Tag: civil war

Memorial Day 2024

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

For nearly a decade now many have seemingly invited strife and battle into our lives. Many young, many old, have never learned or have forgot the bloodstained horrors of civil war. They, like those summer soldiers of 1861, have the look of, have the sound of pleading for violent revolution, and they, like the civil warriors of 1861 believe it will all be over and decided by next Christmas. So strong do they believe themselves to be; one marvels at the confidence that only self pride can muster from those who know nothing of war, war up close, cheek by jowl, bleeding into each other. There’s a certain feeling of inevitability about it, as though they have their eyes set of it as a prize that they’ll surely win. Yet, the ending of it all, should it come, will certainly, as do all ravenous conflits, resemble this instead:

Disabled
BY WILFRED OWEN

He sat in a wheeled chair, waiting for dark,
And shivered in his ghastly suit of grey,
Legless, sewn short at elbow. Through the park
Voices of boys rang saddening like a hymn,
Voices of play and pleasure after day,
Till gathering sleep had mothered them from him.

About this time Town used to swing so gay
When glow-lamps budded in the light-blue trees, 
And girls glanced lovelier as the air grew dim,—
In the old times, before he threw away his knees.
Now he will never feel again how slim
Girls’ waists are, or how warm their subtle hands,
All of them touch him like some queer disease.

There was an artist silly for his face,
For it was younger than his youth, last year.
Now, he is old; his back will never brace;
He’s lost his colour very far from here,
Poured it down shell-holes till the veins ran dry,
And half his lifetime lapsed in the hot race 
And leap of purple spurted from his thigh.

 One time he liked a blood-smear down his leg,
After the matches carried shoulder-high.
It was after football, when he’d drunk a peg,
He thought he’d better join. He wonders why.
Someone had said he’d look a god in kilts.
That’s why; and maybe, too, to please his Meg,
Aye, that was it, to please the giddy jilts,
He asked to join. He didn’t have to beg;
Smiling they wrote his lie: aged nineteen years.
Germans he scarcely thought of, all their guilt,
And Austria’s, did not move him. And no fears
Of Fear came yet. He thought of jewelled hilts
For daggers in plaid socks; of smart salutes;
And care of arms; and leave; and pay arrears;
Esprit de corps; and hints for young recruits.
And soon, he was drafted out with drums and cheers.

Some cheered him home, but not as crowds cheer Goal.
Only a solemn man who brought him fruits
Thanked him; and then inquired about his soul.

Now, he will spend a few sick years in institutes,
And do what things the rules consider wise,
And take whatever pity they may dole.
Tonight he noticed how the women’s eyes
Passed from him to the strong men that were whole.
How cold and late it is! Why don’t they come
And put him into bed? Why don’t they come?

Newt Gingrich, Somersault Artist

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

March 29, 2011

Newt “Gingo” Gingrich launched himself from the springboard on March 7, when Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked what he would do about Gaddafi’s use of heavy weapons and deadly force against peaceful demonstrators. “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening,” he replied. “All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening.”

His first somersault came on March 23, days after the U.N.-authorized military intervention had begun. You’d think he might applaud the operation — enforcement of a no-fly zone and attacks on Gaddafi’s armored columns, all in an attempt to protect civilians from an impending massacre — since that was what he had suggested. But you’d be wrong. “I would not have intervened,” he told NBC’s Matt Lauer. “I would not have used American and European forces, bombing Arabs and that country.” The next day, he elaborated “We are not in a position to go around the world every time there’s a local problem and intervene,” he told Fox.

But then on the following Saturday, at an appearance in Iowa, he spun to what looked suspiciously like his original position, arguing that the United States and its allies should “defeat Gaddafi as rapidly as possible.”

Gingo Confuses Gingo. Gingrich seems to be having a particularly heated argument with himself over the whole “air power” thing. On March 7, pro-intervention Newt declared: “We don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress [Gaddafi’s] air force, which we could do in minutes.” On March 24, anti-intervention Newt scoffed to Fox: “If they’re serious about protecting civilians, you can’t do that from the air. . . . This is a fundamental mistake, and I think is a typical politician’s overreliance on air power.” On March 26, defeat-Gaddafi-rapidly Newt said that vanquishing the dictator should involve “using all of Western air power as decisively as possible.”

In a rare understatement, Gingrich acknowledged Saturday that “obviously there were contradictions” in his various statements. Typically, however, he defended them all.

The fact that he had appeared to take so many sides of the issue, he claimed, was somehow Obama’s fault. Just like not intervening was Obama’s fault, intervening was Obama’s fault, and whatever the allies are doing with air power was Obama’s fault.

Obama moved painstakingly toward committing U.S. forces to the Libya intervention, first securing a U.N. mandate, some measure of support from Arab nations and a guarantee of meaningful involvement by our European allies. He thought about the precedent this kind of humanitarian military action might set. He tried to assess how the other beleaguered autocrats in the region might react to U.S. action or inaction. Leave aside, for the moment, whether Obama made the right call. At least he tried. Gingrich, by contrast, reflexively shoots from the lip. On any conceivable subject, he’s always ready to tell you more than he knows. He is certain that his view is 100 percent right — until he decides it’s 100 percent wrong.

I realize his criticism of Obama from all sides of the Libya question is fundamentally a political tactic — go on the attack, make a lot of noise, attract some attention. But his cavalier recklessness on a matter of war and peace should send chills up the spine of anyone who sees the words “Newt Gingrich” and “presidential candidate” in the same sentence. Heaven help us.

As You Know, Newt Gingrich Will Say ANYTHING!

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

March 22, 2011

The March 2011 They Will Say ANYTHING! Award for Valor.  As soon as the Libya no fly zone was established, I said to my long-suffering wife, Sue, “Just watch what’ll happen. Every Republican who was for a no fly zone will now be against the no fly zone.” She sighed, and then, as always, whispered “Please, go away.”

Anyway, I’d planned to look around for no fly zone (NFZ) flip flop examples but got involved in other blog entries and then fell back onto my habit of general laziness, so that was that. I had occasion to recall my prediction and discovered that among the many GOP bloviators one stood out like a clown’s red nose on a horse: Newt Gingrich. This is the Newt who, prior to our establishing the NFZ with a coalition including the UK, France, Qatar, and the UAE, actively supported the NFZ in every media forum that would put up with him. He went as far as suggesting that the United States undertake the NFZ without allies; just do it, said Newt. He was aghast that President Obama wouldn’t act. Gingo had courage! Then, of course, we did act. And, as day follows night, Gingo struck out on a new path, i.e., the NFZ is the most idiotic idea of the idiotic Obama administration! Newt ceaselessly self-promotes as a technology futuristic guru. So, is he unaware that video and audio can be saved for posterity? Is he truly so inept and stupid that he doesn’t realize he flip flopped on the NFZ? Did he really believe he would not be taken to task for it?

The Real Answers Are Not Necessarily Reality Based.  How does one explain this apparent self-immolation, this immense self-destruction? It’s simple, he knows that his national constituency will not merely accept his new position against the NFZ, Newt knows that the base will accept both opposing positions equally. The goal here, among his supporters, is to defeat Obama in 2012, and, in the meantime, to render his presidency ineffective. The means to do so rely upon keeping unrelenting negative pressure on the President, and the key word is “unrelenting.” As in never stop. As in oppose Obama on everything. As in he was wrong to not impose an NFZ; and he was equally wrong to impose an NFZ. Who knows what position Gingroid really supports? As far as the GOP far right is concerned, who cares? (How this Newtonian misbehavior can impress independent voters I’ll never know, and Newt’ll need them in 2012 . . .)

Past Is Prologue. I wrote more on the phenomenon of far right/far left propaganda in a March 12, 2011 article, Public Sector Union Bashing: Lies, Damn Lies, And CrossroadsGPS.org.

“For Rove and other propagandists (right and left), their audience, their “base,” exists to be manipulated without mercy, regardless of their collective needs. To the Rove’s of this world, manipulation is an amoral activity, it is simply a practical necessity to gain and retain political and economic power for themselves or for their clients. Yet, one can’t succeed at manipulation without knowing one’s audience very well. And they do.

“Most often, and usually through no fault of their own, many in Rove’s anti-union base are unsophisticated, under-educated, hidebound fans of FOX Newsiness, suspicious of joint action to assist anyone but their inner circle of family and friends, and just plain angry at modernity and the received history of recent times. It’s likely that the average person in the Rovian base (1) will not investigate the Crossroads GPS anti-union claims, or examine Bob Chanin’s NEA speech, and (2) will not believe any “liberal” blowback they may accidentally hear or read. Rove knows they are allergic to anything not already believed. He has, after all, been one of their principal cattle dogs, keeping them in the herd, yapping and biting at their heels and flanks, keeping them voting for politicians and policies that, for most of his base, are genuinely against their interests, and the interests of their children.”

