North Korea Speaks about Libya

Just the other day I was having a nice chat with a good friend and she observed that we have not heard from the crazy’s in North Korea for a while. Well, just like the old saying, mention someone and they turn up, that little dictatorship stuck it’s head up and told the press that "Libya’s dismantling of its nuclear weapons program had made it vulnerable to military intervention by the West." Of course part of the purpose in saying that is to justify and reinforce their on-going refusal to end their own nuclear program.

A North Korean Foreign Ministry official put out a statement criticizing the air assault on Libyan government forces and suggesting that Libya had been duped in 2003 when it abandoned its nuclear program in exchange for promises of aid and improved relations with the West. Calling the West’s bargain with Libya “an invasion tactic to disarm the country,” the official said it amounted to a bait and switch approach. “The Libyan crisis is teaching the international community a grave lesson,” the official said, proclaiming that North Korea’s “songun” ideology of a powerful military was “proper in a thousand ways” and the only guarantor of peace on the Korean Peninsula.

I am quite sure they watched the attacks in Libya this week with mixed feelings. First, of course, is the fear that must have come when watching  people raise up and throw off a tyrant and enjoying world approval and support in doing it. The second, unfortunately, must be satisfaction that they have a huge military and –that they have a nuclear weapons program to discourage interference in such an uprising by the West. North Korea is believed to have 8 to 12 nuclear weapons and last year disclosed a new uranium-enrichment plant.

The Koreans see the Libyan situation as at least the third instance in two decades to offer proof that they did something right while others failed and ultimately paid the price --the Soviet Union’s decision to end the arms race and to abandon the political option to use their weapons of mass destruction, --Iraq’s agreement to accept United Nations nuclear inspectors and monitors, --and now, Libya.

To the North Korean leadership all three countries took the economic bait, foolishly disarmed themselves, and once they were defenseless, were punished by the West. Now, of course, anyone in the senior North Korean leadership who favored denuclearization will now be silent on the issue.

The United States said there was no link between Libya’s abandonment of efforts to develop nuclear arms and other weapons and the current military campaign by Western nations. “Where they’re at today has absolutely no connection with them renouncing their nuclear program or nuclear weapons,” said Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman. I believe that. I think watching Saddam on road to the gallows had a lot more to do with Kaddafi's decision to drop his program than anything else...

The comments by the North Korean official don’t look good for chances for a renewal of the six-party talks on the dismantling of North Korea’s atomic program. The talks ended in 2009 when North Korea withdrew, angry over international sanctions that followed a long-range missile test. The two Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan are the participants in the six-party process, which began in 2003. China, North Korea’s only major ally, has served as the host country and may be the only country in the world with any ability to influence the mentally challenged regime. 

Live Long and Prosper...

General Electric Paid No Taxes! –Rant time again…

Well, General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010. They reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States. Which is surprising since most of it’s business is done in America, with American Companies or for the American Government….

O.K., we’ll let that go for now. Let’s look at the taxes, you know, that stuff we all have to file for by the 15th of next month? Just how much did our funds starved government get in taxes on that $5.1 billion? None. Not one dime. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That unbelievable piece of news may be hard to understand, but apparently low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s massive tax department, which is led by a former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually every tax-writing committee in Congress.

But, General Electric is not alone. They are one of the most skilled at reducing their tax burden, but many other companies have become better at this too. The top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, but companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.

In a regulatory filing, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is getting money back!

Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation’s tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.

Yet many companies say the current level is so high it hobbles them in competing with foreign rivals. Even as the government faces a mounting budget deficit, the talk in Washington is about lower rates. President Obama has said he is considering an overhaul of the corporate tax system, with an eye to lowering the top rate, ending some tax subsidies and loopholes and generating the same amount of revenue. To accomplish this, he has handed the hen-house keys over to the fox. He has designated G.E.’s chief executive, Jeffrey R. Immelt, as his liaison to the business community and as the chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and it is expected to discuss corporate taxes.

“He understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy,” Mr. Obama said of Mr. Immelt, on his appointment in January. Yeah, Mr. President, he sure does. But what he does not understand is the duty of Americans to pay taxes to support the government, not rob it blind at every turn. 

One of the most striking advantages of General Electric, led by Mr. Immelt, is its ability to lobby for, win and take advantage of tax breaks. Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to “green energy” credits for its wind turbines. But the most lucrative of these measures allows G.E. to operate a vast leasing and lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no American taxes as long as the money remains overseas.

Company officials say that these measures are necessary for G.E. to compete against global rivals and that they are acting as responsible citizens. “G.E. is committed to acting with integrity in relation to our tax obligations,” said Anne Eisele, a spokeswoman. “We are committed to complying with tax rules and paying all legally obliged taxes. At the same time, we have a responsibility to our shareholders to legally minimize our costs.”

The financial crisis led G.E. to post a loss in the United States in 2009. But don’t fret, in the last five years, G.E. has accumulated $26 billion in American profits, and received a net tax benefit from our I.R.S. of $4.1 billion. What this amounts to is corporate welfare, allowing G.E. to avoid taxes on profitable overseas lending and also amass tax credits and write-offs that can be used to reduce taxes on billions of dollars of profit from domestic manufacturing. This not only shortchanges the Treasury, but also harms the economy by discouraging investment and hiring in the United States.

“In a rational system, a corporation’s tax department would be there to make sure a company complied with the law,” said Len Burman, a former Treasury official who now is a scholar at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “But in our system, there are corporations that view their tax departments as a profit center, and the effects on public policy can be negative.” -Wow, now there is an understatement.

Let me try to put this into a little more perspective. If you accept they $5.1 billion figure as the true profits from G.E. for this last year, at the 35% tax rate they would have contributed one billion seven hundred eight five million dollars ($1,785,000,000.00) to the Treasury. Let me make this a little clearer still. The reason they get away with not paying one and three quarter billion dollars in taxes is because they have many of our elected representatives in their pocket and have gotten tax laws passed that allow them to avoid taxes by keeping jobs and profits out of America! -How is that for a good loyal American Company?

This is why we hate politicians and do not trust governments or large businesses. It is way past time to change all of this. I hope some sharp young upcoming politician will take this on as a crusade. They will have my vote if they do….

Oh, and one more piece of advice…. The Flat Tax --Now.

Live Long and Prosper....

Chavez Demonstrates His IQ is under 80 –again

I actually laughed when I read this story on Reuters the other day.

According to the story Hugo Chavez last5 week said  that capitalism may be to blame for the lack of life on the planet Mars. "I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Chavez said in speech to mark World Water Day.

Chavez also warned that water supplies on Earth were drying up. "Careful! Here on planet Earth where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Chavez said.

El Presidente for life added that the West's attacks on Libya were about water and oil reserves. That is not really surprising considering that he probably can not conceive of the common people actually wanting something like freedom, democracy and an end to rule by a dictator….

Live Long and Prosper...

NATO Takes Over in Libya

U.S. military aircraft are on the move at Aviano Air Base

NATO's North Atlantic Council approved an operations plan that will shift the entire Libyan military mission to their command. NATO ambassadors unanimously approved a so-called "no-fly plus" plan that will put the alliance in charge of protecting civilians as well as enforcing a no-fly zone and an arms embargo.

"Our goal is to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack from the Gadhafi regime," NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said. "NATO will implement all aspects of the U.N. resolution. Nothing more, nothing less."

The new NATO mandate will allow the current coalition, led by the United States, the United Kingdom and France, to stand down. NATO officials described the transition as a phased and seamless operation.

All alliance members will have to abide by the rules of engagement, albeit with caveats that may allow some nations not to participate in operations in Libya. However, it is assumed that none of these nations will prevent other alliance members from executing the military plan and rules of engagement that were approved.

A senior U.S. administration official stressed the NATO mission is to protect civilians and did not rule out the possibility of an attack on the rebels if they were to go on the offensive and strike cities with civilian populations, now held by pro-Gadhafi forces.

Personally, I am glad to see NATO take over, even though I hope you all realize that the United States is not off the hook. The spokesman said this will allow the U.S. to “stand down” –who are they trying to kid? America is the backbone of NATO and the technology needed to enforce a No-Fly Zone is largely contributed and operated by the United States. Having said that, I am still glad the burden of responsibility for actions taken in the near future will be shared by other nations.

The NATO take over has a couple of things to be cautious about, however. First, there is the problem that the overall command has been placed in what is for all intents and purposes, a committee made up of countries that often have a hard time even coming to an agreement on the color of an orange. Second is the little comment that “protecting civilians” could be interpreted as also protecting pro-Kaddafi cities from Rebel attack. This could mean that the conflict, excuse me, this Kinetic Military Action, could grind down into a stalemate and Kaddafi could fortify Tripoli and remain a threat for a long time, making it even harder to get rid of him.

And that, my friends, is what happens when decisive action is left in the hands of international committees….

~~~~~~~~

Oh, and here is a little story in this morning's headlines that should help my friends in New York enjoy their coffee. Apparently the Bronx Zoo has closed their Reptile House because a 20 inch long Egyptian Cobra has "gone missing". Don't worry, they say it likes closed in spaces so they are sure it is still in the enclosure -somewhere. By-the-way, the Egyptian Cobra's venom is so strong a single bite can kill an elephant in hours and a man in 15 minutes.... -Well, I wasn't planning on a visit to New York soon anyway....

Live Long and Prosper....

Silver Star for Stopping Attacker

Master Sgt. Ian Dunbar shakes the hand of Silver Star recipient Sgt. 1st Class Steven V. Kimsey

We have been talking about all of the other problems around the world so much that it is easy for forget we have troops in harms way in Afghanistan. Here is a little story of one of those heroes. This one got the Silver Star for stepping into the line of fire and saving some of his team mates.

Sgt. 1st Class Steve Kimsey received the Silver Star for his actions last year during an attack in an operations center in Afghanistan that left two Fort Bragg Soldiers dead and threatened at least six other people. On Jan. 29, 2010, an Afghan interpreter, who had just been fired, attacked the center with an AK-47 and four full magazines at Camp Nunez in Wardak Province.

Kimsey, who was wearing a Beretta M9 pistol, was the only other person in the room who was armed. He stood up, stepped in front of the unarmed people and shot the interpreter to death. "It all happened really quick -- shots the first time, shots the second time," Kimsey said. "I keyed in it's not right. I was a little bit prepared, hair on the back of the neck standing up."

Maj. Gen. Kurt Fuller, the deputy commanding general of U.S. Army Special Operations Command, presented the medal during the 95th Civil Affairs Brigade's fourth annual Global Civil Affairs Conference. "As bad as it was, it could have been a lot worse," Fuller said. Fuller himself was in Afghanistan at the time as deputy commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division. He first learned of the incident while flying on a helicopter en route to another location.

At the time of the incident, Kimsey was assigned to Company A of the 91st Civil Affairs Battalion and working with an A-team from 3rd Special Forces Group.

After being fired for unsatisfactory behavior, the interpreter went to another interpreter's room and obtained the weapon and ammunition. While halfway into the operations center, the interpreter shot and killed Spc. Marc P. Decoteau, 19, of Waterville Valley, N.H. Then Capt. David J. Thompson was shot in the abdomen and later died of his wounds.

"On the base, everybody is a little more relaxed," Kimsey said. "I just always carry my weapon on me."

Kimsey made a "split-second decision to go against his natural human reaction, which would be to get down and get behind cover," Fuller said, “His Soldier training also would have prompted him to get down and find cover when he came under fire.”

Kimsey, 32, of Cumberland Gap, Tenn., said his past experience as a Ranger and infantryman taught him to act aggressively. "When it all went down, it was pretty much all training," Kimsey said. Kimsey is now an assistant instructor with the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg.

"It's an honor to be associated with Soldiers like him," said Col. Jay Wolff, commander of the 95th Civil Affairs Brigade. –Yes, you're right, Colonel, and it is an honor for us to have soldiers like this going in harms way to keep us safe!

Live Long and Prosper....

Libya and Americas Kinetic War

Wow, things are sure confused when it comes to what we are doing, or not doing, in Libya. Politically speaking, the battle lines have never been so clearly foggy. We have Republicans supporting Obama for taking ‘deliberate and decisive action’ and at the same time, we have Democrats demanding his impeachment for war crimes. What happened? I feel like I just stepped out of “The Way Back Machine” and it is 10 years ago…. But then I look again and here comes the ‘other’ Republicans, true to their cause, saying that it is nice to save thousands of lives, but only when we can afford it…. And they are followed by the ‘Obama-walks-on-water-Democrats’ who think the real problem in the Middle East is the Republicans in Congress holding on to their guns and waving their Bibles…

God, I get tired of all this nonsense….

Then we have the usually clear and precise American Military give press briefings and refusing to call all this bombing and strafing of Kaddafi’s forces a “war” or a “conflict”. Instead they insist on using the term “Kinetic Military Action”. Yeah, right. 

Just for the sake of argument, I took a moment and looked up the word kinetic. I have news for you, shooting rockets at people, dropping bombs on tanks, and flying over firing machine guns is anything but kinetic. Hey, Pentagon, stop listening to the State Department and start preparing your own press briefings, ok?

Then we enter the world on the home front where people are trying to make some sense of all this and decide if we are doing the right thing or not. Bill O’Reilly thinks we did the right thing by acting to stop what would have been a major blood bath if Kaddafi had gotten into Benghazi. I agree. The quote he uses is from Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Again, I agree.

Unfortunately, reality has a nasty way of catching up with ideology and we are faced with what to do now that we have, at least temporarily, stopped the massacre. Now that we have had time to look at this thing “up close and personal”, what we see is not as clean and nice as we would have liked. No surprises there, as an amateur historian, I can tell you that war never is as clean and nice as people would like.

First there is the little matter of the No-Fly Zone (which includes taking out any of Kaddafi’s military that makes the mistake of sticking their heads up). Who is going to actually enforce it? Who is in command? How far can they go to “protect civilians”? How long is this going to have to be in place? Will the UN ever give permission to go after Kaddafi? Will the Arab League provide the assistance they called for and promised, or will they turn on us infidels?

I don’t know, boss, I just don’t know.

President Obama has made it clear that the United States will NOT be the lead dog on this sled, but that it would be a NATO operation. The problem is that some of our coalition allies don’t quite agree. Neither France nor Turkey want NATO to be in charge. That's good because, as it turns out, it is not. According to the Bloomberg news service:

The allies are considering a proposal, backed by France, to create a political steering committee that would oversee military operations using NATO's command structure. It would consist of the 12 nations that have committed to participating.

Oh, yeah. That will work, “War by Committee”. Why don't they just let the U.N. General Assembly run this thing?

Germany (also a NATO member) doesn't want NATO be in charge either. So much so that it:

(1) abstained from voting for the non-war resolution in the U.N. Security Council;

(2) has withdrawn its ships from the area to help with the no-fly zone business, and

(3) has refused to help police the arms embargo against Muammar Gaddafi.

It is nice to note that Chancellor Merkel oversees the strongest economy in the European Union largely due to German citizen's discipline.

Remember when the French didn't do what President Bush wanted? We stopped drinking French wine and renamed potatoes "Freedom" fries. I wonder --what should we do with police dogs and potato salad? Budweiser has already been sold to a Belgian firm, so they're off the hook.

With President Obama at the helm of the ship of state, it appears that none of our allies want their fingerprints on this thing. That "3 AM" ad from the primary campaign finally came true. Obama started a non-war and headed off to South America. Hillary really did have to answer the phone.

For now, I have no idea what we can or should do. I know our original intention to make Kaddafi pay for his sins and prevent the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians was absolutely the right thing to do. That thought may not be much help when we wake up to find we have caught the tiger by the tail and we dare not let go….

Live Long and Prosper....

Lets Change the Subject for a day (and let Gary rant)

Are you as tired of war and disasters and politics as I am? Well, war and disasters are always something to get tired of very quickly –like before they even start. But politics, that is another matter.

It seems to me that the problem is just that we have been seeing the same politics, same politicians, same political problems, same proposed solutions, same debate and same promises for 3 years now, ever since the beginning of the last Presidential election. It just does not stop. Personally, I am sick of it. Oh, I know, it is important stuff. Some of those issues have very real consequences and we need to pay attention. Yes, that is true. But we also need a break before our eyes start to bleed.

Our Congress goes on vacations at the drop of a hat –but while they are on vacation the Senators and Congressmen run around making speeches and stopping for photo ops. I think we should tell them we need a vacation too. From now on, when they go on “vacation” they should be banned from any form of “politicking”. Who knows, maybe if they were forced to shut up once in a while they would actually use that time to think and come up with some creative and useful ideas and legislation……naw….

Anyway, I decided to write about our need for oil drilling here in the good ‘ole US of A. Shhh, I know, that smacks of a kind of political issue too, but let’s pretend it isn’t just to make me feel better.

On March 22nd Michael Bromwich, the top U.S. offshore-drilling regulator who heads the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, said more permits to drill for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico's deep water would be issued "within the next week."

In recent weeks, the agency has issued four deep-water drilling permits, including one Tuesday that allows Exxon Mobil Corp. to drill a new well in 6,941 feet of water (that is a half mile deeper than Deepwater Horizon, anybody nervous yet?). Those permits are the first to be issued since such operations were shut down for deep-water drilling in response to the Deepwater Horizon's explosion and subsequent oil spill. On Monday the agency also awarded Royal Dutch Shell PLC the first deep-water exploration plan since the disaster.

Some oil and gas companies have "clearly recognized that Deepwater Horizon was the symptom of a broader failure in both industry and government" to match safety with the increasing risk of deep-water operations Mr. Bromwich said, "But there are other operators who, with surprising and disturbing speed, have seemed all-too-ready to shrug off Deepwater Horizon as a complete aberration, a perfect storm, one in a million".

Mr. Bromwich is correctly careful and hesitant, wanting to ensure we don’t have another oil spill. However, I think we need to weight his comments in light of the fact that he is an Obama Administration employee and is obviously loyal to the party line. That line lately appears to be to publicly support drilling but to privately work to delay and obstruct whenever possible. Their favorite tactic is this very one –use the oil spill as an excuse for an “abundance of caution”.

Bromwich also said a shallow-water natural gas well operated by Apache Corp. that leaked for several days this year shows that risks aren't confined to deep water (deep water is typically that over 1,000 feet). An Apache spokesman said the company worked closely with regulators to stop a bubbling natural gas well, which released no oil and caused no injuries. The company was permanently plugging wells in a depleted gas field when the bubbling was noticed, he said. "Apache knows very well that the risks of operating offshore are neither trivial nor non-existent," he said in an email.

Though Bromwich told regulators that more deep-water drilling permits will be approved "in the coming weeks and months," he also said after the speech that some projects would be approved in the next week. Mr. Bromwich said he couldn't predict the pace at which permits will come from the agency, because each project will be considered individually (surpised?).

Right now the key for permits being issued is the development and readiness of a pair of spill-containment systems, one built by a nonprofit consortium of large oil companies (the Marine Well Containment Co.), and the other owned by Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc., which helped stanch the flow from BP PLC's runaway well after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded.

"The tests that have been conducted so far, even though they're not under spill conditions, give us the confidence that has been necessary for us to be comfortable in approving these permits," Mr. Bromwich said.

Mr. Bromwich also said there is a "high probability" some offshore leases will be extended to account for the five-month drilling ban that followed the Deepwater Horizon disaster and subsequent permitting delays.

Like many of my friends, I am really aggravated by the politics being played with the drilling issue. I approve of a lot of caution, especially with deep water drilling, but we have huge untapped oil resources around the country, not just in the gulf, that we should be exploring and drilling.

Alternate energy is a very good idea, but it is still years or decades away from replacing our need for oil. In the meantime we are still being held hostage by Middle Eastern Oil Sheiks, many of whom would like to see us cease to exist. They control oil prices and that can control our whole economy. 

Do you realize that the phrase “It’s time we end foreign oil dependence” was first used in a speech by Nixon and has been repeated by every single President since ---for the last 50 years?

What is the matter with us? Why do we go blindly along with this when we have the resources here to end the dependence once and for all????


OK, I through ranting (for today)….

Live Long and Prosper....

A Few Things About Libya that Worry Me

Like the almost all of my friends, I will be very glad to see Colonel Gadhafi get his deserved end. The rebellion in Libya has stirred hope for seeing him face the consequences for his actions and for the people of that abused country to finally have peace and freedom. Unfortunately, reality has a way of never quite working out the way you’d like and I am afraid that in Libya we are going to see that saying proved true.

In the cold light of day, some facts are very disturbing. As one who hopes for success in this venture, I am dismayed by the contradictions in the course we seem to be following.

Several weeks ago, the leaders of the “coalition”, including President Obama said Gadhafi "must go." But the resulting United Nations Security Council resolution under which we are acting does not say that. We have begun hearing people in our Administration like Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen say that Gadhafi may remain in power indefinitely. Even National Security Council staffer Ben Rhodes said, "It's not about regime change."

If that is the case, then the operation, to "protect civilians," could be of unlimited duration. Libya might very well be divided between the Gadhafi regime in the west around Tripoli and a rebel regime in the east around Benghazi and maintaining the rebels will require military force. The United States is currently in command of operations, but says that command will be handed off to others in "days, not weeks.” I have heard this Saturday is a target date for this to occur.

The news reports make it clear that the overwhelming majority of military forces in action are American. Putting a British or French officer in command will not change that and putting U.S. forces under foreign command will very weaken support for the enterprise here at home.

There is a saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee. This enterprise is beginning to look like that to me. The policy satisfies advocates of humanitarian intervention, who remember Bill Clinton's regret that he didn't intervene to stop the slaughter in Rwanda. Unfortunately, in appears that in order to satisfy those who oppose the United States acting unilaterally, it took time to get the U.N. Security Council to act. As a result we missed the moment when it seemed possible that recognition of a rebel government or imposition of a no-fly zone would topple Gadhafi. The delay gave him time to launch a counterattack that made him strong enough to withstand the limited military action.

In an attempt to satisfy the anti-war crowd at home, President Obama accepted limits on U.S. involvement. Obama was trying to satisfy skeptics of military action, like our own Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who publicly pointed out the difficulties of maintaining a no-fly zone. We have seen Obama do this kind of thing before, like when announced his surge in Afghanistan and at the same time announcing a deadline for the beginning of troop withdrawals. The result in Libya is a policy whose means seem unlikely to produce the desired ends.

In the process, the President has jettisoned some of the basic tenets of his party's (Democrat) foreign policy. "It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action," candidate Obama said in December 2007. But Congress was not asked for “informed consent” or, apparently, consulted in any serious way about this decision to take military action in Libya.

Instead, members of Congress, like the general public, heard the President make the announcement in Rio de Janeiro. That's quite a contrast with George W. Bush, who sought and obtained congressional approval of military action in Afghanistan in September 2001 and Iraq in October 2002.

I am afraid that this action is not likely to remain attractive to American voters if it fails to result in the overthrow of Gadhafi and leads to an open-ended military commitment in a nation where our vital interests are not at stake. The hard truth is, that is exactly what it looks like what is going to happen.

The other hard truth is that the longer this takes and the more obvious it becomes to the armchair generals here at home that the only way to get rid of Gadhafi is with “boots on the ground”, the more we will begin learning about the rebels we are committed to supporting. Some of the “truths” there are not going to go down well with the American people.

First of all some of the facts are well documented, and at odds with wishful thinking. What many in the West seem not to realize is that the revolt was started in Benghazi on February 15-17th by the group called the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition. The protests had a clear fundamentalist religious motivation, and were convened to commemorate the 2006 Danish cartoons protests, which had been particularly violent in Benghazi.

The NCLO web site, which is in Arabic, carries a document (Arabic; Google Cache; legible in automatic translation) dated February 15th (the day the protests began), which clearly spells out NCLO's objections to Qaddafi's rule. 

The main points of "Qaddafi: Islam's no. 1 enemy" are as follows:

• Qaddafi has closed an Islamic university and a seminary, has forbidden some Islamist publications, and has thrown thousands of Islamist activists into jail.

• Qaddafi has urged to put the Qur'an on the shelf, as no longer appropriate for this age.

• Qaddafi has made fun of the Islamic veil, calling it a "rag" and a "tent".

• Qaddafi has dared to say that Christians and Jews should be allowed to visit Mecca.

• Qaddafi has rejected the Hadith and Sunnah, and said he follows the Qur'an alone.

(The last claim involves a curious episode. At one point, Gadhafi declared himself a follower of the "Qur'an alone" movement, which rejects orthodox Muslim punishments, like stoning for adultery, death penalty for homosexuals etc. This got him into some serious trouble. An international committee of scholars went to discuss the issue with Gadhafi. After being told that "if he did not repent and take back his statement, he would fall under the law of renegades and infidels [...] which would force true Muslims to kill him", Qaddafi "repented and took back his statement".)

None of this is surprising. The leaked State Department memos describe Eastern Libya (2008) as an area of fervent Islamic sentiment, where "a number of Libyans who had fought and in some cases undergone 'religious and ideological training' in Afghanistan, Lebanon and the West Bank in the late 1970's and early 1980's had returned [...] in the mid to late 1980's". There they engaged into "a deliberate, coordinated campaign to propagate more conservative iterations of Islam, in part to prepare the ground for the eventual overthrow by the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) of Muammar Qadhafi's regime, which is 'hated' by conservative Islamists". While Qaddafi's position was perceived to be strong, the East Libyans sent jihadis to Iraq, where "fighting against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq represented a way for frustrated young radicals to strike a blow against both Qadhafi and against his perceived American backers".

It is these same religiously and ideologically trained East Libyans who are now the “rebels” we are supporting. Gadhafi's claims that all his opponents are members of Al Qaeda not very far off, in regards to their sympathies. Anyone claiming that the Eastern Libyans are standing for secular, liberal values needs to overcome a huge burden of proof. First, what is the social basis of such a movement, when neutral observers have been characterizing East Libya as a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism? Second, if the revolt has started on religious grounds, when and how exactly has it radically changed its character?

These hard facts are not counter-acted by Abdul Jalil's statements of liberal, democratic purpose. As head of the National Transitional Council, he is the West's favorite partner in dialogue (and recognized by France as Libya's legitimate head of state). His reliability and control are, however, questionable. As Qaddafi's Minister of Justice until last month, Abdul Jalil's democratic credentials are dubious; he has not participated in the initiation of the revolt, has latched onto it when it seemed likely to succeed, and his organization's control over the rebel forces is unproven. Overall, the participation of former Gadhafi officials is no reason to assume that the character and aims of a revolt that started on fundamentalist religious principles have changed to liberal, democratic ones.

In the end, I am having nightmares that our leaders seem to be rushing to replace an already bad regime with one that could be even worse. The Obama Administrations lack of political savvy of Middle Eastern affairs combined with the French embarrassment with getting the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts wrong (and subsequent change of foreign ministers) and the British embarrassment with close ties to the Gadhafi regime (including the award of a PhD from the prestigious London School of Economics to Qaddafi's son) have caused our countries to jump in, trying to remedy their perceived previous failings. 

Lack of cool reasoning and ignorance of the facts on the ground might very well make the remedy worse than the disease.

Live Long and Prosper....

Drug Cartels –We are not fighting the battle right

I think it is time to talk about another very real threat to the United States. This one has been with us for years and has been reported on but the Administration just not seem to understand its true dangers to us. The most dangerous threat to the United States and our allies in this Hemisphere is the growth of powerful transnational criminal organizations in Mexico and Central America. These cartels threaten law, order and governance in Mexico and the seven states of Central America. Over

35,000 Mexicans have died in drug-related violence since 2006 when Mexican resident Felipe Calderón began to crack down on the cartels; in 2010 more than 3,100 have died in Ciudad Juarez alone.1 In neighboring Guatemala, the government declared an official “state of siege” along its northern border with Mexico to permit its military to fight the los Zetas cartel.2 Unfortunately, efforts to counter cartels and drug trafficking have largely failed thus far.

We are simply not fighting this “war” properly and as a result we are losing it. Violence spills over our southern border more and more regularly. Worsening violence and instability in the region threatens U.S. national security interests and demands a stronger response. To address this threat, the United States and its partners in the region should look to Colombia for guidance and assistance. Colombia has fought similar threats with some success and is emerging from three decades of crisis fueled by drug trafficking organizations and violent cartels. While Colombia will face many challenges for some time to come, it is increasingly secure, democratic and able to help its neighbors.

The United States and its partners throughout the Western Hemisphere stand the best chance of securing the region against the most dangerous cartels by attacking them together. A regional security framework such as the “Mesoamerican Security Corridor,” proposed by the U.S. Department of State, offers a new opportunity to link U.S. and Colombian assistance and counternarcotics programs in Mexico to address challenges in the Central American states to Mexico’s south. Such a regional security framework will be necessary to defeat the cartels and reinstitute the rule of law and justice. A key element of the framework should be greater cooperation and coordination between major U.S. security assistance programs.

Transnational cartel networks cannot be defeated in just one area, one border or one country. These organizations conduct activities throughout the region and therefore are able to adapt quickly to new security measures taken to counter them. A reinvigorated partnership between the United States and Colombia, Mexico and the nations of Central America is the only effective means to attack this transnational threat, secure the safety of the people and promote the rule of law and justice throughout the region.

Live Long and Prosper....

Remember the 1st Gulf War: Let’s Not make the same Mistake

Twenty years ago this month we put a “No-Fly Zone” in place over Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from bombing civilians during an uprising against him. We had encouraged the rebels hoping to topple a bloody dictator. That time, however, we failed to provide assistance to the rebels and allowed them to be crushed. That failure contributed to the need for the 2nd Gulf War, a decade of war and cost billons of dollars and hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The Gulf War had ended. Kuwait, viciously occupied by Iraq in August 1990, had been freed by a massive US-led coalition. Saddam Hussein's forces had been routed, and the despicable tyrant had suffered a crushing defeat. Though the United States had gone to war to liberate the people of Kuwait, President Bush (the elder) openly championed the liberation of Iraq's people too. Four weeks into the war, he publicly urged Iraqis to overthrow Saddam.

"There's another way for the bloodshed to stop," he said in Washington on Feb. 15, 1991. "That is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside, and to comply with the United Nations resolutions and then rejoin the family of peace-loving nations."

On March 1, Bush repeated his call for a rebellion. "I've always said . . . that the Iraqi people should put him aside and that would facilitate the resolution of all these problems."

The Iraqis, listening to Bush' on Voice of America, the BBC, and the CIA-sponsored Voice of Free Iraq, got the message loud and clear. The long-suffering Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north responded to the President. Encouraged by the assurance that America was with them, and knowing that 400,000 coalition troops were nearby, they seized the moment to break free of Saddam's tyranny.

An uprising began in the south. On March 3, a tank gunner in Basra was cheered when he fired a shell into the giant portrait of Saddam hanging in the city's main square. Within days, the Shi'ite heartland was in open revolt; in Karbala, Najaf and other cities, officials of Saddam's Ba'ath Party were overpowered and either killed or forced to flee. Soon the Kurds rose up as well, liberating Sulaimaniyah and other cities in the north, and uncovering horrific evidence of the Ba'ath regime's crimes against the Kurdish people.

The rebels swiftly took 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Freedom, and Saddam's end, were within reach.

But help from America never came. Bush had described Saddam as "Hitler revisited" and repeatedly threatened him with Nuremberg-style war crimes trials. But at the decisive moment, Bush denied the Iraqi people the limited American assistance they needed to topple one of the planet's most savage totalitarians. Crucially, he refused to override General Norman Schwarzkopf's decision to exclude helicopters (even armed helicopters) from the coalition order grounding Iraq's military aircraft. And so, with US troops looking on, Saddam's forces proceeded to crush the uprising with nightmarish barbarity.

