Let's face it: Moammar Gadhafi has outsmarted the Western powers, and he has been outsmarting them for exactly forty years. Not outsmarting them, by the way, in behalf of an ideology either collectivist or Islamist—although it aspires to leadership in both orbits. Libya's rise this coming year to the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly is a symbolic victory for the mangy man and his very wealthy country with deprived people.
This is a case of kingship with populist and Arabist rhetoric. But what it really is is gangster politics with ideological pretenses that justify keeping independent spirits in prison.
In 2004, while Iraq was both exploding and imploding, George Bush, desperate to show that he had won some Arabs over to "our side," made a deal with Gadhafi: Tripoli would give up its quest for atomic weapons, a quest that its science (unlike Iran's) could not support, and the U.S. and other Western powers would welcome the madman back into civilized society. It worked, more or less, for Gadhafi. It did not work for us.
In any case, Gadhafi had one more grievance against the West, especially Great Britain and the U.S. See my narrative about this. He had, after years of palaver, released under an agreement with London and Washington (plus Edinburgh) two Libyan intelligence operatives for trial at The Hague with a Scottish tribunal who were charged with blowing up Pan Am 103. In which there were 270 dead, 189 of them Americans. One of the accused was acquitted. The other, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, was sentenced to life in prison.
As soon as the verdict was rendered, Gadhafi began to agitate for the prisoner's freedom. It took only a few years for London to begin the haggle process. This is a process in which Brits are deficient. I'll leave the other part of this thought to the reader.
In any case, you know the rest of the al-Megrahi narrative.
But Christopher Caldwell, one of the great newspaper columnists in the English language, has just published in Saturday's FT a precis of this tale, drawing out the most meaningful correlations that have to do with the future of the West and western power.
Caldwell observes that "it consoles us to focus on what is most clownish about Col. Gaddafi. At an African Union summit in February, he praised Somali piracy as a development model." The fact is that Western and especially British "politicians and businessmen are not being outsmarted by him. They are caving in to him."
So what about the Americans and particularly the Obama administration?
While the U.S. public is indeed furious over the release of Mr. Megrahi, the Obama administration's criticisms are probably pro forma. From his apologetic speech in Cairo to the Ramadan dinner he held at the White House last week, Mr. Obama has placed good-faith gestures at the heart of his Middle Eastern policy. It is almost as if he believes that the West's tensions with the Muslim world involve an accounting of manners. We have run up a big deficit of slights, which must be paid down with courtesies. Letting Mr. Megrahi go is consistent with that.
The American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, did feel that she needed to say something about Megrahi. How could she not? But here's what she said: The U.S. was "offended by the reception accorded to Mr. Megrahi in Libya upon his return from the UK." Oh, so so diplomatic. To the government of Mr. Brown and to the Libyan tyrant himself. Is there no decent sentiment for the surviving families and friends of the victims of the Libyan atrocity?
There will be many books and articles written Pan Am 103 and this disgusting denouement of the freeing of Megrahi on medical grounds. So that he might die in his bed, so to speak. Well, there are millions of people who would like to die in their own beds but are denied that grace by the likes of Megrahi and Gadhafi. Let me leave this list here.
But as a postscript, I want to mention an article in the (London) Sunday Telegraph revealing that the medical report used by the Scottish and British authorities to rationalize Megrahi's release—that otherwise he would die in prison—was paid for by the Libyan government. And how many sick people who have committed far lesser transgressions against a just order of the universe spend their last days in jail. How many people in Scotland and in England and in the United States?
Print
COMMENTS (12)
"Libya Reportedly Paid for Evidence That Led to Lockerbie Bomber's Release"
"More evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber was reportedly paid for by the Libyan government, which encouraged doctors to say he only had three months to live.
The life expectancy of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was crucial, The Sunday Telegraph reported, because Scottish law mandates that prisoners can be freed on compassionate grounds only if they are considered to have three months or less to live.
