I've Got an Idea to Rescue Justin From His Slump

Unfair or not, Justin Trudeau has taken a hit in the public's mind over his pretty clumsy trip to India. With JT et famille sporting an elaborate wardrobe of Bollywood's best fashions, the Indian press took the piss out of him pretty relentlessly. The local scribblers piled on.

Now Trudeau's approval numbers have dropped to within spitting distance of Tory leader, Andrew Scheer's. That's Andrew "Chuckles" Scheer people, a guy with all the charisma of a recycled catheter.

Maybe JT should consider upping his game. He could start by reversing himself and honouring a major campaign promise - electoral reform. I would like it even better if he went for electoral reform and pipelines but that's probably too much to ask. 

Trudeau promised that 2015 would be our last first-past-the-post election. In short order he reneged on that committment but his "can't" sounded more like "won't."  His claim that it wouldn't work here, even though it works elsewhere, was utterly unconvincing. We would even accept the preferential ballot option if he insisted. Just do it.

Or maybe Justin can change course. Maybe he should transform himself from just another free trade mule into a Renaissance Man befitting of his legendary father. (full disclosure. what follows is taken from an email I wrote to a fellow blogger this morning)

I have long argued that Canada needs some serious redecorating. Ever since George H.W. Bush started this “coalition of the willing” business, America has treated certain allies, Canada included, as its de facto Foreign Legion.  Desert Storm was, arguably, a good cause – driving Iraq out of Kuwait. Kosovo – meh. Afghanistan, well we all lost our minds at the 9/11 attacks streamed live into our livingrooms. We even bent the rules around Article 5 in that, 1) – the US never attacked by Afghanistan, and 2) – at the time the US invoked Article 5 it was not truly “under attack.” Picky, picky.

Where we lost the plot was when Bush/Cheney decided America should turn to invading Iraq rather than finishing what it had begun in Afghanistan. We knew from Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors that Saddam wasn’t hiding a mountain of WMDs. It was pretty obvious that Washington thought it could roll in and basically grab the oil for US energy giants. Why was the only Iraqi ministry US forces secured the oil ministry?

The US decided to offload much of the Afghan mission to free up troops for Iraq and wanted a Foreign Legion. Rick “Big Cod” Hillier talked Paul Martin into taking the combat gig in Kandahar with a laughably token force of just 2,000 personnel, no more than half combat ready, to a province whose area and population mandated a combat force of between 20 to 30,000.  Martin didn’t know any better. Hillier probably did know, definitely should have known , but obviously didn’t tell his prime minister. It’s right there in the US Army/Marine Corps field manual, FM-3/24.

We lost our war in Afghanistan, the first military defeat in Canadian history. We lost badly. War is a state of armed conflict used to achieve a political outcome. That sought outcome was defined by Stephen Harper. We were there to stay. We would never cut and run. We would stay until the Taliban had been vanquished, effectively eradicated. We would make Afghanistan safe for democracy and a restoration of human rights (as they had once enjoyed under the country’s last king). We did none of those things. The Talibs are resurgent. The government is a hopelessly corrupt amalgamation of warlords from five main ethnic groups. Little boys’ bums are all the rage again and the struggle for women’s rights languishes. Meanwhile we definitely chose to cut and run.

Then along came Libya, a not so tidy war that Obama basically offloaded on Europe. Harper staged a victory fly past over Parliament Hill for that one even as Libya itself descended into an intractable, second phase civil war, this one substituting Islamist radicals for Gadhafi.

Syria? ISIS has been driven out, more or less, for now. It has been reduced from a rebellion to an insurgency to what is today essentially a terrorist movement. That’s the thing with these guys. They can morph from one state to another, often rather effortlessly, and that enables them to be flexible, mobile. They’ll be back, probably in another guise.

I have gone on at some length on these events because the world has become no safer for all of our post 9/11 misadventures. If anything we’ve demonstrated, repeatedly, that all the King’s Horses and all the King’s Men are no longer a sure path to a meaningful, lasting victory. We have all the watches but the bad guys have all the time.

We are returning to a more challenging era, one akin to the last Cold War, another win that we utterly failed to consolidate as we allowed triumphalism to get the better of us. That Doomsday Clock is now closer to midnight than it has been since the Cuban missile crisis. Around the world but particularly in Europe, Eurasia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the greater Asia Pacific region all the way to Australia, Russia and China, everyone is madly rearming.

America is being overtaken, economically, by China which is fast making inroads into the Middle East, Africa and even South America (whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine anyway?). We have seen a number of these major power transitions over the centuries. At various times in the modern period the dominant spot belonged alternately to the Spanish, the French, the Dutch, the Brits and now the Americans. Before that came the Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols, etc.

Here’s the thing. History tells us that these transitions tend to be difficult. Two-thirds of them result in war. Is war in the offing between the U.S. and China? From what I’ve read over the past ten years, China’s military leadership is quietly bellicose.  At some level they want to exact revenge for China’s “century of humiliation” at the hands of us white folks – Opium Wars, etc.?  That thought came to mind when I found an essay in the Proceedings of the US Naval Institute wherin an acting service officer complained bitterly that China was overtaking the United States “without a fight” as though that was unthinkable.

It would be tempting to dismiss that view as the work of a hothead only his sentiments go deeper in that, all the way back to the Project for a New American Century, the neo-cons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby et al)  developed an “over my dead body” policy prescription that was subsequently embodied in the Bush Doctrine. That doctrine provided that America reserved the right to institute pre-emptive war against any nation or group of nations that challenged America’s economic and military domination.  Seriously, look it up.

