Brexit

Would a re-referendum, put an end to the conundrum,
. . . of angry old Britons who claim,
That Sneferu was dumb when he said, "Khufu my son:
. . . Building bigger won't save you from pain."

The Scotch with their golf, can't add much to solve,
. . . this battle of old versus young.
"We're sold into slavery by racism and knavery -
. . . chattel of the British Union."

"Dramas of the past, today are recast,
. . . in matters of wit and good humor.
The plagues of the hour will not make us sour,
. . . if we keep stiff upper lips in amusement.

"The seeds of today are still on display,
. . . in bits of TV that are sinister.
Perhaps to redirect it, I mean the decision to go Brexit,
. . . I'm rerunning scenes from 'Yes Minister'."

"In Service of Who?"

Lately I've been closing the draft on my gas kiln - choking it.

Heavy reduction. Starving it of oxygen. Almost all pleasant looking 'art' pottery is fired in reduction, but I've been carbon-trapping, reducing so much that carbon builds up inside the glaze itself, turning it a deep black.

I recently submitted a number of my figure drawn boxes to this treatment . . . the drawings previously were of mendicants, meditators in Buddha positions or some similar pose. . . but when heavily blackened and darkened by such a fire they became transformed.

One remains hopeful . . . I call one 'Job'. The affliction is from outside.

The other has the affliction boiling within. I call this one 'In Service of Who?".

The notion of an anti-Christ, or anti-Buddha, floats large in the world today. We live in a nation at war with its people.

So yes . . dark times are upon us.

Ode

Some quantity got exceeded,
Mathematicians make sense of it.

After a long time passes
we'll take much to ease our fears,
rattling within us,
when we sail to that foreign land.

Some illness took root,
in a group of us
now so powerful
they make the mistakes
that bring a new demise.

Walt Whitman did you cry?
I'm lost now.
Thomas Jefferson wrote
by light of oil from heads of whales
yet a slave brought him tea.
That which is self-evident, may outlast tyranny
yes, even if those that see it are dead.

No warriors, only terror
the new world, then as now
belongs to a few.

All those papers?
Dust in a mausoleum.

Our peace was illusory,
our monster worse than George
who had a head, two hands, two feet
and a wooden navy.

This black slug
mimics a branch.
A tiny head of bright red
makes you reach for it.
It watches everything you do
and makes you a slave.

The fall will come,
maybe not this life, maybe not the next.
Such orders falter more quickly than most.

They lash out, vulnerable.
Peaceful kingdoms have no history.
No architecture
marble palaces or concrete bunkers

The peaceful heart beats
in a home of mud and sticks.

Confusion

white hair rages
through cardinal provinces, 

princely states
salmon, natives, 

hybrid acids display
the bright belly of a trout,
now hazy grey
in a world polluted
murder leaves a wake,

of confusion.

Balkan Politicians & Voodoo Economics

Who caused it all? I'm not talkin', 

But it ain't the fault of the subprime Balkans.

Berlusconi can't take aid, from the one and only IMF maid. 

If she was young he might have asked, for bunga-bunga but those times are past.

Greek bonds got weak, German banks got wormy,
thanks to the French the rot stench is germy!

Italian paper's coming down,
a fire-sale in your home town.

Swallow burdock as media medicine. 

Follow Murdoch if you need to jettison!

Emperor Silvio dreads a high rate bond. 

Fate will reveal a dead Euro, conned.

More bears are coming to Italy, 

to gore Berlusconi finally.

What print empire can fuss and strut,
Conspire, sin, say 'sorry' in smut. 

What karma prying into private lives,
Comes to haunt even Murdoch's lies.

Commons is to Murdoch as blank is to bored. 

Amens are encouraged since he won't be called Lord.

Greedy feeding at the trough,
Weeping wives and lovers lost, 

Brooks and Murdoch not enough,
To pay busted lies, and karma tossed.

If Jabba the Hut was really King Tut, and Murdoch was not a vulture,

The case is shut, the PM's a slut, and smut is really just culture.

Is Putin Shootin'?

"Give me the keys, I'll drive you to Karkiv."
"Donetsk for the car, I conniving for Kiev."

"Moscow to Kiev: How far? Don't ask,"
"The keys to Donetsk, just now I must have."

Ukraine will get nastier if Putin crosses the Dniester,

Ukrainians who nest there speak a language that's feistier.

If Putin holds Crimea, Ukraine will not wither,

But if he folds in the Dnieper, you can cry me a river.

This ghostly conflict has no winner yet,

It's mostly fought on the internet.

If Putin were looting and Odessa were not stressed,

Would Obama abstain and leave Ukraine to unrest?

Obama will get calmer - he'll see Putin's not shooting.

Russian supporters gave Putin kudos,

At Ukrainian borders, it's all just judo.

Europe polarizes around old Ukraine,
The soul of mankind got lost on that plane.

If myths of state make history,
Then bricks of fate are illusory.

Will sanctions from gremlins make oligarchs bank-less?
Or wankers in Kiev make the Kremlin at all anxious?

Are Ukrainians settling an old Soviet score?
With Kremlin operatives, and loads of C4?

Shooting started in Donetsk, though how don't ask,
Nato or Putin, not the men in those masks.

The shooters in Donetsk may one day be famous,
If they took off their masks, else they'll stay nameless.

[this post is a mini-blog in rhyme on the Ukrainian crisis. Oldest posts are last, newest first.]

Take the Pawn - Have Western Powers again Misunderstood Libya?

The Western allies, in particular France, Britain, and the United States have completely been taken aback by events in Tunis, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and across the entire Arab world in recent months.

Nicholas Sarkozy has had to reverse France's policies most of all, since only recently he feted Libya's Gaddafi, Egypt's Mubarak, and Tunisia's Ben Ali, as southern friends who enjoy an economic alliance with France.

Events in all these countries forced European leaders to play catch-up at understanding the psychology and minds of peoples not more than a few hundred kilometers from their borders.

Now that the revolutions of the Arab spring have transformed the governments of Tunisia and Egypt, revolutions are transforming Syria and Yemen as well. But does the West have an accurate understanding of the forces at play in Libya? Are we on the 'right' side of events there, as we think we were for instance, in Egypt?

Armed with UN Security Council Resolution 1973, European airstrikes supported by American cruise missile attacks in March 2011 made haste to deal with the impending threat of Colonel Gaddafi's forces against the East Libyan city of Bengazi.

