President Obama has made phone calls from Air Force One in an attempt to break the impasse over what command structure takes the lead once the US hands over the lead of the Libyan operation to its European allies. France is against commanding the operation through NATO while the UK wants the alliance in charge. The supposed compromise is to run the operation through NATO while calling it something else. “The emerging deal would use Nato assets for command and control but not flag the mission as a Nato one.”
What is the underlying problem and what will the proposed solution achieve?
The root difficulty was highlighted when European leaders met in Brussels to unsuccessfully thresh out their differences over the operation. Germany has refused to go along, throwing a bone to European unity by saying it would contribute humanitarian assistance. But it is staying out of military operations; and that means France and Britain would have to go it alone, without German airplanes, ships and money.
Several EU member states, including France, Britain, Italy, Spain, and Poland, are part of the international coalition that began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya last weekend and conducting air strikes against forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.
But one of the EU’s most important members, Germany, abstained from the UN Security Council vote on the resolution authorizing the use of force and has declined to contribute to the mission.
Der Spiegel summarized the state of play and described where the negotiations among the allies were heading.
France has opposed handing control to NATO because of Arab skepticism about the alliance … Britain and Italy want the alliance to be in charge of the operation, however. Rome has threatened to restrict access to its air bases, which are crucial to the mission, if NATO does not take over control. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested that Britain or France could also take control of the mission, but some NATO officials doubt if either country could handle the operation by itself, according to Reuters. …
The NATO Council met again on Tuesday to continue discussing the issue. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, there are hopes that an agreement will be reached in the coming days which would allow NATO to take over operational control for the implementation of the no-fly zone over Libya. Sources in Berlin said there was a chance that NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen could win the support of all alliance members for such a role.
But it is still unclear whether the NATO members would also support the alliance taking part in targeted air strikes against Gadhafi’s troops, something that is allowed under paragraph 4 of the UN resolution, in order to protect civilians. Several NATO countries are concerned that the organization could get bogged down in a drawn-out conflict that might involve ground troops.
Observers predict that Germany will support a NATO involvement, while continuing to refuse to contribute German troops to the operation. Berlin has been heavily criticized for its decision to abstain from the Security Council vote last week, with observers saying the government’s decision was motivated by domestic political concerns.
The NATO-not-NATO solution is probably designed to give France and Britain the means they lack to continue. The key dilemma is found in a phrase above: “US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested that Britain or France could also take control of the mission, but some NATO officials doubt if either country could handle the operation by itself”. Without Germany to back them, there’s a chance that neither country can go forward.
With President Obama experiencing political difficulties the American waterhole may soon dry up. Creating a quasi-NATO channels will provide a way of laundering at least some US military resources to act in support while remaining in the background. By rebranding American assets they can be used as part of an “international effort” and hopefully will not be noticed acting in service of what is effectively the foreign policy of Britain and France and the unexplained goals of the Obama administration. Without that laundering, the Libyan mission may fail from lack of supply.
As in many other things, the lack of money and the shortage of honesty is the root of all evil. Nothing prevents Britain and France, acting unilaterally or jointly, from acting against Libya except the lack of money. Both are sovereign countries and have been to war with other countries many times through history, Britain most recently in the Falklands. Nothing prevents it that is, except the lack of resources. Similarly, nothing prevents the Obama administration from acting against Libya in alliance with Britain and France . Nothing that is, except the absence of a cogent reason; hence Obama’s unwillingness to get the approval of Congress. France and Britain have the political mandate but not the means while Obama has the opposite problem. He has the means but not the mandate.
The solution is to cook up this NATO-not-NATO command structure. That creates the shell by which Britain and France can gain access to American resources and may allow President Obama to keep going without explaining his war aims to Congress. In that way they can protect the Libyan people from a dictator without aiming to dislodge him; as one might try to overthrow Hitler without really overthrowing him. But we really know they want to, or do we? The alternative to this shadowy policy is for Britain, France and the US to man up, frankly declare their goals and jointly obtain the political and logistical means to pursue a policy they can explain to their publics.
But that would be too simple. We live in an age of nuanced diplomacy and that makes everything complicated. There are fewer regimes on earth more odious than that of the Duck of Death’s. In a rational world an enterprise to overthrow him should have been greeted with universal acclaim. This should have been an easy, or at least a do-able sell instead of a via dolorosa. Only Barack Obama could be incompetent enough to give the project of overthrowing Khadaffi a bad name.
“No Way In” print edition at Amazon
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
Besides America, there are competent fighting men and women in Britain, France, Canada and Poland. How they must cringe with embarrassment at being involved in this comedy of errors.
Apart from the Tent Flap Wiper (Khadafi), the villain of this piece must be whomever convinced the gang to go into this with no clear objective, no command structure, no timetable and no laundry ticket.
It has to be someone who has never run a project that did more than talk about things; has never run a private business where your own house is the collateral for the bank and a bunch of families depend on the business; has never taken success or fail decisions on the ground, alone; and who thinks that he is a genius Messiah, unaccountable and blameless simply because he exists. Someone who upon hearing “two fish in a tank; one says ‘ I’ll drive, you man the guns”, would think it was some kind of fishy military training.
Now who could that be? The Sopranos of Europe aside, we keep coming back to the same World Class Ninny. This is getting downright depressing.
Time to refocus. There is a snow base of seven metres (23 feet deep) at the local ski hill and some excellent glade skiing………
I never thought I would see the day when my country would commit national suicide in such a drawn out and painful way. I pity my children, and my grandchildren if I ever get to see them for what people in my time of life on this earth have done to the US and Western civilization.
Well, that helps me understand German reluctance a bit better but I am still marveling at France’s active leadership here. Is there some connection to the colonial past or current considerations connected to their large Muslim population? Or is it just a case of the French version of neoconservatism and the oil? They were way out in front recognizing the rebels as the only legitimate government of Libya and there are reports of commandos in Benghazi and that they pushed Obama by declaring they would go in anyway if the US didn’t get on board. What ever Obama’s resemblances to Bush in Iraq, who seemed keen to intervene and lead, Obama looks like he wants minimal involvement and others to take the heat. I have no information on how large the rebel population is nor how many Libyan soldiers deserted to the rebels. I would expect French intelligence to know and as has been written here with control of the sea and air the rebels can be supplied through a good port. Just how the game will be played out in the desert where the pipelines are isn’t clear.
There is mission creep, and there are creepy missions. This particular “excellent adventure” appears to fit both categories.
I have no problem with France or the UK acting in their own self-interest. That is what nations do, and what their Presidents and Prime Ministers are elected to do.
Winston Churchill was not above using America as a force multiplier for British ambitions. The Special Relationship is a device which allows it to “punch above its weight”. All of this is known and accepted.
But what’s in it for the US? In Roosevelt’s case there was a quid for the pro quo. What is it here? To pull Italy’s chestnuts out of the fire? To give France room for expansion across the Med at the expense of a failing Khadaffi? Somehow I doubt that it could be anything so subtle to the One. What is at stake for him, I think, is something far more palpable. Something a guy coming up through Chicago would recognize as worth playing for.
What’s always puzzled me about the Libyan operation was the disproportionality of the means to the end. Khadaffi was until recently not a particularly pressing problem. Once he began to go off the rails, the logical thing to do would have been to step up a program of subversion against him, patiently organizing the opposition — not throwing a Hail Allah pass and hoping somebody would catch the ball. It should have been an operation under tight control, with clear objectives.
Khadaffi would have fallen and there would have been a successor regime waiting in the wings. Now it’s hurry up and wait. Or rather wait and hurry up.
The process of taking the enterprise to the UN, getting an irrelevant authorization and then proceeding to exceed it, then bobbling the command football as if it were a hot potato is puzzling in the extreme. Why did they dilute their authority and then go about it so half-heartedly, yet use such a volume of resources against so puny an opponent is perplexing. It looks like a scramble.
My only guess is that they knew Khadaffi had the goods on too many people; that he had files that would have made J. Edgar’s dossiers look like a Hallmark Greeting cards and the guys he had the goods on saw the Duck’s problem as a way of taking care of him.
Except that they misjudged the moment. They thought he would decamp like Mubarak. One little push and over he’d go. But he surprised them. Once the Duck dug in they had to finish what they started or face payback. They had their daggers drawn and it was too late for explanations, so there was nothing for it.
While the Euros and the Chicagoans were still “friends” with the Duck there was no need to off him. But once they’d declared against him he had to go down and they had to make it look they weren’t trying to personally do him in.
I am sure there are other considerations. But by themselves these other factors should have led to another trajectory. This crazy piling on suggests a kind of panic you see in the face of somebody who’s got to fart while presenting the Oscars in front of 50 million viewers.
So they’re making it up as they go along. Countries like Germany are sidling toward the exit and both Russia and China have ordered more popcorn.
I think there’s an outside chance this whole thing will end with one or two major Western politicians either doing the perp walk or generating a major scandal. Right now it is getting away from them. Let’s see if thy can bring it under control.
Yep, a real Cluster F__K. With bells, whistles and a plaid ribbon around the poky part. The Obomination still thinks interoperability is what comes in a plain envelope has zeros and rustles. The bad feeling I’ve had from day 1 is getting worse.
Well, maybe the ‘O’inker will get lucky and the Duck of Death will Retire to a Chicken ranch in the Atlas mountains. Yes and maybe Hallie Berry will ring my doorbell and say she’s dropped by to see if it’s true.
Wretchard, where I disagree with you is that you suppose that people in leadership actually think about important decisions as much as you or I would.
I don’t believe that. I believe that Obama worried that he might be embarrassed if he did nothing and some sympathetic looking rebels were slaughtered, so he jumped in with almost no thought at all and even less planning. Now they’re trying to figure out what they’re doing on the fly and can’t believe that things aren’t just all falling into place. Since that’s how they believe the world works, dontcha know.
Meanwhile, here is the Formula for Military Disaster:
NO coherent goals for the operation
NO coherent strategy that would bring about those goals
NO identifiable chain of command between allied forces
NO leadership aimed at bringing about public support
and unifying the strategies of the various allies.
OVERRELIANCE on magical and wishful thinking rather than on rational thought.
Example 1: if we just stop his planes from flying everything will magically be better and things will all work themselves out even though we have no idea how.
Example 2: All we need to do is to demonstrate to Qadaffy that we are really, really unhappy with him, and then he will just quit because he will feel bad when he knows people don’t like him. (I heard a CNN anchor say that)
Meanwhile, in the Real World, we only have two options here:
1) Cut and Run
2) Escalate, Escalate, Escalate
You tell me: is there ANY chance this ends in anything but a humiliating disaster for this country?
I think getting the UN involved was a bone for the more rabid moonbats. He has no constitutional Authority since the War Powers act was written to prevent just this sort of abuse of the military. So the UN provides that fig leaf he needs with the left. Or at least some of them.
A MODERN LIBERAL PRESIDENT
To the tune of…
He is the very model of a modern Liberal president
He lives in White House chambers but declares he’s just a resident
He loves to dance and loves to sing
He loves the perks his job will bring
But making a decision he will always be so hesitant
He says let’s you and me will get together and we’ll get some boats
Khaddafi’s got to go and so we’ll buy some cheaper UN votes
And so he marches in and then
He marches right on out again
He grins and says you’re doin’ fine I’ll stand right here and hold your coats
Oh yes he is our president and proud we are to have him here
We like the way he bows to kings and smiles when we rise up to cheer
We like him ‘cause he’s just like us
Gals think he is a gorgeous cuss
Yes he’s our president and he’s the only thing we have to fear
Jimmy Carter 2.0
Wasn’t this whole thing an episode of “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”? Except for the phone call from Air Force One, that is. That was from an episode of “Twilight Zone”
Legally the Security Council was supposed to have dedicated military forces available to enforce its will and a command staff, all under written treaties with member states. This was spelled out in the Charter and was a dead letter from day 1. The Charter also provides for regional organizations that can provide for security in their mutually agreed upon area. Nato and the Warsaw Pact were designed to meet that criteria. Oddly that was written into the Warsaw Pact more clearly than into the Nato treaty. Because of the veto the UN cannot force the United States to do anything. While some of us may dislike the resolution and think it unwise or poorly constructed that does not make it illegal for the US to act under it.
The entry into Korea in 1950 under the “Uniting For Peace” resolution of the General Assembly created a new legal structure out of whole cloth. There was at least a backing UNSC resolution authorizing action, although it lacked unanimity by the permanent members as the Charter required. Korea and every subsequent UN operation did have clear assignments of control and authority built in. The current resolution has none of it. It does not conform to any precedent as I see it. Basically it just says “Go get him, and you can do it on your own or get together and tell us later what you are up to.”
The US has signed treaties that created the UN and Nato. Now despite much gnashing of teeth the fact is that the President can create binding agreements without relying on Senate ratification. Also he can conduct policy and even impact on domestic laws without consulting the House of Representatives, see Migratory Birds Treaty. It is true though that the Congress, including the House have authorized expenditures to buy equipment and raise forces that are assigned to meet treaty obligations. While I do not like the War Powers Act it is true that every unilateral use of force until now has at least had the fig leaf of being in response to some hostile act.
Under the Obama doctrine US assets are being tasked to support some outside chain of command, not under the control of the UN or Nato. If the government of France came to us and begged for help responding to a threat I could see the US responding, in or out of Nato. Absent any evidence that such a threat was reported and that Congressional leaders were briefed on it I would doubt that our forces are responding to a threat.
Now I am no friend of Quacky Duck. If the POTUS came on TV and said “This bum has got away with murder for to long and we gave him a pass after he abandoned his WMD program but fro the following reasons (insert here) I still want to use this splendid opportunity of a rebellion in his country to get rid of him” I could see his point. Unfortunately we are not doing that, although the French may be. We are acting because some rapporteurs have declared that there is a “Duty to Care” that trumps all treaty alliances, diplomatic interests, or legislative authority, and that some arbitrary and faceless committee or self selecting group, perhaps gathered on George Soros’ virtual settee, get to decide who gets to be cared for and who has a duty to care.
We have spent about 5,000 years devising legal systems and rules of diplomacy to enable us to deal with these problems. Now it all gets tossed out the window because Susan Powers feels the good guys are in Benghazi. Does anybody know if Jamie Gorelick is involved in this?
Perhaps the Brits and French are merely having a crisis of confidence, after all their last excellent Mid-East adventure together, but without us went so well.
Jon Stewart’s take is funny — and about right — which just shows how wierd all this is.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/odyssey-dawn—unconstitutional-war
Wasn’t the WWI english PM a big anti war guy earlier in life?
The curious thing is the British didn’t much mind Gadafi funding the IRA murdering a Policewoman in broad daylight and dropping a plane on the village of Locherbie killing many people. Now suddenly they don’t like him. Why?
We have spent about 5,000 years devising legal systems and rules of diplomacy to enable us to deal with these problems. Now it all gets tossed out the window because Susan Powers feels the good guys are in Benghazi. Does anybody know if Jamie Gorelick is involved in this?
War is effectively a tax payable in treasure and blood for a defined public purpose. Sometimes it is necessary to incur an unfunded liability in the event of an emergency. But sooner or later the political system has got to come along and provide the funding. They have to be sold on it.
The incentive should have been to finish this operation as quickly as possible so that it could be paid for by the equivalent of petty cash. They would have gone straight for the duck and tried to finish this as quickly as possible.
Instead they opted to to undertake this expenditure under UN regulatory supervision, which always guarantees shoddy work and cost overruns. In so doing, they’ve almost guaranteed this job cannot be done with petty cash.
Cost is usually a function of time and scale of effort. They’ve chosen the most expensive possible mode of achieving some unstated goal. Their avowed process is to beat around the bush and hope something happens. If the Ducks falls, well hoo-ray, but they’re not really aiming to do it. What is more they are for now claiming the right to do this — to impose this tax on treasure and blood — without the explicit consent of the governed.
The administration may get away with it, but only at the cost of damaging the politics or creating an uproar. If this doesn’t last long it may blow over. But if it drags on the cure will be worse than the disease. The political problem Obama will have started will be larger in scope and more cutting in nature than the original problem he set out to solve.
The diplomatic cost is already evident. But the possible domestic cost may be even larger. And yet these risks were run in the most casual way, almost in a fit of absentmindedness. We always look for reasons why and the worst of it is to discover there is no ‘why’. We learn the reasons were entirely banal, like a decision to send down to the corner store for a pack of cigarettes; like pulling the trigger while looking down the barrel just to see if it would work.
Bummer man. Wonder what this does?
If it is true that this decision was reached because Samantha Power, or someone like her, ran an inside track, the existence of that process alone should send alarm lights flashing. But then that’s the Obama administration for you.
At times it is preferable to think their blunders are the result of malevolence because it is too painful to accept that anyone could be so stupid. At others, it is more comforting to imagine their action the result of stupidity because it is too terrible to imagine that anything could be that malign. And yet, for whatever reason the blunders continue, like some terrible amok machine lurching through a museum of priceless crystal.
Entities that were created to deal with the cold war are collapsing. Mechanisms based on a lie are in trouble.
You don’t need military power, just smart diplomats.
Men and Women are equally strong and women will do fine in Battle.
Mixing homosexuals into combat units only takes some training.
Governments can act as charities and end poverty.
If you repeat a golden lie often enough then it will become the truth.
Character doesn’t matter in a politician only his ideology.
Free and renewable energy just needs to be subsidized for a little while.
And on and on. Not enough room to list all the lies that have been sold to the voters to maintain power.
Wretchard – I think you may be forgetting the pace of events over the previous month. It was well more than week before the rebellion in Libya found it’s legs and started seriously taking the ground. Their momentum rapidly grew and within another two weeks they seemed to have the colonel on the ropes inside Tripoli. It really didn’t look like we’d have to do much to help that particular pig to slaughter, but then Khaddaffi, fully coiled – launched his counter-blitz and it looked like a bloodbath was about to unfold. So Western leaders all pooped into a big diaper and PLOOP! Operation Oily Doily was born. They had a month to plan, there should have been intelligence, leadership should have anticipated contingencies – but events unfolded so fast that the Western Puddy-tat got caught completely off guard by that scabby Arab camel-butt. Not to make excuses, but it did zig and zag more rapidly than critics seem to recall – and of course the work product in the diaper is a real smelly affair.
spiegel.de / Deutschland zieht Marine aus dem Mittelmeer ab (Germany withdraws Navy from the Mediterranean)
Headline is a bit misleading. Germany is removing the ships (which were there for non-Libya related AWACS duty) from under NATO control. They are not sure yet if they will be removed from the Mediterranean completly.
Reason: NATO ships participating in a Libyan weapons embargo may be required to use military force to enforce the embargo. Germany will not commit its forces to direct military involvment in Libya.
