And Libya goes on...

[Fuchs]

I think it's too ate to influence Gadaffi directly. He faces treatment as a war criminal if he loses power.

I'd rather advise to undermine the loyalty of his supporters.

[carl]

Ken:

Our disagreement over Rwanda is this, I believe it would have been wise to have saved the lives of 800,000 people and it was borderline immoral not to have done so, or at least done more. You believe not.

Moral equivalency -- either one has a perceived duty to intervene if evil is being done or one does not. It is not a conditional thing.

This is a definition of moral equivalency I pulled off the net, class notes from a KSU English class.

"An author who suggests that one act of serious wrongdoing does not differ from a minor offence commits the fallacy of moral equivalence. Many people say that “all sins are equal in God’s eyes,” which effectively equates ethnic cleansing with stealing a pencil. Our laws make many precise distinctions amongst the various types of violent crimes. Motives are different, and so these criminals are held accountable accordingly."

That is how I understand the phrase. You may have to adjust your definition. Or you don't have to.

I'm not one bit ashamed about Rwanda -- I am however ashamed of the way this Nation, America, your paragon of virtue, has treated those from other nations where it has intervened. The plight of the South Korean agents and operators we shipped north, of the Hmong and the numerous south Viet Namese we employed for various things, of the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs and Southern Iraqi Shia among others we have abandoned. Those things are something to be bothered about...

The "paragon of virtue" line isn't fair. I have decried all those things numerous times in the past, except the South Korean agents thing. I didn't know about that one. You don't have to play like that.

We have a chance to do a good and benefit ourselves at the same time, now, in Libya. The cost can be minimal. It might not work but that risked would be low also. I've already fully explained why I think so.

[Ken White]

We did nothing. Both approaches above have a great deal of merit, both would have worked well some years ago. They may still work today but they would have been so much better and more effective a decade or more ago.

One of the problems with far too many of the well intentioned approachists is that they will pay lip service to removing Qaddafi like rulers in private conversations or even in public but when actually in policy positions will not allow anyone to actually do anything along that line as being unseemly and / or illegal in the eyes of the international community. That is until it's too late, a crisis erupts and then they want to send troops to just fix the problem. Troops do not fix problems, they create them, they break things. The time for fixing is before the bubble bursts.

Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq I, Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq II, Rwanda and Libya. All those sent out plenty of harbingers, people were urging action -- and the interventionists did nothing until they had a mess. Then they sent in pot-stirrers...

If one is really concerned about fixing things, one should emphasize early action on intelligence, diplomatic and politico-military (small 'm') efforts early on and discourage the sending of Military forces into a volatile and mostly erupting and not fully understood situations where such commitment is highly likely to do as much harm as good.

[Pete]

... the well intentioned approachists ...

Regrettably the budget for the U.S. Grammar and Spelling Police has been cut by the recent squabbles on Capitol Hill, so for now we have to lay low and keep a low profile. However, we haven't gone away and we know who you are.

[Ken White]

Our disagreement over Rwanda is this, I believe it would have been wise to have saved the lives of 800,000 people and it was borderline immoral not to have done so, or at least done more. You believe not.

That appears to be correct. Quibble on the moral bit, though...

This is a definition of moral equivalency I pulled off the net, class notes from a KSU English class...That is how I understand the phrase. You may have to adjust your definition. Or you don't have to.

We both understand the same definition, we addressed only the act and we addressed remedies taken or not taken on the basis a cost:benefit ratio, not a punishment thereunto but that's getting into the weeds and I'll acknowledge partial misuse of the phrase. My point was and is that if you're going to use the moral argument for the actions -- or lack of them -- on the part of a nation, some consistency is advisable lest you be accused of hypocrisy -- of which we are, too often and quite regularly unfairly but, again, the world isn't a fair place.

I will again note that 'moral' is an individual construct and that nations are not individuals nor do they, can they, have individual attributes. Nations simply do not have morals. They can act in a manner not consistent with the moral beliefs of an individuals or group of them but they can't do immoral things. Thus it's okay for you to say that in your opinion, the moral thing to do would have been to do something about Rwanda. However, you cannot say that I thought that such an action was moral or immoral because that didn't enter into my thinking. To me, there is no morality to it, either way.

The "paragon of virtue" line isn't fair.

There is no fair or unfair to it. That comment addressed a specific statement, your earlier:

Sometimes too, it is just something to be ashamed of.

and this follow on:

America should be ashamed because the leaders we elect didn't act...I am ashamed because of that.

