Motus Mentis

20 Comments

1. the one eyed man says

   Qaddafy is dead, a popular revolution succeeded, and for the first time in their lives the Libyan people have a shot at freedom.

   I am waiting for all of those who ridiculed Obama’s decision to admit that they were wrong, and his skillful and decisive leadership led to an unqualified success without a single American casualty. After all, had we listened to them back in March, Qaddafy would be alive, the protestors would have been slaughtered, and we would have lost instead of gained some credibility in a part of the world where we have done so much harm.

   Posted October 20, 2011 at 6:55 pm | Permalink
2. JK says

   Go ahead and wait – just don’t hold your breath.

   Posted October 20, 2011 at 8:38 pm | Permalink
3. Malcolm says

   Right, right, of course. I forget sometimes how horrid we’ve been to North Africa prior to 2009.

   Certainly a long way from this:

   

   Posted October 20, 2011 at 9:18 pm | Permalink
4. TheBigHenry says

   As one who has ridiculed occasionally Obama’s cluelessness, I must admit I was wrong about his powers of persuasion. For as I sit here on my beachfront property in Arizona, I can see the sea-level dropping, even as we speak!

   Posted October 21, 2011 at 1:50 am | Permalink
5. JK says

   Hope you’ve wheels under your beachtowel TBH, I’m guessing there’s some lowballing going on:

   http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusive/1-billion-one-dictator-094911231.html

   Posted October 21, 2011 at 9:20 am | Permalink
6. the one eyed man says

   It is amusing to see those who were vocal cheerleaders for the invasion in Iraq straining to find fault with a mission which had no loss of American life, at a cost which is well less than one thousandth of Iraq. Not to mention that we destroyed Iraq and left it in the embrace of Iran, while in Libya we have — at least for now — the only pro-American stronghold in the Arab world.

   This is pure churlishness. If a right wing President had killed bin Laden, decimated Al Qaeda, and participated in the liberation of Libya, his face would already be on Mount Rushmore. However, since it is Obama who achieved all of these things, these victories are either ignored or condemned. A typical response is from Tea Party leader Michele Bachmann, who (after expressing some confusion about which continent Libya is on) castigated Obama for leading three wars. Let’s forget about the fact that she voted for two of them, and instead refer to her oft-proclaimed regard for the sanctity of life. She ignores the fact that had the nation followed her advice, tens of thousands of Libyans would be dead. Apparently her admiration for the sanctity of life is limited to life which is in utero.

   We don’t know much about what Obama’s opponents are actually for — we only know that they are against everything he does, regardless of what it is or how successful it may be. This reflexive dismissal undermines any credibility or objectivity they could possibly claim to have.

   Posted October 21, 2011 at 10:42 am | Permalink
7. TheBigHenry says

   Even a blind squirrel finds an ACORN once in a while.

   Posted October 21, 2011 at 11:19 am | Permalink
8. Malcolm says

   It is amusing to see those who were vocal cheerleaders for the invasion in Iraq straining to find fault…

   Well, that cuts both ways, I guess.

   I certainly am not here to say nice things about Muammar Qaddafi, and I have already praised Mr. Obama for his continued pursuit of al-Qaeda bigwigs around the Mideast. He has been gratifyingly realistic about what needs to be done with regard to those folks (keeping Gitmo open, intensifying the drone strikes etc.) — all to the dismay of his base. Kudos to him for this.

   Mr. Qaddafi was a brutal thug, and nobody will shed a tear for his ignominious end. There are a couple of points worth making, though:

   First, the time to have taken out Mr. Qaddafi was back when he was an unrepentant terrorist and enemy of the United States. But after we dealt with his pal Saddam in no uncertain terms, he got the message, and became a great deal more tractable. We reached an agreement with him under which he would cease his hostilities toward us, and in return we’d bury the hatchet. All seemed well. Our senators relaxed in his tent in Tripoli, and made glowing statements of comity and progress. Qaddafi never reneged on those agreements. We were allies.

   Very fickle allies, as it turns out. All that went right out the window as soon as a “democratic” uprising began in Libya (an uprising, by the way, that included as leaders many people with clear affiliations to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). We forgot all about our commitment to Qaddafi — all about the warm Presidential handshakes and senatorial encomiums — and began bombing his defenses and his residence, and arming the rebels. Now he’s dead.

   Meanwhile, what will become of Libya? A new Finland? No. The place is a thicket of competing tribes and political and religious factions, most of whom are no friends, to put it mildly, of the US and our principal ally in the region, Israel. Expect a period of tension and violence, and the emergence of a new regime, very possibly no less authoritarian than Mr. Qaddafi’s, almost certainly deeply rooted in Islam and bitterly anitpathetic to Israel and the West.

   Our other closest ally in the Maghreb, Hosni Mubarak, just received the same treatment, with the result that Israel now finds itself encircled and isolated. What’s the message here? That there isn’t much point making friends with the US.

   To get an idea where this is all headed, we might take note of this news item from last week, for example:

   Smuggled Libyan Weapons Flood Into Egypt

   So yes, Qaddafi was a nasty SOB, and I’m sure he’ll get a warm reception in the hereafter. But given the back-story here, and the prospects for the future, your pep-rally response to all of this seems a little simplistic.

   Posted October 21, 2011 at 11:29 am | Permalink
9. TheBigHenry says

   Hear, hear …

   Posted October 21, 2011 at 11:49 am | Permalink
10. the one eyed man says

    I have no illusions that Libya will be a serene and happy place any time soon. Their citizens have lived under Qaddafy for 42 years, and have no traditions or institutions which would easily lead to democracy. There are lots of competing tribes, and enough weaponry to cause lots of mayhem. However, the situation they are in — difficult as it may be — is indisputably better than the situation they were in. However it turns out, it’s up to them to succeed or fail. I am sure that you join me in hoping that it works out.

    I also have no illusions that there are lots of players in Libya who have historically been against us and are not our allies. However, I have to believe that the NATO involvement which helped lead to Qaddafy’s overthrow — including the American drone strike yesterday — will be a paradigm shift for many, and I would not discount the possibility that we have reached an inflection point which will lead Libya much further to the West than they have been before. Before long, there will be an Obama Square and a Sarkozy Square and a Cameron Square in Tripoli. Whether that leads to a more meaningful alliance is anybody’s guess.

    As for Mubarak: he may have been our closest ally, but he was also a dictator and a thug. Arguably the biggest problem we have in the Arab world is our vocal proclamations supporting democratic ideals, while supporting tyrants in countries which have strategic importance or produce oil. We may have enjoyed the short term benefits of his ability to suppress dissent for many years, but we (and Israel) may very well now be subject to chickens coming home to roost. And as for Israel being “encircled and isolated:” while the departure of Mubarak removed a murderous but helpful ally, Israeli isolation also has a lot to do with Israel’s actions exogenous to this year’s events in Egypt.

    Libya was a messy situation to begin with, and its eventual outcome will no doubt be messy as well. However, there is plenty of reason to celebrate. A dictator is dead. A massacre was averted. A multilateral mission succeeded. The essential criteria for military involvement were met: the indigenous population welcomed it, the Arab League supported it, the UN voted for it, and an imminent catastrophe was prevented. The people in the region have seen that America and NATO can unite to provide tangible and necessary aid when it was most needed. These are all worthy achievements, and as Americans we have a right to feel very good about them. It’s a pity that these achievements are not universally acknowledged.

    Posted October 21, 2011 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
11. JK says

    Seems Senator Graham at least sees the upsides Peter does:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#44986876

    Posted October 21, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
12. JK says

    “I also have no illusions that there are lots of players in Libya who have historically been against us and are not our allies.”

