What You're Supposed to Believe About NATO

When We Hear It Thirteen Times in Three Days

An over generous, and possibly also overly naive, observer might occasionally be impressed with the meat handed, ideological "conceptual continuity" of thinly disguised GOPCon "hired guns," in fact, make that GOPCon "talking heads."  MeanMesa supposes that "talking heads" is a more relevant title because, in order to penetrate this posting, that's exactly what they have to be doing, day by day, week by week.

Now, this might be yesterday's news if we were discussing the highly consolidated flow of GOPCon "talking points" issuing forth from the heavily soiled FOX radio pundits and the lower echelon "water carriers" of the Republican Congressional Clutch.  The old, road weary phrases already too tired for further repeating from this GOPCon media strategy are familiar to all of us.

"Cut and Run"

"Stay the Course"

"Washington Bureaucrats"

"Tax and Spend Democrats"

"Death Panels"

However, amid the continuing unrest called the "Arab Spring," bright new "talking points" are being added daily.

"Mission Confusion"

"Leadership Failure"

This post concerns one specific "talking point" which has been rolling out of the RNC "talking points factory" as, you guessed it, its most recent effort to undercut any possible successes which might be attributed to the Obama Administration.  A reasonable observer might, at this point, assume that MeanMesa has reverted  to "splitting hairs" in an effort to make the point.

Well, "splitting hairs" is, exactly, the point.

The Types and Varieties of Wing Nut Talking Points

Right.  Suspicious Foreign Entanglements

There seem to be two strata of these "talking points," dividing them, generally, into the "really big, cheap, trailer park" talking points and the slightly more sophisticated "being nibbled to death by ducks" talking points.  Of course, the big, cheap stuff is handed over to throw backs such as Beck and Savage, proffered up, then "gobbled down" by back porch hill billies listening to their radios.

However, the "being nibbled to death by ducks" style talking points must be presented in a much more subtle style.  These, somewhat complicated by the fact that the background credibility for them must be established in smaller increments, are begun in a nice, comfortable, toothless way, then slowly amplified if the initial "bait" seems to have been taken.

In this particular case, the oligarch task masters have assigned the work to a nice little flock of retired Cold War generals, retained to appear on "corporate media news" programs for cozy little "over view, big picture" interviews.  No doubt, aside from the "base pay" these generals are receiving for their appearances, there is some sort of "special commission" added to their pay checks based on the number of times they are able to inject the "authorized innuendo" into their folksy, casual discussion of "military issues."

"Authorized innuendo?"

Sure.  Why not?  This posting has gone on long enough to get down to specifics.

The "Authorized Innuendo"

To set the stage for this last part of the posting, we will have to journey back through time -- at least a few hours -- to yesterday's post.

Libya and The War Powers Act

Further, we will want to focus on the list of "talking points" discussed in that last post -- especially the third one.

1.) The "confused mission" concept has been resurrected, and relentlessly piped through the mouths of a few retired generals.

2.) The implied hypocrisy vector remains on the table.  "If Libya, why not Syria?"  This might have made sense if Syria had been the focus of a UN Resolution, a NATO response and the rest of what precluded intervention in Libya.

3.) The humbling prospect of the US not being "in the lead" in the military action.  The war loving Republicans in the Congress feel, well, cheated, denied the breast beating glory of being the main bully in the conflict.

4.) Finally, the War Powers Act, except this time, from the right instead of from the left.

To exploit the common mistrust in the minds of Americans about treaty obligations with European allies and to rehabilitate the idea that the United States must, essentially almost by Divine Right, be at the head of any global exertion of power, the oligarchs have concluded that the viability of NATO must be undercut in public opinion.

The "mistrust" apparently originated in the national isolationism Roosevelt faced at the beginning of US involvement in WWII.  It arose from WWI.

This artificially sustained necessity of being at the head of international exertion of military power springs from several sources.  Naturally, the weapons industry is already on the phone to Congressional procurement committees, but also, the penchant appetite to reinforce the country's waning position as the world's super power can also be well serviced with "just a bit more" military conflict, here and there.

So, What Did the Generals Say?

One after another, the generals "explained" to the American people that NATO was no more than a bit of an out of date "straw man," unprepared to actually fulfill its role as an American military ally in such conflicts, let alone take the lead in matters such as the conflict in Libya.

The story was that NATO had already "run out of" the ordinance needed to make precision air attacks on targets in Tripoli.  The narrative went on to imply that NATO was "barely" able to find enough jets and bullets to successfully pursue the conflict without an ever increasing amount to a modern version of US equipment and supplies in a modern version of the "lend lease" program?

Can MeanMesa visitors begin to see a suspicious "relevance" being constructed here?

For the younger visitors to MeanMesa, it is suggested that the origin and purpose of NATA be reviewed.  The treaty organization was established to confront the Warsaw Pact nations of the old Soviet Union along the "fire line" of Eastern Europe. None of the four players could have possibly been described as a "toothless straw man."

The Soviet Union

The Warsaw Pact

NATO

The United States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

The point?

Don't "take the bait."  These out of date old military frauds are simply "following orders."  If this last "talking point" can gain any traction with information challenged Americans, it will join the long list of GOPCon propaganda designed to lubricate additional armament expenditures, more borrowed money and the next stupid war.

Libya and The War Powers Act

Libyan Blood and US Political Realities

With memories as durable as a marble in a mayonaise jar, the initial validity of the country's entry into the Libyan affair has now slipped through the reality horizon into the black hole of domestic politics.  Those high borne ideals manifest in the UN Resolution, the NATO response and the American involvement have been predictably transformed into the equivalent of the missing child appearing on the side of a corn flakes box.

Libya -- Just More Politics?  (image source)

Returning to the poisoned well of an over developed national cynicism where absolutely nothing the US government might undertake actually amounts to anything similar to what it appears to be, the facts will suffer first, followed by our Constitutionally protected right to act like ninnies in a Pollyanna world suspiciously devoid of both responsibility and consequences.

As a result, while the Libyans are fighting and dying for their chance at freedom, their destinies are reframed into political hay here in this gaseously secure bastion of security and democracy.  It's as if not a single Representative or Senator -- hypnotically infatuated exclusively with the prospects of their own personal  re-election -- had ever so much as seen anything remotely suggestive of the material price of war.

MeanMesa is watching the drawing of the "long knives" from both the right and the left, each case soiled by yet more self-serving, unrealistic maneuvering for a bump in the public opinion polls.  Let's take a look at the prevailing strategies with the hope of seeing through the mist.

From the Left

Democrat Kucinich, an otherwise quite respectable sort of progressive Libertarian, has moved for impeachment of the President based on non-compliance with the War Powers Act which requires Congressional approval of military actions lasting longer than 90 days.  MeanMesa, a personal observer of what happened both with the 20 years war in Viet Nam ($1 Mn per minute)  and the 10 years war in Afghanistan and the 8 years war in Iraq ($6.8 Mn per minute -- each), has no problem with the War Powers Act.

(image source)

(image source)

At least, that is, no problem with the War Powers Act if it actually worked.

However, as we consider the idealistic Kucinich in the harsh light of day, we see a sickening similarity to the alcoholic reaching for the next bottle of whiskey amid the crushing remnants of a life already destroyed by his drinking.  The only lubricant which makes that whiskey seem to make sense is a profound, mortally dangerous state of alcoholic denial.

Democrat Progressive Dennis Kucinich in denial?

Yes.  The horrible denial exposed in Congressman Kucinich's action is straightforward enough.  

Kucinich continues to insist that the democratic process still, somehow, functions in a government which has essentially ceased to function.

His laments and complaints on the House floor would have been rational enough had the fundamental motivations of that House adhered even a little more closely to their traditional values.  However, in this case, the Democrat from Ohio may as well have been reciting Demonsthene's Phillippics in the midst of a riot in the psychiatric wing of a maximum security prison.

This is 2011 AD, not 340 BC.  

Gaddafi's howitzers are firing today.  The shells of his snipers are blowing through the bodies of Libyans as we speak.  The situation is, in reality, what it was presented to be in the UN Resolution.

From the Right

The usual suspects from the 19th Century wing of the neo-cons may have trotted out their traditional love of war for the occasion, but their slightly more modernistic additions in the House have out done even their own thinly disguised obedience to their Obama hating base.  It's as if they have agreed to sacrifice however many Libyan freedom fighters it takes to bump the polls.

Naturally, the oligarch owned, corporate media has rushed to the front, re-introducing the authorized "talking points" in a flurry of semi-convincing arguments of their own.  A quick summary of the latest offerings may be in order.

1.) The "confused mission" concept has been resurrected, and relentlessly piped through the mouths of a few retired generals.

2.) The implied hypocrisy vector remains on the table.  "If Libya, why not Syria?"  This might have made sense if Syria had been the focus of a UN Resolution, a NATO response and the rest of what precluded intervention in Libya.

3.) The humbling prospect of the US not being "in the lead" in the military action.  The war loving Republicans in the Congress feel, well, cheated, denied the breast beating glory of being the main bully in the conflict.

4.) Finally, the War Powers Act, except this time, from the right instead of from the left.

It is this fourth element which we can, perhaps, explore a little further.

The central feature of this faux "Constitution Protecting" gambit is the Congressional "concern" over the extensions of the powers of the Executive Branch during the catastrophic autocracy of the Bush years.  Enjoying all the incendiary intoxication of the FOX radio pundits during those "halcyon days," the  war loving GOPCons predictably reminisce about the days when "They hate our Freedom" was still, sort of, working.

Now, however, the House tea bags have donned a new mask.  The latest fraud is to be centered on "fulfilling the Constitutional mandate" of separated powers.

Actually, of course, what we see is the GOPCon "motiva maxima" which proclaims that any possible success of the Obama Administration must be  undercut and crushed instantly.  Since Osama bin Laden cannot be rehabilitated yet again as a mark of Obama's "failure in leadership," Gaddafi's massacre of a few thousand Libyan civilians will have to serve as the latest evidence of the President's "failure in leadership."

The GOPCons would relish an opportunity for a protracted debate, replete with a few more Sharia Law Prohibitions and a couple of additional anti-abortion laws, while Gaddafi slaughtered Misarata.  Once the pogrom was completed, blame could be rendered.  Oh yeah.

For the GOPCon congregation in the Church of Death, blood means nothing, politics means everything.

For the reactionaries in the Republican Party, foreign blood amounts to the equivalent of WalMart motor oil, cheap, convincing and, at least temporarily, effective.  If it will win a few votes among the hill billies and bigots in the next election, let the Libyans  bleed.

Republican complaints based on the War Powers Act amount to nothing -- especially when the advent of such "idealistic concern" amounts to something so new after what they gleefully accepted at the outset of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Are we supposed to believe that these reactionaries have had some sort of sincere "change of heart?"

Say, for argument's sake, a "change of heart" similar to the one where big spending, big borrowing GOPCons suddenly become obsessed with cutting the budget?

History suggests that the spots on a leopard tend to be more durable than that -- especially when such a case of cosmic hypocrisy is based on nothing more than the fleeting hope that American voters have forgotten what happened only a few  years ago.

MeanMesa stands with the President.  The nation still has what it takes to demonstrate an abiding decency in both words and actions.  

This latest "trailer park" play will get its momentary knee jerk reaction from the uninformed and the uninterested among the stumbling GOPCon base, but it will also be added to the ammunition locker being set aside for the 2012 election.

The GOPCons must pay the full price for their avarice -- both economic and political.

MeanMesa's compliments to the President.

Demanding Obama the War Monger

I Hate Green and All the Other Colors Are Awful

Most of the more stable, rational citizens among us grew quite tired of the autocrat's war mongering habits.  Stranded amid agonizing, relentless evidence of one policy failure after another, George II predictably slithered to the last possibility of a rehabilitated role as "Commander in Chief" as a desperate refuge for the wreckage of his "legacy."  Adding the GOPCon's base -- the hill billies  and bigots among us -- to the mix, the inevitable "war mongering" expanded to include a grisly dose of, also inevitable, "fear mongering."

Like anxious whores with complexion problems, the American media adopted "looking the other way" as a full time day job.

With memories like a marble in a mayonaise jar, Americans seemed to have no choice other than to measure the next (and current) President by the vacuous character pathology of the last one.  It is no surprise that the media critique of Obama's view of the role of Commander in Chief is littered with precisely the questions  which should have been asked a decade ago, that is, all the "commentary" which turned out to comprise the "afterbirth" of George II's murderous, Biblical efforts.

