Kaddaffi: Good Riddance, but ....

The killing on Thursday of Libyan strongman Kaddaffi will spread much relief around the world, and cause very little mourning. The way it happened should be a concern to a world looking to raise the level of international justice.

Making his last stand at Surt, Kaddaffi was under constant NATO surveillance, as around him blood flowed from loyalists, rebels and residents. When his entourage tried to break through the forces besieging the town, missiles fired by drones disabled his vehicles, and Kaddaffi was wounded in the ensuing firefight. His remaining forces were destroyed, and he was captured.

During the confusion immediately following his discovery in a drainage culvert, he was dragged around and shot at close range. Videos of his final moments went viral over the internet. As the day went on, world leaders appeared on news broadcasts celebrating the success of the cooperative military operation, and the end of a forty-two year dictatorship.

A few briefly noted the role played by NATO and the extrajudicial execution of the dictator, but the general euphoria prevented a more detailed examination. But these events do need to be acknowledged as historical facts, and incorporated into the popular history, in order that future interventions be initiated with the best understanding of the risks and likely outcomes under similar circumstances.

NATO was given a narrow mandate by the UN to enforce a no-fly zone, and to take action to protect civilians during the popular revolt against the Kaddaffi regime. At the time, the revolt was failing, and a terrible massacre at the hands of the brutal Kaddaffi would almost certainly have followed its collapse. Swift intervention by a true multinational force disabled Kaddaffi's ability to attack by air or land, and the revolt continued, made stronger by supplies of arms from a variety of sources. The NATO forces continued airstrikes against Kaddaffi's forces, and bombed places Kaddaffi was thought likely to be; all the time denying we were trying to kill him.

In the US, Congress reluctantly demanded an explanation for US involvement beyond the allotted time President Obama could act on an emergency basis without Congressional approval. Semantic arguments were offered, such as that drone attacks don't rise to the level of "hostilities." Since Kaddaffi was so definitely a bad guy, even in Washington's highly polarized political environment, nobody pulled the plug.

Thus were the drones ready for their role in the final conflict of the Kaddaffi era. It would be a stretch to claim the NATO forces were protecting civilians by attacking, as Kaddaffi's convoy tried to flee. The argument that air support for the rebels would shorten the conflict, and thereby lower the human cost of the rebellion is valid only if the rebels prevail, and was not offered in the calculus used to formulate NATO's UN authorization. If NATO involvement was crucial to the success of the rebellion, then it exceeded its mandate, and that will inhibit building consensus for future interventions on humanitarian grounds. For purposes of analysis, it matters not that we are all better off without Kaddaffi.

Given the strategic importance of Libyan oil, the rush by western states to recognize a transitional government, and begin diplomacy [and commerce], is understandable. But caution is indicated by the lack of discipline exhibited by rebel forces, that led to Kaddaffi's execution. Again, analysis should not be pre-empted by the deservedness of the achieved result.

If there is not a Libyan government with broad popular support, we will be no better off, in the world community, than we were with Kaddaffi. We will have to deal with a strongman who can dominate the other parties, and corruption will be business as usual.

NY Times Gives Bankers a Pass to Disparage Protest

I have complained in the past about the NYTimes' too easily granting its sources anonymity, and the lead story in today's business section: "In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated" is another prime example.

The article attributes only two of its quotes, and does not even offer an explanation for not citing the other dozen or so. I suppose the authors reason that "speaking privately" means not having to stand behind your words, but how can the resulting story be considered news?

The two quotes that were attached to names are so innocuous that their relevance to the story is hard to determine. One professes to believe that bankers are not really the objects of the protest; while the other notes that "most of our clients like us."

The anonymous quotes, on the other hand, are much more interesting: "If you want to keep having jobs outsourced, keep attacking financial services"; or "They [congressional representatives who have expressed support for the protests, and who accept large campaign contributions from Wall St.] need to understand who their constituency is."

The NYTimes does not discharge its mission, when it portrays the banking industry as so out of touch without naming the sources. Nobody who has spent any time in Zuccotti Park lately would describe the occupants as "a ragtag group looking for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll." How can readers be assured it is really a top hedge fund manager talking? It sounds more like my neighbor across the the street, a retired car salesman who sports a tea-party flag on his front porch.

[A version of this was sent to the public editor at The New York Times]

Where Is This Occupation Going?

Occupy Wall Street is more than a "large mass of unidentified people discussing their concerns", whose energy Erin Bohanan offers to help focus. It is a focal point for the expression of outrage - by people who have given up on the regular political channels Ms. Bohanan suggests.

A lot of energy is going to Zuccotti Park that, in 2008, went into electing Barrack Obama to the White House. Disappointed by the lack of change, following his inauguration, in the grand bargain between Wall St. and K St., young and energetic citizens are bypassing a system that has lost the ability to change, but that absorbs and co-opts every initiative.

Should the occupiers prioritize the issues, select representation, and arrange meetings with government and business entities, you will see the life-blood sucked out of the movement. Souvenir t-shirts will be its only legacy. No, the open forum and constant influx of ideas are the proper business of Occupy Wall Street.

Calls for specific action will come from those inspired by what is taking place in Zuccotti Park. Ms Bohanan came up with a nice list herself. She should get in touch with her representatives, and help get the ball rolling, instead of telling Occupy Wall Street what they need to do.

The structures to effect change are already in place. We already have enough public servants. They just need to be reminded of their mission - and encouraged, by the voices in the streets.

It is useful to consider the trajectory of the often-compared Tea Party movement, that aligned with conservative political interests soon after erupting. Although it wields considerable power in the selection and manipulation of conservative politicians, it has made a circus of the Republican Party, and has yet to make any positive contribution toward solving the frightful problems facing our nation.

Did NYPD Sell Brooklyn Bridge to Occupiers?

From Zuccotti Park to the Brooklyn Bridge, the Occupy Wall Street marchers were escorted and directed every step of the way by courteous NYPD officers. Half a mile away, the entrance to the bridge sits across busy Centre Street. The police held up the marchers periodically, allowing traffic to pass, then let them onto the bridge in spurts. Once across Centre Street the walkway began, between the Brooklyn-bound and Manhattan-bound traffic lanes, separated by a low railing. As throngs of marchers crossed Centre Street, they spilled across both walkway and roadway as they approached the bridge, but were directed by NYPD toward the walkway.

The walkway runs even with the traffic lanes for a short distance, before gradually climbing above the roadway. The gauntlet of police officers, which had contained and directed the marchers from park to bridge, were absent along this stretch, and a few marchers crossed the railing, and began walking in the roadway; which for some reason, also was absent car traffic [possibly bridge traffic was also being stopped to allow marchers access to the bridge]. Presently car traffic resumed and kept to the right, as the marchers walked in the left and center lanes.




The marchers in the roadway were exuberantly encouraging the marchers on the walkway to join them on that side, calling out "they CAN'T arrest ALL of us," and "Whose bridge?...OUR bridge!" Many did join them, too. The few police on that part of the bridge were walking with the marchers in the roadway, and not making any effort to send them back to the pedestrian side, or discourage those now flocking to climb over the fence, before it go too high, as the walkway ascended.




Eventually, enough marchers filled the roadway that car traffic moved slowly alongside them in the right lane, and then all movement completely halted. A little further along, the reason for the stoppage became apparent: the police had sealed off the entire side of the bridge, and begun making arrests.




Some marchers on the roadway were probably looking to get arrested, to escalate the level of confrontation, possibly in hopes of generating more media coverage. If so, they succeeded in that. Most of those who joined them, though, did so spontaneously, not having thought it through.



Protests which are horizontally organized, while better able to resist infiltration and co-option, have more difficulty defining goals and tactics. The de facto leaders of the march had instructed the marchers before stepping off, that walking in the street, or stopping, or obstructing traffic would likely lead to arrest, but there was no discussion of whether that would be desirable or effective.


As the arrests proceeded, recorded by hundreds of cameras, the police were well disciplined, and held all of the strategic advantage. The marchers were clearly out of bounds, and had no easy escape. The police could work at their leisure, and the resulting traffic delays, affecting mostly Saturday night social travel, could be laid to the unruly protesters. Meanwhile, the march itself was fractured; half made it across to the designated park in Brooklyn, while the rest had been stranded on the Manhattan side, when the bridge was closed.

The popular reaction to the event, as it unfolded, remains to be seen. There was plenty of media coverage, and public relations were being spun by both sides. Despite the superior tactics and discipline shown by the NYPD, the increased media exposure could yield a net positive result for Occupy Wall Street, if they use it to connect with enough of the 99% they claim are affected by Wall Street shenanigans. If not, the movement will be set back.

Either way, the divergence of the two groups during the march shows weakness in the organization; a vulnerability which could be exploited, and uncertainty which could inhibit attracting greater numbers of participants. Perhaps that is intentional, in keeping with the loosely defined purpose of the occupation itself. Discussions in groups around Zuccoti Park, before the march, were wide ranging, intense, and open ended. In protest against powerful hierarchal organizations like Wall St., the acceptance of widely divergent points of political departure infuses great energy, but requires levels of individual tolerance difficult to maintain.

Media coverage of the occupation seems more focused on trying to figure out the dynamic of the movement itself, than scrutinizing the financial miscreants that are its purpose. It will be a challenge to induce exposure of individual targets for change, among the diverse constituencies represented in Zuccoti Park. So far there has not been a visible effort to prioritize issues.


Signs carried in the march declared the strength inherent in union, and chants of "People united, will never be defeated" moved the march up Broadway on Saturday afternoon. Can the union of this occupation be sustained without emergence of a command structure? I hope so.