The Tunisians got rid of Ben Ali in nothing flat, Mubarak took a couple of weeks longer to hit the road, and an exciting new Islamic Emirate has just been proclaimed in South Yemen. But, with his usual unerring instinct, Barack Obama has chosen to back the one Arab liberation movement who cant get rid of the local strongman even when you lend them every functioning Nato air force. From The Washington Post:
U.S. officials are becoming increasingly resigned to the possibility of a protracted stalemate in Libya, with rebels retaining control of the eastern half of the divided country but lacking the muscle to drive Moammar Gaddafi from power.
Such a deadlock perhaps backed by a formal cease-fire agreement could help ensure the safety of Libyan civilians caught in the crossfire between the warring sides. But it could also dramatically expand the financial and military commitments by the United States and allied countries that have intervened in the six-week-old conflict, according to U.S. officials familiar with planning for the Libyan operation.
As to that formal ceasefire agreement, in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen it was the dictators offering to trade and compromise and negotiate their departure from the scene. But in Libya the only guys pleading for a ceasefire are the rebels:
Colonel Muammer Gaddafis government has scorned rebel conditions for a nationwide ceasefire in Libya.
Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim rejected the offer outlined by the Libyan opposition on Friday as mad. Troops loyal to Col Gaddafi would never withdraw from the rebel-held cities they were besieging, he said.
The U.S. is following through on a pledge to shift the main combat burden to Britain, France and other NATO allies.
Starting Sunday, no U.S. combat aircraft are to fly strike missions in Libya. NATOs on-scene commander can request American strikes in the days ahead, in which case they may have to be approved in Washington.
Ah, right. Im not sure David Cameron is the fellow Id rely on to break the enemys will, so I guess it all comes down to how serious President Sarkozy is about knocking off Gaddafi.If hes not, then Libya will be yet another in Americas six-decade-long pantheon of unwon wars. And so Arab spring falls back to Afghan winter, and another decade of ineffectual nation-building and peace-keeping by transnational sitting ducks for ever more ravenous predators.
But thats what comes of a war without of a mission. A cynic might almost think the point of the exercise was to demonstrate to the world the superpowers impotence
What is most astounding about this piece is that the author thinks it makes Obumble out to be the best and the brightest.
President Obama is struggling to transcend American history. For two centuries, Americans have believed that any use of military power is war, and the objective in war is victory over the enemy. This guy at least understands Jacksonians. Too bad he doesn't recognize they are the backbone and ultimate majority of the country.
They have little tolerance for military operations that deviate from this pattern, such as the limited use of force in support of diplomacy or armed action leading to something other than decisive victory. After a foray into "limited war" from Korea to Vietnam, the United States walked away from the idea. Walked away? No They never accepted it. This is the clearest confession that I have ever seen that Obunko wants to lead the country and the military into another Vietnam. And why is it always do-gooders who lead us into these fiascos?
What became known as the Weinberger-Powell principles argued that the U.S. military should never be committed unless vital interests are at stake--and then, only with the intention of clear victory. This became inculcated into the American strategic culture. And, since World War II, Americans have also come to expect I think he means accept. These two words are often confused.
that the United States will dominate any military operations in which it participates. The normal state of affairs, Americans believe, is for the United States to be is the senior partner in a coalition.
The Obama strategy represents a step away from the Weinberger-Powell principles and the notion that the United States must dominate any operation where its military is involved. And a return to the Truman-MacNamara-Johnson pseudo-principles that war is a game and subject to the same principles as any other game. Especially if the UN can be involved.
Whether it works will be determined by the unpredictable whims of Muammar Qaddafi, the willingness of other states to take some or all of the burden off of America's hands, and the president's ability to sell the American public and its elected leaders on a strategy that runs counter to their tradition and inclinations. While Obama's Libya strategy has a distinct logic, its success thus remains in the balance. And it will go down as the Second Suez War. I hope it drives the do-gooders out of foreign policy for a generation at least.
