That's The "Arab Participation"?
When almost two dozen Arab states voted for a "No-Fly Zone" over LIbya, they assumed the West would do all of the work, and to make the Infidel Man's Burden hellishly difficult to fulfill -- but fulfill it the West must, without harming a single Arab civilian, of course, for That Would Be Wrong -- they insisted at the same time that there be "no military intervention." The absurdity of this, the near-impossibility of this, was not comented on by the solemn solons who gravely comment on such matters, and of course not by Hillary Clinton, apparently now taking her cue from the likes of Susan Rice and Samantha Power, if we are to believe -- let's give it one last try -- The New York Times.
Now we learn that perhaps two, or maybe three, of those nearly two dozen Arab states, will graciously allow a few planes -- and what about the pilots? -- from their vast arsenals, the ones on which they have lavished trillions over the past thirty years -- to fly over Libya. That's it? That's the "Arab Paricipation"? That's what gives this operation "an Arab face"?
Oh, for god's sake.
And just wait. The minute any Arab civilians or "civiilians" are killed, the Arabs here and there and everywhere will denounce the West, will rage against the country of origin of both plane and pilot, and Qaddafy & Sons will make hay while the sun shines, and even when it doesn't.
Folie à deux, trois, quatre....say, just how many Western states allowed themselves to be inveigled by the Arabs, or the Quai d'Orsay and the excitable Mr. Sarkozy, those French people who for many decades prided themselves on knowing so much better than the dumb Americans on how to handle the Arabs (for they "knew their Arabs") and, as a result, have five million or more Muslims on their hands.
Posted on 03/19/2011 1:04 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald