Althouse: "He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic."

March 7, 2011

"He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic."

Obama does.

165 comments:

Revenant said...: I'm not in favor of the United States getting involved.

But every time Obama comes up with a completely idiotic reason for us not to get involved, I have to wonder -- am I wrong?; 3/7/11, 10:27 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Maybe the FLOTUS can partition her organic garden and create a Libya section. Meade could probably advise on this.; 3/7/11, 10:31 PM
chickelit said...: "He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic."

Yeah but the man seems to hate organic tea.; 3/7/11, 10:32 PM
Dose of Sanity said...: Sweet Jesus, we should have imposed a no-fly zone weeks ago.

It's a damn shame we haven't.; 3/7/11, 10:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Like the budding opposition to the autocratic regime in Saudi Arabia?; 3/7/11, 10:34 PM
Ron said...: Organic? Complete with ARRRRugaha?; 3/7/11, 10:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Why does the NYT act like this is Obama's decision?

The European NATO counties have been moving ahead to implement the no-fly zone idea. The person to pay attention to here is Anders Fogh Rasmussen, not Obama.

Plus Obama comes off as a pansy-ass wimpy flake. Grow a set, Barack! Put on your cowboy hat and channel W.! Even John Mackey knows when to put down the fancy lettuce and ACT!; 3/7/11, 10:43 PM
Anonymous said...: It is fundamentally not true that the best revolutions are completely organic. It's just that most revolutions end up as a giant clusterfuck, which is what all these revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa are likely to look like without wise and persistent statecraft from teh great powers.

Also, I'd like to give a big shout out to the French for financing our revolution in the late 1770s.

Moreover, would; 3/7/11, 10:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Plus Obama comes off as a pansy-ass wimpy flake.

This is 10,000 percent true. Are you being facetious when you say it, or do we agree?; 3/7/11, 10:46 PM
vza said...: "The American military is also privately skeptical of humanitarian gestures that put the lives of troops at risk for the cause of the moment, while being of only tenuous national interest."

Not one more American soldier should be sacrificed to the region's multitude of problems...some of which we helped create.
If we become involved, the very first time there are any civilian casualties, the U.S. will be vilified and the Left will be leading the charge. Forget it. I wish the people of the region well, and hope that at long last, they can attain for themselves the freedom and democracy we enjoy. We need to stay out of it.; 3/7/11, 10:46 PM
Anonymous said...: We need to stay out of it.

No. We don't. Bill Clinton -- a great or near-great American president -- gave us the template here with Serbia. Without air cover for its troops, the current Libyan regime will very likely fail. Enforce a no-fly zone, broker a peace (and look brilliant doing it), gently install democracy, arrest Quadafi, and let him rot in jail until he dies.; 3/7/11, 10:50 PM
Jason said...: "No. We don't. Bill Clinton -- a great or near-great American president -- gave us the template here with Serbia"
--------------------

Um...im pretty sure the situation in Serbia is just a tad bit different than this one.; 3/7/11, 10:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Jason -- How?

P.S.: I was United States dipolmat serving in the former Yugoslavia.; 3/7/11, 10:54 PM
Randy said...: I'm not in favor of the United States getting involved.

But every time Obama comes up with a completely idiotic reason for us not to get involved, I have to wonder -- am I wrong?

Given our historical track record, I think not.; 3/7/11, 10:54 PM
Kirby Olson said...: Ours had help from the French. I guess he doesn't believe in America as one of the best revolutions.; 3/7/11, 11:05 PM
Tibore said...: "He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic..."

And the rest are grown with pesticides by corporate farmers with no interest in healthy...

...Wait. what?

;); 3/7/11, 11:05 PM
shiloh said...: Um...im pretty sure the situation in Serbia is just a tad bit different than this one.

Jason, don't ruin the winger meme of this thread:

O'Bama's a wimp! Obama's a wimp!

and oh yea, O'bama's a wimp!

Channel W lol aka the Cartoon Network.

As long as Obama doesn't get caught w/his pants down on 9/11 like cheney/bush and look like a (((deer caught in the headlights))) when told America is under attack !!! while reading 'My Pet Goat'.

btw, you're either w/us or against us and freedom fries just taste better than french fries ;) even though pommes frites originated in Belgium.

carry on; 3/7/11, 11:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Shiloh -- You are a sad, shallow, juvenile person who sees things, apparently, through a prism of left good/right bad, all the time.

By the way, how's it going with Guantanamo and trying those terrorists in federal courts?; 3/7/11, 11:30 PM
MayBee said...: He added: “What haunts me is the specter of Iraq 1991,” when former President George Bush “urged the Shia to rise up, and they did rise up, and tanks and planes were coming at them — and we were nowhere to be seen.”

That's from John Kerry. He's right about the history.
John Kerry is afraid we look feckless.
John Kerry.

I; 3/7/11, 11:34 PM
MayBee said...: I don't have the right answer, but I don't see the point of Obama's "Cairo Speech" or his saying all options are on the table if, in fact, he means we'll just work with whomever wins the bloody war.; 3/7/11, 11:36 PM
Anonymous said...: There was this man who owned a nice farm in Florida, complete with an orange grove and a pond. One day he went down to the grove with a bucket to pick some oranges, and surprised several beautiful young women swimming naked in the pond. Upon seeing him the women shrieked and immediately ducked down into the water so only their heads showed.

"We're not getting out of the water until you leave," one of the women angrily said.

"I'll leave in a minute or two," the man replied, "just as soon as I finish feeding the alligator."

Peter; 3/7/11, 11:38 PM
MayBee said...: Oh well. I just re-read Obama's Cairo speech, which was supposed to have so much meaning. And I realize it has very little relevance with what is happening in the "Muslim world" today.

"Here is the text."; 3/7/11, 11:55 PM
Revenant said...: As long as Obama doesn't get caught w/his pants down on 9/11 like cheney/bush and look like a deer caught in the headlights when told America is under attack

True; he would have offered to meet for a round of precondition-free diplomatic talks with Al Qaeda representatives before the dust of the WTC had even settled.

Darn that Bush -- he was never willing to "give peace a chance".; 3/7/11, 11:55 PM
holdfast said...: It's not like you'd have to CAP the whole miserable country. Most of the important stuff is within SAM range of the coast. Don't make a huge deal about a "no fly zone", just quietly tell Qaddafi that any planes which actually attack rebels or civilians may be shot down. Maybe on their first sortie, maybe on their third. And then deal with them as the opportunity arises - sometimes with SAMs, sometimes with carrier jets.; 3/8/11, 12:01 AM
Alex said...: Obama gave arugula a bad name, it's a healthy leaf for lowering cholesterol!; 3/8/11, 12:10 AM
Alex said...: shiloh only one word in his limited vocabulary - "winger".; 3/8/11, 12:11 AM
Revenant said...: I think you mean (((winger))), Alex.; 3/8/11, 12:19 AM
Alex said...: shiloh is one of those bot programs?; 3/8/11, 12:30 AM
Unknown said...: I'm a bit hazy on how the effects pedal would improve the situation. Is it simply so you can tweak the equalizer? Or is there something else to it?

audi-parts; 3/8/11, 12:48 AM
shiloh said...: Automated repetitive tasks coincide nicely w/political blogs where one repeats themselves over and over again ie redundancy.

ie there are only so many ways of sayin' Obama sucks! Obama's a wimp! ;) yada yada yada as creativity can be a problem.

btw, dnftt :)

>

Charlie showed some creativity w/his spam lol as automated spam can also be creative ...; 3/8/11, 1:11 AM
Palladian said...: Thanks, spam-bot for a great new tag-line:

Althouse: Tweak The Equalizer; 3/8/11, 1:19 AM
Anonymous said...: I do love that.; 3/8/11, 1:20 AM
Lombardi Chick said...: Re: "As long as Obama doesn't get caught w/his pants down on 9/11 like cheney/bush and look like a (((deer caught in the headlights))) when told America is under attack !!! while reading 'My Pet Goat'."

