We bombed Qaddafi’s forces because they were killing civilians. So Qaddafi’s forces began dressing like civilians. So the rebels began killing civilians. So NATO is warning the rebels not to kill civilians, otherwise NATO will bomb the rebels. But the rebels are dressed like civilians.So NATO may end up killing civilians.
In other news, the administration continues to debate arming the rebels who are dressed like civilians. But Qaddafi’s forces are also dressed like civilians. So we may be arming Qaddafi’s forces who are killing civilians while we also bomb the rebels who are killing civilians and bombing civilians who really are civilians but look like Qaddafi’s forces who are killing civilians.
Who’s on first?
No one. Osama bin Laden, first up to bat, hit a homerun with this one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemaybe we can outfit the weapons we give the "rebels" with remote self destruct devices so if they shoot at "civilians" we can remote detonate them ... saves on cruise missles ...
I wonder what the "rebel" ROE is and more importantly has it been vetted by the UN Human Rights council.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd you will be bombing persons dressed like civilians, who may or may not be Qaddafi’s forces, but either way, their torn bodies will be displayed by Qaddafi’s forces on Al Jazeera as civilians killed by the Americans ("Look how they are dressed! He was just a baker! Here is his neighbor, who will tell you say so!").
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKill 'em all, cause a run on celestial virgins, and then let Allah sort it out.
OK, maybe not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYet another in a series of "It Gives Me No Pleasure, But I Told You So"...
(and "we", I'm not the only one who pointed this likelihood out weeks ago) The bad guys know our ROE, and so they operate in a way to frustrate our military, and to then blame resulting casualties on us. These Tribalists are just as bad as Qaddafi, and they are operating under the age-old principle of The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend. If they somehow manage to get their act together, and take Tripoli, we will see killings of pro-Qaddafi loyalsts...civilians. It's just a matter of time, and it has probably already happened, but has gone unreported in the chaos.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA civil war in which outsiders have committed to preventing civilian casualties? Civilians have nothing to do with it?
If civilians aren't behind this conflict, who is? Are there no mothers or fathers who encourage their sons to fight? Does no one feed, house, or equip the fighters? They just spring up spontaneously out of population centers peopled entirely by innocent civilians? Who raised these boys to behave like that? And if the rebels don't have civilian support - why are we helping them?
If our primary goal is protecting the innocent, why not protect innocent military personnel as well. Do Kadafi's fighting soldiers really understand
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhat they're fighting for? Probably most of them are just poor young men with no better options open to them than to serve in Momar's army of evil. Even the
ones that fervently support Momar's regime and hate the rebels are really just misinformed. They're being manipulated and don't understand what's really going on. We can't be so heartless as to rain death on these poor benighted souls? We need to send in some social workers and community organizers.
Gaddafi has 'run' things for 42 years, quite normal people are sick of him.
item; Link below to Libyan opposition statement re. islamic extremism.
item; Link below to reporting re. pro-western Benghazi opposition.
External Link
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo now we are hearing from some reporters on the ground that the actual number of rebels who are fighting may be as few as 1,000.
If the insurrection is so small, it raises the question whether it is really credible that absent the Libya War, there was sober reason to believe Qaddafi would have slaughtered tens of thousands in suppressing the insurrection.
Was Obama simply taken in by giving too much credence to typical Arab over-the-top bombastic rhetoric from Qaddafi, amplified by a shrieking mainstream media? Or is there a less benign explanation - did Obama have accurate intelligence as to the actual weakness of the resistance against Qaddafi, but has another agenda for the war that has not been explained?
If the humanitarian rationale really is the sole moral principle animating the war, will more civilian casualties end up being caused by Obama's escalation of military action than would have resulted from Qaddafi's suppression of the rebellion?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom an "increase the contradictions" point of view, it's going quite well. The president must be pleased, for the moment. There is more and better to come.
It's interesting that both Obama and Bob Gates have slipped their collars at the opposite ends of their mutual leash. It's dawning on Gates how useful he's been, something Obama knew when he kept Gates on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey Blackburn, thanks for the very interesting links. I wonder if the "Interim Transitional National Council's" "Statement on Counter-Terrorism" has as much a relationship to reality as its map of the rebels' territorial holdings -- External Link
-- i.e., *none*. Seriously, I hope you're not silly enough to believe this web site's camel doody.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis situation manifests the underlying problem with the "responsibility to protect" doctrine. Who are the "innocent civilians"?
If the RTP doctrine is really about genocide, seems to me this is a terrible justification for this, uh, action. Both sides of the conflict (except for us Euro-genotype invaders) are the same "race", so even if one side puts the other to the sword, the survivors/winners are the same race. No genocide.
I originally thought this was all about setting a precedent of sending our military to fight the UN's wars at our nation's expense, but it's more than that. It's also about setting the precedent of going in based on RTP so the UN can eventually send our military into Israel to defend the Palestinians. (Basically what GB has been saying, and it resonates.)
I wonder why the Left would be so eager to eradicate Israel when so many Jews are Leftists. Maybe bigotry doesn't have to make sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuserimfrel - The biggest safeguard against the US military being placed at the disposal of this loose alliance between transnational progressives and muslim regimes to enforce R2P in places like Israel is the U.S. Congress.
The U.S. Congress, if required to vote on it, will not authorize the US military to attack Israel at the behest of Hamas and the "international community."
For me, an even bigger disappointment than seeing the editors of NR cheerlead this war is the failure by conservative intellectuals to come out strongly to protect the constitutional prerogative of Congress to declare war.
Conservatives even tolerate advocates for presidential imperialism among us, completely contrary to everything conservatives stand for, to our republican form of government and to what the Framers believed they had provided for.
Even if the arguments of the legal charlatans prevail as they seem to be doing, I have no doubt that the American people would OVERWHELMINGLY support a constitutional amendment to clarify that only Congress can authorize the non-defensive use of force to attack another country.
To my mind, this incredibly bad precedent is the most dangerous aspect of all in this entire foolish endeavor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWalt Kelley from 60 years ago...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You can't be too careful. When you see someone coming, just shoot them."
"But, how can you tell if it's a friend or an enemy?"
"You turn them over with your foot."
This is why air strikes are never enough. Poor discrimination and lots of collateral damage, even in the age of smart bombs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGates should just say: We will do nothing meaningful in Libya.
@Rimfrel
Regarding the comment about using the US military to attack Israel under the new UN rule to protect. As a USMC Special Ops for 8 years in the 80's and 90's, there is no way our military would heed that order if it did come.
I can see them deploying, and upon arrival in Israel facing outbound in every direction to hit anything that decided to come inbound and in effect doubling or tripling the firepower of Israel in an instant.
You could not find enough whacky liberal commanders to enforce what would be viewed as an act of treason by any President giving such an order. It would be similar to attacking England or Australia or Canada, it would never happen under any circumstances, even if the order was given by the President. He would probably be arrested within the hour and deposed of all Presidential authority.
Obama is obviously playing his games, but there are certain games he is incapable of playing as those that answer to him also have brains of their own, and a command such as attacking Israel would be about as absurd as declaring war on Arizona. He can sue Arizona, and play games with Arizona, but imagine if he sent in troops to Arizona? Arizona would instantly have a larger military defense as no American military personnel would heed such an order, but would dig defensive positions in Arizona until someone relieved such a President of their duty.
He is a politician, and a very left of left to the degree we have never seen politician, but he is still a politician at the end of the day. He is not a god, an emperor, the all powerful, or anything other than a politician. He is obviously a liar, corrupt, and has the demise of America and our allies as his true agenda, but we already know this. If you think these NRO boards are conservative and have not served in the military (at least the Marine Corps) you have not seen conservative. They will follow all orders given by Obama just as they would Bush, but the minute the order is a use of force against an ally perceived as a 51st State, such as England, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Yes some have liberal, socialist or silly issues, but our military would not heed an order against these countries as they are considered 100% allies. Germany, France, Italy, and a few others are 50%. Turkey, Phillipines (sp), Bahrain, and a few others are strategic.
I also think GB is thinking correctly, but that doesn't mean Obummer would have a chance in you know what to pull it off, but he and Soros can dream, ah to dream of remaking the entire world into a form of your own choosing. Soros clock is ticking into his wee hours, so desperation is afoot, expect a whole lot of games before 2012 elections. Anything to create marshal law at least.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeace through superior firepower!!!
I haven't thought about that nugget since I was in High school in the '80s! Then it was a left leaning rant against Reagan and his (supposed) warmongering.
But it really applies to this situation - we will, through our superior firepower, and from a safe distance, maintain the peace no matter who or what we have to bomb to do so. And this applies to the most left leaning president, not Reagan! The irony is delicious!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI found this about two weeks ago and published it on many blogs: West Point Counter Terrorism Center’s “Sinjar Records” at External Link
These “rebels” are fanatical Islamic jihadists closely allied with al Qaeda.
Another interesting piece: Obama – House of Saud nexus at External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuoted from & linked to at my blog:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
WillH and RealityCheck -- thanks, I feel better. I support the military and in some ways consider it our best hope of avoiding becoming a totalitarian state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse