constitution. In fact, they accept that they are open to punishment for their acts of civil disobedience. That's the difference.

    Look, every president will argue that his war-du-jour -- from Vietnam to Iraq to Syria -- is being conducted "to further the rights of the oppressed." It's virtually always bullshit, and the people being aided or liberate virtually always pay the price. If the War Powers Act is outdated, pass a new law.


    by acanuck on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 4:22am

     

    Civil disobedience is a tactic of the powerless against the powerful. Even though it is most often ineffective, I support its use.

    When the President of the USA acts in contravention of the law, that is not civil disobedience.

    I can imagine a scenario in which the President might feel forced to use the military without first seeking approval from Congress, but it would have to:

    a) Be a credible threat to the security of the USA, and

    b) Require the immediate application of military force.

    In fact, the War Powers Act provides for such an event, requiring only that the President come to Congress within a reasonable period of time afterward, which Obama refused to do.

    No one ever argued that Libyan civil war was an imminent threat to the USA.

     

    by Red Planet on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:04am

    Last I remember discussing Lybia was when those rag-tag rebels created a Central Bank ... kinda odd isn't that seeing how they didn't have any real leaders then and now or any substantial idea of what they were rebelling about?

    Now couple that with Kadaffi has over the years over invested much of the national sovereign wealth into gold ... I believe it was about 15 tons or so.

    Now look at the price of gold ... over $1800 a troy ounce currently.

    Add the current price for gold and a rag-tag mob creating a Central Bank without the slightest clue what they're doing and for some strange reason I get the impression someone is stirring the pot to get their hands on the gold and disappear before anyone gets wise.

    By the way ... have you noticed the Egyptians are have buyers remorse over their Arab Spring?

     


    by Beetlejuice on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 10:59pm

    The Egyptian people don't seem to be having buyers' remorse over deposing Mubarak, Beetle. The ruling military council is feeling the heat, but screw them.


    by acanuck on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 4:26am

    Since I believe I wrote most of what I had to say about Libya on other blogs, not here, I will just state the positions I took at the time.

    In the early days of the Libyan uprising, Ghadafi had been driven into a virtual bunker situation in Tripoli.  Regime officials, including his ambassador had abandoned him.  The rebels were pushing forward with ease and the regime could not mount a coherent military defense.  Ghadafi appeared to be losing some control of the media, and was afraid even to appear out on the street in public.  The evidence seemed to indicate Ghadafi's military command chain was crumbling.  My position was that we should have at that time dropped a bomb on Ghadafi.  That, I believe, would have ended the uprising with a quick and successful victory for the rebels, helped advance the spirit and drive of the revolutionary wave that was sweeping the region following the incredible events in Tunisia and Egypt, and rid the world of one of its major assholes.

    Obama then said, "Ghadafi must go."   But he dawdled for two precious weeks doing nothing, allowing Ghadafi to regroup militarily and politically.  Obama looked feckless, having issued his "must go" message, but then looking like he was unprepared to back it up with action.  When he did finally intevene he did not articulate outright support for the rebel overthrow of Ghadafi, but turned the intervention into a so-called "humanitarian mission" aimed, supposedly, only at ending the violence   This emboldened Ghadafi supporters to think that Obama would now accept a negotiated settlement with Ghadafi staying in power, and made the job of the rebels much harder.   The mission and uprising has thus dragged on for months, when it could have been ended quickly and decisively.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:13pm

    Your whole scenario is built upon the erroneous notion that Obama and the US was solely in charge of the decisions.  In part it seems you would want it that way - ie how pathetic that US joined a coalition and allowed the coalition to dictate things.  The US is and should always be the final decider in matters such as these.


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 12:31am

    Sorry, but that is not and was not my point.  I don't think the US was in charge beyond the fact that they knew where Ghadaffi was and could have killed him if they had so chosen.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 7:03am

    US action on Libya was debated in these two comment sections at the old Washington Note site:

    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2011/03/comments_to_al/#comments

    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2011/03/supporting_a_no/#comments


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 7:25am

    Why are the Republicans (and Dagblog) dead quiet on how this conflict has gone?

    I can't speak for the Republicans (well I can, but they wouldn't like it). As for myself, I haven't had anything intelligent to say about the conflict (not that that usually stops me).

