A hat-tip to the neo-neocon. Mr. Warren's thesis: we have no idea what's going on in Libya, who are the good guys, the bad guys, what people want, and why Gaddhafi lasted so long.
The biggest reasons why Mr. Warren thinks we don't know can be traced to the nature of journalism today: journalists aren't self-critical, and journalists have to stick to the narrative so as to retain their importance. Take a look at his thesis, he (as always) writes it well.
I'll add another reason: Libya is difficult. The average western journalist doesn't speak the language, doesn't know the history of Libya, doesn't know the people, and has to trust informants, fixers, drivers and translators. The average western journalist doesn't understand the Arabs, doesn't understand tribalism and certainly doesn't understand Islam. The average journalist, even the gonzo ones, has at least a modest aversion to getting killed in his quest for a story. You don't want to get your Pulitzer posthumously.
Warren notes the history: "Eastern Libya, or "Cyrenaica" as it was anciently known, is in reality a different country from "Tripolitana," or western Libya. East and west are attached by accidents of history..."
That's just point one. A journalist interested in figuring out Libya could consult history, ignore the present narrative, and try to understand whether 'Libya' will be a single nation-state in five years. That journalist would try to understand why Cyrenaica got away from Gaddhafi so quickly, and why Tripolitana held out for so long. That journalist would try to understand what appeal al-Qaeda might have to the young in each part of the country, and whether either group would cotton to the West at all.
Or that journalist could just file some dreck and move on. I know which way I'm betting.
#2
Through out the Libyan civil war the press has exhibited all of Warren's criticisms - naiveté, aversion to self-assesment, posturing as an authority, impulse to create conflict as the narrative, and straight-up ignorance. For good measures I'll add to the list - lazyness, apathy, and an overall contempt for their consumers. But if you think about it, these are all the usual MSM gripes. In fact, all of these critiques could apply to almost any of the media's subjects dejour. Crudely said, contemporary journalism most often resembles a pack of horny monkees all trying to fuck the same football.
But at the risk of appearing conspiratorial, from development to present, the crafting of this conflict has been meticulously coordinated. One could argue that a notion of "legitimacy" is an important component of any foriegn intervention strategy. And clearly, manipulation of the press is one of the best conduits to achieve this goal. But with the "R2P doctrine" as the bedrock of this mission, continued legitimacy is absolutly vital. I dare say we've now witnessed an unprecedented level of control over the most influential media levers. Don't fool yourself, the op/ed's, white-paper reports, and speeches have already been written on this bad-boy. They just need to fill in the details.
As an addendum:
Transistional periods, such as present, are the optimal time to throw the general public off the scent through the release curveball articles. Simply refer to your handy-dandy "SmartPower" handbook for background.
Posted by: Barbara ||
08/29/2011 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Christ on a crutch, grom, are you some sort of long-term moby determined to play-act the worst "Nazi Jew" that left-wing anti-Semitic imaginings could conjure? Some days you sound like fucking Baruch Goldstein.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
08/29/2011 15:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Mitch:
We all have our good days and bad, but I enjoy g(r)omgoru's extemporaneous, 'head shot' one-liners sans Powerpoint. Community bloviators tend to miss or intentionally delete key and essential realities, ie, long established genetic and tribal empiricals, well supported by history and current events. Bloviators muddle things in an attempt to stylize, inject humour, or appear collegiate and multicultural savy. They tire me. Give me the Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) and let me move on.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Casino Royale in Monterrey, Nuevo leon, I happened to read the comments in one of the news articles, Proceso, I think. Reading comments, especially after such as calamity as this massive and vicious attack gives me a sense of what the average Mexican is thinking and feeling about a news event, or about Mexico in general; A slice of opinion in a sliver of time, as it were.
The opinions expressed were not good; in fact since I started helping at Rantburg with Mexican news, I had never seen comments so angered; anger at President Felipe Calderon, anger at the Chamber of Deputies, and anger at local officials and officials in general. One comment, however, more or less reflected a sense of frustration that was specifically not expressed, when the commenter retailed that Monterrey city officials made certain the fact was known that the casino was operating without a state license.
