Archive for March, 2011

“Gates and Clinton United to Defend Libya Intervention, and Say It May Least Awhile” (TIMES, 3/28/11)

March 28, 2011

So much for President Obama’s “finite” commitment to Libya. The two most powerful figures in his cabinet now think the intervention “could drag on for months or even into next year.”

This grim decision was reached by both Clinton and Gates after they had to “weigh humanitarian values against national interests.” Evidently, the former refers to innocent victims  of the airstrikes and missile launchings; while the latter refers to economic interests (big oil again?).

As things stand at this writing, the United States has 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan, better than 50,000 in Iraq and a significant air and naval engagement with Libya. The U.S. dead in Iraq is more than 4000 and approaching 1500 in Afghanistan, not including mercenary forces.

The avoidance of further casualties is probably the reason the U.S. “has watched violent crackdowns in Bahrain, Yemen and other Arab countries without intervening.” However, if the Libyan campaign draws into next year, won’t that keep the flame of resistance burning and tempt the U.S. to play an active role somewhere else in the Mideast?

 

“Syria’s Chaos A Test for U.S.” (TIMES, 3/27/11)

March 28, 2011

“Having intervened in Libya to prevent a wholesale slaughter in Benghazi, some analysts asked, how could the administration not do the same in Syria?”

Answer: An intervention in Syria is bound to strengthen the democratic forces there, which could be a threat to the New World Order espoused by so many American foreign policy wonks.

When such people speak of freedom, they have in mind free markets and a flourishing economy, while the people currently in rebellion want to be free of foreign control and feudal dominance.

“NATO Takes Lead on Libya Campaign; Obama Defends His Policy” (TIMES, 3/26/11)

March 28, 2011

“The London meeting of coalition foreign policy ministers…left unresolved…how long the campaign (against Qaddafi’s forces) will last.”

When this operation began a week ago, President Obama assuered us it would be settled in a matter of “days, not weeks”; however, in the 3/25/11 issue of the TIMES, French foreign minister stated that this intervention would take weeks but would “certainly not” be for months.

So, can we conclude that the Libyan question will be settled by the end of April? And will that mean Qaddafi is removed from power or will some kind of deal be worked out with him to guarantee security there?

Meanwhile, it looks like Syria is the next country about to rebel against what some commentators refer to as the “New World Order” (i.e., an international political system directed by the United States).

If the TIMES would reveal more about the New World Order, it might enlighten the American public about 

“Allies Are Split over Final Goal of Libya Mission” (TIMES, 3/25/11)

March 28, 2011

President Obama has said the campaign to defeat Qaddafi would take “days, not weeks.” Now French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, is saying the destruction of his “military capacity is a matter of days or weeks, certainly not months.”

Meanwhile, the Libyan “rebels” who are opposing Qaddafi are just holding on, with some observers claiming the situation in Tripoli “is really simmering” and others denying that the “Tripolitanians will rise.” Are we sure that another “Curveball” is not at work misinforming the NATO command?

Moreover, we don’t have a very clear picture of these rebels. Are they proponents of a democratic government or Muslim traditionalists who want to establish a theocracy? Remember what happened when the Shah of Iran was toppled.

You either learn from history or you are condemned to repeat it.

“Boehner Presses Obama on Libya Action” (TIMES, 3/24/11)

March 28, 2011

THought it is hypocritical of Boehner to demand clarification of the U.S. intervention in Libya after the blank check the Republican Party gave to the Bush/Cheney administration in Afghanistan and Ira, a full report is owed to Congress.

The U.S. has already launched 108 airstrikes and fired 162 Tomahawk missiles between March 19 and 22, ut to what precise purpose is still not clear.

And there is the expectation that this aggressive action by the U.S. can settle the issue in a matter of “days, not weeks,” which seems overly potimistic.

The American people need to know wh

“Amid Rubble in Capital From Attacks, Hints of a Changed Atmosphere” by David D. Kirkpatrick (TMES, 3/23/11)

March 23, 2011

Many of the Libyan citizens of Tripoli who are being armed for “defense against the rebels” are “from poor neighborhoods known for strong support of Qaddafi,” David D. Kirkpatrick informs us.

Is this only the case in Tripoli or does Qaddafi elicit the same support in Benghazi, the rebel “capital,” and in other Libyan cities with significant workingclasses?

Do the rebels have any appeal to such people? If not, why not?

Since in the past the United States supported Muslim zealots and other conservative elements in their struggle against progressive change, usually in the guise of an anti-communist crusade, it would have been helpful if Kirkpatrick had addressed this issue.

Who are these rebels?

“Key Supporters Are Forsaking Yemen Leaders” (TIMES, 3/22/11)

March 23, 2011

If Yemen goes the way of Libya, will another no fly zone be created around Sana or some other part of that country?

If the Yemeni rebels are successful, won’t that encourage like-minded people in Bahrain and Syria where there is already considerable turmoil?

Can the attempt to weaken Qaddafi’s position really be acomplished in a matter of “days, not weeks,” as Presodent Obama has directed?

How long can the U.S. Congress be kept out of the 

“Airstrikes in Libya; Questions Back Home” (TIMES, 3/21/11)

March 23, 2011

President Obama “now has three major conflicts under his command,” the Libyan action to be wound up in “days, not weeks.”

Expecting to settle the volatile situation in Libya in so short a time period suggets that some arrangement will be made with Qaddafi, probably a division of the country into two independent zones.

 

“Allies Open Air Assault On Qaddafi’s Forces” (TIMES, 3/20/11)

March 23, 2011

“One, two, three/Thanks Sarkozy!” Does that chant signify that France is the top gun in the allied assault on Libya?

It also sounds like this “international action,” which Qaddafi called “a colonial crusader aggression,” will be limited to air and naval strikes, but no use of ground forces. Or, is it too early to say?

And is it a “double standard” being presented by “Operation Odyssey Dawn” in allowing the governments of Bahrain and Yemen to crack down “on their own protest movements?”

Can the New World Order tolerate all these popular uprisings?

Libya!

March 23, 2011

The United States goes to war again, but it will be a “limited and finite” one. There will be no American ground troops and it will only be for “days not weeks.” Our leaders think attacks from the Air Force and the Navy for some days will be enough to do the job!

While the British and French governments sided with the USA to secure the 10 to 5 vote for this action, Brazil, China, GErmay, India, and Russia abstained, which is not exactly the unity that is needed for a decision to go to war.

Will this be a nother coalition of the unwilling? Can victory really be won in “days, not weeks”? Will those missiles fired from U.S. ships patrolling the waters near Libya only destroy Qaddafi’s tanks and artillery or will innocent civilians be the main targets?

Afghanistan is the “necessary war,” Iraq is the unnecessary (by implication) war, so will the attack on Libya be a “surgical strike”? If memory serves me right, that was the way the attack on te Vietnamese port of Vinh in 964 was described; or was it the Marine landing in the Dominican Republic in 965?