Burning Down the House

 All I want is to be left alone
in my average home;
But why do I always feel
like I'm in the Twilight Zone? 
--Somebody's Watching Me,
Rockwell   

Confidential information
It's in a diary
This is my investigation 
It's not a public inquiry 
--Private Investigations,
Dire Straits
 _________________________ 

The United States Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, was destroyed on 11 September 2012. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other were killed in the attack. The alleged leader of the attack, Ahmed Abu Khatalluh, was captured by a squad of U.S. commmados, law enforcement and intelligence agents on 17 June 2014.

Khatalluh was taken to an undisclosed location, and then-Attorney General Eric Holder assured us that the prisoner would be tried in federal court. November 5 -- 16 months hence -- and no trial has come of this capture.

So what is happening at the highest levels of U.S. Justice to bring Khatalluh to the open courts of the U.S. federal justice system, as we have been promised? On 3 August 2015, the Associated Press reported that Khatallah's defense team petitioned the court to have the case dismissed; no further motions on the case have been reported.

The U.S. spends billions of dollars on intel and covert operations, going halfway 'round the world to capture those deemed to be terrorists, and then what happens? One thing we do no do is to bring them to justice.

If Khatalluh is responsible for these U.S. deaths, then bring him to trial, as required by law. Why do we not have the satisfaction of seeing high level threats like Katalluh neutralized in transparent federal court trials? Why is everything a secret?

Murder is a capital offense. Do we no longer believe in the efficacy of the federal court system to mete out justice after a crime has been committed?

Being John Kerry

  I've been very lonely in my isolated tower 
of indecipherable speech
 --Being John Malkovich (1999) 

Show me the Money! 
--Jerry McGuire (1996) 

The best is yet to come 
And babe won't it be fine 
The best is yet to come 
Come the day your mine 
--The Best is Yet to Come,
Frank Sinatra
_____________________

[NOTE: Robert Fisk addresses this well in his 7 Mar 13 piece, Which Rebels Should We Support?]

It is hard for Ranger to formulate a clear understanding of the Syrian revolt and the rules for supporting or not supporting such events.

Why would the United States support any revolution?  Why did we rearrange the societies of Iraq and Afghanistan, and what was the result?

In Afghanistan, the Taliban is supported by Saudi Sunni sectarians. Initially, the U.S. invasion pitted the Northern Alliance (NA) against the Sunni alliance.  The NA were and are allied with the Iranian "bad guys". So who are the good guys in Afghanistan?  If the Afghan government and its forces are the good guys, then the definition of "good" and "bad" must be a fungible construct.

In Iraq we imposed a tyranny of democracy on a country which imposes a Shiite, American-backed majority -- one which marginalized the Sunnis. (As for the Kurds, not much can be said other than they are the Kurds.) The present government of Iraq is largely Shiite; Iran is a Shia power -- so who benefited from the Afghani and Iraq shake-ups?

The Syrian government is supported by the Hizbollah, associated with the Iranian Shiites.  So is our current policy in Syria simply a slap at Iran?  If so are we now allied with the Sunni forces that we once fought in Afghanistan and Iraq?

If Syria is overthrown, to whom will the power transfer?  A Syrian government defeat will be a Sunni victory, no?  If Syria falls, who will benefit?

Why does the U.S. support the anti-Sunnis in Afghanistan and Iraq, while supporting the Sunnis in Syria?  The entire Middle East - Southwest Asia gambit eludes Ranger; what is America hoping to gain by throwing in our chips with the Syrian opposition?

Jihadists in Libya and Syria got their combat experience fighting U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They are the Islamic equivalent of the Lincoln Brigade of the War on Terror; they are mercenary insurrectionists. In Iraq and Afghanistan they were trying to protect the existing order; now, they are trying to overthrow the existing order.

Where do their loyalties lie and who pays them?  There are linkages to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain. Why do Americans arrogantly presume all rebels are looking for a freedom day like that of 1776?

Ranger is hoping someone of a higher pay grade can clarify his thinking here.

Only Militias Need Guns

--Ayeh ... maybe 

Now it is not good for the Christian's health

to hustle the Aryan brown,

For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles

and he weareth the Christian down;

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white

with the name of the late deceased,

And the epitaph drear:  "A Fool lies here

 who tried to hustle the East." 

--The Naulahka,Rudyard Kipling

 ____________________

While gun control mania grips the United States, your government has been busy arming Libyan and Syrian terrorists (Mideast folly: U.S. arms find their way to Islamic extremists):

"[T]he Obama administration decided instead to provide arms, or money or other materiel translatable into arms, to the Libyan and Syrian oppositions through third parties.

"The instruments chosen were Sunni Muslim Persian Gulf monarchies Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates"

In a Catch-22, the U.S. has been opposing radicals for the last decade (in Afghanistan and Iraq), except where we support them (in place of, "Libyan and Syrian oppositions," put, "Islamic militants often affiliated with al-Qaeda".) We want stricter background checks and copious paper trails when selling guns to American citizens, while in the Middle East handing out assault rifles to any open hand claiming to be an insurgent.

We are against anti-government militias in the U.S., while supporting the same abroad in their activities against our once, erstwhile friendly regimes, like Qadaffi's Libya and Assad's Syria.  It's all so 1776, unless one wakes up and realizes what that actually implies.

Our friends and foes alike know one truth: the U.S. speaks with forked tongue.

Boring David

 We make her bear and raise our children
And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only place she should be
Then we complain that she's too unworldly to be our friend 
--Woman is the Nigger of the World, Yoko Ono 

Opposites attract 
It's physical 
Only logical 
--What's Love Got to do With It? 
Tina Turner 

Shame he's just this fallen idol 
Shattered like some broken glass 
Shame he's just this fallen idol 
Bits of paper for his past 
--Fallen Idol, The Tears

__________________

The saga of General Petraeus is neither surprising, novel, creative, nor sublime.  It is rather boring, sadly common and a mockery of the high-flown concepts like honor codes that supposedly guide the best of us.  It makes life a little more grotty.

It is also incompatible with membership in religious organizations, like Christianity (Though Christianity has a unique "Get of Jail Free" card which may be the loophole through which these "sinners" go; the idea will be developed in a later post.)  When we violate our bedrock codes at whim, what holds?

The story of Mr. Petraeus and his sex partner is nothing special in the pathetic annals of human behavior.  He and his wife will move on, as most people do, their lives a little more lackluster for wear, the weight of misery in the world ever-so-slightly re-weighted.  The sadly amusing thing to me is, religious people (as most Americans count themselves) have recourse to a rule book for good behavior, in this case: Thou shalt not commit adultery.  What would bite is if the good General issues a statement to the effect (as most upstanding people do) that his faith will bring him through this. No-- foul play: You are either All In, or you are out; do not invoke faith when you have forsaken it.

Reading the user comments following media coverage of the Petraeus story one sees the bifurcation in society.  Roughly half charge those who are disappointed in Mr. Petraeus with parochialism: "Everyone does it; get over it."  (There are permutations which alternately blame the wife for not being a pneumatic sex kitten and sympathize with his military life -- "It must get lonely".)  The other half hold up for the sanctity of marriage and the goodness of commitment, trust and all the other things that give comfort and safe harbor from life's storms

Count me with the latter group, parochial and seeking relationships as known quantities.  Not boring, my energy is not gotten from frenetic hook ups and "variety"; that drains me.  Looking at Petraeus or any man like him I think, what you have isn't very good.  Why the age-old impulse to take the swan dive?  Why do so few of us maintain something good? (Roll it back a few steps: Why do we not choose for the good at the get-go, groom it and revel in our good fortune?)

One answer is that The Good is different for all, despite the one-size fits all of religious or doctrinal creed. There are many ways to go in this world.  All that is required is that you make a choice, and that you honestly share that choice if you have a partner(s) running shotgun.  Immaculate honesty is the lubricant which best oils the wheels of any relationship.  

Having intimately known both behavioral styles (secretive versus direct, monogamous versus polygamous), the safe harbor, for me, is honesty.  Again, it all depends on your predilections and temperament.  If you need the hurricane and find the insane whirlwind stimulating, choose for it.  Or go be a deep-sea diver or drive race cars to satisfy your need for speed.  But the thing you do not get to do in good conscience is to take a lamb and behave like a wolf if you belong to a relational system based upon expectations of fealty.

When choosing for adultery your crime is betraying the others trust and rattling her belief system, nothing more, nothing less.  Your god is not surprised; he's already written you off as a sinner.  You have accomplished nothing rarefied or good.  Why not honestly go play in the shallow, crowded end of the pool, where there's fun aplenty and no entangling alliances?  The majority of people do not choose for the (openly) hedonic lifestyle because we have a sense that society would not long stand a majority who live by the creed, "More for me, and damn the rest."  What's good for you, if gotten at the others expense, is destructive.

We know eventually we'd get a stiletto in the back, so many of us make bargains, superficially making commitments that we do not intend to keep.  Those people keep a second and third book of accounts, thinking to hide something, because they have a sense of wrongdoing.  But the salvation for the rest of us is, their game eventually outs, maybe later than sooner, and wreckage will be the harvest.  But the marvelous thing about humans is their resiliency and ability to learn; the next wolf will be easier to spot.

An adjutant thought to this story is my disappointment in the media cabal over the last several years to convince us the marriage is passe, cheating, the norm.  While some of the studies upon which the latter assertion was predicated have been discredited, the stories persist and proliferate.  What is the agenda for downgrading these ideas which have allowed civil society to flourish?  Probably there is a political agenda, but that too is for another discussion.

Good luck to you, Mr. Petraeus.  I won't be looking at your or your lover's book.  And the wonder continues: When will we ever learn?

Where is the Love?

Where is the love
You said you'd give to me
Soon as you were free
Will it ever be
--Where is the Love?,
Roberta Flack

We shall not cease from our exploring
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And to know the place for the first time
--Little Gidding, T. S. Eliot

Ranger Question of the Day:
If a MANPAD is fired by a female soldier,
does it then become a FEMPAD?
_________________

One must wonder, is anyone is watching the military stores?

In Iraq, the U.S. had no plans to secure the munitions, ASP's after the shooting stopped. The result of this negligence supplied the wherewithal for an entire armed response to the U.S. occupation of the country.

Our soldiers died because our command structure failed to foresee this problem. This was a colossal screw up often called by the Church, a "sin of omission".

MANPADS are man portable air defense, shoulder-fired, heat-seeking missiles. When the Soviets left Afghanistan the Central Intelligence Agency bought back all the red-eye type anti-aircraft missiles that we so obligingly once gave them. Accordingly, the millions that we spent on this buy-back program was instrumental in financing the Taliban's campaign to dominate Afghanistan.

Here we are in 2011 after a lot of sand has passed under the bridge, and we find ourselves coming full-circle. The U.S. / NATO has just helped the Libyan revolutionary movement overthrow the Big Bad Wolf Moammer Qadaffi, without considering the ASP's and stored weaponry of the dictator's regime. After blindly providing the muscle to depose Qadaffi, the U.S. is having to pay for the privilege by buying back all the MANPADS (or worrying where they have gone, which is probably into the hands of terrorists -- our own Big Bad Wolves.)

Why didn't any of the himbos on any major staff consider this eventuality? Where was the Central Intelligence Agency and the DIA? Do the personnel of these agencies inhabit the same universe as the rest of us mere mortals?

The failure to address this issue us unforgivable, and brings yet another issue to the fore. Let us think "capabilities and intent" once again. Is it possible that the U.S. is being sold a bill of goods with the hullabaloo of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), and the "facts" are merely hyperbolic propaganda aimed at keeping Army Strong going?

With Iraq, if Saddam was such a bad customer, then why did he not use weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) against U.S. troops in either Gulf War I or II? Why does no one ask the question? U.S. troops were clustered and ideal targets for all the supposed WMDs that United Nations Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said Saddam did not possess. Where was the dictator's malevolence? Was it a lack of intent or a shortage of capability? Both, or neither?