#1
Yeah sure. Because he is the smartest guy in the room? Because his goals are so lofty that we mortals really can't understand? Because he is the "ONE." So much hogwash. Obama does not have a strategy.
#5
Six hundred years ago the 'intellectuals' were also desperately seeking to make the Ptolemaic model of the solar system work too. Sometimes you and your One are NOT the center of the universe, but if your dogma demands it, no amount of data/facts will alter that perception.
#6
...the big league ballplayer, the toughest boxer. Americans play to win, all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell to a man who lost, and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost - and will never lose a war - because the very thought of losing is hateful, to Americans.
At least, in 1944. Paraphrasing G. C. Scott, as Patton.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/03/2011 16:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Bobby, you might enjoy http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html, probably the closest thing to the real speech.
Quote from Steven Metz's article in The New Republic:
Put simply, Obama's Libya strategy is designed to avoid the most undesirable outcomes rather than optimize the chances of a desired outcome, to do something without "owning" the conflict, to maintain maximum flexibility as the situation evolves, and to do all of this in the face of powerful constraints. The question is whether this strategy can actually work...
No. Of course not. He will end up with the worst of all possible outcomes because he doesn't have any control over them.
#1
Fiddlesticks. You all treating this as if Team Obama were grownups owing anything even remotely resembling sense of ethics. Somebody on Team Obama noticed that US Presidents bombing furriners get a rise in their approval ratings. So they bombed Libya. When the rise failed to materialize, they drooped the bombings.
#3
Somebody on Team Obama noticed that US Presidents bombing furriners get a rise in their approval ratings
That would be the political wing of the administration - the Axelrod-Plouffe Axis.
However, methinks the "Battle Hens" saw an opportunity and badgered appealed to the community organizer instincts of the President. It helped that both the UN leadership and a major financial backer were on the same team as the Hens.
Notice that the only voice that hasn't spoken is Biden's. For the guy who the Obama campaign and administration touted as its foreign policy heavyweight, he's nowhere to be found.
#4
Notice that the only voice that hasn't spoken is Biden's. For the guy who the Obama campaign and administration touted as its foreign policy heavyweight, he's nowhere to be found
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/03/2011 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I recall that Joe Biden wanted to impeach Bush over Iraq. Strangely, Biden is uncharacteristically silent. I guess he tripped over his lip back then and hoped no one would notice now.
A United Nations human rights group has issued a preliminary report on disappearances in Mexico and the news isn't good.
Amongst the more than 30 recommendations included in the reports of the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances is the one that got most of the attention from the Mexican press: ordering the Mexican Army back to the barracks.
The statistics quoted in the article are seemingly startling. The group has compiled a list of 412 kidnappings since 1980, when the Mexican Dirty War was still going hot, of which 238 remain unresolved.
The report also quoted a compiled statistic by Mexican human rights organizations which claim 3,000 individuals have disappeared, while official reports of kidnappings have gone from four in 2006 to 77 in 2010.
It is worth noting that often statistics provided by NGOs on matters such as disappearances and other social calamities are extrapolated numbers, which are essentially guesses weakly based on actual data compiled by the NGO. Mexican NGOs, as with NGOs the world over rely on a sympathetic press to take dictation on the provided facts.
Mexican conservatives, represented by Partido Accion Nacional, could easily use the starting point of 2006 to show that the war on cartels is their war and in no way represents the Dirty War conducted from 1966 to 1988 by three Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) presidents.
But the Mexican left is desperate to attach a nexus between the PAN and the PRI and is the sole reason why the statistics on the Dirty War, now decades ended, is even mentioned in the report.
Using 2006 as a new reference point is deliberate for the UN group. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has taken to using the Mexican Army to fight the cartels in his declaration in 2006.
The use of the Mexican military in dealing with the drug trade has enraged large portions of the Mexican left. Amongst those is the founder and leader of Mexico's mainstream leftist political organization, Partido Revolucion Democratica, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.
