Category Archives: Military

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.

No To Strafing Libya

Foreign Policy, John McCain, Military, Neoconservatism, Reason, UN, War

“No-Fly Zone” is one of those Orwellian coinages; it conjures a protective shield from high-above. But why not ask the Iraqis about this manna from the heavens? Before the US invaded Iraq, it had been bombing the place illegally—and immorally—over the unilaterally established No-Fly Zone. Not such a comfort if you’re on the ground. I’ll give the Obama Administration this: at least one of its officials has called a spade a spade. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush era, has explained what a “No-Fly Zone” over Libya actually entails (See CBS):

“A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses.” He added that it couldn’t be done by a single aircraft carrier off the coast. “It’s a big operation in a big country,” Gates said. … In other words, there is no need to establish a no-fly zone, at least for now, and no desire within the military to do it period. The U.S. military has long experience with no-fly zones — more than a decade over Iraq — and knows what it takes, not just jets but tankers and early warning aircraft.

The neoconservatives 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. Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard made a weak case on FoxNews. Essentially, the US needed to quickly and self-righteously compensate for its lackluster reaction (here’s mine) to the Egyptian revolt.

Fumed McMussolini: “We are spending $500 billion not counting Iraq and Afghanistan on our nation’s defense. Don’t tell me we can’t do a no-fly zone over Tripoli. (FoxNews) Impeccable reasoning, as always, from the senator. To wit, even if the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were essential to the defense of the realm—and they are certainly not-–why does it follow that Libya is too?

Sen. John McCain should know a thing or two. In all, he lost five jets during his time. (As Steve Sailer once quipped, “To lose one plane over Vietnam may be regarded as a heroic tragedy; to lose five planes here and there looks like carelessness.”)

There’s one more pesky detail. CBS again: “Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the same subcommittee that the Pentagon has no confirmation that Libyan strongman Muammar al Qaddafi is using his air force to kill civilians.”

Fibbing our way into occupying a country: Remind me why that sounds familiar.

‘Scenes From The Surrender In South Africa’

Africa, Military, South-Africa, War

VDARE.COM’s James Fulford has published (http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2011/02/02/scenes-from-the-surrender-in-south-africa/) a most poignant letter from a South African veteran of the Angola war. It is also a reminder of why I support the draft … for politicians and bureaucrats (http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=59):

“I knew a number of vain, self-righteous pseudo-intellectuals during my time in the Army. They all had elegantly-appointed offices, with double-overlaid carpeting in the floor and expensive paintings on the walls. They fairly dripped with assumed self-importance and constantly boasted of ‘ political connections’ up the food-chain.

They wore starched uniforms, but were always far removed from my young lads and me in the ops area, up in Angola. With sand, blood, and dirt between our teeth, we lived in mud, with our dead and wounded lying in ditches, some on stretchers in the back of idling C130s, their body fluids running down the rails, onto the loading deck, and ultimately accumulating in grotesque puddles on the runway.

Many of these curiously never-deployed types actively participated in ‘negotiations’ to ‘end the War.’ Conversely, those of us who actually participated were kept away. In fact … ”

MORE.

No Country For (Any) Men

Gender, Military, Political Correctness

Front and center in the reports about the Enterprise videos scandal have been statements about the slurs they contain against gays and lesbians. Capt. Owen Honors is to be relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise for producing and starring in crude video skits that were “shown over the ship’s internal broadcast system.” According to a CNN report, which twice mentions the anti-gay invective, the things were “produced four to five years go.” Why have they made headlines now? Perhaps the intention is to make an example of this Honors chap to coincide with the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”?

The military was once a male society. For better or for worse, in such societies crassness equals esprit de corps. Now the same society is to be softened and refined so as to be friendly to females, gays and anyone in-between.