In Libya, if Qadaffi had all of these reported MANPADS, why did he not use them reactively? Why did he not send teams to commit international mayhem, teams that could shoot down commercial aircraft? Did he lack these contingency plans? Did he lack intent or capability? In both the Iraqi and the Libyan scenarios, the supposed threats do not hold up to a realistic appraisal.

In the world as it exists, there are MANPADS on the loose that are capable of attacking the major airways of the world. The only requirement is a gunner and a weapon on the flight path of a commercial aircraft. Another analysis will see them infiltrated to the Afghan skies and utilized to depredate U.S. tactical flights. This is a likely course of action.

Whatever the outcome of this scenario, the troubling question of incompetence continually raises its ugly little head in our endless war.

It is strong-armed robbery when the U.S. provides free bombing support and then and is then extorted to pay for the destruction of MANPADS. Someone is embezzling someone here.

Spring Forward, Fall Back

You say yes, I say no
You say stop and I say go, go, go
Oh, no
You say goodbye and I say hello
--Hello Goodbye, the Beatles

The only thing I'm guilty of
is burning gas
--Silvertown, John Gorka

If one place is as good as any other,
it's high time we decided.
Otherwise when we get there,
we won't know we've arrived
--Dr. Doolittle (1967)
_____________________

Subtitle: Oppression is the New Freedom.

Republicans like Joe Lieberman (yeah, you) are attacking President Obama for his pledge to withdraw all troops from Iraq by year's end (Lieberman Slams Obama on Existing Iraq). But Obama will only be honoring a treaty negotiated by the Bush administration with the Iraqi government.

Is Lieberman proposing violating a treaty which he signed? Is he delusional? Additionally, doesn't the Iraqi government have any say in the matter? Is that not the definition of sovereignty?

A few pages away is the story that many police jobs in municipalities throughout the U.S. will go unfilled for want of funds.

USAToday reports:

By year's end, nearly 12,000 police officers will have lost their jobs, and 30,000 positions in county and municipal departments will go unfilled, both direct consequences of a faltering economy that has forced deep cuts in local government budgets.

The sweeping reductions, outlined in a Justice Department review to be delivered today to the nation's police chiefs meeting in Chicago, put law enforcement on pace for its first job decline in 25 years.

"'The effects of the economic downturn on law enforcement agencies may be felt for the next five to 10 years, or worse, permanently,'' the report concluded, adding that the days when local governments allocated up to 50% of their budgets for public safety are 'no longer a fiscal possibility'" (Economic woes take toll on U.S. police departments).

Connection?

The U.S. cannot muster $35 million in a jobs bill to help cities hire Five-O's stateside -- maybe the cost of a minute of the war in Iraq. Yet we are supposed to dig deep for $Billions we don't have for protection in our cities to give to continue funding police in the Iraq snafu, this after funding a costly and futile Libyan venture that Congress never even bothered to authorize. Which brings us back to the concept of democracy.

Look at women in any of the "Libya Liberation declared" photos and you will see nary an uncovered head or body. The liberators-nee-brutes are reinstating Sharia law as Job 1, which means among other things, four and only four wives per man, per the Quran. It just doesn't jibe with jibberish we spout about democratization and women's rights, and yada yada.

Why, in our time of need -- or any time -- is the U.S. supporting Islamic revolutions which will form Sharia theocracies? Money doesn't grow on date trees in an oasis. We are not England, and being colonial greatly conflicts with being democratic; it is like being a pushmi-pullyu from Dr. Doolittle. At the very best, one arrives at a stalemate. And look where England ended up; pretty knackered.
Democracy in the Middle East is a desert mirage.

Libyarators

Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We're marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
--Springtime for Hitler, The Producers

Do you no good to go poking around
under rocks, Justin.
Some very nasty things live under rocks,
especially in foreign gardens
--The Constant Gardner (2005)
__________________

Subtitle: New Thugs on the Block

Everybody is up in arms about the Obambarator unilaterally declaring war in the Libya miasmasphere. The furor revolves around the War Powers Act and the constitutional strictures regarding presidential employment of the Armed Forces of the United States.

The question is not, "Is the military action in Libya constitutional?" but rather, "Is it legal?"Further, is there anything of value to accrue to the U.S. as a result of this action? If Moammer Qaddafi is deposed, a new Moammer, or a coalition of Moammer's, will replace him.

