Given the current budgetary constraints, real or imagined, there is nothing vulgar about mentioning the fact that we are burning through money that members of the federal government say we don’t have.

Not to mention the fact that you can’t just hand over weapons, you’d have to teach rebels how to use them. That means “trainers” on the ground.

Uh-oh…

There is nothing imagined about the money that’s being funneled into the pockets of the war pigs.

Ka-ching!

Quagmire. A feature, not a bug.

barry…genius at what?

Deception.

The UK is doing the same thing after demanding austerities from the UK citizens. All the citizens now involved in this should be calling bullshit.

Don’t you think we oughta find out exactly who these so-called anti-Qaddafi “rebels” are and what sort of government they want for the people of Libya before we decide to arm them to the hilt? For all we know, they could be just another despotic group of trigger-happy, torture-loving rebels no different from Qaddafi and his gang of thugs. Or worse, they could be the Libyan equivalent of al Qaeda or the Taliban. But if these Libyan rebels do turn out to be our enemy or evolve into our enemy, this won’t be the first time that we have found ourselves aiding and abetting the enemy.

As to why we continue to make military decisions that invariably come back to bite us in a never-ending cycle of blowbacks, all I can figure is that our top priority isn’t to win wars, but to keep them in a perpetual state. Because if we were to win any of our wars in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world, we would be forced to downside our military, which would slow down the pork-laden gravy train going to defense contractors and lobbyists.

You know that you’re living a country that views war as nothing more than money-making machine when it refuses to put a stop to its wars for the sake of the protecting profits for the K Street-Wall Street axis of evil.

Almost all the European participants are imposing austerity at home.

Not deceiving very many people here.

I’m getting the feeling I’ll be seeing “trainers” and UN temporary partition in the future, so this should work out as well as Korea and Vietnam.

Obama’s Libyan war is a favor for Sarkozy and Cameron – it acts as a distraction from their failed conservative domestic policy.

I have similar qualms about this. But, I think a new metaphor is needed. Quagmire does not work in a desert enviroment.

I’ve been asking right from the start who the rebels are. Meet with stony silence, except for the occasional “AQ are only a tiny fraction,” or Juan Cole’s continued bland assertion that it is a people’s revolution.

AC’s 360 had a guest on last night, a mainstream kinda guy not a lefty blogger (didn’t keep it on long enough to find out who he is) who was addressing that very issue, i.e., that we have no f’g clue (my characterization, not his words) who they are.

I think O has asserted they’re all docs & lawyers. Hillary has been more circumspect.

Love the O characterization. Imagine arming your lawyer & doc with AK47s (I’ve fired one once at a firing range; they’re pretty smooth & easy to use but I wouldn’t rush out with one in a hot war), not to mention more complicated weapons.

Arming them is ridiculous on its face.

Good point. Sand slog? Dust storm?

The Europeans are concerned, and rightly so, that a Ghadhafi victory will produce a flood of refugees into Tunisia, Egypt and eventually Europe. None of them wanted this mess, and would have been quite happy to see the regime collapse of its own accord when the dictator meets his natural end, which is surely not far off. But that option is now closed. The alternatives are a Ghadhafi victory with mass reprisals or his defeat with unknown consequences. It’s a crap shoot.

How about sandtrap?

But if these Libyan rebels do turn out to be our enemy

Cynthia, you are falling into a rhetorical trap here. In what conceivable way could a bunch of rag-tag revolutionaries who don’t like us possibly be a threat to the United States? It is this kind of thinking that is getting us into all kinds of endless wars. People don’t like us, but unless they have a military establishment the size of the old Soviet Union, there’s not a fucking thing they can do about it.

Sand trap ?

Well our governments are liars aren’t they?

I’m not a golfer, so I wouldn’t have thought of that. But I think you owe a drink to designcreature.

My problem with sand trap, to get to the substance, is that it makes the problem seem too trivial, like it’s all just a game.

Yep.

