Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right
There’s nothing so dramatic to illustrate the point that neoconservatives think along the same lines as liberal interventionists than this case of arguing about intervening in Libya’s civil war. On the right, we have this joker Paul Wolfowitz, who wants to illustrate that his political ideology of using military force to spread democracy and liberty throughout the Middle East is in fact a good and just one. The answer to the first of these questions can only come after establishing direct contact with the new authorities, but the delivery of supplies should not be such a problem, either through the many ports along the Libyan coast or across the Egyptian border. Nonlethal assistance could be important, including basic supplies such as food and medicine. So could broadcasting assistance to discourage Gadhafi’s forces from fighting. The concern that American weapons might end up in the wrong hands must definitely be considered before supplying shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, but other weapons pose less of a riskâparticularly accurate antitank weapons. In any case, forcing the Libyans to turn to other countries for arms would repeat the mistakes of Afghanistan in the 1980s and Bosnia in the 1990s. It is only in the context of a larger assistance strategy that a no-fly zone should be considered. It would be different from the prolonged and largely futile zones imposed over southern Iraq from 1991-2003 or over Bosnia from 1992-1995. Intended to stop the genocides of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq and of the Muslim population of Bosnia, they did neither. Critics accurately point out that the massacre of 11,000 Muslims in Srebrenica took place under a NATO-imposed no-fly zone. But the situation in Libya would be very different if the Libyan people are properly armed. Yes, the Clinton administration’s policies were certainly ill-considered, look how many people didn’t get killed and how many countries weren’t invaded. But this jackass, this mad joker, doesn’t want to be concerned about the fallout of any US military aid to Libya. I recall seeing mention that the Libyans who came to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight against the American occupation over the past few years came from the eastern side – where the rebels are. What do you think they’re going to do with those anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons after the civil war ends, Mr. Wolfowitz? As MoDo correctly asks , does this guy know when to shut the hell up? Now we have the clowns on the left to deal with. Ann-Marie Slaughter, former Director of Policy Planning in the Obama
Posted by
on March 15, 2011. Filed under News, Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right
There’s nothing so dramatic to illustrate the point that neoconservatives think along the same lines as liberal interventionists than this case of arguing about intervening in Libya’s civil war. On the right, we have this joker Paul Wolfowitz, who wants to illustrate that his political ideology of using military force to spread democracy and liberty throughout the Middle East is in fact a good and just one. The answer to the first of these questions can only come after establishing direct contact with the new authorities, but the delivery of supplies should not be such a problem, either through the many ports along the Libyan coast or across the Egyptian border. Nonlethal assistance could be important, including basic supplies such as food and medicine. So could broadcasting assistance to discourage Gadhafi’s forces from fighting. The concern that American weapons might end up in the wrong hands must definitely be considered before supplying shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, but other weapons pose less of a riskâparticularly accurate antitank weapons. In any case, forcing the Libyans to turn to other countries for arms would repeat the mistakes of Afghanistan in the 1980s and Bosnia in the 1990s. It is only in the context of a larger assistance strategy that a no-fly zone should be considered. It would be different from the prolonged and largely futile zones imposed over southern Iraq from 1991-2003 or over Bosnia from 1992-1995. Intended to stop the genocides of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq and of the Muslim population of Bosnia, they did neither. Critics accurately point out that the massacre of 11,000 Muslims in Srebrenica took place under a NATO-imposed no-fly zone. But the situation in Libya would be very different if the Libyan people are properly armed. Yes, the Clinton administration’s policies were certainly ill-considered, look how many people didn’t get killed and how many countries weren’t invaded. But this jackass, this mad joker, doesn’t want to be concerned about the fallout of any US military aid to Libya. I recall seeing mention that the Libyans who came to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight against the American occupation over the past few years came from the eastern side – where the rebels are. What do you think they’re going to do with those anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons after the civil war ends, Mr. Wolfowitz? As MoDo correctly asks , does this guy know when to shut the hell up? Now we have the clowns on the left to deal with. Ann-Marie Slaughter, former Director of Policy Planning in the Obama