Paraphrasing from memory:
"The problem was operating was without a state license? And here I was thinking the problem was with the assassins!"
The comments were mostly directed against the national government. Blaming Felipe Calderon for the violence that has enveloped the country is understandable, since Calderon is charged with protecting Mexican society from threats internal and external, so at some level it makes sense to blame him and other officials. Calderon's four year long war against the cartels has produced little in tangible results, such as a decrease in shootings. An entire at peace movement led by a Mexican leftist, Javier Sicilia, is growing based on the very notion that organized crime murders are the fault of the president.
But lost in all the anger and frustration is the fact that the great majority of the violence is committed by Mexican organized crime, in the normal course of business in Mexico. There is little Calderon can do about decisions to kill made routinely in criminal enterprises throughout Mexico. All he can do is to attempt to stop the flow of illegal drugs to the US and illegal guns to Mexico using the Mexican military.
In many ways the view that Calderon and his efforts are to blame for this latest outrage seem to be schizophrenic. Were a normal individual, be they Mexican, American, or any other nationality to witness a murder and its aftermath, the last persons they would perceive to be responsible for the bloodshed would be the police who responded, or aid agencies who give first aid and provide transport for the survivors.
So why pounce on the boss as the cause rather than for his failings?
Understandably a frustrated Felipe Calderon who has been a lightening rod for his efforts to combat crime, made a decision to blame the United States for Mexico's own troubles, which on the surface makes sense.
Calderon mentioned the two nation's shared friendship and interests over the years, and to some extent that it true. Investments and jobs go to Mexico, which produce goods for sale in the US and elsewhere. It's supposed to be good for us as well as for Mexican citizens. Those investors take advantage of the most open border in the history of the planet. American get cheap goods. Seems like a fair trade.
But for two nations who are allegedly friends, both sides are committing acts that in many other nations would be considered acts of war.
For example, the 2,500 plus weapons purchased with the official blessing of American law enforcement were placed in the hands of cartel thugs who had apparently racheted up gun violence to a high degree, who used them on other Mexicans. Yet, as bad as that was, placing those very guns in the hands of the very individuals in Mexico who could do the most good with them in protecting their own families from the cartels would have been an even more egregious act of war in the minds of officials on both sides of the border; yet that is what Calderon seeks to do with US legislators by calling to disarm private American citizens.
They send Americans illegal drugs and illiterate help in the form of illegal immigrants, and we send them tourists, investment money and illegal guns.
The relationship is codependant, and therefore destructive, and while some advantages exist to the current arrangement, and while neither side benefits, neither side is prepared to admit it.
So perhaps Calderon has it right. Our drug appetite and illegally smuggled weapons fuelled this mass murder. But it is then fair to say Mexico has its hands bloodied in this as well for failing to close the borders, and for failing to arms its citizens.
#1
When elements of every enforcement agency you have are corrupt, and you are losing entire police forces to the cartel, it is very difficult to gain traction. Not to mention that the government is out-gunned and out-spent by these cartels.
There have been significant crackdowns and arrests but it seems to not resonate at the street level.
Calderon is between a rock and a hard place.
Remember, he had to be sworn in in secret at midnight. It is quite dire.
#2
No tears here. In the 80s, the Reagan administration granted amnesty with the promise of securing the border. Of course that flopped because the Mexican ruling caste had no interest in stopping the flood of mestizos and indios they were moving out to avoid having to do serious reform or face revolution. So reform was never of interest to the Mexican government. They've been like the North Koreans making promises they'd never keep while Washington thinks they can reason or deal with them. Now its too late. Hobbled by a corrupt governmental infrastructure, at war with agents that can compete in recruiting cannon fodder who at least believe the peso in the pocket today is better than the lies of pesos in the future by the ruling caste, he has very few options. The one effective option would be to close the border now, but the consequences of exposing the truth of the matter and the decades of lies of the ruling caste is about as palatable for him as Kimmy giving up nukes. Its about POWER.
#3
I can't help thinking our own US government is every bit as corrupt and every bit as responsible for this tragedy as Mexico's. If our government would do its job and secure the border the cartels would go out of business, right? Well, they might at least give it a try. But they don't because they're just as crooked as the cartels themselves.
#4
I might add that Calderon gets credit in my book for at least trying to do something about it. As I recall, his predecessor Vicente Fox did nothing except to ask us to leave our border wide open.
#5
I thought most of the guns in the hands of the Mexican drug gangs/cartels/whatever were purchased from arms merchants or maleficent governments like Cuba and Venezuela. In other words, while most of the traceable guns came from the U.S., and the Gunwalker effort certainly increased the number of traceable guns, that most of the guns the authorities found in connection to crimes in Mexico did not come from The Yanquis. Did I miss something?
#6
They are counting all of the M-16s that were legally sold to governments in Central America in registered and supervised sales from government to government, and which through endemic corruption, wind up being sold to the cartels by the various armies after the weapons were legally delivered and turned over to their governments. That is so that they can still say we are responsible for so many of the illegal guns in Mexico.
#7
AK47s are abundant and available from China as well
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/29/2011 18:44 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Norinco, the Chinese arms manufacturer still makes AK-47s. Hard to believe the Sinaloa Cartel and Caballeros Templarios do not demand their supplier of precursor chemicals they buy by the ton from China doesn't throw in a few cases of assault rifles to sweeten a deal.
the opinion piece says that israel should allow a few Syrians a safe harbor in the Golan or offer to transport them to Turkey.
Not such a big deal.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
08/29/2011 9:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The 'Free Syria Movement' based in the Golan has a certain appeal...
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/29/2011 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Nah!
If Israel wants to intervene in Syria, send in drones with anti-armour missiles. 3 or 4 tanks a day mysteriously exploding would be enough to tip the balance.
#9
No good reasons for the Israelis to go in, and lots for stay out of Syria for now. On the other hand, if Assad were to decide to cut certain deals behind closed doors, and leave certain parties to swing in the breeze, then the Israelis would have a reason to get involved. If the Egyptians want to promote this 'Arab Spring' crap, they have the men, materials, and border access to do just that.
Claudia Rosett strikes again. Great investigative piece looking at how Iran, with China's canoodling, is getting around western sanctions. Long piece so just the first two paragraphs here, but of course you'll RTWT.
This June, a merchant ship flying the Hong Kong flag and sailing under the name of the Atlantic called at the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenasthe southern end of a trade corridor to the U.S., advertised as "the fastest route to the heart of North America." That might be unremarkable, except the Atlantic, formerly called the Dreamland, and before that the Iran Saeidi, belongs to a curious network of 19 bulk carriers, all flagged out of Hong Kong and all blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury for their links to Iran.
According to a recent transcript of Hong Kong's Marine Department Shipping Register, the Atlantic is owned by a Hong Kong-registered company called Harvest Supreme Limited. Scratch the surface and Harvest Supreme tracks back to an Iranian address, as do 18 other obscure and interlinked Hong Kong ship-owning companies with names such as Grand Trinity Limited and Sparkle Brilliant Development Limited. These are the hallmarks of the global shell game with which Iran continues to dodge U.S. and United Nations sanctions.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/29/2011 09:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So, do we refuse them Harbor? or what?
My bet is NOTHING they just port, unload and scram, we may scowl at them.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/29/2011 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There's your carrier for the EMP strike at the US (and Canuckistan) from the Gulf of Mexico.
#3
My bet is NOTHING they just port, unload and scram, we may scowl at them.
Because nothing can effectively be done.
The MV Atlantic is likely the sole asset of a shipping company specifically created to operate it. If things gets too hot, the ship gets 'sold', a new company created, the ship is renamed and a new registry obtained in another country. It can be done in less than a week in some places.
Or the ship disappears and re-appears with a quick paint job, a new name (or the name of a scrapped ship), and new flag. The Chinese (with Taiwanese vessels) and the West Africans were good at this. IIRC, the Russians also pulled this a few times.
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.