    In any case, I'm glad that my skepticism was misplaced, I'm glad that we were able to help the rebels, and I'm excited that the war may be soon be over and one more Middle Eastern tyrant dethroned.

    PS But that won't stop me from being skeptical the next time.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 11:58pm


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 12:44am


    by Elusive Trope on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 1:10am

    Don't put up the "Mission Accomplished" banner just yet. Yes, the U.S. and NATO achieved their goal of regime change, even if it took a rather loose interpretation of the UN resolution. Military success provides domestic political cover, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether the war was justified.

    Intervening countries suffered no casualties, but thousands of  Libyans did die. What the survivors will get out of this remains to be seen. I hope it's a democratic government responsive to their needs, but I have serious doubts. 

    Key leaders of the transitional government are defecting ex-officials of the Gadhafi regime, who profited well from their decades of loyalty. (The rebellion often looked more like a palace coup.) Lower ranks obviously include civic-minded patriots, but also salafists who want a rigid Islamist state.

    Crucially, the incoming government lacks a unifying, popular leader. Even under Qadhafi, Libya was a fractious, tribal, sectarian state. Think of Yugoslavia at the time of Tito's death. Now that the common enemy has fallen, those internal divisions and rifts will bubble to the surface. Just three weeks ago, the commander of the rebel forces was murdered, along with two aides, by troops loyal to a rival. The transitional council initially lied about what happened, and have never offered a full explanation. That's troubling.

    I hope I'm misjudging Libya's new leaders. But most of these guys happily served Qadhafi for decades, and now they are all much closer to the honey pot -- vast oil  reserves and accumulated sovereign wealth funds. And the countries that installed them in power have their own financial stakes. The Libyan people are the ones most likely to be screwed -- again.


    by acanuck on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 3:53am

    I know exactly what you're saying but I would like to introduce some big picture thoughts on this typical complaint.

    I would counter that there's no angels in this world.  People romanticize revolutionary change as if both bad things and good things don't happen with change (See Reign of Terror.)

    When you change anything, it's usually the case that some people get benefits and others lose them. (Hence true conservatives-unlike the neo kind--don't like change.) And furthermore, it's nearly impossible to predict the long term effects of the change.

    Humans that think they can control the results of change are the stuff of great comedies and tragedies of literature. With a terrible situation, all most humans can do is get change moving, see what happens; to think that they can control what happens afterwards is folly. Still, sometimes just catalyzing change is the best option. But doing so with the full knowledge that you can't control what happens afterwards.

    I for one hope we don't try to control the situation in Libya more tightly. That's where the real folly would come in.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:28am

    I like your statement. I just heard on MSNBC, "Given all the controversy about Obama taking a vacation, will he make a speech or just issue of message."?  Right, everyone is controversating about Obama's vacation. I know I am and most of my neighbors are. Even the guy running the 7/11 is.

    It has always seemed correct for the U.S. to take the lowest possible profile in this action in Libya. I think the Arab Spring in the long context of history is on a level with the demise of the Soviet Union. We can't control it. We can only stop ourselves from being a foil for the Muslim Brotherhood.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:48am

    The vacation whining reminds me of when Bill Clinton was on "vacation" on the Cape with Hillary mad at him over Monica Lewinsky revelations. And he calls an emergency press conference, they had to hold  it at the local school. The frenzied pack is waiting for him to announce he's resigning or something like that over his private failings. But instead he announces he's been busy conferring with foreign policy/joint chiefs of staff/intel agencies and just lobbed missiles at Osama bin Laden targets in Afghanistan and Sudan.  Some vacation and private time with family after an extramartial affair is exposed, huh? (Of course some said it was "wag the dog." Wag the dog, indeed; there would have been no 9/11 and probably no Iraq invasion had those missiles worked.)


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 10:37am

    Ends do not justify the means.

    What was the international principle set down by this action?

    How will we differentiate this from Egypt or Tunisia or Yemen or Syria?
    How will we differentiate this approach when China or Russia try it?

    Having a foreign-supported uprising has long been a strategy for justifying invasion. Example: Nazi support of ethnic German discontent in Sudetenland, Russian encouragement of Ossetia separatism in Georgia, US creation of Panamanian "independence" sentiments to steal the isthmus from Colombia, etc.

