Why is Grayson asking for $$$ ??

[Born_A_Truman]

From my email today:

Dear Pat,

One of the unfortunate imperatives of public life is that when something is the lead story, you think you’ve got to be doing something about it. Not just have an opinion on it. Be doing something about it.

Volcano erupts? Prepare a news release on the new anti-volcano policy.

Zombies are multiplying? Introduce anti-zombie legislation.

Well, Libya’s been on the front page for a month now. Demonstrations. Civil unrest. Army attacks, etc. So our world leaders think that they’ve got to be doing something about it.

Hence the Libya no-fly zone.

Here is a link to UN Security Resolution 1973, authorizing the Libya no-fly zone. It shows a laudable, albeit rather repetitive, concern for civilian wellbeing. It also completely fails to explain how a no-fly zone will ensure the safety of civilians.

The Libyan Air Force hasn’t received a major delivery of new aircraft in 22 years. Roughly three-quarters of its “air”craft can’t fly.

It is true that the Libyan Air Force, such as it is, has been deployed. But the serious threat to civilians in Libya is not from the Libyan Air Force. It’s from the government security forces on the ground. A no-fly zone does not take away their guns, or their artillery.

For outsiders like us, there are two questions to answer:
(1) Do you want Gaddafi in or out?
(2) Either way, what are you willing to do about it?

Here are my answers:

(1) Out, because Gaddafi is a dictator who has stunted the development of his country and its people (although in a list of the 5,000 things that are most important to America, I’d have to rank this close to the bottom, even if it is on the evening news every night).

(2) Economic sanctions, including extending the de facto oil embargo and asset freeze that already are in effect.

And it’s likely that an oil embargo/asset freeze will work. Oil is 95% of Libya’s exports, and 25% of GNP. Libya has about four years of oil revenue in the bank, but with an asset freeze and economic sanctions, that becomes meaningless.

Whatever the result in the streets, as soon as Gaddafi runs out of money, he’s gone.

But a no-fly zone? In the case of Libya, that’s a tactic in search of a strategy. The Yiddish word for it is “shmei,” roughly translated as aimless strolling around. A no-fly zone is basically just looking like you’re doing something to remove Gaddafi, at the cost of $60 million in a day (which was the cost of the first day’s worth of cruise missiles launched).

The last time we tried this, in Iraq, we had to sustain it for 12 years. At enormous effort and expense. And it didn’t bring down Saddam at all.

More fundamentally, a no-fly zone in Libya feeds the dangerous fantasy that every problem has a military solution. That the answer to the use of force is the use of more force. That if a hammer doesn’t drive that nail in, try a howitzer.

It was Mao Tse-Tung who said that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Do we really want Mao’s principles running our foreign policy?

Sincerely,
Alan Grayson

“I said you wanna be startin’ somethin’
You got to be startin’ somethin’
I said you wanna be startin’ somethin’
You got to be startin’ somethin’”
 Michael Jackson

CONTRIBUTE

[Born_A_Truman]

Kucinich critique turns into push for funds

(CNN)- Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich is transforming his critique of President Obama's actions in Libya into a fundraising plea, asking supporters to decide whether they like President Obama or the Constitution more.

After calling the president's decision to act in Libya an "impeachable offense," Kucinich Monday posted a letter on his website asking supporters for help in "putting together a broad fundraising structure to make sure that I'll have the resources to continue to be a voice in the Unites States Congress."

[RoyGBiv]

Well, this begs the question of when economic sanctions have worked to oust a dictator.

Perhaps it has happened. I can't think of a time.

In any case, there are certainly questions about the efficacy of a no-fly zone in convincing Qaddafi to leave. I don't in fact believe it will convince him. But, I think the strategy here isn't as straightforward as that. What is being attempted, I think, is demoralization of the armed forces on the ground to the extent that they, at minimum, won't fight in great enough numbers to withstand the rebels or, at best, convince the military leadership to take matters into their own hands and remove Qaddafi themselves.

As for why he's asking for money, I imagine he intends to run again.

[Ikonoklast]

(03-23-2011 02:03 AM)RoyGBiv Wrote:  Well, this begs the question of when economic sanctions have worked to oust a dictator.

Perhaps it has happened. I can't think of a time.

It's working with Castro...just give it a liiiiiiitle more time.

[Julie]

Just milking the barbiturate left which is so common these days.

Julie

[NJMaverick]

"An embargo will work"? I think this guy has been smoking too much of what his fans enjoy. History has repeatedly shown embargos don't work. It failed to take out Castro for 50 years and it didn't stop Saddam for a good 20. Grayson you are becoming part of the problem and not part of the solution. Perhaps you should have looked to why you LOST your reelection bid and adjust your positions rather than just whining and complaining and second guessing.

[Still a Democrat]

"Libya has about four years of oil revenue in the bank, but with an asset freeze and economic sanctions, that becomes meaningless."

So the brutality continues another four years then we see what happens?

Grayson would be the first one bitching how the sanctions were hurting the population and not Qaddafi.

[Peadar O Suileabhain]

[Dagnabit]

Hmm you know i loved this guy railing against the pukes, but he seems to have lost his rationality of late.

Wasnt lybia under extreme sanctions from us for years of the lockerbie bombing? it didnt seem to have much of an impact on khadaffi then whay would it now.

I am of the belief that sanctions do far more harm to the populace of these countries as a whole than it does to the leadership. Even so isnt the purpose of sanctions to get the people of the country to remove their leadership themselves? and isnt that what the rebels in lybia are trying to do? Shouldnt we support them?

And what difference does it make how old planes are? If there is no counter too them you can bomb people in an old byplane and if the oposition has no planes of their own then you rules the skies and that is a huge advantage. Hell we win wars now by rulling the air. You can not minimize the advantage air control gives you just because the planes are old.

I dont know what you are up to Allen but I dont think I am on the same page as you on this one.