yakUSA?

To my utter despair I have discovered,
and discover every day anew,
that there is in the masses
no revolutionary idea or hope or passion
--Mikhail Bakunin

Tell me: How does this end?
--Gen. David Petraeus

He's Judge, Jury and Executioner!
--Death Wish, tagline (1974)
_____________________

In a shade of things past and things to come, NATO forces bombed the home of Libyan leader Muammer Gaddafi this weekend, killing his son and three grandchildren. How is this enforcing the NATO mandate of "protecting" Libyan citizens? How does this action differ from the bombings of 9-11-01?

The U.S. is not the Mafia or Yakuza; just as with Saddam's sons, why are we targeting his family or even Gaddafi himself? When did the U.S./NATO get into the business of killing national leaders? All for a bunch of rabble-rousers?

Gaddafi has repeatedly called for a cease-fire, as late as this Saturday. The rebels claim this is a ploy. Well-meaning Westerners may well be being played the dupe in this game of uprisings. Fixated upon our own nation's experience, we imagine democracy to be the way of the world. "Arab Spring" trips off the tongue so nicely and sounds so clean, like a bar of green soap, almost. But why is the U.S. so quick to back a minority band of discontents versus negotiating with a sovereign leader, if indeed this is even our purview?

Canadian Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, commander of NATO's operation in Libya, said, "we do not target individuals," but this was not a wayward missile. Gaddafi -- who thought he was now a good guy when he dismantled Libya's nuclear weapons program, cooperated with investigations into Libyan state-sponsored terrorism and paid reparations, earning the lifting of UN sanctions against Libya in 2003 -- is now being treated to the full U.S. turncoat treatment.

The government forces still hold most of the country, and the "rebels" are doing a feeble effort. This NATO action will not make Gaddafi a moderate. Moreover, what does this say about us?

Subsequent to the destruction of Gaddafi's home, angry mobs destroyed the UK and Italy's Embassies. In a sort of double jeopardy, the AP reports:

The U.S. evacuated its diplomatic staff at the start of the Libyan crisis, leaving Turkey to represent American interests in the country. In Washington, the State Department said it was aware of the reports of damage. "If true, we condemn these attacks in the strongest possible terms," the statement said, adding that by failing to protect the diplomatic missions, the regime "has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations (Libyans burn UK, Italy missions after NATO strike)."

So while NATO was bombing Libya's leader, it condemns him for not protecting the diplomatic missions that were burned because NATO bombed the Libyan leader's home. Catch-22, anyone?

If the U.S. bases its legitimacy in the order of law, it cannot stomp around the world killing people. That is not how diplomacy works. Secretary of State Clinton has proved a monumental failure in encouraging this undertaking. The U.S. is clearly encouraging Libyans' (the Middle East's?) radicalization.

How do our actions differ from those of terrorists?