2011 milblog conference

I couldn't make it this year, but I can watch the live streaming video today (Saturday, April 30) - see schedule below (times eastern), and thanks to our friends at youserved! - Follow that link to log in and chat. (Note: videos from previous conferences are playing between live segments.)

• Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 9:00 - 9:45 AM
• Social Media and the Military 11:00 - 12:15 PM
• DoD Blogger's RT with Lt. Gen. William Caldwell 12:30 - 1:15 PM
• Gold Star Families 2:00 - 3:15 PM
• Members of House Armed Services Committee 3:30 - 3:45 PM
• War and Film 3:45 - 5:15 PM
• Closing Remarks 5:15 - 5:30 PM

Twitter page here.

(And always thanks to JP at milblogging.com and military.com.)

Return of the Porn Squad Commandos

Don't waste one of your free reads (and if you're a subscriber, why?) on this - but in the 9,000th Abu Ghraib story to appear in the New York Times we get a call for a celebration of the anniversary of Mary Mapes' and Dan Rather's broadcast of the pix that changed the world.

To mark the seventh anniversary of the publication of photographs that exposed torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, the New York Times published an ACLU/PEN American Center op-ed today honoring those who stood up against the torture policies of the Bush administration. In the introduction, Jameel Jaffer and Larry Siems write about Sergeant Joe Darby, as well as the many other Americans, known and unknown, who stood up against the Bush administration's torture policies...

While I've long maintained he is one (as much as anyone can be in this story), the media might have a tough time suddenly trying to make Darby a hero now. Maintaining the fiction that (the Peabody award-winning) Mapes and Rather "exposed what Bush was doing" at abu Ghraib required Darby's part in the story to be ignored for years. But while he's someone with more knowledge of what went on at abu Ghraib than anyone who ever typed up one of the many works of fiction appearing as any of the New York Times stories about it, he's probably more than happy not to be in the spotlight. "I still have a lot of bad feelings toward the press," he said in a rare interview before getting on with his life.

Everybody thinks there was an order from high up, or that somebody in command must have known. Everybody is wrong. Nobody in command knew about the abuse, because nobody in command cared enough to find out. That was the real problem. The entire command structure was oblivious, living in their own little worlds. So it wasn't a conspiracy--it was negligence, plain and simple.

Of course, what could he possibly know about abu Ghraib? It had to have been a conspiracy - that's how all the best reporters reported it! So let's get a second opinion:

"We did not find any evidence of a policy or a direct order given to these soldiers to conduct what they did. I believe that they did it on their own volition and I believe that they collaborated with several MI (military intelligence) interrogators at the lower level".

That's Major General Antonio Taguba, whose report - completed before the story "broke" - also contained several quotes that, ripped out of context, were used to support a conspiracy theory going straight to the top. But that's a quote from his 2004 testimony to Congress, given in the immediate aftermath of the appearance of the photos on CBS TV. (Follow that link for a look at the headlines it generated and you'll see what I mean about context.)

Jump a few years forward - to the Obama administration's 2009 release of Justice Department memos authorizing the CIA to use "enhanced interrogation techniques." Could that, at last, be the smoking gun of proof about "what really happened at abu Ghraib"? Not if you believe Gary Myers, who stated "Those accused of abuses at Abu Ghraib had no actual knowledge of the memoranda." (See also here.)

Who is he to make such a claim? He was the (civilian) defense attorney for Ivan Frederick, one of the guards convicted of abusing prisoners. The one whose family gave the photos to Mary Mapes, the one who sat for an interview with Seymour Hersh. It was, in fact, Frederick - not Darby - who inspired the media coverage of abu Ghraib. (If you wanted to honor Darby's courage, it might have been appropriate on the anniversary of his action - months ago.) Frederick's account (embellished by the media to work George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld into the story), written after he was busted - and not Darby's or Taguba's - along with his photo collection, is what most people (including the two authors of this latest NYT piece) still believe explains "what really happened at abu Ghraib." (And part of the reason he's not as well known as Lynndie England or Charles Graner.)

"The Bush administration's most senior officials expressly approved the torture of prisoners, but there was dissent in every agency, and at every level," declare our courageously ignorant (if not malicious) correspondents in the New York Times today.

There are many things the Obama administration could do to repair some of the damage done by the last administration, but among the simplest and most urgent is this: It could recognize and honor the public servants who rejected torture.

Maybe Rather and Mapes will give Darby their Peabody Award - though I doubt he'd accept. Darby has been living with death threats (which the Times piece acknowledges...) ever since the media turned Ivan Frederick's version of the abu Ghraib porn squad into global celebrities (...which the Times nor any other media outlet involved ever will).

As for Obama, he weighed in on the topic two years ago, calling the abu Ghraib abuses something "carried out in the past by a small number of individuals," and adding that "the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken." A weak statement, perhaps, but hardly one that supports the continuation of the myth that abu Ghraib was something other than what he, Joe Darby, Antonio Taguba, or Gary Myers each say it was in their own way - the "perfect storm" of a group (of people you wouldn't want living in your neighborhood - but insert your own description here) working in a hellish environment under immediate supervisors who didn't much care to know exactly what they were doing.

And that's a mild description - I prefer Darby's. But his wasn't the "popular" version seven years ago, when tales from Mary Mapes, Lynndie England, Dan Rather, Seymour Hersh, the Frederick clan, and a cast of thousands of other reporters and war porn aficionados were eagerly swallowed by like-minded individuals, and ruled the front pages and newscasts of the day.

Perhaps for some that aftertaste is sweet, and the CBS broadcast of the abu Ghraib photos is an anniversary worth celebrating - but before we all put on our finest, uncork the bubbly, get out our cameras and deck the halls let's look at it in the context (chart explained here) of the history of American deaths in the war in Iraq:

(We could do one with Iraqi deaths, too - though with much greater numbers the trend would be similar.)

Hmmmm... you might think - perhaps it's best forgotten, left unexamined. Which is exactly the sentiment that enabled a repeat of "what really happened at abu Ghraib" last year and this - but that's a tale yet to be told.

(More to follow.)

Whats old is not news again

Afghan pilot kills 9 U.S. trainers - and "came from the security force that has been more closely screened for insurgent sympathizers than any other force."

The screening, conducted by the Afghans with help from NATO, is aimed at improving the quality of Afghan troops that will take on increasing responsibility for security beginning in July, when U.S. troops are scheduled to begin withdrawing from the country.

One of the reasons I've been re-looking at old, forgotten stories of Iraq in 2006 is because the strategy we were using there and then - get this turned over to the Iraqi forces so we can leave - is the very same strategy President Obama has applied to Afghanistan, something I noticed (with no little concern) two years ago. Another similarity: in the opinion of anyone with any expertise, the Afghan effort is under-resourced now in much the same way the Iraq effort was then. (Obama's surge has only brought us to that level.)

There are other similarities (rules of engagement and counterinsurgency tactics, for example), but there are also differences. Depending on your expectations, those differences are reason for either hope or despair.

• In Iraq some of the perceived (or real) failures of that strategy (see "under-resourced") were overcome with a surge of forces in 2007 - a very unpopular move on President Bush's part. The odds of such a decision from President Obama are zero. (See "U.S. troops are scheduled to begin withdrawing" above.)
• In Iraq, a significant element of the opposition was comprised of "foreign fighters." Whatever they lacked in numbers they made up for in willingness to slaughter civilians - in individual executions to send a message to local leaders and in spectacular mass attacks, suicide and otherwise, designed to foment more "sectarian violence." Their methods gave us an opening to turn their Iraqi allies against them. For whatever reason, few are claiming any similar element exists to any significant extent in Afghanistan. (This has probably meant fewer civilian casualties in Afghanistan than Iraq - but that's speculative, no one seems too concerned with total civilian casualty figures for Afghanistan.)

• We were "rebuilding" Iraq. Afghanistan needs built. To put this in (overly) simple terms, it's harder to convince a remote Afghan villager that we would like to provide him with electricity and running water if he'd please stop shooting at us long enough. What would he do with this "electricity"?

• This might be considered an ugly one, but any discussion of this type that doesn't address it is not worth having: Iraq was awash in oil, Afghanistan has little of anything of exportable value - except opium poppies.

• And from Iraq we had coverage of what was going on - much (by no means all) of that from folks who were more interested in getting rid of George Bush than whatever might become of Iraq. From Afghanistan we have a small fraction of the reports we had from Iraq, and if anyone can point to an example that can be characterized in that manner with regard to our current president, let me know.

I could go on, but I expect this might be a difference, too: no one gives a damn. (In that regards Afghanistan is exactly as it was in our collective conscious in 1990 - in the immediate wake of Soviet withdrawal - or on September 10th, 2001.)

"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

In late 2006 I thought what we were doing in Iraq had a chance to "work" - without a surge. I was a surge skeptic (until I saw the light that few have seen since... and then participated in it), but in large part that's because I was also aware of this "awakening movement" thing going on in Anbar. (No, we can't really have an "awakening" in A-stan. See second difference listed above.) Still, differences aside, (and one of the most insignificant differences between the Obama administration and the Bush administration has been the words used to describe exactly the same things) it will be interesting to see how well the old Bush/Rumsfeld motto "as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" works in Afghanistan.

So last one out, let me know, okay?

Tornado Alley

The idea that there is such a place - and that you don't live in it - is one of many reasons so many people die in tornadoes elsewhere. Here's a good, layman's terms discussion on "tornado alley".

Swaths of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee are relative "high-risk" (climatologically speaking) areas for strong, long-track, tornadic events - in fact they are the highest risk. That these are nonetheless rare increases the odds of replacing "tornadic events" with "killer storms" in that description.

I'd cite the death toll reported here (or here), but it keeps rising.

Here's a chart from NOAA: "The purple points are the annual death rates, the red line is a simple smoother, the solid black line is a long-term trend in two sections (1875-1925, 1925-2000) and the cyan lines are estimates of the 10th percentile and 90th percentile from 1925-2000."

The solid black line, it seems to me, would be more representative of reality if it was broken into three sections, with the third from around 1980 on - and flat. Reality makes a strong case that (in spite of notable advances in scientific knowledge and sensing technologies - and the following should be taken as in no way dismissive of those advances - more, please) the real improvement evident in this chart, the dramatic downward plunge from 1925 through the 70s, was driven primarily by advances in communications systems - specifically radio and television, through that period. One might have expected some sort of internet-based improvement, but the internet is no faster than television in that regard. (And unless you've set your computer to deliver you warnings, could actually be a step backward from the automatic override available on your TV or radio.) In time something like that could result from the spread of portable devices - assuming their users have "an app for that" and that numerous false alarms don't render them essentially useless. (See "boy who cried wolf.")

There's another conclusion one can rightfully draw from this - beyond incremental improvement the government has done just about all it can (and "all it can" is laudable in this case) for you in regards to saving you from death by severe storm. In a big way the rest is up to you. (And nature, or fate, or God, if you prefer.) Of course, if you don't live in "tornado alley" you don't have to worry about all that, right?

Support the troops: bring them home now

Congressman wants remains of 13 sailors buried in Tripoli returned:

When their bodies washed ashore, they were fed to dogs, dragged through the streets and dumped into holes, said U.S. Rep Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

Rogers said it is only a matter of time before Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi is deposed, so it is important to get ready to work with a new Libyan government to bring the Intrepid's crew back to the United States.

The War of Words

"Thousands who had been deceived by their lying newspapers to believe that we were being whipped all the time now realize the truth..."

- Sherman, on reaching Savannah, December 1864
The Memoirs of General W. T. Sherman

The end of April, 2006 - five years ago in Iraq - US Army Captain Dan Sukman was asked if he thought the country was in a civil war:

I have chosen to reserve judgment for the next 150 years. If in 150 years I return to Iraq and everyone in Baghdad is dressing up and reenacting all the violence that is occurring today, as a hobby, I guess you can then call it a civil war.

A good answer. (Mine from the time is here.) It's unfortunate he couldn't give a longer one, but unfortunately the question had become one of political, not military significance. It was an election year, and Democrats had seized on the definition of Iraq as civil war as a campaign issue: we shouldn't be involved in another country's civil war, let's bring the troops home. (Or send them to Afghanistan, the real central front, from which Iraq is but a foolish distraction.) That wasn't really new ground for Democrats - eliminate "another country" from that and you'll have their great-great-granpappies' position the first time our nation fought under a Republican president, the American Civil War. (Our troops are beaten and demoralized, and fighting against our southern brothers' "property rights," which we must respect!)

Change their 2006 position to "we shouldn't get involved in another county's civil war" and it would be a statement I'd agree with wholeheartedly. (See Libya.) But whatever you call(ed) Iraq - civil war, insurgency, jihad, fiasco, or chaos - we were deeply involved. And while it's as much a "what if" scenario now as it was then, to believe that anything other than an infinitely worse conflagration (or "humanitarian disaster" if you prefer) would follow our withdrawal from Iraq in 2006 is akin to believing the rebels of 1864 would have gone straight home to free their slaves and rejoin the Union - if only we'd stop shooting at them.

"It was a glorious sight to officers and soldiers on the line where these white flags were visible, and the news soon spread to all parts of the command. The troops felt that their long and weary marches, hard fighting, ceaseless watching by night and day, in a hot climate, exposure to all sorts of weather, to diseases and, worst of all, to the gibes of many Northern papers that came to them saying all their suffering was in vain, that Vicksburg would never be taken, were at last at an end and the Union sure to be saved."

- Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant

What the Democrats would have really done if they'd won the White House in 1864 is a matter of speculation, fodder for more "what if" scenarios on our Civil War. But five years after they won control of the House and Senate, and two years after taking the White House, we have a better understanding of what they meant by what they said in 2006. It's far from what I thought they meant. Skipping all the way to the present, in Iraq today their efforts to cancel the complete withdrawal as scheduled on President Bush's timeline are rebuffed - for now, at least - by an Iraqi government concerned (among other things) that we'll turn them into another Libya. (That civil war we actually "got involved" in...) In Afghanistan, President Obama's pledge to "start a withdrawal" on a date certain - made at the very outset of a new strategy (and one example of political talking points actually becoming military reality - besides "date certain" see "never go to war without an exit strategy" and "blank check"), while devoid of real meaning (see entire previous discussion) plays out in a predictable manner.

We'll find out soon enough what those words about Afghanistan really mean. But while it's too early to dress up and reenact the great moments of the Iraq war, since we know now what all those words about Iraq really meant (nothing beyond "vote for me") we can imagine some more "what if" scenarios.

Like "what if they'd never been said?" Sure - it got them votes from whatever suckers in the "anti-war" crowd believed them (some of them probably still believe them), but I believe the Democrats would likely have won the various elections anyway. In fact, in November, 2006 voters said several other issues were more important to them than Iraq. Since none of those promises to end the war or bring troops home (or even avoid other nations' civil wars) were true anyway, how might the war in Iraq (hell, call it a "civil war in Iraq" if it makes you happy) have played out differently if they'd never made them?

It wasn't done this way the first time - when it mattered - but start the "what if" scenario with the world as it was: the war in Iraq was brutal in April/May 2006 - and was about to become more so. Much of that would be due to increasingly lethal attacks from al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency, but Shiites were forming militias in response - their contribution to the violence would soon be evident. In the meantime, US forces were experiencing long-sought successes in turning Sunni insurgents against al Qaeda - their efforts against the foreign fighters (and their remaining Iraqi allies) would likewise blend into the increasing levels of violence. Americans (see Ramadi for one example) would take an increasingly active roll as they began to subtly change tactics, adopting those that had proven successful over the past years and rejecting those that hadn't. As the summer wore on large scale (and "named") actions to root out insurgents (always with US forces combined with Iraqi troops) would result in climbing death tolls for American troops - as would (initially, at least) the more successful approaches used elsewhere and soon to be adopted nation wide. But as bad as American death tolls were, Iraqis suffered much more in that and every other way.

Americans generally accept that given an option of lying or keeping their mouths shut their politicians will do the former. But I see war (or at least, I did prior to 2006) as a bigger issue than "I promise more money for everyone!" or "I never heard of her!" or even "I had no idea my campaign supporters were making so much money off my Bills!" But what if Democrats hadn't answered every suicide bombing, "spectacular al Qeada attack," or death of an American troop through that period with something everyone "knew" meant "bring the troops home now!"? If it made no real difference to Americans who heard it (none seem too upset about the lack of follow through) did it matter to the Iraqis who did? Did it spur Shiites to join militias, seeing that as their only hope? Did it encourage al Qaeda to follow up spectacular bombings with more spectacular bombings? Other obvious questions should flow from those; to be fair, I can't think of any now that I didn't think of in 2006, but maybe others can.

All just food for thought. But maybe it's still too early to think about it, since like it or not, ignore it or not, we're still eating what they really fed us now.

I wonder what's for dessert?

"Come one step closer, and the terrorist gets it!"

(Update/bumped from yesterday)

"On Sept. 11, 2001, the core of al-Qaeda was concentrated in a single city: Karachi, Pakistan," opens the Washington Post report on their fresh puddle of wikileakage. Read the whole thing and you'll discover that back in the day, the Paks were somewhat helpful in rounding those guys up. Oddly, you must get nearly to the end of the article to find its best quote:

Gradually, Mohammed and the other operatives were picked off by Pakistanis working with the CIA and the FBI. When Ramzi Binalshibh, a key liaison between the Sept. 11 hijackers and al-Qaeda, was arrested at a safe house in Karachi on the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, there was a four-hour standoff while the Yemeni and two others held knives to their own throats and threatened to kill themselves rather than be taken.

Wasn't there a comedian who used something like that in his routine?

On an unfunny note - hopefully our friends in Pakistan won't be too put off on helping us in the future now that they've learned something about how well we keep secrets. (And I may be wrong, but this stuff seems a bit above Brad Manning's access level, compared to most of the drivel that came from his stash. Second source?)

And isn't this just lovely: Leaked files accuse BBC of being part of a 'possible propaganda media network' - al Qaeda propaganda network, that is. Apparently all the best terrorists had their number on speed dial. (Though that's not surprising, sez I. None of it is surprising, sez Ed.)

The Huffpo says various media outlets were scrambling to be the first to release this batch of bytes (that would indeed be somewhat yellowed now had they been printed when new) but I, for one, am shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn of this breech of Wikileak security:

The leak was originally provided to WikiLeaks, which then gave them to the Post, NPR and others; the NYT and The Guardian claim to have received them from "another source" (WikiLeaks suggested the "other source" was Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a former WikiLeaks associate who WikiLeaks claims took, without authorization, many WikiLeaks files when he left).

Neener neener boo boo, thief!

Updates: one mystery solved in comments - thanks! (But language warning - film from 1970s...)

Michelle Malkin doesn't seem to want to play the part of "Harriet" if they ever remake this comedy classic.

And I overlooked this one yesterday: "The leak was originally provided to WikiLeaks, which then gave them to the Post, NPR and others..."

One of those things is not like the others, as I believe they sing on Sesame Street. (Which is PBS, not NPR - but wouldn't "Bert and Ernie Teach Kids to Read WikiLeaks" be a wonderful educational program?) But NPR doesn't get that much of their money from the government, so maybe they aren't worried about losing it.

original post: 2011-04-25 18:17:04

Stripes

For Easter I re-posted an old entry from the archives, something I'd written in 2009 about something I'd done in 2006. That got me into the April 2006 archives, too - in search of reminders of what I had been writing about back then. Among other topics: whether or not Iraq was a Civil War was one that was heating up nicely - just in time for the then-upcoming American political season. Apparently in the minds of many vote-seekers, if it was a civil war then we had no business being involved in another country's civil war. (They'd repeat the phrase frequently for at least two years after that.)

For my thoughts on what Iraq "was" at that time, see here. Short version: don't play stupid word games with what you call a war. I still think that's good advice, but for more recent thoughts, stand by.

I believe if you're going to take the trouble to write on various issues, you should take the trouble to at least occasionally write something worth looking at years later. Below, from April, 2006, a post that I think captures the absurdity - the insanity, even - of the moment, five years ago. Perhaps it has no value beyond that... (/end 2011 intro, rest same...)

The hurting

"Libya hurting Obama...even though many don't know where it is"

Libya is definitely proving to be a political loser for Obama which is interesting because only a little more than half of Americans, 58%, can actually correctly identify that it's in northern Africa. 27% think that it's in the Middle East, 4% think it's in South Asia, 2% think it's in South America, and 9% don't offer an opinion.

Miss Teen South Carolina and I believe that many people who are U.S. Americans don't have maps. But I can help you find Libya. Go to the Mediterranean, and follow the sounds of the drones until the sounds of the explosions and screaming drown them out. You're there.

While there you'll learn there are other meanings of "hurting" besides the one in that headline.

A muddled mass

Crazy Talk

CIA? You think this guy is CIA? Just because some dumb book from France says so? Come on, Ed, - that's just crazy talk.

I mean seriously, just because he showed up in Libya on March 14th - and just four days later all the American newspapers were calling him "the leader of the rebel army" doesn't mean he's a CIA agent. Seriously, just because on that very day he's the guy quoted shouting "Qaddafi is a big fat liar!" when Qaddafi said he was ordering his troops to cease-fire after the UN approved a "no-fly zone" doesn't mean he's a CIA agent.

Hell, that's just crazy talk.

All the newspapers were calling him the "hero of the Chad-Libya war who had been in exile." I mean, anyone who says that just because the guy lived near CIA headquarters in Virginia for 20 years - until that very moment he appeared in the papers in his brand new surplus American DCUs - and his friends said they didn't know what he did for a living, so that means he must a CIA agent is just talking crazy talk.

Come on now, you think a guy who a 1996 Washington Post story says was leading a rebellion against Qaddafi in Libya is somehow a CIA agent?

Travelers from Libya reported unrest today in the Jabal Akhdar mountains of eastern Libya and said armed rebels may have joined escaped prisoners in an uprising against the government.

Many Libyans believe that the unrest is part of a plan to overthrow Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and that its leader is Col. Khalifa Haftar, of a contra-style group based in the United States called the Libyan National Army, the travelers said.

The rebel army is the military wing of the Salvation Front for the Liberation of Libya, the main opposition in exile. Haftar was a senior officer in the Libyan army in Chad in the 1980s but was taken prisoner. When he and several hundred other POWs refused to go home after the war, the United States gave them asylum and training facilities.

The travelers, whose accounts could not be confirmed independently, said they heard that the death toll has risen...

I mean, jeepers, Ed - 1996 was an election year. How could President Clinton have found time to run some sort of "Bay of Pigs" - type operation in Libya? That's exactly the same sort of crazy talk people say about the "Bay of Pigs" - type operation President Clinton wasn't running in Iraq that year. That's all crazy talk.

Seriously, just because this 1991 New York Times article says he was brought to the United States five years before that failed uprising...

For two years, United States officials have been shopping around for a home for about 350 Libyan soldiers who cannot return to their country because American intelligence officials had mobilized them into a commando force to overthrow Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader.

Now, the Administration has given up trying to find another country that will accept the Libyans and has decided to bring them to the United States.
<...>
The plan to convert them into a vehicle for destabilizing the Libyan leader accomplished little besides creating 350 exiles.

The soldiers were involved in some minor operations but apparently never used in real combat. But their existence and purpose became known to Colonel Qaddafi and thus they cannot return home for fear of their lives.

...you think he's CIA? Everyone say it all together now: That's crazy talk!

I mean, sure - this 1991 New York Times story from a few weeks before that says a distant member of the deposed Libyan royal family said he would "take charge" of the group immediately before they were brought to America...

The exiled Prince Idris of Libya has said he will take control of a dissident Libyan paramilitary force that was originally trained by American intelligence advisers, and he has promised to order it into combat against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader.

The United States' two-year effort to destabilize Colonel Qaddafi ended in failure in December, when a Libyan-supplied guerrilla force came to power in Chad, where the original 600 commandos were based. The new Chad Government asked the United States to fly the Libyan dissidents out of the country...

But do you really think "Prince Idris" - a guy who is a successful American-based businessman - a guy who was on TV talking about the glorious Libyan peoples' rebellion against Qaddafi back in its early days this year - a guy who can claim (weakly - there's another guy with a better claim, but he lives in Britain, not the US...) the throne of Libya, would actually risk his reputation by mixing with the CIA? One more time : that's crazy talk.

Do you really think just because the Canadian government and the United Nations both have documents on their web pages saying this guy is the leader of a group everyone assumes is CIA-funded, a group of Libyan POWs captured in Chad during the "Toyota Wars" and intended for use against Qaddafi, that this means he's somehow CIA? Seriously, that's pure, tin-foil-hat wearing... um... er... hmmmm...

Okay. Wait. Let me try another track.

Do you think the Obama administration - Hillary Clinton, Tommy Donilon, Sammy Power and all those kids on the NSC, are really so inexperienced, unqualified, unprepared, and incompetent that they'd use a guy (from a Clinton-era CIA op) in a CIA op who has that much evidence in open source material indicating he's a CIA agent?

And sure, when people first started asking questions about the rebels the Obama administration leaked the news that we shouldn't worry about that because the president authorized a CIA op in Libya weeks ago and they say the rebels are okay - but that doesn't mean this guy's part of it.

C'mon - our news media would never let them get away with something like that.

Why, that's just plain crazy talk.

Mistakes?

Mistakes?... I've made a few.... heh, no, just kidding:

"There are all sorts of day-to-day issues where I say to myself, oh, I didn't say that right, or I didn't explain this clearly enough," Obama said, "or maybe if I had sequenced this plan first as opposed to that one, maybe it would have gotten done quicker."

But the president mentioned no actual mistakes.

Of course he didn't. Why should he? His biggest mistakes don't even get reported as such. I can offer up several on the national security front, but here are just two mistakes that you've seen hints of lately in the news.

The first actually was made in his earliest days in the White House. (But we're paying the price for it now, and will for years to come.) At around the same time he was taking the oath of office, the soldiers of the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team were completing preparations for their upcoming Iraq tour:

Like previous Stryker brigades, the 5th Brigade has put dozens of its troops through intensive, 10-month Arabic language training. They were tested in exercises last month where they had to help their commanders negotiate with native-speaker role players at Fort Lewis' urban training center, Leschi Town.

Tunnell has added his own adaptations as well. He sent senior sergeants to intelligence school at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., so that each of his infantry companies could do more analysis work that would typically be done at the battalion level, further up the chain of command.

And to give his companies more know-how when it comes to bargaining with the mukhtars and sheiks they'll encounter in Iraq, he sent senior sergeants for training in the art of negotiation.

All that was soon tossed out the window for this headline: "Barack Obama diverts 17,000 soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan."

Mr Obama indicated that the units being sent to Afghanistan had been earmarked for Iraq, saying the drawdown of US forces there "allows us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan".

Which is a great headline for a guy who campaigned on exactly that; at the time it was widely reported and wildly popular. For the 5th SBCT it was a tough break - but also an order you salute smartly and carry on. That would be all well and good, but a few days later came the second part of the deal that didn't get any attention at all.

Gen. Odierno will receive a Stryker Brigade to replace the incoming replacement brigade diverted to Afghanistan just a week ago. That means that he will continue to maintain the current level of two Stryker brigades in Iraq.

A Fort Lewis Stryker combat brigade will deploy to Iraq this fall, several months ahead of the original schedule, Army officials said Monday.

When the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division departs, all three Stryker brigades based at the Army post will be simultaneously deployed to combat for the first time. Each brigade has about 4,000 soldiers.

It's terrible that so many brigades had to deploy, but since they did wouldn't it make more sense to send the 4th to Afghanistan, and the 5th - the one that had trained for Iraq - to Iraq? In fact, wouldn't making that switch be courting disaster? That depends on your goal (and how sure you are of the media's willingness to play along) - if it's to win wars, then yes, it's a mistake to switch them like that. If it's to make Americans think you're drawing down troops in Iraq to send to Afghanistan, then no. And if the media's on your side, you are mistake-proof.

So get 'er done, soldier.

They may not have had enough time to learn the language or prepare properly for Afghanistan, but when confronted with "an absence of good intelligence on what they would be facing in the Arghandab" valley, NCOs in the unit found a way to improvise, adapt and overcome, by "printing out information on the Arghandab region from The Long War Journal, a respected non-Defense Department Web site, and posting it on bulletin boards."

As good as my friend Bill Roggio's site is, I don't think that's its intended purpose. To recap: the 2nd Infantry Division's (2ID) 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (5/2 SBCT), a brigade that had trained and prepared for Iraq, was re-routed to Afghanistan - a widely heralded and highly praised move. But also a fraud perpetrated on the American public, because in an "overlooked" story another 2ID brigade (4/2 SBCT) was sent to Iraq in their place.

Hey, what could possibly go wrong?

Taking a new stage

First, the "good" news: apparently France found some more munitions. But if you've ever wondered what the fifth week of a planned one-week war looks like, press on...

"The United States and its allies have entered a new stage of involvement in Libya," says this Washington Post report:

France and Italy said Wednesday that they would join Britain in dispatching military advisers to assist the inexperienced and disorganized rebel army, primarily in tactics and logistics. President Obama authorized sending $25 million worth of nonlethal equipment, including body armor, tents, uniforms and vehicles.

But "A senior European official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the Americans, said that Obama's eagerness to turn over command of the Libyan air operation to NATO late last month, and the withdrawal of U.S. fighter planes from ground-strike missions, had undermined the strength of their united front against Gaddafi."

The Los Angeles Times:

"We rushed into this without a plan," said David Barno, a retired Army general who once commanded U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. "Now we're out in the middle, going in circles."

The failure of the international air campaign to force Kadafi's ouster, or even to stop his military from shelling civilians and recapturing rebel-held towns, poses a growing quandary for President Obama and other NATO leaders: What now?

Privately, U.S. officials concede that some of their assumptions before they intervened in the Libyan conflict may have been faulty. Among them was the notion that air power alone would degrade Kadafi's military to the point where he would be forced to halt his attacks, and that the U.S. could leave the airstrikes primarily to warplanes from Britain, France and other European countries.

Joe Biden, US vice-president, has declared Nato can fulfil its mission in Libya without US help, arguing that Washington has far more important strategic concerns elsewhere, particularly Egypt.

America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful -- yet fragile -- transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power.

- and how that really didn't work out as planned, either.

The 25 million in non-lethal aid will consist of surplus type items, including "medical supplies, uniforms, boots, tents, personal protective gear, radios, halal meals," according to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who added that "this action is consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which among other actions, authorized member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas." She described the rebels as "mostly businesspeople, students, lawyers, doctors [and] professors." Other administration officials said the aid package had been determined "after weeks of assessing their capabilities and intentions."

Presumably the rebels will be allowed to let their new American boots touch ground.

Tim Hetherington killed in Libya

C.J. Chivers reports in the New York Times.

My friend Kanani Fong was his friend Kanani Fong. Her first response here. (Along with some videos from Tim.)

War sucks. I believe I've mentioned that here before.

Hearing the dogs (of war) that don't bark

"We rushed into this without a plan," said David Barno, a retired Army general who once commanded U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. "Now we're out in the middle, going in circles."

He's talking about Libya. I don't believe that got much notice, beyond paragraph five of that LA Times story. And I believe his assessment is valid, and based on military - not political - considerations.

Once upon a time, quotes from retired generals ("a nightmare with no end in sight") were big-time headline makers (even - or especially - if they lacked anything close to valid military critique), as in the AP, The Washington Post, and the New York Times all ran with 'em, along with Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. That link is to one example among many, and probably not even the best*. (I revisited that one recently myself for other reasons, so it was convenient.) The many examples I can think of all had something in common (besides being "anti-war"): the retired general was either running for office or campaigning heavily for someone else who was - invariably as or for a Democrat. (Other, non-politically motivated retired generals offered their own critiques on Iraq, too- invariably made with suggestions for improvements - but somehow they were never really found to be headline-worthy.)

In fairness to the various media outlets that loved to push a story like that, there was a certain "man bites dog" quality to it, if you ignored the fact that "man" in these examples was employed as a professional Democrat. (Which they mostly did, preferring to focus on their great credibility as a former soldier.) The slightest hint of that same "man bites dog"-type story in the Age of Obama leads to headlines/discussions/outcries about "crises in the civ/mil relationship," unless it's just ignored altogether.

Or as Glenn Reynolds said regarding another story on how the anti-war movement has somehow all but vanished over the past couple of years: "Yeah, it's as if all that self-righteous moralism, and cries or war criminal and illegal wars and concentration camps at Gitmo was just a lot of lying, self-serving twaddle by people who really just wanted power for their team. Who knew?"

I don't want to ever see a day when Republicans bring two dozen well-choreographed tap-dancing ex-generals and admirals out on stage at their convention to sing hosannas for the military brilliance of their candidate and party, but I am willing to point out that yes, the trash bags who did that a few years ago were just trash bags doing what trash bags do.

*Footnote: Sanchez' quote is "not the best" example because it was actually ripped from context of a larger talk in which he lambasted the media's handling of reporting the Iraq war - something about which he was absolutely qualified to opine. (At least as far as that period back when he was in charge...) Ironically, his "nightmare with no end in sight" assessment then - Fall 2007 - was based more on media reports on Iraq than on reality in Iraq. And obviously - and equally ironically - it gave them more hot air to inflate that myth-bubble he was attempting to pop.

Yumpin Yemenis...

Yemen protester: 'They shot at us directly;' at least 3 dead...

Eyewitnesses described enormous demonstrations, numbering hundreds of thousands, in the two cities as the ongoing protests against Saleh's longtime rule of the country appeared to gain strength.
<...>
Medical personnel at Sanaa's Change Square said the hurt, including those suffering from tear gas inhalation, numbered "in the hundreds and are still coming in."

You say you don't care, about bullets in the air, in Yemen's Change Square? Try this - 26 children killed:

"Apart from Libya, of which we do not have complete figures, Yemen has the largest number of children killed or injured because of political unrest in the region," said a spokeswoman for Unicef, Marix Mercado, during a press briefing.

She explained that "between February 18 and April 18, at least 26 children were killed, most by bullets and live ammunition."

"Meh," you say. "We got bored with Libya in like 15 minutes flat. Yemen - who cares?"

We did, a year ago:

U.S. military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops who in the past six weeks have killed scores of people, among them six of 15 top leaders of a regional al-Qaeda affiliate, according to senior administration officials.

The operations, approved by President Obama and begun six weeks ago, involve several dozen troops from the U.S. military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), whose main mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists...

Boots

- wrap 'em in plastic and they'll never touch ground:

The armed forces, numbering no more than 1,000, would be deployed to secure the delivery of aid supplies, would not be engaged in a combat role but would be authorised to fight if they or their humanitarian wards were threatened. "It would be to secure sea and land corridors inside the country," said an EU official.

A spokesman for the Misurata City Council appealed for NATO to send ground troops to secure the port that is the besieged city's only remaining humanitarian lifeline.

That quote actually appears in last week's story about running out of smart bombs.

Hopefully someone will explain to those folks in the besieged city the difference between the EU and NATO. For American readers: the US is not part of the EU, thus wouldn't be under any compulsion to contribute ground troops to assist, as would be the case if this were a NATO mission involving our NATO allies. Another story from last week:

The European Union is getting ready to launch a military mission to support humanitarian aid work in Libya even as rebels are warning of what they are calling a "massacre" in the western city of Misrata...

The EU-proposed operation would create a safe corridor in the sea up to Misrata as well as on the ground to be able to reach out to those in need. EU officials say the operation would require a formal UN request and fall under the mandate of UN resolutions 1970 and 1973.

But Kristalina Georgieva, the EU Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response says the EU believes if they cannot reach people, if they cannot evacuate the wounded or help those civilians caught in the cross-fire, then there is no option but to provide military support.

"If we have boats that are trying to get with medicines, or to evacuate wounded, not able to reach the port, this is a signal that that protection is necessary, or if on the ground there is such a forceful attack from Gadhafi forces that the actual presence of humanitarian workers -- people with no guns, no way to protect themselves -- becomes problematic, then there may be a need for protection on the ground in the civilian area," she said.

So, maybe the mission already has UN authorization?

Also last week, as rebel forces in the east crumbled under the onslaught of Qaddafi's troops and many of the remaining civilians fled Ajdibiya for Benghazi, western media shifted their correspondents to Misrata in time to capture dramatic photos of crying babies and file reports on Qaddafi's use of cluster bombs against civilians there.

Misery in Misrata

Click for larger. While most of the reported combat action between Qaddafi's troops and the rebels has taken place along the coast in the eastern half of Libya, Misrata (Misurata) is much further to the west - still on the shore of the Gulf of Tonkin, but closer to Tripoli. Correction: Gulf of Sidra.
(Dashed blue lines explained here.)