Lopez Obrador has stated were his party, namely himself, to gain the presidency of the republic, his first order of business would be to return the Mexican Army back to the barracks.
Lopez Obrador has stated repeatedly his focus is providing income supports for Mexico's poor by shifting resources from using the military to fight the cartel. Politically such a move could prove problematic for any PRD president. A Mexican president is still required by the Mexican Constitution to conduct his office with constraints by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
As such, a PRD presidency would likely leave the shifting of resources up to the legislature.
None of those constraints mean the president can't redeploy the army then use the savings for additional income supports for the poor.
In Mexico a strong nexus exists between non government organizatons such as the UN and local human right organizations.
The Mexican National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) has scored two recent public relations victories against the Mexican Army (SEDENA), the last being September, 2010 north of Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, when a group of five soldiers were charged with murder of two civilians in a pursuit and shooting.
A previous shooting by a detachment of the Mexican Army in April, 2010 led to a disastrous and public embarrassment for SEDENA. To read the Rantburg report on the October shooting in Nuevo leon click here.
Ironically, one of the outcomes of those embarrassments is a subtle change of tactics by the Mexican Army. Soldiers in the field appear to have permission to fire on any vehicle or suspect if they clearly spot a weapon. The bad guys know this and is why they will open up on the Mexican Army despite the likelihood the shooters will not survive the army counterfire.
Another of the contradictions in a land rife with social and political contradictions is that the Mexican Army has been instrumental at least in northern states in dealing effectively with kidnapping. Very few days go by where a Mexican Army does not effect the release of kidnapping victims. Those rescues could not have taken place with an army in the barracks.
Although news reports do not speculate on it, many of the murders where the dead are dumped are likely kidnapping victims whose family could not pay up.
But for the agenda of the Mexican left, a return to the barracks of the Mexican Army would be a disaster for the fight against the drug cartels.
#1
A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on. With a complicit press, it may take years before the truth catches up with the lie.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
04/03/2011 0:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Whee! I used to enjoy analyzing poetry, especially the pseudo-intellectual stuff (all of poor, dear Khalil Gibran comes down to "love = love" if you work it hard enough), but this reading this essay is an absolute guilty pleasure. The man has chops and he knows how to use them. Eventually the New York Times and NPR will have to address this, when enough of their audience has been embarrassed at cocktail parties by not knowing what the token Republican is talking about.
#3
Key excerpts: in no previous American presidential election has the press so abysmally failed to meet its professional obligation. In no national election of memory was the vote so singularly based on such a dearth of data about the candidate who won...Cashill's demonstration that misrepresentations unexamined by the press lead to fraud-based outcomes is the most disturbing part of the story...When enabled by a complacent, cowardly, or complicit press, an audacious political hustler can disenfranchise the voters of an entire nation. The integrity of "by the people" is desecrated and voided no less by a candidate who succeeds in totally misrepresenting himself and his policies to voters than by the wholesale stuffing of ballot boxes...Somehow the damning facts exposed in Deconstructing Obama must saturate the electorate before the 2012 elections, yet somehow I believe these 'damning facts' will get little or no attention. Besides a lying press, we seem to have a mentally deficient electorate.
#4
One of the comments to the original article: Frankly, my dear sir, no one gives a damn. America will re-elect Obama and then exist no more. America as America has a death wish, and Obama is fulfilling it.
#6
It was the careful exploration of Dreams -- especially the facts and timeline pertaining to his paternity -- that eventually led the sleuth to doubt that Barack Obama, Sr., the Kenyan graduate student after whom Ann Dunham's son was named, could be his father.
#7
Kinda old news, people have been pointing out that it was obvious that Barry didn't write his two books, and it's been widely discussed how odd it is he doesn't willingly talk of his college days, ever. Also the fact that his mother was a tramp, weirdo, isn't fresh news, I've seen the pictures, ugh. I could go on, but there's no point, we needed all this out in the open in 2007, not now. Not that it would matter, if the MSM can convince the wishywashy that the economy is starting to rebound, Barry will most likely get re-elected.