We really don't know how Obama would react in a national emergency, do we?

If he happens to be reading to a group of children if and when something occurs, and manages to stay calm so as not to upset them, I would like to think that Americans wouldn't spend years mocking him for it.

President Bush kept us safe for the duration of his time in office. A gracious person would keep that in mind when talking about 9/11.; 3/8/11, 1:22 AM
Palladian said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/8/11, 1:25 AM
Palladian said...: You know, I'm also a bit hazy on how the effects pedal would improve the situation in the Middle East.

If only Libya were as easy to fix as an Audi. Or is it the other way 'round?; 3/8/11, 1:26 AM
Gene said...: Invading Libya is a great idea--as soon as we end the two other wars we currently have on our plate.; 3/8/11, 1:30 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: Speaking of freaks -- are we? -- take a look at Drudge. Is that scary or what?; 3/8/11, 1:34 AM
Anonymous said...: I saw that, Chip. Patreus looks a little under the weather. ;]; 3/8/11, 1:37 AM
Revenant said...: ie there are only so many ways of sayin' Obama sucks!

How I wish that were true. It seems like he sucks in new and different ways with each passing day.

I would love to have a President who sucked in finite and enumerable ways.; 3/8/11, 1:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Anyone who could look at the current economic situation and the current rudderless and perilous international geopolitical situation and call themselves happy is either ignorant of the facts or a hack.

Thankfully, the United States has enough institutional knowledge and inertia to withstand failed presidencies.; 3/8/11, 1:45 AM
shiloh said...: If he happens to be reading to a group of children if and when something occurs, and manages to stay calm so as not to upset them

Actually, one of the complaints liberals have re: Obama is that he is too calm and collected ie aloof ... as Bill I feel your pain ;) Clinton's only come around every so often.

>

President Bush kept us safe for the duration of his time in office. A gracious person would keep that in mind when talking about 9/11.

Please look up the definition of "duration" as the relatives of those killed on 9/11 would argue otherwise. And many of the families of soldiers who died in the misbegotten/unprovoked cheney/bush Iraq War would also argue the national security importance of a dictator that U.S. foreign policy created.

Did I mention redundancy occurs ad nauseam at political blogs ;) er It's déjà vu all over again.; 3/8/11, 1:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Obama is successful because there have only been a couple terrorist attacks so far during his administration and the press has severely downplayed them.

Therefore, Obama is a smashing success. Just look at the price of gas. Unemployment. The dollar. America's prominence in the world.

Blame Bush (and Reagan) in 3, 2, 1...; 3/8/11, 1:50 AM
shiloh said...: One of the things which drives conservatives crazy is Obama's damn good luck as surely a Muslim born in Kenya named Barack Hussein Obama couldn't have been elected president w/69.5 million votes in a country which has a 300/400 year history of racial oppression. And always elects white guys w/waspy names like Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, ok Ford wasn't elected ;), Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton.

btw, how did someone w/a German name, Eisenhower, get elected U.S. president after WWII ~ oh, he won the war!

I digress.

Which begs the question:

Assessing blame notwithstanding, who in there right mind would want to lead a nation soooo discombobulated as America was in 2008 and still is as hope springs eternal, eh.

It must be good to be king!

>

My theory, America is in such a mess regardless of who is to blame, that the middle ie moderate independents are cutting Obama some slack, which again drives TP'ers crazy ~ hence, therefore, ergo Obama has been hovering around just under 50% job approval for quite some time. Whereas Reagan's Gallup job approval was (35%) March, 1983.

Reagan benefitted greatly running against Mondale ie Carter lite in 1984 ie no opposition lol kinda like Omama now as again, no Reagan's on the horizon in the Rep party.

I'm not sayin' Nixon, Reagan, Bush41, Bush43 wouldn't have won regardless, but McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry were god awful candidates. And even so Gore still got more votes in 2000. And Carter almost blew a (33) pt. lead in '76 as the power of incumbency is huge even when you are appointed president.

>

Did I mention Obama was born under a lucky star! Divine Intervention!; 3/8/11, 2:22 AM
Revenant said...: Reagan benefitted greatly running against Mondale ie Carter lite in 1984 ie no opposition lol kinda like Omama now as again, no Reagan's on the horizon in the Rep party.

Oh yeah, it'll totally take the second coming of Reagan to beat Obama. The Republicans are in big, big trouble.; 3/8/11, 2:43 AM
shiloh said...: As mentioned previously, things change quickly in politics ie Obama was behind by (30) pts. in Iowa, Nov. 2007 and less than (2) mos. later he beat Hillary by (8) pts. in the Iowa Caucus.

The irony re: cheney/bush is 9/11 helped them get re-elected as you all remember Bush's 90% job approval rating after the attack and then they used the hate/fear/boogeyman meme in 2002/2004 to their advantage. And my buddy turdblossom er Rove's main genius in 2004 was registering 300/400k new voters in FL and OH to help Bush win. Sort of like Obama registering new voters in 2008 to his advantage.

This is not rocket science and as bad a candidate as Kerry was in 2004, his damn wife never being able to shut up notwithstanding, he still led in the polls most of 2004, but an incumbent war time president has never lost.

And as bad as Carter was in 1980, high inflation, high gas prices etc. the main issue which defeated him was the (444) day Iran Hostage Crisis as the race was a toss-up until the final weekend when Reagan finally sealed the deal after the debate. And he still only got 50.75% ~ Anderson getting 8%.

Bush41 had an 89% job approval after the Gulf War and (21) mos. later an incumbent president got (37.5%) as things change.

>

And I'm not sayin' Obama is unbeatable, but the odds are presently in his favor.

Unemployment (16.9%) Nov. 1936 ~ FDR re-elected w/60.8%.

solo estoy diciendo; 3/8/11, 3:11 AM
Anonymous said...: "Sweet Jesus, we should have imposed a no-fly zone weeks ago."

I have to push back on this and ask why?

If Libyans don't like their leader, the Libyans should do something about it and they should not expect that it won't be bloody. Because it will be bloody.

You can't win your freedom effortlessly and without sacrifice. You have to FUCKING TAKE it from people who are going to be shooting at you the whole time.

That's how we won our freedom from Great Britain and how we secured it during World War II from Japanese aggression and Hilter's grand designs for a worldwide Reich.

We had to kill a LOT of British to win our independence. And, we had to kill a lot of Japanese and German people in order to get the remainder of them to ponder the the direction their elected officials had taken them.

Muslims now want to conquer America and we are not going to prevent it without killing a LOT of them.

We should step back and let the Libyans secure their freedom, even if it means some of them die doing it. That needs to happen so that they value their freedom and don't let some scumbag dictator take it from them again.

We need to also remind them that we are not blind to the grander designs of the worldwide Muslim community.; 3/8/11, 4:44 AM
rhhardin said...: The best idiocy is organic.; 3/8/11, 4:48 AM
Michael said...: Shiloh. When you refer to "my pet goat" you reveal all. We know every single thing we need to know about you and what you "think" about every topic. No need for further posts and thanks.; 3/8/11, 5:19 AM
Issob Morocco said...: Organic Revolution? The best way to change?

