A Country for Old Fools

--Hanoi Hillary?

"Is that a Chevy '69?"
How bizarre, How bizarre
--How Bizarre, OMC

For my military knowledge,

though I'm plucky and adventury,

Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;

But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,

I am the very model of a modern Major-General

--The Major-General's Song, Pirates of Penzance

--How'd you sleep?

--I don't know. Had dreams.

--Well you got time for 'em now.

Anythin' interesting?

--They always is to the party concerned.

--No Country for Old Men (1987)

____________________

Last night my nightmares returned me to the Vietnam War. Since time had regressed, Hillary had taken Jane Fonda's position, this time on a Libyan anti-aircraft gun, goofily looking through the sights as her assistant gunner John McCain prepared to feed rounds into the piece.

How much more bizarre does a nightmare get? Fonda was called a dupe and a traitor for supporting the Viet Cong's right to overthrow the Saigon puppet regime, yet McCain has now supplanted her in supporting his heroes, who happen to be the equivalent of his former enemy, Victor Charlie (Sen. John McCain says rebels fighting Gadhafi troops are his heroes during visit to east Libya).

The Libyan rebels and the VC are the same critter: They lack legitimacy, are not in accordance with the laws of their respective governments and are in open rebellion. Does McCain see the high irony of opposing the rebels in Vietnam War yet heralding their moral equivalent as heroes in Libya?

Neither McCain, Clinton nor O-bomb-a can clearly explain why it is incorrect for Moammer Qaddafi's troops and loyalists to attack and kill rebels, while at the same time supporting the "rebels" for doing likewise to Qaddafi & Co. Where is the sense, especially when a cash-strapped America must get the operational funds to do so at a Chinese Title & Pawn Shop?

In a word, McCain has once again pulled a flip-flop. McCain was bombing the folks of North Vietnam because they were supporting the rebels of South Vietnam. Now, he has done an about-face.

As for Clinton, it is equally difficult to understand her warmonger stance as a former Flower Child of the 60's. Clinton was the picture of a liberal intellectual, so how did she end up taking Jane's seat supporting the rebels?

Ranger wonders why Ms. Fonda keeps her mouth shut these days. Where is her outrage at the U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where is any outrage for that matter?

Keeping Mum

I'm a mummer, you're Moammer,
wouldn't you like to be a mummer, too?
--Possible North Atlantic Counsel recruitment jingle
for The Libya Show
(stolen from the Dr. Pepper commercials of yore)

As I rained blows upon him,
I realized there has to be a better way.
--George Costanza (Seinfeld)

Are you president of the United States,
or president of the world
--Ali Abdullah Saleh, to Obama
__________________

Sorry, I just don't get it. The U.S. is for militants (in Libya), except when we're not (in Iraq and Afghanistan):

US likely to keep combat role after Libya shift (AP)

AP - U.S. warplanes will keep flying strike missions over Libya even after the U.S. relinquishes the lead command role to NATO as early as this weekend in the fight against Moammar Gadhafi's forces, the Pentagon indicated Thursday.

In addition to bombing yet a third country in a decade, the U.S. via its NATO affiliation is soon to enforce a "no-drive" zone upon Moammer, to be known as DWM (Driving While Moammer):

NATO also agreed to launch military planning for a broader mandate, including a "no-drive" zone that would prevent Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's armor and artillery from moving against rebels his forces had been routing before the coalition's air assault began late last week. The North Atlantic Council is scheduled to meet on Sunday to consider the plans (NATO takes command of part of Libya operation.)

And what's with the new spelling, "Gadhafi"? The guy's only been running Libya for how many decades, and we still don't know how to spell his name? The U.S. and its military are acting like a bunch of loose cannons.

How can we keep the faith when we don't even know what it is?

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.