In the Second World War, even when the heads of government included Hitler, Tojo and Stalin, this sort of targeting was not commonly practiced (highest profile Admiral Yamamoto, and he was in a real military uniform, not one he put together from a TJ Maxx catalog).

In fairness we have to concede that in World War II most fighting parties did instead just go ahead and bomb the civilian population to smithereens and actually intending to do just that. Back then, it wasn’t a case of 4 children being wounded by flying glass, but of tens of thousands of children being killed by having a bomb dropped on the head. The bombing of Dresden, The Blitz, Stalingrad, the firebombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagazaki are well known examples. If WWII is to be the yardstick, this bombing was absolutely benign.

I know it is “easy” to drop bombs when you are so “militarily” superior, but is it very smart?

I suspect that it’s more than only the prospect of taking The Guide out. It’s also about putting pressure on him and – crucially – his support network. If daily life is increasingly sucky and they come to the conclusion that Gaddafi won’t last in the long run, that may result in defections and / or treason by the inner circle.

If NATO/USA gets rid of Gaddafi, I think the civil war will continue. Gaddafi is still very popular in parts of Libya, as best I can tell. When he is toppled, U.S. troops will be asked to babysit yet ANOTHER civil war … on the ground. Getting rid of Gaddafi will not end U.S. involvement. It will be the beginning.

Isn’t this the son and grandchildren who were killed by NATO airstrikes about 10 days ago?

“Smart Bombs” maybe but the people that are in charge are still stupid, stupid, stupid. The display of total bloody ineptitude by the gang of clowns in the WH is farcical.

The White House is not in charge of this operation, Nato is. What “ineptitude” are you referring to, be specific.

Well as far as I’ve heard The Guide do have some supporters in Tripoli and such, groups that are favored by the current regime. If the rebels and Nato manage to accomplish a negotiated deal with Gaddafi or other elements in his government it could work out, but like you say – there’s potential for Iraq style insurgency.

The europeans (France, UK) “owns” Libya for the time being, so first hand their responsibility to step up, but worst case scenario – who knows? Everything is possible.

Good morning, pups. Mr. Nocera is off today, so Bobo is flying solo, heaven help us. He has extruded a thing called “The Missing Fifth.” No, it’s not a bottle of rotgut. Bobo has a question: Is the United States becoming less vital and industrious? Here’s a warning sign: 20 percent of American men aren’t working. Bobo says they’re “idle.” Not unemployed, not desperately looking for work, “idle.” Oh, I’ll bet you didn’t know that it’s all Medicare’s fault…

Here he is.

The coffee and tea are ready, and I’ve got toasted Thomas’ English muffins with butter and your favorite jam. Seedless blackberry for me, or maybe pear preserves. The 10 gerbera daisy plants I rescued from the “death rack” on Saturday are perking up nicely, and will probably go into the flower bed this afternoon if they’re still doing well. Then we’ll wait and wonder what colors they are. Have a great day.

Good morning all,

cheney called out obama on Libya so there goes the bombs.

Is there a balance when military superiority goes up moral superiority goes down ? Sure seems that way.

Sherwood,
I am not certain Dresden is the example you want, unless demoralizing the populace is the stated intent – which it may have been. Fact is, when you are at war with a nation, collateral dammage is a different proposition than when the mission is to protect the civilians of a nation from their leader.
As for this being a NATO action, even if one were to assume that the US was only supplying the munitions and expertise totally at NATO direction, we still are not conveying benevolent intentions to the the bulk of the world.
And… as AT rightfully points out, we keep missing.
So we convey neither effectiveness nor compassion.
It is a bit of a lose/lose mission to begin with.
No one save the munitions manufacturers is made happy.
If we finally nail this bastard in 10 years, will crowds amass to chant “USA USA”?

Thanks for delegitimizing his humanity making him deserving of our removing ( murdering)him. Seems to me we only know the government propaganda about anything ,anybody or any country.

How many more ” bastards” have we yet to kill ? Will it ever end ?

