The New, Neoconservative, New York Times
At first I thought it was an anomaly, a personal thing. One New York Times columnist has an epiphany. But now there are two of them, two very liberal Timesmen embracing the use of military force in Libya. And invoking a quintessential “neoconservative” justification for it. I think it’s a trend.
First, Roger Cohen, now living in London:
The Libyan people have been freed from a crazed tyranny. Unlike in Iraq, burdens were shared: America flew the intelligence missions and did the refueling while the French, British, Dutch and others did most of the bombing. Iraq was the wrong prism through which to look at Libya. I’m glad I resisted that temptation. Another cycle has begun.
In the end, I think interventionism is inextricable from the American idea. If the United States retreats into isolationism, it ceases to be itself — a nation dedicated, however much it falls short, to a universalist ideal of freedom.
There are no fixed doctrinal answers — a successful Libyan intervention does not mean one in Syria is feasible — but the idea that the West must at times be prepared to fight for its values against barbarism is the best hope for a 21st century less cruel than the 20th.
“Interventionism is inextricable from the American idea…a universalist ideal of freedom.” Got it?
Now here’s Nicholas Kristof, writing from Tripoli, surrounded by America-loving, anti-Qaddafi rebels:
“Libya is a reminder that sometimes it is possible to use military tools to advance humanitarian causes.”
I know exactly what you’re going to say. You’re going to say that this is Obama’s war, and Obama is their guy, and so of course they’re going to endorse it. Iraq was Bush’s war, so of course they’re going to continue to damn it. And I’ll give you another bit of grist for your mill: Cohen cites another “good war”–Bosnia, Clinton’s war — which he also endorsed, and he’s proud of it, even though he’s ashamed that he supported the Iraq war early, before he saw the light. So when Democrat presidents wage war, they’re ok, even noble. But when Republicans wage war, it’s bad. Check.
All true. But it is still notable that these two are now textbook neocons, “liberals mugged by reality.” To be sure, they may not get all the way to embracing support for freedom against tyrants as a fundamental principle of American foreign policy — although Cohen’s last graph could have been written by Norman Podhoretz — but they’re en route, at a minimum.
I wonder if they have thought this through. The obvious question, as Achilles once said to the tortoise, is: if it’s right to intervene in Libya to stop the carnage, is there not even more reason to stop the greater carnage in Syria and Iran? And while we’re on the subject, don’t forget that the Syrian and Iranian regimes not only slaughter their own people, but also American soldiers, and civilians from Iraq and Afghanistan to Somalia and Argentina.
What will they say?
Michael,
It’s patronizing and insulting to claim that the “best” Americans are those that wear military uniforms. Most are fine people, just like most other Americans. But they’re no better or worse than the rest of the country. We should respect what they do, and all Americans should want to protect troops from unnecessary wars, but let’s not get carried away and swoon at the feet of all things military. Down that road is a nasty trip.
i don’t think it is at all patronizing or insulting. I think it’s the truth. I’ve never worn a uniform and don’t feel the least bit insulted. heh. but not to worry, I like entrepreneurs and chefs, too.
Thank you!
“Greater love hath no man…”
A man (or woman) who would don a uniform and deliberately go into harm’s way, in order to protect fellow citizens they are unlikely ever to meet — yes, I’d describe that as “the best of us”. They have taken an oath, pledging that what is good for their country is more important to them that their own personal survival. Is that “no better and no worse” than the rest of the country? Don’t know about you, Alan, but it’s head and shoulders above what I do for a living.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
There are many reasons people don the uniform. Some are personal, some patriotic, some nefarious. This soldier worship is stupid. The vast (and I mean VAST) majority of people in uniform are not warriors, in the slightest sense. Seals? Absolutely. They are bloody-minded men that Patton or Washington, or even Julius Caesar would have cheered, had they happened to show up when they were in trouble. But most of our “professional” soldiers are alarmingly like the 30 years’ war soldiers. They are in it for money and a chance for advancement. It is a primarily economic decision.
I do not think they are bad people, just people. Also, young people, with not much sense. This is as it ever was. Try to field a middle-aged army, and you will not be happy with the results.
Look at the Germans and French, two countries with perhaps the most glorious military history in the world, yet they are now a liability in battle. I know from personal experience that fat, drunk, and stupid maketh not a warrior. Yet the Germans in Afghanistan needed beer more than munitions. Old soldiers never die, they just hang on ’til retirement.
I am all for giving the keys to the city to any wounded veteran, or even anyone who spent some real time in actual battle (a standard held since Thermopylae), but to give carte blanche to a clerk or a cook, who never was within a thousand miles of danger, and calling them “heroes” perverts the concept of heroes.
One is not brave because a buliding falls on them. One is brave, because the path to safety lies open, yet he chooses to be brave, instead of safe. He chooses to defy the odds with his very life.
I am not, or probably ever will be a hero. But, if a building should fall on me, mourn me, but pray do not call me a hero. And stop pandering to civil servants in uniform.