    The guise that this was all done for humanitarian reasons is still very phony - I'm sure the Chinese can figure out a way to invade Taipei for humanitarian reasons.

    Why did we not act in Sierra Leone when the outgoing government stayed instead of bowing to election results?

    In short: there was no real policy put forward - it was simply an action that we like, and we'll promptly erase the reasons in the next case if we don't like it. (or even currently, such as protestors in Bahrain who've been shut up by Bahrain and Saudi troops - would interfere with our naval base there)


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 5:21am

    Additionally, have we planned the post-revolution, and do we have any sense what it will bring?

    (Actually we've been signing contracts with East Libya for oil, so we have that wrapped up - but is that our modus operandi for the new world order? And will this next government be democratic, or another vein of Mideast totalitarianism or religious fanaticism? How do we deal with this issues within a real diplomatic framework?)


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 5:24am

    I've been trying to fit your two posts together. I don't know why but it reminds me of my college roommate from Brooklyn who as a Freshman famously said, "This food is terrible. And besides that, there is not enough of it."


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 7:23am

    Please re-read then.

    I was initially thrilled with Khomeini and the Iranian revolution, after reading interviews with him (his pronouncements from Paris were regularly carried by BBC to the masses in Iran).

    Once the Shah fell, and Khomeini's revolutionary guard started walking people off the tops of buildings (politely crushing their vocal cords so not to hear them scream), the enthusiasm waned.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

    What will be the long-term result even in Egypt? (more pressure now on Israel, as one good result... what else?)

    It's really about our (US) plan and how it stacks up as a long-term policy.

    Or for your friend, either it's a lean bad meal and we go out for lunch instead, or it's a huge well-thought out feast. Not enough good food or a whole lot of bad food are the undigestible alternatives.

    Why aren't we bombing Syria already to keep them from killing civilians? What's the identifiable difference, aside from some arbitrary line of "Qaddafi's easy, Assad isn't"? Oil reserves? Occupation of a town?

    How did a "humanitarian mission" turn quickly into regime change, and how come us more cynical types knew it would from Day 1? How come other humanitarian missions are so scarce, even where thousands more are killed?

    You're talking about 1 meal, I'm talking about the semester's menu.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 8:11am

    Thanks. Come to think about it we may have gone out for pizza that night. As for the semester, I think there is no syllabus or road map other than play the cards as they are relentlessly dealt in the Arab Spring. I would have done exactly what Obama did in Libya.  

    I think the fact that there are not more humanitarian missions where the prospect of starvation and murder are even worse than might have been the case in Libya is a very good question and I have no answer for it whatsoever.  


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:32am

    It was a rhetorical question, Oxy. "The prospect of starvation and murder" never figures at all in the decision to intervene. It's like WMD. You decide to go to war, then pick the most plausible excuse. Or manufacture one. It's easy; the ad campaign writes itself.


    by acanuck on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 2:07pm

    Right. Sometimes I even answer my own rhetorical questions.

    I think that the sequence you mention is, unfortunately, hard wired into the brain. Hit first, then justify it.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 3:07pm

    By the way, I agree with you that we have no idea how this is going to turn out. I suspect the real fighting hasn't even begun. This looks like the rope a dope which the Bathists pulled in Iraq.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 3:10pm

    I heard the news on the car radio at two AM this morning. BBC reporters were calling this the only true revolution in the Arab Spring because Libya is the only regime that lost more than a figurehead. They didn't mention that Libya had a lot more oil, too, which dropped about $2 per barrel. I still think Obama was wrong, and I agree that it is far from over.


    by Donal on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 8:25am

    How could Obama be wrong if the price of oil dropped? wink


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:29am

    Only Brent, the European exchange rate, dropped. WTI, in Cushing OK, went up a bit.


    by Donal on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 10:36am

    My immediate thoughts were geopolitical: Assad is toast.

    And if that turns out to be true, then the Iranian mullahs will start feeling real toasty soon.

    As to whether Obama/Clinton/Nato alllies were actually thinking and hoping for such a geopolitical result and were successful with what they were trying to do is something we can't really know for sure until the history books come out.

