I started writing this blog to address our, American, political developments and their, sometimes, misguided instigators. Since the middle of January, though, the international events, stole my attention almost completely. Our own affairs, however, and unprecedented partisanship, especially on the Right became in time too saturated and painful to let them pass without a comment. It's the future of all of us, what is at stake. What's really interesting, is that one can draw some unpleasant analogies between the inner politics of the US and other countries, I have been writing about recently...
For the last few weeks we lived our lives with the "sword of Democles" hanging above our collective head - the government shutdown... The danger has been averted (for a while), but the problem just started to crystallize. Government shutdown is nothing new, it happened pretty recently while Pres. Clinton lead the nation. But, either my political sensitivity was then completely undeveloped, or the situation we witnessed in the past months was a 'completely different beast' from the one in 1995. The country is different now, it grew from 262 million people to 310 million, doubling the national debt to the whooping $14.3 trillion, and exceeding the whole GDP ($14.1 trillion), for the first time since the world War II...
Since the Republicans gained the majority in the Congress of the USA the political climate in the US has changed dramatically. The change came after two years of Obama's presidency, and after two years of the smear campaign against him. The campaign so "low", that it called sometimes for the revision of sanity of it's animators. At the end, EVERYTHING IS ABOUT MONEY...
Eight years of the 'Bush the Second' with their two wars and the unparalleled preferential treatment for the richest 1% of the American Society affected the fabric of the Nation greatly. Coincidentally (although it doesn't seem like a coincidence, but the result), the biggest economical crisis of our lives has killed the "American Dream" for millions of Americans, and still continues to create the waves "washing away joy" from faces of many inhabitants of this land.
Last year, 2010 was another year when the foreclosures reached the record number. During the last 10 years the actual earnings of the common men in America DECREASED, not taking under consideration any inflation factor. But, 2010 was, at the same time, the year when the American Corporations (including the ones who avoided bankruptcy only because of the government bailout) achieved the unmatched, record earnings.
The Lame Duck session of Congress brought some great breakthroughs like the end of "Don't ask, don't tell". But soon after that Obama was forced by the Republicans to forfeit his campaign promise, and extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the richest members of our society.
The New 2011 brought the new fiscal problems to quite of the few States of the Union. In some States, the newly elected Governors dealt with the problem in a constructive way (like Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo in NY), in others not so constructive... like the new Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who was just one of many Tea Party/GOP candidates inserted into office by the billionaires, Koch Brothers. The new State budget proposed by him was by many considered unconstitutional, and by all called by it's real name "union-bashing legislature". Even though Walker removed the Police and Fire Fighters from the bill taking away the "collective bargaining rights" from the Unions contracts, to his surprise both Police and Fire Fighters Unions joined the protest in the Wisconsin capitol.
It became clear for all, that the fiscal problems troubling some US States, as well as the whole Country will have to result in drastic spending cuts. It became clear that everyone will have to make sacrifices. Unfortunately, on the both sides of the isle, the areas designated to be affected by the cuts were completely different.
---------------
The US budget in it's majority is divided in 3 sections:
- 68% of the whole budget take: medicaid, medicare, social security and the national security.
- 20% of the budget take: unemployment insurance, veterans benefits, student loans and tax credits for the middle class.
- remaining 12% contains all other liabilities and responsibilities, including the infrastructure, some social programs, foreign aid and so on...
---------------
Coming out of the economical crisis in the eighties Pres. Reagan (and he was a Republican) made saving the Social Security an unbreakable Principle. Till this day it is a program which is "paid for" ahead, as estimated, until 2040. The other programs may not be that lucky.
In the nineties, without sacrificing the welfare of the seniors and underprivileged, the budget of the US actually became strong enough to produce the surplus.
And then, after the "911" irresponsible cowboy mentality of the "Bush the Second" put the country on the downturn spiral, from which we may have a huge difficulty recovering from. Let aside the wars which still ruin our economy, the costly prescription drugs plan imposed by Pres. Bush Junior along with the tax cuts for the rich are greatly responsible for it. Tax cuts alone increased our deficit for the additional $500 billion every year.
According to the Bush Government Comptroller: 7% of the total Bush debt came from these tax cuts - as revealed by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Cal) on MSNBC.
In the beginning of April the Republican Paul Ryan brought out a budget proposal which besides taking credit for already done or offered by the Presidents cuts and changes, attacked the 2 sacred for the Americans programs, both Medicare and Medicaid. Ryan changes the Medicare into a voucher exposing it to the practices of often unscrupulous insurance companies, in the result creating a situation in which the seniors would have to spent much more on the health care from already stretched by other factors fixed income. His plan also gives to the states the discretionary handling of the Medicaid creating a vacuum in which the poor will put even more strain on the health system. Repealing Obama Care by the Ryan's plan would be devastating for many.
When the Republicans threatened shutting down the Government on Friday night if their plan is not met by the President, suddenly one of the major bargaining chip happened to be nothing else, but the fate of the Planned Parenthood...
Although the whole Republican proposal was supposed to be under a flag of fiscal responsibility, suddenly a political detail became an unsurpassable obstacle. As falsely estimated by Republican Rep. Michelle Bachman, Planned Parenthood "devoured" almost $1 billion a year (in reality $130 million a year). The same time, the Tea Party accused the Planned Parenthood of having 90% of their activities dedicated to abortion (whereas in reality only 1.3% of their deeds was in any way related to it). The list of false accusation is long and utterly ridiculous.
For some reason these Fiscal Conservatives didn't even want to hear about the role which Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest 1% of the society play. Saving $130 million a year is more important than loosing $800 billion to $1 trillion a year. I fail to see logic in it. Do we, actually live in the same reality? Sometimes it seems like our worlds do not have anything in common - paralleled realities...
In the countries of the Middle East, created as a result of the revolution or not, but ruled by the regimes for many decades, the social divide has grown to the point of breakage. The economical development of these countries, often based on sale of oil or other natural minerals or other unprocessed goods created the small group of businessmen in whose hands laid the majority of the wealth of these countries. This elite grew apart from the majority of the population so fast an dynamically, that they ceased to feel any connection, any relationship with the masses. The system allowed for the favoritism, nepotism and all sorts of equally despicable deviations. Such state of affairs allowed the Dictators like Mubarak, Saleh, Ali, or Gadhafi, treat the population of their respective countries only as the sprockets in the money making machines - whose fruits they, the Dictators, were cashing without any remorse. In the end, opening fire on the protesters was just defending their own domains...
Even though most pundits and political commentators do not accuse the Republicans (or Tea Party members) in the US of being unpatriotic, their tendency to please ONLY the rich, by all means, doesn't prove their agenda to go along the principles of Democracy. Their budget proposal, being the true indicator of their real attitude toward other social groups, put's the main burden of providing revenue for the country's needs on the shoulders of the workers and the middle class. In fact the latter one is rapidly shrinking, thanks to years of the abuse of the system by the banks and corporations.
------------
On the April 13, President Obama's televised speech refreshed almost gone by now, hope in the government. In his passionate speech (immediately afterwards trashed by the Republicans) President renewed his pledge to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and making sure that the core of the population - the middle class and the workers - wouldn't have to bear the burden alone. He stated:
EVERYONE WILL MAKE SACRIFICES, BUT NO ONE WILL BEAR ALL THE BURDEN.
He promised the revision of the Tax Code allowing better management of the revenue and reducing the loopholes allowing right now some corporations escape from paying any tax.
During his speech the so called Beige Book ratings were announced. Finally, after a long time of economical stalemate, the economy is estimated to be in a state of "moderate recovery", across the industries, even considering the negative effect of the Japanese catastrophe.
It's obvious that the Deficit in the form we have it right now, is a destructive force. The Head of U.S. Armed Forces - Admiral Mike Mullen stated "that the main security threat to the future of America comes from the National Deficit".
However, according to many experts, the Deficit is only a symptom of the problem - the cause is the system of completely wrong economical decisions which have plagued the USA for many years in the past, resulting in:
- the most expensive and inefficient healthcare, which doesn't do what it's supposed to.
- the most expensive educational system, which doesn't do what it's supposed to.
- very expensive wars, which do not increase the country's security, quite a contrary...
Is President Obama strong enough to lead the country through the recovery?
It seems that most of the programs he tries to save or develop have the strong populous support. Is this support consistent enough to last until the elections of 2012.
We are stuck with the Republican Congress for a few years, but we desperately need the President Obama to serve the second term and hopefully reduce the long lasting effects of the Bush era.
SLOGAN
- a tribute to the Social Media
A RIGHT WORD IS WORTH A THOUSAND PICTURES...
PAGES
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
Libya - gains and losses...
The Libyan unrest started 6 weeks ago.
The UN passed the Resolution 1973 on March 17, accepting the establishment of the "no-fly zone" over Libya, to protect civilians.
French military attacked the Gaddafi's forces on March 19, saving the city of Benghazi and it's inhabitants from the fury of the Regime.
British and US Cruise missiles started falling on the designated military targets on March 20.
NATO took over the implementation of the "no-fly zone" over Libya on March 25.
Stalemate.
The Opposition forces containing mostly young and untrained fighters have proven already that with a "little help from their friends" (allied air support) can make a stand against quite well organized, trained and well equipped Gaddafi's army. All the observers agree that it's not a regular army. They are disorganized, acting on emotions, not knowing the concept of the chain of command, not understanding logistics, wasting ammunition making a lot of noise.
At the same time, however, they are driven by the passion for the new future for their country. They are on the quest for the new, democratic state...
Since the American and NATO forces started implementation of the "no-fly zone" the power equation has changed, greatly benefiting the Opposition. The Libyan conflict has proven to be much more dynamic than anticipated. Gaddafi's forces adjusted their strategy, evolved adapting to the imposed model of war. Instead of using the heavy armor in an obvious and visible way, the Pro-Gaddafi fighters attack in small units, using the light, and agile transport vehicles, making themselves a very difficult target for the Coalition to destroy.
To make the situation more complicated the reported number of sorties performed by all the allied planes has diminished significantly during the last week.
Is it because of the realization that the most of the Libyan defenses have been taken out, and the NATO limits itself to the strict interpretation of the no-fly zone resolution, leaving out the air support for the ground opposition troops? According to AFP, Admiral Mullen said that they had not been able to see through the weather to identify targets. "And that has more than anything else reduced the impact... reduced the effectiveness, and has allowed the regime forces to move back to the east."
We heard in the numerous reports that the Pro-Democracy Fighters had been joined by the big number of regular army soldiers. Very often these defections were done by the whole army units, including their commanders. Representatives of the opposition in the Southern town of Kufrah claimed that the members of the elite Khamis Brigade had gone over to the rebels (the infamous brigade took it's name from it's commander Khamis Gaddafi, who - as suspected - was killed). Reports were informing of a mysterious General who defected with about 13 thousand of the Special Forces soldiers, with the equipment.
