Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Qua Daffy

[People] don't want to be trapped
into a condition that the level of support
for war is equated with patriotism
--Dennis Kucinich

I will let you down
I will make you hurt
--Hurt, Nine Inch nails

I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"
--You Can't Always Get What You Want,
The Rolling Stones

One factoid is noticeably missing from news reports of recent happening in the Middle East, yet it is instrumental in understanding the flow of events. It is simply this: The majority of the Middle East is batshit crazy, and we fail when we cast the disruptive events as an inexorable march toward democracy. Maybe not!

Let us begin with Muammar Qaddafy, Libya's long-time leader. Muammar has never been sane, yet we have recently concluded that Brother Colonel must go. However, the reality we are ignoring is that the Libyans have embraced his brand of crazy for the last 42 years. He did not turn batshit crazy yesterday, so why is everyone noting this rather egregious and obvious fact now? Ditto Egypt.

For some historical perspective, when the Russian Czar fired on the crowds in the early 1900's, the crowds had legitimate concerns that were democratic in nature. While the czarist stance was autocratic and conservative, was it ultimately beneficial to have the monarchy overthrown? This action put Russia into a crisis mode which still has not been satisfactorily resolved

There are numerous interpretations to all historical events. The U.S. sent the Wolfhound Regiment (27th Infantry) to fight the Bolsheviks, indicating that democracy (or eliminating a monarchy) was not a strategic interest of the U.S. in 1918.
Democracy is not always a desirable US export if it engenders destabilization of a region.

The Russian Revolution may share some commonalities with the (possible) ones in Egypt and Libya. Still, does the revolutionary impulse arise from within the population, or is it the result of outsider agitation? The concept of such outside parachustists is a theme central in unconventional and guerrilla warfare (UW/GW), and Qaddafy may be correct in his assertions that the people's restiveness has been stoked by outsiders interested in destabilizing the region further (thank you, United States).

And who shall benefit? Batshit crazy Iran (but to paraphrase Condoleeza Rice in the wake of the 9-11-01 attacks -- who could have known?).
Does this credulousness irk anyone else out there?

One can imagine a mob to represent an impulse to democracy, but what if it is not? Is change always positive?

The reason we tolerate the Qadaffis and Mubareks of the world is because we never know if his successor will be worse. The U.S. is so pumped up with HOPE and CHANGE that we ignore the ugly realities on the ground. Such gullibilty is to our detriment.
The Tunisian fruit vendor's offense is their Rosa Parks moment but as we all know, Ms. Parks was a contrived mascot, for the true work of the Civil Rights movement was borne by countless behind-the-scenes agitators, lawyers and organizers.

A cell phone photo of a riot does not equate to positive change, and the guy taking the shot is as crazy as the dude he may be trying to depose.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Democracy is not always a desirable US export if it engenders destabilization of a region."

So conversely, dictatorship, torture, repression and lack of fundamental human rights equals stabilization? 'Dickless' Cheney said, we needed to go to the "Dark Side", we all know how that worked out. The troubling aspect of this'Dark' view is that your navigating blind. As we've seen in the case of 20th century intervention's, this can have unintended consequences. History is littered with the carcasses of empires that went beyond their 'Fail/Safe Point's', failed to see over the national hubris, and in the end, found much to their chagrin, that they couldn't control a damn thing.

Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 12:07:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at rangerr said...

I do not advocate anything on the dark side, but stability may mean that we keep our noses in joint , and tend to our own flock.
We are not the masters of the universe, nor are we responsible for any country except the ole USA.

Friday, March 4, 2011 at 9:40:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Back at you.
Yes, i prefer Saddams stability rather than what we put in place.
We have no idea what's actually happening behind the scenes.
We had no culpability for Saddams actions, but we sure are on the hook for what's coming down the pike.

Friday, March 4, 2011 at 3:23:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

Well, jim, we DID have a finger in Saddam's pie, too, using him against our already-created enemies in Iran.

We've talked about this before; once we

1. Decided to move into the void left by the British and French in the Middle East to help ensure access to petroleum, and
2. Went the full monty on Israel, ensuring that we would be seen as the rich uncle of a hated foreign invader...

...we bit off an entire mess-kit full of crap in this area. Had we just left them alone beyond buying their fuel, we wouldn't have a real reason for getting into these bumfights. As it is, tho, we're going to be doing this until we recall ol' George Washington's reminder about foreign entanglements (and do something about weaning ourselves from the oil tit).

I agree that this is pointless and probably won't end well. But I also can't see how things change without a serious reverse in our geopolitical course. And I don't see anyone in D.C. with the political huevos to make that change.

Friday, March 4, 2011 at 7:51:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Peter of Lone Tree said...

Read this way at first:
"Democracy is not always a desirable US export if it endangers destabilization of a region."

Saturday, March 5, 2011 at 7:26:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


Very good ... and then there's that, too.

Saturday, March 5, 2011 at 11:05:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

Well George did say what you quote, but Marines sure ended up in Tripoli.
Hope they stay out of Egypt or......!!!!.
I wonder why foreign policy always starts with grunts ruckin'up.

Saturday, March 5, 2011 at 11:07:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

jim: But you'll note that O'Bannon and his mob did things the sensible way; got in, buttstroked the locals, got out. None of this wandering around trying to play kingmaker or turn a bunch of Mediterranean pirates into the North African Tea Drinking and Canasta Society. Back in the day we had a clue on tribal societies; bribe 'em, slaughter 'em, or leave 'em alone.

We seem to have forgotten that wisdom.

Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 1:20:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim at ranger said...

You left out- steal their women.

Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 1:33:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home