Reply With Quote
I guess they could just say there are WMD's in Libya...
At least the administration put on the pretext of being against it before it was for it, I guess.
I guess they could just say there are WMD's in Libya...
Looks like they went with the 'we're tired of this asshole so let's just take him out once and for all' rationale.I guess they could just say there are WMD's in Libya...
So... they ARE using the same rationale as the Iraq War?
I think that was the initial rationale. Or perhaps it was the third.
Upholding international law --> WMDs --> moral responsibility to rid Iraq of a brutal dictator --> spreading democracy and universal human rights, as I recall.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/shock-and-waugh/
He rejected the notion that Western leaders—because they had nice smiles and wore nice suits and had come to power through democratic elections—were necessarily more virtuous than the heads of other nations. “The main trouble with our limited democracy is the scope it gives to the power maniacs in society to impose their bossy urges and fatuous opinions,” he wrote. “It may be lovely for bossy people who like deciding how the rest of us should live, but it is for those at the receiving end.”
The basic problem, according to Waugh, was that politics attracts all the wrong people. “Politics is for social and emotional misfits. The purpose of politics is to help them overcome their feelings of inferiority and compensate for their personal inadequacies in the pursuit of power.” By contrast, the people who would make the best leaders have no interest in public office—they are far too nice and modest to think they should have authority over others.
Or, politics and governance are the natural results of high school student council.
Another open ended war with no military solution?
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaN...110329?sp=trueNATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Tuesday he would not guess how long the alliance's military mission would last in Libya, but there could be no solely military solution.
Speaking after an international coalition pledged to continue military action against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and agreed to set up a contact group to coordinate political efforts, Rasmussen urged all parties to seek a political solution as soon as possible.
"I am not going to guess," he told Reuters when asked how long the NATO mission could last and whether it could become a financial burden for alliance states on top of their long commitment in Afghanistan.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...generals-quit/NATO is taking command of the Libya war. But the real strategy for victory over Moammar Gadhafi is found on the airwaves above Libya: communications frequencies telling his commanders to simply give up fighting. If that sounds like hope masquerading as a plan, then you’re receiving the message loud and clear.
Standard psy-ops. I think the journalist was using something normally done in the course of any conflict with a "strategy" because of his/her dislike of the engagement.
The article's premise is fatuous, IMO. If one wants to criticise it there are plenty of other valid criticisms without making stuff up.
I see no coherent war aims or strategy. Perhaps you will be so kind as to point them out for me.
I was going to say this too. America (and I'm sure other nations) always engage in some sort of propaganda. I believe that in Desert Storm/Shield they dropped flyers saying to give up, and where soldiers could go to surrender, and that they would be provided with food, water, safety, shelter, etc etc.Standard psy-ops. I think the journalist was using something normally done in the course of any conflict with a "strategy" because of his/her dislike of the engagement.
The article's premise is fatuous, IMO. If one wants to criticise it there are plenty of other valid criticisms without making stuff up.
Of course, I'd like to think that our psy-ops were perhaps more subtle. But I don't know what works best for propaganda purposes.
Maybe they need to distribute some of those cool recruiting commercials.
I've recently posted a few less flippant criticisms of this ty little war, if you care to read them.If one wants to criticise it there are plenty of other valid criticisms without making stuff up.
Are you talking about strategy or tactics? RG and I were discussing the former (psyops being a tactic) moreso than how effective it might be able to accomplish the latter (ie. helping Libya.)
If there's no clear strategy, what good are tactics?
war aims = taking advantage of the opportunity to use a civil war to take out a bully who we don't get along with.
war strategy = under the guise of "protecting Libyans", bomb the out of the "bad" Libyans so that the "good" Libyans will have an easier time killing them off.
Eh, I think we can discuss kinds of tactics in a vacuum, of sorts. But yes, if there's no clear strategy, tactics can't be of great use.
That said, criticizing the tactics seems silly when you actually want to criticize the strategy.
False dilemma. I don't see why both can't come in for ridicule.
Eh, I don't really think it's a false dilemma. Sure, you can ridicule both, but it would be nice if the journalist provided more clarity; does he think psyops in general is useless? Or does he think that the way they are using psyops in this campaign is useless/poorly thought out?
At best, all I can sum up is him saying, "If asking them to quit is the best we have, that's a poor strategy!" Which is a false argument as well; just because we're using propaganda and telling them to quit doesn't mean that's what we're "reduced" to using. It may be an effective tactic. The journalist doesn't bother to do the research to see whether or not that tactic has been used before, used succesfully or unsuccesfully, etc etc.
If he's going to ridicule it, he should at least make it clear to the reader why he's ridiculing it.
His mocking flippancy befits the care and consideration that went into what appears to be a half- ed and largely improvised war of choice, imho.
The action is open ended, our aims unclear, our tactics muddled. The results are likely to be inconclusive even if we do oust Qaddafi, leading to another protracted peacekeeping/nation building effort and more Americans killing bad guys who never did anything to us, on behalf of good guys we don't know very much about, with civilians caught in the middle.
Sucks for us, sucks for them. Who wins?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions