|
How Does Sat Com Help To “Evade Attacks”?
One more thought on yesterday's news of material U.S. support for the mercenaries in Syria.
[Mrs. Clinton] also confirmed for the first time that the United States was providing satellite communications equipment to help those inside Syria “organize, evade attacks by the regime,” and stay in contact with the outside world. And according to the Syrian National Council, the American assistance will include night-vision goggles.
“We are discussing with our international partners how best to expand this support,” Mrs. Clinton said.
How does satellite communication equipment help to "evade attacks"? It can only do so when someone on the other end of the phone call tells that an attack is coming. How would that person on the other side know that? May that be by looking at a screen with a live picture transmitted from a drone or a satellite?
This "to evade attacks" remark is an indication that U.S. special forces will now direct the rebels. They will be able to listen to all the rebel communication, they will know where exactly those rebels are and they will be able to direct them around government roadblocks and towards their targets.
The Syrian military will probably need to ask for some additional equipment from Moscow to counter the satellite phone connections. Information from Iran on how to best counter those drones will also be welcome.
But what of the results?
Lybia as the ‘closest’ example to Syria, is in utter chaos.
All deals, concerning energy, water, telecoms, transport (road and rail) and more, proceeded *somewhat* smoothly under Khadafi. Certainly he always paid on the nail.
Since his regime was x-ed, all (rather, many ? not sure, of course) ongoing projects have been halted and many in the W have not been paid, after considerable effort, investment, planning. CH had the most conflictual relations with Lybia of any country in the world, went to total embargoes, travel bans, interpol notices, money seizing, and almost to the cutting off of all diplomatic relations and declaration of war, cold war, natch – a huge, significant step – … and here we have bankrupt and unemployed because there is no authority to apply to, nobody to treat with in Lybia, nothing to be done.
Perhaps many wanted more (c’est le cas de le dire, as the F say) but, then what, how to obtain it?
Is all this to be explained simply by the blood thirst of war-mongers, arm dealers, media types who feed off carnage? NATO pretending it is crucial? Long term plans, where cutting countries up into pieces afford more clout for outsiders? (Lybia will split up into its ‘original’ parts eventually, and these entities will be antagonistic to each other.) Creating badlands where energy consumption sinks? An oppo for pols to appear strong, reactive? A death wish, which includes sadism towards others and self-harm? Simple glee at bombing, murdering, accepted by everyone?
Sarkozy welcomed K in Paris, tent and all, touted his wife, who made friends with K…and she had many positive effects. Then, poof! NATO can go on a rampage…
note, this is only about W self-interest, not about the Lybian ppl and what is best for them.
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 3 2012 16:35 utc | 17
The end of the Cold War relative stability, the rise of finance, globalization, US hegemony, left many doors open to all kinds of forces, groups, ppl.
favored private entities – anyone with bucks and influence – that would be Corps, financiers-Banks, Lodges (as a blanket word, incl. criminal groups, Oil cos, etc.), even protest groups (Egypt) and all those who have smarts and go for profits, dominance, all those at control points of any kind, so including force (manipulating the control points), that is, military and para-military.
So, short-sighted (as Claudio said), yes, and pointed to short term gain, in a reactive mode, defending at any cost the xyz cabal. The entities acting in this way are also very vulnerable, as they have no long-term vision, ergo, they become aggressive, are always on alert to ‘react’ on the moment, rapidly, as they have solid competitors and enemies: then, these reactions escalate and provoke counter-reactions.
At heart what we see, in various ways, is an attack on organization in terms of Nation-States, which is based on defined territories and borders and the right to Sovereign State status (still somewhat upheld by say the UN), allowed to make its own decisions and determine its future, and control its trade.
In favor or a new World order, which annihilates territory, and focusses on trade and domination in terms of banking, money circuit, its manipulation and coercion, control of international transport routes (e.g. oil, nat gas, agri, etc.), key industries (fill it in) and rests more on personal power relations, ad hoc legislation, threat and military force.
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 4 2012 16:43 utc | 38
|