Finally, I wrote:

“Never, Never Plead Guilty! In closing, here’s an expert demonstration of the use of another arrow in the propagandist’s quiver, complete denial. Once caught in a preposterous lie, they most often simply do not admit it, and, most importantly, and with bravado and bravura, they continue to stay on the message, the lie, and misrepresentation advances.

Let’s keep tuned to the Newt Gingrich frequency. Watch how he denies that there are any inconsistencies whatever in his two No Fly Zone positions. He’s so oddly good at this, we’ll almost believe him.

The Libyan No Fly Zone – Is Abstinence the Best Policy? Russia and China Say “Yes”

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

March 20, 2011

Silence. Not Golden.  On March 17th, the Libyan No Fly Zone resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1973 passed the UN Security Council 10-0 with five abstentions. Abstaining were all four of the so-called BRIC countries: Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, and China, with Germany as the fifth abstainer, in all, they represent 3.3 billion people, 48% of the world’s population. And they all chose to remain officially abstinent when it came to a vote, neither approving, nor disapproving UNSC Resolution 1973. However, when the UN ambassadors of countries representing nearly 50% of the masses goes silent, and when two of them, Russia and China are permanent members, something needs explaining. And explain they did.

Membership In 2011

The UN Security Council Is Composed Of Five Permanent Members — China, France, Russian Federation, The United Kingdom And The United States — And Ten Non-Permament Members (With Year Of Term’s End):

Bosnia And Herzegovina (2011)
Brazil (2011)
Colombia (2012)
Gabon (2011)
Germany (2012)
India (2012)
Lebanon (2011)
Nigeria (2011)
Portugal (2012)
South Africa (2012)

China’s Shout Across the Bow.  Following the vote, China’s UN Ambassador Li Baodong, explained his abstention to the People’s Daily.

“The continuing worsening of the situation in Libya has the great concern of China. We support the Security Council’s adoption of appropriate and necessary action to stabilize as soon as possible the situation in Libya and to halt acts of violence against civilians. In the Security Council’s consultations on Resolution 1973, we and some other council members asked some specific questions. However, regrettably, many of those questions failed to be clarified or answered. China has serious difficulty with part of the resolution. Meanwhile, China attaches great importance to the relevant decision by the 22-member Arab league on the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya. We also attach great importance to the position of African countries and the African Union.

“In view of this and considering the special circumstance surrounding the situation in Libya, China abstained during the vote on the resolution, Resolution 1973. We support the secretary-general’s special envoy for Libya and the African Union and the Arab League in their continuing efforts to address by peaceful means the current crisis in Libya.”

Russia’s Shout Across the Bow.  To Pravda.org, the UN envoy of the Russian Federation, Vitaly Churkin, explained Russia’s position on the No Fly Zone resolution:

“We strongly support the consistent and unconditional protection of civilians. According to this principle and essential humanitarian values Russia shares with co-authors of the project and other members of the Security Council, Russia has not stopped its adoption.”  Citing the failure of the Security Council to answer Russia’s questions about the resolution, Churkin mentioned that the “absolutely logical and specific questions regarding maintenance of the exclusion zone area had no response.”

Pravda’s reporter, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, wrote:

“[Churkin] stated that work on the resolution was not in tune with the practice of the Security Council, with many questions remaining unanswered, including how it would be enforced and by whom, and what are the terms of engagement. His country did not prevent the adoption of the resolution, but he was convinced that an immediate ceasefire would be the best way to prevent loss of life. Russia, in fact, had pressed for an earlier resolution calling for a cease-fire that could have saved many more lives. Cautioning against unforeseen consequences, he stressed that there was a need to avoid destabilizing the region.

“Russia thus did not veto the draft resolution because she wanted to act according to the basic principles of the UN including the protection of civilians, said Vitaly Churkin. However, he also said that another resolution, proposed by the Russian Federation on March 16, on the need to appeal for a ceasefire in Libya has not, unfortunately, “received support from other partners more interested in measures of force. The final document has nothing to do with the original that was proposed, which contained references to a large-scale military intervention, which the Russian Federation and its partners (Germany, Brazil, China PR, India) avoided.”