    No illusions to those “historically against us”?

    http://www.sipri.org/media/newsletter/essay/march11

    Surely the left hand knows what the right hand…

    http://www.salon.com/2011/03/23/us_libya_arms_training/

    Opinions Peter, concerning any “Libyan” arms reaching Syria?

    Posted October 21, 2011 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
13. the one eyed man says

    There are plenty of weapons in Libya, and not everyone is pure of heart. Some of these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and bad things will happen. However, this horse left the barn long ago. What is your alternative? Letting Qaddafy suppress the protestors in hopes that he will be more likely to keep the weapons for himself? And what assurance do you have that he won’t resell them on the international market? He certainly has done so many times before.

    The situation is not dissimilar to Pakistan. Do you look at all of the awful things the Pakistanis have done to us and then walk away, hoping that their nukes don’t end up in the wrong hands? Or do you give them aid, in hopes of gaining whatever leverage money will buy? Both options are distasteful, but as Commander in Chief you have to rely on imperfect information to pick the least bad one. Issues concerning nuclear weapons are like Pascal’s wager: make the wrong move, and the results are catastrophic.

    The chief responsibility of the President is to keep the American people safe. It is the President who has to meet with the parents of dead soldiers, not Presidential candidates. Michele Bachmann can score points with her isolationist base by proclaiming that we should never have gone there, safe in the knowledge that she will never be held accountable for the results of her proposal, which would be lots of dead Libyans. No doubt if Obama and NATO had decided not to intervene, once the dead bodies showed up on television, she would have been among the first to demand how we could possibly have let this happen.

    George Bush exhibited monstrous judgment in his invasion of Iraq, but I would never suggest that he did so for any reason other than it was his sincere belief that it was the best way to protect Americans. Exercising military force is the most difficult of all decisions Presidents have to make, and political opponents will always criticize what you do and refuse to give you credit for the things which go right. However, given the poisonous political atmosphere we have today, leaders make statements based on whatever their base demands and not on what is in the best interests of the country. At one point, it was said that politics ended at the water’s edge. Those days are long gone.

    Posted October 21, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
14. TheBigHenry says

    “Seems Senator Graham at least sees the upsides …”

    All well and good, JK, but it ain’t over till BSC Pelosi sings Obama’s praises.

    Posted October 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm | Permalink
15. JK says

    “However, given the poisonous political atmosphere we have today, leaders make statements based on whatever their base demands and not on what is in the best interests of the country.”

    I’d quibble on just a small part of that Peter – Obama’s base I don’t think were ante’d up – but in the interests of getting this over with…

    O k a y – r i g h t.

    Posted October 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm | Permalink
16. JK says

    Dear Lord, TBH, don’t tell me she sings too.

    If you do have extra tickets, call Peter. I’m sure I’ll be busy.

    Posted October 21, 2011 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
17. TheBigHenry says

    I just threw up in my mouth a little bit, JK.

    Pass.

    Posted October 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm | Permalink
18. JK says

    Well TBH, it was your own damn fault. Just hope it wasn’t of burning sort.

    Anyway, you’n Peter’d have fun at a Pelosi recital, ya’ll could you know – hold hands.

    Besides, now that I’ve done a little research, I’m assured she doesn’t sing any Brahm’s. You and Peter’ll probably have an enjoyable popcorn toss when she launches her cover of the Monkee’s “I’m A Believer” though.

    Just report back to us – pictures if you and Peter can figure the pap, er, I don’t know how to spell it, uhm, anyway, Malcolm (I’m almost certain) will post pics of your’s an Peter’s fete at any Pelosi show.

    (Remember, Malcolm posted every single one of those you two posted on Flickr when ya’ll went to Truman’s daughter’s. – Just no more of those…. well ya’ll know, Arkansas’ Attorney General McDaniels’ pitched a hissy fit.)

    Posted October 21, 2011 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
19. TheBigHenry says

    Dude, toke much?

    Posted October 22, 2011 at 1:22 am | Permalink
20. JK says

    #9 Dream.

    Posted October 22, 2011 at 1:45 am | Permalink