One of the regime's tactics was to warn residents to leave a city before the army attacked, specifying the evacuation routes that were safe. Then, once those routes were thronged with miles-long columns of civilians desperate to escape the fighting, the helicopter gunships would open fire, strafing the refugees with machine guns.

The violence Saddam’s forces committed were nothing short of horrific. Among innumerable other atrocities, "children who would not give their parents' names to soldiers were doused with gasoline and set on fire."

In the weeks that followed, Saddam's forces slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis, filling hundreds of mass graves in the process. Bush refused to intervene, insisting that it had never been his goal "to get Saddam Hussein out of there by force." Saddam would rule Iraq for 12 hellish years more. It would take us getting involved in another war to eventually depose him. That war was paid for in blood and treasure, including the lives of more than 4,400 Americans.

Late last week, with Libyan ruler Moammar Khadafy's troops surging toward Benghazi and preparing to annihilate the rebels defending it. For weeks, President Obama appeared to hesitate over a response to the anti-Khadafy uprising, but his rhetoric declaring that the dictator "must leave" and promising Libya's people that America "will stand with them in the face of unwarranted violence" was loud. Unfortunately, it was not matched by action.

At the 11th hour America backed a UN resolution authorizing "all necessary force" to stop Khadafy's rampage. I can not help but wonder if it dawned on Obama that he was on the verge of repeating Bush the Elder's disastrous blunder? On Friday, he warned firmly that all attacks on Libyan civilians "must stop," and that a pullback of Khadafy's troops "will be enforced through military action." Now, US missiles have begun striking Libyan air-defense systems around Tripoli and the western cities of Misurata and Surt. The president's resolve comes late -- dangerously late. But if he has realized at last that there is no time to hesitate, hopefully it is not too late to save the Libyan resistance and avoid a much longer, far more costly war.

Live Long and Prosper....

Libyan Conflict –Some of Wars other Faces

Now that the decision has been made and the bombs have started falling, we now enter a new phase of the war. This one always starts after shots have been fired and the commitment is irreversible. This phase is more on the home front than the battle front. This is when politicians, looking to make political currency (and take advantage of getting their names in the papers or on TV) start asking questions that might have been far more appropriate before someone locked, loaded and fired. This morning I read 3 different articles in which various politicians (2 Democrats and 1 Republican) began questioning the monetary cost of the war and asking of the United States should be spending that much “in a recession”. –I guess the Libyans should have waited to get rid of Gadhafi until we had the deficit under control.

I was disappointed to see this pointless blather about the costs was heavily picked up on FOX News, who ran cost charts showing how much is being spent on cruise missiles and on the overall effort. They ran them about once an hour all day.

Another favorite tactic is to question the leadership. President Obama now catches criticism no matter what he does. In the Libyan situation they said he waited too long and “dithered” before committing US forces.

Now listen, you all know that I am anything but a big fan of this President, but everything I have read indicates he did it right. He took this seriously from the start. He met with both political and military leaders, they evaluated the situation, made recommendations, checked to see what resources we had available, made a plan, got the UN to pass a resolution making the whole thing legal and then acted. All of that in about a week. Just how much faster should he have acted?

And now, on top of that, some of those same politicians are also complaining that he should have gone to Congress for permission first. Congress first? Really? Do you have any idea how long that exalted body would have taken to give President Obama permission to act? Besides, the Constitution clearly gives the President the ability to act in a crisis situation without Congressional approval.

I can not think what must be in their minds. Once our troops are committed and in harms way –and make no mistake, they are in harms way over there, the attention of all good citizens should be on supporting the troops. We should not be undermining the effort right from the start by implying we just can not afford to do the right thing or that it is somehow illegal because the right procedures were not followed.

In another little operation that brought a smile to my face, it seems a cruise missile late Sunday blasted Gadhafi’s residential compound near his iconic tent. It was not known where Gadhafi was when the missile hit, but it seemed to show that he is not safe, even while the allies trade nuances over whether the Libyan leader’s fall is a goal of their campaign.

Oh, and just in case you have heard Gadhafi or one of his sons talking about how they surprised and disappointed they are about American participation against them because they liked President Obama and had starting seeing the US as a friend and ally, just watch this You Tube clip of Gadhafi speaking to the UN General Assembly just last fall....

Live Long and Prosper....

Gadhafi's Son Threatens America

Now that the air attacks in Libya are underway in order to implement a no fly zone, Muammar al-Gaddafi is not happy and his son Saif spoke to Christiane Amanpour to express the family’s frustration. According to Saif they were surprised by the attack from the Americans, British and French that “terrorized children” with bombing everywhere, and warned that the western countries were choosing the wrong side in the conflict.

“So it was a big surprise that finally President Obama – we thought he is a good man and a friend of the Arab world is bombing Libya. . . . One day you will wake up and you made a big mistake with supporting these people. It’s like the WMD in Iraq. It’s another story.” Saif said.

In addition to declaring that America is “supporting the terrorists and armed militia,” Saif promised that his father will not step down from power, because someone must protect the Libyan people from the “nightmare” they are living.

Well, I guess it is good to hear both sides of the issue but, considering the lies that seem to generate uncontrollably from this family, I guess these statements should not come as a big surprise. One thing is for sure: the Gaddafis are not leaving without a fight. Not only that, but if they are allowed an opportunity they will send revenge terrorist strikes to both Europe and America. In the meanwhile, this little war is going to go on until these guys are dead or are dragged, kicking and screaming, before an international tribunal in The Hague. (and on that day, the drinks will be on me…)

Live Long and Prosper...

Events are Moving Fast in Libya

The Libyan war has begun. It places a coalition of European powers plus the United States, a handful of Arab states and rebels in Libya against the Libyan government. The long-term goal is regime change. Specifically, displacing the government of Moammar Gadhafi and replacing it with a new regime built around the rebels.

This mission is clearer than the strategy to be employed, a strategy can’t be figured out from the first moves. It might be the imposition of a no-fly zone and attacks against Libya’s command-and-control centers, or these two plus direct ground attacks on Gadhafi’s forces. There is a possibility that also be combined with an invasion and occupation of Libya.

The question, therefore, is not the mission but the strategy. Just how far is the coalition, or at least some of its members, prepared to go to effect regime change and manage the consequences following regime change? How many resources are they prepared to provide and how long are they prepared to fight? It should be remembered that in Iraq and Afghanistan the occupation became the hard part of the war, and regime change was merely the opening act. It is possible that the coalition partners haven’t decided on the strategy yet, or may not be in agreement. Let’s therefore consider the first phases of the war, regardless of how far they are prepared to go in pursuit of the mission.

The war began with a very public buildup in which the coalition partners negotiated the basic framework, sought international support and authorization from multinational organizations and mobilized forces. This was done very publicly because the cost of secrecy was not worth what was to be gained -surprise. Surprise matters when the enemy can mobilize resistance. Gadhafi was trapped and has limited military capabilities, so secrecy was unnecessary.

Before final decisions were made, and while all this was going on, special operations forces were inserted in Libya on two missions. First, to make contact with insurgent forces to prepare them for coming events, create channels of communications and logistics and create a post-war political framework. The second purpose was to identify targets for attack and conduct reconnaissance of those targets that provided as up-to-date information as possible. This, combined with air and space reconnaissance, served as the foundations of the war. We already know British SAS operators were in Libya and I suspect other countries’ special operations forces and intelligence services are also already operating there.

War commences with two sets of attacks. The first attacks are decapitation attacks designed to destroy or isolate the national command structure. These may also include strikes designed to kill leaders such as Gadhafi and his sons or other senior leaders. These attacks depend on specific intelligence on facilities, including communications, planning and so on along with detailed information on the location of the leadership. Attacks on buildings are carried out from the air but not particularly with cruise missile because they are especially accurate if the targets are slow, and buildings aren’t going anywhere. At the same time, aircraft are orbiting out of range of air defenses awaiting information on more mobile targets and if such is forthcoming, they come into range and fire appropriate munitions at the target. The type of aircraft used depends on the strength of the air defenses, the time available prior to attack and the munitions needed. They can range from conventional fighters or stealth strategic aircraft like the U.S. B-2 bomber (if America has authorized its use). Special operations forces might be on the ground painting the target for laser-guided munitions, which are highly accurate but require illumination.

At the same time these attacks are under way, attacks on airfields, fuel storage depots and the like are being targeted to ground the Libyan air force. Air or cruise missile attacks are also being carried out on radars of large and immobile surface-to-air (SAM) missile sites. Simultaneously, “wild weasel” aircraft — aircraft configured for the suppression of enemy air defenses — will be on patrol for more mobile SAM systems to locate and destroy. This becomes a critical part of the conflict. Being mobile, detecting these weapons systems on the ground is complex. They engage when they want to, depending on visual perception of opportunities. Therefore the total elimination of anti-missile systems is in part up to the Libyans. Between mobile systems and man-portable air-defense missiles, the threat to allied aircraft can persist for quite a while even if Gadhafi’s forces might have difficulty shooting anything down.

This is the part that the United States is extremely good at. But it is the beginning of the war. Gadhafi’s primary capabilities are conventional armor and particularly artillery. Destroying his air force and isolating his forces will not by itself win the war. The war is on the ground. The question is the motivation of his troops: If they perceive that surrender is unacceptable or personally catastrophic, they may continue to fight. At that point the coalition must decide if it intends to engage and destroy Gadhafi’s ground forces from the air. This can be done, but it is never a foregone conclusion that it will work. Moreover, this is the phase at which civilian casualties begin to mount It is at this point at which supporters of the war who want to end suffering may turn on the political leaders for not ending suffering without cost. It should be remembered that Saddam Hussein was hated universally but those who hated him were frequently not willing to impose the price of overthrowing him.

The question then becomes the extent to which this remains an air operation, as Kosovo was, or becomes a ground operation. Kosovo is the ideal, but Gadhafi is not Slobodan Milosevic and he may not feel he has anywhere to go if he surrenders. For him the fight may be existential, whereas for Milosevic it was not. He and his followers may resist. This is the great unknown. The choice here is to maintain air operations for an extended period of time without clear results, or invade. This raises the question of whose troops would invade. Egypt appears ready but there is long animosity between the two countries, and its actions might not be viewed as liberation. The Europeans could do so. It is difficult to imagine America adopting a third war in Muslim world.

If there is an invasion, it will probably succeed. The question then becomes whether Gadhafi’s forces move into insurgency. In Iraq an insurgency was forced by putting the Baathists into an untenable position. In Afghanistan the Taliban gave up formal power without having been decisively defeated. They regrouped, reformed and returned. It is if Gadhafi can do that or not. This is an important and major unknown.

The problem in Iraq was not the special operations forces. It was not in the decapitation strikes or suppression of enemy air defenses. It was not in the defeat of the Iraqi army on the ground. It was in the occupation, when the enemy reformed and imposed an insurgency.

Therefore the successes of the coming day will tell us nothing. Even if Gadhafi surrenders or is killed, even if no invasion is necessary save a small occupation force to aid the insurgents, the possibility of an insurgency is there. We will not know if there will be an insurgency until after it begins. Therefore, the only thing that would be surprising about this phase of the operation is if it failed.

The decision has been made that the mission is regime change in Libya. The strategic sequence is the routine buildup to war since 1991, this time with a heavier European component. The early days will go extremely well but will not define whether or not the war is successful. The test will come if a war designed to stop human suffering begins to inflict human suffering. That is when the difficult political decisions have to be made and when we will find out whether the strategy, the mission and the political will fully match up.

Live Long and Prosper....

Gadhafi and the Cease Fire -more lies

Yesterday I wrote about the potential effects of Gadhafi’s declaration that his forces would cease-fire and hold their positions. He invited the coalition countries to send inspectors to “verify the truth” and see for themselves that he was stopping military action to “protect Libya’s civilian population". 

Later that same day we got some very good proof of his true intentions.

The proof came when a fighter jet attacking Benghazi was shot down and fell from the sky, bursting into flames as explosions rang out in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. CNN reported that it was not immediately clear whom the jet belonged to, but that is incredibly stupid –who else would send fighter jets to attack the rebels….?

As for the opposition, it has been pushed back from other cities, but has vowed to defend Benghazi to the death. At least 28 people died and hundreds were wounded in fighting in the cities of Misrata, Ajdabiya and Zintan on Friday, according to Khaled el-Sayeh, a military spokesman for the opposition.

This fighter jet incident came just hours before international leaders meet in Paris to discuss the next steps in dealing with Libya. The U.N. Security Council voted Thursday to authorize "states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians." It also imposed a no-fly zone, banning all flights in Libyan airspace -- except those that involve humanitarian aid and the evacuation of foreign nationals.

In televised remarks Friday, Libyan Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa said the country decided on "an immediate cease-fire and the stoppage of all military operations." He urged observers from China, Malta, Turkey and Germany to come "as soon as possible ... to make sure that there is a real cease-fire on the ground."

In what we can clearly see was an example of the Libyan government's ongoing lying and hypocrisy, he said Libya is a member of the United Nations and is "obliged to accept the Security Council resolution that permits the use of force to protect the civilian population".

In an effort to spin the incident, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim said government forces were attacking "armed rebel militias," not civilians. Kaim also claimed that Gadhafi forces are not fighting a militia group that is making advances in the eastern town of al-Migrun and said the media are distorting Libyan military actions. In addition, he said the country has evidence of "crimes against humanity conducted by the rebels." But witnesses (including rebels and international media observers) in the western city of Misrata said earlier Friday that a pro-government assault persisted, and casualties were mounting.

"What cease-fire?" asked a doctor in Misrata, who described hours of military poundings, casualties and dwindling resources to treat the wounded. "We're under the bombs." An opposition member said Friday that "Misrata is on fire," adding that Gadhafi's regime announced a cease-fire to buy itself more time (a position I believe to be the actual truth here). Outside Ajdabiya in eastern Libya, fighters who don't trust Gadhafi said they believe that the declaration was a sham as sounds of explosions pierced through the air.

President Obama on Friday warned Gadhafi to pull back from several besieged cities or face military consequences. But he insisted American troops will not be deployed in Libya. Obama also said power and water must be restored to several cities. "These terms are not negotiable," Obama said. If Gadhafi doesn't comply, the U.N. resolution will be imposed through military action, the president said.

The U.N. resolution, while not authorizing such a move, does not preclude the United States from arming rebels, said Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

When asked whether the United States was planning to provide weapons to the opposition, Rice said, "We are focused immediately on protection of civilians, on ensuring that the march to Benghazi does not continue and that those who are most vulnerable have the rights and protections that they deserve."

Countries such as Britain, Spain and Canada have started mobilizing military equipment and personnel in preparation to intervene. British Prime Minister David Cameron said the United Kingdom has started preparations to deploy aircraft, and "in the coming hours," they will move to air bases where they will be positioned for any "necessary action." Other nations, including Spain and Canada, have said they will provide forces and fighter jets, respectively.

Now listen to Gadhafi himself in a speech just this Thursday on the You Tube clip below. Tell me, does that sound like he intends a cease-fire? Hint: If you say yes, please contact me as I have some ocean-front property in West Texas you might like to buy….

Live Long and Prosper....

What About the Cease-Fire in Lybia?

A day after the U.N. Security Council approved a no-fly zone over the country; Libya’s government announced an immediate cease-fire. The move complicates efforts to spearhead a campaign against Libyan government troops. Assuming Tripoli follows through on its declaration, the affect on operations against the Libyan rebels remains in question.

The Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister said that Libya would positively respond to the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a no-fly zone over Libya. That statement was followed by a declaration by the Foreign Minister of an immediate unilateral cease-fire and halt to all military operations. Tripoli added that it was ready to open “all dialogue channels with everyone interested in the territorial unity of Libya,” that it wanted to protect Libyan civilians, and that it was inviting the international community to send government and nongovernmental organization representatives “to check the facts on the ground by sending fact-finding missions so that they can take the right decision.”

These declarations cames as members of the NATO military alliance were ramping up for airstrikes authorized by the United Nations against troops loyal to Moammar Gadhafi. French diplomatic sources have been quoted as saying airstrikes could start “within hours.” Libya’s move potentially throws a wrench in plans to establish and enforce a no-fly zone — and take additional military action — against the Gadhafi government.

France and the United Kingdom have led the international community in its push to intervene in Libya. Washington had signaled that it would let the European nations lead. Italy, formerly a strong Gadhafi supporter, announced that it would consider supplying aircraft to the intervention, as did Norway, Denmark and Belgium.

However, by offering a cease-fire and inviting nongovernmental groups to conduct fact-finding missions, Gadhafi is betting that the European nations will lose the political justification for an attack and that political disagreements over military action within European nations can further weaken their already weak resolve. Europeans in general are war-weary from their involvement in NATO’s operations in Afghanistan. They only will support an intervention in Libya if Gadhafi clearly is committing gross violations of human rights. It will be difficult for Paris and London to prove that Gadhafi is indeed committing such acts or to ignore the cease-fire announcement or the invitation to verify it. The immediate reply from France was that it would deal with the cease-fire declaration with caution and that the threat on the ground was unchanged. But the backlash at home against an intervention in light of Gadhafi’s comments is not something European governments can overlook easily, especially since the most powerful EU member state, Germany, already has buckled under the domestic political strain and expressed skepticism toward a military operation.

Assuming Gadhafi follows through with the cease-fire, how it will affect his operations against the rebels remains in question. Gadhafi may feel the rebels have been suppressed such that he can mop up the remainder through police actions in urban settings. Alternatively, he may feel the rebels are so thoroughly entrenched in their stronghold of Benghazi that he cannot dislodge them under the threat of Western airstrikes — and is therefore cutting his losses and preserving the integrity of his forces from potential Franco-British-American air attacks. Ultimately, the cease-fire could be a delaying action while Gadhafi builds a stronger position around Benghazi. This would not be without risks, however, as it will give French and British air assets time to deploy in air bases in the Mediterranean, better positioning them to enforce a no-fly zone.

That said, the Security Council has authorized a no-fly zone, which means that while assaulting Gadhafi’s ground forces directly may be stalled by the cease-fire statement, establishing a no-fly zone is not. It is also likely that Europeans will respond to the statement with further demands on Gadhafi, such as that he must resign as leader of the country or that he must withdraw his troops from eastern Libya and possibly even other cities in the west that have seen fierce resistance, like Misurata and Zawiya. Both of these demands would be difficult for Gadhafi to accept. The establishment and enforcement of the no-fly zone may still go ahead, but attacking Gadhafi’s forces directly will become difficult in the immediate term.

Live Long and Prosper....

The Supreme Court and the Westboro Baptist Church

Last week the United States Supreme Court passed down a ruling on a case involving the hate filled demonstrations of he Westboro Baptist Church and it’s attention seeking, mentally challenged congregation. The case involved a law suit filled by the grieving father of a US Marine killed in Iraq. The Westboro crowd had demonstrated at the Marines funeral, disrupting the atmosphere of the ceremonies with their anti-military and and-gay protests. The father had turned to the Justice System seeking damages for the disruptions and resulting pain inflicted by the “Church” group.

In it’s decision, the Supreme Court, in a nearly unanimous vote (only 1 dissenting), held that the Westboro Church had not violated the law and had a right to conduct their protests, as hateful as they are. That decision surprised most people. I think that was because everyone identified with the poor father in this case and the Westboro people are just so mean and hateful it seemed only right for the father to win and the bad guys to get smacked down. They Supreme Court came under some fairly heavy criticism from quite a few people for whose opinions I have a great deal of respect.

Unfortunately, I seem to be the “odd-man out” on this one because I reluctantly agree with the Supreme Court. In America, it is easy for us to take freedom speech for granted. For citizens of the United States, free speech is a birthright. It is an ideal deeply woven into the fabric of society and culture. Sometimes, however, our ideals come into conflict with reality, and our convictions are put to the test. When a cherished liberty is exploited for a dubious purpose, do the perpetrators of that exploitation retain the right to exercise that liberty, or should the right be constrained "for the greater good?"

The US Supreme Court answered this question by ruling that the anti-military, anti-gay protest activities of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) are protected under the First Amendment to our Constitution. In spite of the fact this was not welcome news for those who believe that something should be done to protect grieving families of fallen soldiers from the vitriol of a lunatic "pastor" and his overzealous followers and as disgusting and offensive as WBC's conduct is, the general consensus among legal experts (on the Left and Right) is that the Supreme Court made the right decision. Chief Justice John Roberts took pains to explain why the Court came down on the side of the protesters in this case:

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."

As sorry as I am about it, Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues are absolutely correct here. The blessings of living in a free society come with the unavoidable consequences of that freedom: inevitably, misguided (and sometimes evil) people will use that freedom to spew hateful, hurtful speech. Yet, as much as we may wish to use the force of law to impose civility on public discourse, it is not the government's job to police the thoughts and words of its citizens.

This is the principle that is often behind opposition to hate crime legislation. Regardless of how this emotionally-charged debate might be portrayed in the media, the primary objection of critics of "hate crimes" is that such laws essentially criminalize thought or attitudes. In a society based in the rule of law, it is legitimate to punish a person when their conduct violates the life, liberty, or property of another. It is not legitimate, however, to punish that same person if their crime was motivated by an unpopular or abhorrent ideology. Actions, not attitudes, are the proper province of government regulation.

Hate speech can stir powerful emotions in us, prompting a desire for justice that clouds our ability to appreciate the higher principles involved. It is critically important that we remain firm in our allegiance to the values that America was founded on. Unlike many other parts of the world – where open criticism of the predominant religion or reigning despot is likely to land a person in prison or worse, America is a land that has always stood as a bastion of liberty and a model of the democratic process in action. If a person or a group says something we don't like, we don't issue death threats, or take to the streets in violent protest, or lobby the state to crack down on our enemies. That's just not the American way.

The American Legion's response to the Westboro Baptist Church's offensive activities is a perfect example of the American way in action. For six years, the Patriot Guard Riders have stood vigil at military funerals, acting as guardians for the fallen and their families and minimizing their exposure to the hateful protesters lining the funeral routes. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, the Legion has pledged to continue this work for as long as they are needed. Try as they might to garner attention with their hateful words, the Westboro Baptist Church's message will never resonate as loud as the message being sent by the Patriot Guard Riders. That is what makes America a great nation.

Live Long and Prosper.....