Posted by: Jefferson ||
04/03/2011 7:09 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Zero re-elected? Who's complacent? I've just sent a punchy summary to my e-mail list, and maybe I'll help make the book a best seller - even if I know what it concludes.
After all, Apollo 13 was a thrilling movie, even though we all knew how it was going to end!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/03/2011 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Amazon, $14.20, new. Invest in 2012! Buy one now!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/03/2011 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Bobby, I'm with you but to stop him (and his $1B warchest) we need, like, a candidate to run against him. And we don't have that much longer to find one.
Posted by: Matt ||
04/03/2011 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Of all the Pubs out there who are sniffing around, Romney is the only one who can raise that kind of money.
Personally I like Romney/Palin just to watch progressive heads explode, but I'm not sure it's the best ticket.
Whoever the Pubs get they'd better be able to raise big, big money.
The good news in all of this: public financing of political campaigns is dead, dead, dead.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/03/2011 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The election is Obumble's to lose. The trunks will not win the race, the donk will lose it. If Obunko gets a primary challenge from the left, he's toast. If not, he repeats no matter whom the trunks nominate.
#13
Buy ten of the books. Give them to your friends for Christmas or Chaunaka (sorry) or Winter Solstice!
Buy twenty, and give them to your enemies!
But don't wait until November; it needs to be a # 1 bestseller this spring.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/03/2011 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#14
#12 NS, you may well prove to be right, but I'm afraid this is one of those "failure is not an option" moments.
Posted by: Matt ||
04/03/2011 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The 4th estate did not care that Barry was a fraud. They eagerly foisted a fraud on the American voters whom they sensed would elect BO. The main stream press harpies were Barry's cheerleaders. They couldn't be bothered with the truth. When history is written, it will be said that there was little difference between the MSM and BHO--both are frauds.
Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes
By Richard Goldstone, Friday, April 1, 8:42 PM The Washington Post
Big of him to admit it. One wonders why he felt suddenly compelled to do so in the Washington Post, and whether he will see this piece gets the official exposure the original did.
Update: this Page A10 piece (front page of the website, though, all by itself with a line around it at the bottom of the articles) in the New York Times today provides background, although the dear old Grey Lady journalist feels compelled to add that really, those Israelis are not our sort of people. It seems a competing group issued a report two weeks ago, saying the Israelis have been good about investigating their accusations, unlike unrepentant Hamas, although Israel still refuses to investigate the crime of those who ordered and lead Operation Cast Lead. On the other hand, the original Goldstone Report will not be repudiated by the U.N.
Interesting interview with the dean of the Orientalists. Including several palpable hits against the New York Time's tradition of determined ignorance, parochial naivete and gullibility. In this broad-ranging interview, Professor Lewis also talks about the impact of female repression, how to handle Iran, and the problem of Turkey and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
"I think that the tyrannies are doomed," Mr. Lewis says as we sit by the windows in his library, teeming with thousands of books in the dozen or so languages he's mastered. "The real question is what will come instead."
For Americans who have watched protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Bahrain and now Syria stand up against their regimes, it has been difficult not to be intoxicated by this revolutionary moment. Mr. Lewis is "delighted" by the popular movements and believes that the U.S. should do all it can to bolster them. But he cautions strongly against insisting on Western-style elections in Muslim lands.
Elections, he argues, should be the culminationnot the beginningof a gradual political process. Thus "to lay the stress all the time on elections, parliamentary Western-style elections, is a dangerous delusion."
In Middle Eastern history "consultation is the magic word. It occurs again and again in classical Islamic texts. It goes back to the time of the Prophet himself," says Mr. Lewis.
