Hot War Number Three

[Greybird]

And so we have a simultaneous Hot War Number Three, blessed by a body to which we've abandoned what shreds of the Constitution may be left. Dead American fliers by Saturday, dead invading American troops by Easter, occupation and "nation-building" for another five years.

(Which is all the dollar can take, if that, before it's gutted and the troops will have to find their own way home, as Ron Paul

today.)

This is one of those times I wish I could believe a god actually existed. So that he could chain Obama, Clinton, Rice, their predecessors, neocons, neoliberals, and the whole War Party to the fiery furnace. May they all be damned.

[Brant Gaede]

Hot war #3 is the one with the drug cartels in Mexico.

--Brant

this may be #4

[Philip Coates]

> And so we have a simultaneous Hot War Number Three...Dead American fliers by Saturday [Greybird]

> [Apparently] the first strikes will be unilateral ones by British and French aircraft...It is likely five Arab air forces will take part. [bBC reports]

[william.scherk]

And so we have a simultaneous Hot War Number Three, blessed by a body to which we've abandoned what shreds of the Constitution may be left.

There is some starkly opposing opinion in America over US involvement in Libya. Some castigated a dithering President who would let Gaddafi crush his people. Others rejected any use of American force, or strongly cautioned that there is cost involved in a simple 'no fly zone' and that goals of such an action were unlikely to be realized. A lot of folks have weighed in heavily on the entire US/Libya dance.

And now France, Britain, the USA and seven other nations of the UN Security Council have authorized not only a no-fly zone, but 'all necessary measures' against Libya -- as Steve's link announces.

Joyous Libyan rebels in Benghazi erupted with fireworks and gunfire after the U.N. Security Council voted Thursday evening to impose a no-fly zone and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

The opposition, with devoted but largely untrained and under-equipped units, has suffered military setbacks this week. It has said such international action was necessary for it to have any chance of thwarting Moammar Gadhafi's imminent assault on the rebel stronghold.

"We're hoping and praying that the United Nations will come up with a very firm and very fast resolution and they will enforce it immediately," said Ahmed El-Gallal, a senior opposition coordinator, before the vote.

Dead American fliers by Saturday, dead invading American troops by Easter, occupation and "nation-building" for another five years.

That's five weeks to Easter, and five more years of forecasting -- an absolute worst case scenario for American lives and interests.

I don't find that particular worst case scenario plausible. I don't find any indication that foreign troops will enter Libya in any numbers, and I think a future Libya free of Gaddafi can build its own nation with its oil revenue.

The green light to all necessary measures puts the ball to Gaddafi. He promises, alternately, to assault Benghazi and exterminate its traitor rats, room by room, and also to offer its rats an amnesty.

I figure he will pause this morning in Tripoli and wonder just which of his remaining aircraft should be put in the sky today, if any. I figure the French or British will do the air-defenses takeout, supported by European and Arab squadrons. The Ewacs will drone overhead and feed intelligence to rebel commanders, cruise missiles and drones may buzz and drub targets -- but only as called for by Gaddafi's actions. If Gaddafi wants to party, airstrikes will cripple his forces.

It could be that your president pushed the UN to issue war powers knowing that allies could handily administer any punishment. There is ample international and Arab support for neutralizing Gaddafi's armed efforts against his people.

I hope defections accelerate, a cease-fire takes hold, and that if Gaddafi wishes to escalate conflict he will be be burned by the fire he lights. May he burn, and may the Libyans be shut of him.

The US need not fly one sortie itself to knock him onto the pyre.

[9thdoctor]

Libya's a lot closer to Europe than Iraq and Afghanistan. Let them commit the manpower and the money, if it's going to come to that.

[kiaer.ts]

There's no clear American interest, no obvious indication the opposition is reliably pro-freedom, and there's certainly no cassus belli. Not that some arbitrary numerological opposition to the war caries any weight.

[Brant Gaede]

Libya is next to nothing. The problem is the potentially big war with Iran centered on the Persian Gulf.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't think jack is going to happen with Libya.

Some skirmishes and that's about it.

I might be wrong because you never know with instability, but I am at a point where I am confident of my prediction.

Obama doesn't have a beef with Gaddafi. I think he secretly likes the dude. Hillary is the one who wants to do something.

I also think Obama will do whatever is necessary to make a public gesture (after all, he did publicly say Gaddafi had to go and that, coming from a USA President has to have something behind it if folks don't want all hell to break loose from America-hating countries), but little in the way of effective action.

I also think Obama will secretly sabotage the efforts of other countries if they start inflicting some real damage against Gaddafi.

Those idiots--Obama, the mainstream media, and the folks behind the recent rash of uprisings in the Middle East--have condemned God knows how many Libyans to a brutal death by some of the most screwed up meddling I have ever witnessed.

There's only one way to take someone like Gaddafi out--quickly and brutally. There's no other way. He might be loony as a three dollar bill, but he knows how to fight and kill and command loyalty from troops real well. He also knows how to play the West better than most Middle East leaders (think Lockerbie bomber's happy homecoming...).

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> Libya's a lot closer to Europe than Iraq and Afghanistan. Let them commit the manpower and the money, if it's going to come to that. [ND]

> I also think Obama will do whatever is necessary to make a public gesture [MSK]

"Hours after the Security Council voted to authorize military action against forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and impose a no-flight zone, French officials said military action was imminent." - NYT this morning

> I also think Obama will secretly sabotage the efforts of other countries if they start inflicting some real damage against Gaddafi...I think [Obama] secretly likes the dude. [MSK]

????

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

"Military action" can be a skirmish. As I said...

Some skirmishes and that's about it.

You might want to look that word up.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> You might want to look that word up.

You and Greybird might want to wait till you see what happens. (You can look up the word 'wait' in the dictionary.)

Edited March 18, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

It's just basic reading with good will. This isn't hard. Try the next sentence:

I might be wrong because you never know with instability...

For a conceptual thinker, "wait" is implicit in that statement.

But that's for a conceptual thinker.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> But that's for a conceptual thinker.

Let me know when you get there.

[william.scherk]

I don't think jack is going to happen with Libya.

Some skirmishes and that's about it.

I might be wrong because you never know with instability, but I am at a point where I am confident of my prediction.

Jack covers a lot of eventualities, doesn't it? It covers the phony ceasefire proclaimed by Libya's Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa. It covers the lack of French bombs dropped at this hour.

About skirmishes, I think it might cover little things like mobile rocket launchers being used to punch holes in rebel neighbourhoods, and frantic attempts to resist the assaults.

Michael might be entirely right that jack will not happen in Libya. I don't credit a lizard-Obama who pushes the UN to issue wide war powers on the one hand while on the other hand secretly liking and hoping for the success of the lizard-monster in Tripoli -- does Obama have some devious back-pocket strategy to do nothing, and thereby prop up the monster? I doubt it.

Seriously, as Steve was angry to see, all weapons of war were issued by the Security Council, whose deployment will be measured and supervised by the US. I think Michael may be correct to look at the left side of the graph, the lower-level actions that we know have already taken place in Libya: rocket, helicopter gunship, fighter jet, surface to surface missile, bomb, artillery, machine gun, automatic rifle.

And we can see fresh reports in the news that the Colonel has indiscriminately shelled Misrata this morning with an additional 20-odd civilians dead so far.

A little of this and a little of that and a few skirmishy Western bombing runs and all that amounts, as Michael observes, to the left side of the graph, and not to the right side of the graph limned by Steve, wherein blood-stained US boots in the desert portend a lengthy occupation.

Somewhere in the middle perhaps?

[Philip Coates]

> It covers the lack of French bombs dropped at this hour.

Deputizing the French to fight your wars is about as sensible a procedure as asking the British to do your cooking for you or the Japanese to design your nuclear reactors.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

The press is all hot and heavy over military stuff going over there. Let's see if they actually use the stuff.

Like I said, I believe there will be maybe some stuff for show, but by "use the stuff," I mean really use the stuff to dismantle Gaddafi's military capabilities.

If I were a betting man, I would bet on some kind of "miraculous deal reached" with Gaddafi before too long, with praise for behind the scenes negotiators. And I would bet it would not entail getting rid of Gaddafi.

I'm not hoping for this. I'm just sickened by the false spectacle being staged by people who, I believe, know better--and the deaths their vanity is causing and is going to cause. Poking a beast with a stick from a distance is not too good for all the other animals around the beast.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

> It covers the lack of French bombs dropped at this hour.

Deputizing the French to fight your wars is about as sensible a procedure as asking the British to do your cooking for you or the Japanese to design your nuclear reactors.

I wasn't aware the Japanese had designed any nuclear reactors.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

> It covers the lack of French bombs dropped at this hour.

Deputizing the French to fight your wars is about as sensible a procedure as asking the British to do your cooking for you or the Japanese to design your nuclear reactors.

I wasn't aware the Japanese had designed any nuclear reactors.

--Brant

Fukushima Dai-Ich reactors were designed and built by General Electric, U.S.A. TEPCO (the Japanese power company) provided the specs.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

> I wasn't aware the Japanese had designed any nuclear reactors.

Brant, I wish you would not make a post simply to quibble with the choice of a single word: I'm not writing a carefully edited dissertation here and whether they designed it themselves or simply installed a poor design was not really relevant to my point was it?

You tend to do this fairly regularly. I don't know your motivation and it seems petty or like 'taking a shot':

It's annoying to feel that someone is always trying to snipe or bite my ankles or undercut me, especially when my post was intended to be humorous. (I went back and put in a smiley in case that was unclear.)

When was the last time you complimented me on any point, or admitted I had made a good one?

Edited March 19, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

I see you're trying to be nice, Phil, so I'm letting this one pass.

--Brant

Edited March 19, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[9thdoctor]

The headline at Foxnews.com currently reads: This Means War

An unavoidable association.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Get a load of this.

Farrakhan to Obama about telling Gaddafi to step down: "Who the hell do you think your are?"

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OY-_JsNrxiM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's part of Obama's lukewarm attitude problem.

Michael

[DavidMcK]

Hard to believe isn't it? Three wars by the winner of the Nobel Peace prize. Wonder where the fourth is going to be.

[Selene]

WW I - Democrat

WW II Democrat

Korea Democrat

Vietnam Democrat

Bosnia Democrat

Libya Democrat

Gulf 1 Rhino Republican New World Order Blue blood

Gulf 2 Republican "compassionate conservative"

Afghanistan Same compassionate guy

Take out the Bushes and it is unanimously Democratic

So where is the surprise?

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think this intervention is compatible with the Objectivist philosophy. It's Judeo-Christian ethics in action. This mess will get bigger, much bigger I'm afraid. Top off your gas tanks this weekend.

--Brant