The biggest winners in Libya: Iran and North Korea

Readability

The biggest winners in Libya: Iran and North Korea

On Way too Early Mike Bar­ni­cle reported that the UN secu­rity coun­sel is get­ting ready to vote on a no-​fly zone in Libya. The AP report via AOL (or is it Ari­anna?) that sud­denly the US is will­ing to sup­port it:

the United States, in a strik­ing rever­sal, pushed for broader action to pro­tect civil­ians from ground and sea attacks as well.

U.S. Ambas­sador Susan Rice said the Obama admin­is­tra­tion is “fully focused on the urgency and the grav­ity of the sit­u­a­tion on the ground,” where Gadhafi’s fight­ers are inten­si­fy­ing attacks and head­ing toward rebel-​held Bengazi, Libya’s second-​largest city, and is work­ing “very hard” for a vote on Thursday.

We are inter­ested in a broad range of actions that will effec­tively pro­tect civil­ians and increase the pres­sure on the Gad­hafi régime to halt the killing and to allow the Libyan peo­ple to express them­selves in their aspi­ra­tions for the future freely and peacefully,”

Of course assum­ing there is no Russ­ian or Chi­nese veto any such action is going to be too late as Allah­pun­dit puts it:

His dirt­bag “reformer” son, Seif, promised ear­lier today that it’ll all be over within 48 hours, which doesn’t seem unre­al­is­tic given the pace of recent advances. I’m sure the UN hopes it’s true: They’ve been wait­ing patiently for Qaddafi to fin­ish off the rebels for weeks now so that they don’t have to act. Any fur­ther delay would be a bit, well, embarrassing.

I think they will not have to worry about such embar­rass­ment. The vote in my opin­ion is not for the sake of pro­tect­ing Libyans, it is for the sake of say­ing they “did some­thing” for domes­tic use. Mean­while at least one Ital­ian com­pany is not even try­ing to pre­tend where they stand:

Italy’s Eni (ENI.MI) called on Europe to aban­don sanc­tions against Libya, becom­ing the first West­ern firm to try to rebuild bridges as Muam­mar Gaddafi is regain­ing con­trol and may reopen the oil taps.

They can see the writ­ing on the wall

Libyan rebels bat­tled to hold a strate­gic east­ern city against a pun­ish­ing offen­sive by forces loyal to Moam­mar Gad­hafi, voic­ing anger and frus­tra­tion at the West for not com­ing to their aid. At the same time, gov­ern­ment troops heav­ily shelled the last main rebel bas­tion near the capital.

Charred vehi­cles, bullet-​riddled pickup trucks and an over­turned tank lit­tered the desert high­way where pro-​Gadhafi forces had fought up to the entrance of the key east­ern city of Ajd­abiya. An Asso­ci­ated Press Tele­vi­sion News cam­era­man counted at least three bod­ies by the side of the road, evi­dence of fierce battles.

Gov­ern­ment troops were bring­ing in a stream of truck­loads of ammu­ni­tion, rock­ets and sup­plies — signs of an inten­si­fied effort by the Libyan leader to retake con­trol of the coun­try he has ruled with an iron fist for more than four decades.

And I won­der what all those diplo­mats who defected at the start when gov­ern­ment started to back the rebels are now thinking?

All the argu­ments against inter­ven­tion, no US inter­ests, overex­tended, going to war, let Nato do it, the rebels are not good guys, we will get no grat­i­tude for it etc etc etc… are valid, and if we had said at the out­set: “The US believes that the future of Libya should be decided by Libyan peo­ple, not by US force.” and left it at that, it would be one thing. Instead our pres­i­dent said that Gaddafi “lost legit­i­macy” (did he ever have it?) said he must go, claimed there was a tight­en­ing noose around him, and then didn’t even start to act until the fight so far gone that it can’t be reversed with­out a full scale inva­sion. (Good luck get­ting sup­port for that).

Per­son­ally my thought is that Gaddafi is an enemy, who is directly respon­si­ble for Amer­i­can deaths and if we had a chance to take him out we should have done so, if logis­ti­cally pos­si­ble. If it was not pos­si­ble then we should have spo­ken the “not by US force” line and while doing what we could qui­etly behind the scenes.

The most sig­nif­i­cant part of it: It’s all of this is hap­pen­ing in front of our faces this time. Because of the rebel advances and the media rush­ing in we were actu­ally able to see what peo­ple thought of an anti-​west dic­ta­tor inde­pen­dent of what those on the left had to say about “Amer­i­can Impe­ri­al­ism” or those paid to prop him up. (hello mon­i­tor group). The mask is off.

The result? It will be the same as the effect of Hal Chases acquit­tal on fix­ing games a year before he helped the White Sox throw the 1919 series as Bill James put it :

He was free, then. It had all been brought out into the open , and he had got­ten by with it. This seems to have had a lib­er­at­ing effect of Chase’s activities…

Once Gaddafi takes Beng­hazi there will be a slaugh­ter. There will be noth­ing and nobody to stop it and we will express regret that we were not able to act in time and vow that it won’t hap­pen again. This should not be a sur­prise, as I wrote con­cern­ing Sudan in June of 2009 con­cern­ing Iran and Sudan:

This is why Obama can watch peo­ple slaugh­tered and invite the killers to par­ties, this is why Clin­ton can let Rwanda hap­pen and then not be cri­tiqued when he beats his breast in regret.

Our reac­tion to this is a national disgrace.

It is also why the left will always hate pres­i­dent Bush. 911 may have been the impe­tus but in the end in at least one place in the world the mass graves were stopped and he was respon­si­ble and still doesn’t apol­o­gize for it.

We are going say lit­tle and do less while these peo­ple are slaugh­tered. It’s what we are doing with Sudan and it is what we will do the next time and the time after that. This might seem odd but it’s not about sav­ing slaugh­tered peo­ple; it’s about being able to say you care and con­vince oth­ers you care while doing nothing.

Lots of peo­ple are going to be beat­ing their breasts and say­ing how they meant well but believe me Iran and North Korea are watch­ing. They will rec­og­nize that we had the best chance ever to remove an actual enemy, a per­son directly respon­si­ble for killing Amer­i­cans, a per­son for whom there was pop­u­lar sup­port to do so and we choose not to.

How hol­low are any warn­ings con­cern­ing Nuclear Pro­lif­er­a­tion going to be from this point on? How will­ing will peo­ple con­sid­er­ing a pop­u­lar upris­ing move know­ing there is not cost if the dic­ta­tors choose to kill any who oppose them? How much will And when these foes con­sider how to aggres­sively sup­ply those who would LOVE to hit us either at home or abroad do you think they are going to lis­ten to any warn­ing we give? It’s going to mean that when they act we will have to pay a much higher price to stop them.

And there is another con­sid­er­a­tion, how likely is the pres­i­dent in an attempt to look tougher going to over­re­act in a dif­fer­ent sit­u­a­tion just to show that he is the alpha male? As Michael Ledeen said about Carter:

At about this stage in the Carter years, I began to worry: the pres­i­dent was get­ting a rep­u­ta­tion for being a wimp, the econ­omy was going to hell, and his poll num­bers were headed steadily south. The main enemy — the Soviet Union — was flex­ing its mus­cles, invad­ing Afghanistan in Decem­ber of 1979. This came amidst the Iran­ian hostage cri­sis, which began early the pre­vi­ous month.

We tend to for­get that the U.S. mil­i­tary buildup, which ulti­mately played a big role in the suc­cess­ful out­come of the Cold War, was started by Carter in response to the Soviet move, I must con­fess I didn’t know that myself DTG but by the time it started, “the wimp” could not hope to recover his lost man­hood by send­ing money to the Pentagon.

And so I asked myself, is there a point at which a pres­i­dent real­izes that wimps don’t get reelected? And if so, what might he do to shat­ter that image? For the next two years I wor­ried that Carter might over­re­act to some inter­na­tional cri­sis in order to make folks see that he was really a tough guy.

This is a real rea­son to worry and we’ll keep an eye on it, but this sim­ply proves Teddy Roo­sevelt right when he said: “Speak softly and carry a Big Stick.” and Sarah Palin (who called for a no fly zone weeks ago when it would have worked) who said: “2012 can’t come fast enough.”

Update: Oh brother, talk about dou­ble­s­peak. Via Josh Trevino on Twit­ter.

Update 2: Seri­ous mulling going on.

We need to “be pre­pared to con­tem­plate” action beyond an NFZ? Lit­er­ally speak­ing, Rice isn’t even ask­ing to con­tem­plate action, but to pre­pare our­selves to con­tem­plate action. If it took the US exactly a month into the upris­ing — and five days after the Arab League unan­i­mously requested a no-​fly zone over Libya — to merely think about prepar­ing for con­tem­pla­tion of action, what exactly will be the time­line for mak­ing an actual decision?

Likely some­time after the start the polls sup­port it.

Update 3: Related: It’s not just Libya: Where are the Amer­i­cans?

Update 4: How bad is it? This bad:

Obvi­ously, she’s not happy with deal­ing with a pres­i­dent who can’t decide if today is Tues­day or Wednes­day, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clin­ton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as com­pared with what’s on the plates of pre­vi­ous Sec­re­tary of States — there’s more going on now at this par­tic­u­lar moment, and it’s like play­ing sports with a bunch of ama­teurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s try­ing to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

I never thought I’d see the say when I felt bad for Mrs. Clinton.

On Way too Early Mike Barnicle reported that the UN security counsel is getting ready to vote on a no-fly zone in Libya. The AP report via AOL (or is it Arianna?) that suddenly the US is willing to support it:

the United States, in a striking reversal, pushed for broader action to protect civilians from ground and sea attacks as well.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said the Obama administration is “fully focused on the urgency and the gravity of the situation on the ground,” where Gadhafi’s fighters are intensifying attacks and heading toward rebel-held Bengazi, Libya’s second-largest city, and is working “very hard” for a vote on Thursday.

“We are interested in a broad range of actions that will effectively protect civilians and increase the pressure on the Gadhafi regime to halt the killing and to allow the Libyan people to express themselves in their aspirations for the future freely and peacefully,”

Of course assuming there is no Russian or Chinese veto any such action is going to be too late as Allahpundit puts it:

His dirtbag “reformer” son, Seif, promised earlier today that it’ll all be over within 48 hours, which doesn’t seem unrealistic given the pace of recent advances. I’m sure the UN hopes it’s true: They’ve been waiting patiently for Qaddafi to finish off the rebels for weeks now so that they don’t have to act. Any further delay would be a bit, well, embarrassing.

I think they will not have to worry about such embarrassment. The vote in my opinion is not for the sake of protecting Libyans, it is for the sake of saying they “did something” for domestic use. Meanwhile at least one Italian company is not even trying to pretend where they stand:

Italy’s Eni (ENI.MI) called on Europe to abandon sanctions against Libya, becoming the first Western firm to try to rebuild bridges as Muammar Gaddafi is regaining control and may reopen the oil taps.

They can see the writing on the wall

Libyan rebels battled to hold a strategic eastern city against a punishing offensive by forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi, voicing anger and frustration at the West for not coming to their aid. At the same time, government troops heavily shelled the last main rebel bastion near the capital.

Charred vehicles, bullet-riddled pickup trucks and an overturned tank littered the desert highway where pro-Gadhafi forces had fought up to the entrance of the key eastern city of Ajdabiya. An Associated Press Television News cameraman counted at least three bodies by the side of the road, evidence of fierce battles.

Government troops were bringing in a stream of truckloads of ammunition, rockets and supplies — signs of an intensified effort by the Libyan leader to retake control of the country he has ruled with an iron fist for more than four decades.

And I wonder what all those diplomats who defected at the start when government started to back the rebels are now thinking?

All the arguments against intervention, no US interests, overextended, going to war, let Nato do it, the rebels are not good guys, we will get no gratitude for it etc etc etc… are valid, and if we had said at the outset: “The US believes that the future of Libya should be decided by Libyan people, not by US force.” and left it at that, it would be one thing. Instead our president said that Gaddafi “lost legitimacy” (did he ever have it?) said he must go, claimed there was a tightening noose around him, and then didn’t even start to act until the fight so far gone that it can’t be reversed without a full scale invasion. (Good luck getting support for that).

Personally my thought is that Gaddafi is an enemy, who is directly responsible for American deaths and if we had a chance to take him out we should have done so, if logistically possible. If it was not possible then we should have spoken the “not by US force” line and while doing what we could quietly behind the scenes.

The most significant part of it: It’s all of this is happening in front of our faces this time. Because of the rebel advances and the media rushing in we were actually able to see what people thought of an anti-west dictator independent of what those on the left had to say about “American Imperialism” or those paid to prop him up. (hello monitor group). The mask is off.

The result? It will be the same as the effect of Hal Chases acquittal on fixing games a year before he helped the White Sox throw the 1919 series as Bill James put it :

He was free, then. It had all been brought out into the open , and he had gotten by with it. This seems to have had a liberating effect of Chase’s activities…

Once Gaddafi takes Benghazi there will be a slaughter. There will be nothing and nobody to stop it and we will express regret that we were not able to act in time and vow that it won’t happen again. This should not be a surprise, as I wrote concerning Sudan in June of 2009 concerning Iran and Sudan:

This is why Obama can watch people slaughtered and invite the killers to parties, this is why Clinton can let Rwanda happen and then not be critiqued when he beats his breast in regret.

Our reaction to this is a national disgrace.

It is also why the left will always hate president Bush. 9/11 may have been the impetus but in the end in at least one place in the world the mass graves were stopped and he was responsible and still doesn’t apologize for it.

We are going say little and do less while these people are slaughtered. It’s what we are doing with Sudan and it is what we will do the next time and the time after that. This might seem odd but it’s not about saving slaughtered people; it’s about being able to say you care and convince others you care while doing nothing.

Lots of people are going to be beating their breasts and saying how they meant well but believe me Iran and North Korea are watching. They will recognize that we had the best chance ever to remove an actual enemy, a person directly responsible for killing Americans, a person for whom there was popular support to do so and we choose not to.

How hollow are any warnings concerning Nuclear Proliferation going to be from this point on? How willing will people considering a popular uprising move knowing there is not cost if the dictators choose to kill any who oppose them? How much will And when these foes consider how to aggressively supply those who would LOVE to hit us either at home or abroad do you think they are going to listen to any warning we give? It’s going to mean that when they act we will have to pay a much higher price to stop them.

And there is another consideration, how likely is the president in an attempt to look tougher going to overreact in a different situation just to show that he is the alpha male? As Michael Ledeen said about Carter:

At about this stage in the Carter years, I began to worry: the president was getting a reputation for being a wimp, the economy was going to hell, and his poll numbers were headed steadily south. The main enemy — the Soviet Union — was flexing its muscles, invading Afghanistan in December of 1979. This came amidst the Iranian hostage crisis, which began early the previous month.

We tend to forget that the U.S. military buildup, which ultimately played a big role in the successful outcome of the Cold War, was started by Carter in response to the Soviet move, I must confess I didn’t know that myself DTG but by the time it started, “the wimp” could not hope to recover his lost manhood by sending money to the Pentagon.

And so I asked myself, is there a point at which a president realizes that wimps don’t get reelected? And if so, what might he do to shatter that image? For the next two years I worried that Carter might overreact to some international crisis in order to make folks see that he was really a tough guy.

This is a real reason to worry and we’ll keep an eye on it, but this simply proves Teddy Roosevelt right when he said: “Speak softly and carry a Big Stick.” and Sarah Palin (who called for a no fly zone weeks ago when it would have worked) who said: “2012 can’t come fast enough.”

Update: Oh brother, talk about doublespeak. Via Josh Trevino on Twitter.

Update 2: Serious mulling going on.

We need to “be prepared to contemplate” action beyond an NFZ? Literally speaking, Rice isn’t even asking to contemplate action, but to prepare ourselves to contemplate action. If it took the US exactly a month into the uprising — and five days after the Arab League unanimously requested a no-fly zone over Libya — to merely think about preparing for contemplation of action, what exactly will be the timeline for making an actual decision?

Likely sometime after the start the polls support it.

Update 3: Related: It’s not just Libya: Where are the Americans?

Update 4: How bad is it? This bad:

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

I never thought I’d see the say when I felt bad for Mrs. Clinton.