UN Report.  The United Nations Security Council released an unofficial record summary of the session that approved the resolution.  The report included a one paragraph item featuring China and Russia. It tracks well with the comments to the People’s Daily and Pravda cited above:

“The representatives of China and the Russian Federation, explaining their abstentions, prioritized peaceful means of resolving the conflict and said that many questions had not been answered in regard to provisions of the resolution, including, as the Russian representative put it, how and by whom the measures would be enforced and what the limits of the engagement would be. He said the resolution included a sorely needed ceasefire, which he had called for earlier. China had not blocked the action with a negative vote in consideration of the wishes of the Arab League and the African Union, its representative said.”

The Oh My Zone.  We’ll see where this so-called No Fly Zone leads – will the coalition implementation, in the view of China and Russia, become so aggressive and destructive that both countries will raise their objections to a higher level?  And what of the Arab League, Brazil, Germany, and India? As mentioned above, these five countries (and now, with the Arab League included) represent well more than 50% of the world’s population and possess vast diplomatic and economic resources. Would, for example, extreme violence against Libya under the resolution, with its unavoidable civilian casualties, reopen the Middle East to more energetic Russian influence? Would China play its economic card to rein in the United States and others now heavily indebted to them? Or, quite to the contrary, is it possible that China would quietly applaud our being lost in another Middle Eastern desert and thus unable to compete effectively in the global commercial and economic contest? And should oil exports from the Middle East be reduced, to manipulate European policies, would cash-strapped Russia use its vast oil resources: proved reserves – 8th worldwide? European importers include Italy, France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Germany imports, by far, the most Russian crude, 25% of its daily needs.

The future is well hidden until it gets here. True. Yet, one thing we all know about military “adventures” is that once in, it’s nearly impossible to get out. Also, initial victories come quickly when the mismatch of forces is as startling as that between the coalition and Libya. Military victory, though, in the Middle East means little; it has led to far more complicated and uncontrollable tasks and responsibilities involving political damage, human loss, infrastructure demolition, long memories, and an unpredictable period of instability “on the street” and in a transitional government.

The forces that may be brought to bear on a post-Gaddafi Libya potentially include the big players, including the Russian Federation, China, and an Arab League that may feel it has again been betrayed by the European and American powers. This is no Bay of Pigs, it’s no Vietnam, it’s certainly no Grenada or Panama. Let’s hope Operation Odyssey Dawn doesn’t slip into another Afghanistan, or worse, doesn’t encourage more violent reactions throughout the region, not merely within indigenous countries in the region, but in Europe, the U.S., and perceived as enemies by many in the Middle East. In effect, today, we’ve already crossed the threshold to this God knows what . . .

Breaking: Libyan No Fly Zone – First Engagement by French Fighter Against Ground Target

Michael MatheronLeave a comment

March 19, 2011

1:33 pm (EDST). CNN has just reported that a French Air Force fighter engaged a “military vehicle” in Libya, apparently the first engagement under March 17th’s U.N. Resolution 1973. The resolution authorizes establishment of “a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians. . . [and] to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights.”

The interesting and provocative aspect of this engagement is its apparent French Rafale fighter attack on a “military vehicle,” apparently a tank.  Does this indicate a variance, intentional or incidental, from the wording of Resolution 1973, which outlines a no fly zone? If not a tank, as just reported by CNN, a Libyan “military vehicle,” however, may be tasked with air surveillance, or directly in air defense, and, in that case, armed with military ordnance related to air defense. Also, a “military vehicle” may be used in air defense supply.  If so, in these cases, ground vehicle would be directly within the terms of the resolution.

If the attack was against a Libyan tank, as confirmed, and if that tank were not involved in air-related defense, it would appear to go beyond the plain words of Resolution 1973.  However, the clauses “in order to help protect civilians,” “to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights,” and to “protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack” provide a clear path to ratify the attack on a ground target. The resolution, in particular, names Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in the east of the country. In a legal sense, the resolution is broad enough to validate such an attack on a Libyan tank in operation around Benghazi (as this tank was).

A no fly zone, in general, requires “scrubbing” or “sanitizing” of the battle theater, and that necessarily requires the surveillance and probable destruction of air-to-air defense assets such as targeting facilities, electronic support systems, mobile air defense and supply – basically anything that supports Libyan air operations, offensive and defensive. This fact also emphasizes the full military impact of a no fly zone.  This operation against Qadhafi and his forces will likely have very extensive consequences for Libya, of course, an also for the credibility of the U.N., the safety of the region, the no fly zone partners, and its effect on uprisings across the Middle East.