Patrolman Obama – Policeman of the World

Click here for the Original Proposal and 17 replies which received 1,268 views before being transplanted here.

*****
The Original Proposal on 3/21/2011 was to examine Real Politik in relation to the U.S./British/French attack on Libya because that attack was condemned on the grounds that no American “national interest” was involved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, by senior members of the American media, and by key members of both parties in Congress including Richard Lugar (ranking minority member and former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).

Although not contesting the fact that the attack on Libya involved no American “national interest,” President Obama and State Secretary Hillary Clinton organized the U.S./British/French attack on Libya in order to avoid a “blood bath” if the rebellion were not successful.

Now, after refusing to support in 2009 the “Green Revolution” in Iran which then failed, the Obama Administration in the person of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta proclaimed on “Face the Nation” on 1/8/2012 that Iran’s developing a nuclear weapon is a “red line” and (after his co-interviewee, U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey, confirmed military planning for a strike against Iran HAS INCLUDED POSITIONING OF MILITARY ASSETS) Leon Panetta stated -- “I think they [Iran] need to know that if they take that step [develop a nuclear weapon], that they’re going to get stopped.”

[The transcript for the “Face the Nation” interview of Panetta and Dempsey is posted below in the “Reference Materials” section.]

Although neither Defense Secretary Panetta nor Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey provided any detail on positioning military assets, the media is currently full of stories about how the American aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln is racing across the Indian Ocean to join in the Persian Gulf the carrier Carl Vinson which recently replaced the carrier John Stennis. One carrier in the P.G. is fairly routine while two in the P.G. has only happened during Gulf Wars I and II.

*****
As we have studied in the past, The Gulf State Six (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman) plan to go nuclear immediately after Iran acquires nuclear weapons because, like Charles de Gaulle, they have no faith in the so-called American “nuclear umbrella.”

And as we have studied in the past, 27.7% of worldwide oil production comes from the Middle East and another 20.2% originates “down wind” from the Middle East. Which is why the Middle East has always been viewed as a vital American “national interest.”

It is ironic that the consensus of our foreign-policy cognoscenti is that the U.S./British/French attack on Libya has made it much more difficult to enlist support for doing anything about Iran and its “cat’s paw” Syria.

And it is ironic that our foreign-policy cognoscenti are now waking up to the fact that the U.S./British/French attack on Libya (whose President Qaddafi gave up his nuclear-weapons program immediately after the U.S. launched Gulf War II against Iraq in 2003) appears to have convinced Iran that the only protection against an American attack is to develop nuclear weapons.

*****
Our focus will be “Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy” (Harper Collins - 2009) by Leslie H. Gelb -- available from your local library and from http://www.Amazon.com for $11.20 + shipping.

Leslie Gelb crowned his 40-year Pulitzer-Prize winning career with the NY Times as OpEd-Page Editor and Foreign-Relations OpEd Columnist to become President of the Council on Foreign Relations which, inter alia, publishes Foreign Affairs, the premier foreign-policy journal. He had also served as a senior official at the State and Defense Departments and at the Brookings Institution.
johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Patrolman Obama – Policeman of the World

Post by johnkarls »

.
[Originally posted by johnkarls » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:24 pm -- 1,268 views before being transplanted here.]

In the wake of the U.S.-led 3/19/2011 attack on Libyan tanks, artillery and infantry (as well as air defenses) to establish a so-called “no fly zone,” I propose that we study President Obama’s position of “regime change” (his oft-repeated objective even though he was only able to manage a U.N. resolution to protect civilians and establish a “no fly zone”).

Among other things –

1. President Obama ordered attacks on Libyan tanks, artillery and infantry even though Libya has NOT attempted to fly any aircraft since the U.N. resolution was approved,

2. In attacking Libyan tanks, artillery and infantry, President Obama has caused the Secretary General of the Arab League to immediately call for a new meeting to rescind its 3/12/2011 call for solely a “no fly zone,”

3. President Obama is alienating the Muslim world whose television sets are constantly carrying images of Western aircraft attacking Muslims,

4. President Obama has offended most of our NATO allies (Germany and Turkey in particular) by expecting them to accept a “hand off” of responsibility for what Russian Prime Minister Putin has labelled an “AMERICAN medieval crusade”!!!

5. Putin was careful to call it “American” while ignoring the fact that President Obama had lined up for his “coalition of the willing” three other countries = France, the U.K. and Qatar (the tiny Persian Gulf Emirate that hosts the American military’s Central Command Headquarters, which has responsibility for 25 countries in East Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia).

6. President Obama has provoked bi-partisan criticism in Congress for his refusal to obtain a Declaration of War as required by the US Constitution, most notably from Senator Richard Lugar who was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the Republicans controlled the Senate and is currently its ranking minority member (the Sen Fgn Rel Comm would have jurisdiction to hold hearings for a Declaration of War).

7. President Obama has committed the US to what probably will be a long and costly military campaign. If he thinks that his attacks on the Libyan capital, far from rebel territory, are going to cause the Libyan government to crumble, he should read about how US bombing of Iraq for 37 days at the beginning of Gulf War I before the US finally “put boots on the ground” and the US “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign at the beginning of Gulf War II before the US finally “put boots on the ground” FAILED IN BOTH CASES TO CAUSE SADDAM’S GOVERNMENT TO CRUMBLE!!! And even if President Obama’s attacks on tanks, artillery, infantry and “command centers” (that is, the Libyan capital) do degrade the Libyan government’s ability to bring the rebellion to a quick close, President Obama should read about how such tactics were unsuccessful in Vietnam as the general population became alienated and as it became impossible to distinguish the “enemy” from the general population even with “boots on the ground.”

8. President Obama has “taken his eye off the ball” which should be trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which will provoke Turkey, Egypt and The Gulf State Six to go nuclear as soon as Iran does and which will probably make the majority of the world’s oil supplies radioactive in the near future.

9. President Obama has committed the US to what will probably be a long, costly war when we do not have the resources, budgetary or military, to waste on a project that has no significance with respect to our vital national interests.


**********
Suggested reading materials would be:

[Editorial Note = Since Henry Kissinger is the foremost American foreign-policy expert associated with "Real Politik" (that is, political realism based on "National Interest"), I would have liked to propose one of his books -- however (A) his first Tour de Force ("Nuclear Weapons & Foreign Policy" - 1969), an early version of which was the basis for his joint Harvard Law School - Harvard Graduate School course which I attended as a law student, is too out-dated (NB: the course was to have been led jointly by Prof. Kissinger representing the Grad School and Prof. Barton Leach representing the Law School, but Kissinger insulted Leach on the first day of class and Leach never returned); (B) Kissinger's magnum opus ("Diplomacy" - 1994) fails to deal with terrorism except almost as a footnote vis-a-vis Israel; and (C) his most recent book ("On China" - 2011) has too narrow a focus.]

1. “Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy” (Harper - 2009) by Leslie H. Gelb who crowned his 40-year Pulitzer-Prize winning career with the NY Times as OpEd-Page Editor and Foreign-Relations OpEd Columnist to become President of the Council on Foreign Relations which, inter alia, publishes Foreign Affairs, the premier foreign-policy journal. He had also served as a senior official at the State and Defense Departments and at the Brookings Institution. Now retired, he attends the Metropolitan Opera where his son, Peter, is Major Domo.

2. All of the news articles our members consider relevant and post on our bulletin board = http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org;

3. For anyone who didn’t read it for our 11/10/2010 meeting, Bob Woodward’s new book “Obama’s Wars”; and

4. For anyone who didn’t read it for our 4/8/2009 meeting, the Newsweek cover story for 2/9/2009 entitled “Obama’s Vietnam” when President Obama announced during his first month in office that he had ordered a surge in US troop strength in Afghanistan from 39,000 to 60,000 (he then ordered at the end of 2010 another surge in US troop strength to 101,000).


**************************************************

Salient points made on Meet the Press and Face the Nation on 3/20/2011 are:

1. As stated many times leading up to the attacks, particularly in Congressional testimony by Defense Secretary Gates and US Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen, merely establishing a “no fly zone” requires destroying Libyan surface-to-air missiles and other anti-aircraft weapons AND, ACCORDINGLY, IS AN ACT OF WAR. [Moreover, by attacking Libya’s tanks, artillery and infantry, we have gone far beyond what many apologists have been trying to excuse as a humanitarian intervention in Libya’s civil war.]

