Saturday, March 12, 2011

This Old Earth Is an Angry Planet

We can barely cope its calamitous natural disasters, not to mention afford man-made catastrophes. I understand that sometimes necessary wars happen; but we should never engage in elective wars. Specifically, we don't have the coin for COINs.


  1. Intervention in civil wars are also elective wars.

  2. Flying into the Libyan revolution would be costly, deadly and diplomatically perilous. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the point clearly: “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses.”

    He didn’t, however, explain the inevitable next step. “No-fly” zones help, but they don’t complete the job. Libya seems a prime example of where this could go wrong.

    Consider two recent and high-profile zones, those over Iraq and Bosnia. Neither was fully successful as a military action until air power was joined by ground forces. Ground forces mean full-out war.

    And while Libyan rebels are ground forces, they are vastly outgunned. Artillery strikes, soldiers and tanks against poorly armed civilians can go a long way toward razing cities (the damage to Berlin by Soviet artillery is still visible today). Without an air threat, their slaughter would continue. We have to ask, before we start, if we can afford or want another war.

    A no-fly zone is a very dangerous, very slippery slope. Each slide down would be based on wanting to do the right thing, just a little bit more.

    Maybe we could win a war against Gadhafi. But then what? There’s no replacement government in waiting. No one has a plan for a democratic Libya. This is not Egypt. Remember Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq?

  3. Bringing about a no fly zone, is an act of war.
    O is sending an envoy to the rebels in Libya.
    And so it begins
    He got the OK from the Arab League for the no fly zone.
    Let the Arab League take care of it.
    We will be in Libya with in a short time.
    Yemen is also on their menu.
    The Neolibs will justify our involvement calling it humanitarian aid.
    It is not aid.
    It is more Empire building.
    This time by the Neolibs and the likes of Shillary the war hawk.
    MENA is made to order for the Neolibs.
    O can not pull out the economy before the 2012 cycle.
    His answer will be more, and larger proxy wars in order to get re-elected.
    Shame on these EFFEN Masters of War.
    Look for Patreus to be in charge of the CIA in due time.

  4. Libya is a different situation than Iraq and AfPak, and from a moral perspective, could justify intervention. The practical dimensions are such that our presence in Iraq and AfPak makes any effort, even a just one, incredibly complicated & difficult. In Libya, there's a whole portion of the country rebelling against a ruthless dictator who has been in power for 40 years. This is a guy who kills his own people, engages in terrorist acts against international countries, and the U.S. and the rest of the world was willing to give this guy a pass as he came clean on his nuclear ambitions. So the west opens up our oil markets, develops economic ties -- the U.S. even tried to supply him with armored troop carriers before Congress stopped it - and these troop carriers would have been used against the very rebels who are fighting this guy. So now we're faced with two choices - do nothing - an implied endorsement of the status quo - and query what happens to the West's relationship with Kadafi should he prevail (not to mention what happens to his people). Or do something, and risk getting into a really bad situation.

    I can't say I know what the right answer is. I'm also not suggesting that military intervention should our could lead to a democratic state such as ours. But I suggest it isn't as clear cut as you might think.