The Drum has published an article of mine about the ideological aspects of the dispute among the Left over Libya, written yesterday afternoon.
Just after I submitted the copy, I saw Tad Tietze’s latest post appear in my RSS feed. We must have been writing at the same time, so I was unable to address his arguments before my deadline.
Guy Rundle’s latest is here, and previous discussion of the issues at LP took place here. At Crikey, Bernard Keane takes apart the anti-interventionist arguments of the Australian foreign policy establishment.
Meanwhile, the UN Security Council has finally passed a resolution allowing for the enforcement of a No Fly Zone and for other measures. I think Simon Tisdall is right to say that the belated realisation of the necessity of this action was forced on Barack Obama against his inclination. We will now see whether this action will have been taken too late.
Update: Response to criticisms
Folks will have to forgive me for responding en masse to comments; I’m going to be out of town for the rest of the weekend so I thought I’d pick up on some themes, and then, I won’t be able to revisit the discussion.
1. I’m yet to look at the comments on The Drum but any misunderstanding of my position might stem from either the piece being a little more theoretical than usual on that site and/or the common misunderstanding that arises when one is not taking one predictable side of an argument;
2. Dr_Tad affects to find some hidden revelation of my views in my comment about Max Weber. Weber is commonly described as a liberal for two reasons: (a) his personal politics and involvement in politics under the Reich and the Weimar republic; because his unit of analysis, methodologically, includes the individual. The long tradition of left Weberianism would indicate that his political and social thought is not reducible to ideological liberalism. Weber is not arguing that action can only take place through the state, nor that such action is to be normatively preferred. His conception of the state is complex (as are some Marxist conceptions, all of which are being ignored here) and key to it is that the state is better seen as an ensemble of forces and relations than a unified entity (see Nicos Poulantzas for a Marxist version of this argument). Similarly, Weber is explicit that ethical divides – and the basis for same – are contended for as part of political agonism – his “clash of the warring gods” under modernity.
But the reason why I cited Weber had little to do with his state theory, and everything to do with his conception of human action as complex and variegated; its patterning is broader than that of class or interest alone, and in particular his interpretation of status allows us to grasp much of what is actually occurring within Arab peoples.
3. As I argued, Iraq in 2003 is not Libya in 2011. I was certainly not on the “liberal pro-war” side of the Iraq debate, and I am not arguing from similar premises now. I explained what I see as the inapplicability of the parallel.
4. I am not at all sure that Marx would recognise the Marxism invoked in many of these debates.
5. Sg rightly points out that “imperialism” lacks explanatory power because no matter what occurs, it is likely to be explained as resulting from “imperialism” – showing both circularity in (non)reasoning and the presence of categories which preclude rather than enable thought.
6. So, too, a failure to recognise the actual disarray and confusion of American strategic thinking in the Middle East over the last decade negates the arguments that we see an eternal repetition of the same. It is hard to see what would count against an argument posed in terms of imperialism by those making it; it has become a shibboleth.
7. Again, in human affairs, actions have multiple and changing motivations and are not reducible to one. This implies that – in order to understand them and to intervene politically – one must be sensitive to difference, nuance, conjuncture and exigency.
8. Allegations that the US wishes to take control of the Libyan revolution ignore the fact that it is inevitable that in revolutions already effected in Egypt and Tunisia, the process of democratisation will not be straightforward, and will involve tensions between attempts to shape it from without and within. The same would have been the case had “the Libyan people made their own revolution”, because of the imbrication of any resultant government with the international state and economic systems. It will not occur purely because the UN has legitimised armed intervention, and the matter of degree in each instance is important.
9. I noted in akn’s comment the desire to pick and choose, and cast aspersions on, components of the Libyan movement which I’ve observed elsewhere. This seems to lead fairly inexorably to the sorts of unpalatable conclusions which he draws. The evacuation of the concept of democracy I talked about precisely goes to attitudes which seek to stipulate who can act as a legitimate democratic people.
10. I don’t think there really is any adequate understanding of the point Rundle made about the obligation that follows a democratic and legitimate demand.
Good piece Mark – I must confess Ive hitherto been following the news rather than the intra-left debates (for shame!:).
So, having not read a thing other than yours just now, can I state: I thought we’d probably going off the requests from the defenders of Benghazi as a good guide to popular solidarity.
I believe they’re asking for a no-fly zone, at least. Surely the best way for this to happen is via the UN. I for one am greatly reassured by Arab League support.
Lefty E – yes, so am I. I’m glad to see that the “international community” has been dragged kicking and screaming into doing something. If stasis can be maintained in Benghazi, then I hope the UN Security Council resolution passed this morning will have some positive effect. I think that inaction in this instance would have been disastrous – not just in Libya and across the Arab nations, but also for the cause of democracy everywhere.
Mark, that intra-LP link needs fixing: it links to Tisdall as well.
Indeed Mark – do we support popular democratic uprisings only when it involves slapping our comrades onthe back from afar, but not when it involves some legwork?
I think section of the “teh left” are quite right to be suspicious of ANY alleged ‘demcoratisation via US bombing raid’. But these things need to be taken case by case, or “postions” simply become straitjackets against complexity.
Here we have a clear case of a popular movement requesting support. As far as I can see they are not requesting ground forces, or even bombing against Gadddafi. surely thats the line we should hold in support.
Excellent survey of the intellectual gymnastics of the Left, Mark. I agree completely with your strictures on anti-interventionist rhetoric.
The question remains how to translate accurate perception into productive action.
Typically this type of analysis is really so much navel gazing. I think the recent decision by the security council would have had less to with ideological positions and more to do with practical concerns over outcomes, escalation, exit strategies and potential post-bellum geo-political maps.
It’s impossible and arrogant to dismiss Iraq in the sense that it has badly affected the psyche of the US leadership and the US people. Not only that it has made the Western brand even more toxic in the ME than it already was.
There’s also the question of who speaks for Libya. Given that the UN has now decided to intervene on behalf of the rebels we can suppose that they accept the rebel leadership as in some way representing Libyan sovereignty but it still isn’t clear to me whether this council is representative or whether it aims to take control of the country if it successfully overthrows G.
I think anyone getting involved in Libya would be very prudent to make restraint a top priority.
To date, I’ve refrained from commenting substantively on thie “western intervention” question. It seemed (and still seems) to me that defining the frontier between ethics and exigency, between what we would see as intuitively just and the underlying character and implications associated with the means to achieve it will always be complex, particularly for those of us who see the struggle to achieve the empowerment of those who are socially marginalised as a key ethical standard. One can see easily enough in the struggle those who take this standard seriously, a real fear of making a “faustian” bargain.
At least as far as orthodox Trotskyists (and I have not counted myself as such for at least a dozen years) are concerned, it should be clear that there is no prohibition on securing military aid from imperialists. Trotsky once said that in the struggle against imperialism, he would accept help not only from the devil, but the devil’s grandmother. Lenin, as most know, arrived in Petrograd in March (OS) of 1917 in a “sealed train” at the behest of the German High Command. They supposed that he would subvert the Tsarist war effort. He wasn’t bothered.
Of course the Libyan uprising would have been somewhat different in that it was seeking help from the imperialist west against a ruling regime not acting in concert with some other imperialist gang. Trotsky’s dicta would have to be varied to support this. Nevertheless, while socialist revolutionaries take the national question seriously, when it is posed, we are not political supporters of sovereign capitalist regimes. In the absence of any clear attempt by imperialism to recolonise Libya, the national question ought not to arise. From the point of view of socialists what we would have here is a compelling and lethal threat from a bonapartist capitalist regime against the Libyan working people and their allies. The latter can choose to accept external support or not — but it is clear that this external support, if it is offered, will be from imperialism. It seems clear to me that to suggest that being massacred by “their own” capitalist bonapartists would be in some way ethically preferable to the taint of military support from western imperialism would be an admission by those advancing it that they their ideas of of no use in the struggle for the liberation of working humanity.
So the question then becomes — is it clear that rejection of the military support of western imperialism would lead to the crushing of the uprising of Libyan working people and their allies? Early on, there was room to suppose that the regime would fall apart and that the armed forces, as in Egypt, would at worst remain neutral, and that the mercenaries would flee. In that scenario, the reluctance of the anti-Gaddhafi rebels to appeal to the west made sense. Yet in the last week it has become clear that the regims has been able to maintain integrity and that possessed of massive tactical superiority and the stomach for democide, that it will eventually prevail, in the absence of external military support for the rebellion on a large scale. That is not something any leftist can, IMO, simply wave aside as insignificant. A tainted victory for the workers is far preferable to a smashing but principled defeat. The victors can deal with their “taints” later.
It seems clear to me that leftists must support the rebellion and thus its right to call for such military assistance as it deems necessary, while urging caution on the morrow of victory, should it come.
@4.“Here we have a clear case of a popular movement requesting support. As far as I can see they are not requesting ground forces, or even bombing against Gadddafi. surely thats the line we should hold in support.”
Even if the past experience of such moves to implement NFZs have inevitably ended in “boots on the ground”?
It is interesting that Russia and China did not veto such a wide-ranging intervention.
Perhaps the support of the Arab League can explain this, and if so, then Rudd’s diplomacy may have contributed its widow’s mite.
Several Arab countries must have signed up with a trembling hand. Perhaps rebels in these countries might now hope for foreign assistance against their own tyrants who themselves have ganged up on Gaddafi.
Russia would lose little sleep if there were a new outbreak of revolution in the Arab world. China’s interests in this regard are a little more cloudy.
@3 – Thanks, Adam – fixed.
@5 – Indeed, Katz.
Hi Mark
I think you are being a bit unfair on the Lowy Institute. After all I was urging a no-fly zone back on the 23rd of February and encouraging precisely the re-legitimisation of the idea of intervention which we are starting to see occur on the left.
It is precisely because I support the idea of a no-fly zone, that I think we need to ask hard questions about how it is going to be carried out, and what happens if it doesn’t see Gaddafi’s overthrow.
If Australia is going to champion the idea of R2P (and I certainly think we should) we need to be willing to contribute. Resources, troops, planes, etc. In fact I’d advocate a standing forces for such challenges, funded by developed countries including Australia. But that’s a debate for another day. Until then, and especially if we are in support of acting, we should be asking just where the resources will come from and how they should be used.
Katz, I have near-infinite confidence in China’s ability to deal with anyone in the region, no matter their political colours, and I suspect they will use their agreement to this NFZ as a bargaining chip, of the “we don’t care what you do, but you really need to pay attention – we’ll hang you out to dry if your internal problems become an international issue.”
I am more than suspicious – I am nothing short of flabbergasted that “left” people can (on a “case by case” basis) make common cause with “their” (Western) imperialism.
It seems clear to me that NATO’s agenda here is to use humanitarian concerns as a fig-leaf to dominate Libya and perhaps to balkanise it. What interventionist leftists are saying is that this will nevertheless be a good thing, on balance; something I find pretty much impossible to credit, personally.
Would a NATO protectorate in Libya be a democratic advance for Libyans? Will it secure their national sovereignty? Hardly – it would transform them into a neo-colony, like Kosovo, Iraq, etc. If you look at the other regimes in the region which ARE supported by Western imperialism already, are they really something to aspire to? Of course “this time it will be different”, but I predict this time will be no different to the other times, and the desire for it to be different among sections of the left is wishful thinking.
@7 If the imperialist powers were serious about aiding the Libyan rebels they could have been supplying them with supplies and weapons that would have negated the threat posed by Ghaddafi’s air force and armour.
That they haven’t done this but prefer to keep these weapons in their own hands I think speaks volumes about their motivations and desired outcomes, particularly if the rebels prove less than accommodating to Western demands.
what follows are the edited comments from a friend in exile: “Jones sent me a worthy circular from some middle eastern activists urging that I Stop Gaddafi personally and immediately by telling Hilary Clinton to start shooting anything that flies. I had to write back pointing out that they won’t need any encouragement from me on this matter and that the US and the UN will be champing at the bit to take this monster down. Far less enthusiastic about taking the Saudis and the UAE out of Bahrain, but they’re our monsters, and they’re royal, and they’re Sunnis, so it’s OK. And hey they keep the oil price down by filling any shortages that might occur as a result of Mr Gaddafi and his OPEC ilk. They’re our boys inside OPEC.
From what I am gleaning, the oposition to Gaddafi is a coalition of young idealistic people, insane muslim fundamentalists and royalists who want to bring back the royal family that ran the place before Napoleon. It is tribal, regional and very sad. Yep I’d be in a real rush to keep them safe, you bet. This notion that my enemy’s enemy is my friend really sucks… that’s how the Afghans got the Taliban and how the Taliban got really really cool weapons. We never learn. And every time the west sticks it’s dick in the middle east it catches something nasty. This is the reasoning behind why the left has been forced to think about the situation like industrial strength fascists.”
Of course I don’t think anyone born after about 1964 who has an interest in politics really has much of an idea what an “orthodox Trotskyist” actually is. The curtains had faded by the 80s when I was an university.
Eygpt – third largest fleet in the world of F16 Fighting Falcon aircraft.
Saudi Arabia – third largest fleet in the world of F15 Eagles.
Both have the full suite of support aircraft – tankers, AWACS, EW etc required to prosecute any required mission.
Why on earth are they not being considered as the first option to run this mission from their home bases?
Mark, your Drum article suggests that, like others on the Left with your position, you are more interested in making grand statements about the irrelevancy of Marxist analyses of phenomena such as revolution, the state and imperialism, than you are with dealing with the substance of such critiques and how they may be connected with a particular stance on the NFZ.
IMO it’s a kind of sophisticated red-baiting (it seems some commenters on the Drum website have even mistaken you for a conservative) that deflects scrutiny of what history tells us about what motivates and shapes the behaviours of various actors (states and peoples) with statements such as:
Because everything is so “new” then any analysis but the one of immediate and urgent action must be rejected, even if that one is actually premised on quite old-fashioned liberal concepts (you usefully mention Weber to give us a clue as to what you really mean here).
Indeed, your solution to the difficulties faced by the Libyan revolution is decidedly traditional: Involve powerful state actors to sort it out. This is not just traditional, it is the reflex in a society dominated by states because, well, surely it cannot be any other way. Sure you can be critical of the actions of powerful states (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan) but these seem to be bad policy exceptions to states as the inescapable norm and normative power.
[It is understandable that many people within the Libyan revolution, when faced with Gaddafi's section of the local state machine making significant advances, can presume that the only solution is inviting in a more powerful state. But they have more excuse than we do on the Western Left because they are in a desperate position. We, on the other hand, have a responsibility to analyse why "our" states act the way they do.]
I can understand if you have a Weber-esque view of the state why you would see an NFZ as a reasonable way forward. But then Weber was grossly hostile to any challenge to capitalist states, and so was a committed supporter of Western imperialism. I don’t think you share Weber’s reactionary politics, but you share with him a refusal to think outside the really existing state (that is, the ensemble of relations of domination) even when state power is confronted with revolutions that challenge it. While blaming Marxists for trying to shoehorn what’s happening into Marxist categories, it is hard to see you really doing other than shoehorning the Arab revolutions into liberal categories.
Far better if we debate whether those categories are useful to the question at hand. In my latest post at Left Flank I have suggested that the Left needs to think through what an imperialist state is, whose interests it serves, what power relations obtain as a result of these processes, etc. Otherwise every time we get shocked with how states produce bad outcomes, disoriented by our naive expectations that they stand over the whole of society and manage its interests.
Left Flank has spent quite a bit of space trying to suggest some preliminary considerations of these issues as they play out in the real cut and thrust of politics (whether the malaise-filled local variety or in the Arab revolutions). We don’t claim to have “the answers”, but your position seems to start by excluding the question we are asking as out of bounds.
The supporters of an NFZ on the Left need to make more than a case of urgent moral imperative here not because the anti-intervention Left are passive blocks on what must be done (how we, as marginal as we are, can block anything strikes me as pretty weird) but because after the experience of imperialism’s military brutality on a grand scale you really need to make a good case for why and how this time will be different. And that does require going beyond simply equating the alleged good intentions behind the act of intervention with the ability to this time avoid the depressingly, predictably disastrous outcomes that imperialism delivers.
You chastise us about abandoning “principles about democracy and justice” without once pausing to ask “whose democracy?” and “whose justice?”, evacuating these principles of any social content. Because in reality the social content of the NFZ is rotten, the same social content that has propped up and armed dictatorships in the Arab world and which shows clear signs of continuing to demand stability of its interests above all.
You point to Obama’s vacillations on the NFZ, therefore, and see not a weakened imperial power trying to figure out if it can get away with this latest intervention to help hold back the revolutionary tide sweeping MENA, but a well-meaning liberal interventionist president being held back by reactionary domestic isolationism. Ironically, such arguments against isolationism were deployed by the Bush administration which, rather than calling itself “liberal” argued that it was a “revolutionary” force. Getting behind these words to the social content of the dynamics being unleashed here would be, I’d have thought, the best starting point for a skeptical Left.
“Far better if we debate whether those categories are useful to the question at hand…”
Yes, because that will be tremendously useful to the Libyan people today. Let’s have a weekend Conference and decide what the proper line should be. The we can inform the Libyan people what they should be thinking and doing.
Goddess forfend that they should actually know what they want us to do and we should actually do it.
Fran @7: The Libyan rebellion has every right to call for an NFZ. But we also have every right to decide whether we think it’s a good idea.
Razor, I know what you’re getting at, but in their defense Egypt is a bit unstable at the moment and may not be in a position to make those kinds of contributions. Whose to say in the future they won’t?
Saudi Arabia can’t do it because they’re busy stifling revolution in a neighbouring state. The bigger rhetorical question is why we let them.
Oh Dr Tad, you really don’t get irony do you? This is great:
Uh-huh, “understandable.” Yes, it surely is. But why would we respond to their invitation when we can navel-gaze Weber and
You haven’t got it yet, have you Dr_Tad? This revolution is not challenging state power. It is being destroyed by state power. You can make a choice to let it be destroyed by state power, or help it. And since rocking up in Libya with a rifle is clearly not an option for the self-satisfied marxist left (nor would it work if you did), the only option is to engage “the ensemble of relations of domination.” In this case, to dominate gaddafi.
I would say that the only person who
is you. Because if “our” state successfully pushes gaddafi back and gives the Arabs a chance at democracy, it will have served the people of Libya, and the power relations that obtain will be the ones they have chosen. And to the extent that your objections to intervention have any influence whatsoever, you will have chosen a preference for power relations centred in Gaddafi, and we all know what power relations obtain then, don’t we?
