Posting about the Obvious

I’ve had a long break from posting while I thought of what topic was worth a comment.  None, really, was the conclusion.  

First, the anticipated speech by Obama on the troop drawdown in Afghanistan is not news any longer.  It stopped being news when the leaks began.  My judgment is that it is about time the US declared that the death of OBL and destruction of the al Qaeda operation in Afghanistan mooted the need for US and NATO troops.  Nation building was not why Bush went in – the mission morphed into that particularly perverse idea. Plus, Karzai is a bigger ass than previously thought and his increasingly strident remarks about NATO and the West – who are there protecting his ass – justify, in and of themselves, a complete withdrawal.  In any event, the wind-up of the 10 year war should be considered a success because, simply – the goals originally put forward for the invasion have been reached.  The unplanned for break in the relationship between the US and Pakistan is another matter. End of story.

Second, what more can be said about the IMF, Brussels and Greece other than the path taken at the insistence of Germany in particular won’t work in the long-term for the cohesion of the EU and may very well bring about the collapse of the euro zone.  The economies of the EU are badly out of balance and the major players are unwilling to change the dynamics. This is no longer breaking news.

Third, is anyone surprised at the time it is taking to get rid of Gadhafi?  Nothing new here except, again, everyone must re-learn the basic rules of warfare – airpower is never enough and boots on the ground win battles. Unfortunately, the anti-Gadhafi forces do not have the firepower or the money to successfully bring an end to the conflict. A NATO missile (if the Europeans have any left) will end up doing it.  Daily reports of casualties, mistakes and the continuing shock by Very Important Pundits that civilians are killed in wars make not a damn bit of difference.  The absurd debate in the US of the legalities of involvement in Libya is a side-show for intellectual ego massage and decisions over superficialities (something at which the US Congress excels) while the intellectually challenged Republican candidates for president indulge in posturing on who can be more Christian, white and right-wing than the other.

Syria.  Being in the neighborhood and the headquarters of al Jazeera, I get a full dose of the atrocities every day.  No one will do anything because no one can do anything.  The demonstrators are, well, on their own. End of story.

South China Sea.  The entire universe seems to claim overlapping parts of it.  Few are paying attention, but this zone is a legitimate flash point for a very dangerous military encounter.

South Sudan and no one mentions the oil.  Why is that?

So – being somewhat bored with all the above and not the hand-wringing type, I thought that it would be more interesting, at least for me, to write about the New Old World Order – abbreviated edition.  That will be the subject of the next few posts.

Libya, War Powers Act and International Law

My final post on Libya and the legality of the US actions under international law and the US Constitution – because I have read too much drivel lately from diletantes…

First, although the War Powers Act has forced US Presidents to consult with, and report to, Congress when U. S. armed forces are used in combat situations it has never significantly limited the President's practical power to commit the United States to use military force.  Furthermore, Congress likes the loose language in the Act because it allows them to punt.  They do not need to declare war – thereby putting their necks on the line.

Second, I have read numerous posts – usually in the comment sections, which interpret the legality of the US actions solely by quoting a specific provision of the War Powers Act without taking  into consideration either the US Constitution, treaty law or reality.  Rather, those opposed to any military action by the US unless Congress approves tend to grab and hold the following this provision from said Act:

“(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Let’s just analyse the provision and see how the facile interpretation of a paragraph, in what might be argued as an unconstitutional law in any event, is wrong.

First, and perhaps the weakest argument, is the question of national emergency. But, it very credible to argue that this was a national emergency, given the numerous US bases in the Middle East, and the fact that the US embassy in Libya was evacuated under threat of attack.  Perhaps not a strong position under (3), but credible nonetheless. But that is the least important point.

The more important concern is whether there existed unambiguous statutory authorization under (2). Frankly, the statutory authorization for taking action in Libya and involving US forces is clear - the UN Security Council resolution.

US law authorizes the President to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which is subject to the approval of Congress (22 U.S.C. § 287d). The agreement or agreements may provide for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with Article 43 of the Charter.  Under 22 U.S.C, the President is not required to seek or obtain Congressional authorization pursuant to such special agreement or agreements to make available to the Security Council the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided on its call in order to take action under Article 42 of the Charter. 

Furthermore, Congress has specifically found that using forces under orders from the Security Council is a peacekeeping and enforcement activity rather than act of war; therefore, using US forces within the parameters and missions of those actions neither violate Congress' constitutional prerogative to declare war, nor require specific congressional authorization under the War Powers Act or otherwise.