    I am pretty sure, though, that a big reason for many of the NATO members to get involved was stability of the oil availability situation. Unlike others, I don't have a problem with that motive. I think that generally it's good for world leaders to be concerned about the stable access of their peoples to energy. That if they aren't concerned about that, much worse misery and war could result than with interventions meant to insure energy stability. It's folly to think that one country being high minded and moral about basic needs such as energy or water will stop other countries from fighting and causing much misery over such things. It's the way they pursue it is of course where the rub always lies.

    One thing I did believe and still do, from watching Obama's initial speech on the intervention in Libya, is that he made the decision mostly along the lines of "it's a no brainer," that it would be easy to do this, that it wouldn't cost a lot in U.S. lives and treasure (as if he would pull out if it threatened to so so) and that it was a chance to provide an example of American Exceptionalism and the support of the U.N. concept without much cost. He was so uncharacteristically sure it was a no brainer that he didn't seem to give much of a damn about what Congress or anyone else thought. Whereas intervening for the same reason in similar situations would be much more problematic. We've seen ample examples of him being very cautious to a fault.  Here he was uncharacteristically sure of his decision; the decision to do the Osama Bin Laden raid in Pakistan was another rare example.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 12:27pm

    My immediate thoughts were geopolitical: Assad is toast.

    Don't even go there. Not talking to you, appraiser; that advice is for the president.

    It took half a year of combined offense by the rebels, NATO, the Emirates and the U.S. to pry a country of 6.5 million (with an obsolete military) out of Qadhafi's hands. Syria is 23 million, Iran 78 million. These things don't scale up very easily, despite what "liberal interventionists" will now be tempted to think.

    Syria is quite similar to Libya, a fractious country held together for decades by the glue of repression. It would be a mistake to assume those fighting the state are all liberal democrats. Saudi involvement (undermining Assad as a proxy for Iran) gives me pause.

     


    by acanuck on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 1:32pm

    I'm planning on invading a large used bookstore next weekend. I had thought of unleashing my deadly book scouting arsenal upon one or two smaller stores, but they have smarter clerks and are also some distance away. My target bookstore is large, close, I'm invading it because I "can" and also they are offering a large once in a lifetime discount. I face a moral issue or two. Knowing of the near upheaval of this coming sale, should I do some reconnaissance and pave the way for my major onslaught. By planning ahead I might peruse a book or two and, damn, put it back on the wrong shelf, where it still might reside on invasion day. A signed and mispriced Dibdin (now a PBS series although not nearly as good as Mankell's Wallander.)could be inadvertently put back on the shelf in the middle of Clyde Edgerton, where I noticed someone had already stashed a mispriced signed copy of Kaye Gibbons' Charms for the Easy Life (I don't read the King and Queen of down home droll, from Chapel Hill, but others do). Natural mistakes on someone's part. None of this is going to fool another book scout if he gets there first and the average buyer is just as happy with an unsigned worn copy. So what's the harm?  Still, I ponder the moral questions. Is it fair if I know I'm going to invade there, to help insure that it goes my way. The other moral issue is that there is a scam going on in the store. When I can find a 1922 first edition of Agathe Christie mispriced at $10 and slightly mis-shelved I know I'm not dealing with the shenanigans of another book scout but collusion between one of the Pricers and his room mate or brother-in-law. A pretty good pick because Dodd Mead did so many reprints that one could assume this book wasn't a first edition.  I have figured out the collusion pattern and gotten some deals. Is this something I even want to be invovled in? The very petite girl friend was not happy when I planted my foot in front of her shopping cart and grabbed a 1933 Sydney Horler mystery with a one of a kind dust jacket by Gene Thurston. "Oh, sorry, I saw this from across the room. Do you mind? It seems somewhat out of place right here, doesn't it"  I'm torn. I can use this scam to my benefit and no one gets hurt. Well, there are the store owners. But they were going to lose that book regardless. Maybe I should tell them. Damn, I'm not sure about this. It seems like a no brainer on so many levels. But there are a lot of cross currents and  moral issues when you decide to invade a bookstore,or even a country. I have a mind to go there today and buy a 1735 copy of the Common Book of Prayer at the full price. One reason is that it is a beautiful book. The other is that I think I might read part of it.      


