Category Archives: Military

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.

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?

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.”