According to the article the German AWACS ships were there for anti-terrorism duty.
The Germans have said they will increase AWACS involvement in Afghanistan as compensation. That measure will be voted upon in The German Bundestag today (Wednesday).
Given that the Duck of Death is a terrorist supporting dictator; and especially since in the run up to his own rebellion [post-Tunisia and pre-Egypt] he had returned to making threats against Israel, Obama’s normal documented MO would have him supporting Khaddafi. There is a dogged consistency of his supporting this country’s [and the West's] enemies, and attacking their friends. When investigating a crime, you look for variations from the normal routine.
Embarrassment at having the French take the lead does not strike me as a valid reason. Obama’s entire foreign policy has emphasized the lack of dependability of the US as an ally; and a disinclination to lead in anything. To be honest, this is primarily a European problem, because they are the primary customers for Libyan oil and natural gas. While oil is fungible, the bidding up of prices is something inevitable. Sometime in the near future, we are no longer going to have access to the ME’s oil.
We had a long discussion at the beginning of the Libyan rebellion about our fleet disposition. Marie Claude’s citation of the Canada Free Press article notwithstanding, we pretty much sorted out that the US forces had to have been ordered OUT of position for a developing crisis by direction of the NCA. In fact, we abandoned US nationals in Libya rather than have forces on hand to rescue them.
There is another point that argues against pre-planning. The US still does not have any aircraft carriers in the Med. They are all in the Red and Arabian Seas. That leaves the two Italian small carriers with AV-8′s, which match up with the American amphibious assault ships present; and the French carrier Charles DeGualle, which has a real air group.
This war reflects the geography of Libya. It is fought along the coast. It is the perfect application of naval air power. Indeed, as the no fly zone moves west, carrier air is a lot easier than land based from Italy.
If this was pre-planned, and with all the diplomatic action in the UN it cannot have been a total surprise, the Charles DeGaulle should have been ready to sail, if not at sea so as to be in a position to act instantly once the diplomats got done micturating in the soup. Further, if France was getting ready to go it alone, it is unthinkable that her carrier would not have been ready and leaning forward. It took, from what I heard, at least two days from the UN declaration for the Charles DeGaulle to sail from Toulon. This argues that there is a whole lot of ad hoc-ery involved.
If this was not a deep, dark, lengthy conspiracy [and appears not to be]; then why would Buraq Hussein suddenly reverse two years of foreign policy? And why would he do it while vacationing out of the country, with SECSTATE forced to functionally act as President for this war, and SECDEF running around playing SECSTATE? The optics for this are horrendous for domestic politics. IF the Republicans have half a lick of sense [far from a given]; they have campaign ads for 2012 already written and in production from this fiasco. And of course, there is the other side of the coin, in that if he was worried about 2012, why would he do this? Does he feel safe because the votes are already counted?
Now he has pulled a sudden 180 and deliberately placed himself and his regime in the domestic political line of fire; and at personal risk if this three-level goat rope [strategic, operational, and tactical] goes TANGO UNIFORM. That is so far out of character that the impetus has to be something existential.
I can only think of two things, and if any BC-ers can think of others, please chime in.
The first is documented evidence of Buraq Hussein’s background. All we have for most of what he claims he is, is his own word. There are a number of fertile fields of investigation, even if you leave the questions about birth certificates, etc. out of the picture. In the sudden p**sing match between European countries and the Duck, if the Duck pulled out a threat to Buraq to reveal what he knows; Buraq would do anything to cover his skinny gluteus.
The second relates to financing. Khaddafi was known for his widespead ownership of European politicians of all parties, in fee simple. And their businessmen. After the “Line of Death” in the Gulf of Sidra was erased by the US Navy, the Duck had a tremendous incentive to gain similar leverage on US politicians and bureaucrats. Note that until Congress forbade such activities; the FBI used to pull sting operations on politicians pretending to be Muslims trying to buy influence. They never failed to get most of their offers eagerly accepted. Further, it is a fact that the senior levels of our Foreign Service have profitable second careers as consultants in the Middle East. Presidents Carter and Clinton both have made fortunes giving speeches in the Middle East. [Would you pay a couple of million dollars to hear Slick Willie give a half hour speech?]
There is no doubt that our political class, especially but not exclusively the Democratic party, are easily bought. The questions remain about the price, the identity of the John, and the specific acts purchased.
Democratic campaigns are paid for by wealthy donors like George Soros, labor unions, Hollywood Leftists [almost a redundancy there], and illegal foreign cash. Going back to Johnny Huang, Algore’s Buddhist monks, James Riaddy, and suitcases of cash being delivered to the Clinton White House from Chinese sources; foreign money has been a Democrat mainstay.
In the last election, vast sums came from overseas. There were open contributions caught from Gaza. Obama’s donor credit card operations were deliberately rigged to get around the security systems so that foreign contributions and dummy contributions were the norm. What if as part of his threats to the West, the Duck said he would reveal sources of some of Buraq’s campaign money? While the Democrats might not have any problem being funded by one of more of HAMAS, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Iranian Republican Guard; even the MSM might have a bit of a problem covering that one up.
I myself am hoping for a Libyan document dump.
Subotai Bahadur
But what’s in it for the US?
Alas, this ought to be the logical question, but it is not. The operative question should be, rather:
But what’s in it for the Obama administration?
As was well-elaborated in #20, it should be crystal clear (and this already for some time) that the current administration does not have the interests of the US in mind (indeed, one might say that Obama has “higher” interests—interests that include cutting the US down to size if not reducing its power and abilities entirely).
His disdain for “the people” shown in the health care “coup”; his appointment of an assortment of non-accountable, non-elected czars, a significant number of which harboring radical views, with which to make the policies of this most “transparent” of administrations hidden from the people and its elected representative; his alignment against the elected governments of Arizona and Wisconsin; and now, his decision to engage in hostilities without even bothering to deal with Congress in this latest maneuver, should make what is already crystal clear even clearer.
Yes, the question is:
But what’s in it for the Obama administration?
One may well believe that this latest decision is consistent with Obama’s efforts to weaken the US militarily, economically, strategically, and in terms of its sovereignty (in favor of the global, utopian government so well-represented by the UN). In addition, it further weakens the image of America’s dependability and its reputation as an ally, even as it also creates fissures in NATO. Certainly, it projects imbecility as the guiding motive behind current American decision-making.
But (Warning!: Speculation Ahead!) the main reason for Obama’s decision is that it will be used down the road as THE precedent to justify allied (whatever that might mean) military intervention to “solve” the “impasse” between Israel and the Palestinians, the achievement of which has been Obama’s pet project (aka, most cherished goal)—and most egregious failure (which is saying quite a lot)—from Day 1.
Some history: Obama tried to break the logjam of stalled I-P “peace” “negotiations” by demanding that Israel stop building in the West Bank and Jerusalem. It didn’t work (spectacularly so) and the global perception is that it didn’t work because Israel—Bibi—stiffed him. That Bibi—Israel—absolutely refused to “give peace a chance,” etc.
In Obama’s view (a view that parallels much of the world’s leaders), achieving “peace” means forcing Israel to agree to what is demanded of it. Since Israel hasn’t yet “done” this yet, accordingly, either military force or the threat of using military force must be the used to make Israel “understand” that it must relinquish territory and concede to Palestinian non-negotiable demands. It also implies dangling the carrot of American guarantees (heh!!) of “protection” (Samantha Power’s hare-brained scheme to separate the two warring sides) so as to override Israeli objections to exposing its neck to the slaughterer’s knife.
At a time when Arab countries (almost all of them despotisms of one sort or another) are self-destructing left, right and center, it seems that nations around the world are falling over themselves to declare their support for another—a new—failed Arab state, another despotism, this one called “Palestine”—or “Palestines,” or perhaps “Palestine East” and “Palestine West”. The UN will undoubtedly endorse such a travesty, and this time the Obama administration will not bend to any Congressional pressure to veto it, no matter how fierce. Congress? Heh….
France (France!!) just yesterday declared that a Palestinian state must be established by the end of 2011 (even though this is a blatantly tranparent attempt to cover itself and its decision to attack Qadafi).
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=213294
Britain for its part has claimed its intention to, if not quite yet recognize a Palestinian state, upgrade relations with its current “government.”
With less than a year-and-a-half remaining until the Obama administration becomes a bizarre if not reprehensible blot in American history, Obama will once again try to break that logjam, this time by raising the stakes:
Military force or the threat of military force in order to get Israel to “play”.
This is the prism through which to view what appears to be the Obama administrations bumbling indecision, which is, in fact, not bumbling nor indecisive, but rather takes the longer strategic view of “what’s in it for the Obama administration….”
So you launch a bunch of cruise missiles to hit radars and blow up SAM sites and muss up the landscaping at Gadaffy’s place and use F-15s to crater runways and blast tanks and then turn to the crowd assembled and say, “Who wants to lead today? Where’s Germany, they’re good a desert warfare. Whatddya mean they left the room. How about the Swedes? They haven’t lead anything in a long time. Luxembourg raised its hand. I didn’t even know you were a country. Alright, who’s all for tiny, plucky Luxembourg leading? Oh, you need to go to the bathroom. Did the Austrians say something? I don’t speak Austrian.”
What happens if the Duck retaliates? We already see him changing tactics so he appears to be searching for options.
Have we cut off his communication with the outside world? What’s the risk to Qadafi in escalation? The west is already after his head.
