No more "Libyan Hit Squad" cartoons

When I was a kid, there were rumors that Libya's Colonel Muammar Gadhafi (given that he ran the country and was head of the armed forces, why was he only colonel?) had sent a hit squad to kill President Reagan.  I took it upon myself to visualize that in a comic strip called the "Libyan Hit Squad."  It was basically a takeoff of the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, but I did get pretty creative towards the middle and the end.  Unfortunately, my artistic skills never matched my imagination, especially when it came to drawing people -- it was so bad I had to draw them with little sticks in their backs with signs identifying who they were and which countries they were from. Gadhafi had a little hat.

I kept the comics all these years, until, sadly, my cat Berenice decided to shred them all.  Berenice is an amazing, wonderful, extremely intelligent cat, but this was not among her prouder moments.  She seems to very much enjoy shredding paper.

Even more new additions to the library

Pawns of War: The Loss of the USS Langley and the USS Pecos, by Dwight R. Messimer
The Vatican: Secrets and Treasures of the Holy City, by Father Michael Collins

Gadhafi folding in Libya?

So says NBC News:

Moammar Gadhafi is making preparations for a departure from Libya with his family for possible exile in Tunisia, U.S. officials have told NBC News, citing intelligence reports.

One official suggested it was possible that Gadhafi would leave within days, NBC News reported.
The information obtained by NBC News follows a series of optimistic statements this week from U.S. officials that Gadhafi would soon give up the five-month-old fight and and leave Libya.
In an on-camera forum at the National Defense University this week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, "I think the sense is that Gadhafi's days are numbered.
The officials could provide no further details as to conditions or precise timing for Gadhafi's departure, NBC said, and the news report emphasized that there was no guarantee that Gadhafi would follow through on any plans to flee.
Rebel fighters are closing in from the west and the south while NATO controls the seas to the north. The opposition is in control of most of the eastern half of the country and has declared Benghazi, 620 miles east of Tripoli, as its de facto capital.
Rebel forces have managed to surround Tripoli and appear to be attempting to cut off supplies and fuel to trigger a collapse, NBC News reported. Families were seen driving away from the city.

Note that Benghazi used to be an alternate capital for Libya.

How reliable is this report? AllahPundit:

They’re not blowing smoke here. As unlikely as it may have seemed after the highly suspicious killing of the rebels’ top general a few weeks ago, rebel forces in the field have finally broken through in Zawiya and Brega and are threatening Tripoli’s supply lines. At least one of Qaddafi’s top security aides flew the coop this week, and the rebel leadership predicted a few days ago that the man himself would finally be gone by the end of the month.

Adam Garfinkle:

We are at a tender spot in this war. Over this past weekend it appears from press reports that rebel forces have seized reasonably firm control of Zawiya. Zawiya is the first town to the east of the Tunisian border, and it is a supply and transportation hub serving Tripoli. Rebel control of this strategic spot puts the regime in a kind of vise, an observation so obvious that it has been repeatedly made even by journalists in recent days—if you take my point. Anyone can see that the regime is in a vise by the fact that some of its principals are defecting, including reportedly one of its intelligence chiefs.
Now, in a set-piece military situation of the sort described by textbooks concerning Europe, one might expect that at a certain point the regime will simply surrender to its adversaries after enough military pressure and a consequent sufficiency of humble introspection on the part of the besieged have been applied. That is very unlikely to happen in Libya.

As for what it would mean, Garfinkle says it all with the title of his piece, "And Now for a Real Slaughter:"

There are rules in places like Libya, but they are different from the rules applied in Europe in recent centuries. The main rule when one tribe or one tribal confederacy conquers another is that the defeated party is politically, socially, economically and, often to some extent, literally decapitated. The defeat must be total, unmistakable and irreparable. That is the best way, indeed, in many cases the only way, to make sure that the rank-and-file of the defeated group will not find some way to rise up again in revenge.
Now what does this mean in the Libyan case? It means that if the rebels centered in Benghazi are going to overthrow by force of arms the Gaddafi regime, they are going to have to fight for Tripoli, possibly down to the last square block of the regime’s stronghold. Gaddafi and his tribal loyalists and allies will not surrender peaceably. There is therefore going to be, quite possibly, a crimsoned slaughter of the civilian population of Tripoli.
I do not know this for certain, but neither did the Obama Administration know for certain five months ago that there was going to be a slaughter in Benghazi. There are reasons for thinking that the likelihood of the slaughter in Benghazi was far lower than the likelihood of a slaughter coming soon in Tripoli. Gaddafi may have thought back then that just the threat of mass violence could dissipate the rebellion, or weaken it fatally. Arabic is very good for threat making, and Arabs over the years have become masters at using language as votive acts. [...]
At any rate, as I say, the likelihood of a very bloody fight for Tripoli is high. Note that the Benghazi-centered rebels are not threatening anything like what Gaddafi threatened them with some months ago. That is not a good sign in this context; it is a very bad sign.
NATO is not in a position on the ground to do anything about it. NATO, fighting without the United States, has not been in a position to do very much about anything, which raises a point I will follow up just below. Clearly, the rebels who might be soon advancing on Tripoli do not recognize a clear distinction between civilians and combatants. Tribal rules say that all adult males are fair game. Given the widely available military technology of our time, however, and the Libyans’ lack of training in using that technology surgically, it is very unlikely that women and children will remain safe regardless of traditional prohibitions against harming them.

Can we do anything about it?

If the Obama Administration intervened in the first place to prevent mass murder against Libyan civilians in Benghazi—and on this point I take the Administration at its word—what will it do to prevent mass murder against Libyan civilians in Tripoli? Will NATO forces now suddenly switch sides, and begin suppressing the military activities of the Benghazi rebels it has been supporting and trying to build up for the past five months? That would be logically consistent in terms of the way the Administration does its moral reasoning; it is also completely unthinkable under present circumstances.
So perhaps the Administration and its NATO allies will try instead to simply persuade the rebels not to be brutal when the triumphal end of their campaign comes into sight (assuming it does). If they succeed in that task, highly unlikely though it is, the result will be to further prolong the war and muddle the possibility of a definitive endpoint. That would be inane, if not insane.
I don’t really know what they will do. I can’t wait to find out. All I know is that when a government engages in military activity on the basis of a nonsensical premise, there is a price to be paid always down the road. We are now pretty much down the road.

Well, should we do anything about it? asks Ace:

The Bush model of war -- go in heavy, attempt to win the war on the backs of American (and allied) soldiers, attempt to establish a monopoly on the use of violence, and then continue that monopoly on the use of violence by acting as the nation's law enforcement/army for five, six, ten years -- doesn't work, or at least does not work at costs the American public is willing to pay.
I see no point agitating for a Full War Model against Iran, for example -- to urge such a thing is futile. I do not believe the American public has the appetite for such an endeavor. (At least-- not unless Iran uses its soon-to-be-built nukes.)
We didn't use to take care of these countries in this fashion. We used to arm and train rebels within those countries (they've all got them), fund them, provide intelligence, spread some bribe money around, and, when necessary, bring in the sort of Word of God that our air and naval forces issue from the air or sea.
Such wars were messy and bloody and often very very dirty, with guerrilla tactics that often looked like "terrorism" being employed by both sides. This is only a problem when the forces on our side employ such tactics, because that's the only time such tactics get condemned in the press.
They are, however, effective, much of the time at least, and with a light American involvement as far as troops on the ground.
Colin Powell's ludicrous statement -- "You break it, you buy it" -- is a formula for nonstop, decades-long nation-building of exactly the same type that George W. Bush campaigned against in 2000, albeit on a much longer and much bloodier scale than we saw in, say, Haiti.
Why do we "buy" it if we break it?
Broken societies reassemble themselves. In fact, they seem to do so more quickly than people expect, even when faced with great devastation.
There is no need for American troops to hand-hold them through this process.
If a country thwarts or threatens the US enough to invite a decapitating military strike, one that takes out the ruling regime and renders the state without any force to impose order -- they broke it themselves.
And they can reassemble it themselves.
And the thing is -- they will.
It will not be a clean thing. There will be assassinations. There will be ethnic cleansing. Sometimes there will be mass killings, and sometimes there will be terrorism.
But what there won't be in the model of warfare I am endorsing is a large body of American troops in the crossfire.
Yes, our troops are the best in the world, and not just the best at destroying the enemy -- they are the best at destroying the enemy while sparing noncombatants' lives. They are the most disciplined and most precise forces the world have ever seen, in addition to being the most lethal.
So yes, the presence of our troops can in fact spare any number of noncombatants in such a bloody civil war.
But... I have to say: Who gives a shit? How many foreign citizens in an country we've gone to war with do I need to save in fair exchange for one American soldier's life?
I think that number must be more than 100. Actually, I think it must be more than 1000 before I really start to think that maybe that's a good exchange.
These basket-case, broken, violent rogue countries have their own growing up to do. They have to go through their own spasms. They have to shed their own blood, and inflict their own massacres.
Yes, we can spare them some of this; but why should we? Someone is going to die in a war. I nominate foreign nationals.
American troops' heavy engagement is better for all parties in a war, except for the American troops themselves, and while they might be selfless enough to nobly volunteer for such missions, I'm a little too selfish to want to use them for such purposes any longer.
In some cases, we may need to fight a WWII style total war. Fine. In all other cases, we should go back to the 70s/80s model of backing indigenous fighters with the 90s/2000s addition of devastating airstrikes.
This style of warfare isn't perfect. Libya will (as Allah suggests) probably descend into revenge bloodletting. Ask me how much I really care.