Smart if you want a 10 point bounce in the poles as Gareth Porter notes regarding Obama’s assassination of Osama.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6722

Per Pepe Escobar, Sarkozy and Cameron want the same bounce.
http://therealnews.com/t2/component/seyret/?task=videodirectlink&id=9842

hmm
Either you misread the entirety of my comment or your point is that by using the word ‘bastard’ to describe someone who has been a supported of terrorism and brutal repression of large portions of his nation I am depriving him of humanity? I suggest his actions have done that.
That is in a moral sense. In a lagal sense – and I believe the law is a large part of what makes us human – he has all the human rights as the innocent children who are killed by these attacks.

I am not certain Dresden is the example you want, unless demoralizing the populace is the stated intent – which it may have been.

In every example I mentioned the people in charge didn’t care very much if the civilian population got hurt, or it was intended that they would get hurt. I’m not sure I get you? What I was getting at was that Attaturk’s implied point – “we were more civilized than this in WWII – is off the mark. The reason we didnt try to air bomb Hitler or Stalin was of course that it wasn’t doable with the weaponry and intelligence of that time. I’m not so sure no one looked into assassinating them, though.

Fact is, when you are at war with a nation, collateral dammage is a different proposition than when the mission is to protect the civilians of a nation from their leader.

Sure. But bombs entails the possibility for collateral damage, so since this operation is air only, it’s gonna happen. The yardstick should be if the fallout in terms of loss of life during the conflict, and the final outcome (free democratic libya? civil war?) is preferable than without a UN intervention.

As for this being a NATO action, even if one were to assume that the US was only supplying the munitions and expertise totally at NATO direction, we still are not conveying benevolent intentions to the the bulk of the world.
And… as AT rightfully points out, we keep missing.
So we convey neither effectiveness nor compassion.
It is a bit of a lose/lose mission to begin with.
No one save the munitions manufacturers is made happy.
If we finally nail this bastard in 10 years, will crowds amass to chant “USA USA”?

What do you mean by “keep on missing”? Missing Gaddafi? And the failure to hit Gaddafi with a bomb “conveys ineffectiveness”?

Those are sentiments in line with the republicans confused ideas about the importance of “projecting” strength. Posturing is only a sideshow, stupid idea that projecting the right thing is what’s important (maybe re electoral politics).

The unofficial objective of the UN coalition is clearly to force Gaddafi out of office in some way and the preferred outcome that Libya have free and fair elections. If that is how this all ends things are gonna be hunky dory. We had a successful UN mission that with the support and cooperation of the arab world got rid of a nasty dictator that had just declared war on his people rather than loose power.

From a U.S. perspective we will have a better end result than Iraq without losing a single soldier and at three or four orders of magnitude lesser cost. And without losing standing in the world.

If it works out that way, it will put Bush actions in Iraq to shame, and establish the U.N. as the proper way to go in these matters. From my POW that would be f-king brilliant.

But there are no guarantees of course, could go to h-ll in a handbasket quickly. Looks promising right now, since Gaddafi regime can’t sell oil for money anymore and sanctions are taking there toll. It may be that regime breakdown comes faster than expected. This is coalition strategy of course, this is how they want it to play out. Not hitting Gaddafi in the head with a bomb on luck, that’s bonus since potential to end conflict sooner.

Americans chanting “USA USA” or not, is of miniscule importance. A democratic, stable and prosperous Libya is very important.

Khadafy must have as many hiding places for his stuff as there are various spellings of his name.

Perhaps he’s been slyly cluing NATO, to steer bombs in directions to hit just his Potemkin villages. Good for incendiary TV images, while he keeps on wrecking havoc over there. How much longer is this going to continue?

And I’m suggesting we don’t know anything the government and media want don’t us to know. We also think we know what’s true that isn’t true, WMD for example

Good morning all.

Everyone was so shocked when Wesley Clark was here for a book salon several years ago, and I asked him: “Are you proud of having bombed the Serbs.”

People thought I was incredibly rude.

Some might have changed their minds since then.

“A democratic, stable and propersous Libya is very important.”

Ah, just like the YouEssAy?

ALL of humanity needs democracy, peace, and genuine prosperity, sherwood, how do you propose that we ALL get to that place?

More endless war?

Questions, questions, questions.

Of the most inconvenient and human kind …

DW

More like Iraq.

The fact that there is propaganda and bad journalism does not preclude one from the discerning glimmers of fact through the mire. Of course, your glimmers may differ from mine, but I ahve not seen anything credible that makes me in the least sympathetic to Gaddafi as a human.
WMD, on the other hand, there was that little op-ed in the NYT and ther were earlier (unspecific) reports of the run-up. WMD was a judgement call which many failed under an assumption that someone else must know more because the actual evidence was so thin. (almost as thin as any evidence that Gadaffi is actually a misunderstood humanitarian leader)
I never bought it , but hindsight is 20/20.
Overall, war sucks, and if you are a consistant pacifist, God bless you (I truly mean that).

Most likely, eCAHN.

I was merely wondering what an, apparently, more glib, unconcerned (again apparently, with the very real human costs of America’s bloody hegemony), and a somewhat (from my wee perspective) foolishly pedantic view would render?

(NATO does exactly what the YouEssAy wants it to do, it is, essentially, a “front” organization, funded primarily and directed most extensively by American “interests” … for example, and, to pretend otherwise is disingenuous and intentionally misleading. What’s in it for the Wisdom, one doth wonder?)

DW

How do I propose we accomplish world peace and endless prosperity? You’re funny.

What lead the UN/Coalition to intervene was that Gaddafi went so far that he started strafing demonstrations with fighter jets and sending tanks at friendly crowds. That’s why intervention happened in Libya and not in e.g. Syria. And also because Gaddafi is a jerkoff that has made enemies pretty much everywhere (except Castro, Chavez), including most Arab leaders which is why they went along with it.

So there was a situation that looked like it was about to deteriorate into Gaddafi sending conventional troops to wage war on his citizenry. In such a situation I support intervention, if done within the UN framework. And crucially there was arab world support and libyans (or a large portion of them) asked for intervention.

Yup. War is, at its best, a turd sandwich.

NATO, UN are both front orgs for U.S. Arab League is a U.S. puppet.

Betcha O longs for the good ole days when U.S. could overthrow a regime & install a puppet with just a couple of tens of millions and a CIA ops team.

Gaddafi went so far that he started strafing demonstrations with fighter jets and sending tanks at friendly crowds.

Link?

BTW, the Libya op is a Sarkozy pipedream. He got pissed at Gaddafy for cancelling some French military jet purchases also some large French projects in Libya. Meanwhile some Libyan expat was whispering sweet nothings in his ear (think Chalabi). And the tipping point came bc Sark needed a quick victory to help his reelection chances.

Right.

It’s all merely part of the plan.

And no, I am not being funny.

Clearly, you’ve little or no interest in considering and seeking a better, more humane world, sherwood, but “your” world is changing and, like too many Americans, you’ve not the imagination or compassion to begin to understand.

Continue on in your sanguine ways and be surprised when justice comes.

Remember the “good Germans”, sherwood, in your “official history”.

You don’t happen to work for Cass Sunstein, do you? One imagines you’d get on famously …

DW

eCAHN, you wanted links:

Gadaffi bombs protesters.
Gadaffi strafes protesters.

Well wikipedia puts it like this

As the protests progressed, the Libyan government employed snipers, artillery, helicopter gunships, warplanes, anti-aircraft weaponry, and warships against demonstrations.

And sources it to this Daily Telegraph article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8335934/Libya-protests-140-massacred-as-Gaddafi-sends-in-snipers-to-crush-dissent.html

A cursory reading through the article doesnt seem to mention the planes, though. It was widely reported at the time as I recall, perhaps you remember the two fighter jets that defected to malta? That was because they were ordered to target the demonstrations and they refused.

If you insist, I will go mining the web for a proper cite that supports the use of war planes specifically, please let me know in that case.

Ah, a voice of reason. Really I did not have the energy to refute the foolishness that it was not USA, USA, USA in charge but rather NATO, now being conflated with the UN. I , like you, will not drink the KoolAde.

Damn I already miss my bees.

Ah thanks for the help!

No, I’ve never met Cass in person, but of course we all had to read up on his research as part of the basic training at langley.

Anybody but an asshole would get the kids out of there. It takes an unusual kind of person to keep kids around, hoping for a propaganda victory.

EVERYBODY was pissed off at Gaddafi. Remember Lockerbie? UK had ample reasons as well, pretty much everyone had. As I pointed out, that’s why no one complained to much, including the arabs.

