Category Archives: Middle East

Palin Pants For War

Foreign Policy, Just War, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, Sarah Palin, UN, War

The women of the neoconnerie have been instrumental in keeping their fans tuned-out, turned-on, and hot for war. Neocons, in particular, enter a dangerous state of heightened emotional arousal as soon as war is around the corner. Sarah Palin’s war euphoria was on display during “On the Record,” with host Greta Van Susteren, when Palin practically panted for a show of even greater, and certainly grislier, force in Libya. (Here)

“America’s interests” in Libya, Mrs. Palin asserted, lie in either “killing or capturing” Qaddafi. Nothing else will do. If Obama does not order these deeds, “America’s interests” will have been compromised. A non sequitur, if you ask me. Sarah is presuming something not in evidence. If Qaddafi is not murdered, how will this meshuga (here) “seek revenge” here in the USA? Flood our markets with gaudy gowns? Hinder the housing market with his spacious tents?

A good war must also inspire: both Greta and Sarah were agreed. Sarah expressed disappointment that the president didn’t deliver an inspirational war speech. (Transcripts) Following the lead of other countries—“getting in the back of the bus,” as she put it—doesn’t do it for her; doesn’t inspire.

You ask: Can the US not LEAD and INSPIRE the world with its productivity, products; its professionals, and their inventions? Forget about it. Mrs. Palins, like all neocons, conflates the American state—its war making proclivities and powers, in particular—with national greatness.

Like many a criminal, the act of committing crimes (in this case vicariously via the state apparatus) further lowers the war monger’s inhibitions. This base condition accounts for the tolerance for atrocities, and shameless, atavistic call for assassinations and killings.

In her war euphoria, Sarah even forgot that we’re broke, in hock to the tune of $14 trillion and growing. In wondering why Libya, she boasted: “America could intervene with our power and our resources in many other areas.” We can afford to? Really?

By the way, I have a feeling that Obama’s casus belli, embedded in the following excerpt from his speech, will turn out to be a lot like WMD in Iraq:

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean.

UPDATE III: Libya: My First Liberal War (Bravo Bernie)

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Criminal Injustice, Democracy, Drug War, Foreign Policy, Just War, Middle East, The State, War, War on Drugs

Obama’s war against Libya is my first liberal war as a resident of the USA; I was living in Canada during the Kosovo campaign (here). Americans may be used to waging war on the world, but this brand of Exceptionalism (here) is a shock to the sane person’s system. Most countries—I’ve lived in a few—do not go to war with the regularity the US does. As it was once noted, here, “a brave nation fights because it must; a cowardly one fights because it can.”

To tell you the truth, the overall zeal to attack Iraq (see “Tuned-Out, Turned-On, And Hot For War”) in 2003, was on a par with the enthusiasm currently being expressed for defending the amorphous entity we call “rebels” (whose Egyptian compatriots are now performing hymen inspections on women (here). Back then, with the exception of some, not all, libertarians and lefties, the justifications advanced by the retread liberals known as neoconservatives were wholly embraced. By popular demand, MSNBC, CNN, and the New York Times (This means you, Judith Chalabi Miller, now at FoxNews) adopted a similar faux patriotism devoid of skepticism and serenely accepting of every silly White House claim.

As to the casus belli, nothing has changed. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), McMussolini, Newt Gingrich, FoxNews, Juan Williams, and others, all solemnly intone about the massacres that where in process when Obama began strafing Libya. Let us presume that it is the US’s role to stop injustice wherever it occurs and vet the world’s leaders; where’s the evidence of these killing fields? At least when President Bill Clinton bombed Kosovo in 1999, also without the formality of the comatose Congress’s approval, there were those disturbing images. Now we hear nothing but assertions and the childish terms: “the dictator” is killing “his people” repeated ad nauseam à la the slobbering over Egypt.

I suspect that the average Libyan has fewer encounters with representatives of the state than the average black man living in New York. (“According to a report in The Times last year, there were a record 580,000 stop-and-frisks in the city in 2009. Most of those stopped (55 percent) were black.” I know, harmless fun when done in a “good” country like ours.)

The American Managerial State is so much more efficient in encroaching on its citizens than are these tin-pot dictators, whom we have built-up into mega-monsters in our infantile, Disneyfied minds. In Libya, some baksheesh is likely to make a bureaucrat disappear. Given the US’s record-breaking incarceration rates, the average American is more likely to be jailed, harassed or have a threatening encounter with the state’s emissaries than your average Egyptian under Mubarak (who chased the Brotherhood, mainly).

Tell me, who killed Carol Anne Gotbaum? (or Baron “Scooter” Pikes?) Gotbaum met her demise not in a Pakistani or Saudi airport, but in Phoenix’s Sky Harbor. There are lots more like her. Let’s worry about our own tyrants.

Naturally, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, the Fox and MSNBC phalanx—all approve of Obama’s paternalistic war in Libya. The rigor mortis Right, in particular, has protested the operation not on points of principle, but on timing, strategy, mission statement and the degree of control exerted by Über America: Obama entered the fray too late, he’s relinquishing the National Greatness agenda by sharing the cockpit with the Europeans, only when the US leads the world in a military operation can any good come of it, blah, blah, blah.

UPDATE I (March 28): STRONGMAN BIDEN. I’m sure it’s a mere coincidence—a statistical anomaly, when it comes to the interface between Americans and their leaders—but in the “good country” (USA), those doing the Vice President’s bidding can lock up a reporter in a closet for hours “after he was invited to cover a Florida political fundraiser because they did not want him talking with the guests.” Onward to fix Libya!

UPDATE II: Democrat Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) adds another point to the limited litany of complaints against BHO’s war: The Great Communicator didn’t convey his (magnificent) message effectively. Repackage the message and all will be well again.

And I was worried for a moment.

No mention of America’s sink hole of a debt.

UPDATE III: BRAVO BERNIE SANDERS. The Democratic senator from Vermont, a man of the far left with whom I seldom agree, puts up an opposition to BHO’s Libya adventure, on the Dylan Ratigan Show: “We have lost thousands of lives in Afghanistan and Iraq [for naught], and trillions of dollars.”

And here’s Bernie’s pivotal point, put in precise language:

“I would hope that the president will tell us [in his address later today] that, if our friends in Europe (France ad Italy), and the UK, feel very strongly about this issue, that they will do what they want to do. But I am not enthusiastic about the US getting into yet another conflict given the other two wars and $ 14 trillion in national debt.” More or less.

Sanders went on to spoil this common sense with his usual eco-energy silliness.

UPDATED: ‘The Three Sisters’ War’ (US Hubris)

Africa, Barack Obama, Feminism, Foreign Policy, Gender, Middle East, Military, Old Right, UN, War

Estrogen driven paternalism: That’s the impetus behind Obama’s offensive in Libya. Patrick J. Buchanan sums it up:

“Why are we in Libya? Why are U.S. pilots bombing and killing Libyan soldiers who have done nothing to us?

These soldiers are simply doing their sworn duty to protect their country from attack and defend the only government they have known from what they are told is an insurgency backed by al-Qaida and supported by Western powers after their country’s oil.

Why did Obama launch this unconstitutional war?

Moral, humanitarian and ideological reasons.

Though Robert Gates and the Pentagon had thrown ice water on the idea of intervening in a third war in the Islamic world – in a sandbox on the northern coast of Africa – Obama somersaulted and ordered the attack, for three reasons.

The Arab League gave him permission to impose a no-fly zone. He feared that Moammar Gadhafi would do to Benghazi what Scipio Africanus did to Carthage. And Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power conveyed to Obama their terrible guilt feelings about America’s failure to stop what happened in Rwanda and Darfur.

This is the three sisters’ war.

But why was it America’s moral duty to stop the Tutsi slaughter of Hutus in Burundi in 1972 or the Hutu counter-slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994? Why was that not the duty of their closest African neighbors, Zaire (Congo), Uganda and Tanzania?

These African countries have been independent for a half-century. When are they going to man up?

The slaughter in Darfur is the work of an Arab League member, Sudan. Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab nation, is just down the Nile. Why didn’t the Egyptian army march to Khartoum, a la Kitchener, throw that miserable regime out, and stop the genocide?

Why doesn’t Egypt, whose 450,000-man army has gotten billions from us, roll into Tobruk and Benghazi and protect those Arabs from being killed by fellow Arabs? Why is this America’s responsibility?”

Read “How killing Libyans became a moral imperative.”

UPDATE (March 27): USA=GOD.

Myron Robert Pauli on my Facebook page: “Another great column from Diana West on the strategic hooey of the War in Libya (a no fly zone imposed on Israel by the US-NATO-UN-Arab-League could occur one day) http://jewishworldreview.com/0311/west.php3

My reply: M., all the obligatory stuff about it “never being a bad notion to rid the planet of Gaddafi”: as if there aren’t a few fellows here in the US one could easily live without.

The idea that the US decides who the world can do without and who can remain boggles my mind. Still, after years in this country.

I love West, but, as far as I know, Diana supported the Iraq adventure, at first.

Subsidizing “Freedom” for the Arab Street

America, Democracy, Foreign Aid, Foreign Policy, Government, Islam, Middle East, Military

“We are not part of the picture” [in Libya], Ehud Barack told Greta van Susteren, who recounted to him the familiar war-for-Israel-and-oil accusations circulating in some Arab quarters vis-a-vis the offensive in Libya. This, even as the US commits itself to furthering the whims of the seething Arab Street—whoever it comprises, wherever it is, and whatever it wants. American warriors, in arms and in armchairs, seem to believe that repeating the word “rebel” enough times will transform the shady ragtag factions we are fighting for as a princess’s kiss transforms a toad.

Ehud Barack, Israel’s Minister of Defense and Deputy Prime Minister (bio information), has politely applauded NATO and the US for rescuing the Libyans, but he also expresses a conscious thought about the feel-good operation, the kind of thought that will never be floated stateside:

“It’s up to the Arab people to struggle for their rights; to change regime or impose corrections and new procedures in their internal political life.”

My sentiments exactly:

If indeed we’re subsidizing “freedom” for [the Libyans] and are fighting their battles—then we’ve also increased their impotence and diminished their initiative. Subsidize individuals because you believe they are helpless—and you’ll get more learned helplessness.

Besides, what are these people? Wards of the American state? Whatever happened to fighting your own revolutions?