Obama will speak tonight in order to say nothing about Libya - what will he not be saying in this speech? Trying to be funny, not working. Can't talk about regime change as a military objective cause that obligates or infers troops on the ground - will encourage 'Libyans' to take matters into their own hands. Will consequently stress repeatedly with florid emotionalism how this is an humanitarian effort - will not address how far this humanitarianism goes should Libyans, taking matters into own hands, in an orgiastic display of tribal vengeance start killing each other with great abandon once [if] Qaddafi goes bye bye - will cover up absence of answer to that question with soaring rhetoric. Will probably repeat several times that American troops will not be hitting ground - so will have to make clear - or I imagine will try and make clear that UK, France, UN are responsible for aftermath [unless they've already all agreed to push the "it's up to Libyans now to settle their own future" line] - most interesting part of speech will probably be how he goes about trying to shift responsibility for aftermath as far away from the US military as possible [and of course should he waffle on troops on the ground and responsibilities etc etc that too would be quite revealing] - think he's dreaming here, but will be interesting to see how he tries to frame argument of America bearing no responsibility beyond the humanitarian intention - don't think he can go beyond intention, can he? - anything else implies too much commitment - but again that's a pipe dream. He'll talk about American values etc etc and thereby try and summon some kind of ethical imperative - but that's to play a very dangerous game that will probably backfire hugely - tying American vital interests arbitrarily to humanitarian imperatives that can only have American sourced military solutions but still must be sanctioned by the loathsome legitimacy of the UN is to invite serious complications down the road - but as a liberal not impossible he would see that as a good thing. Will heap much praise on coalition partners [this will be a trap ie shifting responsibilities] but will have to do so without intimating a 'mission accomplished' moment.

So, in short, obfuscation, pandering to a false and as far as I'm concerned dangerous moralistic, multilateralist idealism and subtle [or possibly not so subtle] responsibility shifting. The word 'war' will not be mentioned, at least not in reference to Libya - implies commitment and responsibility. If the greatest gift a politician can have is the ability to tell a self serving yet convincing lie under difficult circumstances, then I imagine Obama's talents will be on full display tonight.

[I wonder if between the lines we will be able to read the why and wherefore of this mission - unlikely, the thing will be thoroughly scrubbed free of unintended messages - so all the big questions will remain, why, why so slow, what will 'success' look like, is this really a legitimate use of American military might since your own Secretary of Defense has admitted Libya is not a vital interest of the US, and assuming a post Qaddafi world, how do you see that actually working without a strong US presence? And if it doesn't work, what then?

As for the why, one begins to believe that this is a result of Clinton, Powers and Rice convincing Obama that a new age is upon us, a brave new world wherein the American military will be consigned to servitude under the enlightened auspices of the UN for the purposes of doing good everywhere - an essay published today by French philosopher Bernard Levy that states he convinced Sarkozy of essentially that very thing and that is why we're in Libya seems to lend credence to this belief. Certainly, the UK and France very early, unreasonably early committed to military intervention even though such intervention was absolutely impossible without American participation - so were they trying to pressure Obama? Did they see him as an easy mark? Or were they encouraged to apply such pressure on the hapless Obama by Rice et al? If it turns out American foreign policy is being driven by a deluded French philosopher then Obama should be impeached without delay, he's verging on 'worse than Carter' territory if such is the case. And already we see the pathetic consequences of it: Turkey has decided they now very much want to be part of the coalition - why? you may ask They see Qaddafi going down, they see a power vacuum, they see themselves and Iran filling it. Pure and simple - and no doubt they reason that should this humanitarian effort seem successful that will enfeeble the American military, they'll be chained to it, chained to the UN - you don't want French philosophers running your foreign policy - unless of course it's your desire to be fucked up the ass]

It has gotta be an indication of something being very wrong here when my opinions about Libya start sounding like things some liberals are saying - as when Matt Yglesias, a liberal blogger whose take on issues tends to range so far from mine that I don't even bother to try and read him anymore, goes on like this:

 … there’s something a bit head in the sand about proclaiming this a simple “humanitarian” undertaking. Showing up with bags of rice in a famine zone is a humanitarian undertaking. Sending in some Marines to help guard the trucks full of bags of rice is a plausible military element of a humanitarian undertaking. What we’re doing is providing tactical air support to one faction in a civil war in order to help them prevail against a rival faction that has much more heavy military equipment. This may or may not produce some net humanitarian benefits in the end, but it’s hard for me to know how you’d make an accurate forecast about that one way or another.

Sensitivity to how weak the humanitarian argument is as means of justifying or explaining this almost unexplainable intervention probably accounts for the hyperbole spokespersons for the Obama administration are now resorting to when talking about Libya - for example saying prompt [really?] action by the coalition prevented the massacre of 100,000 in Benghazi - that is a flat out ridiculous number - there's not much doubt thousands probably would have died, and there's a good chance many of them would have been largely innocent [ie, not rebel fighters] but we're almost certainly talking four figures here, not six.

Still, that Obama as Commander in Chief would result in actions and postures and initiatives and ideas that do not inspire confidence is not surprising [sure, if I try I can come up with an interpretation of what he's doing or thinks he's doing in Libya that is not wholly unfavorable - but that's the problem, we're more than a week into this and no one really knows what the plan is - hell, the administration is still insisting that regime change is not a goal even though it is and that we are not allied with the rebels in a civil war even though we are] - nor is it surprising that liberals would be utterly confounded by watching their redeemer, the man they anointed and championed as the exalted non-Bush, the enlightened antithesis of all the incarnate awfulness of Bushdom, involve the country in another war in a Muslim country and do so with an imperialistic disdain for explaining himself that would have made Karl Rove blush - no, these things do not surprise me - what shocks me is how many conservatives seem to have learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan and consequently not only clamored for this war but fret over how limited it seems. Nothing sends up the absurdity of this better than recent revelation that fighting with our new rebel friends, in some cases as leaders, are erstwhile jihadist enemies of ours from Afghanistan - bad enough, but turns out they've also enlisted some al Qaeda elements into the fight - ya think conservatives would be up in arms about this, no? But of course their over zealous support for the 'war' makes circumspection impossible - indeed, their support for the war is entirely premised on skimming over the central and thoroughly unpleasant question 'so, you've won your little war - what now?' [and that's the sunny optimists version of the question - the more vexing versions go like this: 'so your little war is stalemated' or 'so you lost your little war' or 'so it's been three months and Qaddafi ain't dead yet and France is kinda losing interest' or 'hey, Israel just invaded Gaza again, when will the NATO humanitarian effort on behalf of the Palestinians begin?' or...]. Hell, the question's so unpleasant and so [we surmise from seeing the great passion brought to bear in avoidance of it] seemingly unanswerable that Obama apparently hasn't even bothered to essay the effort of asking it of himself, and it's his war. So conservative have said nothing - our military is at war in support of an alliance that includes jihadists and members of al Qaeda [and god knows what else] and conservatives have decided that's no big deal - I find that a bit shocking.

"... let's ask the cold hearted question: this uprising was poorly thought out, poorly equipped, disorganized, absurdly idealistic and utterly incapable of sustaining itself without significant outside help - what's more, even if it had been successful these 'liberators' and 'democrats' as Cole ludicrously chooses to define them would have been entirely incapable of governing the country and at a complete loss to fend off the warring tribal factions and other ruthless counter-revolutionary forces that would have emerged to compete for power against them [and who, by the way, are still in the wings waiting for their moment] - in other words, this 'democratic leap' [again, as Cole with blind self service to his ideology chooses to dishonestly define it] would have been absolutely unable to survive without us stepping in to somewhat save the day - is this really a precedent that we want to be setting? Do we really want to be encouraging something like this? Has any one considered the possibility that Obama took so long to jump in because he in fact doesn't really want this putative revolution to succeed, at least not totally, since success might make a larger US presence an absolute necessity? That what he was really hoping for here was a truce that splits the country along its natural east/west tribal fault line and leaves behind a revolutionary rump small enough to abandon to the stalwart competencies of the redoubtable UN and the illustrious Arab League? I dunno - is that notion so much crazier than all the other guesses people are making as to what the hell Obama actually has in mind here?..."

Well, now that we're a few days into Obama's phony war, I suppose we can address with a bit more clarity what the christ is going on and why whatever it is is going on is going on - or not - because, you see, no one really seems to know - I mean, there are lots of theories of what this is or isn't or may be or should be, some insisting Obama knows exactly what he's doing, some insisting the man hasn't a god damn clue what he's doing - but one tends to believe confusion of this sort does not bode well. We do know that Obama didn't judge it necessary to share with the American people what his plans were/are nor with the congress of said people - whether that's a sign of the man being so confident is in his own capabilities that he has no problem whatsoever of entirely ignoring the advise and consent rights of the country he ostensibly leads - or whether that's an indication of how entirely lost at sea the man is and how rushed and ill conceived this endeavor is - well, that's another thing we just don't know. Given that no one in the administration closely involved with this 'war' can answer the question of whether or not regime change is the goal here - and in fact can give entirely contradictory answers to that question within hours of each other -  given that I gotta believe it's the latter, ie, they really don't know what the fuck they're doing or they do know but what they know makes little sense.

We can say two things with some semblance of certainty - one, this mission was conceived as an humanitarian effort, but we do not know if at this conception the possibility of it becoming more than that was discussed, thoroughly considered, dismissed, provisionally ruled out, whatever - it's clear that the language of the UN resolution opens the door for something more, but whether that was the intention or merely an oversight, that we don't know - and two, it's reasonably clear that Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mullen are not big fans of their president's initiative here - they're playing the good soldiers, but one doesn't have to strain too hard to hear the intimations of disapproval when they're before a microphone.

I suppose the one thing we do know with something close to absolute certainty here is that America's role is to be seen as subordinate to the leadership of the coalition - and yet still this one seeming certainty is fraught with confusion: is this subordinated role for America a result of Obama embracing the wistful left wing idealism of Samantha Powers et al that longs to see the evil, imperialistic Yankee war machine house broken so as to better serve benevolent progressivism everywhere? or is this putatively truncated American presence Obama conceding one point to his generals and making a concerted effort to forestall the looming danger of mission creep? If it's the former, that's bad and this will end badly - if it's the latter, that's better, but it's still more than likely gonna end badly.

Why the cynicism? On a broader, one might say conceptual level, as I've said before I have no faith in the forced marriage of Islam and democracy - and let's not fool ourselves, it is and will be a forced marriage - the child produced may have democratic features, but it's still gonna be hidden more or less behind a burqa and beholden to Allah before all else - until that defining dynamic changes, is loosened, breaks down, whatever manages to pass for democracy in the Mideast will remain compatible to Western norms in name only - if you notice, all those calling for American activism in these uprisings and storms of discontent make the seemingly unquestioned assumption that after all is said and done what we'll find at the end of the rainbow is a big pot of liberal democracy - I don't buy that for a second, and in fact believe that it's as likely that what follows will be just as bad if not worse than what preceded, at least as far as Western strategic interests are concerned. Sure, if we could get away with a reprise of what jolly old England did in India, maybe one could consider it - but we can't get away with it, and even if we could, Iraq and Afghanistan have decisively swept the notion off the table - all that work and sacrifice in Iraq and would it surprise anyone if along with Turkey and Syria they're part of a Persian led, China backed anti-Western hegemony ten years from now?

But put that speculation aside - there are practical reasons aplenty to be cynical about 'Obama's war'. You can call it an humanitarian intervention if you like, but unless the rebels throw down their arms and a miraculous truce is negotiated what you're really doing is choosing sides in a civil war - and then the problem becomes how far do you go in supporting 'your' side? And if your side wins, what then? Best case scenario, you win and you're left caring for a tribal society incapable of governing itself, putting down ancillary civil wars and insurgencies for god knows how long, dealing with incursions from Islamists and Iranian agents looking to stir up trouble [does anyone think the recent terrorist actions in Israel are not related to Libya? How appealing  would it be or Iran to force America to defend new aggressions by the IDF knowing full well the French would condemn it?] - and that's the best case scenario! Worst case is your side loses, you look ridiculous and you're stuck with a partitioned Libya and ownership of the broken, impoverished rebel half that you have to hope embraces democracy but may just as well embrace extremism. It's at that point [if not much earlier] the vaunted coalition falls apart and America has to choose to either allow itself to be sucked in to the vacuum or step aside and invite scorn, condemnation and the stain of looking weak, fickle and foolish.

I don't see how one can be anything but cynical - realistically, I'd say Obama had only two choices here: get in early while the rebels had the advantage - that would still have had all the problems associated with it that plague and threaten what he's doing now but would have allowed you the huge advantage of not having to rout Qaddafi from towns he has since taken from rebels - I'd still have consigned America to a largely supporting role but would have made it very clear from the beginning why that had to be and then made it ruthlessly clear that in no way would America's role morph into something larger - if the world wants Qaddafi stopped then let the world accept responsibility for the consequences of that; the other option of course, my choice, was to stay clear of it - I would have accepted American covert operations, along with British and French special forces, sent in to aide the rebels - but no overt US military role in a war fought under the guise of humanitarian comfort or not. Obama has chosen a third option when there really wasn't a third option available - in my opinion you only do that if: one, you don't know what to do and panic when you start seeing your presidency characterized as weak and willing to tolerate the slaughter of innocents; or two, it has been your plan all along to indulge the naive fantasies of liberal anti-imperialists - but if this was a deliberate plan - and hell, I could be completely wrong here, who knows - but if this was a deliberate strategy Obama's even more of a disaster of a president that I'd imagined.

But hell, let's amuse ourselves and assume 'everything' goes well here [and by 'going well' I mean it's ugly but still a tad prettier than the alternatives] - what will we have gained from the Obama doctrine? The US military tethered to a UN sanctioned and led intervention into the internal affairs of a sovereign state for the purposes of saving peoples lives [although we may end up killing more than we save] and possibly, nobody really seems to know, deposing the current head of government and installing some dubious thing of the UN's choosing that may [sure, why not?] grow into a democracy but may also spawn into something awful and possibly even worse than the thing it replaced - and none of this will really be in the vital interests of the US and it's military - in fact, may prove to be quite counter productive in that regard - but who cares 'cause with this precedent set our military will now be obliged I guess to serve the spurious, incoherent, jaundiced interests of the UN whenever they/it chooses to call on us, which should be often since they're incapable of doing anything on their own? And we're to expect our Marines et al to remain motivated to fight when it becomes clear to them that Obama has decided that it's now their agenda to serve a convoluted world bureaucracy of insipid fantasy and not the stars and stripes of America because, well, ya know, we're all one now? And do it all so China can sit on the sidelines getting rich at our expense? Can I get a yes we can?!

This is a joke, right? No way we were stupid enough to make this guy president.

[Then again, maybe I should walk this back a bit - I'm so used to seeing Obama in nothing but negative terms it's possible I'm missing a strategy here that isn't all bad. His failure to talk up military intervention with the nation and congress, no matter how limited, prior to committing to it looks flawed, ill advised and possibly unconstitutional - unless he felt that promising to get rid of Qaddafi wasn't possible because of the limited role the American military would be playing but he didn't want Qaddafi to know that - if that was their plan it's not a horrible idea but I don't think it's worked quite as they would have hoped - Qaddafi doesn't appear fooled and besides he has no option but to fight as if regime change is the goal - besides, Americans don't like their military being used in such an indecisive and mincing way - and I imagine the military itself doesn't appreciate it much either - still, it's part of Obama's liberal mindset to see the US military in these terms and so one can argue that's exactly how he's using it - I think it's misguided and impractical and possibly an abuse of the constitution - but it fits the man's ideology and therefore possibly not as illogical and poorly thought out as first appears.

By the same token this may explain his inability to act earlier - in effect, he doesn't really want the rebels to 'win', or rather, doesn't want the US military being sucked into a situation where a putative win becomes dependent on American intervention - so his real goal here was to save Benghazi and then sit back and wait for a truce to materialize and make sure France et al become responsible for or take the lead in this. Again, this may be a flawed plan but isn't entirely crazy - it's dependent on the rebels choosing not to press the fight, Qaddafi being willing to compromise and France et al not trying to bite off more than they can chew - and it's a strategy that relies on the possible delusion or wishful thinking that America can contribute as a subordinate but not be held responsible as a principal when things go wrong, as they most likely will - so, a plan with lots of risk and downside, but not entirely crazy.

Still, seen in these terms, what at first looks like an inept manifestation of liberal notions of anti-imperialist multilateralism or just plain old strategic incoherence starts to look somewhat coherent and possibly even rooted in a modest realism - a strategy misguided all the same I think, and fraught with problems both conceptual and practical - not to mention all the assuming one has to do, which I don't think is quite in keeping with the ideals of representational democracy and limited gov't - but, giving Obama some benefit of the doubt here, not necessarily as clueless as it seems]

So, with apparently France and England taking the initiative and the US following behind with how much reluctance or enthusiasm it's not clear, the UN security council [with expected abstains from China and Russia but notable one from Germany] passes resolution to 'protect' what's left of the rebels in Libya by imposing a no-fly/no-drive zone on the country - and Qaddafi responds by calling for a truce. This raises many questions, not the least of which is of course, why now? The rebels have been pushed back to near extinction,  reduced essentially to one city - are we, rather, is the UN going to help them retake what they lost? If the rebels decide to refuse the truce and attempt a renewal, are we not now committed to helping them? Does that mean the UN is at war with Libya? I mean, on the surface of it this looks very much like a humanitarian initiative to stop a possible slaughter of innocents in the last remaining rebel position, Benghazi - but depending on what the rebels do, that mission could morph very quickly - so has this coalition taken that into account? Because if it slips from being a humanitarian containment mission into an active support of a civil war mission, then that only happens with the US taking the lead - has the US agreed to this? Many, many questions here. Obama, not surprisingly, has essentially said nothing of substance on the whole matter - has he committed us to a war without so much as a word of explanation? How much more does this guy have to fuck up before the consensus becomes he's a horrible president? I mean, I of course in general do not support involving ourselves in Libya [and then jumping in late like this? I could be proven wrong, but that seems absolutely retarded] - that said, I also don't support a president who thinks he's doing his job by standing off in a corner apparently doing nothing and failing abysmally to enunciate anything even remotely resembling a strategic vision for the region and America's place in it [or worse, if one believes rumors swirling about re why Hillary decided to come out now and make it very clear she will not be serving another term as Secretary of State - ie, she's sick and tired of working for a president who seems overwhelmed by the job].

I don't know if there's any point commenting on this UN action until it becomes clearer what these people have in mind because, as I've said, I don't get the impression that the supporting members of this coalition are in complete agreement, or in any agreement at all, on whether this action amounts to a humanitarian mission or a military support mission. Now, as for Qaddafi, that he's called for a truce does not surprise - he doesn't need Benghazi in order to claim victory, he probably doesn't have the military wherewithal to take it anyway, and by turning it into an orphaned city he leaves this incoherent coalition with a rather large headache and conundrum to solve and deal with - not to mention, he makes the UN coalition look weak and foolish for only taking action when it was too late - and by excising the remaining rebel territory he rids himself of the malcontents without having to slaughter them later and thereby turning himself into an international pariah. Seems like a pretty cunning move on his part - although suppose unwise to completely rule out possibility that the call for a truce is a sign of weakness and panic - could be that, but right now it seems more like cunning to me. In fact, no reason right now not to think that this has been Qaddafi's plan from the near beginning - reclaim what we can and then call a truce and claim victory when the UN decides to wade into the mess. Neocons and others who are now crowing that this truce validates their call to arms are being incredibly short sighted if not outright fatuous with these assumptions - I'm not stupid enough to rule out entirely that maybe they were more right than me - but so far I see nothing to support that conclusion - on the contrary, it's not impossible at all that Qaddafi has decisively outsmarted his opponents.

And those comparing this to Bosnia are completely off the mark as far as I can see - Serbia started that war, it was slaughtering Kosovars, expelling them from their land and their homes - Qaddafi didn't start this war, the rebels did - he was just defending the nation as he saw fit - I mean, of course Qaddafi is a scumbag dictator and possibly a sociopath to boot, but as a matter of international law, I have trouble seeing where the justification is for the UN removing him from power or of handing large chunks of land over to the rebels - even if it can be proved that Qaddafi committed war crimes by deliberately killing civilians - and no doubt that will be very tough to prove - a UN take over of Libya, both as a practical and legal matter, seems like a huge stretch to me.

Needless to say, I'm hardly an expert on international law, but it kinda looks like Qaddafi has trumped his adversaries with this call for a truce - although reports are filtering in suggesting hostilities continue - we'll have to wait and see on that one.

update: nothing definitive about continuing aggression by Qaddafi forces - but impression is gaining weight that possibly the call for a truce was a ruse to cover further movements against Benghazi - if that ends up being true I'll have to take back my suggestion that possibly Qaddafi had 'out smarted' his foes - a fake truce call would seem to me amateurish and delusional, unless of course Benghazi is much more vulnerable to being overthrown by Qaddafi's forces than I've been led believe - regardless, the overall confusion, both as concerns practicality and international law, remains: has the UN declared war on Libya for the purposes of removing Qaddafi and installing a gov't of its choosing? The resolution can be read that way - this would be unheard of, no? And how exactly does anyone expect this to work? I mean, why is Qaddafi worse than any number of other dictators in the Mideast? Is the UN now in the business of toppling dictators and installing rebel gov'ts of dubious merits and reputations? The Saudis just sent troops into Bahrain to put down a rebellion - Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, in some ways as bad if not worse than Libya - are they next? Joking aside - the UN resolution leaves the door wide open for large scale attacks on Libya - I don't see the logic of this, I don't see how it works - I must be missing something I guess because this looks fraught with problems and complications to me.

I swear I begin to question the wisdom of my opinions on Libya et al given how many would be conservatives out there seem to disagree with me - being at variance with liberals on such issues is to be expected - and I've already said I believe Obama's slow footed response has more to do with the military's/Gates' extreme fear of mission creep than it has to do with strategizing/equivocation/running for cover by Obama - but that so many from the right seem to support action here and harshly mock Obama and therefore by association Gates and Petraeus for his/their flight from same makes me wonder if I have any clue what the hell I'm talking about.

Now, no doubt my cynical view of religion in toto and Islam in particular jaundices my take - conservatives of course, perfectly willing to pillory Islamic extremism, are not so quick to question religious conviction as a whole and therefore don't want so much to get into a comparative analysis of Christianity and Islam or the downside of varieties of religious fervor in general - I on the other hand view religion as sociological phenomenon and so don't have the problem - whether this accounts for gulf between my uber skepticism and their seeming blind faith viz prospects for democracy or at least moderation in wake of these upheavals and consequent willingness to imagine America's possible involvement in a positive light as regards etc etc, I dunno. Could be that.

I know that I'm hearing increasingly from these 'optimists' dire warnings about fallout from a now much more likely Qaddafi win [remember these optimists were convinced a couple weeks ago that Qaddafi was finished while realists like myself were cautioning not so fast] - Qaddafi will go back into the terrorism business, the nuke business, will slaughter thousands of his 'opponents' etc etc - possibilities that I'm not gonna deny - but of course there are dire fallout scenarios aplenty attached to American action just as surely if not more so than with our inaction - and yet these optimists are more than willing to look past or marginalize these dark potentialities in order to promote involvement - which says to me their enthusiasm is more ideological than it is strategic.

"... the feeling is that democracy is failing, in decline... the great thing about democracy is still there, the idea that freedom maximizes value within a community... but the weak link in the system has always been the need for these free citizens to cast votes for a putative leader... of course this act of voting has always been vulnerable to error, but the assumption was that the dynamic of constant change compensates for the mistakes, in other words, the voters will of course err but we can always fix that in the next election... and regardless of that, change in and of itself is a very valuable thing... but what I'm fearing is that the model is broken, that the problems we face as democracies are so big and complex that there's little room left for mistakes... that people have and need the right to vote too often ends up meaning only that they retain the right to make mistakes... and politicians are still thusly rewarded for promising foolish or ill advised things simply to get elected... in keeping with this feeling I read recently a libertarian essay on why only intelligent, well informed people should vote and that the less informed and less intelligent should want this to be the case, should feel ethically motivated to sanction such a thing for the betterment of all... but of course that is a very short step away from disenfranchising a large portion of the electorate as a matter of law... or should that be royal decree?..."

The upheaval in Libya seems to be settling into civil war territory, which I figured was a strong possibility - I figured the weakness of the traditional military in Libya, both those remaining loyal to Qaddafi and those who turned on him, the natural disunity of tribalism and the fact the the paramilitary units under the 'command' of Qaddafi's sons seemed to be showing no signs of turning mutinous, which suggested to me they felt their chances of success remained tolerable - all these things I took to mean that early press coverage portraying Qaddafi as on the verge of being swept into the sea by a popular uprising was overstated, as almost all press coverage of the upheavals in the Mideast have been overstated in favor of the agitators [possibly the Al Jazeera effect] - although that sounds like I view the protesters as mere malcontents and side with the oligarchical status quo of these wretched fiefdoms - I don't - I tend to trust no actors in this play and view all with skepticism - practicing a detached Thucydidian realism, as one writer put it - a characterization I adopted without quite knowing what it meant [all foreign policy is but an extension of the Melian dialog? Sure, why not].

Anyway - I'm still struck by how many, both conservative and liberal, are determined to involve America in this conflict. For liberals this makes absolutely no sense - Obama is their man for the very reason that he seemed to embody the emasculation of American power that scorn for such martial crusading implies - he was the anti-war candidate who rose to prominence by eloquently opposing the Iraq war because, well, he was just too darn smart and refined and cultured to ever be sucked in to the mindless idiocy of violence - way above such nonsense - he was the anti-Bush, the refulgent pan racial Salesman in Chief of a new, gentler America who would talk to the embittered Muslims [who of course had every right to resent America for being so insufferably great while they malingered in the dirty ante-rooms of history], hell, he'd talk to the whole world so that all could share in the glory of his words and be raised up. Brave new world indeed [if the democrats are Miranda, is the GOP Caliban?] Not that it disappointments me that the stale intellectual poverty of wishful thinking and socialist fancy that underlies much of modern liberalism has been so laid bare by these upheavals - it's just that the hopeless audacity of pretending that such isn't the case is a bit galling [see today Obama announcing that after all the whining by liberals over the evils of Guantanamo Bay and all the high handed railing against it by Obama and promises to wash away this stain and redeem America in the offended eyes of the outraged world - see that today Obama announces military tribunals will resume at Guantanamo - it's as if the very essence of high minded liberalism made manifest in the grandiloquent posturings of Obama has been entirely undone - and yet liberals still parade about the court with well pleased smiles - galling].

Conservative support for American intervention, of which there is plenty, is possibly more understandable or defensible, but also possibly more troubling. I get how conservatives would want to use Obama's dithering, confused, at times incoherent handling of the Mideast crisis as a way of further undercutting his bona fides viz foreign policy - he's basically become the weak and watery presence that Hillary warned he was likely to become during their primary battle [although as I've said before her performance when it comes to foreign policy issues leaves much to be desired as well]. So I get that - except that conservative support seems for the most part real and not simply about politics - and that I don't get.

Just because you supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't mean you get to ignore the uncomfortable lessons learned form those invasion when it suits your purposes - or is it they haven't exactly learned the lessons? Gates certainly has, having stated recently in a West Point speech that only a fool would involve America in a land war in Asia any time soon - which may be to somewhat ill advisedly overstate or over dramatize the lessons learned - still, one gets it: lot of headaches involved with putting troops on the ground in these countries: better make sure it's something you want and more importantly need to do before committing.

Of course a lot of these people seem to making the assumption America can help the cause without involving ground forces - specifically in the form of a 'no fly zone' that impedes Qaddafi's efforts. Putting aside my great problem with the idea of helping the cause - ie what cause and whose is it? Just as with Egypt, there are no clear answers to those questions - putting that aside, there are serious problems with a 'no fly zone' that conservatives, who really should know better, seem determined to ignore. One, many seem to be making the assumption that a NFZ is a rather easy thing to do - it isn't, although there is some disagreement in military circles that Gates is making it sound harder than it actually is. Two, it might not and in fact probably will not work - you're assuming that Qaddafi needs his meager air force in order to successfully engage the rebels - that's not clear at all - the rebels are disorganized, poorly equipped and fraught by tribal divisions and rivalries - it's very far from certain that Qaddafi needs an air force to beat them down. Three, a failed NFZ implies the use of ground forces - what, once the NFZ fails to dissuade Qaddafi the cause is suddenly going to become not worth helping? A NFZ commitment implies a ground force commitment - and that goes even if the NFZ is successful because, four, the country is gonna be a mess post conflict - tribal animosities boiling up into further hostilities, even continued civil war - Islamists flooding into the country - insurgents wreaking havoc - civic infrastructure failing or dysfunctional and unable to supply basic necessities of life - a military presence will be required - it can't be American, but who else is there? And lets add a fifth reason here: if we support this uprising do we then support the Shiite one in Bahrain? 'Cause we definitely don't want that one succeeding.

So I have trouble understanding what conservatives anxious for America to involve itself in this mess are thinking - possibly I can see a rationale for it along these lines: a UN resolution where America's contribution clearly begins and ends with imposition of a NFZ - America's limited involvement has to be clearly spelled out - and if in agreeing to this China's duplicitous and unhelpful agenda is laid bare when it is forced to veto such a resolution - and if with that veto the 'international community' is once again reminded of what it sometimes so dearly wants to ignore ie that America is the only country in the world that can truly be trusted on these matters - then possibly I can see a rationale there - but that's a double edged sword - one, can we possibly rely on the promise of a UN resolution? - two, it's generally not in the interests of America to be legitimizing the UN when it comes to the use of military force.

[well, that was bit rambling and awkward - so let me just try and point form the way I see things:

• widespread unrest in the Mideast, but claims that this unrest is rooted in democratic urges are not supported by evidence, and the distinction is important as regards how America should position itself vis a vis the unrest - initial causes seem to center around youthful discontent over chronic unemployment, this easily morphs into calls for regime change which easily then gets confused with immature notions of democratic change - and then other forces move in to appropriate the 'revolution', as we saw in Egypt where the military wanted to get rid of Mubarak, used the protests for that purpose, but have no real interest in taking change too much further than that and in fact now seemed to have formed or are in the process of forming some sort of alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood for the purposes of establishing yet another autocracy lurking in the shadows of a sham democracy.

• which brings us to Islam - I'm an uber skeptic here, which is why I've found myself mostly agreeing with Israeli conservatives during these weeks of unrest - I do not believe Islam mixes well with democracy and Western values, and think any attempt to imagine it does or can is wishful thinking built upon overly optimistic assumptions and willful myopia - I believe there are compelling reasons why Christianity and Islam seem so different in this regard, not the least of which being Rome and Athens preceding the rise of Christendom - but let's just say that as far as I'm concerned as long Islam is the sieve through which all ideas and activity, both political and social, must pass in order to be considered legitimate, true democracy will never take hold in these countries - the best you can hope for is Turkey, which is increasingly sliding back towards theocracy and away from Western notions of an open society - the worst is Iran or Hezbollah or Hamas - and I believe only great upheaval will ever shake these countries free of the smothering effects of their faith.

• given the above, I tend to believe the US should approach recent events in the region, that the quixotic seem determined to idealize, in a decidedly unromantic way - be cold, calculating, careful, practical, realistic - and brutal when and if necessary - if Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything it should be that. The model that has governed America's actions in these matters for 50 years is changing, if for no other reason than the rise of China significantly alters the balance between costs and benefits going forward - a fact totally ignored by those calling for America to step in is that the US had I think less than a thousand people working in Libya and got less than 1% of its oil for there - China had 30,000 and they weren't there for the warm beaches - begging the question, if America were to jump in to 'save the day', who actually would benefit? America hasn't played world policeman and destroyer of communism for the last 50 years simply out of a spirit of generosity. Strained by two wars, under severe budget pressures at home, the US military cannot afford to be running around willy nilly and involving itself in the world's various messes simply so that China can prosper and Islamists can go hoarse crying 'infidels!'

• and so Libya, the one uprising so far that has turned ugly - and of course when things turn ugly all those want to hold the US in contempt seem not at all embarrassed to call on it to step up and do the right thing. I was amused today to read a scornful article by a US Navy man concerning a bold plan by the Italians to blockade Libya etc etc - all very nice aside from the fact it's completely undoable without the US Navy - wonderfully ambitious plans being floated out there by Italy and France and England - and all entirely dependent on the US taking the lead - in other words, happy to gamble with other peoples money they are. But it's not the insipid foolishness of the wide world nor the disgustingly hypocritical idiocy of the American left that bothers me so much - well, actually, they do bother me quite a bit - but rather the number of American conservatives who seem so willing to involve us in this mess, and with justifications every bit as dubious as those proffered by the limp wristed progressives.

• here's why I think it'd be a mistake for America to move in: a 'no fly zone', every country who doesn't spend billions of dollars a year on its air force favorite plan for doing something, is not nearly as easy to implement as it may look - and worse, it implies the inevitable insertion of ground forces - no matter how many assurances the US military is given that it won't have to take the lead in any ground offensive, it will; Qaddafi might win - from the beginning the biased press has acted as if Qaddafi was doomed - but to those who understood how Libyan tribalism works and how the regular military is constituted - poorly - the idea that Qaddafi might win this has always been very real - therefore, would we be involving ourselves in a protracted civil war? - and who exactly would be our allies in this war? the completely unreliable and way too Islamist tribes of Libya? - and assuming our side wins the war, what then? - this country is completely incapable of governing itself - after Qaddafi is gone rival tribes might take up arms against each other, whose side will we be on then? - and let's not forget, Libya is bordered by Sudan - think of all the Al Qaeda loving crap that can flow across the border to stir Chaos' pot; but, hell, let's go ahead and assume the very unlikely best case scenario actually manages to happen - how are we helped by this? The democratic cause will only be served if some outside force takes control of the country - that can't be America - so who? - there is no one - therefore the country slips back into some for of dictatorship run by whatever tribe comes out on top - China moves back in - Islamists right behind them - if the Shia of Bahrain rise up in bloody revolt everyone will we be expected to help them as well even though that would serve only the nefarious designs of Iran?

• I can envision one scenario where I might support American involvement - any military action would require a UN resolution - China would be forced to veto that resolution - thus we could put China in a very awkward position, both in the Mideast and at home - long term, that may be a smart move - I'm not smart enough to think through all the consequences of such a move and therefore make a decision how smart it would or wouldn't be - but I'm willing to listen to an idea like that. 

• on the surface I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with America taking a strong supporting role backing whatever brilliant ideas the European powers or the UN or the Arabs or the Africans might want to push forward - but of course the chance of thereby America getting sucked into a sinkhole is real because let's be honest none of these other powers is really capable of doing anything here absent active American participation.

• some may be tempted to suggest that failure to act in Libya amounts to America retreating from its super power status - but that would be hyperbole [although a cynic might suggest much that Obama has done in his presidency is predicated on that very desire and not be far from the truth - but personally I think Gates and Petraeus are calling the shots here - my guess is Obama is smart enough to know he fucked up in Egypt and has ceded de facto authority on Libya to Gates] - I would characterize inaction on Libya rather as an acknowledgement that economic pressures, the rise of China, the decline of Europe and the unavoidable fact that Islam will remain a largely intractable problem for years to come is forcing America to rethink the strategic framework within which it must operate]

Well, I haven't commented on Libya, nor any of the ongoing agitations in the Mideast - possibly that's because I feel I got it all wrong and a sea change is indeed in the works and sclerotic nay saying pricks like myself now must go all humble - but I don't think that's it. That a species of widespread discontent is afoot is certainly not going to be disputed - just how widespread this discontent is, what it means and what it may lead to - these remain open questions and I continue to look with a jaundiced eye on anyone talking as if something definite and beyond suspicion is in play here. I find it more than a little startling that people who opposed the Iraq war, consistently rail against the excesses of American defense spending and, in the case of Obama and catamites, have spent much of the last two years apologizing for American power and talking down the special, unique and verily indispensable role Great Satan plays in policing the world - I find it quite odd that these same people can hardly keep themselves from rushing into Libya to save or protect or build up or tear down god knows what exactly - seems every besotted peasant shaking a stick in the Muslim street is now some freedom loving, democracy craving hero that we are duty bound to save or support or bond with or reach out to no matter the cost to us in blood and treasure and the almost certain inevitability that the Muslim world will continue to hate us regardless of the outcome. Let's forget that a mere two years ago Libyans rushed out into the street in wild celebration over the release of the Lockerbie bomber - let's forget that they similarly celebrated 9/11. Let's forget that on a per capita basis Libyans form the largest block of outsourced jihadists fighting in Afghanistan. Let's forget the lessons of Iraq - with Saddam we rid Iraqis of a much worse despot than Qaddafi and set them on the path to democracy if they're willing to make it work - and our reward? - they kick us out, demand we pay war reparations and cozy up to Iran and China. Hell, China had 30,000 people working in Libya compared to about 600 Americans - why is no one calling for China to come to the rescue? America gets virtually no oil form Libya, we have no significant business interests there - China has much more at stake in Libya - when is someone going to ask why they're quietly milling about in the background doing nothing?

Of course, having said all that, I'm not necessarily against America taking the initiative in Libya - by and large I see more bad than good coming of such a thing - but I can notice a bit of a strategic upside to it, especially vis a vis China - not that I actually believe we have the resources for a serious involvement - but I could see myself supporting a totally brutal and realist based operation there - and by that I mean we understand clearly the terms under which we go in and the terms under which we get the fuck out - but we don't have the resources so if doesn't matter. I do think we should give strong consideration to calling out China here - although one could see how that might backfire - still, to not be thinking in those broad strategic terms would be a huge mistake - unfortunately I've seen little indication that the Obama administration is thinking in those broad strategic terms - their actions throughout, starting with stirrings in Iran, has been confused bordering on incoherent -  as Niall Ferguson said a few weeks ago, it's as if Obama truly did believe that all he had to do as president of the United States was go to Egypt in 2009, give a light as air touchy feely Muslim outreach speech that sufficiently conveyed just how not like George Bush he was and therefore would not be forcing Western values on anyone but would be getting tough with those Westernized Israelis so that wounded Palestinian pride could be washed clean of Zion dirt - and that everything in the region would then work out peachy fine. The man's foreign policy has been worse than incompetent, it has been delusional - incompetence can be fixed, the diseased roots of delusion run deep and are not easily untangled.

But then Obama made it clear from the beginning of his presidency that he didn't consider America to be special - indeed, he's acted as if America had more to apologize for than be proud of - not surprising then that someone like that would fail to place emphasis on enabling a strategy based on the special characteristics of America. And now he's supposed to authentically embrace democracy promotion in the Mideast? the man who made his political career off opposing the Iraq war? This is farcical. I love how liberals say all this upheaval is the result of us engaging in the false stability of supporting despots etc - as if there was a choice? Are you fucking morons somehow under the impression that America wouldn't have preferred to be dealing with open democracies? The only alternative to dealing with the loony autocracies of these fucking countries was to go in their and force democracy on them - which is what we did in Iraq - which you fucking liberals opposed!!! The hypocrisy is shocking.