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 1:59pm

    1) Off-topic: zees is veerry interesting case,  Dr. Arta thinks you have the collecting disease, and you got it real bad. wink

    2) Possibly maybe on topic, (speaking of hoarding/collecting, only have this at hand and noticed the "related" because I just happened to be getting rid of some real old newspaper piles as I write):

    Supremacy of a Social Network, by Nicolas Wade, New York Times Special Science Section titled "Animals," March 16, 2011

    Every time some human attribute is said to be unique, whether tool-making or language or warfare, biologists soon find some plausible precursor in animals that makes the ability less distinctive.

    Still, humans are vastly different from other animals, however hard the difference may be to define. A cascade of events, some the work of natural selection, some just plain accidents, propelled the human lineage far from the destiny of being just another ape, down an unexpected evolutionary path to become perhaps the strangest blossom on the ample tree of life.

    And what was the prime mover, the dislodged stone that set this eventful cascade in motion? It was, perhaps, the invention of weapons -- an event that let human ancestors escape the brutal tyranny of the alpha male that dominated ape societies.

    [....]

    A new and comprehensive answer to this question has been developed by Bernard Chapais of the University of Montreal. Dr. Chapais is a primatologist who has spent 25 years studying monkey and ape societies. Recently he devoted four years to reading the literature of social anthropology with the goal of defining the transition between nonprimate and human societies. His book, ''Primeval Kinship,'' was published in 2008. [....]

    Dr. Chapais sees the transition as a series of accidents, each of which let natural selection exploit new opportunities. Early humans began to walk on two legs because it was a more efficient way of getting around than knuckle-walking, the chimps' method. But that happened to leave the hands free. Now they could gesture, or make tools.

    It was a tool, in the form of a weapon, that made human society possible, in Dr. Chapais's view. Among chimps, alpha males are physically dominant and can overpower any rival. But weapons are great equalizers. As soon as all males were armed, the cost of monopolizing a large number of females became a lot higher. In the incipient hominid society, females became allocated to males more equally. General polygyny became the rule, then general monogamy.[....]


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 4:00pm

    Thanks for even responding. Yeah, I got it bad. How embarrassing. Maybe it's a cry for help.

    Well, Dr. Chapais is a riot--weapons as equalizers. Hmm. Four years for that. I especially like "the cost of monopolizing a large number of females became a lot higher". I think George Soros is about to find out that the cost of monopolizing one female just became a lot higher.

    Here I thought society was based upon males' ability to convince the females to stay home and gather food while they went off and played grab ass in the forest.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 5:36pm

    Thanks for even responding.

    It was fun to read! Reminded me of how much I miss old A&E series Lovejoy. And of my book appraising/dealing friends. And also the way things were when I worked in a regional estate auction house (friendly and vicious at the same time.)

    embarrassing. Maybe it's a cry for help.

    Nah. It's a far more respectable and fruitful obsession than like, video games, or becoming an obsessed fan of a professional sports team.

    Dr. Chapais is a riot--weapons as equalizers

    I was merely thinking along the lines of the remarkable similarity of the original U.N./Nato  plan, i.e., take away Gaddafi's ability to use big weapons in order to level the playing field, and then see what happens.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 6:26pm

    Thanks, I get it now, the weapons analogy.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 6:45pm

    I think your question obliquely raises a point I've thought about for a while...

    Anyone who writes...or who offers an opinion...about the future, suddenly has an ego stake in the future turning out the way he said it would.

    The more certainty he musters for his prediction, the more ego stake in it he has.

    If the outcome is better than he thought it would be...or is good while he thought it would turn out badly...he's disappointed and tends to get quiet.

    If the outcome is good, as it appears to be here, he can't feel good about it unless events conform to his prediction.

    And if he predicted a bad outcome but is now confronted with a good outcome, some little, nasty part of him hopes that the wheel will turn again toward the negative just so his predictions (and knowing intelligence) will be confirmed.

    Sometimes, he'll scramble to prove that he actually predicted things would turn out the way they did and people just misunderstood him.

    The thing he cares most about is being able to say, "See? I was right."


