By: John Jan Popovic

John Jan Popovic — Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:18:00 +0000

Modern terminology — normal conventional terminology
“peacekeeping mission” — war
“collateral damage” — innocent victims
“diplomatic personnel” — spies
“kill” — engage
“international community” — G8 Nations
“interest groups” — Rothschilds, Illuminati & Co
“real peace” — peace of graveyards
“disposable diplomat” — US Amb. Chris Stevens
“rebel forces under control” — well, this one is complicated
“WMD” — some excuse, to start the war
“contractors” — killers, mercenaries
“order” — mess, chaos
etc, etc

By: David Gillis

David Gillis — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:20:00 +0000

1. To characterize Colonel Qadhafi’s regime as a “kind of stability” is a mockery of the facts and detached from reality.
2. To achieve “change” there is always an interim of less stability – it is inherent in “change”. You are clearly simply an apologist for the Qadhafi regime that is thankfully now history.
3. There is far more at the core of ISIS than Libya – Libya is NOT the first place ISIS found
suitable for its barbaric savagery.
4. Your position simply reflects the moral cowardice on the part of Western states to commit for the extended time necessary to successfully free a people from their dictators, and assist them in sufficient stability and security for the establishment of democracy. Your pronouncements are not
factual and are simply a restatement of feckless moral cowardice, which is the primary reason ISIS continues to spread. Such “military intervention” is not “in the guise of a peacekeeping mission”, it is the necessary initial step to providing the stability and security a new democratic state requires to succeed. The US and Europe are il-prepared for the long mission that must follow the military mission. Persons such as yourself need to work to establish a civilian center for excellence in supporting new democracies. As you will illustrate there does not currently exist such a center for nation building in the face of security challenges. Civilians such as yourself develop your statements as a cover for your moral cowardice and lack of dedication to the knowledge and commitment to freedom and democracy for others. Your pronouncements come not from expertise,but from you fear of self-risk and lack of the conceptual knowledge to succeed in what will usually be a long and, at time, dangerous process.
5. I participated in the US military mission in Iraq. It was not a “guise of a peacekeeping mission.” It was a successful creation of security for nation building that was widely accepted by the common man in Iraq. However, the civilian sector fumbled the ball, through a mix of no plan, stupid decisions (such as standing down the Iraqi Army), and a “pick-up” approach to organization. State Department assignments were refused by feckless cowards who should have been anxious to support the essential tasks of aiding the Iraqi people in their long sought-after democracy. Instead, the bumbling, uncoordinated thrashing around of unwilling civilian efforts, aided by the Democratic Party in the US deceiving the American people and undercutting the pre-existing support for a functioning democracy of free Iraqis in the Middle East. Therein lays the failure of the Iraq War. Because there is no civilian center of excellence, insistence on moral courage vice cowardice in the service of the US, now more than 10 years after the end of the major combat phase (yes, Virginia, there is a “major combat phase”) we still have civilian mis-statements such as your piece, continuing to mislead and divert American thinking from historical facts.
6. I submit that the continued debacle you describe is not based upon your description of choices. One cannot, logically, expect to stand on the sidelines when decisive events are taking place, people are dying, and economies are being trashed, and then expect to be given a major role in
structuring the outcome. It is only the moral cowardice of people in Western civilization, distracted by their trifling but enjoyable toys, who cannot bring themselves to leave that behind temporarily for the benefit of not just the foreign country, but the interest of Western civilization.
7. Instead of your biased review of history and assignment of “blame” one needs to focus on a factual.assessment of the current state of affairs, identify conceptual elements of change and action designed to create stability and security, then get on with intelligent nation building with some immediate benefits for the general population. Forget your “excessive interference”, a meaningless, unmeasurable, useless diversion, and concentrate on immediate benefits of a secure democracy for the general population, and establishment of model economic, governmental, educational and public health implementations, which are effective, scrubbed clear of corruption, and effective in early improvement of daily life for the general population. A period of “nation building” is required to create the judicial, economic, educational and health environment needed, and which becomes the people’s sought-after state of governmental affairs.
8. Your statement, “It is impossible to intervene with a peacekeeping force if there is no peace to keep” is absurd. It is impossible if you are feckless, cowardly, and thus led to fail to adequately support and commit to success. The general populace in the world, regardless of religion, statehood, etc. all support a peaceful environment, health and education for their children, and
economic opportunity. But if you approach the problem with an obviously inadequate force structure, even the most uneducated among the populace recognize your timidity and likely failure. Why must you always speak as an apologist for adequate action, always seeking to cover your timidity with projected results which your own timidity guarantees?
9. You need to come clear with the basis for your support for
the cruel tyrant, Gadhafi. You do realize that even if you are right (which you certainly are not), Gadhafi will not be coming back! Your failure to deal with effective realities undercuts your entire essay.

David Gillis

By: originalone

originalone — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:04:00 +0000

How does the saying go: “you reap what you sow”, I believe how it goes. That said, this should be a good example to the western governments how not to intervene in other countries affairs. The fact that immigrants are staging in Libya then sailing to Europe, dying in the process, seems to me to be a humanitarian blunder the west didn’t foresee. How short sighted & small minded, the planers were in their zeal toward eliminating Qaddafi. What a mess.

Comments on: Western Intervention in Libya a Recipe for Disaster

By: John Jan Popovic

By: David Gillis

By: originalone