And now for the flip side of my post yesterday:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which Middle Eastern dictator did a President who started an illegal and unconstitutional war hail as a great and good guy for having turned in non-existent WMDs and a sign that his revolution by bayonet point was a mark of progress? 

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1194766,00.html

The Bush Administration has been quick to stress Libya's comeback as a model that Iran and North Korea should now follow. But it may have been Gaddafi's rogue pursuit of nuclear weapons, more than anything else, that made Rice's announcement Monday possible. As Gaddafi sees it, Libya's nuke program gave him some much-needed leverage in his dealings with Washington. The bargain gave each what they needed: Gaddafi is a pariah no more, and the Bush administration has a success story in the Middle East.

It's not necessarily the complete success Bush may have had in mind. In citing Gaddafi as a model, Rice has signaled the Administration's priority for security over the cause of freedom that both Gaddafi and Bush love to talk about. Even though Gaddafi has done little to loosen his dictatorship, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac, among other statesmen, have already visited Libya to signal the West's pleasure. President Bush, or his successor, could be next to visit the leader in his tent.

________________________________

I remember back when the revolutions started buffeting Egypt that someone asked "Is this a vindication of Bush's wars?" I'll let this analysis from the Bush era mostly speak for itself, while as per Rule 8 my thoughts on it are thus: Obama's not the only leader with egg on his face from this senseless Operation: War Is Peace. That people now cheer missiles aimed at a thug of a dictator whose manipulation of the Bush-Republicans by telling them what they wanted to hear is the most damning verdict of Bush's failure in the last 2 years.

But hey, we're not at war with Libya so there's nothing to be concerned about, right? Apologies for having been so posty as of late.

Comments

Wag the dog...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Bread and circuses my friend, bread and circuses.

As long as the Emperor keeps giving his people "victories", they won't notice just how big of a mess he's made of everything else.

Re: Wag the dog...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...and to think that I used to be an Idealist.

Re: Wag the dog...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Pretty much, yes. I still find it weird that disliking this Libyan War is one of the most bipartisan things on Talk_Politics in a while even as our leaders bumble through this whole clusterfuck.

Re: Wag the dog...

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Bizarre, and true nevertheless.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

succesful conquerors of Libya throughout history:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, the Italians *did* invade and conquer the place a century ago and held onto it until after WWII.....when they got their asses handed to them by the Ethiopians the first time.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The same diplomacy that was cowardly treason when suggested with Saddam Hussein and *his* non-existent weaponry?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Rachel Maddow had a fascinating feature on all of this, giving clips from every president since Reagan on the campaign trail ("War and intervention overseas will used only and if absolutely needed!") versus speeches from the White House Oval office, telling the American people about the use of American forces overseas (it was a lot!). She then contrasted the differences with Obama and the examples she gave. I don't know if I agree 100 percent with her, but I thinks she's on to something.

Clip is viewable here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42203993)

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

In regards to Moomar Kadaffy, ah'd like to draw from long established legal precedent in Texas: "he needs killin'."

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sure, most dictators do need killing. But let's call a war a war and not maintaining a no-fly zone.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

lol We need killin' just as much as they do.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"I remember back when the revolutions started buffeting Egypt that someone asked "Is this a vindication of Bush's wars?" "

The question was asked in about the same speculative way that "people" (aka idiotic journalists hoping for a scoop when they really don't have any information whatsoever) asked whether the Gabriel Giffords shooting was a result of Sarah Palin's "targeting" her.

And in the case of Egypt and Tunisia it didn't even take 48 hours for the question to be answered with a resounding "What are you a fucking idiot, the situations are not even tangentially related".

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Fool us once, shame on the you. Fool us fifty-five times and there is a serious psychological issue that needs professional help. Oh look, they're so happy and cheering for us in Libya. Kind of like how they were so happy and cheered for us in Iraq. And Afghanistan.

Why do people think cheering is some kind of, well you know, sign of anything other than temporary relief soon followed by discontent and unrest?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because people are stupid?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

And Kuwait!

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

We were liberating Kuwait from their own leaders? That's news to me.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

We bombed the bajeesus out of an attacking force. The leaders of benghazi are not Kadaffy. (currently) And it worked out rather well (because we did NOT try to occupy Iraq nor kick out Saddam!)

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No, we launched an unrestricted war on the ground and in the air to remove foreign occupying powers from Kuwait and restore the pre-existing monarchy. Since we have explicitly denied doing anything remotely resembling this, bringing up Kuwait is a stretch.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Less a stretch than bringing up Iraq II.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

You mean we're not trying to topple a native dictatorship?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Correct. We're also not occupying anything, attacking a country at the outrage of the rest of the world, or making up false causes to excuse our actions.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

What is this weird concept that using air forces is different than ground forces? We are at war, occupying enemy air-space. It is an occupation.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Air forces are not ground forces, its true. Things that are different are different.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

But not when it comes to Kuwait.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Eh? Could you elaborate more on the connection you're making?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/941019.html?thread=72691419#t72691419

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Yes I can just scroll up but thank you in case I ever lose my scroll button. Could you elaborate the connection you're making?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

The connection that things are different that are different, except for Kuwait. Which this is like, apparently.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Actually the point was that it wasn't like Iraq/Afghanistan.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I agree that Kuwait wasn't like Iraq/Afghanistan. I also agree that Libya is different from Kuwait. I also agree that Libya is different from Iraq/Afghanistan. What I was talking about was the penchant for using "cheering civilians" as "proof" of something good being done, whether it be in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

My point is simply that we shouldn't be using Iraq/Afghanistan as an assumption of how it will turn out.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Oh. Well I'm using the track-record of the UN to predict how it will turn out, and the fact that "only this" always becomes "more of that", and the same moral arguments people are using now will be used to leverage further involvement because the logic still holds. This is why we always get deeper. The last President to simply stop only lasted one-term. The last thing Obama can do now is leave it like it is. He will be harangued into more and more involvement because otherwise is to "ignore the plight of innocent civilians", and when there is a general stalemate in Libya, the UN will authorize further political engineering (ala the Balkans) to come up with a "roadmap" to integrating Libya under a parliamentary system.

I'm telling the future here. I can see it in my crystal ball.

15 years from now we'll have a solution. And we'll say, "Well we're not doing that again!" NOT!

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

kay

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, because ground forces can be met on more equal terms. Control of the sky these days is like control of the sea in older days, to literally control someone's skies *is* occupation.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's the principle that infantry are more "significant" than air power. In some ways the opposite is true, committing fancy-pants bombers is far more expensive than committing a ground force.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I just don't make too much of a distinction between being occupied by bombers or being occupied by soldiers. We use bombers to exert influence and dictate political events. Same thing. Different method.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Precisely. And to build the individual bomber and equip it with the fancy missiles is far more expensive than raising and training a large infantry force.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Expensive yes, but definitely way different than actual occupation.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sure......completely controlling other peoples' airspace is not occupation. I suppose a blockade is not an actual act of war by this standard either, is it?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

A blockade isn't an occupation. A bombing isn't a blockade, an assassination isn't a bombing, etc etc.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

A war is a not-a-war seems to be the common thread here.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

No it doesn't.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sure it does. People don't want to see a war when it is one, and they certainly don't like admitting that war means fighting and fighting means killing.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Kuwait was the only instance since 1950 where all the Great Powers were agreed that the war was in fact a good idea.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Well, give up WMD, pay billions in restitution, hire a PR firm to get you photo ops with foreign leaders.