It was not ONLY Nato. The mission is authorized by the UNSC and it is officially a UN mission. E.g. Quatar, UAE and Sweden contribute fighter jets (if i remember correctly) and neither is Nato. Mission operational command is Nato, though.

Saying that it is a “Nato operation” is false. It is UN.

Ah, sherwood, you fail; to see the forest … for the trees.

When justice comes to America, and it shall …

You will, no doubt, argue the legitimacy of those who are bombing us, and, sherwood, I shall join you in THAT particular chorus.

However, on the “receiving end”, as we will justly be … does bring other things, human things, desperate things, to the fore.

Those who live by war, shall come to know the ways of war, first by losing their own humanity …and then, to find it later, as victims of their own excess.

America COULD have chosen differently … but it embraced violencce as the “final solution”, long ago.

Ponder possibility, sherwood, if, and should, you dare.

DW

When justice comes to America, and it shall …

Isn’t this a weird sentiment on an american website, catering to an american audience? But maybe you mean “justice” in the literal sense…

You will, no doubt, argue the legitimacy of those who are bombing us, and, sherwood, I shall join you in THAT particular chorus.

Are you saying that you are IN Libya? May I then point out that France and Great Britain are bombing you, not the United States (at the moment).

Oh…. Uz B Trollin Bro

ETA: Checking out your diary; mfw

I was also celebrating Judge Vaughn Walker’s Prop 8 decision, in my wee mind, thinking that maybe a certain “tide” was turning …

You: funny

sherwood, I am suggesting that war will come home. To America. In real, very specific and deadly terms.

Have you any thoughts regarding that likelihood?

Or are you simply unable to grasp the possibility?

You’re looking rather thin and transparent, otherwise.

DW

Well war already came on 9/11. Very trivially on account of our recent history, e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq I, but most of all our support of Israel.

But I don’t think that Libya is just the next chapter in that book, on the contrary. We have very wisely stayed on the sidelines, which gives the operation more legitimacy. The arab world doesnt hate europeans nearly as much as americans, precisely because they dont go to war in the middle east as often, and they support the palestinians.

Furthermore, the youth revolutions (“Arab spring”) are popular in the arab world (and maghreb). Gaddafi is NOT popular. Most regard him as a loony there as well. And the UN mission enjoys a fair amount support and relatively minimal outrage. Of course, muslims are gonna focus on the rebels winning their own war, and be suspicious of Nato, but the sentiments are not even remotely similar to Iraq II or even Afghanistan.

A few more Bush II style invasions though and a pinch of Abu Ghraib, and the proverbial shit hits the fan…

Sherwood is quite right, WWII is a poor example indeed of a more “civilized” time.

Aside from the targetting of civilian populations, it was very much the intention of the Allies to seize the enemy leaders, put them on trial, and execute them. Indeed, that’s exactly what they did to Tojo.

You still don’t get it. If you want to speak of madmen, why leave out all US administrations going back decades?

Granted Ghadafy is mad…to impose his own revolutionary fervor in offence to western power.

9/11 was not a ‘war’, it was a catalyzing event.

If you believe that 9-11 was “war”, sherwood, then, you’ve a rough education ahead.

War is unrelenting, it is all-consuming, war is utter and total destruction.

And destruction, as you say, should we continue to “do” certain things… WILL be OUR lot.

Frankly, that destruction should be unnecessary, we should be wise enough to know better, even learning from the lessons of history, were we planning on changing “our” ways.

Talk of honor in a slaughter-house or of “legality” or “moral high-ground” in the midst of unending war is semantic evasion and worth next to nothing, for the truth will always come home, one way or another.

Perhaps America should export peace and compassion, as well as genuine encouragement and such “help” as reasonable people might request of us?

America has sought literal control of the world and its resources since before WWII and determined to have such hegemony by the end of those hostilties, by whatever means necessary … even to lifting the Nazi “intelligence service”, methods and people, directly into our own then fledgling “agencies” … and the National Security Act of 1947 tied us into a specific mind-set.

DW

You know, I have real problems assigning any kind of humanity to a man who is directing the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. I do, however, believe this yet another armed action against non-Christian, brown people
who happen to sit atop the most important, and increasingly scarce, resource in the world. As long as the corporate fascists and the israelis control our government, the more brown people our armed forces will kill.

Well “war” in a loose sense, denoting engineered mass killings and big explosions, not in the literal sense.

So you are a Gaddafi partisan, eh? On account of Gaddafi being, also in a (very) loose sense, an old “leftie”? Now, I am the sort who can at least partly support Chavez, and think that Castro isn’t such a bad Dude, but if we get to Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, Kim-Jong Il and the sort, then I’m getting off the train.

Lennon : When you talk about destruction – don’t you know that you can count me out.
McCartney (?) : In!

I wouldn’t put The Guide exactly with that crowd – he hasnt killed that many people, but he has repeatedly shown disregard for civilian life, e.g. Lockerbie, and the use of armed forces and heavy weaponry against his own people.

That’s one of the senses in which one could label him “mad”. Another is his habit of making enemies, he for example insulted the prince of Saudi and called him a raging p-ssy or something of the sorts. But he is obviously not “mad” in the clinical sense, he seems to be an apt power player, his clinging to power for so many years case in point. But let’s say that his a Joseph Stalin type personality perhaps? I don’t know enough about him really.

Anyway, I never got the impression he ever was much of a socialist, more of a Gaddafist. I could be wrong, sure.
If you consider him perfectly benevolent, please elaborate.

Sure, there’s been plenty of dark clandestine deeds commited by the united states government. I happen to think that the democratic presidents we’ve had post Johnson have been pretty good guys and not up to so much of that stuff. Obama included.

(Johnson did a boatload of good legislation as well, but obviously screwed up Vietnam.)

If Obama is bombing Tripoli to improve his ratings, is that considered moral depravity?
We have gone from a no-fly zone to a nobody alive zone.

Johnson was willing to repeat the lie of the “incident” in the Gulf of Tonkin, Johnson was willing to allow the lie to pass for the truth, and Johnson knew, within hours, from reports of Naval Intelligence officers who stood for the truth, the real, actual truth, what actually had and what had not happened …

“Vietnam” was part of that “mindset” that the money and power elite all, each and every one, took as their own philosophy … a “pragmatic expediency” leading to “plausible denial” and other “acceptable” deceits …

DW

If you believe that 9-11 was “war”, sherwood, then, you’ve a rough education ahead.

War is unrelenting, it is all-consuming, war is utter and total destruction.

Well, see my response to “human” for a clarification of how I meant war. Anyway, I was responding to you when you wrote that “war” would “come to America”. I asumed you were refering to something along the lines of terrorism, but maybe you meant an invading army will come to america? It’s not always that easy to be pitch perfect when dealing with traders in high poetry and dark allusions, such as yerself.

And destruction, as you say, should we continue to “do” certain things… WILL be OUR lot.

Far from impossible. But I feel your going all Book of Revelation on me here. Pray tell, how did you acquire your vision?

Talk of honor in a slaughter-house or of “legality” or “moral high-ground” in the midst of unending war is semantic evasion and worth next to nothing, for the truth will always come home, one way or another.

Perhaps America should export peace and compassion, as well as genuine encouragement and such “help” as reasonable people might request of us?

So, you’re an absolute pacifist and I’m not. That’s ok. I will support some wars, mainly those authorized by the UN and enjoying “support from the global community”. But maybe it would be better if you advocated your position (which is perfectly reasonable imho) with a little more substance and a little less dire warnings of imminent doom. Clarity of thought is a virtue.

America has sought literal control of the world and its resources since before WWII and determined to have such hegemony by the end of those hostilties, by whatever means necessary … even to lifting the Nazi “intelligence service”, methods and people, directly into our own then fledgling “agencies” … and the National Security Act of 1947 tied us into a specific mind-set.

“Literal control of the world” – nah. De facto control – yes, not over the whole world though, but strategic interests. Which those are obviously varies over time. There are cadres of professionals in the federal government to figure out which they should be.

“Literal control of resources” – See “literal control of world”.

It sounds like you are perhaps a consumer of some type of conspiracy material. Be it Chomsky or Jones I don’t know. But it’s a shame, you seem to have good moral instincts, and us being in the same BIG (!) “lefty” tent I would prefer your mind a bit cleaned up and in working order for the perpetual ideological battle.

Screwed up Vietnam? So we should have ‘won’ that humanitarian intervention also? At what additional loss of life? Prosecution of war, or its euphemisms, always demonstrates the lack of morality.

That Ghadafy is outspoken is a requirement. He is who he is. I do not consider anyone who has taken on any mantle of leadership to be able to be perfectly benevolent. Is perfection even possible? But I digress.

If one goes back far enough, with an open mind, it can not be denied that this country was created through intolerance and genocide. It has just continued, nearly unabated, over the course of our few centuries.

Yes, sure, that’s why I wrote that he “screwed up vietnam” – that’s what i’m refering to, and that’s why I didnt include him in the list of pretty good democratic presidents, even though he ended segregation, passed a lot of other good stuff.

This stuff about “mindset” sounds a little bit “airy” for my taste. Every power-player in every country in the world and history have dealt in “pragmatic expediency” and “plausible denial” in some regard. (Note: I’m talking about the general meaning of the phrases – not about what they meant in the context of vietnam) Heck, most parents, and people in general deal in those from time to time. In the end it comes down to if you have some amount of empathy, and sense of resposibility, with people you know nothing about.

Good moral judgement (in lack of a better word) of what is acceptable to do to other peoples lives, and in other peoples names.

@Human, @DWBartoo

Twice now have you both in lockstep nitpicked on a choice of words or phrase (“war”, “screwed up”) that I made. Please note that if the exact meaning of a phase is unclear when reading, it is perfectly fine to simply ask me to clarify what I meant. There’s no need to go ahead and make your own very elaborate interpretation.

It’s a bit annoying frankly.

Let me respond briefly that you should check out my response to DWBartoo re “screwed up” and to note that you are being completely unresponsive and not addressing anything of what I wrote in my very long post, but wandering off the reservation. Thus we are not having a “conversation” but rather one monologue, and me responding to it. I won’t spend time on that, until you come wandering back.

@human

That Ghadafy is outspoken is a requirement. He is who he is. I do not consider anyone who has taken on any mantle of leadership to be able to be perfectly benevolent. Is perfection even possible? But I digress.

Noticed this. The lack of consistency is glaring and I’m starting to suspect you’re maybe taking the proverbial p-ss..

This is a tough audience, sherwood. It is _not_ a place to be treated politely as you hone your ideology.

Obama’s not bombing, Sarkozy and Cameron are.

I don’t think you and me use the same vocabulary, bud. You’re either being unserious, or terminally confused about morality and stuff. But let’s agree to disagree. Gadaffi is obviously your anointed “good guy” in the present conflict, and I wont – as explained – join you on that trip. Poor judgement and a screwed up world view. Nuff said.

You have had a fortunate education in the easy history, the polished gloss of the “interpretation”, yet if your intent is to really understand more deeply, then, sherwood, you must dig deeper.

As to annoyance?

I am most terribly sorry and frightfully vexed that you have found my attempts to seek deeper clarity of understanding with you to be so.

You are, indeed, quite perfect, as you are.

There is little, very little, honestly, of that to be seen.

You’ve, henceforth, my highest regards as a “perfect”.

;~DW

you must dig deeper

Channeling Inception, are we?

Whatever, you’re “perfect” too, dollface.

Saddam, I presume?

We had a successful UN mission that with the support and cooperation of the arab world got rid of a nasty dictator that had just declared war on his people rather than loose power.

Wow. who cares if we turned it to rubble and literally destroyed the cradle of civilization casting a whole society to the wind. We won, damnit.

From a U.S. perspective we will have a better end result than Iraq without losing a single soldier and at three or four orders of magnitude lesser cost. And without losing standing in the world.

If only American Lives matter, and of course what kind of “standing” we have in the world matter to you. Right now, we are considered the most dangerous nation on the planet, and our highest standing is in the Hypocrisy.
4 million Iraqi widows and children are trying struggling to survive hunger.

If it works out that way, it will put Bush actions in Iraq to shame, and establish the U.N. as the proper way to go in these matters. From my POW that would be f-king brilliant.

We’re Americans. Trivial party politics doesn’t matter to the world. You truly carry the white mans burden in a megalomaniacal sort of way, deciding for all these people who is good or bad and who deserves to hold power or who’s lives matter and who’s don’t.