Ann, do you mean revolutions like the Tea Party or those who were incensed by the political hot sauce enema rammed into America's posterior that was/is Obamacare?

On this I would agree with the One.
01.20.2013 The revolution is completed.; 3/8/11, 5:37 AM
Unknown said...: And when writing about The Zero, the Gray Lady reminds us Pinch & Co. are orgasmic.

Frankly, there's no more reason to go into Libya than there was to go into Egypt. It's an internal matter and, until things shake out, we're better off gathering intel. That said, The Zero has been his usual stillborn self saying anything meaningful about the situation or looking after the welfare of Americans in-country.

PS The Kos troll seems to be free associating.; 3/8/11, 5:45 AM
shiloh said...: Michael, you're welcome! :)

Coincidentally, after a few days here I knew every single thing there was to know re: AA and what she thought about every topic.

Funny how that works as there's nothing new under the sun at political blogs, especially Althouse.

Again, entertainment is the main attraction, lacking that, what's the point. As one is not likely to ever change their political views here.

take care; 3/8/11, 5:46 AM
jonnaa said...: It is true a revolution gets result faster when they are made organic but united states should not get involved; 3/8/11, 5:52 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Lombardi Chick,

President Bush kept us safe for the duration of his time in office. A gracious person would keep that in mind when talking about 9/11.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Gracious people? For a "macho" man? Who "kept us safe for the duration"? Pu-leaze. Such a person is worthy of nothing but mockery by the majority and The One's appointment is the proof. He's the type of "man" they wanted, he's the type of "man" we've got. Calm and ineffectual, as opposed to passionate and effective.

I'll even point to Chip's "freak" comment and say, yeah, there's what a man gets today - even, or especially, from other so-called men - in a society with no graciousness towards, or appreciation for, what it means to be "a man".

Charlie Sheen is broken - he's joined a society determined to salute the wrong things - happy now?

Funny but, as I've been pointing out the disaster of choices I've seen being made over the last 5 years - from my experience with NewAge murder, "no fault" divorce, the election of No Drama, the culture of Baby GaGa, and all the rest - I've seen no rush to my side, but for a few, to say "Yeah, this has got to stop!" No, the majority of what I've seen is the same thing George, and Charlie, and the majority of men with names like George and Charlie get:

Childish finger pointing and mockery.

You reap what you sow, and to expect more - from those raised on the NewAge values that produced this result - is a fools game. Their much-vaunted "compassion" has always been the meanest lie this country has ever created, because some of us, as youngsters, not only believed it but believed in it:

Now, I seriously doubt anyone will be spared the whirlwind of despair it's inevitably producing.; 3/8/11, 5:58 AM
Rob said...: Is this sort of like the "protest babe" theory of revolutions: The best revolutions are completely orgasmic?; 3/8/11, 6:10 AM
Toad Trend said...: The best salad offerings are completely organic, too...

Maybe DHOTUS just got done listening to FLOTUS pontificating about diet, again.; 3/8/11, 6:16 AM
AllenS said...: Unless we have intentions of a complete and total bombing and land invasion of Libya to steal their oil, I'd stay out of the conflict.; 3/8/11, 6:20 AM
Brian Brown said...: Bill Clinton -- a great or near-great American president -- gave us the template here with Serbia

Really?

Um, Serbia capitulated only when it was faced with the possibility of a ground invasion by NATO troops.; 3/8/11, 6:32 AM
Brian Brown said...: As long as Obama doesn't get caught w/his pants down on 9/11 like cheney/bush

I love how "cheney/bush" is 1 person.

I also love the arm chair quarterbacking. Really, I do. Just imagine if Bush had stood up in that classroom full of children and said "We have been attacked as an act of war and I vow do destroy, by any means at our disposal, those who planned or supported this in any manner" I'm sure you silly simpletons would have commended him.

You ignorants never cease to amaze.; 3/8/11, 6:37 AM
Paco Wové said...: "I'm also a bit hazy on how the effects pedal would improve the situation in the Middle East."

Middle East: Needs More Cowbell; 3/8/11, 6:39 AM
Brian Brown said...: while reading 'My Pet Goat'.

I love that one too.

So I take it that you mean the President should not read books to children?

That is your "point" there, clown?; 3/8/11, 6:42 AM
Anonymous said...: A real take-charge President would have put down that kiddie book and ordered NORAD to shoot down Delta 1189.; 3/8/11, 6:48 AM
KCFleming said...: Obama: "...the best revolutions are completely organic."

Chauncey Gardener: "In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again."; 3/8/11, 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: "the best revolutions are completely organic"

Yeah, like when the American Revolution occurred. Because, you know, we didn't get help from anyone else like France or anything. Oh, never mind.; 3/8/11, 7:09 AM
Phil 314 said...: Difficult situation playing to BO's weakness.; 3/8/11, 7:27 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: Pogo wins the thread.

Brilliant.; 3/8/11, 7:32 AM
John Thacker said...: So the article is saying that President Obama doesn't believe that the American Revolution was one of the best revolutions? Rather extreme, accusing him of not being patriotic, I think.; 3/8/11, 7:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Maybe this is one Althouse should weigh in on..

After all, it appears the driving force behind our foreign policy is based in no small part on what bloggers might say, sayeth Hillary-; 3/8/11, 7:47 AM
Paddy O said...: "Coincidentally, after a few days here I knew every single thing there was to know re: AA and what she thought about every topic."

Shiloh, what are Althouse's views on religion?

Added to this, I'm wondering if you could delineate Althouse's understanding of the 1st Amendment as it relates to religion in America.

What are Althouse's views on homosexuality, both in general and as far as marriage? To add another hot button issue, what are her views on abortion?

What are Althouse's views on men's clothing, such as suits, ties, shorts, hats, or other items?

What kind of car does Althouse drive?

If you say you know everything, these are some simple questions. I'm just curious if you do know everything.; 3/8/11, 7:49 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

""He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic.""

Interesting just some names and nationalities:
1) Andrzej Tadeusz Bonawentura Kościuszko (Polish-Lithuanian)
2) Kazimierz Michał Wacław Wiktor Pułaski (Polish)
3) Baron Frederick William (Augustus) von Steuben(Prussian)
4) Lieutenant Général des Armées Navales François-Joseph Paul, marquis de Grasse Tilly, comte de Grasse (French National, Regular Navy)
5) Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette (French National, Regular Army)
Interesting, and I don’t have the names of the 5,000 French Regular troops who served at Yorktown and the names of the several thousand French sailors serving at the Battle of the Saints (which distract the Royal Navy from relieving Cornwallis at Yorktown).

All the above were quite instrumental in procuring American Independence from His Majesty’s Government. As some have pointed out, does this make the American Revolution INAUTHENTIC? Further what does it say of the “Revolutions” that installed Kim Jong-Il or Ho Chi Minh, who, I understand, are quite popular in Faculty Lounges across America?; 3/8/11, 7:59 AM
Roger J. said...: Once again my Friend AllenS summarizes the situation in the mideast brilliantly and with very few words--I would love to see AllenS as our Secretary of State--

We have done enough damage in the mideast--stay the hell out.; 3/8/11, 8:00 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

The above are to suggest that President Obama is certainly NOT the “smartest guy in the room” and is rather historically illiterate, sad commentary on one of the Best and Brightest from the Ivy League. As Instapundit quips, “Credentialed, not Educated.”; 3/8/11, 8:02 AM
Hagar said...: The US does exist, so we are involved.

Now, we may not want to go in shooting in this instance, but why tell Ghaddafy this?

Looks to me like he may go to counting on it that we won't and act in such a manner that we will be obliged to do so after all, and so we get the worst of it either way.

Obama diplomacy!; 3/8/11, 8:03 AM
Roger J. said...: AllenS--but when you become SecState please dont wear an orange leisure pants suit--maybe mossybark camo.; 3/8/11, 8:03 AM
AllenS said...: Thanks, Roger. Let the Libyans run Libya, and the Egyptians run Egypt. It's none of our business. I wouldn't waste aviation fuel on even a flyover. Unless of course, we intend on stealing their oil.; 3/8/11, 8:05 AM
AllenS said...: I'll be the guy wearing the buckskin.

WV: logic

WooHoo!; 3/8/11, 8:06 AM
Roger J. said...: AllenS--we dont need mideast oil--it only accounts for about 20 percent of our oil--lets develop the Bakken Oil Shale in North Dakota--enough reserves there to keep us flush with oil for quite a while.; 3/8/11, 8:08 AM
jr565 said...: If he doesn't want to get involved, why was he laying down ultimatums that Egypt had to do if they wanted US support, even though he then DEMANDED that Mubarek step down anyway. It seems like Obama is tougher on alllies than he is on enemies. And with friends like that who needs enemies?
For all the talk about Mubarek being a dictator, I'll note that he didn't machine gun his people after they protested him. Whereas, Khadaffi did. That says a bit about the two. Yet Obama makes demans of Mubarek yet has a hands off approach in Libya.

He also makes the asinine statement that Khaddafyi lost his legitimacy when he didn't give his people the right to vote? You don't say! It's nice for him to come to such revelations now, though hasn't Khaddafi's status as a dictator been known to the general public for years? Back when Bush invaded Iraq and got him to give up his illicit WMD program we knew he was a bad guy (though of course liberals were calling Bush a bully instead of holding the K man accountable for anything). But even then it was common knowledge about what Khaddafi was. Such knowledge is why Libya has been on various terrorist watch lists for ages. Why has it taken this long for democrats and libs to recognize what was under their noses the whole time? Are they that stupid.

And, what do we have a CIA for? Even if we aren't directly involved in Libya, have they never heard of covert ops?; 3/8/11, 8:08 AM
jr565 said...: Roger J wrote:
Once again my Friend AllenS summarizes the situation in the mideast brilliantly and with very few words--I would love to see AllenS as our Secretary of State--

We have done enough damage in the mideast--stay the hell out.

Taking a neutral position while guys like Khaddafi crack down on protesters, is not in fact neutral. It, by default, sides with the dictator. And it will cause damage. And we'll get blamed for it.
This is not to say that the Muslim world isn't eager to assign blame. If we support the dictator we get blamed for supporting dictators (by islamic fundamentalists with not even a pretense of promoting democracy). Yet if we stand aside and let dictators do their worst we also support said dictators and the people say that we are hypocrites about our stressing human rights and values, when we don't actually support it when its facing its worse.

So we're damnded if we do and damned if we don't.; 3/8/11, 8:15 AM
Toad Trend said...: The Zero continues his strategy of voting 'present', this time on Libya, in order to try to appear as being all things to all people.

Weakness is a provocation.

wv - urlsteep

Lingering at a website; 3/8/11, 8:15 AM
Almost Ali said...: We really don't know how Obama would react in a national emergency, do we?

Yes, we do. And his response was, is, and shall ever be; buy a Chevy Volt. And fill it up with 9-dollar Muslim gas.

The point being that we're living a national emergency, while Obama is concurrently living his version of the American Dream along with his father's fondest Marxist dream.; 3/8/11, 8:16 AM
SteveR said...: The Whole Foods Market Revolution of 2011; 3/8/11, 8:20 AM
Roger J. said...: jr565--I agree with your basic argument--I would sugges we take the imperial british approach of muddling thru--see how things shake out and deal with them then--dont prejudice our future actions with dumb positions before the eventual outcome. Your last line: damned if we do and damned if we dont is on the mark--keep our ultimate positions sacrosanct until we know what has happened.
we are NOT in control of anything at this point.; 3/8/11, 8:22 AM
tree hugging sister said...: UT, outstanding. Absolutely outstanding.

Grow a set, Barack! Put on your cowboy hat and channel W.!

Please, Barack. Attempt no such thing. It will only go badly ~ not that YOUR ego would let YOU notice, but, trust me. The rest of us will be PAINFULLY aware, in short order, of your shortcomings. As the inevitable recipients of your fumblings' fallout, please. Golf. Call Carmel, play some Horse. Go do whatever that shit is you do between vacations and lecturing us.; 3/8/11, 8:23 AM
TosaGuy said...: Revolutions may in Obama's mind be organic, but labor union tantrums in a state require the insertion of his political goon squads.; 3/8/11, 8:27 AM
Big Mike said...: The best revolutions are completely organic? You mean like the Tea Party, vice the Soros-funded left wing loonies?; 3/8/11, 8:34 AM
Henry said...: @Revenant. No, you're not wrong.

After the blunders, misadventures and unforeseen consequences from our previous efforts to help Islamic "freedom fighters", I'm shocked that anyone is proposing U.S. involvement.

I'm talking to you, Joe Lieberman. And you, Sarah Palin.

It's Obama's Anthony Eden moment.; 3/8/11, 8:48 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

After the blunders, misadventures and unforeseen consequences from our previous efforts to help Islamic "freedom fighters", I'm shocked that anyone is proposing U.S. involvement.

What blunders would those be, or rather considering the alternatives, what would you propose different? Bomb the Taliban, nuke Saddam?; 3/8/11, 8:50 AM
PaulV said...: Good thing that Bush scared the Libyian Dicator so he gave up his WMDs. He would have used them against his own people just as SH did. Giving a few dirty bombs to terrorists would hurt. Should Obama copy Clinton and terror bomb Libya. Hit the government TV stations, hospitals and the Chinese Embassy? Capituation worked for Hitler.
WV: squom. Arabic for quorm; 3/8/11, 8:54 AM
Calypso Facto said...: Well said, Tosa. His actions show which battles he considers important enough for intervention.

Democratic fundraising in Wisconsin? Critical! Lives of North African brown people? Meh.; 3/8/11, 8:57 AM
Henry said...: @Joe TCJ --

Start with Carter and Khomeini -- Utter disaster.

Afghanistan's Mujahideen -- Tactical success against the Soviets; long-term strategic failure.

First Gulf War -- Tactical success! But failure to close; long-term strategic festering failure.

Encouragement of uprisings against Sadaam Hussein, failure to support; tactical failure.

Kosovo -- Success! But only after dreadful failures in the Serbian conflicts. Long-term strategic wash.

Second Gulf War -- Quick success followed by dreadful failure, followed by tactical success. Arguable a long-term strategic success but at tremendous cost.

Afghanistan, ongoing -- Some tactical successes and many tactical disasters and for no long term strategic imperative.

Don't tell me that this time we'll learn from our mistakes.; 3/8/11, 9:05 AM
ricpic said...: What's organic about fundamentally transforming America? Nothing. It is the working of the will of a tiny cadre of revolutionists on a highly aware and highly resistant majority whose will is being systematically and illegally OVERRIDDEN.; 3/8/11, 9:06 AM
bagoh20 said...: If the terrorists decided our Presidential election, Ron Paul would win with Obama a strong second.

Paul would be liked for his principles and Obama for his lack thereof.

WV: furgot; 3/8/11, 9:08 AM
Greg's Blog said...: @ Dose of Sanity

Funny how the people who should know and should be listen too say no to the no-fly zone - the generals.; 3/8/11, 9:10 AM
jr565 said...: Regarding Henry's list of our tactical blunders:
Almost all the failures on the list are because we didn't have the werewithal to stick with the problem or dropped the ball or failed to support. But as with all issues of this nature, these things take time.
We wouldn't have success in Iraq if we didn't work through the failures and continue to support our efforts.
But is not doing things all that much better. If we had a completely hands off policy on Iran they would have nukes by now. Us holding their feet to the fire, but not doing it sufficiently and passing off blame on George Bush instead of the regime doesn't in fact get them to stop their nuclear production. So whether we have a hands on or hands off approach we're still going to have to deal ultimately with regimes like Iran that will act in their interests in ways counter to our own. Pretending we're neutral and like Sweden is putting our head up our own ass.; 3/8/11, 9:20 AM
Kirby Olson said...: As Obama dithers, Libya burns.; 3/8/11, 9:23 AM
Henry said...: @Seven Machos -- I know you know this, but Serbia is not Kosovo.

NATO, with U.N. approval established the no-fly zone in 1993.

Srebrenica was in 1995. It wasn't until NATO began active air strikes against Serbian targets that Serbia came to the bargaining table.

And that didn't stop the Ethnic Cleansing of Kosovo, which required another NATO bombing campaign.

Are you prepared for your no-fly zone to turn into active air strikes?; 3/8/11, 9:23 AM
David said...: Lafayette, nous sommes ici!

We are here, Lafayette, to tell you that our Revolution would have worked out a lot better if you Frenchies had just dithered and stayed home. We are especially resentful of that naval force you sent to Yorktown.; 3/8/11, 9:26 AM
I'm a Shaaaaark said...: Are you prepared for your no-fly zone to turn into active air strikes?

No, but John Kerry is.; 3/8/11, 9:27 AM
Henry said...: jr565 wrote: Almost all the failures on the list are because we didn't have the werewithal to stick with the problem or dropped the ball or failed to support

I totally agree.

But that is what happens when a Democracy goes to war. You must take into account the domestic political opposition and the impact of policy disagreement.

If Kerry had been elected in 2004 or if Bush hadn't ignored the polls and the advice of many of his own advisors, Iraq would be a civil war basket case right now.

Modern democracies make war really really badly, often for the best of reasons. We are irresolute, reluctant to commit ground troops, prone to use proxies with their own agenda, horrified by murderous blunders, and addicted to the idea of quick fixes.

Those factors must be taken into account before military power is applied.; 3/8/11, 9:33 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: If we had a completely hands off policy on Iran they would have nukes by now.

Iran will have nukes regardless of what we do. Nuclear weapons have been in existence for almost 3/4 of a century. The genie is out of the bottle and pretty much any nation that wants one can build one.; 3/8/11, 9:43 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: SteveR,

The Whole Foods Market Revolution of 2011

Exactly. Our "enemies" (to quote The Won) are both foreign and domestic.; 3/8/11, 9:47 AM
Crimso said...: "What are Althouse's views on men's clothing, such as suits, ties, shorts, hats, or other items?"

Longtime Althouse hillbillies will clearly see the landmine you cleverly concealed (in full view, mind you) in that patch of ground.; 3/8/11, 9:56 AM
Henry said...: "What are Althouse's views on men's clothing, such as suits, ties, shorts, hats, or other items?"

I missed that. Very good. Crimso, thanks for pointing it out.; 3/8/11, 10:10 AM
Anonymous said...: TosaGuy said...

"Revolutions may in Obama's mind be organic, but labor union tantrums in a state require the insertion of his political goon squads."

Indeed.

The revolution spreads...

"Michigan firefighters, unions storm capitol in protest of anti-union legislation"

We have no such legislation, proposed or otherwise, but what we do have is "Hope and Change 2.0-the re-election revolution".; 3/8/11, 10:16 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Whole Foods?

The revolution is over priced.; 3/8/11, 10:16 AM
MnMark said...: Reason #1 Not To Get Involved In Libya:

If we get militarily involved in a country - even as peacekeepers (see Somalia)- we end up with a whole new batch of unassimilable hyphenated Americans forming their own little colonies in the USA.; 3/8/11, 10:16 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Modern democracies make war really really badly, often for the best of reasons. We are irresolute, reluctant to commit ground troops, prone to use proxies with their own agenda, horrified by murderous blunders, and addicted to the idea of quick fixes.

I agree it’s why Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini and Kim Il-Sung…OH WAIT.

As to nuclear weapons NO, not any nation can have them, if they want them…it’s why there are only about 8 Nuclear Powers on Earth…sanctions and the like DO have an effect, and Osirak in 1982 also had a positive effect.; 3/8/11, 10:17 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

One of the reasons the Military doesn’t like a No Fly Zone is their Boss doesn’t like a No Fly Zone….it’s Circular Reasoning, Obama: “The JCS is leery”, the JCS: “Obama is leery…” As to the SEAD mission, considering the quality of the Libyan Air Defense in the Mini-War in the 1980’s, plus the effects of the arms embargo and a civil war, I don’t think destroying the SA-5/6’s and the like is going to be that difficult. After that CAP’ing the air fieldss, from above 3-4,00 metres isn’t going to much more than a boring waste of JP…..; 3/8/11, 10:21 AM
Unknown said...: Henry said...

Kosovo -- Success! But only after dreadful failures in the Serbian conflicts. Long-term strategic wash.

Some success. A misdirection play while Willie had his cigar up Monica's skirt (God, what a schlub).

Second Gulf War -- Quick success followed by dreadful failure, followed by tactical success. Arguable a long-term strategic success but at tremendous cost.

You must be joking. Low casualties, the removal of a hands-on agressive dictator and his would-be dynasty, and the gutting of Al Qaeda.

Oh, and, yes, it turned out that the WMDs were there.

Afghanistan, ongoing -- Some tactical successes and many tactical disasters and for no long term strategic imperative.

Don't tell me that this time we'll learn from our mistakes.

You need to stop getting your info from Kos, Bill O'Really, Judge Napolitano, and the Establishment Media.

A-stan is hardly the First Afghan War (read Victor Davis Hanson on the subject).

PS Glad to see Meadhouse taking it easy and fighting the dreaded bacillus.

Or have we set off on the Big Spring Break Run to the Sun?; 3/8/11, 10:28 AM
Dose of Sanity said...: @ UT - You asked me why we need a no-fly zone.

I agree that they should rise up and fight. They are. But air power is a gamechanger - you basically can't fight it no matter how determined you are.

I help a group libyans (tech support, tbh) and see a lot of their videos. I saw what happened to a group of 20 or men and 2 children when an attack helicopter opened up on them. We shouldn't put troops on the ground, we shouldn't pull an Iraq, but we do need to get in there and stop that air power.

If we do, we'll actually earn some goodwill in the region. It's in fairly short supply right now. I'm a hardcore, way left liberal - so you won't often see me advocating this option. I'm in agreement with McCain and everyone else supporting a no-fly zone.; 3/8/11, 10:29 AM
David said...: "Are you prepared for your no fly zone to turn into active air strikes."

A no fly zone must be preceded by active air strikes to suppress anti aircraft defenses. This is what makes Obama so reluctant. I share his reluctance, but it would not be that hard to destroy most of Libya's air force and helicopter forces on the ground. That would require one or two well planned attacks, not a constant presence over Libyan air space. It would also stop the murder by helicopter that is going on.; 3/8/11, 10:29 AM
David said...: Is it possible we are reluctant to intervene in Libya because we want to keep forces available to support the Saudi monarchy if needed?; 3/8/11, 10:32 AM
Fungineer said...: sds; 3/8/11, 10:42 AM
MayBee said...: I'm bothered that this administration whines about how difficult these tasks are for our military.

It's as if they really, really want to disabuse the world of the notion that we have the strongest, best military in the world.

I understand if they don't want to use military intervention in Libya- there are some good reasons not to- but I hate it that they are making it sound as if we wouldn't do it because it's just too haaa-aard.; 3/8/11, 10:51 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: ...but we do need to get in there and stop that air power.

If we do, we'll actually earn some goodwill in the region

..I'm sorry but that gave me a belly laugh. I mean, logically doing what you say should give us goodwill but we did the same thing in Bosnia and by preventing further wholesale slaughter of Muslims remind me again what goodwill that generated? Oh yeah, 9/11 I forgot. I also keep forgetting all that humanitarian support we provided to Indonesia after the tsunami and Pakistan after their massive earthquake generated massive goodwill in the regions there too.

Sorry but my cynicism only goes so far.; 3/8/11, 10:51 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

..I'm sorry but that gave me a belly laugh. I mean, logically doing what you say should give us goodwill but we did the same thing in Bosnia and by preventing further wholesale slaughter of Muslims remind me again what goodwill that generated? Oh yeah, 9/11 I forgot. I also keep forgetting all that humanitarian support we provided to Indonesia after the tsunami and Pakistan after their massive earthquake generated massive goodwill in the regions there too.

I share your belly laugh, but point out that we can LOSE points, even if we can’t GAIN points, by not acting…..; 3/8/11, 10:58 AM
Henry said...: @Joe TCJ, re: "modern democracies" -- I should have written "contemporary", meaning post-WWII and even more importantly, post-Vietnam and finally, post-Soviet. I think the evidence of the political problems in waging war since Vietnam is overwhelming.

@edutcher, re: info. None of the above. Rather books like The Accidental Guerrilla by David Kilcullen. Kilcullen helped design the counterterrorism surge in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't make him a fan of the original Iraq invasion.

@David -- Good point. Strikes, then no-fly. I'm less sanguine than you that it ends there. Once we commit force we have a geopolitical and moral obligation to follow-up and no one knows where that will lead.; 3/8/11, 11:02 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

I think the evidence of the political problems in waging war since Vietnam is overwhelming.

No, Post-Soviet, there hasn’t been anything really WORTH risking lots over….Democracies are like any other group, cost-benefit…the cost side is more weighted in a democracy…what has been worth risking 100,000 or 60,000 KIA for Post-USSR? Nothing, really….; 3/8/11, 11:05 AM
Fungineer said...: Before we get carried away over the plight of the poor honest Libyan freedom fighter yearning to breathe free...and his obvious usefullness in beating on Obama.

May I remind you that the whole country experienced organic orgasms of joy when the Hero of Lockerbie returned home two years ago?

Lets also not forget that any intervention here sets a precedent. What happens when this brush fire sweeps into Saudia Arabia? Are you naive enough to believe that the Saudis have treated their people measurably better? What then will be your excuse for not bombing the SA airforce into sand?; 3/8/11, 11:06 AM
Henry said...: what has been worth risking 100,000 or 60,000 KIA for Post-USSR? Nothing, really...

It's nice to think that Iraq had low casualties (per edutcher), but that's only if you don't count civilians. I'm willing to accept the lowest estimate. I'm willing to accept that Sadaam Hussein killed civilians in great numbers when left alone. But we were there in force and a hundred thousand civilians died. That's our responsibility.; 3/8/11, 11:08 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

It's nice to think that Iraq had low casualties (per edutcher), but that's only if you don't count civilians. I'm willing to accept the lowest estimate. I'm willing to accept that Sadaam Hussein killed civilians in great numbers when left alone. But we were there in force and a hundred thousand civilians died. That's our responsibility.

I am talking US Casualties…
And no 100,00 didn’t die, and IIRC, the bulk of the Iraqi casualties are blue-on-blue Iraqi’s killing one another in terror attacks….Coalition Forces didn’t kill 100,00 Iraqi’s, AQI and the various militias, did that….; 3/8/11, 11:12 AM
Chennaul said...: You both are talking past each other.

WW II was perhaps the last war of attrition, the later conflicts have longer durations and time frames because they are fought differently.

Terrorism is by it's nature decentralized, asymmetric and the mind set of the terrorist due to the radical fundamentalism thinks in longer generational end goal terms than Western culture.

Basically you are comparing apples to oranges.; 3/8/11, 11:26 AM
Henry said...: @Joe TCJ

Joe, 100,000 is the lowest widely accepted estimate. And of course U.S. forces didn't kill them. But we were the controlling police and military authority through that time and we were unable to stop the deaths from happening.

In other words the civilian deaths in Iraq were one of the consequences of our invasion. Such possible outcomes have to be factored in before we commit to a military intervention.; 3/8/11, 11:27 AM
Calypso Facto said...: but I hate it that they are making it sound as if we wouldn't do it because it's just too haaa-aard.

I haven't heard that, Maybee. Perhaps we're listening/reading different places. What I HAVE heard are statements like SecDef Gates', saying (paraphrased) "We can CERTAINLY provide a no-fly zone over Libya, but understand that doing so requires first destroying ground targets and killing both hostile and innocent Libyans. Do we all understand and approve of that?"; 3/8/11, 11:27 AM
Chennaul said...: Actually it has been the White House asking for no fly zone options with the State Department or at least the subset departments of NEA and EUR demurring.(- if a certain Washington Post reporter is to be believed.); 3/8/11, 11:32 AM
Chennaul said...: What's interesting is-have the rebels asked for a no fly zone?

Has that been done officially and how would they do that in a unified voice-who speaks for them?

So far the only Libyans asking for a no fly zone with a united voice are the old guard of Kadafi's foreign diplomats.

In the tapes of supposed air attacks do you ever see footage of the "aircraft"?

At Belmont Club they are saying or referring to those that say that most of Kadafi's air power derives from helicopters.

How well do you think no fly zones work against helos?; 3/8/11, 11:37 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

In other words the civilian deaths in Iraq were one of the consequences of our invasion. Such possible outcomes have to be factored in before we commit to a military intervention.

Is the NYPD responsible for the deaths of murder victims in NYC? Should we have weighed the 40,000 French civilian KIA in our decision to Liberate Europe? IF the Coalition is going to be responsible for all deaths as a result of actions, even those not taken by the Coalition you’ve just eliminated Western Military action from the “arsenal.” Even if we defend ourselves, there will be innocent lives lost, “Sure the PRC has occupied LA, but if we respond, remember we’re responsible for ALL Las Angelino’s killed, as a result of our counter-attack.”; 3/8/11, 11:38 AM
Joe said...: ((The Crypto Jew)

At Belmont Club they are saying or referring to those that say that most of Kadafi's air power derives from helicopters.

How well do you think no fly zones work against helos?

There’s at least one if not two UH-60’s and 26 Allied KIA that could comment on the ability of AWACS to spot helo’s and to target AIM-120’s onto them…..Over Northern Iraq, 17 years ago.

Helicopters, by virtue of their rotating blades, generate an IMMENSE Doppler return for radars….; 3/8/11, 11:48 AM
MayBee said...: From the Examiner:"A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses and then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down," Gates said. "But that's the way it starts."

Gates also said that for for the operation to achieve the desired level of success it would require at least two aircraft carriers.

From the WaPo:
"We also have to think about frankly the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East," [Gates]told reporters at a news conference. "So we are sensitive about all these things."

"It would be a military operation," [Mattis] said. "It wouldn't be just telling people not to fly airplanes."

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Mattis's warning about preemptive strikes on Libyan targets. "We'd have to work out way through it, do it in a safe manner and not put ourselves in jeopardy," he said in a joint appearance with Gates.
====

I disagree with your characterization, Calypso.
You disagree with mine.

I want the Pentagon to say "Yes. We can do this"
And then I want others in the administration to discuss strategy, and expand on the reasons to do it or not do it.
But the fact that it will take two ships? The Pentagon can do that. If it makes sense to do it. I don't want to hear that we wouldn't do it because it's logistically too hard.; 3/8/11, 11:51 AM
Henry said...: Should we have weighed the 40,000 French civilian KIA in our decision to Liberate Europe?

Of course. Why wouldn't we?

In fact the U.S. constantly factored in civilian casualties in WWII combat operations. Precision daylight bombing is just one example. (Notably, the British didn't go along with it.)

One can weigh the costs and still proceed if the benefit justifies them. One can make those arguments about Iraq. But that doesn't dispel the full set of facts and consequences.; 3/8/11, 11:52 AM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

In fact the U.S. constantly factored in civilian casualties in WWII combat operations. Precision daylight bombing is just one example. (Notably, the British didn't go along with it.)

One can weigh the costs and still proceed if the benefit justifies them. One can make those arguments about Iraq. But that doesn't dispel the full set of facts and consequences.

Because we didn’t factor the cost to the French in, in the invasion and you misread the USAAF’s doctrine in Europe…it was not concern for collateral damage, certainly, it was a belief in the efficacy of the Norden bombsight…and once H2S was available it didn’t bother 8th Air Force to bomb blind thru the clouds via radar.; 3/8/11, 11:57 AM
Aridog said...: madawaskan said...

"WW II was perhaps the last war of attrition, the later conflicts have longer durations and time frames because they are fought differently."

Yes, they certainly are different. I was in a war post WWII and saw the beginning of the business process approach to war fighting. IIRC, it sucked.

Question: Morality and capability issues aside... how will we pay for imposing a no fly zone, or more, over or in Libya?

Are we not already broke? Have the Dems or Repubs found a way yet to end our perpetual deficit?; 3/8/11, 12:07 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Yes, they certainly are different. I was in a war post WWII and saw the beginning of the business process approach to war fighting. IIRC, it sucked.

Hate to pop that bubble dood/doodette, the Second World War was the GENESIS of the managerial approach to war……The US Armed Forces defined their mission as mobilization and production, and then the transport of those combat forces overseas…it was a very managerial approach to war, and a successful one.; 3/8/11, 12:10 PM
Chennaul said...: I don't want to hear that we wouldn't do it because it's logistically too hard.

What about manning-do you think the AF took some cuts recently in forces?

What are notoriously the critically manned career fields in the AF?

Then how effective are no fly zones against helos?

Now what Obama should do is say to himself-here is an example where even with Iraq and Afghanistan going on and other areas being safeguarded-(remember even for the tsunami-carriers cannot be turned on a dime-they have to be strategically placed) the capability to be able to do something would be nice.

Obama literally needs to man up the AF and the funding for R&D for certain capabilities.

UAVs or RPAs or what ever the hell we're calling them these days.

Funny thing is Liberals usually hate that stuff until it's too late.; 3/8/11, 12:11 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

Obama literally needs to man up the AF and the funding for R&D for certain capabilities.

UAVs or RPAs or what ever the hell we're calling them these days.

That ain’t Obama, dood/doodette, that’s the Air Force…they cut personnel because they want(ed) F-22’s and they oppose much UAV work, because they want F-22’s….; 3/8/11, 12:14 PM
Ray said...: "IF the Coalition is going to be responsible for all deaths as a result of actions, even those not taken by the Coalition you’ve just eliminated Western Military action from the “arsenal.“"

Which is, I believe, the point. Wail loudly about military casualties, no matter how much you tried to avoid them. Wail loudly about civilian casualties, , no matter that you sustained military casualties to try and prevent them. And thus a threat that can't be removed externally by force of arms is removed internally via politics and PR.; 3/8/11, 12:15 PM
Chennaul said...: Joe

Well I think you can agree that we weren't exactly up to speed when we got into WW II the "winning" didn't look like "winning" for quite awhile.

Basically we can't afford to be that ill prepared and those kinds of wars of attrition again.; 3/8/11, 12:17 PM
Aridog said...: Joe (the Crypto ...)

I should clarify I guess ... the beginning of the wholesale use of contractors as efficient strategy, logistics and tactics is more like it. The implementation means of the "managerial approach" does make a difference.

Now I was there, but I could be wrong. No bubble involved ... just what I experienced first hand.; 3/8/11, 12:20 PM
Chennaul said...: Joe

I was talking about the future and future projections- I don't think the F-22 has much to do with that and besides civilians have control over the budget at DOD.

The AF just does what it wants unchecked?

Interesting. That might be unconstitutional.

Riddle me this-how effective are no fly zones against helos?; 3/8/11, 12:23 PM
Chennaul said...: Ya I know that's going to take awhile.

Check back with you later.; 3/8/11, 12:25 PM
Joe said...: (The Crypto Jew)

I was talking about the future and future projections- I don't think the F-22 has much to do with that and besides civilians have control over the budget at DOD.

The AF just does what it wants unchecked?.

The USAF asked for and received permission to RIF, during the 2000’s with the ostensible purpose of freeing up personnel founds for use in technology acquisition, to wit the F-22…The USAF has sought to limit UAV approaches to large UAV’s that meet USAF needs, and to incorporate UAV’s within the USAF managerial/production/ATO sphere…Do you mean to say you are astonished that bureaucracies seek to set public policies conducive to their cadre interests?; 3/8/11, 12:27 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Basically we can't afford to be that ill prepared and those kinds of wars of attrition again.

The days of wars of 'attrition' are long gone.; 3/8/11, 12:35 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: At least with respect to a couple major powers squaring off. For the US at least, we don't have the manufacturing capacity to start cranking out Abrams or F-18s on a several hundred a day basis like the old days.; 3/8/11, 12:38 PM
Anonymous said...: I can only add to the comments above that a no-fly zone fundamentally requires some bombing of anti-aircraft artillery.

Also, I have no problems with threatening to bomb the current Libyan regime into death. This is an opportunity to rid the world of an awful dictator. They don't come around very often usually. Right now, of course, they are coming fast and furious and at deep discounts. A damn shame that Obama is president.; 3/8/11, 12:40 PM
PaulV said...: Henry, SOS Albright said 500,000 Iraqi children died because of UN sanctions. How many Iraqis were killed under SH? More than 100K I would guess. The Iraqis now hate AQ because AQ killed Iraqis and raped the women.; 3/8/11, 12:42 PM
Joe said...: The Crypto Jew)

The days of wars of 'attrition' are long gone.