The backbone of American airpower today and into the future are its stealth warplanes, the F-22 and F-35. Those are not dual purpose aircraft. They’re not defence oriented. There are simply too few F-22s to handle the job and the F-35 has a series of deficiencies that make it marginal in the air defence role. They are primarily offensive weapons designed to “take the fight to the enemy” and not just any garden variety enemy either.  They are purpose built to operate in heavily defended, hostile airspace.  One American general called the F-35 his “kick in the front door” weapon. Do you remember that the Japanese ran a dress rehearsal of their Pearl Harbour attack to test their shallow-draught Long Lance torpedoes in an appropriate anchorage? The USAF staged a similar “proof of concept” exercise called Operation Chimichanga that simulated a stealth first strike attack on China. Do you the Chinese maybe didn’t hear about that?

Whether it’s North Korea or the South China Sea or maybe just two countries getting into each other’s faces, this is not a very placid time. For Canada, however, it may be a time to begin loosening the ties that bind us to American foreign and military policy, perhaps by aligning Canadian  policy more directly with our western European allies. It doesn’t mean we won’t pick up the phone when Washington calls but maybe just not on the first or even the twenty-first ring.

If you follow this global rearmament business as I do you’re drawn to the conclusion that the world has absolutely no shortage of state of the art weaponry. State of the art everything. Hell even the city state of Singapore has six modern and very capable submarines.

How about we zig where everyone else chooses to zag by decoupling ourselves from Washington and restoring our credibility as an honest broker nation? Communications between rival nations (at all levels) are apt to become more strained in this overheated and armed-to-the-teeth milieu that has become our new reality. The need for a trustworthy intermediary may be greater now than ever before in Canadian history. It's a job suitable for the nation that gave the world the concept of peacekeeping, an initiative that earned Mike Pearson the Nobel Peace Prize.

You'll Need More Than a Six-Pack for That Job.

Well, that was the idea anyway.

Brace yourselves.  In a move that could send chills down the spine of every member of ISIS, it's been revealed that Canada is 'considering' expanding its war effort to Syria and, gasp, Libya too.

Libya?  That's that place that Gaddafi guy used to run.  We bombed the hell out of him three or four years ago.  It was "mission accomplished" all around.  We even had a victory flypast over Ottawa brought to you by the ever-triumphalist Harper government.

I know we won because Steve and Mrs. Steve and Peter MacKay and that Army guy and Steve's ceremonial valet all gathered on the front steps of the Centre Block to bask in the glory of our great victory.

Except it turns out that the Canadian Armed Forces, under Steve's management, proclaim victory a lot more than they achieve it.  But how were they to know that, by dragging out the air war in Libya by a staggering 161-days, they would leave the place in a state of chaos just perfect for al Qaeda and, eventually, ISIS to get established in North Africa.

So now we're tossing the idea around of another grand victory in Libya, Syria too, in an expansion of "our" war against ISIS.  I know because our newly minted Defence Minister, the oh so martial Jason Kenny, said as much to CBC's Evan Soloman.

Not only that but our Closet Clausewitz says there's 2,000 other countries ready to stand up with us.

"Obviously there are practical limits to our ability to operate around the world, but we will look at our options to see where we can have the most impact, where we're most needed," he said. "That requires ongoing consultation with our allies. We don't just decide these things unilaterally."

"Obviously we're in Iraq at the invitation of that government in a mission of, I think, over 2,000 countries being coordinated by the United States. If we can help meaningfully in the fight against ISIL elsewhere we'll give that consideration," the minister said.

Jason, this one is for the luxury lawn furniture set and the Caribbean cruise. Name 500 of those 2,000 countries and their capitals. (psst - don't tell Wiki.  they think there's only 206 countries, the damned fools.)

Yes, Jason, you hit it on the head when you pointed out that, "there are practical limits to our ability to operate around the world."  Your government has slashed our defence budget to levels not seen in generations.  You have given Canada a navy smaller than at any time since prior to WWII.  Our aircraft and helicopters are old and worn out.  When we do go to defend the Baltics or bring the Hammers of Hell down on the heads of ISIS, we send a paltry six-pack of CF-18s because it's all we can afford. There are practical limits and your government's neglect has been setting most of them.

Harper's Experiment to Wrap Canadians in "Protective Stupidity" Mission Accomplished?

The Tyee's Murray Dobbins laments the success Stephen Harper has had, with the powerful support of a shamelessly collaborative media, at manipulating the Canadian public.

Harper's amoral political calculations about who and when to bomb people has little to do with any genuine consideration of the geopolitical situation or what role Canada might usefully play -- or even in what Canada's "interests" are. So long as he is prime minister it will be the same: every calculation will be made with the single-minded goal of staying in power long enough to dismantle the post-war activist state. The nurturing of his core constituency includes appeals to a thinly disguised pseudo-crusade against Islamic infidels, a phony appeal to national security (preceded by fear-mongering) and in the case of Ukraine, a crude appeal to ethnic votes.

Reinforcing this legacy is a mainstream media that lets him get away with it, and in particular, refuses to do its homework while the bombing -- or posturing -- is taking place and then refuses to expose the negative consequences of the reckless adventures. The result is what cultural critic Henry Giroux calls "the fog of historical and social amnesia."

The three most obvious examples are Harper's extremist policy in support of Israel, his joining with France and the U.S. in the catastrophic destruction of the Libyan state and his infantile posturing on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. And now we have Harper's mini-crusade (six fighter bombers for six months) against ISIS or the Islamic State. With rare exceptions the media has gone along with him at every turn, treating Canadians as children incapable of navigating the nuances of foreign policy.

Regarding Israel, Harper, with widespread support in the media, has gone so far as to try to establish criticism of Israel as a kind of Orwellian "thought crime." By declaring repeatedly (and even threatening supportive legislation) that criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic, Harper hoped to establish what Orwell referred to as "protective stupidity" -- a kind of mass denial of the obvious. Freud referred to it as "knowing with not knowing" and when it comes to most of Canada's military adventures, it is epidemic. 

In Afghanistan the war went for so long that the facts eventually broke through the protective stupidity, but only partially. Even with the total failure of the mission to accomplish a single worthwhile goal, it is likely that most Canadians still see it as having been a "good war."

As Giroux puts it: "Neoliberal authoritarianism has changed the language of politics and everyday life through a poisonous public pedagogy that turns reason on its head and normalizes a culture of fear, war and exploitation."

Harper's response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict has been similar: a maximum of infantile, simplistic sabre rattling rhetoric with an absolute minimum of reflection on the historical context or even the immediate facts of the situation. This is foreign policy for the willingly -- if not willfully -- ignorant. We are encouraged -- or perhaps enlisted is a better word -- to treat facts and history with a disdain bordering on contempt. Facts, context, history and thoughtful anticipation of the consequences of our actions -- all of this is for sissies and Putin apologists. The nay-sayers are all Neville Chamberlain clones.

...there will be no lasting consequences for governments -- Harper's or anyone else's. The structure of protective stupidity is in place and without a radical change in consciousness the current political consensus will prevail. All will be forgotten.

...Which brings us to the Islamic State. Here, too, the conventional approach to making intelligent foreign policy is cast aside on the basis of reacting to a handful of Westerners being beheaded (as happens on a regular basis already to citizens of Saudi Arabia). Can it be possible that our policy making has been reduced to this level of drunken barroom reaction? We know that the ISIS did this precisely to provoke a Western military response. But "we don't know." We prefer denial and the simplistic -- the notion that we can correct 25 years of imperial hubris, ignorance and gross incompetence by Western powers by bombing our own creation.

Murky Mali Mayhem

Afghanistan could be characterized as a perpetual civil war waged by people who range from bad to worse.   Leaders change sides effortlessly, ally with and betray each other routinely.

But Africa's Afghanistan, Mali, and the rest of the war in the Sahara is far more complex, far more confusing.   If Afghanistan is code for "quagmire,"  North Africa is the geopolitical equivalent of the Le Brea Tar Pits.   It's a war that only recently surfaced in our newspapers but it's been going on for decades, confounding Western leaders throughout.

Here's an example.

Over the last few years, Washington's game has elevated flip-flopping to high art. During the second George W Bush administration, [U.S.] Special Forces were very active side by side with the Tuaregs and the Algerians. During the first Obama administration, they started backing the Mali government against the Tuareg. 

Asia Online's Pepe Escobar offers a fascinating yet mind-boggling account of what has really been going on right under our noses and explains how you really can't tell where to place your bets.


As blowback goes, this is just the hors d'oeuvres. And it won't be confined to Mali. It will convulse Algeria and soon Niger, the source of over a third of the uranium in French nuclear power plants, and the whole Sahara-Sahel.

So this new, brewing mega-Afghanistan in Africa will be good for French neoloconial interests (even though Hollande insists this is all about "peace"); good for AFRICOM; a boost for those Jihadis Formerly Known as NATO Rebels; and certainly good for the never-ending Global War on Terror (GWOT), duly renamed "kinetic military operations".

Django, unchained, would be totally at home. As for the Oscar for Best Song, it goes to the Bush-Obama continuum: There's no business like terror business. With French subtitles, bien sur. 

And there's a larger, international dimension to Western intervention in North Africa.  It concerns China.   Beijing fears the West is trying to recolonize Africa in an attempt to contain Chinese expansion into the continent.


[China] has surpassed the US and Europe as Africa's biggest trading partner (US$160 billion) and its businesses invested $15 billion in Africa last year alone. China is hot for minerals in west, north and Central African countries and oil from west Africa. Agricultural products from Chad, Mali, Benin and Burkina Faso supply China's massive textile industry. West Africa is also a key importer of Chinese products, with Nigeria figuring as the lead consumer (42%).

As the Global Times article signals, Beijing understands perfectly well that the West is embarking on a containment strategy in Africa by simply retaking control of the former colonies where China is making headway. The point is, the West cannot compete with China by matching the latter's offer of a broader relationship to the African nations.

China's trans-continental projects are leading the path to the creation of regional economic blocs, which augment the African nations' capacity to create space vis-a-vis the western powers and negotiate better. In sum, the specter that is haunting the West is not so much al-Qaeda as this inability to match China's offer of a package deal and a broader relationship with the African states. 

If there was ever a conflict for Canada to sit out, this might just be it.   That is probably foremost on Steve Harper's mind when he calls from a broad consensus endorsing Canada's support of French intervention.

What Were We Thinking? Libya Dissolves.

Steve Harper likes to boast how Canada and our NATO allies saved Libya by bombing the hell out of Gaddafi's forces.   It sounds nice but it's hogwash.

As the United States and coaltion did in Iraq, as we all did in Afghanistan, so we got into the Libyan war utterly indifferent to realities on the ground.

In our hubris we ignored a lesson that's been repeatedly taught to us over the past decade, one we've paid in blood to learn.   You can't build a stable Muslim state without first overcoming the two-punch scourge of warlordism and tribalism.   If you don't suppress warlordism and tribalism, when you topple the ruling strongman all you're left with is warlordism and tribalism.   Those people are all about wielding power, not giving it up.

So Libya, quite predictably, stands poised on the verge of a civil war that's probably inevitable at this point.

The government of the interim Prime Minister, Abdel Rahim el-Keeb, is virtually paralysed by rivalries that have forced it to divide power along lines of regions and personalities, by unreachable expectations that Muammar Gaddafi's fall would bring prosperity and by powerlessness so marked the national army is treated like another of the many warring militias.

 This week one militia assaulted another militia at a seaside base in Tripoli to rescue a woman who had been abducted.

 

When the guns fell silent, briefly, the scene that unfolded felt as chaotic as Libya's revolution - a government whose authority extends no farther than its offices, militias whose swagger comes from plentiful guns and residents whose patience fades with every volley of gunfire that cracks at night.

