IT was practically powerpoint in its simple syntax.

* There are known knowns.
--- These are things we know that we know.

* There are known unknowns.
---That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.

But there are also
* unknown unknowns.
---There are things we don't know we don't know.

There's plenty to criticize about Rumsfeld, but this isn't it. In fact, if this had been made into a poster on his door, things might have been better--it was the unknown unknowns that got us.

It makes sense to have a clear-cut black-and-white policy. Sometimes, it also makes sense to explain things in a more convoluted fashion - like WH did in this particular statement.

Nobody is after "regime change" by simply throwing out the person Gaddafi - but everyone, and I mean everyone wants a more representative government. This includes the set of people around him and the machinery of lies that he is supported by. It is the machinery of lies that has to be changed. With it gone, gaddafi is gone. It is not that the person to lead Libya is chosen by anyone, which is one version of a regime change that people could have in mind. That is not of particular interest. Nobody is going to say what institutions have to exist in Libya or who'd lead it next.

Thus, a regime change of the person cannot be sponsored and is not supported by anyone. Not even the States. But repression of the regime of lies has to be stopped. A transition to more representative, regime-change-ish-thing, for the lack of a better word, has to occur. In which, Gaddafi cannot persevere, but he'd better be sent to ICC and stopped under r2p.

There are more than one regime change you can talk about. The current policy seems in line to get rid of the power structure on which his power is based on; not the regime change where only the specific person is picked.

PS. "regime-change-ish-thing, for the lack of a better word. " I think the word is called spreading democracy.

There is the policy of supporting a nation's efforts to achieve self-determination, the democratic control of the government and the state. This is of course idealist, a goal driven by our values.

Then there is the realist side of the administration - focusing on our national interests and the alliances necessary to promote them.

Last year Obama ordered a study of the potentials for political unrest in the Muslim-Arab world. Change is going to come; our interest is maintaining important alliances across regime change driven from within by siding with the efforts of the people to achieve self-determination - in the long run, realist and idealist policies align. In the short run, we've a very narrow path to travel to avoid damage to alliances with current regimes even as we reach out to potential successors. A guiding principle is that we will not intervene with our military to achieve regime change. This would undercut the goal of self-determination and drive away current allies.

How this plays out in any country is subject to many contingencies. In Libya, the principle of non-intervention was over-ridden by the moral necessity of preventing a massacre of civilians.

So the military intervention is directed at protecting civilians, not at overthrowing Qaddafi. Though we want to see Qaddafi go, we will not use our military to force him out.

That of course leaves many gray areas. We will obviously target tanks that are engaged in shelling civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, etc. However, would attacking Qaddafi's forces on their bases or in their barracks cross the line? South of Benghazi, we haven't attacked the armor blockading the highway into another town; these forces blocked a rebel advance yesterday.

A scholar's job is to identify the fine distinctions and ambiguities and examine them with care and insight, to achieve a deeper understanding.

Rothkopf by his own testimony fails to see the distinctions. Perhaps he is overlooking them on purpose for rhetorical purposes.

Who places rhetorical pot-stirring above understanding and education? Demagogues and snake-oil salesmen or politicians acting in those roles. Rothkopf has been hammering on this theme for several days now. His bias is clear.

I hope he demonstrates more acuity and less bias in his teaching and research.

I think the most bizarre bit is when they try to pin down Donilon on who is, and who isn't, a civilian...

Yes, Gadhafi is a creep. So are the government leaders of Yemen, Syria, Jordon, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Djibouti, Morocco, Oman, Kuwait, Sudan, Somalia, Ivory Coast and Palestinian territories. That’s just the Middle East.... Let’s not forget the atrocities in the rest of Africa, the Far East, and Latin America. I guess being an OPEC nation moves you to the top of the list for getting help during civil unrest. Plus having 85% of your oil exports going to America and her allies helps, too. The whole thing is quite disappointing in my eyes. The Arab world is in full speed for change. Will good things beget from this? Or will America have more enemies from blowback? Signs of the times.

The facts are bare. it does not need any philosophization.
just read on any search engine by typing the following words to understand in plain english as to what direction are we headed.

"Hawks are getting itchy to cammandeer the mid east revolution by shakir mumtaz"

And

" IsGhaddafi Next after Saddam Hussain by shakir mumtaz"
read and comment on ruqaya@bellsouth.net