I’m not just a “contrarian” but no not really…we are “attriting” the Taliban…Just like Brit’s attrited the PIRA…just like the Coalition attrited the Iraqi’s….we hurt them more than they hurt us, in the end their will crumbles…Almost all combat involves attrition, wearing the enemy out, physically and then mentally. Everyone remembers Cannae, but the Second Punic War didn’t end then; it lasted another 14 years. Everyone talks Austerlitz, but no one seems to remember that the war lasted 10 more years.; 3/8/11, 12:45 PM
Henry said...: How many Iraqis were killed under SH? More than 100K I would guess.

I think I read some articles at some point that tried to figure out the arithmetic. Maybe so. Certainly our forces didn't build any cemeteries for children. I think the Iraq war may turn out to be a long-term strategic victory, but the cost has been great.

My larger point is pretty simple. When you choose to use military action, you have to account for the politics of the thing. And you have to account for the collateral damage. And you have to acknowledge, going in, that we can't account for the consequences.

That is the nature of war as it is fought today by the West.; 3/8/11, 1:09 PM
shiloh said...: @Michael

We know every single thing we need to know about you and what you "think" about every topic.

@Paddy O

What are my views on religion?

What are my views re: the 1st Amendment as regards to religion in America?

What are my views on homosexuality and abortion which I've never mentioned at AA.

What are my views on women's clothing?

What make/model car do I drive?

yada yada yada

As I was answering Michael's non sequitur w/my own sarcastic non sequitur.

and thanx for playin'

>

and it's good to see conservatives are still apologizing/rationalizing for Bush re: his non-presidential, clueless reaction on 9/11.; 3/8/11, 1:38 PM
Revenant said...: And as bad as Carter was in 1980, high inflation, high gas prices etc. the main issue which defeated him was the (444) day Iran Hostage Crisis

That's a myth, I'm afraid. Carter's poll numbers climbed sharply in response to the Iran Hostage Crisis; that's normal for Presidents when the country is attacked. His poll numbers then steadily declined, but by the time of the election still had not fallen to where they were pre-Crisis.

the race was a toss-up until the final weekend when Reagan finally sealed the deal after the debate. And he still only got 50.75% ~ Anderson getting 8%.

Reagan beat Carter by 9.7% of the popular vote. The last time a Democrat managed that kind of a victory margin was 1964.

Unless the country suffers a terrorist attack sometime in the next year and a half, Obama's in serious trouble. He's got no accomplishments aside from ObamaCare, and swing voters don't like ObamaCare.; 3/8/11, 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Shiloh -- Your basic problem is that you have nothing interesting to say. You have no interesting thoughts. Everything about you is mundane.

The irony is that you think you have the very interesting people here, including the host, all figured out. You don't. And you don't have the ability.; 3/8/11, 1:45 PM
shiloh said...: SM, if I have nothing interesting to say, why do you keep replying ?!?

Rhetorical question.

take care, blessings; 3/8/11, 2:15 PM
Lombardi Chick said...: and it's good to see conservatives are still apologizing/rationalizing for Bush re: his non-presidential, clueless reaction on 9/11.

Given the same exact circumstances, what would President Shiloh have done?

If it's so damned easy, let's hear it.

Or are you just a garden variety left-winger, who only knows how to bash the opposing side and will never be caught offering anything resembling a actual solution to a problem?; 3/8/11, 2:22 PM
Lombardi Chick said...: The point being that we're living a national emergency, while Obama is concurrently living his version of the American Dream along with his father's fondest Marxist dream.

I agree that this is a national emergency, played out over a period of years - so I guess the left's position is that playing an obscene amount of golf and partying at taxpayer expense is far superior to running around doing stupid stuff like reading to children.; 3/8/11, 2:31 PM
Kirby Olson said...: If you want the UN to consider a no-fly zone over Libya, this organization is trying to send a million emails to the UN to request that it do so immediately:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_no_fly_zone_1/?cl=974272546&v=8575

Obama dithers, while Libya burns.; 3/8/11, 2:39 PM
shiloh said...: LC, your inane, hypothetical deflections notwithstanding.

actual solution to a problem

Political blogs solve social, economic, national security problems ?!?

Who knew!; 3/8/11, 2:48 PM
Revenant said...: If you want the UN to consider a no-fly zone over Libya

Does the UN have an air force all of a sudden?

Or is this one of those "UN calls the shots, Americans do the actual shooting" types of things.; 3/8/11, 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Rev -- Brilliant. I didn't catch that. UN...NATO...whatever!; 3/8/11, 3:14 PM
Joe said...: Whither the confidence by many that the Libyan rebels represent anything resembling our best interests? Or even acceptable interests?

What if the rebels are bigger assholes than the people currently in charge?; 3/8/11, 3:38 PM
Joe said...: Second point. All the evidence is that a no-fly zone would do no good. While weak, the Libyan army has the equipment and knowhow to wage an effective war on the ground and by all accounts are doing just that.; 3/8/11, 3:41 PM
Lombardi Chick said...: LC, your inane, hypothetical deflections notwithstanding.

actual solution to a problem

Political blogs solve social, economic, national security problems ?!?

Who knew!

Yeah, Shiloh - that's pretty much what I thought you'd say. The only surprise in your post was that you didn't take another cheap shot at President Bush's competency.; 3/8/11, 3:55 PM
Kirby Olson said...: I think they have a kind of de facto air force to which many different nations contribute on a volunteer basis. But if they pass it, then it gives sanction to the notion that the US, England, France, and all the usual functioning countries, can do something. It gives a kind of legal sanction that will cover BO's butt, that is, so that he doesn't come off as an imperialistic aggressor.; 3/8/11, 5:02 PM
Paddy O said...: "What are my views on religion?"

See, that's where it doesn't work. You assert this is a political blog and then go on to make all kinds of judgments and summations and dismissals that we're all lemmings.

It's not a non-sequitur at all because almost all your comments have been mostly content-free snipes at Althouse or the commenters here.

Which means you really do think you have her and the rest of us summed up. Every single post here is you trying to sum up what you think you know about us.

Do you really think actually knowing something about Althouse, this blog, or anything else is actually a non sequitur to your statements of opinion? Really?!

The Know-Nothing Party has returned!; 3/8/11, 5:03 PM
Paddy O said...: And all I know, despite my asking in a previous thread for more substantive comments from you, is that you've been around "political" blogs since way back in 2001, so you have been around waaaay longer and have this grand insight into how people are and so don't actually have to pay attention anymore because you've heard enough to make up your own generalized rules of the internet, feeling it is your gift to share with us all your collected conclusions of that vast amount of experience on the world wide web (((going back as far as 2001))).; 3/8/11, 5:07 PM
Brian Brown said...: and it's good to see conservatives are still apologizing/rationalizing for Bush re: his non-presidential, clueless reaction on 9/11.

Hysterical.

Just imagine if Bush had stood up in that classroom full of children and said "We have been attacked as an act of war and I vow do destroy, by any means at our disposal, those who planned or supported this in any manner"

I'm sure you silly simpletons would have commended him.; 3/8/11, 6:45 PM
shiloh said...: I'm sure you silly simpletons would have commended him.

No Jay as Paddy O mentioned, AA's conservatives never make absolute generalizations about any group or political party.

Indeed, as libtard etc. is never mentioned. And sarcasm is against the rules.

ok, if sarcasm was outlawed, AA would never make an Obama post as they are nothin' but snark.; 3/8/11, 7:02 PM