Does Qadafi have any ability to widen the conflict? I am working in the Arabian peninsula for the past several weeks and Libya is barely a story. Everyone is talking about Bahrain. Does Qadafi any friends left to start trouble on his behalf?
Wretchard, May I suggest another analysis of Obama’s policy on Libya. This not my own but Thomas PM Barnett’s analysis from the Esquire Politics Blog linked below. Mr Barnett is author of “The New Pentagon’s Map” and others.
I have been reading his analysis daily since I read the above book. “What really stands out as an embryonic Obama Doctrine are his negotiating tactics on the employment of US forces, because they are the exact opposite of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption and unilateralism. Obama basically said to the world that America will not commit its troops to a situation like Libya unless damn near everyone signs off on it first: The United Nations Security Council, NATO, the Arab League, the Africa Union, the Tuesdays with Morrie Bookclub – everyone.” “But again, the key revelation: This negotiating tactic does an excellent job of uncovering the actual global demand out there for America’s intervention & stabiliation services. A lot of anti-interventionists (and sheer Bush haters) want to pretend that’s a myth and that there is no such demand for American Leviation, but the truth is, there’s plenty of demand out there. The question is US bandwidth, which Bush-Chaney narrowed considerably.” http://tinyurl.com/4swy7os
The Great 0bama Train Wreck continues.
I doubt Qaddafi’s death squads will be eliminated by a “no-fly” zone. Qaddafi and his sons know the territory well. They will get even with their foes. Even if Qaddafi goes into exile he will be pulling the strings.
Further, Qaddafi has been known to carry a grudge for a long time. I am sure that any or all countries involved may experience terrorism.
0bama has started something that he should finish. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have the backbone to do it. 0bama will probably just “Tighten Airport Security” until every grandmother is searched down to her underwear. I will not even go into the danger of our fighting men being controlled by a committee of idiots. 0bama has really screwed the pooch.
spiegel.de / Nato soll Flugverbotszone kontrollieren> (NATO to Control NFZ)
Spiegel: US, France England decide to give NATO military control over the NFZ.
Political control falls to the ‘Coalition of the willing’. Spiegel: “It’s still not clear what that’s supposed to mean”
Obama busy lobbying Qatar and Turkey. Turkey wanted UN command for NFZ.
Naval weapon’s blockade of Libya in place. Germany still standing by decision to remove its AWACS boats from NATO command.
Another note: Germany approves 300 man reinforcement for AWACS in Afghanistan.
Wretchard wrote;
“At times it is preferable to think their blunders are the result of malevolence because it is too painful to accept that anyone could be so stupid. At others, it is more comforting to imagine their action the result of stupidity because it is too terrible to imagine that anything could be that malign. And yet, for whatever reason the blunders continue, like some terrible amok machine lurching through a museum of priceless crystal.”
I know you were addressing the foreign policy issue but that paragraph pretty much defines the entire Obama Residency. Malignant Idiots indeed.
God help us! All I can hope for is that there is something left to save for my kids when all this is over.
“While some of us may dislike the resolution and think it unwise or poorly constructed that does not make it illegal for the US to act under it. ”
Well, that depends. US Law has precedence over UN resolution, even Chp 7. resolutions. The Supreme Court has ruled. Look it up. There is an Urban legend that UN Resolutions overrule the US Constitution, but it is strictly that. Urban Legend, no basis in fact. No matter what any UN resolution says, the War Powers Act is the Law of the Land. At least until the Supreme Court rules on it. I personally think it is unconstitutional and needs to be voted on as a Constitutional Amendment.
As far as the Chp. 7 resolution in question, The Duck of Death is correct when he states that it is invalid. The Sovereign right of nations to conduct internal affairs without UN intervention is in Chp 1 of the UN Charter. Chp 7 is Chp 7. 1 comes before 7. If chp. 7 resolutions had precedence, then they would be Chapter 1 resolutions. There would be no UN charter in that case. None of the nations signing would have signed away their Sovereignty like that.
Most politicians think that if they get enough votes, they can do anything. Those Politicians need a brief lesson in trees and ropes. That will cure what ails them.
I read this and just have the nagging vision of Obama riding in Air Force One over South America somewhere and saying “Home, you mean to tell me we can reach ANYONE from this phone? Cool, lets try it! Get me the Wizard’s locker room. Busy? OK, how about, um, NATO?”
At times it is preferable to think their blunders are the result of malevolence because it is too painful to accept that anyone could be so stupid. At others, it is more comforting to imagine their action the result of stupidity because it is too terrible to imagine that anything could be that malign.
Of course, the reality is that the two propositions are not mutually exclusive. Even more terrible to acknowledge, however, is the possibility (probability?) that the malignant incompetents blundering about on the public stage are merely cover for the unseen hand of an extremely competent, malignant evil.
The Marines have arrived!!!
http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html
26. longjack
Despite everything, the German Army, whatever they call it today, is as professional as it gets. As it has been for the last few thousand years. While there are no more Ritters or Junkers by name, it still lives on in the heart.
The hard bloody core of the Roman Imperial Legions were Germanic tribesmen earning the franchise. The Franks that ruled Europe under Charles the great were Germanic. That is because Germany as we know it today didn’t exist.
Any way, you won’t find American troops laughing at the Krauts like they do at the French and Brits. The German politicians, yes.
Merkel is something else. I’ll bet she called in her Professional military advisors and asked them what they think.
I’m sure they told her Libya was a disaster looking for a place and time to happen.
It is what it is. The German high command is less delusional then even the US high command. Germany could be a military power in a month or so. Thousands of years of history doesn’t disappear in a generation or three. The results of a re-militarised Germany would not be any different this time then the last two times.
There would be an immediate arms build up. Russia is already re-arming. That would go into overdrive. France would freak-out. As would the English.
The high command pointed out where all this would lead and Merkel said ‘EWH! Not on my watch’.
Merkel is the only one in this circle jerk that has the brains to pour water out of a boot without reading the directions on the heel.
My puzzlement concerns Italy. Italy used to rule/own Libya as a protectorate and still has oil interests in that place as well as cultural ties. Illegal Libyan immigration/fleeing refugees to Italy was already reaching almost unsupportable flood-tide proportions pre the “revolution.” Why Italy is not playing a larger role in all this–militarily, diplomatic, PR, etc.,– considering the fact it is the one most directly affected (oil & refugees) by happenings on the North African shores is beyond me. Anyone?
I wonder if this situation has that much to do with Libya and Ghadaffi as singular instances but is related to other issues.
First, the Middle East infrastructure of political statism and socialist redistributive economies is imploding due to its population growth. This is a natural result of that growth – and the political system must move to constitutional democracy and the economic system to private enterprise capitalism. That’s the only method capable of generating the wealth to support that size of a population. It’s not a simple transition; the old structure resists and the new one hasn’t found its ‘sea legs’ but it’s inevitable.
Plus, there are many interests that prefer the stability of the old dictators. These include Israel, and many western interests. There is a false fear that the Middle East can be only Either Dictators OR Islamic fascists. That is a false fear – both both dictatorships and Islamic fundamentalism operate, economically and politically, identically. They both reject the freedom of a private capitalist economy and the emergence of a middle class. So – both are impossible in the future of the Middle East. They cannot repress that size of a population for many years.
Obama? He’s ignorant and arrogant. His anti-Americanism and his utterly naive view of America as ‘imperialist/colonialist’ means that he rejects US involvement in any foreign situation. His socialism and anti-capitalism means that he supports the current economic modes in the ME – which are socialist, top-down redistributive. He does NOT support individual attainment of wealth; he has repeatedly, in the US, belittled people who are ‘greedy’ for wealth.
Humanitarian? Obama, as a pathological narcissist, is unable to feel empathy with anyone.
I don’t think that this ME implosion has a thing to do with Israel-Palestine; we must realize that not everything that happens in the ME has to do with those two peoples. There’s a lot more going on…
I think that what occurred – and this is pure speculation – is that the rapid domino implosions of the old infrastructure across the ME – and Obama has dithered about every single one of them (Tunisia, Egypt)..and the apparent next one in Libya – has left Obama out in the cold. He has no idea what is going on – and he both, as a person, doesn’t welcome freedom, and is probably being lobbied by many agendas who prefer the old dictators and their status quo.
With Libya – the French and British, who DO know what is going on in the ME, decided to get involved. Obama refused – for the above two reasons. But, the post WWII agreed-to situation was that the US built up its military while Europe reduced its military, relying on that of the US. When the British and French moved in to Libya, Obama was shamed into agreeing – but has hampered the action by insisting on UN/Nato involvement and that very strange no-fly proposal and equally strange hands-off Ghadaffi.
If Obama wanted this action, for itself, he and his hope-and-change rhetoric could have met with the Congress. After all, Obama has stated, many times, that he and his rhetoric are ‘a gift’. He believes he can persuade anyone of anything. But he didn’t go to Congress; because he’s not interested in Libya.
Now, that Obama’s left is complaining, and Ghadaffi has made use of the no-fly/keep Ghadaffi to..stay, Obama wants out.
Obama doesn’t act for America; he doesn’t act for the well-being of the world. He acts for and only for – himself. His focus is: will it increase those who view me as the messiah – or not? He opts only for the former.
It seems that there are two ways to be above reproach; one is to be above reproach or holy. the other is to be too stinky to touch or be near for fear the awfulness will rub off on you. barney frank has achieved the latter status in the US domestic politics. When you consider the duck’s career you have to wonder if he has not achieved the same thing in international politics. moslem opinion might well say that this analogy slimes the duck. domestic liberal opinion might well suggest that this analogy slimes barney.
Over and over again I have read that moslem opinion considers NATO to be radioactive as a command structure for the Libyan operation because they think NATO is a tool of US policy–and yet given the circumstances WTF.
If we’re going to Win The Future, can’t we isolate and expose the particular Moslem diplomat who made this statement in such a way that it is repeated over and over again in the press.
Wretchard @16: “And yet, for whatever reason the blunders continue, like some terrible amok machine lurching through a museum of priceless crystal.”
This isn’t quite the “Hope And Change” we were anticipating.
I speak as an genuine anti-O who is sympathetic to the mission (Ghaddafi is a filthy cancerous pus-bag) AND to the desire to get the Euros and UN in up to their eyeballs, so the US can take sort of as much of a back seat as possible. I am sympathetic to both.
And my epiphany of the week is that this could be an Obama-ending event. Like, he might even choose not to run because of it. My epiphany comes from the fact that, as of this morning, there is very little news (change) on the Libyan side, all sorts of news on the coalition side (uh-oh).
The fact is, after that opening salvo, we ARE into this up to our eyeballs, and there ain’t no weaseling out of that, no matter what we do next. That is now estabished. Ya think Daffy thinks we are in it big time? Ya think?
So now Obama has to be the Bush he has always run against. He has no choice. Show of hands, who here thinks he’s up to that task in particular? (Set aside everything else for the moment.) But if he is just not willing to do that, and the coalition dissolves into the fuster-cluck that it certainly looks like (look at the coalition trend-line and ask yourself “what intervening power or event will alter that”?), then Daffy will likely survive in a ‘West Libya’ scenario, wherby every loathsome element on planet earth will rally to him, and an entirely new national-european security abscess will have been opened not “on Obama’s watch”… but by him, personally… one hundred percent.
Or, Obama draws upon his Bushian reserves of fierce determination and resolve to see what he has started through to the end. Bets, anyone?
This is exactly what ‘in over your head’ looks like. If we all see it, do you think anyone outside our borders does?
Why Italy is not playing a larger role in all this–militarily, diplomatic, PR, etc.,– considering the fact it is the one most directly affected (oil & refugees) by happenings on the North African shores is beyond me. Anyone?
Because they are Italians.
This is what war looks like when conducted by the Left.
Seeing Obama the warfighter in action… I think we can all honestly thank God that Jimmy Carter never had to lead us through military conflict. Maybe his Navy training would have held him in good stead, but Obama and Hillary have nothing to fall back on.
While I’m of the opinion that NATO has outlived its usefulness, I certainly don’t want to see it end like this.
I’m not catholic but this sounds like the right stuff.
The hermeneutic of continuity
There was a most interesting press conference today at the Vatican on a new decree that has been published by the Congregation for Catholic Education concerning the reform of philosophical studies. You can read an English summary at the Vatican Information Service.
” Cardinal Grocholewski said that the Decree was occasioned by the problems of philosophy in the secular world and within the Church where, as Pope Benedict said, “The crisis of the post-Vatican II theology is largely a crisis of its philosophical foundations.”
Fr. Charles Morerod OP, Rector the Angelicum, spoke particularly about the importance of metaphysics, quoting St Thomas to the effect that error concerning created things can lead to error concerning the things of God. He focussed especially on the importance of affirming the ability of the human mind to know the truth and to state it. In a striking comment, he said:
“Above all, our words need to be able to say something true about reality, otherwise the very Bible itself would not affirm anything.”
As St Thomas wrote in the Summa Contra Gentiles: “agere sequitur ad esse in actu” often shortened to agere sequitur esse or “action follows being”.
Ooops! Obama just broke NATO.
w/5, Once the Duck dug in they had to finish what they started or face payback.
…or, “Once the Duck dug in they had to finish what they started or pay facebook.”
***
charles/30; just read something very strange about the Vatican, and its possible degree of involvement in the current long twilight struggle –nothing necessarily bad, tho if not, then necessarily good, er, ah. Look on the previous thread, Suez 2, at the link high up on comment #130, then when it opens scroll down about two thirds of the author’s post to the section that begins in the para opening: However what may possibly be the largest indication that financial terrorism is at work is a 2009 story that was virtually swept under the rug by the MSM.
All I want is for this whole Libyan debacle to go on the Obama s***t list that a lot of people are keeping for 2012.
The list of this man’s transgressions against the American system and the American people is already longer than the one in the Declaration of Independence for King George.
How can a comprehensive compilation and enumeration of his many sins be packaged is such a way that it is easily understood by a majority of Americans?
Don Rodrigo – LOL!!!
I heard that the New Italian Navy is made up of glass bottomed boats – so that they can see the Old Italian Navy whenever they want!
When you get first things wrong–you wind up with a civilization hardly worth defending. And you have to read these kinds absurd of headlines.
Military indoctrinated on gays kissing, behavior
stoicheion (28),
Assertions are not facts and “look it up” is not an argument. You are simply wrong here. The UN cannot issue a Chapter VII resolution that compels the US to act against our will because we have the veto power as a Permanent Member of the Security Council. We can deplore that our government and representatives to the UN are acting against their constitutional duty and not in the best interests of America but that does not make the UN resolution illegal or less than binding. Our remedies must be domestic, in replacing the present US government, not in expecting an international legal regime that was constructed to reflect American power through the binding power of Chapter VII with the US as a Veto Power to change.
Your argument that Ch. VII is not binding because it comes after Ch. I is incoherent. It also goes against the clear wording of the text. The UN Charter unlike the League of Nation’s has real teeth. It also reflected geopolitical reality in 1945. If the Great Powers, the Permanent Members of the UNSC, unanimously agree on something then it becomes Law. Now we can regret that the Truman administration misused the UN when the Korean War broke out but that was long ago and set a precedent that abstaining or being absent was not the same as a Veto. As for the binding effect of a treaty that can override domestic law I provided an example, the Migratory Birds treaty and you have not replied except to assert to the contrary. That is not an argument in the sense of a logical debate method.
We cannot win if we do not make clear and convincing arguments that take into account the legal and political realities and the history behind current conditions. When we simply assert what we want conditions to be, such as when people argue that the UN is illegal or for that matter that the income tax is illegal, we lose public support. If the goal is to constrain arbitrary government, to prevent any POTUS from misusing forces and funds as if they were a “King’s Army” then we need to focus on that and not decry that the UN acted badly when the wrong people are sitting in the Security Council seat marked United States.
The problem Obama represents is rooted in his belief that American Exceptionalism is bad and that we should be subject to international control. The UN was established with the Veto for the Permanent Members to enshrine American Exceptionalism and protect our interests. It would not surprise me if Obama seeks to give up the Veto, although I doubt that Russia and China would go along. My hope and yes it is a NeoCon belief is that the American people will choose to restore the system that protected our interests for half a century after WW-II. We need a strong America that uses international law in our own interest and acts as a reliable ally to our friends.
I have no problem with France or the UK acting in their own self-interest. That is what nations do, and what their Presidents and Prime Ministers are elected to do.
But neither France nor UK nor we have what looks like a sovereign self-interest here, this is an R2P case.
OTOH it is pitiful that neither country, nor both together, can defeat Khaddafi, who is in charge of barely half a country of 6m, though he has a big pot of gold out of which to pay mercenaries.
Of course, either France or the UK could *easily* defeat Khaddafi by landing a battalion of troops and savaging Tripoli, but they won’t do that, it doesn’t fit the R2P profile.
In fact, they could probably land that same battalion and so thoroughly defeat all of Khaddafi’s troops in the field that the war would end, but no, that would be wrong, putting kaffir boots on Islamic land.
Or, they could probably have kidnapped Khaddafi, or bribed him to leave, or assassinated him, anytime in the last five years, if they had any desire to.
So how did this start? A Twitter flash-crowd.
The UN (about which I have nothing to say), and these western powers, are all excited because of a twitter flash crowd.
Maybe the Twitter site needs to add a check box, “UN security council resolution will be needed to support this message, please alert Hillary to arrange for the firing of 120 cruise missiles within an hour this message.”
–
Absolutely the theater of the absurd.
9. Walt
A MODERN LIBERAL PRESIDENT
You’ve done it again! Thank you!
* * * *
Having missed his opportunity to act decisively weeks earlier, Obama is now missing no opportunity to miss an opportunity. Enemies can now, Lilliputian-like, tie Gullible down with a thousand threads.
Contrast this with Israel which, having no need to exercise restraint to win favor with the Vacillator-Vindictor-in-Chief, is responding to recent acts of aggression tit-for-tat. Yes, it’s ugly, but the plan seems to be clear: in each case Israel is responding to attack. There’s no lack of clarity about the reasons for its actions, and no silly assumption that Israel should be a target zone for Hamas rockets.
In the Marines this is referred to as a Total Goat Screw without any leadership.
A clusterfluck.
Obama treats America as his plaything. The U.S. Navy is his Navy. Does anyone remember the remark he made in 2009 that the American nuclear arsenal was his arsenal?
He has the strangest and most disturbing notion of what his getting elected means. He acts as if he had purchased America for his own use with his electoral victory. This is why he can start armed action against Libya in such cavalier fashion. He really does think that he can do as he pleases.
