That Didn't Take Long

Last Friday I wrote a post arguing that we were setting a bad precedent by launching a military intervention based on a UN resolution centered around the notion of protecting civilians.

Is there the slightest doubt that the next time Israel has to launch a major military action there will be calls for international action to protect civilians?

Our nominal ally and now Islamist-led Turkey didn't even wait until the next major Israeli operation. Here's the Deputy Prime-minister.

We wish that the United Nations had made similar resolutions, and countries had taken action, in the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine and other regions,"

I didn't expect to be proven correct quite that fast.

Now What in Libya?

The utter cluelessness and incompetence of Obama in foreign policy is on display for all to see, yet again.

Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the outcome of military action from the air was "very uncertain" and made it clear that Washington did not see the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn as removing the Libyan leader from power.

So we're intevening in a foreign civil war against a long-time enemy of the U.S., but we aren't planning on actually doing anything particularly useful. So why are we there?

"The goals are limited. It's not about seeing him go. It's about supporting the United Nations resolution which talked about eliminating his ability to kill his own people."

Is the administration really that stupid? I have to believe that Admiral Mullen must have been fighting the urge to gag when he repeated that nonsense. He's serving complete fools who think it's a good idea to turn the U.S. military into the air and sea equivalent of UN peacekeepers, who sort of intervene in conflicts, but not too much.

Intervening in this civil war was a bad idea, but what makes a positive outcome the most likely? I can think of one thing and one thing only: the quick death of Moammar Gaddafi. The best case scenario is that the death of Gaddafi will cause the quick collapse of the regime and its supporting forces. A new government will form, and the reason for intervention will no longer exist. I realize this is a best case scenario, and that the death of Gaddafi might not end the war. But it's worth a shot. Instead of continuing to bleat our ridiculous mantra about protecting civilians, and pretending that the UN resolution has any real meaning except as an excuse for intervention, we should direct our efforts at killing Gaddafi, his relatives, and any other potential leaders who might take over in his absence.

Setting a Bad Precedent With Libya

I'm opposed to U.S. intervention in Libya because I don't see it as necessary for U.S. interests, or necessary at all. France & Britain, which are gung-ho to act against Gaddafi, can easily turn the tide in favor of the rebels without U.S. assistance. But the UN resolution for intervention also sets a bad precedent that could harm U.S. interests in the future. The justification is based on protecting civilians. If you read the resolution, you will note that the words "to protect civilians" appear repeatedly.

If protecting civilians is a good justification for war, then it justifies any intervention in a foreign conflict. Civilians die in all modern wars. Sometimes they are targeted deliberately, but many times they are killed by accident. And sometimes they are killed because even though they are civilians, they are taking part in hostilities. Any government attempting to put down a rebellion has to kill civilians. Rebels usually don't have their own military, at least not in the initial stages. Armed rebels mingle with and hide amongst unarmed civilians. Even belligerents that care whether or not they kill civilians are going to have to kill some in order to fight at all. It should be obvious, since we have ongoing wars, that counterinsurgency operations require that some numbers of civilians die, no matter what extreme measures are taken to limit casualties.

Anti-American types at home and abroad are constantly condemning the U.S. for killing civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. At some time in the future, will the U.S. face a U.N. led effort to intervene against us, justified by the supposed need to protect civilians? Is there the slightest doubt that the next time Israel has to launch a major military action there will be calls for international action to protect civilians?

What we are doing by signing on to this foolish UN resolution is handing our enemies a club to beat us with in the future. But as usual, our government never looks at the unintended consequences of its actions when it feels the urge to "do something."

UN Votes for Suppressing Free Speech and Against Condemning Killing Gays

Two UN votes in the past two weeks demonstrate yet again why the UN represents no source of moral leadership whatsoever, and is worthy of no respect. Last week the General Assembly passed its regular condemnation of "extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions," which is pretty funny in and of itself, since many of the countries doing the condemning are the same ones carrying out the executions. But this meaningless resolution went too far for some nations, who successfully removed language condemning killing based on sexual orientation.

Morocco and Mali introduced an amendment on behalf of African and Islamic nations that called for deleting the words "sexual orientation" and replacing them with "discriminatory reasons on any basis."

They are willing to condemn other killings even while continuing to carry them out, but they can't even give lip service to the idea that people shouldn't be murdered over their sexual orientation.

And today there was another UN vote. This time it voted for a resolution calling on states to provide "protection" against "vilification" of religion. Morocco once again took the lead. Reuters notes that support for the resolution was lower this year, but it still passed. There's your UN General Assembly: taking action to remove any condemnation of killing people for being gay, while trying to suppress well-deserved criticism of Islam. Oh yes, and there was this noteworthy passage, just in case anyone was wondering if Islamic states even grasp the concept of free speech. 

Islamic states say such resolutions do not aim to limit free speech but to stop publications like those of the Danish cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed

UN Peacekeepers Actually Fight

Standard UN peacekeeping procedure in the Congo normally involves sitting idle while massacres take place. But peacekeepers were actually in combat on Saturday. Were they engaged in some sort of peacekeeping operation? No, they were defending their base against an attack by "about 50 men armed with AK47 rifles and locally made weapons" from the "tribal Mai-Mai militia." The UN forces tried to avoid fighting, firing "repeated warning shots," but ended up having to kill eight of the attackers and wound two others.

The moral of this story is that if you are a member of some murderous gang in the Congo, stick to raping and massacring helpless civilians. That way the UN peacekeeping forces can sit tight in their bases, and find some excuse for not intervening. But if you actually attack their bases, even UN troops will fight back.

Re-Rape in the Congo

The Congo continues to cement its reputation as one of the worst hellholes on earth, as well as serving as a prime exhibit for the uselessness of UN peacekeepers. According to the BBC, an area that suffered mass rapes at the hands of rebels back in July and August now has to put up with rapes from the government forces sent to secure the area.

the UN special representative heard directly from locals on her visit last week and said UN peacekeepers in the area had also told her of rapes, killings and lootings perpetrated recently by government soldiers.

The UN peacekeepers who stood by helplessly while 300 women and 50 children were raped in the summer, are now doing nothing but reporting still more rapes. The UN representative made a couple of comments illustrating that she might be out of touch with reality.

She urged the DRC government to investigate the new attacks and "swiftly hold any perpetrators to account".

Yeah, good luck with that.

"The possibility that the same communities that were brutalised in July and August are now also suffering exactions at the hands of the FARDC troops is unimaginable and unacceptable,"

Unfortunately, it's not at all unimaginable. When you have a situation where rape is endemic, and employed as a standard tactic by all sides, it's actually likely that there are going to be instances where women are raped by one side and then raped again by the other. And what's unacceptable are troops that are supposed to be keeping the peace doing nothing to intervene even in major atrocities such as mass rape.

Yet Another Example of UN Stupidity

The UN is finally thinking about getting around to removing sanctions on Iraq. What sanctions you ask? The sanctions put in place to punish Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait back in 1991. Saddam and his government were of course removed by the U.S. invasion in 2003, and Saddam himself was executed back in 2006. According to Iraq, the sanctions, which have never been lifted, are costing it $24 billion a year.

The U.S. has been pushing to lift the sanctions for obvious reasons. Here we've been pumping billions  into Iraq, while at the same time it's been languishing under penalties designed to punish a regime long out of power. The UN Security Council agreed to "review" the restrictions. But here's a statement from the current president of the council, a Frenchman

such a review would come only after Iraq's safeguards against acquiring weapons of mass destruction are demonstrated to be sufficient.

Hey moron, Saddam is long gone, there's a 100,000+ U.S. troops sitting in Iraq, and the country is no longer a threat to anyone. There's absolutely no reason why normal trade with Iraq shouldn't be resumed.

The UN may be worse than useless for solving international problems, but it's great at exacerbating existing ones. It's nice to see that the U.S. is pushing for the removal of sanctions on Iraq, but they should have been gone years ago. 

Obama Continues Bush Policy on Bioweapons

An op-ed in the LA Times sees that as a bad thing, when it is actually a sign that at least in this area, Obama has elected not to engage in his usual brand of wishful thinking and foolish internationalism. The Times is upset that the Obama administration has declined to "strengthen" the Biological Weapons Convention. Ellen Tauscher, the U.S. undersecretary of State for arms control, explained that,

monitoring doesn't work. "The ease with which a biological weapons program could be disguised within legitimate activities, and the rapid advances in biological research, make it very difficult to detect violations

This is pretty obvious, but the Times thinks it's the thought that counts.

A dedicated team of U.N. inspectors could stay abreast of technological advances and provide that threat. It wouldn't be 100% effective, but no monitoring program is.

Yeah, because UN inspectors are just so reliable. It won't actually be effective, but we should waste money funding another UN program in order to create the false impression that we are actually doing something about the proliferation of bioweapons.

there is no existing team of U.N. investigators nor funding to create one. With the United States ducking the issue, there won't be one any time soon, either.

And that's a good thing.

President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of his strong efforts to combat nuclear proliferation -- yet biological weapons are potentially as serious a danger. He should put his prize-winning brain to use developing a smarter strategy.

Except that President Obama hasn't done a single thing to effectively combat nuclear proliferation, other than talk about it. In fact, by "engaging" with rogue regimes such as those in Iran & North Korea, and pretending that any agreement with such states would be worth anything, the president is, if anything, facilitating nuclear proliferation. We already have a naive strategy based on wishful thinking for nuclear weapons. We don't need one for bioweapons too.

The UN Anti-Israel Council

The laughably misnamed UN Human Rights Council has just approved a report accusing Israel of "war crimes" in its Gaza operations. The text of the resolution reluctantly admits to some war crimes by Hamas also, but only because an additional clause was added after their omission came under criticism. 

Many of the UN operations are little more than an international joke, and the so-called Human Rights Council is no exception, as the following quote illustrates:  

The council, led by a coalition of Arab states, voted 25-6 to approve the report

The mere fact that there are Arab states on something called a human rights council renders any report it produces meaningless. What Arab states have ever exhibited the slightest concern for human rights? That's not even considering their incredible bias against Israel and support for Hamas. Most Arab states don't even recognize Israel's mere right to exist. Having them judge it is beyond ludicrous on many levels. Noted human rights paragons China and Russia are also on the council, and voted for the resolution.

When a country is forced to fight a terrorist organization that obeys no rules of warfare, deliberately targets civilians, blends into and hides amongst its own civilian population, and does everything humanly possible to maximize the number of civilian casualties, atrocities and events that appear to be war crimes are bound to happen. Unlike Hamas, which celebrates atrocities and attempts to create them, Israel investigates its own forces, has an open society based on the democratic process, an independent judiciary, a free press, and everything necessary to deal with situations in which elements within its military may have crossed the line. Rather than attacking Israel, human rights organizations should be congratulating it on its incredible restraint. There are not many countries in the world that would tolerate a weak, hostile, terrorist-ruled country on their border that regularly launches rockets at their cities and commits all sorts of other provocations. Many countries, probably the vast majority, would react with an all-out invasion, doing whatever was necessary to crush resistance, and simply rolling over the piles of bodies and rubble.

Attacks on Israel by the UN, various human rights groups, and the pack of useful idiots that support them, serve no productive purpose. Their anti-Israel bias of condemning a democratic, civilized state trying to defend itself, while downplaying the crimes of a barbaric terrorist regime is blatantly obvious to anyone not automatically hostile to Israel. The only thing those attacks will do is to convince more people in Israel to ignore outside criticism, and give credence to those who advocate loosening restraints on military operations. Why put your own forces at greater risk with restricted rules of engagement when you get no credit for it anyway? Why stop at limited objectives out of concern for civilian casualties, when lunatics start screaming "genocide" when you kill less than 1500 people? Eventually a Sri Lankan-style operation is going to look much more attractive. 

UN Peacekeeping Forces Still a Bad Joke in Congo

The latest report from Congo, this time the eastern region, says that over 1,000 people have been killed since January, 7,000 women & girls have been raped, ,6000 homes burned down, and over 900,000 people "displaced." According to the article, a UN peacekeeping force has backed government operations in the region, targeting Hutu militiamen from Rwanda who are targeting civilians. But what is the government actually doing?

Congolese government soldiers also have targeted civilians through killings and widespread rape, looting, forced labor, and arbitrary arrests, the report said.

So the UN is supporting one side, even though that side is little better than the alternative. How is this in any way a "peacekeeping" operation?

Naturally the UN refused to comment. But the article notes that it has previously used the excuse that it just doesn't have enough troops. It will never have enough troops, let alone enough effective troops, to successfully intervene in a multi-faceted civil war. So what is it actually doing there? Why support the corrupt Congolese government and give them cover for slaughtering and otherwise abusing civilians?

Obama for UN Secretary-General

Think about it. As Secretary-General of the UN, Obama could give countless speeches to admiring fans, indulge in all sorts of utopian fantasies, talk to anti-American leaders from around the world, criticize Israel, support the Palestinians, and attempt to extort wealth from the U.S. in the service of "world" goals. What's that you say? He's already doing those things? True, but he could do it at the UN where he wouldn't cause any actual damage. And we could have a president that worried about advancing U.S. interests. 

Obama's Naivete on Display at the UN

Obama loves to hear himself talk, so it's no surprise that the transcript of his U.N. speech runs seven pages in the New York Times. I won't comment on every bit of the speech, but even if you skim through it, Obama's foreign policy naivete just leaps out at you. Naturally, this type of speech from any president would be filled with high-sounding nonsense, so it might appear that I'm unfairly singling out President Obama. The problem is, he actually appears to believe some of it. Let's look at some excerpts.

the time has come for the world to move in a new direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and our work must begin now.

By this point on page one I'm already laughing.

I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.  

Obama actually seems to believe this is possible, which is not only naive, but dangerous.

We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

Again, Obama sounds like he's swallowed his own ridiculous propaganda.

The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear.

How can anyone, even Obama, keep a straight face delivering these lines? Obama could stand to read Eric Posner's article about international law.

In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.

And pigs will fly. I could keep excerpting the speech, there is so much more. The whole thing is a combination of laughable utopian dreaming and dangerous naivete. I just hope that I'm wrong about how much of it he actually takes seriously.

Incidentally, for one of the better articles about Obama I've seen in foreign media, be sure to check out Nile Gardiner's, The UN loves Barack Obama because he is weak.

No, Really?

From Reuters, "U.N. rights chief sees possible war crimes in Congo." War crimes, in the Congo? No way! The Congo is an atrocity-ridden hellhole, yet the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has to hedge her words. As the report shows, it's hard to keep track of all the horrors since they are committed both by government forces and various rebel groups. Here's the U.N. chief:  

judicial response to the abuses had been "wholly insufficient" and called for "concrete and immediate action to hold perpetrators accountable, particularly since sexual violence continues to take place on a daily basis".

I'm sure the same government carrying out rapes and massacres is going to be really worried about prosecuting them.

The Congo situation is a prime example of the impotence of the U.N., as if we needed another one. According to the report, one massacre occurred two miles away from a U.N. peacekeeping mission. Naturally the troops there had excuses for doing nothing: they didn't know about it, and they couldn't have helped if they had. Which leads one to ask, what good are they? Even using the term "peacekeeping" in regard to the Congo is nothing more than a joke.

Department of the Obvious

I just saw an item on Memorandum that links an article from the Sydney Morning Herald. The title? "Attacks on aid workers harm humanitarian efforts." Really?! So killing people who provide humanitarian aid actually damages humanitarian relief efforts. No way, I never would have guessed. 

The article is by John Holmes, the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief co-ordinator. He points out that,

The past two years have been successively the most deadly for aid workers on record. Too often, UN and NGO flags and emblems are no longer protections but provocations.

There's nothing wrong with the article itself, but whoever came up with that headline might want to put a little more thought into it next time.

North Korean Ships

There have been various reports about the North Korean ship heading toward Burma. It's been followed by a U.S. destroyer, and is suspected of carrying weapons intended for the Burmese government, another international pariah. But under the pointless U.N. sanctions, the ship can only be inspected if North Korea agrees. 

This situation brings a couple of things to mind. Why are we so concerned about a cargo of small arms getting to Burma? If we are going to force a confrontation with North Korea it should be over something that actually matters. There is no reason for U.S. sanctions on Myanmar. The country doesn't affect U.S. strategic interests, and doesn't threaten the U.S. in any way. If the North Koreans want to sell weapons to the junta, let them. What should concern us are North Korean transfers of ballistic missile or nuclear technology to states hostile to the U.S. or its allies.

How about some real "sanctions"? Any North Korean ship suspected of carrying nuclear materials or missile technology could simply be made to disappear with no survivors. Don't take responsibility, don't say anything. Just sink the ships in a deniable way and claim to be baffled about what might have happened. That course of action could be put into place at any time, and would be infinitely more effective than any U.N. sanctions.

Death Toll in Sri Lanka

According to the latest reports

MORE than 20,000 Tamil civilians were killed in the final throes of the Sri Lankan civil war, most as a result of government shelling, an investigation by The Times has revealed.

Essentially the Sri Lankan army just blasted its way to victory with little regard for civilian casualties. Since the Tamil Tigers were mixed in with the civilian population, there wasn't really any way to distinguish between civilians and combatants. Interestingly enough, despite complaints by humanitarian organizations and some western governments,

Sri Lanka was cleared of any wrongdoing by the UN Human Rights Council after winning the backing of countries including China, Egypt, India and Cuba.

What are the chances of a similar verdict from the UN investigation of Israel's Gaza operation. which killed far fewer civilians?