2. Senator Richard Lugar, past Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and currently its ranking-minority member, has been highly critical for quite some time of becoming involved in Libya and criticized the President on Face the Nation for not obtaining a Declaration of War as required by the US Constitution. [Sen. Lugar’s Foreign Relations Committee would have jurisdiction to hold the hearings for such a Declaration.]

***********
[Most of the remaining points were made on Meet the Press by Richard Haass, President of the Council of Foreign Relations (which, inter alia, publishes Foreign Affairs Magazine), who has been very critical during the last month or so concerning any American involvement in Libya.]

3. The so-called “no fly zone” was in fact from the outset an attack on Libya’s tanks, artillery and infantry that were in position to attack Benghazi, the rebel stronghold (Libya did not attempt to fly any aircraft after the U.N. resolution).

4. We have intervened in a Libyan civil war between competing tribes, and we have very little idea of the political aims of the tribes we are supporting.*

5. Interventions in civil wars tend to prolong them – indeed, the current Libyan civil war was winding down when the US-led 3/19/2011 attack revived it.

6. In terms of Realpolitik, the US has no vital interests in Libya – indeed, if the US wants to be the “policeman of the world” then the Syrian, Bahraini and Yemeni governments are, like Libya, shooting their dissidents and at least Bahrain and Yemen (and probably Syria) are infinitely more important to US interests than Libya.

7. Now that the US has intervened in the Libyan Civil War and revived the rebellion, we are stuck for the long haul and will probably be forced to put “boots on the ground” in order to force a stalemate. [Though left unsaid, our de facto goal is the partition of Libya and, unless we capture some oil fields on behalf of the rebellious tribes we are supporting, we will have created a rump state that is a de facto economic “basket case”!!!]

8. The 22-nation Arab League, whose call for action was widely-credited for changing Hillary Clinton’s mind which, in turn, is widely-credited for changing President Obama’s mind, has already disowned the actions being taken in the US-led attacks as “not what the Arab League signed up for”!!! [The Arab League's 3/12/2011 call for a "no fly zone" DID NOT AUTHORIZE, IN THE OPINION OF THE ARAB LEAGUE'S SECRETARY GENERAL, ATTACKS ON TANKS, ARTILLERY AND INFANTRY AND HE ANNOUNCED ON 3/20/2011 THAT HE WILL RE-CONVENE THE ARAB LEAGUE TO RE-CONSIDER ITS CALL FOR SOLELY A "NO FLY ZONE" IN LIGHT OF THE AMERICAN-FRENCH-BRITISH ATTACKS ON TANKS, ARTILLERY AND INFANTRY!!!]


* With regard to Point No. 4, http://www.cia.gov shows that our C.I.A. has no idea of the tribal breakdown in Libya. To help the C.I.A. analyze the tribal nature of Libya’s civil war in which the Obama Administration has intervened, the following is offered --

Reuters Africa
Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:32pm GMT

Tribal Ties Key To Gaddafi’s Rule
By Souhail Karam

Muammar Gaddafi, facing an unprecedented popular revolt, has stayed in power for four decades in part because of his adept manipulation of tribes, centres of power in what remains a conservative, sparsely-populated desert country.

Historians say the veteran ruler has used economic privileges, marital alliances and the threat of force to build ties to tribes commanding varying degrees of loyalty among most of the six million population.

Gaddafi's own tribe, the Al-Gaddadfa, one of more than 20 tribes in the country, is based around the Mediterranean coastal city of Syrte in the northern middle of the country's territory.

Despite its small size, its location - in the heart of the Syrte basin rich in oil - gave the tribe pre-eminence and led to claims by its descendents that they trace their lineage directly from Prophet Mohammad, some historians say.

The tribal view of politics in Libya is heavily marked by the violence of the country's modern history, especially during Italian colonisation from 1912-43, which made many elders generally wary of the concept of a central authority.

Gaddafi managed to pacify the tribes, or at least obtain their cooperation, mainly through crushing violence or the fear of it, exemption from the payment of taxes for the majority of those tribes that rely on pastoral activities, and alliances through marriages or economic privileges.

Gaddafi focused his effort to build alliances with tribes in the Tripolitania region, which in the Ghadamis basin holds some of the country's most significant oil deposits.

Al-Zuwayya tribe, whose leader threatened on Sunday to cut oil exports if the violence is not stopped, is located in both the Cyrenaica and Al-Kufra regions whose joint oil production accounts for little compared to the rest of the country.

On Feb. 20, Akram Al-Warfalli, a leading figure in the Warfalla tribe, one of Libya's biggest, told Al Jazeera: "We tell the brother (Gaddafi), well he's no longer a brother, we tell him to leave the country." A source in the Warfalla sent a message to the same effect in a statement to Reuters on Feb. 21.

Following are the main tribes in Libya.

TRIPOLITANIA REGION: Warfalla, Awlad Busayf, Al-Zintan, Al-Rijban

CYRENAICA: Al-Awagir, Al-Abaydat, Drasa, Al-Barasa, Al-Fawakhir, Al-Zuwayya, Al-Majabra

SYRTE-GIBLAH: Al-Gaddadfa, Al-Magarha, Al-Magharba, Al-Riyyah, Al-Haraba, Al-Zuwaid, Al-Guwaid

FEZZAN: Al-Hutman, Al-Hassawna, Tibbu, Tuareg

AL-KUFRA: Al-Zuwayya, Tibbu

*****
Reading Liberally Note Re Spelling and Meaning of Muammar El Gaddafi’s name

The media employ a variety of names for Muammar El Gaddafi. For example – (1) The NY Times uses Qaddafi, The Washington Post and Reuters use Gaddafi, and The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal use Gadhafi, and (2) Reuters spells his first name Muammar and other media use “o” for the second letter.

Muammar or Moammar is his actual name.

The “El” is Arabic for “the” but really means “of” – as in “Lawrence of Arabia” [literally Lawrence the Arabian]. “El” is spelled in Arabic with the characters “alef” and “lam” and, in the Middle East, is commonly written in English as “Al” rather than “El” as the North African Arabs typically write it in English. The pronunciation sounds more like “El” than “Al” throughout the Arab world.

The reasons for mentioning all this???

1. El Gadaffi literally means “the Gadaff” (or member of the Gadaff tribe – “i” is always added to the end of the noun in such contexts).

2. You might notice that Reuters, in the article about tribes posted above, spells Muammar’s name as El Gadaffi but names his tribe as Al Gaddadfa!!! The author obviously does NOT understand Arabic and has used two different English spellings for the Gaddaf tribe in the same article!!!

3. This is important in remembering that he is “Muammar The Gaddaff” as in the Gaddaff’s who occupy the area where Libya’s oil & gas is produced.

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

NATO Resisting Obama’s “Hand Off”

Post by johnkarls »

.
[Originally posted by johnkarls » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:46 am]

The reason why the Obama Administration went to the U.N. Security Council rather than NATO, is that NATO action requires the unanimity of its 28 members.

Nevertheless, the Obama Administration has continued to insist that it would hand off leadership of the attacks on Libya to NATO within 2-3 days.

However, except for the U.S., France and the U.K. which have been the sole participants in the attacks on Libya, the NATO membership displays considerable dissension.

Most notable =

Germany, which abstained from the U.N. resolution that received a 10-5 vote. Germany did not have a veto power in the U.N. Security Council because only the World War II victors have vetoes – the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and China. However, Germany is now exercising its opposition in the NATO forum to prevent the US-French-UK attacks on Libya from becoming a NATO operation.

Italy, which was the colonial master of Libya 1912-1943. Italy has been so conflicted that it waffled back and forth before the U.S.-French-U.K. attacks on Libya whether it (Italy) would permit its bases to be used for the initial attacks.

Turkey, the only Muslim member of NATO, which is feeling the sting of all of the images on Arab television of Western aircraft attacking Muslims.

**********
Consequently, it appears that the NATO meetings taking place this week (May 21-25) will do little more than provide continuing support for solely economic sanctions.

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Putin Calls Libyan Attacks An “American Medieval Crusade"

Post by johnkarls »

.
[Originally posted by johnkarls » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:47 am]

Russian Prime Minister Putin (who is also Russia’s past and future President and generally viewed as the de facto head of Russia’s government) has adroitly played “dog in the manger”!!!

Why did he not wield Russia’s veto in the U.N. Security Council to prevent the Obama Administration’s resolution (which it importuned Lebanon to introduce) from passing???

After all, Russia had said for more than a week that it would veto the resolution!!!

Putin refrained for propaganda purposes, of course!!!

Russia has extensive experience with Islam since much of the old Soviet Union comprised Islamic Russian Turkestan which fragmented into all of the Islamic “Stans” (except Afghanistan which was always independent because of its terrain and Pakistan which seceded from India following World War II).

Putin must have relished his vivid phrase “Medieval Crusade”!!!

And Putin must also have relished ignoring the participation of France and the U.K. in the attacks on Libya in labeling the Medieval Crusade “American”!!!

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Obama “Took His Eye Off The Ball” = Iranian Nuclear Weapons

Post by johnkarls »

.
[Originally posted by johnkarls » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:50 am]

The greatest tragedy in President Obama’s ambition to support popular uprisings in Islamic countries hasn’t even been mentioned in the media!!!

Is it the fact that public opinion polls in Muslim countries regularly show that the United States is LOATHED by the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the population???

No!!!

Is it the fact that democracies in the Middle East are often bad news for American foreign policy because of the nearly-universal LOATHING of the U.S. in the Muslim world???

No!!!

Is it the fact that so far, American foreign policy and the American media have only succeeded in “throwing under the bus” staunch supporters of the U.S. (for example, Egypt's President Mubarak) and don’t have a prayer of deposing American adversaries (for example, Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei)???

No!!!

So what is it???

If one were a cynic, one would have to conclude that the Obama Administration’s leading a new war is intended as a diversion from its failure to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons!!!

Why is Obama’s “taking his eye off this ball” the greatest tragedy???

The “Gulf State Six” (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman), as well as Turkey and Egypt, are all expected to go nuclear as soon as Iran does. After all, we have discussed several times the inadequacy of Hillary Clinton’s sophomoric idea of extending America’s “nuclear umbrella” to these countries to protect them from Iran – and how, according to Seymour Hersh’s “The Samson Option,” Israel would have ceased to exist in 1973 if it had not been wise enough to follow the policy of General de Gaulle in having France spurn the American nuclear umbrella and develop its own nuclear weapons.

And why is that so important???

Because, as we studied for our 5/12/2010 meeting, 27.7% of the world’s oil supplies come from the Middle East and an additional 20.2% is down wind from the Middle East!!!

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Obama’s Libyan War As An Economic Stimulus

Post by johnkarls »

.
[Originally posted by johnkarls » Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:51 am]

After considering the points raised by foreign-policy experts on Face the Nation and Meet the Press on 3/20/2011 (please see the original proposal above), a serious-though-disturbing question to be pondered would be the extent to which President Obama’s motive in attacking Libya was to stimulate the US economy and reduce unemployment before next year’s Presidential election.

After all, the consensus of our experts is that this operation is likely to last a considerable length of time and, after all, President Obama has presented Congress with a budgetary fait accompli – that is, it is now de facto Congress’ problem how to finance (or not) the new war that President Obama has started; A FAILURE TO RAISE TAXES TO FINANCE OUR NEW WAR CONSTITUTES AN ECONOMIC STIMULUS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WON'T SPEND $120 BILLION/YEAR IN LIBYA (THE AMOUNT IT SPENDS ON ITS AFGHAN WAR).

A cynic would be forced to conclude that the Obama Administration’s real motives for leading a new war are the stimulus to the economy and the diversion the new war provides for the Obama Administration’s failure to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf (please see the preceding item).

Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

Washington Post Re Arab League Abhorrence Of Allied Attacks

Post by Pat »

.
[Originally posted by Pat » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:36 pm]

Further re John Karls’ point in the original proposal concerning President Obama’s alienation of the Arab League (please see above) --

Arab League Condemns Broad Western Bombing Campaign In Libya
Washington Post – March 20, 2011
By Edward Cody

CAIRO — The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya and said Sunday that he would call a league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.

Moussa said the Arab League’s approval of a no-fly zone on March 12 was based on a desire to prevent Moammar Gaddafi’s air force from attacking civilians and was not designed to endorse the intense bombing and missile attacks — including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces — whose images have filled Arab television screens for two days.

“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement carried by the Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”

Moussa’s declaration suggested that some of the 22 Arab League members were taken aback by what they have seen and wanted to modify their approval lest they be perceived as accepting outright Western military intervention in Libya. Although the eccentric Gaddafi is widely looked down upon in the Arab world, the leaders and people of the Middle East traditionally have risen up in emotional protest at the first sign of Western intervention.

A shift away from the Arab League endorsement, even partial, would constitute a major setback to the U.S.-European campaign. Western leaders brandished the Arab League decision as a justification for their decision to move militarily and as a weapon in the debate to obtain a U.N. Security Council resolution two days before the bombing began.

As U.S. and European military operations entered their second day, however, most Arab governments maintained public silence, and the strongest expressions of opposition came from the greatest distance. Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Evo Morales of Bolivia and former Cuban president Fidel Castro condemned the intervention and suggested that Western powers were seeking to get their hands on Libya’s oil reserves rather than limit the bloodshed in the country.

Russia and China, which abstained from the voting on the U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention, also expressed regret that Western powers had chosen to get involved despite their advice.

In the Middle East, the abiding power of popular distrust of Western intervention was evident despite the March 12 Arab League decision. It was not clear how many Arab governments shared the hesitations voiced by Moussa, who has said that he plans to run for president in Egypt this year. But despite Western efforts to enlist Arab military forces, only the Western-oriented Persian Gulf emirate of Qatar has announced that it would participate in the campaign.

The Qatari prime minister, Hamad bin Jasim al-Thani, told reporters that the kingdom made its decision in order to “stop the bloodbath” that he said Gaddafi was inflicting on rebel forces and civilians in opposition-controlled cities. He did not describe the extent of Qatar’s military involvement or what the mission of Qatari aircraft or personnel would be alongside U.S., French and British planes and ships that have carried out the initial strikes.

Islam Lutfi, a lawyer and Muslim Brotherhood leader in Egypt, said he opposed the military intervention because the real intention of the United States and its European allies was to get into position to benefit from Libya’s oil supplies. “The countries aligned against Libya are there not for humanitarian reasons but to further their own interests,” he added.

But the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies in the youth coalition that spearheaded Egypt’s recent upheaval took no official position. They were busy with a referendum Saturday on constitutional amendments designed to usher democracy into the country. Similarly, the provisional military-run government took no stand, and most Cairo newspapers gave only secondary space to the Libya conflict.

When the Arab League approved imposition of a no-fly zone, only Syria and Algeria opposed the decision, according to Egyptian officials. Syria’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday reiterated its government’s opposition, as diplomatic momentum gathered for the U.S.-European operation, saying the country rejected “all forms of foreign interference in Libyan affairs.”

Al-Qaeda, which could be expected to oppose foreign intervention in an Arab country and embrace Gaddafi’s description of the Western campaign as a new crusade, made no immediate comment. This was probably due in part to the difficulty for the al-Qaeda leadership to communicate without revealing its position. But it also has brought to mind Gaddafi’s frequent assertions that al-Qaeda was behind the Libyan revolt and that he and the West should work hand in hand to defeat the rebels.

Iran and its Shiite Muslim allies in the Lebanese organization Hezbollah, reflexively opposed to Western influence in the Middle East, also were forced into a somewhat equivocal position, condemning Gaddafi for his bloody tactics but opposing the Western military intervention.

“The fact that most Arab and Muslim leaders did not take responsibility opened the way for Western intervention in Libya,” declared Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, in a video speech Sunday to his followers. “This opens the way for foreign interventions in every Arab country. It brings us back to the days of occupation, colonization and partition.”

At the same time, Nasrallah accused Gaddafi of using the same brutal tactics against his opponents as Israel has against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry, which previously criticized Gaddafi’s crackdown, expressed “doubts” Sunday about U.S. and European intentions. Like the Latin American critics, it suggested that the claims of wanting to protect civilians were just a cover for a desire to install a more malleable leadership in Tripoli and make it easier to exploit Libya’s oil.

codyej@washpost.com

Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

Thomas Friedman Opposes Obama On Libya

Post by Pat »

.
[Originally posted by Pat » Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:07 am]

Reading Liberally Editorial Note =

Thomas Friedman’s OpEd Article in the NY Times on Tuesday, which is reproduced below, makes the same point regarding “countries” that were created by the old colonial masters in utter disregard of the tribes that were being grouped together (and the tribes that were being split between “countries”) as John Karls’ original proposal on Monday which closes, since the CIA* seems oblivious to Libya’s tribal composition, with the 2/22/2011 Reuters report on the tribal make-up of Libya.

[* Please see CIA.gov > library > publications > The World Factbook > Libya > people]

Thomas Friedman’s OpEd article is lecturing Obama on this point at length before opposing Obama’s escapade on the grounds that Obama shouldn’t embark on such frolics before our budgetary house is in order and, in addition, before we have implemented an energy policy.

Going back to the Reuters article provided by John Karls, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT GADDAFI’S OWN TRIBE HAS ALWAYS OCCUPIED THE AREAS FROM WHICH LIBYA’S OIL & GAS IS PRODUCED AND AL JAZEERA IS REPORTING THIS MORNING (Thurs March 24th) THAT HIS FORCES ARE GIVING TOP PRIORITY TO CAPTURING ANY OTHER AREAS THAT HAVE ANY OIL & GAS POTENTIAL.

So what is President Obama’s policy going to be vis-à-vis Gaddafi's own tribe even if the President’s announced policy of regime change succeeds (which, of course, is NOT the policy of either the United Nations or the Arab League) –-
(1) enslavement of the Gaddafi Tribe, (2) banishment of the Gaddafi Tribe, or (3) extermination of the Gaddafi Tribe???

****************************************
NY Times – March 22, 2011
Tribes With Flags
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

David Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief for The Times, wrote an article from Libya on Monday that posed the key question, not only about Libya but about all the new revolutions brewing in the Arab world: “The question has hovered over the Libyan uprising from the moment the first tank commander defected to join his cousins protesting in the streets of Benghazi: Is the battle for Libya the clash of a brutal dictator against a democratic opposition, or is it fundamentally a tribal civil war?”

This is the question because there are two kinds of states in the Middle East: “real countries” with long histories in their territory and strong national identities (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Iran); and those that might be called “tribes with flags,” or more artificial states with boundaries drawn in sharp straight lines by pens of colonial powers that have trapped inside their borders myriad tribes and sects who not only never volunteered to live together but have never fully melded into a unified family of citizens. They are Libya, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The tribes and sects that make up these more artificial states have long been held together by the iron fist of colonial powers, kings or military dictators. They have no real “citizens” in the modern sense. Democratic rotations in power are impossible because each tribe lives by the motto “rule or die” — either my tribe or sect is in power or we’re dead.

It is no accident that the Mideast democracy rebellions began in three of the real countries — Iran, Egypt and Tunisia — where the populations are modern, with big homogenous majorities that put nation before sect or tribe and have enough mutual trust to come together like a family: “everyone against dad.” But as these revolutions have spread to the more tribal/sectarian societies, it becomes difficult to discern where the quest for democracy stops and the desire that “my tribe take over from your tribe” begins.

In Bahrain, a Sunni minority, 30 percent of the population, rules over a Shiite majority. There are many Bahraini Sunnis and Shiites — so-called sushis, fused by inter-marriage — who carry modern political identities and would accept a true democracy. But there are many other Bahrainis who see life there as a zero-sum sectarian war, including hard-liners in the ruling al-Khalifa family, who have no intention of risking the future of Bahraini Sunnis under majority-Shiite rule. That is why the guns came out there very early. It was rule or die. Iraq teaches what it takes to democratize a big tribalized Arab country once the iron-fisted leader is removed (in that case by us). It takes billions of dollars, 150,000 U.S. soldiers to referee, myriad casualties, a civil war where both sides have to test each other’s power and then a wrenching process, which we midwifed, of Iraqi sects and tribes writing their own constitution defining how to live together without an iron fist.

Enabling Iraqis to write their own social contract is the most important thing America did. It was, in fact, the most important liberal experiment in modern Arab history because it showed that even tribes with flags can, possibly, transition through sectarianism into a modern democracy. But it is still just a hope. Iraqis still have not given us the definitive answer to their key question: Is Iraq the way Iraq is because Saddam was the way Saddam was or was Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraq is the way Iraq is: a tribalized society? All the other Arab states now hosting rebellions — Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and Libya — are Iraq-like civil-wars-in-waiting. Some may get lucky and their army may play the role of the guiding hand to democracy, but don’t bet on it.

In other words, Libya is just the front-end of a series of moral and strategic dilemmas we are going to face as these Arab uprisings proceed through the tribes with flags. I want to cut President Obama some slack. This is complicated, and I respect the president’s desire to prevent a mass killing in Libya.

But we need to be more cautious. What made the Egyptian democracy movement so powerful was that they owned it. The Egyptian youth suffered hundreds of casualties in their fight for freedom. And we should be doubly cautious of intervening in places that could fall apart in our hands, à la Iraq, especially when we do not know, à la Libya, who the opposition groups really are — democracy movements led by tribes or tribes exploiting the language of democracy?

Finally, sadly, we can’t afford it. We have got to get to work on our own country. If the president is ready to take some big, hard, urgent, decisions, shouldn’t they be first about nation-building in America, not in Libya? Shouldn’t he first be forging a real energy policy that weakens all the Qaddafis and a budget policy that secures the American dream for another generation? Once those are in place, I will follow the president “from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.”

Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

American Military “Boots On The Ground” Since March 12th

Post by Pat »

.
[Originally posted by Pat » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:32 pm]

President Obama has repeatedly said that America DOES NOT have, and WILL NOT have, any military “boots on the ground” in Libya.

One of the four major TV networks aired on March 24 an interview of two former Special Ops Officers = Retired Army Col. David Hunt and Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer.

They confirmed that the French, Brits and Americans have had active-duty Special Ops military personnel in Libya for quite some time in order to (1) gather intelligence, and (2) “paint” targets such as tanks and artillery with lasers that our laser-guided missiles and bombs will then hit, hopefully with some precision.

This type of operation was displayed on the Silver Screen in the movie “Clear and Present Danger” starring Harrison Ford. It showed active-duty Special Ops military personnel under cover in Colombia “painting” an SUV parked next to a building in which the heads of various drug cartels were meeting – and the destruction of the building (and the SUV) by a missile fired from a US Navy carrier jet.

Colonels Hunt and Shaffer said that the Brits, French and Americans each have their own military “boots on the ground” in Libya because none of them trusts each other’s Special Ops personnel for providing targeting for their own aircraft.

Colonels Hunt and Shaffer said that such active-duty Special Ops personnel (1) do not, of course, wear their uniforms when operating under cover, and (2) have cover stories in case they are captured.

Colonels Hunt and Shaffer pointed out that several of the British active-duty Special Ops personnel were in fact captured shortly after the British-French-American air attacks began and were released by the Libyan Government.

Colonels Hunt and Shaffer implied that the “NY Times reporters” captured and released by the Libyan Government shortly after the air attacks began were in fact American active-duty Special Ops personnel and that claiming they were NY Times reporters was their cover story.

Colonels Hunt and Shaffer stated that America had had active duty Special Ops personnel in Libya to gather intelligence and “paint” targets for at least 12 days – which would place them there no later than March 12th, one week before the British-French-American attacks began.

When asked point blank whether President Obama was lying in his claim that America does not have military “boots on the ground” in Libya, Colonels Hunt and Shaffer called his statements “disinformation” which was justified by the mission of such “boots on the ground” to minimize civilian casualties in our bombing campaign.

Which of the four major networks conducted this interview???

Fox News. And the program was The O’Reilly Factor for March 24th.

The reason for DVR’ing Fox News and homing in on Libyan coverage???

The same as the reason for reading Wall Street Journal articles on the Libyan Civil War = both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal have strongly advocated attacking Libya since long before the U.N. Resolution.

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Pre-Obama-Libyan-Speech Update

Post by johnkarls »

.
[Originally posted by johnkarls » Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:21 am]

If you have read everything posted above over the last 7 days, you know there have been some developments.

They were captured beautifully yesterday (Sun Mar 27) when State Secretary Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates appeared together on both Meet the Press and Face the Nation.

[Meet the Press also interviewed separately Sen. Richard Lugar, ranking Republican on the Sen Fgn Rel Comm which would have jurisdiction for hearings on a Constitutionally-required Declaration of War and the Committee’s former Chairman when the Republicans were in the majority – and then featured a panel including Ted Koppel and the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward who authored “Obama’s Wars” which was the focus for our 11/10/2010 meeting.]

The important points???

1. Hillary Clinton exhibited such hostility toward Robert Gates that it seemed fortunate that there were no lethal weapons on the Meet-the-Press set (if you didn’t see it yet, you really should view the video of Hillary’s demeanor available on the web site of Meet the Press).

2. Defense Secretary Gates confirmed that there are no “vital U.S. national interests” in Libya.

3. Vice President Biden, who was the long-time Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had joined Defense Secretary Gates and the White House National Security Advisor and virtually everyone else in the Obama Administration outside Hillary’s State Dept (which includes UN Ambassador Rice) in opposing Hillary’s position of intervening in the Libyan Civil War.

4. U.S. policy has so angered Saudi Arabia, the country at the top of the list of “vital U.S. national interests,” that it refused to permit State Secretary Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates to pay a visit when they were in the Middle East this past week.

5. Ted Koppel and Bob Woodward agreed that Obama’s intervention in the Libyan Civil War was inexplicable because of the lack of any “vital U.S. interest” and the plethora of humanitarian disasters elsewhere in the Middle East, not to mention Africa’s Ivory Coast where there are currently 1 million victims and counting. They agreed that “inexplicable” meant that President Obama would NOT be able to offer an acceptable explanation during his address to the nation this evening (Mon May 28).

6. The “coalition of the willing” has grown from 4 to 5 (the U.S., France, the U.K. and the tiny oil-rich Emirate of Qatar which hosts the U.S. military’s Central Command Headquarters that oversees 25 nations, was joined late last week by the United Arab Emirates which comprise three tiny oil-rich Emirates bordering Qatar).

7. On Saturday, NATO bowed to the Arab League and to its own opposing members, most notably Germany and Turkey, in agreeing to limit the Libyan humanitarian mission to insuring the rebel tribes in Eastern Libya are not conquered – which specifically does NOT mean operating as their air force and arms supplier for them to defeat the Libyan Government.

8. As so limited, NATO agreed on Saturday to accept responsibility for the humanitarian mission.

9. NATO had earlier in the week agreed to accept responsibility for the so-called “no fly zone.”

10. Defense Secretary Gates confirmed on Meet the Press that the Libyan Government had NOT flown any aircraft whatsoever since the U.N. resolution on the “no fly zone” – which gave the lie to the Brits’ claim that the Libyan Government’s trainer jet, which the Brits destroyed on the ground 4-5 days after the U.N. resolution, had just landed.

11. The NATO commander will be a three-star Canadian general.

12. The rebel tribes have re-captured several small cities between Benghazi and Syrte which is the center of the Ghaddafi tribal area and Libya’s oil-producing region.

13. Since enabling the rebel tribes to conquer the Ghaddafi tribe, even though it would mean gaining control of Libya’s oil production, would presumably produce a humanitarian disaster (this time in the other direction), it would appear that the NATO compromise between the U.S., France and Britain on the one hand, and the rest of the world, is an attempt to be impartial now that the U.S. has inserted itself and NATO into the Libyan Civil War.

14. Both State Secretary Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates stressed on both Meet the Press and Face the Nation that there has been no decision on whether to provide weapons to the rebel tribes.

15. The commentators seemed to think the lack of a decision whether to arm the rebel tribes is due to the fact that we know so little about them, other than the fact that so many of their members had left Libya to join Al Qaeda.

16. Although not mentioned by the commentators, it would appear that the lack of a decision is really due to a desire to calibrate the military strength of the rebel tribes so that an exact stalemate is achieved – because a blood bath either way would be a further disaster for the U.S. image throughout the Muslim world – it’s bad enough that television throughout the Muslim world has already been showing for the last week Western jets and cruise missiles bombing Muslims.

17. The obvious implication of such a military stalemate is that our intervention in the Libyan Civil War will produce a partition of Libya unless our psychological warfare (trade embargoes, threats of prosecution in the International Criminal Court, etc.) causes the Libyan Government to crumble.

18. Senator Richard Lugar continued to insist, as he has for many weeks, that our intervention in the Libyan Civil War requires a Congressional Declaration of War to square with the U.S. Constitution.

*****
Let’s see what President Obama has to say about all this when he addresses the nation this evening (Mon Mar 28)!!!

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

The Obama Doctrine = Pure Whim

Post by johnkarls »

.
[Originally posted by johnkarls » Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:02 pm]

Bob Woodward and Ted Koppel were right on Meet the Press last Sunday (as discussed above) that President Obama’s intervention in the Libyan Civil War is inexplicable – in the sense that he would not be able to provide a satisfactory explanation.

So what was President Obama’s policy that he “explained” to the nation???

Pure whim!!!

In other words, the Libyan Civil War presented a unique set of facts that will never be duplicated anywhere else!!!

He then cited quite a few different facts that comprised the unique set!!!

I’m not being critical!!!

President Obama’s non-explanation is actually very shrewd!!! He’s obviously very concerned that potential rebels in other countries might think that all they have to do is duplicate the facts of the Libyan Civil War and the U.S. will be obligated to support them – at least so long as President Obama remains in office!!!

So where do we go from here???

President Obama claimed that we are stepping back and letting NATO take control. Which, of course, is disingenuous because the United States is the proverbial “800-pound gorilla” that runs NATO and it’s still predominantly the same U.S. military forces that will now be commanded by a three-star Canadian general in a “look ma, no hands” routine!!!

Are we headed for disaster???

Probably!!!

I am guessing that the loyalist Libyan tribes will be emboldened by Muammar El Gaddafi’s “calling the bluff” of President Obama that he (Muammar) “must go”!!!

If my guess is correct, then we are facing two disasters.

The first is the public-relations disaster as Muslim television sets continue to show indefinitely U.S. military bombardment of Muslims in yet a third country.

The second disaster is a humanitarian one into which President Obama appears to be stumbling because he still fails to perceive the Libyan Civil War as a struggle between tribes!!! [Please see Thomas Friedman’s OpEd set forth above, confirming the point in my original proposal that the Libyan Civil War is a clash between warring tribes.]

So what’s the looming humanitarian disaster???

The U.S., Brits and French succeeded in bombing all of the Libyan Government’s tanks and artillery and supply lines and much of its infantry – that were closing in on the Benghazi stronghold of the rebel tribes.

The result is that the Libyan Government forces that were exposed on the 100 miles or so of highway leading to Benghazi were either destroyed or rendered impotent – leaving the road open for the 100 miles or so back to the territories of the loyalist tribes.

And what is the territory of the first loyalist tribe on the road back???

Why Muammar El Ghaddafi’s own Ghaddafi tribe, which has always occupied the central coastline and the oil fields.

Can the U.S. “cat’s paw” (i.e., NATO) refrain from exterminating the Ghaddafi tribe???

That, of course, is the crucial question!!!

Hillary Clinton engineered a U.N. resolution that angered The Arab League because, as discussed above, it went beyond the Arab League’s call for a “no fly zone” to provide for the use of “all necessary force to protect civilians”!!!

And are any members of the Ghaddafi tribe, including women and children and the elderly, “civilians”???

Of course not!!!

Muammar El Ghaddafi has bragged repeatedly that he has opened his armories so that ALL of the members of the loyalist tribes are able to defend Libya against the Western Crusaders.

[Which, incidentally, the Russian Foreign Minister is now also calling us – demonstrating that, as discussed above, Putin really is the supreme ruler of Russia!!!]

Unfortunately, Muammar El Ghaddafi has been bragging that he has armed everyone to prove that the Libyan Government is supported by the populace – because, if not, MEG would be “signing his own death warrant” by opening the armories!!!

Why unfortunate???

Because Hillary can now take the position that there are no “civilians” among the loyalist tribes!!!

Hopefully, the reason why Turkey and Germany withdrew their veto last Sunday over NATO assumption of the humanitarian military mission (as distinguished from NATO enforcement of the “no fly zone” to which they had agreed several days earlier) is to block the interpretation of the language of Hillary’s UN Resolution that there are no “civilians” among the loyalist tribes!!!

[If Turkey and Germany had not withdrawn their veto, then the U.S. would still be commanding (as well as executing) the bombing campaign so that Hillary’s presumed view would be much more likely to prevail.]

So now we wait to see whether NATO will spare the loyalist tribes even though they contain no “civilians”!!!

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Counting Chickens Before They Hatch

Post by johnkarls »

.
[Posted originally by johnkarls » Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:58 pm]

Do the loyalist Libyan tribes have as much grit as the British public in 1940???

The current British government obviously doesn’t think so!!!

For those of us who haven’t read “Berlin Diary” by William Shirer (who also wrote “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”), the “Battle of Britain” was a 3-month intense bombing campaign of British cities designed to provoke the badly-outnumbered Royal Air Force to attempt to defend the cities and, in the process, be destroyed so that the waiting German invasion force could cross the English channel with control of the skies.

[For the curious, Shirer reported that Prime Minister Winston Churchill saw through the Nazi strategy and, in order to prevent the Nazis from achieving mastery of the skies: (1) dispersed the RAF fighter aircraft around Britain to prevent more than a handful from being destroyed on the ground and (2) MADE IT A COURT-MARTIAL OFFENSE FOR ANY RAF FIGHTER PILOT TO ENGAGE GERMAN FIGHTER AIRCRAFT!!!]

So what has history taught us???

Sometimes attacks will cause a government to crumble, such as the French government after only a few weeks of Nazi attack.

Sometimes attacks will cause a people to “get their backs up” such as the British people in 1940.

Obviously, the current British government thinks the loyalist Libyan tribes are more like the French of 1940 rather than the British of 1940.

Why must it think that???

Because this week the British government is hosting a meeting with the representatives of more than 40 countries to decide how the rebel Libyan tribes should govern Libya AFTER THE LOYALIST LIBYAN TRIBES CRUMBLE – UNLIKE THE BRITISH OF 1940!!!

I won’t dwell on why the Brits decided to by-pass the United Nations which gave them their mandate to bomb Libya. Or how the Brits decided which countries to include in their exclusive conference.

Because I would like to focus on whether the U.S., Brits and French are “counting their chickens before they hatch”!!!

It strikes me that if the loyalist Libyan tribes “get their backs up” like the British of 1940, they could survive quite nicely the NATO embargo (which, like the “no fly zone,” IS AN ACT OF WAR UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW EVEN IF, LIKE THE “NO FLY ZONE,” IT IS A U.N.-SANCTIONED EMBARGO).

When “yours truly” was Senior Tax Counsel and Director of Worldwide Tax Planning for Texaco Inc. 1974-1987 when it was still a Fortune-Ten company, I was often in the Arab world. And “yours truly” was also a U.S. Naval Officer (unrestricted line) in the late 1960’s during the height of the build-up in Vietnam to 625,000 American military personnel IN-COUNTRY Vietnam. So I can attest that the NATO embargo of Libya will have little practical effect on the “backbone” of the loyalist Libyan tribes if they decide to “get their backs up.”

One key is that Libya shares borders with Algeria to the west, and Niger and Chad to the south. The border with Algeria is quite long but does not reach all the way to the Mediterranean because there Algeria and Libya sandwich the tiny country of Tunisia (aka Carthage in Roman days).

Another key is that if the NATO military mission is successful, a “rump state” comprising the rebel Libyan tribes will have been created in the eastern third of the country THAT HAS NO OIL BUT HAS APPROXIMATELY 20% OF THE POPULATION.

A third key is that Libya produces (per the CIA World Factbook) approximately 1,790 thousand barrels/day of oil (plus the oil equivalent of 256 thousand barrels/day of natural gas), of which it exported before the rebellion 1,542 thousand barrels/day of oil (plus the oil equivalent of 168 thousand barrels/day of natural gas).

Accordingly, post-rebellion the Libyan Government has an extra approx. 60 thousand barrels/day of oil to export because it no longer needs to supply the approximately 20% of the Libyan population comprising the rebel tribes that now live in the oil-poor “rump state.”

So the question is whether the Libyan Government can export 1,602 thousand barrels/day and obtain the same amount of revenue that it previously generated from exporting only 1,542 thousand barrels/day.

First, let’s remember that oil-rich Algeria was one of two Arab countries that VOTED AGAINST the Arab League’s 3/12/2011 request for other countries to establish a “no fly zone” over Libya. And that “dirt poor” land-locked Niger and Chad, though both have majority Muslim populations, are NOT members of the Arab League.

Moreover, even if all three countries had supported the “no fly zone” – (1) such support is usually meaningless (“please go attack someone else while I suppress my own people” a la Syria, Yemen and the Gulf State Six which, in their guise as the Gulf Cooperation Council, invaded Bahrain in order, inter alia, to intimidate their own populations), and (2) unfortunately, it never takes much financial incentive anywhere in the world to overcome principles.

So what’s the new modus vivendi???

The Libyan Government begins exporting OVERLAND WITH 18-WHEELER TANKERS its 1,602 thousand barrels/day of oil to Algeria and Niger at enough of a price discount that they “leap at the deal”!!!

Yes, it might take Algeria a month or so to import enough 18-wheeler tank trucks to handle the job for the Libya-to-Algeria oil stream – and either re-sell a few to Niger or provide the transportation service for Niger. But the tank trucks are probably already on order if not already shipped.

[To make the math easy, assume 1,000 barrels per 18-wheeler tank trailer and a round-trip can be made in 24 hours, so we are probably talking 1,602 18-wheeler tank trucks to achieve pre-rebellion Libyan export volumes plus exporting the rebel tribes’ oil. These tank trucks will not be obsolete when the U.N. embargo of Libya finally lapses because they can be resold at that time to other countries and, to some extent, absorbed by the Libyan truck fleet that hauls refined products within Libya.]

Transporting the Libyan oil to Algeria presents NATO with two problems.

The first is that Algeria already exports 1,891 thousand barrels/day of oil and consumes 326 thousand barrels/day, so it could always take the position that approximately 20% of the Libyan crude is being used internally and only 80% is increasing Algerian exports.

The second is that NATO will probably “think twice” before it decides to embargo 3.4 million barrels/day of combined Libyan/Algerian oil exports from Algerian ports. After all, that’s approximately 40% of the oil exports from Saudi Arabia and embargoing that volume would probably drive the price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. to the $15-$20 range.

So will NATO (that is, the U.S., Brits and French) bomb the 18 wheelers as part of the U.N. arms embargo???

I am guessing that the text of the U.N. resolution would permit such bombing.

But would it be effective – (1) militarily, (2) economically, and (3) in terms of the public-relations disaster it would comprise???

*****
(1) Militarily –

Merely bombing the roads would be ineffectual.

After all, an oil refinery is nothing more than a “moonshine still” at which various refined products are boiled off at different temperatures (kerosene or AvJet first, all the way at higher temperatures to “resid” aka heating oil aka diesel fuel). And “resid” is a misnomer because the moniker had long been in use before the industry realized that the real residual could be called asphalt and used for paving roads!!!

So all that is required is to include a few asphalt trucks in each convoy of 18-wheeler tank trucks to make immediate repairs for any road damage from bombing.

*****
(2) Cost Effectiveness of Strafing/Bombing 18-Wheelers –

I am guessing that mere strafing would not ignite the oil in an 18-wheeler tank truck, but simply cause leaks that could be patched on the spot.

Whether or not bombing is required, good strategy would dictate that the 18-wheelers in each convoy be spaced sufficiently far apart that each will have to be bombed (or strafed) separately.

Accordingly, it will probably be more costly for the U.S., Brits and French to destroy 18-wheeler tankers than the cost inflicted on Libya from the loss of the trucks.

From the viewpoint of Libya, the costs inflicted might still come out of the economic value of the extra 60 thousand barrels/day of oil discussed above (in addition to the price discounts which should be minimal and the already-discussed economic disadvantage of using 18 wheelers).

From the viewpoint of U.S., British and French politicians, how long will their voters tolerate the cost of such futile expenditures.

*****
(3) The Public-Relations Disaster –

Even if the U.S., Brits and French (or other NATO nations) decide to incur the cost of strafing/bombing 18-wheeler tank trucks, how would that look on TV sets across the Muslim world???

The obvious theme???

Western Crusaders (which is what Russia has already been calling us) attack oil deliveries by Libya to their Arab brothers!!!

The obvious sub-text???

The Western Crusaders really did attack Libya to get control of Libya’s oil!!!

Another obvious sub-text???

The reader might have noticed that the discussion above mentioned “dirt poor” land-locked Niger and Chad to the south of Libya. Chad (per capita income = $1,800/year) actually produces oil at the rate of a paltry 115 thousand barrels/day almost all of which is exported, but Niger (per capita income = $700/year) has no oil & gas and imports approximately 6 thousand barrels/day.

The NATO bombing of 18-wheel tank trucks would have to take place in Libya before the Algerian border or NATO would be ATTACKING YET ANOTHER ARAB COUNTRY!!!

However, it is not until over the border inside Algeria that there is reached the fork in the road going north to Algeria’s coastal region or, alternatively, south to Niger.

So the second obvious sub-text on TV sets across the Muslim world is that whichever 18-wheel tank trucks were destroyed by the NATO bombing were the ones bound for “dirt poor” Niger!!!

**********
Regardless of how soon (if ever) this topic is selected for discussion, we’ll have plenty of time to see how this all plays out.

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

MacNeil-Lehrer Fails To Understand Islam

Post by johnkarls »

.
[Posted originally by johnkarls » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:06 pm]

MacNeil-Lehrer (aka the PBS News Hour With Jim Lehrer) should be embarrassed!!!

Any self-respecting news organization would comprehend the meaning of what they are transmitting!!!

The problem???

Last evening (Wed Mar 30), their lead piece reported on the flight of the Libyan rebels back toward Benghazi, surrendering all of the 100 or so miles that they had just captured.

But in doing so, a teenager with a knife was interviewed. He was asked what good a knife would be against tanks. He smiled and said something about Allah. He was then asked whether his mother knew where he was and what he was doing. He smiled that she did indeed know and had approved!!!

The obvious intent behind the vignette was to “prove” that the rebels love democracy and will fight against overwhelming odds because of that love!!!

But is that what the vignette actually showed???

We have discussed many times how every good Muslim believes in a Judgment Day on which s/he will be prosecuted by Avenging Angels!!!

But that every MARTYR and 72 close relatives and friends AVOID THE JUDGMENT DAY AND GO DIRECTLY TO HEAVEN!!!

That is why, as we have often discussed, if Western TV shows the family and relatives of a Muslim who has been killed, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Gaza, etc., etc., the family and relatives ARE ALWAYS REJOICING!!!

And as we have often discussed, Islam has no “Pope” so every cleric has the power to opine that a particular conflict is a “Holy War” in which anyone killed will achieve MARTYR STATUS!!!

No wonder the teenager in the MacNeil-Lehrer vignette looked so happy!!!

And assuming the truth of his claim that his mother knew where he was and approved, is it any wonder that she did???

MacNeil-Lehrer’s lead piece which included the vignette, was provided by Independent Television News (ITN).

However, that does not absolve MacNeil-Lehrer from broadcasting a vignette that will deceive their viewers!!!

It’s the same in theory as if MacNeil-Lehrer had broadcast without comment a claim that “all Jews drink the blood of Christian babies” – a claim that has often been made historically, particularly by Roman Catholic clerics, followed by pogroms of the local Jewish community.

Is it too much to expect MacNeil-Lehrer to have a knowledgeable person on their own staff review what they intend to broadcast and excerpt anything the knowledgeable person knows will be misunderstood by the viewer???

MacNeil-Lehrer should not be permitted to get away with, in effect, broadcasting a clip from ITN claiming that “all Jews drink the blood of Christian babies” and then piously attempting to shift the blame to ITN!!!

Incidentally, if the ITN interviewer had been competent, her first question would have been “I see you have only a knife, so are you trying to become a martyr?” followed up with a second question = “What do you and your mother hope to receive in exchange for your martyrdom?”

Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

Miscellaneous Observations

Post by Pat »

.
[Posted originally by Pat » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:33 pm]

Several observations are in order at this point.

**********
Civilians

John Karls’ points about (1) whether the loyalist Libyan tribes will “get their backs up” and (2) whether Muammar El Ghaddafi’s opening the armories to all of the members of the loyalist Libyan tribes will mean all of their women, children and elderly are “fair game” under the U.N. resolution which protects only “civilians” – require mulling at this point.

At the moment, the members of the Ghaddafi tribe are indeed rolling back the rebel tribes from their advance on the coastal Ghaddafi town in which Muammar El Ghaddafi was born – rolling them back the hundred miles or so back to where the NATO bombing of Libyan government tanks and artillery had halted the attack on Benghazi and causing a battle royale within the Obama administration whether to provide arms and training personnel to the rebel tribes.

So at least the Ghaddafi tribe have “gotten their backs up”!!! At least for now!!!

And in TV interviews of rebels during their panic and flight, they are complaining that Muammar El Ghaddafi has armed “civilians”!!!

So Muammar El Ghaddafi has indeed opened the armories to the members of the loyalist Libyan tribes!!!

[About which he had been bragging as irrefutable evidence that he does have the support of the rank-and-file members of the loyalist tribes, but which has exposed the rank-and-file loyalist women, children and elderly to “non-civilian” status under the U.N. resolution.]

**********
The 3/12/2011 Arab League “No Fly Zone” Resolution

Yesterday, John Karls made the point that such a resolution “is usually meaningless ('please go attack someone else while I suppress my own people' a la Syria, Yemen and the Gulf State Six which, in their guise as the Gulf Cooperation Council, invaded Bahrain in order, inter alia, to intimidate their own populations).”

After all, the Arab League has only 22 members and the 8 listed above are actively shooting dissidents!!!

Moreover, 2 members (Algeria and Syria) opposed the resolution.

And the 12 remaining members of the total of 22 (22 minus 8 actively shooting dissidents minus Algeria and Libya) were probably taking out insurance that the U.S., Brits and French would be bogged down with Libya in the event that any of the remaining 12 members should feel compelled to shoot their dissidents.

**********
Al Jazeera

Link TV (channel 375 on Direct TV in SLC) carries once or twice a day a 30-minute news roundup from Al Jazeera.

If one DVR’s the Al Jazeera programs to keep tabs on what they are broadcasting (similarly to the way one reads the Wall Street Journal to keep tabs on what they are saying), ONE COULD EASILY BE FOOLED ABOUT THE AL JAZEERA ATTITUDE TOWARD THE LIBYAN IMBROGLIO!!!

As just discussed in the immediately-preceding section, it is doubtful that The Arab League passed its “no fly zone” resolution for any reason other than to distract the U.S., Britain and France while they shoot their own people. [Though Muammar El Ghaddafi was obviously selected as the victim because he was the least popular member of “the club.”]

Does Al Jazeera mirror the intent of The Arab League to distract the “Western Crusaders”???

Of course, if the viewer is alert!!!

Prior to the 3/12/2011 Arab League “no fly zone” resolution, the Al Jazeera news roundups on Link TV featured announcers speaking Arabic with a voice-over English translation that did not drown out the Arabic speaker.

Since the 3/12/2011 Arab League resolution, the Al Jazeera news roundups have featured only announcers speaking English with British accents!!! And using terms obviously intended to inflame Westerners such as calling the Libyan rebel tribes “pro-democracy forces”!!!

Allah only knows what Al Jazeera calls them in its programs aimed at the Muslim TV market!!!

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

The Resurrection of Charlie Wilson

Post by johnkarls »

.
[Posted originally by johnkarls » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:16 pm]

President Obama apparently believes that nobody watches Tom Hanks - Julia Roberts movies!!!

Or that movie fans have short memories!!!

Even though three OTHER Oscar winners and an Oscar-nominee were also involved in the Tom Hanks – Julia Roberts movie =

(1) Philip Seymour Hoffman (Oscar for his portrayal of Truman Capote);

(2) Mike Nichols (Oscar for directing The Graduate plus Oscar nominations for Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Silkwood, Working Girl, and The Remains of the Day);

(3) Aaron Sorkin (author of the Broadway play “A Few Good Men” and the movie script starring Tom Cruise, and creator/script-writer of TV’s West Wing series, etc., etc. – and 2011 Oscar for writing the “Best Adapted Screenplay” for The Social Network);

(4) Amy Adams (three Oscar nominations = Junebug, Doubt and The Fighter).

Short memories???

Yes, because “Charlie Wilson’s War” was released only 4 years ago in 2007.

So why is this posting entitled “The RESURRECTION of Charlie Wilson”???

Because Charlie Wilson (6/1/1933 – 2/10/2010) is the Congressman who virtually single-handedly enabled the Afghan freedom fighters in the 1980’s to expel 110 thousand Soviet troops from Afghanistan by arming them with Russian weapons manufactured in Egypt, the Soviet Union’s long-time ally before the historic Egypt-Israel peace treaty in the late 1970’s.

And because we are witnessing a “resurrection” of one of Charlie Wilson’s crucial ideas!!!

Though Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) received the idea from CIA Agent Philip Seymour Hoffman (more about that in a moment).

What motivated Tom Hanks to arm the Afghans???

Love for a woman!!! Julia Roberts!!!

And who tutored Tom Hanks on how to enable the Afghans to defeat the Soviet army???

CIA agent Philip Seymour Hoffman!!!

HE MADE THE ESSENTIAL POINT (AMONG OTHERS) THAT WHEN YOU ARM SOMEONE, YOU HAVE TO DO SO WITHOUT LEAVING FINGER PRINTS!!! DENIABILITY!!!

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE TO DO IT WITH NON-AMERICAN WEAPONS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM ANOTHER SOURCE, SO THAT FRIENDLY MEDIA CAN CAST SUSPICIAN ELSEWHERE!!!

Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman armed the Afghans with Soviet weapons manufactured in Egypt!!! Deniability was provided by the fact that the Soviet weapons Tom and Phil provided could have been captured in Afghanistan from the Soviet troops themselves by the Afghans!!!

**********
So how does all that relate to what President Obama has been doing with more American “boots on the ground” in Libya since at least the end of March that he hasn’t even admitted yet??? [He has not admitted either the “boots” conducting the training mission or the “boots” busy arming the rebels!!!]

Laurence Lee reported on Al Jazeera on Sat Apr 2 that modern heat-seeking Russian Katyusha rockets were now being used by Libyan rebels --

(1) who had just graduated on Thursday March 31st from a training camp in Eastern Libya run by American and Egyptian active-duty Special Ops personnel,

(2) who had received their instruction on how to use the Katyusha rockets from the American and Egyptian active-duty Special Ops personnel at that training camp, and

(3) who were receiving their Katyusha rockets for use on the Libyan loyalist tribes from the American and Egyptian active-duty Special Ops personnel.

Where in Libya were the Katyusha rockets being fired???

At the oil refinery port of Brega, to which the rebels had pushed back after surrendering it a few days earlier.

So why use American and Egyptian active-duty Special Ops personnel and Katyusha rockets???

Obviously as discussed in the second posting above (“NATO Resisting Obama’s ‘Hand Off’”), Germany and Turkey would be outraged over an American violation of U.N. Resolution 1973 which only authorizes a “no fly zone” and the protection of the Libyan civilian population. Media reports indicated that Germany and Turkey (and other NATO members) WERE EXERCISING THEIR VETOES over the American-French-British attempt to have NATO take over the UN humanitarian mission and that strict adherence to U.N. Resolution 1973 was their price for not exercising the veto that every NATO member wields. Because at least Turkey was already feeling the sting of television sets across the Muslim World constantly showing American-French-British planes attacking Muslims.

And German and Turkey weren’t likely to “buy” the presumed-position of Hillary Clinton (discussed in the immediately-preceding posting above entitled “Miscellaneous Observations”) that Muammar El Gaddafi’s throwing open the Libyan-government armories to the Libyan loyalist tribes means that their children, women and elderly are no longer “civilians.”

And the strategic significance???

If the Libyan rebels can capture from the Gaddafi tribe the oil fields and the oil refinery port of Brega, then a partition of Libya would mean that the rebel tribes now have the economically-viable state and the loyalist tribes have the economic-basket-case state!!!

[Please see my discussion of Libyan partition if the Libyan loyalist tribes retain all of the oil fields which are located in the area that has always been the home of the Ghaddafi tribe. (The discussion is contained in the third posting immediately above entitled “Counting Chickens Before They Hatch.”)]

Capturing the oil fields with Katyusha rockets supplied by America and Egypt with training by American and Egyptian active-duty Special Ops personnel would probably mean that the loyalist tribes would have to surrender to the rebel tribes.

So will President Obama succeed in impersonating Tom Hanks???

Of course not!!!

Turkish citizens receive Al Jazeera whether or not Germany does!!!

And President Obama’s betraying Turkey will be obvious for all of the Muslim World to see since the rest of the Muslim World also receives Al Jazeera!!!

The bottom-line questions???

In using American and Egyptian active-duty Special Ops “Boots On The Ground” to arm and train the Libyan rebel fighters with modern heat-seeking Katyusha rockets manufactured in Egypt, why does President Obama apparently think his sole concern is whether he can fool the American media and, as a result, American citizens???

Shouldn’t he be more concerned with how America is perceived in the Muslim World where Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov are already preaching that the attack on Libya is an “AMERICAN Medieval Crusade” to get control of Libya’s oil??? [Which is precisely what using the Katyusha rockets at this stage of the fighting is designed to do, whether or not that design is successful.]

Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

US Defense Sec’y Gates Chewed Out By Saudi King Abdullah???

Post by Pat »

.
[Posted originally by Pat » Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:33 pm]

As set forth in the postings above, all of our foreign policy experts have said from before the U.S. invasion of Libya, that the U.S. has no vital interests in Libya and we should never get involved in their Civil War.

As also set forth, the Obama foreign policy and the American media have only succeeded in “throwing under the bus” staunch American allies (for example, Egyptian President Mubarek) and don’t have a prayer of toppling American adversaries (for example, Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei).

And that it is “rolling the dice” at best to support pro-democracy uprisings when polls throughout the Muslim world have always shown and continue to show that the U.S. is LOATHED by the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

All this as background.


*****
So why does Meet the Press’ David Gregory keep talking about a “rupture” in relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia???

And why would the Obama Administration provoke a “rupture”???

Particularly since Saudi Arabia, as the world’s largest oil exporter, is at the top of the list of U.S. vital interests???

So what’s the issue???

The Saudis have been engaging in Realpolitik!!!

Suppressing the uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen – but financing and arming the uprising in Syria!!!

Which is precisely what the U.S. would have been doing (while ignoring insignificant Libya) under Bush II, Bill Clinton, Bush I and Reagan!!!

Who was the “accuser” that this is what the Saudis have been doing???

Tehran Iran’s Al Alam TV (per their report included yesterday, Wed Apr 6th, in Mosaic World News From The Middle East on Link TV, which also carries daily a separate Al Jazeera news program).

Credible???

Of course!!!

Because numerous reports from other sources have said that Iran has been supporting the OPPOSITE SIDES FROM THE SAUDIS in all three countries.

And, OF COURSE, both the Saudis and the Iranians have been ignoring insignificant Libya.

Though Iran is NOT ignoring Egypt!!!

The same Al Alam report said that Egypt has agreed to establish diplomatic relations with Iran!!! Relations that have not existed since the Shah of Iran was “thrown under the bus” by Jimmy Carter in 1979!!!


*****
So is Meet the Press’ David Gregory correct that there has been a “rupture” in U.S.-Saudi relations???

On Sat March 12th, US Defense Sec’y Gates was in Bahrain lecturing the Bahrain King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa (i.e., Hamad, son of Isa The Khalif) that he should make numerous significant concessions to mollify his Shiite majority (Iran, Iraq and tiny Bahrain are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiite majorities – Shiites are only tiny minorities in the other Arab countries).

On Mon March 14th, Saudi Arabia (under cover of a resolution of the Gulf State Cooperation Council) sent its army into Bahrain to begin shooting dissidents while excluding Western media. Every so often, there are brief verbal-only reports smuggled out of Bahrain about the ensuing suppression, which seems to have been successful.

The week of Mon March 21st, US State Sec’y Clinton and Defense Sec’y Gates were in the Middle East and were scheduled to meet with Saudi King Abdullah.

[King Abdullah is the fifth son of the original King Saud to become King. King Abdullah has ruled Saudi 1996-2005 as regent for his half-brother King Fahd who suffered a debilitating stroke, and since 2005 as King outright.]

King Abdullah cancelled the meeting with Hillary and Gates!!!

Accordingly, on Meet the Press on Sun March 27th, David Gregory noted in his interview with Clinton and Gates that King Abdullah had snubbed them and suggested that there was a “rupture” (Gregory’s term) in U.S.-Saudi relations. Clinton and Gates denied there was a “rupture.”

On Sun April 3rd, David Gregory again claimed that there was a “rupture” (using that term again) in U.S.-Saudi relations.

Yesterday (Wed April 6th), the MacNeil-Lehrer Report (aka The PBS News Hour With Jim Lehrer) casually mentioned that Defense Sec’y Gates had met earlier in the day with Saudi King Abdullah.

But no mention of what was discussed!!!

My bet???

Two days earlier, Mon April 4th, the Obama Administration announced that it was “throwing under the bus” its long-time ally, Yemen President Saleh who is being supported militarily by the Saudis!!!

It would appear that Saudi King Abdullah now realized that snubs are not sufficient!!!

That if Saudi King Abdullah wants to ensure that Obama “gets the message” that King Abdullah does NOT want any interference with his military support for President Saleh’s suppression, King Abdullah will just have to “call on the carpet” Defense Sec’y Gates and “chew him up one side and down the other”!!!

Anyone want to take my bet???

Post Reply

Return to “Original Proposal -- Real Politik (aka National Interest) and Libya vs. Iran -- Feb 8th”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest