Serious thread drift here!

Back on topic ... Gadaffi is talking about throwing open the national armory to anyone who supports him. I can only hope a lot of people will "support" him just as long as it takes to get a gun in their hands, then change their minds.

Kaddafi is done. Toast. Only remaining question is to how much damage he will do to everyone else on his way out. Amazing. Wikileaks never did that much damage. But made some so more angry.

The inevitable in Libya has been a foregone conclusion for about one week. More relevant. What's next where?

I think all children in Vatican City should rise up in rebellion against their sadomasochist masters. Since rebellion is in the air, the greatest victims also should be liberated from their abusers.

Rome is ripe for rebellion. On one side of town is a misogynist. On the other, a protector of pedophiles.

There is some talk that the troubles in Tunisia were warmed up a bit by a wikileaks revelation of a state department document detailing just how corrupt the buggers there were. Not the main factor, but fanned the flames a bit.

Gaddddaffffi (delete consonants to taste) might hold on a while through great brutality. A lot of other African and Middle eastern dictators would like to see it happen, to stop the momentum and scare the mobs. I hope you are right, though.

Heck, if we're speculating, do you think there is any chance this democratic movement might spread as far as the USA? ;)

This is desperation move. He is finished. Maybe he will put down the revolt with thugs, but then he have a country full of armed thugs.

My friend at the university has a saying "the truth will out".

Sooner or later you always get caught.

Right now Kaddafi has two choices, he can go into exile like Amin, the former Shah of Iran, etc., or he can go out like Hussein and Ceaușescu.

Right now it looks like Kaddafi and family are acting like they intend to be, quoting the Hitchiker's Guide, ' "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."

Yeah, I would say it fanned the flames. People were already discontent for quite a while, with the brutality and increasing poverty (the underlying factor) and the massive rise in food prices over the past couple of months, on top of stagnant and/or declining wages seems to have been the trigger.

Which I believe is being caused by financial speculation more than traditional supply/demand issues, but finding evidence either way has been difficult. Commodity speculation on food is technically illegal, unless you get a note from the Fed excusing you. The last time food and oil prices rose this high was in 2008, and that was definitely driven by speculation.

In other news, Gaddafi's mercenaries are apparently pulling down a cool $2000 per day on the job (400 times the average Libyan wage). It was $500/day up until about a week ago, which suggests he is under ever increasing pressure. It also suggests a massive declining curve in the supply of state violence. Which is pretty much a fancy way of saying "revolution".

By contrast, Mubarak was paying around $70 a day for his thugs. Given a year before, according to Reuters (when they were covering the sham 2010 Egyptian election) an entry level thug could pull down $140 a day for his work, this is quite unusual. The demand for violence was much higher, and the thugs are not so stupid as to accept offers of future side-deals in lieu of cash payment, not when the regime is up against the wall. So something very interesting happened there, but I'm not sure what.

And, just to add, it certainly was interesting timing that Libya decided to get violent when it did, since a lot of eyes were looking at the state of Bahrain. Bahrain, of course, has been nearly as violent, but as the world's fastest growing financial centre and with its strategic location in the middle of the Persian Gulf, is much more important to certain key interests in European and American capitols. Gaddafi was, of course, in recent years, also a clien-uh, firm ally in the War on Some Terror, but nowhere of near the importance of Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet, who would be the principal strike force against Iran in any war.

Tony Blair was giving advice to Gadaffi, incidentally. Given Blair's spirited defence of the autocratic Egyptian regime, one can only wonder what kind of "good advice" he was giving Libya's leader. Especially when the spiritual guru of New Labour, also had a rather cozy relationship with the man.

I'll be in the corner sobbing, if anybody needs me...

Good stuff Kaliayev, thank you.

Libya. Putting the LIB in liberation.

The Economist of 24 February 2011 provided best reasons for a Libyan uprising.

Basically, Libyan rebels are pushing for the capital now, but they fear that they have insufficient manpower and training to take Tripoli. Tanks surround the city of Zawiyah, which has been captured by rebels, but fortunately Libyan WMDs (such as mustard gas) have no viable delivery system.

The State Department has condemned the violence in the country. And is letting everyone know Hillary is off to Geneva, to do stuff. Rather her than me, Geneva is, for the most part, a horrible city, especially around the international quarter, near the airport.

The "Decent Liberals" who idolize Blair are very confused about everything going on in the Middle East and North Africa right now. It's very amusing. Their reliance on Neocon-funded, pro-dictatorship "think tanks" means they are now essentially parroting lines about the villainous Muslim Brotherhood and their insidious global jihadist network/Iranian proxies taking over in countries where there is rioting right now...which just so happens to be the regime line on many of these protests. Amazing, that.

Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton describe themselves as personal friends of Mubarak, and Blair of course famously holidayed in Sharm-el-Sheikh (where Mubarak is allegedly in a well timed coma right now). Blair and Third Wayists were taking money from the Gaddafi regime. Tunisia's dicator was hailed as a "progressive leader" in western capitals. It's all very cosy, isn't it?

They seemed to have regained some measure of self-respect by demanding the bombing of Libya, but that is really just a reflexive Decent pose when threatened by uncertainty: up with the war planes! Never mind that such planes would be flying from Italy, whose relationship with the Libyan dictator could best be described as "cosy" (or "wingman" if you are feeling ungenerous, as I am this morning). Or that they have a bad track record for predicting when foreign states will greet heavily armed liberators with cheering crowds and so on.

Anyway, I'm off to teach children maths, so no doubt something highly exciting and interesting will happen in the next few hours, which I will miss.

Or not, since it's an inset day.

Col. Gadaffi appeared on Serbian TV today, according to the BBC. Which is interesting, since I heard a rumour that some of his mercenaries may have come from "eastern europe", an especially vague term but one which could indeed include the former Yugoslavia which, as I understand it, has some notable armed fighting groups who are not very popular with Interpol.

France is flying "humanitarian aid" to the rebel held areas.

A national council has been formed in Benghazi (sounds like someone has learnt from the 1848 revolutions).

Italy has "de facto" suspended its non-aggression treaty with Libya. I guess that means no more cruising for chicks by Berlusconi and Gadaffi on their wild nights out (Putin is still free to be Silvio's wingman though).

Man, I'd love to go cruising with SleazySilvio! With MadBadVlad along in case of trouble. You'd be sure of an awesome night.

Although, to their defense, publicly mentioning that our countries are giving money to sadistic dictators doing everything in their ability to keep power because of foreign policy reasons doesn't make a real good campaign speech.

One positive aspect of wikileaks showed that the US has at least some competent people over in other countries. They will publicly state that our allies are good people but the leaks show that for the most part they knew differently.

Only because there are no carriers in the Mediterranean right now, Sparky! Now since Gquaddafiy is sending aircraft to bomb his subjects, what would you say to establishing a no-fly zone and limiting his options without dropping a single bomb?

There is a very amusing story about Berlusconi and Putin hunting a deer together, out there on the internet. I highly recommend googling it, because it just says so much about those two leaders, as if we needed to know anything more about their skeezy and somewhat disturbing personalities.

Ah, but I am not interested in letting leaders make good public speeches.

And yes, the State Department has some competent personnel, but as things stand, it is almost entirely irrelevant to the actual foreign policy making process of the USA. The Pentagon, and in particular the regional commanders, are where grand foreign policy deals and bargains are made. The State Department is left to negotiate the less glamourous and more technically difficult aspects of day to day diplomacy with foreign states. Even SecDef Gates has voiced concerns about the hegemonic status of the Pentagon in determining the foreign relations of the USA.

I'd say "that no-fly zone definitely stopped Saddam from slaughtering his own people, eh!"

The no-fly zone would be a pretext. Something would "happen"* to an aircraft, which would then justify further intervention, which would either undermine the revolution or put troops inbetween two warring parties, neither of which are helpful or useful.


* Like this. Or this. Or as Jackson Pollack suggested with Iraq:

The thing about reflexive interventionists is that they are classic addicts. Letting have "just one more cigarette" will invariably lead to them smoking the entire pack.

Can you make the argument without involving Iraq or knee-jerk thinking? Because we're talking about an entirely different country with entirely different conditions. For example, all the decision-makers you mention are no longer in office.

And while history repeats itself, it never repeats itself exactly. Predicting a future exactly like the past is generally a failure.

This post is not as intelligent as your previous ones and we like the intelligent ones better. Thank you.

Oh dear, please don't do that Undertoad. You are not as smooth a baiter as you'd like to believe.

Yes, clearly because influential people involved in the decision-making over Iraq no longer hold office, they are utterly powerless and unlistened to by current decision makers or the media, who can drive the narrative on any decision quite easily. Furthermore, all decisions are made at the overt political level and by elected leaders, and certainly no bureaucrats, think tank members, military personnel or diplomats have vested ideological interests of any kind, or indeed supported such action before.

And of course, Iraq was an aberration in the history of intervention. Never mind that vast majority of US and NATO interventions are failures when it comes to establishing strong governments that respect human rights, I'm sure they'll get this one right.

Damn, I really should try this intelligent thinking thing a little more, shouldn't I?

Nope, still not working. You've only made the same point, but drowning it in sarcasm. That's unhelpful.

How do you decide which particular history is going to determine the future? And you've raised the bar by saying the goal is producing a strong government that respects human rights; the goal here is only to prevent the mass killing of people.

Sort of, but not exactly like, how NATO stopped ethnic cleansing in Bosnia partly with a no-fly zone.

Hey! He's not just a smooth baiter, he's a master baiter!

The biggest concern I have with the no fly zone are the implications behind it. If it's purpose is solely to limit Gadaffi's options and force him to slaughter his own people on the ground then I have no problem with it. But, realistically, I don't see a no fly zone having too great of an effect since much of the killings have been on the ground by mercenaries and other people loyal to Gadaffi. That brings up the inevitable (yes, this is a slipperly slope) question about further obligations to stop the mass killings.

Let the Russians impose a no fly zone.

And so? There are 2 American carriers in the Red Sea, one in transit to Mediterranean Sea, one held in reserve. Is closer flight time to Libya than American aircraft in Azores, and America has one airbase in Sicily that can reach Libya in about 15 minutes.

UT's questions and doubts are on target. Many lessons from history apply.

For example, for democracy to take hold, the people must ‘lead the charge’ with severe losses. Democracy is not handed to a nation by a larger power (ie Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam). It must be earned.

Second, a nation does not go in militarily until a smoking gun exists. Learn why Bosnia was so quickly and easily settled. It was left to fester. Then the solution was desired by all sides who wanted the solution. To understand that, find the decision that Clinton made in 21 July of that year – when military action was finally justified.

Be very careful about letting emotions force a decision. Where I am sitting, not enough Libyans have died yet. If you have better facts, well let’s see them with numbers. This is a nation with a massive power vacuum. And maybe without any clear consensus among its people as to where they want to go.

Never think military action is a solution. Always remember what the entire purpose of any military conflict is for. The negotiated settlement. The only solution. One that all parties must first want. This third reason may also say why international intervention could only be destructive.

Never let emotions appear in conclusions. Sometimes massive numbers of dead people will only create a better solution. Hard logic trumps feelings. UT's post so accurately demands actions justified by first learning lessons from history.

Ignore the carriers. Militarily, they are inert. Mostly only show. Could do almost nothing to enforce a no fly zone. To do a no-fly zone would require cooperation from either Tunisia or Algeria. And from Egypt. Are those countries ready to take sides?

I heard a US military Brass chap talking about that.

To establish a no-fly zone, you send in your aircraft to shoot down their air craft.

For that, you need to destroy their air-defence system.

That involves dropping bombs.

That gets messy. Even the smartest bombs sometimes miss, or are poorly targeted.

I think TW has a point. Sometimes, freedom is expensive, and the price is human lives. The world can help, but the Libyans must bear the majority of the burden, else they will end up someone else's vassals. Freezing QGadddafffi's assests was good. If he can't pay his mercenaries, maybe they will go home or even change sides.

Can't do it with those resources and we couldn't do it by ourselves (US only). Flight fatigue, Fuel, and distance to cover would make this not only very expensive but not obtainable given we are still covering two other theaters of operation.

Is there some older SAM tech we can get to the rebels? <can of worms>

When this ends though we may be looking at a pretty screwed up place for a long time due to tribal breakdowns. I wonder how we could improve their communications most rapidly after Gaddafi gets ventilated?

An answer is found in the exact same concepts that define failing companies. Attitude and knowledge. Appreciate a great advantage that Egypt has. Most all junior officers in the Egyptian military were taught or at least introduced to American (western) concepts. That the army and government serve the poeple. That a country's fundamental strength comes from the masses they serve. That making war on the people is wrong and counterproductive. A concept that even America did not understand in the 1920s. Yes, these concepts are that new even in America.

As a result, now senior Egyptian officers understand concept on how governments and economics work. What is required from the powers that be. Concepts that Libyans have not been trained or even exposed to. In some venues, a benevoent leader or even a concept of term limits make no sense. In many venues, those who seek power therefore deserve to be the righteous leader.

It is not about the economy, intact towns, or wealth. It is about attitude and knowledge. The ability to learn. To understand what management's (government's) job is. Egypt hopefully will prosper from superior knowledge. Libya may suffer from a massive power vacuum because even the army was neither educated nor trained - except in 'ruthless power' concepts. In which case, an only solution would be massive deaths and civil war to fix a mess that Kaddafi has created.

All that suffering is irrelevant. Should be ignored in the press. All attention should be focused on what Libya is to become. And whether the 'powers that be' understand their purpose - which is not power. Massive deaths affecting every family is how those who would otherwise crave power, instead, start realizing why thinking like a moderate is necessary. Many times pain must be that massive to finally force logical thinking.

Wonder where he's getting this one? What does he think changed in the 1930s or thereabouts?

As for whether power-seekers are inherently so very deserving of power, that is very much open to question, likely in every case without exception.

Quaddafi the fashionista. I found this quite amazing and funny.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...200908#slide=1

FTFY

I don't think you did fix it for him -- I don't recollect any SAM tech we shipped to Afghanistan ever amounted to enough of a threat to U.S. arms to shoot down one fixed-wing aircraft, and maybe what, two helos? Over ten years? We are crashing more of them just out of weather and williwaws. The Afghan mountains can be a graveyard of airframes too.

