Blog Title Photo

Blog Title Photo

Friday, April 1, 2011

The Sand-Box War

The advantage seen through the eyes of France and the UK, of a Libyan intervention, is that they don't have to come up against an enemy that they might lose to. It's a practice war, and a showcase for arms.

The agressors can rough up Gaddafi the way a cat plays with a half-dead mouse. 'Hey, we're in charge. We've got the power!'

I say 'we' but as of early April, the US is getting a case of indigestion. We ate too much in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama's lost his appetite. Maybe someone made the case for a covert war, and a return to operating old style, no boots.

Just spooks.

I get so thrilled seeing how tough we are!

Our stateswoman really means what she says.  Hillary wears that all blue suit, again and again! David Cameron shows the world his good schoolboy accent. "We're there to save citizens! Here here!"

No boots on the ground! We're a citizen-saving team! God will shower us with praise. The rhetoric is positively Sunday Baptist! We're Saints, going to Heaven. Gaddafi should understand!

It's a Crusade after all.

I mean, the coalition got to choose a war, fabricate it, then engage in it. Why there's even a tinpot dictator who might even resign his post, or defect, if we make it too tough. Please, oh please, don't let that happen! It would be awful if Gaddafi should quit, and move to Venezuela, or Uganda.Who would we fight then? Afghanistan and Iraq are starting to feel like old history.

Another question. Who are these 'rebels'? Have we even heard or read a single word in the free press anywhere about a rebel movement in Libya? What are its roots? Is there even a Facebook revolution in Libya? That should tell you what's bogus.

And why is Egypt so silent on what is going on in Libya? Oh, also Israel, and Iran. why are they all being so darned quiet? Maybe they're not being quiet, perhaps their voices aren't reaching us, through the filters of modern media.

Are the 'opposition forces' really 'rebels'? Most of them are young. Many have journeyed to Libya from Europe or other parts of the Middle East. Most can hardly fire a gun, except the people teaching them. Who are they?

Why do they waste their ammo at the drop of a hat and fire in the air whenever the Al Jazeera camera points in their direction? When they shoot off their rocket launchers they set fire to mattresses in the backs of their trucks! They run up and down the coast road like a bunch of surfers following a keg of free beer!

They also need walkie-talkies!

I ask, how organized is this rebellion, if it still needs walkie-talkies?

What of the Al Queda allegations? Libya seems a perfect place for Al Queda to land, and earn a bit of cash by selling oil. Al Queda has to be there. The question is how many are there? Couldn't Al Queda afford to buy the rebels some walkie-talkies?

I'm sure Iran fomented the rebel's cause. 'After Dinner Jihad' helped get us there, now his agents are on the side of the dictator, undermining the 'rebels'. Israel? Israel wants the rebels to win. Or do they?

Israel's a freedom-loving democracy after all, and is pro-human rights (note to self: check this).  Eqypt? Egypt's hoping to firm up some before looking outside its borders. At last report, weapons deliveries to the 'rebels' came through Egypt. Make of that what you want.

This 'Battle for Libya' - I'll use the sound byte now - drags on. Al Jazeera has provided superb coverage of the highway battles, west from Bengazi to Ajdabiya, Brega, Ras Lanuf. They almost made it to Sirte! Now they're on the retreat east again, as Gaddafi's better trained troops beat them back along Route 1.

I'm just calling it Route 1, since it seems like the only road. Again and again we see shots of the same mix of vehicles. Time and time again, the same crowd, the same pickup trucks! The same license plates, the same rust.

What if our airstrikes were to wipe them all out? We'd see on the news mile after mile of destroyed hulks, just as we did on the road from Kuwait back to Baghdad after Bush Sr's war.

How good is your memory for details? My trade-craft is unerring! ;) I have lists of vehicle plate numbers. I know who drives the Al Queda, excuse me, Al Jazeera, staff around. I know which rocket launchers on which pickups are there for show and which ones are actually fighting. I know when the camera's pointed east or north, or west.

I'd love to meet the assistant director on the set. Perhaps he'd give me a job. My question for him is, 'Who's directing this show? We've met producers, our elected officials. The investors? You and me of course. Who's directing? Is he back at Langley, negotiating a sequel, while this pilot is still being edited?'

Is the CIA directing this show? If so, the guys in the pickup trucks are unwitting victims in a drama directed by forces they can't even see . . .

Or can't they?

Lately the rebels have complicated the picture by contenting that Gaddafi'a fighters are amongst them, driving similar pickup trucks, with similar weapons in the back. And, someone's finding time to put land mines on the side of the road. Hmmm. . . this sounds awfully like Al Queda's trained fighters are on the ground amongst them, making a good show of not knowing how to fight until they can get their hands on some real weaponry. Or waiting until the oil ports are turned over to their waiting hands so they can earn some cash.