Finally, under the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, international treaties are in and of themselves legally binding, and along with the body of the Constitution itself, become the supreme law of the land.

The UN Charter is an international treaty to which the US is bound pursuant to the Constitution.  The Security Council resolution was not an act of war – regardless of how opponents would like to characterize it for political purposes.

Then, of course let’s not forget the other applicable treaty: NATO.  For the sake of argument, even if we accept the legally incorrect interpretation that the War Powers Act applied to Libya at the time US forces first began enforcing the Security Council resolution, the fact remains that 8 or 9 days later, on 4 April, the whole operation was placed under the command of NATO.  U.S. involvement was restricted to background noise: support to the NATO-led operation with intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance and aircraft assisting with the suppression and destruction of air defences in support of the no-fly zone as well as (from 23 April), precision strikes by UMVs in support of the NATO efforts.  The notion that the War Powers Act supersedes yet another international treaty approved by Congress is so absurd as to reveal the true nature of anti-interventionists endless complaints – political points and a dislike of any type of military intervention – nothing more.

Furthermore, by pointing to the 60 day deadline under the War Powers Act, which is nevertheless overridden by the UN resolution and NATO treaty obligations, many critics conveniently ignore that the first notification to Congress establishing the date for running the clock on the 60 days is irrelevant or, at worst debatable in connection with the effectiveness of the War Powers Act provision since President Obama’s notification applied to a different action.  That mission ended before the 60 days expired and exactly at the point when it was turned over to NATO.  The US can choose or not, in these circumstances, to take part in the NATO operation (as Germany declined to do from a military standpoint).  But, that is a completely different and is a political, not legal, discussion.  In any event, from a legal standpoint the War Powers Act - even assuming it would apply - would have been automatically extended with Obama’ second notification to Congress. 

It is also legally questionable whether the War Powers Act can constitutionally restrict any and all orders the President issues to the military, no matter how limited.  Whether you like it or not, legally the President of the US has constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief and he has the only authority to conduct foreign policy – particularly under approved international treaties. 

Interpretation of international and domestic treaties and laws respectively in a vacuum is a dangerous proclivity best left to the media whose purpose is to simplify concepts so that they can be easily absorbed by a credulous public.

One if by land...two if by sea - The British are Coming

The British are putting advisors into Benghazi and the CIA has long been in the field. There is no turning back now and no one can argue that NATO and the GCC have not taken the side of the rebels against Colonel Qadaffi, sons and supporters. This is regime change time and the only reason NATO and others are in it up to their air intakes is that the revolution against the regime was failing. Revolutions fail all the time but since no one really liked Qadaffi and the rebels were getting their collective asses kicked by tribes not favourably disposed toward them, Europe’s military stepped into the breach.


I have repeatedly asked “what now?” from the beginning of the implementation of UNR 1973. I reject the arguments that the resolution did not authorize attacks on ground targets. Those arguments are either politically motivated (Russia, China) or ignorant (some anti-war-no-matter-what innocents, and the African Union as a whole). The resolution clearly said that all necessary measures could be taken and anyone who thinks a “no-fly” zone does not involve ground attacks is, frankly, a moron.

Nevertheless, here’s the question again. What now? What we are seeing is a British decision to send British advisors to help the rebels win. Downing Street may have advised NATO and sought what amounts to a ‘no objection’, but the insertion of military officers was a national decision, taken outside of NATO. It is, despite denials, boots on the ground and it is just the beginning if they want to truly defeat Qadaffi.

Clearly, the rebels cannot beat Qadaffi’s military on the ground at this point or in the near future. NATO airstrikes can only accomplish what airpower historically has always accomplished with absolute control of the sky – establish the conditions for the boots on the ground to crush any defense. But, NATO is not going in with troops – or at least not those from Germany, a supremely unreliable Western ally. The British, however, may have opened the door for the French because something has to be done about the reduction of Misrata sooner rather than later. Qadaffi’s army will likely abandon the use of tanks, which have become nothing if not moving coffins, and hit the ground. Qadaffi is fighting for survival now that he knows most everyone is out to get him. What now? NATO is stuck to the fly-paper. Expect the intervention to escalate rapidly because the revolution, gentlemen, has failed, and negotiations which premise Qadaffi remaining in power are a non-starter.

Libya's Civil War - What Happens Next?

Image by شبكة برق | B.R.Q via Flickr

Well, that was fast. Now the Arab League is upset that bombs are dropping. They cannot be serious - I am assuming that the statement from the Secretary General of the Arab League was made with political intent since he is also interested in running for president in Egypt. However, even he has stepped back from criticism as he pointed to the prohibition against foreign troops and occupation.


Al Jazeera (which has the absolutely best coverage) reports that the “Arab Street” is not protesting and doesn’t really care. It is Qadaffi, after all – and he is hardly anyone’s favourite dictator in this region. They are outraged, for example, of the slaughter of protesters in Yemen last Friday where over 40 were killed by snipers firing into a crowd. But, they also know that Qadaffi has killed thousands and that his tanks, once inside a city, indiscriminately fire on civilians, apartment buildings and generally cause massive destruction and death. There is no comparison.

Not to beat a dead horse, but now that the initial assault is over and the Libyan air force, air defence and its command and control centers have been obliterated in 36 hours – something only, by the way, the US could do – now what? Assuming that the US now fades into the background and hands the intervention over to Europe, what is Europe going to do since one outcome may be that Qadaffi stays in power?

Although the European nations contributing to the effort include Denmark, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium, Greece, Norway and the UK, it is clear that future control will be handed to either France or the UK. The contributions of Qatar (which makes me a little nervous since I am sitting here) and the UAE are important, but the European coalition needs to engage and bring in Egypt, at the least, Algeria and perhaps Turkey (although its economic interests and Erdogan’s instincts about military intervention may make Turkey’s involvement problematic). This will become even more critical if, as may very well happen, talks are opened with Qadaffi. In that case, under no circumstances should Europe (much less the US) be seen as removing him from power.

Qadaffi may be removed by his own military at some point for self-preservation. That still leaves a divided country with a self-proclaimed government in the east which, without European firepower, would probably have been decimated this past weekend. It still has no military resources or organizational capability to cross the desert and take Sirte, much less Tripoli, so the prospect of some sort of game changer – removal of Qadaffi by supporters – is important to prevent the prolongation of what is really a civil war. If that does not happen, then Europe must enlist the Arabs into more substantial support.

From the reports of al Jazeera, it is has become abundantly clear that there are rivalries within the rebel camp that are maneuvering for power. Europe also needs to tread carefully here since Libya is tribal by nature and a slight of one group could lead to increased violence. Again, it will be necessary to draw in Libya’s neighbors to avoid internecine fights in whatever new government is formed.

Assuming Qadaffi and his family do not go down with the ship, what happens to them? Does anyone have a strategy for the improbable?

The War for Libya

While watching the reports coming out of Libya last night and this morning I still have this question – “what next?” As the expanded no-fly zone advances to include a no-drive, no mortar, no heavy artillery zone (entirely legal under the wording of the Security Council resolution) what is the coalition going to do if the Colonel decides to back-off and cease military operations? Although highly improbably given his recent bellicose and defiant statements, it is not impossible.


At a press conference last night, Hillary Clinton said that the purpose of the UN resolution was to protect civilians, not regime change. Really? Although it was the politically correct answer, this is not the goal. It is certainly not the goal of the Arab coalition partners and the frequent statements from virtually every European leader as well as President Obama, is that the regime must stand down and leave. This leaves the thorny issue of who is going to effectuate the regime change. Fortunately, the US has taken the position that it will not be the pointiest stick in the bundle for once and will leave the air assault to the French and British. But, unless the regime is decapitated by an air-to-ground missile or an assassination or rebel bullet, who is going to pull Qadaffi and his sons off the thrown?

If a European ground force enters the fray it will surely win but would not look good on TV. Egypt, of course, has an effective, professional army that could, with probably one or two tank brigades, slice through to Tripoli. Given the past enmity between the two countries, that might not be the best of plans. Hillary Clinton also hinted at defections within the Qadaffi camp – a not so subtle reminder that his vaunted, all- female bodyguards may not be particularly effective when the chips are down.

But, aside from the stray missile or bullet (or not so stray), what will happen if he says he wants to talk? The first splits will come with a call by Russia, China and their all too frequent ally, Germany, to stop the air assault and sit and talk. Again, then what? With whom does one talk? The leader that everyone said had to go? His (now) equally barbaric son, Saif? The most absurd statement comes from Sarkozy who said today that once the fighting stops, France was ready to talk. France has already recognized the rebels in Benghazi as the legitimate government of Libya – why would they talk with Qadaffi? The UK does not need to talk to anyone and one wonders what deals they made when their S.A.S. were in Benghazi a few weeks ago.

From the European standpoint – and this is their war until the Arabs come in with something – the best outcome would be continued defiance. France is busily turning the regime’s tanks into scrap and their retreat from the outskirts of Benghazi to Sirte takes them across the desert with nowhere to hide. Expect to see officers and men abandon vehicles, join the rebellion or melt away rather than be target practice for a French Rafale or Mirage. The rebels could be armed and trained a little, and sent off to the west to take Tripoli. France and England could continue to pulverize the tanks and artillery from the air with a few cruise missiles thrown in. But, at this point, aside from the immediate tactical goals, I don’t see a strategy.

One hopes, of course, that the Libyan military will simply say “enough” and quit, thus ending the 42 year old regime and handing the government over to the rebel leaders in Benghazi.

One last question: Is there a bigger buffoon leading a country these days than Hugo Chavez who just came out against the UN authorized attack?

France, Libya and a Call to Arms

This is becoming tiresome, but when France quickly recognized the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government in the country, my first point was “what next?” Now it is clear that the “next” was the military involvement of the US in the form of providing the logistics, communications and, last but not least, military aircraft to not only impose a no-fly zone over Libya, but to bomb airfields and who knows what else. As much as I hate to agree with Saif Qadaffi – has Sarkozy gone crazy?


The Washington Post reported today that “France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppe, said Wednesday that there was still time for military intervention to turn the tide against embattled leader Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. All the United States and other major powers had to do, he suggested, was follow France’s lead to pass a quick Security Council resolution and then send warplanes to neutralize Qaddafi’s air force.”

Well, that’s nice. This is a civil war. Intervening on one side against the other is not likely to produce good results for the intervener. Although not on the same scale, the Vietnam War was a massive interference by a foreign power in what was essentially a civil war. How did that turn out? Libya is certainly not the same scale, but the idea is the same. The no-fly zones in Iraq and Kosovo did not work, but were intended to protect non-combatants (otherwise known as civilians) from being pounded from the air by their respective governments. What France and the UK are suggesting, however, now goes well beyond a no-fly zone and is expressly stated – to “turn the tide against…Muammar Qadhafi…”

The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppe, took it a step further. He said that “Only the threat of use of force can stop Qadhafi. The Libyan dictator has upset the battlefield balance by bombing his opponents’ positions with the several dozen airplanes and helicopters at his disposal. We can neutralize his air capacities by targeted strikes. That is what France and Britain have been proposing for two weeks.”

Upset the battlefield balance? Is that serious? First of all, that is what one battlefield commander is supposed to do to the other. It’s called winning. Second, what Juppe is suggesting is an act of war.

Look, the rebels seem like the good guys – and compared to the current regime probably are marginally better. But does anyone really know? Doesn’t the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq with supporting “the good guys” trigger some hesitation? The final point is that sometimes rebellions fail and sometimes those who are the good guys at that moment in time, lose. No one intervened in Sudan. I don’t see anyone rushing to intervene in Cotê d’Ivoire or the Congo or Burma (France made noises there as well) all of which are arguably more important than the results in Libya where the West was happy with the regime until a few weeks ago.

Failed Revolutions - Bahrain and Libya

This is the view from my window as I sit here in quiet Qatar next door to Bahrain; speculation is rampant on what will happen next in Bahrain – important from a Saudi, US, Iranian and European foreign policy and geo-political perspective – and Libya (not so important except, perhaps, to Europe). While two weeks ago the predictions for Libya were that the regime would fall, those were clearly premature as it struck back with efficient force from a loyal army and put the rebellion on its heels with astonishing rapidity. Today, the last stronghold before Benghazi has been taken and Qaddafi has vowed to crush the rebels, whom he characterized last night as traitors and several forms of vermin. Read bloodbath. The collapse of the rebellion will not be pretty.


A resolution has been tabled in the UN to impose a no-fly zone. That will do nothing to change the momentum on the ground. It didn’t in Kosovo until NATO began to target ground units and the capital, Belgrade and time is vanishing for the rebel government as Europe – divided as ever – freezes in its tracks. Despite the Lieberman-McCain tired, old song of unilateral US intervention whether it is a good idea or not, that sort of adventure has not worked out so well. It would be profoundly stupid for the US to intervene. Perhaps if the US sent a neo-con/neo-Nazi tea-bagger delegation to Tripoli it could convince Qaddafi to stop or else be subject to a massive hissy fit of tired, old white men.

But then there is Europe. French recognition (as well as the Arab League’s) of the rebel government may come back to haunt it. Will France have the nerve to go it alone? Will they risk a terror campaign in France by Libya? What were they thinking at the time they recognized the rebellion as the legitimate government? Was there even a plan for the next steps – or even a first step? The problem with all the hand wringing in Europe over the fate of the rebels is that they are prepared to do nothing unless the US handles it, which will get no credit and all the blame. Germany doesn’t even like the idea of a no-fly zone – an expected reaction from a nation that has become a little too fat and comfortable at the expense of its fellow EU members. But Libya is ultimately a European issue – as I have said before. Strategically it is meaningless to US interests and the blow-back from even a scintilla of US for intervention with what it has remaining available in military assets will be huge. For the US, assisting Egypt is far a key to any Middle East strategy, including the job of reigning in a vengeful Qaddafi & Son.

If Europe does nothing in time or at all (par for the course – just look at the Balkans) then Qadaffi’s tanks will roll into Benghazi and rout the rebellion. Even if they put down their arms, Qaddafi is not the forgiving type and his Western educated MBA son has shown his true colors. If there is a bloodbath, what will Europe and the US do about it? Because at that point it is likely that all will remain of the rebel opposition will be an underground movement. Not exactly the type of internal support needed if NATO chose to attack. Of course, Qaddafi or an over-zealous officer could take the disastrous step (for Qaddafi) of launching a missile at a European ship or, more to the point, a US warship. We all know what would follow and the question of a no-fly zone or Qaddafi military victory over the rebels would evaporate. Highly improbable, but not impossible.

There are so many variables regarding actions to be taken regarding Libya – including variables that no one has thought about – that the consequences of even imposing a no-fly zone are unknown and make no mistake that a no-fly zone is the equivalent of a declaration of war – for which Europe has no stomach.

Bahrain. No one should be surprised at Saudi intervention. Unfortunately for the Shiite majority, this is not about Bahrain or democracy. It is about Iran. It is about control of the Arabian Gulf (it is not called the Persian Gulf here). It is about destabilization on the Arabian Peninsula and Iranian dominance in the region. It is about oil and gas. The legitimate grievances of Shiites in Bahrain are, for the Saudi’s, completely irrelevant at this point. It is likely that some reforms will take place sometime in the future, but not until Saudi Arabia is assured that any Iranian plan has been derailed. So what will happen next?

As of today, the police in Bahrain are dispersing demonstrations and some violence with two killed has taken place. Films of a few protesters attacking police are being used by Saudi Arabia to show that the demonstrations are not peaceful. The government of the ruling minority Sunni has offered to hold talks but the two opposition Shiite groups are divided – one wanting to talk but fearful it will be labeled a pawn of the regime and the other not willing to negotiate until its demands for reform in the government (including the reduction of the ruling family to figurehead status) is met. With Saudi military intervention, it is unlikely that the second Shiite group will prevail – thereby flushing any hopes by Tehran for toppling the government. For the Shiites, the use of tanks, helicopters and live ammunition against them will be effective as will the 3 month state of emergency. But not forever.

Iran could intervene directly like the Saudi’s. Similar to an attack on a US or NATO ship off the Libyan coast, the result would be catastrophic for Iran as the US fleet is sitting in its backyard. Although a remote possibility, if it were to occur, then the Iranian coast would become a very dangerous place to be – for the Iranians. The excuse would be handed to the US to cripple Iranian sea and shore defense military capabilities and who knows what else. Oil prices would head to $200 and the economic ripple effects would likely be severe. Internally, the clerical dictatorship would become worse and Iranian strategy in the region, which has so far worked remarkably well, would be in shambles. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.

Iran could also create a diversion – either with Israel through Hezbollah or in Iraq. Neither of those scenarios is good for Iran as it is not clear that Hezbollah wants another confrontation with Israel at this time which would involve, by default, Syria, which itself wants control of Lebanon. Action by Iran in Iraq would stop – if not reverse – the US withdrawal. Neither diversion would do anything to help its plans for dominance of the region in general or for Bahrain in particular and both are unlikely; but they remain possibilities and an idea of how to deal with them needs to be considered.

The point is that trying to predict the future in Bahrain and Libya is pretty much just a guess as the remote possibilities or even events of which we are not even considering could take place. Prediction in these scenarios is impossible and intervention in Libya by NATO or any one or more European countries, not to mention the US which would be the case with NATO, simply multiplies the possible resulting scenarios.

The Other Shoe

Image by Abode of Chaos via Flickr

France has recognized the shadow government formed by the Libyan rebels in Benghazi.  Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado said today he had sent a message to Libyan leader Gadhafi through a Tripoli envoy saying: “The Gadhafi regime is over.".  On Friday in Brussels, it is very likely that a decision will be reached to support the rebellion in Libya.

Then what?

Will France send in its air force? Navy? Send arms to the rebels?  Unless the plan is already in place, all this will take time and it is beginning to look like Gadhafi's tanks have the upper hand.  Tanks without opposition can and do move very, very fast. No fly zones change nothing on the ground and it is there where the battle will be won or lost.

To a large degree, Libya is Europe's issue and very far from US interests which is in the grip of a McCarthy- like demonization of its own Muslim citizenry at the hands of neo-Nazi teabaggers.  The US will be doing nothing substantive.  It's probably a good idea considering Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with domestic witchhunts.

So, what will be next on the agenda  in Brussels or Paris or Rome?  Who will take the first step? And if a fig leaf of a no-fly zone is implemented, who will be piloting the fighters?

Libya in Flux

Libya is in total chaos with both sides behaving without coherence.  Qaddafi's speeches are even more rambling and devoid of reality than a week ago - if that's possible.  Just this afternoon three jets of his personal Falcon 900 jets took off in 3 different directions - apparently to Vienna, Cairo and Athens.  No one knows the purpose.  Now claiming that underage youth from Afganistan, Egypt and Palestine are behind the "minor" revolts and then blaming the UK, France and the US for the unrest, he is clearly nuts.

Then, there is the question of a no-fly zone.  Both Senators Lieberman (remember him?)and McCain are promoting the idea in an effort to seem relevant. Except for those who learned nothing from the US adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is a high risk proposal. Aside from the political consequences of Western powers taking sides or even moving militarily in Libya, there is the very likely chance that a stray missile or bullet will kill civilians.  One hit on the oil refinery at Ras Januf could cause an explosion that would wipe out everything for 15 kilometers. When that happens, the anger will be turned on the saviours. It is not as easy as it seems.

No one knows how the revolts in Libya will turn out.  Qaddafi's forces are striking back hard. This could go on for some time yet and rushing to do something could be worse - far worse - than doing nothing.

Embarrassed in Libya

Image via Wikipedia

Reports on al Jazeera say that 8 S.A.S. were captured by rebel forces near Bengazi. Amid a ‘no-comment’ by the UK foreign ministry was an admission that there was a diplomatic group in the area trying to make contact with the rebels.


OK. Well. Aside from the perception that this constitutes foreign interference – after all the S.A.S. are elite special forces – this would be a terrible embarrassment for the S.A.S. On the one hand, it is good that the UK is trying reach out; on the other, sending in S.A.S. without some sort of advance ground work might not have been the best idea. It’ll all probably work out for the best as it unfolds.

In other news out of Libya, the rebel troops have taken Ras Lanuf and its oil refinery. That refinery accounts for 60% of oil exports. That’s a blow to the Qaddafi. Sirte – Qaddafi’s birthplace – is the next target. If Qaddafi loses Sirte, that may be the tipping point on the military front and, if the rebels form a government, the West will need to make a hard decision – recognize or not. Not that anyone listens to me, but I would recommend a race to the microphone to announce recognition of the new government.

A word about the flag - it's the first flag of independence in 1951 and is the one you see the rebels waving on TV.

Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain et al and 1848?

Image via Wikipedia

I’m fully settled in Qatar and can watch the unfolding events in the Arab world, if not in the front row, at least in the home of Al Jazeera – which, by the way, leaves US, British and other Western news organizations in the dust. If Al Jazeera was broadcast in the US, there would be fewer stupid people in fly-over country. But I digress.


In the past few days I have read one article after another comparing the revolutions sweeping the Arab world to 1848 Europe. Can we please stop this academic exercise for inflating egos and propounding grand theories for the next thesis or magazine article? There is no comparison, and the attempts to do so are pathetically trying to fit current events into a model based on past history. Aside from being a dubious exercise best left to tenure seeking history and political science professors with nothing to do except selectively seek examples from the past to fit their pet theories, models in general, and historical ones in particular, do not work. They tell us nothing. Like most models, they are based on past events, which require tossing out every exception as an outlier because that would explode the model. Think bell curve. PURE, TOTAL, RUBBISH.

First – the revolutions of the late winter and spring of 1848 occurred solely in Europe – and the western part at that. In Western Europe, the famous barricades were only seriously guarded in France. What would become Germany twenty five years later had some revolutionaries. In March 1848, Hungarians revolted from the Hapsburgs – but so would you under their circumstances. The Netherlands experienced an upheaval and Belgium was created. In none of these countries was there a unifying theme. The economy in German territory was in shambles. People were starving elsewhere. Marx grew up.

The middle class in France did not like the political situation and used, as usual, the poor as cannon fodder. The latter were interested in economic reform and food. By 1849, the middle class and poor in France got neither political reform (wow – universal suffrage for…wait for it….men) nor economic change. Germans took a step toward unification – which would only be solidified twenty-five years later by Bismarck and tested on the unfortunate French. Nothing much else changed. Italy began a long road to unification. The Hungarians were crushed with the help of Imperial Russia (which had no intention of allowing a revolution against monarchies anywhere in Europe having experienced the ultimate result of the same sort of thing in 1789). The Hapsburg Empire continued to stumble along unchanged until 1918. The Ottoman’s were untouched – well, ok the Greeks were pushing back. Russia was largely a bemused bystander. England was untouched as were Spain and Portugal.

After 1848 virtually nothing changed. The poor stayed poor and disenfranchised. Women stayed subservient to the extent that American Tea-baggers can only dream about. Monarchy was triumphant.

So – what does 1848 have in common with the current wave? Not bloody much. Keep your models on the shelf and enter the real world where dismissed improbable events puncture beautiful, coloured academic model balloons.

In the Arab world, the events in Tunisia that surprised everyone were triggered by economic hardship. It has spread to other economically troubled countries. There are two underlying themes – poverty due to lack of employment and political oppression of one degree or another. The atmosphere and events are unique and are not 1848 – but may reflect some of the same results.

First, so far the military has brought security and stability to Tunisia after President _______ left. The military, so far, has brought security and stability to Egypt.

Moammar Gadhafi, umbrella in one hand and his little green bible in the other, has lost his mind if one is to judge by his rambling speeches and insane actions. One son, Saif – the intelligent one – is quickly following down the same path and both, apparently indifferent to killing, are shooting everyone in sight, with mercenaries no less. But, the result will be the same in Libya. The military, who have largely defected to the revolutionaries, will take ultimate control, bringing security and stability.

Bahrain is different – a minority Sunni royalty ruling a Shiite majority. Just like Jordan. The economy at the bottom is what matters and in both it basically sucks. The ruling elite may give up something, but perhaps stay in power. Nothing like the upheavals in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya or Bahrain has affected other Arab states. Word is still out on Morocco and Algeria. One shudders to think what Assad in Syria would do.

But, unlike 1848 - 1849 Western Europe, even in those countries without the people on the streets will need to change; indeed are doing so now. And many changes will be permanent – except perhaps for one. Other than Libya – and that remains to be seen – Egypt and Tunisia have resulted only in a transfer of power. The regimes that were there before are there now. Economic reforms may be coming, and some political reforms – neither of which was really achieved as a result of 1848 – but there seems to have been an attitudinal awakening in the Arab world. You can see it on the streets. Dynasty may be a thing of the past, whether royal or family (something that 1848 never changed) but western concepts of democracy are a long way down the yellow-brick road.

So, kindly stow the pleasant little academic models. They explain nothing and predict less.

Oh. One more thing. The fact that Iran is condemning the killing of demonstrators in Libya would be funny if it was not so pathetic. One can only hope that the clerical regime in Tehran is worried about its own skin.

My Libyan Mystery Solved - Courtesy of Wikileaks

In November of 2009 I was assured of a Team Leader position with a project in Libya. At a meeting in London a month earlier I had been told that not only did the Libyan government want an American to head the project, but were insisting. So, I packed up from Central Asia and, at the request of the Egyptian firm which had hired me, flew to Cairo at the end of November despite the fact that I did not yet have a Libyan visa but which the Egyptians told me would be taken care of after I arrived. And I waited. And waited. For a month in Cairo (a city I never want to visit again for a variety of reasons).


The entire matter crashed and burned. I left Cairo and ended up two months later in Ghana. But, I never was given any adequate explanation why the visa was not issued. I suspect I now know why, courtesy of the recent Wikileaks dump.

This is from The Atlantic in the context of Libya’s agreement to abandon its nuclear ambitions:

Libya agreed to remove its weapons-grade materials and equipment shortly after a 2003 incident in which the U.S. government intercepted a ship bound for that country with Pakistani-made black-market centrifuges. For six years, Libyan officials complied with U.S.-led international efforts to dismantle the program. In November of last year, when officials without notice halted the dismantling process, the Libyans were down to their last 5.2 kilograms--not enough to make a conventional weapon, but sufficient for a dirty bomb.* A few days later, the U.S. embassy was contacted by Saif al-Islam al-Qaddafi. The son of Muammar al-Qaddafi, Saif is widely seen as Libya's great hope for reform should he win out against his more conservative brother, Mutassim, and succeed their father. But on that day, Saif told the U.S. ambassador to Libya that he was "fed up" with the U.S.  (emphasis mine)

Now, I can’t be sure that my visa was denied because of the US passport – but the timing of incident is a little more than coincidental. And anyway, it satisfies my curiosity as to what happened.

The Alternate Economic Summit

The two-day meeting on Venezuela's Margarita Island this past weekend which mirrored the G-20 summit, addressed a wide range of concerns, from hunger in Africa to the economic crisis and demands for reming the United Nations. That's all well and good. However, having Hugo Chavez and Muammar el-Qaddafi take the leading roles is not.

One of them sees everything exclusively through the lens of anti-Americanism and self-promotion, while the other has frequently professed a desire to form a United States of Africa led by him - which is not about to happen for a variety of geo-political reasons. These are not the leaders of the South. Chavez has a proclivity for childish behavior coupled with clear tyrannical tendencies while Qadaffi is, well, himself.

Chavez has been struggling to grasp a leadership role outside of his small circle of supporters in South and Central America. However, his policy of nationalizing every major industry in sight is not widespread in the region, much less the world. Although he may be largely correct by blasting "...the empires of the North ...the empires of Europe, ...the U.S. empire..." for past economic and military colonialism, he is not the leader of any South/South reform movement.

The meeting also offered Qadaffi the chance to grandstand and rant - some of which was truly bizarre. Again. He exhibited his penchant for theater claiming (correctly) that "colonialism has stolen our riches." Unfortunately, colonialism of the type he refers ended some time ago and, in any event, I don't see him waxing sadly about Libyan oil and gas sales helped mostly through investment by those same former colonialists. He also wanted to reopen investigations regarding assassinations within the UN structure - JFK was mentioned.

His denunciation of the "politics of the club" used by some nations against others was not clearly translated though. Did he mean "club" as in weapon or "club" as in something he will never be allowed to join. If the first, then I suppose that the war in Iraq and the Russo/Georgian war fit the definition. So what?

Quadaffi then, clearly miffed, personalized the issue claiming to be humiliated by the fact that his delegation had to travel 20 hours to reach New York. Well, living in a tent is his privilege. Dropping it in places where he is not wanted, is not. I'm sure the Russians were amused when he pitched it in Red Square - but not for long. After complaining about the 20 hour commute, he called for more air routes between Southern Hemisphere nations - a policy which the beleaguered airline industry would likely not jump at immediately.

Both leaders demanded reform to the UN. OK, fair enough. But, Quadaffi went so far as to claim that the Security Council format is unsustainable because of the right of veto. Well, unfortunately the countries on the Security Council, which includes rotating membership from the General Assembly like Libya, prefer it that way. In any event, the entire concept of the Security Council was based on the major powers taking the permanent seats and not Zimbabwe or Burma. If anything, I can certainly agree the SC should be expanded to include as permanent members India, Brazil and Japan, for example. Beyond that, giving the Mugabe's of the world a chance to set international policy for the planet is laughable.

Others at this meeting, such as Argentine President Cristina Fernandez, were less flamboyant and far more pragmatic. She simply expressed hope that Africa will expand its potential to produce and export food and - more to the point - said her government was willing to provide technology and expertise to help.

Chavez, for his part, also promised investment in Africa. But, much like his promise to supply Iran with gasoline, this is more poor rhetoric than reality since his budget is in shambles due to his economic policies and low oil prices.

Given the recurrent attempts to hijack the under-privileged, under-served and under-represented southern part of the planet, perhaps it is time for the Non-Aligned Movement to reinvigorate itself. Formed during the Cold War, it seems to have lost its way after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, all of Africa, except Morocco, are members and so is Venezuela. The problem for Chavez and Quadaffi, but no one else, is that they do not lead the organization and will not likely have a say in its leadership for some time. But, it includes economic powerhouses - India and South East Asia - which could constructively lead an alternative non-political, economic program to the IMF (albeit on a smaller scale) if they really wanted to do so. But then it is politics, not economic development that motivates Chavez, so the Non-Aligned Movement would need to somehow work with or around his type.