As callous as Ace's opinion may sound, it's absolutely right.  The responsibility of the military, intelligence and diplomatic services of the United States is to protect the interests of the United States.   The idea behind "nation building" is to rebuild a damaged or destroyed country in such a way as to promote a peaceful relationship, at least, with the United States, so trouble can be  avoided in the future.  But if we cannot afford that monetarily or politically, then there is no requirement -- moral, ethical, political or legal -- that we do practice it. 

In any event, the new model for regime change in limited conflicts, as Ace states:

In some cases, we may need to fight a WWII style total war. Fine. In all other cases, we should go back to the 70s/80s model of backing indigenous fighters with the 90s/2000s addition of devastating airstrikes.
This style of warfare isn't perfect. Libya will (as Allah suggests) probably descend into revenge bloodletting. Ask me how much I really care.
But the advantage of this style of warfare is that it is politically possible, which I no longer [think] the Bush style is.

Agreed.

Finally moving on Syria

As you know, I rip Obama regularly for his defense and foreign policy, such as it is, so when he does something good, it's only fair that I point it out.  This time, it's on Syria:

President Obama on Thursday called for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, a demand aimed to ratchet up the diplomatic pressure on the leader who has launched a bloody crackdown on his own people for months.
"For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside," Obama said in a statement.
The president has signed an executive order to block property and prohibit certain transactions with respect to Syria, the White House announced.

Paying off Alaric

Getting caught up on all the Sack of London stuff after being laid up sick means a bit of a long post.

As you can probably tell, I cannot help but see dangerous parallels between the riots in London, and by extension Philadelphia, Milwaukee, etc., and the Sack of Rome in 410 AD by Goths under the chieftain Alaric, that highlighted the complete failure of Roman government and heralded the downfall of the Western Empire some 66 years later.  First, take a look at the, um, "career" of Alaric:

In 394, Alaric served as a leader of foederati under Theodosius I in the campaign which crushed the usurper Eugenius. As the Battle of the Frigidus, which terminated this campaign, was fought at the passes of the Julian Alps, Alaric probably learned the weakness of Italy's natural defences on its northeastern frontier at the head of the Adriatic.

Theodosius died in 395, leaving the empire to be divided between his two sons Arcadius and Honorius, the former taking the eastern and the latter, the western portion of the empire. Arcadius showed little interest in ruling, leaving most of the actual power to his Praetorian Prefect Rufinus. Honorius was still a minor; as his guardian, Theodosius had appointed the magister militum Stilicho. Stilicho also claimed to be the guardian of Arcadius, causing much rivalry between the western and eastern courts.

Even more additions to the library

Failure in the Saddle: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Joseph Wheeler, and the Confederate Cavalry in the Chickamauga Campaign, by David A. Powell
Japan's Imperial Conspiracy: How Emperor Hirohito led Japan into war against the West, by David Bergamini

With "friends" like these ...

Remember that when our troops put Usama bin Laden in his place, one of our helicopters was downed.  The ever-lovable Pakistanis were not happy with us for taking out the man who killed 3,000 Americans who was living comfortably in their territory.  Now they're making us pay:

Pakistan gave China access to the previously unknown U.S. “stealth” helicopter that crashed during the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May despite explicit requests from the CIA not to, the Financial Times reported Sunday.
The disclosure, if confirmed, is likely to further shake the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, which has been improving slightly of late after hitting its lowest point in decades following the bin Laden killing in a Pakistani garrison city.

News you can use

How to win at Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Light posting today

I'm as sick as a dawg.