Such a great number of the well organized regular army, well armed and motivated, would make a great difference on the 'front line' of the conflict. Unfortunately, for some reason, these alleged defections haven't produced too much of the improvement of the Opposition fighting capabilities. None of the CNN, NBC, or AlJazeera reporters have ever seen these anxiously awaited army units, which would have changed completely the situation. Do they exist at all?
Were all these Opposition claims about army defection, just an attempt to boost morale of the "ragtag" opposition forces? Or, these alleged defections are more just a diabolical plan of the Colonel Gaddafi to infiltrate and destroy the Opposition from within? Such a thought may cross one's mind when we learn that the allied jet-fighter bombed an Opposition fighters convoy near Brega on Saturday, after being shot upon from the ground, and thus mistaking it for the Gaddafi's army...
"As regrettable as it may be, we understand that we might have to give up lives for the greater good. We have to look at the bigger picture," opposition spokesman Mustafa Gheriani said. "This is a war and the lines are so fluid going back and forth, so it's natural that mistakes will happen."
Again, was it a mistake, or some Gaddafi's fighters opened fire on the allied plane from within the convoy or a close proximity?
Suspicions of such a new (for this conflict) Gaddafi's "fifth column" tactics are considered very seriously by all the observers.
Gaddafi is known for using the "cheap tricks". There were many confirmed reports about his army soldiers, dressed in the civilian clothes and hidden in the civilian houses in the cities like Brega, or Ras Lanuf, waiting until the opposition fighters enter the city and attacking them from the behind. Often having their tanks also hidden in the allies or even inside of the houses. There were numerous reports from the outskirts of Sirte (the Dictator's birth place and a stronghold) about the Gaddafi's army units waving the white flag, and "surrendering" to the Opposition, only to open fire on the unsuspecting opposition fighters from the close distance.
------------------
On March 30, the US official sources confirmed (what has already leaked) that Pres. Obama signed the document allowing the CIA covert actions in Libya, and that the CIA operatives were already on the ground to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered opposition forces. AlJazeera correspondents reported that in the Eastern Libya, there was a training camp for the selected Opposition forces, run by the American Special Ops. and the Egyptian Special Ops. Opposition have been asking for a long time for the arms. They have been greatly outgunned by the regime and needed more sophisticated weaponry to fight the Gaddafi's armed brigades. As reported this is the kind of weapons the opposition fighters are right now training for.
The Pro-Democracy fighters have no military training in general, especially when the new, Western made weapons are considered. As reported, they have been already training to use the sophisticated, Heat Seeking, shoulder launched missiles and the bigger and more powerful truck mounted launchers - which already have found their way into Libya, from Egypt.
Since the option of the Western "boots on the ground" has been generally rejected (for the multiplicity of the political reasons), providing the Opposition with the weaponry and the training allowing them to successfully challenge the Gaddafi's armor and rocket launchers, is the only choice of the Coalition. It can be argued if the existing embargo on the weapon trade to Libya in conjunction with the Resolution 1973 can be interpreted allowing such a help. However, considering that the Libyans have to depose the Dictator themselves, without the Western active intervention, it is the only choice.
------------------
There have been many defections of the Libyan officials, since the very beginning of the conflict. We witnessed the Ambassadors to many countries and to the UN, changing allegiance. We witnessed the Ministers changing sides (one of them is the head of the National Council - the main Opposition Governing Body).
In the recent days we could add to that list the Libyan Foreign Minister: Moussa Koussa, who was also a head of the Intelligence in the previous years. This defection delivered a heavy blow to the regime, and constitutes a bottomless well of the information about the regime and it's structure, resources, weak points... As reported by the correspondents in Libya, despite the governmental crack down on the potential defections, many politicians have already, and other prepare to defect. "It is not through actions of war that we can make Gaddafi leave, but rather through strong international pressure to encourage defections by people close to him," said Italy's foreign minister, Franco Frattini.
Unfortunately, the Libyan structure of the government allows the Leader (Gaddafi) to have an absolute control over the country by himself. He is still surrounded by some supporters (including his family).
Libyan dictator has sent his envoys to other countries several times already, trying to pressure the friendly, and unfriendly governments, and work out some "exit strategy" for himself and the family. Although the details oft these talks have never surfaced (so far), Gaddafi makes that effort repeatedly. Libya's former prime minister, and a current Deputy Foreign Minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, confirming remarks by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton that regime figures were trying to get in contact, said on Friday: "We are trying to talk to the British, the French and the Americans to stop the killing of people. We are trying to find a mutual solution". His comments followed the disclosure that a senior aide to Gaddafi's powerful son, Saif al-Islam, had met British officials last week on a visit to London.
On Sunday, 04.03, Abdel Ati al-Obeidi flew to Athens carrying a personal message from Gaddafi to Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, that Libya wanted the fighting to end, a Greek government official told Reuters.
----------------
The pundits and analysts all over the Globe, as well as the military strategists are already unanimous in their opinion that considering the existing stalemate in the fights in Libya the solution to the crisis is probably going to be a political one, not a military. Only time will tell...
The UN passed the Resolution 1973 on March 17, accepting the establishment of the "no-fly zone" over Libya, to protect civilians.
French military attacked the Gaddafi's forces on March 19, saving the city of Benghazi and it's inhabitants from the fury of the Regime.
British and US Cruise missiles started falling on the designated military targets on March 20.
NATO took over the implementation of the "no-fly zone" over Libya on March 25.
Stalemate.
The Opposition forces containing mostly young and untrained fighters have proven already that with a "little help from their friends" (allied air support) can make a stand against quite well organized, trained and well equipped Gaddafi's army. All the observers agree that it's not a regular army. They are disorganized, acting on emotions, not knowing the concept of the chain of command, not understanding logistics, wasting ammunition making a lot of noise.
At the same time, however, they are driven by the passion for the new future for their country. They are on the quest for the new, democratic state...
Since the American and NATO forces started implementation of the "no-fly zone" the power equation has changed, greatly benefiting the Opposition. The Libyan conflict has proven to be much more dynamic than anticipated. Gaddafi's forces adjusted their strategy, evolved adapting to the imposed model of war. Instead of using the heavy armor in an obvious and visible way, the Pro-Gaddafi fighters attack in small units, using the light, and agile transport vehicles, making themselves a very difficult target for the Coalition to destroy.
To make the situation more complicated the reported number of sorties performed by all the allied planes has diminished significantly during the last week.
Is it because of the realization that the most of the Libyan defenses have been taken out, and the NATO limits itself to the strict interpretation of the no-fly zone resolution, leaving out the air support for the ground opposition troops? According to AFP, Admiral Mullen said that they had not been able to see through the weather to identify targets. "And that has more than anything else reduced the impact... reduced the effectiveness, and has allowed the regime forces to move back to the east."
We heard in the numerous reports that the Pro-Democracy Fighters had been joined by the big number of regular army soldiers. Very often these defections were done by the whole army units, including their commanders. Representatives of the opposition in the Southern town of Kufrah claimed that the members of the elite Khamis Brigade had gone over to the rebels (the infamous brigade took it's name from it's commander Khamis Gaddafi, who - as suspected - was killed). Reports were informing of a mysterious General who defected with about 13 thousand of the Special Forces soldiers, with the equipment.
Such a great number of the well organized regular army, well armed and motivated, would make a great difference on the 'front line' of the conflict. Unfortunately, for some reason, these alleged defections haven't produced too much of the improvement of the Opposition fighting capabilities. None of the CNN, NBC, or AlJazeera reporters have ever seen these anxiously awaited army units, which would have changed completely the situation. Do they exist at all?
Were all these Opposition claims about army defection, just an attempt to boost morale of the "ragtag" opposition forces? Or, these alleged defections are more just a diabolical plan of the Colonel Gaddafi to infiltrate and destroy the Opposition from within? Such a thought may cross one's mind when we learn that the allied jet-fighter bombed an Opposition fighters convoy near Brega on Saturday, after being shot upon from the ground, and thus mistaking it for the Gaddafi's army...
"As regrettable as it may be, we understand that we might have to give up lives for the greater good. We have to look at the bigger picture," opposition spokesman Mustafa Gheriani said. "This is a war and the lines are so fluid going back and forth, so it's natural that mistakes will happen."
Again, was it a mistake, or some Gaddafi's fighters opened fire on the allied plane from within the convoy or a close proximity?
Suspicions of such a new (for this conflict) Gaddafi's "fifth column" tactics are considered very seriously by all the observers.
Gaddafi is known for using the "cheap tricks". There were many confirmed reports about his army soldiers, dressed in the civilian clothes and hidden in the civilian houses in the cities like Brega, or Ras Lanuf, waiting until the opposition fighters enter the city and attacking them from the behind. Often having their tanks also hidden in the allies or even inside of the houses. There were numerous reports from the outskirts of Sirte (the Dictator's birth place and a stronghold) about the Gaddafi's army units waving the white flag, and "surrendering" to the Opposition, only to open fire on the unsuspecting opposition fighters from the close distance.
------------------
On March 30, the US official sources confirmed (what has already leaked) that Pres. Obama signed the document allowing the CIA covert actions in Libya, and that the CIA operatives were already on the ground to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered opposition forces. AlJazeera correspondents reported that in the Eastern Libya, there was a training camp for the selected Opposition forces, run by the American Special Ops. and the Egyptian Special Ops. Opposition have been asking for a long time for the arms. They have been greatly outgunned by the regime and needed more sophisticated weaponry to fight the Gaddafi's armed brigades. As reported this is the kind of weapons the opposition fighters are right now training for.
The Pro-Democracy fighters have no military training in general, especially when the new, Western made weapons are considered. As reported, they have been already training to use the sophisticated, Heat Seeking, shoulder launched missiles and the bigger and more powerful truck mounted launchers - which already have found their way into Libya, from Egypt.
Since the option of the Western "boots on the ground" has been generally rejected (for the multiplicity of the political reasons), providing the Opposition with the weaponry and the training allowing them to successfully challenge the Gaddafi's armor and rocket launchers, is the only choice of the Coalition. It can be argued if the existing embargo on the weapon trade to Libya in conjunction with the Resolution 1973 can be interpreted allowing such a help. However, considering that the Libyans have to depose the Dictator themselves, without the Western active intervention, it is the only choice.
------------------
There have been many defections of the Libyan officials, since the very beginning of the conflict. We witnessed the Ambassadors to many countries and to the UN, changing allegiance. We witnessed the Ministers changing sides (one of them is the head of the National Council - the main Opposition Governing Body).
In the recent days we could add to that list the Libyan Foreign Minister: Moussa Koussa, who was also a head of the Intelligence in the previous years. This defection delivered a heavy blow to the regime, and constitutes a bottomless well of the information about the regime and it's structure, resources, weak points... As reported by the correspondents in Libya, despite the governmental crack down on the potential defections, many politicians have already, and other prepare to defect. "It is not through actions of war that we can make Gaddafi leave, but rather through strong international pressure to encourage defections by people close to him," said Italy's foreign minister, Franco Frattini.
