by Jim Egan
Is it not unconscionable that the US, UK & French military
have failed in 100 days and £400m to route Col. Gaddafi?
There are ways to prompt him to flee,
And end his strange reign of tyranny.
Had the private sector been given such a challenge
it would have taken 5 days for just £15m and change.
The Good Book provides a key from one Sura;
a blueprint for success beyond brave Misrata.
Now come reports that France is no longer widely aroused
Over remaining committed to NATO's sputtering bombing ballet.
Yet the farsighted vision at the Pentagon, Whitehall and Ballard
is that no long-tail employment stems from quick regime changes.
Job security instead flows from bombast and gunfire exchanges.
which fail to extinguish the warfires most want doused.
Is it not painful when the well-funded military simply ducks
screaming solutions to save fast-deflating taxpayer bucks?
NATO's obsession is protracted physical warfare, yet Genghis John
taught some to "Never forget conflict's moral and mental dimension."
The net effect of the endless Libya precision bombing campaign?
An endless NATO "Don't interrupt the money flow; add to it!" game.
In a previous life Jim Egan served on staffs on Capitol Hill, at a Pentagon software contractor, and in the White House. Today he is a technologist active in digital futures initiatives that can influence the emotions, brand loyalties and discretionary spending patterns of 100m-sized online audiences.
Comments
How unconscionable is it that the US and some selected allies have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for over 10 years and $1.1 Trillion? Looks like many ventures we attempt fail to end exactly the way we envisioned in the beginning. The issue in Libya is not "NATOs sputtering bombing ballet", but the failure to link many disparate political wills with the military campaign. Similiar "progress" would be seen with or without bombing, boots on the ground, or other types of kinetic regime change.