How Libya helps NATO defeat itself

I suppose the title is misleading; this is not, and never has been a NATO operation. NATO is a defensive alliance, designed to counter the USSR in Central and Northern Europe during the Cold War. It was languishing for the ten years between the collapse of the USSR in 1991 until the 9/11 attacks gave it some fleeting legitimacy again. With that fight past it's best-before date (early 2002 when Al-queda and the Taliban had been smashed and driven from power in Afghanistan) NATO continues to seek to justify it's existence.

Well, face it: the game is up. The action in Libya is actively opposed by several NATO signatories, most notably Germany and Turkey so to call it "a NATO action" is flat-out wrong. What's even worse, it's incoherent and at risk of petering out ignominiously.

The Associated Press

Date: Fri. Apr. 15 2011 5:38 AM ET

TRIPOLI, Libya — From her father's compound, struck by U.S. bombs exactly 25 years ago, Moammar Gadhafi's daughter sent a defiant message early Friday: Libya was not defeated by airstrikes then and won't be defeated now, she told a cheering crowd.

The daughter, Aisha, pumped her right fist as she led the audience in late-night chants from the second-floor balcony of the badly damaged Bab Aziziyah compound, targeted by U.S. warplanes in 1986. "Leave our skies with your bombs," she said, referring to NATO airstrikes that had struck Tripoli just hours earlier.

Gadhafi (this sp this time I guess) has learned that he must hang on at all costs, so that's what he is doing. People and animals are most dangerous when cornered, and that is exactly what the policy and practice of not letting old despots slink away to a comfortable exile leads to. Advantage: Gadhafi.

So as the rump NATO wallows around and begs for more attack planes, Moammar hires mercenaries, adapts to the loss of control of his skies and both digs in and counter attacks. Cyrenaica (eastern Libya these days) is expendable to him as the oil is mostly in the west and south of the country. A cease-fire line that keep most or all of the oil will work quite well for him and would pull the rug from under the humanitarian/self-determination mission the French have cobbled together.

If I must make a prediction, I'll go with that scenario, at least in the short term. Nobody will miss Gadhafi if he's gone, but they'll have to winkle him out and no one who can do it is sufficiently motivated to do so. As a second act, NATO should be dissolved and a new North Atlantic Anglo Alliance (UK, USA, Canada) should be created in the West while the Europeans (Euro Zone) sort themselves into whatever works for them. Not our problem anymore, the Germans can handle it. Who won WWII again?

The other Don't Ask/Don't Tell

A new study by the American Red Cross obtained exclusively by The Daily Beast found that a surprising majority—almost 60 percent—of American teenagers thought things like water-boarding or sleep deprivation are sometimes acceptable. More than half also approved of killing captured enemies in cases where the enemy had killed Americans. When asked about the reverse, 41 percent thought it was permissible for American troops to be tortured overseas. In all cases, young people showed themselves to be significantly more in favor of torture than older adults.

The interrogation techniques described above would not have been recognized by the Spanish Inquisition as torture, but they're certainly unpleasant. I wonder what the answers would have been had the Rack, thumb screws and yanking out one's fingernails been described as torture? Regardless, I'm not sadistic or patient enough to consider torture as a means of getting information. Shooting a prisoner or two pour encourager les autres will find people who're willing to talk much more quickly and rid you of an excess of unpleasant people at the same time.
This is of course purely rhetorical, but the survey does open the can of worms about how we should treat terrorists. I'd shoot them out of hand as the Unlawful Combatants that they are, but that's again just me (and a defensible interpretation of Article Three of the Geneva Conventions) but certainly not any kind of policy these days.

There is a whole lot of "catch and release" taking place in Afghanistan and Iraq and you can be certain that the troops don't like it. If you catch somebody planting bombs that are intended to blow you and your buddies to bits you'll be a bit miffed when the brass lets them free.

This is reality, not some survey. What is also reality is what happens to you if those Al-Queda et al arsewipes catch you. They WILL torture you and then most likely chop off your head for one of their jihadist snuff videos, regardless of how American teenagers in some Red Cross survey feel about it.

I am not saying that we should do that sort of thing; if you can't get the info you need out of them with drugs or some sleep deprivation, etc. you probably won't get anything useful and you'd compromise your own people to get it. You can of course always farm that sort of work out but it's caveat emptor for the resulting intelligence. If you pay people for results, results you will get regardless of the quality of the info.

