Posts tagged with Libya
In the Vietnam War a marine officer once commented that he was burning a Vietnamese village in order to save it. President Barack Obama's threat to launch a terrorist bombing campaign against Syria would increase the destruction of the country without any guarantee that the government would let America's Imperial President dictate how it should treat its citizens.
Such bombing campaigns have a history of failure. Germany's massive bombing of England during World War II failure to cause the country to surrender as did the American bombing of North Vietnam in the sixties. The Russians had to intervene in the Serbian conflict after the American bombing campaign failed to change things. The United States had to invade Iraq a decade ago to get Saddam Hussein to get rid of his Weapons of Mass Destruction after the bombing campaign failed to produce compliance.
Imperial President Barack Obomber has already destroyed one Muslim country in his efforts to convince people that he is Emperor of the world. Libya still hasn't recovered from his destructive efforts. His inept handling of Libya hasn't given his European friends the control of Libyan oil that they wanted when they got him to support their attack on the country.
Bombings often produce what American terrorist Timothy McVeigh called "collateral damage". President Bill Clinton's attacks on Serbia damaged a hospital and the Chinese embassy. Obomber's bombing of Libya murdered some members of Muammar Gaddafi's family with his bombing campaign. How many innocent civilians will die in Syria if Obomber gets to launch a terrorist bombing campaign against the country? .
When did the President of the United States become god of the world? Who appointed the United States to decide how other countries should treat their citizens? Would Obomber attack Russia or China if they mistreated their citizens or does he just try to bully smaller countries that are too small to defend themselves against the imperialist United States?
The United States has no moral authority to dictate how other governments should treat people considering the government's mistreatment of the country's original residents and the way it allowed the mistreatment of the descendants of slaves in the century after the Civil War.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the fall of the American consulate in Benghazi is the similarity of the situation to one of the most famous murders in history,
Most people have probably heard of the romance story of Israel's King David and Bathsheba. Fewer are aware of how David got rid of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite.
To summarize the story: David saw Bathsheba bathing and decided to have a brief affair with her and got her pregnant. He tried to cover up his role in the pregnancy by having her soldier husband Uriah the Hittite recalled with the hope Uriah would spend some time with his wife so he would appear responsible for her pregnancy. Uriah's code of ethics prevented him from having sex with his wife while his comrades were still in combat.
David then issued orders for Uriah to be placed in the middle of a battle and have other soldiers withdraw so he would be killed.
It has been alleged by those in Benghazi at the time of Benghazi attack on the consulate that they were ordered not to try to rescue U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the others in the consulate. Such orders would normally seem unlikely considering the fact that Viet Cong attack on the American embassy in Saigon in 1968 was part of the reason President Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for reelection. The capture of the American embassy in Tehran was one of the reasons President Jimmy Carter lost his reelection bid.
Any order not to mount a rescue effort to prevent an al Qaeda victory could be construed as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" -- the Constitutional definition of treason. American forces quickly retook the American embassy in Saigon in 1968. President Carter launched an ill fated rescue effort to rescue personnel at the American embassy in Iran. Obama and Clinton had personnel available to attempt a rescue effort. Why weren't those forces used?
Normally American presidents would be expected to do whatever was necessary to protect the lives of American ambassadors. Why did President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fail to protect Ambassador Stevens? Were they too dumb to recognize the possibility al Qaeda would take the consulate? Did one of them or someone else high in the administration want Ambassador Stevens, or someone else at the consulate, to die for some reason?
Ambassador Stevens wasn't married, so the motive couldn't have been the same as the motive for killing Uriah. Perhaps Stevens was connected to a scandal that hasn't been uncovered yet. I'm aware that there are rumors that both Stevens and Obama are homosexual, but don't know if the rumors are true.
I don't have any answers, only questions. Congress needs to consider the possibility that the Benghazi incident was used by someone high in the Obama administration to kill Ambassador Stevens or someone else at the consulate. It would also be possible the intended victim wasn't at the consulate even though someone in Washington thought he, or she, would be.
Reporters covering the investigation of the major al Qaeda victory at Benghazi should ask themselves: "what would Walter Cronkite do" if he were covering the story.
Let's consider the facts. Most people familiar with the War on Terror knew in September, 2012, that there was a heightened risk of an al Qaeda attack in the U.S. or at American installations outside the U.S. on or about the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.
The danger was particularly high at American facilities in Libya because of the very unstable situation there and the presence of al Qaeda personnel who were trying to take over the country. Military and CIA personnel in Libya should have been on a high state of alert and prepared to back up personnel at any facility that might be attacked. Their orders should have been to respond immediately to any attack without requesting authorization from Washington. Security should have been particularly tight in Benghazi with the Ambassador in the building.
With modern cell phone technology, personnel should have been calling the State Department as they took cover, grabbed weapons, etc. Both the Secretary of State and President should have been notified immediately. State Department protocol should have required the Secretary, or least the top undersecretary for the region, to monitor the situation using both audio and video from the site, possibly using devices such as smart phones . If a satellite was in position to monitor the situation someone in Washington should have monitored its video. Keep in mind the government has better quality cameras than Google on its satellites.
The Obama administration's initial claim that the facility fell to a rag tag mob of demonstrators implies the facility essentially had no security. Any decent security protocol should have been prepared for the type of attack that Iranian students had used to take over the American embassy in Tehran during the Carter administration. An attack by trained military personnel would have been more easily explained, although security personnel should have been prepared to handle such an attack.
Determining the significance of the successful al Qaeda attack is difficult because of the nature of the War on Terror. Significant battles haven't involved large groups. Although the American casualty toll in the 9/11 attack was high, barely a dozen men conducted the attack. A similar sized American force killed Osama bin Laden. Much of the killing by both sides is done by remote control. Americans use aerial drones. Al Qaeda uses road side bombs.
The attack is at least as significant as the temporary Viet Cong capture of the American embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. The attack indicates that al Qaeda has successfully broadened the war and is now able to defeat the Americans in Libya and possibly elsewhere. The size of the victory isn't as important as the fact that the attack was an al Qaeda victory. Al Qaeda may not be "winning" the war yet, but as a football sportscaster might say, al Qaeda "has taken the momentum", as demonstrated by the recent successful bombing of the Boston Marathon. Al Qaeda can use its success as a recruitment argument.
The failure of the Americans to come to the rescue during the attack could be interpreted by al Qaeda as proving bin Laden was right when he said the Americans would eventually tire of the fighting.
Walter Cronkite began questioning the American handling of the Vietnam after the attack on the American Embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. I'm sure he would have asked questions about the War on Terror after the fall of the American consulate in Benghazi, particularly considering the allegations that someone in Washington prevented sending a rescue force. Cronkite knew that Presidents are sometimes mislead by their subordinates and it is the duty of journalists to learn the truth.
President Barack Obama made the most inane debate comment of the early 21st century in the October 22nd debate. http://www.npr.org/2012/10/22/163436694/transcript-3rd-obama-romney-presidential-debate
"But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military's[sic] changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."
We may not need as many horses and bayonets as we did in 1916, but we need more ships than the peace time navy of 1916 did. In 1916 the United States didn't think it needed a big navy because it wasn't involved in World War 1 and still expected the British Navy to control the seas. The United States Navy has inherited the commerce protecting and peace keeping role the British Navy played a century ago. However, the U.S. cannot perform that role with only 114 ships of 287 total ships deployed over 139 million square miles of ocean. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146
The United States should have an aircraft carrier based group with rescue helicopters and Marines off the coast of Libya and other hot spots where embassies are close enough to the sea for sea based rescues. The capital of Iran was too far from the sea for a sea based rescue during the Carter administration. Diplomatic facilities in Libya and some other trouble spots can be reached from ships.
It may come as a surprise to Obama, but the main reason we ended up in WWI was because the United States didn't have enough ships to protect its merchant ships from German submarines called U-boats. Nuclear power for submarines may have come long after WWI but "ships that go underwater" were a major German weapon in that war. The first submarine was built in the 17th Century and the first submarine attack was an unsuccessful attempt to attach a bomb to a British ship during the American Revolution. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/worlds-first-submarine-attack
It is unlikely that Japan would have attacked the Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941 if the United States had had more than one fleet in the Pacific. Japan thought that knocking out the only American fleet in the Pacific would allow it to take control of the Pacific before the United States could build a replacement fleet.