While NATO claims a 'pragmatic approach' is now being taken - NATO is managing the implementation of that resolution, to 'protect the citizenry' of Libya - might I interject the question, which citizenry is being protected?

Secretary General Rasmussen of NATO explains why it is quite obvious that the same rules cannot be applied to Syria for example. Syria is intricately woven into a much more incendiary legacy of Shia-Sunni blood feuds, and tensions with bordering nations Israel and Iran. Western leaders, while applauding moves towards democracy in Tunis, though not anticipated, are secretly keeping their fingers crossed, hoping that the Syrian dictatorship stays in power. After all, if it falls, all hell may break loose.

Libya is a theatre of action, because it is one place where action is possible. The Arab spring, though long awaited, has the oil hungry West quaking in its boots.

In chess, as in many games, the board of play often becomes locked up by many layers of impending reciprocal action. Only a genius, or computer program can look ahead past the many permutations of moves, and predict the sum of outcomes. When novices play the game, rather than risk the impending trade of pieces with an uncertain result, beginners often play out a move by taking an unprotected piece at the periphery of the opponent's board of play.

You go for the pawn.

Gaddafi is neither powerful enough, nor the consequences of attacking him far reaching enough to bring jeopardy to his attackers. It is wise to note that Britain and France, as early as March 2010, held war games, presupposing that there would in fact be a need to conduct a military strike against a southern aggressor. In this case, history has played out exactly as planned.

Was it planned?

Or was the lone pawn always at risk of being fair game? Despite Sarkozy's loyalty reversals on old friends Gaddafi, Mubarak, and Ben Ali, there is no doubt that the West is intervening in Libya simply because it is possible. The dangers are lowest.

The reasons for that intervention has many inputs. (cf. Al Jazeera, Empire May 11, 2011):

Re-election of Sarkozy may only be one of the smaller reasons. Yes, oil is a reason. Yes, protecting citizenry, helped sell the project. Yes stimulating our broken economies is a reason.

So why not rush to the aid of Syria's citizens where over a thousand innocents have been murdered in the two months since the protests began?  I ask the question only to expose the hypocrisy - all recognize that Syria is a powder keg preparing to blow up, and that the deaths to 'citizenry' (that's the hot word bandied about by political leaders posing as doers of good) will be much higher than in Libya. What shall we do then? Perhaps bringing stability to Libya might in some way rub off on other regions.

Not likely. But securing the stability of Libya might secure the supplies of some of the oil!

It appears more than ever that the West, sprang into action in a theater that as it turns out, bears little resemblance to the rest of the Arab world.

The gravity of world events disguised any true understanding of what was happening in Libya. It is completely the opposite situation to that of Tunis, Egypt, and even Syria and Yemen as I shall show.

In each of these states there is first and foremost, a nation state, where a united populace with a substantial middle class agrees on the need for a change of power. Libya on the other hand is a loose confederation of five Berber tribes, most of them poor, that historically have hated each other. This confederation has been welded together through the bulwarking of a strongman. Gaddafi shared the wealth, some of it anyway, (more than most Middle Eastern despots), kept his military strong, and ruled with an iron fist. He retained the hearts of the poorest by lashing out periodically at his monied customers to the North, subsidizing terrorist acts.

Gaddafi has always been a problem. Mubarak? Only briefly. Mostly he was a loved friend of the West. So was Ben Ali.

In recent events monied interests from the East of Libya have made a bid to form a free state, and defect from Gaddafi's control. It would be oil rich, with close allies to the north. This opportunity came as a result of the Arab spring, and at the provocation of Gaddafi's government signing long term contracts to supply oil to the Chinese.

Europe, and the United States, have all aided this effort towards 'freedom' for East Libya in more ways than military. Large numbers of rebel fighters of different provenance, and previous political alliances, have journeyed to join the rebel cause. Professors of economics from the US have returned to their Libyan homeland to take posts in the new transitional government.

On the face, it appears that the West is aiding and abetting a move towards democracy by a significant percentage of the Libyan population, by a people that is craving the attributes of free government. The reality is that the 'people' of Libya that we are rushing to aid financially and militarily, are but a fraction of the country.

And so as with so many efforts on the side of 'right', it is conveniently assumed that the Libyan government will collapse once Gaddafi is removed from power. This is supposed to be a short-lived war. It's a structure that's all head. Remove the head and the Libyan government will fall.

But in this last assumption I believe the West has again erred gravely.

Gaddafi's strength does not come from oil wealth, or from military aid. Unlike the dictators of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, Gaddafi never did have enough of a take from the oil riches of East Libya to ever depend on them. True, oil enriched his power. And his sons have no doubt enjoyed the obscene and ostentatious wealth that oil always provides. Gaddafi, like the strongmen of Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia, who are / were despised by the West, receives his mandate from the poor of that land, from his own tribe and a few clans that are friendly. He is universally despised by those that are well off.

Gaddafi's base, psychologically, (this is important), is desert Africa, and that includes countries outside Libya itself. This has always been so. Just a few generations ago they were desert horsemen, warriors. They also were ocean pirates. The North Sahara is a very tough place to live, and these tribes have a culture of war, bravery, and fighting. This is true across the Sahara.

Poverty rules. It all changed in Libya when oil was discovered during the 1950's.

Many of Gaddafi's troops are composed of poorly paid mercenaries, essentially 'volunteers' from Chad and Niger. I say mercenaries and volunteers in the same breath only to draw a distinction. These countries are so poor that any employment offerred is taken, even if the wage is a square meal a day the cause may be worth travelling a long distance to to take up.

It is ironic that Gaddafi views himself as a champion of North Africa's dispossessed. He certainly uses them; their support he does have, else he wouldn't  be putting up such a fight.

Of course these people don't count in the radar of the West which has sympathies almost uniquely to city dwellers, to those that speak some Western languages, have a middle and upper class, and are willing to partake in Western commerce. It is natural that we should seek relations with parties most like ourselves. Gaddafi strength has historically come from the poorest tribes of the region, who haven't shared in the oil development as much, and poor neighbors, in particular Chad and Niger.

He is equally despised by many tribes in the region.

He gets enormous support from sharing crumbs from his table. So it is with every wretched nation. The  poor suffer, and the boss guy lives in a palace.

