samedi 2 avril 2011

How did America get involved?

Just a couple of weeks ago, few Americans (or Canadians for that matter) could imagine their nation would again be in a warlike situation in another Arab country. 

And yet they should have known better...

Like everywhere else, there is an American embassy in Paris whose job it is to represent the USA in France as it is to report to Washington what's going on in this European country. And since both Craig R. Stapleton and Charles Rivkin are qualified professionals, the American administration knows far more about the French political scene and its actors than most of the French themselves. Notwithstanding the American secret services...

So when it comes to the current president of the French Republic they perfectly know how unpredictable, unreliable and irresponsible the man is.

Yet it seems they didn't see it coming: Sarkozy has succeeded in dragging the US of A in Libya which wasn't particularly on the radar screen of America afaik.

How did that happen? 

According to the media (whose reliability is 100% documented) B.H.L persuaded the French President to intervene in Libya so that the rebels who emerged from the upheaval east of Libya wouldn't be massacred by Gaddafi's army. This is when Sarkozy knew he had an opportunity to make a political coup!

Now, whatever how they're called, there are Chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff in each and every country and it is impossible that the French and the British ones (and the generals) didn't warn Sarkozy and Cameron that the French and British aviations couldn't conduct alone the mission they were assigned.

These top brasses knew the American assistance was indispensable and once again it is impossible that the French -and the Brits particularly- didn't exchange with their American counterparts before the strikes were launched. 

Of course Sarkozy was aware of this state of affair but, true to himself, he put the American administration in a quandary not totally unrelated to blackmail: You have no choice but to help us ("Either you're with us or you're against us" anyone?).

Did Sarkozy think of ousting Gaddafi in the first place under the pretence of protecting civilians? For what I now, this line has been used by the State department in order to justify an American participation to the Libyan operations.

Reluctant as it seems it was from the beginning, it looks like the US saw in the Franco-British initiative an opportunity to settle old scores with Gaddafi (La Belle, Lockerbie) which may be the reason why it eventually jumped in the bandwagon.

When asked about an involvement in Libya Obama answered: Days, not weeks! So when the time came for America to withdraw from this thorny affair there was no other option but to handle to NATO the leadership of this intervention. Sarkozy who wanted to be seen as the spearhead of this little war of his own first opposed the move to NATO but finally had to back down and retreat.

Sarkozy eventually was outplayed by the Americans because children shouldn't be left alone playing with matches.

Now the times for the mission creep concept (hi Anijo) has arrived and I have serious doubts Sarkozy ever foresaw there will be one. This is Sarkozy at his best: 1: shoot, 2: aim, 3: think...

15 commentaires:

Anijo a dit…

How did America get involved?

Hillary Clinton had a strong influence. It sure wasn't because of Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined"
~Robert Gates Feb 25, 2011

Asked if there would be American “boots on the ground” — uniformed members of the military — Mr. Gates swiftly replied, “Not as long as I’m in this job.”

And Gates re providing training and weapons: is “not a unique capability for the United States, and as far as I’m concerned, somebody else can do that.”

Flocon a dit…

Merci pour tes informations Anijo

I like it when the post is already half written with just a pic and a title... ;-)

But that isn't the direction I will take though...

There's much reading waiting for me tonight so I'll write the post tomorrow and it will be delivered with your morning cup of coffee (but please, don't wake up at three am...)

Anonyme a dit…

Flocon: I hope your post will include some tips on how to find Kaddafi's tailor. We can all find fault with Kaddafi as a head of state. But the man can make a fashion statement.


Flocon a dit…


"the man can make a fashion statement."

Some Arab heads of State have a knack for being at the forefront of modernity when it comes to fashion.

How about that one for example?

And the distinction comes from an American magazine. Now, that's what I call a recommandation...

Anijo a dit…

By His Own Reckoning, One Man Made Libya a French Cause

Flocon a dit…

Oui, l'article de Erlanger décrit bien le personnage B.H.L

Nulle part ailleurs je n'ai lu d'informations comme celles que donne Erlanger sur le déroulement des négociations entre Sarko, Clinton, Jalil etc.

I had forgotten that point but B.H.L's daughter was married to one of Carla Bruni's former lover. When said lover left her for Bruni, B.H.L's daughter went into a nervous breakdown and wrote a book about it.

Granted, it has nothing to do with America's involvement in Libya...

Robert Gates seems to have been much, much more cautious than Sarkozy (which isn't a feat actually considering Sarkozy's inconsistancy).

The more we learn about this whole affair the more sceptical we are.
- Who will replace Gaddafi?
- Who are the rebels?
- What kind of government do they plan if ever they even a plan?
- How do the other parts of the population feel about them?

[Also, you will notice your order has been delivered for your morning cup of coffee... ;-)]

Anijo a dit…

Also, you will notice your order has been delivered for your morning cup of coffee... ;-)

En effet ! Merci Flocon. ☺
Et puis je me suis réveillé tard ce matin à 5 heures, et non pas à 3heures (comme tu m'a recommandé).

