Despite his propensity for writing ghastly sentences like, "There are unbounded downside risks all over the place," when a simple shit is fucked would do, I just want to say that Yglesias has been as good as the mainstream can get on Libya: sensible, duly skeptical, and even, occasionally, observant:
Chris Adams for McClatchy also has a story out headlined “Libyan rebel leader spent much of past 20 years in suburban Virginia”, which is presumably because he really liked the Tyson’s Corner mall and has nothing to do with the location of the CIA or the Pentagon.Shit, that's even funny. This comes just after he notices, as I'm sure most of you already have, that "While President Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said." So I guess this whole "no boots on the ground thing" is sort of like, oh, I don't know, the martial equivalent of semiformal attire--tie or open collar? regular or paramilitary?
Daniel Larison:
It seems it was just the other day that pro-rebel enthusiasts here in the West were celebrating the rebel advance. Oh, right, it was just the other day, because the rebels cannot hold territory once they come under attack.He goes on to note some rather dubious activities on behalf of our people-powered allies-manqués in the east--door-to-door raids and all that. Shades of Kosovo, anyone? Memories of Iran-Contra? Plus c'est la même chose.
Sorry, did I say rebel advance? I meant to say glorious triumph of the “liberation movement.” When I see someone write enthusiastically about a foreign “liberation movement,” I ask myself what he is trying to sell me, because there are few more loaded and propagandistic ways to describe an insurrection than that. There are few words in political discourse more abused than liberation, especially when it comes to rebellions. Just eight years since we heard endless cheers for the “liberation” of Iraq, I cannot believe that otherwise reasonable people would resort to such language.
25 comments:
So, what's the plan?
Strike! Strike! Strike!
I've already taken action. I quit my job and have taken up panhandling. I now walk with a clear conscious that I'm no longer an enabler :-)
The CIA operatives are forbidden by their rules of engagement from wearing boots. At most, they are allowed high-top tennis shoes.
I sort of picture them in topsiders and rep ties ;)
They all look like Maxwell Smart to me; shoe phone and all. Old school.
https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-museum/spy-fi-archives/item15.html
When I need a larf about the Libya situation I go read Charli Carpenter over at LG&M. Today's classic:
"In fact it would surprise me if Operation Odyssey Dawn does not result in some slightly revisited normative understandings regarding R2P, and indeed perhaps it should."
You couldn't write a parody of pompous poli-sci blather that would capture it this well.
Hidden behind the propaganda is the certainty that the CIA had a presence in Libya well before "the liberation" started -- it's just that the CIA was supressing the political opposition to Qaddafi instead of arming and training it (if, in fact, that's what's going on now). // Implying that the CIA just showed up to help is missing the whole goddamn operating system of empire.
Btw, "rebel advance" seems just as euphamistic as "liberation movement." Find a proper noun for the opposition, then use that proper now without making it sound like a sporting event.
I would not overcredit the CIA with the competence you seem to ascribe to them. It is exactly like the CIA to show up somewhere if forgot about after the last coup/intervention/action/whatever and then show up, Third Ways a-blazin. That is how the empire works.
The CIA forgot about Libya? Has somebody hacked monsieur's account?
One of the things you learn when you really study other empires, evil and not-as-evil alike, is that extreme violent insanity is in no way correlated with what you might call institutional competence. The Nazi high command was shot through with egomaniacal incompetents and crackpot occult enthusiasts that would make Mrs. Reagan weep, to take a particularly egregious example. The idea that America's global garrison state somehow indicates a nefarious CIA omnipresence, and not only that, but dogged omnipresent competence, is completely at odds with what we know about late, powerful empires. Our brutality is in equal parts design and accident, intent and inertia. To credit it with a grand plan is to indulge the fallacy of Intelligent Design.
CIA? Is that like the Brits "diplomats" who were snagged?
As if the Pentagon is going to entrust the CIA to light up their targets.
They're a long way from boots, as the old Clinton hands know a thing or two about air wars. If Plan A fails to dislodge them, go to Plan B. Bomb Belgrade.
Here in the Washington metro area there are ads on radio station WTOP inviting you to work for the CIA as a secret agent.
Our brutality is genetic and it is not exclusively human. And our "rational brain" and use of language have done little to nothing to moderate it. In fact the "rational brain" is there to serve our most basic cravings.
Given the fine-line between "CIA" and the Al Qaida of the Month Club, I'd say incompetence is their business.
What is the Cleveland Industrial Association doing in Benghazi? Setting up auto parts maquiladoras?
The Culinary Institute of Africa - they're just teaching halal.
I really don't know enough to dismiss the idea that the CIA is one dangerous fucking outfit, if not the anointed son of capitalism itself, at least the favored instrument of one part of it.
The CIA is like the "guards" in the Stanford Prison Experiment. We cut 'em loose, and.. well.. see for yourselves
Start in 1946-8 with the SS (CIA's predecessor) and track every known intervention since then (Greece, Italy, Iran, to name a couple of early ones) and note whether they do not jibe very well with major subsequent US foreign policy stances. These guys aren't bunglers, except when bungling is part of the plan.
Senecal: that trend in no way disproves the theory that the CIA is a random morass of bunglers.
Eisenhower: "Wait, we're backing who now?"
CIA: "King Saud."
Eisenhower: "That asshole?"
CIA: "Well, Mr. Angleton felt it was necessary in order to counter Nasser's influence with the ..."
Eisenhower: "For fuck's sake. All right, all right. I'll get Rose to draft a memo."
CIA: "There's also the ..."
Eisenhower: "Son, you're fucking up my digestion enough as it is. Get outta my office."
"the fallacy of Intelligent Design" Isn't 'Intelligent Design' the Arizona of theology?
Like 'no occupying army' would be interpreted as anything other than 'send in the SAS, CIA Paramilitaries and a few Dynacorp guys'.
Fuck, they even played this hand early by trying to helicopter in that small diplomatic team of violent killers and James Bonds weeks ago.
She kidnapped herself.
Also Plan B isn't bomb Belgrade, it's bomb the Chinese Embassy.
She kidnapped herself.
Who? Patty Hearst? Is she really married to THE Bernard Shaw?
Also Plan B isn't bomb Belgrade, it's bomb the Chinese Embassy.
That's what they call precision bombing. In a humanitarian no-fly zone, that's a success. That building never got off the ground.
Post a Comment