Al-Megrahi, 57, is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and was released by Scottish officials last month. He was the lone person convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland ... view full comment
"Libya Reportedly Paid for Evidence That Led to Lockerbie Bomber's Release"
"More evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber was reportedly paid for by the Libyan government, which encouraged doctors to say he only had three months to live.
The life expectancy of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was crucial, The Sunday Telegraph reported, because Scottish law mandates that prisoners can be freed on compassionate grounds only if they are considered to have three months or less to live.
Al-Megrahi, 57, is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and was released by Scottish officials last month. He was the lone person convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland. The attack killed 259 people aboard the plane, most of them American, and 11 on the ground.
Two of the three doctors commissioned by the Libyans provided the required three-month estimates, The Sunday Telegraph reports, while the third also indicated that the prisoner had a short time to live. That's in contrast with findings of doctors in June and July who had concluded that al-Megrahi had up to 10 months to live, which would have blocked his release."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,547160,00.html
Meanwhile:
"Bomber Release Involved Oil, British Minister Says"
By JOHN F. BURNS
"LONDON — In an admission likely to prolong the controversy over the release of the only man convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, Britain’s justice minister told an interviewer that trade deals, especially in oil, had been a “very big part” of Britain’s decision to include the bomber in a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya.
In an interview published Saturday by The Daily Telegraph, Jack Straw, the justice minister and a senior member of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet, said trade deals with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government in Libya weighed heavily in his decision to abandon his opposition to the release of the bomber, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi....."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/world/europe/06lockerbie.html?_r=1&pag...
Rounding it off to the nearest, oh, "business as usual" how many "sordid tales" in and out of Scotland, Britain and Libya begin and end with oil?
As the facts begin to trickle out into a downpour we find that....gasp!...Megrahi is the least of it for these money managers. He's just another pawn on the board as the usual suspects in the government and the oil industry mold and manipulate the game as per standard operating procedure.
Alas, even God and ideology are no match for this chain of command.
I'll hazard a guess here that Israel may well be the only exception to the rule here. But then in The Spine "decency" is almost always synonymous with that sanctimonious chain of command.
Morality t ... view full comment
Rounding it off to the nearest, oh, "business as usual" how many "sordid tales" in and out of Scotland, Britain and Libya begin and end with oil?
As the facts begin to trickle out into a downpour we find that....gasp!...Megrahi is the least of it for these money managers. He's just another pawn on the board as the usual suspects in the government and the oil industry mold and manipulate the game as per standard operating procedure.
Alas, even God and ideology are no match for this chain of command.
I'll hazard a guess here that Israel may well be the only exception to the rule here. But then in The Spine "decency" is almost always synonymous with that sanctimonious chain of command.
Morality tales are a dime a dozen, Marty; it's time to come up with some new material.
How about accusing the Obama administration of including Megrahi in its health care plan.
george
jack; lr:
I posted a long post on Wood and More-but mostly on Wood as an opening gambit.
Check it out.
Tell me what you think.
jack; lr:
I posted a long post on Wood and More-but mostly on Wood as an opening gambit.
Check it out.
Tell me what you think.
I am starting to have little doubt that the price is the Brits got a long term oil contract so that Brits can fill up their tanks at a cheaper price. What is justice compared to a cheap price for a barrel of oil?
I am starting to have little doubt that the price is the Brits got a long term oil contract so that Brits can fill up their tanks at a cheaper price. What is justice compared to a cheap price for a barrel of oil?
“Sordid “ is too mild to describe the bomber’s release.
Peretz--Marty if you will-- has been correct and accurate about the release from word and day one, and about it all including England’s complicity, the overall mercantile bargain, American fecklessness and this matter as a microcosm of an impotent foreign policy generally, which point--the impotence-- Caldwell, in his linked to piece, expands upon and reinforces. Someone wise, a Democratic strategist in fact, said just recently that Obama may be at a cross roads as to whether he will turn out to be more like FDR or Jimmy Carter.
