Here is an example of useless verbiage that would command a
place of honor in the hall of infamy. It is a New York Times editorial that
came under the title: “Dismal Lessons From Libya and Yemen ,” and was published on
September 28, 2014. Call it the journalistic gray mountain that went into labor
and delivered a mousy editorial.
Written in 600 words, the editorial begins with what looks
like a promise to deliver great new revelations that will be used to draw
magnificent lessons so as to avoid repeating the dismal performances in Libya and Yemen . But the thing goes on to say
nothing till the end where it whimpers this seedy advice: “The administration
and most lawmakers … would do well to dissect the lessons from other American
military interventions … The dismal state of Yemen
and Libya .
So far, officials seem content to focus on dropping bombs on targets.”
And here is the implied promise at the start of the
editorial: “...it has been easy to overlook the unraveling of Libya and Yemen . For complex reasons, both
countries appear to be on a path toward becoming failed states … the
dissolution of order in both nations offers sobering lessons. American
airstrikes can deliver swift and decisive results. But without a morning-after plan
shifting the dynamics on the battlefield often makes things worse … The
military action against the Islamic State has been impressive. But there have
been insufficient answers to the question: What happens next?”
This is where you expect the editors of the New York Times
to start giving, or at least start hinting at some answers. But this is not
what they do. Instead they warn that “the deadly and chaotic aftermath of America 's intervention in Libya is rife
with cautionary signals.” Well, call it redundant given that it is a repetition
of what they said before, but you still look for the promised answers. Sadly,
however, no answers are given. And why is that? Because the editors of the New
York Times are incapable of looking at a situation anywhere in the world
through the lens of those places. Instead, they look at every foreign situation
through Judeo-American lenses. Worse, those lenses bear the colors of local
American politics.
Look how they describe the matter at hand: “In 2011
President Obama and allied governments intervene[d]. Much like Iraq and Syria ,
the mission in Libya
was billed as a humanitarian response … Mr. Obama decided that he did not need
permission from Congress. Some lawmakers protested but not strenuously enough.
That paved the way for Mr. Obama to launch the new campaign in Syria .” But you
want to know: What has that got to do with the situation on the ground in those
places? Apparently, the editors at the New York Times have no clue.
In fact, they continue in that same vein with the following:
“Qaddafi's swift ouster look[ed] like a foreign policy victory for Obama. But
fighting among rival militias plunged the nation into a new civil war. The United States abandoned the embassy in Tripoli two years after [four] Americans were slain in an
attack in Benghazi .”
They go on to lament: “The fate of that country has been
largely absent from discussions about the new war.” And so you wonder who do
they believe has the responsibility to start and maintain a debate on any
topic? If the lawmakers do not take up the subject on the floor of their
“greatest deliberative body,” the so-called free press of America has the
duty to interview the bums, and see what they have to say about any subject;
including war and peace. But the editors are not doing that, and the question
is why?
The answer is this: America is littered with temples of
ignorance and darkness calling themselves think tanks. This is where they have
what they call a working group on this foreign country or that one. They come
up with all kinds of ideas as to how they can use what is left of America 's power and prestige to make things work
for Israel
and for world Jewry.
Doing this, they care about one thing only: the immediate
return profiting Israel
and the Jews. What happens after that is none of their concern. And this is why
they don't care to have what the editors call a “morning-after plan” or an exit
strategy to save America
from a potential quagmire, let alone save the countries they incited America to bomb
to full and complete destruction.