Qaddafi's forces would likely have taken Misrata earlier in the conflict, but NATO airstrikes there have at least delayed that outcome. While Qaddafi's troops are experiencing slow progress from Brega to Ajdibiya in the east - where rebel troops are described as "in disarray" - it's unlikely he (or anyone, including citizens of Misrata) would believe the description of NATO troops between that front and Tripoli as "humanitarian forces." The potential for confusion, tragic accidents, misunderstandings, or overt acts of war will obviously be high. All sides will need to exercise extreme caution to avoid escalation.

Meanwhile, a humanitarian sealift mission has been under way in Misrata, thus far without incident, and "The UN agency that coordinates humanitarian aid said Friday that it saw no need for military support for relief missions in Libya."

'Things are improving step by step. We are successful in bringing in food and medical equipment, there are more and more relief activities,' said Elizabeth Byrs, spokeswoman for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

This potential needed to be exhausted before any military assistance could be foreseen - a 'worst case scenario' that did not exist yet, she said.

"A Red Cross ship carrying vital medical supplies docked in the besieged Libyan town of Misrata" on April 3rd. Other ships are arriving with the mission of evacuating migrants from the city. (Warning: New York Times link, visits are rationed.)

A few ships have stopped at Misurata's docks to ferry migrant workers to safety. But thousands of laborers still wait, unsure when their turn will come.
<...>
The Ionian Spirit, a passenger vessel chartered by an international organization, entered Misurata on Thursday afternoon [April 14] with the mission of rescuing the workers, after a nearly 19-hour passage from Benghazi, the rebel capital in eastern Libya.

Its mission is urgent, said Jeremy R. A. Haslam, head of the crisis response team on board. A brightly painted cruise ship that usually plies the Greek, Italian and Albanian coasts, the Ionian Spirit was chartered by the International Organization for Migration, which hopes to pick up at least 800 of the more than 6,500 migrant workers who have been trapped in Misurata, Libya's third largest city.

Western reporters were also fortunate to reach the town immediately before the ship's dramatic arrival. More:

"Our staff on board the boat report that while we were boarding the migrants, the shelling and the fighting subsided for a bit and there was this almost eerie silence while they would kind of wait until we had got the people on board and that we would leave," said Pandya.

As the ship departed last weekend some passengers reported that Qaddafi's troops weren't the only threat they'd faced:

It had been a long wait and, until the very last moment, there was the fear that they would not get out. But in the early hours of yesterday morning, the great escape began for the desperate refugees caught on the deadliest battlefront in Libya's brutal civil war...

But it was not just the regime that these men and their families had grown to fear. Some of the inmates of Ghafr Ahmed camp, mainly from Egypt, sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh, had lost their lives in clashes with the revolutionary forces who control parts of this city under siege. Others had been arrested and accused of being mercenaries...

Increasingly dramatic stories may come from evacuees who are (for now) safe in Banghazi:

Bombardment made it impossible to get into many areas of Misrata and pressed the aid ship to leave as swiftly as it could, he said. That meant making hard choices when deciding who to bring on board.

Men chanted "Allahu akbar" and waved as the chartered Greek vessel, Ionian Spirit, made its way into Benghazi port. Evacuees crowded the top deck, huddling in sweatshirts and coats from the damp wind blowing from the Mediterranean.
<...>
"I don't know where I'm going to go," said Ahmed Jawad, 26, an engineering student from Baghdad who had been living in Misrata for eight years...

"Every tyrannical country, when there's a protest, they use rubber bullets or water cannons, but here they use heavy weapons, anti-aircraft guns, live bullets.

"These weapons are supposed to be used in wars, not against civilians," he said.

Similar reports of atrocities from fleeing civilians preceded UN approval of airstrikes (or "all necessary measures") on Qaddafi's military last month.

More:

IOM says there are 100 Libyans among those rescued, 23 of whom are war-wounded, including a child shot in the face and an amputee.

More on the IOM here and here. However, "...the chartered vessel can only carry 800 people at a time and current funds only cover the cost of two trips, the aid agency said."

The IOM has said it hoped the ship would be able to leave Benghazi for Misrata in order to carry out a second evacuation, but after that it would run out of funding. Yet the total needed, $5 million, is not huge, according to the Geneva-based agency.

...And (as expected) update:

The Libyan government on Tuesday firmly rebuffed a proposal from the European Union, saying it would fight any foreign troops that landed on its soil, even if they were supposedly there to escort humanitarian aid convoys.
<...>
"If there is any deployment of any armed personnel on Libyan ground, there will be fighting," [Libya's deputy foreign minister] Kaim told a news conference in Tripoli. "The Libyan government will not take it as a humanitarian mission. It will be taken as a military mission."

Also, "Kaim reiterated Gaddafi's claims that the al-Qaeda terrorist network is behind the Libyan rebellion." - a claim with popular appeal to many Americans.

"Separately, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said his country was sending a team of military advisers to Libya to help organize the ragtag opposition forces, joining British diplomats already working with rebel leaders in Benghazi, their stronghold in eastern Libya." A lengthy AP report here, and a BBC report here:

The BBC understands 10 officers will provide logistics and intelligence training in a UK and French operation.

Mr Hague said it was compatible with the UN resolution on Libya, which ruled out foreign military ground action.

He stressed that the officers would not be involved in any fighting and the move was needed to help protect civilians.

Meanwhile:

NATO conducted deliberate, multiple strikes against command and control facilities of the Qadhafi regime last night, including communications infrastructure used to coordinate attacks against civilians, and the headquarters of the 32nd Brigade located 10 km south of Tripoli.

The 32nd Brigade headquarters has been used to lead and coordinate military actions against the Libyan civilian population.

"NATO will continue its campaign to degrade the Qadhafi regime forces that are involved in the ongoing attacks on civilians. We do so in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Mandate 1973 in order to protect, by any means, the civilian population from attack," said Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, the Commander of Operation Unified Protector.

Underlining added, italics in original.

All done!

The One-Week War: Week Four

Ever wonder what the fourth week of a planned one week war looks like?

Wonder no more - it looks like this:

Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs, highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time, according to senior NATO and U.S. officials.

I predict they'll somehow scrounge some up somewhere for week five. And if they don't drop one of them on Qaddafi they'll need some for week six, too - because that story isn't going to convince him to give up.

In other week four re-cap, some folks are still living in week one:

Addressing a crowd of Tea Party activists in South Carolina on Saturday, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann called President Obama's decision to intervene in Libya "foolish" and said the NATO mission could end up boosting al Qaeda.

"We still don't know who the opposition forces are that we're helping," the potential Republican presidential contender said at a morning gathering of the Bluffton Tea Party Patriots.

"The only reports that we have say that there are elements of al Qaeda in North Africa and Hezbollah in the opposition forces," she said. "Let me ask you this: what possible benefit is there to the United States by lifting up and creating a toehold for al Qaeda in North Africa to take over Libya?"

That's not going to get Qaddafi shaking with anything but laughter, either.

Now, if that's the first time you've heard that some of the Libyan rebels might be al Qaeda you probably responded exactly the way you were expected to. If that's the case, take a break, clean yourself up, put on a fresh pair of underwear, and come back and read this calmly; if nothing else you'll learn something that will at least save you the cost of buying lots more Fruit of the Looms in the coming weeks.

Dreams from our President

Unbelievable! - you might cry. Of course it is. (If it wasn't, it wouldn't be deniable.) But that doesn't matter. You're along for the ride...

When it comes to Libya planning, I keep coming back to this cartoon....

I suppose I should explain it in full. Lets start at the beginning (or at least, a beginning).

Wouldn't this be nice:

Act one: Libyan citizens, inspired by similar (and seemingly successful) protests in neighboring countries, rise up peacefully against Qaddafi's rule. In response, Qaddafi unleashes his military - actually thousands of thug mercenaries (his own people wouldn't serve in his army under any circumstances, right?) to crush them. Global outrage against the dictator increases as refugees reveal the extent of atrocities he'd inflicted on his own people. The tanks keep rolling, but just when things appear to be hopeless, NATO jets, responding to UN "authorization" granted following cries for help from the Arab League and African Union (renown for their progressive leadership and concern for their citizens' welfare above all else) appear overhead and make short work of Qaddafi's air defenses and armor.

Act two: In Libya, protesters - now under the protection of NATO airpower, become rebels. At last - no longer living in fear of tanks and rockets in the hands of mercenary thugs (and secret police) - shopkeepers, dockworkers, mechanics, students and teachers all rise up together, knowing that with NATO's help they now have hope. They are joined by former soldiers - including senior ranking officers - who quickly transform them into what analysts describe as a capable-enough force. But they aren't needed; on Friday - following almost a full week of NATO airstrikes (most now directed at Qaddaffi's only two truly effective, "hard line" brigades) tens of thousands of anti-Qaddafi citizens exit the Mosques to clog squares in Tripoli, in overwhelming numbers (the only thing previously stopping them - what "planners" call the "fear dynamic" - having been removed by our demonstrated firm commitment to their cause) soon further swelled as security force members, sent to end their demonstrations, instead join in. Qaddafi's military crumbles rapidly, along with the rest of his government as one by one his paid lackeys see the writing on the wall. (And after defecting reveal further horrors of the regime.)

Act three: By the end of the weekend - about ten days after the event began, or at least really got our attention (especially at the gas pumps) - we are treated to an amazing sight: celebratory crowds in Tripoli, Benghazi, and all those other towns in between. Chants of "USA! USA! USA!" occasionally drown out efforts of western reporters to describe the scene, but their commentary isn't needed. Throughout the crowd, hand-held posters of Barack Obama are visible, though not as common as those of the less-familiar (to American audiences) new Libyan leaders and military heroes. (These images are on American front pages everywhere the next day.) Qaddafi and his family, along with their last loyal henchmen, had fled the country overnight. Throughout that glorious Monday, new flags (actually the old, pre-Qaddafi flag of the Kingdom) are raised over Libyan government buildings everywhere. Statements from world leaders hailing the transformation are compiled for reporting on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC before noon, American time. Rush Limbaugh salutes the efforts of American troops (and Libyan rebels) points out that Qaddafi's was always a weak regime, and predicts Obama will take more credit than his due...

Epilogue: That night, Barack Obama addresses America in a dramatic, prime time broadcast. He takes no personal credit for events, nor claims any for his nation. He salutes the efforts of the brave American Airmen and Sailors involved - but this, he reminds us, is simply what happens when the world unites and coalitions are built in support of those people (of any color or nationality) whose voices, once hushed in despair, are raised in hope for peaceful change - to be ignored by dictators but heard by those inspired by their courage. [Applause]

Libya, of course, will need our continued assistance moving forward, as a nation renewed, into a new era of progressive freedom - an endsate now theirs to define. We'll work with [insert name of new temporary Libyan leader whose bio is in handouts] going forward, to ensure that free and fair elections complete the transition begun when Libyan citizens [insert particularly dramatic moment here]. Details of our immediate aid package are forthcoming, but even now our hospital ships are reaching Libyan ports. [Applause]

In America, of course, it's time for Congress to get to work on the budget, end partisan bickering, and achieve a similar unified result. And in the days to come, that is where his focus will be. Thank you, salute the troops, good night. [Applause] Later coverage of events will include comments from his political opponents, who salute the accomplishments of our rebel friends, laud the president's handling of the crisis, and dodge questions on other issues. Driving to work the next day Americans will notice the price of a gallon of gas has fallen a few cents...

Front pages that next day will feature images of doctors and babies in Benghazi, but opinion columns appearing in major newspapers and from influential bloggers will simultaneously remind Americans of a pledge once made to avoid stupid wars without allies or domestic support, rash wars "to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression." Yeah - this is what he meant by that. After all, it's not exactly rocket science... (And hey, I admit I was worried when we started this on the anniversary of the Iraq war, but I can't ignore this comparison: did you notice the whole thing took less time than our invasion force needed to topple that statue of Saddam Hussein?)

*****

That, friends and neighbors, was the original best-case scenario for the Libya op (never mind all that boring stuff that would come after about blah blah blah) - a best-case scenario thought to be likely, too. (Okay - maybe no one actually expected Obama posters, unless they'd already printed them...) A plan put together in haste, and before anyone in America heard much about a crisis in Libya in the news. The worst-case scenario, on the other hand, was something that - in many ways - still wasn't as bad as what we've seen in the news (or not seen, as the case may be) over the past several weeks.

Why? What happened? Links above are to some of the actual events (or planning) that correspond to that point in the script; the points of divergence are clear. But more fundamentally, you simply can't really write a script like that and expect it to play out in the real world. Still, the Obama administration, having written it, figured they'd give it a try. The fever wasn't completely contagious (the DoD seemed particularly resistant), but on the non-military side of the debate two factors overwhelmed all other considerations in the go/no-go decision making:

One: Qaddafi really is a living comic book villain - much more so than Saddam Hussein. While Hussein had cultivated an image of serious threat (and a Stalin look to go with it), over four decades Qaddafi had established himself as dangerous, unbalanced, but somehow incompetent and laughable - comic relief.

However, while he'd never invaded a neighboring country that held vast oil reserves, like so many other world leaders his crimes through that history were very real. Shout "Qaddafi has to go" and no one would argue the point.

Qaddafi in Rome, 2009, with one of the 40 virgin bodyguards he brought to the G8 summit, and Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi (who appears unamused). The Libyan "strongman" also met Barack Obama on that trip.

Two: the American media loves a good story, sees Qaddafi in that villain role, and the President of the United States - at least this one - as a perfect hero. Handed copies of the script, they'd play along - wittingly or unwittingly - for as long as they could. A week to ten days would be no problem. With new dramatic episodes coming fast and furious through every one of those few days - each better than the last - the story would be concluded before anyone ever thought to ask a serious question about what was happening. (See also #1 above.) More in-depth examinations in magazine pieces and books - maybe even television specials and movies - to come later would reveal that yes, mistakes were made, but everything really had been as totally awesome as it seemed.

It ain't over, as they say. But much of that script's been tossed. What went wrong? A lot of little things and a few big ones - the biggest at the very beginning. Failure was built in to the script. See act one? While "fact-based" it contains significant fiction. ("Based on real events" I believe they say in Hollywood.) Act two? Most of it depends on those earlier fictional elements. Even though they'd been reported as fact, that had little to no impact on events on the ground. (Much of act two also illustrates traditional leftist thought on history - truth is what we make it, and this is how things should happen if act one was truth.) See act three? By that point the only similarity to reality was yes, the president did make a speech. It wasn't delivered in prime time, and rather than a humble but triumphant call to move forward we (at least, those who tuned in) saw a nervous, unconvincing recap of news reports and op-eds from act one (and a comparison to Iraq, by way of saying it doesn't compare, because that took years), with an added reminder that "Hey, I've got 30 billion Qaddafidollars - and there's more where that came from. Who wants it?"

In his defense, of course, the president had been out of town throughout much of the earlier goings on...

Now, of course, we are moving forward - to tomorrow, next week, next year... and one of those days Qaddafi will indeed be gone. (Never mind all that boring stuff that would come after about blah blah blah...) If that's soon it could still be described as a triumphant (and "low cost") event. ("The Obama administration estimates U.S. military operations in Libya have cost about $550 million so far and will cost about $40 million a month going forward, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday... once U.S. forces are reduced and NATO takes over greater control.")

If not soon? Look back to the media paragraph above. Enthusiasm levels vary among participants. (And not all reporters are American... the British, for example, didn't have the script.) Even in America for every ten reporting what they were told to on page one, there was one raising eyebrows somewhere on page ten. Few were completely unaware of what was happening, hints (not to be confused with official "leaks" and incompetent "oops") trickled out, and for every reporter there's a limit to how far they're willing to compromise on whatever "truth" they believe they owe the public (or their boss, or his boss, or the government...). Meanwhile, back in the White House, the scriptwriters were working on revisions (still avoiding forbidden words like "civil war" and phrases like "of course we want to turn former al Qaeda fighters to our side - that's how we turned things around in Iraq back in '06") that keep as many elements of the original as possible (certain key fictions from act one can not be abandoned - officially, at least), and absolve them of blame for those other idiots' mistakes in the original. (By the way, they're increasingly available to explain those mistakes to the press - off the record, of course; a less egregious example of what they'd hoped Qaddafi's minions would do...)

Media recaps of act one are starting to sound vaguely or openly hostile (with elements of the actual truth increasingly slipping in, and what were once hints now sensational news), prompting an unprecedented joint response from western leaders. (An act one recap/reaffirmation available as pay per view at the Times or free on the White House web page.) In America the loyal opposition pledges support (see update here) - sort of. In England the loyal opposition pledges opposition - sort of. In France they're contemplating the best, or most practical way to get Libyan oil...

All that leads to confusion, and conflicting reports, and self-serving (but too rapid) conclusions based on too few facts, and further explanations offering clarification on previous confusion...

In America the public yawns. Except for those moments at the gas pump - more frequent if that dollar amount line determines your stopping point but necessity dictates your use. Maps are available, this one - call it plan "A" - won't get us anywhere (it's no better a map than it is a script) but it is important to understanding the trip thus far. New ones are coming, perhaps they'll be better.

But as noted at the top, like it or not, you're along for the ride.

All done!

Can you name...

..."the most prominent military family of the last decade"? Jake Tapper can. Or perhaps his "perhaps" qualifier means it's merely a nomination.

I've got no counter-nomination. If what I think he means by "prominent" is correct, no one would want the title. Certainly the Sheehans got more press - but that was limited to one member of the family, no one really ever heard much about Casey at all...

Ever notice that the same folks who once argued for more photos of flag-draped caskets are the same who would accuse the president of somehow benefiting from one?

There's an odd thing about "honoring the fallen" - something I believe is the right thing to do. In every case, in every mind, it raises questions about the rightness and cost of the cause in which they fell, and forces a fundamental re-appraisal of its worth. Regardless of the outcome of those individual decisions I'm not as certain as so many seem to be that "positive publicity boost" is really the motive of those (from the president down) who take the time to recognize sacrifice in the first place.

I am certain of what the media would do to a president who didn't. (In fact, a fictional version of that was a big part of the Sheehan story, wasn't it? And Casey wasn't even a big-time pro football star.) But I don't think that's a factor in why presidents acknowledge those who've died under their command, either. There are ample reasons to be cynical about that, but I'll decline.

No Mean City Books

The Libyan Civil War has distracted me from updating my own ongoing saga of the American Civil War, but for those interested, a few of the source books are here.

At some point, time permitting, I'll compile a linked bibliography for the various public domain works from the period, available free, on line in their entirety. (Added: done, here.) (Those links are provided throughout the series. I love footnoting via html - too easy.)

I enjoy - for about 5 seconds - reading "new" arguments over what the Civil War was "about." (Hint: slavery. Not: "Christian fundamentalism." But I could be wrong - perhaps if the South never had slaves there still would have been a Civil War...). And I'm not baffled by how the Democrats came to elect the first black president (or even attract one black voter after they finally quit denying their right to vote in the first place).

So while others carry on about how yesterday's racist southern Democrats are today's racist southern Republicans, I'll continue to write about how some big-city folk north of the Mason-Dixon probably shouldn't shout too loudly on that point, and how in over 150 years they've forgotten a lot, but haven't changed a bit.

That story started here.

(Greyhawk notes: my grandfather's grandfather fought for the Union - so I "knew a guy who knew a guy" who fought in the Civil War. I'm not aware of any ancestors who fought for the South, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn I had some. The family's roots are in West Virginia, a state that defines the complex politics of the era. I was born and raised in the North, visited Gettysburg and Antietam as a kid, lived most my military life in the South, and am currently living at the end of Sherman's path through in Georgia, about 10 minutes from a Civil War fort. So I'm biased, somehow, I'm sure.)

How dry I am...

Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Drink.

I was on active duty (and over 21) when the on-base drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 (actually to whatever age was mandated by the state law, but as Professor Reynolds notes, an 18-year old drinking age meant loss of federal money to said state) which pretty much ended the days of the Junior Enlisted Club (the one club that really made money), and forced young GIs to go elsewhere to spend their drinking money. Illegally.

It was too small for the purpose, but the one on my base was transformed into a skating rink. I remember going into the once-packed establishment on a Friday night and seeing a couple people actually skating. (Helmets weren't required - can you believe it?)

Years later I got to experience the joys (sarcasm there) of busting junior troops - you know, 18, 19 and 20-year olds, some combat veterans, others would be if we chose not to throw them out for their crimes (provoking cries of "lowering standards") - who were caught drinking, or just having a six pack in their dorm room fridge. Some for worse offenses than that - like driving drunk to the gate from whatever off-post establishment or home where they'd been drinking (a crime not limited to the under-21 crowd).

"Things are better now than in the bad old days," some of my peers (and seniors) would say.

"I remember those days," I'd reply. And after a pause add "It's too bad we can't outlaw stupid, too."

Footnote: the under-21 crowd can drink if they're stationed overseas - it's just on bases on American soil that they're too young. In Korea and Germany I could spot the hungover "kid" at work the next day, pretend I didn't notice their hangover, ask them if they we're okay, ("I'm fine" - invariably) make sure they got plenty of water, and work them like dogs at tasks that wouldn't be the end of the world if screwed up. At the end of their hours of misery I'd ask them what common sense lesson they might have learned from the experience.

Experience, I was quite convinced*, was a better teacher than me.

Update: and alcohol enhances learning. Dang, I'm smarter than I thought.

And more : if you read the first link, you know the point is that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 across the board - not just for military members. That "more" link will take you to those writing on that larger issue. For my part, I let my own (non-military) offspring drink (from when they were in their upper teens) if they wanted, while making sure they knew the various consequences involved in their decisions. (And the utmost important point that dad would come drive them home if needed, day or night etc.) In their early twenties now, I believe they have a more mature view of drinking than many people my age, who probably started partying on, dude in college and haven't yet "outgrown" it. (Who drank to be "grown up" while young, and now do so to recapture their youth.)

*"Experience... was a better teacher than me." - I'd learned that from experience.

Eight Years (part one)

Mudville's eighth anniversary falls in a time period with lots of military anniversaries. One occurring this week - the 150th anniversary of the South firing on Ft Sumter, has (rightfully) gotten a lot of media coverage. Others, like the 70th anniversary of war in Libya passed mostly unnoticed.

The dreary scene at the Rats of Tobruk Memorial on Anzac Parade could not have been further removed from the searing heat and dust of the Libyan desert where 14,000 Australians, along with British, Indian, Czech and Polish forces, defied German and Italian attempts to take the vital port city of Tobruk during World War II.

Which category includes this event?

Eight years on:

On April 9, 2003, the statue in Baghdad's Firdos Square, directly in front of the Palestine Hotel where the world's journalists had been quartered, was toppled by a U.S. M88 armored recovery vehicle surrounded by dozens of celebrating Iraqis, who had been attempting to pull down the statue earlier with little success. One such futile attempt by sledgehammer wielding weightlifter Kadhem Sharif particularly caught media attention. Eventually the M88 was able to topple the statue which was jumped upon by Iraqi citizens who then decapitated the head of the statue and dragged it through the streets of the city hitting it with their shoes. The destruction of the statue was shown live on cable news networks as it happened and made the front pages of newspapers and covers of magazines all over the world - symbolizing the fall of the Hussein government. The images of the statue destruction provided a clear refutation of Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf's reports that Iraq had been winning the war.

"Small crowd," I thought at the time. "Not a good sign." I'd started this blog less than a month before that statue fell, just a couple days before the ground invasion began.... hold that thought - imaginary phone call coming in. Hello caller, you're on.

Well played

Egypt junta bows to protesters, Mubarak and sons jailed.

On Wednesday the government pounced, ordering Mr. Mubarak and his two sons, Gamal and Alaa, into custody for 15 days, while the allegations are investigated.

A lot can happen in 15 days.

From reading the link above, it doesn't look like they'll be contributing to Cairo's prison crowding problem, though.

Mr. Mubarak is in hospital in Sharm el-Sheikh, having conveniently complained of heart troubles Monday. He was, almost certainly, given advance warning of the pending police raid, so that he could spend the period under custody in the relative comforts of a swank hospital, as befits a former leader.

See also: Friends of Mr Cairo.

Southern Sympathizers

In the final game of the recently completed NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, the University of Connecticut Huskies defeated the Butler University Bulldogs. Do you sympathize more with the Huskies or the Bulldogs?

In the last Superbowl, the Packers beat the Steelers. Do you sympathize more with the Packers or the Steelers?

Turning to the American Civil War - would you say that you sympathize more with the northern states that were part of the Union or the southern states that were part of the Confederacy?

I only thought up the first two questions after seeing the third in this CNN poll, and noticing that 71% of men chose "Union," and 20% "Confederacy" - while women split 64-27, still a majority for "Union," but a notable difference from the menfolk. I propose "poorly worded question" as an explanation. I acknowledge "women are more sympathetic to the idea of owning slaves" as another possibility, but prefer my interpretation.

(I tested this theory on two women in my household; both expressed support for the North and sympathy for the South. After further discussion we all agreed we sympathized with the people of Atlanta in 1864 and those of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Berlin in 1945. Do you?)

Yeah - what he said. You have to consider the dynamics of the region, which are very dynamic. Like the fear dynamic, which is lost on a train. Moving forward. Real fast.

...through the dynamics of that dynamic region. (Now with multiple multi-dimensional dynamic updates - see below.)

My post on Tom Donilon's dynamic multidimensional lenses was unfair to the man who used the term to describe planning for the Libya op. (In response to DNI Clapper's assessment that the civil war in Libya would be a lengthy stalemate that Qaddafi would ultimately win - back before we got involved in the civil war in Libya, or even acknowledged, except here, by accident - it was a civil war.) Unfair because "National Security Adviser" Tom Donilon clarified his remarks later in the briefing, with some help from his deputy (for "strategic communication") Ben Rhodes, and I left that part out.

So in all fairness and without further ado...

Q Thank you very much. First of all, is the President happy with an intelligence chief who conducts static and one-dimensional analysis? And secondly, you say that this does not take into -- General Clapper's assessment doesn't take into account steps taken with the opposition. I mean, does that mean military steps? Because his analysis would suggest -- and the military dimension is clearly very important when you're clinging onto power -- that they need something to tip the balance. Thank you.

MR. DONILON: On the first question, the President is very happy with the performance of General Clapper and we work together every single day. I was asked a question about the statement, and I think my judgment on the statement is a static analysis and that you need to take into account the dynamics.

On working with the opposition as part of the dynamics analysis, what I said is that it doesn't take into account, kind of looking to the future in the increasing work that the international community is doing with the opposition, beginning now with political support, humanitarian support, and deepening those conversations. I think that's the best answer for that.

MR. RHODES: Yes, and I'd just echo one point that Tom made earlier, which is that if you look at the trajectory of our own efforts with the international community in terms of a steady ramping up of our sanctions, in terms of the introduction of accountability measures, in terms of the provision assistance, and in terms of the consideration of a range of military options, some of which are already in train, those are obviously going to affect the dynamic within Libya.

Similarly, if you look at the trajectory in the region, as Tom said, change has been the order of the day. And I think that any assessment of the situation right now would suggest that history is not on the side of Muammar Qaddafi. History is on the side of the Libyan people, and they're going to be the ones who determine their future.

And so we are very clear in having a policy that recognizes that history is on the side of the Libyan people, and that those who are around Qaddafi, as they make their own calculations, must understand that dynamic within their country and understand that they'll be held accountable if they continue to side with the regime that, again, has been brutalizing its own people.

MR. VIETOR: I think we have time for one last question so this will be our final question.

Q Thank you so much. Getting back to the static analysis, a couple of things. Why would the administration present a static one-dimensional assessment to Congress and the world about something this critical? It seems to me that that undercuts, first of all, the obligation to inform Congress fully, and to present a coherent picture of your assessment to the world. I mean, if Qaddafi is not entrenched and is going -- is not going to succeed, as General Clapper suggested today, said today, then don't you think that that is basically presenting a false intelligence assessment to the public -- intelligence assessment.

Secondly, if you wait for an international consensus -- which is unlikely to come at the U.N. and, therefore, not to come at NATO -- aren't you increasing the likelihood that your pressure, squeezing him through sanctions and other means will not dislodge him?

MR. DONILON: Andrea, on the first question, again, I think that General Clapper was presenting a kind of a flat-out resources analysis in terms of the regime. And he went through -- if you look at the transcript -- he went through the kind of equipment and resources that the regime has. And I think if you look at it, he said from a standpoint of attrition, if you do an attrition analysis, you get to his conclusion.

I'm talking about looking to the future here, and talking about taking into account various dynamics that I think are in train and could be in train going forward. So, again, if you had sat here and you and I had this conversation 45 days ago, and I had said, my analysis is that Qaddafi would lose half his country by March 10th, we would have said just based on capabilities and numerical arithmetic analysis, that that's highly unlikely.

But the dynamics in the region are just more dynamic -- are just moving faster than that. And there are things underway here across the region that have presented us with circumstances that a year ago, let's say, would not have come to the fore in a conversation that you and I might be having. And I think you'd agree with that, that the changed dynamics in the region have been of a historic nature.

And what's happened, of course, is that people, especially young people -- and it varies from country to country -- have confronted regimes that are not performing for them or that have been repressing them and the fear dynamic has been lost. And when the fear dynamic is lost, the overwhelming force analysis changes pretty dramatically. And we've seen that across the region over the last couple of months.

So that's my response to that. If you ask -- if you just do an intelligence assessment of assets, as I said, a unidimensional assessment of assets, you come to a pretty clear -- you come to a set of conclusions. But I do think it's important -- and we have been obviously closely following these dynamics across the region -- that, in fact, these outcomes are not at all preordained, and there can be, as we talked about in response to an earlier question, there can also be other events and dynamics that intervene.

Now, I went on so long I forgot the second part of your question.

What's all that studying the dynamic train stuff mean? It sounds like he's saying there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns (and stuff we know and you don't) ~ but to me it's an unknown unknown. Your guess is as good as mine.

Maybe this:

But this comes to mind, too.

Add your own captions about studying history and seeing the future. (And in that laugh I see nothing but sympathy.)

*****

Update: Chugga chugga choo choo, Mr Assad. That sound you hear is the dynamic fear train of history comin' - and when it gets there you better be on the right side of the tracks.

And more dynamics: Arab League to ask UN for imposing no-fly zone over Gaza "to protect the civilians against Israeli air strikes." You know, like the one they wanted over Libya... (will they provide the planes to enforce this one?)

In a statement issued after an emergency meeting of the pan- Arab organization at the permanent delegates' level in its Cairo headquarter, the AL said it would ask the United Nation Security Council to convene an emergency meeting to discuss the Israeli aggression over Gaza to lift the siege and impose a no-fly zone against the Israeli military to protect civilians.

The statement rejected the double standard policies towards the Palestinian case, urging the UN Security Council and the Quartet committee to bear all responsibilities for halting the subsequent massacres and provide an international protection for the unarmed citizens.

Speaking of Cairo, didja know one of the reasons the anti-government street protests were ongoing there is because...

Over one million Egyptian protesters in Cairo's Liberation square have demanded their military rulers to abandon Israel and lift the blockade on the besieged Gaza strip. Protesters voiced their anger at Tel Aviv by burning the Israeli flag and demanding the Liberation of Palestine, a Press TV correspondent said.

They promised to stand by Gazans, who have been suffering Israeli attacks and its four-year long crippling siege. Many protesters headed toward the US Embassy from Liberation Square to protest Israel's deadly attacks on Gaza. The Israeli flag was torn to pieces, when protesters tried to raise Palestinian flag above the Israeli embassy.

The development comes two months after a historic revolution ousted President Hosni Mubarak.

Or didja even know the protests were ongoing?

But have no fear (and loathing) ~ just remember, when the weird turn pro, you better get going. Or something like that.

(Damn, the train to the future moves fast, doesn't it?)

*****

Next stop?

All done!

Toyota War Two

High speed tactical update:

For a while this week it looked like the fighting in Libya was stalemated around Brega; now however it seems to have shifted to Ajdabiya. The astute observer will notice (perhaps with some concern) that's closer to Benghazi, the rebel capital. Additional concerns are discussed below.

Continue reading "Toyota War Two "

Let me make this perfectly clear (he said, borrowing an introductory phrase from the man who was President of the United States back when Muammar Qaddafi first took power in Libya): I'd like nothing more than to see Qaddafi gone from the world stage.

But damn - the "stalemated fighting" between Qaddafi forces and the rebels is getting closer and closer to the "rebel capital" of Benghazi.

Military forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi pressed a coordinated ground attack on Ajdabiya on Saturday, bringing the front lines of the battle with the Libyan opposition forces back to the doorstep of this strategically vital rebel city.

Colonel Qaddafi's forces began the attack late Saturday morning with barrages of rocket and artillery fire aimed at Ajdabiya's center. Then, as smoke rose and confusion grew, a gun battle began as they sent a contingent of ground troops into the city.

The assault was more determined and organized than the ambushes and exchanges of rocket and artillery fire of recent days. Barrage after barrage of incoming fire thudded and exploded within the city, and loyalist troops advanced behind it. Thick smoke rose and drifted from central Ajdabiya, and by noon doctors were evacuating the city's hospital as explosions shook the streets.

Not mentioned in the story, but we do have Marines just off shore, in case we have to protect civilians and our airpower can't get it done.

A few quick comments:

One: you now have a ration of New York Times articles you can read before you have to start paying for them. If (like me) you believe news from Libya is important, reserve your reading ration for CJ Chivers' (who was once a Marine) front line reports like the one quoted above (link here).

Two (a fleeting thought - skip to three if you want): Am I the only one who reads "loyalist troops" and thinks Spanish Civil War - the ugly little WWII precursor in which foreign powers waged a war-by-proxy, supporting either the glorious forces of the proletariat or a fascist thug? (Use other terms if those annoy you. And P.S. - the "thug" won; many - like George Orwell, who was there, and me, who wasn't - blame incompetence and infighting among the rebels. Others say Nazi airpower turned the tide.)

Three: forget item two for now. I doubt Qaddafi's giving it much thought, and as of now if any foreign power is helping him they haven't been identified. But as abundant evidence suggests, he might not need them. Back to Chivers' report:

Mr. Halum, clutching a battered assault rifle as he wandered the morgue while his brother's body was being washed, seemed both angry and perplexed. To reach Ajdabiya, the Qaddafi loyalists had crossed roughly 50 miles of open desert.

"Where is NATO?" he said. "The Qaddafi military came from Brega to Ajdabiya. Why do they not stop them?"

Though the airstrikes have deprived the pro-Qaddafi forces use of many of their armored vehicles, the rebels have been unable to match them, and the loyalists have turned to deception and infiltration.

Moving in small units in civilian trucks and cars, they have managed to evade airstrikes and to confuse the rebel forces, whom they can resemble from afar. At the same time, the loyalists have managed to creep forward with artillery or rocket launchers, which they have used to pound rebel positions for several days and have now turned on the city.

Conclusion to three: Qaddafi remembers his own lessons-learned in the 1980's "Toyota War" (See "Repelling Libya's Occupying Force, 1985-87" here - document complements of the US government. Excerpt follows.)

After a succession of counterattacks, toward the end of August the Libyans finally drove the 400 Chadian troops out of the town of Aozou. This victory--the first by Libyan ground forces since the Chadian offensive had gotten under way eight months earlier--was apparently achieved through close-range air strikes, which were followed by ground troops advancing cross-country in jeeps, Toyota all-terrain trucks, and light armored vehicles. For the Libyans, who had previously relied on ponderous tracked armor, the assault represented a conversion to the desert warfare tactics developed by FANT.

So, if American (of course I mean NATO) thinking prior to this new war was "if we bomb enough of his tanks he'll quit" (part of the miracle) Qaddafi's thinking was "if they bomb my tanks I'll switch from ponderous tracked armor to little trucks that blend in, are cheaper and faster, and more plentiful, maneuverable and harder to hit." Because he's the crazy one.

Qaddafi remembers - unfortunately others don't. Or others just jumped into a conflict without any background knowledge whatsoever. (Makes me wonder what others have been doing for the past 42 years while Qaddafi was running Libya.) In their defense, they did explain they had to act fast to prevent a massacre of civilians, which is a noble cause indeed.

*****

And if you've exhausted your New York Times ration, here's a report from the Christian Science Monitor:

Qaddafi's forces encircle last city before rebel capital

According to rebels, Qaddafi's forces now control two of the three exits from the city leading into rebel territory from Ajdabiya and are attacking densely populated civilian areas, including a hospital.

And "Mr. Qaddafi's son boasted that the revolt would soon be crushed." But while Chivers' report is new, that's one from March 16th - back before our airpower turned the tide.

I mean, the Marines even sing a song about Tripoli, right?