Smart money might, the ways things are looking now, double down on the latter.
A principle is a fragi ... view full comment
“Sordid “ is too mild to describe the bomber’s release.
Peretz--Marty if you will-- has been correct and accurate about the release from word and day one, and about it all including England’s complicity, the overall mercantile bargain, American fecklessness and this matter as a microcosm of an impotent foreign policy generally, which point--the impotence-- Caldwell, in his linked to piece, expands upon and reinforces. Someone wise, a Democratic strategist in fact, said just recently that Obama may be at a cross roads as to whether he will turn out to be more like FDR or Jimmy Carter.
Smart money might, the ways things are looking now, double down on the latter.
A principle is a fragile thing. It's like gossamer against the solidity of things and of tangible consequences. It sometimes takes strength inversely proportionate to that intangible delicacy to adhere to principle and so forsake the tangible. Releasing the bomber was not one of those sometimes. The screaming injustice of, the befouling of justice in, releasing him and the gut wrenching fury the decision ignites all make it clear that the decision was an obvious and obscene instance of rank injustice bought cheap for 30 pieces of silver.
“What stronger breastplate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just, and he but naked, though locked up in steel, whose conscience with injustice is corrupted.”
Basman, can you repost your comments on the other thread so that LR will be able to see them also? The one you suggested we use!
If you need a link let me know.
Thanks.
Basman, can you repost your comments on the other thread so that LR will be able to see them also? The one you suggested we use!
If you need a link let me know.
Thanks.
Both versions are posted on both threads aand makes ure you read only the second post a better edited version of the first one which has messy spots.
Both versions are posted on both threads aand makes ure you read only the second post a better edited version of the first one which has messy spots.
Basman, where is the other thread? I can't find it. I thought it was going to be here?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/21st-century-governing-18th-century-t...
Can you set up a link to that other thread on the Shakespeare thread?
Basman, where is the other thread? I can't find it. I thought it was going to be here?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/21st-century-governing-18th-century-t...
Can you set up a link to that other thread on the Shakespeare thread?
it's here: http://www.tnr.com/blog/alan-wolfe/further-thoughts-untenable-distinctio...
it's here: http://www.tnr.com/blog/alan-wolfe/further-thoughts-untenable-distinctio...
and it's here: http://www.tnr.com/blog/john-mcwhorter/should-we-have-read-the-bard-hear...
remember: please skip the first draft and go to the edited second right below the first on either thread.
and it's here: http://www.tnr.com/blog/john-mcwhorter/should-we-have-read-the-bard-hear...
remember: please skip the first draft and go to the edited second right below the first on either thread.
Does Marty even read his own sentences? His thesis climaxes by insulting America's top diplomat for being diplomatic and calling for Washington to base its relations with the world on "sentiment." Yes, the terrorist's release is an outrage, and so of course it's perfectly understandable that a person might wish for his government to act out of the impotent petulance he feels. We are all guilty of that sort of weak sentimentality at times. But any thinking person should feel disgrace to find that he has committed such childishness to print and allowed it to survive revision long enough to see publication -- particularly several weeks after the first flush of outrage, when there has been plent ... view full comment
Does Marty even read his own sentences? His thesis climaxes by insulting America's top diplomat for being diplomatic and calling for Washington to base its relations with the world on "sentiment." Yes, the terrorist's release is an outrage, and so of course it's perfectly understandable that a person might wish for his government to act out of the impotent petulance he feels. We are all guilty of that sort of weak sentimentality at times. But any thinking person should feel disgrace to find that he has committed such childishness to print and allowed it to survive revision long enough to see publication -- particularly several weeks after the first flush of outrage, when there has been plenty of time for passion to subside and reason to return.
Judged by the restraint of official words, Marty might have a point here. Assuming, that is, that one simply and dishonestly ignores the rather stern things that the administration has said and written. But judged by the results of actions taken and words spoken, Marty has no such grounds for complaint. The British government is close to collapse, due in large part to statements and revelations originating in Washington. The affair is even discrediting the SNP, which may ironically lose control to Scottish Labour prior to the next scheduled Scottish elections in 2011. And several other European governments (and, more importantly, European banks that do business in America) have put the brakes on commercial deals with Libya. So here we have Washington speaking softly (except when it's spoken loudly) and quite effectively wielding a big stick, and Marty standing on the sidelines shouting, "Less action! More talk!"
"...Does Marty even read his own sentences? His thesis climaxes by insulting America's top diplomat for being diplomatic and calling for Washington to base its relations with the world on "sentiment." Yes, the terrorist's release is an outrage, and so of course it's perfectly understandable that a person might wish for his government to act out of the impotent petulance he feels. We are all guilty of that sort of weak sentimentality at times. But any thinking person should feel disgrace to find that he has committed such childishness to print and allowed it to survive revision long enough to see publication -- particularly several weeks after the first flush of outrage, when there has been p ... view full comment
"...Does Marty even read his own sentences? His thesis climaxes by insulting America's top diplomat for being diplomatic and calling for Washington to base its relations with the world on "sentiment." Yes, the terrorist's release is an outrage, and so of course it's perfectly understandable that a person might wish for his government to act out of the impotent petulance he feels. We are all guilty of that sort of weak sentimentality at times. But any thinking person should feel disgrace to find that he has committed such childishness to print and allowed it to survive revision long enough to see publication -- particularly several weeks after the first flush of outrage, when there has been plenty of time for passion to subside and reason to return.
Judged by the restraint of official words, Marty might have a point here. Assuming, that is, that one simply and dishonestly ignores the rather stern things that the administration has said and written. But judged by the results of actions taken and words spoken, Marty has no such grounds for complaint. The British government is close to collapse, due in large part to statements and revelations originating in Washington. The affair is even discrediting the SNP, which may ironically lose control to Scottish Labour prior to the next scheduled Scottish elections in 2011. And several other European governments (and, more importantly, European banks that do business in America) have put the brakes on commercial deals with Libya. So here we have Washington speaking softly (except when it's spoken loudly) and quite effectively wielding a big stick, and Marty standing on the sidelines shouting, "Less action! More talk!..."
____________________________
This is nonsense.
It is not “petulance”—an unbelievable word here—impotent or not, that is involved here. It’s a demand for appropriately stern language beyond expressing “disappointment” (and similar bureaucrat-speak) over the joyous reception the guy got in Libya.
And that demand, which can well understand the constraints of international public talk, is not a call for irrational government action in word or deed, but rather to protest publicly and accessibly in language that gives appropriate expression to the “outrage”. Reason and feeling conjoining in mature judgment demand that. It is rather the poster, Rhubarbs, a vegetable not a fruit, who is displaying petulance, impotent or not, with sentiments like “But any thinking person should feel disgrace to find that he has committed such childishness to print and allowed it to survive revision long enough to see publication…”
Here again is obtuseness: “the first flush of outrage”. What is this: the seven stages of outrage or some such other psycho babble? We are dealing with a terribly deep instance of injustice, with black and white differences between right and wrong and with the worst kind of cynical business as usual. Public feelings such as the Lockerbie outrage need for their accommodation appropriate official expression. Technocratic calibrations of the stages of outrage are exactly the wrong approach:”… when there has been plenty of time for passion to subside and reason to return.”
There may well be the consequences to the release as noted in Rhubarbs's post, but its argument puts up a false choice which excludes a middle which is the precise point here. The issue isn’t “less action more talk” or action versus talk, or events in officialdom which barely, if at all, meet public perception. The issue, again, is appropriate sternness in response (not reaction) to the outrage that will have people understanding that there are times and places when an American response to an American tragedy, itself being shat upon by rhetorical diffidence, is more important than utilitarian calculation and rhetorical dithering.
If in fact there has been such appropriate American official expression here, I’d be obliged to be pointed to it.