Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Incoherence Abounds

Chris Matthews and Lawrence O’Donnell have had various “experts” on their shows talking about our UN mandate to protect civilians, and then going on to describe how we should “arm the rebels” or “sell arms to the rebels.” What part of “arms embargo” do they not understand? The UN resolution under which we are operating is very specific in stating that the arms embargo imposed earlier remains in force and that it applies to both sides of what clearly is a civil war.

Chris Matthews is indignant about the concept that “since we have not done it everywhere we cannot do it anywhere,” referring to the prevention of the slaughter of thousands, but he misses the point. The point is that since we have never done it before there is considerable reason to suspect our motives when we choose to do it now.

There is even more reason to be suspicious when in the cases where we chose not to do it there was visible evidence of hundreds of thousands of dead, and in this case there is no visible evidence of any dead at all other than the casualties incurred in the fighting. We have the word of a Libyan diplomat who has turned against Gaddafi, and we have the ranting of a lunatic about “going door to door to exterminate vermin,” but I can find no published evidence that mass killings have actually been seen in Libya at this point.

So we are putting our national reputation and our military on the line based on a combination of rumors spread by a disaffected diplomat and the insane ranting of a mad man?

The stated reason for our mission is to “protect civilians” but does that make any sense at all when we also say that we are going to be there only for a few days and then we will leave? Would anyone settle for a San Diego Police Department that said they would only work for one week and then consider that the population of San Diego no longer needed protection?

Is that mission consistent with Obama and Clinton repeatedly saying that Gaddafi must be evicted from control? Is their insistence on Gaddafi’s exit consistent with the concept that we are operating under a UN resolution, when that resolution specifically prohibits any effort to eject Gaddafi?

Obamabots claim that he did not need the approval of Congress for this “limited military action” because it is not actually a “war.” Right. Let Russia lob 142 cruise missiles onto New York and Washington while their leadership is screaming that Obama must be taken down and that they hope he is killed by a missile, and tell me you would not call that a “war.”

So we’re going to prevent a civilian slaughter for which there is no concrete evidence, but we’re only going to do it for a few days, and in the process we are going to take Gaddafi out of power in violation of the UN mandate which we are using as justification for our non-war and, if we’re lucky, kill him in the process.

This from our Nobel Peace Prize winner who is noted for intelligence.

1 comment:

bruce said...

well, the title of this post sums it up...

according to your discussion above, we should not have been involved in Gulf War II, and probably Afghanistan either, or Bosnia, or Panama, Grenada (maybe) et al

What about Rwanda, which really was a genocidal slaughter?

Post a Comment