Jonathan Landay


Jonathan S. Landay, national security and intelligence correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers, discusses how Libya’s popular uprising against Col. Gaddafi has descended into civil war; loyalist forces laying siege to strategic rebel-held cities; the end of protests in Tripoli; how humanitarian airlifts could be possible without bombing air defenses or maintaining a no-fly zone; and why US intervention is the least bad option for Libya, despite multi-generational US support for ME/NA autocracies.

MP3 here. (29:24)

Jonathan S. Landay, national security and intelligence correspondent, has written about foreign affairs and U.S. defense, intelligence and foreign policies for 15 years. From 1985-94, he covered South Asia and the Balkans for United Press International and then the Christian Science Monitor. He moved to Washington in December 1994 to cover defense and foreign affairs for the Christian Science Monitor and joined Knight Ridder in October 1999.

He speaks frequently on national security matters, particularly the Balkans. In 2005, he was part of a team that won a National Headliners Award for “How the Bush Administration Went to War in Iraq.” He also won a 2005 Award of Distinction from the Medill School of Journalism for “Iraqi exiles fed exaggerated tips to news media.”


6 thoughts on “Jonathan Landay”

  1. Delivering humanitarian aid was a backdoor into the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But that was obviously its main point for this guy.

    Besides, supplying a besieged city is interfering with a military operation. Or can 'the humanitarians' ensure the food and medicines will be spent on the non-combatants only?

    What would be the reaction of Washington if the Russians or the Iranians conducted humanitarian air drops over Fallujah in 2004 when it was cordoned off by the besieging American forces?

    Really, after Fallujah where does Washington get the moral high ground to intervene against Gaddafi? It would seem he is merely taking a page out of Pentagon's own how-to manual. Unlike the Pentagon however he has jet to depopulate and sack a city.

  2. Hello Scott,
    Very interesting interview (I'm going to listen to it again) but I certainly agree with. The US cannot afford (in all senses of the term) to intervene ad infinitum anymore. There will always be a "good" reason to do so. I certainly have empathy and sympathy for the locals involved in these conflicts, but just once, it might be a good idea for the US to begin changing course and attempt to dismantle this empire (Chalmers Johnson) .


  3. Dear Lord! This guy was all over the place. He seemed hell-bent on finding a reason for the US to get its toe into Libya's door.

    Landay says the Obama administration has been moving away from the imperial nature of dealing with Muslim countries, yet:
    — He escalated the Afghan war
    –We still occupy Iraq
    –Does nothing about the Gaza strangulation
    –Waffles on supporting the various democratic movements across North Africa and the Mideast
    –Keeps the heat on Iran for fantasy-land reasons

    Landay also brings up Muslim Kosovo. We intervened directly on their behalf yet where was the "goodwill" towards America from the Muslim world? Plus, is it moral to bomb the hell out of one country and kill multitudes of its people to foster the goodwill of someone else?

  4. Remember when Obama gave an unprecedented speech in Cairo? What an amazing grouping of words that was! Completely initiated the uprisings across the Middle East.

    What an excellent point you make Scott about the US being the face of violence and dictatorship!

  5. I hope the Americans do get in to Libya…up to their necks and over their heads–as usual. Self destruction is the only cure it seems.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.