This year begins the 200th anniversary of the first major war fought by the United States, the War of 1812. The United States wouldn't have felt a need to enter that war if it had had a big enough navy to discourage the British navy from kidnapping sailors from American merchant ships and even naval ships.
Peace provides the best environment for the international trade the U.S. economy has always depended upon. The United States first foreign "war" was an attack on pirates on the North African coast. The U.S. needs a big enough navy to permanently station ships in shipping lanes plagued by pirates.
The Navy provides the best option for protecting the peace. Moving ships to a trouble spot doesn't require construction of large bases first. Personnel can be stationed near a trouble spot without the complications involved with stationing troops among the local population. We may not need as many horses and bayonets as were needed in 1916, but ships are even more necessary.
Four years ago Democrats criticized Gov. Sarah Palin for her statement "I can see Russia from my house". Compare that to Obama's statements: "We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines." Obama apparently thinks he's speaking to children, or maybe he just has a simple mind.
Obama's statements that al Qaeda is weak ignores the implications of the attack on the Libyan consulate. Al Qaeda may be weaker in Afghanistan, but it is growing elsewhere. It is not going away any time soon. Obama is underestimating the strength of al Qaeda much like the Johnson administration underestimated the strength of the Viet Cong before the 1968 Tet offensive.
Megyn Kelly on Fox made an interesting observation on the first debate. Mitt Romney would watch Barack Obama during the debate while Obama tended to look at Jim Lehrer or the cameras. I had halfway noticed this situation during the debate but didn't really consider the implications until she commented.
I went back and fast forwarded through the debate. Romney would look at Obama for significant periods, but Obama only occasionally glanced at Romney before looking away or looking down.
An obvious explanation for Obama not looking at Romney is that Obama felt intimidated by Romney. The debates cannot resolve differences on issues because the responses are too short. Romney apparently recognizes that the debates allow a candidate to show who has the strongest personality and would be best able to stand up to the leaders of other countries, the leaders of special interest groups and congressional opponents.
Watching one's opponent is important in verbal combat as well as in physical combat. A boxer watches his opponent to look for an opening for a punch or an indication of what type of punch the opponent may throw. A verbal combatant watches body language and facial expression for signs of weakness.
I was a boxing fan when Mohammad Ali was the champ. I still recall him trying to stare down opponents to try to shake their self confidence. Romney at times seemed to be trying to stare down Obama who occasionally glanced at Romney and then quickly looked away.
Romney obviously understands personal conflicts in a political, or business, situation and how to appear to be a tough opponent. Obama does not.
The 1962 Cuban missile crisis occurred because Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev felt American President John F. Kennedy could be intimidated. The recent attack on the American consulate in Libya may have occurred because al Qaeda believes Obama can be intimidated.
Before the debate I was planning to vote for Romney only as a means of getting Obama out of the White House. Now I will vote for Romney the Intimidator to be our leader in foreign affairs.
Republicans oppose tax increases for higher income groups because Republicans suffer from the delusion that the group consists solely of small business owners. Many in the higher income group do not own small businesses and thus are not going to reduce hiring if their taxes go up or increase hiring if taxes are reduced.
Minimum wage dishwashers pay a Social Security tax. Business executives should be able to pay a tax on their income above some amount (for example, $200,000). This tax could be imposed as a temporary tax until the deficit is eliminated and the country begins paying off its debt.
The tax would be paid on gross income like the Social Security tax. Executives of "non profit" organizations would be subject to the tax as well as executives of for profit organizations.
Business owners wouldn't be subject to the tax. It would be limited to those who are employed by others, including the highly paid "employees" of sports teams and television and movie production companies. I doubt that Charlie Sheen will cut back on his female companionship and drug use if he has to pay a few more dollars in taxes.
Business executives aren't going to invest their money in new equipment for their employers even if they don't pay any income taxes. Raising their taxes won't keep them from creating jobs as Republicans claim is the case with business owners. Raising their taxes would help reduce the federal deficit.