Unfortunately, the Libyan structure of the government allows the Leader (Gaddafi) to have an absolute control over the country by himself. He is still surrounded by some supporters (including his family).
Libyan dictator has sent his envoys to other countries several times already, trying to pressure the friendly, and unfriendly governments, and work out some "exit strategy" for himself and the family. Although the details oft these talks have never surfaced (so far), Gaddafi makes that effort repeatedly. Libya's former prime minister, and a current Deputy Foreign Minister Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, confirming remarks by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton that regime figures were trying to get in contact, said on Friday: "We are trying to talk to the British, the French and the Americans to stop the killing of people. We are trying to find a mutual solution". His comments followed the disclosure that a senior aide to Gaddafi's powerful son, Saif al-Islam, had met British officials last week on a visit to London.
On Sunday, 04.03, Abdel Ati al-Obeidi flew to Athens carrying a personal message from Gaddafi to Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, that Libya wanted the fighting to end, a Greek government official told Reuters.
----------------
The pundits and analysts all over the Globe, as well as the military strategists are already unanimous in their opinion that considering the existing stalemate in the fights in Libya the solution to the crisis is probably going to be a political one, not a military. Only time will tell...
Sunday, April 3, 2011
All actions have their consequences - burning of the Quran...
...and we have a winner In the ongoing contest for a title of THE WORST AMERICAN. The winner is:
Pastor Terry Jones - an evangelical preacher from an nondenominational church of Gainesville, Fla. , who on March 20, 2011 burned a copy of the Islam Holy Book, after months of a public condemnation of the aforementioned act.
Intolerance is a part of the human psyche. There is no doubt about it. In the less socially advanced societies as well as those based on any kind of dogma (religious or political), intolerance leads to hatred, sometimes manifested by the acts of stupidity, sometimes by the acts of violence... In some dictatorial states, unsuspecting anything World learned about the racial, or ethnic tensions only after deposing of the regime, and springing from it ethnic cleansing. It was a case in the former Yugoslavia, it was a case in Rwanda, even Iraq...
More advanced socially, democratic states of Europe and America are not immune to these tensions, although the resulting from it hatred doesn't produce as many victims as in the previous examples, with the obvious exception of the Holocaust of the Jewish population in the invaded by Germany countries of Europe during the World War 2.
During more than 200 years of forging of the United States of America, it's society went through many dark periods, producing never healed scars in the people's minds.
Let aside the never completely eradicated (yet), racism, which still affects the fabric of our society, there were periods of time when a certain ethnic or religious minorities were isolated, detained, persecuted just for being members of that particular minority. It happened during the World War 2 to the Japanese minority. Many Japanese-Americans being a long time citizens of the USA or even born here, became the subject to the detention in the "War Relocation Camps" in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack. Of those interned, 62% were American citizens.
In the late XIX century for a quite a long time the Catholics in the USA were a target of the severe persecution.
In the early nineteen-fifties a senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy instigated a country-wide mass hysteria which cased a "witch hunt", a persecution of anybody who could be accused (in the most cases falsely) of any Communist tendencies, or sympathies.
And then came 911, when 19 terrorists, acting out of hatred to our Country and the West in general attacked the USA in the worst terrorist attack ever, on our land. They were from a few different countries. They had, however, one thing in common (beside the obvious hatred to the USA) - they were all MUSLIM.
The Anti-Muslim sentiments have been always lurking in the Western societies. People fear what they can't understand. Muslim population in a great degree does not assimilate well in the Western countries. They stand out. Look a bit different, dress a bit different... But the 911 opened the Pandora's Box. The Muslim population in the US (about 3 million strong) became a target of violence, vandalism, arson...
In the meantime America got involved in 2 big wars, against Afghanistan, and Iraq (both Muslim countries). And even then our (then) President G.W. Bush explained over and over that America was not in the war with Islam, just with some of it's extreme followers.
In the beginning of this year the Congressional Hearing was called for, to investigate "The threat of radicalization of Muslim Community in the USA".
"We continue to solicit and receive the support of many Muslim Americans who love this nation and work with our government to protect it," said Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who chaired the proceedings.
"At the same time, many law-abiding Muslim Americans face discrimination and charges that they're not real Americans simply because of their religion."
We all know what the Islamist Extremists are responsible for in the World. We hear about the suicide bombers or attacks on the hotels, political assassinations in Afghanistan, Iraq, India, Pakistan... It's easy to stir our imagination knowing that since 911 more than a hundred terrorist plots have been discovered and neutralized in the States. Most of them have been dealt with successfully thanks to the Muslim Community, which in general is a community of the law obedient and honest, hard working people who are grateful for the opportunities presented by the USA.
------------
Christians value their Bible as a Holy Book - written by the disciples, telling the truth of faith, but still being only a book. It's not a case with the Islam. The Quran (Kur'an, Koran etc) is in their beliefs not only a book containing the holly scripture. In their belief the Quran itself is THE WORD OF GOD. There are many aspects of the Islam, the non-believers do not understand (and their do not need to). However, the ignorance can NEVER be an excuse for any offensive acts against any religion.
In 2005 a Danish newspaper posted a series of cartoons showing a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (so called "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy"). Since the Prophet's depiction is blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, the protests exploded in many of the Muslim countries, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protesters (resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths), including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.
The act of posting such cartoons by a Danish cartoonist was an offensive act which had it's consequences (and it wasn't out of ignorance). We all learned about that in a hard way. Many people lost their lives...
In July 2010 the US public opinion was suddenly alerted by the prospect of another act against the Islam as such. In protest of what it calls a religion "of the devil," a nondenominational church in Gainesville, Florida, planed to host an "International Burn a Quran Day" on the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks. "We believe that Islam is of the devil, that it's causing billions of people to go to hell, it is a deceptive religion, it is a violent religion and that is proven many, many times," Pastor Terry Jones told CNN's Rick Sanchez. Terry Jones was also an author of a book titled "Islam is of the Devil.
To my surprise, the general response of the US society to this proposed act of dangerous stupidity, was overwhelmingly negative. Muslim community, along with the most of Evangelicals and other Christian denominations condemned the idea, as unnecessarily inflammatory, and carrying the unforeseen risks. In a few days preceding the planned event we learned that in Baghdad itself, there was a small Christian community who's church had been attacked several times prior to these events, and who's very existence would be threatened by the possible reaction to the proposed Quran burning.
And yet, on March 20, 2011 Pastor Terry Jones carried away his offensive, idiotic act. He burned a copy of the Quran and posted the video of it on YouTube.com...
Most of the logically thinking people in the World condemned it unanimously, along with the official disapproval of many governments. However, in Kabul, Afghanistan, the mass protests escalated into a violence when demonstrators set cars and shops ablaze. The uproar even brought violence to the normally peaceful northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, when a crowd of protesters — apparently infiltrated by insurgents — stormed the U.N. compound in an attack that left four Afghan protesters and seven foreign U.N. employees dead. Several days after the violent protests in Afghanistan started, the tensions are still strong and the demonstrations continue, reviving the growing discontent of the Afghans against the US occupation. Anti-Western sentiments triggered by the act of Pastor Terry Jones resulted also in several additional suicide bombings and numerous incidents of the flag burning.
------------
After 2005 Danish cartoon incident we already had a chance to learn what is the reaction of the Muslims around the World to the blasphemy perpetrated by the West. It has already happened. People have died in the result of it. The relation between the act itself and the Muslim response is clearly defined and understood by all.
Bearing this knowledge, how can any sane person commit such an offensive (and proving nothing) act and completely disregard the danger of instigating the violence which may cost many innocent lives?
How can a person who claims to be a "Man of God" be so shortsighted and egocentric to cause a loss of life of many, just to prove (in his mind) a point. The reaction of very conservative Muslims in Afghanistan has not been unfathomable. Quite a contrary, it was an easy to predict reaction, following the same pattern as in 2005.
In my eyes, Pastor Terry Jones is directly responsible for the resulting from his act, loss of life and increased instability of the region, since he did what he did, being aware of the consequences. He himself killed the victims of the riots in Afghanistan.
Pastor Terry Jones - an evangelical preacher from an nondenominational church of Gainesville, Fla. , who on March 20, 2011 burned a copy of the Islam Holy Book, after months of a public condemnation of the aforementioned act.
Intolerance is a part of the human psyche. There is no doubt about it. In the less socially advanced societies as well as those based on any kind of dogma (religious or political), intolerance leads to hatred, sometimes manifested by the acts of stupidity, sometimes by the acts of violence... In some dictatorial states, unsuspecting anything World learned about the racial, or ethnic tensions only after deposing of the regime, and springing from it ethnic cleansing. It was a case in the former Yugoslavia, it was a case in Rwanda, even Iraq...
More advanced socially, democratic states of Europe and America are not immune to these tensions, although the resulting from it hatred doesn't produce as many victims as in the previous examples, with the obvious exception of the Holocaust of the Jewish population in the invaded by Germany countries of Europe during the World War 2.
During more than 200 years of forging of the United States of America, it's society went through many dark periods, producing never healed scars in the people's minds.
Let aside the never completely eradicated (yet), racism, which still affects the fabric of our society, there were periods of time when a certain ethnic or religious minorities were isolated, detained, persecuted just for being members of that particular minority. It happened during the World War 2 to the Japanese minority. Many Japanese-Americans being a long time citizens of the USA or even born here, became the subject to the detention in the "War Relocation Camps" in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack. Of those interned, 62% were American citizens.
In the late XIX century for a quite a long time the Catholics in the USA were a target of the severe persecution.
In the early nineteen-fifties a senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy instigated a country-wide mass hysteria which cased a "witch hunt", a persecution of anybody who could be accused (in the most cases falsely) of any Communist tendencies, or sympathies.
And then came 911, when 19 terrorists, acting out of hatred to our Country and the West in general attacked the USA in the worst terrorist attack ever, on our land. They were from a few different countries. They had, however, one thing in common (beside the obvious hatred to the USA) - they were all MUSLIM.
The Anti-Muslim sentiments have been always lurking in the Western societies. People fear what they can't understand. Muslim population in a great degree does not assimilate well in the Western countries. They stand out. Look a bit different, dress a bit different... But the 911 opened the Pandora's Box. The Muslim population in the US (about 3 million strong) became a target of violence, vandalism, arson...
In the meantime America got involved in 2 big wars, against Afghanistan, and Iraq (both Muslim countries). And even then our (then) President G.W. Bush explained over and over that America was not in the war with Islam, just with some of it's extreme followers.
In the beginning of this year the Congressional Hearing was called for, to investigate "The threat of radicalization of Muslim Community in the USA".
"We continue to solicit and receive the support of many Muslim Americans who love this nation and work with our government to protect it," said Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, who chaired the proceedings.
"At the same time, many law-abiding Muslim Americans face discrimination and charges that they're not real Americans simply because of their religion."