42. buddy larsen
Yeah I’ve always wondered why that money counterfeiting thing went down the memory hole. Why did they let those guys go? Either it was because the money was too fake to worry about or because the fakes were so good someone got squeezed. Or they weren’t fakes at all and someone was squeezed real hard. If you believe the feds–it was monopoly money. But I understand these days that’s a heck of a caveat.
Too bad no one ever saw fit to run that story to ground.
Charles, what struck me was that the story would never have emerged at all but a little Vatican published sort of neighborhood weekly sort of paper. Someone in the Vatican wanted the story out. That the sum was so large –even if forged which that kennedy paper makes seem a whiff unlikely –and Vatican-leaked, brings to mind the old shadow struggle said to be ever ongoing between the Freemasons and the Vatican, or is it them on one side and the Mafia, or the Mormons, or…wait, the Luciferians, that’s it –on the other. It’s all just too weird –TOO weird. 135 billion and there’s evidence it was real –unless that part about the special issue kennedy unit –was made up. Damn i’d like to know what has been going on since we elected the boy from Hope, Arkansaw –and blew the lid off Pandora’s Box. Or maybe it was Bush the Elder, in leaving Saddam in place and thus summoning up Godzilla Oil for Food, the Global Criminalization!
#21 Barry Meislin
You picked up on a theme that I intended to return to, and came up with an application that I had not thought of.
Part of what is at issue here is the concept of called “R2P” for Right to Protect. This is a Leftist/UN/EU formulation that says functionally there is no such thing as national sovereignty if the UN or other supra-national group decides that it would be better for the inhabitants if the supra-national group forcefully intervened and arranged things locally to their desires; regardless of the local government. This is in direct contravention of international law since the Treaty of Westphalia in the 1600′s, and of the UN’s own Charter.
Chapter I, Article 2 Clause 7 says:
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII..
The Chapter VII exception covers foreign aggression, and not civil disorders; i.e. the maintenance of “international peace and security”.
Granting that the Duck of Death is a waste of protoplasm and the world IQ would jump if he were to be eliminated. And I would be greatly amused if it were that he would find himself in the hands of a bunch of vengeful Arab women with knives. But as long as his forces stay within Libya’s internationally recognized boundaries; that task does not belong to the UN, to NATO, or to any other nation-state absent a state of war.
The arrogation of the R2P power and its application by the UN and current regime in the US to Israel fits in well with the endemic anti-Semitism of the UN and the Democrats [keep in mind that Helen Thomas is far from alone on the American Left and in the White House, and she is still an honored figure after breaking cover]. The Duck depends on a motley and poorly armed cadre of mercenaries to resist the UN. Israel is full of well armed, and personally motivated citizens who know that the UN, Buraq, and the very large Samantha Powers wing of the Democrats desire nothing less than the completion of the Endlösung. There will be extremely effective armed resistance, at all three of the levels I mentioned in #20. The phrase is “Never Again”, and they will bring the world down with them. And be justified in doing it.
I was thinking of a more local application of R2P. If we have an election in 2012, and if the vote is counted honestly; no rational analyst is going to deny the extreme likelihood that it will not be a good day for the Left. If either of the conditions above fail, or in the wake of such election if the results are set aside, life is going to be interesting within our own borders. Buraq may like having the option of foreign assistance. Looking at the permanent members of the security council; there is not one that is not either an enemy of the United States, or at the very least does not share the typical Leftist European contempt for our system of governance. Looking at the elected members: Colombia, Germany, India, Portugal, and South Africa; there might be one or two votes against an R2P operation to suppress the evil American Constitutionalists. At least so the White House may calculate.
If he is dumb enough to do that, we will be in competition with Israel for body counts of those intending to destroy us.
I will close with this from CHICAGO BOYS by Trent Telenko. In a couple of paragraphs he lays out the possible outcomes in Libya with I am sure greater clarity than anyone working in the White House has done.
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/21305.html#comments
————————–
Commenters at the link have added a few insights too.
Subotai Bahadur
R2P = Responsibility to Protect.
I am not familiar with a Right to Protect formulation.
#9 Walt:
That was very well done and great fun, thank you.
Subotai, the whiz kid who was instrumental in creating the UN, and who would have been USA’s first ambassador, was a fella named Alger Hiss.
“The UN cannot issue a Chapter VII resolution that compels the US to act against our will because we have the veto power as a Permanent Member of the Security Council.”
Wrong! The UN cannot compel the USA because we have the Most powerful Navy, the most technologically advanced Air Force and the roughest toughest, most bad ass Army to ever walk this planet. The rest is BS.
LAW is a polite way of saying might makes right. People appear in front of a Judge because guys with guns went and got them. NO other reason.
“Your argument that Ch. VII is not binding because it comes after Ch. I is incoherent.”
Actually it is, you just don’t like it. You are aware that a legal ruling from a lower level court in 1955 has Precedence over the same level court ruling from 1962. The USSC looks at both rulings and decides which one is better. This is a common left wing ploy use to change the law when they lack the votes.
#53. Subotai Bahadur has a better presentation of the same argument. Chp 1 prevents Chp 7 from being applied to Sovereign internal affairs. It no doubt gripes the Left, but it isn’t Illegal for A dictator to slaughter his subjects. They are his, after all. No dictator such as Stalin would ratify the UN charter if it could be used to prevent him from killing his subjects. Sorry, but you are wrong.
Since there is no court with jurisdiction to hear this case (putting the lie to the phrase “International Law), we will just have to agree to disagree.
I expect the Duck of Death to disappear. The Atlas Mountains is perhaps more desolate then the Hindu Kush. If Osama can hide out for a decade on 200 million, the Duck can hide out on the Billions he has salted away. While NOT a good outcome it at least has the advantage of shutting up Liberals when they ask; “Where’s Bin Laden?” Conservatives just say, “He is sharing a Town house in Rio with Quaddify”.
Apparently unnoticed by pundits and commentators and not yet mentioned here, as far as I can tell, is this statement made by Obama in an interview with CNN International yesterday.
“And that’s why building this international coalition has been so important because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost. It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally. And we will accomplish that in a relatively short period of time.”
A completely outrageous statement for a POTUS and CIC, to make.
For the full text of the interview see:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/OFA/gGMHlL
#54 YBR
R2P = Responsibility to Protect.
Absolutely right. My brain-fart while typing, and a second while proofreading. Sorry.
Subotai Bahadur
Funny how your words as a candidate can come back to haunt you as a President.
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
- Presidential Candidate Barack Obama to The Boston Globe, 2007
Hmm apparently the USA and AQ both side with the rebels in Libya.
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=212003
Buddy, I’ve read somewhere recently that the sovereign wealth funds mentioned in the article you posted in the last thread have been buying up land
in the last couple years all over the world in anticipation of the rise in the price of food and the demand for more cropland.
“U.S. Jets Step Up Attacks on Gadhafi’s Troops”
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/u-s-jets-step-up-attacks-on-gadhafis-troops/#more-43265
“Camp Lejeune Marines To Libya”
http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html
So the Americans are leaving the camp ?
R2P
(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBShN8qT4lk
According to this ingenious article by Tim Hartford called called Cash For Answers
In 1737, John Harrison, a self-taught clockmaker from Yorkshire, stunned London’s scientific establishment by presenting an idiosyncratic solution to the most important and notorious technological problem of the 18th century. He was hoping to win a then-fabulous prize of £20,000 (about £5m today) for anyone who could devise a way for a ship’s navigator to determine its longitude and therefore its position at sea. Harrison’s approach was to build a clock that would keep Greenwich time faithfully; by comparing local time (measured using the position of the sun) with the time in London, the navigator would know how far east or west the ship had sailed. The theory was sound, but given the rolling of ships and changing temperature and humidity, the leading scientists of the day – including Sir Isaac Newton – reckoned that a sufficiently accurate clock would be impossible to build. Harrison proved otherwise.
………….
I’m back from Hawaii. One topic besides human sacrifice in New Guinnea that I discussed with my brother was the relationship between the way people leave the earth in Revelations and the way people left the old world for the new world after columbus. For example, Was there a relationship between martin luther’s paper in worms and columbus’s sail across the ocean. Both were technologically enabled. Luther by the printing press. Columbus by a sextant that enabled sailors to determine longitude.
What enabled the scientific/technological innovation? That is, something had occurred in the mind of men that kept them from embracing old falacies/fatalisms
What was it?
I have argued that the dynamism in the west is a consequence of the tension between God’s sovereignty and Man’s free will–embodied by the God/Man Jesus who is fully Man and fully God.
But the insights of Thomas Aquinus mentioned above, the confidence to know the truth and clarity of the truth’s expression had been around in Europe since Summa contra Gentiles was written by St. Thomas Aquinas between 1258 and 1264.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_contra_Gentiles
I’d settle for a good chemist in 2012.
And a few lab techs in the Cabinet.
Lorenz Gude
“Or is it just a case of the French version of neoconservatism and the oil”
dur-dur to imagine that French could be fair !
“The reason Italy wants NATO is because they know NATO adds an extra layer of political bureaucracy to operations and will almost certainly result in Gaddafi remaining in powerKadhafi the warrant of italian trades. The likely result is an insurgency movement inside Libya, and this becomes a long term stalemate. NATO comes with significant military advantages though, because NATO is organized in a way to seemlessly integrate operations from all the participating NATO members. There is a lot to be said about the high level of C2 NATO enables for military operations.
