 |
| Hmmm....What to Call a Temporary Humanitarian War? |
Among the early votes are Obama's Dud, Obama's Downfall, Oddly Disingenuous, Offal Dense (check out O'Donnell's blog, The Last Word, for the full list and details on how to enter). Meantime, my suggestion is just shortening the damn thing to Operation O.D. As in, I am overdosing on the wars, the CNN coverage of the wars, the CNN doomsday soundtrack of the wars, the CNN bursting bomb graphics of the wars, the sight of Richard Engel at the wars (who by the looks of him hasn't slept for two months), and President Obama flying down to Rio as the curtain rises on the(undeclared) wars. Hey, but something good has come out of it. For the first time, House Speaker John Boehner has uttered the word "humanitarian." I guess when it comes to cutting funding for WIC and NPR, that's not being inhumane - it's just being fiscally responsible. But when it comes to raining down bombs and firing missiles into North Africa? Wow! It just doesn't get any more humane than that!
One more thing - can somebody please decide how to spell that dictator's name before he is killed, leaves, or lives to see the new dawn of another massacring day? I have read Qaddafi, Khaddafy, Gaddafi, and ad infinitum. How about just plain K-Daffy - or Godawful?
Since I think he should have been tried, convicted, and hung for the PanAm bombing I'm not going to shed any tears over what ever happens to El Khadaffy Duck. However it is hard not to notice the difference in attitudes at CNN, MSNBC, and The NYT! Were this the last president and not the current president there would be something quite different from the cheerleading going on today! For one thing all of the above have just discovered that the president does have the authority to do this sort of thing without first consulting the Congress! Then there is the blind eye turned towards the pre-mission mission creep. A "no fly zone" that also includes tracked and wheeled vehicles is a slight stretch on what the U.N. Authorized. Again none of the above seem to mind in the slightest, so who are we to try and take away the punchbowl this early in the party? There will be time aplenty for recriminations and investigations later.
ReplyDeleteRichard
How about calling it Operation Oiligarchs Folly.
ReplyDeleteannenigma
Richard,
ReplyDeleteYour bias claim is way off - see "The Judith Miller Fiasco" at the Times.
What you're missing is the difference in the ratio of enthusiasm to criticism between "Week 1" and literally the years that follow the shock and awe orgasm.
Give it a break...
Ok, did you read the Whining Progressive today in the NYT? Talk about giving it a break!
ReplyDeleteRichard
Richard, you might have noted the scorn already heaped upon "WP" on this blogspot. WP = "WhuPped". And your initial claim of bias wasn't against a clearly partisan blogger like WhuPped, but against major media outlets, which have a record of hyping US mlitary engagement.
ReplyDeleteBut to address your own possible bias, there's a world of difference not only between AfPak and Iraq, but between each of those and this latest fiasco. Notably, the Arab League requested our involvement in this case. That doesn't mean they don't already regret it for political reasons, or that we aren't overextended.
D.S.,
ReplyDeleteI am not claiming any bias. I am just noting that some of the people who are for this operation and were also for a similar operation in Bosnia and against the same sort of operation in Iraq. You can say that they are not all equal and that is true, but only in hindsight which is always 20/20. Anyone that can tell you where Lybia is going is not to be trusted. Remember that WW1 started with one political assassination. This has the same players and is much bigger.
The Russians are having a internal fistfight over not blocking this in the U.N. As we speak. The Chinese are as always the Chinese. The Arab League was for, against, and for "no fly" in the same day. The E.U. Is also having a fistfight over who's in charge of the operation.
With friends and "allies" like these you don't want to get too complacent this thing could go south at any minute. Personally I am going to recuse myself because I didn't like the guy in the first place.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteI hear you. I think we all kind of feel the same way in terms of wanting to recuse ourselves. Incredible uncertainty, as you pointed out. This is one of the few instances when I would have forgiven Obama for holding back. And like you, I have no sympathy for Qadaffi (?) or however the media is spelling his name today.
It gripes me no end that we always give 'professional courtesy' to dictators like K'Daffy and refuse to target them personally simply because they seized leadership to their country by whatever brutal means.
ReplyDeleteWe are willing to bomb the countryside, risking the death of civilians and all the bad blood that will generate, while limiting our human targets to the soldiers who are merely following the tyrant's orders.
A military campaign personally targeting the brutal dictator with a special ops team or predator drone strike would make for a cheaper, cleaner, and quicker way to deal with the problem, if the dictator is indeed the only problem they are trying to solve. Israel could give some valuable tips on that tactic.
The USA engaging in yet another high risk, unpredictable war strikes me as being more likely to be about trying to change a foreign country's fundamentals to make it safe(r) for Free Market Capitalism (and OIL or another air base) than it is about simply freeing the citizens from a brutal dictator. So call me cynical.
annenigma
According to a 2009 ABC News survey, there are no less than 112 different English spellings of Gaddafi's name. The AP used 40 different spelling between 1998 & 2008, & the Library of Congress lists 72 alternate spellings. So take your pick. It's a spelling bee you can never lose.
ReplyDeleteAs for OOD, I like Stephen Colbert's take: "Odyssey Dawn? That's not a military operation. That's a Carnival cruise ship."
The Constant Weader