*
It seems that I have a mistaken idea of what the term "no-fly zone" means. I'd understood it to mean that our UN heroes would patrol Libyan airspace and shoot down Colonel Qaddafi's fighters and bombers to prevent them from strafing protesters. But evidently it means that the US and British navies bomb the shit out of coastal cities with cruise missiles. And so begins Operation: Odyssey Dawn... which has to be the worst name given to any military operation in world history!Setting aside the stupid name for the attack, I do understand the concept of disabling the dashing Colonel's antiaircraft batteries so UN air forces can patrol the skies. But I also understand that Qaddafi's air defense infrastructure is somewhat old and mediocre, and is not considered a high threat to Western nation's superior air power. Cruise missiles are an outstanding modality for causing "collateral damage."
Second-guessing military strategists is not my purpose, though; I'm more interested in the delicate pubic narrative versus the comparatively jarring reports arriving on our computer screens. We're told that the US has been very sensitive about being seen as the ringleader of this military action. In the same HuffingtonPost article linked above, Harry Reid coyly states
"I support the actions taken today by our allies, with the support of several Arab countries, to prevent the tyrant Moammar Qaddafi from perpetrating further atrocities on the people of Libya."as if the United States has confined itself to cheerleading in the bleachers.
In other news, where the Kingdom of Bahrain and its subjects are concerned, it appears that the United States and European democracies have not even bothered to set up the bleachers. I wonder why.
Liberals like me get really in a tangle here. My heart bleeds for the Libyans desparately trying to kick out a murdering madman. So why aren't our armed forces in most of the Middle East?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Gaddifi's murderous intent is in our face,is one thing but don't we know that the same takes place stealthily in other one party states/dictatorships in the Near East.
Oh, and how suddenly do we get all caring about the subjugated Libyans? You begin to suspect that all the "golden talk" about human rights, democracy and free from strife is base metal.
As far as I can see; leaving Gaddafi to blast his country to hell would fatally the West's standing, and leave a raving psychopath to return to international terrorism. That's the only honest reason for our action.
For comparison purposes....and if Mugabe in Zimbabwe had any serious oposition, say, in the form of an opposition party that won an election...would there be even a peep of "no fly"? Oh, my mistake; there was, but as a result there wasn't. One could well wonder what magical ingredient is missing from this situation.
ReplyDeleteHal "Hydrocarbon" Combustion
Naming wars is stupid enough, but Operation Odyssey
ReplyDeleteDawn? The start of a journey that lasts years and years? Nice.
Marginalia: I'm looking at this from the cheap seats in the world's only so-called "superpower." I'm not sure what "superpower" is supposed to mean, actually, but I infer that it means a nation that can unilaterally do whatever it goddam well pleases, especially in terms of global military "police actions." The United States is *not* a superpower: it is a democracy at risk whose leaders don't even believe we should try to fully fund public education or programs to save its citizens from malnutrition or homelessness. There is no humanitarian motive behind "Operation Odyssey Dawn." The motive is summed up in three words: light sweet crude. I wish the rebels could have beat down Qaddafi right away. But it seems clear to me that any rapid military response with humanitarian political objectives should have come from the Arab League and relevant regional African organizations. But I'm pretty sure that any such initiatives must first be routed through the corporate suites of a few supermajors for approval. Brutal planet, as Alice Cooper has said.
ReplyDeleteHyrdocarbon Hal: there really is a national sovereignty issue that must trump international military meddling within a nation's borders; one can imagine how messy things could get without the presumption of national sovereignty. As you imply, though, those concerns seem to virtually flush themselves down the pipes wherever bubblin' crude is involved.
Gurlitzer: holy crap---I didn't even catch the unhidden implication of that name! I just thought it was poor craftsmanship, but I think you've decoded something that was hidden in front of our noses!