Article

2011-03-05 Africa North

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-03-05 05:50|| || Front Page|| [7 views ] Top

#1 Libya "descending into chaos and becoming a giant Somalia."

Libyan pirates roaming the Med. That is going to seriously screw with tourism industries.

Posted by phil_b 2011-03-05 07:00|| 2011-03-05 07:00|| Front Page Top

#2 You remember Somalia, Mrs. Bill? When Mr. Bill turned tail and ran, thus encouraging bin Laden and his ilk?

So does that suggest you want to avoid turning tail and running by not getting involved in the first place? Was that Mr. Bill's mistake?

Posted by Bobby 2011-03-05 07:52|| 2011-03-05 07:52|| Front Page Top

#3 The troops were committed to Somalia under George the Elder's tenure. They were sent in after weeks of media manipulation of with images of poor starving Somalis. It was a set up by the media to drive international policy of the US. So we went in and started feeding the population but discovered not a country but a bunch of tribes fighting for territory and power. Made it difficult to make deliveries, particularly when THEY had no problem using denial of food as a weapon. It was in the next administration that the mission creep set in to act as 'Peacekeepers' to allow the management of the food distribution. No one wanted to dirty their hands with the basic principle that you got to beat the warlords into the ground with resultant collateral casualties to achieve the order necessary to build/rebuild the administrative structure to accomplish some of the basics of civilization - food, clean water, law and order. Remember that Les Aspin, newly minted Secty of Defense, turned down the request of the theater commander for tanks and men to do that. That was Billy Boy & Co's contribution of screwing the hooch. It went from food delivery to nation building with hands tied behind their backs. Then when the big embarrassment was handed to them, they choose to run. However, don't be too hard on Billy. The same scenario played out in Beirut. Original purpose transitions into mission creep resulting in a deadly cluster, followed by a bug out. Falls under the "Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!"

Just because its a nail sitting out there, doesn't mean you should attempt to hit it with a hammer.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-03-05 09:46|| 2011-03-05 09:46|| Front Page Top

#4 Hey, we didn't get a Harrumph! out of that guy.
Grabs Paddle Ball and comments "Hello boys, I missed you"

Posted by Cheaderhead 2011-03-05 16:00|| 2011-03-05 16:00|| Front Page Top

#5 I wouldn't bet on time being on Daffy's side. Just a feeling but I think he's going to swing. It is doubtful there is anywhere he can go.

Posted by JohnQC 2011-03-05 16:42|| 2011-03-05 16:42|| Front Page Top

#6 Gaddafi's survival is an interest of many powerful regimes, for some it is a vital interest.

Here's a ruthless totalitarian dictator whose ideology is based on communism, islamofascism, reactionary third worldism and 'afrocentrism.'

He's sponsored mass fatality terror attacks on major western powers and not only survived but he's managed to turn these powers into meek submissive poodles.

Plus, he's practically swimming in oil monkey.

If this kind of regime can be toppled then no other regime is secure. Conversely if Gaddafi prevails, and exterminates his domestic enemies (and exterminate he will) all other anti western regimes' deterrence versus their subjects will be significantly strengthened.

Anti western regimes survive, pro western regimes fall, this would be the result of the Arab spring.

Posted by Eohippus Jolump6531 2011-03-05 16:57|| 2011-03-05 16:57|| Front Page Top

#7 Here's a ruthless totalitarian dictator whose ideology is based on communism, islamofascism, reactionary third worldism and 'afrocentrism.'

I'd go with Islamic national socialism, Stalinism, reactionary Third Worldism, and North Afrocentrism, but agreed with the rest, Eohippus Jolump6531.

Posted by trailing wife 2011-03-05 18:37|| 2011-03-05 18:37|| Front Page Top

23:35 newc
22:47 gorb
22:40 whatadeal
22:38 whatadeal
22:31 Frank G
22:28 whatadeal
22:17 Frank G
22:15 Frank G
22:15 Anonymoose
22:12 Frank G
21:28 Secret Asian Man
21:19 Secret Asian Man
21:15 Alaska Paul
21:11 Dale
21:09 Barbara Skolaut
21:07 Dale
20:43 Anguper Hupomosing9418
20:09 Frank G
19:47 Dale
19:28 lotp
19:28 Thing From Snowy Mountain
19:03 DarthVader
18:59 DarthVader
18:49 trailing wife