Nothing like cia Iranian Shah couldn’t Fix ?

What could possibly go wrong ?

“Diplomacy” could have taken care of the refugee problem at a fraction of the cost, not that it ever is. And there’s likely to be plenty of refugees anyhow.

So my number one question is how do we shut this dynamic down as even the UN is in on it?

Thanks for the protocol tip.

Designcreature May I slide a drink your way, a T n T perhaps, it is 12:04.
Salute.

Too late. In for the duration.

BTW, on a related topic, U.S. now admits there will be combat troops in Afghanistan forever, which automatically precludes any negotiations with the Pashtuns, the plurality of the pop there.

The only person whose word I really take seriously is Richard Engle’s. He speaks the language, he’s right on the scene and usually in the thick of things, and he certainly seems to be a straight shooter who is telling it like it is, or at least, as he sees it.

Tar Pit.

Where dinosaurs wade in, get stuck in the goo, and can never cleanly get out.

Ultimately the dinosaurs become part of the petroleum products.

What?! War is completely volitional. We don’t need to be in Afghanistan now let alone forever.

It should be understood that the “all necessary measures” authorization is in no way being abused. That UN-speak for, well, all necessary measures, including the use of military force and arming rebels.

I’m not going say whether I agree with arming rebels. I will say, though, that the extent to which an international coalition can use “all necessary measures” was known at the time of drafting and was known when the Security Council passed the resolution.

Not familiar with Engles, as the only time I brush against corp media is channel surfing.

But even a knowledgeable reporter can only be in one place.

And we know from the Judith Miller episode, that a knowledgeable reporter (she wrote a book on WMDs long before Iraq 2003 invasion), with a credible employer, is subject to certain, what shall we call them, pressures?, temptations?, biases?

You may know a lot about Engles’ history, and therefore your trust may be well placed.

Bmaz has a fresh cross-post ready: Scott Bloch Headed To Prison

You must have seen that coming from 1000 miles away.

My Friends,

we have reached a tipping point. The level of lies, corruption, and disregard for the rule of law is everywhere

Our POTUS defends his actions in libya as humanitarian and the fact that it has a broad coalition. A coalition that his own administration clearly said that the US worked hard behind the scenes to pull together. How hard has the US worked behind the scenes to pull together a coalition not to stop the potential of 10s thousands being slaughtered, but the actual slaughter of 100s thousands across Africa? Never mind what is happening in Bharain, Syria, Yemen and so on.

He speaks about humanitarian grounds for attack, while meanwhile here at home millions are living on food stamps, millions of children go hungry every night, millions have lost their homes, their jobs, and are struggling just to eat and find shelter. How does our govt help them? By cutting more aid to programs that could help them. By giving tax cuts to the rich that don’t need them. By standing by as the FED RESERVE gives trillions to bankers and corporations, and through QE devalues the dollar, driving up the cost of food, etc, meaning those barely getting by are finding it harder and harder to purchase the basics just to live. Through QE the Fed is running a ponzi scheme, and the banks by front running this scheme are making more billions on the backs of tax payer with no risk involved. It is simply more free tax payer money.

He talks about the war on terror, a war that has the US in iraq, afghanistan, and many other places. A war that has cost trillions, and 100s thousands are dead, injured and displaced. Yet, now we hear govt officials talk about arming the rebels in Libya. Rebels that have among their groups, known terrorist ties. It matters not if the terrorist make up 5 or 5000 of the total number of rebels, the fact is they are part of this group. We have now entered the twilight zone where are “enemies, enemy has become our friend’ and we will give them money and weapons to assist their fight.

It is clear to anyone that we do not have a two party system, but a one party two headed plutocracy. Both sides through various policies have systematically destroyed the very fabric of this country. For the last 30 years they has been a war, a “war on the middle class’ and the end game is to destroy us and leaves us poor and dependent on the state. Our rights and freedoms are disappearing before our eyes, and what is happening in WI and other states is part of the plan.

Our govt still tries to frame issues as repubs vs dems, unions vs private workers, etc, but this is just a pack a lies, a smokescreen that MSM dutifully reinforces daily. The issue is control and power and it is between those that have it and everyone else. The grand experiment that led to the rise of the middle class no longer is profitable enough for those running the show, and individual rights and freedoms for the peasant class need to be scaled way back.

The POUTUS like most politicians is just a tool. He cares not one hoot about the people in Libya or here at home. He is just another smokescreen promised riches and the opportunity to join and be protected by those he is helping to destroy us.

A little light reading that is pertinent to this argument from someone very close to this argument at another time:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm

;-)

Barry and the boys in the international community are afraid to arm the rebels because they know that the movement currently sweeping the region threatens their criminal co-conspirators in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, and the Israelis (oh how sweet that will be). If the only regime threatened by arming the Libyan opposition was Iran, Barry would be pissing himself and wouldn’t be able to get the arms into Libya quick enough.

But the whole house of cards is threatened over there and we won’t be able to control how fast or how vast the movement to overthrow the tyrants becomes. That’s the uncertainty that Barry doesn’t like. The whole bullshit system is threatened here, too, once people realize that nations we consider to be a step above medieval are fighting to free themselves from dictators and plutocratic thieves while we allow our oligarchs to eliminate collective bargaining rights and the very essence of the law of contracts.

In what conceivable way could a bunch of rag-tag revolutionaries who don’t like us possibly be a threat to the United States?

Tell that to the folks that died on September 11th, 2001.

Not saying we should start wars over it. I disagree with all of our current wars. But come on. Terrorism is terrorism, whether it’s us perpetrating it or

a bunch of rag-tag revolutionaries

Hell. Timothy McVeigh was a single “rag-tag revolutionary”.

Maybe another CIA operation a la Chalabi?

“New Libyan rebel leader spent much of past 20 years in suburban Virginia”

WASHINGTON — The new leader of Libya’s opposition military spent the past two decades in suburban Virginia but felt compelled – even in his late-60s – to return to the battlefield in his homeland, according to people who know him…

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/26/2136063/new-libyan-rebel-leader-spent.html#ixzz1I6M8SveK

The whole bullshit system is threatened here, too, once people realize that nations we consider to be a step above medieval are fighting to free themselves from dictators and plutocratic thieves while we allow our oligarchs to eliminate collective bargaining rights and the very essence of the law of contracts.

Alright. I call *bullshit* on all of it. There.

“Genius at what?”

Genius at finding useless, “bipartisan”, middle, ground, while preserving the status quo.

He’s rocked it, a little, by being down with using air power in Libya. But it’s now painfully obvious that his motivation wasn’t to overthrow a tyrant and give the same kind of populist movement that we saw in Egypt, a fair chance, but instead, just to avoid a bloodbath that would reflect badly on himself.

The Irony of this neither-fish-nor-fowl policy is that it might fuck up the oil flow worse than if one side or the other had succeeded in getting control of Libya’s government.

One more time: it’s hard to feel sorry for this “bright, articulate, man”, whom, it turns out, could fuck up an anvil.

Some contracts are more equal others…

From the UK Guardian (not that it’ll mean anything to the war-heads in Washington):

Arming Libya rebels not allowed by UN resolutions, legal experts warn US
Washington questioned over its assertion that UN mandate permits supply of arms to anti-Gaddafi rebels LINK.

And who can forget Iran-Contra – that worked out well. If Iran ever attacks an American ally (there being little or no letup of the drum-beat that she plans to attack) so America has to retaliate, she’ll be killing us with the weapons we sold her.

Why do I think the DOD/Pentagon has been and is behind the Libyan offensive? The more it unfolds, the firmer the evidence becomes. Back to Eisenhower: “The conjunction (1961) of an immense Military Establishment and a large arms industry is new to the American experience… We recognize the imperative need for this development yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.”

“Tell that to the folks that died on September 11th.”

Uh-oh! “Patriotism” rears it’s head.

So tell us, Kris, were you playing this card with the Egyptians in Tahrir Square, or did you have good info that they were, and are, just peace-loving non-fundamentalist souls?

Because, I don’t see a damn bit of difference between the people who were demonstrating against Ghadafy and those doing it against Mubarak.

The only difference is that Ghadafy and his thugs and some of his military were more willing to kill their countrymen and women, to keep him in power.

And, dragging McVeigh into this argument, is just…bizarre.

Depends on who’s the party of the part that benefits.

I knew five of the people who died on September 11 and many more who thankfully survived. Most of the latter are of the opinion that we’re still being fucked over by the people who planned and executed that little bit of treasonous murder.

That was a CRIMINAL ACT and not an act of war.

It is a shame that our government took it as such. Perhaps this past decade and our current state of affairs would not be what it is if we hadn’t foolishly declared war with people who happen to disagree with the holier than thou attitude of the United States.

We actively exploited and continue to exploit the suffering in the Middle East for our benefit. Is it so hard to fathom that someone may want to seek revenge for the errant bomb that killed their own family members or friends? We are not without blood on our own hands, like it or not.

We are not that city on the hill that people aspire to become.

Exactly right. A crime scene was dismantled by the very criminals who perpetrated the act but they couldn’t get rid of all the dust in the area that has revealed traces of thermite in the dust, something that isn’t an everyday element of anything other than military grade weapons and bombs.

We only want to protect the citizens, and are unwilling to target Qadaffi, but we are willing to send our planes into attack on the Libyan forces in support of the rebel forces. Why is that humanitarian?

all necessary measures

So a catch-all for whatever we decide to do? Are there no limits? Perhaps a humanitarian nuclear strike will make it on the list of “necessary measures”.

Where do we draw the line?

David – saw you on the TV – looked like myself after I shaved the 60′s beard but refused to give up the sideburns. :-) That was back when I had enough hair to make a point! :-)

Nice interview – came across as sharp and on point.

As to the current post – I do not understand the US’s refusal to bomb the light trucks moving East – the easy tank targets have ended – but his army is trained with the small rockets on those trucks and the rebels have no answer. It appears to me that the Pentagon does not have a solid policy that all agree with – that field folks choose how much they want to protect the rebels on an hour to hour basis – plus we get the planting of “rebels may be as evil as Libyan government” – seems like the usual Obama leadership.

While i do think the rebels seriously need weapons (and giving them weapons will end this a lot faster), I doubt the US is going to give it to them.

The reason is because of the kind of weapons the rebels need are anti-tank weapons. Those weapons would also be useful against Israel or against US forces in Iraq if some of the rebels decide to smuggle the weapons in that direction (which we cannot rule out).

One possible solution would be to have GPS on all the weapons we give them. But since our weapons do not come with GPS integrated in them already (to the best of my knowledge), any such additions would be easy to spot and remove.

Al Jazeera is reporting that the coalition air forces were not attacking Gaddafi troops as they moved eastward between cities yesterday and today.
Could be because of a sandstorm that occurred yesterday. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-30

11:18am The question now is why the international coalition has yet to launch air strikes on Gaddafi’s troops as they advance from Nawfaliya to Bin Jawad to Ras Lanuf. Are they obeying the letter of resolution 1973, as Christian Science Monitor writer Dan Murphy suggests on Twitter, or is there something else going on?

Tell that to the folks that died on September 11th, 2001.

Actually, that’s called America reaping what it sows. If Americans hadn’t spent decades undermining Democracy, supporting brutal dictators and enacting policies that killed hundreds of thousands in the region (directly or indirectly) Sept. 11 would not have happened.

Yes, it is a catch-all. No, a nuclear strike would violate the principles of humanitarian law and jus in bello. I hope you’re being facetious about the use of nuclear weapons, though. Otherwise, it’s clear that there’s a lot of ignorance about international relations.