France on the other hand knows that NATO will restrict the flexibility of nations to act unilaterally in Libya. While this has not been officially stated, France would like to kill Gaddafi, and like the US has a policy of regime change. By operating outside the restrictions of NATO, France can be much more flexible with their interpretation of the UN Security Council Resolution when taking military action. France believes they can reset the security conditions inside Libya by decapitating the government of Libya, and set conditions for Libya towards reforms. I am uncertain why this also wouldn’t lead to insurgency, but some very smart French folks I know believe conditions similar to Tunisia and Egypt will emerge once Gaddafi is gone. Their better argument is that it won’t guarantee an insurgency outcome like a NATO led operation almost certainly does.”
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/few-thoughts-on-libya.html
Where did those come from?
http://tinyurl.com/4udnrgb
Aviation Week blog says very advanced Russian MANPADs active with DofD’s forces.
May explain Vlad’s criticism of Op OD.
Wretchard
“My only guess is that they knew Khadaffi had the goods on too many people; that he had files that would have made J. Edgar’s dossiers look like a Hallmark Greeting cards and the guys he had the goods on saw the Duck’s problem as a way of taking care of him.”
sure when a Kadhafi’s son launches a fart, there must some truth behind the smoke, according the old adage.
But you should question why France got/gets involved into such “crusades” (Medvedev’s word, but also Guegan’s a former Sarko’s adviser), it’s in the line of “Medecins sans Frontières” organisation, that intervens in countries where all sorts of conflicts, diseases, natural catastrophes happen. In countries where evident abuses of human rights are perpetrated by a leader, this organisation has always promoted a butting into a country inner policy, hence troops envoy to Darfour, Central Africa… Kouchner begin his political carreer as the creator of “Medecin sans Frontières”, he was amid the persons that pressed on Sarkozy to undertake something, but the determining factor was BHL (Bernard-Henri Levy) that went to Benghazi and made a emotional report on the people hopes and means there, hence the recognition of the intermediary government of Benghazi. So, from the beginning, there’s no hidden agenda, just that that was a opportunity for Sarkozy to reblush his political image.
s @ 67: Aviation Week blog says very advanced Russian MANPADs active with DofD’s forces.
Very interesting strategic and tactical question.
Khaddafi’s forces are far too small to defeat any serious western push. Therefore, it may be that he should not try, not try to shoot down western aircraft or other high-value targets, that would raise the cost but also piss off forces he really doesn’t want to. What keeps Khaddafi in power is the powers’ PC self-restraint. Don’t want to mess with that.
Just ruminating, …
“In Bosnia, as in Libya a generation later, the standard-bearer of American power had a stark choice: It was either rescue or calamity. Benghazi would have been Barack Obama’s Srebrenica, the town that the powers had left to the mercy of Ratko Mladic and his killers”
Ajami- Opinion: Obama’s Holbrooke Moment http://on.wsj.com/fGNDBU
I think that is the least likely thing to happen. So many politicians do not want it.
Libyan Foreign Minister Reaches Out to U.S. Official
By James Rosen
Published March 23, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa spoke by telephone Sunday night with assistant secretary of State Jeffrey Feltman, a senior State Department official, intimately involved with the Libyan crisis told Fox News.
The call was initiated by Kusa, the official said, adding that Feltman never reaches out to Kusa, but takes the foreign minister’s calls. A spokesman for the State Department, speaking in early March, had confirmed an earlier call between Kusa and Feltman.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/23/libyan-foreign-minister-reaches-official/#ixzz1HSTMg2AS
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/23/libyan-foreign-minister-reaches-official/
#32 Stoicheion
Germany usually focuses on Domestic policies, while opening her ears to Moscow sirens
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,751804,00.html
uh the Germanz still worshipping la vie de soldat?
Nein, they prefer tourism
Travel agency offers holidays in war zones: Looking for a holiday with an edge? You could always try Iraq or Afg… http://bit.ly/e9c6nH
and now they are told in Afhanistan: “stop shouting and start shooting”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6730996.ece
Holbrooke had an earlier moment, too –check out East Timor’s 100,000 ghosts
Apparently the ducks complaint that the rebel’s were AQ affiliated is not far off the mark. The province from which they come has been the heaviest supplier of AQ recruits in Iraq.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/eastern-libyas-tribes-jihadism-did-u-s-consider-its-own-libya-intel/?singlepage=true
The (US)embassy’s alarming report is corroborated by captured al-Qaeda personnel documents — called the Sinjar Records — that came into American hands in 2007 and were analyzed by the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
The Sinjar Records revealed the country of origin of the foreign fighters who came to Iraq to kill American soldiers. While the majority of foreign fighters came from Saudi Arabia, the report also stated:
Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya. … Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia … the most common cities that the fighters called home were Darnah, Libya and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with 52 and 51 fighters respectively. Darnah, with a population just over 80,000 compared to Riyadh’s 4.3 million, has far and away the largest per capita number of fighters in the Sinjar records. The next most common hometowns — in real terms — listed in the Sinjar records were Mecca (43), Benghazi (21).”
If the rebels are AQ affiliated why are there so many reports of how ineffective they are? If these guys were AQ jihadis wouldn’t they be able to do a bit more damage? There’s all these reports of how they they can’t really do anything on their own.
Both ideas that they’re hardcore AQ jihadists and that they’re incompetent and ineffective can’t be true.
32. stoicheion “…you won’t find American troops laughing at the Krauts like they do at the French and Brits.”
Really? I didn’t know that.
Well, spend fifteen minutes or so reading this list and then tell us why you think your fellows have got a fit of the girly giggles:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10629358
And then tell us what the German contribution has been in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Late news flash, reports Embassy personnel being pulled out of Yemen –didn’t catch whose. State dept spox being defensive about lack of back-up plan if the govt falls. Caught by surprise, he says, and have no plans or contacts with rebels.
Eric Holder’s law firm> has Yemen contacts going back to the first Guantanamo inmates, as his firm has been the Gitmo Yemenis (iirc about 15 long termers) defense firm (btw, as well as the FARC banana death squads).
Sure seems like old Eric would have been able to ferret out a hint so his admin wouldn’t have had to be caught by surprise again. In addition to controlling the Red Sea / Gulf of Aden chokepoint, Yemen sits under Saudi Arabia like a toboggan going downhill left carrying a sack of sand, or gold, or future ICBM warheads.
Oh, i feel so had. Have ever since November 2006, with a doubledown two years later.
“A forty year old red line has been crossed and there is no turning back.”
>>> “The fear barrier has been broken irreversibly.”
It’s George’s fault.
AlMoh’s world is churning.
The Syrian regime is a Baathist regime.
Maddass Saddam’s ex-regime was a Baathist regime, aka National Socialism. (H/T Joe Stalin-Adolf)
…-
“One thing, however, is for certain: If Syria does not see a full-blown uprising soon, a culture of dissent has nonetheless commenced. The fear barrier has been broken irreversibly.”
“Syria’s coming revolution?”
“By taking to the streets, even in fairly small numbers, Syrians have crossed a ‘red line’ with their regime.”
“The revolution that was sparked in Tunisia has given birth to a new pan Arab-movement, a “neo-Arabism”, which privileges freedom and democratic participation of the people over ideology, sectarianism and the interest of dictators.
As we witness a rebirth of a revolutionary neo-Arabism that has infected millions from Morocco to Bahrain, we cannot ignore the birth-place of the original pan Arab movement of the past century – Syria.
Much has been written about Syria and why it cannot be next in line of the modern day Grand Arab Revolution. Very few have asked the question: “Why not?”
On March 15, the Syrian Day of Rage, as its Facebook group put it, hundreds were reported to have taken to the streets of Damascus, the capital.
On March 17th, “The Friday of Dignity”, the momentum picked up. Hundreds of Syrians protested in Homs, Aleppo, Dara’a and the coastal city of Banias. In Dara’a, a southwestern city on the Jordanian border, protests have turned deadly and the regime has sealed off the city in a hurried attempt to quell the spreading unrest.
Challenging the regime
Compared to footage of thousands, and sometimes millions, of protesters on the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Manama, Sana’a and Tripoli, the numbers in Syria might seem low. It should be noted, however, that what has taken place in Syria over the past few days is simply unprecedented. The only mass public expressions that Damascus has seen in the past few decades have been demonstrations co-opted by pro-regime supporters.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132113479124674.html
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/016365.html#comments
OK, I’ll do it.
I’ll lead.
My name is Jerry and will take over now.
Follow me.
Are we there yet, Jerry?
(Gloria wants to know if she has to pack a burkha.)
j/80, –oh you’re just doing it for the glory. you must be needy. we need to keep an eye on you, while we sit here.
J- We’re behind you every step of the way….
Can you hear us from way back here?
Jer, Can I see some ID?
“Italy announced today that it will lead the NATO embargo against Libya with 16 ships/subs. Preventing the smuggling of weapons at sea to the regime while allowing some modicum of trade and humanitarian support to continue will be a significant undertaking. The challenges include:”
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/questioning-efficacy-of-libyan-maritime.html
they will be Happy, the Italians !
and Kadhafi too
Well German reluctance to get involved with Libya maybe down to remembering being chased right through it by Monty and the 8th army.
mc/85, and Kadhafi too
…shame on you!
Obama by his third year has done hundreds of acts showing his contempt for U.S. statutes, customs, established processes, the U.S. Congress, The U.S. Supreme Court, and… oh, yeah, the Constitution.
This time he seems to have gone too far, giving away to the thieving layabouts of the U.N. the prerogatives of rubber-stamping the president’s whims and tergiversations.
