The Dividist is not confused about our actions in Libya. We intervened militarily in a Libyan civil war on the side of the rebels to prevent their imminent annihilation at the hands of Moammar Gadhafi's forces. The timing of the intervention was determined by the military situation on the ground, as the rebels were within hours of losing their last stronghold in Benghazi. That is what we did. Full stop.Whether this action was wise, where we go from here, how we went about conducting this operation, whether it was constitutional for our President to initiate military action without the consent of Congress - all can be debated. But there is no confusion about what we actually did. And yet...
Despite the President going to great pains to communicate exactly what we did and are doing in Libya, there appears to be a great deal of confusion from the right, left, center and others. There is no confusion in our actions. The confusion is in the obvious gap between the President's rhetoric and his actions.
As noted before, the most perceptive and illuminating coverage of political events are often to be found on the Daily Show and from Taiwan's Next Media Animation studios - The two media outlets are now setting the Gold Standard for political journalism. If the future of all media cannot explain the President's speech to us - who can?
Next Media TV:
The Daily Show:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Define and Conquer | ||||
| ||||
And so the linguistic frontier of war euphemism takes another giant leap forward. But whether we are talking about the "Police Action" in Korea, "Winning Hearts and Minds" in Vietnam, the "No Fly Zone" in Kosovo, the "Humanitarian Mission" in Somalia, or the "Kinetic Military Action" in Libya - we would do well to recall the immortal words of William Shakespeare - "What's in a name? That which we call a war by any other name would still taste like a shit sandwich."
4 comments:
I'm going with Iowahawk's take!
Because it's got a good beat and you can dance to it.
My problem isn't so much why we are there as it is how anyone in the world can say interventionism in Libya is a better idea than interventionism in Iraq. I just don't get it. If anything, we have less to gain in Libya, we have the benefit of experience of knowing how things go awry from Iraq, and we are already strained by being bogged down in other places and by rising debt. So far, no one I have talked to can explain this to me.
Explain the dividist position. Do you endorse protecting Gaddhafi from his people as well as the people from Gaddhafi - seeking a sort of stalemate?
I don't see that he took any position on the Libya affair. Are you demanding he do so?
I do have a position on Libya, and I've started a post several times to sort out my somewhat contradictory views on this adventure. Let's just say my views are "nuanced". Yeah - that's the ticket. Nuanced.
In any case, I get bogged down and depressed and can't seem to finish it. I'll get it out eventually.
Post a Comment