Cash, and Al Queda. If there is one lesson learned from 9/11, it should be that it doesn't pay to wipe out your enemy. Instead, what pays, is help your enemy do the thing to you that you can't do to yourself, so you have an enemy to fight. If Al Queda's on the ground, amidst the rebels, then they have to be there with the help and assistance of the CIA. After all, a worthy adversary is what a good drama's all about!

Telegram to Hollywood, I mean Langley: We need to hire more extras!

Are they all unwitting? I mean, how did the 'rebels' get their organization together to begin with? Not even Al Jazeera, I'll even say especially not Al Jazeera, has asked this question, or attempted to answer it. Who are the Rebels?

That's my primary question regarding our new show,  . . .

 . . . the SAND BOX WAR . . . !

Everything we need!  A conflict where the stakes are symbolic, but the real risks will hopefully be low. Cast is free. A place were the West can foment ancient ire for the Saracen Muslim in a crusade that amounts to little more than a show of fireworks in the sand.

Look at the advantages a war in Libya has, versus, for example a war in Syria. . . or Saudi Arabia! We should feel blessed!

a) Winnability. Well, let me rephrase, that to 'Not apparently Lose-able'. We can beat Gaddafi anytime we chose. Is this why we've sworn 'no boots on the ground', so that we don't have to beat the man, and end our fun?

b) No collateral Threat. Gaddafi has no friends who are powerful enough and willing to do an end-run on our homes while we sleep. Hugo Chavez won't be launching a Pearl Harbor style attack against Miami.

c) Safe Test War Zone. Libya's a good place to test and expend military hardware without too much risk of civilian casualties. Keeps us sharp, for now. There's a lot of sand for weapons to blow up in. Every explosion translates into a order for an arms company, in the US, Britain, France, Israel, even Russia. Given the huge expanse of desert, it even pays to miss targets!

d) A nice well-cast Villain. A villain we can continually paint as more and more evil. Requirement for the part: Must eschew Western clothes. Not wear coat or tie. Must have bandana, beret or something pseudo-Communist or Prole. He must be so bad, this guy who plays Gaddafi, that his senior minister Moussa Koussa, suspected of killing upwards of a dozen people in Europe, can defect to England and look like a nice guy! The sons just won't cut it - they're not bad enough. Maybe they'll grow up to be bad like the father, but for now, our insurance policy's on Dad.

e) Ideal media distraction. This keeps the limited slots for Middle East conflict off the more deadly and serious revolts going on in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria.

f) Doesn't involve Israel. At least they aren't visible. They may have their people on the ground helping to arm the 'rebels', but we won't ever know who they are.

g) Fantastic Economic Stimulus. This keeps workers in the UK busy at the task of educating, making ammo, picking up trash and doing the things that workers do. Ditto the US. We've got a war to fight. It's expensive. Domestic agenda stuff can wait until the war's over.

Anther important question:

Why did Libya Foreign Minister Mr. Moussa Koussa defect to England of all places? Are we really to believe that a man who is alleged to have partial responsibility for the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing, would defect to the country where that act of terrorism took place? This would be akin to Osama Bin Laden seeking political asylum at the Marine compound in Guantanamo. Could Mr. Moussa Koussa have deeper ties with the UK than either he, or the UK is willing to admit?

Such a 'late-stage' defection has all the earmarks of an agent returning to spy-central.

'You're simply too valuable to the free world Mr. Koussa, to lose in a desperate squabble for power in Tripoli. Come home, your pension's waiting.'

"Careful Mr. Mark Potter, are you in any way implying that your government or a foreign ally of your government might actually install an agent deep in the heart of the Gaddafi regime?"

"Absolutely."

"Furthermore Mr. Potter, are you for a moment implying, even sideways, that your country might aid or abet a foreign national in committing terrorism against its own people? Of what use could that possibly be?"

"Well it would keep us believing how bad and dangerous the Muslim world is, and if push came to shove we'd just have to fight with Libya, not Syria or Iran."

"Are you saying Mr. Potter, that Mr. Koussa is really an agent of the United Kingdom?"

"No I am not. But I am saying it certainly LOOKS like Mr. Moussa Koussa is an agent for the Brits, returning home after a successful career as Gaddafi's number-one man. Of course part of his cover would have required him to help commit terrorism against the US and UK, as well as taking blame for the hit of an innocent Police sergeant in London. These acts ultimately would have kept our national interests focused on Gaddafi, and deflected away from other more lethal powers such as . .

Russia, China, Iran . . .

"I mean isn't it in the interests of Western security to preserve a weak kingdom you can go to war against at any time, if the need ever arose to flex muscle in the region?"

"This is an unthinkable thought Mr. Potter. I suggest you retract that implication immediately."

I shall. As soon as someone explains satisfactorily who Mr. Moussa Koussa is really working for, who the 'rebels' are, and what our objectives are in this sand-box war.


Search This Blog