Gadaffi Must Go!

Everyone says so.  Our President says so.  Diplomats from 40 nations have said so.  The questions is just how are they going to do that?

A German diplomat says the illusion that business will get back to normal if he manages to hang on must be destroyed.  Somehow, I don't think Mr. Gadaffi is suffering from that illusion.  I suspect he figures if he manages to hang on there will be a blood bath the likes of which we've seldom seen.

On the other hand, for all the pontificating, talk about arming the rebels to do the job did not come up in recent talks.  So how are they going to do it?  Well, maybe if the air strikes fail to protect the civilians, it will be considered, says another.  The rebels are the civilians.  Some of Gadaffi's supporters are civilians.  Oops.  Sounds like a bona fide civil war to me!  No one wants to get involved in that.

When all else fails, there are always sanctions.  Oops again.  Assets are already being frozen.  Yet, just like guns to the drug cartels in Mexico, the bad guys always seem to find a way. The fighting continues.

It was of interest to hear nothing about the depth of U.S. involvement, ultimate leadership or  the end game in Obama's address last night.  So where does that leave things?  It leaves everyone talking about what no one wants to do.  The international community will talk it to death.  The mid-east will crumble around them because the next country is waiting in the wings.

It will, however, do exactly what Obama has said he's wanted.  The international community to act in concert.  No plan. No decisions.  No leadership.  But in concert.

If the mid-eastern people want their freedoms, they'll have to figure out how to do it with out international intervention.  They can be dead sure about that.  Dead sure.

We've Been At War Too Long!

I know I've called for intervention in Libya.  It seemed the humanitarian thing to do and I stand by that reason.  And only that reason.  As so many have said, we're involved in too many wars as is.

It has become quite clear when we've found it necessary to dumb down the requirements for enlistees to meet our  manpower needs.  It's bound to have an effect on the caliber of person attracted to the military; how inclined they are to the discipline of training and to the discipline of battle.  It has to be tougher on the commanding officers unless they too are of lesser caliber.  That I cannot answer but I have my suspicions.

We've been witness for some time now to the tolls of deployment.  After deployment.  After deployment.  More and more are returning with mental problems.  We first saw it with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.  It was never completely sorted out as to just who bore the responsibility.  Now it's happening again in Afghanistan where troops have laughed while killing civilians, toyed with and mutilated their corpses to the point of cutting off their fingers and using them for gaming chips.

What is happening to our young men?  They are turning into the very monsters they are supposed to be fighting.  Perhaps this is the root of everything going on in the mid-east.  Many of those country's young people have known nothing but war since they were born.  With war comes brutality and a hardening to it.  The same seems now to be happening to our soldiers. It will become more and more prevalent the longer the wars last. When all you know is war it becomes an indelible part of you.  What once horrified you becomes the norm then the entertainment.

It's a sorry statement on the state of the world and those who are leaders within it.  The world is broken and our country right along with it.  We haven't the courage of our convictions because we have no convictions.  Everything is for political expedience and the power that comes with it.

With all the technological advancements that have been made, technology that allows for someone thousands of miles away to pinpoint a target for a drone, technology that can bring war in real time into out living rooms,  is not able to do the one thing necessary for peace.   Make the lure of power secondary to the well being of the people.

The more war envelopes us the more likely we will be little more than savages among the most advanced technology known to man.

Where Have All The Leaders Gone?

I've had two lines of thought bothering me for weeks now.  I've been harping on the idea that something needed to be done to stop the civilian deaths in Libya yet no one wanted to step forward.  When finally done, there was no plan what-so-ever and still no one wants the responsibility.  The probable outcome is likely to be dismal.  Would a stronger president have taken a stand for or against intervention and explained the reasoning to us?  I'd like to think so.

Given that, I got to thinking about all the other civil unrest going on in the mid-east and continental Africa, not to mention other areas of the world, and why Libya has gotten the attention it has.  The media.  If they would get on the case in Darfur, for instance, we  be clamoring for intervention there?  Probably so.  Should we?  Yes.  Could we?  Realistically, no.  We were lucky with Egypt.  Mainly because the army refused to fire on the people. Luck ran out in Libya.

We are looked to for leadership.  This president does not want it nor will he take it.  Saying no takes just as much leadership as saying yes, maybe even more.  But a leader must be willing to take a risk and do what's right for our country regardless of political expediency. A leader must also be willing to communicate with his people and his government, to answer their questions and take the flak that may come with it.   Obama does not seem to have the inclination.  The result is mixed and incomplete messages that come across as weakness rather than deliberitiveness.

That takes me to another subject I've been stewing over.  How can the world sit back and allow these things to happen and how can it be so selective as to where there is effort to stop it or not.  The amount of press it receives and the reaction to it. Since civil conflict seems to be a way of life around the world strong policies are needed for dealing with it .  Or not.  And we need to know what they are.  Obviously at this time we have nothing cohesive nor coherent.  It falls on the president and his administration.  Other countries, too, need to know exactly where we stand and why.

