Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
ChrisWeigant.com is currently experiencing intermittent power outages at our server company. We are in the midst of a winter rainstorm, so this may go on for the immediate future. I am going to try to post an article today as normal, but if it doesn't appear, it is likely I am sitting here reading a book with a candle, instead.
Since the topic of the week seems to be rampant speculation about the success of what I'm calling Obama's Libyan Gamble, I thought it would be worth the time to examine all the possible future outcomes. When I sat down to write this, I was thinking of "Libya, One Month From Now" as a title, but then realized that the time scale didn't need to be that concrete. The exact amount of time things take isn't going to matter as much as what the actual outcome will be, in other words. So take this article as an examination of the "short term" prospects for success and failure in Libya -- say, from now until about two months down the road. Again -- win or lose -- I don't think "two weeks" versus "six weeks" is really going to be the operative factor. But I did want to limit things to just the short term -- because if this goes on beyond a few months, it is going to have a much different effect on the coalition's willingness to continue, the way the world sees the conflict, the price of oil, and how the American public will view President Obama's war plan (and President Obama himself).
So let's examine the short-term possibilities. Broadly speaking, there are only three possible outcomes, although there are certainly endless subdivisions within these three. But this future-telling stuff is hard enough as it is, so let's examine the three basic Libyan possibilities, from worst to best. Then, at the end, I will attempt to use my gut feelings to predict the likelihood of each of these outcomes. Don't read too much into my predictions, and feel free to make your own, as always.
[Program Note: Normally, I am not prone to simply running a politician's press release as-is, with no editing or commentary. Today, however, I had to seek out this press release from Senator Chuck Schumer's office, because the story it tells is so extraordinary. Schumer is pushing for the highest military medal this country gives -- the Medal of Honor -- for Sergeant Henry Johnson, a black soldier from World War I who eminently deserves the honor. But, as his son (who was one of the Tuskegee Airmen) put it, back then "they would not give black people any honors." His father was injured 21 times in the war, but his family had to wait 79 years for him even to be awarded a Purple Heart. And a further six years before getting a Distinguished Service Cross (the military's second-highest honor). Read the whole saga on the Arlington National Cemetery website, or check out a photo of his grave. As for the new developments in the story, I decided today to run un-edited Schumer's press release, which explains some very important new evidence which has just been uncovered.]
-- Chris Weigant
SCHUMER REVEALS NEWLY DISCOVERED DOCUMENTS THAT COULD FINALLY SECURE THE MEDAL OF HONOR FOR SGT. HENRY JOHNSON -- SCHUMER WILL PRESS ARMY TO REOPEN THE CASE IN LIGHT OF KEY EVIDENCE
Never Before Considered Communication From General John Pershing Detailing World War I Fight and New Primary Source Documentation of Eyewitness Account Greatly Boost The Case For Johnson To Receive Medal of Honor
Henry Johnson, A Resident of Albany, Joined the All-Black New York National Guard Unit, The Legendary "Harlem Hellfighters"
Schumer Helped Obtain The Distinguished Service Cross, Has Been Leading The Fight To Get Johnson The Awards Denied Him During Segregationist Era
Schumer: These Amazing New Documents Paint A Compelling Case To Finally Give This American Hero the Top Military Award He Earned With His Bravery So Many Years Ago
Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced that his office has uncovered new evidence that dramatically strengthens Sgt. Henry Johnson's case for the Medal of Honor. Standing at the base of the Henry Johnson Statue, Schumer revealed the new documents, and called on the U.S. Army to reopen Johnson's case for a Medal of Honor in light of the never before considered evidence. Of particular significance is a memo from General John Pershing, the World War I Army Commander in Chief, which details Henry Johnson's bravery and self-sacrifice during the May 1918 fight. This document is critical to Johnson's case because receiving the Medal of Honor requires a chain-of command endorsement, and Johnson's previous award recommendation was lacking this vital piece of the puzzle. Moreover, having a chain-of-command endorsement from the Commander of the American Expeditionary Force is an extraordinary development in the evolution of our understanding of an extraordinary story. A second, and also significant, new piece of primary historical documentation has also surfaced -- an eyewitness description from the soldier Johnson saved, Mr. Neadom Roberts.
President Obama decided late last week to begin military action against Libya. By doing so, America has entered not a third but a fifth war in Muslim lands (people tend to brush aside our limited warfare in Pakistan and Yemen, but that doesn't mean they don't exist). I used to scoff at the Pentagon's insistence (during the budget fights under President Clinton) that they be able to wage two wars simultaneously, but fighting only two wars now seems a bit of a quaint notion. President Obama has made a rather large gamble on Libya, but if things go well it might just become a model for American involvement in other twenty-first century conflicts. That a mighty big "if" at this point, I fully realize. But whether the gamble pays off or not for America (and for Obama), it shouldn't deter us from at least examining what Obama seems to be attempting.
Normally, I begin these articles with a few words on the most amusing idiocies of the week, served up by both the political world and the media universe. This week, however, we have two very serious subjects to tackle (although I will slip a little media-bashing in at the end, I promise) -- our next war, and the nuclear crisis in Japan.
It looks like we're about to enter our next war, which could begin literally at any moment (the bombs have not yet begun to fall, as I write this). We're already militarily involved with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, so Libya will actually be the fifth country America's military will be engaged with. Whether this will turn out to be a good idea or not is an open question, but within the next day or so we'll be patrolling the "no-fly" zone, with United Nations approval. The media, of course, will go along for the ride. There's nothing like some video of cruise missiles launching and fighters taking off from an aircraft carrier to boost ratings, right?
If I sound a bit pessimistic, well, I apologize. I've previously come out against the idea of the no-fly zone, for two main reasons: it is open-ended, and it might not achieve the main objective. I'm now a little more optimistic on the latter, since the U.N. resolution goes farther than just declaring a no-fly zone, it actually seems to authorize attacking the Libyan ground forces from the air. This means it may be more effective at providing a safe haven for the rebels than simply barring Libyan aircraft from the skies.
[Program Note: My physician has recommended that the best way to avoid radiation exposure from the plume which is wafting its way towards my home is to ingest a prodigious amount of Sir Arthur Guinness' fine product, as well as a touch of uisce beatha, ("water of life" in Gaelic, or "shots of Jameson's whiskey" to you and me). So you'll excuse me, as I am now off to follow doctor's orders. I leave you today with this fine column I penned last year. Happy Paddy's Day, everyone!]
[Originally published 3/17/11]
First off, Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig!
For our non-Gaelic-speaking readers, Happy Saint Patrick's Day!
Saint Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, lived in the fifth century A.D., and he came to Ireland as a proselytizer for Christianity. That is about the sum total of the known, verifiable facts about Patrick. The rest is myth. Since such mythologizing began only a few hundred years after his death (which happened on March 17, by the way), these myths of Patrick are much more widely known than the thin shreds of his real history (which are limited to two surviving letters written by Patrick in Latin). Besides, it's much more fun to sit around telling these tales over a pint of Guinness than to dig up actual facts. Even if the tales are pure blarney.
Are Democrats starting to play some offense? Three reports seem to lead to this conclusion, although at this point it is too early to tell what sort of effect this will have on the political landscape, for both the near future and for the 2012 election season. For now, it is refreshing to see Democrats pushing back on a few key issues, whatever their chances of legislative (or political) success happen to be. And the Democrats have picked three pretty good issues with which to launch this particular offensive -- the mortgage crisis, gay marriage, and taxing millionaires.
Japan is currently experiencing a nuclear crisis which will go down in history alongside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (to say nothing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima). But I've noticed that news reports are almost all full of nothing more than sheer speculation about what has actually happened, what is happening right now, and what may happen in the near future at the nuclear reactor complexes which have been affected. There's a reason for this, of course, and the reason is that nobody really knows exactly what is going on. This, however, is not what consumers of news wish to hear. Instead, we get a steady diet of speculation -- without any notification of the speculative nature of what we're being told. And without the speculation even being all that informative.
This is par for the course in any fast-changing event in the media. Whether it's a war or a natural disaster (or any other big and dynamic event), our 24-hour television news media is faced with a problem. Video and factual information trickles in, but in between the video loops you've got to fill up the time with something or another until the next one arrives. Enter the "expert" willing to speculate (often for a hefty fee as a "news consultant"). Because the Japanese disaster story began with an earthquake, followed by a caught-on-camera tsunami, the nuclear disaster story lagged behind these more-familiar disaster stories. Finally, last night, a few actual physicists made it on screen. But their pronouncements were taken as gospel, instead of being properly labeled as speculation, or (at best) "informed guesswork."
I am not going to make this mistake here. I am going to attempt to write about the nuclear disaster in Japan, sitting in the comfort of my own home, and I could get things wildly wrong. Such is the nature of speculation. But I'm also going to attempt to lay out a few things which haven't really been identified in the news reports, as well, in the hopes of at least getting people to start asking the right questions.
The world's opinion-makers, in both government and media, seem to have settled on the idea that imposing a "no-fly zone" over Libya would be a good idea for all concerned. Not everyone has jumped on this bandwagon yet, but it seems to be the most popular option under discussion by those advocating "doing something" about the situation in Libya. But would a no-fly zone really change the dynamic all that much? Even if it had been imposed two weeks ago, would it have achieved any real goal? These are hard questions to answer, but anyone advocating a no-fly zone (especially one largely imposed by the U.S. military) really does need to at least consider them.
Put aside the global politics of the situation, and assume for the sake of argument that all the relevant international bodies backed the no-fly zone (the U.N., N.A.T.O., regional organizations such as the Arab League). This is far from where we currently stand, since China and Russia have their own ideas about when the international community should intervene in situations like the one in Libya (remember Tiananmen Square?). But assume for now that all the international groups gave the no-fly zone a green light.
The first thing that would happen, most likely, is that a U.S. aircraft carrier would position itself off Libya's shore. A swift attack would follow, on the radars and air defense capability Libya possesses. To "own the skies" you have to wipe out not only the missiles on the ground, but also the "eyes" (radars) which are capable of tracking your flights. This may also coincide with pre-emptive strikes against the airfields themselves (bombing the runways so they cannot be used), and against the planes in the hangars (again, so they cannot be used). Any Libyan planes which rose to defend against this attack would also be fair game, of course.
I have every confidence that the United States military is fully capable of success in such an attack. Within hours, we could wipe out the radars, anti-aircraft batteries and missiles, airfields, and (if we chose) a goodly portion of the Libyan Air Force's planes and helicopters. And that this would -- both militarily and psychologically -- be a huge victory over Ghaddafi's forces. But, even having said that, would it truly change much of anything on the ground? Even if it had happened two weeks ago?
Last night my local television news led off their broadcast with the first video of the devastation in Japan. An absolutely enormous earthquake had struck off the coast -- an earthquake almost one hundred times as big as the one which hit San Francisco in 1989 (the Richter scale is logarithmic -- the difference between 7.0 and 9.0 is a factor of 100 -- and the Loma Prieta quake was either a 6.9 or a 7.1 while the Japanese quake was either an 8.8 or an 8.9). That is a big quake, folks. Video was streamed live of the four-meter-tall tsunami wave destroying and carrying away everything it touched -- cars, semi trucks, boats, buildings (some of them still on fire). It was a stunning bit of truly breaking news.
And then -- you simply can't make this stuff up -- the anchor uttered the worst segue I think I've ever heard, possibly the worst in all of television news history: "We turn from the live feed of the tsunami in Japan to a police raid on Charlie Sheen's house in Los Angeles...."
Chalk one more up on the "only in America" media chalkboard, I guess. Sigh. Which means, for the second week in a row, I must begin with the all-encompassing statement: "In non-Charlie-Sheen news..."