The implication in those comments is that America did not live up to some higher standard, I was merely reminding you that such has often been the case and that IMO, those abandonments of people we had enticed or used for our -- not their -- ends in nations where we had or had developed some interests was far worse than not going to the possible aid of persons in a nation where we had not one interest at stake. None. IOW, I hold sins of commission to be worse than sins of omission.

You don't have to play like that.

I am not playing. We're having a discussion about a subject of great national import. You believe in humanitarian intervention. Many Americans would agree with you -- many in positions of authority have exercised that authority to order such interventions.

I strongly disagree. Not because I am a heartless neanderthal but because I've been on a few of those, have seen the damage they do to the very people they were supposed to be helping. The old saw about the Hippocratic Oath should be required of all policy makers, "First, do no harm..."

So, no play involved. This is important. When anyone posits a thought here that is IMO inimical to the nation, the armed forces or to the survival of troops in the field, I tend to respond. You're a good guy Carl, and I have a lot of respect for you but I disagree quite strongly with your notion of national morality and responsibility and I've discussed this in person with a bunch of folks who believe as you do. What you and they advocate is nice, it is also potentially harmful to some people you would help, can lead to a belief -- hubris, if you will -- that America can fix it. We cannot fix a good many things (and I believe that both Rwanda and Libya fall in that category) -- and encouraging the belief that we can or should has, as I said elsewhere, done us and others far more harm than good

Further, as I said in that other comment, the history on these things is not good...

We have a chance to do a good and benefit ourselves at the same time, now, in Libya. The cost can be minimal. It might not work but that risked would be low also. I've already fully explained why I think so.

And I why I disagree. We can continue to do that and so so without being disagreeable, I hope.

We'll never know what might have happened in Rwanda. Nor what might have had we intervened before today in Libya but in that other comment, I named most of those in which we engaged over the last 50 years. None achieved what their originators hoped, though the jury's still out on a few.

Intervening for 'moral' reasons has done us no favors, opting for it is usually dangerous and ill advised. It always costs more than its supporters hope and claim -- in every aspect.

The subject line is from Kennedy's 1961 Inaugural speech. Brave words. Brave words cause a lot of problems. Kennedy's long gone, we're left with a few myths. Myths also cause a lot of problems...

[Surferbeetle]

G8 ministers meet on Libya no-fly zone, 14 MARCH 2011 - 22H10, at France 24

AFP - The Group of Eight powers gathered in Paris on Monday to thrash out a common line on possible intervention to ground the warplanes pounding Libya's rebels.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe vowed to step up efforts to get approval for the measure, which is backed by the 22-nation Arab League, considered crucial for dealing with the region.

But Britain and France, which are drafting a resolution for the UN Security Council, failed last week to convince their European Union partners to back the move, and the United States and Russia are also lukewarm.

However, Russia said "fundemental questions" needed to be resolved before a resolution was passed, while Germany said some questions "had not yet been answered," notably on upping political and econonmic measures against Kadhafi.

China, the only veto-wielding member of the Security Council not represented at the Paris G8 talks, is opposed to a no-fly zone.

The leader of the council, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, was quoted by the Financial Times on Monday as saying that countries not supporting the uprising would miss out on Libya's oil if Kadhafi's regime is deposed.

A further meeting and news conferences are scheduled for Tuesday.

[Ken White]

Regrettably the budget for the U.S. Grammar and Spelling Police has been cut by the recent squabbles on Capitol Hill, so for now we have to lay low and keep a low profile. However, we haven't gone away and we know who you are.

somethin I rit...

[carl]

I will again note that 'moral' is an individual construct and that nations are not individuals nor do they, can they, have individual attributes. Nations simply do not have morals. They can act in a manner not consistent with the moral beliefs of an individuals or group of them but they can't do immoral things.

Were the actions of Germany, a nation state, when it occupied Poland immoral? Were the actions of Japan, a nation state, when it occupied China immoral? I am intentionally picking extreme examples to illustrate the point that I think nations can act in an immoral way.

[Surferbeetle]

...and worth the read

A Libyan no-fly zone is only half an answer, By Philip Stephens, Published: March 14 2011 20:44 | Last updated: March 14 2011 20:44, at Financial Times

The case for imposing a no-fly zone can be properly made only if its advocates are willing to follow the logic of armed intervention. There is nothing to be gained from clearing the skies if Col Gaddafi’s tanks and rocket-launchers can continue to race across the desert.