John J, the best answer (known to me) to your dreadfully bad post can be heard by clicking the link below.
———————————
The Distinguished Service Medal is awarded
by President Harry S. Truman to George C. Marshall
VVL Call No.: DB4443
URL: http://lib0131.lib.msu.edu//Archive/VVL/dbnumbers//DB4443.mp3
Gen. George Marshall answers you (improved link):
URL: http://archive.lib.msu.edu/VVL/dbnumbers/DB4443.mp3
Agreed and well said. Joining the military is a career choice, nothing more, nothing less. And not a bad one pay and benefits-wise. We have too much hero-worship, period. Remember when teachers were heroes? Thank goodness I haven’t heard that one in a while. (I wonder why?) A hero is someone who does something heroic: something beyond the call of duty, beyond what can normally be expected of anyone; not someone who does what they signed up to do and get paid to do. The word should only be applied to those who deserve it otherwise it loses all meaning and creates cynicism and disrespect.
Well little Johnny you’re right there are a lot of cooks, clerks, paper pushers etc. But what you don’t happen to know is that when you join up your primary duty is as a soldier, sailor, or airman. You are a soldier first and a cook second. Just as I was a sailor first and an electronics technician second. Boot camp causes a rude awakening for those just entering for the money or a job. The ones that enter for those reasons usually find a way out quick, whether it be honorably or dishonorably. Everyone in boot camp gets tear gassed and shown the effects of chemical, biological and radioactive warfare(In extremely graphic detail). This helps thin the herd of those who are there for the wrong reasons. Even sailors are trained about how they will have to fight shipboard fires and flooding and how they may have to close a hatch to a flooding compartment on their best friend to save the rest of the ship. Soldiers are made well aware that their buddies may wind up blown to pieces next to them. Don’t forget the woman who was, as you may put it, just a truck driver in a rear supply unit whose convoy was ambushed and taken prisoner. Also everyone who completes training must complete one to two tours overseas before they are eligible for orders stateside. We sacrifice more than you will ever comprehend you have not earned the right to judge. Are there Sh1tbags in the service? Yes, but we will deal with them and let you know who they are. In case you don’t know how we let you know, they are the ones who get dishonorable, other than honorable, and bad conduct discharges. Otherwise if they have received an honorable discharge, then that person has sacrificed and completed every far-fetched and sometimes hair-brained request the country has made of them while they served. We adapt, overcome, and improvise oftentimes because some p3ck3rwood that thinks like you feels too much money is spent on defense. Well, cuts to defense means less ammo, longer shifts, less equipment and makes it harder to accomplish whatever friggin’ task we’re asked to do. We know the pay sucks but, we also know the job needs to get done and we gladly do it so you or others can sit in their parents basement and comment on how people are just blindly worshiping service members. By the way read Patton’s speech to the Third Army he addresses the importance of all the support staff. He saw them as equally important and no different than the front-line soldier. Patton would knock the snot out of you for your words.
Mark: Kudos to you for your reply to John J. Although I enlisted Infantry I never saw combat, since I finished my tour in late 1962. But I know two relatives in special ops, and far far from being “bloody minded men”, both are highly educated, soft spoken, modest individuals. One is a surgeon who does life saving procedures on an evacuation chopper, with many tours in Afghanistan. The other is a special forces officer with multiple tours in Afghanistan and East Africa. Our Seals, Green Berets, and other special forces from all branches of our services are better than most of us. But every fighting man or woman finds him or herself on the front lines in our wars against terrorist guerrillas.
it’s very difficult to become a military officer in the US nowadays because there so much competition. our military officers are better educated than their civilian peers, and way better physically…i wrote a few years back that there is a very interesting subset in America: kids going to college so that they can go to officers candidate school…for which you need a college degree. And special ops guys are real intellectuals with amazing language skills and cultural sophistication…
Typical government employee tripe. I stand by my statement.
Thank you for giving us such a great, clear example of the whole mindset.
This is obscene. This is what all this “hero-this, hero-that” blather produces: arrogant jerks who think the rest of us should worship the ground they walk on. Bull. A military career is not even in the top 20 most dangerous jobs in America. It has decent pay, good benefits and perks and great retirement. It doesn’t take “Thebestofthebestofthebest OOORAAAH!” to join up. Give me a break. And I don’t need to earn the right to judge anything. I just have it. I most certainly don’t need you to ratify it.
Michael: Who are the “peers” you are comparing the military officers to? Fortune 500 executives? Entreprenuers like those who started Amazon, Ebay, Yahoo, Google, etc.? Inventors? Ph.D.s and theoreticians? Compare apples with apples. Compare the average Joe in society with the average Joe in the military, otherwise the comparison is meaningless. And I don’t think the top tier in the military is any better – or worse – than the top tier in society. Same with the bottom tier. They simply have a different mindset than most (which is fine) and have chosen such a career. No better or worse, or more or less necessary than any other hard working, honest person. More intellectual? Seriously, where do you get this? A lot of people are drawn to philosophy, literature and spirituality. I am. It doesn’t necesarrily make us any better – or even wiser – than anyone else. After all “intellectuals” gave us socialism as well as capitalism, collectivist ideology as well as individual rights. An “intellectual” can justify “abortion” and euthanasia or stand up for the right to life of all human beings. I have friends who’ve been in the military. They’re no better, or braver, or harder working than anyone else I know. They’re regular people with strengths and weaknesses, and clarity and blindspots like everyone else.
