Someone using that moniker wrote to say that "if I had suggestions to make about Libya" I should make them." What? Who? What the hell have we been doing here? pl
« #Afghanistan in the 80s | Main | Some Real Afghan Blowback »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Laugh at the absurdity Colonel.
Posted by: par4 | 31 March 2011 at 06:57 PM
I don't know about suggestions - you seem pretty forthcoming to me.
But I'd like to draw your attention to a piece I just read here : http://greenmountaindaily.com/diary/7582/the-fleas-come-home-to-roost
The post contains a pdf letter from Bernie Sanders to Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and John Walsh asking several questions beginning with "Why would the U.S. government exempt the Arab Banking Cor. from economic sanctions when it is primarily owned by the Central Bank of Libya? "
Posted by: frank | 31 March 2011 at 09:24 PM
Add Libya back to "terror" list?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 31 March 2011 at 11:03 PM
Thanks for your patience.
Posted by: Charles I | 01 April 2011 at 02:51 PM
No, no, no Col. Lang, you have utterly failed to make any constructive suggestions about Libya!
Where is your simple sound bite that encapsulates the preferred solution, tell me that?
If the "solution" hasn't been presented to the masses in a simple sound bite, it doesn't exist. That is all Mr. Principle is saying.
Examples: "The surge", "911 changes everything", "Clear hold and build".
Can we please come up with a sound bite, that doesn't contain any swear words, to explain our entire Libyan strategy?
e.g. "Loving support for democracy from no lower than 10,000 feet".
"Avenging angel of democratic change we can believe in".
The fewer and more imprecise the words the better.
Posted by: walrus | 01 April 2011 at 03:18 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/84378.html
Mike Scheuer, foreign policy realist, intelligence man, and critic of alliance with Israel makes quite different suggestions about Libya than Col. Lang.
Posted by: Ken Hoop | 01 April 2011 at 04:19 PM
ken hoop
I am happy to know that Scheuer does not agree with me. If the opposite were true, I would be troubled. Scheuer is filled with the hardheartedness of those who yearn to show how tough and ruthess they are in spite of the fact that the most hardhearted thing that most of them ever did is take Fido to the vet to be put down. You do understand that he was an analyst, a kind of research scholar? He knows nothing of any kind of warfare including this kind. pl
Posted by: Patrick Lang | 01 April 2011 at 04:50 PM
Ken, the last minute of that interview convinced me that Michael is demented, actually. To say that and put a big beatific smile on your face? The reporters point was valid, IMO.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 01 April 2011 at 06:03 PM
Ken and Mark, mad Mike's best theme, well, my favourite, is that the US should withdraw every soldier from everywhere to be deployed building an Atlantic Wall on your southern border, then all lining up and pointing their guns outwards.
Not sure how the dope and the illegal labour force critical to life as we know it are to be facilitated, never mind the rest of the economy but hell, maybe the Gazans will be able to spare some technical advisors.
Posted by: Charles I | 02 April 2011 at 11:54 AM
Mark,
His National Journal posts were what convinced me.
Posted by: Thomas | 02 April 2011 at 12:49 PM
Mr. Hoop (and anyone else who is interested):
here's one of the best pieces on Rockwell from the libertarian website Reason:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
it also deals with the allegations of racism directed at Congressman Paul.
Posted by: Adam L. Silverman | 02 April 2011 at 10:19 PM
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn
That is a clip from Al Jezeera. At the end it shows rebel fighters being in need of organization, communication equipment and resupply. Didn't you, Colonel Lang, say exactly that over two weeks ago?
Posted by: Jon T | 02 April 2011 at 11:21 PM
A bit of a relapse:
thanks, Pat, for letting us know his take on Scheuer. Makes much sense. At one point during the last years, I decided to ignore Scheuer from now on. I forget exactly what it was about, grand unified theory with a distinctively fictive extreme-right quality?
Thanks, Adam, that's a really helpful article for me. Helps me put diverse matters in the American scene into context.
Didn't you, Colonel Lang, say exactly that over two weeks ago?
I was stunned when the top news about Libya over here, were exactly what Pat had written a couple of days earlier. That's simply hard-earned experience.
Posted by: LeaNder | 03 April 2011 at 06:46 AM
sorry, Pat, "your" opinion.
Posted by: LeaNder | 03 April 2011 at 06:47 AM
Here is a link to an Al Jazeera report saying Special Forces are helping out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1jL4v7x36UU
Posted by: Thomas | 03 April 2011 at 12:52 PM
I am not sure that Pat Lang is correct in his appraisal of Michael Schueur as someone innocent of real life violence. A while back, he took such deep offense at something that I wrote on a National Journal blog that he implored me to do the one honorable thing left to my depraved self: "take a gun, press it to your temple and shoot yourself." I responded directly that since I was unnaturally squemish about splattering my own blood, would he be so generous and come to do the act for me. I am still awaiting to hear whether he is ready to do me this favor.
Posted by: Michael Brenner | 05 April 2011 at 10:08 PM