It's a long and dirty war against these idiots, the sort that is best fought mostly in the shadows where the public can remain blissfully unaware of the things that rough men (and some women these days) do to allow them to sleep peaceably at night. It's no place for the Red Cross or American teens, so this survey is for Sociologists, not Strategists.

Pigs on the taxiway, balls in the air

If my metrics are correct it seems people are reading this again, so thanks to all of you. There are periods when there doesn't seem to be much worth commenting on (again, at least) but things are shifting like a landslide at the strategic level. This definitely follows on my theme of the last few posts:

The two high-level US official visits to Riyadh in six days attest to the fierce discord between Saudi King Abdullah and the administration - not just over Iran and its nuclear activity but the entire gamut of US Middle East policy.

When he met the defense secretary, the king took Gates charged that the White House ignored Saudi intelligence evidence passed to the CIA that Tehran and Hizballah were actively fomenting the unrest in Bahrain with a view to igniting parallel disturbances in the eastern Saudi oil regions among the two million Shiites living there. Abdullah complained bluntly that no matter what evidence is put before President Obama, he refuses to budge from his course of engagement with regard to Iran.

The king declared angrily that the lax American attitude toward Islamic Republic's nuclear aspirations places the very existence of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf nations in peril.
Washington had twisted Saudi arms to refrain from challenging the Bushehr nuclear plant when preparations for its activation were completed last year, despite its harmful potential for the region.

For everyone who thought that Obama would herald a new era in US-world relations, well they were right yet very, very wrong about how. As always these Debka stories have caveats, but this makes too much sense to be made up. When you're afraid of offending anyone you piss off everyone, which is exactly what Obama's excuse for a foreign policy is doing.

Samuel Huntington knew this but Obama and his "progressive" clique in the White House don't: Islam is not a bloc. There are major fault lines, both religious and ethnic all through the umma and the biggest and most dangerous one runs right through the Persian Gulf. In any even. the job of the President of the United States of America is to safeguard American interests. A nuclear armed Iran is only in the interests of Iran and very much contrary to pretty much everyone else's. Without nukes Iran can't do any more damage to the US and allies than it already does, so preventing their acquisition should be Job One for the US or it's various Gulf allies.

The time to hit Bushehr seemed to have passed some time ago, but I argue that now is a better time than ever and here are some of the reasons why:

1. Iranian people are rebelling, and destabilizing the Mullahs is the only way to help them;


2. Syria is off-balance and won't be able to back Iran up in any meaningful way. The IDF could easily cripple their already iffy armed forces if need be;


3. I'm sure you could talk the Saudis into paying for the operations required to do the job as long as they cripple Iran's nuke program and armed forces, and


4. It would be a good way of sticking a small stick in the spokes of China.

The last point is in the widest angle of geopolitics, but the circles overlap all over the place. Relations between the US and China are pretty nearly a zero-sum game and the US has been getting a lot more of the zeroes for years now.

There are a lot of balls in the air right now, but I don't even know for sure who plans on catching them; my money would be on the whole middle east (at least) descending into a muddle of historic proportions. That sets me up to talk some more about Western energy policy so you might see that next.

Israel, Iranian influence, and flying pigs

Jerusalem (CNN) -- Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Sunday that Israel was willing to stop attacks on Gaza if the Palestinians stop firing into southern Israel.

"If they stop firing at our communities, then we will stop firing. If they stop firing altogether, then there will be quiet," Barak said in an interview on Israel Radio.

It really is as simple as that. This should not have been a news story, as this has been Israeli policy for years. They pulled out of Gaza in 2005, and if the Palestinians really wanted peace, they'd have it.

Yes, they'd have less land than in 1948, but that's what happens when your ethnic cleansing backfires on you because your victims fight back. Every war the Arabs have started (or precipitated, if you want to be pedantic about 1967) has lost them territory. Ask the Germans about what happens to territory when you start and lose wars.

This ties to my previous post, as this intractable conflict has been held for years as "poisoning" Arab/Muslim relations with Israel. It has been an excuse, no more, and now that the troublesome Hamas regime is in Iran's pocket the Saudis and other Sunni Arabs will have more in common with Israel than with either of the Palestinian factions. Add Hezbollah to that mix and Israel becomes a strategic ally of the House of Saud.

It took no genius to see this coming, but it took toppling Saddam Hussein (remember him?) and a lot of Iranian/Syrian meddling to bring things to this pass. There are lots of things that can/will change, and as always faster and in ways different than many expect. Wither Egypt without Mubarak? It's unlikely they'll repudiate the peace treaty with Israel, but if democracy takes root all bets are off. Assad in Syria could fall, but it's unlikely that would make much difference to Israel's security situation.

What I'm waiting to see is the day when Saudi money replaces American to shore up Israel. That sounds outlandish on the face of it, but it makes a lot of sense. That (making sense) isn't a a factor in American "foreign policy" but in more traditional parts of the world the survival of the government is taken more personally. If King Abdullah can sell his elite on the necessity of Israel as a military bulwark then it'll happen. If Donald Trump becomes the next US president we may see some coherent US policy in the region, but of the two possibilities laid out here I'll be more shocked by that if it happens.

A Country has no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests

Debka has been described as an "Israeli spook site" and I see no reason to quibble with that but they do have some interesting bits on the Middle East and this is right up there:

In the third week of March, debkafile reveals, King Hamad agreed to hand over to Riyadh control Bahrain's defense, external, financial and domestic security affairs. The Saudi king's son Prince Mutaib was confirmed by the two monarchs as commander of the Saudi and GCC forces invited to enter the tiny kingdom to put down the Shiite-led uprising, and it was agreed that Saudi Arabia would soon start building a big naval base on the island opposite the Iranian coastline.

Sunday, April 3, the threatening recriminations coming from Tehran and Baghdad prompted the Gulf Cooperation Council to hold a special foreign ministers' meeting. It passed a resolution which "severely condemned Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Bahrain in violation of international pacts."

Language this blunt has never before been heard from GCC leaders. It is attributed by our Gulf sources to Saudi King Abdullah's adamant resolve to challenge Tehran headon on every issue affecting the Gulf region's security, to the point of Saudi military intervention when called for – even at the risk of precipitating an armed clash between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

There have been rumours of Saudi-Israeli co-operation and I have addressed some of the possibilities that would open up previously; the fundamentals have not changed vis-a-vis Iran. What has changed is the political climate in the entire region from Iran to Algeria. This may push Iran to start a war to focus attention outside the country, but there are a LOT of reasons why that could backfire. The recent unrest in Syria weakens the Axis of Evil 2.0, and Iraq despite it's veiled anti-Saudi language in the Debka article is in no condition to attack them, especially with thousands of American troops still in the country.

Hezbollah is of course the biggest Iranian proxy (with Syria sidelined) and can certainly tie the IDF up, more so if they and Hamas went at the same time. Hezbollah however isn't a big threat to the House of Saud, but Iran has lots of shit disturbers to foment trouble and run weapons to any Shia groups that will advance Tehran's agenda. In any event, Hezbollah/Israel 2 is only a matter of time and I have a hard time coming up with a scenario which would involve actual co-ordination of Israeli and Arab forces.

So Israel is largely out of any Persian Gulf showdown. That leaves the Saudis and their client superpower, the USA. One US carrier group can control the Gulf, especially with the bases for land based aircraft the Americans still have access to throughout the Gulf kingdoms. That could bring the Israelis back in in a limited strike role to (further) cripple or take out Iran's nuclear program. That would move that action from the main event to a side show, win-win for Israel and for a lot of other people (e.g. our side) in the medium-long term.

I try to avoid predictions so I won't speculate on how likely a knock-down war between Saudi Arabia and Iran is. I will note that in the space of only about a year I have gone from seeing Saudi as the biggest threat to Western civilization (the money behind the brainwashing Wahhabi madrassas all over the place) to the money to bankroll a new balance of power in the region.

The enemy of your enemy can at least temporarily be your friend. I have an eye on the big picture and the long term, but I think that King Abdullah's interests and our own line up in more places than one these days. A pity the American are too overstretched and out of touch with their national interests to be likely to recognize this, let alone capitalize.

Feminism and Sluttiness

A Toronto cop who warned women that dressing like sluts can attract sexual assault was reprimanded and underwent “further training,” Chief Bill Blair said Sunday.
 

Blair called Const. Michael Sanguinetti “inexperienced,” adding the officer uttered “something stupid and he’s apologized.”
 

The constable’s comment sparked outrage, prompting more than 1,500 protesters to stage a “SlutWalk” Sunday from Queen’s Park to police headquarters on College St.
 

“I don’t think the officer meant any offence,” added Blair.

In that 1500 people on the "Slut Walk" were a lot of people who lacked something better to do, as this was not worthy of a demonstration. Constable Sanguinetti phrased what he said badly, but there is a certain element of common sense in it.

There is of course no excuse for rape no matter how someone is dressed. That said, if you dress like a slut (and so many girls at distressingly young ages do this today) people will think you are one. This is not a "Rape Me" sign, but it's not exactly doing much to promote yourself on any higher plane.
Slutty is Sexy, but Sexy is not necessarily Slutty. What should be encouraged is a bit of restraint in dress and demeanor, provided you want to be taken seriously as a person as opposed to a bit of ambulatory plumbing. This is old-ish fashioned I guess but I'm not telling women to wear floor length dresses and cowls. You should be working your curves, not so much your skin.

Back to the intent of our beleaguered Constable's statement. There is not much protection from the random attention of predators, so the condemnation from rape victims is somewhat off target. What you do have some control over is how you will look to your average drunken 20-something guy toward the end of the night. If you look like a street walker you'll likely get propositioned much like one. If this is your intent, mission accomplished.

Looking nice but not like a "slut" will if nothing else give you a shot at a higher quality of guy on any given night and avoid a fair bit of low-quality propositioning. This however is all of the difference it can make under the law of this land.

What Const Sanguinetti was trying to say was a waste of time and has just landed him in trouble. This is the responsibility of parents, and as long as your daughters live with you, you have some control over what they wear. If you keep your girl(s) from dressing like Lady Gaga or Katy Perry when they're 10 or 12 years old you are well on your way to raising a young woman who sees herself as more than a piece of meat to be flaunted to boys. Last I checked, THAT was Feminism.

Come see the violence inherent in the system!

I was adding things on to yesterday's post as they came to me and I could have done that again, but any of those of you who have this on a feed might start to get annoyed.

Today's link shows the really narrow interpretation of Islam that must be followed to not be branded a heretic. The Deobandis and Wahabbis have been killing Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and other kafirs for fourteen centuries or so, so there are no real surprises. Since they've driven most others out they will attack anyone who doesn't toe Mullah/Imam so-and-so's line, which of course shifts according to who gets the theological upper hand.

So the Sufis, a particularly non-offensive group as a whole, are taking a pounding from the mainstream in many Islamic countries, notably in Iran and (as evidenced by today's news) in Pakistan. Again nothing new, but it does appear to be getting worse with the more widespread use of suicide bombers.

Sufis consider themselves Muslims, so you can see what the rest of us are up against. It's literally "convert or die" for these clowns, so the burning of books is really a red herring. I think "Pastor" Jones should do a monthly Koran burning on Youtube. Even better, make a bonfire of an example of all of of the major religions' texts, including his own. That will show you where the "extreme bigotry and intolerance" (Obama's take on the Koran burning) really lies. They're just books, not even the ideas within the books, and nobody should die over some easily replaceable paper.

There is no excuse for the Muslim violence that erupts over every perceived "slight". My message to all religious extremists: suck it up, I'm not scared of your outbursts.

Fighting to make the world safe for jihad

National Post, Saturday April 2 2011:

Stirred up by a trio of angry mullahs who urged them to avenge the burning of a Koran at a Florida church, thousands of protesters overran the compound of the United Nations in this northern Afghan city, killing at least 12 people.

This is what we're fighting for in Afghanistan folks: barbarians who will kill any westerner (or anyone working for them) they can find to "avenge" burning a book (title link). I don't give a rat's ass about the "holiness" of a mass produced article, it's a thing, and civilized people don't kill people over burning a book, a TV or anything else that is easily replaceable.

In the other-things-that-are-getting-less-press department, if you haven't heard of Veena Malik you really need to. She is a babe-a-licious Pakistani actress, but more importantly she has vast intestinal fortitude. The Taliban are predictably threatening to kill her and they give this as their position on women, in case anyone was unclear:

"We want our daughters and sisters in our homes only and Veena Malik, who is humiliating Pakistan's name in India, will be punished soon."

I'm happy that Canada is getting out, but NATO and the US need to leave too and leave Afghanistan and Pakistan to stew in their Islamic juice. Hopefully as many of the good people from both countries (but a lot more in Pakistan) can do something else, but I'm doubting it. Now we're involved in a formless campaign in Libya and I can't see any good coming of that either. Oh well; if nothing else at least I'm certain that there will be no significant contribution of Canadian troops to Libya no matter what happens. We don't need another 9-year war now that we're finally getting out of Afghanistan.