We are violating a bedrock military principle in Libya, to wit: "Don't mistake movement for progress." There is no replacement for Mr. Qaddafi even if we do topple him. And how many more years will the U.S. spend grooming the next nutjob?

Why do we employ our assets in the Middle East every time some new thug throws a hand grenade? "Arab Spring" sounds fresh -- like a bar of green deodorant soap -- but spring doesn't mean the same thing for everybody. In some gardens, it's sunflowers; in others, turnips. An old saying goes: Don't plant radishes and expect turnips (Eastern European, as you can imagine.) A good gardener knows he must check soil conditions, weather, seeds and pests before planting and expecting a good yield. The U.S. is dropping Liberty Bombs expecting a lush yield, but that is a fool's errand.

Is it U.S. policy to do something simply because we can? If so, then we should elect teenagers as our leaders (it seems often, we do.) Lisa once asked a friend's 6-year-old who was behaving badly, "Why are you so bad?" To which the bright lad offered, "Because I can be!" He knew his unbridled power, and wielded it indiscriminately. The U.S. is behaving much the same in its war policy.

President Lincoln asked General McClellan in the Civil War, General, if you are not using the Army, can I borrow it? Not only is Obama borrowing the Army to continue Mr. Bush's ill-advised adventures, but he is now extending the U.S.'s presence into new theaters; moreover, there is no Army from which to borrow in Libya, unlike the cover of the marginal Armies available in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We own scraps of paper indicating our exit dates from the first two engagements, but who can believe the U.S. will not leave troops in either country if they request we extend our presence to aid in their cause?

That is what our Army now does: Protect everyone and everything, except America.

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?

Libyarators

If we have to use force,
it is because we are America
--Madeleine Albright

I was the only guy with
any bit of anarchy left
--Sid Vicious
_____________________

Is tyranny preferable to anarchy? Since the U.S. is supporting rebels in Libya who are an unknown quantity, this is a valid question.

Just War theory suggest tyranny is preferable to anarchy as it better serves the greater good. In President Bush's view (and that of many others), democracy is the highest good, and war a legitimate way to emplace it. However, war is greatly destructive to a society, and order is not the inevitable result; descent into anarchy is just as plausible an outcome.

Let us consider the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when the U.S. supported the Afghan Mujahadeen against the Russians. We gave them everything except tactical nukes, and the Mujahadeen kicked some Russian ass. Mission accomplished, but not quite.

Throwing out the tyrannical Russians and their puppet government was the easy part. The toughie was the descent of the Afghan nation into an anarchic orgy leading ultimately to the enmeshment of the U.S. in endless war, beyond the wildest dreams of even Osama bin Laden (that guy.)

Yes, the dirty, nasty Russian were gone, to be replaced by the dirty, nasty Taliban. So, where the progress?

The same question should apply to U.S. intervention in Libya.

Deconstruction

You made me promises, promises
You knew you'd never keep
Promises, promises
Why do I believe?
--Promises, Promises, Naked Eyes

I beg your pardon,
I never promised you a rose garden.
Along with the sunshine,
There's gotta be a little rain sometimes
--I Never Promised You a Rose Garden,
The Suicide Machines
___________________

Much like dealing with a squirrely person, reading the news today requires considerable skill at verbal jousting. Take the Associated Press's recent, "US to give Libyan rebels non-lethal aid":

"President Barack Obama intends to use his so-called drawdown authority to give the opposition, led by the Transitional National Council in Benghazi, up to $25 million in surplus American goods to help protect civilians in rebel-held areas threatened by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's forces."

The previous graph says those surplus goods could be "cash and possibly weapons and ammunition". Okey-dokey -- so "weapons and ammunition" = "non-lethal aid"? Oh, and "cash" would be a "surplus American good"? Right-on . . . so, where I can get me some of that surplus?

To "help protect civilians in rebel-held areas threatened by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's forces": So, rebels/insurrectionists are now "civilians"? We wouldn't be protecting the rebels, would we? Because we don't usually like rebels; they tend to de-center tenuous American puppet regimes.

"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton . . . said the aid would go to support the council and 'our efforts to protect civilians and the civilian populated areas that are under threat of attack from their own government in Libya.'"

Ummm ... isn't it the other way 'round?!? This is not a very esoteric chicken-and-egg question.

"'This opposition, which has held its own against a brutal assault by the Gadhafi forces was not an organized militia,' [Clinton] said. 'It was not a group that had been planning to oppose the rule of Gadhafi for years. It was a spontaneous response within the context of the broader Arab spring. These are mostly business people, students, lawyers, doctors, professors who have very bravely moved to defend their communities and to call for an end to the regime in Libya.'"

Well, when you put it that way -- just a bunch of good guys, like lawyers and professors (presumably not of the William Ayers stripe.) Not ruffians or hoodlums. It was just one of those things y'know, and surprisingly, their government has moved to squelch an internal rebellion. Golly, I'm sure the U.S. government wouldn't do such a thing to rebels here at home. (Right -- Ruby Ridge and Waco were just mild overreactions to some unusual people.)

Yup, close-readings required these days. It helps if you've had a logic class, too.

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?

In Mind Country

We will have to repent in this generation
not merely for the vitriolic words and actions
of the bad people,
but for the appalling silence of the good people
--Martin Luther King, Jr.

Have a very good reason for everything you do
--Laurence Olivier
____________________

From Special Forces: The Changing Face of Warfare -- "Watts appreciated that however much the policy of hearts and minds might weaken the enemy, it would never destroy him" [Lloyd, p.109] Note for 2011 Pentagon warriors: they are speaking of the enemy, for one need not win the hearts and minds (H & M) of friends, an obvious but little emphasized point.

This got Ranger thinking about his particular neuroses and psychoses that add up to his personality, and how they meet the erosion of sanity in U.S. policy in his lifetime. Specifically, the run-up to our current imbroglios, Gulf War I which turned a local oil and terrain squabble between two absurdist states into a coalition to liberate Kuwait from oppression.

During the time of that campaign Ranger was in a Department of Veterans Affairs-sponsored therapy group for PTSD veterans; all were Vietnam veterans except the facilitator, bought and paid for by DVA. He was a non-veteran academic pretending to understand our points of view.

To my memory, the facilitator and most groupies were Gung-ho about the new war, forgetting the fact that all of us were fractured by a similar war 20 years prior. One ooh-rah group member, K-2 -- an SOF/130 Aircraft Gunship type -- was fine until a 130 AC was shot down and all aboard killed. My comment was, "They got what they were dishing out," which earned me an expulsion from the group for being TOO HOSTILE, which according to the PTSD diagnosis is a common attribute of the disorder.

What has this got to do with H & M? In Gulf War I, H & M were not discussed; we just killed the hell out of Iraqis and everyone cheered, even PTSD-plagued veterans. But in Gulf War II we have vacillated between H & M-ing them and Seven Six Two-ing them, all the while hailing the validity of Counterinsurgency policy (COIN). (So successful were we that the Iraqi parliament recently affirmed that Hammurabi's Code was in accordance with Sharia law, and the COIN actually predates the Christian bible; Ranger is undercutting Glenn Beck's comeback here.)

Point is, H & M is a con job perpetrated upon the U.S. taxpayer but we're too myopically-focused on the back streets of the Arab world to see this. Enter Libya -- the most recently discovered Arab ne'er -do-well -- and the U.S. does not even attempt to win the H & M of Qaddafi loyalists (our erstwhile, sort-of, friends.) So the U.S. bombs and presumably later will give the H & M shtick a go. When will the U.S. military realize is not very good at this H & M thing; they did not win mine, and they will not win the enemy's.

Where is the sanity in selectively employing a failed policy in an insane world? We have a fiction called COIN and it does not win H & M, and we have a policy called bombing that does not win low-intensity conflict, guerrilla wars or wars of rebellion.

Expecting otherwise is like willing time to run backwards and hoping Saigon is not Ho Chi Minh City.