[Asharq al-Aswat] At the same time that a female presenter appeared on an Arab satellite channel to say that "the situation in Syria is calm, and the people of Syria have shown their awareness by not responding to calls to take to the streets to demonstrate and protest", some Syrians visiting mosques in the country were having their identity cards confiscated from them upon their entry, with these being returned to them after they had completed their prayers, on their way out.
The funny thing is that just minutes following the presenter's statement about the calm in Syria, a breaking news report flashed across the bottom of the screen revealing that demonstrations were occurring in several Syrian cities including Damascus ...The City of Jasmin is the oldest continuously-inhabited city in the world. It has not always been inhabited by the same set of fascisti... , Banias, Homs, and Latakia! What I want to say here is that the real solution to what is happening in Syria, and other Arab states, is for this political earthquake that is striking our region to be dealt with sincerely, with governments taking reformative steps and implementing reforms that directly reach its citizens, as well as reforms that genuinely affect the state's infrastructure, and the regime itself. This is something that applies to any and all countries, not just Syria. The media may be attempting to play down the true nature of events, but that does not change the reality of the situation; sometimes the media acts like a painkiller, whilst at other times it acts like an appetizer, but the fact remains that the presence of injustice and inertia in the institutions of the state, any state, hasten their collapse, regardless of any attempts to prevent this.
The best example of the fact that the media is not the solution can be seen in the media's coverage of Syrian hereditary President Bashir Pencilneck al-Assad One of the last of the old-fashioned hereditary iron-fisted fascist dictators. Before going into the family business Pencilneck was an eye doctor. Also head of Syria's Baath Party, an old-fashioned fascist operation that's seldom described as one in the press... 's last speech in front of the Syrian People's Council. The Syrian president said that his country was subject to a foreign conspiracy, and throughout the day the Arab media reiterated these words, particularly the television media, whilst failing to cover the demonstrations taking place in Latakia! As for the western television media, following the Syrian president's speech, it also focused upon the question; who? As in, who is conspiring against Syria? Therefore the difference is clear; however the most important thing here is the [Syrian] citizens: do they truly believe that there is a conspiracy, or do they believe that there are genuine injustices? That is the question!
Therefore, the continuation of the demonstrations in Syria, even until yesterday, means that the popular demands have not been met with practical solutions, and that the solutions, until now, have been ineffective. What is irritating about the Syrian situation is that the demands remain ordinary and acceptable and can be easily implemented; these will not weaken the country or bring down the temple walls on all those inside, however the government's response continues to be weak. The problem is that the protestors' demands and violence will only increase and intensify the more the solutions are delayed. This is something that we have seen in a series of recent events in our region.
Therefore what I want to say is that Damascus is still in a position to cut the fuse by proposing a series of genuine reforms, rather than making promises of conducting studies about abolition the state of emergency and the anti-terror law, whilst the situation remains unchanged. This is in order to avoid confrontation and violence. Until now, the number of protestors killed stands in the dozens, although there are reports that say that the death-toll stands as high as 60. Even if the regime becomes stronger and more resolute [in confronting the protestors], it will continue to face endless internal and external difficulties, however if the regime decided to implement genuine reforms, it will certainly emerge stronger than before. However all the signs indicate that Damascus has failed to learn from the experiences of others, in this regard.
Therefore the question now is: where will the ceiling of demands reach in Syria?
Posted by: Fred ||
04/03/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Syrians visiting mosques in the country were having their identity cards confiscated from them upon their entry, with these being returned to them after they had completed their prayers, on their way out.
Smart. Most Muzzi rioting starts with Friday sermon.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals got it wrong on the Stolen Valor Act.
The 2005 law was a response to the seemingly countless people who fraudulently represent themselves as decorated combat veterans. A 2008 Chicago Tribune investigation found, for example, that tombstones, obituaries and even the online edition of Who's Who were rife with unsubstantiated claims of combat honors.
Often the bogus heroes never served in the military at all. In a case now before the 10th Court of Appeals, a Colorado man passed himself off as a Marine Corps captain who'd won a Purple Heart and suffered post-traumatic stress from a roadside bomb during one of his three tours in Iraq. Oh yes, he'd also gone to the U.S. Naval Academy.
When someone took a closer look, he turned out to have no military record at all, just a criminal one. Under the Stolen Valor Act, such an imposter can face fines and up to a year in prison.
We're uncomfortable with prison sentences in cases like his. But the Ninth Circuit was wrong recently when -- in a similar case -- it held that the law violated the First Amendment.
The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but it doesn't guarantee legal immunity for all forms of expression. It doesn't protect fraud, obscenity, incitement to violence and defamation, for example. Limited classes of expression can be outlawed if there is a legitimate and compelling purpose for doing so.
The issue of stolen valor has a parallel in laws against impersonating a police officer. That's a crime even when the impersonator is only out to impress people.
False claims to military honors are not mere white lies; they hurt people. Honest political candidates can be defeated by opponents who run on false war records. Job candidates can be edged out by rivals who falsely present themselves as combat heroes. Taxpayers get fleeced when fictional decorations are used to bolster claims for veterans' benefits.
The greatest injury is done to bona fide heroes. Imposters undermine the integrity of medals of valor, cheapening decorations awarded exclusively for acts of utmost bravery. America has a compelling interest in preserving the reputation of these honors and their recipients.
In voting to strike down the law, one Ninth Circuit judge cited America's historic wariness of letting the government "police the line between truth and falsity."
The government polices that line every day: we have laws against forgery, for example. The civil side of the law policies that line: we have lawsuits for slander and libel.
That concern presupposes a situation in which government officials have the discretion to abuse their powers to suppress uncomfortable or dissenting speech.
In the case of medals of valor, such as the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, the Air Force Cross and the Silver Star, there's no room for government discretion: It's an objective matter of record whether a given person has or hasn't earned one. This line is so bright that officials would have a hard time monkeying with it.
Rather than prison time, we would prefer that the law provide civil sanctions, perhaps including the exposure of imposters in an online hall of shame.
For people who steal the honor of heroes to impress others, public humiliation would be condign punishment.
#4
On July 16, 2010, a federal judge in Denver ruled the Stolen Valor Act is "facially unconstitutional" because it violates free speech and dismissed the criminal case against Strandlof who lied about being an Iraq war veteran.[19] Strandlof, 32, was charged with five misdemeanors related to violating the Act specifically, making false claims about receiving military decorations.
Well, I should be able to represent myself as a police officer, Federal judge, school teacher, lawyer, engineer, or physician with impunity because I am merely exercising my free speech. I think the court's ruling is based on flawed reasoning.
#5
I disagree that civil penalties are adequate for this offense.
There are only 85 living Medal of Honor recipients, out of a population of 313 million Americans.
85 living Medal of Honor recipients *for* 313 million Americans.
85 men whose lives are defined by the Medal of Honor they carry. Men, who I like to say, that even if they are elected President of the United States, their title should be "Medal of Honor recipient, President of the United States."
85 men who represent not just their personal honor, but the honor of their family, community, State and nation.
No person should ever be allowed to take that away, or diminish it, by pretending they are what they are not.
Even trying to do so means that they need at least a year in a federal penitentiary to contemplate what they have done. And justifiably, a year in solitary confinement.
#12
This is a major problem, as the SCOTUS gets some 8,000 cases a year appealed to it from the Circuit Courts, of which it can only hear perhaps two or three dozen. The rest are turned down, which means the decision of the Circuit Court applies.
It has become so ridiculous that the SCOTUS just takes cases that it plans to overturn, because to affirm wastes a "slot" to overturn.
#13
So what the 9th circus court is saying is that if I print out a bunch of checks with Bill Gates name and address, write myself a bunch of checks, go down to the bank and cash them, its ok?
Yes you have the right to free speech. You also have the (progressives - please pardon my foul language here) responsibility of that speech.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
hereditary President Bashir 
