“Odyssey Dawn”

You really have to love the monikers that the Pentagon gives to its military operations. Presuming they’re not simply the product of some random word generator, it’s curious to speculate as to why that it was given that particular name. Most obviously perhaps, a hat tip to Homeric legend… If so, there are all manner of sardonic references that could be read into it.

Anyway, that aside, I wonder how Canadians feel about being committed to participation in yet another war that has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with our national security interests.

Some pundits are already opining that Harper’s commitment may be a political “winner” and could help skew the next election in his favour. That could well be the case provided that a desired outcome is swiftly achieved, but some might question the fact that this action was never debated in parliament – not that it would have made much difference, given the fact that the so-called “Opposition” appears, yet again, to have the back of The Harper Government® on this issue.



Filed under HARPER Government of Canada, Stephen Harper

8 responses to ““Odyssey Dawn”

  1. kat

    Let’s not forget the oil……

  2. This is yet another blatantly non-defensive NATO operation being conducted behind the UN Security Council’s yellowed fig leaf. It’s interesting that there’s been little explicit Western concern about the ideological complexion of the anti-Gaddafi forces when reports of their partially Islamist inspiration have been far more credible than were those concerning the anti-Mubarak militants.

    Harper will almost certainly attempt a crass partisan exploitation of Canada’s miniscule no-fly enforcement contribution, one that could have been ably provided by Luxembourg had we been unavailable. Harper’s eager embrace of the mission at just the time the squalid Bruce Carson imbroglio is breaking recalls Bill Clinton’s launch of missile attacks against Sudanese and Afghan “terror” targets at just the time the Lewinski scandal was breaking. No doubt Dimitri and his PMO cronies have bandied the phrase “wag the dog” about quite a bit lately over their prime rib at Hy’s Steakhouse.

    And, yes, US mission names are hilarious. That was once either the subject of or protracted thread digression from a post at one of your old places. I urged commenters to think up their own names by mating a term of overwhelming rectitude with a parodically bombastic straining after rhetorical masculinity. Missions like “Massive Justice”, “Total Rightness”, and “Fully Erect Virtue” were quickly produced.

  3. If I had some programming skills it would be fun to come up with a mission name generator along the lines you’ve suggested that would concoct things such as “Liberty Storm” or “Daring Nimrod”, etc.

    As much as I’d like to see the Gaddafi regime toppled, I really don’t see how it’s any of our business to be involved in the matter. The “humanitarian” argument doesn’t hold any water at all.

  4. Heh. That was great.

    Operation… Farting Briefcase!

  5. Roland

    I shed no tears for Qaddafi, but I am still appalled by the casual impunity with which the Western Bloc goes to war.

    I know that this is by no means the first time that Canadian forces have been committed to a UN operation without consulting Parliament. Nevertheless it’s an abuse of executive power, especially when neither Canada nor any of its allies have come under attack.

    As is usually the case now, the belligerent powers have established no clear chain-of-command, nor have they made any coherent statement of their war aims. There is no plan, no accountability, no way to measure success or failure.

    There is only a strategic muddle made forgivable only by the hopelessly obsolete weapons of the enemy.

    In economic terms, this is a case of negative externalities and their perverse impact on decision-making. Since the Western forces are nearly invulnerable, all losses are suffered by Libyans, of whatever stripe. If the Western leaders blunder, that just means more Libyans get killed, or more Libyan cities are damaged.

    Is it any wonder, then, that Westerners are so casual about their warmaking against minor powers, or that minor Western powers such as Canada breathlessly join the “Me Too!” brigade?

    But speaking of incoherence, what country’s response has made less sense than Russia’s? Today Putin made a disapproving statement about the war. But Russia failed to use its veto to prevent UN sanction for the war. Putin might as well wear a badge reading, “Yes, My Country is Now Geopolitically Irrelevant.”

    This is a problem, because a world with no balance between mutually suspicious great powers is a world that can expect a lot more wars.

  6. TofKW

    Roland, I suspect Russia, and the Chinese for that matter, were perfectly OK with abstaining from the UN vote and allowing NATO to waste more money on yet another war. Meanwhile both bide their time while the US delves further into insolvency.

    In truth the Russians and Chinese are more in tune to what the UN was formed upon, and by the way it was not to be used as a force to instill democracy upon totalitarian leaders. Strictly speaking, the UN was founded to prevent one nation, or a group of nations from unilaterally attacking another nation. In the post WW-2 era, that was all the various nations could agree upon, in the hope that a all-nation forum with such a central rule would prevent another world war from escalating.

    In a case like Libya (or Yugoslavia back in the 90’s) the UN has no business involving itself in civil wars, not unless the conflict spills out beyond that nation’s borders. The UN was set up to fight in cases like Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, or North Korea’s attack against the South in the early 50’s. Hate to say it but Gaddafi has a point when we says it is illegitimate of the UN to take military action against Libya.

    Even so, I hope they take that bastard out ASAP …then the west needs to get our collective asses out of Libya pronto! Otherwise we have yet one more moneyburning clusterfuck of death in another area of the world we’re already less than loved.

  7. Roland

    I found the quid-pro-quo for Russia’s non-veto: US cooperation on the BMD issue. Datelined today at Novosti:


    “The United States sees Russia as a full-fledged participant in the European missile defense system, Ellen Tauscher, the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, has said.”

    Now Russia’s policy makes a bit more sense to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s