Frenchified

--Burqua, Joep Bertrams

It's hard to start a revolution. Even harder to continue it.
And hardest of all to win it.
But, it's only afterwards, when we have won,
that the true difficulties begin.
--The Battle Of Algiers (1966)

Cause you're hot then you're cold
You're yes then you're no
You're in and you're out
You're up and you're down
--Hot N Cold, Katy Perry
__________________

Frenchification. In the South it means adding prefixes and/or suffixes onto given names to make them sound more interesting and, well, French: LaToya, Sha'niquia, Telethia, LaShawndra, etc. It can also be re-purposing a word with a slight tweak, like "Beyoncé" for "fiancé" (which won't work if you pronounce it like Holly Hunter in Raising Arizona.)

Frenchification is also happening to the Libyan Civil War/Rebellion (or, whatever you call it.) Any name will do since the whole shooting match is as organized as a Chinese fire drill. But my point is, while French bombs are supporting Libyan Islamist Revolutionaries in North Africa/Libya, they are at the same time denying Islamic fundamentalist immigrants to wear the niqab and burqua in public places in France.

This contradiction sums up the whole ball game. We Westerners support them, except when we do not, when they do not conform to our societal expectations. Ranger does not care what the French do or how they do it, but when the U.S. puts its eggs in a French basket, they'll end up cracked into the souffle they're making.

Do we forget that in the 1960's France renounced the military wing of NATO? In 1986, they refused to allow U.S. warplanes to overfly French territory when U.S. planes were bombing Libya? Are the French in, or are they out, and how will we know?

The French strike us as the proverbial leaky vessel: they support you to the top, until they do not. Come to think of it, this ambivalent behavior is an apt description of U.S. foreign policy since 1945.

Stirring the Pot

Is you is, or is you ain't my baby?
Won't you tell me please, I gotta know
--Is You Is, or Is You Ain't My Baby?
--Billy Austin

Hey, you, get off of my cloud
Don't hang around 'cause two's a crowd
on my cloud, baby
--Get Off of My Cloud, Rolling Stones

If you don't know where you're going,
any road'll do
--English saying
____________________

The games the politicians play are disconnected from the results of their policies, which are always strapped to the backs of the citizens, trusty mules we are. If they would only lead, versus politick.

Would anyone 60 years ago have imagined the Fantasyland that government policies have wrought? Does it matter that we won a Cold War when we are now devolving into Iron Curtain status ourselves?

Does it matter that Afghanistan and Iraq are free and democratic (sort of?) Did it really matter if Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)? Does it really matter that there is an al-Qaeda hostile to America? Do we realize that our own policies are hostile, and that WE export violence?

Do we realize that our Department of Defense policies add to the drain of dollars from our domestic lives? Our military policies adversely affect our economy and our people, and to what benefit? And to what detriment?

Now the U.S. has gone from assuming the onus of "protecting" rebels to supplying said rebels in Libya so that they may take out the sovereign leader of their nation. Iraqi and Afghani rebels: BAD; Libyan rebels: GOOD. Why are we meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations? Who was President Obama to tell Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek to step down? Our President is not president of the world.

Do we know what Democracy is about anymore, or are we are just deluding ourselves? If the reason for going into Libya is to protect the "innocent" civilians who are anti- Gaddafi from his brutal army and secret police, why are we not doing the same to Iran, Syria or any of the other states that are oppressing their peoples? The U.S. never lifted a finger to protect the protesters in Iran or Syria, so why Libya. Seems one rule for some and another for others.

Our venture into Libya will only incur the wrath of Gaddafi's supporters and help al-Qaeda consolidate power. It's a lose-lose scenario. Despite the exhortations of John Kerry and crew, air intervention in Libya is military intervention and arming the rebels is foolhardy and short-sighted. How many times has the U.S. armed the rebels only to see them become our eventual enemies? The unasked question is, if we arm the rebels now, at conflict's end will we be able to disarm them?

Why has the U.S. betrayed it's neutral hand and not simply urged Tunisia, Egypt and Libya toward a peaceful and bloodless outcome? When did we become instigators rather than negotiators for a regime change.

The U.S. has lost it's way, and the clarion calls to 9-11 grow fainter by the day.

--Lisa and Jim