Down in the Hole

23 Comments

1. 

   BooMan on March 17, 2011 at 11:00 pm

   The United Nations Security Council voted Thursday to authorize military action, including airstrikes against Libyan tanks and heavy artillery and a no-fly zone, a risky foreign intervention aimed at averting a bloody rout of rebels by forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

   After days of often acrimonious debate, played out against a desperate clock, as Colonel Qaddafi’s troops advanced to within 100 miles of the rebel capital of Benghazi, Libya, the Security Council authorized member nations to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, diplomatic code words calling for military action.

   Diplomats said the resolution — which passed with 10 votes, including the United States, and abstentions from Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India — was written in sweeping terms to allow for a wide range of actions, including strikes on air-defense systems and missile attacks from ships. Military activity could get under way within a matter of hours, they said.

   Benghazi erupted in celebration at news of the resolution’s passage. “We are embracing each other,” said Imam Bugaighis, spokeswoman for the rebel council in Benghazi. “The people are euphoric. Although a bit late, the international society did not let us down.”

   I note the cowards who abstained. Screw them.  Take a stand.  They know we’re going to be tasked with doing it; they know it will weaken and burden us.  We are so stupid.

   • 

     Bazooka Joe on March 17, 2011 at 11:25 pm

     Hmm, I guess the administration wasn’t interested in your counsel after all.

     Cheer up BooMan, it could be worse. At least they’re not gung ho about it. Although a half-assed plan is sometimes worse than no plan at all I suppose.

     I’m still interested in finding out the extent of the mission. A secondary consideration, I know. But I would like to know whether we’re going for the immediate regime change, or whether the NFZ is just about protecting the population of Benghazi for the time being?

     • 

       BooMan on March 18, 2011 at 8:45 am

       They want to stop the strongest power in the country from exerting its power, and they want to do it on the cheap.  It’s beyond retarded.  If the policy is regime change, go to Tripoli.  If we want to turn East Libya into Saddam-era Kurdistan, this is the way to go.  It actually wasn’t so bad for the Kurds, but it was disastrous for us.  

       • 

         QueerReader on March 18, 2011 at 8:51 am

         Unfortunately, I totally agree with you BooMan.

   • 

     TarheelDem on March 18, 2011 at 12:04 am

     Let’s talk about the abstentions:

     Russian is a historic ally of Gaddafi

     China has had and maybe still has guest workers in Libya.  Same for Brazil and India.

     Germany as policy tries not to get involved in foreign interventions; something to do with post-World War II decisions, just like Japan tries not to get involved in foreign interventions.

     I suspect that  “acrimonious debate” is hyperbole.

   • 

     Brendan Skwire on March 18, 2011 at 8:00 am

     how are they cowards? Russia and China are both on record as being opposed to intervention in Libya.  A quick google search indicates that India’s not on board.

     I’ll admit I don’t know why they wouldn’t vote no instead of abstaining. I mean, other than not liking Kaddafi, not wanting to be seen as on his side, and yet at the same time having little or no interest to defend in the country. I mean, who wants headlines like “India sides with brutal dictator”, when it’s easier to just say “I ain’t got a dog (or no dog important enough) in that fight.”

     I’m with you on intervention, BTW. Bad idea.

     • 

       BooMan on March 18, 2011 at 8:46 am

       Because it’s either the right thing to do and they should approve it, or it’s the wrong thing to do and they should vote no.  For those that have veto power, I understand not wanting to exert the veto but still disapproving, but India doesn’t have that quandary.  

       • 

         Brendan Skwire on March 18, 2011 at 11:24 am

         yeah, that’s all well and good.
         but if this fizzles, aren’t these countries just protecting their interests, as you argue convincingly that we should?

         i mean yeah, it’s ugly anyway you look at it, but i wouldn’t call it cowardice unless you want to describe our refusal to vote no on this or that intervention is also cowardice.  Are we cowards for not arguing for an intervention in Bahrain’s attacks on democratic protestors? Were we cowards for not immediately denouncing Mubarek?

2. 

   utried on March 17, 2011 at 11:32 pm

   Britain is first up, not the US. They will be there soon.
   This isn’t like Iraq at all.
   It would be a good idea to wait and see what happens.
   Obama isn’t a fool.
   I don’t own a crystal ball but the negativity on the blogs is tiring.

3. 

   Lodus on March 17, 2011 at 11:49 pm

   Tom Waits is so awesome. Does he ever tour anymore?

   • 

     Lodus on March 17, 2011 at 11:51 pm

     Furthermore:

4. 

   TarheelDem on March 18, 2011 at 12:10 am

   I think Lugar has a point.  It does merit discussion in Congress.  Give John McCain some more face time.  Just allow the US to use its AWACS planes and ships so long as no US-delivered ordnance lands on Libyan territory until Congress makes its decision.

   France and UK are going first if Libya does not do as their deputy foreign minister said they would–observe a cease fire.  Qatar and United Arab Emirates are contributing a symbolic force–although with a no-fly zone I’m not sure how small “symbolic” will turn out to be.

5. 

   Oui on March 18, 2011 at 4:43 am

   .
   Contrary to Dick Lugar, I’ll side with John Kerry on this one and a call for fundamental CHANGE! Our true adversaries in the Middle-East are the extremists in Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both from the fundamentalist religious view of their world. Participating in the no-fly zone military operation are the Emirates and Qatar.

   “The will of the Libyan people will in my judgment prevail,” contradicting last week’s testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who predicted that Qaddafi would win out.

   Kerry also argued that America’s reliance on foreign oil had led to a misguided foreign policy in the Middle East.

    « click

   “We had relationships that focused on leaders rather than people and that’s part of the energy dependency we are locked into. We cannot continue to see the Middle East in the context of 9/11. We must see it in the context of 2011.”  

   • Herzliya ICT report –  The Saudi Double-Game
   • A Shi’a-Sunni War of International Dimension Looms Ahead
   • Bahrain, Saddam’s Guards and Saudi Military a Sunni Front

   "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

   • 

     JeffL on March 18, 2011 at 8:49 am

     Yes, what Kerry says is true.  How to get there is the problem and has been ever since Pres. Carter called for energy independence and labeled it for the US as the “moral equivalence of war”.  

     That was prophecy of a sort, since it turns out that our gluttony for oil, oil corporation “employees” in Congress and lack of long term energy policy has led us into real wars over oil resources.

6. 

   JeffL on March 18, 2011 at 8:42 am

   For that matter, where was Kerry before the Iraq invasion?  Oh that’s right, he was voting in support of military authorization for Bush.  Along with Clinton, Edwards and the other enablers of violence.

   I guess someone like Kerry has to stand up and state the obvious now that he has 20-20 hindsight on events 8-9 years ago.  But I still cringe when I see Kerry because I remember his little Iraq policy dance during the 2004 election which was a contributing factor to his loss.  Sheesh, this makes me puke.

   The whole thing strikes me as a circus.  I have leanings toward Lugar’s view, but he doesn’t really explore it well.  He’s employing the buzz phrases du jour (“Arab street”) but I think he is less interested in informing us or protecting American interests than in scoring political points.

   Despite my leanings, I think the US should support the unilateral efforts at the UN but should minimize our own military participation in this.  We’re stretched too much already anyway.  Let the French take the lead on this as they seem eager to do.  They have more history in that region.

   And I hope that whatever takes the place of Mallomar’s reign is a significant improvement.  If a joint UN force helps the rebels secure the country, the UN has a stake to claim in reorganizing the Libyan government.

   • 

     utried on March 18, 2011 at 9:02 am

     This morning on the radio, I heard that France is on it’s way to Libya.
     I want to see who gets involved right away.
     I have written that we don’t belong in Libya and I stand by that.
     I do think this is not Geo. Bush nonsense.
     It is for civilian protection.
     It’s very quiet about this. This is a good sign
     No one is making war noises and getting their face all over the place, yet.
     Obama is silent, so far. Why broadcast what is going on and alert Libya?
     Clinton had been saying the US would set up a no fly zone all by ourselves and Gates walked that on back right away.
     I have been thinking that it’s possible a lot of children have been killed and wounded.
     I don’t listen to Kerry anymore. I think he wants to be SoS and that spoils his statements for me.
     I also don’t listen to Clinton. She is usally reversed.
     I will wait and see what Obama says.

     • 

       utried on March 18, 2011 at 9:05 am

       Forgot to add that Truman did not go to Congress about Korea. This fits under the same heading.
       It is  UN action.
       I just want this to be over.

       • 

         utried on March 18, 2011 at 9:09 am

         I promise to shut up after this.

         Libya has announced a ceasefire in accordance with the UN resolution.

         • 

           BooMan on March 18, 2011 at 9:18 am

           Of course they did.  Now someone has to keep gun pointed at their heads.  After a while, your arm gets tired.

       • 

         TarheelDem on March 18, 2011 at 9:30 am

         About Truman.  That was the first step down the slippery slope.

         • 

           utried on March 18, 2011 at 9:39 am

           Broke my promise.
           I agree with you and it led to Viet Nam without a declaration of war.
           There’s a lot about Truman that I find wrong.
           I have a spotty work history and I wouldn’t trade it for anything.
           I got to learn things and got the hang of going through changes.

7. 

   rikyrah on March 18, 2011 at 9:18 am

   I feel for the rebels in Libya, but this is SO not our problem. Let the EU and the Arabs deal with Moammar.

8. 

   mainsailset on March 18, 2011 at 10:20 am

   Caller into CNN from Libya this morning screaming that Khadafi was shelling whole city, including a hospital, that Khadafi declared cease fire to buy him time and that 20 people had died just this morning.