Glenn Kessler, the WaPo’s fact-checker concludes his backtracking on Romney’s post-1999 involvement with this gem:

Going forward, unless new evidence emerges, on a case-by-case basis we may withhold the awarding of Pinocchios when the claim rests mostly on the question of when Romney stopped managing Bain Capital.
Continue reading →

In one graph

The Obama campaign is running this ad in five battleground states.

GST Steel ad.

I love it. This is politics – go after your opponent’s strengths. I especially liked the guy who called Romney a vampire. Heh.

America has supported dictatorships, corrupt regimes, and intransigent nations (i.e. Israel) for too long. Such policies may have been justified in WW2 and the Cold War, but times have changed. There is no good reason for the US to try to run the world. Globalization is a good thing, and we should seek to have good, respectful relations with China, Russia, India, the Arab states, Europe, etc.

Our history in the Middle East, which is still ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan, is the most troubled of anywhere. I voted for Obama, in large part because he had opposed the war in Iraq (which I foolishly supported at the time), and because he promised to approach and engage the world in a different way. Although, untangling or drawing down our presence in Iraq and Afghan might take some time. Fine.

Then came the Arab Spring. It was, and still is, exhilarating. Real freedom is coming to such countries that have never(?) enjoyed it. And, best of all, it was internally driven. There was no US or Soviet outside interference. It was not even “about” us; you all were not revolting against the US, or for the US, or about anything other than your own legitimate aspirations. For once in my lifetime, we were appropriately sitting on the sidelines. Where we belong. Great!

Then came Libya. Following all these trends and instincts, at first Obama steered clear of it. Denounce the dictator, and let the Libyan people manage their own affairs. As the situation rapidly worsened, pressure to intervene increased: the Arab League, France, Aljazeera, some US commentators like Nick Kristof.

Internally, within the US, there were lots of voices and arguments against. “Not a threat to our own security.” (That IS, after all, the reason countries have armies. To defend themselves.) And more generally, those opposed pointed out that, time after time, for what seemed like good reasons or humanitarian reasons in the past, we had intervened all over the world. And such interventions always turned into bigger problems down the road. Also, it can be hypocritical to “help” Libyans, but not Yemenis, Bahrainis, Syrians, or Ivorians.

I have been following news from the Middle East very closely. I was proud that Obama had kept us out until, basically, the world community was asking for our help, and we (supposedly) were going to be part of an effort that included global and Arab support. Even understanding history and perspective, this seemed like a different case, and a worthwhile one.

Not exactly.

First, Amr Moussa started talking out of both sides of his mouth. Then the highly touted Arab military support ended up being a few Qatari and Emirati jets. Now, Abdel Fateh Younis is blaming us (NATO).

I’m sick at these developments. Your skepticism is well founded. Those who opposed this intervention were right. We, the USA, are going to get burned. I don’t know exactly how, or exactly when, but this is going to turn against us. For God sakes, there are already protests in Benghazi, “NATO isn’t bombing enough.”

There is no hope for this kind of American involvement overseas. We should do what Obama promised, not what he is actually doing. My heart goes out to all the people of your region, and I truly, sincerely, and deeply hope all your countries progress toward more democracy. If the US can help with humanitarian aid, or technology, or anything but military intervention, we should do it. And that means we, the US, should wind down our participation in the NATO No Fly Zone as soon as possible.

He writes a blog called Eunomia. He’s a smart guy, and someone whose world view I agree with. His comments last year about Israel’s deadly attack on the Gaza aid ship were spot on.

But on the current developments in the Arab world, some of his forecasts have turned out to be totally wrong.

Jan. 19, 2011 –

While we’re on the subject [of revolutions], the Tunisian uprising isn’t going to lead to regional transformation.

He better ask Mubarak, Saleh in Yemen, the king of Bahrain, Assad in Syria, and Moammar Gaddafi about that.

Jan. 23, 2011 –

Of course, in the end Mubarak’s regime will depend most on the loyalty of the military, and by all accounts the military remains a pillar of the regime.

Once again, he should Mubarak about this. Mubarak, is, I understand, in Sharm el-Sheikh, and he’ll there indefinitely.

Maybe worth some admission of error or comment from Mr. Larison?

The events in the Libyan uprising over the past two weeks bear some striking similarities to the events of the Spanish Civil War.

Both conflicts pit a popular side against the side of a military regime. Of course, in Spain, Franco’s military were the rebels and the people’s side was the loyalist regime; in Libya those roles are reversed, the Gaddafi’s military is the incumbent government and the people are in revolt. (But a more careful study of Spain reveals that, in the immediate wake of Franco’s attempted coup, “the people” in many parts of Spain took power into their own hands, making them, paradoxically “pro-government rebels.”) So, who are “the rebels,” and who are the loyalists may not be that great a difference. Throughout this post, I’ll use the terms “military regime” to refer to Franco/Gaddafi, and “the people” to refer to the Spanish Loyalists/Libyan protestors.

The military regime has in Libya, and had in Spain, an immediate advantage in military organization and modern weapons. In both conflicts one can see virtually identical images from the people’s side, namely disorganized, non-uniformed volunteers rushing to the front in trucks, brandishing out-dated light infantry weapons. By the way, one must not dismiss “the people,” who are thus armed; they held off Franco for three years, albeit with tardy, but significant military aid from the Soviet Union.

In both conflicts, the military regime has brought in foreign (African!) soldiers, who showed less compunction about gunning down civilians than native troops did. In both conflicts, the African mercenaries (conscripts in the Spanish case), were air-lifted in. In the early days of the Spanish Civil War, these troops were flown in unopposed, and helped to consolidate the military regime’s hold on southern Spain. Which brings us to the next similarity …

In both cases, in the early days, the countries were broken up into a patchwork of holdings. Armed groups (on either side) were quickly able to secure isolated pockets, garrisons, and city centers. Trying to follow, for example, the NY Times’ daily maps of the Libyan uprising, is a bit maddening, because one cannot see any pattern to lines of control, any front lines, any contiguous holdings. That’s because, in fact, there are none on the ground. Unless the Libyan situation suddenly resolves itself, through some deus ex machina like an unexpected flight by Gaddafi to Nicaragua, we can expect the territories and holdings to consolidate. (Not a good prospect for the Libyan “people,” poorly equipped as they are.)

In both Libya and Spain, we also see world opinion largely supportive of “the people,” but the global institutions (UN, LofN) reduced to issuing statements of regret and condemnation.

In both cases, the military regime has immediate access to resupply of military equipment and reinforcements. While Gaddafi will not have powerful nations like 1936 Germany and Italy to rely on, he will have no problem buying arms on the global arms ‘gray market,’ and flying in mercenaries through his air bases in Sebha and other places.

Of course, my sympathies are wholly with the Libyan people, and hope they drive out Gaddafi and his cronies. But the analogies with Spain might suggest otherwise.

A big difference is that Franco and his fellow Fascist generals were all competent military men who, however ruthless and unsympathetic, were rational, well-organized, realistic guys. Gaddafi would seem to be a clueless, ranting, disconnected tyrant. Whether or not he has competent lieutenants running his military remains to be seen.

Those are the analogies I see; I hope the outcome in Libya doesn’t follow the Spanish case.

Night has fallen on Tahrir Square, after pro-Mubarak thugs attacked the demonstrators today. By late afternoon, things quieted down somewhat. But I feared that night would enable the government forces to occupy the square. At this point, control of the square seems to be the issue. For unknown reasons, the army is standing by, doing nothing.

Watching Al Jazeera English TV. From its videos, it looks like the people have pushed their shield wall north, up by the Museum. The video also shows the government thugs have put up a defensive shield wall on a side street. In the background, lots of people (affiliation unknown) seem to be watching the fight, as if it were a football match.

Telephone reports are conflicting, but one guy claimed that the people are in full control of the square and all the other entrances, with reinforcements streaming in.

This view would suggest that the pro-government thugs, are in fact, being squeezed out and are almost under siege.

More to come …