Fine @20: There is a constant confusion in the pro-NFZ arguments between us on the Left “calling for something” and that thing happening because of such calls. There is a second confusion which is that “our” state (or its US/NATO allies) responds to “our” demands rather than acting on the basis of interests that may not have much to do with us at all.
So all this “rush, rush, don’t sit around and talk” argument really amounts to deferring to the state to do something for us, because we aren’t even allowed to think through what the consequences of such actions may be. It’s just moralism, really.
i have no problem with a NFZ being established over Libya, i just think that they have been a bit tardy.
Con @ 14, G has been balkanising Libya for his whole reign and every aggressive posture NATO took towards him only served to strengthen him. Since NATO took him off their “worstest bugbear since Caligula list” he has not had the cover of someone else’s imperialism to disguise his own. I agree with Twain here, when he talked of the Philippines, “It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way.” But i would never advocate blindness to the possibilities and dangers extant when “the eagle put its talons on any other land”
sg @22: more moralism.
Dr_Tad, if our state doesn’t respond to our calls, what does it matter what we demand and how does it help to sit around talking about it?
And do you really believe that the current decision to enact a no fly zone has anything to do with imperial interests? Imperial interests were perfectly well served by Gaddafi in power, and leaving him to destroy opposition – or even helping him – would be the preferred option of a state concerned only with its economic welfare and benefits.
Do you have a single explanation for how a NFZ will benefit the western powers more than letting gaddafi do his thing? If not, why do you think they’re doing this?
sg @22: Also, not sure why the Marxist Left is so “self-satisfied”. You know we’re tiny and have microscopic social weight. Yet such a huge desire by you, while now getting the NFZ you want, to throw around these epithets.
I thought I was the one on the back foot here… I don’t have any imperialist military machines implementing my position.
More precisely, why didn’t the Western powers consider these Arab countries should do the deed? Beware the passive voice Razor.
This question begs prior questions.
1. Did the West consider this option?
2. Did the West think this option was an attractive one?
3. Did the West ask these Arab countries to do the deed?
4. Did these Arab countries decline?
My provisional answers are:
1. yes
2. possibly
3. possibly, although the approach to SA would have been quite different from the approach to Egypt. The Egyptian armed forces are probably in a state of flux at the moment. And the idea of an Egyptian army, marching under the banner of Arab revolution would be too intoxicating for the suffering masses of Araby.
4. yes.
In other words, both the West and the Saudi Arabia thought about it and both sides thought it would be a good idea if they didn’t get very deeply involved. The Egyptian position is still more complicated.
Why? Probably because both sides fear the spectre of revolution stalking the region.
But Razor, you should be a happy man today. We are all leftists, now.
I’m interested in your scorn for “moralism,” Dr_Tad. I know it’s very macho and leninist to sneer at mere emotional ideals, but I always thought the purpose of left wing politics was to improve the world, to make it a better place on the basis of some moral principles about reducing inequality, preventing state-sanctioned murder and torture, etc. But when I point out that it’s wrong to let states get away with murder and torture, you sneer at my moralism.
So what actually drives your politics, if it’s not got any moral basis? Are you actually a caricature of a marxist idealist, aiming to better society even if amoral calculations of human sacrifice must trump important humanist principles?
“So all this “rush, rush, don’t sit around and talk” argument really amounts to deferring to the state to do something for us, because we aren’t even allowed to think through what the consequences of such actions may be. It’s just moralism, really.”
No, I’m not asking the state to anything for us. I’m asking the state to do something for the Libyan people. Yes, and shocking that morality should come into this. I prefer to think of it as ethics.
According to The Guardian live blog, Egypt military have been supplying guns to Libyan rebels on the quiet. So it’s not as they’re doing nothing.
sg @26: Easy. US power has suffered a series of military reverses, especially in Iraq. It has now suffered a massive political blow by seeing two of its client dictatorships fall (Egypt and Tunisia) as part of a process of Arab revolution that has been prominently anti-US and anti-Israel in its orientation.
With ties weakened in such a strategically vital part of the world (you can tell how strategically vital by how much military aid they’ve poured into it, and by that oil thing that seems to lie around there) they would want to find some entree back into the region. With a bloody civil war in Libya and the US-Libyan ties not as long-established as with other regimes, a military intervention would be an ideal way to (a) flex one’s muscles, (b) divide opposition to local dictatorships, (c) create a protectorate type arrangement that would necessitate new permanent bases and (d) pose as once again being the only guarantor of stability.
But the US is weakened so such a decision ain’t easy for them, hence the vacillation. The WSJ article I have quoted elsewhere gives you a sense of the broader strategy. Why should the NFZ be an exception for these thugs?
sg, the “moralism” is the demand to act and not think BECAUSE OTHERWISE PEOPLE WILL BE SLAUGHTERED. If imperialism had a good record on these things I’d be much less affronted by this method of argument. It doesn’t, and the pro-NFZ Left don’t even seem to want to argue that it does.
sg, the problem with “ethics”-based politics is that they are not politics free despite their claims for universality. You rob value claims of their social content if you treat them as disembodied, abstract, eternal principles.
The anti-intervention Left also have morals and ethics, they are just different ones to yours. Fair enough we argue over them but neither side should present “their” abstract principle as the only acceptable one because then the debate stops being a debate, doesn’t it?
That’s a shallow and self-serving analysis, Dr_Tad. For starters, the US can get just as much leverage over Gaddafi by vetoing or not pushing for an NFZ in the security council, and pointing out to him where his bread is buttered; they don’t have to risk a single US jet, and they get a grateful Gaddafi back on side – right where he was before. Secondly, an NFZ establishes a precedent in the Arab states that they really don’t need – what if it gets brought up against one of their other client states later? They have a lot to lose through an NFZ in any state. Thirdly, they still have multiple functioning client states, some of whom (Saudi Arabia) have shown a willingness to intervene against democracy movements at least partially on the US’s behalf. Fourthly, Iraq is not necessarily a failure as a client state and as a military failure is primarily a setback as a humanitarian intervention, not on the terms originally set. It could become an Iranian client state, but it isn’t yet, and it’s doubtful whether the people at the top in the US properly understand or accept the long-term ramifications.
Finally, the most likely winners from a rollback of Gaddafi will be the new Egyptian and Tunisian states, and the democracy movement generally, since they can point out that even the US has conceded the importance of social and political change, they can keep a lid on anti-US sentiment (useful for restoring trade ties) and they have a big bargaining tool when other states face the same uprisings.
So it’s not clear that an NFZ is an imperialist win – unless its implementation is delayed so long it is ineffective.
@Dr_Tad, in my article, I deliberately said that framing this in terms of ethical as opposed to political choices is not the right way to examine these questions. Having said that, a political argument – against UN sponsored action called for by the Libyan revolution – must take into account the human consequences, or it is empty.
sg @34, thanks for mostly not replying to what I wrote about US strategy and instead launching on a new set of talking points. Perhaps I might stop this debate with you now. Bye.
Dr_Tad said:
That’s true. We are not obliged at all to support what the disempowered want just because they say they want it. Oppression is not a guarantee of insight.
That said, unless those who claim to know better where lie the interests of the disempowered can show that what they want should be resisted, on the grounds that it would subvert their interests in the longer run, or leave the disempowered as a whole worse off, ought we not to stand with them in their demands, cautioning about the risks as apt? Are we not compelled to do more than make a generic claim about interest, but to show how that claim is apt to the facts on the ground?
It is certainly possible that the direct military intervention of western imperialism in this case will put at risk the integrity of any regime issuing therefrom. It’s probable that resisting the blandishments on the one hand and the threats on the other will pose serious problems for any post-Gaddafi regime’s struggle for inclusive governance — assuming that was their perspective. That however, is surely a lesser risk than for a lightly armed populace to suffer a full-scale assault by a disciplined and well-resourced army with command of the skies and motorised divisions with artillery on the ground. There seems no basis for thinking that the army will split or defect in large numbers. What we are looking at is the potential for an industrial-scale massacre.
In this case, it is at least conceivable that if western imperialism makes clear through its acts that there will be no victory for Gaddafi, then the army may well to decide to abandon the project. Certainly the mercenaries might think it best to decamp. Even the loyalists might hesitate to commit what would certainly be regarded as war crimes.
It’s worth recalling that western imperialism spent more than 20 years and multiple billions of dollars supporting the mujihadeen in Afghanistan and yet, when their usefulness was spent, the USSR was gone and the various fundamentalists and warlords could dispose of the country as they saw fit, the influence of the west fell rapidly to near zero. Both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, those seen as catspaws of the US were pariahs and today, the west’s problem is how to exit without seeming as if they have been defeated and humiliated. I do not suppose for a moment that western imperialism would assume that backing the Libyan uprising is going to earn them more than a favourable hearing on any matter of interest to them, and if it does, then this will be a commentary on endogenous factors rather than the character of the people who supported the midwife at the birth of the new regime.
Mark @36: I wasn’t implying that sg’s position was yours. Sorry if it somehow seemed that way.
No probs, Dr_Tad.
The right thing to do Dr_Tad is to act and not think…and then be be in a state of surprised panic when a similar situation arises next time.
yes Mark, we don’t want you to make the mistake of thinking you were being accused of having morals.
Dr_Tad, your claims about US goals in Libya are fanciful and easily rebutted, which is what I did. If you think the rebuttals are “talking points,” more power to you. Your skills of geopolitical analysis will no doubt serve your movement as well as its class analysis has.
