Saving Benghazi

If you want to oppose the military intervention in Libya because you think a) the U.S. should never intervene anywhere under any conditions b)  this intervention will lead to a quagmire ground war with U.S. troops c) you are a simple isolationist d) you don't give a flip about Arabs d) we cannot afford this economically e) or you believe this is unconstitutional, then I can disagree with your affirmations but accept they are offered in good faith and have some reasonable grounding.

But tell me this is an "attack on a Muslim nation," that this is senseless killing of innocent civilians or that this is an unnecessary commencement of a war, then all I can say is cut the crap.

This war was begun by a monstrous dictator who has ruled, unelected and unchecked, through torture, murder and repression while he and his perverted sons have sacked their nation of billions. When civilians, or as you prefer — innocent civilians– finally rose up and said they had had enough, it was Mr. Gaddafi who initiated the war. All he did was kill innocent civilians and threaten to kill thousands more.  Given that NO information from Libyan sources is reliable, the number of people this fascist has butchered in the last month are unknown.  Conservative estimates are a minimum of 2,000. Opposition sources say the figure is more than 8,000.

THOSE are the innocent civilians murdered in this war — not by U.S. or U.K. or French munitions but rather by their own government.

The western military intervention, if anything, was late. Obama, understandably, was hesitant to act precisely because he was acutely aware of the damage inflicted on U.S. prestige by its intervention in Iraq.  He waited as long as he could, which was probably a bit too long, but he — and the Europeans– had their hand forced this week as Gaddafi massed his armies on the outskirts of Benghazi and the mad dictator went on state TV and promised a wholesale massacre.

I see no option other than to have supported this military action and — tonight– less than 48 hrs. later, I am rather heartened by what I read.

The Wall Street Journal carries eyewitness reports on how the allied air strikes wiped out a Gaddafi armed column, blunting the attack on Benghazi. The wreckage seen by reporters were stretched out over a delightful 15 miles. This was not a trail of dead civilians. These were the smoked-out remnants of military attack force of the dictatorship.

The Guardian carries a similar report on how some of Gaddafi's ground forces have been chewed up by the allied strikes. May that chewing continue, please.

And we learn that one of the administrative buildings in Gaddafi's command compound was also flattened Sunday night — probably by a European-launched missile.

These seem like worthy targets to me. And the Libyan revolutionary forces are asking for even more intensified strikes.

Thank heavens they don't have to rely on the shriveled conscience of American cafe revolutionaries to have their wishes granted.

P.S. This is sort of off point, but something I feel like remarking upon. Read through the #Libya and #NFZ Twitter feeds, I am seeing a lot of hand-wringing retweets condemning the intervention that originate from @MMflint.  That's Michael Moore (remember him? The guy who portrayed Saddam's Hussein as one big kite-flying field).  Anyway, clicking over to his Twitter home page, I noticed that Moore has just about 800,000 followers — sort of the number you would expect from a man with so many admirers.  And how many people does he follow back? How many fellow Tweeps in the whole world does he think it is worth following and reading? Or, at a more base level, to how many of his fans does he believe he owes a simple click of the mouse to return a droplet of recognition, of gratitude, of acknowledgment?   200,000? 100,000? 10.000? 1,000? 100?

Nah. 68.  This has got nothing to do with Moore's political positions. But to me, it's a little detail that tells you a lot about the character of the man — or the lack thereof.