Don't Mention the War (in Libya)

President Obama won't be interfering in Libyan domestic affairs by mentioning Libyan domestic affairs, according to Politico:

White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will speak about Libya at 2:30 p.m. He referred questions on Libya to "earlier statements," the pool reports. 

Carney added that he didn't anticipate Obama speaking about Libya. 

Ever?

Peru, on the other hand, has decided that its best not to deal with Libya at all, becoming the first country to completely cut ties with Qaddafi's regime. Meanwhile, a day after two Libyan air force jets landed in Malta, their pilots refusing orders to fire on protesting citizens, a Libyan warship ordered to bombard the breakaway city of Benghazi has also defected to the Mediterranean country.

In other Libya news, Qaddafi's personal pilot, Odd Birger Johansen, wants to go home in Norway but, because he's Scandinavian, obviously worries it would mean breaking his labor contract with the regime. "I am under contract, so I have to follow up on that if there should be a need for my services," he told Norway's TV2. "But right now, the way I feel it is that things are burning around me...and then I don't want to...I am not a hero, I will go home."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Barack Obama||

    Let me be clear: I'm lost, people. What the fuck do I do? I don't know, and that bitch I put in as SoS doesn't either. Just between me and you, I haven't got a clue!

  • to be fair||

    he shouldn't be doing anything confusion is better than

  • ||

    fran townsend says obama's actions behind the scene are spot-on. and the EU, esp france & italy must press the issue for the west due to extensive business ties.

  • ||

    Yes, Obama is secretly competent. His outward incompetence is merely a ruse.

  • Rather||

    Michael C. Moynihan, why aren't you writing about the fact that Qaddafi surrounds himself with kick-ass women for security? Who gives a shit about his pilot?

  • rather||

    If you do it, use a Fembots
    pic and I write the alt-text

  • ||

    Two lies about the anti-drug war.
    1)Legalization will stop crime! Wrong, criminals will not go straight because drugs are legal. They are criminals because crime affords them a life free of 8 hour work days. They will move on to other crimes because that's what they do. A drug mule in Arizona will not open up a cocaine shop in Mesa if drugs are legalized. Sure, the 45,000 Mexicans involed in the drug trade will cool it if America legalizes drugs.
    2) Prisons cost too much to operate. Only true if you're talking about government money. If you're talking about your money it's better to keep these assholes locked up. Paying to have your car window repaired after a crack-head breaks in to steal your laptop costs a lot more compared to keeping these assholes in jail. Drug addicts can not work, and need to steal to get high. If you've ever been beaten and robbed, or had your car stolen you will understand.
    If we start letting dickheads our of jail to save money will you lower taxes? No you won't. I'll make a deal with you pot heads, you can legalize pot and even get a discount as long as you dont' expect everyone else to pay for your dope (many do)!

  • R||

    God, this post full of shit.

    1) Once their meal ticket goes away, they pretty much won't have any choice. There isn't much else that can replace the black market in drugs for the cartels to deal in, and certainly very few things that bring the kind of revenue that drugs bring in. With nothing else to support them, they will for the most part collapse. Just look at the collapse of the illegal alcohol market after prohibition ended.

    2) Double bullshit. Most drug users are high functioning, and can hold jobs. Remember, alcoholism can destroy someone's life just easily as drug addiction, but I don't see the moral crusaders trying to ban it (any more, anyway). And if some addicts are so far gone they need to steel or mug, prosecute them for the theft and/or assault. Not for doing something that will harm no one if not abused.

  • ||

    1) So once drugs are legal they won't have any choice? Bull shit, ever heard of armed robbery, bank robbery, smuggling cigs, white slavery, there are all kinds of shit to do for those willing to take the chance and that prefer not to work. Not to mention that guns are "legal" but they still get smuggled.
    2) Most drug users are high funtioning? Cite that study dipshit! Go to an AA meeting sometime and listen to those guys talk about how many times they've been fired. Not only would you like to get high, a lot of you free music downloading freeloader Wisconsin teacher types would like someone else to pay for it.
    Nice logic "Booze bad, so let's legalize coke!" Genius!
    3) I'm amazed at the 180 you Raisinites have done with the Tea Party lately. 2 years ago you were sucking Obama's meat, and 4 months ago you were snickering about how uncool the TP was. Makes me wanna puke! Looks like part of the reason you've started to look at the TP different is becuase a bunch of you have gotten laid off! Where were you 2 years ago?

  • ||


    Not only would you like to get high, a lot of you free music downloading freeloader Wisconsin teacher types would like someone else to pay for it.
    Nice logic "Booze bad, so let's legalize coke!" Genius!


    Best troll couplet ever?