We all know what the Islamist Extremists are responsible for in the World. We hear about the suicide bombers or attacks on the hotels, political assassinations in Afghanistan, Iraq, India, Pakistan... It's easy to stir our imagination knowing that since 911 more than a hundred terrorist plots have been discovered and neutralized in the States. Most of them have been dealt with successfully thanks to the Muslim Community, which in general is a community of the law obedient and honest, hard working people who are grateful for the opportunities presented by the USA.
------------
Christians value their Bible as a Holy Book - written by the disciples, telling the truth of faith, but still being only a book. It's not a case with the Islam. The Quran (Kur'an, Koran etc) is in their beliefs not only a book containing the holly scripture. In their belief the Quran itself is THE WORD OF GOD. There are many aspects of the Islam, the non-believers do not understand (and their do not need to). However, the ignorance can NEVER be an excuse for any offensive acts against any religion.
In 2005 a Danish newspaper posted a series of cartoons showing a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (so called "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy"). Since the Prophet's depiction is blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, the protests exploded in many of the Muslim countries, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protesters (resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths), including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.
The act of posting such cartoons by a Danish cartoonist was an offensive act which had it's consequences (and it wasn't out of ignorance). We all learned about that in a hard way. Many people lost their lives...
In July 2010 the US public opinion was suddenly alerted by the prospect of another act against the Islam as such. In protest of what it calls a religion "of the devil," a nondenominational church in Gainesville, Florida, planed to host an "International Burn a Quran Day" on the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks. "We believe that Islam is of the devil, that it's causing billions of people to go to hell, it is a deceptive religion, it is a violent religion and that is proven many, many times," Pastor Terry Jones told CNN's Rick Sanchez. Terry Jones was also an author of a book titled "Islam is of the Devil.
To my surprise, the general response of the US society to this proposed act of dangerous stupidity, was overwhelmingly negative. Muslim community, along with the most of Evangelicals and other Christian denominations condemned the idea, as unnecessarily inflammatory, and carrying the unforeseen risks. In a few days preceding the planned event we learned that in Baghdad itself, there was a small Christian community who's church had been attacked several times prior to these events, and who's very existence would be threatened by the possible reaction to the proposed Quran burning.
And yet, on March 20, 2011 Pastor Terry Jones carried away his offensive, idiotic act. He burned a copy of the Quran and posted the video of it on YouTube.com...
Most of the logically thinking people in the World condemned it unanimously, along with the official disapproval of many governments. However, in Kabul, Afghanistan, the mass protests escalated into a violence when demonstrators set cars and shops ablaze. The uproar even brought violence to the normally peaceful northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, when a crowd of protesters — apparently infiltrated by insurgents — stormed the U.N. compound in an attack that left four Afghan protesters and seven foreign U.N. employees dead. Several days after the violent protests in Afghanistan started, the tensions are still strong and the demonstrations continue, reviving the growing discontent of the Afghans against the US occupation. Anti-Western sentiments triggered by the act of Pastor Terry Jones resulted also in several additional suicide bombings and numerous incidents of the flag burning.
------------
After 2005 Danish cartoon incident we already had a chance to learn what is the reaction of the Muslims around the World to the blasphemy perpetrated by the West. It has already happened. People have died in the result of it. The relation between the act itself and the Muslim response is clearly defined and understood by all.
Bearing this knowledge, how can any sane person commit such an offensive (and proving nothing) act and completely disregard the danger of instigating the violence which may cost many innocent lives?
How can a person who claims to be a "Man of God" be so shortsighted and egocentric to cause a loss of life of many, just to prove (in his mind) a point. The reaction of very conservative Muslims in Afghanistan has not been unfathomable. Quite a contrary, it was an easy to predict reaction, following the same pattern as in 2005.
In my eyes, Pastor Terry Jones is directly responsible for the resulting from his act, loss of life and increased instability of the region, since he did what he did, being aware of the consequences. He himself killed the victims of the riots in Afghanistan.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Libya - what's the plan?... and should we be there at all?...
On Friday, March 17, the UN Security Council approved the resolution for the establishment of NO FLY ZONE over Libya. The main objective of the military action was protecting of the civilians from the threat of the Gaddafi's army and the militia. The wording of the resolution included "...by all means necessary..." which opens the possibilities of targeting not only anti-aircraft weapons, but also any heavy armor, and the artillery of all sorts. The only restriction included prohibiting the "occupying forces". This line alone could be interpreted as allowing for the 'special forces' actions, or temporary military reinforcements of the opposition forces by the coalition troops (although this interpretation was initially dismissed by the Coalition).
It's been four days of heavy bombardment of the Libya's military installations located in the West of the country, including the capital city - Tripoli. To the general surprise, the first news on Saturday provided information of the unilateral French Air-force action, during which 24 of the French fighter-jets obliterated Gaddafi's forces trying to repossess Benghazi. The smoldering remains of the armored vehicles and personnel transporters as well as heavy artillery stood a somber witness of the Coalition punishing hand.
After the four nights, and more than 160 Cruise missiles delivered with the surgical precision to the designated military targets, the Gaddafi's army has been deprived from any own air-force and generally blinded in respect to the Coalition air power enforcing the No-Fly Zone over Libya. However, no military campaign is safe, even when the technological superiority is as overwhelming as in the case of the Libyan conflict. Even after destroying Gaddafi's air-defenses no allied plane is completely secure, can be hit 'accidentally' by a shoulder-to-air missile or even a small arms fire... or suffer the technical difficulties as in the case of one of American F15 fighter-jets which crashed in a vicinity of Benghazi. Fortunately, both crewmen who ejected when the problem occurred, have been recovered (one by the Marines Recovery Team, and the other by the rebel forces).
In the five days since the UN No-Fly Zone Resolution, Colonel Gaddafi confirmed again and again his untrustworthy status, offering already twice a cease-fire, while his forces were in the process of attacking the rebel-controlled cities. It seems that the concept of TRUTH is completely foreign to all of the Mid-Eastern Dictators (already fallen or in the process of being toppled, from Ali, Mubarak, Gaddafi, to Saleh). After a few days absence from the spot light, Colonel Gaddafi spoke to a small group of his supporters tonight. As always defiant, and melodramatic, he shouted repeatably that "he was not afraid of the imperialistic intervention and he would be victorious at the end".
While Gaddafi indulged the Libyan State TV viewers with the usual clownish performance, CNN aired the interview with Secretary Clinton who hinted that there were already some 'behind the scenes' communications with the Gaddafi's regime in regard of "the options" which would be still open for the deposed Dictator.
-------------
Let's have a closer look at the Coalition role in imposing the UN Resolution, and all it's implications.
Although the UN Mandate covers only "humanitarian" action, directed in crippling the Government forces and their abilities to harm the civilians, all the involved powers state that at the end Gaddafi would have to GO. Even considering the UN Mandate very precisely, leaving Gaddafi in power (like Hussein in Iraq after the 1st Gulf War) would have the dire consequences to the population of Libya. Gaddafi "promised" already several times, that he "would go door to door" and punish all the opposition members. In this aspect, I wouldn't dismiss it like all the lies he utters on other occasions. His track record proves it. There is no doubt - in order to prevent a genocide in Libya, Gaddafi must be removed from power. At the same time Colonel Gaddafi has not been designated as a target. According to the letter of the Resolution and the general understanding of the Coalition intentions, the Dictator has to be removed from power by the Libyans themselves.
So far, after 4 days of the "Operation Odyssey Dawn", the USA leads the action delivering the most of the missile strikes, as well as technical "know-how", jamming, logistics, air-tankers for the Coalition planes. The initial military involvement of the US forces was supposed to be eventually substituted by the NATO armies enhanced by participation of the Arab countries (as we already know - very limited Arab countries participation - 4 fighter jets from Qatar). It has been known from the very beginning of the operation that the US wouldn't want to lead yet another assault on another Arab Country. However, there is a split of opinions between the members of the NATO, on a subject "who would lead the operation", as well as any particular responsibilities of the Coalition members.
It seems, that the NATO members, being the sovereign countries themselves, may decide on their own if they would like to pursue any additional objectives, not included in the general operational goal by the Command of the Operation. It opens the option of active actions against the Dictator and his family personally by any Coalition member on it's own.
Gaddafi's propaganda machine already accused Denmark of being on a Crusade against him, after the Danish Cruise missiles hit one of the buildings in his compound.
Coalition missiles and planes have been very successful in destroying Gaddafi's air defenses, air-force, as well some of the heavy armor and artillery in the vicinity of the rebel stronghold, Benghazi. Any military convoy in this desert country is a fair game for the Coalition fighter-jets. However, it becomes obvious, that Gaddafi's forces adapted to the imposed conditions already, operating their tanks and the artillery pieces in the rebel controlled territories, hiding within the civilian settlements. One can not forget about the government 'sleeper cells', consisting of well armed ground troops, but including also some tanks and mortars, which (as reported from Benghazi) can operate against the opposition forces within the cities.
It has been anticipated that while the Western forces pound the Gaddafi's defenses, some members of the close to the Dictator circles might actively help in removing the Tyrant. Although some of the army units and the high rank officers defected to the opposition, the awaited coup hasn't happened. Maybe it's due to the fear of failure, and swift punishment, or the fear to be persecuted and punished by the opposition, for already committed atrocities.
It becomes more and more likely, that if Gaddafi doesn't surrender and doesn't leave, the conflict (including the Coalition involvement) might be prolonged indefinitely, or might require the dreaded ground operation. In the latter case the political consequences of such action may be very difficult to deal with, starting from the protests form Arab League and all already opposed countries like Russia, China..., but also the public opinion shift in the Arab countries which would be devastating. Not even considering the popular opposition within the participating countries...
So, what is the plan? Do we have the plan B if Colonel Gaddafi is more stubborn and defiant than anticipated?
-------------
The opposition within the participating countries has already started, at least in the USA.
Although almost 44% of the population supports the decision of joining the fight against Gaddafi, the same amount of the population opposes it. This by itself is not that harmful. However the split in the American Congress is much more significant and dangerous.
When Pres. Obama was debating if at all join the UN effort in creating the No-Fly Zone, some republican Senators (like Sen. John McCain, from Arizona) were criticizing the President for the indecision, playing the high note of the Principles of Democracy and the moral obligation of such countries like America...
Now, on both sides of the isle the Senators and Representatives raise their contemptuous voices. To everybody's surprise Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D. from Ohio) accused the president of the unconstitutional decision, when he "failed" to ask the Congress of the USA if to "go to war against Libya".
Unfortunately, looking at the political conditions in the US, one may conclude that no matter what would the President chose, the Washington politicians would criticize it and oppose it only because it was decided by the President who, for one reason or another, they hate. Outside of Washington, the Obama's popular approval is much better (Gallup weekly approval rating is 48% - 3% higher than Clinton's in a similar period of his presidency)
-------------------
It brings us to the last question, initiated in the title of this article: Should we be there (Libya) at all?
