Too controversial. Too scandalous. Too gross! It's the Best
of Bizarre News II, Uncensored. SELLING OUT at $1.07.
http://pd.gophercentral.com/u/1109/c/186/a/541
------------------------------------------------------------
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - March 29, 2011
"Let Me Just Be Very Unambiguous About This"
by: Tony Blankley
Townhall.com
Amid all the confusion of our new little war in Libya,
one thing is clear: Notwithstanding the bravery and
professionalism of our troops, in naming it Operation
Odyssey Dawn, the Pentagon has invoked a haunting specter.
The war's namesake -- Homer's epic poem "The Odyssey" --
is the tale of the hero, Odysseus, taking 10 years to get
home from the Trojan War -- which itself took 10 years to
fight.
In fairness to the Pentagon, when the Germans started their
ill-fated campaign in Tripoli in February 1941 (that was to
be lost due to a too-long and thin logistics line), they,
too, had difficulty, calling it Operation Sonnenblume
(Sunflower). As the German historian Wolf Heckmann drolly
noted of the Wehrmacht high command: "Unconsciously, some-
one had hit upon the perfect symbol: a huge and showy
flower at the end of a long and rather fragile stem."
This whole business of christening wars with catchy names
is curious. Ten years ago, our current war in Afghanistan
was christened "Enduring Freedom" -- although the alleged
beneficiaries of our military effort, the Afghan people,
have not yet gained freedom from the Taliban enemy. In
fact, we are getting ready to leave no later than 2014,
rather than planning to "endure" until freedom is ensured.
Meanwhile, our war in Iraq, which the Bush Pentagon eight
years ago triumphantly named operation "Iraqi Freedom,"
had its name changed last year by the Obama Pentagon to
the more tentative sounding operation "New Dawn." Who
knows what that "new dawn" of 2015 may bring: Freedom,
Victory, Defeat, Civil War, Forgetfulness?
I admit to belaboring these words, but they are worth
belaboring. Because the words of generals and statesmen
at the beginning of wars need to be de-coded, as they are
as likely to confuse as to clarify. And too often, the
first victims of the confusion are the very statesmen and
generals who utter them. These days, few publics are as
ready to whistle cheerfully off to war as are their
leaders.
When it is all over, it often turns out that the military
intervention (in the words of the British comedy "Yes
Minister") provided the people with "every assistance
short of help."
So what are our government and others saying about this
new war? President Obama, March 4: "Let me just be very
unambiguous about this. Col. Gadhafi needs to step down
from power and leave."
------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR VIDEO SNACK BAR
Top Viewed Videos...
1. Alfred Hitchcock Montage
http://c.gophercentral.com/ebJq
2. Women in Film
http://c.gophercentral.com/tIXB
3. Grizzle Bears In Alaska
http://c.gophercentral.com/uNo7
4. What a Wonderful World It Would Be
http://c.gophercentral.com/FdOk
5. The Great John Wayne
http://c.gophercentral.com/oou8
6. Learn How To Protect Your Identity
http://c.gophercentral.com/EVZo
------------------------------------------------------------
Adm. Mike Mullen chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs,
March 20: It "isn't about seeing him (Gadhafi) go." Mullen,
asked whether it was possible that the mission's goals
could be achieved while leaving Gadhafi in power, said,
"That's certainly potentially one outcome."
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said, "It is not
about regime change."
Then what is this war about? On Friday, Obama, in announc-
ing our military intervention, cited as justifications
that Gadhafi might kill "thousands," "the region could be
destabilized" and "the democratic values that we stand for
would be overrun." But he also wants to be "clear about
what we will not be doing. The United States is not going
to deploy ground troops. ... We are not going to use force
to go beyond a well-defined goal -- specifically, the
protection of civilians in Libya."
Moreover, no sooner had Obama identified the importance
of the Arab League support for the operation (as he under-
standably did not want to start a third war in a Muslim
country without strong Muslim support) than did the head
of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, criticize the international
strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths and
went "beyond what the Arab League backed."
And how does Obama's concern about democracy relate to
support from the Arab League, which can't claim a member-
ship blessed with the instinct for democracy, with the
possible exception of Iraq -- which we currently militarily
occupy. (Members: Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Morocco, Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Somalia, Libya,
Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Palestinian
territories, Kuwait, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain,
Djibouti and Comoros.)
The president cited the danger that "the region could be
destabilized." But both in his Cairo speech and in his
policy last month in Egypt, he rejected regional stability
as a justification for regime support or opposition. The
president called for a policy that forcibly removes the
Gadhafi regime because it threatens to kill its own people,
but supports regimes that do the same thing (Bahrain,
Yemen, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, etc.).
The president's policy goals, based on his public words,
both contradict themselves and would seem not to be
realizable with the self-imposed limitations on methods
and length of commitment.
Of course, with our airmen, sailors and perhaps others in
harm's way, I hope for the best, appreciate their courage,
pray for their safety and look forward to the terrorist
Gadhafi's early demise -- by the hands of a just God or
otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Your Favorite GopherCentral Publications on Twitter:
http://www.gophertweets.com/ More Coming Soon!
------------------------------------------------------------