By fighting Gaddafi we actually have chosen the Libyans with the least hopes, as our adversaries, and those who are most patterned after our way of doing things, as our friends.

But by intervening we have set up the same pattern that is being played out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where it is profitable to send young men to go and fight, and die against foreign agressors. America is so wasteful with its funds abroad that the very poor will always choose a job fighting us over trying to eke a living from the most arid soil on earth. Because if the very poor can't farm the land, they become slaves of a kind.

Is this not the chain of command, the formula if you like, that gives rise to the most terrorism?

'Volunteers', have rushed to fight for the cause of the East Libyan transitional government, though many of these foreign rebels may have suspect motives. It is after all, where the oil is.

Unlike isolated leadership in countries that have modernized, and are integrally aligned with forces of modernity, and are peoples that wish to self-govern, the war with Libya is a war against the face of the most extreme poverty, led by the most extreme dictatorships, since extreme dictatorships always rule the extremely poor.

This beleaguered point is not being made to suggest that we bolster Gaddafi, or prop up the fragile walls of his state.

On the contrary, the story cannot end happily if we intervene in any way at all. The greatest myth fostered on the democratic public today is that intervention achieves any objectives at all. It cannot, ever, in fact intervention always creates a movement equal and opposite, and against the interlocutor.

The terrible irony in all this is that Gaddafi, his family, and regime, are irreparably corrupt. The supporters of this dictator are poor. The wealthy ones have left, escaped, or defected. Yet Gaddafi surprises us with the strength of his fighters. This was supposed to be long over!

The West miscalculated, assuming that it entered a war with a short life. We've sided with Libya's aspiring well-to-do, against Libya's poor, and while short-term that decision may prevail, and may build a 'Modern Libya' to the East, it will always be an adolescent propped up by the West.

Like Israel where we've created a situation that will haunt the West for generations.

For these reasons I estimate that the Libyan conflict will drag on indefinitely. A new face of terrorism will emerge, and dangers to Western allies, beset by the conflict of self interest vs. trying to 'doing good', will enlarge into a theater of conflict against the poorest but sparsely populated regions of North Africa, which have nothing to loose by attacking strongholds of European colonialism - in places where oil wealth abounds.

The Child in the Region

With the assistance of America's billions, Israel has a unique opportunity to become an angel agent for peace and change in the region, but so far has ignored that possibility, perhaps because that is what her sponsor (the US) wants.

For peace to occur Israel must turn the other cheek, just a few times, and show her human side. She must become true to her flag of peace, and realize that dream. If she doesn't do this she will certainly perish, and not because America did not try to save her, rather that America let her dig her own grave through a slight of hand; through arms and money for aggression. She is after all, our very own pit-bull in the region. (Excuse the metaphor. I do know that the pit-bull is a nanny dog originally.)

What I'm saying speaks for Israel's continued right to exist. One thing is certain, that such an aggressive regime, surrounded on all sides as it were by more numerous, and poorer peoples of a different faith, cannot survive. Extremes of aggression, Logos mobilized by fear, never endures.

A well funded minority pressing all the hot buttons for World War would be allowed to perish simply because it is such a risk to the global community, or will become that instrument of Armageddon from which we all perish.

Unless, Israel choses a path that is 'sustainable', to borrow a term from ecology, short term thinking cannot prevail in the Middle East. The nurture of feuds are a presage of doom in an atomic age. Israel, now, today, more than ever before, has the chance, and obligation to turn a new leaf, a last golden opportunity for the world, for all of us.

Listen up. The Israeli problem is not Israel's. It is all of ours. With funds for war we've created war. Israel is a reflection as much of American fear, American anger, American desire to control, American industry, as an expression of American Jewish guilt, and holocaust shattered imaginations.

The problem is profoundly psychological, not military.

Aries desires conflict, to paraphrase James Hillman. Conflict we pay for, so conflict we get. Aries, amongst the pagan pantheon, was a spoilt child. You could not take him anywhere. In shops he would break the merchandise, and his parents too often indulged such infantile behavior.

There is a Mars that is red blooded, but understands by listening to the pounding of his own heart in unison with others. This is the mature warrior. In a word, Israel needs to grow up, and the US, as an ineffective parent, needs to withdraw the billions of support. Math will make that decision for us if we don't decide to do so on our own. The cost of wars in the region will bleed America dry and Israel will be left without a friend.

Now that they're Married

Let's talk about hypocrisy . . .

Now that the death toll climbs above 500 in Syria, where is the hue and cry to save the citizenry in that country?

I'm being facetious because the stated reason given by every war mongering politician from Cameron to Sarkozy to Hillary Clinton was that we needed to go there to save citizens from that mean old dictator.

Here's the lowdown:

The U.S. is involved, and the Europeans got very involved, due to Gaddafi's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Moussa Koussa, who recently negotiated contracts to deliver Libyan oil to the Chinese. Mr. Koussa has since defected to Britain, which seems like an illogical place for an enemy of that state to defect to since Mr. Koussa was the Libyan who ok'd the Gaddafi's regime funding of the Lockerbie Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, which took place over Scotland in the 1980s. The bizarre ease of his defection to England this year, and his subsequent disappearance shortly afterwards, spells only one thing:

Moussa Koussa must have been a Western agent all along.

What gall! We're certainly not going to let the Chinese get that oil! How useful it is to have one's agents in foreign lands do the things that provide a justification for military action. No other act by Gaddafi could have angered the West as much as this, especially at a time of record oil prices.

One even thinks, that Gaddafi himself may have been duped, especially when one considers the timing of these contracts.

Back the thought process one notch. Suppose, just suppose, Mr. Koussa negotiated those contracts, offering to supply the Chinese, so that the Brits and froggies and everybody else with a quick trigger would have a flaming good reason to go in there and get the oil for Western oil companies. Maybe even one injured and limping company called BP perhaps.

Suppose Mr. Koussa who graduated with a BA in sociology from the University of Michigan in 1978, was recruited by the British or Americans to serve as an spy within the Gaddafi regime. Indulge this thought for a moment. It would have been his job to do things that would allow us to strike out at Libya when it was convenient, such as moments when the oil prices got high (Reagan years and currently). If Moussa Koussa was indeed responsible for the Pan Am 103 bombing, why on earth would he seek asylum in the UK, unless there was a pension waiting.