I quoted already the popular approval of 44% for the American involvement in the imposing of the UN Resolution 1973. What makes the Libyan situation worthy the commitment of American resources and putting the troops in a harm's way? What makes the other international situations in which the genocide occurs NOT worthy our involvement?
All the presidents sang the "Democracy" song very loud. It helped the Eastern Block countries to overturn the communist regimes and enter the new, democratic era in their history.
The American and NATO involvement in the Balkans helped preventing unimaginable atrocities (although it escalated from the "no-fly zone"). We tried to maintain the peace in Somalia, but it backfired to the point of the shameful withdrawal, leaving the country in chaos - which developed into the fully fledged civil war.
And then, in 1994 came another African conflict - Rwanda, where within 100 days, the ethnic cleansing caused 800,000 dead and countless amount of wounded. No one reacted on time.
Few years later, in 2003 almost 400,000 people died and almost 2.5 million have been displaced as a result of of atrocities by the Sudanese government-sponsored Janjaweed militia. No one reacted on time.
There were conflicts in Kongo, Chad, Ivory Coast (current), Algeria (both decades ago, and current), and many others. What is the decisive factor making them actionable, or not?
Many critics of the policies of the Western countries would list THE OIL as this decisive factor. Oil definitely changes the perception of the country who owns a lot of it in the eye of the World. It was probably the only reason for the "liberation" of the Iraqis from the brutal Dictator - Saddam Husein.
However, I believe that it's much more complicated in other cases.
After failures to provide the assistance and stop the atrocities in Rwanda, or Darfur the possibility of genocide in Libya is the sufficient reason to do anything what is physically possible to prevent it (and I hope that the fact that Libya produces 2% of the World's oil is not the most important factor in this equation).
It's been four days of heavy bombardment of the Libya's military installations located in the West of the country, including the capital city - Tripoli. To the general surprise, the first news on Saturday provided information of the unilateral French Air-force action, during which 24 of the French fighter-jets obliterated Gaddafi's forces trying to repossess Benghazi. The smoldering remains of the armored vehicles and personnel transporters as well as heavy artillery stood a somber witness of the Coalition punishing hand.
After the four nights, and more than 160 Cruise missiles delivered with the surgical precision to the designated military targets, the Gaddafi's army has been deprived from any own air-force and generally blinded in respect to the Coalition air power enforcing the No-Fly Zone over Libya. However, no military campaign is safe, even when the technological superiority is as overwhelming as in the case of the Libyan conflict. Even after destroying Gaddafi's air-defenses no allied plane is completely secure, can be hit 'accidentally' by a shoulder-to-air missile or even a small arms fire... or suffer the technical difficulties as in the case of one of American F15 fighter-jets which crashed in a vicinity of Benghazi. Fortunately, both crewmen who ejected when the problem occurred, have been recovered (one by the Marines Recovery Team, and the other by the rebel forces).
In the five days since the UN No-Fly Zone Resolution, Colonel Gaddafi confirmed again and again his untrustworthy status, offering already twice a cease-fire, while his forces were in the process of attacking the rebel-controlled cities. It seems that the concept of TRUTH is completely foreign to all of the Mid-Eastern Dictators (already fallen or in the process of being toppled, from Ali, Mubarak, Gaddafi, to Saleh). After a few days absence from the spot light, Colonel Gaddafi spoke to a small group of his supporters tonight. As always defiant, and melodramatic, he shouted repeatably that "he was not afraid of the imperialistic intervention and he would be victorious at the end".
While Gaddafi indulged the Libyan State TV viewers with the usual clownish performance, CNN aired the interview with Secretary Clinton who hinted that there were already some 'behind the scenes' communications with the Gaddafi's regime in regard of "the options" which would be still open for the deposed Dictator.
-------------
Let's have a closer look at the Coalition role in imposing the UN Resolution, and all it's implications.
Although the UN Mandate covers only "humanitarian" action, directed in crippling the Government forces and their abilities to harm the civilians, all the involved powers state that at the end Gaddafi would have to GO. Even considering the UN Mandate very precisely, leaving Gaddafi in power (like Hussein in Iraq after the 1st Gulf War) would have the dire consequences to the population of Libya. Gaddafi "promised" already several times, that he "would go door to door" and punish all the opposition members. In this aspect, I wouldn't dismiss it like all the lies he utters on other occasions. His track record proves it. There is no doubt - in order to prevent a genocide in Libya, Gaddafi must be removed from power. At the same time Colonel Gaddafi has not been designated as a target. According to the letter of the Resolution and the general understanding of the Coalition intentions, the Dictator has to be removed from power by the Libyans themselves.
So far, after 4 days of the "Operation Odyssey Dawn", the USA leads the action delivering the most of the missile strikes, as well as technical "know-how", jamming, logistics, air-tankers for the Coalition planes. The initial military involvement of the US forces was supposed to be eventually substituted by the NATO armies enhanced by participation of the Arab countries (as we already know - very limited Arab countries participation - 4 fighter jets from Qatar). It has been known from the very beginning of the operation that the US wouldn't want to lead yet another assault on another Arab Country. However, there is a split of opinions between the members of the NATO, on a subject "who would lead the operation", as well as any particular responsibilities of the Coalition members.
It seems, that the NATO members, being the sovereign countries themselves, may decide on their own if they would like to pursue any additional objectives, not included in the general operational goal by the Command of the Operation. It opens the option of active actions against the Dictator and his family personally by any Coalition member on it's own.
Gaddafi's propaganda machine already accused Denmark of being on a Crusade against him, after the Danish Cruise missiles hit one of the buildings in his compound.
Coalition missiles and planes have been very successful in destroying Gaddafi's air defenses, air-force, as well some of the heavy armor and artillery in the vicinity of the rebel stronghold, Benghazi. Any military convoy in this desert country is a fair game for the Coalition fighter-jets. However, it becomes obvious, that Gaddafi's forces adapted to the imposed conditions already, operating their tanks and the artillery pieces in the rebel controlled territories, hiding within the civilian settlements. One can not forget about the government 'sleeper cells', consisting of well armed ground troops, but including also some tanks and mortars, which (as reported from Benghazi) can operate against the opposition forces within the cities.
It has been anticipated that while the Western forces pound the Gaddafi's defenses, some members of the close to the Dictator circles might actively help in removing the Tyrant. Although some of the army units and the high rank officers defected to the opposition, the awaited coup hasn't happened. Maybe it's due to the fear of failure, and swift punishment, or the fear to be persecuted and punished by the opposition, for already committed atrocities.
It becomes more and more likely, that if Gaddafi doesn't surrender and doesn't leave, the conflict (including the Coalition involvement) might be prolonged indefinitely, or might require the dreaded ground operation. In the latter case the political consequences of such action may be very difficult to deal with, starting from the protests form Arab League and all already opposed countries like Russia, China..., but also the public opinion shift in the Arab countries which would be devastating. Not even considering the popular opposition within the participating countries...
So, what is the plan? Do we have the plan B if Colonel Gaddafi is more stubborn and defiant than anticipated?
-------------
The opposition within the participating countries has already started, at least in the USA.
Although almost 44% of the population supports the decision of joining the fight against Gaddafi, the same amount of the population opposes it. This by itself is not that harmful. However the split in the American Congress is much more significant and dangerous.
When Pres. Obama was debating if at all join the UN effort in creating the No-Fly Zone, some republican Senators (like Sen. John McCain, from Arizona) were criticizing the President for the indecision, playing the high note of the Principles of Democracy and the moral obligation of such countries like America...
Now, on both sides of the isle the Senators and Representatives raise their contemptuous voices. To everybody's surprise Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D. from Ohio) accused the president of the unconstitutional decision, when he "failed" to ask the Congress of the USA if to "go to war against Libya".
Unfortunately, looking at the political conditions in the US, one may conclude that no matter what would the President chose, the Washington politicians would criticize it and oppose it only because it was decided by the President who, for one reason or another, they hate. Outside of Washington, the Obama's popular approval is much better (Gallup weekly approval rating is 48% - 3% higher than Clinton's in a similar period of his presidency)
-------------------
It brings us to the last question, initiated in the title of this article: Should we be there (Libya) at all?
I quoted already the popular approval of 44% for the American involvement in the imposing of the UN Resolution 1973. What makes the Libyan situation worthy the commitment of American resources and putting the troops in a harm's way? What makes the other international situations in which the genocide occurs NOT worthy our involvement?
All the presidents sang the "Democracy" song very loud. It helped the Eastern Block countries to overturn the communist regimes and enter the new, democratic era in their history.
The American and NATO involvement in the Balkans helped preventing unimaginable atrocities (although it escalated from the "no-fly zone"). We tried to maintain the peace in Somalia, but it backfired to the point of the shameful withdrawal, leaving the country in chaos - which developed into the fully fledged civil war.
And then, in 1994 came another African conflict - Rwanda, where within 100 days, the ethnic cleansing caused 800,000 dead and countless amount of wounded. No one reacted on time.
Few years later, in 2003 almost 400,000 people died and almost 2.5 million have been displaced as a result of of atrocities by the Sudanese government-sponsored Janjaweed militia. No one reacted on time.
There were conflicts in Kongo, Chad, Ivory Coast (current), Algeria (both decades ago, and current), and many others. What is the decisive factor making them actionable, or not?
Many critics of the policies of the Western countries would list THE OIL as this decisive factor. Oil definitely changes the perception of the country who owns a lot of it in the eye of the World. It was probably the only reason for the "liberation" of the Iraqis from the brutal Dictator - Saddam Husein.
However, I believe that it's much more complicated in other cases.
After failures to provide the assistance and stop the atrocities in Rwanda, or Darfur the possibility of genocide in Libya is the sufficient reason to do anything what is physically possible to prevent it (and I hope that the fact that Libya produces 2% of the World's oil is not the most important factor in this equation).
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Libya - I am baffled and bewildered...
I am baffled and bewildered by an impasse in the UN Libyan talks, caused by a few undecided countries in the UN Security Council. While 3 weeks ago Gaddafi was pounding the opposition using his air force - all we heard from our media was: "unconfirmed reports suggest the use of the aircrafts against the civilian population...". We heard from our Leaders, that the "violence against civilians must stop...", and "all guilty of the war crimes will be brought to justice...". We heard: "we would impose the no-fly zone over Libya if only Arab League accepted it, and the atrocities were unquestionably high...".
On Saturday (03.12) the Arab League, after days of deliberation came with the unprecedented call - asking the Western World to impose the no-fly zone over Libya. There is no question if Gaddafi's forces use an aerial bombardments against the Opposition. There is no question if the Gaddafi's forces get the upper hand because of their military superiority AND the Western Indecision...
And now we hear that the no-fly zone wouldn't fix anything, it wouldn't prevent the massacre, because in this war Gaddafi is not relying solely on the aerial attacks, but uses the ground forces and the artillery. Of course, no one can deny that the Regime uses all the weapons in their arsenal including the tanks, heavy artillery, special forces... not only the air force. It is out of the question, but if deprived from the air superiority, with his air force being smashed to smithereens, and without any anti-air batteries, Gaddafi wouldn't be so cocky and defiant.