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 10:27am

    You've nailed one of things I most dislike about the blogosphere. Sometimes I think some people in it labor mightily to make the point that it's just like when George Bush was president so they can keep on ranting in the same way and on the same things they got used to when they started blogging. So they have a lot invested in proving things are the same, that Obama's no different, that "CHANGE" wasn't delivered. And it seems to me that it's them that can't change, can't switch gears to new writing on new problems, new approaches, new analysis.

    cheeky

     


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 11:06am

    Come on arti ... isn't that a bit disingenuous? Sure, these days you usually do it with creative linking to establishment shills who carry water for you rather than arguing directly; perhaps replacing a bit of the preview with some personal commentary. But now you want to pretend like it's only some magical "them" who promotes ideas they think are right and highlights when they believe (sometimes tenuously) reality backs them up? And of course "them" is explicitly defined (to solidify Peter's abstract and direct it to the correct users ... in proper Dagblog fashion) ... at anyone dissatisfied with Obama (another stunning rhetorical win for Team OBAMA ... yay!). Give me a break.

    I've been a vocal supporter of the Libyan intervention since day-one ... and IMO this shit is all just more obnoxious flame bait. Those on the other side of the debate from myself honestly deserve more respect than this - the entire premise is flame bait. Beyond that though, there is a certain irony in seeing you go even further to amplify totally off-topic meta-flamage while simultaneously decrying perceived demons in online communication. Does this site run entirely on back-handed insults and a complete lack of self-awareness these days?

    And for the record, while you have totally gone off the topic rails, "change" as promoted by candidate Obama simply has not been delivered. Further, I have no intention of changing personally on account of Obama turning out to be totally lame. It is demonstratively absurd to expect me to. My guy won the election. I'm holding my elected representative accountable to their own words. By the measuring stick Obama himself set, he is an abject failure. You can try to move the goal posts all over the field chasing the guy if you want ... and maybe that shit works on Democrats ... but that's not how it works after striking a deal with an independent. Put up results or go home.

    I'm sorry the sorts of policy you prefer look an awful lot like a heaping pile of fail. But it really needs to be noted that,  in general, the policy preferences you have articulated (particularly on economics) suck big, big, big time and appear to be more anti-labor and anti-poor than most GOP-led economic approaches (with the caveat that there is a large contingent of GOPpers who agree with you exactly) while looking nothing like what Obama promised to get elected - particularly in the promises made to win internal support over candidate Clinton to secure the nomination (which, yes indeed, also count - even though they were promises to do what you don't like). We can't all sell art to rich people. By facilitating your personal political win, Obama has betrayed those who actually supported him throughout the entire campaign based on his public promises. Enjoy your win, but don't be surprised when the people tossed under the bus to benefit you personally don't just STFU and continue to lend their support to helping Obama continue to screw us all over.

    You guys are the whiningest winners I've ever seen in my life ... it's not enough to successfully destroy the American pro-worker populist movement from within; now the dedicated liberals are also expected to fucking thank you for it. Amazing.


    by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 12:37pm

    So, uh, basically, you just used a thread about Libya to deliver an extended rant against unnamed blogging destroyers of the American pro-worker populist movement and concurrently accused your interlocutor of "off-topic meta-flamage," "perceived demons," "back-handed insults" (whatever that means), and to top it off, "complete lack of self-awareness."

    I note this irony not as a moderator but as a private citizen of the dagblogosphere. Hypocritical rants do not violate the ToS, but I reserve the right to mock them.

    PS As someone who is on the other side of the Libya debate who was critically quoted in the thread, unlike yourself, I also reserve the right to demand my own respect when appropriate, but I nonetheless appreciate your heartfelt empathy.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 2:38pm

    And besides, doesn't the first one who plays the "off-topic meta-flamage" card always lose?


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 3:03pm

    But Mom, it was really Peter Schwartz who started it! He basically double dared me by what he said! blush


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 3:41pm

    I'll take the bullet for ya.


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 4:57pm

    Wish I had a big brother like you in real life. kiss


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 6:12pm

    France and Italy got it right. Obama's credit is in glomming on to a decent operation largely overseen and driven by European NATO members.

    As far as personal conduct as President goes, Obama was an unilateralist schmuck who tossed his middle finger at both the law and congress to declare himself unfettered king of warmaking; needing neither approval nor oversight. So, even while supporting allies who were by all appearances right, Obama managed to fuck it all up from his side.


    by Lazy KGB (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 11:25am

    Back to my "policy and precedent" concern.

    The unilateral president.....


