RSS Feed Menu
Consider the pathetic meaninglessness of our current military engagement over Libya.
Three of the world’s mightiest military powers – countries with legitimate axes to grind against Muammar the Mad – instead quibbled and dithered for years – decades even – before the spectacle of a popular uprising being brutally crushed at last shamed us into doing something, anything . . . and even then we approach it half-heartedly.
It’s not as if the self-proclaimed modern day Hannibal hasn’t given us enough reason already; the bombing of the LaBelle Disco and Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie were but his most visible crimes.
In December 1988, the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 was strewn across fields near Lockerbie, Scotland, after a Libyan-supplied bomb exploded on board killing 270 people.
Qaddafi is a legitimate sponsor of international terrorism — and he’s a total nutjob on top of it all. ODDYSEY DAWN could also be known as “Operation Long Over-Due”.
Our President had to be coerced into committing by an openly mutinous Secretary of State, and on Day Three of combat operations, anything resembling a plan, stated objectives, or an exit strategy have yet to be described.
And yet this minuscule engagement over the Gulf of Sidra is enough to fascinate the world, and to pull the media off a truly significant event: an earthquake and tsunami of epic, biblical proportions, and a subsequent nuclear accident involving six reactors.
And it is minuscule; we’re going to crush this guy and blow his forces to smithereens – more than likely within the space of a fortnight. And yet the so-called “experts” in the media dish up comparison after comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan; as if huge land engagements involving hundreds of thousands of forces against countries that harbored legitimate physical threats against the people of the Free World can be compared to this maritime adventure. I say adventure for this is hardly a war.
Of course, by historic standards, Iraq itself was a microscopic war.
Consider – in the first eight years of Iraq, we lost as many people as we lost in a single day at Normandy.
By the same standards, Vietnam was a low-intensity conflict. Over the course of ten years we lost just under fifty-thousand; we lost that many in three years in Korea, and in three days at Gettysburg.
This is the illusion of body count math, of course – to the single soldier who is killed, wounded, maimed or taken captive, what he is involved in is very real, very legitimate war – even if it only lasts for fifteen minutes.
Nowadays the sheer lethality of modern weapons preclude the requirement for clashes between huge armies a la Waterloo or the Somme; an infantryman with a shoulder-fired weapon negates a 55-ton tank.
A shoulder-fired, man-portable anti-aircraft defense (MANPAD) missiles allowed a bunch of religious zealots of a 13th century society – the Mujahadeen – to defeat one of the largest, most powerful militaries in the world – the Soviet Union. At the same time, the amplifying effect of the modern media allows tiny symbolic conflicts – such as we are witnessing now – to gain great meaning.
Endless war? Yes, of course. Meaningful significance of these wars? Less and less. Consider this Libya thing – he’s a tin horn dictator sitting on top of a huge puddle of oil. Yet nobody even pretends its about the oil – because it really isn’t. For more than a decade we chose not to buy our oil from Qaddafi, at cost and sacrifice to ourselves. Now, we can buy from him or we can go through this unpleasant business, expend huge amounts of treasure (which we haven’t got), shed the precious blood of our best and our brightest (for what? for whom?) to buy it from the next crowd who take over. We don’t even know if we LIKE them or not – for all we know, they’re WORSE than the current management – if such a thing is imaginable.
Let it be shown for the record: since that September morning in Tokyo Harbor 67 years ago, on the deck of the USS Missouri . . .
. . . there hasn’t been a single day on this Earth without a war going on somewhere. Not a single day of total, complete peace anywhere on Earth. The shooting has never stopped.
Originally published at STORMBRINGER.
Watusie // Mar 22, 2011 at 11:46 am
So, Seanne – you think we should have invaded Libya? Because how else would we have toppled Gaddafi? We could have bombed the hole country till the rubble jumped and so long as he was holed up nice and snug in one of his bunkers, he’d still be on top of the heap when it was over.
What is different now? There is a rebellion against him by the Libyan people. So we don’t have to “own it”. We’ve leveled the playing field for them a bit, but it is up to them to make the revolution a success.
You say “we are going to crush this guy”. Well, no we aren’t. A successful popular uprising in Libya would be a massive development – but it would have been snuffed out on Monday if Gaddafi had been allowed to flatten Benghazi. So, we are committed to knocking out all of their air defenses and their heavy amour and artillery when it is seen advancing on civilians.
But it stops there.
But if the rebels are going to prevail they are going to have to find it within themselves to finish off the job. We aren’t going to do it for them and then be in a situation where they end up as a dependency.
Paleocon // Mar 22, 2011 at 12:11 pm
This article rambles and wanders to the extent I don’t know the author’s point. However, calling the Iraq War ‘microscopic’ due to low body counts on our side misses the point. Few people would say Afghan and Iraq were mistakes solely because of our casualties. The criticisms are about how we’re perceived in the Arab world, whether we are actually accomplishing something good (or are we helping the bad guys), the costs in dollars, constitutional issues, no exit strategy and the opportunity costs as these wars take our eyes off other areas. All of these issues apply with Libya as well.
talkradiosucks.com // Mar 22, 2011 at 12:46 pm
“This article rambles and wanders to the extent I don’t know the author’s point.”