We were already talking about arming the rebels' army and providing them with any necessary supply and support. They have already proved that given a chance they can fight like the regular army. It has been surprising, to say the least, that they could stand against the Regime so strongly.
-------------
Our coalition Armies attacked Iraq twice. First time to slap Saddam's hands for being a naughty boy and invading our ally - Kuwait. The second time on a quest for WMD - which the CIA couldn't find, no matter how meticulously they looked for them.
And then the deposing of the Dictator wasn't a bad idea, even though all experts knew that the power vacuum in this split ethnically country would have completely unpredictable consequences. And we did it nevertheless - with a clear vision of the spoils (an access to the Iraq's oil and plenty of lucrative contracts for Halliburton and the like...). Now, 10 years later we leave the damaged goods behind us.
Libya is a different story. We already learned (or we simply can't learn), that this Spring of Nations in Arab countries of the Middle East works on the different ground then the "specter of the Muslim radicalism" with which we have been threatened constantly, for decades. Although some Republicans in our country do not believe in it - the EVOLUTION is what creates changes in the world. This Evolution applies not only to the DNA of the particular species, but also, and maybe, above all, to the social DNA of the developing socially nations.
And so, the unruly, socially undeveloped, and for 42 years deprived from any real political life, Libya creates the National Council in the first 10 days of the uprising. For some reason, the Opposition is wise enough to use the people with the experience (they gained it in the Gaddafi's regime, yes, but they chose the opposition), who could fill the post-Gaddafi vacuum.
-------------
I have been writing about this particular aspect of the Revolutions sweeping the Middle East from the very beginning. Nothing is as previously predicted. Nothing is the way it has been happening for decades. No single Anti-American demonstration, no flag burning. Quite a contrary, the reverence for the democratic principles for which the USA stands, and hope for help.
I couldn't believe how long it took to make a stand which allowed the Egyptian Army to end this Mubarak farce. Fortunately for the US, the events happened so fast, that even our indecision didn't ruin it. And now we can count on the fruitful cooperation with the democratic Egypt - probably the same way as previously on the ties with the Dictator. The same with Tunisia.
However in the case of Libya the story gets a bit more complicated. Gaddafi has never been a democratic Leader. In the beginning he lead the popular revolution, but soon enough he used the "Green Book" to muzzle any democratic forces in the country and successfully rid Libya of any subversive element...
Apparently not all of them have been lost, beaten, tortured, imprisoned, killed. Sweeping the Middle East (and not only), the wind of the modern, democratic ideas, found a fertile ground even under the repressive hand of the flamboyant buffoon - Dictator Colonel Gaddafi.
Unfortunately Gaddafi knows very well that before the Europe, UN, or even America can organize themselves to act against him, the rebellion will be OVER. He is very well aware of the powers he has, and how destructive can be the blows of his war machine. He has had enough time in his 34 years of defiance (before 2003 when he denounced terrorism for the benefit of the Western World) to know how long time is needed to debate on any important issues within the UN. Even knowing about his, not destroyed yet, 9 metric tons of the Mustard Gas doesn't speed up the process. And I thought that WMD is a term which always galvanizes the World's Leaders...
We all have to keep in mind that as fast as this revolution was ignited, that fast Gaddafi can defeat the Opposition forces ad bring back "the law and order", if he is left with a sufficient time to do so, and not stopped immediately.
When we lose time on pointless arguments, and despite the urgent calls of the Rebels and the Arab League, sit on our hands - we deliver the message to the World and in particular to the People of the Arab countries. And this is not the message we would like to send... In the meantime Gaddafi uses his air force as much as he can, decimating the rebels, systematically and on schedule. Schedule which he already knows by heart - The UN schedule.
A brilliant correspondent in Libya, Hoda Abdel-Hamid in her tweet on Wednesday afternoon asked: "The world needs to protect Benghazi if it really wants stability... or is it too uncomfortable to let go of #Libya's oil?".
Why do we have to ask this question. We, in Western World value greatly the principles of democracy. We have fought and have died for them...
And of course it helps when the object of our help and support provides us with a strong incentives to do so. But even in this context do not dismiss Libya all along. When/if the Opposition forces win and the New Libya (the one with 3 colored flag) revises their commercial obligations - I am pretty sure, that those who help them now wouldn't have to worry for the outcome of these revisions...
On Saturday (03.12) the Arab League, after days of deliberation came with the unprecedented call - asking the Western World to impose the no-fly zone over Libya. There is no question if Gaddafi's forces use an aerial bombardments against the Opposition. There is no question if the Gaddafi's forces get the upper hand because of their military superiority AND the Western Indecision...
And now we hear that the no-fly zone wouldn't fix anything, it wouldn't prevent the massacre, because in this war Gaddafi is not relying solely on the aerial attacks, but uses the ground forces and the artillery. Of course, no one can deny that the Regime uses all the weapons in their arsenal including the tanks, heavy artillery, special forces... not only the air force. It is out of the question, but if deprived from the air superiority, with his air force being smashed to smithereens, and without any anti-air batteries, Gaddafi wouldn't be so cocky and defiant.
We were already talking about arming the rebels' army and providing them with any necessary supply and support. They have already proved that given a chance they can fight like the regular army. It has been surprising, to say the least, that they could stand against the Regime so strongly.
-------------
Our coalition Armies attacked Iraq twice. First time to slap Saddam's hands for being a naughty boy and invading our ally - Kuwait. The second time on a quest for WMD - which the CIA couldn't find, no matter how meticulously they looked for them.
And then the deposing of the Dictator wasn't a bad idea, even though all experts knew that the power vacuum in this split ethnically country would have completely unpredictable consequences. And we did it nevertheless - with a clear vision of the spoils (an access to the Iraq's oil and plenty of lucrative contracts for Halliburton and the like...). Now, 10 years later we leave the damaged goods behind us.
Libya is a different story. We already learned (or we simply can't learn), that this Spring of Nations in Arab countries of the Middle East works on the different ground then the "specter of the Muslim radicalism" with which we have been threatened constantly, for decades. Although some Republicans in our country do not believe in it - the EVOLUTION is what creates changes in the world. This Evolution applies not only to the DNA of the particular species, but also, and maybe, above all, to the social DNA of the developing socially nations.
And so, the unruly, socially undeveloped, and for 42 years deprived from any real political life, Libya creates the National Council in the first 10 days of the uprising. For some reason, the Opposition is wise enough to use the people with the experience (they gained it in the Gaddafi's regime, yes, but they chose the opposition), who could fill the post-Gaddafi vacuum.
-------------
I have been writing about this particular aspect of the Revolutions sweeping the Middle East from the very beginning. Nothing is as previously predicted. Nothing is the way it has been happening for decades. No single Anti-American demonstration, no flag burning. Quite a contrary, the reverence for the democratic principles for which the USA stands, and hope for help.
I couldn't believe how long it took to make a stand which allowed the Egyptian Army to end this Mubarak farce. Fortunately for the US, the events happened so fast, that even our indecision didn't ruin it. And now we can count on the fruitful cooperation with the democratic Egypt - probably the same way as previously on the ties with the Dictator. The same with Tunisia.
However in the case of Libya the story gets a bit more complicated. Gaddafi has never been a democratic Leader. In the beginning he lead the popular revolution, but soon enough he used the "Green Book" to muzzle any democratic forces in the country and successfully rid Libya of any subversive element...
Apparently not all of them have been lost, beaten, tortured, imprisoned, killed. Sweeping the Middle East (and not only), the wind of the modern, democratic ideas, found a fertile ground even under the repressive hand of the flamboyant buffoon - Dictator Colonel Gaddafi.
Unfortunately Gaddafi knows very well that before the Europe, UN, or even America can organize themselves to act against him, the rebellion will be OVER. He is very well aware of the powers he has, and how destructive can be the blows of his war machine. He has had enough time in his 34 years of defiance (before 2003 when he denounced terrorism for the benefit of the Western World) to know how long time is needed to debate on any important issues within the UN. Even knowing about his, not destroyed yet, 9 metric tons of the Mustard Gas doesn't speed up the process. And I thought that WMD is a term which always galvanizes the World's Leaders...
We all have to keep in mind that as fast as this revolution was ignited, that fast Gaddafi can defeat the Opposition forces ad bring back "the law and order", if he is left with a sufficient time to do so, and not stopped immediately.
When we lose time on pointless arguments, and despite the urgent calls of the Rebels and the Arab League, sit on our hands - we deliver the message to the World and in particular to the People of the Arab countries. And this is not the message we would like to send... In the meantime Gaddafi uses his air force as much as he can, decimating the rebels, systematically and on schedule. Schedule which he already knows by heart - The UN schedule.
A brilliant correspondent in Libya, Hoda Abdel-Hamid in her tweet on Wednesday afternoon asked: "The world needs to protect Benghazi if it really wants stability... or is it too uncomfortable to let go of #Libya's oil?".
Why do we have to ask this question. We, in Western World value greatly the principles of democracy. We have fought and have died for them...
And of course it helps when the object of our help and support provides us with a strong incentives to do so. But even in this context do not dismiss Libya all along. When/if the Opposition forces win and the New Libya (the one with 3 colored flag) revises their commercial obligations - I am pretty sure, that those who help them now wouldn't have to worry for the outcome of these revisions...
Monday, March 14, 2011
Libya - desperate wait... indecision... WMD...
We are fast approaching a full month since the beginning of the Libyan revolt against the notorious Dictator and his regime. It started on the February 15. 2011.
For quite a while Gaddafi played a relatively safe for himself game of the "limited atrocities" against his own people. Most of his brutal moves happened "off camera" since he imposed the 'media blackout' at the beginning, and later, even after inviting the media back to Libya, controlled their access to any part of the country.
We were learning of the crimes of the regime from the scarce reports of the eye witnesses - always with the waiver: "the video (or relation) couldn't be independently confirmed...".
Already in the first week of the fights we learned about the air bombardments delivering the tactical blows to the rebel forces. Not the constant, heavy bombardments which would trigger the international response immediately, but the measured, demoralizing, and frightening hits, leaving a few dead in the field and the hundreds, or thousands fearing for their lives.
The rebels asked for the "no-fly zone" right at the beginning of the Gaddafi's use of the air force. To no avail.
The Arab League stubbornly denied the call for the no-fly zone effectively tying up the "Western Hands". For weeks we all heard about the possible ways to intervene, raging from the unilateral American action, through the no-fly zone imposed by the NATO forces, or French unilateral military involvement, to the continuous. and bringing no solution talks in the UN.
The divide has been widening instead of disappearing. China and Russia stand strongly against any form of the foreign intervention fearing that the created precedence would in the long run hurt their attempts to "pacify" the discontent in their countries.