Even more new additions to the library

Every Day a Nightmare: American Pursuit Pilots in the Defense of Java, 1941-1942, by Wiliam H. Bartsch
The Loss of Java: The Final Battles for the Possession of Java Fought by Allied Air, Naval and Land Forces in the Period of 18 February-7 March 1942, by P.C. Boer
In the Hands of Fate: The Story of Patrol Wing Ten 8 December 1941-11 May 1942, by Dwight R. Messimer
Bloody Shambles – The First Comprehensive Account of Air Operations Over South-East Asia December 1941- April 1942, Volume One: The Drift to War to the Fall of Singapore and Bloody Shambles – The First Comprehensive Account of Air Operations Over South-East Asia December 1941- April 1942, Volume Two: The Defense of Sumatra to the Fall of Burma, both by Christopher Shores, Brian Cull and Yasuho Izawa

Piramide Cestia

Most definitely one of the weirder things I saw in Rome:

Another site memorialized by Assassin's Creed Brotherhood.

The new Roman civil war

Between Italian police and fake Roman legionaries:

For the first time perhaps since the fall of the Roman empire, a group of centurions faces prosecution for mounting an assault on brother officers just a few paces from the Forum.
Unknown to the attackers, their fellow "centurions" were undercover police officers sent to investigate claims of racketeering and fraud in the shadow of the Colosseum. Dozens of modern-day Romans dressed as centurions or gladiators make a living by posing for photographs alongside tourists in return for tips and by enticing them onto tours in exchange for payments from the organisers.
But the business has been plagued by complaints from holidaymakers of centurions resorting to threats, and allegations that it is a "closed shop" from which outsiders are rigorously, and sometimes brutally, excluded. The three men arrested on Wednesday have been accused of assault and risk additional charges of criminal conspiracy, according to the Corriere della Sera newspaper.
They were among 30 people arrested as a result of the investigation. Others included tour guides and the owners of tour agencies.
The officers posing as centurions were reportedly approached and threatened in the Piazza Venezia by the three men who were subsequently arrested. An argument broke out, and swords – albeit wooden ones – were soon cleaving the air.
Unknown to the trio, a party of street cleaners at work nearby was also made up of undercover police officers. On seeing their colleagues attacked, they sprang into action and, watched by bemused tourists, clamped handcuffs on the aggressors.

The picture is a classic:

What a wuss!  A real Roman soldier would never let himself be captured by guys in trousers and T-shirts.

But the issues with the fake legionaries are, um, legion:

The police operation was launched after four complaints from tour agencies and two more from Italian tourists who said they had been tricked by a costumed tout into paying for a tour of the Vatican museums that never materialised and then threatened by him when they demanded their money back.
Theirs was merely the latest in a long line of allegations. Others have involved claims of centurions demanding up to €30 (£26) for a posed photograph.
One ruse allegedly involves offering to take a photograph of a tourist with his or her own camera, and then refusing to give it back until a substantial amount of money has been handed over.
In 2007, police arrested a fake centurion following a reported attack on an American man and a Chilean woman which landed both in hospital. The same year police said they had arrested 28 unlicensed phony centurions and charged them with "violating laws banning commercial activity in an archaeological area".
Four years earlier there was a fistfight outside the Colosseum between rival bands of costumed ancient Romans. Also in 2003 police arrested a self-styled gladiator for carrying a real sword.
The Rome authorities said in 2002 they would be licensing the centurions who hang around the Colosseum and other historic sites. There was talk of tests to show they spoke English, had good people skills and adequate general knowledge.
Those who passed were to be put on a list, given a badge and assigned a pitch. But they would have to abide by regulations concerning the authenticity of their costumes.

Regulating the "authenticity" of their costumes sounds like a way of culling the herd. Authentic Roman armor is expensive.  I know. I'm assembling my own set:

When I found this shop across from the Pantheon, I felt like a kid in a candy store.

I was warned that some of these fake legionaries could be trouble.  Not all , but some.  When my parents went to Rome they got their pictures take with one for ten euros.  No trouble.  But others would demand a hundred euros.  They would not tell you the price until you had the picture taken, then they would give you problems if you didn't pay up.

Never had any wish to have my pictures taken with those guys, though.  When you're putting together your own set of real Roman armor, why would you want your picture taken with a fake?

I just had some fun with them.  On one walk down the Via dei Fori Imperali I told an approaching legionary, "Sorry, I got my own armor."  Gave me a bewildered look.  On another, I said, "Sorry, I only allow my pic taken with centurions and above."  Another bewildered look.

Thanks guys, but no thanks.  I have my own Roman armor.

OK, maybe you had to be there.

More Punishing the Innocent and Protecting the Guilty (Or "More Sack of Rome")

Lotsa commentary out there abut the meaning of the London riots and the government's Honorius-like response thereto.

Max Hastings, always an enjoyable and interesting, if not always accurate, writer, nails the societal issues:

A few weeks after the U.S. city of Detroit was ravaged by 1967 race riots in which 43 people died, I was shown around the wrecked areas by a black reporter named Joe Strickland.
He said: ‘Don’t you believe all that stuff people here are giving media folk about how sorry they are about what happened. When they talk to each other, they say: “It was a great fire, man!” ’
I am sure that is what many of the young rioters, black and white, who have burned and looted in England through the past few shocking nights think today.

It was fun. It made life interesting. It got people to notice them. As a girl looter told a BBC reporter, it showed ‘the rich’ and the police that ‘we can do what we like’.

That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Susannah Breslin claims that she's "unemployable" because, in part:

1. I don’t fit in a box

I have never fit in, really. I have been a freelancer for 15 years. I have covered some unusual subjects in my career. I am six-foot-one. I grew up in Berkeley, California. In other parts of the country, the goal is to fit in. In Berkeley, the goal is to not fit in.

At this blog, there are no boxes allowed, so that's not a bug, that's a feature.

Most people don't fit into boxes.  They want to, because it makes life easier, especially for employers, but it leads to unhappiness.  Creative people are especially hurt by being forced into boxes. Prison boxes.

The reason I named this place "No Boxes Allowed" is because I know that first hand. 

Everyone who knows me calls me a study in contradictions.  I am a (nominal) Republican with a Democrat's personality.  Not Republican enough for Republicans but too Republican for Democrats.

I am a security hawk but a social liberal.  I am absolutely and notoriously ruthless on security issues, but think we should have less crimes.  I think the EPA as it stands today is a malevolent force in America, but that we do need laws and regulations to protect the environment.  I'm a scholarly smartass.  I oppose affirmative action but support rights for gays, lesbians and transgendered.  I love "guy" things like football, military history and cars, but also love "girl" things like ballet, dance music, Shakespeare and reading.  I'm happy in a football jersey, a leotard and tights or armor and a skirt.  I'm a fiscal conservative who supports government spending for needed services.  I'm pro-union but I (famously) think some unions have gone way too far and need to be stopped.  I'm a proud ROMAN Catholic who doesn't care about abortion and supports the death penalty, divorce and birth-control.  I want to be the knight in shining armor (so long as that armor is Roman lorica segmentata) but I can't imagine dating a woman who doesn't have or want her own career, her own dreams.

I don't fit in a box.  And people, especially powerful people, really, really don't like that.

And I don't particularly want to fit in a box.  And people, especially powerful people, really, really don't like that even more.

But we're not supposed to fit into boxes.  Boxes are conformist and totalitarian.  All the same.  We're not supposed to be the same.  Not in a free society.

A free society depends on the marketplace of ideas to survive and prosper.  That's why the First Amendment to the Constitution is the First Amendment.  It is unique to Western civilization, and is, to be sure, its guarantor.  We're supposed to be different from each other.  That gives us more ideas to choose from.  Makes us stronger.

Breslin understands that, which is why she has struck out on her own.  Successfully, I might add.

Since Breslin lives in Berkeley, I'm guessing I don't agree with her on much.  But we should all be happy and grateful she has found success escaping the prison boxes of the world.

More developments in the 160th SOAR crash

I have been following with considerable interest the crash of the Chinook helicopter carrying members of the US 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR), which included some 20 members of the Navy's SEAL Team 6, the guys who put Usama bin Laden in his rightful place in Hell. (See earlier posts here and here.)  The Chinook is believed to have been shot down by a rocket propelled grenade fired by the Islamist Taliban, probably in retaliation for killing bin Laden  There have been some new developments.

First, it has been confirmed that the shootdown was no accident or coincidence but was part of a trap set by the Taliban:

A helicopter which crashed killing 30 US troops in Afghanistan was shot down after the Taliban laid a trap to lure US forces into the area, an Afghan government official said on Monday.

"Now it's confirmed that the helicopter was shot down and it was a trap that was set by a Taliban commander," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.