All the conclusions are present, each one amplified by this very, very suspicious press.  The questions which should have been posed during the military rampage of the autocrat now surface as somehow suspiciously legitimate  and provocative concerns for his successor.   Even the usually mild tempered BBC news anchors have mounted the band wagon like love starved lumberjacks..

What Questions?

(image source)

"Who will Obama kill next?"

The wing nuts seized on national race fear after the bin Laden killing.  To terrorize the wheel chair crowd, Obama was painted as a frightening minority killer who had just found his pace.  Like a rogue bear after eating his first delicious human, there would be no limit to the arbitrary killing spree once the black man's appetite had been whetted.

"Why isn't the US in the 'lead' in the NATO attack on Libya?"

Okay all you American geriatrics, look for the pill vial marked "super power palliatives and mood stabilizer."  We didn't like it when the country acted unilaterally in the Bush Oil Wars.  Even the tragic collection of international extortion victims unwillingly filling the ranks of our teetering "coalition" fell far short of shaking the "unilateral" label.

Most of the sensible ones left as quickly as possible after the timing became "polite."

Back then we didn't like being "in the lead."  Now, because, by the way Obama is black, we don't like being "out of the lead."  When the autocrat was "in the lead," attacking the wrong country, we were mildly skeptical.  When war policy under the thoughtful Obama is "out of the lead," we are confronted with outrageous evidence that US "super power" status is faltering.

It is.  Still, as Americans, it is entirely reasonable to demand that "we have it both ways."

"If Libya, why not Syria"

The local autocrat in Syria has murdered more of his citizens than Gaddafi has.  Granted, dictator Bashar al-Assad, has shown an internationally reconciling appetite to do the dirty with single bullets instead of Gaddafi's Howitzers, but numbers count.  

The invitation to the "hypocrisy party" was engraved in pure silver as far as the wing nuts and media were concerned.  The implication was that American military force was to be applied based on the whimsy of the body count, and that any other, more pensive reaction only marked indecisiveness and leadership failure. 

After all, a thundering, self-validating show of force would have been the way that George II would have approached the matter.  Shuddering, we can only guess what our autocracy might have considered a "proportional response" to the crimes in the Syrian streets.

US force was exercised in the Libyan desert as a result of a UN mandate.  We can either have a reactionary, half-baked "shoot first" policy or something much more mature and effective.  We made that clear choice in the 2008 election.

Obama and Netanyahu

"Eeeek!  Why is Obama throwing Israel under the bus?"

Past Presidents, luxuriating in the domestic bliss of being supported by domestic Israeli PAC dollars, have benefited greatly from the political and financial convenience of an endless war between the parties of Golan and Gaza.  Americans might have had a few passing moments of reflection as we watched the Jerusalem crowd humiliate the Palestinians for profit and glory, but, thanks largely to our "media," we never saw anything which might seriously pique our ideas of fairness.

George II had no problem with a dawdling repetition of the long tradition of ineffective tid-bits of international meddling.  Why couldn't Obama just "stick with the script?"

MeanMesa has posted on this topic plenty.  Most recently,

The Tragedy of Stasis and the Fear of Change

The Earth has moved under Israel's feet.  It has also, with the advent of the "Arab Spring," also moved under our own feet.  The script has changed, and no amount of Israel PAC dollars can move the Earth back to the Old Testament closet where it has been dreamily stored all these years.

George II might have attempted to remain on the moving soil, but Obama is clearly not satisfied with the choices contained in the low risk, "low hanging fruit."  The President assumes, correctly, that we Americans are now insisting on something far better than that.

Further, these examples represent only a sample of the onslaught.  The GOPCon "talking points factory" has not missed any opportunity to promote their insinuations of distrust and alienation when it comes to the President.  Happily, the ranks of the questionably "avid" and the "uninterested" have continued to dwindle.

The American "War Dream"

It is unsettling that the act of killing bin Laden, along with the other rather well designed diplomatic moves the President has taken lately, have served to shore up Obama's popularity.  More substantial accomplishments, perhaps because they are also more complicated, have been "set aside" in favor of a thoughtless regression back to the old, hackneyed WWII Victory March mentality.

Obama's "faltering leadership" has shown its colors to all who are even a little willing to see the facts.  The US "ship of state" has been artfully navigated through this last round of threatening seas by a Commander in Chief with irrefutable competence -- especially when compared to the man he replaced in the Oval Office.

Two important facts are in the full light of day.  

First, unlike the effeminate George II, Obama is man enough to take chances.  Granted, the fearful geriatric crowd doesn't particularly like such things, but most of the rest of us are convinced that living in this modern world requires such boldness.  The history of this moment is not written for the timid.

This "risk taking" productivity isn't isolated with military and diplomatic action, either.  The same flavor of the moment has been issued from this Presidency minute by minute since the Inauguration.  Health care, Wall Street regulation, energy policy, disaster responses and other elements of essential politics have been handled by this man even in the midst of relentless savage attacks by the media and the wing nut knuckle draggers. 

Second, we face the unavoidable question of "class."  Obama has clearly dispatched the constant temptation of the bully pulpit to engage in political "cat fights" as he faces his scurrilous detractors.  The President is making his own "high class" demands on the Americans.

"Grow up.  We Americans have a much greater challenge than one which can be met more coarsely with unbridled fear and manipulation.  Those days are in the past.  Now, we all have to actually think.  What do we want?  What do we stand for?  What are we willing to do about it?"

MeanMesa's compliments to the President.

Libyan College of "Military Reality" Opens Doors West of Benghazi

The Revolution Slows to "Catch Its Breath"

(image source)

The latest pundit driven interpretations of the Libyan conflict have ignominiously coasted into a sort of general agreement about the prospects of the Freedom Fighters.  The "highly reportable -- high ratings" phase of the insurrection efforts to break out from their stronghold at Benghazi have finally paused.  MeanMesa says it's the right time for this development, maybe even "later" than the right time.

Because Americans have been a little over-saturated with 60 minute reality shows, a sort of languid disappointment concerning the drama of the conflict has crept in, settling into the "intra-commercial" intervals.  The breathless reports of ill advised, poorly designed freedom fighter attacks against the Gaddafi mercenaries don't work any longer when half of every story is a frantic retreat.

The week old dream of a quick, bloody, 60 minute long "Rambo" repeat has  slowly become the passive fodder for a thousand "I told you so's."

The thing is stuck in the desert.  Even the determination and zeal of the Benghazi crowd to continue doomed attacks then retreat seems to have, at least temporarily, run out of steam.  However, even though the high ratings part of the consumable story has been delegated to public interest quips once a week, the substance of the revolution is actually accomplishing some serious headway.

NATO Air Strikes Redefine Strategy for Both Sides

Even though Gaddafi's side of the Libyan conflict has been isolated with monetary sanctions denying him access to his "operating funds" and a "no fly zone" denying him full use of his air force and armor, his tactical situation is far from crippled.  A few minor adjustments in the overall strategy being executed by the government begin to mitigate what, at first, seemed to be crushing disadvantages.

The mercenaries, not unmoved by the dwindling prospects of simply -- and safely -- abandoning their fealty to Gaddafi and exiting the country, are stranded with the prospect of continuing to serve in the absence of pay checks.  At first, being essentially a "terrorism squad" directed at unarmed civilians, the mercenaries and loyalist troops were fairly brave and brazen.  However, with growing defections and facing a determined resistance, much of the already somewhat hollow bravado is further deteriorating.

The armor columns, easy prey to NATO air strikes when out in the open desert, have now tactically insinuated themselves into urban cover.  The potential "mischief level" hasn't diminished too much, but the targeting possibilities -- and, hence, the vulnerability to air strikes -- has been conveniently diminished.

NATO doesn't have the right force to get in between houses and buildings to find these targets, but, even while hiding in soft, urban cover, Gaddafi's "terror tanks" still find themselves surrounded by their own rich target environment.  Although an out of date WWII scenario of a moving force gradually capturing territory is attractive, caution must be applied to the Libyan case.  Just as NATO jets have difficulty directing their formidable fire power at these targets, insurrectionist ground troops can find these targets, but lack the fire power to neutralize them.

There have been the anticipated cases of "friendly fire" casualties, too.  Friendly fire casualties routinely occur when trained, disciplined troops are in combat theaters under command by officers who are communicating with each other about tactics and locations.  The Libyan insurgents get a "D+" on just about every count of this metric.

As to the sincerity of East-side protesters lamenting the friendly fire casualties, MeanMesa has to suspect that Gaddafi infiltrators make up most of the ranks of the "outraged" in Benghazi streets.  The protests which are, most likely, actually sincere insurgents are the ones wishing for even more air support.  The freedom fighters knew that there would inevitably be friendly fire casualties when they requested US and NATO help.  They are, of course, saddened, but not critical.  They are remarkably adult about this, that is, spelled another way, tough.

Further, after Gaddafi's jet fighters were grounded and his tanks and artillery pieces had to be hidden, a third leg of his terror offensive remained intact and fully operational.  MeanMesa characterizes this as the "single shot" arm of the terror campaign.  It is comprised of two tactically related components:  snipers and door to door "disappearance" and execution squads.  NATO can do essentially nothing about this continuing Gaddafi tactical asset.

The insurgents have begun painting pink stripes on their vehicles to assist NATO pilots in target selection, but MeanMesa assumes that the Gaddafi forces have just as much -- or more -- pink paint.  Loyalists have already begun using civilian Toyota trucks to move more safely along the coastal highway, camouflaging their convoys of what had previously been Gaddafi four by fours, tanks and jeeps to be indistinguishable from the common vehicles of the insurgents when viewed from jets overhead.

1. The fundamental "fabric" of the conflict is changing daily, but still developing. This over view of current conditions prepares us for the next section of this posting.  The important points to be taken from this discussion aren't all that complicated.
2. The "no fly" zone and the vestigial beginnings of a "no drive" zone have injected an important, decisive "third player" into the combat scenario with the arrival of the Coalition.
3. Gaddafi forces have been able to accommodate these new constraints better than the insurgents have been able to exploit them.
4. Insurgent forces have begun to face the facts of the outcomes of their ambitious but poorly orchestrated offensive moves.  They are also becoming much more pragmatic in their assessment of the adequacy of their current fire power.
5. A temporary state of NATO enforced equilibrium has descended on the combat part of the conflict which hosts the danger of being misinterpreted by American and European civilians watching the drama unfold.

To Gaddafi:  "Watch Out!  Here Comes the Ice Burg."

Although domestic media, frustrated by the slow down in unexpected insurgent victories, blood and Gaddafi outrages, has re-framed this "breathing spell" as a vindication of all its gloomy predictions of an endlessly prolonged conflict, the facts of the matter are actually much more promising.  The prospects of an insurgent success under the current state of combat effectiveness were never very promising.

Under improved combat techniques, arms and command and in conjunction with the substantial disadvantages being imposed on the regime, the insurgency's position is actually pretty good.  Let's take a MeanMesa "big picture" overview of what Gaddafi now finds himself facing.

After all, the Titanic didn't instantly slip below the waves the second it finished colliding with the ice burg.  All kinds of additional things had to "go South" before the survivors saw those giant propellers upend into the cold night sky.

Gaddafi's difficulties seem to center on a range of things, results of either Coalition intervention or insurgency gains or both.

Oil Production

The transhipment of Libyan "higher quality sweet crude" from facilities remaining under Gaddafi's control is stopped by international sanction.  To the East, the larger share of Libyan oil production and transshipment is under insurgent control.  The harbor facilities in Tobruk, east of Benghazi, are now shipping two tankers filled with produced oil every month, each one yielding 70 Mn. pounds of revenue to the insurgent governing council.

In a BBC interview, the head of the East's oil company says that the revenue will be directed to food and other emergency necessities, but declined to say whether the purchase of arms would be part of the expenditures.  Gaddafi's concern with this development can be seen in loyalist efforts to plant bombs in the oil facilities controlled by the insurgency, especially at Misla.

Control of Urban Areas

The insurgent militias have not yet penetrated Gaddafi's forces to come to the aid of urban areas under attack.  There are a number of such situations, but the major emphasis at this time is the city of Misurata, located on the coast a few hundred miles east from Tripoli.  As of this posting, local insurgents in Misurata continue to hold portions of the city, but are failing under attacks by superior, loyalist forces -- especially snipers.

Further east and nearer to Benghazi, loyalist troops -- apparently under one hundred -- have entered the town, but have been stopped by local militia.  The advance was made possible by surprising the local force, arriving without intelligence warnings.  This type of intelligence is theoretically possible for the insurgents, but its failure in this case is representative of the organizational problems being reported.

Coalition air power will prevent an advance along the coastal highway to Benghazi, but the situation has served to rattle the residents in the main city of the Eastern sector.  Although loyalist convoys moving the open as prey to effective air attack, once Gaddafi forces are able to establish themselves in urban areas, neither NATO nor the insurgents are able to dislodge them under current conditions.

It is clearly difficult for Gaddafi forces to actually control all the resistance in urban areas, and sustaining a presence there will become more and more difficult to resupply if the Coalition increases attacks on loyalist convoys. Incomplete efforts to terrorize urban populations is not the equivalent of controlling the country.

Food and Water as Weapons

Especially in places like Misurata, the loyalists have been able to block water supplies and blockade any significant food shipments.  The reserves of such supplies in the insurgent held part of the country are dwindling, but could be resupplied with revenue from the oil sales.

The Gaddafi "Check book"

A large part -- but not all -- of the international assets of the Gaddafi regime have been frozen, but resources still in Tripoli of other loyalist held areas have sustained regime expenses for the counter attack so far.  No new oil revenues are entering the loyalist stronghold at Tripoli due to international sanctions.

The Gaddafi regime will soon be paying the substantial mercenary elements of its forces with "promises" while enforcing the loyalty of regular army troops with threats directed at families and so on.  Both approaches have a fairly definite time limit, and the regime will be pressured to act ever more aggressively to end the uprising before these "incentives" finally collapse.

This increased desperation will likely expose loyalist military equipment assets to Coalition air attacks.  If the loyalists were facing a more organized opponent, these same reckless advances could offer tactical advantages.  However, both the current armament and the current organizational difficulties for the insurgents will seriously damp any chances for such a tactical exploitation of the mistakes.

Not Very Good Friends and Really Bad Enemies

Normally, dictators in trouble have a few "aces in the hole."  Neighbors with similar autocracies will sometimes assist with military force, or, at least, loans.  Other countries in the region will usually serve as reservoirs from which mercenaries can be persuaded to join forces with local military troops.  However, Gaddafi's Tripoli finds itself with recently resurrected popular governments on both sides, Tunisia to the West, Egypt to the East.

Mercenary travel from the Southern borders with Algeria, Niger, Chad and Somalia is effectively blocked by the Coalition "no fly" zone, very reluctant governments, the "pay check" problem and sheer distance.

At home, Gaddafi finds himself sitting down to dinner with a very creepy, dysfunctional family.  His sixth son, Seif, is still smarting from not being able to "inherit" the oil country from his father, and Seif and his brother Saadi have proposed a provisional, transition government under Seif, one quickly rejected by the Benghazi Council.  Several of Gaddafi's sons hold largely ceremonial command positions over reserve elements of the loyalist troops, but the "ceremonial" aspects have no doubt begun to worry the father by this time.

New Weapons for the Insurgents

Both arms purchases with the substantial income from the Tobruk oil sales and the shady prospect of Coalition arms simply being imported threaten to create an emerging counter balance to the military hardware superiority Gaddafi now enjoys.  Gaddafi's "clout" has already been short circuited by the transportation difficulties of the "no fly" zone and the Security Council's open ended Resolution.

No one expects the Benghazi Council to continue to suffer being out gunned when alternatives are becoming possible.  Further, the Coalition has already been  quietly placing ground observers among the militia to direct air strikes more effectively.  These "penetration troops" can also serve very well as the organizers of Coalition efforts to organize more effective command and control, better communications and more fire power for the militias -- all growing problems for Gaddafi.

Arming the insurgent forces will necessarily include weapons training and probably some cadre discipline of sorts.  Unlike US problems in Afghanistan with the locals, Libyans are "raring to go."  The Benghazi Council will, sooner or later, have to begin forming a formal army of its own.

Libyan Flag of the Revolution

Far from a comprehensive, "CIA style" overview, these points may still be helpful in understanding the "news" we are hearing from the region.  MeanMesa will jump back into the fray when developments advance a little more.

Thanks for visiting!

Another Visit to Libya -- 2 Weeks Later

There are three battles raging in the matter of the liberation of Libya.  Only one of them has much to do directly with is happeening in the desert.

To remain true to MeanMesa's promise of directness, we must assign to "top spot" to the gunfire we hear in the background of the ITN news reporting on our televisions.

  Battle Number One - In the Libyan Desert

This would be the direct and immediate combat unfolding between the liberation forces and the "security forces" of the dictator of Libya.  Although, at the present moment, this is going about as well as anyone expected, it isn't going well.  The disparity of forces which precipitated the UN Resolution concerning the safety of Libyan cities is the "elephant in the living room" when we think of what's going on along the long road from Benghazi to Tripoli.

There is essentially one road from Benghazi to Tripoli.  It passes through the series of smaller cities along the way, some hosting Libya's oil production facilities and at least one representing Gadaffi's tribal "home town" of Sirte.

The Road From Benghazi to Tripoli, March 31 (map source)

On the eve of imposing the "no fly" zone over the country, Gaddafi's armor column was moving North from Adjabiya toward Benghazi, the current location of the insurgent "government council."  Consistent with the specific intention of the UN Resolution to protect civilians, that advance was stopped by air attacks.

Here we see the first vestiges of the Second Battle we mentioned.  In the United States, the domestic anti-democracy media poses a predictably fraudulent comparison of what Gaddafi had planned for Benghazi with what was happening in the streets of, for example, Ivory Coast and Yemen.  In those unfortunate Middle Eastern states, the repressive government has begun to shoot protesters in the streets, and here, MeanMesa means "shoot." 

These were live fire incidents where local security forces opened up on unarmed protesters, killing or injuring dozens of them.

In a sickeningly familiar move, the domestic media began a relentless repetition of the question "If Libya, why not Yemen."  Of course, the names  of places varied a little, but the "bait" remained the same.  These were not a few fleeting comments here and there, either.  Literal hours of pundit "face time" on the networks hammered this false comparison until there was no "skin left on the bones."

We would have expected this from networks such as FOX, and even from thinly disguised anti-democracy corporations such as ABC (Remember the two hour long, commercial free movie during the autocracy about why Clinton was responsible for 9/11?), NBC, CBS.  This brazen broadcast propaganda phenomenon reached a new, discouraging peak when even the PBS NewsHour began to parrot the point daily.

An over-exaggerated threat 

to validate the Coalition response?

Let's get this straight.  When protesters are being shot in the street, they can  stop protesting and go home with at least some hope of not being rousted out of their houses and "disappeared."  That basic idea is, unhappily, the intention of shooting them on the street.

Although Gaddafi's forces no doubt planned for a similar, "house to house" terror run of some sort after Benghazi had fallen, it was, instead, the prelude to that final, violent misery which triggered the Coalition Response.

The Libyan Army's armored column was moving to ring the city of Benghazi with field Howitzers and tanks.  The unarmed city of 1 million would have then been subjected to sustained artillery fire for as long as it took to extract an unconditional surrender.  The prospect of this development triggered the Coalition response.

When viewed from the framework of tribal politics, Benghazi was always the assumed location for the insurrection's  leadership council to meet.  Gaddafi's tribe had a long history of distrusting the residents of the city based on tribal differences already in place long before the drive to liberation began.

Battle Number 2 -  On US Domestic "News"

It should be no surprise that domestic "news" broadcasts have descended on every possible "loose end" of the intervention.  These "fair and balanced" news desks no doubt received direct orders from their corporate masters -- who no doubt received them from their corporate masters -- concerning just exactly how the news story was to be manipulated.

The overall effort was to focus on three specious issues.

a. As mentioned before, countries with street violence were to be falsely compared to the situation in Libya.  The hope was that the carefully manufactured "glaring contradiction" would serve to further degrade the President's rather formidable ability to steer the nation through the course.  We can add this to the "wet dream stack" of similar, puny public opinion attacks designed to undercut voter confidence in Barack Obama.

b. The cost of the intervention, now estimated at between $500 Mn and $1 Bn was to be falsely represented as evidence of "out of control" government spending on the part of the Obama Administration.  Americans were supposed to have completely forgotten the $125 Bn these same Republicans had sucked out of the economy as the hostage payment they extracted to allow unemployment benefits to be extended for a year -- after the same people thoroughly wrecked the economy, making unemployment benefits an immediate necessity to Americans who had already paid for them.

$1,000,000,000 

military hardware and expenses

($1 Bn) for the Libyan intervention

$125, 000,000,000 

2 year extension on W's top 2% tax cut

($125 Bn) ransom paid GOPCons' masters for hostage

  unemployment benefits extension during the lame duck session

c. The third "news vector" issued forth in hopes of discrediting the President in the eyes of low-information voters centered on what was characterized as a failure to consult with the Congress before committing US military assets to the intervention.  The hope was that, should this "talking point" be held before the faces of Americans long enough -- and often enough -- Obama's decision would be reframed as a quick, reckless after thought in between 3 point shots on the White House basketball court.

To hear Gwen Iffel on the NewsHour trot this tired line out, night after night, was especially disheartening.  She had been instructed to "take the bait."  She did.

The laborious preparatory work for the Resolution had been "powered" through the normally time consuming process in record speed -- probably under some serious pressure from the same President who was later criticized as going too slow.  The tanks and Howitzers were hours away from being position to begin the bombardment of Benghazi.

Meanwhile, the tea bags in the US House were settling in for a nice six week "Obama bashing session" while they "debated" the intervention.  Afterwards, they hoped, the President could have been ruthlessly skewered on photos of 50,000 dead Benghazi residents and 500 more, per day, being hanged and shot by Gaddafi's execution squads.

Not unlike the rampages of the late autocrat's bloody "Church of Death" approach to military affairs, Congressional tea bags and GOPCons have no problem at all exchanging piles of corpses for artificially manipulated ratings advantages.  House GOPCons are so cynical that no amount of human suffering can trump political advantage.  House tea bags are so uneducated that they are still probably trying to figure out where Libya is on a map.

Although MeanMesa was impressed with the President's speech on the matter, it's clear that the "gloves haven't come off yet."  The administration's bumbling inability to inject passion and fire into voters, regardless of the topic, remained front and center.

What is being done in Libya is decent and remarkable.  If the American voters have become so risk averse and codependent that they are unable to feel good about the good our country is striving to accomplish -- no matter what -- we are in for a long, painful trip down.  We will be celebrating this carefully groomed mistrust all the way to the dust bin of history.

Battle Three - Protecting the "Project"

from the Domestic Media

Of course, this "project" has enough opponents in the Libyan desert already, but the clear ambition of the domestic media is to use the entire affair to further discredit the President.  As mentioned before, the commands coming from the media bosses match the obsession with the GOPCons to regain political control of the country -- at any price.

The US still contains enough remaining wealth -- even after the eight year looting festival of the autocracy -- to make the senseless sacrifice of Libyans amount to nothing in the mind of the ultra-greedy who are calling the shots.

However, to date, all these attacks have been on what has been accomplished to date.  The immediate future holds the promise of a "rich hunting ground" for these same forces, no matter how the intervention in Libya develops.  We can expect to see them formulating the next nest of false comparisons and false decisions as the Coalition's activities proceed.  Coalition partners should not expect to be neglected in this "march to the sea" attack process, either.

Oceans cannot protect them from the greedy subversions of out-of-control American oligarchs.

Why exactly has the domestic media fallen into the trap of relentlessly attacking the President?  It would be nice to think that this is simply an unthinking, automatic, "knee jerk" sort of thing designed to chase ratings, however, the darker side of this seems to keep jumping out with every evening's "news" broadcast.

The media's corporate keepers smell another opportunity to service the oligarchs' interests in discrediting the President.  Worse, they are having just enough success to keep going, again, regardless of the cost -- in this case, the cost to their already almost non-existent credibility.

What to Expect Next

The "false comparisons" have only just begun.  MeanMesa can suggest a few more which are likely to follow in fairly short order, each case exploiting the advantage of mis-communicating military reporting to civilians with little actual experience with combat.  We will see these "talking points" being injected into the discussion in the upcoming punditry "mouth junk."

The Coalition response has caused civilian casualties itself.

What could anyone expect?  More than a hundred long range, stand off  Tomahawk missiles and days of jet fighter attacks cannot be made, no matter how carefully planned and executed, without collateral damage.  Remember, the Howitzer bombardment of Benghazi had an estimated casualty count of 50,000.  The Libyan freedom fighters understand this.  Unlike the fickle US media consumers, they are adults, and they are determined.

Just arm the insurgents and come home.

This possibility, although looking pretty attractive at the moment, has its own complications.  For one thing, done improperly, the arms would wind up in someone's garage waiting for an upcoming yard sale.  The suitability of this approach is probably not really in question, but the execution of it is.

Just train the insurgents and establish a command and control structure.

Then come home.

The US has been attempting this in both Afghanistan and Iraq for years.  The time such an effort would require sits squarely on the side of both Gaddafi and the domestic "news" media.  Training the insurgents to use the weapons they might receive from Coalition sources would take far less time and possibly yield results almost as productive.

The President was lying about "troops on the ground."  The CIA is there.

Of course the CIA is there.  It's their job.  However, if the media were actually courageous enough to go look for them amid the locals, they would find nothing.  The basic idea about using the CIA does not include a network broadcast of their names and locations while they are doing their work.

The insurgents cannot be trusted to turn out to be "True Americans."

That's right.  They're Libyans -- all sorts of Libyans with all sorts of ideas about what Libya should be like when this is over.  To his credit, the President is prepared to accept the situation for what it appears to be.  Not to their credit, the media is breathlessly fear mongering that this whole thing is an Al Quaeda trap.  The utterly codependent US public wants suffocating control over the situation.  The US oligarchs want a guarantee that they will wind up with the oil.

So, as we watch the "news" from Libya for the next few days, don't let any of these "disposable" talking points throw you off track.  They will be trotted out, tried for traction and then hammered home if they seem to be working.

At the time of this posting, there has been a lag in the Coalition's flights.  The insurgents have tried a couple of times to break out of their Eastern Libya stronghold, only to be turned back by Gaddafi's armor clustered around the road to Tripoli.  The Coalition may be hesitating to attack this armor for two reasons:

1. Such action might be developed into a violation of the Resolution's terms, a possibility inspiring hope in the media's plan to crush hope.

2. This armor may be fairly well embedded in urban cover, introducing the likelihood that an aerial attack against it would include more civilian casualties, another "easily sold" departure from the mandate in the Resolution.

MeanMesa doesn't think that either of these two conditions will prevail for much longer.  Further, the media gambit may start to dwindle on it's own.  America watched the President have to devote half of his speech not to comments about the Libya intervention, but instead to addressing the media attacks against him.  This will probably not go on much longer, either.

MeanMesa's compliments to the President.  Go ahead.  Make us proud to be Americans.

Why the Libya Intervention Must Be CONFUSING! uh, CONFUSING!

Failed Governor and Fox "Queen of Confusion" (image source)

Why "Mission Confusion" is Selling Like "Whores in a  Lumber Camp"

What a remarkable coincidence.  Does anyone join MeanMesa in the conclusion that an amazing homogeneity seems to always "automatically" emerge when a few wing nut "talking points" seem to be gaining traction among the public?

We've seen it before.  For example, in commentaries on the Great Republican Depression the country's economy is now staggering through, the words "predictability" and "unpredictability" have been trotted out over and over and over as an explanation for the reluctance of the current illicit wealth holders to not actively rejoin the faltering economy.

We know, of course, that "reluctance" based on "unpredictability" is actually a carefully crafted scheme to justify waiting until wage earners have become even more desperate and the prices of troubled businesses have become even lower.

Well, a disturbingly similar mindless repetition has emerged in the US participation in the Libyan crisis.

This time, the catchword is "confusion."

Keep up.  "Economic unpredictability" has been temporarily replaced by "military mission confusion."

The possible advantages are clear enough.  If the Libyan intervention can be re-defined as "confused," yet another cheap shot at the President emerges.  If the striking obvious difference between shooting protesters in the streets of Bahrain  and ringing a city of 3 Mn Libyans, Benghazi, with a offensive Howitzer and tank columns can be obliterated by enough false comparisons, no one will be able to see through the veil.  The charge of "hypocrisy" can be leveled at Obama.

Why America is, uh, Totally Confused About the Mission

MeanMesa explored a few of the offerings on the first page of Google's response to the "confusion" question.  Here are a few samples of what pops up from such an inquiry.

"Confusion!" "Confusion!" "Confusion!"

Is anyone surprised?

CBS News - Politics

World Famous "War Expert," Donald Rumsfeld 

Read the entire article here.

Donald Rumsfeld, who served as defense secretary under President George W. Bush, said Wednesday that the Obama administration allowed the mission in Libya to become "confused" because America did not take the lead in determining a course of action. 

"I've always believed that the mission should determine the coalition," he told Politico. Instead, Rumsfeld said, America let coalition partners in Europe dictate the mission. 

Ideally, he added, "you decide what it is you want to do and then you get other countries to assist you in doing that." But in Libya, he said, "the opposite was done," leaving the mission "confused." 

"If peoples' lives are at risk and you're using military forces, you need to have a rather clear understanding as to who's in charge and who's making the decisions," said Rumsfeld. 

Read the entire article here.

Leader: The dangers facing the west’s confused mission in Libya

The fear remains that intervention will do more harm than good. 

For the third time in a decade, Britain is engaged in a major military action in a Muslim-majority country. David Cameron and his allies have resurrected the doctrine of liberal interventionism, which had been poisoned by the disastrous invasion of Iraq, to justify the use of force in Libya. The notion of a "responsibility to protect", born of the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia in the mid-1990s, is one that justly retains political support. It was right to intervene in Kosovo in 1999 to halt Slobodan Milosevic's murderous drive for a "Greater Serbia" and it was right to intervene in Sierra Leone in 2000 to defend that country's democratically elected government from the nihilistic Revolutionary United Front.

My Central Jersey

Read the entire article here.

U.S. confused about mission in Libya

Are we protecting civilians or trying to remove Gaddafi?

Is it just me? Am I the only one who's utterly confused about the rationale, goals, tactics and strategy of the U.S.-led military intervention in Libya?

Thought not.

I call it a U.S.-led operation because, people, let's be real. Without U.S. diplomatic leadership, there would have been no U.N. Security Council resolution. Without U.S. military leadership, there would have been no coordinated shock-and-awe attack to put dictator Moammar Gaddafi's rampaging forces back on their heels. One of these days, when our allies finish their bickering, we'll hear a grand announcement that someone else is in charge — maybe NATO, maybe France. Don't believe it. The United States will be functionally in charge, and thus on the hook, until this ends.

So what the hell are we doing? I realize that President Barack Obama and his advisers have answered this question many times, but I feel it's necessary to keep asking until the answers begin to make sense.

The News Star

 Read the entire article here.

Libyan mission is most confusing

 

I am confused. England, France and the United States went to the United Nations and got permission to bomb and kill Libyans to keep them from killing other Libyans. We all know that it is George Bush's fault, because he started it in Iraq.

Now it all is clear. Are we letting Hillary take out her frustrations on Gadhafi since she can do nothing about Bill and his women?

Bush was wrong when he went into Iraq on the say so of the United Nations and Obama is wrong now. Congress alone has the power to declare war. Here we have nothing, except people who want to take over from Gadhafi. Who are they? Does anyone know them? We are told that France does, but who can trust the French? We have spent or committed to spend one and a half billion dollars for what? French, English and Italian oil? How does that help us? I am still confused But I am sure the politicians in Washington can explain it to me.

Joseph W. Cole Jr.

So, is the Libyan intervention actually "confusing?"
 
Hmmm.

Not if you read the UN Security Council Resolution.

Not if you listen to what the President has said repeatedly about it.

Not if you look at a map of Libya.

Not if you take five minutes to size up what Gaddafi is trying to do at Benghazi and how different in murderous scope it is from other cases which aren't particularly similar.

Next, we unavoidably arrive at the second most popular propaganda attack on the President. It emerges from all sorts of cheap, false comparisons between what is happening in Libya and what is happening in other Middle East countries.
The favorite "pregnant" question -- always introduced with a disturbing little elitist whine on the pundits voice -- is engineered to promote a cynical background of "unpredictability" and "incompetence" in the listener's view of the President.

It usually starts with something like this.

"If we are going to do this in Libya, what about Syria or Yemen.  The dictators in those countries are shooting protesters, too.  Why are we going into Libya and not these other places? Is it because Obama's a hypocrite?"

It goes on further.  "The American people are confused -- they don't understand the mission.  Obama should have explained it to them again, and again, and again.  The American people don't understand the mission.  They are confused."

"And, by the way, the American people are confused.  They don't trust this President.  They are confused.  They don't understand the mission.  Why doesn't the President explain the mission to them?  They are confused."

"And, by the way, what about the exit strategy?  The American people are confused about the exit strategy.  Why doesn't the President explain the exit strategy?  The American people are confused."

The "dirty Black man," "Kenyan anti-colonialist," "anti-American socialist" stuff comes out later.

The "exit strategy" question really becomes difficult for the President.  For one reason, he has made it abundantly clear that we don't intend to "enter," making the "exit" even harder to explain.

For grins, ask a neo-con wing nut exactly what it is about the mission which is confusing.  Once the talking points begin to be "used up" in his panicky, breathless response, this "precious" -- yet disgustingly artificial -- "confusion" becomes as gaseous as the rest of the right wing "mouth junk."

Of course, we all expect the new talking pundits to insist on knowing every "nut and bolt" of the Obama plan for Libya -- otherwise, they will not be able to sustain their PR attack by using even the slightest deviation as a weapon.

Finally, we can return to "unpredictability" for a moment.  Our perpetual critics of everything the President does are, it turns out, a bit "risk averse" and "codependent."  In this case, as with all the others, their pathetic, weird control issues are vomiting out front and center.

The Voice of the Public at

"Down Home Harry's Happy Times"

Just to drive this point home a little, let's drop into "Down Home Harry's Happy Times Motel -- Bowling, Beer & Breakfast" lounge to try to catch the mood of the folks on the street.

"Excuse me, sir. I'm conducting a public opinion poll about Libya. Do you have a few minutes to tell me what you're thinking?"

"You betch'a. I know 'xactly whut I'm thinking."

"Great! And, what's that?"

"Wahl, no one knows whut th' mission is. Thu mission is confusin' 'cuz the President, he don't know whut th' mission is. Thu 'Merican people don't know, neither. It's confusin' cuz the President never told no one whut th' mission is."

"Can you tell me a little more about why it is that you find it so confusing?"

"Shore. Becuz the President done criticized Bush fer doin' thu 'xact same thing. Plus, there ain't no exit strategy. They means thu' mission is confusin', right?"

"But the UN wrote out exactly what the mission was in the Resolution, and the President said he was doing exactly what the Resolution said. The President said that there would be no American boots on the ground in Libya and that the Air Force was going to try to stop Gaddafi's plan to slaughter his citizens. Didn't you think that was pretty clear?"

"Nope. Thu problem is there's no exit strategy. Plus, the American people are confused about whut the mission is. Ah mean, the President said we wasn't going to throw Gaddafi out, but then he started bombing the tanks and stuff. See, A'hm confused cuz Obama ain't no leader."

"But if there aren't any troops there on the ground, why would we need an exit strategy?"

"On account of the fact thet we don't have one. That's why we need one. Plus, the mission is confusing. How do we know when thu troops are gonna' git pulled out? Plus, wha' don't Obama git in there to hep them other folks tryin' to get liberty? See, it's confused. No one knows whut the mission is."

"So, you don't think it was a good idea to try to stop the slaughter?"

"Wahl, first off there ain't no slaughter cuz the tanks got blowed up, 'n second there ain't no exit strategy. Obama ain't gonna' fool me with some hare brained scheme to jest use the Air Force anytime he wants when there ain't no exit strategy and no one understands what thu hell the mission is in the first place."

"Well, I can see that you've thought about this quite a bit. Thanks for the interview."

Okay.
 

The President is going to try one more time to explain the mission in his address to the nation Monday evening.

The speech will probably not be on the television in "Down Home Harry's Happy ...whatever," oh, just forget it, because it won't be on FOX News.

A Couple of Parting Thoughts

1.) Think about it. If you were simply another Middle East dictator who was considering slaughtering a few hundred of your citizens wouldn't "unpredictable" be a bigger problem for you than something definite?

2.) One last note. We Americans have paid heavily for the military we presently enjoy. It is filled with honorable, well trained, well disciplined, determined men and women who are our fellow citizens here. Considered as a whole, it is as noble as any army has ever been throughout history.

It is also one hell of a bad ass outfit. Given a competent Commander in Chief to lead it, our military doesn't lose a scrap or fail its mission. Ever.

How have we been convinced to think so badly about the US military? Even more interesting, who, exactly, might benefit from the widespread distrust and negative assessment of it? Why are the streets and offices of the United States filled with cynical, negative people who constantly expect the US military to fail?

MeanMesa's compliments to the Commander in Chief, the elected President of the United States, Barack Obama.