I’m interested that you think “The anti-intervention Left also have morals and ethics, they are just different ones to yours.” You mean you aren’t opposed to state-sanctioned torture[1], you don’t wish to see the elimination of inequality? You don’t have a problem in general with the murder of civilians[2]? You think wars of choice, or for the possession of material resources, are okay? I thought these were general principles that all the left shared. I’m rather disappointed to find that my marxist comrades are so close to a caricature of themselves.
I’m intrigued to find out how we can give more “social content” to the value claim of “opposing torture” by not treating it as an eternal, abstract principle. Please do share…
—
fn1: maybe as a marxist you don’t want to answer that one…
fn2: see above
@42. ““The anti-intervention Left also have morals and ethics, they are just different ones to yours.” You mean you aren’t opposed to state-sanctioned torture[1], you don’t wish to see the elimination of inequality? You don’t have a problem in general with the murder of civilians[2]? You think wars of choice, or for the possession of material resources, are okay?”
You mean you want to support the geopolitical powers most responsible for carrying out or fostering such acts and who will gladly do so in Libya should they choose?
Chav, I think that’s an overly simplistic interpretation of the behaviour of those geopolitical powers.
41. ‘The right thing to do Dr_Tad is to act and not think’
Chav – a nice parody of the ‘overthinking’ complex:
Are you serious?!
Also try this gem on the facile nature of the binary logics of anti-imperialist dogmas
@28 – i think you pretty on the mark.
I would have thought both Egypt and SA could have had a win-win from running the NFZ:
runs well with th einternational audince,
on the home front they can say – “Look, we are supporting change, and we want that in our countries but not like what is happening in Libya”.
Yes Chav I am. capitalist States act for more complex reasons than mere Imperialism. Would you say that everything the USSR did internationally was calculated purely on the basis of how it would benefit the international working class? No, they also took into account strategic alliances, resource issues, and historical and cultural patterns of behaviour. Conversely, not everything that capitalist states do is driven by naked imperialism.
You sell yourself short with such a purely ideological interpretation.
Well sg, imperialism strikes me as a pretty complex phenomenon and not always an easy one to understand. I’m not really sure though how taking into account all its vagaries excludes it from the type of brutal behaviour you earlier attributed to the Libyan state. In fact I think assuring access to things like resources more or less entails acting in such a way…as I would have thought the history of these powers, from the early conquest of the New World amply demonstrates.
What happens next depends entirely on what Gaddafi does.
I predict it will be something surprising but my mind is nowhere near as sinuous as his so I won’t even try to guess.
Con @ 7: “I am more than suspicious – I am nothing short of flabbergasted that “left” people can (on a “case by case” basis) make common cause with “their” (Western) imperialism.”
Despite the fact that the Libyan uprising is calling for it? I find it strange that a “left” people could have no conception of solidarity beyond some arid proferrance of a line they clearly disagree with.
I think several folk might be missing the point: a lot has changed. The US *already* cannot determine or infuence foreign policy outcomes to the extent they did 10-20 years ago. What ‘Western imperialism’ do you speak of, Con? How old is your model?
Is this *really* the same thing as propping up a pro-American dictatorship in South Vietnam?
No, it isnt.
I also think there’s some confusion about the purpose: one is to buttress a potential succesful uprising – another is to help prevent a genocide, following a failed one.
Both are still live options. My view is you cant go inexcusably far wrong supporting the express preference of the Benghazi defenders.
This doesnt mean we should be mindful of of any external powers taking liberties down the track, should that arise. Again, I like the fact that the Arab League is in support.
don’t sell yourself so short, Katz!
Chav, the problem with this “imperialism” justification for the US’s behaviour is that it explains any outcome of this situation. If the US had done nothing but sit back and watch, people would say it was Imperialism (allowing an authoritarian state to suppress opposition). If they act, it’s seen as imperialism (supporting a new political movement in order to gain secure access to resources). So, you don’t gain anything by such an analysis. Do you think they dithered until it was too late out of a concrete plan? Why act now at all? There’s more going on here than simply access to resources, and while it’s certain the big powers have their eye on their own interests, it’s silly to assume that they aren’t thinking in multiple dimensions.
May I suggest an non-imperialist power wouldn’t have bombed Qaddafi in the 1980s, then rehabilitated him on the basis of his support for another imperial adventure (the War on Terror)and oil deals and may have gone as far to supply the Libyan revolutionaries with the weapons they need.
Of course the US is capable of pursuing different strategies at different times and not always in a competent fashion, the point is that they do it benefit their own interests, and if you happen to be standing in the way, then heaven help you.
Thanks SG,
How about this?
Busloads of unarmed Gaddafi loyalists — women, children, old folks — assembled on the outskirts of Benghazi.
On an order they march behind Gaddafi banners towards the muzzles of the rebels’ guns.
In any case, the chance of the US going solo here – with or without some COW style figleaf – seems pretty remote, unless it becomes some NATO rather than UN gig.
France is the one with their nads swinging in the breeze here (having recognised the uprising as the new Libyan government – excuse Nadsocentric reference).
I think its an poetic form of blowback for the US/UK who rehabilitated this asshole. Im much less comfotable with th idea of letting the benghazi defenders become matryrs to yet another shabby compromise with Gaddafi.
Remember post gulf war 1, when the west didnt support the Shi’a uprising – leaving them like lambs to the slaughter? How different might Iraq be today if some assistance had been offered to a grass roots uprising in 91.
From The Drum article:
Suggestions that the influx of Saudi and UAE forces into Bahrain was condoned, somehow, by Hillary Clinton, apparently demonstrate that the US has a plan to twist the uprisings across the Arab peoples for its own purposes.
It is standard practice for the foreign envoys of states to use back channels to do or condone anything done that would be perceived as immoral should it become known. US interests are in the House Saud and other cronies remaining in power. Democracy in the region creates huge problems. It would be exceptional if Ms Clinton did not back up the Saudis.
Therefore, it’s claimed, that must also be in play in Libya.
Of course. Libya has become a tame cat. They don’t want some democratically elected Libyan in charge. They don;t want democracy anywhere in the region. The ‘people’ don;t exactly care too much for the Americans y’know.
I thought Guy’s argument was theoretically wrong when he first started making it. But without wanting to sound like a concern troll, I genuinely — and I mean that — don’t understand how progressives who support this think the UN intervention is going to work now.
Yes, air strikes will probably force Gaddafi to defer an attack on Benghazi. But what happens then?
Gaddafi seems to have consolidated his position in Tripoli and so the dictatorship will remain in power. Indeed, if anything, I would have thought that the UN attack will probably strengthen his support base, given he’s rallying his base via nationalist demagoguery.
So if the rebels can’t induce an uprising in Tripoli (and it seems almost certain that they can’t), what happens after the bombing ceases?
Is the UN or the US going into Tripoli to affect regime change? That seems to be Hitchens’ idea but I’m assuming that progressives don’t support a full-scale ground war of that kind. So what then is the plan? Is the idea to Balkanise the country, to fence Benghazi off, as per the Kurdish regions in Iraq? Again, if so, how will that work? How long will it be maintained for?
The whole thing seems incredibly ill-thought through.
I haven’t had much time today so perhaps someone has already outlined their responses to these pretty obvious questions. If so, any links would be appreciated.
Katz @51,
Agreed. I predict that he will doing something that I cannot possibly predict.
I think those from the Left who are against a NFZ are stuck in an obsession about US power and oil, as though the fear that the US are just using this to get access to Libyan oil is the only factor that matters and is more important than what the Libyan people say they want. I think it’s tunnel vision.
Is it also because Libya has been seen by some as some sort of self-proclaimed Socialist country? And certainly, at the beginning of Gaddafi’s reign, he did some good things. Is there some leftover sympathy for him?
I think it’s more important to stand in solidarity with the Libyan people (to use a grand old phrase) than to get our knickers in a total knot about the freakin’ oil.
“Yes, air strikes will probably force Gaddafi to defer an attack on Benghazi. But what happens then?”
its a good question Jeff. But again, it depends whether one sees this is a political move in support of the uprising, or an R2P situation.
One obvious preliminary answer is that thousands of Libyan civilians probably dont die in an vengeful cleansing of Benghazi.
What then? I dont know – but a massive Libyan refugee camp in Egypt isn’t that much different to a Kurdistan style situation within Libya, in the end. Both are still massive problems.
Im not convinced international inaction is any better thought out at this point.
Jeff said:
He could theoretically survive as the ruler of Tripoli, but deprived of most of his access to largesse and denied even travel rights, his rule could not be maintained. One could lay siege and how long would he last then?
“One could lay siege and how long would he last then?”
Who would have the capability to lay siege? NATO troops I guess…in which case we have an invasion, which the pro-NFZoners tell us won’t ever happen.
Another outcome is a NFZ emboldens factions in the army to string him up, Mussolini style.
Ultimately, there’ll be no other way to unify the country at that point.
Not saying such a tendency is there – but it certainly will embolden any that is.
Who dares split from Gaddafi now he’s marching back east?
Lefty E, Adrien, Heff, Katz and other inactivists,
We’ll see how it all goes in a week or so, won’t we ?
What are the chances that, if Ghaddafi is stopped in his tracks (literally), that rather than some sort of long-term stalemate with UN/NATO planes patrolling the skies and highways,
* [dot-points! so Bush! sorry, Patrick] the revolutionaries seize the initiative again and start pushing back his mercenaries and cronies;
* his erstwhile supporters quickly start to desert him – his mercenaries back to other African and middle Eastern countries, many of his own armed forces defecting, and so on;
* the people in terrorised towns and cities rise up again and join forces with the other revolutionaries;
* they establish a revolutionary government, thank the international community for its support and give them a big send-off party.
Of course, afterwards, regardless of the form of government, the economy will still be oil-dominated, and contracts will quickly be re-established, especially with governments/countries/companies who gave them support in their life-and-death struggle to overthrow a tyrant and institute their democratic revolution.
And if that revolution is snuffed out, that will be it for all of the uprisings and reforms across the Middle East, from Bahrain to Morocco, and for a generation. Once the democratic revolutions are crushed, will thepeople turn towards the Left and plan for socialist revolutions instead ?
or will they fall back on the most reactionary ideology in the world today, evangelical conversion-or-the-sword Islamism ?
Sorry, Heff, I meant ‘Jeff’
Have you taken a look at the geography Chav?
The locals could control the roads in and the sea lanes would be blocked by NATO. Gaddafi did explicitly threaten shipping after all.
Here’s your surprise Katz: Gaddafi now “ready for a ceasfire” following NFZ vote.
Could be a game-changer already.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/libya-ready-for-ceasefire-after-un-vote-20110318-1bzii.html
I find myself in Jeff’s position of wondering what the effects might be now, as opposed to when calls were initially being made and the situation on the ground was different, and the logic of an NFZ was more clear-cut.
On the other hand an NFZ ought to have the effect of, at the very least, reducing the effects of any retributive policy of elimination. Recall that we’ve been informed from the Gaddafi side that this would be coming without immediate surrender. That warning for those in Benghazi was unnecessary, as there was never any real suggestion that ‘business as usual’ might be on the cards with their surrender. But it should be a sobering reminder for the rest of us about the potential stakes.
My observation on the ‘anti-imperialist’ left (and I use that label with hesitation, because I feel like I’m disagreeing here with people that ordinarily, maybe seven times out of ten, I would be in agreement with) is that for them there is definitely a moralistic view of the United States lurking behind the scenesthere. Its effect is anti-political because it judges any actions undertaken by any states complicit in the current system (ie almost everybody) as ruled out in advance in terms of their legitimacy. I don’t see a way to do politics in a situation like this if you take that stance.
“American broadcaster CNN also reports Gaddafi has changed tack with ‘‘a humanitarian gesture’’, deciding to hold off on plans to send the army in to Benghazi and mercilessly crush all resistance, as had been promised…
Kaaim indicated that Libya would ‘‘react positively to the UN resolution, and we will prove this willingness while guaranteeing protection to civilians.’’…
Jubilant insurgents at the rebel stronghold of Benghazi greeted the news with cheers, singing and gunfire.”
I call that a win for the NFZ vote.
Looks a bit like “rope-a-dope”.
Maybe now is Chavez’ time to shine, Lefty?
Well, who knows. Cue stalemate I suspect, unless Gaddafi’s camp decide its time to move on him. But Gadaffi’s no death or glory type – he’s a pragmatist. He’s folded at first hand, straight into negoitation mode.
No nationlist uprising against the aggressors, no pan-Arab pleas, no anti-imperialist rhetoric, no move on Benghazi, no nothing.
Call it an injunction rather than a resolution, but who can seriously argue this ain’t a good interim outcome?
come on Katz, Gaddafi may be slippery, but he’s not as smart as Muhammad Ali!
Good news indeed. Shame the international community didn’t have the guts to do this before those other towns got wiped.
But still worry about Gaddafi’s next move. He may be foxing.
No one has ever laid a glove on Gaddafi. Poor old Ali is as punchy as Joe Palooka.
He’d still have Gaddafi for breakfast though.
Well played! to the French, btw
Oil, I believe is the significant issue, but oil’s not something that you can take directly, it requires, for the US and Europe a political solution. (Maybe it is a bit like Egypt and Rome?)
The Muslims sates in the Middle East are very difficult to understand from the point of view of Western culture. You have a mix of various forms of despotism, tribalism, religion is important, etc. It’s very difficult for Western governments to cope with this kind of “fluidity.” And the West is interested in having some kind of control over theses countries. It just means, realistically, that the US has to listen “very carefully” to what, for example, the Saudis think about Gadaffi. And sure the US has some control over the Saudis due to oil income, weapons and tech etc. But there is a very real political struggle for the hearts and the minds of the Arabs. It’s even more chaotic than usual in that part of the world at the moment.
Anyway, I find it very possible that the US made some kind of a quid pro quo deal with major Middle Eastern players with respect to Libya and Bahrain. At the very least they have this “perception” to negotiate.
And I don’t think that even old school socialists feel much solidarity with Gadaffi. Perhaps I haven’t been following this close enough, but I fail to see how the left has been lumped with the responsibility of being the party-poopers on this one. The CDU/FDP German government also think the NFZ is a ridiculous idea and they are firmly center/right.
Update: Response to criticisms
Folks will have to forgive me for responding en masse to comments; I’m going to be out of town for the rest of the weekend so I thought I’d pick up on some themes, and then, I won’t be able to revisit the discussion.
1. I’m yet to look at the comments on The Drum but any misunderstanding of my position might stem from either the piece being a little more theoretical than usual on that site and/or the common misunderstanding that arises when one is not taking one predictable side of an argument;
2. Dr_Tad affects to find some hidden revelation of my views in my comment about Max Weber. Weber is commonly described as a liberal for two reasons: (a) his personal politics and involvement in politics under the Reich and the Weimar republic; because his unit of analysis, methodologically, includes the individual. The long tradition of left Weberianism would indicate that his political and social thought is not reducible to ideological liberalism. Weber is not arguing that action can only take place through the state, nor that such action is to be normatively preferred. His conception of the state is complex (as are some Marxist conceptions, all of which are being ignored here) and key to it is that the state is better seen as an ensemble of forces and relations than a unified entity (see Nicos Poulantzas for a Marxist version of this argument). Similarly, Weber is explicit that ethical divides – and the basis for same – are contended for as part of political agonism – his “clash of the warring gods” under modernity.
But the reason why I cited Weber had little to do with his state theory, and everything to do with his conception of human action as complex and variegated; its patterning is broader than that of class or interest alone, and in particular his interpretation of status allows us to grasp much of what is actually occurring within Arab peoples.
3. As I argued, Iraq in 2003 is not Libya in 2011. I was certainly not on the “liberal pro-war” side of the Iraq debate, and I am not arguing from similar premises now. I explained what I see as the inapplicability of the parallel.
4. I am not at all sure that Marx would recognise the Marxism invoked in many of these debates.
5. Sg rightly points out that “imperialism” lacks explanatory power because no matter what occurs, it is likely to be explained as resulting from “imperialism” – showing both circularity in (non)reasoning and the presence of categories which preclude rather than enable thought.
6. So, too, a failure to recognise the actual disarray and confusion of American strategic thinking in the Middle East over the last decade negates the arguments that we see an eternal repetition of the same. It is hard to see what would count against an argument posed in terms of imperialism by those making it; it has become a shibboleth.
7. Again, in human affairs, actions have multiple and changing motivations and are not reducible to one. This implies that – in order to understand them and to intervene politically – one must be sensitive to difference, nuance, conjuncture and exigency.
8. Allegations that the US wishes to take control of the Libyan revolution ignore the fact that it is inevitable that in revolutions already effected in Egypt and Tunisia, the process of democratisation will not be straightforward, and will involve tensions between attempts to shape it from without and within. The same would have been the case had “the Libyan people made their own revolution”, because of the imbrication of any resultant government with the international state and economic systems. It will not occur purely because the UN has legitimised armed intervention, and the matter of degree in each instance is important.
9. I noted in akn’s comment the desire to pick and choose, and cast aspersions on, components of the Libyan movement which I’ve observed elsewhere. This seems to lead fairly inexorably to the sorts of unpalatable conclusions which he draws. The evacuation of the concept of democracy I talked about precisely goes to attitudes which seek to stipulate who can act as a legitimate democratic people.
10. I don’t think there really is any adequate understanding of the point Rundle made about the obligation that follows a democratic and legitimate demand.
“He may be foxing.”
Indeed, wbb, Deserted Foxing like some kind of low-rent Rommel.
The UN NFZ is life-affirming news for the Libyan revolutionaries. And thousands of civilian lives in Benghazi and elsewhere are no longer in the peril they were a few hours ago.
Tudors and Corleones alike now ponder:
“Who will rid Libya of this troublesome tyrant by making him an offer he can’t refuse?”
Hope they work week-ends!
Thats right Wbb – it was France that really stepped up to plate here.
Which cant have hurt with the Arab League: a recent US university study of popular attitudes to the West among Arabs found the French enjoy the most respect among the region’s denizens.
Yes, shame this didn’t happen a few days back, really.
Gaddafi can probably live with a holding ceasefire now he’s back in charge of a few oil centres.
That’s an easy one.
-A naval blockade of Tripoli. Done by whatever Coalition of the Willing is composed under the authority of the UNSC resolution. Gaddafi has hardly any Navy anyway and if they move out of their ports he won’t have one at all.
Who knows Chav? Faced with that the Libyan navy may rise up against their autocrat. You may have your IRS Aurora moment and there may be some revolutionary Libyan leader that Gaddafi’s opponents wish to slip across Libya’s border like a plague baccilus to foment revolution and bring about a Marxist paradise for all. Competely unlikely I know, but I mention it as a possibility to give you comfort.
But if that doesn’t work then there is this:
-An NFZ, authorised by the UNSC resolution.
-Shooting up anything that moves outside Tripoli from the air by the CoW that looks like it’s a part of his army, as authorised by the UNSC resolution.
- The insurgent forces moving up from the east, unconstrained by Gaddafi’s forces because of the UNSC resolution, to a distance from Tripoli outside the very limited range of his artillery and waiting him out. At that point the most aggressive act they need to take is to wiggle their bums at him. The people of Tripoli will take care of the rest.
If he can get it.
Commonsense would says that whatever CoW is composed under the UNSC resolution would dictate that the terms of the ceasefire would include the immediate withdrawal of whatever towns in Libya are under dispute, which towns they would name.
His troops withdraw and they are isolated on a highway with no means of support and they cannot survive in a desert without support.
They do not withdraw and there is no ceasefire.
There is nothing in the UNSC resolution that says that Gaddafi can dictate the terms of a ceasefire.
Does that include the Tunisians?
Nope – samples from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan. Its called the ’2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll – Conducted by the University of Maryland in conjunction with Zogby International’ if you want to google it.
Lefty E I think that any useful poll on Arab opinions of the West would include Tunisia which has a population of ten million and Algeria, which has a population of thirty five million.
That is a significant proportion of the Arab population, and they have their own significant experiences of the French. The Tunisians in the short term and the Algerians in the long term.
Any survey of “Arab opinion” that asks questions about attitudes about the French which excludes the Tunisians and the Algerians is worthless.
Im quite aware of the history Greg- having travelled in Tunisia myself, and yes, the French hardly covered themselves in glory over Tunisia recently, as I noted here myself at the time.
But Im afraid none of that makes the study unrepresentative. You’ll note that Morocco and Lebanon were included, which also have direct experience of French colonialism. Its a good sample of the Arab world.
So Lefty E do you think a survey of Australian opinion which excluded Western Australia and Tasmania would be considered a good representative sample of Australian opinion?
Could the opinions of those polled in the ACT serve for those of the people of Tasmania in such a poll?
And those of the people of South Australia for those of the people of Western Australia?
I don’t think so. Nor would the Western Australians, or the South Australians, or the Tasmanians, or the ACTerritorians.
And the people of NSW, Victoia, Queensland and the Northern Territory would not consider it representative either.
That leaves aside the very different experience of the colonial contact the Algerians had with the French from that which the Lebanese had which would immediately exclude the use of Lebanese sampling as being representative of Algerian opinion.
From The Age website, quoting French Govt spokes-homme Francois Baroin:
Baroin said the goal of the military action would be to “protect the Libyan people and to allow them to go all the way in their drive for freedom, which means bringing down the Gaddafi regime”.
That doesn’t sound like a ‘ceasefire in place’ to me.
“Aux armes, citoyens!”
You appear to misunderstand the concept of a sample, GregM. For one thing, inclusion of “the ACT” isnt likely to change “Australian” results much – even if they have polar opposite views.
Being major Francophones, I somewhat doubt the inclusion of Tunisia would have hurt the results as much as you imagine – indeed, despite the troubled history, France has huge Algerian and Tunisian populations. Voting, Feet. Much like Angola and Portugal. Lot of bad blood there – and a lot of contemporary contact, facilitated by language.
Anyway, why dont you have a look yourself? Slides 56 onward are what you’re after. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35502746/2010-Arab-Public-Opinion-Poll
First thing you’ll notice is that France is a mile in front, its *not even close* for 2nd, and including samples from two other countries aint gonna close that gap dude! (especially not when those two are the biggest bunch of French speakers in the region)
That love/hate thing is pretty common in ex colonies, GregM
Katz @ 55:
Is this what you had in mind ?
“10:33am Sadoun, a member of the Feb 17 revolution media committee, tell Al Jazeera by phone that Gaddafi tanks and forces surrounding the city of Misurata and are trying to push their way into the center of the city.
“He said city has been under fire by Gaddafi tanks for the last three hours and that the number of victims is rising. An estimated 25 tanks are thought to be taking part in the offense.
“He thought the Gaddafi forces are trying hard to push their way into the center of the city today to take civilian residents as a human shield against any possible air attacks by foreign forces.”
To Katz, on this thread I, who posed a set of questions for those “engaging in bellicosity”.
Protecting a coterie of our own species is certainly not an act of bellicosity.
Large difference between defense and offense. Violent occasions, though, they both mostly be.
WBB:
In my dictionary “bellicosity” means being ready to fight.
What does it say in your dictionary?
I wonder whether the British, and more importantly, the Arab Council, agree with those aims.
Sarkozy’s maximalism, driven no doubt by his dire position in domestic French politics, was always going to be the destabilising aspect of this “coalition”.
I believe that Gaddafi will work hard to drive a wedge into the “coalition” by searching for just the right level of concession.
Gaddafi has demonstrated his capabilities in this game for decades.
Who cares what the British think?
What matters is the Arab Council (though I think you mean Arab League) as the representative body of all arabs. And of course they agree with his aims. He is French and therefore beloved of all arabs. Have a look at LeftyE’s slides @92. Slides 56 onwards are what you’re after. First thing you’ll notice is that France is a mile in front, it’s *not even close* for 2nd.
Given their belovedness of all the Arabs, and the bellicosity of Baroin, the French could and really should do all the heavy lifting in this one.
No need to involve the nasty Americans at all. After all what arab does not remember the events of 1801 to 1805?
So there you have it. A few Mirages screaming down the streets of Tripoli and it’s game over. And if needed Sarkozy could load Michele Alliot-Marie onto one of them as bombing ordnance. That would make the French even more beloved, at least to the Tunisians.
Yes, I did mean Arab League.
Perhaps the French don’t care what the British think. They never did.
And French force of arms is legendary in the annals of international affairs.
Would deploying Michel Allot-Marie in the way you describe constitute a war crime, and if so, who are the victims?
No and Michele Alliot- Marie, which would be no loss to anyone except her and would bring great benefits to Franco-Tunisian relations.
Can I nominate Benard Henri-Levy for ordinance duty?
Andrew of course you can.
But you would be a clown if you did.
Benard Henri-Levy is a French intellectual. He is one of a great many. If the French deployed all their intellectuals as bombing ordnance that would move into the category of deploying Weapons of Mass Destruction and would therefore be a War Crime. No nation would be able to survive such an onslaught of toxicity as that of French intellectuals being plopped on their soil from a great height.
I know that France would be the better for it but this is not about France.
If all else fails, in the spirit of La Fayette, the French and the Americans could jointly deploy Jerry Lewis.
Or would that constitute disproportionality?
GregM, you seem to be having difficulty with the Uni of Maryland poll – but Im confused as to why. What precisely about the last 30 years of Arab- West relations makes you remotely surprised about these results? Im curious.
Meanwhile, Gaddafi’s forces advancing: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/19/3168256.htm
What is going on in the middle east makes no sense. We (west) have to do something for the pro-democracy rebels in Libya who are fighting for their lives, BUT we support (with a few mouthed condemnations)the Arab League killing pro-democracy rebels in Bahrain and Yemen. What the hell!
Belligerent : Favouring and inclined to start quarrels, Katz!
Speaking of which, Benghazi appears to be under shell attack at this minute.
Here are some Benghazi defenders hoisting some random flag now GregM. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/19/3168374.htm
Please don’t anyone say this is about oil. The West was more than happy to simply to deals with Gaddafi and buy Libyan oil. The last thing the US – and Obama – wants now is a war, much less an occupation.
…meant to say the West was more than happy to simply do deals with Gadaffi…
At 29. sg says, sort of naively:
Isn’t the purpose of the Right equally to improve the world (noting that the etymology of the word improve goes back to the French for ‘profit’)?
We should note that ‘reform’ – that bizarre keyword – is upheld as a ‘value’ by both sides of politics. I haven’t looked closely enough but from memory, early reform acts were to do with poor relief. Reform today is about relieving the poor of any releif.
Perhaps Marx’s most telling phrase is, from Capital I, ‘between equal rights for decides’. Neither side of politics has any better claim to right than the other – that right is only a consequence of the worlds either side is able to build.
wrong arithmetic, that somewhat naive suggestion wasn’t meant to mean “only” the left. It’s just that in this instance we’re talking about the left. I know that right-wingers eat their own children and sleep in coffins, but i do actually accept that (mostly – Rush Limbaugh is an exception) they too intend to improve the world. Actually, Blair never intended to improve the world, but he’s one of the Lurking Ones and they defy left/right categorization.
The Left has a wonderful guide in these matters (from deep within its own ranks!): Michael Walzer. He has probably written more on just war theory and the morality of the real-life conduct of wars than any other public intellectual.
Why hasn’t his name cropped up on this thread? Why is the “Dissent” group of intellectuals always overlooked?
The Libyan rebels are not part of people’s relolution like the ones that took place in Tunisia and Egypt.
The Libyan rebels are not some group that has been democratically elected, then deposed.
Its all too easily predicted, this. The core rebels have been trained and armed by France and Britain. They want in. The opportunity arose this year,and they took it. It backfired. Now the West bares its teeth.
Western states have been invading oil rich states and using opposition forces to help them for a 100 years.
Capitalism gives piracy a bad name.
I understand the BBC is now saying Libyan government troops are firing on the rebels. Gosh! Well then, they are entitled to bomb now, eh? Tonkin
sg said:
No they don’t. If they are rightists, their vision extends no further than what they deem their own personal space. If them caring for their own personal space turns out to improve the world, that’s an unintended but pleasant consequence with which they can defend their own self-focused conduct. Some explicitly deny the possibility that the world can be a better place, averring a secular fatalism mixed in with varying degrees of misanthropy whereas others (especially the moralising ones) don’t care about this world at all, but see this life as a rather tawdry initiation rite for the glorious hereafter.
In short, hardly any rightists give a flying fig about the world or humanity. They are driven in varying amounts by hatred, angst, fear, ignorance, unarticulated self-loathing which they typically project onto others and often an obsessive compulsive fundamentalism. While all humanity is forced to make the acquaintance of such sentiments, we leftists make the most insistent efforts to deal rationally with these things, and, with the support of our peers, can articulate a conception of humanity that goes beyond our own life circumstances and expresses the solidarity that is at the heart of every human who has slipped the most pernicious impositions of scarcity on human consciousness.
OK Mods … what was the word in the above that got the prior post moderated? No mention of R&ssia this time.
Absolutely they are. The UNSC resolution is explicit, It says "all necessary means".
Tonkin? That had no UNSC resolution behind it.
Brendon we both know that there are evil psycopaths on this earth. Gaddafi is one of them.
I prefer that he does not continue in his psychopathic behaviour. But you prefer that he does. When the UNSC says that enough is enough then I applaud it for standing up for human.
You despise human rights and love dictators and all the atrocities they inflict upon the people who are subject to them.
That is your problem. It is not mine.
Chav: “You mean you want to support the geopolitical powers most responsible for carrying out or fostering such acts and who will gladly do so in Libya should they choose?”
Rest easy Chav. I think the Arab league is, in this case, content to let the West do the heavy lifting.
From the comments policy:
If you have questions, direct them appropriately.
I accept that unconditionally TT and was certainly not protesting, but was wishing to compose my post so as to avoid moderation. Is there a list of prohibited strings you could email me?
Apologies if it sounded as if I was taking a swing …
Gaddafi taking a big swing now.
Nobody seems to know if the NFZ is operational or waiting on authorisation?
Once Gaddafi is inside Benghazi the NFZ loses its effect. Probably time the intcomm did something now.
What Fran said @ 115: spot-on.
In fact, that’s always been my definition of Left and Right, give or take a bit of cherry-picking
“To improve the world” – not just one’s own career or fortunes; to add to, not take from, the sum of human happiness and sense of potential while doing no harm to innocent people, and not unnecessary harm to un-innocent people [hence the illegitimacy of torture]; to contribute what we can of our talents to the uplifting of human potential, particularly of people who face chronic discrimination and the burdens of history; to defend people in their struggle for democratic rights in the first instance.
How can anybody on the Right meet those criteria, especially given that they, by definition, don’t want to ?
On the basis of this pretty sloppy distinction, I have to say that, in my view, many people here who think they are Left are, in effect, supporters of the Right, in their lack of compassion and adherence to a rigid and conservative – indeed, outmoded – set of principles. The discussion about Libya has brought out these distinctions fairly clearly.
GregM @117
In Bahrain right at this minute Saudi troops are shooting at protesters. Crickets chirping. You only get upset at what the western media tells you to get upset about, it seems.
This is like Groundhog Day. Same old same old. WMDs. Nothing but lies. Saddam massing troops on the Saudi Arabian border. Bombs going off. Gosh, it must be true because the media says.
But can I ask you why you would want to overthrow a government that has provided one of the highest incomes in the region, free education and health care…etc.
Are you upset because in Libya women’s right are far greater than in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Client states of the West.
Would you prefer Nigeria where the poverty is terrible, the oil exports is one of the largst in the world, and the place is run by Big Oil, namely Shell?
Because thats what this is all about. Total control of the oil.
Brendon,
Yes, but could Gaddafi make the trains run on time ? Would that be one of your touch-stones ?
Believing the media ?
Al-Jazeera + Guardian + Independent + The Australian + large grain of salt + (pre-conceptions + biases + ideologies + bitter experience) = rough approximation of reality
We’re not halfwits, you know
Of course, it’s always about oil, and it always will be, for the people, for budgets and governments – until they can diversify their economies, and for the West, for China, for you and me, as long as our economies are reliant on it. It’s part of EVERYBODY’s calculations. Nothing unique about it. So what does an awareness of ‘oil’ demonstrate ? Is that to be the limit of one’s analysis ?
The BBC is reporting that pro-Gaddafi forces, with tanks, have entered Benghazi and have opened fire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418
You have to hand it to Gaddafi, he has the chutzpah of a right proper bastard. He waits for the no fly zone to be announced and then make a last minute grab for the remaining city, right under the noses of your imperial overlords.
Darth Vader would be proud. This isn’t so much Muhammad Ali’s rope-a-dope as it is Mike Tyson’s ear-biting.
I think you’ve failed us this time, Katz.
How did the NFZ proposal succeed in the Security Council ? I would be interested in your views.
My short answer, following Chomsky: The West must periodically dump its favourite dictators when their crimes become obvious to the the general population of Western democracies.
Marcos, once described by GH Bush as ‘our [the US's] kind of guy’ was dumped for Aquino due to mass public protest. Others, including Mubarrak, have met the same fate. Now its Gaddaffi’s turn.
The average Western voter, unaware of Gaddaffi’s general working relationship the US thinks of Gaddaffi as an anti-Western psycho-tyrant. The eruption of civil war in Libya including air-force strikes on civilians and rebels rightly disgusts Norm and Noreen Everage and they expect the innocent to be protected. So there is domestic political expectation in the West, grounded in basic decency, that our governments will enact a NFZ.
But governments, naturally, approach the situation based on realpolitik and self-interest.
The crucial political factor which allowed the NFZ proposal to succeed is the alliance of common interest between Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations with the US.
While significant chunks of the grass roots Arab citizenry may hate the US, their governments rather enjoy selling the US oil and receiving Megatons of military equipment as part of various perverse aid and friendship packages. The Americans base the bulk of their Persian Gulf fleet in Bahrain , to name just one important aspect of this relationship.
The Arab League does not wish to succour the highly eneregetic and successful protest movements swelling under their feet, so to provide a precedent of supporting a rebel movement in Libya must have stuck in their craw and contributed to a great deal of hesitation in their agreement with the UN/NATO.
As to why Saudi planes (or the Arab League generally) are not doing the bombing runs, well, they have to save face with their own population. Its not great internal press to openly bomb other Muslims. If the Brits do it then that may just distract the rebel movements a little into an anti-Western lacuna.
But the Saudis wlll happily massacre as many Shiite Baharanis as they have bullets, or Apache helicopters.
The typical Western voter, unaware of the basic alliance between Arab and Western governments, and with no pre-existing mental image of Bahraini royalty except a vague negative Arab/Muslim sterotype will consider the Bahraini massacres an internal Arab matter and will not expect Western intervention. Besides which, war with Saudi Arabia is beyond the comfort level of most of the sane.
But in regard to Libya, the West needed the NFZ deal to save face with its own populace – particularly the British, whose royalty are friends with Gaddaffi’s son and whose famous London School Of Economics received bequests from the psycho-tyrant himself.
So I would guess the essence of the deal with the Arab League would be “Let us do a NFZ in Libya and we’ll look the other way while you massacre as many as you want elsewhere, starting with Bahrain and Yemen’
How China and Russia were talked into abstaining, I don’t know, but it would have cost the West a barrel of favours that would make even a FIFA junket look trivial.
So, the NFZ is not a specific imperialialist gambit or lunge for Libyan oil, but rather an unfortunate turn of events where popular protest has forced the West to abandon one of its murderous clients.
This happens regularly and is very distressing because revolution is more unpredicatable than Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates and who the West gets to deal with next will have to be cultivated/managed/bombed or bribed into compliance which is costly, time-consuming and has no guarantee of success.
No, this is World Championship Wrestling when Brute Bernard snuck something nasty into the ring in his leotard and raked it over the eyes of Larry O’Dea.
Jack Little was struck dumb. “My only comment is, “NO COMMENT”!
Looks like the committee meeting has now been relocated from Judea to Paris:
Old Yobbo @124,
Do you have something against women’s rights?
What I said was true about Libya. Yes, there were protests. But nothing like Egypt and Tunisia, because the general standard of living is so much higher. I just checked then, and I could see no protests there in the thousands when it first started. A real people’s revolution is done by the people. Not a foreign armed insurgency.
Why not scream for blood in Suadi Arabia? Why not go and believe a load of demonizing propaganda about that place and yell for bombs to be dropped there? Its much, much worse a place than Libya.
As for the media. I have read it just then. There is plenty of press staying with the foriegn backed rebels right now. I don’t yet see any direct combat reporting. If the Libyan army has arrived it would be more than what is being reported.
Is there a single Al Jazeera reporter with the Libyan army?
BTW, I understand the rebels are running about screaming “Allahu Akbar”, – “God is greatest”. Great. Women’s Rights.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/hundreds-flee-as-fighting-rages-around-libyas-benghazi-20110319-1c1gp.html
Nobel Peace Prize winner all, I bet.
