Posse Incitatus

Veterans Day 2011

As always, the Posse offers deep thanks to our military veterans for their service.  Perhaps I was just inattentive, but it seems to me that more businesses are offering discounts and promotions for veterans than ever before.  This is a good thing.

Our nation is not only divided between the producers and consumers (or "makers" and "takers" but also between those who serve and those who do not - and will not.

I never liked all the flowery rhetoric about the World War II generation being the "Greatest Generation."  First off, every generation faces is challenges.  To say that this one or that one had more strikes me as the height of arrogant self-importance. That this label came from the Baby Boomer made it even more obnoxious.

When I think about important generations, I think about the parents of the "Greatest," the people born between 1890 and 1910.  They weathered slumps, two wars and ignited the greatest period of technological advancement in human history.  The leaps forward in medicine, communication, transportation - and even warfare - far exeeded anything before or since.

When war came, they went.  When the economy collapsed, they muddled through.  The World War II generation provided the footsoldiers for victory, but the architects came from this age group.

As everyone should know, today marks the anniversary of the culiminating moment of that earlier generation - the end of the World War I.  Back then they called it the Great War, the World War, the War to End All Wars.  It gets little attention here in the United States, but it lies like a chasm across human history, a break with what went before every bit as significant as the fall of the Roman Empire or the Norman Conquest of England.

That calamity saw the collapse of the old ways - religion, tradition, family - and the rise of new beliefs, like Communism, National Socialism, moral relativism.  We are now, almost a century later, still trying to pick up the pieces of that conflict.  The constant crisis in the Middle East, the uncertain rise of China, Russia's turmoil, Africa's uneasy borders and the strife in the Balkans are all the legacy of that perfect storm and imperfect peace.

Where do veterans come into this?

In 1917, for the first time since the Civil War, the United States implemented conscription.  The fear was that were would be draft riots, as their had been in 1863.  It did not happen.  Instead, millions of young men registered and, when called, reported for duty.  Almost from scratch this country went from a miniscule peacetime army to millions of Doughboys ready to go "Over There" and fight in France.

It took time to call up, train, equip and ship them there.  More than a year after the declaration of war, the US Army was still pulling itself together.  In the meantime, the desperate Germans launched the Kaiserschlacht - one last desperate gamble to win the war before our troops arrived in force.  It failed,

The Allied counterstroke was terrible, and starting in July 1918, it proceeded without stop.  Unlike previous offensives, this was no localized affair, but a series of hammer-blows all across the Western Front.  There was no pause, not respite, and as American divisions became ready they were marched to the front and hurled into the inferno.

The American portion of the offensive has gone down in history as the Meuse-Argonne campaign.

To call it a bloodbath is to cheapen the term.  In the space of six weeks, roughly 120,000 American troops were hit with 25,000 of them killed.  In six weeks.

The American commander, "Black Jack" Pershing, used tactics as subtle as a tire iron to the head, but it worked. By early November, the German army was reeling. The Armistice took effect 93 years ago today, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

Since then, World War I has faded from memory.  Its veterans are all dead, and those who remember them are mostly gone.  Yellowed pictures, dusty uniforms, spiked helmets - these are all we recall.  Even the Red Baron has been distorted and commercialized.

The point here is that a generation was called and went.  In 1941, 1950 they also went.  Some disagreed in the 1960s, but enough went to give us a victory - that we pissed away.  After that, it fell to the volunteers, and they have performed admirably.  The prestige of American arms has never been greater -and the reputation of American politicians has never been lower.

Looking at the "Occupy" protesters, one cannot help but contrast their self-indulgent tantrums with the quiet sacrifices of the veterans.  Let there be no mistake, military people are no saints (f they were, the JAGs would be unemployed).  They expect to be paid and complain about everything (a time-honored tradition).

But they do their duty.  They join to be part of something bigger than themselves and they yearn for the opportunity to prove that they are just as tough as those who went before.

The Occupiers want none of that.  They want free wi-fi, guaranteed income and a life of unearned leisure.  A half-hour of PT would leave them begging for death.