  • JohnD||

    R is a comlete moron. Most drug users are NOT high functioning. My girl friend works in a drug rehab clinic and sees hundreds of this clowns every month. Most end up coming back 2 or 3 times. You cannot cite on study that says most drug users are high functioning.

    As long as the Libritarian party is pro illegal drugs they will never be takenseriously.

  • JohnD||

    sorry about the spelling. My keyboard keys are sticky.

  • ||

    That high functioning comment really grabbed me. Reason, esp. Radley Balko, is like the Utopian liberals of the right. They live in a fantasy world where they've never met a real drug addict, or a real pimp, or a real crack-whore. Assignment for Radley Balko! Go to AA meeting, hang out at a low income housing project, start snorting cocaine 2 or 3 times a week until 4 months later you are snorting $300 a day, watch any one of the hundreds of documentaries or TV shows about drug addicts, then start writing again after you get out of jail and are working on paying your restitution. I understand, the criminal justice system can seem like a scam, and you can find many good people that have long jail sentences, and I am with you on the treatment instead of jail, and I'm with you on the stupid SWAT raids, but to think you could legalize cocaine, meth, or heroine sends a message that you are an immature fool that has not lived life long enough to see the truly evil these drugs can do. It's not just the Bible people that preach against drugs, it's the drug addicts themselves. People that have never been in a church in their lives will tell you how bad the life is, and that if you could buy cocaine legally they would be down at that store right now, or in a hotel room with a room full of hookers.
    Why the sudden rant on the drug war in a Libya story? Because I think Reason is a SCAM! It's an excuse not to be a Wisconsin teacher or a Rush Limbaugh fan. It's fake because during the summer of 2008 these guys were pulling for a guy that all but said he was a big government socialist. They were praising the Bush shoe throwers and mocking Sarah Palin. Now they want to give speeches at Tea Party gatherings. How do someone change so fast, so radically unless you are a complete fake?

  • Zeb||

    Wow. What staggering ignorance. If you don't like Reason, do yourself and everyone else a favor and fuck off.

  • JohnD's girlfriend||

    Your keyboard is sticky due to your compulsive masturbation whenever you think of all of the authoritarian measures necessary to prosecute the drug war. The sight of a pot-head being shackled is usually your tipping point image.

  • ||

    Many of us are less pro-illegal drugs than anti-War on Drugs. And the evidence is overwhelming that the huge money in the black market has made the criminals more powerful, better armed, and more dangerous.

    I've never used any illegal drugs, so I'm not one of those libertarians who lives only for drug legalization. Yet I support the cause for the sake of limiting government overreach.

  • ||

    This.

  • Zeb||

    Someone working in rehab sees only the worst cases, not typical ones. I can't say anything about numbers, but there are a lot of highly functioning drug users.

    In any case, what the fuck does this have to do with Libya?

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    I thought this was a thread about Libya and an incompetent president. I'm sure if you look hard enough, or wait a few hours, there will be a WOD thread for you to post your bullshit.

  • ||

    And that's another thing, if you listen to the Reason writers, "crime is down everywhere, no need for police raids". Sure, but how come Reasonites beleive the cops on crime stats, but nothing else? How can we have an out of control drug war and crime is down? If everybody is getting arrested for drugs then crime stats would go up, right? Wrong!

  • ||

    Dance Troll, DANCE!

  • ||

    Not that this has anything to do with Libya, but It is worth replying to.

    The main reason I (and many others) believe drugs should be legal is because I support the principle individual adults have the right to decide what to do with their own minds, organs, and bloodstreams. This includes the right to use drugs - and the government should merely require informed consent. The reduction in organized crime would be an important secondary benefit, but the main reason is the individual freedom argument.

    Legalization will stop crime! Wrong, criminals will not go straight because drugs are legal. They are criminals because crime affords them a life free of 8 hour work days. They will move on to other crimes because that's what they do. A drug mule in Arizona will not open up a cocaine shop in Mesa if drugs are legalized. Sure, the 45,000 Mexicans involed in the drug trade will cool it if America legalizes drugs.

    Many would not be able to find a criminal activity lucrative enough to make it worth it. As R notes, there are few black market activities that would generate the immense revenue that the illegal drug market generates. As for those who do seek to engage in other criminal activities, nothing about legalized drugs would stop law enforcement from going after them.

    Drug addicts can not work, and need to steal to get high. If you've ever been beaten and robbed, or had your car stolen you will understand.

    This is obviously not true in all cases, and at any rate most drug users are not addicts. The government’s National Household Survey on Drug Use indicates that millions of Americans use illegal drugs, but it is clear that most of those don’t commit crimes against others. If drugs were legal, their price would be lower so it would be easier than it is now to support a habit through honest work. And those who do still steal to get money for drugs (or any other reason) can be prosecuted for theft.

    I'll make a deal with you pot heads, you can legalize pot and even get a discount as long as you don’t expect everyone else to pay for your dope (many do)!

    I accept your deal. (Of course I also want it extended to other drugs.)

  • ||

    Dear Odd Birger Johansen

    Better a breech of contract than a breech in your hide. The former can be renegotiated if your boss survives; the latter may be fatal.

    Yours truly,

    Aresen

  • Jim||

    And thus my argument to the ancaps who insist, INSIST, that mercenary armies are 100% reliable.

  • ||

    I thought that issue was settled pretty clearly from the Guelph - Ghibelline Wars.

    IIRC, Machiavelli made some comments about the perfidy of mercenaries as well.

  • ||

    Strangely, Machiavelli was silent on whether robot mercenary armies could be effective.

  • cynical||

    Robots aren't mercenaries, they're weapons. If you control a horde of robots yourself, SupCom style, that just makes you an army of one.

  • ||

    I beg to differ, at least in the case of sentient killer-robot troops.

  • ||

    At least he won't be running of with a fighter or warship.

  • ||

    These are the risks when you take a contract to work on the Death Star.

  • This Dave||

    Considering that the lack of a pilot should the need arise will probably result in a lack of Qaddafi being alive, I wouldn't worry too much about that contract. And as for his sons, well....Uday and Qusay aren't filing any suits against dad's former pilots, are they?

  • prolefeed||

    At this rate, Malta will become the most powerful island nation in the world soon.

  • ||

    Maybe this was their plan all along!

  • rather||

    just don't mention 1675

  • Napoleon ||

    Merde, 213 years too late

  • ||

    The plague?

    I thought we were talking about the Knights...?

  • Almanian||

    Not as long as Beaver Island exists. How could anything be more powerful than Beaver Island?

    Oh - it can't...the Beaver rules all....

  • SIV||

    What's a lightly used MIG-21 Dassault Mirage F1 with questionable title sell for in Malta anyways?

  • SIV||

    I'd guess cheap w/o spare parts and a Frog service contract.

  • Retired Renault Mechanic||

    I'm still handy with a wrench...

  • SIV||

    I'm thinking it might be dependent on the range with a full tank to someone who already has a few with existing maintenance support. Plus whatever the "port charges" and "departure fees" are in Malta on a homeless early 70s fighter aircraft.

  • ||

    Not sure how new the Mirages are, but assuming the post-Daffy government doesn't want them, even older jets will have some pretty valuable metals included.

  • Almanian||

    I bet Bob Lutz knows. He's a big fan on the fighter jets - owns a MIG. I believe a Dassault, as well.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wow... Mo is bat-shittier than Olbermann.

  • Ed Schultz||

    I'm trying to fill those shoes.

  • ||

    I was talking to my dad earlier today and was wondering what actually happens to the jets. My guess is that the Maltese government holds them until they can be returned safely to a stable government in Libya.

    It isn't like the cold war with MIGs where this was technology we wanted to have a look at to know what it could do. It's a French aircraft first made 40 years ago. So other than its street value, it's not of much use to anyone.

  • SIV||

    I'm trying to ballpark "street value". Is Malta the kind of state that gives a rat's ass about returning a failed-state's property? What if it just up and flys away in the next week or two?

  • ||

    The plane can leave, but the pilot needs exit paperssss...

  • rather||

  • rather||

    They required permission to land and the property belongs to Libya-just like any airline's plane.

  • SIV||

    You think small. Malta, of all places,isn't going to return a fighter aircraft to a potential Caliphate. The Libyan air force is not an airline.

  • rather||

    They are part of the EU-bet?

  • Dello||

    Screw 'em. Let whatever amount of Libya's military DOESN'T defect take on the units that did.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    In 1989 when Alexander Zuyev flew a stolen MiG Fulcrum (which we *did* want to get our hands on at the time) to Turkey, they let him go on to the US but sent the jet back to the USSR.

  • Gray Ghost||

    That was the case in '79 with Belenko and his Mig-25 as well. Of course, they didn't get the jet back right away...

  • Gray Ghost||

    whoops, '76. An edit function for these pages would be nice.

  • Adonisus||

    You know how, back in the 80s, when Qaddafi was like the real life Cobra Commander?

    Yeah...people are starting to remember that now.

  • wingnutx||

    I thought he was just a scapegoat for Reagan's corporate war machine, along with Daniel Ortega.

    I distinctly remember bumper stickers to that effect.