In the meantime the US 5th Fleet "parked" in front of the Gaddafi's "windows", joined by some NATO forces - ready for any change of the policy to launch the attack...
And then on Saturday, March 12, The Arab League called for the NO-FLY ZONE to be imposed over Libya. One would think, that all the necessary conditions to actually impose the no-fly zone have been met. Unfortunately, it's not the case. In such a time sensitive situation the Emergency session of the Security Council should have been called for, right after the Arab League call on Saturday. OK, it was late in the day, so I would expect it to happen on Sunday... The Council finally assembled on Monday for a "closed door" session. It may take days, if not weeks to before the unanimous decision is achieved (although the draft resolution is promised today). But in a few weeks there may be no more need for any help to the rebels. There will be no rebels any more.
I stress it in all my posts: Gaddafi is a very experienced, and efficient Dictator. He has been playing a "cat and mouse" game with the West for decades. Counting on the division between the points of view in the World he measures his attacks to be effective against the rebels, depleting their morale, resources, and reducing the amount of the fit-to fight volunteers, the same time avoiding the "Srebrenica like massacre". The rebels slowly loose grip of the "liberated" territories. The government army forces the rebels out of their strongholds, and then loosens the grip with which it holds to the regained terrain just to let the opposition forces to commit more effort to fight for these sites over and over, "bleeding" slowly out, and loosing the momentum.
On Monday Gaddafi announced an offer of the general Amnesty to all the Rebel Fighters if they stop the uprising. No one has any doubts that this kind of offer wouldn't guarantee ANY impunity to the opposition forces, once the Dictator is back in power 100%. But, is the "revolutionary army" unified enough to dismiss this sort of tricks? People are hurt, tired, hungry and with no visible support from the outside. How long can they sustain the fight, having nothing but hope...?
Gaddafi sent his envoys to Brussels (the seat of the European Government and the NATO Headquarters), and Cairo to try to convince the World's powers that the "status quo" might be regained and it is in the interest of the West to let it happen. So far the NATO refused to talk to the Gaddafi's emissaries.
Yesterday, the Dictator met with the Ambassadors of China, Russia and India to farther reassure the representatives of these Super-Powers of the benefits of the survival of his regime.
----------------
The No-Fly Zone was called for a long time ago. If imposed then, balance of the powers would have been shifted toward the Opposition Forces tremendously. It hasn't happen. What is the no-fly zone going to change, If imposed in a few days? A lot of damage has been done already. The fear factor established. The no-fly zone, by itself is completely useless against any helicopter attacks. Gaddafi has a number of attack helicopters, as well as Chinook transport helicopters. Some of them remember the times of close ties with Russia years ago, some have been bought in the recent years in violation of the arms embargo. Shame on those who profited from the arms deals with Gaddafi (Italy, Russia, China, Algeria...).
As brought to our attention by some reports, the loophole in the existing, imposed by the UN arms embargo on Gaddafi's regime, allows for arming the Revolutionary forces. I hope that this option is still on the table, and considered along the no-fly zone. However, we have the long and (to say the least) spotty history of arming the rebel forces in the countries of our interest. We all remember Nicaragua, Afghanistan, we can recall our initial involvement in Viet-Nam. Besides any moral issues, this sort of support is always risky, and often backfires.
Although there is a strong and decisive opposition of the countries in the region to any "foreign intervention" in the form of deployment of the army on the ground - the "no-fly zone" (as called for by the Arab league) also involves the air strikes neutralizing the air-defense capabilities of the Libyan governmental forces. This may, and will cause the protests of the Regional Powers (who perhaps do not realize what is involved in imposing such restrictions).
Any, even the most precise "surgical" air strikes will bring the casualties. We heard already, during any other conflict, the enemy's claims about the "civilian" casualties, even if no civilians were present in the target zones. We will hear Libya government's cries protesting against the "collateral civilian damage", no matter how careful the Western forces will be. We know already, that Libya has at least 13 anti-aircraft batteries. According to the military commentators they are all consisting of the aging, but formidable Russian equipment, which if well maintained may create a problem to even far superior technologically Western air assault. These batteries would have to be eliminated. However, by default, in the countries like Libya these batteries are located in the heavy populated areas...
-----------------
America invaded Iraq to prevent the Hussain regime from the use the (non existent) Weapons of Mass Destruction. It gave us the moral authority to invade and conquer Iraq. It gave us the moral authority to remove the Dictator from power, and execute him in Baghdad soon afterwords. However, Iraq didn't have ANY Weapons of Mass Destruction. the whole invasion was called for on false pretenses...
In the case of the Colonel Gaddafi we play with the 'kid gloves'. The moral reservation against the "any country interference in the affairs of another country" has been voiced over and over. But let's not forget that Gaddafi's regime by now destroyed only 2/3 of their stash of the MUSTARD GAS, having still more than 9 metric tons of this Weapon of Mass Destruction in it's arsenal. Since the beginning of the conflict, the concerned voices have been heard, warning about the danger of the Regime using the toxic agent against the opposition. For some reason, so far, this argument wasn't used in the talks about the Western reaction to the war atrocities attempted by the Dictator.
Maybe it's time to get reminded about this clear and present danger !
For quite a while Gaddafi played a relatively safe for himself game of the "limited atrocities" against his own people. Most of his brutal moves happened "off camera" since he imposed the 'media blackout' at the beginning, and later, even after inviting the media back to Libya, controlled their access to any part of the country.
We were learning of the crimes of the regime from the scarce reports of the eye witnesses - always with the waiver: "the video (or relation) couldn't be independently confirmed...".
Already in the first week of the fights we learned about the air bombardments delivering the tactical blows to the rebel forces. Not the constant, heavy bombardments which would trigger the international response immediately, but the measured, demoralizing, and frightening hits, leaving a few dead in the field and the hundreds, or thousands fearing for their lives.
The rebels asked for the "no-fly zone" right at the beginning of the Gaddafi's use of the air force. To no avail.
The Arab League stubbornly denied the call for the no-fly zone effectively tying up the "Western Hands". For weeks we all heard about the possible ways to intervene, raging from the unilateral American action, through the no-fly zone imposed by the NATO forces, or French unilateral military involvement, to the continuous. and bringing no solution talks in the UN.
The divide has been widening instead of disappearing. China and Russia stand strongly against any form of the foreign intervention fearing that the created precedence would in the long run hurt their attempts to "pacify" the discontent in their countries.
In the meantime the US 5th Fleet "parked" in front of the Gaddafi's "windows", joined by some NATO forces - ready for any change of the policy to launch the attack...
And then on Saturday, March 12, The Arab League called for the NO-FLY ZONE to be imposed over Libya. One would think, that all the necessary conditions to actually impose the no-fly zone have been met. Unfortunately, it's not the case. In such a time sensitive situation the Emergency session of the Security Council should have been called for, right after the Arab League call on Saturday. OK, it was late in the day, so I would expect it to happen on Sunday... The Council finally assembled on Monday for a "closed door" session. It may take days, if not weeks to before the unanimous decision is achieved (although the draft resolution is promised today). But in a few weeks there may be no more need for any help to the rebels. There will be no rebels any more.
I stress it in all my posts: Gaddafi is a very experienced, and efficient Dictator. He has been playing a "cat and mouse" game with the West for decades. Counting on the division between the points of view in the World he measures his attacks to be effective against the rebels, depleting their morale, resources, and reducing the amount of the fit-to fight volunteers, the same time avoiding the "Srebrenica like massacre". The rebels slowly loose grip of the "liberated" territories. The government army forces the rebels out of their strongholds, and then loosens the grip with which it holds to the regained terrain just to let the opposition forces to commit more effort to fight for these sites over and over, "bleeding" slowly out, and loosing the momentum.
On Monday Gaddafi announced an offer of the general Amnesty to all the Rebel Fighters if they stop the uprising. No one has any doubts that this kind of offer wouldn't guarantee ANY impunity to the opposition forces, once the Dictator is back in power 100%. But, is the "revolutionary army" unified enough to dismiss this sort of tricks? People are hurt, tired, hungry and with no visible support from the outside. How long can they sustain the fight, having nothing but hope...?
Gaddafi sent his envoys to Brussels (the seat of the European Government and the NATO Headquarters), and Cairo to try to convince the World's powers that the "status quo" might be regained and it is in the interest of the West to let it happen. So far the NATO refused to talk to the Gaddafi's emissaries.
Yesterday, the Dictator met with the Ambassadors of China, Russia and India to farther reassure the representatives of these Super-Powers of the benefits of the survival of his regime.
----------------
The No-Fly Zone was called for a long time ago. If imposed then, balance of the powers would have been shifted toward the Opposition Forces tremendously. It hasn't happen. What is the no-fly zone going to change, If imposed in a few days? A lot of damage has been done already. The fear factor established. The no-fly zone, by itself is completely useless against any helicopter attacks. Gaddafi has a number of attack helicopters, as well as Chinook transport helicopters. Some of them remember the times of close ties with Russia years ago, some have been bought in the recent years in violation of the arms embargo. Shame on those who profited from the arms deals with Gaddafi (Italy, Russia, China, Algeria...).
As brought to our attention by some reports, the loophole in the existing, imposed by the UN arms embargo on Gaddafi's regime, allows for arming the Revolutionary forces. I hope that this option is still on the table, and considered along the no-fly zone. However, we have the long and (to say the least) spotty history of arming the rebel forces in the countries of our interest. We all remember Nicaragua, Afghanistan, we can recall our initial involvement in Viet-Nam. Besides any moral issues, this sort of support is always risky, and often backfires.
Although there is a strong and decisive opposition of the countries in the region to any "foreign intervention" in the form of deployment of the army on the ground - the "no-fly zone" (as called for by the Arab league) also involves the air strikes neutralizing the air-defense capabilities of the Libyan governmental forces. This may, and will cause the protests of the Regional Powers (who perhaps do not realize what is involved in imposing such restrictions).
Any, even the most precise "surgical" air strikes will bring the casualties. We heard already, during any other conflict, the enemy's claims about the "civilian" casualties, even if no civilians were present in the target zones. We will hear Libya government's cries protesting against the "collateral civilian damage", no matter how careful the Western forces will be. We know already, that Libya has at least 13 anti-aircraft batteries. According to the military commentators they are all consisting of the aging, but formidable Russian equipment, which if well maintained may create a problem to even far superior technologically Western air assault. These batteries would have to be eliminated. However, by default, in the countries like Libya these batteries are located in the heavy populated areas...
-----------------
America invaded Iraq to prevent the Hussain regime from the use the (non existent) Weapons of Mass Destruction. It gave us the moral authority to invade and conquer Iraq. It gave us the moral authority to remove the Dictator from power, and execute him in Baghdad soon afterwords. However, Iraq didn't have ANY Weapons of Mass Destruction. the whole invasion was called for on false pretenses...
In the case of the Colonel Gaddafi we play with the 'kid gloves'. The moral reservation against the "any country interference in the affairs of another country" has been voiced over and over. But let's not forget that Gaddafi's regime by now destroyed only 2/3 of their stash of the MUSTARD GAS, having still more than 9 metric tons of this Weapon of Mass Destruction in it's arsenal. Since the beginning of the conflict, the concerned voices have been heard, warning about the danger of the Regime using the toxic agent against the opposition. For some reason, so far, this argument wasn't used in the talks about the Western reaction to the war atrocities attempted by the Dictator.
Maybe it's time to get reminded about this clear and present danger !
Japan - hit by a terrible natural disaster. Man made (partially) catastrophe in the waiting...
The earthquake of magnitude of 9.0 (revised on Monday) in the Richter scale hit Japan on Friday. The biggest earthquake which hit the islands for almost 140 years. Japan is used to the quakes, most of them do not cause too much damage to the buildings any more (thanks to the strict anti-quake building code). The last, which was a devastating blow to the country was so called Kobe Earthquake in January 1995, which had a magnitude of 7.3. The city was in ruins and approximately 6,434 people lost their lives (final estimate as of December 22, 2005); about 4,600 of them were from Kobe. The building code has been since improved, the city has been rebuilt in 85%.
The earthquake which came unexpectedly on Friday, March 11, 2011 had an epicenter several miles to the East of the Pacific shore. It was felt in the whole country causing a limited damage even in Tokyo. However, the most devastating was the Tsunami following the tremors. It swapped the Eastern shore of the Japanese Islands leveling everything standing on it's way with the 30 feet high wave. The whole cities on the cost simply disappeared. Thousands of people lost their lives. The official government statement said that it was the most terrible disaster in the post-war Japanese history. A long time will pass before the grim effect of this catastrophe will be known in detail...
All of the developed countries immediately rushed to help the suffering people of Japan. The needs of all the affected people and their fate are on the minds of everyone in the World.
Unfortunately, the Friday earthquake caused the damage to some reactors in the Japanese Nuclear Power Plants.
Japan's electrical power needs are enormous. Since 1973 the nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority. At this point, Japan is the third largest user of nuclear generated power, with 53 working nuclear reactors. They provide about 35% of Japan's electricity. Their nuclear industry has been operating without any major catastrophe (like Three Mile Island accident or the Chernobyl disaster). However, starting in the mid-1990s there were several nuclear related accidents and cover-ups in Japan that eroded public perception of the industry, resulting in protests and resistance to new plants. These accidents included the Tokaimura nuclear accident, the Mihama steam explosion, cover-ups after an accidents at the Monju reactor, among others, more recently the Chūetsu offshore earthquake aftermath (6.6 magnitude in 2007).
It brings us to the aftermath of the latest, huge earthquake followed by a tsunami. Although the most of the power plants haven't reported any damages - the Fukushima Daiichi plant – which runs on a plutonium-based fuel, developed the grave problems. Directly as a result of the quake, the reactor's #3 cooling system failed, causing the overheating of the core. It lead to the exposing of the fuel rods, generating the Hydrogen in the containment area, what lead to the explosion of the Hydrogen rich atmosphere and the destruction of the containment structure. Reports warn about the similar damage to the neighboring reactor. Although the radiation levels so far haven't been catastrophic, and thousands of the people have been evacuated from the immediate proximity of the plant to the safe distance, experts warn of the possibility of unprecedented nuclear disaster. So far a number of the inhabitants of that area have been exposed to some radiation, prior to the evacuation.
What we have to take under consideration is that Japan is located in the most active seismic area in the World - so called "Ring of Fire". Japan lays on the junction of the three major tectonic plates: North American, Eurasian and Pacific plates, and is close to the Phillipine plate. It is well known that the earthquakes are a part of normal life of this country. It is also known, that sometimes the nature goes beyond the "usual" and surprises us with it's ferocity. In such a context it's very arrogant to assume that the man-made structure (and man-made machinery) is constructed robustly enough to withstand a 'surprise attack' by the Mother Nature. Apparently the latest earthquake is more than these structures can handle.
If we use a 'statistical' approach to assess the 'survivability' of the structures like a conventionally powered power plant - we may accept a small percentage of the projected failures. Any damage to these conventional plants may cause death and injury to some people, but the affected area would be limited to local only, and the damages wouldn't leave any lasting contamination.
WE CAN'T APPLY STATISTICAL APPROACH to the assessment of the projected damages to the nuclear plans. We, as a humanity, can't control the nuclear reactions if anything goes wrong. We can't prevent the release of the radioactive gasses, steam, or water if there is any failure of the plant's infrastructure.
So far almost 2 hundred people have been exposed to some levels of radiation. If the repair teams succeed cooling down the 2 problematic reactors, maybe there will be no more harm done to the population. However, the assessment of the situation which transpires from the reports is far from being that optimistic. We heard already about the possibility of the meltdown, or explosion... If it happens, the affected area may be enormous (depending on the prevailing direction of the winds carrying the radioactive cloud).
Is it so difficult understanding, that although generally safe, in the crisis situation, the nuclear power plants are EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. And the danger goes far beyond the Japanese Islands, and it's not limited to the present only, but may be extended for many decades ahead.
The World's resources of the Uranium are already scarce (although it might be argued based on the increase of the technology involved in exploration, recovery, and the use of lower-content ore). The next technological step is application of the Plutonium as a fuel of the reactors, mixed uranium and plutonium oxide, to be precise. This fuel is much more difficult to handle, runs in much higher temperatures and if not cooled properly leads to the MELTDOWN when the temperature rises to 2200 degrees Celsius. If not cooled, the core of the reactor reaches that temperature very soon (at the temp. of 1000 C the water converts to hydrogen and another explosion is likely).
The earthquake which came unexpectedly on Friday, March 11, 2011 had an epicenter several miles to the East of the Pacific shore. It was felt in the whole country causing a limited damage even in Tokyo. However, the most devastating was the Tsunami following the tremors. It swapped the Eastern shore of the Japanese Islands leveling everything standing on it's way with the 30 feet high wave. The whole cities on the cost simply disappeared. Thousands of people lost their lives. The official government statement said that it was the most terrible disaster in the post-war Japanese history. A long time will pass before the grim effect of this catastrophe will be known in detail...
All of the developed countries immediately rushed to help the suffering people of Japan. The needs of all the affected people and their fate are on the minds of everyone in the World.
Unfortunately, the Friday earthquake caused the damage to some reactors in the Japanese Nuclear Power Plants.
Japan's electrical power needs are enormous. Since 1973 the nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority. At this point, Japan is the third largest user of nuclear generated power, with 53 working nuclear reactors. They provide about 35% of Japan's electricity. Their nuclear industry has been operating without any major catastrophe (like Three Mile Island accident or the Chernobyl disaster). However, starting in the mid-1990s there were several nuclear related accidents and cover-ups in Japan that eroded public perception of the industry, resulting in protests and resistance to new plants. These accidents included the Tokaimura nuclear accident, the Mihama steam explosion, cover-ups after an accidents at the Monju reactor, among others, more recently the Chūetsu offshore earthquake aftermath (6.6 magnitude in 2007).
It brings us to the aftermath of the latest, huge earthquake followed by a tsunami. Although the most of the power plants haven't reported any damages - the Fukushima Daiichi plant – which runs on a plutonium-based fuel, developed the grave problems. Directly as a result of the quake, the reactor's #3 cooling system failed, causing the overheating of the core. It lead to the exposing of the fuel rods, generating the Hydrogen in the containment area, what lead to the explosion of the Hydrogen rich atmosphere and the destruction of the containment structure. Reports warn about the similar damage to the neighboring reactor. Although the radiation levels so far haven't been catastrophic, and thousands of the people have been evacuated from the immediate proximity of the plant to the safe distance, experts warn of the possibility of unprecedented nuclear disaster. So far a number of the inhabitants of that area have been exposed to some radiation, prior to the evacuation.
What we have to take under consideration is that Japan is located in the most active seismic area in the World - so called "Ring of Fire". Japan lays on the junction of the three major tectonic plates: North American, Eurasian and Pacific plates, and is close to the Phillipine plate. It is well known that the earthquakes are a part of normal life of this country. It is also known, that sometimes the nature goes beyond the "usual" and surprises us with it's ferocity. In such a context it's very arrogant to assume that the man-made structure (and man-made machinery) is constructed robustly enough to withstand a 'surprise attack' by the Mother Nature. Apparently the latest earthquake is more than these structures can handle.
If we use a 'statistical' approach to assess the 'survivability' of the structures like a conventionally powered power plant - we may accept a small percentage of the projected failures. Any damage to these conventional plants may cause death and injury to some people, but the affected area would be limited to local only, and the damages wouldn't leave any lasting contamination.
WE CAN'T APPLY STATISTICAL APPROACH to the assessment of the projected damages to the nuclear plans. We, as a humanity, can't control the nuclear reactions if anything goes wrong. We can't prevent the release of the radioactive gasses, steam, or water if there is any failure of the plant's infrastructure.
So far almost 2 hundred people have been exposed to some levels of radiation. If the repair teams succeed cooling down the 2 problematic reactors, maybe there will be no more harm done to the population. However, the assessment of the situation which transpires from the reports is far from being that optimistic. We heard already about the possibility of the meltdown, or explosion... If it happens, the affected area may be enormous (depending on the prevailing direction of the winds carrying the radioactive cloud).
Is it so difficult understanding, that although generally safe, in the crisis situation, the nuclear power plants are EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. And the danger goes far beyond the Japanese Islands, and it's not limited to the present only, but may be extended for many decades ahead.
The World's resources of the Uranium are already scarce (although it might be argued based on the increase of the technology involved in exploration, recovery, and the use of lower-content ore). The next technological step is application of the Plutonium as a fuel of the reactors, mixed uranium and plutonium oxide, to be precise. This fuel is much more difficult to handle, runs in much higher temperatures and if not cooled properly leads to the MELTDOWN when the temperature rises to 2200 degrees Celsius. If not cooled, the core of the reactor reaches that temperature very soon (at the temp. of 1000 C the water converts to hydrogen and another explosion is likely).
-----------------------------
Should we play with the powers which we vaguely control (conditionally - only if everything works)? Should we arrogantly risk the health and life of the countless number of people, and risk condemning the huge areas to be uninhabitable for many decades because of the radiation contamination? I do not think so.
-----------------------------
Our hopes and wishes are with the people of Japan. Hopes and wishes, that the blow that Mother Nature has already delivered is ALL what they have to suffer, and it's not going to be worsened by a horrifying nuclear disaster.
Should we play with the powers which we vaguely control (conditionally - only if everything works)? Should we arrogantly risk the health and life of the countless number of people, and risk condemning the huge areas to be uninhabitable for many decades because of the radiation contamination? I do not think so.
-----------------------------
Our hopes and wishes are with the people of Japan. Hopes and wishes, that the blow that Mother Nature has already delivered is ALL what they have to suffer, and it's not going to be worsened by a horrifying nuclear disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)