Recently, with oil going through the roof, and all the distractions of the 'Arab spring', it was necessary to think of a reason to divide Libya, between the half that produces oil, East Libya, and Tripoli, traditional home to pirates, and yes, the capital and current home of Moammar Gaddafi.

What action could produce a unilateral aggressive response from nearly all the powers in the West against Gaddafi? His being brutal with a few civilians who demonstrated against his dictatorship? No way. But on the other hand, deepening a relationship to sell oil to the Chinese, that would call for a huge response from the oil consuming nations of the West.

It would mean all hands on deck. 'Freedom Fighters' from all over the Muslim world would have to go to Bengazi to join the fight. We'd have to create the semblance of a growing democracy movement. We might even have to indulge the odd Al Queda fighter or two anxious to establish in a fractured Libya, and inhabit the power vacuum of a deposed Gaddafi.

Libyan economist, Ali Tarhouni, also a graduate of Michigan State University, MA 1978, recently left his wife and a position at the University of Washington to become Finance Minister of Libya's National Transitional Council in Bengazi. The press hardly mentions who's actually in charge of the new East Libya - perhaps that's why Mr. Tarhouni's 'position' with the new government is not clear. What is clear is that foreign powers who organized this rebellion, are the ones in charge.

Someone reliable is needed to stand by the spigot!

It does seem as if Michigan State has been a launch pad for pro-Western Libyans. It possibly even was a training course for deep cover Western agents sent to the Arab world.

Let's break for a moment from these suspicions and look instead at some facts. BP, as it turns out is responsible via its dividend payments for approximately 25% of all British pension incomes paid in that country. The UK, as most already know, has recently fallen on very hard times. A disruption in the flow of cash to small stockholders, mostly through pension funds, would be catastrophic trauma to the welfare state. Teachers, government workers, and retirees, all those relying upon the British till, actually need BP more than the rich. This fact has been heard by leadership around the world, and has had its uses, particularly for those owning large shares of BP and other European Oil companies.

The BP oil disaster in the US Gulf of Mexico, knocked approximately 40% off the value of BP's stock and did severe damage to its projected dividend stream. It is thus easy to understand why the impending threat of Libyan oil being sold to the Chinese may have been all that Britain. France and the US needed to manufacture the Libyan uprising and consequent war.

One can imagine a conversation between BP's chairman Tony Hayward, President Barrack Obama, and Prime Minister David Cameron:

Hayward: The oil we're drilling for is too costly. Scotland's done. Your Gulf looks way too expensive. We can't continue at this pace. Underseas oil is ten times more expensive than the oil on land.

Obama: What can we do? You've got a debt to pay. Pay it. We'll try and help out on the business end.

Hayward: Well there's a ton of oil just off the Libyan coast. It's shallow there. The Italians have a sort of 'claim' on it from their old ties. Gaddafi can't afford to develop it. We can't do anything unless Gaddafi's out of the way.

Cameron: That would mean we'd have to start a war in Libya. Italy will not want a part in it Berlusconi has his hands full.

Hayward: War would be easy if the Chinese could be seen as moving in. Maybe only half of Libya needs erupt. We take Bengazi. We'll get the oil that's in the water, and on land both.

Cameron: Our man Moussa wants out. Things are getting hot. 

Hayward: Have him negotiate something with the Chinese. That'll get the Froggies on our side in a hurry. They're Lefties when it helps their cause, but if they see that crude going to Asia, Sarkozy'll lose it. We'll have to control him!

Very quickly the masters of deception form a 'To-do List' for Getting Libya's oil, and mineral Wealth:

1) First the populist uprising in Tripoli would have to be magnified. It would be necessary for Gaddafi to be seen doing some really loathsome acts, and let international sentiment build. If Moammar himself won't do it then Moussa Koussa can butcher a few people with what tenure he has left.

2) Create a caste of freedom fighters, we'll call them 'rebels' for now, in Bengazi, East Libya, where the oil is. Let them be seen fighting with inadequate arms and training.

3) Get those 'rebels' up and running with an aspiring government. Might as well base them in Bengazi, near where most of the oil comes from. Find Mr. Koussa's classmates from the University of Michigan  call them out of their professorial lives to head the new East Libyan state. They are spies after all.

The whole drama's a show, a very necessary show if what you want to do is take oil from under the noses of our economic rivals.

And to cover it all, let's talk big about saving the citizens of Libya!

Citizens of Libya?

It is not to save the citizenry. Never was. Whenever a government does or says anything to play upon your emotions, realize that you've been had. You've been duped.

Mr. Moussa Koussa and MI5 and their Washington cousins have played a fast one on the Chinese!

Good job guys. Well done!

Of course they, the Chinese, know it, but they can't do much about it because it's a plot that's too thick and too difficult for most people to understand.

Oh . . and last of all:

4) Put on a good show for the people back home - a Royal Wedding!

So, to those who watched today the poor sod that got born into the British Royalty, the son of a wonderful, and most likely murdered woman, to those who felt elevated when they watched him kiss a commoner and in the touch of his flesh, turn her into a Royal . . .  please realize . . .

It is ROYALS who are firing on demonstrators in Yemen.

It was ROYALS who murdered peaceful demonstrators in Bahrain.

It was ROYALS from Saudi Arabia who were given carte blanche to take off in their private jets moments after the twin towers exploded, and go home, DESPITE the fact that it was a SAUDI cousin of a friend of the SAUDI ROYALS, who caused 9/11 - Osama bin Laden.

Also remember it is ROYALS who are firing on demonstrators in Syria. [King, President who cares what the title is . . . I'm trying to make a point. While not all the Arab dictators are 'royal', they act like they are, spend like they are, and listen to their subjects just as carefully as 'Royals' do, when cornered.]

It was ROYALS who forced the colonists of this country to take matters into their own hands and create a democracy.

It was ROYALS then who called those American commoners 'terrorists'.

And it is ROYALS who help the common folk forget that it is actually not the ROYALS who are robbing them blind. It is the oil companies, the companies that make jet fighters and cruise missiles and all the machinery of war.

It's economics dummy! Is and always was. The nice Royalty just puts a clean face on an aggressive state.

So fly your helicopter safely Prince William, you're a married man now. I wish you and Kate all the best.

As those rotors turn, as you become older and wiser, give some thought to other theories regarding your mother's death. You may find the heart down the line, to forgive your father for his part in it. You may not. If you become king, you will be a truer king to your 'subjects' if you do away with this royal scam . . . forever.