The more we learn about this whole affair the more sceptical we are.
- Who will replace Gaddafi?
- Who are the rebels?
- What kind of government do they plan if ever they even a plan?
- How do the other parts of the population feel about them?

What I don't understand is why the left in both France and the U.S. are not asking these questions.

As stated by Jean Bricmont
The great paradox of our time is that the headquarters of the peace movement are to be found in the Pentagon and the State Department, while the pro-war party is a coalition of neo-conservatives and liberal interventionists of various stripes, including leftist humanitarian warriors, as well as some Greens, feminists or repentant communists.

Flocon a dit…

L'article de Jean Bricmont, sans le mentionner explicitement, évoque le sentiment de culpabilité dont l'Europe de l'ouest est imprégnée (colonialisme, Shoa) au point d'être incapable de voir la réalité telle qu'elle est.

B. Kouchner et A. Glucksmann par exemple ont défendu et justifié un devoir d'intervention pour raisons humanitaires afin de protéger les peuples opprimés par des dictateurs.

Tout le monde est d'accord pour défendre la veuve et l'orphelin mais se pose la question de savoir quand le remède est-il pire que la maladie?

Une autre question m'est souvent venu à l'esprit. Kadhafi est chef d'un État terroriste we all know that but how much of a dictator is he inside Libya?

Les citoyens libyens vivent-il dans la terreur depuis 1969 et la Libye est-elle un État policier comme le sont pratiquement tous les États arabes?

Les rebelles de Benghazi ont-ils été particulièrement persécutés par Kadhafi?

Old enemities die hard it seems and we may soon realize that the purported freedom fighters from the east of Libya aren't exactly what we call democrats.


As a non-native English speaker I can see how the text by Bricmont has been translated. The vocabulary is basic, there's nothing that eludes me.

Had an American or a Brit written a similar text it would be much more elaborate and sophisticated from a linguistic point of view.

Anijo a dit…

I don't know about Bricmont's linguistic skills, but his critique was brilliant.

BHL and the reporters from CNN (such as Wolf Blitzer) and other pro-interventionists do not consider the questions that you pose. They are not concerned with the aftermath.. argh...

Anijo a dit…

An example of pathetic news coverage here on television. The aforementioned Wolf Blitzer was blathering about how we might have to put "boots on the ground" now. After a cursory discussion of what to do re Libya, suddenly the next news story had to do with this.

Moving straight from Libya to cute babies... oof... such a sad state of affairs... :(

Flocon a dit…

"the reporters from CNN (such as Wolf Blitzer) and other pro-interventionists"

I didn't know there were pro-interventionists in the American media.

Did Flashy Woolf (his name in German) propose to engage himself?

I used to watch him when I had my TV set.

I wonder if these people actually believe in the opinions they stand for or if they're doing it for the sake of their ratings?


By the way, le sentiment de culpabilité qui imprègne toute l'Europe de l'ouest rappelle très fortement ce que Nietzsche décrit comme l'expression de valeurs décadentes et mortifères.

Compassion, pitié, commisération, sont à ses yeux des signes certains d'un épuisement du vouloir vivre des individus et des cultures.

Il y voit une atrophie de l'esprit dyonisiaque, l'expression d'une revanche des faibles et des ratés qui expriment leur haine des "forts" en instituant des valeurs opposées à celles des "maîtres".

On n'est pas obligé de suivre Nietzsche aveuglément but he's on to something yet.

C'est le mode de succession des informations qui choque à la radio ou à la télévision.

On ne serait pas choqué dans un journal de lire un article sur la Libye puis ensuite de voir une photo de cute babies parce qu'il faut tourner la page.

I guess you face the same situation that we endure in Europe with football. At any hour of the day or the night, we are informed of the scores of such and such team from such and such town.

The radios dedicate 2 minutes to the situation in Libya or Japan and then we're entitled with at least the same length of sport results report. Aargg...

Ned Ludd a dit…

Wolf Blitzer is more interested in the "security" of Israel than anything else. He shows why Americans cannot get objective news in this debate with Norman Finkelstein.


Blitzer's views are only what he thinks supports Israel, even though Israel has nothing to do with the U.S. and is not the 51st State.

Why should the "security" of Israel be more important to the U.S. than, say, the "security" of Lebanon? There are probably more Americans of Lebanese origin than there are of Israeli origin. I personally know many of the former and none of the latter.

Flocon a dit…

Sarko's little war as seen by Newsweek...

One war with the authorization of the security council of the U.N, with the U.S involved and the NATO whcih had no idea a couple of weeks before that it would intervene in Libya and all that because of B.H.L (and Sarko).

127 tomahawks launched on Tripoli, one American fighter jet down etc.

La tête de B.H.L ne peut plus contenir son ego...

Flocon a dit…


Blitzer is the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and was born in Germany juste after the war. No need to do a thorough analytical research to put two and two together.

"Why should the "security" of Israel be more important to the U.S. than, say, the "security" of Lebanon?"

When you return I'll give a link to a post I wrote on this issue in October 2009.

Anijo a dit…

Speaking of Israel, check this out.