This seems to have seriously annoyed a contingent of Leftist Dems who had fantasized that Obumpkin was actually THEIR bought lackey. Turns out that President Urkle is far more enamored of the billionaire thugs who’ve climbed to power over mountains of their countrymen’s bodies, than the petty thieves of the U.S. House and Senate.
Hardly a one of those losers has killed anyone, particularly. Not since Ted Kennedy drowned Mary Jo Kopechne.
Just not much panache for someone who aspires to be pals with such as Fidel, Mao, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Stalin, etc.
I’m sorry to joke about these things.
It does seem that the only people for whom Barak Hussayn Obama genuflects and courtsies are those known to have callously ordered the slaying of innocents, political opponents, dissidents, and American citizens.
There is one thing I have to thank Obama for. He’s made me realize the English language has a future — it will have to grow a WHOLE LOT to come up with words that can express fully the disgust he arouses in me.
@85marie claude
Thanks for that link. What is the feeling over there about this venture?
Anyone remember the Gulf Oil “Disaster?”
The Trillions of Gallons of nasty evil BP Oil that Obama coerced a bunch of scientists to tell us were going to ruin the Gulf for a century to come? And that within a couple of months were already mostly evaporated and dispersed?
That should be remembered as Obama’s Mythical Missing WMD’s.
The Incompetent-in-Chief dragged his heels, refused to accept offers of special oil-cleaning ships from allies, Threatened BP with criminal charges for using oil dispersant chemicals, refused to let the coastal states deploy any plan whatsoever to mitigate the effects of oil washing onto their shores.
In short the miserable rascal deliberately did everything he could to exacerbate and magnify the spill into the worst disaster he could muster.
He FAILED.
It wasn’t a disaster, and the expenses beyond the first week HAVE to be laid at his feet, for all the intentional obstructionist tricks he ordered.
Think about that.
He went to enormous lengths to manufacture a vast environmental disaster for no other purpose than to use it as an excuse to drastically curtail U.S. domestic oil exploration & development.
AND HE FAILED.
So he went ahead and outlawed domestic oil development ANYWAY.
I’m not going to use the only words there are to properly characterize this man and his actions.
Draw your own conclusions, and use your voter registration card please.
In the interest of the fairness doctrine, I have translated a little bit of the Spiegel article this morning regarding the tensions between Germany and France. This, of course, represents the German point of view. I did try to maintain as much of the snark in the original article as I could:
Nerviger Nachbar
Nicolas Sarkozy? Mention the name of the French president nowadays and you will usually see annoyed faces on the coalition members in the union and FDP. The “French commander”, as the gossip goes, doesn’t find it necessary to inform anyone before he lets his fighter jets loose on Libya. And didn’t the president once let ” Brother Colonel“ Muammar al-Gaddafi pitch his Bedouin tent in Paris? Monsieur Sarkozy probably wants that fact to be forgotten quickly – his close relations with other North-African despots as well. Oh, and he does have an election to win in the coming year. A resolute war deployment in the name of human rights won’t hurt him there.
No, those in Berlin these days don’t speak kindly of their neighbor in the west, the one with whom they usually put a high value on their good relationship with. The military engagement is causing tension.
The Federal government considers the action a mistake, hurried, without proper planning, nonetheless, with much pathos. France is resolved to play its “role in the history”, announced Sarkozy. He dashed ahead, pushing Germany – diplomatically not clumsily – into a precarious outsider role foreign policy-wise on the side of China and Russia. And now Paris would even like to degrade NATO to mini-assistent. France is annoying, they are thinking in Berlin. So much so that FDP Faction leader Birgit Homburger openly allowed her displeasure free reign on Wednesday: “I don’t recognize that will we allow ourselves to be criticized by those who act singlehandedly themselves.”
Thanks for that, longjack –faultlines for sure.
***
Mad fiddler, your utter disgust with the “BP disaster” is MORE than fully warranted. The trouble they had with forensic custody of the blowout preventer (disputes, lawsuits threatened, injunctions, and so forth with charges and countercharges thrown back and forth among the interested parties), trouble which conveniently legally ruptured the chain of custody over the key piece of evidence as to what specifically failed, should be ENORMOUSLY instructive.
Especially when taken in concert with BP’s recent record (politically weaponizing the anti-oil greenies vs the forces of the market via accidents in and at high-profile issue sites) of accidents on the North Slope and at a refinery in Texas, especially in concert with BP’s involvement with the left wing of the Democrat party (just for starters, before the Obama admin, Rahm Emanuel lived 5 years in a free apartment paid for by a BP lobbyist; the American Power Act [cap & trade], for which John Kerry takes sponsorship credit but was written by BP), especially given several of Obama’s czars being up to their necks in other suspicious (and legislatively and financially highly remunerative to Democratic political and commercial interests) crises, including of natures environmental, financial, political, and otherwise, especially given the consorting with the radical elite NWO greens (the so-called ‘illuminati’, Trilateralists, Bilderbergers, etc) of denizens of the BP inner-sanctum such as ‘the father of modern BP’ ex BP CEO (until he had to step down in 2006 due to exposure by a male prostitute of Browne’s involvement with his ‘service’ organization) Lord John Browne, especially in context of BP’s growing partnership with sovereign oil exporters for whom higher oil prices go straight to the bottom line –referring primarily here to the recent, post Gulf of Mexico affair, sale of 10% of itself to a Russian entity.
For what it’s worth –i think, ‘plenty’.
longjack
“By abstaining in the Security Council on the resolution authorizing military action to protect Libyan civilians — and by refusing on Wednesday to participate in the enforcement of an arms embargo on Libya that the United Nations authorized — Germany pointedly refused to go along with the political aims and leadership of its two most important European allies, Britain and France, as well as the United States.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/europe/24germany.html?_r=2&hp
I’m not surprised that the Germanz would base their comments on rumors, this is what they do the best for France, besides being pointed as the worst alliees.
The thing is, that they thought that they would drive more EU countries behind their positiion, and it had not been a success, now they are frustrated that France momopolized the leading position as the “rassembleur” for the western world values.
Now they re really going to have to pact with Putin, bye bye ! or to promote gay prides !
“Paris would even like to degrade NATO to mini-assistent”
so what?
Nato is “embarrassing” for such a mission !
The reason Italy wants NATO is because they know NATO adds an extra layer of political bureaucracy to operations and will almost certainly result in Gaddafi remaining in power.(for good reasons) The likely result is an insurgency movement inside Libya, and this becomes a long term stalemate. NATO comes with significant military advantages though, because NATO is organized in a way to seemlessly integrate operations from all the participating NATO members. There is a lot to be said about the high level of C2 NATO enables for military operations.
France on the other hand knows that NATO will restrict the flexibility of nations to act unilaterally in Libya. While this has not been officially stated, France would like to kill Gaddafi, and like the US has a policy of regime change. By operating outside the restrictions of NATO, France can be much more flexible with their interpretation of the UN Security Council Resolution when taking military action. France believes they can reset the security conditions inside Libya by decapitating the government of Libya, and set conditions for Libya towards reforms. I am uncertain why this also wouldn’t lead to insurgency, but some very smart French folks I know believe conditions similar to Tunisia and Egypt will emerge once Gaddafi is gone. Their better argument is that it won’t guarantee an insurgency outcome like a NATO led operation almost certainly does.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/
again longjack
This was a France/Britain initiated proposition, on which jumped Hilary, and after realising that the Americans were in the other European countries wanted to be in too. Now they want to pull the cover and critisize sarkozy, for being the rooster of the poultry yard. I feel sorry, for them, because in such a situation, it’s the quickest that made a decision that have the stakes in hands, or in a world of images fr this context, it’s the first that shot (un coup) that has the best chances to get offsprings !
So carry on to whin with your foes, the Germanz, and america has no chance to survive !
This is a Leftist/UN/EU formulation that says functionally there is no such thing as national sovereignty if the UN or other supra-national group decides….
Rather curiously, the powers-that-be seem to believe that the concept of sovereignty is “just so last century”—as the editors of “Vogue” might say
http://www.vogue.com/vogue-daily/article/asma-al-assad-a-rose-in-the-desert/ …
…unless the sovereignty in question happens to of the Palestinian variety, in which case, Bring It On!!.
And since the Palestinians have decided (long ago, in fact) that Palestinian sovereignty must absolutely preclude the State of Israel, it seems that the State of Israel will just have to take a flying leap…into the Mediterranean Sea. For everyone’s sake, of course.
(Or else agree to be pushed in.)
Could Post-Modernism merely be a form of mealy-mouthed utilitarianism for the today’s nattering humanists?….
Barry, the news crawler this morning said that now all of the NATO natiuons have joined in enforcing the UN R2P doctrine. Obama has put USA under NATO command and Obama has reiterated that what NATO is doing is enforcing the UN mandate against ‘crimes against humanity’ on behalf of ‘the international community’.
Meanwhile, a half dozen spox are out, throwing every single one of the loaded words at Israel –without a single mention of the attacks being made ON Israel.
Soon if not already the palis are to be let loose to provoke all they can –and when Israel fights back, the Obama will lean on NATO and using Libya as precedent, enter Gaza and attempt to force a UN designed two party state –which will of course be designed against the life of the state of Isreal.
And it’s all being done with outrageous, truly outrageous, propaganda. Nazi propaganda.
American Jewish organizations need to go into high gear –now, right now.
UN, again:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/117325/