The Pain, The Pain

The world hurts. Pain everywhere.

The pain of millions of Japanese who lost loved ones, lost homes, families, schools, cities, villages, everything.

The pain of the living Ivorian mothers and fathers who lost their children in Gbagbo's greedy and merciless ploy for power.

Pain of the sincere in Libya, who only want a chance to live freely.

Pain of the Palestinians who want to live free of Israeli oppression.

Pain of the Israeli families who've lost loved ones from missiles fired into their midst.

Pain everywhere.

In a world that hurts, what constitutes right conduct?

Eat the meal that is before you. Sleep on the ground that you have to sleep on. Do the work that you are given.

Do not blame your neighbor or someone elses neighbor for where you sleep or what you eat.

If the person next to you is hungry, share your food.

If the person next to you is dying from poverty, share your wealth.

If the person next to you is tired, stand up so he can lie down.

If the people next to you are fighting, help their wounded. Offer to feed them. Offer to clothe them and house them.

Don't make war where there is already conflict. Make peace where there is war. Educate where there is ignorance.

Return lies with truth, so be strong where there is weakness. Beneath all strength lies love, the only true gift.

A Good Drama

Photo: B-52 over Afghanistan, Uncyclopedia

With our imaginations, we who experience world events over the internet, almost as if by magic, make our projections real. As with all dramas, they take on a life of their own, once conceived.

Take the Western intervention in Libya, for example . . .

It's not a big war, though you might think it huge by the amount media attention, and military hardware we've brought to bear on the project, and the amount of fuel being used, not to mention missiles expended at nearly three quarters of a million dollars a shot. It's a good war to get re-elected by.

What about lives saved? Initially it was again believed the precision of Western led air technology would actually prevent bloodshed; certainly it was not believed that the totals would mount, as the imbroglio became more and more complex.

President Obama cooled on the project since Hillary Clinton's initial enthusiasm. Nicholas Sarkozy, the French President, and David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, each have their own reasons for wanting the involvement. For Cameron, it may be a distraction from deepening economic troubles at home.

The French president meanwhile is trying to galvanize support with an election coming, an impending takeover by the far right. Sarkozy's early actions in the Ivory Coast, (French attacks on Laurent Gbagbo's compound) apparently solidified his political self-esteem, and may account for early hawkish actions by the French in Libya.

"Saving lives', to use the sound-byte, by employing our Air Force above Libya, seemed the right thing to do. The rebels asked us and the Arab League seconded any actions that could save civilians.

The rebel leadership seemed well organized at the onset of the crisis, but as of early April is wildly disorganized, and now blames NATO , claiming the West is not utilizing its firepower effectively. Allied forces, anxious not to cause civilian damage, or repeat deaths caused by friendly fire, are taking too long to respond to harried calls for air support from commanders on the ground.

By April 7th five more accidental deaths, and ten rebels wounded by NATO strikes have provoked outright hostility towards the West from the very people we're trying to help. "NATO fired two rockets at us," claimed one rebel. "NATO are liars. They are siding with Gaddafi."

The West will never know who it helps, and who it hinders, since this is not an experiment with a controlled experiment set off to one side. There is no parallel planet with a Libya left to its own devices to compare with the Libya we're creating with our heavy handed intervention. Powerful jet fighters, cruise missiles, and off-shore carrier strike forces that rely on satellite gathered intelligence will never be able to sort the biting ants, from the non-biting.

Wikipedia has a page tallying deaths from the Libyan Civil War. On April 3rd, the total spiked considerably. Bodies of Sub-Saharan migrants were found, apparently killed fleeing the country. They were dead in the water and on the beaches not far from Tripoli. As of early April total dead reached the thousands, comparable to the slaughter of citizens in the Ivory Coast for example, or the heinous and willful machine gunning and execution of protestors in Yemen, both places which are far more dangerous to intervene.

Every action bears and equal and opposite reaction.. Yet our leaders' initial points are well taken. A slaughter of some kind may have been averted in Bengazi. Qadaffi's troups would have taken prisoners, and killed many of the rebels as spies or traitors, not to mention the deadly effects of heavy shelling within or upon a populated city.

By April 4th that slaughter merely moved to a different place. In an angry plea for more co-ordinated NATO strikes, the rebel commander on April 4th displayed frustration about Qadaffi forces destroying Misurata, causing starvation and deaths of innocent citizens and children, caught in a war-ravaged city without water.

Most glaringly apparent throughout this conflict, is that the West has no end-game plan at all. We do not know what we want from this war, (except for oil) or how we'd like things to end up. Consider these realities: a) we're not on the ground except for our spies - who trusts spies?  b) we don't speak any of the languages fluently enough, or understand the tribal discords well enough to interpret local leaders, c) our weaponry is so vastly oversized in scale to the conflict we're attempting to influence, these factors combine to make the Libyan crisis, more a Libyan disaster.

At most our motivations seem to flow from economic necessity, a kind of periodic hostile bloodletting that  we've grown addicted to.

Reasons for war are always abundant. Appeals for intervention will always sound louder than peaceful silence. Yet as the West follows the course charted long ago by Spengler, we seem less and less able to keep our powder dry. As always, the badge of truly powerful is inaction. Mountains that move tend to crumble. Clearly the superpowers have lost the strength to sit this war out.

Should we let ants fight one another, or do we try to eliminate the anthills? We certainly will be bitten for our efforts and there won't be a whole lot of ants left when we're done.

This little war that is making big headlines, is ideal for economically hungry arms businesses and Western governments. High visibility makes it easy to report, seemingly low-risk makes it a perfect op. Media attention keeps our noses out of more incendiary places, that are more dangerous to Western interests. Palestine, Syria, Yemen.

Paradoxically 1973 is the year that Congress put an end to US bombing over Cambodia. Some of you may remember Henry Kissinger's not-so-secret war, in which, to quote Wikipedia: "2,756,941 tons of ordnance were dropped in 230,516 sorties on 113,716 sites." A tally of lives lost is not presented in that page of 'history' [one wonders why Wiki omitted this statistic], but I leave you to imagine a suitable figure.

I'll digress by noting that not one of those items dropped contained any first aid, food, doctors, or nurses, or burn bandages. We carpet bombed a country almost for the fun of it. Dr. Kissinger, who unbelievably received the Nobel Peace prize (money from dynamite), will in the end enter the annals of history as one of the great butchers of all mankind. In the end, North Vietnam defeated us soundly, and we beat it out of the region. I say all this only to note that any fools who believe that bombs save lives, should have their heads examined. It's an oxymoron, yet indulged by some of the best educated people in the world. I have far more admiration for those that want war simply to get restocking orders, which is a much more general truth about human combat. 

War's a wealth transfer.

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.

Fly Me Back to Tripoli

Fly me back to Tripoli,
Watch me start a war that's holy.
I'll drop my bombs on Gaddafi,
Fly me there in fast Lockheed.

Let's fly back to that Barbary coast,

See us make Gaddafi a ghost.
Watch us turn the desert to glass,
Fly me there in a Lockheed fast.

Fly me over that no-fly zone,
Fly me there, I'll read my poem.
Above Bengazi I'll rant and rave,
And all the citizenry, our bombs will save.

Watch me streak over old Ajdabiya,
It reminds me of Baghdad, pre-GW.
How Iraq rose of its own choosing,
And helped us oust that tyrant Hussain.

I'm UN backed, do you need proof?
Let's whack the rebels in Ras Lanuf.
Let's save some Libyans by dropping bombs,
Just listen to that patriot, Cameron.

If being British doesn't make you cozy
Sleep to French from Nick Sarkozy.
Oil's a foil to distract the world,
Islamic turmoil, now unfurled.

We need our villain, we need him bad,
So let's put boots on Libyan sand,
And when the rebels secure our oil,
Let's bomb Libya, until it boils.

Who are the rebels? Do you know them well?
Who started the trouble? Did you hear them tell?
Some say Al Queda, we've thrown a rope,
A place for income, a refuge they hope.

Say ceasefire, suggest peace talks,
We speak the lingo of Tomahawks.
We'll put that dictator back in his cage,
Airdrop him a nice bandage.

Hear this rant Old Tripoli!
We'll bomb your tyrant Gaddafi.
Fly us back to Tripoli,
Fly us there, in a fast Lockheed.

No Fly Zone

I apologize to all whom this falls upon, since my taxes partly paid for it. 

I find it curious that the Islamic world so heartily embraced the concept of a no-fly zone over Libya. UN Security Council Resolution 1973 grants the western coalition, they drafted it after all, a carte-blanc to do whatever it deems necessary to protect Libyan citizens from Muammar Gaddafi and his loyalist forces.

A No-Fly Zone, is permitted, of course, and will be the first military undertaking by Western forces. Bombing of Libya will have to happen of course. Radar installations, Gaddafi's supply depots, airports, aircraft, tanks, etcetera, etcetera, will all have to be destroyed.

Cruise missiles by the hundreds, a lot of them Tomahawks, have already flown, launched by US Cruisers in the Mediterranean, and at a cost of nearly $600,000 a pop, have destroyed much of Gaddafi's military infrastructure across the country. [Note 1]

The picture conjured by the term, is one of peace. Nothing after all is flying, that is except for the coalition forces.

The term 'no-fly zone' seemed to offer a panacea to the growing conflict within Libya. It became a buzz phrase repeated by liberal Arabs across the region. 'Please help us, please put a no-fly zone over Libya!'

It was as if those three words themselves offered an instant shield against the aggressions of Gaddafi, and the miseries of an escalating civil war.

I decided to see how many English anagrams there were for the phrase 'No Fly Zone'.

It turns out there are only five. Here are two:

'No Fez Only' and 'Fez Only On'.

The Fez! That bandeau, that beret, of the Ottoman Turks, that obligatory headdress of the Turkish Muslim world, sported by all liberal and loyal Muslims, at least in Western eyes, as they lurked in Western consciousness for so many years. To be truthful, the fez is very much out of date, and symbolic of regional acceptance of Ottoman oppression.

Could the term 'No Fly Zone', be appealing to nostalgic yearnings of Muslims across the region? A sort of magic linguistic truth potion, like a fez. You put it on and everything beneath it, is peaceful.

'No Fez Only', The Fez is allowed, but you must wear other clothes too, however it is not obligatory, 'Fez Only, No'.

The Fez should not be anything more than a hat, 'Fez only On'. It's not a purse, or a seat cushion, or a cummerbun.

Alas, the humble fez, red and soft, is no defense against a Tomahawk. I don't mean to imply that the Tomahawk 'sees' the fez, and thus aims for it, not at all, rather the Tomahawk has been programmed to strike a particular target, and is usually accurate to within a few meters.

Gaddafi's fez is green, but I'm sure he has a red one somewhere.

Ah, the Fez is a dream of an Arab past!

Again, history is supplying a more bitter reality than dreams and expectations, conjured by the words of leaders across the region.

As I write this, Tomahawks are falling on Libya. How did the cruise missiles get to Libya. Well they flew there, of course! 'Zone Fly On!'

Innocent people are dying. The Arab League is crying, "We didn't ask for bombs!".

Listen dudes, read UN Security Resolution number 1973 carefully. You agreed to it. It allows the coalition partners to do pretty much anything they want!

Meanwhile Gaddafi has stepped up the murderous backlash against his own people. And through all of this, is it possible to see a resolution to the tribal hatreds that exist within the region?

Not at all. The bloodshed will go on and on and on.

This isn't what Libya asked for! This isn't even what America bargained for! What is happening?

The 'No Fly Zone' should be a peaceful undertaking, one that is . .. 'Only of Zen'.

Whatever we do, we shouldn't allow Scrabble to be played anywhere in the world with these letters, else the region will become a 'Felony Zone' . . . or God forbid, . . .

a 'No Life Zone'.

Notes:

1. If 200 Tomahawks are used during the early stages of the conflict, that's $120 million dollars of re-supply business for Raytheon's Arizona plant, homestate of famous 'dove' Senator John McCain ;)

Battle for Libya

I invite, with these blogs, the simple minded to dismiss me in an instant, claiming I'm pro--dictator.

Not at all. Muammar Gaddafi is a megalomaniac, some say a madman, but I'll say a dictator, ruthless, and cruel, unpalatable to the West in so many ways.

I'm against intervention. Let democracy happen if it is strong enough. If it is not, it is not worth backing, because if it is weak, it will bite us in the hand moments after we've come to its aid. Democracy must be forged and fought for by those that believe and understand its principles.

Did outsiders come and make a democracy for the US? Did that happen in any of the countries of the world where lasting democracies are in place? No.

Yes we were aided during the revolution, by some committed officers from France and Poland, and their loyal followers. However the US, the democracies of South and Latin America, India,and elsewhere, were all hard won through the strength and commitment of those that lived there. No outside coalition consisting of most of the world's powers at that time, intervened to make a single one of them. India, in fact, won its independence, amazingly, against the most powerful empire on the planet, with a united display of civil force, but a minimum of bloodshed.

Now unfortunately, the Western 'coalition', is committed to the region, having answered the call of the 'rebels' some of whom do have democratic yearnings.

Egypt is quite different. There a pluralistic, and complex majority, in fact nearly a totality in percentage terms, of the country's citizens, united to unseat Mubarak, and now votes in orderly respect on a referendum to amend the constitution, despite their many ethnic and political differences. The country is a model to the region and the world. However the process is far from complete, despite the fact that Egypt has thousands of years of history as a country.

Democracy however is often pleaded for by those that don't understand it, or by those who forget that democracy means according rights to others who might be a political enemy. The universal hallmark of territories that cannot form a stable republic, are those engaged in civil war. The killing of fellow citizens, out of deep seated hatred, whether racial, tribal, or religious, cannot make for national unity, no matter how much force is brought to bear from the outside. The cobra and the mongoose cannot be made to get along, certainly not by an outside hand.

In places, that should have become separate nation-states early in their history, strongmen and dictators thrive, and as distasteful as they are to outside nation-states, they serve a role, propping up walls that would otherwise lean and crush the people. The trade-off for removing the dictator, who through force holds the society together, is the awakening of ancient enmities that invariably rears its head as civil war. Examples of this again are Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. Sometimes the civil war is brief and bloody before the territory fissions into many separate smaller nations. This is what happened to Yugoslavia after Tito, and the fall of Communism. But more frequently civil war lingers indefinitely, as is the case in Iraq, which is still not stable.

Gaddafi is the very make and mean of his alter-shadow, Saddam Hussein, whom we put an end to after a very costly two-decade conflict, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the region, and thousands of American soldiers. The region is certainly not better off today than when Sr. Bush made his first move against Hussein.

Aside from Ronald Reagan, who bombed Tripoli, and strafed the Gaddafi palace in 1986, recent US diplomats have actually cozied up to the dictator. In 2008, George W. Bush's Secretary of State, Condaleeza Rice met with him in Tripoli, declaring a new chapter in US/Libya relations. Other Western leaders turned the relationship into a friendship, notably Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy.

We continued to prop up Gaddafi despite the fact that Gaddafi had financed terrorism in Europe and elsewhere!

Now with oil over $100 a barrel, we've decided to come to the aid of the 'rebels' in his country, who are not at all for a united Libya. These rebels are armed. The country is amidst a civil war.

I ask, how consistent is US foreign policy?

Why are we in no way opposing Saudi intervention into Bahrain, or butchery of protesters in Yemen, while we avail ourselves of an 'opportunity' to topple an old foe? Beware. . . these are hasty decisions made by people who have reasons other than human rights, for wanting to go to war.

The popular rebellion in Libya is not powerful enough to take power away from Gaddafi. Yet that rebellion has been encouraged, and agitated from its inception, by Western, Israeli, and Irani interests all of whom see their ends being accomplished by the dictator being toppled.

With the endorsement of the UN Security Council, the West will take up arms against Libya, while neighbors such as Tunisia will be asked to aid us in our mission, and thus make it more credible.

Yes there were some populist 'rebels', though it was a small, ill-formed rebellion, and not a majority. . . but was agitated, encouraged, and lately hijacked, by Western interests to pursue their own end.

We've made our case to get even with the mad Colonel. Now what?

Is the mandate of the U.N. Security Council resolution to do 'whatever is necessary to protect the citizenry of Libya' to be taken as a mandate to back the 'rebels', and likely divide Libya into two countries? That is what the East Libyan 'rebels' want.

Remember, East Libya, Bengazi and neighboring cities, are the ones with the oil, and the oil ports.

Protect the citizenry or take hold of the refinery?

Let us be mindful of the abstentions within the Security Council: Russia, China, Brazil, Germany, and India.

The world is being led by its myths.

Japan, by its Godzilla of nuclear disaster, and danger from the deep sea. Since the Middle Ages, Islam and Christianity have been fighting jihad and crusades. In our nation's imagination, the latest developments in Libya are a sequel from the Barbary Wars that plagued early US presidents Adams and Jefferson.

How the human psyche continually seeks to preserve the role of the villain! Our monocular vision shows a desperate need to characterize evil as a single individual, with promises that once he is unseated, all will be well. Yet the supply of dark-haired mustached men brandishing arms, and flashing anti-Western rhetoric, seems to be endless.

Those with might cannot resist making this battle their own. The ageless temptations of history ultimately defeats even the strongest nations.

Decades of reciting the Marine anthem in school, has become the code of every American senator and manifested into a reality:

"From the Halls of Montezuma,
 To the shores of Tripoli;
 We fight our country's battles
 In the air, on land, and sea. . . .

 Our flag's unfurled to every breeze
 From dawn to setting sun;
 We have fought in every clime and place
 Where we could take a gun."

The Nuclear Crisis in Japan

The penalty for following inept leadership during times of peace, and calm, is that it is viewed as treasonous, and disloyal to desert those leaders during times of stress, and national calamity. In this regard the Japanese have shown themselves of high moral character, and strength. Every Japanese knows now how inept their leadership is, but they are living with it because, . . . they lived with it.

What is the chain of command in this country in the event of a nuclear disaster? Do we rely upon our public utilities? Do we rely on corporations or government agencies which have systematically ignored increased calls for safety, falsified reports, paid for lobbyists, bought senators, and will be in cover-up mode when disaster strikes?

Cronyism is a weakness of all mature nations including the US. In Japan it's led to the worsening of an already tragic nuclear crisis. Six nuclear reactors in trouble should have had 6 teams of 100 working on cooling, not one, situation room leadership, and early reach out for international help. What can't be attended to properly until this crisis is out of the way, are victims of the tsunami who've lost everything.

he U.S. nuclear industry is adroitly avoiding heat, and lessons, it should be willing to learn from the Japanese disaster. As well, we should put this event in perspective. Far far worse is what has happened as a result of the tsunami. Lives, cities, a entire portion of Japan, has been devastated. We should not only look to what we should do differently, but rather what we can do now . . . . to help.

Who ARE the Rebels?

I applaud the job that the world's press, in particular, Al Jazeera, is doing in Libya.

But I'm suspicious of reports where any one word is so overused.

'Rebels.'

Even Al Jazeera leaves this major question unanswered:

Who ARE the 'Rebels' ?

My dear wife says, 'They can't report who the rebels are or else Gaddafi will kill them.' Point taken but she's missed my point. Any popular uprising has roots, beginnings, stirrings in a subset of the population that wants something more.
We hear constantly, 'rebels' this, rebels that. 'The Rebels are in control of Bengazi. The Rebels are advancing, the Rebels are retreating.'

We see pickup trucks screaming along the major highway linking Libya's coastal cities.

Again and again we see the same pickup truck, screaming along the highway, gun in the back.

Who are they? Is 'Rebels' code for 'insurgents' as in 'paid by another national force'?

I'm not for a moment arguing that it is unnatural to conceive of a popular uprising against Gaddafi. I fully believe the unrest in Libya began with a populist movement.

The resistance has gathered some clout. It feels military. Some people have training. Who is this resistance force comprised of? Libya's poor? Oil workers of Libya's east, those that haven't had access to the rich margins generated by Libya's light sweet crude? Western infiltrators? Israeli or Iranian spies? It is certain that spies and agitators are everywhere amidst such chaos.

But who are the majority of the Rebels? Colonel Gaddafi's kept everyone in fear for so long, why have they waited until now to revolt? Is it because rising oil prices have become a temptation, impossible to ignore? Are these Libyans feeling empowered by the popular revolution in Egypt?

Or are other powers at work, fomenting revolt beneath an oppressive dictator, knowing the idea of revolt would be accepted by the world media as the root cause?

Another question: Why would Gaddafi bomb his own oil depots? Does he believe that it will make it harder for the men in the pickup trucks to get more gas? Are the Gaddafi's just lashing out at any and everything man-made? If they had any sense they would NOT destroy any oil-exporting facilities. Therein lies the possibility to retain the helm of the spigot! Even Gaddafi knows this.

Gaddafi aside, this conflict has more players than we're being led to realize by the press. Just as missions have been flown to rescue Western passport holders, I'm sure many missions, have been flown by all parties.

Like most of the world I believe Gaddafi, and his sons, are acting like cornered madmen. They may still have to go.

But who, and also what, is to replace them? There is no political infrastructure in Libya. There is no organized dissent, and no mean to return to.The West has seemed anxious to take advantage of turmoil in Egypt and elsewhere, to foment the anti-Gaddafi sentiment, which is decades old, into a case for intervention. Iraq, Afghanistan, now Libya? Is this about human rights? Or is it oil, and oil pipelines? As the picture becomes clearer to those that consider intervention, it's clear that the Western appetite for punishment is not as big as we thought.

Is oil the primary interest in Libya? Human rights abuses are occurring the world over. Could it fears of Libya returning as a hotbed for terrorism? So far most of the real terrorist threats to US interests have come from Saudi Arabia.

Let's accept the fact that it's oil. Getting oil out of a place like Libya requires a kid glove touch. The place is big, inhospitable. Furthermore it's a short distance from Europe, as well as the poorest parts of Africa. Least of all does the US want to get embroiled in a mess, where its own intervention could destroy the chance to purchase Libya's valuable resources.

Upheavals in Egypt may have been too much for Western oil interests to pass up. The beginnings of a popular uprising in Libya may have been all that was needed to trigger efforts to supply, advise, and abet 'rebels', thus intervening, in ways unseen by the press.

Why does the West automatically interpret any uprising against a dictatorship or strongman like Gaddafi as motivated by yearnings for democracy? We're talking about power and wealth, and control. Democracy in Libya may be a long way from where the country is now - I seriously doubt that the factions currently battling government forces, could maintain their unity, should they manage to unseat the dictator.

Their irreconcilable differences will at that moment become apparent, and the real motivation for all this fighting will become immediately clear. Let those that want a democracy attack Tripoli, others will hang onto the oil rich ports of Bengazi, Ras Lanuf, Ajdabiya, and Brega. Thats where the money is, where the oil is. And that's where the focus of the world's attention is too.

To be sure, American forces, of a kind, are already there too. We've been there for years, ready to foment unrest against the dictator. But what's the plan to replace him? How will US interests prevail against people who live there? Will we with the stroke of a pen create a new East Libya, and set up another strongman to take Gaddafi's place?

So I ask my question again: who are we talking to on the ground? Which of the 'rebel' leaders can stand to take our questions? Let us see their credentials.

For once it seems that the West is pausing midstream, cognizant that the other shore may not be the promised land. Could Gaddafi be the one that US oil interests need most of all? Is all our posturing "Gaddafi must step down', just that, posturing?

Aren't we for once, afraid that the thing we've hoped for, might actually happen, and that worse chaos will ensue in its place?

So I ask. Rebels step forward. Identify yourselves, you who would lead the new Libya. Your group must have leaders, you who have been systematically repressed for decades, you who have paid your dues, and not only recently seized a carbine to seek power.

Gaddafi strikes back. We knew he would. And perhaps that's what our Washington wants most of all. Perhaps the madman of Tripoli will restore sanity to Libya. Perhaps our State Department thinks that the 'Rebels' will be more sympathetic to Israel. Perhaps a new Arab world, one that is willing to sell oil to its repressors, and will be Israel friendly, is emerging.

Wishful thinking, alas, Washington seems as usual, to be seeing the world through bipolar glasses. Libya is far too complex for such categorizations. Our enemy's enemy may not turn out to be our friend, but a worse foe in the end. Who cares what Washington says or wants for a moment, what this American wants to see is an end to the doubletalk.

So while I demand of the press that the 'Rebels' be identified, I also demand a clear admission of Western motives in the region.

Come on Washington, tell us. Are you there for human rights or are you there for oil?

Come on Rebels, tell us, who are the guys in the pickup trucks? Who is your leader?

Now the 'Rebels' have some diplomatic representatives pleading for a no-fly--zone. These men look decidedly like they are working for somebody else. Why do I say this?

Their suits are way too good.