This Veterans Day, think about that contrast and what it says about those who choose to serve despite every reason not to.  MSU's basketball game today on the USS Carl Vinson is a great example.  I admire coach Tom Izzo, but his remarks about how sports pale in comparison to the military life are heartful and utterly appropriate.

Enjoy the game, and thank a veteran.

 

Civilization

The Belmont Club offers its usual insight in regards to the anarchy in London and makes a key point:  what keeps public order is not force, but legitimacy: 

Since no police force has the numbers to be everywhere at once, it maintains order through the force of its name, the power of the uniform. This was once known as ‘prestige’; today it is better known as ‘legitimacy’.  Although as insubstantial as air it is as vital as oxygen. Without it things become very dificult. Once the authorities begin lose their prestige they must rely ever more heavily on force, of which there is never, ever enough.

In one sense legitimacy is the fiction on which society is based. It is to government what confidence is to a bank.  As long as everyone believes that the bank will pay the depositor no one will demand all his money back. As long as most believe that the King’s justice is effectively invincible, no one will challenge it. But when a government behaves in a supine manner for an extended period — or a bank refuses to pay out without a good reason — then doubts begin to grow. Both legitimacy and confidence are more severely tested and once it is known that there isn’t enough money in the bank to pay everyone nor enough cops in the station house to arrest everyone then the fiction is bust.

A deadly cycle begins to set in. Both the government — or the bank — have to make payouts in force or money more frequently than they otherwise would. There is a “run” on this key resource and their are bankrupted. Financially in the bank’s case and politically in the case of government.  When confidence finally dwindles to its last remaining levels the declining institution must either risk everything on the last throw to restore it or face collapse.

This is one of the reasons the Posse has pointed out that looting in response to a natural disaster or civil disorder is the absolute worst thing one can do.  It is also the reason we take a dim view of “survivalists” who think that hoarding bullets and canned food out in the country will make them immune from a society-wide catastrophe.  In fact it will not and the isolation of a farmstead will make it easy pickings when roving bands – who will likely be well-armed as well if law-enforcement has been overwhelmed – decide to take what they have.

The key to preserving order is to support it from outside – to add a shot of adrenaline to the faltering system.  In the bank run example, it is putting in a large deposit to help cover the bank’s needs – and also send a signal of confidence.

In the case of the police, it is to organize one’s neighbors and support the police by bringing them supplies (a bottle of cool water on a hot day goes quite far) – and if necessary additional manpower.  This gives them renewed confidence and also additional resources.  If they know your neighborhood is secure, they can concentrate themselves elsewhere.

It is a simple concept: If one person’s property is in danger, everyone’s is at risk.  This is exactly how the mob thinks – if it can rob one store, it can rob them all, and so it will do as it pleases.

This was seen most clearly during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  While the New Orleans Police Dept. was shooting civilians and looting Wal-Mart, armed citizens came together and looked after one another.  As one resident of the French Quarter put it:  “Some people became animals, we became more civilized.”

The ultimate measure of the society’s strength is the willingness of its members to defend it.  When citizens become passive onlookers to the destruction of their wealth, the society they have known cannot survive.  

Yet Europe and UK takes the exact opposite view – with predictable results.

I am an optimist and I believe that the residual tradition of self-reliance is what will get the United States through the perils to come.  Time and again, Americans have showed amazing resiliency and a remarkable capacity for self-help.  When seconds count, we expect the government to get there late and bring a check book.

Civilization requires someone to defend it.  Europeans have decided to leave that job to the "experts" and let events take their course.  Here in the US - in the jurisdictions that still function - we are letting the people handle it themselves.

World on fire

I picked the wrong week to be away from the computer.

The stock market is dropping like a rock and London is in flames.  The world watches in disbelief as the Leader of the Free World holds dilatory news conferences devoid of anything other than petulant whining. 

I’m generally an optimist, but there’s not a lot of bright spots right now.  Thanks to Michigan’s new governor, Rick Snyder, it looked like our “lost decade” might finally be ending, but the President’s economically self-destructive policies are dragging us back to the hole from whence we came.

The Democrat base is mobilized, but it has nothing to do.  Imagine that their fondest dreams are achieved and that Scott Walker, Rick Snyder and the rest of their current bugbears are driven from office by recalls.  What then?  The public at large has no appetite for massive tax increases nor the means the pay for them.  The S&P downgrade shows that we cannot borrow the money, so there is literally nowhere left for the left to go.

The current talking points about “soaking the rich” are just that – talking points.  Adding surtaxes to corporate jets will merely shatter the aviation industry, adding even more unemployed workers to the dole.

Back in the sunny halcyon days of the late 1990s, I tried to imagine what a world run by liberals would look like – a modern analogue to Atlas Shrugged.  Now I’m living in it.

(I suppose it’s just as well – I didn’t care for Rand’s ultra-verbose writing style and dropped it after a few hundred pages.  You know, Orwell wrote political pieces but he was at least concise.  Maybe people were supposed to read Rand on the train or something.)

Anyhow, I find myself wondering how much food I can grow in my back yard and watching for sales on canned food. 

I know the “experts” in the chattering classes insist that Obama still has a good chance of getting reelected, but at this point the stock market is now lower than it was when he took office.  Ignoring the historically high unemployment, when was the last time the nation rehired someone who destroyed that much wealth?

More to the point, has he at any point showed the ability to learn from his mistakes?  The seismic scandal that is Gunwalker has not yet even begun to register in the mainstream press.  As information continues to flow about just how many guns we sold to drug cartels in Mexico – and how many people were killed with them, I find it impossible to believe that the administration’s standing with the public will increase.

 

How's that war in Libya going?

The ongoing non-war in Libya may yet result in Gaddafi’s ouster, but new developments must be giving the Duck of Death and his adherents reason for hope: 

On Thursday events in Libya took a turn for the worse with the killing of opposition army chief Abdel Fatah Younis. Not only have the Libyan rebels lost one of their most experienced military leaders, but the murky circumstances surrounding his death now threaten to provoke a war within rebel-controlled territories—to start another Libyan war before the current one has ended.

As I’ve noted before, the strategic situation in Libya is not what it seems.  While it is true that Gaddafi and his minions are increasingly hemmed in on every side, this has the virtue of shortening his supply lines and allowing him to maintain a tight grip on his own forces.  The opposition, by contrast, must contend with severe logistical problems as it attempts to deliver, food, ammunition and fuel to their advancing forces.  Even the slightest setback and force a lengthy retreat –with all the disorder and waste that this entails.

One thing I had not considered was dissention in the rebel ranks.  It should not be surprising, however, that the rear areas where the troops are being mustered should become breeding grounds for discontentment – particularly when many of the leaders are defectors from Gaddafi’s regime, and therefore have plenty of folks who’d like to settle some scores.

From a tactical standpoint, the rebels have the worst of all positions – their lengthy supply lines mean they can only bring a fraction of their total strength to bear.  Because of divisions between the various elements, this means that the burden of combat will fall unevenly, as will resources.  The main body of troops therefore has nothing to do but get in fights as they wait their turn.

Anyone who has ever watched what happens when the fleet comes in from a tour or army units get leave near a combat zone should be able to guess what happens next.  In the West, we see bar fights and barracks brawls.  In Libya, without stone-faced MPs and a vigilant Shore Patrol, things could rapidly escalate.  Add the mutual distrust and ambition of the higher commanders, and the Libyan uprising looks more like a series of Roman legionary commanders vying for a chance at the Imperial purple than a popular uprising seeking democracy.

 

The dog days of bummer

The Posse has been distracted for the last few weeks with business trips and chores around the ranch, and the blog has been languishing.  For this we apologize, but long-term readers have no doubt come to expect such lapses over the summer.

While most of Washington obsesses about the latest manufactured drama (the debt limit) the rest of the world continues on its merry way.

The war in Libya is effectively at a standstill.  While the optimists at Strategy Page continue to talk up the many strategic advantages held by NATO and its rebel allies, the fact remains that Gaddafi holds a superior position.  Yes, he is surrounded, isolated and at bay, but the effort required to pry him out of his stronghold is beyond the means of his enemies.  The French – who were one of the big supporters of this operation – are now working on a deal to buy him off.  This is not what one would expect if NATO’s situation were as strong as some believe it to be.

In fact, as this blog noted more than two weeks ago, NATO’s ability to fight is rapidly being eroded.  The military prowess is there, but the political will – and therefore the financial/logistical support – is not.  Just as the UK is watching its helicopter fleet wear out years ahead of schedule over Afghanistan, many NATO allies are seeing their pared-down air forces exhaust themselves at a sortie rate far beyond anything they are used to, or are willing to pay for.

NATO’s trump card is of course the US military, which could oust Gaddafi within a few days.  Yet the president cannot escalate matters without further damaging his own credibility.  Unlike his predecessor, Barack Obama does not tend to dig in when matters go against him.  He may become petulant and peevish, but he almost always backs down.  Even his signature accomplishments – the stimulus and Obamacare – owe far more to Nancy Pelosi’s arm twisting than any White House pressure.

So it is that US involvement is downplayed as much as possible so as to provide credence to the bizarre and logic-twisting contention that the War Powers Act doesn’t apply because we aren’t technically doing anything warlike in Libya.

Given that the last thing the president wants is to explain the three-month stalemate, the ongoing soap opera over the debt limit makes perfect sense.

Meanwhile, all Gaddafi has to do is hang on.

 While a flamboyant dresser and ideological lunatic, Gaddafi does possess a high degree of cunning, which is how he has survived so long.  He can read opponents quite well, and the irresolution of the West is helping to sustain his own hopes that he may somehow ride out the storm around him.

Even assuming that Gaddafi can be toppled, what comes next?  Libya is a deeply fragmented country whose component parts – the east, west and south – historically have not gotten along very well.  The Duck of Death may well decide to partake of a negotiated exile and leave the messy cleanup of his reign to someone else.  Is the US prepared to shoulder that burden?  Of course not.

Oh well, at least the economy’s booming and the job market is surging.

 

Italy calls it quits in Libya

It is rare to see a prediction come true so completely so quickly, but the Posse will claim a victory lap on our earlier Libyan strategic analyses.

The current situation is familiar to anyone who studied the North African campaign of World War II:  The rebels are stymied at what is often referred to as “the corner” of Cyrenaica – the point at which the coastal road turns west after Al ‘Uqaylah and Adjabiya (Agbdabia and El Agheila on my battered copy of “Afrika Korps”).

At this point, the supply line from Benghazi begins to fray – it is stretched too tight.  This was where Sir Archibald Wavell’s brilliant 1940 offensive ground to a halt – and the line from which Erwin Rommel drove Wavell’s depleted troops in a rout in 1941.  After heavy fighting, Wavell’s replacement, Claude Auckinleck, once again drove Rommel back to almost the same line in December 1941 – and once again his forces were sent hurtling backwards by Rommel.

Sir Bernard Montgomery was finally able to punch through - to “turn the corner”-  in 1942, but only because of overwhelming strength and the tremendous advantage of having thousands of Allied troops playing in Rommel’s backfield (Operation Torch).

This is the dynamic to which I was referring.  Gaddafi is under siege, and there is considerable pressure for him to give way. 

At Strategy Page, Austin Bay gives a good summary of all the threats facing Gaddafi.

However, Bay omits a key factor in Gaddafy’s favor:  inertia – what Clausewitz called the friction of war.

The NATO air forces are ill-accustomed to wartime operations.  The keen edge they took on during the Cold War has been dulled by 20 years of budget cuts and loss of mission focus.  Some nations have already exhausted their stocks of munitions and must rely on American replacements.

At the same time, Gaddafi knows that world opinion – and in this case American public opinion – is growing restless with the cost and the burden of the operation.  Indeed, Italy is now calling for a halt to combat operations.

Three months ago, when the uprising first began, Gaddafi could likely have been overthrown with a show of force.  At the moment when Libyan fighter aircraft and warships were defecting to Malta and when Army battalions were throwing in with the rebels – that was the moment for US aircraft to swoop low over Tripoli and send an unmistakable message that the regime’s days were numbered.

The opening hours of a rebellion are critical, for it is at that moment when the loyalty of the old regime is at its weakest.  No one knows who will turn next, and the fear is not that the loyalists will win, but that the rebels will punish those that fail to defect fast enough.

That was the moment when Gaddafi was at his weakest.  Typically, Obama gave a speech.

Gaddafi rallied his forces, and now we are three months into a two-week operation.

Once again, we come down to the eternal truth that war is a contest of wills.

Gaddafi (and his family) has far more at stake and far more to lose than NATO.  Bay is correct that he has five fronts to contend with, but he can do so with utter clarity: His very life is at stake.  This allows him to achieve a degree of focus NATO cannot match.

The rate of operations is already wearing out the various continents’ – Norway pulled its meager contribution and others are likely to follow suit as the operational tempo threatens to take years off of the service lives of their aircraft.

With the Euro in crisis and budgets strained to the breaking point, defense ministers across the Continent are faced with choosing between a face-saving deal with Gaddafi or a much-diminished air force for the foreseeable future.  Make no mistake – any plane lost over Libya will not be replaced, and the European air force generals know it.

This is the friction I spoke of earlier, and it is working almost entirely against NATO – and therefore in favor of Gaddafi. 

Gaddafi knows that he does not need to military defeat the United States or even outlast us – simply hanging on until Italy loses heart will be enough.  From the looks of it, he may almost be there.

 

 

God save the Queen

Though I yield to none in my patriotism and love of America's republican form of government, as a conservative I have a deep respect for ancient traditions.  They should not be cast off lightly.

Thus I highly approve of yesterday's incandescent wedding ceremony between Prince William (now the Duke of Cambridge) and his lovely bride Katherine Elizabeth.

Last night Sithkitten and I watched the taped broadcast and the highlight reels.  It truly was a sight to see, and the only sour notes came from TLC's obnoxious and ignorant commentators, whose lack of understanding was matched only by their vulgar critiques of symbolism they clearly did not understand.

America's constitutional system was designed with profound foresight by the Founding Fathers to provide such a separation of powers as to made a constitutional monarch unnecessary.  However, parliamentary systems seem to function best with them rather than without.

Hereditary monarchs act as a necessary check upon a government that combines the executive and legislative and one that exercises de facto (and often de jure) control over the judiciary as well.  The ability to dissolve the government is used seldom, but it is an important check to prevent an unpopular government from making irreversible changes to the political order.

In my previous post, I noted that World War II was easily preventable and one way in which it could have been stopped was leaving the German monarchy intact.  Winston Churchill remarked that whatever the sins of the Kaiser and Crown Prince, a prudent policy would have been to require both to abdicate in favor of the Kaiser's grandson, who would then rule under a regency council until he was old enough.  The monarch would have provied a powerful symbol and rallying point against the rise of National Socialism.  Indeed, it is hard to say how Hitler could ever have achieved power or attempted his transformation in the face of royal opposition.

Alas, Woodrow Wilson insisted that the entire monarchy be uprooted, and the republic that replaced it was alien, disliked and distrusted.  For a time the middle and upper classes rallied around Hindenburg, but he was already old when he took office and his health and abilities declined quickly.  After him, there was no one else.

A royal family - with its respect for tradition and it place in the nation's history - would have given the otherwise bankrupt and embittered middle class a place to turn.

One cannot look at the hope and joy shown in London and around the world and not see in it a sense of shared purpose and common heritage.  No, it isn't about the dress, or the uniforms, but about the splendor, class and majesty - about the glories of ages past and common myths that unite a people.

Hereditary monarchs are enemies of change by nature, and the genius of the American system of government is that it makes change incremental and slow.  With its simple majority rule and unified executive, parliamentary systems can rapidly overthrow the social order.  A natural check to this is a monarchy.

King Juan Carlos of Spain helped stop a coup in 1981, and Spain is better off for it.

FINAL THOUGHT:  British military dress uniforms are soooo much better looking than ours.  You'd think the world's greatest military power could afford to dress its troops better than bus drivers.

The shadow of the desert fox

I have been out of it for the last few days fighting off a particularly vicious strain of the ‘flu.  Catching up on events has not been a pleasant experience.

The muddle of our Libya policy has been much remarked upon and I will not add to that chorus.  Instead I will try to provide our readers with additional information so that they have a better context for the situation.

As I noted before, Libya is terrain that is well-known to American military planners.  It was the ground upon which the key desert battles of World War II were fought between the “Desert Fox,” Erwin Rommel, and a succession of British commanders.

What is striking about Libya’s geography is that it has only a single dimension: the coastal region and the road that runs through it.

Along that narrow strip runs Libya’s only highway and the port cities that dot its coastline are spaced like beads on a string.

Anyone seeking to conquer Libya must do so along this coastal stretch.

However, the wide desert interior is not entirely impassible.  There are tracks linking the various oases and in many parts the ground it a firm, hard-packed surface called “pediment,” suitable for rugged vehicles.

This “open flank” meant that it was possible for coastal strongpoints to be bypassed and cut off, though the outflanking force itself always ran the risk of isolation.

All well in good, but where does this leave us today?

The present forces are small enough that flanking movements are not really worthwhile – instead the fighting is a series of close assaults on the various towns along the highway.  Air power can be tremendously useful in such open terrain, but as the combatants entangle in the towns, it loses much of its effectiveness.

This is why the fighting tends to have a see-saw feel to it:  A column of Gaddafi loyalists barrel up to a town and attack it, but are hit by air strikes on the approach.  They fall back and the rebels counterattack.  Without heavy air support in the close-in fighting, they fail to take the town.  They are then compelled to retreat because there are no supplies they can draw upon near the enemy town.

This latter point is key:  Every bullet, bottle of water and gallon of gasoline has to be trucked along that road to wherever the fighting is.  In order for the rebels to succeed, they have to find a way to organize a supply train sturdy enough to support sustained operations.  Many commentators are focusing on how amateurish the rebels are; their lack of training, cohesion, command and control and organization.  These are all important, but more important still is their inability to supply themselves.  A US infantry brigade could make short work of just about any town’s defenses in Libya, but without reliably resupply, it would soon be just as helpless as the rebels.

This is why the whole brouhaha about CIA arming the rebels is largely irrelevant:  The rebels need logistics, not guns.  Were they to develop decent logistics, they could encircle each government stronghold and starve it into submission without firing a shot.  Any attempt to break out could rely on US air support, since the attackers would be forced to come out into the open.

I suspect Gaddafi knows this.  His strategy – the correct one, in my opinion – seems to be to attack with columns of his own using civilian vehicles, which we cannot target out of fear of civilian casualties.  After a quick bombardment, he then sends in his mercenaries, who seek to attack at close quarters, which is particularly demoralizing to untrained troops.

Gaddafi must also know that the West has a limited attention span, and that he need not retake Benghazi to render the rebels toothless – a stalemate would be enough.

It is still possible for his will to crack, or for his inner circle to desert him, but from a strategic perspective, his is the stronger position.

The administration trying to downplay US involvement is tacit admission of this state of affairs.

 

The ship steers itself

The Hated Instapundit is awash in smug as liberals struggle to make sense of their fearless leader's decision to launch an undeclared war on Libya without any Congressional input or national debate.

As a card-carrying Republican neocon warmonger, I've gone on record as supporting some sort of action to overthrow Gaddafi, but at this point, I find myself deeply distrustful of event.

Some weeks ago, we could have pushed Gaddafi aside with a nudge and a proclamation.  Official recognition of the rebel government followed by a warning that massive US military assistance would drop Gaddafi in his tracks would probably have caused his remaining loyalists to abandon ship.  No one wants to die for a cause that is already lost, and I doubt Gaddafi could have recruited mercenaries eager to face smart bombs from 30,000 feet in obsolescent tanks.

But instead, the Obama administration prevaricated and now we find ourselves in a situation of profound uncertaintly.  Who is calling the shots?  What is our goal?  What is the strategy?

Even within the NATO coalition, it is unclear which member nation is taking the lead.  France seems to be in charge (!), but U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) is running the operation.  All well and good, but who is giving direction to USAFRICOM?  As Austin Bay notes:

AFRICOM is an “economy of force” theater– developmental aid and military training are its key missions. For the moment, however, it is a combat headquarters.

As Instapundit noted at the first link, the anti-war left is stirring uneasily.  Unlike the "bad" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have no real cause in Libya, other than national interest in deposing someone we don't like.  Is that reason enough?  Maybe for me, but I doubt for most Americans.

And even for hawks like me, intervention of this sort must be limited.  Given what a hash Obama has made of the crisis so far, I have little confidence he will manage to avoid long-term entanglements.

EUROPE REBORN?  As a student of history, it is fascinating to watch the US drop back to a role it has not played since the 1930s - following the lead of the European "Great Powers," France and Great Britain.  Is this the change we voted for?

A passive bellicosity

One of the most striking things about President Obama’s “war message” for Libya is that it relies heavily on the passive voice.  This is not a ringing call to arms, it is a recitation of bad things that just seem to have happened.  (From the White House transcript, emphasis added.)

Instead of respecting the rights of his own people, Qaddafi chose the path of brutal suppression.  Innocent civilians were beaten, imprisoned, and in some cases killed.  Peaceful protests were forcefully put down.  Hospitals were attacked and patients disappeared.  A campaign of intimidation and repression began.

See, things happened.  People were beaten, protests were put down (forcefully!), hospitals were attacked and patients just disappeared (literally?  Did they vanish into thin air?).  Finally (remember, in rhetoric, we save the greatest outrage for last), a campaign began (to intimidate and repress, no less).

This is just plain weak.  There is no other word to describe it.  Put it in active voice, and it sound much more assertive:

Instead of respecting the rights of his own people, Qaddafi chose the path of brutal suppression.  His soldiers beat, imprisoned and killed innocent civilians.  His government forcefully put down peaceful protests and attacked hospitals and abducted patients. 

Must stronger.  Of course, I leave out the last sentence because Gaddafi’s entire 42-year-reign of terror has been one long campaign of intimidation and repression.  Let’s not act as though it is something  new.

Okay, so that is the charge sheet against Gaddafi.  Now here’s how he describes our heroic response:

In the face of this injustice, the United States and the international community moved swiftly.  Sanctions were put in place by the United States and our allies and partners.  The U.N. Security Council imposed further sanctions, an arms embargo, and the specter of international accountability for Qaddafi and those around him.  Humanitarian assistance was positioned on Libya’s borders, and those displaced by the violence received our help.  Ample warning was given that Qaddafi needed to stop his campaign of repression, or be held accountable.  The Arab League and the European Union joined us in calling for an end to violence.

Again, things just sort of happened.  Assistance short of showed up and warnings were given.

Active voice is saved for the list of things we will not do:

I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing. The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya.  And we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.  In the coming weeks, we will continue to help the Libyan people with humanitarian and economic assistance so that they can fulfill their aspirations peacefully.

Note that first sentence:  He wants to be clear.  But he isn’t clear.  I have no idea what we will be doing.  There is no well-defined goal at all.  We are going to protect Libyan civilians, but how?  And for how long?  All we know is that it won’t take ground troops.  Otherwise, there is zero clarity in our goal.

Long-time readers know that I am a big fan for doing things the old-fashioned way.  I think it’s a shame that punitive expeditions have gone out of style.  Gaddafi is a perfect candidate for one.  As soon as his people started to rise up, we could have announced that we recognize their right to remove him and clearly said that unless Gaddafi surrendered power and left the country, we would hunt him down like a dog.  He probably would have left within minutes. 

Even if he didn’t, it would have crippled his response – after all, who wants to hang around a guy who can be killed at any minute by a GPS-guided bomb?  Those cheesy rallies in Tripoli’s big square?  I don’t think so.  We could have whacked him with an inert (concrete filled) 250 lb. bomb.

There would be no need for an exit strategy, just pure vengeance.  Get Moammar out of power and we would have been finished.

Instead, we have an open-ended commitment to a coalition we don’t lead in favor of an opposition movement we know nothing about.

And to think people called George W. Bush dumb.