The brief // by Ben FrankelEyeless in Libya -- and a Swiftian border security solution

Published 1 April 2011

Everyone knows what the Libyan rebels are against — Gaddafi — but there is no way tell what they are for; this lack of information is not good; first, the United States and its allies may be pushing for the replacement of the devil we know with the devil we do not know; this is akin to giving Michael Phelps a three body length advantage at a swim meet: not a good idea; second, the lack of knowledge about the rebels is like a Rorschach test: outsiders look at them and see what they want to see; Jonathan Swift suggests that impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies; should we consider a Swiftian solution to problem of securing the U.S.-Mexico border?

Here are three comments on three things that caught our eye this week:

1. Eyeless in Libya

As Alice said in Alice in Wonderland, it is getting curiouser and curiouser. Earlier this week Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO and overall chief of U.S. and coalition forces in the Libyan war, said in a testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that American intelligence agents are “examining very closely” the rebel forces for whom U.S. forces have gone to war. So far, Stavridis says, the U.S. has discovered “flickers” of the presence of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. He said:

The intelligence that I am receiving at this point makes me feel that the leadership I am seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Colonel Gadhafi. We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah, we’ve seen different things, but at this point I don’t have detail sufficient to say that there is a significant al Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks. We’ll continue to look at that very closely. It’s part of doing due diligence as we move forward on any kind of relationship.

Stavridis’s testimony raises two questions. The first is the extent to which al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have a presence — and influence — among the anti-Gaddafi forces. How big are the “flickers”? The second question has to do with common sense: is it not the case that normally we would expect consumers to do due diligence before they buy something? Investors to do due diligence before they invest in a company? A country to do due diligence before they send American men and women to fight? In all these cases, doing the due diligence after you have bought something, invested, or gone to war is a bad idea.

2. Rorschach test

It appears that no one has done due diligence on the demographic make up, goals, outlook, and political orientation of the Libyan rebels. Everyone knows what they are against — Gaddafi — but there is no way tell what they are for. This lack of information is not good.

 

First, the United States and its allies may be pushing for the replacement of the devil we know with the devil we do not know. This is akin to giving Michael Phelps a three body length advantage at a swim meet: not a good idea.

Second, the