Tag Archives: no-fly zone

Meeting the indefensible with the unthinkable

The onslaught continues, in more ways than one. Putin’s wholly unjustified invasion of Ukraine is entering its third week with no end in sight. At the same time, the corporate media is propagandizing the living hell out of the conflict, platforming rhetoric that could lead to World War III. Nothing less than that.

The Biden Administration has thus far remained cautious with regard to involving the U.S. or NATO directly in Ukraine. They deserve some credit for that, though I’m not sure what the appropriate prize is for NOT burning down the house. Of course, the neocon wing of the Republican party and the various networks are pushing hard to get Biden to agree to some crazy shit. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at how irresponsible they’re being, but it is kind of shocking.

Preaching to the choir

I can’t remember a time when the media worked so hard to convince the American people to support something they already agree with. Their coverage of Ukraine is wall-to-wall, and there’s a meme-like repetitiveness to the content they’re pushing out. I have seen that little boy crying while he’s walking up the street so many times. Then there’s the armed men in the balaclavas who talk about revenge on the Russians and demand a no-fly zone.

I’m not denying the authenticity or even the heartrending nature of some of these clips. But their repetition seems to have a point – we should be doing more. And when the corporate media talks about doing more, it’s always in the context of a conversation with a general. They have been entranced with the U.S. military since the Gulf War, and the national security state is their go-to source on how to end a conflict.

There’s a reason why a majority of Americans support a no-fly zone in Ukraine: they hear it talked about incessantly on T.V. Even when the commentators say it’s a bad idea, the conversation continues as if there’s some controversy.

The planes, boss, the planes

Then there’s the debate over delivering fighter planes to the Ukrainians. Someone cooked up a plan to have Poland give them 26 old MIGs in return for new planes from the United States. The Poles reasonably considered this a bad idea, as it would make it seem as though they were directly involved in the conflict. Then they doubled back and suggested the United States do the transfer via a base in Germany. Not so good.

This story has been hashed over by the press almost incessantly. Very few, however, have questioned the utility of this effort on Ukraine’s behalf. Where would they base these planes, or keep the Russians from bombing them to bits on the first day? How would these 40-year-old MIGs fare against a far larger, modern Russian air force? This is totally beside the fact that such an obvious move would be tantamount to joining the fight in earnest. And yet, the conversation continues, in part because the Ukrainians want the planes, like they want the no-fly zone.

Backing away from the brink

It is incumbent upon those of us who are still sane to encourage the administration and the political class more generally not to make the mistake of becoming a combatant in this war. While many have seemingly forgotten that we are living on a nuclear powder keg, the rest of us need to encourage our fellow Americans not to play with matches.

This is not 1939, folks, Churchill allusions notwithstanding. There were no nukes in 1939. Russia is not prewar Germany, which was the world’s greatest industrial and military power at the time. This is more like 2003, when a rogue superpower decided to defy the world and invade another country for no good reason. There can be no Russo-American war – not now, not ever. Not if the world is to survive. It’s that simple.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

Creeping terror.

This hasn’t been a good week for the Libya enterprise, despite all that has been said and done to push it along in the right direction. Seems like mission creep is taking hold a lot faster than anyone might have guessed possible. It’s been reported that Obama has signed off on a finding to provide arms to the Libyan rebels and that C.I.A. operatives are on the ground and active in support of those forces. No surprise that the C.I.A. is there (it’s the rare nation that has never been the dubious beneficiary of Agency visitors, either invited or not). But that we would learn about it a little more than one week into this campaign is curious. And the word is that they have brought in close air support, including A-10 Warthogs and the like.  

A report by Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman on NPR’s Morning Edition was perhaps unintentionally illustrative of how badly this can go wrong:

“If their defeat is to be prevented, it’s inevitable that they get weapons from somewhere else,” says Frank Anderson, president of the Middle East Policy Council, a nonpartisan think tank. In the 1980s, he worked with the CIA, training Afghan rebels to fight the Soviets.

So… how did that Afghan thing turn out, anyhow? We are talking about a force that has no training, little leadership, few weapons, and no strategic resources to draw upon. Our operatives would effectively need to be their arms and legs, telling them where to move and when to shoot. That sounds, at best, like a formula for perpetual civil war and a divided Libya. However much I sympathize with Gaddafi’s opponents, I honestly don’t see how they can defeat an organized force. I’m not saying it’s not possible – just unlikely, even with an assist from the Agency. So…. what the hell are we doing?

The trouble with Obama’s splendid little war is that, if we were going to save the people of Benghazi by establishing a no-fly zone, we should have simply done so and gone no further. The outcome would not have been ideal – it will not be no matter what we do at this point. But trudging into yet another war is a patently bad idea for this country. If we had a draft (or a requirement that taxes be raised to cover every new conflict), this would never have even begun.

luv u,

jp