This didn't have to happen.   There was an alternative, one that would have quickly ousted Gaddafi and left no room for the warlords and religious extremists to undermine Libya's future.   Instead we let the Libyan problem fall into the hands of the West's astonishingly incompetent military and political leadership to achieve the predictable result that besets the Libyan people today.

Muammar Ain't No Mar

Former, as in "dead", Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is no more.   Libyan authorities report the man who ruled their country for 42-years was shot and killed today.

How he died isn't clear.   Some reports claim he was making a breakout in a convoy that was attacked by NATO strike fighters.   By other accounts Gaddafi was taken alive and was later shot, sort of like Mussolini I suppose.

Libya's Missing Missiles

The good news is that the new guys in Libya have accounted for about 15,000 SA-7 missiles from Gaddafi's arsenal.   The bad news is that Gaddafi was known to have 20,000 of the damned things and no one seems to have any idea where the missing 5,000 have gone.

Meet "Strella", the SA-7, shoulder-fired surface to air missile:

 

It's not nearly as sophisticated as the American "Stinger" missile but it does pretty much the same thing.  It shoots down low-flying airplanes, especially the slow-flying ones taking off or landing.  It's considered ineffective against combat jets but it does better when targeting helicopters or civilian aircraft.

A Libyan general in charge of securing his country's arsenal said, "Unfortunately, some of these missiles could have fallen into the wrong hands ...abroad."

It is precisely this sort of fallout from the protracted NATO bombing campaign that reveals why it was essential that Gaddafi was toppled quickly months ago.   That could have been easily done had America pressured the Egyptian military to send its vastly superior forces across the Libyan border to drive on to Tripoli.   That war should have been over in less than two weeks.

Has Libya Already Fallen to al-Qaeda?

According to Asia Times, the Libyan rebel commander now in charge in Tripoli and his colleagues elsewhere throughout the country are al-Qaeda assets.

His name is Abdelhakim Belhaj. Some in the Middle East might have, but few in the West and across the world would have heard of him.

Time to catch up. Because the story of how an al-Qaeda asset turned out to be the top Libyan military commander in still war-torn Tripoli is bound to shatter - once again - that wilderness of mirrors that is the "war on terror", as well as deeply compromising the carefully constructed propaganda of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) "humanitarian" intervention in Libya. 


...Abdelhakim Belhaj, aka Abu Abdallah al-Sadek, is a Libyan jihadi. Born in May 1966, he honed his skills with the mujahideen in the 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan.

...After 9/11, Belhaj moved to Pakistan and also to Iraq, where he befriended none other than ultra-nasty Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - all this before al-Qaeda in Iraq pledged its allegiance to Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and turbo-charged its gruesome practices.

In Iraq, Libyans happened to be the largest foreign Sunni jihadi contingent, only losing to the Saudis. Moreover, Libyan jihadis have always been superstars in the top echelons of "historic" al-Qaeda.

 In 2003, Belhaj was finally arrested in Malaysia - and then transferred, extraordinary rendition-style, to a secret Bangkok prison, and duly tortured.

In 2004, the Americans decided to send him as a gift to Libyan intelligence - until he was freed by the Gaddafi regime in March 2010, along with other 211 "terrorists", in a public relations coup advertised with great fanfare.

The orchestrator was no less than Saif Islam al-Gaddafi - the modernizing/London School of Economics face of the regime. 

...The late July killing of rebel military commander General Abdel Fattah Younis - by the rebels themselves - seems to point to Belhaj or at least people very close to him.

It's essential to know that Younis - before he defected from the regime - had been in charge of Libya's special forces fiercely fighting the LIFG in Cyrenaica from 1990 to 1995.
 Hardly by accident, all the top military rebel commanders are LIFG, from Belhaj in Tripoli to one Ismael as-Salabi in Benghazi and one Abdelhakim al-Assadi in Derna, not to mention a key asset.

...It doesn't require a crystal ball to picture the consequences of LIFG/AQIM - having conquered military power and being among the war "winners" - not remotely interested in relinquishing control just to please NATO's whims.


Back in February, a month before our NATO blunder, this blog urged that America get the Egyptian military to enter Libya and put a quick end to the Gaddafi regime.   The reasoning was that a protracted campaign could allow al-Qaeda to get the toe hold it had failed to achieve during the Egyptian uprising.   By July it was apparent that our worst fears had come true.

Time was very much of the essence in this one.  In neighbouring Egypt, Mubarak had only recently been toppled but the face of the government that would ultimately succeed him was undetermined.  al Qaeda and other Islamist groups lurked in the wings and openly proclaimed they were waiting for the right moment to make their move.    They were looking for a window of chaos.

The Libyan uprising was just what the Islamist planners so badly wanted.  It would be much easier to establish their presence within Libya, on Egypt's border, than within Egypt itself if only the Libyan chaos would drag out.

...Our Western leaders dawdled.  Eventually they fell back on their demonstrated political and military incompetence and decided an air war would do the trick.  And so they have brought to Libya the very same result they achieved so spectacularly in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Fools - the lot of them.

Now it isn't just Libya that's at risk from Islamist extremists.  It's Egypt itself where the country remains in a state of chaos and unrest.   And what lies immediately beyond Egypt?

The Battle of Underground Tripoli

Where's Waldo, er Gaddafi?   After all, the guy swore he'd fight to the end but, then again, some of us remember when Muammar Gaddafi was determined to fight Israel to the last, well to the last Egyptian anyway.   The Libyan rebels appear to be holding about 80 per cent of the Libyan capital yet the battle with Gaddafi loyalists seems to just go on and on.   It now appears the Gaddafi troops are using a labyrinth of tunnels under the city to keep the battle raging.

Where's Waldo? Tripoli Style

Muammar Gaddafi has gone to ground and nobody seems to know where.   He might be hunkered down inside his personal compound where a fierce firefight continues as rebels close in.  He might have already fled the country.  Al Jazeera yesterday reported the mysterious appearance of two, South African jetliners seen circling over the Libyan capital.

The rebels say they've captured two of Gaddafi's sons - the brutal killer, Saif, and the relatively likeable eldest son, Muhammad.  Al Jazeera spoke with Muhammad who first said he was being treated decently by rebels who had surrounded his compound.   Later, however, with the sound of automatic gunfire in the background, Muhammad said fighting was underway inside his house.   Then the phone line went dead.  That is, apparently, the last anyone has heard from Muhammad Gaddafi.

Our Libya Policy Is Just What Islamist Extremists Prayed For

The most important thing in the fight against Gaddafi was the one we ignored - getting the job done quickly.

Time was very much of the essence in this one.  In neighbouring Egypt, Mubarak had only recently been toppled but the face of the government that would ultimately succeed him was undetermined.  al Qaeda and other Islamist groups lurked in the wings and openly proclaimed they were waiting for the right moment to make their move.    They were looking for a window of chaos.

The Libyan uprising was just what the Islamist planners so badly wanted.  It would be much easier to establish their presence within Libya, on Egypt's border, than within Egypt itself if only the Libyan chaos would drag out.

In February I wrote of the urgent need to send Egyptian forces into Libya to rapidly send Gaddafi packing:

"Who better to do the job?   In fact, with Security Council authorization, Egypt might be the only country that could make a difference in time.

Gaddafi's air force that he has reportedly unleashed on the demonstrators relies on a dozen or so, 1960's vintage Mirage F1s.  Egypt has 240, late model American F-16s plus a gaggle of modern Mirage 2000s, more than a match for Gaddafi's older French jets.

On the ground, Egypt fields modern armour including the America M-1 Abrams tank.   Gaddafi's forces rely on the antiquated Soviet era T-72 which is pretty much just target practice for the M-1.

Most of Libya's stuff is pretty old including its surface to air missile batteries which are all but useless against modern electronic countermeasures.


Egypt stands at Libya's eastern border, the part of the country that is already under the demonstrators' control.   This could be over in an afternoon.  The Egyptian air force could easily take out Libyan airfields (runways and bunkers) and demolish the garrisons of those ground forces loyal to Gaddafi.   Take out their critical infrastructure including their command and control systems and they're essentially homeless.   With no air cover and the prospect of Egyptian M-1 tanks rolling on to Tripoli, Libyan military commanders would be left with a pretty hard decision and I doubt it would go Gaddafi's way.   Probably the worst of them would just pack their bags, with or without Muammar.

If external muscle is what it's going to take to pry Gaddafi's claw from Libya's throat it'll have to come from the land of the Pharoahs."

But, of course, that didn't happen.  Our Western leaders dawdled.  Eventually they fell back on their demonstrated political and military incompetence and decided an air war would do the trick.  And so they have brought to Libya the very same result they achieved so spectacularly in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Fools - the lot of them.

With the Islamists moving to fracture the Libyan uprising the country could be poised on the brink of the sort of civil war that the fundamentalists exploit so well.   At this point we may have almost as much to lose from a Libya without Gaddafi as a Libya under the dictator's iron rule.   We may have ensured the Libyan people will face a future of civil war even as we have enabled Islamist extremism to take hold on Egypt's extremely porous border. 

Ah, Steve, How's Your War in Libya Going?

The 21st century has barely begun yet it has taught us some invaluable lessons.  One is that while Western leaders may be marginally capable of some things, when it comes to warfare they all ought to be locked away safely in some basement.

Another lesson is that military supremacy doesn't guarantee military victory and, even then, rarely translates into the desired political victory.

America and her leaders are positively besotted with their military prowess.   Including their foreign adventures, the US government borrows about a trillion dollars a year to achieve - almost nothing.  A trillion dollars is a lot of money, a lot of a lot of money, and it's even more so when you get it on the "never- never".   But when you spend a lot of a lot of money borrowed on the "never-never" and get nothing back for it except the chance to do it all over again next year and the year after that, you're being led by a class of political morons served by a gaggle of ticket-punching military morons.   If it was your kid, you would take away their allowance, hide the car keys and send them to their room without dinner.

To prime minister Steve, America's military misadventures are as seductive as a Friday night frat house poker party.   Ya gotta get a seat at that table.  You're dying for the chance to ante up with the fellas, pound a dozen Buds and smoke a couple of stogies.  You're so eager to get in you never figure out how you're getting home when you're tapped out, can't remember your address and can barely stagger your way to the front door.

Vietnam taught the Americans never to get into a war without a clear exit strategy.   You need to know how and when you're getting out no matter how the war turns out.  Bush the Elder knew that when he stopped at the Iraqi border instead of driving on to Baghdad.  A decade later his son, Bush the Lesser, decided he'd fix papa's mistakes and finish the job - without an exit strategy.   American troops are still there.

Steve thought it was shameful that we didn't stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with our traditional (i.e. 'white') allies and join with them in invading Iraq.   He was, however, a boasting booster of the Afghan fiasco - until he wasn't.  Overnight, Steve went positively weak in the knees on that one.

However Afghanistan may have given Steve but a soiled nappy when he really needed scorched fingers.  How else to explain his rush to get six Canadian Hornet fighters in on the 'beat up Gaddafi' bandwagon?  If there was ever a mission that screamed "NO" that was it.

What was/is the mission?  There's a wobbly UNSC resolution that seemed almost deliberately vague.  Nowhere does it authorize regime change yet that is the plain objective of Washington and London.   Our approach has been to use air supremacy to wreak havoc on Gaddafi forces, paving the way for the rebels to storm Tripoli and oust the dictator.   But no one had a game plan to cover the "what ifs".   What if we ran out of targets?   What if we had nothing left to bomb and the rebels still couldn't win?   What if our airpower was nullified and Gadaffi was poised to inflict a murderous defeat on the rebels and civilian population in their territory?   How does this adventure end?  What does victory for the guys driving our CF-18s look like?   The answers?  No one has a clue.

As recently reported in Asia Times Online, it seems Gaddafi has successfully called our bluff:

You don't remain in power over four decades in a developing country without learning a military trick or two from illustrious predecessors such as China's Mao Zedong and Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh - not to mention bunglers such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq. After learning the lesson of having his tanks like sitting ducks in the desert bombed at will by the "coalition of the willing" (a few NATO members plus Qatar), Gaddafi is now fighting light-armor guerrilla style against the "rebels".

NATO's response has been more predictable than those everyday multilingual stalemates in Brussels; hurling accusations that Gaddafi is using human shields - as in his tanks in Misrata being "dispersed" across town and inside the perimeter. Translation: NATO's Tornado/Rafale air war is useless, unless you can bomb a tank column resplendent in the desert sun.

The circus is one more instance of how this war that is not a war is in fact a farce. The French and the British especially have bought their own hype that Gaddafi's regime is crumbling. They have also bought their own hype that this mixed bag of former Gaddafi loyalists, dodgy exiles, al-Qaeda-linked jihadis, business opportunists and true youthful revolutionaries have a political and militarily coherence, and are truly representative of the whole of Libya.

The war that in fact no one wants except Sarko and Cameron is fizzling out like a ghastly remake of The Three Stooges (bidding is open for nominating the third stooge). That's what you get when you take sides in an African civil war where even the "good guys" are murkier than the waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Western members of this "coalition of the willing", the Brits and the French foremost, not to mention the Pentagon, pray there will be, at the end of the tunnel, plenty of oil and a strategic Africom/NATO base in northern Africa. But there's no guarantee.

The last hope for sanity in all this mess is Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has proposed his version of a roadmap for peace - calling for humanitarian aid corridors and steps toward democracy.


...Let's wait. As it stands, any road map will beat bombed-out NATO. 

Can Somebody Tell Egypt's Generals to Get Off Their Asses?

Trying to bomb Muammar Gaddafi out of business isn't working.  He's become quite adept at hiding his heavy weapons from NATO strike fighters.  Worse yet, as he now proceeds the punitive destruction of the population of Misrata, his mercenaries are using Libyan civilians as human shields.

The rebels seem unable to topple Gaddafi's Libyan and mercenary forces without NATO air strikes and yet  Gaddafi  seems intent on forcing us to kill civilians to get at his army.

Somebody is going to have to go into Libya, on the ground, and put an end to this quickly.  The one and only somebody for that job is the Egyptian army.  They have brigades of state of the art American M-1A1 tanks that make very short work of the Soviet-era rust buckets Gaddafi fields.

There's really no love lost between Egypt and Gaddafi.   They've tussled before.  Anwar Sadat was on the verge of invading Libya and toppling Gaddafi in 1977 until he was talked out of it by other Arab leaders.  That was then, this is now.  Gaddafi's forces still aren't very good.   They're just good enough to transform the uprising into a drawn out, bloody civil war.

This is really an Arab problem and it needs to be solved by supportive Arab states and, of those, Egypt is right next door with the ready means to shut this madman down in days, not weeks.  NATO's prime directive is to protect Libyan civilians, not kill them.  We don't have some "collateral damage" quota.  Once he gets his people into urban areas air strikes are all but futile.

Egypt has a responsibility to protect the Libyan people, some of whom are from tribes resident across the Egypt-Libya border.  Egypt should also have some say in ensuring the next Libyan government isn't Islamist, the first al-Qaeda state, one awash in oil money.  With newly liberated Tunisia's help the job would be even easier.  Best of all, we wouldn't have to look like Crusaders yet again.

Parliament Unanimously Backs Libya Mission. Great, Just Great.

Yesterday the House of Commons unanimously approved Canada's participation in the ongoing no fly zone over Libya mission.  Unanimously.  Everybody's in.   Tory, Bloc, Liberal & NDP.

Approval wasn't automatic.  Questions were asked.  According to the G&M, the opposition asked when the mission would end, what would constitute success and what the whole thing would cost.   Apparently satisfied when the government couldn't answer even one of those questions, they all stood up on their hind legs, let out a manly "Hurrah" and voted to endorse the mission that, plainly, no one understands.

And that, kids, is what has gone so seriously wrong with your Parliament, the whole rotten shebang.  Meanwhile the so-called 'community of nations' that is supposedly backing this adventure is flying apart like a mobile home in a tornado.  The Arab League, the club of supposedly friendly dictators, is vascillating.  The African Union is flatly opposed to our mission.   So are key NATO partners Germany and Turkey.  China is against us, apparently India is too.  The Russians are split - Medvedev for us, Putin agin.  What's left?  A bunch of white Christians which, in Arab parlance, translates into "Crusaders."

Oh well, at least the New Democrats and Liberals are on side.  Brilliant.

Just What Have We Gotten Into?

This Libya gig is making less sense with each passing day - and we're only getting started.   Once again it's the West saying, "Oh look, there's an open door.  We can push on that," only to discover it's a revolving door and you're stuck going around and around and around.

We're supposedly there to establish a "no fly zone."   Unfortunately that's a most inartful term of art.   It can mean just about anything you want it to mean.  It will accommodate most definitions even if it has to stretch a bit.   That's not a good thing when you've got a bunch of players who each think they're working from a different playbook.

The first sure sign of trouble showed up on N.F.Z. - Day 2 when it became apparent that "the boys" aren't really sure who is actually in charge of this rolling fiasco.

The Americans, who everyone is so accustomed to running these things, decided to step back and let someone else be in charge.   Clever move, Barack.  Full points.

Some figure this should be a NATO-operation.   Sort of like Kosovo or Afghanistan.  Nope, that ain't gonna fly.   Germany abstained at the UN Security Council and wants no part of it.  So, you've got a First Tier NATO partner saying "no."  Maybe the Germans learned something valuable from Afghanistan (just saying).  French president Sarkozy too isn't much interested in hitching up his military to a NATO wagon.   So, at least for the moment, NATO seems to be out of the deal and the day may soon arrive that we'll understand that's actually a good thing.

So, if the Americans are out and NATO is out, who's left?  Well, that'd be a gaggle of countries - Denmark, Italy, France, Britain, Canada and we hope, at some point, some Arab countries.   Only, if you were an Arab country, would you want to tie yourself to this dog's breakfast?

One enormous problem of having no consensus on leadership is that it makes it hard to reach consensus on just about anything else.   Really tricky questions like what is the mission?  How and when does this end?  What is the political staying power of the coalition partners?  Who ordered the chicken salad?   What in hell does this UNSC resolution actually mean?   This is not good.

Confusion reigns.  Some leaders openly avow that this is a "no fly zone" only mission.   There is no broader mission.   Then, as their heads turn away from the microphone, you can hear them mutter something about "Gaddafi has to go."

Well, if you want a permanent no fly zone, that's doable to some extent.  Bomb the living hell out of Gaddafi's airbases.  Take out his weapons bunkers, his towers and support buildings and, most importantly, flatten his aircraft shelters with his remaining strike fighters inside.  It's not like he'll be getting any more.  There, his air force is neutralized (as in "extinguished").   Maybe you also want to keep Muammar's tanks and artillery pieces from taking wing.   Fine, find them and extinguish them too.

Don't think for a minute that we're not handing Islamist radicals a lot of fodder for their propaganda mills.   The longer we loiter over Libya, the more convincing becomes their narrative.  Gaddafi, at the moment, likes to blame al Qaeda for the revolution but warfare, like politics, can make strange bedfellows.

Did we not think any of this through before we jumped into this mess?   If the bottom line is regime change, and we all know it is, why did we sign on to a UN Security Council resolution that falls far short of that?  If the real deal is ridding Libya of Gaddafi, why didn't we turn to the one army and air force that's easily capable of doing just that without triggering all the Crusader bullshit?

The way things stand, we've backed ourselves into a lose-lose proposition.  That's a fancy term for "stalemate" that is itself a preliminary term for "quagmire."  As Stephen Metz explains in The New Republic, Libya is shaping up to be an ideal site to host the next grand insurgency even if it's not clear as yet whether Gaddafi's forces will be the government or the insurgents.

History offers a number of sign posts that an insurgency will occur. Unfortunately Libya has almost all of them. At this point the political objectives of the government and anti-government forces are irreconcilable. Each side wants total victory—either Qaddafi will retain total power or he will be gone. Both sides are intensely devoted to their cause; passions are high. Both have thousands of men with military training, all imbued with a traditional warrior ethos which Qaddafi himself has stoked. The country is awash with arms. Libya has extensive hinterlands with little or no government control that could serve as insurgent bases. Neighboring states are likely to provide insurgent sanctuary whether deliberately—as an act of policy—or inadvertently because a government is unable to control its territory. North Africa has a long history of insurgency, from the anti-colonial wars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to more recent conflicts in Chad, Algeria, and Western Sahara. Where insurgency occurred in the past, it is more likely to occur in the future. All this means that there is no place on earth more likely to experience an insurgency in the next few years than Libya.


Which is where Egypt comes in to this discussion.   A month ago, I think to the day, I wrote a piece arguing that Egypt and only Egypt could put a quick and effective end to this nascent civil war.  If you're looking for an air force, Egypt has Mirage 2000s and no fewer than 240 F-16s.  That's an air force.   If you want ground forces, Egypt has brigades of American M-1A1 main battle tanks.  Egypt and Libya share a common border, they even share trans-border tribes.  Egypt has tribes it needs to secure against Gaddafi.   On the other side of Libya stands Tunisia which, like Egypt, has recently become ill-disposed to tyrants.  Muammar is suddenly the meat in a revolutionary sandwich.   And it's time the neighbours took a bite.

But we may not get Egypt and Tunisia to clean up the mess in their backyards even though the blowback from their reticence may come back to haunt them.  What that means is that we, Canada's leaders (whom, you might recall, stood up and joined together in a mighty "Hurrah" when Harpo raised the CF-18 thing) need to figure out how we're going to weasel our way back out of this just as we weaseled our way in.   This fiction of us being an honest broker, neither against Gaddafi nor for the rebels, has a very limited shelf life.

That Harper fell for this is a no-brainer.  After all he could never pass up an opportunity to put on his long pants and go to a splendid sit down dinner with the Big Boys.  How Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe fell for it remains a genuine puzzle.  And of those Three Stooges, what does this say about Iggy, the Harvard schoolboy, who is supposed to know all about this shit?  To my thinking, not much.

Update:  In case you somehow think this post a little light on context, here's a little more from Reuters:

Some allies were now questioning whether a no-fly zone was necessary, given the damage already done by air strikes to Gaddafi's military capabilities, a NATO diplomat said.

"  Yesterday's meeting became a little bit emotional,"   the NATO envoy said, adding that France had argued that the coalition led by France, Britain and the United States should retain political control of the mission, with NATO providing operational support, including command-and-control capabilities.

"  Others are saying NATO should have command or no role at all and that it doesn't make sense for NATO to play a subsidiary role,"   the diplomat said.

Underlining the differences in the anti-Gaddafi coalition, Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said if agreement was not reached on a NATO command, Italy would resume control of the seven airbases it has made available to allied air forces.

A NATO role would require political support from all the 28 states. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, whose country is a NATO member, said on Tuesday that the United Nations should be the umbrella for a solely humanitarian operation in Libya.

In a speech in parliament Erdogan said: "  Turkey will never ever be a side pointing weapons at the Libyan people."

Now Steve, Keep It In Your Pants

It's no wonder he comes across as a cold fish.   Nothing, it seems, gets our prime monster's blood coursing like some good, old fashioned bombing.  He reminds me of that John Candy hick character/movie reviewer and his line, "It blowed up goood, it blowed up reeeal goood."

Steve's short fuse was apparently lit by his decision to send six CF-18s to Sicily in support of the other white guys looking to kick a little Libyan ass.   It's made Steve so embarrassingly hot that he referred to it as an "act of war."   An act of war?  Really, Steve?

"We should not kid ourselves. Whenever you engage in military action - essentially acts of war - these are difficult situations."  

Sounds like real Crusader talk to me.   So, if Canada is now at war with Libya, committing "acts of war" and everything, isn't somebody supposed to sign off on this, get a Declaration of War or something like that?  I know the Americans don't like to do that but that's because they like to cover their tracks, call their wars something else entirely, retain a lot of diplomatic weasel room.

And just what is so difficult in sending six airplanes and a couple of hundred of the hired help over there?   You did, after all, get a convenient vacation from Ottawa.   You got to sit at a big table with all the real leaders and they even tossed in dinner to boot.

BTW Steve, if we were going to send Canadian CF-18s over there, why didn't we go to Spain?   They're the only Euro player that flies the F-18.   They've got all the F-18 gear and gizmos, not the Italians.   I guess that's just too difficult a situation to figure out.

Why Libya But Not Bahrain? Britain Explains

Britain is deeply concerned about the Bahraini monarch unleashing his along with Saudi and Emirates forces against civilian protesters. Britain is profoundly saddened that these forces have gunned down unarmed Bahraini protesters. Britain is so very disappointed that Bahraini security forces have arrested opposition leaders and are holding them, somewhere.

But, even as the cruise missiles fly into Libya and Western air forces prepare to open a can of Crusader whupass on Gaddafi's military forces, it just wouldn't be right for us to give those Gulf Arab despots a taste of the same lash.

British foreign secretary William Hague said Libya and Bahrain are like apples and lawn furniture:

“Any action that appeared to be 'the west' trying to impose itself on these countries would be counter-productive, as has been suggested,” the foreign secretary warned.

He later added that it was also “important not to view Bahrain and Libya as analogous” and that all the circumstances should “not be considered to be analogous.”


“In the case of Bahrain, the government have genuinely offered dialogue with opposition groups and offered a referendum on a new constitution. Colonel Gaddafi is not in the position of offering a referendum to his people on a constitution - he is at the other extreme,” he argued.

Oopsie, slippie.  If Gaddafi is "the other extreme" that would make Bahrain's royals the opposite extreme, no?   And as for the genuine dialogue bit, the king's men already have these guys under lock and key or else hiding from imminent arrest.  Is that an offer of dialogue, "genuine dialogue"?   And, of course, it just wouldn't do for the West to start meddling in Arab/Muslim affairs would it not when we've already got hundreds of thousands of Western troops in Bahrain, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Egypt.

No, it's best we leave these things up to the Arab countries even if it is the Arab countries that are persecuting, even slaughtering Bahraini protesters.   I'm sure they know best.

Fight's On

Muammar Gaddafi seems intent on sealing his own fate.   Numerous accounts claim that, despite calling an immediate ceasefire in response to a threatening UN Security Council resolution, Libyan military forces are proceeding to assault Benghazi.

If so, the "no fly zone" becomes irrelevant and Western air forces will proceed to dismember Gadaffi's firepower assets - his tanks, artillery and air defence hardware.  A scan of Libya's order of battle shows that most of his stuff is obsolete and the small fraction that is remotely battleworthy can be quickly reduced.

Maybe, just maybe, the old bugger has decided to go down in a blaze of martyrdom.  Maybe he's just crazy.   Either way, he's finished.

Who Needs Canadian Fighters in Libya?

Steve Harper has decided that it suits his "tough guy" self-image to order six Canadian CF-18 fighters to Europe, somewhere, to enforce the UN "no fly zone" edict over Libya.

This is about as blatant a stunt as they come.    Six jets, what is that?   Compared to Canada, Libya is on France's and Italy's doorstep.  It's just a carrier deck away for the US Navy.  It's barely a stroll around the block for the Brits.   They can run air patrols virtually out of their backyards.   For us, it's another matter entirely which is why we're sending just six aircraft and a legion of support personnel to some place to maybe do something, somewhere.

Think of the field day Gaddafi can have with this?   Look at the Crusaders doing what they always do, coming to kick Muslim butt.   And there are plenty of people predisposed by our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan and our blatant support of Arab tyrants who won't have any trouble believing it.

It's not like there's any shortage of Arab muscle to do the job.   Egypt is right next door and it has scads of every state-of-the-art vehicle and trinket necessary to deal with an old clown like Gaddafi.

But Canada?   To enforce a meaningless no fly zone?   With a massive force of six planes?  That's a joke.

Gaddafi Rolls Over, Plays Dead - Crafty Old Dog

At the 11th hour, 59th minute, the United Nations Security Council ordered a no-fly zone over Libyan airspace and authorized all necessary measures short of invasion to protect that country's citizens.

Three weeks too late countries like Britain, France and even Canada - you know, all the Crusader states - came out swinging, announcing they're committing combat aircraft to enforce the UN resolution.

With the rebels largely driven back to the confines of Benghazi, Gadaffi made the smart play and declared an immediate ceasefire.   It's a pretty good win for Muammar.   His campaign over the past two weeks contemplated what has now happened.   Just as armies are known to ramp up fighting in the runup to a ceasefire, Gaddafi took the opportunity to drive the rebels back as far as possible, allowing him to consolidate his hold on most of the country including its airfields.  Resistance behind his new front line can be quietly cleaned up by his security forces.

This must be about the most half-assed initiative ever conjured up by the UN
Security Council.  It's ineffective, it's much too late, it may even consolidate Gaddafi's support and his control over the country.  Brilliant.