President Barack Obama calls tax provisions allowing companies to deduct the cost of aircraft are "loopholes" even though allowing companies to deduct the cost of new equipment creates jobs in other businesses particularly in American businesses as is the case with most aircraft purchases.
If Obama wants to eliminate loopholes he should eliminate the ability of corporations to deduct the full cost of the salaries of their highly paid executives when figuring taxes. Government might allow a deduction only for the first $200,000 of each executive's pay when determining profit. Alternatively, government might allow deduction of executive salaries when determining profit, but impose a special tax on executive pay comparable to the Social Security tax.
Corporate income has traditionally been viewed in terms of profits which are the stockholders' income. However, the corporation is more than stockholders. Its financial beneficiaries include the people the corporation pays, particularly executives who can receive huge incomes even if the stockholders receive no incomes from the corporation.
Companies already pay taxes on their hourly employees through the Social Security system. Why should executive salaries get a tax break? Perhaps this tax provision could be temporary depending upon the size of the deficit.
Congress should replace the capital gains tax associated with stock and commodities trading with a transaction tax. Such a tax would provide a more predictable source of revenue and simplify tax collection while facilitating a tax increase during periods of high trading. There would be no provision for a capital loss deduction on stocks held less than a period of years. This change would not effect the number of jobs. The stock market in recent decades has at times been more of a gambling device than an investment facility.
The markets might drop briefly when the tax is implemented, but the markets would quickly adjust to the new cost and then ignore it.
Congress should increase the tax on casino gambling revenue and winnings. Congress should eliminate any deduction for casino and race track gambling losses on visits when losses are greater than wins. Increases in these taxes won't impact jobs. Most people visit casinos for entertainment rather than income.
Cutting spending without adversely impacting the economy isn't as easy as Republicans believe. For example, cutting Department of Defense purchases of equipment would mean the companies that produced the equipment would have to lay off workers. Most Social Security recipients spend all the money they receive. Cutting benefits would reduce their purchases forcing layoffs in businesses that recipients purchase goods and services from.
Major cuts will require Congress taking the time to evaluate each program to determine how to cut spending without cutting jobs in the private sector. Some programs could be dropped because the private sector could take over financing. Until that happens Congress shouldn't start any new funding programs and should delay the implementation of major health care changes such as Obamacare until the deficit is under control.
Groups like Planned Parenthood could be financed by private donations if there is sufficient support in the private sector. Programming for the Public Broadcast system could be financed by donations or by giving commercial stations the option of broadcasting a broader range of programming or providing programming to PBS.
Many of those who study climate claim that climate science is settled. Thus there is no reason to continue spending tax money on climate research. The only reason to spend tax money on science research is to learn something new.
Since the days of Senator William Proxmire politicians and journalists have often ridiculed some federally funded "science" research. Many of these projects may have been legitimate topics of research, but there was no real reason for the federal government to borrow money to fund them. Congress should consider a moratorium on science research until it can establish guidelines for what can be funded.
Congress should immediately end all funding for operations in Libya. If the Europeans want to spend money taking control of Libyan oil they should spend their own money. Bombing campaigns are notoriously ineffective in causing countries to surrender. Many historians believe even the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in WWII were not responsible for Japan's surrender because the government was about to surrender anyway.
I grew up watching old Hollywood westerns in which the Indians always stopped fighting if their chief was killed, or at least they stopped until they selected a new chief. The killing of Osama bin Laden may provide a great deal of emotional satisfaction for Americans, but it won't necessarily improve the chances of defeating al Qaeda. The killing might even invigorate al Qaeda.
I was serving in Vietnam when North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh died. His death didn't change what was happening in the war.
Bin Laden's presence in an area far removed from the action indicates he might have become little more than a spiritual adviser to al Qaeda with operations controlled by others. If so his death at the hands of the Americans wouldn't affect operations, but his conversion to a martyr could provide a new rallying point.
(Incidentally, criticism of Pakistanis for not realizing he was at that compound ignores the fact that Pakistan has far more drug dealers / smugglers than terrorist leaders and drug dealers might also prefer to live in a fortress.)
Al Qaeda has been relatively ineffective for years, possibly because bin Laden has not provided effective leadership. Subordinates might have been afraid to challenge him because of his past role with the organization. His death could allow a more dynamic, imaginative, aggressive leader to take over. When a shrub stops growing, pruning off the old wood can give it new life.
Existing al Qaeda leaders might compete for the top position by conducting terrorist missions. Other organizations such as Hamas might seek a role in the new al Qaeda.
Perhaps members would be more willing to seek an alliance with an existing nation, particularly Libya which is fighting European "crusaders". An alliance wasn't practical before bin Laden's death because Qaddafi would both have wanted to be the leader. Qaddafi previously supported international terrorism.
The killing of Qaddafi's son and grandchildren shortly before the killing of bin Laden gives Libya and al Qaeda a common desire for revenge. Qaddafi can offer financing to al Qaeda in exchange for assistance fighting the NATO backed contras, or whatever the rebels are calling themselves.
Libyan rebel leader Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi is an al Qaeda veteran and potentially take over if he came to power in Libya and was able to divert part of its oil revenue to al Qaeda.
Some in the Pakistan military may be so upset at the embarrassment caused by conduct of such an attack near their capital that they will give advanced weapons to al Qaeda and the Taliban. We can only hope that the Pakistan government adds extra security for its nuclear weapons.
Pakistan is not a tiny banana republic like Venezuela. It has half the population of the U.S. and the world's 7th largest military, including nuclear armed missiles.
Pakistan is a democracy which means the government must consider popular sentiment which could become more anti-U.S. as a result of the raid. If Obama's critics are correct about him visiting Pakistan in 1981 as a student using an Indonesian passport (possibly under the name of Barry Soetoro or Barry Durham) and Pakistan had a record of that visit, Pakistan could embarrass him by releasing the information. I don't know if embarrassing Obama after he embarrassed Pakistan by violating its sovereignty would be enough to quiet any public outcry against the U.S.
Obama's decision to secretly bury bin Laden at sea could be a blunder. The action sounds like a coverup because when criminals "bury" a body in the water it's to prevent discovery of the crime.
If al Qaeda could find someone who looks like bin Laden and could imitate his voice, it could make a video claiming the U.S. killed the wrong man.
It would have been better to have had someone other than bin Laden's wife and U.S. experts provide identification for the body. His wife might have identified the body as his so the U.S. would stop looking for him.
Burying him at sea won't prevent someone from establishing a shrine to him, but instead would allow a shrine to be build any place, including the place where he was killed, or in their view where he became a martyr..
The U.S. could have avoided the possibility of a shrine at his grave site by turning the body over to family members who had disowned him for burial at an secret site in Saudi Arabia which had revoked his citizenship.. Acceptance of the body by family members, who would not have been identified, would have provided more reliable identification of it.
Releasing of photos of the shooting won't provide proof he was killed. Hollywood routinely simulates the killing of actors in movies. Jay Leno has occasionally shown doctored videos showing bin Laden at various locations, including the White House. Release of the photos would be more likely to inflame his supporters than to prove he was killed.
Fortunately, Obama's release of his long form birth certificate prior to the death of bin Laden gives Obama more credibility than he would have had. Without that release, al Qaeda members might have compared the "missing" body to his missing birth certificate.
Donald Trump in recent weeks had been advising President Barack Obama to produce his Hawaiian birth certificate to prove he had one. Truimp refused to let journalists force him into dropping the subject. Obama had been refusing to give in until April 27th when Obama blinked.
Trump recognized that a president cannot have the confidence of the people if he withholds information for no apparent reason. The document Obama released on the 27th doesn't contain any information that needed to be kept secret.
Trump's willingness to stand firm to force Obama to do what he should have done long ago demonstrates Trump's leadership ability. Trump is more likely to stand firm against foreign leaders than Obama who let European leaders con him into a foolish Libyan adventure that has raised gas prices.
Obama is an attorney and shouldn't have needed to be reminded that an attorney is most likely to win if he presents the best possible evidence to the court, or (as an elected official) to the voters.