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 11:27am

    What constitutes getting it right, Lazy? Figuring out that the combined aerial firepower of NATO, the U.S. and the Emirates would eventually sap Qadhafi's forces of their will to fight? You diss Obama for giving Congress the middle finger, but you're cool with NATO twisting the UN resolution out of recognition to hand the rebels victory? I don't get where exactly you stand.


    by acanuck on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 1:41pm

    I wrote that before reading your reply to appraiser (above). The part I don't get is why you were pro-intervention. Seems to me the big winners are going to be western oil giants and corrupt western bankers -- enemies of the working class. You did read about Goldman-Sachs "losing" virtually all of $1.3 billion in Libyan sovereign wealth funds Qadhafi invested with them, didn't you? You do know the rape of the working class is worldwide, right?


    by acanuck on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 1:54pm

    Thanks for excerpting my comment that

    I agreed with intervening to protect Benghazi. Then we should have stopped......
    by Flavius 6/1/2011

    that's still how I feel.

    I'm glad it's ending. My strategy could well have resulted in a stale mate  with more deaths. That's an argument for those who support Obama's strategy of  actively participating in this war to remove Quadaffi while pretending we were only defending civilians.

    But this success sadly makes it more likely we'll do it again, and again and again. .And sooner or later one of these interventions will go badly wrong.

    Wars are terrible. People suffer and die.. They should be a  last resort.

    And the dishonesty with which this one was marketed further undermines our democratic form of government.

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 1:48pm

    I'm also relieved the fighting appears to be over. I'll withhold judgment on whether it's a success for a little while yet, though.

    And yes, the real danger is that we (at least our leaders) will feel encouraged to try it again.


    by acanuck on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 1:58pm

    Well, as I saw it, and perhaps incorrectly, it seemed that Obama and the others concluded that "protecting citizens" REQUIRED Q's removal.

    As long as he was in power, he was a threat to his own citizens, and they would have to constantly be on-guard against secret police and the military, etc., exacting revenge against "former rebels," and so on.

    Given what he threatened to do initially and what I know of Q and how he's run Libya, this doesn't seem far-fetched. He had to go if we were going to assure citizens' safety.

    Moreover, removing him seemed doable given the popular uprising and Q's relative weakness, L's size, and so on.

    Assad strikes me as an equally worthy candidate for removal morally, but doing so would be much harder to do and might even draw in Iran.


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 3:47pm

    You're misquoting the Security Council resolution, Peter. It didn't say "protecting citizens," it said, "protecting civilians." Non-combatants!

    If you rise up in armed rebellion -- whether against a tyrant or duly elected government -- you're betting you can win. If you lose that bet, if you have misjudged how ready your fellow citizens are to join your fight, your option is to get in your car and head for the border. That's the way it's always worked, and that's what a lot of Libyans did.

    That's why governments invented political asylum. Some of those forced into exile will be high-minded patriots; others will be opportunistic rascals or deluded fanatics. Offer them all safe haven, but don't presume the right to decide (in the midst of a conflict) who should win and who should lose.

    It sounds harsh even to me, but I think it's a better rule of thumb than the idea that unrest within any country is a legitimate pretext for regime change. Especially when those countries making the assessment of who stays and who goes are virtually always those with the biggest finger in the pie and the heartiest appetites. We're not impartial observers!

    It's disheartening to me that so many "liberal" Americans have bought into the blindly jingoistic, right-wing concept of morally justified regime change. It has had a long and bloody history, almost never works out to long-term U.S. advantage, and virtually never to the advantage of the countries that get "changed." Mosadegh, Ngo Dinh Diem, Salvador Allende, Aristide, Noriega, Ortega, Saddam Hussein -- moral rationales were found for why all had to go. It's a crock, and should be a transparent one to anyone who cares to look.


    by acanuck on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 5:32pm

    Wow. Thoughtfree instant analysis/gloating! And QUALITY thoughtfree instant analysis/gloating!

    Added to which... MAXIMUM CHEESE! Personally naming other bloggers... after selectively quoting their stuff! 

    And then... personally nasty in the comments. 

    Winner!!!!! A clear Type 7 blog.

    The purest form - Entirely Liquid. 

    Congratulations.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 6:32pm

    after selectively quoting their stuff!

    Since the invention of the printing press, that tends to happen when writers publish their writing, it's kind of expected. Also, he linked to the original thread, so the context  was available, something that too many writing this kind of thing don't even bother to do (footnoting--so 20th century!).

    So I really don't see your beef on that front. You don't like to be quoted? Don't publish, and restrict your writing to things like email and members-only chat rooms.

    If you've got a problem with this, how come I've never seen you complain when Dickday selectively quotes Limbaugh, or dagbloggers selectively quote and inacurately summarize Thomas Friedman? So when Atrios selectively quotes someone at Red State, or DeLong selectively quotes Krugman, they're being bad?

    personally nasty in the comments.

    I agree that anyone doing that deserves the stool chart treatment.  But I've seen worse, specifically: pot kettle black.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 7:25pm

    And the flies arrive.

    ​Shoo fly, shoo.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 7:38pm

    Thank you, Quinn, for once again gracing us with your ponderous thoughts on human feces and the state of dagblog. Delightful stuff. Really helps us move things along, if you know what I mean. Imagine the weighty ideas that you might discharge if you could just get past your poo phobia. Alas, I fear that that we will have to make do with these sad little goat droppings.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 7:58pm

    OMG, you're actually gonna try and quality control this turdfest. A blog consisting of instant "Obama Got It Right" analysis, coming just weeks after "our guys" finished executing one of their own major leaders, and we don't even know who's where in Tripoli. Genius. Must be a full 40 words before the naming of other bloggers begins (hmmmm, I coulda sworn we ran into this issue..... whoops... memory erased....)... followed by really very nasty personal comments about Destor's REAL-LIFE work, past and present. Gee, if only I'd thought to go there earlier, eh? I can now smear pretty much anything Destor says apparently.  

    Look G, shit is shit - and damned if this piece can be tarted up. When a blog is bad enough, rank enough, it's a waste of time trying to lipstick it.

    It needs to be flushed.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 8:28pm

    See, A-man already jumped into that discussion, and if destor isn't satisfied, I'm sure that he will let us know.

    But destor's satisfaction isn't your problem, nor is the policing of dagblog, though I thank you for your keen interest in helping us keep the bathroom pristine. (Great job with the flushing. It think that it almost went down this time.)


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 8:51pm

    I actually don't have any problems with NCD (or anyone) quoting me, disagreeing with me, agreeing with me, prasing me, criticizing me or whatever.  I write to be read.  I'm flattered that NCD cares enough to read and cite what I've published either under my own name or my nomme de blogue...

    Whooo! The Nature Boy of Blogging.  Stylin'. Profilin'.  Kiss'n all the girls and makin' them cry.  NCD!  Whoo!  I'm Space Mountain, baby!  They line up as soon as the park opens.  To be the man, you've gotta outblog the man.  WHOOOOO!


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:11pm

    Crap, I was afraid that this might happen. Destor, it's time for you to take your blue pills. You don't want to the nice Genghis man to be upset with you, do you?


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:29pm

    Ok, no Wrasslin.

    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 9:30pm

    Wait.what? You want him to take viagra to calm down? Is this some sort of side effect or are you relying on distraction? There are? OTHER pills are blue? Huh. Who knew? Carry on, then...

    by jollyroger on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 11:00pm

    Always good to see quality turd-management procedures in place.

    P.S. Though it seems as if maybe you should post up a list of who can - and can't - voice their opinion that a blog is "crap" around here. Unless you decide instead to just follow the historic tide and not worry about such things. Which might be advisable.

    P.P.S. No need to be over-sensitive. So I said the blog was a "type 7 stool." Big deal. Blogs and ideas and comments and bloggers get called worse than that a dozen times a day round here. Same with the fact that I didn't like the way the blogger dealt with Destor. Ditto. I didn't. It's part of what made the blog a Type 7. But same as the other day - people are getting all twitchy. I'm sure NCD isn't crying too many tears over my dastardly comment and attached poo chart.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 10:16pm

    Isn't it obvious? Obama critics such as yourself are not allowed to compare a blog post to human feces, but Obama supporters are welcome, nay encouraged, to do so. It's all part of our master plan to destroy the American pro-worker populist movement from within. We would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you meddling liberals.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 11:33pm

    I rate this comment a Type 3, for the cracks in the surface.

    Try harder.

     

     

    Oh wait... maybe not quite so hard. 


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 1:38am

    Meh. The whole exchange was a messy stool. No substance. Just another pungent load of fluff.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 2:25am