To borrow a phrase from Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, it is time to call a spade a spade. Is the west prepared to wage war on the Libyan regime – to blockade ports under Col Gaddafi’s control, to arm the opposition militias and, if need be, to bomb the armoured columns that now threaten to crush the uprising? If the answer is no, the only purpose of a no-fly zone is to salve a few political consciences.

The new enthusiasm for intervention in London and Paris, however, has drawn some caustic responses in Washington. When Messrs Cameron and Sarkozy say the international community must act, what they mean is that the US should put its military in harm’s way. The Europeans will make a small contribution. Sabre-rattling is more convincing when you are rattling your own sabre.

[AdamG]

“...his best weapons, especially the anti-aircraft weapons and aircraft, have always been run and maintained by foreign troops,” Jean-François Daguzan told FRANCE 24.

“These include Syrians, Koreans and East Europeans, among others. The Libyan soldiers have always been seen as incompetent with this superior technology.”

*
“As for the rest of his forces, it seems that half of his mercenaries have decamped, the conscript Libyan army has joined the insurgents and many senior figures have defected.”

http://www.france24.com/en/20110309-...es-army-rebels

[Pete]

I am intentionally picking extreme examples to illustrate the point that I think nations can act in an immoral way.

True, but it doesn't prevent "moral" nations from suffering consequences when they do ill-advised or stupid things. The world isn't moral or immoral, it just is what it is.

[carl]

Pete: The physical world is neither moral or immoral, it is just what it is. But men and the affairs of men are moral or not.

[Surferbeetle]

Carl,

I appreciate your breathtaking trust and faith in the ability, capacity, and desire of the world's elected leaders and the existing political, economic, diplomatic, intelligence, and security systems in place to handle crisis's.

IMHO the Middle East is in the process of coming apart, similar to the fall of the Berlin Wall but with more bloodshed this time around. 'History does not repeat it itself but it rhymes' is attributed to Mark Twain and it is an apt description of what is occuring.

Last time around we were concerned about things going very badly as the old order of things were rearranged. Fortunately, the international community worked very hard, and we were all very lucky. Hopefully we all can do it again, however: today we also have the reconstruction of Japan (and it's potential default), the potential default and breakup of the EU, America's potential default, and the recovery of the international financial system to contend with in addition to the realignment of the Middle East.

I advise extreme caution, and further recommend that the GCC, the AU, the Arab League, and the EU take the lead on resolving Libyan issues. IMHO the US needs to keep it's powder dry, as there is more to come....

On a personal note, you and your family members are able to enlist in the military, join the DoS, USAID, sign on with an NGO, or corporation which operates in the middle east. It would be an educational and eye-opening experience regarding that part of the world and it would be an opportunity for you and yours to pitch in and help resolve the current and upcoming troubles. We can always use the help....

Steve

[Ken White]

Were the actions of Germany, a nation state, when it occupied Poland immoral? Were the actions of Japan, a nation state, when it occupied China immoral? I am intentionally picking extreme examples to illustrate the point that I think nations can act in an immoral way.

They were stupid, they were not in accord with international norms and they hacked off a lot of people but they were neither moral or immoral -- though I'm sure they were viewed as 'immoral' by many.

Possibly by about as many as thought they were 'moral' -- or the right thing to do. I suspect most folks in that latter category were German or Japanese or their hangers-on. Equally probably, many of those thinking them immoral were most likely Chinese and Poles.

With respect to Nations, morality is in the mind of the observer. As you told Pete:

men and the affairs of men are moral or not

I certainly agree and most of us have our own moral code which may differ from that of others even acknowledging remarkable group consensus generally.

But nations do not have morals and cannot act in a moral or immoral manner, they do what they do. One can talk about the leadership of a nation acting in one manner or the other but even that is a judgement call by each individual observing.

Consider that to many, war, all war, is immoral by almost any definition. It is in their view one of the most immoral things humans do (in my view it's just the dumbest thing we do...). So any nation voluntarily partaking of a war is arguably engaging in an act of morally dubious behavior. If that is true, then anyone who wishes to engage in warlike acts, no matter for what cause, no matter how good or important that cause could be construed as voluntarily and willfully entering into an immoral activity...

BTW, I owe you an apology for the "paragon of virtue" comment -- it was emphatically not intended as a personal attack, it was to illustrate that we, the US, do a lot of things we shouldn't do and don't do a lot of things we should. As is true of morality, what those things are those are is very much an individual judgement.

Please accept my apology for poorly stating a point.

[Dayuhan]

We should be able to influence Qadaffi short of employing direct military power. Why hit him over the head, when we can kick him in the crotch...or wallet, or whatever else it is that he values and that is vulnerable to "targeting."

Not sure how much leverage we really have, short of eliminating him. I doubt that he's afraid of being a pariah, he's been there before and survived. He doesn't seem all that attached to his material assets, it's the power that drives him. And at the end of the day, he knows the Europeans. He knows they will issue statements deploring his actions and condemning him, they will clutch their collective pearls and gasp in horror at his inhumane actions, and when they're done with all that they will line up in a nice organized queue and bid for the privilege of paying him for Libya's oil.

In 1989 the Communist block stopped playing. They had turned internal, and were focused on core survival and reorganization within the block. This in turn negated the national interest that had driven much of the US engagement in the Colonial and Semi Colonial block for the previous 40+ years. So we remained engaged where we had interests tied to our economy (markets, sea lanes, energy) and also turned our back on much of the rest.

This logical decision by the U.S. had two painful secondary effects: First, it meant that unstable countries that had been held to some degree of balance by the engagement efforts of the two northern groups quickly fell out of balance

I've raised this point before, don't recall an answer... do you really think the Cold War produced "balance" anywhere in the developing world? I'm really not sure this position stands up to even casual scrutiny. Many regions where the Cold War drove enormous violence and instability have actually achieved much more balance since it ended, notably East Asia and Latin America.

It looks a lot like Star Trek. Do not harm, remain neutral. Have the full power of the Enterprise on station to employ as necessary, and never be the guy sent on deployment with a listing such as "crew member" in the credits...

That's pretty much our position in Libya now, is it not? Not a bad position, though not always attractive: staying neutral in a position where one has a strong visceral preference (or vested interest) in one side prevailing is not always popular... of course neither are the consequences of intervention, even when we are assured that it will be brief and easy!

Correct. And with that down the toilet goes the US reputation as the leader of the free world. Little wonder tin pot dictators can just sit back and thumb their noses at the US and the EU. They know the US is mainly hot air and hollow threats.

Were tin pot dictators ever accountable to us? Should they be? Not like their actions are necessarily any of our business, and we certainly don't want the job of keeping the dictators of the world in line.

I'm curious about this "leadership of the free world" notion that we apparently flushed down the toilet in Rwanda. How did it survive our inaction in the face of the Indonesian massacres in '65-'66, or Pol Pot's little escapades, or the Latin American death squads, or the various DRC slaughters, et cetera, ad infinitum? And if leadership of the free world means being responsible for stepping in and cleaning up the poop every time someone dumps one in their backyard, why would any sane person or nation want to lead the free world? Are there any benefits or advantages that go along with that rather unpleasant responsibility, other than near-universal resentment and criticism, and a whole lot of expense?

What we see from the US over the North Africa matters of the recent past is not leadership. The President, the Clinton woman and others have a lot to say on what's going on but offer no concrete action. Why are they doing all this talking and issuing of statements if they are not going to do anything? Maybe the Russians are getting it nearer correct with what seems to be the approach of "don't open your mouth unless you are prepared to back it up with action" - or the old "don't draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use it" .

Obviously the Obama administration does not understand the first thing about leadership. I ask myself after hearing one of these "talking head" speeches what the speaker wants the reaction to be? Is he/she just trying to seem knowledgeable or informed or are they wanting to stimulate some sort of reaction?

I have no idea what you think "leadership" is, but if it means that the US has to meet every unpleasant responsibility itself - because let's face it, there ain't a whole lot of followership in any of this - I say stick it where the sun don't shine, because we don't have the right, the duty, or the capacity to run around the world cleaning up after everyone who makes a mess.

You know we watched the British empire run out of steam where the Brits were no longer up to the challenges that the leadership of a vast empire demanded anymore. They just wimped away into the sunset suffering one diplomatic humiliation after the other. Still believe it or not there are Brits who want a world class navy with reach and a military capable of responding all over the globe at a moments notice. Its over, gone, finished.

Quo vadis the US?

The Brit empire was never a charitable enterprise or a mission civilatrice. It was intended to make money, and it fell apart when the colonized got so fractious that the cost of sustaining the empire exceeded any possible profit that could be earned by maintaining it.

Of course it's over, gone, finished. Why should the British, the Americans, or anyone else drive themselves into bankruptcy and exhaustion trying to fix other people's messes?

[JMA]

I dont think the US should have jumped in with guns blazing into Libya.

Guns blazing? Just a little bit of military finesse. The earlier one acts the less you have to do... therefore being more likely to get away with it

Take out a few jets on the ground (rather than crater airfield runways you will want to use later). Take out a few helicopter gunships (only difficult if they know you are coming and have a chance to disperse them). Then declare Libya a no tank zone and let the armed UAVs and whatever do some live firing training.

Then obviously you take his TV and radio off the air... by jamming rather than bombing.

But before all this a little demonstration of sincerity is required. Pick a Gaddafi compound or beach-house or other suitable structure and convert it to rubble - with the message "just in case you think we are joking"

That's not guns blazing that is the intelligent application of military action under the circumstances IMHO.

Had this been carried out early, Gaddafi would now be taking up residence in Zimbabwe and thousands of Libyan lives would have been saved... without one foreign soldiers boot having touched Libyan soil.

PS: I sincerely hope that behind the now typical gutless response from not only US politicians (but the equally gutless rest with the exception of an increasingly frustrated Cameron) are a few generals who are putting simple, effective, quick strike options on the table, because if the generals are also dithering then the US and the West is in bigger trouble than imaginable.

[Bob's World]

For the US, and for every great power, the challenge in such situations always comes down to one of this: How does one justify harsh action on the dictators locked out in the cold, while enjoying an after dinner cocktail with the dictators sitting around one's dinner table?

Currently the guys who are sitting at our table our getting a little nervous, as a couple of them just got dragged out of the room while we turned to the rest and said " you know, I never really did like that guy and I thought he would never leave. More wine?"

[Backwards Observer]

A humanitarian intervention in Rwanda was already underway before the genocide. The intentions were undoubtedly of the highest moral purpose. The results much less so. Yet there still seems to be little appetite for public debate about the wisdom, manner or morality of such interventions beforehand. This is perhaps understandable. Far off topic, sorry.

In the aftermath of this horrific bloodbath, Rwanda's Christian churches have faced extensive criticism. Many journalists, scholars, human rights activists, politicians, and even some church personnel have accused the churches not simply of failing effectively to oppose the genocide but of active complicity in the violence. According to a report by a World Council of Churches team that visited Rwanda in August 1994, "In every conversation we had with the government and church people alike, the point was brought home to us that the church itself stands tainted, not by passive indifference, but by errors of commission as well." My own research in Rwanda in 1992-93 and 1995-96 confirms these conclusions. According to my findings, church personnel and institutions were actively involved in the program of resistance to popular pressures for political reform that culminated in the 1994 genocide, and numerous priests, pastors, nuns, brothers, catechists, and Catholic and Protestant lay leaders supported, participated in, or helped to organize the killings.

Christian Churches and Genocide in Rwanda - Timothy Longman - May, 11-13, 1997

Dr. Longman is the author of numerous journal articles and book chapters and of the book Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda (Cambridge University Press.) His work focuses primarily on religion and politics, human rights, ethnic identity and politics, and gender and politics. He studies primarily Rwanda, Burundi, and Congo.

Timothy Longman - Boston U African Studies Center, Faculty Bio

+++

Careful examination of the role of the churches in Rwanda as well as in Nazi Germany reveals some heartbreaking truths.

First, it cannot be assumed that the Christian faith is taught in such a way as to emphasize love of neighbor (all neighbors) and respect for human life. No agency on earth has ever been able to control what is actually taught in a local church on a given Sunday morning. A variety of bastardized versions of the Christian message, including hateful ones, have been and continue to be communicated in congregations all over the world. This is true both in churches where authoritative (and sometimes authoritarian) church hierarchies supposedly have great power to control what happens in the local church, and in decentralized communions in which the local minister has the final say. Either way, the teaching of the Christian churches lands all over the map, from richly faithful to blandly mediocre to dreadfully immoral.

+++

We must move beyond the general to the particular. Certainly there were specific historical factors in Rwanda that contributed to the disastrous involvement and complicity of the churches in the 1994 genocide. The most significant appear to be the following:

The historic participation of the Rwandan churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church, in reinforcing ethnocentric thought and behavior both in public life and in the church itself. This weakened the church’s ability to resist the quasi-fascist genocidal racism that emerged in a sector of Hutu society in the late 1980s and early 1990s and eventually led to genocide against their Tutsi compatriots.

The cozy relationship enjoyed by the leaders of the Rwandan Catholic Church and of several Protestant denominations with the Hutu government. This led church leaders to identify their interests with the interests of the then-current government and its leaders. In the end, the outcome was a hesitation on the part of church leaders to stand up for innocent Tutsis (and moderate or resistant Hutus) and say a clear no to genocide.

The traditional teaching of the churches that the Bible mandates unquestioning submission to both churchly and governmental authority. This teaching left Christians very poorly prepared to resist the genocidal commands of local and national leaders.

The historic social power of the missionaries and churches that brought about the nearly universal "conversion" of Rwandans to Christianity. This nearly universal assent to Christianity, we can now see, was clearly more of a veneer than a living reality in people’s hearts, as observers of Rwanda have noted.

+++

The churches would do well to give up, once and for all, any hope of great social and political power, including a comfortable embrace by government leaders. The dream of Christian political dominance is alluring, but must be recognized as a demonic snare. And a cozy relationship with government almost always comes at far too high a price either for Christian integrity or for the victims of government injustice. Christians do nothing to protect the victims because we are too busy protecting our privileged position.

Remembering Rwanda - David P. Gushee - Religion Online - April 20, 2004

Dr. David P. Gushee is an historian, ethicist, public intellectual, and professor dealing primarily with ethical issues and Christian thought. Gushee is the Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, and was formerly the Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy and the Senior Fellow of the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Christian Leadership at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. Gushee also serves as the president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, an organization advocating for an end to torture, especially that sponsored by the United States government.

David P. Gushee - Wikipedia

[Dayuhan]

For the US, and for every great power, the challenge in such situations always comes down to one of this: How does one justify harsh action on the dictators locked out in the cold, while enjoying an after dinner cocktail with the dictators sitting around one's dinner table?

Currently the guys who are sitting at our table our getting a little nervous, as a couple of them just got dragged out of the room while we turned to the rest and said " you know, I never really did like that guy and I thought he would never leave. More wine?"

Not really that difficult. The unspoken rule is that if you keep your ship under control we'll deal with you, but if you lose it you go to the sharks. The other dictators will drop the guy who loses control as fast as we do, maybe faster.

Nobody has any illusions about us liking these guys, or about them liking us, or each other. Liking has not a thing to do with any of it.

Of course as long as the rebels are winning all we have to do is sit back and let nature take its course. When it's not going that way there's the question of whether or not to actually intervene, and there are a whole lot of considerations there. How it will look to the dictators still on our side is not prominent among them.

I don't think any of the other guys in the club will miss Gadhafi at all, or would object if somebody stepped in and helped him to the door. They never liked him either.

[carl]

Surferbeetle:

Your good natured sarcasm is noted but I have no trust and faith in the ability of the world's leaders to handle crisis' at all. I have a little faith in our ability and good intentions sometimes. My mind has been irrevocably altered by looking at too many Norman Rockwell paintings I guess.

Your point that we must not get too entangled so we can do something else more important when it comes up it well taken. That is exactly the reason, I advocate "doing something" but only if a. it will have some actual effect and b. if it doesn't draw us in so deeply that we can't get out easily. The things I suggested seem to, to this forever a civilian, fulfill that criteria (as do some of the things suggested by JMA). There seems to be some disagreement with that position regarding effectiveness and our being able to limit involvement. So be it.

One thing I would like to clarify though is I am strongly against any kind of no fly zone or action that would be effectuated with Manned Aircraft Flying Over Libya. That would get us into the whole very weird American cultural dynamic of airplanes, pilots, SEAD and all the other things that go with it. When manned airplanes get involved our eyes sort of glaze over and then the whole thing does go on autopilot to points unknown.

As you say, we were very lucky the last time things fell apart. But we actually took a side the last time and I think that had an effect in things coming out like they did. We may have to consider taking a side this time, at least to a small extent. Right now I don't know exactly what we are doing. Whatever it is may be the right thing, but I am starting to think we are not going to be able to turn the stampede.

The GCC (what does that stand for?), the AU, the EU et al taking the lead would be the best thing of course. Of course, they being completely ineffectual organizations, they won't take the lead on anything. The wait for them may be a long one.

On a personal note, you and your family members are able to enlist in the military, join the DoS, USAID, sign on with an NGO, or corporation which operates in the middle east. It would be an educational and eye-opening experience regarding that part of the world and it would be an opportunity for you and yours to pitch in and help resolve the current and upcoming troubles. We can always use the help....

Turn about is fair play I guess. I used exactly the same line on Motorfirebox. I don't have much influence on my family. They look at me very strangely when I encourage them along these lines. As for myself, I've tried to do my bit and will again if able; though I don't know how useful my efforts have been.