During the last two years the failure to provide the long form birth certificate has been a major distraction which has created doubts about whether Obama was even qualified to be president. Obama has been oblivious to the fact that his unwillingness to release the document was hampering his presidency.
If Trump wants to continue an offensive against Obama, he should focus on Libya and ask what the real reason for American involvement is. Trump might also ask Obama how NATO plans to stabilize the situation if Qaddafi is forced out of office. Al Qaeda attempted take to advantage of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein to take over Iraq and can be expected to attempt to take over Libya is Qaddafi is forced out. Has Obama secretly promised U.S. troops to keep al Qaeda out of Libya?
The ancestors of today's Europeans couldn't understand the significance of what they were doing when they vandalized Rome. The modern descendants of those Vandals are capable of understanding the significance of their actions.
The Vandals who sacked Rome had nothing to lose from the destruction. The Vandals who are sacking Libya have a lot to lose from the destruction.
The destruction of the Libyan military is creating an opportunity for al Qaeda to take over Libya. Al Qaeda is a long time adversary of Muammar Qaddafi, but had been too weak in Libya to challenge him.
NATO's attacks on Qaddafi's military are rapidly changing that balance. Afghan war veteran Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi is already taking advantage of the situation to lead the anti-Qaddafi effort in Darnah. He potentially could use his combat experience to take over the rebel movement.
If al Qaeda takes over Libya, it will have access to oil money and perhaps gain an opportunity to blackmail European governments to get out of Afghanistan. If al Qaeda takes advantage of NATO's overthrow of Qaddafi to take over Libya many NATO leaders will join their Arab counterparts in the unemployment line.
Some might even face criminal prosecution for treason (giving aid and comfort to the enemy). In the U.S. a latter day Joe McCarthy might emerge and use the incident to attack individuals who had nothing to due with the decision.
NATO is risking creating anarchy. Anarchy tends to produce tyrants The difficulties of replacing anarchy after the fall of a tyrant can produce a new tyrant like Napoleon or Lenin. Anarchy in Libya could also cause a cutoff of oil until someone restores order.
The U.S. is still in Iraq because of the difficulties of restoring a stable government. The American presence prevented al Qaeda from taking over Iraq as it attempted to do even with the American presence.
NATO needs to be preparing to move a peacekeeping force into Libya to replace the government NATO is destroying. Marines from NATO nations should be on the ships offshore now or be in route to them. American paratroopers in Italy and the paratroopers of other NATO members should be loading planes with equipment and preparing their gear so they can take off at any time. Turkey would be the best choice to control post-Qaddafi Libya because it's a Muslim nation. .
Have the Allies decided who will be in charge of preserving order and providing government services between the time Muammar Qaddafi is overthrown and a new government can be established?
Democracies don't miraculously appear after the overthrow of tyrants. Working out differences about what type of government is desired takes time. Someone has to run the interim government until differences can be resolved like the U.S attempted to do in Iraq.
Iraq isn't the only country that has had trouble developing a democratic government to replace a tyrant. Examples from European history demonstrate that the difficulties of establishing democratic government to replace tyrants.
The overthrow of the French monarchy in the late 18th Century was followed by various governments until a new strongman named Napoleon was able to establish a stable government. He then decided to expand the size of his empire to include most of Europe into Russia.
The fall of the Russian monarchy late during World War I also eventually produced a tyrant with a desire for empire. An initial attempt at democracy failed and the country descended into chaos with the communist party led by Lenin eventually conquering the country. His successor Joseph Stalin used the situation after World War II to expand the country's boundaries into Eastern Europe.
The Allied attack on the Libyan military means it will not be available to reestablish order even if people would accept its leaders after their efforts to keep Qaddafi in office. The problems other governments in the area are having mean they cannot assist with reestablishing order in Libya. One or more of the Allies will have send in a caretaker force to run things.
Qaddafi has many loyal supporters, particularly among those who have benefited from his rule, who might use guerrilla tactics against the interim government as happened in Iraq. Al Qaeda will certainly be interested in attempting to take advantage of the situation and use terrorism to force the interim government out as happened in Iraq.
The lawlessness in Somalia demonstrates what can happen without a government capable of establishing order.