My second dilemma.  I'm beginning to formulate what I'd like to see in the upcoming presidential candidates.  So far I'm not encouraged. What I've learned is to not be overly impressed with an ability to give a good speech, but rather look for substance and more importantly experience.   If I want a leader I want someone with proven skills, not just soaring rhetoric. If I want a leader I want to see someone who has had life experience outside  the narrowness of academia and one willing to call on real experts over cronies.  That's probably a pipe dream.  Broad knowledge of heath care, business,  economics, social issues and everything else we need to deal with.  It's a very tall order.

I'm sorry we don't have a strong woman in the queue.  Not a Michele Bachmann nor a Sarah Palin.  I never thought I'd say it, but Hillary is the only woman who has a real grasp of what's needed.  She's been in the thick of it.  It shows.  She looks exhausted. She wants no more of it.

Why a woman?  Because of the nature of the job.  Women are superb multi-taskers.  Men are not.  Other than  Germany's Angela Merkel, the leadership involved in the mid-east mess are all men.  We have the bullies. We have the victims of the bullies and it isn't just the people of the bullies' countries.

Laying The Groundwork For Safe Haven?

A difference between the conflict in Libya and Afghanistan is that the Libyan people want our help.  The Afghans are indifferent.  The similarity is neither leader wants us anywhere near.  We've poured billions into both.

Afghanistan's Karzai, who owes his presidency to us, has made it abundantly clear he doesn't like the way we are engaging the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Though no where near ready, he has now announced  plans for his security forces to take over.  It has led me to wonder; the premise being he's laying the groundwork for safe haven for the Taliban and al Qaeda in return for his piece of the pie.

Consider that the areas he is going to have his security forces take over are the ones we've secured.  He won't anger either group or the war lords at the same time presenting little risk to his forces.

He wants to curtail the work being done by both the U.S. and the United Nations.  Not that he can pick up where they've left off.  It does, however, deprive his people of whatever improvements may have been in the works and being a country living in another century, they will not miss what they do not know.

One of the areas he wants to take over is in the heart of the Taliban stronghold, therefore assuring them their sanctuary.

All of this is dependent on $6 billion in international aid to train the security force.

Add to all that the restrictions on night raids of homes suspected of sheltering militants, the constant harping on civilian casualties and the containment of the private security companies protecting supply convoys.

The final indicator is the call for the U.N. to halt it's efforts to clean up Afghanistan's less than exemplary electoral system.

Nothing Karzai has done indicates he has the best interests of his country at heart, but like most despots, it's his own and his cronies.  He just isn't strong enough to do it alone thus the alliance with the Taliban and al Qaeda, now sitting safe and sound in Pakistan.

In my perfect world we'd deal with Pakistan, an ally in name only, and leave Afghanistan telling Karzai that the minute we spot the  implementation of a training camp we're going to take it out.  And do it.  Of course that's wishful thinking.

At the very least, since we're in such dire financial straits, perhaps our whole foreign aid policy should be readdressed.  Quit turning the other cheek when those we support ignore, insult and demean us would be a start.

Just When I Thought Things Were At Their Worst!

I do applaud my readers who have been arguing my point that it was correct for the UN, with the inclusion of the US, to take action to support the Libyan civilians.

 The argument now is where should it stop.  I'd say right about now.  The rebels have been given their chance to regroup, obtain weapons and mount an offensive or their defenses. They have a civil war on their hands and the direction it takes is in the hands of the two sides.  We encouraged them.  It is not right to abandon them after having done so.  We've done that before.  Ask the Iraqi's about the time after the first Gulf war.

What has made this action so precarious is that civil wars are breaking out all across the region.  It is highly unusual and for so many all at once.  My readers are right.   We can't intervene in all of them.

I'm not going to get into whether or not Obama had the constitutional right to take the action he did.  The War Powers Act,  I believe, says he did. At least his interpretation of it.  But now what? Uprisings are occurring in Syria, Israel is firing on Gaza, Hamas is firing on Israel,  there is Yemen and on and on.  Muslims are fighting Muslims and Jews and vice versa.  No matter, it's war everywhere and one is no more brutal than another.  Civilians are still getting slaughtered.  Sometimes I think we should rope off the entire region and let them duke it out among themselves.  The question that constantly bothers me, however, and it's what I've been writing about, is what if any moral obligation is there when the sides are so unevenly matched.

The answers will play out on the world stage over the upcoming months to be sure.

Let's assume for a moment that there are those who think we did the right thing. We can use some redemption in the eyes of many Muslims.  So what happens? Reverend Terry Jones turns up again.  Remember him?  The pastor of the 50 member church that was going to burn the Koran in protest to the proposed Islamic center in New York? It took no less than the Justice Department to dissuade him.

Well, this time he did it.  It is reported that Sunday they held a mock trial of the Koran while one soaked in kerosene and was then burned.  Onlookers were said to have posed for photos.

A question was posed at the end of the article asking what might happen if a photo of the event, real or photo shopped, were to turn up on the Internet.  The article did.  Is the photo far behind? Or is the article fuel enough?

One man and his 50 followers. Another of those God fearing ministers. During this time of turmoil when the US is trying to negotiate an extremely slippery slope, they have to pull this.

Freedom of speech.  All I can do is roll my eyes, shake my head and pronounce from the top of my lungs that all Americans are not like this!