Monday, March 21, 2011

The War Party's Nemesis

This guy has taken up the cudgel in hopes that a dose of common sense might prevail.

But the War Party (Krauthammer, Kristol, Wolfowitz, et al) are a hardened target, and they are accustomed to rolling over Presidents, Congressional 'leaders', and ordinary US citizens with minimal effort.

The fun part is how he makes it clear that the War Party has......ahhhhh........a severe case of Confusion-About-Principles:

Fresh from getting bogged down in what is fast approaching a decade-long failed military occupation in Afghanistan, approaching the eight-year mark in the failed military occupation of Iraq, the Obama administration has now revealed its submission to the insane neocon foreign policy of its predecessor by preparing for military strikes on Libya.

Let us be clear about this: There is no more national security interest at stake in Libya than there was in Afghanistan or Iraq. The rationalizations being cited could just as easily be used to justify an invasion of Bahrain, Yemen, North Korea or even China. What is the difference, after all, between Gaddafi's mercenaries marching on Benghazi and Yemeni snipers picking off 52 protesters in Sanaa? At least the Libyan rebels are armed. And does anyone believe that Libya would have been justified in bombing the United States over the federal slaughter of 76 Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas?

I would quibble a bit: there is LESS National Security interest in Libya than there was in Iraq. The 'stan? Probably not as significant as Iraq.

(Iraq gets a nod because it is proximate to a significant security-interest: Saudi Arabia. The 'stan gets a zero because goat herds have been grown domestically with no trouble at all.)

The argument is made that "the US must be the leader in ......ahhh......well........DOING stuff" to Bad Guys, or something. As Vox makes clear, Bad Guys abound. How does Obama select Gadafy? By spinning a bottle?

But the US budget does not "abound." In fact, pushing ~$100 million of Tomahawks across a large sandbox in 3 hours or so is a good way to "abound" the ChiComs' Treasury securities, and little else.

UPDATE: Sullivan spots the real reason for intervention: emotions.

Oh, well, then, it's all good. /sarcasm


GOR said...

Back to tribes and democracy. Many people don’t seem to be able to handle a republic or democracy. For the most part it appears they don’t self-identify with the country in which they live. Their loyalties are to smaller entities such as religious factions, tribes or families. Historically, many have survived only under a strong ruler, king, or party.

This is true of many Muslim and African countries today. But some other more ‘developed’ countries are not far removed from this – Spain, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece - to name a few. And it can be extended to others such as France, Germany and all the former Soviet ‘republics’ as well. Once the strong ruler was gone, chaos ensued (Victor Emmanuel, Mussolini, Bismarck, Hitler, assorted Emperors, Napoleon, Tito, Franco etc.). I’m not sure how many successive Italian governments there have been since WWII, but when I lived there in the 60s the number stood at 33…

Some countries might be better served with a ‘benign despot’ who has the interests of his countrymen at heart. But they are in short supply – as we see with various Gulf states which are now throwing money at their people to stave off revolutions. Why weren’t they using their oil profits to improve the lives of all their citizens? Instead we see the ruling classes in those states enriching themselves and their ‘extended families’ (Saudi Arabia comes to mind) at the expense of the rest of the population.

So the chickens are coming home to roost – but the US doesn’t have to be in the hen-house.

Dad29 said...

I tend to agree.

When we're down to the point of anointing TRIBE leadership, we're in deep trouble.

Let Sarkozy do that if it makes him feel good.

Anonymous said...

Starting to look like a state of perpetual war to me.

I would like to know why the United States military is involved in bombing another country when there has been no congressional approval or no congressional declaration of war. Yeah, who needs the Constitution?

I'd also like to know what Libya has to do with us. Is the United States supposed to prevent all world evils now? One word: Ridiculous.

John Foust said...

So Dad29, you're going to become an anti-war blog?

Anonymous said...

I'm starting an anti-Foust blog:

Anonymous said...

Hey, thanks Dad29 for enabling an extremist, lunatic righty to spew venom.

I'm sure if it was a lefty nutjob, you would be calling for their head. But since it's one of your boyyzzz doing the dirty work for you, no harm = no foul.