“They are bloody-minded men that Patton or Washington, or even Julius Caesar would have cheered, had they happened to show up when they were in trouble.”
You made an interesting choice of military leaders, John. Patton was greatly envied by Eisenhower and Bradley. In the invasion of Normandy they attempted to use him as a diversion to distract the Germans from the main allied initiatives. Accordingly, they assigned him the least trained, the least experienced, and the least capable army they could, while retaining the best for their campaign. Patton refused to be a diversion and blew right through the Germans. His “civil servants in uniform” steamrolled some of the best German forces. Patton knew what Mr. Ledeen knows and Victor Davis Hanson writes of and that is the average citizen warrior armed with moral superiority of mission over the enemy, if well lead, will prevail. Mr. Ledeen is correct. The American soldier is our finest because he or she is us.
Thank you for your kind words Daniel. It is people such as yourself, that comprehend that we do more than you know, who warm our hearts.
Thank you for your healthy sentiment. It will be needed, as here is a word of warning – as soon as liberals start endorsing war, they BRING THEIR LIBERAL idea with them. The result is soldiers risking their lives needlessly to prevent collateral damage or even just plain damage inflicted on the enemy. This is what happened in my native Israel, where the rules of engagement for the IDF are now so impossible that soldiers basically need to wait to be fired upon before being allowed to return fire.
For any usable definition of “better”, they are, in fact, better than the average by far.
They are braver. They are healthier. They will work longer hours. They are more polite. They will get on and off buses faster.
In fact, by what measurable trait would anyone say they are not “better”?
officers are better educated, too.
NYT neoconservative? Hah! More like CYA.
I confidently predict that that this “conversion” will disappear the moment a non-Democrat becomes President.
I.e., this isn’t principal, it’s partisan positioning.
LarryD – My thoughts exactly.
You’ve got that right.
This article is truly fatuous.
Liberals don’t have principles, and neocons don’t either. When neocons go to war, it’s always on the side of some Muslim faction or other, and the result is always the same – it always makes matters worse. There should be a Constitutional amendment forbidding the US to provide any support, military or otherwise, to any predominantly Muslim nation, territory, army, military force, organization, or individual.
so you’d decline to support Indonesia under any circumstances, right? just checking.
Hey man, a Bentley gets 11MPG in the city. You think the ” war ” in Libya was motivated by anything but greed for Libyan oil?
The Libyan regime was less a threat to US interests than Iran. The Libyan regime was less brutal than the Syrian.
Its all about the oil Michael. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. The bullets are still flying and the EU is slicing and dicing the oil fields. Soros and Qatar, baby. What do they care if Al Qaida rules Libya?
Aren’t they above it all?
The NYTimes reporters are just doing what they do best- laying down a smoke screen to hide the truth.
Of course its about oil, or more accurately, avoiding the catastrophic deaths caused by a sudden interruption in the supply of oil.
It’s childish to talk about oil as if it was some kind of luxury product that we could do without if we just tightened our belts a little bit. Oil is life for most of the people in the world. Millions of people died in the poor countries back in the 70s when OPEC turned off the spigots and similar interruption today would kill tens of millions. The poorer people are the more that oil matters and the more sensitive they are to changes in price and availability.
We went into Libya because Libya provides most of the oil of Italy, Spain and France. If Libya fell into chaos and its oil production ceased for more than 90 days, the economies of Italy, Spain and France would collapse which in turn would have taken down the Euro and most of the European banking system. A systemic collapse would have spread from there with untold loss of life over the next few years.
It would be grand if we could ride out onto the jousting field and just fight over philosophical issues but in reality we save lives by fighting to ensure that people have at least a chance at food, clothing and shelter. In the modern world, oil is the primary material that produces food, clothing, shelter, medical care and it therefore something we must fight for.
“We went into Libya because Libya provides most of the oil of Italy, Spain and France. If Libya fell into chaos and its oil production ceased for more than 90 days, the economies of Italy, Spain and France would collapse which in turn would have taken down the Euro and most of the European banking system.”
As I understand it, little if any oil has been pumped in Libya in the last SIX months since the revolt against Qadhafi began. Did the economies of Italy, Spain and France collapse without making it into the news?
I think your concerns were a little overstated.
Hey it’s nothing new. Hitler invaded the same land for oil to fuel his war campaigns and the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in hopes of crippling us so they could raid the Pacific for resources. We as a country prefer to make business deals for cheap oil and the tyrants and communists(same thing)eventually just decide to take it. Right now Libya is a cluster that didn’t need to happen and they are stupidly helping the Muslim Brotherhood take over Libya. The Muslim Brotherhhod was started in the 30′s by the Grand Mufti, Hitler’s ally. So in effect they’re helping left over nazi’s from WWII take over again. History repeats.
Fighting for oil might not be a bad thing, but the NYT writers are putting it as if the fight is for human rights and freedom. There was no mention of the O word in their articles.
We have an excellent military and should only put them in harms way when it is a conflict involving fundamental American interests.
Iran, Syria, Libya etc are not existential threats to fundamental American interest so we should not bomb or invade them.
The Arab League along with Turkey is perfectly capable of regime change in Syria for example.
KSA is buying $ 60 billion worth of US defense products–good for American business and American families–
“And while we’re on the subject, don’t forget that the Syrian and Iranian regimes not only slaughter their own people, but also American soldiers, and civilians from Iraq and Afghanistan to Somalia and Argentina.”
That’s the key. In Cohen’s and Kristof’s eyes, that Syrians and Iranians kill Americans means they have good taste in enemies and should be given a pass.
At least Gaddafi was keeping down the Al Qaeda types in Libya, but that wasn’t good enough, we had to undermine whoever is keeping Al Qaeda down. Bosnia, Kosovo, Egypt, now Libya. Why doesn’t the West get it over with and just open its veins?
Finally someone else who noticed that we happened to be helping radical muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. Yeah people that, supposed noble cause, helped radical islam. I’m not condoning the mass murder that happened there, but we should have helped them find a way to get the radical muslims out of their countries. They basically said there are too many of them for us to handle, just kill all muslims. Maybe we could have helped them find a way that didn’t involve indiscriminate murder of every muslim they found. But then again we are getting a sense of just how hard it is to get rid of the troublemakers. Well, we will just keep trying to excise the malignant cells and leave the benign ones alone. We just have to hope that the cancer doesn’t get so bad that radiation treatment becomes necessary.
Exactly my point.
This is one of the stupidest articles I have seen on PJM (with the exception of Kim Zigfelt’s bigoted garbage, which I never read any more).
We went into to Libya because they supply oil. We won’t help Syria because they don’t supply oil.
The libs can spin it all they want, but that’s what it boils down to regardless of which party is in control.
Now more than ever! “Libya vs. Iraq” – http://youtu.be/yAyCdfOXvec
The Obama administration’s strategic objective is clear: take trouble centers like Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and (eventually) Syria, Iran, and then even Somalia, down the path that leads to … EU vacation hot-spots like Istanbul and Bali.
Because as USMC General Victor Krulak famously said during the Vietnam era: “You cannot win militarily. You have to win totally, or you are not winning at all.”
For America, total victory looks like Istanbul and Bali. And with Obama appointing a hard-nosed Bush-era pragmatist like David Petraeus to lead the CIA, and with Hillary Clinton seeming so d*mn happy in recent weeks, the chances of further successes along this line are looking pretty good.
America’s home economy and trade-balance presently are both train-wrecks, but the foreign policy is looking better than it has in decades.
———————————-
“They’re attacking our vulnerable cholesterol levels with Kokoreç” 
Is Eating Istanbul’s Street Food a Wise Idea or Living Dangerously?
URL: http://www.istanbultrails.com/2009/08/is-eating-istanbuls-street-food-a-wise-idea-or-living-dangerously/
My military service was as a United States Marine in World War II (1943-1946) in the Pacidic theater.
I am no longer of the opinion that United States ground forces should be committed either in Africa or Asia Minor at this time. The invasiion of Iraq was probably justified given the presence of Saddam, but the attempt to instal a civilian government was premature because internal divisions, which now are manifest, had not been fully assessed by either the administration in Washington or Iragi civilian leadership installed when organized fighting on the ground ceased. “Rebel forces” against tyrants in office as often as not contain members who have no loyalty to anyone but themselves. The story of Egypt’s rebellion against Mubarak has not yet been fully told and will not be for some time. In Libya who knows what the objectives of those ppposed to Ghadafi are or will be, nor what Ghadafi may do within the next several days. American forces should be held at the ready and not committed to action at this time. Israel is our one true ally in the Midddle East, fully deserving of our support, but you would not know it if your judgment was based on the actions of the present administration in Washington
Thank you Devil Dog! Semper Fi! You went through hell and came back. This sailor salutes you. Unfortunately the rebels in Libya and Egypt are made up of the Muslim Brotherhood who were created with the help of the Nazi’s during WWII. I hate leftovers. You island hoppers did a great job with the Japs. The European Theater missed a few war criminals, but then again that was the Army’s show. Marines owned the Pacific and fished the job.
Ledeen makes an important point about socialists who become key board warriors
Here are a couple of other examples
1/ Chris Hitchens –a life long Troskyist, with a third class BA, and a rake magically become a Neocon–
he must have been following the money and the free booze–
he supported Obama and still does–
his main obsession now is a vicious hatred of Christians and all the 2012 Republican candidates.
2/ Andrew Sullivan–a life long rake–became a Neocon overnight–then became obsessed with Palins gynecology-hated Bush-and is now a viciously Anti-Christian
The only thing these 2 have in common is a huge consumption of dope or booze, a promiscuous gay/bi-sexual activity, and a hatred of Palin and the 2012 Republican candidates.
They both also have terminal diseases as a result of their lifestyle choices
–but rather than advising the young to avoid such perils they rejoice in their own misspent youth.
the phrase “born-again hawks” came from Scoop Jackson. he was talking about politicians…
I have come to the sad conclusion that the prominent members of the corporate media write whatever they are told to write to keep getting their corporate pay check.
I no longer expect any real pearls of wisdom or consistency in substance or thought. Nor do I expect the corporate media to grant any of us credit for having a memory that goes back past last week. Whatever the corporate bosses want is what will be printed for us to read, because replacements are always easy to find in a failing industry.
Now, I will say that if I were hired by the corporate media to choose those people that will be elevated to prominence; I would always choose the idiotic true believer over the self-aware whore. The media whore might have a bad day and let the mask slip, but the true believer will continue to favor their favorite political party or politician no matter how much they have to twist their supposed logic to continue to do so. The more obtuse or contradictory each writer/newsreader becomes, the more I believe it can all be traced back to the origin of the paycheck.
“the Germans and the dozens of others who shared the burdens and lost young men and women in Iraq.”
Hein????
The Germanz were neither in the Desert storm campain nor in the second Irak Campain !
I find also funny that those that wanted to keep Gadhafi in its prerogatives wanted Saddam out, he was a better obstacle to the islamists than Gadhafi, who was still sponsoring islamist unrests in africa !
make that “Afghanistan”. sorry.
yet, until the last couple of years they had the reputation to be only beer trinkers !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/3546154/German-soldiers-too-fat-to-fight-the-Taliban.html
You are correct, Michael. The “coalition of the willing” is diverse … our son served with Georgians in Helmand. One doesn’t hear much about the Georgians, and for sure the international politics of this gets almighty complicated, but the boots-on-the-ground Georgian soldiers themselves have been tough professional warriors in Iraq *and* Afghanistan. The more allies, the better.
You are right too that “the faster, the fewer, the better” is the preferred strategy in all these theaters. So far, Libya is looking more like Bosnia than like Iraq/Afghanistan. Good.
Guys, this is Pravda. They wouldn’t be saying this if someone in the administration weren’t giving the green light. What I’m wondering is why is the Obama cadre touting this line now?
Just more feinting to the right by the Chameleon in Chief as his re-election prospects look dimmer and dimmer.
This was to be expected. Obama needs some kind of successes, some more wins. His failures and stumbles have been many, his successes few. The anti-war journolisters never seem to care much if a few bombs are dropped or missiles fired here and there. That just gives them more opportunities to show their moral superiority and do some mild tut tutting. What they detest most is American infantry, armor, and artillery operating successfully on foreign soil.
The Libya developments are a perfect opportunity to give Obama some kind of a foreign policy win[though via what many feel was an unconstitutional action]. The lib writers are almost forced to jump on his side over it. Remember, it is also good PR for the librul globalists: lookie, see how everything is soooo very good when we lead from behind and don’t commit troops to, you know, actual fighting. Soooo much better when we convince other nations to kick up the dust, stand in the rain, and do the shooting so we can give our Pres. the credit.
Iraq War…bad. Afghanistan War…used to be good, now bad. Libya War…good. Syria…no way. Iran…no way.
“I know exactly what you’re going to say. You’re going to say that this is Obama’s war, and Obama is their guy, and so of course they’re going to endorse it. Iraq was Bush’s war, so of course they’re going to continue to damn it.”
Pretty much.
I’d also add that they’re essentially traitors, who attempted to aid America’s enemies, in order to ssecure partisan advantage for their boys.
If it was up to me, a lot of lefties would swing for it.
If it were up to me, those lefty traitors would hang, but then, so would every neocon who pushed for spending US blood and treasure for the aid and comfort of our Muslim enemies – and EVERY Muslim nation or faction is our enemy, by their own definition, as stated in their own Qur’an.
mr ledeen, a surprising info, CIA had interest to keep Gadhafi, for special services, and when this idiot of Pepe Escobar believed that the libyan campain was a french secret services plot
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/world/africa/03libya.html
Michael Ledeen, I looked in PJM/Tatler archives for early Libya coverage, one of which was your “Bomb Libya” editorial of February 23, 2011 (which had 147 comments).
I have to say, neither your February strategy, which advocated … “Destroy them. It’s easy. Our Air Force can probably wipe them out in less than half an hour. If we want to play “good ally” we can invite other NATO countries to join in.” … nor the accompanying comments look all that smart in hindsight.
Whereas Hillary Clinton is looking pretty smug in recent photos … perhaps deservedly so.
How about a lessons-learned after-action report?
———————————
Faster Please! Bomb Libya
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2011/02/23/bomb-libya/
you kidding? if we’d taken out the Libyan air force early and quickly, this thing would have been over a lot earlier…lots of lives saved…where’s my medal?
