Category Archives: Middle East

UPDATE V: Kumbaya Coalition (Costs)

Constitution, Democracy, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, War

When Obama goes to war illegally and without the necessary, albeit meaningless, formality of the congressional process, they call it a developing “doctrine.” (See the meandering of the CSM, here.) No doubt, Chris Matthews will experience one of his daytime nocturnal emissions over America’s intervention in Libya. You know how indecently aroused Matthews gets every time Obama shows “fortitude.” As allied air forces went into action over Libya, today, Saturday, the media, neocon and neoliberal alike, were aflutter. Yippee: lights, camera, and shock-‘n-awe action. Again. Recall, during the invasion of Iraq, most liberals opposed the unilateral nature of Genghis Bush’s actions. Now that “112 Tomahawk cruise missiles have struck over 20 targets inside Libya,” in what liberals consider a multilateral, “limited” action (here), all’s good.

According to MSNBC.com (here), “American ships and aircraft stationed in and around the Mediterranean Sea did not participate in initial French air missions, but the U.S. was preparing to a launch a missile attack on Libyan air defenses, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the unfolding intervention. One official said the U.S. intended to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses.” [My emphasis]

COL. JACK JACOBS disagrees with the “assumption … that the margin of difference is air power, and that were it not for Qaddafi’s attack aircraft the rebels would win.” He predicts that “the rebels’ other weaknesses will not be addressed merely by slowing or even stopping the government’s pressure on them,” and that ‘confined to a relatively small area, they may become something of a rump Eastern Libya under UN protection, but it now seems unlikely that they will prevail in the near term.”

Jacobs’ prognosis is for those neocons and neoliberals who entertain the folly that this intervention is not as futile and unconstitutional as those that went before. Then again, most of what the Federal Frankenstein does is either unconstitutional, immoral, illegal, or all of the above.

Jacobs has also confirmed what we all know: The “liberated” Egyptians have a very capable air force. Ditto Saudi Arabia. But are the Arabs doing anything in the cause of a military operation the Arab League instigated? Of course not.

UPDATE I (March 20): Murder by majority approval—unilateral, multilateral; UN or USA—is still murder.

UPDATE II: Behold: A total of four Qatari war planes are moving into position over Libya, reports Al Arabiya. The United Arab Emirates is also scheming on some participation. Slowly.

UPDATE III: An interesting take on the Tripoli offensive from Nebojsa Malic:

“Colonel Gadhafi has maintained that the rebellion was actually orchestrated from the West, and that he was fighting both the Empire and al-Qaeda. … A hint of confirmation could be found in a fawning portrait of rebel fighters in the March 13 Washington Post. One exemplary rebel interviewed by reporter Laila Fadel turns out to be a veteran of the Iraqi insurgency. One of his brothers blew himself up to kill U.S. Marines. Another is an al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan. But ‘Abu Sultan’ says he disapproves of his brother’s al-Qaeda ways, wants a ‘civilian government with justice, freedom, and a constitution,’ and though he considers this ‘a Libyan fight’ would very much like a no-fly zone and foreign intervention. Make of that what you will.”

The whole adventure in Libya is politically as uninteresting as it is familiar.

UPDATE IV: BHO’S TRIUMVIRATE OF TROLLS. Justin Raimondo on the “triumvirate of women”—or trolls in pantsuits—in BHO’s administration that has pushed for a humanitarian war.

UPDATE V (March 21): I really have very little to say. I despair. This country, I’ve concluded, is home to some of the stupidest people on earth. Even the Arabs are smart enough to look after their own interests, and steer clear of interfering in Libya. The neocons are faulting BHO’s adventure in Libya (for its lateness), while defending the overthrow of Saddam. The liberal nation-builders are behind BHO, but are having a hard time distinguishing themselves from the hated neoconservatives. And for good reason. All media seem to believe that repeating the word “rebel” time and again will transform the shady ragtag factions we are fighting for as a princess’s kiss does a toad.

I see that after an initial verbal orgy in support of the rioting Egyptians, fewer libertarians are celebrating the beauty of Egyptian democracy. Just in time: In Egypt, “Mohamed ElBaradei, an Egyptian presidential candidate and Nobel laureate,” was mauled by a mob on his way to vote in a referendum.

At the National Journal they estimate that,

… the United States’ part in the operation could ultimately hit several billion dollars — and require the Pentagon to request emergency funding from Congress to pay for it. The first day of Operation Odyssey Dawn had a price tag that was well over $100 million for the U.S. in missiles alone. And the U.S. military, which remains in the lead now in its third day, has pumped millions more into air- and sea-launched strikes targeting air-defense sites and ground-force positions along Libya’s coastline.
The ultimate total that the United States spends will hinge on the length and scope of the strikes as well as on the contributions of its coalition allies. But Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said on Monday that the U.S. costs could “easily pass the $1 billion mark on this operation, regardless of how well things go.”

Neocons Banished To The Backseat

Foreign Policy, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, UN, Uncategorized, War

In urging a no-fly zone over Libya (link), the neoconservatives wanted more than anything to see the US take the lead, once again, in democratic, faith-based initiatives around the world.

Neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer (joined by eager pup Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard) were champing at the bit to take the battle for Libya away from the Libyan people and put it where it belongs: the US military. Today, Obama threw America’s heft (such as it is these days) behind a U.N. Security Council no-fly zone over Libya. What this move lacks in glory, from the neocons’ position, it makes up for in the potential for blood, guts and gore. Except that the US—again, from where the neocons are perched—will take a strategic backseat to the UN:

The resolution passed 10-0 with five abstentions, including Russia and China.
The resolution establishes “a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” while excluding an occupation force. It also calls for freezing the assets of the Libyan National Oil Corp. and the central bank because of links to Gadhafi.

[MSNBC]

Joining in this UN resolution means, in effect, that American funding and firepower will be channeled into one more futile expedition over a Muslim country. Neocons will act disappointed, having been denied leadership position in the expedition. But to all intents and purposes, the US (via our debtholders) will be left to carry the can.

UPDATED: Were Walid Phares Jewish, He’d Be A Pharisee

Anti-Semitism, Foreign Policy, Middle East, Neoconservatism, War

Dr. Walid Phares is the Fox News Channel’s Middle East and Terrorism Expert. He has been advocating a muscular military response in Libya. Somewhere on the Fox News’, moving-pictures-only website (in this vicinity), there is an interview in which Phares says that, “If the opposition in Libya cannot cross the Syrt line on the coast and head towards Tripoli, it is clear that there will be stalemate and only international intervention would end the crisis. The US must consider the fact that if the crisis stretch too long, even the uprising areas could be infiltrated.” (The excerpt is from Dr. Phares’ more script-friendly website, here.)

Pharisee,” which originally referred to a “member of an ancient Jewish sect that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both its oral and written form,” has also come to mean a “hypocritically self-righteous person.” (FreeDictionary.com)

I wager that if Walid were a Jewish neoconservative, and not an Arab one, he’d be accused of being “a fifth columnist; a person with dual loyalties, a ‘binational.'”

UPDATE: Tom, I fail to see why you think my post is such a harsh criticism of Phares. It shows you how lukewarm and insipid public discourse has become if a sharp dig at the good doctor’s interventionism—or more likely, at the non-reaction to his militarism—is considered a devastating blow. Nonsense.

I like Phares on some counts; not on others. He just gets a pass because he is not a Jewish interventionist. If he were a Jew, the usual suspects would accuse him of recruiting poor American boys to die in order to safeguard oil for Israel, or something like that. I can never get conspiracy theories straight, as they are so unintuitive to me.

UPDATED: The Tyrant’s Intellectual (& Non-Egghead) Enablers

Celebrity, Critique, Ethics, Foreign Policy, Intellectualism, Media, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, The Zeitgeist, Uncategorized

Much has been made of the American singers who sang for Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Nothing has been said of the intelligentsia that has sung his praise. There is a big difference between singing for your supper and singing songs of praise for this, and other, odious characters. Paul A. Rahe at The Chronicle of Higher Education dissects “The Intellectual as Courtier.” (Here, with thanks to my Canadian friend, Dr. Grant Havers.)

“If, in The Washington Post, one were to describe the elder Qaddafi as ‘a complex and adaptive thinker as well as an efficient, if laid-back, autocrat,’ if one were to call him ‘flexible and pragmatic,’ if one were to go on to suggest that ‘Libya under Qaddafi has embarked on a journey that could make it the first Arab state to transition peacefully and without overt Western intervention to a stable, non-autocratic government and, in time, to an indigenous mixed constitution favoring direct democracy locally and efficient government centrally,’ one would be apt—and with good reason—to be compared with Leni Riefenstahl, as Benjamin Barber was by Ken Silverstein at Harper’s Magazine.

Worse criticism would justifiably be in store for the intellectual sycophant who chose to write on the eve of the Libyan uprising, as Barber did at The Huffington Post, that Qaddafi ‘is not detested in the way that Mubarak has been detested and rules by means other than fear,’ especially if he were to add, ‘His son Seif, with a Ph.D. in political philosophy from the London School of Economics and two forthcoming books focused on liberalism in the developing world, has pioneered a gradualist approach to civil society in Libya, insisting along the way that he would accept no office that wasn’t subject to popular elections. No dynasty likely there.'”

READ ON.

[SNIP]

Because of their wide reach, Peggy Noonan (and her ilk)—while no intellectual— serves as a greater court courtesan than does the academic sycophant. As I chronicled in “LETHAL WEAPONS: NEOCON GROUPIES,” Noonan has gone as far as to conflate President Bush “with a Higher Power – Peggy believes God speaks through George W. Bush. From his furrows to his genitals, her high-flown linguistic banalities have lovingly depicted her man’s every inch. (See “He’s Got Two of ‘Em.”)

There are other culprits, of course.

UPDATE: Myron: You’re the funniest ever here on “nuance.” Why not cross-post this and other posts to the Facebook page, where the blog posts appear automatically? You’ll spice up the place in no time.