Abraham Maslow once observed that when all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail.
Sean Linnane is a hammer salesman.
That’s pretty much all you need to know to understand all of his articles.
jakester // Mar 23, 2011 at 1:20 am
That was so succinct that I envy you.
armstp // Mar 22, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“Of course, by historic standards, Iraq itself was a microscopic war.”
I would say for Iraqis it was not microscopic, particularly after morons like you finished destroying the country and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who never did a thing to you or the U.S. I hope you can live with yourself.
ScoopAway // Mar 22, 2011 at 1:30 pm
“And it is minuscule; we’re going to crush this guy and blow his forces to smithereens – more than likely within the space of a fortnight.”
Ah, yes. ..like Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
mlindroo // Mar 22, 2011 at 1:32 pm
> since that September morning in Tokyo Harbor 67 years ago, on the deck of the USS Missouri
> . . . there hasn’t been a single day on this Earth without a war going on somewhere.
> Not a single day of total, complete peace anywhere on Earth.
> The shooting has never stopped.
True, as far as it goes.
HOWEVER, there have been no wars on Japanese, American, Australian or Western European soil since WW II. This is quite remarkable given the long history of bloody conflict in those countries. So the idea that one day, there will be no wars anywhere except for low level terrorism seems quite credible.
MARCU$
Frumplestiltskin // Mar 22, 2011 at 1:44 pm
What an absolute mess of an article. I am sure there is a point somewhere but damned if I know. Watusie your answer gave far too much credit to the Linnane article because your posting made sense.
You have this line:
and even then we approach it half-heartedly.
And later this:
And it is minuscule; we’re going to crush this guy and blow his forces to smithereens – more than likely within the space of a fortnight.
Um…if half heartedly can crush this guy and blow his forces to smithereens, what the hell is the difference in doing it full heartedly? Would we blow his forces to super smithereens?
Linnane must have been drunk when he wrote this post.
andydp // Mar 22, 2011 at 2:01 pm
I realize its anathema to the author and his “frat” but if he did his homework and read the UN Resolution (or background articles) on the No Fly Zone he would find out:
The U.N. Security Council resolution clearly authorizes the imposition of a no-fly zone. By extension, this logically authorizes strikes against airfields and related targets. Very broadly, it also defines the mission of the intervention as protecting civilian lives. As such, it does not specifically prohibit the presence of ground forces, though it does clearly state that no “foreign occupation force” shall be permitted on Libyan soil. It can be assumed they intended that forces could intervene in Libya but could not remain in Libya after the intervention. What this means in practice is less than clear.
Here is the entire article from Stratfor
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110321-libya-west-narrative-democracy?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110322&utm_content=readmore&elq=0b86bfa370e54bde8f4a2dd220563b6b
PS: Thanks for the illustrations. I gave up on the article after the third paragraph.
DFL // Mar 22, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Quaddafi should be brought to justice for Lockerbie and other terror acts that he funded that killed American citizens. Kill him. But the humanitarian interventionists are being hypocritical with their advocacy to overthrow Quaddafi when they pretty much ignore what is happening in Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma. For instance, Obama has been silent as a mouse on Zimbabwe, a situation he might be able to help resolve by, say, making a speech on the need to rid Zimbabwe of Mugabe at a podium in South Africa with Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu at his side.
If I could put my cynic hat on, the intervention called for by the French and the British is being done for the political benefits of Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron.
jakester // Mar 23, 2011 at 1:19 am
Yes this is nothing more than the right wing militaristic ramblings of a semi literate but utterly dehumanized and innately dishonest ex military man. I see nothing but the weakest sort of rationalizations backed by the lamest macho posturing . Frum should be ashamed giving such crackpots a platform, he would be more apropos as a recurring guest of the Savage Nation
Gramps // Mar 23, 2011 at 8:15 pm
jakester // Mar 23, 2011 at 1:19 am
Right wing…yes, a political choice.
Militaristic…what might you expect after 25 years in the Army?
Semi literate…hardly; consider George W. Bush, a graduate of bothe Harvard and Yale…!
Dehumanized…perhaps; that’s what multiple deployments into “kill or be killed”, vicious, combat does, to an otherwise normal human being.
Innately dishonest…that’s your opinion.
Ex military man…yes, a retired Special Forces Team Sergeant.
Macho posturing…what else might you expect, some sniveling wimp?
Crackpot a platform…gimme a break we’re all “crackpots” here…!
Savage Nation…I was thinkin’ more, that, screeching, “hyper-ventilator”, Mark Levin…
Hehehe…!
gmat // Mar 24, 2011 at 7:29 pm
“Openly mutinous Secretary of State”?
Do you have a link to a source for that?