‘Hillary Clinton smug…deservedly so?’
Please read Barry Rubin’s lead article right now on PJ; also might want to scan today’s AP and Reuters reports on CIA, MI6 relations with Gaddafi regime before ‘spontaneous’ revolution.
This is one of the stupidest, poorly thought out foreign policy decisions ever in US history, given what we knew and given our relations with the regime. Several alternatives were possible, M. Ledeen is probably right that a strong US lead in this intervention would have forced or led to regime collapse faster, and maybe sometimes getting to stupid faster is better, but I have to take some time to think about that.
John Rosenthal hid it! `Cuz you two guys couldn’t *both* be right!
—————————–
PJM/Tatler: DON’T Bomb Libya
by John Rosenthal
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/02/24/dont-bomb-libya/
No change in perception by the Timesmen here, other than the occupant of the Oval Office. Remember the Paper of Record had little or no complaints about the Clinton Administration’s efforts in the Balkans back in the late 1990s, and as long as Obama’s in the White House, these forays into regime change won’t really bother Roger or Nick.
“Whereas Hillary Clinton is looking pretty smug in recent photos … perhaps deservedly so.”
I have no doubt that you judge success by the level of smugness in the face of a liberal/progressive. However, the flaw in that methodology is that liberals and progressives are eternally smug.
You may think the “Arab Spring” is about democracy and freedom, but some of us who live in the real world are highly skeptical that ushering in a combination of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law is anything to be smug about, as far as foreign policy achievements go.
Contrary to Ron Paul’s incessant echo of leftist “wisdom,” American interventions abroad have not generated blow-back — at least not since the Cold War ended.
“The [UN Human Security] Report [or 2005] claims that the average number of battle-related deaths per conflict has declined from some 38,000 in 1950 to less than 500 in 2007. Individual fatality tolls may well be inaccurate; the trends, however, are indisputable.” Down, down, down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Security_Report_2005
And THIS, all the while that the numbers of US troops abroad doubled in the 1970s, quadrupled in the 1980s, quintupled in the 1990s….(SEE Thomas P. M Barnett, for authoritative citations.)
To my knowledge not even Commentary Magazine has picked up on this falsification of “received wisdom.”
Pajamas Media is essentially a neocon outfit, ie as deluded as liberals and no different in many particulars. Ledeen doesn’t see anything wrong with backing Muslim militants in Libya against Gadaffi (sure a tyrant, so?) who he refuses to recognise are uh fanatics/jihadists. Ledeen and his ilk don’t see anything wrong with being on the same page as Obama and Cameron here, oblivious to what this tells us. Does that make Obama a neocon, or does it tell us neocons are liberals at heart? I’d say it’s the latter myself.
The interim ‘govt’ in Libya has enshrined Sharia law in its constitution, advanced weaponry is being smuggled by NATO’s latest allies (ie Libyan Muslim fanatics) into Gaza via Egypt, Ledeen ignores all this. A lot else besides.
When Ledeen’s and the NY Times’s new friends in Tripoli are executing women and homosexuals for ‘moral transgressions’, and when they are calling for death to the Jews in the new regime’s mosques and media and the like, will Ledeen be writing up on that, or will he move onto something else?
Then again mistaking imaginings and wishful thinking for the reality in the Arab Muslim street from Tripoli to Baghdad and Cairo is a shared delusion of neocons and liberals. The lessons from Iraq have not been learned at all, or a fiction is put in the place of the reality of the Iraqi civil war and the empowerment of Shi’ite radicals allied to Iran. The lessons from Egypt, the crumbling peace with Israel – don’t mean a thing to neocons and liberals alike. A pox on both their houses.
That’s why George Bush Jr and Obama have far more in common than differences, along with their supporters.
Good food for thought. Thanks, Larry!
About this whole issue of “intervention for democracy in Muslim counties”, I have mixed rather contradictory feelings, I confess. I hope Western, particularly US diplomats will warn NOW our new ‘friends’, the beneficiaries of our support for them against their tyrants, that it will not take long to discover their flirtation with and links to anti-West & anti-Israel Islamic terrorists, definitely not as long as it took to discover Pakistani deceptions.
I am fairly certain that the only reason Mr. Obama, et al, support the fall of characters such as Qaddafi and Mubarak is that there is a good chance that fundamentalist Muslims (in the form of Ikhwan) will fill in the post revolutionary vaccuum. And in those countries that are occupied by such fundamentalists such as Iran or those that are for all practical purposes proxies of them, such as Syria, there will only be lip service paid in support of the “will of the people” and no meaningful steps will be taken to expedite their leaders exit. The people of Iran, Syria and Erez Israel should be united in the knowledge that they DO NOT have a friend in the White House, in fact quite the contrary. I sincerely pray that I am wrong.
me 2, radish, but you’re probably right.
Speaks for itself:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/4/jihadists-plot-to-take-over-libya/
Why has everyone stopped talking about the fact that there is no Congressional approval for this war? It’s illegal. That should be the central issue here, always front and center. If Congress approves we can all still argue about whether we should be there or not, and the sincerity/consistency of those who now support war when previously they did not, but at least it would be legal! If Congress doesn’t start standing up for itself and enforcing the Constitution it is going to become irrelevant and we are going to have an imperial presidency – if we don’t already.
Cohen and Kristof; two intellectually dishonest moronic mental dwarfs. What a bad example/
Michael,
Thanks for noticing that We the Liberals are not all that bad !
i assume you will now demand that the US act in support of regime change in Damascus and Tehran, right?
Right. Definitely. The Harry Truman-General Powell-Bush Sr. Way. Not the way we did in Iraq! Agreed?
wrong. truman would have gone to baghdad in 91.
Yes. Truman would have gone to Baghdad in 91, conquered, and would have left in a short time empowering (in consultation with Jordan & Saudi Arabia) some pro-West Sunni-Arab and Kurdish generals & colonels and politicians(of whom there were enough) to rule Iraq — warning the Iraqis not to touch the Kurdish autonomy, and to behave in general otherwise American shock and awe will be repeated immediately. Truman would have purged but not disbanded Iraqi Armed forces and bureaucracy.
Truman would not have talked in 91 of democracy and elections in a country with a 60% Shiite, i.e. Iran-worshiping population.
Yes, Truman would not have lingered on for a decade, rotting, and exposing America’s military and financial limitations, and eventually leaving Iraq as a satrapy of a Khomeinist Iran.
By the way, I agree with those who think Bush Sr. should have continued the march to Baghdad in 91. However, Bush Sr.’s failure to do so does not justify his stupidities in handling the Iraq war, nor acquit his satrap, Paul Bremer, and his general, Tommy Franky, of incompetence, to say the least.
My last-second ‘editing’,in a hurry, of my last 2-sentence note (beginning with “By the way, …..” was wrong. The second sentence should have remained as it was:
“However, Bush Sr.’s failure to do so does not justify the stupidities of Bush Jr. in handling the Iraq war, nor acquit his satrap, Paul Bremer, and his general, Tommy Frank, of incompetence, to say the least.”
“Yes. Truman would have gone to Baghdad in 91, conquered, and would have left in a short time…”
I understand the US has kept a very large military presence in Okinawa and the then West Germany (now Germany) to this date. But I will refrain from arguing lest Dr. Ledeen accuses me once again of engaging in my favorite sport minus its intellectual aspect.
Seems to me that Mr. Ledeen’s article was about the irony of the neocons now rejoicing over the Lybia success. These posts have been all over the place. I am not at all surprised or astonished to see liberals jump on board to bask in shared glory — after all the hard work has been done — by others.
Its just liberal bias towards liberal war and of course the hypocrisy of liberalism in general. Wars are okay so long as a liberal is in the white house. Think about it WWI, WWII, Vietnam, the 3 Clinton wars including Kosovo, Bosnia and Haiti plus the failed operation Black Hawk………..all liberal wars, right??? Exactly, liberals are just like conservatives, war is based primarily on humanitarian crisis…….even Iraq.
Liberal extremists in the media fomented rage and a few fools bought the liberal fakeness and the liberal weak who think with a Euro state of mind. The day we stop getting involve with conflict is the day democracy shall fade from the landscape. Watch the video and see how democracy grew.
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/march-of-democracy.html
If unemployment compensation is a stimulus then so is war spending. Now I’m not advocating war but clearly genocide in many countries would have posed a threat to Europe, then the USA. Other conflicts stayed in one country or region but clearly represent a threat to humanity, right? The age of robotics shall reduce military and civilian deaths, we’ve come a long way from knives and swords to the musket and cannon to the missile, jet and now the drones. The NY Treason Times simply shifted to pro war for Obama, bunch of pathetic hypocrites enraged liberal lunatics for nothing.
Juggernauzt @ Twitter
“Yes. Truman would have gone to Baghdad in 91, conquered, and would have left in a short time…”
No doubt that explains why there is still an American garrison in Korea 61 years after Truman sent in U.S. forces.
Lefties…gotta love them. They never make the least bit of sense…and, I admire their consistency.
Comparing apples and oranges? forgetting about difference of time, space/regions and international situation?? In 1991, was there a ‘North Iraq’ as a separate country supported by a mighty Sino-Soviet block determined to capture and annex “South Iraq”???
Let me make it clear that I am not a big fan of Truman nor a supporter of all aspects of the US Cold War polices initiated by Truman and followed by his Republican as well Democratic successors. I believe that the Cold War policies initiated and applied by Truman in the Islamic world are responsible for the rise of the most dangerous monster we call Islamism.
I was hypothetically responding to a hypothetical remark. My main point was that in its timing and the way it was conducted, the Iraq War was a disaster for the US, and that neither Truman nor any American president other than Bush Jr would have created such a disaster. My point was that if Saddam Hussein had to be removed, it should have been done in 1991 and the way Bush Sr. and General Powell did in the Gulf War to save Kuwait, not in 2003 nor the way Bush Jr. and his nincompoops and Abugraib-fame sadists did.
Let me also make it clear that Yes, I do want change of regimes in Damascus and Tehran, but THE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WAY, not the George W. Bush way.
And also, no Muslim country should be allowed to have nuclear and other mass murder weapons.
i want regime change the Ronald Reagan way.
Michael,
I am sure your future blogs will give us enough opportunities to discuss the question: “Were the Reagan ways (sic) more similar to the Bush Jr. ways or to the Obama ways?”. There must be some reasons for Nancy Reagan who apparently likes Barack more than George. ooops! I did not intend to start the discussion now.
L’hitraot …. and until then (and of course, always) …. Kol tuv !
Love & Peace,
Abu Safiyyah
The Obama way will give us the Ikhwan in Egypt and Libya and squadoosh and diddlysquat in Iran and Syria. Now, let’s see, on how many fronts do you want Israel to be threatened by “the most dangerous Islamists”? Or maybe you are secretly salivating over the destruction of Israel, in which case your argument makes strategic sense.
Of course they embrace the Libyan “freedom fighters”. It’s their best chance for either socialism or Muslim radicalism in Libya and since both groups HATE America that’s just a win-win. Of course Wacky-Daffy needed to go but exactly who’s going to fill the vacuum again?
These 2 NYT columnists are by no way neoconservative. They are merely carrying out the media propaganda for their socialist European masters.
The only reason there was a war waged against Ghaddafi so eagerly and so quickly was because Europe needed it, rushed it and got sugar daddy US carrying it and supporting it. There was absolutely no human interest in it, otherwise there has been other places far more urgent. As soon as there was a tiny hesitation and doubt that Ghaddafi was going to nationalize its oil, the bandwagon of colonial Europe France and Britain rushed to their wars, claiming human interests and of course having another democrat in the White House and a weaker one as well, couldn’t be a better blessing at this time, one who would rub their backs sweetly while calming their nerves. Obama’s America to your rescue safekeeping your oil interests Europe!!!
On the other hand according to these 2 brilliant columnists, hands should be off against Syria? Why? Syria is a Islamic Regime’s puppet so they must stay because we do not want to wage war against the biggest terrorists regime in the world..
That’s is how this nasty game is being played in the world stage!
People are being just pawns and nothing else.
The fact of the matter is that the sooner we realize that the colonial France and Britain are not really our true “allies”, the closer we’ll get to the world peace starting with mini mini steps. I am not saying they are our enemies, never. But they are not our true allies. Their national interests do not align with our own here in America. We do not have to always jump off the ship and go to their rescue fighting their wars, helping them get what they want.
I love Regan who so decisively and point blankly told the Brits Thacher, that Falklands is your war, keep us out of it!!! Wow!!!
Will we get another President, leader like him? I doubt.
The whole point is that America’s national interest lies with the “real” genuine freedom movements in the middle east, where no pawn groups are favored to take control of the power, the way that Islamic groups are working tirelessly now to control the vacuum in both Egypt and Libya all with the blessings of the Europeans.
America’s national interest lies with the true democratic movements in the middle east which is big, wide and deep, but it needs nurturing supporting and following. If we do not rush and be fickle, we lose, Islamists fill the voids while Europe just laughs, and takes the fruits of our work all the way to their vaults of corrupt socialist system.
However the national interest of Europeans are widely different than ours. How? Their interests lies with the freedom movement of the Islamic world as long as no “real” democracy takes root, but rather an Islamic state takes the control for 2 reasons: keeping the gates closed to the bourgeois leftist intellectuals of the lands (there are many) as to keep the flow of oil open to their economies. Another reason is to avoid having a type of “power by the people for the people” in another words a free democratic society in the middle east which would cause serious harm to their oil interests. No where in the world a free people would give up on their wealth and treasure that easy, because they would hold up their representative governments accountable for any miss handling of their economies and all sorts of corrupted payouts and pay-ins. On top of it because of the historical traditional lack of personal social liberties and experience in running free market economies there is always a fear of any middle eastern “secular non-Islamic” leader trying to nationalize its oil. It happened to Mossadegh in Iran. Brits flipped out.
Hence comes Europe’s push always for Islamic States where people’s voice is shut off from the start while the flow of oil is secured in exchange for Europe’s political and security support.
The sooner we separate ourselves from the policies of Europeans the closer we get to pulling out the roots of terrorism and establishing longer lasting peace in the world. No wars of mouth is needed here with Europeans, just do not go out of our ways to help them out in their own nasty wars and games. Be Regan again and again..The real America needs to take charge once again.
Roger Cohen is the NYTs major apologist for the Ahmadinejad regime, therefore I dont take him very seriously. Mr Cohen is a staunch anti-zionist who blamed US Jews in his last column for the lack of peace in the Middle East. It is my hope that Mr Cohens next move will be to Iranian Press TV. One way to predict RogerCohen- if it is bad for the US and Israel, Cohen promotes it