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?

4 Dead in Ohio

This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper
--The Hollow Men, T.S. Eliot

What you do speaks so loudly
that I cannot hear what you say
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

All the stories have been told
Of kings and days of old,
But there's no England now.
All the wars that were won and lost
Somehow don't seem to matter
very much anymore
--Living on a Thin Line,
The Kinks

If I listened long enough to you
I'd find a way to believe that it's all true
--A Reason to Believe, Tim Hardin
________________

While U.S. warplanes are supporting Libyan rebels, democracy is shriveling to a husk on Pennsylvania Avenue:

"More than 100 anti-war protesters, including the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers {Daniel Ellsberg], were arrested outside the White House in demonstrations marking the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led war in Iraq."

"Hundreds of protesters attended the rally and marched around the White House, but the crowd — which included many military veterans — thinned considerably as the U.S. Park Police warned that they’d be arrested if they didn’t move. As officers moved in with handcuffs, one protester who clutched the gates outside the White House shouted, 'Don’t arrest them! Arrest Obama!” and “You’re arresting veterans, not war criminals!'" (Anti-war activists arrested near White House as they mark 8th anniversary of start of Iraq War.)

Ellsberg, former military analyst who leaked what became the Pentagon Papers in 1971, participated in a similar protest last year, but the MSM decided it was not important enough to cover, and the story was covered only by foreign press, NPR and blogs.

U.S. taxpayers are buying bombs which support Libyan rebels defying their government via armed rebellion -- a fact alone which betrays democracy in action. The rebels are part of the violence equation, and the U.S. is amping up that violence, hardly a definition of peacekeeping.

The hypocrisy is deafening. The U.S. became involved in airstrikes over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians. This has now morphed into possibly providing these rebels munitions with which they may kill members of their sovereign government. What sense is that? Killing is killing.

We support a revolution abroad, while arresting U.S. citizens at home for exercising the rights of free citizens. The right is that of peaceful assembly to express a legitimate viewpoint -- that of anti-war sentiment. Peaceful protest is punished, but damn the torpedoes for violent protest.

Why do we commingle with the violence of the Libyan rebellion while denying rights to our own citizens?