3rd Post: Dare I hope?

"You could have a situation where you achieve the military goal and not achieve the political goal [of Libyan regime change]." - US Defense Secretary Robert Gates

In the article posted here ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/01/defense-secretary-robert-gates-opposed-arming-rebels_n_843428.html ) it is made clear that Secretary Gates is a man of - in DC at least - un-common sense. He does not believe it will be prudent to arm the Libyan rebels. In this I concur. Now, those of you who know me, know that I am very much pro-military and - being a combat veteran - fully support the US military's endeavors abroad. However, peace-keeping and rebel-arming are two seemingly intrinsic, but in reality, two diametrically opposed actions; actions that have historically created nightmares for the USA. Examples:

-Iran 1953: The Popularly elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the British reached out to the fledgling CIA to assist in the overthrow. They did so and put the Shah in power. (Ironically, in 1978 the US did nothing as the Ayatollah took over the country and turned it into its current incarnation).

-Iraq 1959: The CIA paid Saddam Hussein to assassinate Prime Minister Abd al-Karim Qasim (who initiated the Coup 'detat to overthrow the Iraqi Monarchy in '58)...as you will see in the article below...it all went swimmingly.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm

-Chile 1970: The CIA supported a Coup that led to the assassination of the popularly elected President Salvador Allende. Who was put into power as a result? General Augusto Pinochet

-Afghanistan 1980: House Rep Charlie Wilson (D) almost single-handedly drug the US/CIA into the middle of the Soviet/Afghan conflict. Getting hundreds of millions of dollars and weapons (missiles, etc.) into the hands of Afghan rebels (and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar now a noted Taliban leader). The logic behind it was to create a 'Vietnam' for the Soviets, the way the Soviets turned Vietnam into 'Vietnam' for us. Needless to say...the long-term ramifications of those kinds of weapons/training in the hands of Radical Imam controlled fighters were not considered.

Those are just four examples, but I have long said that the greatest enemy of the United States today is the United States of 40 years ago. A policy of forced capitulation (in the case of Chile, to stop the nationalization of American-owned copper mines and the ATT Corp; In the case of Iran, to stop the nationalization of the oil), and/or one of 'Stop Communism at all costs' has caused today's USA nothing but problems.

This particular article gives me hope that a page has been turned.

"Gates and [Admiral Mike] Mullen said that if the rebels are to get arms and training, countries other than the U.S. should provide that assistance. And they stressed that the U.S. still does not have enough good information about who the disparate opposition forces are."

Brilliant. As in the aforementioned examples, there appeared to be no long-term understanding of what these Coups would perpetrate. It was all contingent upon what would benefit the US at that particular time. Now, at least there seems to be some malice of forethought.

"I know that I am preoccupied with avoiding mission creep [definition: slow down the process and cause things to creep along] and avoiding having an open-ended, very large scale American commitment in this," said Gates. "We are in serious budget trouble."

Again, this is music to my ears! The Department of Defense is counting their pennies. Now, I firmly believe that when America is threatened there should be no ledger kept. I mean, who is going to count the dollars when we're all using Yen/Won? In this particular case, a close-kept eye on Defense resources will enable saved funds to continue on to troops/missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Alas...it would seem there are still bad habits to avoid:

The defense leaders also made it clear to Congress that there will be no U.S. military ground forces in Libya. They would not comment on reports that the CIA has small teams working with the Libyan rebels.

Uh-oh...in my aforementioned examples...how many included the CIA? This could not end well. But wait, it gets better:

Separately, the State Department said the U.S. was not involved in the defection of Gadhafi's top diplomat, Moussa Koussa, although a U.S. diplomat had talked with Koussa. "He's obviously been a part of the Gadhafi regime for many, many years," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. "I obviously don't want to talk about what conversations we may be having with him and what kind of intelligence we may be able to gather from him, but he certainly has a wealth of information to share, should he decide to."

This brings to mind a certain fellow by the name of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi and this article will sum him up nicely ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam ).

As well as this bloke, Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and these two articles sum him up nicely - do please read both in order. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/22/AR2006032202103.html ) and ( http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/ )

So, we have one man who just wanted to see Iraq free from Saddam and lied to do it, and another who was so tantalizingly close with his assessments, but not close enough to warrant a push for Iraq/US aggression so they had to 'play it up' a bit. Let us hope that whatever Moussa 'My Mother Obviously Hated Me" Koussa tells the CIA, no nose growth shows (eh, eh? Anyone?) and that they give briefings using his statements verbatim (Definition: word for word).

I could insert the old adage about 'those who ignore history...' blah blah blah. I instead shall turn to a (globally speaking) lesser-known proverb, "Like a dog returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly." Proverbs 26:11

I hope I am making my point. Here the US stands on a similar precipice. Rarely does one get to see history re-lived so soon. I do not think that American troops should go to Libya. Sending American air-craft/bombers is acceptable to me because it is obvious to all what they are trying to accomplish (the prevention of potential civilian massacres). However, once you place uniformed troops into another country one of two things tends to happen: 1) The opposition stops fighting - or at least stops fighting hard. They let the Americans take on the tougher elements and subsequently sit back and plan their factional power-grabs (A la Sunnis, Shiites and the Kurds) while American troops absorb all of the casualties. OR 2) They fight along-side the Americans but, obviously, the American forces have greater and greater victories thus highlighting the ineptitude of the freedom fighters/rebels  and muting their accomplishments and - ultimately - decreasing their status in the eyes of the general population (A la the current Iraqi government). Thus, when the American’s pull out, it appears there are weak people in power propped up only by Amercian hands and they become targets themselves either to outside forces (Iran) OR inside factions (Al Queda Iraq).

I am drawing a lot of unfavorable lines back to the Iraq invasion, so let me be clear. I support my brothers and sisters-in-arms there now, there then and there soon. Their mission is good and their goals admirable. I believe we did not go there for oil (as evidenced by the fact we have received no significant deal on Iraqi oil so far...its oil export is still governed by OPEC) and I believe that Saddam would have used WMDs on the US or Israel if he could have.

WITH THAT SAID!!!

If George H.W. Bush had given even token support to the Iraqi people post Gulf War, Saddam would most likely have been ousted and - perhaps - a more stable people-led government would be in place today. Which takes me back to my long-time phrase ('the US of 40 years ago v. US today'). Saddam in power led to the New Iraq War. I hope Libya plays out differently and I will leave you with this quote: 'Freedom won is freedom earned and freedom earned is freedom appreciated and freedom appreciated is freedom well deserved.' - Anonymous

DISCLAIMER: I wrote this intermittently throughout the day (there were many interruptions)...so, if it does not seem to be gelling...well, then it's your fault.

Thoughts?

FIN