Staying power.
Anxious to report on an "end game" in Libya, the press have amped up coverage on that conflict, though not their capacity for clear-eyed criticism. I heard one story in a news report this week about a squalid refugee camp on Libya's border with Egypt for guest workers from other African countries, undefended by any kind of perimeter barrier, low on supplies, being neglected by the rebels who control that area. That was one item that indicated some kind of journalistic curiosity and a willingness to go beyond the press release (even if it is hard and messy).
Now, President Obama has pointed to the Libyan intervention as an example of what the NATO alliance was capable of. I am inclined to agree - it took combined force from the world's most powerful militaries to drive Gaddafi from the seat of power... after 4 months of god knows what. I think the administration
would be well-advised to avoid any bold statements of success based on this experience. This is Iraq war II; this is Bush lite. There may well be many negative consequences that will fall out of the rebel's eventual victory, as well - I guess we will have to see.
Speaking of the nation's second longest war ever, it seems as though someone - perhaps us - wants us to stay beyond the deadline agreed to by Bush as he was walking out the door. Certainly the U.S. military command has made its opinion known that they would like to see us stationed there for some time to come. Perhaps permanently. I have to think that if the top brass are saying it, they are mostly reflecting what they have heard in the corridors of power. Our leaders of both parties have a habit of hiding behind their generals, making strategic or even political decisions seem like they are the stuff of battlefield tactics. There is an institutional bias towards staying in a country we've invaded. Forward basing in the Middle East has always been a priority, and will remain so as long as most of the world's energy lies beneath its sandy landscapes.
What can we do? More than throw up our hands. We need to make it clear to Obama that it's time to leave Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter. Ten years is enough - nay, about ten years too much. Out. Now.
luv u,
jp
Now, President Obama has pointed to the Libyan intervention as an example of what the NATO alliance was capable of. I am inclined to agree - it took combined force from the world's most powerful militaries to drive Gaddafi from the seat of power... after 4 months of god knows what. I think the administration
would be well-advised to avoid any bold statements of success based on this experience. This is Iraq war II; this is Bush lite. There may well be many negative consequences that will fall out of the rebel's eventual victory, as well - I guess we will have to see.
Speaking of the nation's second longest war ever, it seems as though someone - perhaps us - wants us to stay beyond the deadline agreed to by Bush as he was walking out the door. Certainly the U.S. military command has made its opinion known that they would like to see us stationed there for some time to come. Perhaps permanently. I have to think that if the top brass are saying it, they are mostly reflecting what they have heard in the corridors of power. Our leaders of both parties have a habit of hiding behind their generals, making strategic or even political decisions seem like they are the stuff of battlefield tactics. There is an institutional bias towards staying in a country we've invaded. Forward basing in the Middle East has always been a priority, and will remain so as long as most of the world's energy lies beneath its sandy landscapes.
What can we do? More than throw up our hands. We need to make it clear to Obama that it's time to leave Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter. Ten years is enough - nay, about ten years too much. Out. Now.
luv u,
jp
Comments