  • rather||

    In May 2006, a Chinese businessman named Zhang Cheng bought a former Czech Air Force MiG-21 fighter jet from a seller in the United States for $24,730. The seller, "inkgirle", refused to ship it. It is not known whether he was refunded

  • omg||

    "I am under contract, so I have to follow up on that if there should be a need for my services,"

    This is a contract in Libya, is it? Those contracts are going to be worthless scraps of paper in a few days. Run away fast.

  • robc||

    Whats the penalty for breaking the contract?

    I cant imagine it isnt worth it.

  • H man||

    Seriously, This guy seems nice but a little dimwitted. Or just not really aware of how serious this all is.
    Although to be fair he should give notification in terms of "Qadaffi, this plane is leaving with you or with out you. Your choice"

  • ||

    Mr Johansen sounds very stressed out. I wonder if Gaddaffy will accept a doctor's excuse from the UW medical center.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Awesome. I'm sure they'll diagnose him over the phone/Skype. It's "distance medicine", right?

  • ||

    President Obama won't be interfering in Libyan domestic affairs by mentioning Libyan domestic affairs, according to Politico:

    Now, Wisconsin, on the other hand...

  • whitehouse.gov||

    Hey, Wisconsin is part of the Greater Chicago Protectorate, now under the official control of the Obama Administration (via a subsidiary). So, really it's the man's own business, and all-a-y'all cow-people can hightail it to Minnesota or wherever plebes go to live these days.

  • Emperor Prosek||

    The CS will not bow to the inhuman.

  • The Lady Prosek||

    go to bed

  • ||

    And unlike he did with Egypt... maybe he IS capable of learning from mistakes.

  • ||

    Oddly, calling out Gu-Daffy seems like a much easier call than it was with Mubarek.

    Once burned-twice shy? Or something a bit more sinister?

  • JohnD||

    Obama is not going to say anything bad about a fellow Muslim.

  • ||

    Where's Rommel when you need him? I'd settle for Monty, given decent supply lines.

  • Tottenham Till I Die||

    Do the fortunes of Juventus - the partially Gawdaffi owned Italian football club wallowing in 6th place and non-libertarian reason mag. mistake Michael Young's favorite club foreshadow both Gawdaffi and Young's imminent demise?

    http://www.uefa.com/uefachampi.....14487.html

  • ||

    The Indonesian Imbecile is too busy interfering in the state of Wisconsin's domestic affairs, an unconstitutional distraction that this so-called "constitutional professor" should know is illegal if not unconstitutional.

    But he majored in rabble-rousing and used the constitutional minor as a cover for slacking off and getting pass-fail grades. Bogus and moronic, the guy is a mental clubfoot.

  • Brack Hussein Obama||

    Let me be perfectly clear - I inherited all of these problems from my predecessor, and it will take some time to repair after the car drove onto the ditch.

  • puma pas cher||

    lovely

  • affenkopf||

    Wouldn't a strong condemnation from the Obama admininistration actually help Gaddafi?

  • Obama||

    bad boy-swat!

  • Jerry||

    Gaddafi is crazy enough to start sending out terrorist cells when anyone tries to interfere by force.

  • cynical||

    It isn't terrorism when the government does it.

  • ||

    I'm very surprised that Qaddafi's personal pilot was willing to give an on-the-record interview about the situation. I would think that blabbing about your employer in that line of work is probably not very healthy.

  • ||

    Does Qaddafi's personal pilot have a cousin whose first name is "Good", by any chance?

  • Rich||

    I don't know. Did the pilot change his name to "Odd" from "Angus"?

  • Keith||

    Dude - maybe the reason the President isn't saying anything is that we've got a LOT of US citizens in Libya and he's trying to get THEM OUT before someone gets the idea that they'd make really neat HOSTAGES

  • GADDaffi||

    Hey you got a purty mouf, I wanna putchyu onna hookan play wif you.

  • ||

    I find this exceedingly unlikely. Kadhafi does that, and he knows we'll be coming in force. With justification. Whatever the result, he'd be done in that scenario.

  • WTF||

    I'm not so sure - is it really a sure thing that Obama would respond with effective force in such a situation? I certainly can't tell, and I think that foreign leaders would likley have their doubts as well.

  • ||

    There's some truth in that, but it's an unnecessary risk to take, even so.

  • ||

    The first rule of the situation in Libya: you don't talk about the situation in Libya.

  • jlm||

  • chaussures puma ducati||

    last

  • ||

    Libya gained Independence on 1951 and lost it on 2011. The only one to blame are the Libyans. They never were able to get along to each other, and were not able to create and rule a nation. Now they will learn how to work very hard and get a little …. but before this would happen, they will kill each other in a bloody civil war …

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement