“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Monday, February 15, 2016

How is Hillary “We came, we saw, He died” Clinton’s War In Libya Working Out?

Libya Is Turning into a Catastrophe: Where Are All the Pundits Who Cheered for Its Invasion?




As the fifth anniversary of the NATO invasion of Libya approaches, news that the Pentagon is preparing to send troops to the north African country barely made headlines in the U.S. The Islamic State, and other jihadi groups control large swaths of the country and a unity government remains elusive.

Libya, which had one of the highest standard of living in Africa before the 2011 invasion, has since become a failed state and a safe-haven for various radical groups. It’s also almost entirely been forgotten by most of the mainstream media.

Publications like New York Times, and The New Yorker have done a fairly thorough job following up, documenting the day-to-day struggles of those living in post-invasion Libya, but, unlike in 2011, it isn’t leading nightly news broadcasts or discussions among cable talking heads. Nor is it a hot topic for the 2016 election. In short, the disaster the United States helped create -- because, unlike Iraq, it doesn’t involve American soldiers coming home in body bags -- has been relegated to the B section, a classic cycle-of-violence world news story rarely put in the context of American military aggression. Most cynical of all: those who advocated most loudly for the war, who cheered on the NATO bombing and the CIA-assisted rebels, are silent.

The people of Libya have gone from their most urgent priority to a non-entity in a matter of five years. Their well-being, while once ostensibly the most important matter for prominent liberal pundits like Nick KristofAnne-Marie Slaughter, and Peter Beinart, is a total non-issue; rarely if ever mentioned by those who championed regime change. But back when the U.S. was prepping for war, they seemingly cared about little else at the time:
Nick Kristof: "Bill Clinton endorsed a no fly zone over Libya. He used one over the Balkans to save lives & we can do the same now."
Anne-Marie Slaughter: "The international community cannot stand by and watch the massacre of Libyan protesters. In Rwanda we watched. In Kosovo we acted". 
Peter Beinart: "And showing that they can be stopped somewhere—first in Bosnia and Kosovo, hopefully now in Libya—may make dictators pause to reflect that they could be next."
Today? Neither Nick Kristof nor Anne-Marie Slaughter have tweeted a substantive reference to Libya since November 2014 and February 2015 respectively and both were in reference to an article calling them on their support for regime change by Glenn Greenwald. Before that Kristof hadn’t substantively mentioned Libya since November 2013, or roughly two-and-a-half years ago and Anne Marie Slaughter has been silent on the topic since August 2014, over a year-and-a-half ago, when she did so in the context of pushing for intervention in Iraq. Anne-Marie Slaughter and Nick Kristof are frequent tweeters, both having sent out about 25,000 posts on the popular social media platform.

Peter Beinart, who was one of the most vocal liberal advocates for war, hasn’t tweeted out a substantive reference to Libya since December 2013 - twenty-seven months ago - and like Slaughter only did so to push for intervention in another country, this time Syria. Libya as such is not only rarely mentioned, it’s only done so to helppush for further military invasions.

Slaughter, Kristof, and Beinart haven’t written any follow-up articles on Libya over the past two years as Libya has descended further into a failed state. In 2011, Slaughter and Kristof both wrote self-congratulatory articles about the “successful” bombing in the fall of 2011; both, in retrospect, very prematurely. Much like the early Iraq War apologia, these are typically marked by hand-picked token Arabs echoing American NatSec conventional wisdom. Kristof has mastered this infomercial-like trope, most notably in his August 2011 Libya war-boosting piece, "Thank You, America!":
As I was walking back from Green Square (now renamed “Martyrs’ Square”) to my hotel on Wednesday morning, a car draped in the victorious Libyan flag pulled up and offered me a lift. “I just want you to feel welcome here,” explained the driver, Sufian al-Gariani, a 21-year-old salesman. He beamed when he heard where I was from and declared: “Thank you, Americans. Thank you, President Obama".
A very ringing endorsement of Mr. Kristof's position, indeed. Where's Sufian now? Unimportant. While there certainly were Libyan elated to see NATO involvement what of those what weren't? What of those who did initially but now regret this decision? 

Destroying a country’s civil society, it turns out is fairly easy, rebuilding it appears to be much more difficult, especially when the foreign powers doing so have no material interest in anything other than managing chaos. Since this chest-beating by our cruise missile heroes in late 2011? Nothing.

If those, like Kristof, Slaughter, and Beinart, still think the invasion was worth the costs, shouldn’t they, given the pending deployment of American troops and the rapid rise of ISIS, be called on to justify it? Even if they think, despite all the unrest left in the war’s wake, it was worth it, shouldn't a five-year review be worth an afternoon of their pundit time?

This is part of our pundit class’s habit of treating regime change like a video game rather than a sober political decision. NATO goes in, kills the big bad bad guy and now the game is won. What happens after the final level, after the Evil Dictator is killed, is irrelevant. Cut to heavily curated crowds of cheering civilians, pump your chest in a series of self-congratulatory op-eds and move on (which, in the case of the three pundits in question, meant campaigning for another regime change in Syria). What happens in 2012, 2014 or today is irrelevant unless it paints a rosy picture, which in the case of Libya never came.

Absent this they simply ignore. No update, no mea culpa, no “what we did wrong.” And when the topic is broached by others, as was the case with Greenwald in 2014, simply blame the vague, catch-all "follow-up" or “planning for the aftermath.” Same catch-all excuse for the destruction of other countries offered up by countless Iraq war cheerleaders: it was the “planning for the aftermath.” Always the “aftermath.”

Never mind the fact that the “aftermath” was precisely the reason anti-war advocates opposed regime change in Libya to begin with. Just as with Iraq war boosters are prone to credulously turn around and sheepishly ask: Who could have known? Except several left wing voices knew and said what would happen in no uncertain terms. Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, the aforementioned Glenn Greenwald, Michael Moore - a whole host of pundits and politicians were skeptical due, in large part, to the lessons of Iraq.

Even after Greenwald pointed out Slaughter and Kristof’s silence on Libya over a year ago - and we know both read it because they both responded on Twitter - they, along with Beinart, still haven’t followed up. No reporting. No dispatches. No interviews with hand-picked Arabs who help prop up the State Department narrative.

As ISIS furthers its grip on Libya and American troops ready to join yet another fight overseas, it’s prudent to ask those in a position of power to at least follow up on the mess they themselves help create.

Adam Johnson is an associate editor at AlterNet. Follow him on Twitter at @adamjohnsonnyc.


  1. Chelsea is just not a Vegas gal.

    She is playing to empty chairs.

    They got better things to do, and so would I.

    And Hillary ought to change out of that mustard colored coverall she wears.

  2. I was for safe zones before safe zones were cool.


    Plan B in Syria: US should consider safe zone if cease-fire fails

    Back when I was for safe zones, people that were for safe zones were called 'war mongers' by people like Quirk, and Ash.

    1. .

      No what I called them were nitwits.


    2. Which is to say, you were pro war zone, anti safe zone, then. eh ?

      Covered in blood, guts, severed heads, raped women, covered in wailing all around, you were.

      Only a 'nitwit', the worst entity in your lexicon, would be pro safe zones.

      How can you sleep with yourself at night ?


    3. ... and you called the premier supporter of the Kurds 'repugnant', "Counterfeit Bob"


    4. While giving undying loyalty to those that bought the 'conflict oil' from the Islamic State.

      Those that are financing the terror being perpetrated upon the Kurds, the Israeli and the Turks.

    5. .

      Which is to say, you were pro war zone, anti safe zone, then. eh ?

      Logical fallacy: False Dilemma.

      Covered in blood, guts, severed heads, raped women, covered in wailing all around, you were.

      Logical fallacies: False Dilemma married with red herring and expediency.

      Only a 'nitwit', the worst entity in your lexicon, would be pro safe zones.


      How can you sleep with yourself at night ?

      I've tried doing it other ways but it doesn't seem to work.


  3. The pundits - if there were any - that were cheering for invading Libya would say it's the mess it's in because we didn't invade.

    I don't recall a groundswell of pundits cheering for invading Libya, but I might have been reading a book at the time, or been out at the Casino.

    Anyway I do remember Q-Ducky begging not to be sodomized by a bayonet, and his requests were not granted.

    Since then the whole place has split up along old pre-Islamic tribal lines, hasn't it, going back to Roman times, with ISIS holding some cities.

    And I was told Islam came to bring people together.

    I don't believe it.

    Hasn't worked.

  4. I am hoping to start a WAR between Deuce and Rufus here -

    Sanders supporters discovering superdelegates rigged against them
    February 15, 2016

    Starting to figure out how corrupt the Democratic Party is.


    American Thinker

  5. The ISIS threat is definitely growing in Libya. Over the weekend, Islamic State militants operating near Benghazi claimed they were able to shoot down a MiG-23 fighter belonging to the internationally-recognized government.

    There are fears that ISIS might actually be preparing to relocate its “caliphate” to Libya, as its grasp on Syrian territory becomes untenable in the face of the Russian-Iranian-Assad onslaught.

    Haaretz reported over the weekend that foreign-born ISIS fighters seemed especially willing to hand territory back to the Assad regime (which they actually hate less than they hate rival elements of the Syrian rebellion.) This report notes ISIS recently announced the completion of a training course for fighters intended to help capture the suburbs of Tripoli, while a recent Islamic State document hungrily described Libya as “a theater of action that provides incomparable access for attacking Europe and vessels at sea.”

  6. See The Criminal bark like a dog here -

    Hillary Clinton barks like a dog to slam Republicans

    By Dan Merica, CNN

    Updated 8:34 PM ET, Mon February 15, 2016 | Video Source: CNN


    Kind of 'stump speech' that appeals to voters of Rufian mentality.

    woof woof woof


  7. as its grasp on Syrian territory becomes untenable in the face of the Russian-Iranian-Assad onslaught.

    Wait just one doggone minute ...

    Counterfeit Bob, allen and a whole host of other neocons and chickenhawks said that couldn't happen.
    That only US intervention could stop the Islamic State in Syria.


    1. Or those that aid that even with military intervention, that the Islamic State was so ingrained in Syria, that they could never be deposed.

    2. When all that was required, closing the supply lines to Turkey and the application of close air support to those local forces actually fighting the terrorists.

      You all remember ... The Rat Doctrine

    3. .

      The Rat Doctrine: A term used to describe close air support, a tactic initially used in WWI and expanded throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

      The designation 'Rat Doctrine' was named after the rat, first as a joke but then embraced by the man himself. The rat posited the tactic as the number 42 of modern warfare. And despite the snickers and jibes continues to do so to this very day.



    4. No, Q, the Rat Doctrine is the use of close air support supplied by a major power, called in and directed by local forces.

      This is something that the US has never done in the past. NEVER

      The utilization of foreign Forward Air Controllers is something that is not in the US doctrine. It' first utilization was at Kobane, in 2014.

      Now, I have read that the Syrians are supplying the Russians with the targeting data sets. Something that the US military has been loath to accept.


    5. It was Jack Hawkins who coined the phrase Rat Doctrine and will continue to utilize it, especially when it is so successfully implemented against the Islamic State.

    6. Come on, "Fraudulent Jack", we all KNOW rat and Jack are you along with another 12 or so logins which you have bragged about you.

      You are a walking liar, you misdirect, slander and distort.

    7. Now, now, "O"rdure ...

      Let' tick to the facts of Soadstream and the effectiveness of the Boycott Divest and Sanction movement on the Zionist economy of Israel.

      How the Zionists say that to not allow "Made in Israel" labels on product made in Palestine is 'anti-Semitic, but labeling them "Made in Israel" is not.

      People will buy "Made in Israel" but not "Made in the Occupied Territories".
      It has nothing to do with the Semitic origin of the product, but the hateful ideology of Zionist Apartheid.

    8. What is "Occupation"Sat Jul 19, 10:54:00 PM EDTit's a great time to buy the stock (Sodastream) Herr Rodent..
      It's undervalued. ($29.11)
      you really just don't understand business..

      That was then ...
      This is now

      Let us review ...
      "O"rdure recommends buying Sodastream on 19July 2014 at $29.11 telling us it was undervalued.

      On 5FEB2016 Sodastream closed at $13.21.
      A decline of $15.90 per share or 54.6% since "O"rdure told us it was 'undervalued'.

      Someone really does not understand business, and it ain't Herr Rodent

    9. Currently on 16FEB2016 Sodstream is trading at $13.10

    10. $13.02 ... dropping like a rock in the Med.


    11. The BDS campaign against Sodastream has been quite successful.
      Little wonder, then, that the BDS movement has Tel Aviv's pantie in a knot


    12. ... the BDS movement has Tel Aviv's panties in a knot

  8. .

    How about we ask our kids this,

    Do you really want to start a war with these dumbfuck yahoos over standing and mouthing a few words every morning?

    Do we really have nothing better to do?

    I have to agree with the Rufster on this one.

    The courts have said kids don't have to recite the pledge if they don't want to. Any teacher that doesn't understand that should be reprimanded and reminded of that. If they continue they should be fired or put in charge of the cheer leading squad.

    However, in general, the question becomes "Who really gives a shit?"

    It's certainly not the ordinary kid. Think back to when you were reciting the pledge. Did you even thing about the words you were saying or was it just a rote exercise, one more silly thing to do in homeroom.

    No the only kids who 'give a shit' are those taught to be offended by groups like the AHA's legal center.




    1. There were those, back in the late 1960's, that refused to take the oath.

    2. Bullshitter rathole has been putting lots of words in lots of other people's mouths.

      If would be a lot better if not so many words, in fact, none at all, came out of the mouth of the Dead Beat Dad.

      I'm going back to watching 'Lucifer', with my wife.

      He's never been turned down by a woman....

      And it certainly beats reading rat's shit...

      Even the Rufus daily listing of ISIS bed down positions attacked or destroyed is more interesting reading.....

      Hell, listening to Hillary bark is more interesting....


    3. Come now, "Counterfeit Bob" open your mind and learn something.
      As radical an idea as that may be, to a draft dodger like you

    4. Come on, "Fraudulent Jack" open your mind and learn something.
      As radical an idea as that may be, to a self confessed criminal like you.


    5. Show us this alleged confession, "O"rdure.

      Chapter and Vere, por favor.

    6. Verse ... the 's' is sticking ...

      oh, well ...

      Not that it matters.

    7. "Fraudulent Jack" we have repeatedly proven your criminal intent and have evidenced same.

      You just deny it...

      "Fraudulent Jack" over and over it has played...

      From the famous lies of the AZ FBI, to the stalking of the Chocolate Emporium, to the pot selling and gun selling...

      Not to mention your stalking, or your claims to be an Ollie North Black ops paid muscle..

      We all have been here...

      From your lies about Stallone and your bullshit your so called 350 acres in "trust'

      "Fraudulent Jack" you are a nothing..

    8. Not to mention your fantasies about Israelis, ghost ip's, and other funny things..

      "Fraudulent Jack" you are actually insane

    9. All I can say to that, "O"rdure is ...

      Rocco Wachman

  9. No Exit

    Eliot Spitzer, Hillary Clinton, and Billygoat Clinton in the same jail cell together.......forever



    1. Unable to utilize a Google account, "Counterfeit Bob" once again fails the functional literacy test needed to participate in public discourse in the 21st century

    2. This blog does not require a "google" account to post, it offers several methods to post.

      Just as this blog does not require folks to use their real identities. "Fraudulent Jack" fails the moral test needed to participate in the public discourse in the 21st century.


    3. It was "Counterfeit Bob" who wanted a literacy test for competency ... he is getting one.

      If it is good for the goose, it is good for "Counterfeit Bob"

    4. But "Fraudulent Jack" you discount everything Bob says.

      Are you now going to give equal weight to all of his statements? Or just pick and choose?

      "Fraudulent Jack" you do not have the moral authority to comment on JACK here at the blog.

      The readers have voted with their feet because of you...


    5. Allah = Yahweh
      hat tip: "Ordure.


    6. As for voting ...
      Jack Hawkins has had ... 483,453 views as of today

      While you, dear "O"rdure have yet to garner 500.


    In an exclusive interview with The Brody File down in South Carolina, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz says believers in Jesus Christ must stand and vote biblical values rather than letting non-believers selected the leaders of our country.

    "For far too long, Christians have been staying home, have been ceding the public square to non-believers and when we look at the state of the country, when our heart weeps at what's happening to the country and we wonder why is it that the federal government is waging war on life, is waging war on marriage, is waging war on religious liberty is it any wonder when 54 million evangelical Christians stayed home in 2012, did not vote?”

    Cruz continues: "If we allow our leaders to be selected from non-believers we shouldn't be surprised when our leaders don't share our values. So what I'm working to do more than anything else is energize and empower the grassroots and do everything we can for Christians to stand up and vote biblical values."