You just don't want our side to win, Spexx. Such desire, manifested, would strain your relationship with your friends, I suppose.

You should pick friends who are not Fascist sympathizers, and scourge Fascist sympathies from your heart as well. Then you will be a man in full, instead of a cripple lacking any democratic values. I am what democratic values sound like when they are in full cry. Those who believe otherwise of me cannot support their beliefs with facts. No, none of you can -- you have only lies and misunderstandings (not necessarily your own) and shrunken, totalitarian, unfree values -- more correctly called antivalues.

While we're watching Japan, the Saudis send troops into Bahrain.

That had happened many days before the Japanese quake. Days later, other gulf state nations followed up with more troops. I don't understand why the NY Times is reporting this as if it were the first Saudi deployment.

I think after they gave Stingers to the Afgans in the 80's they learned their lesson.

When it comes to the always-desirable business of getting tyrants and undemocrats out of business, some Congresscritters remain a waste both of space and of carbon-14 uptake.

So make that fourteen trillion and one reasons, taking all this lot collectively, for why I don't vote Democratic. These several bozos think there's something else more important to do -- or perhaps that it is better done with plenty of less-than-democracies around.

I have no idea what they are thinking. I am very glad I do not share in it.

Amusingly, some of the first comments in UG's article are asking why Obama gets a pass from the left on starting foreign wars. Apparently they got those early posts by skipping not only the article, but also the headline.

What makes it even more amusing is that Politico is typically a left leaning news source.

I frequently vote Libertarian also, HM. Do you do the same? Don't recall you having done so and bragged about it...

But the Donkey Party is just plain too fucking bone-stupid for me ever to support.

The Republicans, by generations-long contrast, at least think wars, if engaged in, should be won. The Dems can't even muster up that -- viz., Mr. Obama, the Waffler-In-Chief. It was obvious to me I should vote against both him and his Party. I wish to heaven it were obvious to you, but some people just haven't got any valuable values, do they?

IN more interesting news, in Yemen, several senior military figures including a general, have publicly announced they are "joining the youth revolution". They forgot to add ",man!".

That is the crucial factor by which revolutions fail or win.
However Yemen is an unstable coalition of tribes and modernish cityfolk, lord knows how it could end up.

Interesting discussion...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ed_in_the.html

continues:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...=james+taranto

SO someone tell me again why the hell we are involved in this goatfuckoperation? Ala Bill Clinton...

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...eda-links.html

Because the Arabs asked us to get rid of Kadafi. As long as he's in power, Libya will never be a proper Islamic country.

Ain't that the damm truth. And they want to have a chance to get some more weapons.

'Yemen is a ticking bomb and if the political system collapses and there's no constructive dialogue there will be a long civil war that will be difficult to end."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ers-brink.html

I have, but you're right that it's not worth bragging about.

The last two wars we won were World War II and Bosnia, both under Democrats.

You could probably say GHW Bush won Iraq, if his kid hadn't restarted it. If we "win" Iraq this time around, GW Bush can have the credit, for whatever that's worth. He certainly can't get any credit for "winning" Afghanistan, if that ever happens.

WOW, really we "won" in Bosnia? that was a US victory? How do you figure that?

We achieved our objective, and it's over.

Really? Ok, until the next multi-million dollar plane becomes a dirt dart. Obama shows he is tool of the UN in this one... 2012 just can't come soon enough. The dude ignored Darfur but makes a case for a Civil War where we have absolutely no dog in the hunt. I hope his ass is burned in the next election.

In fact, it was Bush who ignored the slaughter in Darfur that began in 2003.

But Reagan did win the war in Grenada with the US invasion, despite having no Congressional approval and near unanimous opposition of the UN for flagrantly violating the sovereignty of an independent nation that, btw, was neither a threat to the US or massacring its own people.

Yep.

The Dayton Accords that Clinton personally strong-armed into acceptance by all parties in the conflict effectively ended the civil war...with NO loss of US lives.

Bosnia was so obviously one of America’s greatest victories. Proper application of military and political power, then almost no military was used to completely and decisively end that war. Show me any other war that was won so quickly with so little expense? Bosnia was a perfect example of leaders who understood the purpose of war. To take a conflict back to a negotiation table. A victory so complete that Milosevic even negotiated himself out of office.

If you did not understand that spectacular victory in Bosnia, then the strategic purpose of a military was never learned. Bosnia was a text book perfect example of how military and political power should be used in a team effort.

Asking that question either implies zero knowledge of a military's purpose and history. Or I don't get what must be a joke.

The Anglo-Zanzibar War. 45 minutes, followed by gin tonics and a lovely game of polo.

What are you talking about?