Many aspects of the Libyan situation remain unclear: the scope of the mandate given to UN member states by Security Council Resolution 1973, the broader aims of the intervention, how many civilians have been killed and by whom, and who the rebels represent. One thing, however, seems clear: the international intervention is considered to be legal. International lawyers have agreed with the UK government’s advice that Security Council Resolution 1973 ‘provides a clear and unequivocal legal basis for the deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution’s objectives’. Legal experts have been quick to suggest that Resolution 1973 gives authority for any action thought necessary not only to protect civilians, but to protect areas inhabited by civilians.
If today’s Western leadership is really ready, in the words of William Hague, to support the people of the Middle East in their ‘aspirations for a better future’, it will need to do more than use international law to target its enemies while protecting its friends. In rejecting their authoritarian leaders, the current wave of Arab revolutionaries is also rejecting the international system that has profited from their existence. As the US declares yet again that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorists while bombs rain down on Libya, as protesters continue to be killed in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Iraq, and as the numbers of people detained continue to grow, the idea that Nato is working to support the freedom fighters of this Arab spring rings increasingly hollow. The bombing of Libya in the name of revolution may be legal, but the international law that authorises such action has surely lost its claim to be universal.
This how the influencers are influenced to justify to the “prol's that rule of law properly means nothing. All in place before Obama sent in Special ops and claimed that there were no boots on the ground.
It is not just Libya that now risks long-term division. Telltale signs of fragmentation in the international community’s approach are opening up. Not for the first time Muammer Gaddafi may be on the verge of securing a public relations coup against his western opponents. Now we must declare humanitarian victory, and regroup.
Tuesday’s London conference was a confused affair. The Germans and the Italians touted a ceasefire and exile for Colonel Gaddafi. Others, notably Saudi Arabia and the African Union, stayed away. The US and the UK, meanwhile, insisted the military job was not done, with David Cameron, the UK prime minister, noting on Wednesday that UN Security Council resolution 1973 might give the allies a legal basis to arm the Libyan opposition.
Forget U.N. resolutions! After decades of Gaddafi's deadly attacks and his support for terrorist groups across the world, America has every right to seek revenge, says Andrew Roberts.
In all the discussion of where, if anywhere, American strategic interests lie in regard to Libya, one very obvious motivation for U.S. action seems to be being ignored: Vengeance. Yet the certain knowledge that the West will eventually take revenge for terrorist crimes committed even as long ago as the 1970s and 1980s is itself a vital strategic interest. Rogue states must always know that there is no such thing as a statute of limitations on murder, and that even after four decades, the slate has not been wiped clean.
“Will it make a beautiful ruin?” That was the question Basil Spence asked about the nuclear power station he was designing in Trawsfynydd, Wales. This was back in the 1960s, but it was forward looking. Spence, an architect (he designed the famous Coventry Cathedral in England), was aware of one simple fact: Nuclear power plants are functional for a relatively short period of time before they are put out of commission and replaced by newer, safer designs and technology. The abandoned plant is filled with radioactivity that makes it unusable for anything for a long time. A cathedral is designed with the idea that it should stand, and function, for a very long time — perhaps beyond time. A nuclear power plant is designed with the knowledge that it must become a ruin, and rather quickly. It is born to die, and then to sit as a corpse, a testimony to the strange and unsettling function it once had.
Andrew Cockburn's essay in The Pentagon Labyrinth is titled “Follow the Money.” There are a lot of people who will say that is an undignified way to assess America's national security apparatus; they might even say that Cockburn's focus is cynical. I would personally venture to guess that a disproportionate number of those saying so are doing rather well – thank you very much – in that same national security apparatus. Or, they plan to do so in the foreseeable future.
Cockburn summarizes his argument in a interview in the ongoing series conducted by Federal News Radio. Chris Dorobek of the DorobekInsider Show interviews Andrew Cockburn.
Following the money and understanding why that is important is key to comprehending why the Pentagon, Congress, the manufacturers, and the think-tanks behave the way they do. After all, as Cockburn says in the DorobekInsider interview, why do you think the manufacturers put all those ads in the Washington Metro system. They're not there for the area's teachers or the local sports teams' fans.
But there is much more to following the money than just that. Cockburn explains fully in his essay in The Pentagon Labyrinth: 10 Short Essays to Help You Through It. He addresses perhaps the most powerful and recurrent theme underlying contemporary defense community behavior. Read Cockburn's essay. Download the book free.
Have a comment? Pro or con? We welcome a public debate.
_____________________________
Winslow T. Wheeler
Director
Straus Military Reform Project
Center for Defense Information
Phi Beta Iota: INTEGRITY. One word. The one word not spoken at the Pentagon by anyone above the rank of Major. You don't make Colonel, and you do not advance as a General, without drinking the kool-aid and “going along” with systemic corruption. Our shame–our continuing shame–is a burden on the Republic.
GUINEA: Rio Tinto’s friends talk Conde around
GUINEA: How Soros is backing new leader
IVORY COAST: Sponsors give generously
NIGERIA: Soros to the Rescue?
CONGO-K: Soros Targets Katanga Operators
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE: Conflict of Interest for Soros?
AFRICA/UNITED STATES: Soros Ups Investment
SOUTH AFRICA: Soros initiative in South Africa
Robyn shares her personal story and how it inspired her current path as a “Real Food” evangelist. Grounded in a successful Wall Street career that was more interested in food as good business than good-for-you, this mother of four was shaken awake by the dangerous allergic reaction of one of her children to a “typical” breakfast. Her mission to unearth the cause revealed more about the food industry than she could stomach, and impelled her to share her findings with others. Informative and inspiring.
Amazon Page
Robyn authored The Unhealthy Truth: How Our Food Is Making Us Sick and What We Can Do About It. A former Wall Street food industry analyst, Robyn brings insight, compassion and detailed analysis to her research into the impact that the global food system is having on the health of our children. She founded allergykidsfoundation.org and was named by Forbes as one of “20 Inspiring Women to Follow on Twitter.” The New York Times has passionately
described her as “Food's Erin Brockovich.”
Phi Beta Iota: Across all twelve “policy” domains from agriculture to water, with food cutting across all domains ans especially Family, Health, and Society, we are seeing the emergence of public intelligence in the public interest. What we are not seeing (yet), is the integration of “true cost” information as a core element that must be available to the public; and the integration of all that we can know about each domain in isolation, into a larger “360 degree” strategic analytic model for getting a grip on how we live and how we spend.
What vintage bomb survival suits have to do with Dr. Stragelove and Richard Nixon.
The recent tragedy in Japan has triggered a tsunami of terror, founded and unfounded, about the potential risks of nuclear reactors.
While there are people better equipped than us to explain the precise implications of the situation, we thought we’d put things in perspective by examining the flipside of these dystopian fears: The exuberant optimism about nuclear power in mid-century America.