Just like Iraq. What a success story that is.
Thanks for that link Tigtog.
I don’t think anyone can honestly say the West was desperate to intervene here. Nothing would have given Obama more satisfaction than for the rebels to win this unaided. Indeed, I think the only reason the West is willing to intervene is that it is obvious that there is such large and passionate support for the rebellion. If the rebels win, it will still largely be by their own efforts. How can the Left be against that? The rebels are a pretty brave lot – initially taking on an army with not much more than their bare hands.
Anyone who has ever had the temerity to travel on a plane overseas could have been the victim of Gadaffi – remember Lockerbie. And let’s not forget the many blameless people who lost their lives as a result of his support for terrorist groups – the IRA, and every other terrorist group who were willing to flatter the ego of a ridiculous tinpot dictator playing at revolutionary. Good riddance.
The idea is to smash the Libyan military. It will be done. Lots of aerial attacks. Destroy the Libyan government, and make them powerless. Arm the Rebels.
Lovely civil war to come after the French/British bombardment. Many many people dead. Let us wring our hands about that. It will show what caring leftist liberals we are.
BTW, these nice rebels which the Left knows all so well. These charming peace activists and rampant women’s rights advocates. These wonderful enlightened people. Hmmm?
Oh, could anyone actually tell me who exactly are we bombing Libya for? A couple of bios and some political backgrounds would be handy. A manifesto?
All I have heard from their lips (other than prepared statements) is “Allahu Akbar!” I wonder what brand of acid they use to throw in the faces of young women who won’t cover up.
Brendon@123
Are you running for the title of LP’s village idiot?
While Libya has vast oil wealth it is not distributed equitably. Its free health care is derisory and when one gets a free education there one cannot get a job.
Whatever evidence do you have that the insurgent forces in Libya are opposed to women’s rights and are not even prepared to extend those rights, including the right to vote in a free and fair election in the formation of their government, something that Gaddafi has never given them?
I’d be glad to see the current regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait go down to democratic forces. One at a time I say.
You, however, in defending Gaddafi, give them cover to continue on their way.
You are a friend of fascism and one of its useful idiots.
Whoa, Fran.
You are the person who on another thread argued vehemently for starving children to death and for hostage taking. I’m not at all sure that if you are claiming to be a representative of the left it could make any claim to rationality or to solidarity.
GregM @ 132
Personal abuse doesn’t get your point across.
I’m not supporting Gadaffi. It is you who is supporting a bunch of no-name rebels with no known agenda other than saying Gadaffi is evil.
I’m saying currently Libya is far from the worst place in the M.E.
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuawit, Bahrain, Iran, Yemen, and nearby Nigeria are far more in need of revolution than Libya. They are far more corrupt and backward.
But do you know my solution? Stop giving those governments weapons, and teargas, and, rifles and batons. The people will sort them out eventually. This way leads to disasters like Iraq. Thank the media for keeping that place off the front page. How many died in last terrorist attack there last week?
You seem to have an affinity with neoconservativism. Never ending war.
I note that Qaddafi seems to have ignored the much vaunted NFZ and besieged Bengazi.
Thank you, GregM.
Brendon: “I’m saying currently Libya is far from the worst place in the M.E.”
Yes, indeed. One at a time
Chavez @134.
Sorry, wrong. It was a rebel plane and it was shot down by government forces. It was the rebels that broke the NFZ.
Does that mean that France and Britain get to bomb the rebels now?
http://www.smh.com.au/world/gaddafis-troops-storm-benghazi-20110319-1c1cj.html
Oh, and the wonderful recent revolution in Egypt?
http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-18/news/29142275_1_egyptian-uprising-supreme-constitutional-court-cairo-s-tahrir-square
Funny how things work out. But what would I know.
Robert Haddick of the Small Wars Journal has a considered and and well worth reading article in This Week at War column in Foreign Policy magazine on the Libyan conflict. Particularly pertinent is his take on Qadhafi’s probable response:
“The coalition should reckon with Qaddafi’s likely responses. Although they are helpful, he does not need his tanks and artillery to regain control of Libya’s cities. Once coalition aircraft begin attacking conventional military targets, Qaddafi will switch to irregular warfare techniques. His soldiers and mercenaries will abandon their uniforms and travel by bus, accompanied by civilians, refugees, and friendly media for shielding against air attack. Once inside cities like Benghazi and in close quarters with the rebels, Qaddafi’s infantry will similarly be immune from air attack, especially if the coalition is prohibited from deploying ground troops as forward air controllers.”
His conclusion: “he United Nations has authorized the wide-ranging use of air power against his regime. Air power will be enough to escalate this war but not enough to win it. Although prohibited for now by the Security Council, “boots on the ground” will eventually be required to remove Qaddafi and his sons from Libya”
Paul Austin @139
The article is spot on. There will be a civil war. There will be no good out come. The armchair generals who once thought it was a good idea will wash their hands of it. The Think Tanks will move onto something else.
‘There will be no good out come.’
Well, at the very least, it appears to have averted an immanent bloodbath in Benghazi courtesy of Gaddafi if the strikes hadnt gone ahead when they did. I imagine the people of Benghazi think thats a good outcome (?)
I think it was always likely that Gadaffi would be harder to dislodge than the Egyptian regime. For a start, he always had more oil money to buy support. But he also had an ideology – socialistic and anti-colonial – that probably still had some adherents.
Brendon: it does remind me of the Bosnian situation, when one side had to fight with one hand tied behind its back, face civilian massacres, and apparently the international community could congratulate itself on containing the violence.
adamite @141
The Libyan government was offering ceasefires all the way through this confrontation.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8304195-gaddafi-son-sees-negotiation-ceasefire-in-libya/content/58930928-saif-al-islam-gaddafi-l-
But the rebels refused any talk of concessions, truces, or ceasefires. They had the thing the West wants: the oil fields. That is there bargaining tool. And what its always about.
And where are the tanks? We were told last night by the western media that Libyan government tanks were rolling into Benghazi. Disappeared like magic, did they? Best not to think you are being lied to and that the Libyan government was upholding their end of the ceasefire, eh? And of course it was a rebel plane that broke the NFZ yesterday.
But it was Gadaffi that committed the biggest crime: he lost control of the oil fields to the foriegn back rebels.
We are entering a world where invasions and military attacks on countries is becoming passé.
I’m thinking of a time in 20 years or so when China has decided they don’t like their resource contracts with us and think they can get a better deal by “liberating” Australia.
‘The coalition should reckon with Qaddafi’s likely responses’
The other point ignored in this analysis is the effect of these events on support for Gaddafi within his own regime. It could break a number of ways, but it would seem, at the very least, that he probably cant just rely on the loyal ‘gaddafi’ militias anymore. There is also the issue of allegiances with the different major tribal clans and whether gaddafi is now seen as a major liability. So its rather simplistic to just assume a continuation of the status quo as this assessment appears to do.
Foreign oil companies had no issue with Gaddafi – they were falling over themselves to do business with him.
The issue here is pretty simple: to deny Gaddafi the right to use jets and other aircraft against civilians – read the UN resolution, not nutty Chomsky-esque conspiracy theories.
Ginja @ 109,
The Libyan government lost control of the oil fields to the rebels. Thats what the rebels went after. So yeah, you can say its about oil. The Rebels sure think it is. The first thing they said was they would honour existing oil contracts.
GregM said:
Point of information:
GregM grossly misrepresents a previous thread but this topic is not the place to revisit these questions, as they related to the use of force against Hirohito’s Japan.
Speaking generally, I no more propose “starving children” (or anyone else) than does anyone supporting one side of an armed conflict support any collateral damage. Armed conflict entails acceptance of the risk that people (including non-combatants) will suffer life-altering and probably lethal injuries. Those of us who attach primary value to human life seek to minimise such harm, with a particular focus on minimising harm of all kinds to non-combatants. Where laying siege is consistent with the principle of “least of all harms” it has sufficient warrant and in that case all harms that are consequent or foreseeable are also warranted. Equally, if an instance of hostage-taking met this standard, it too would have sufficient warrant. Unlike killing and maiming, hostage taking is reversible — one may return hostages unharmed, but one cannot raise the dead or repair the bodies of people with crippling injury.
In war, doing this kind of calculus is of necessity, imprecise, and therefore only the most compelling of circumstances — those in which it was very likely that all alternatives would do greater injury to legitimate interests — could warrant it. Knowing that this is so, and anticipating the certainty of injuries to non-combatants and the uncertainties of military campaigns more generally cautions us to “let slip the dogs of war” only as a last resort, itself warranted by the “least of all harms” standard. One would need sound grounds to believe that the failure to take this course would lead to harms greater than those ensuing from systematic armed conflict and given the uncertainties any reasonable person should entertain, one would need very impressive evidence. Where the right to self-defence, both for individuals and whole communities, has an ethical warrant, it achieves it by ensuring that the action in self-defence is commensurate with the risk to a legitimate interest posed by another party or parties.
That, IMO, is how us leftists ought to approach the matter, not just in theory, but in practice.
I agree generally with Brendon. This is a very unsatisfactory way to resolve a dispute. It’s impossible to even clearly say what the dispute is — a conflict was already occuring and it’s clear that ‘we’ have intervened on the side of the revolution, but ‘we’ also have a history with the Libyan regime so that we cannot clearly claim that we acted only to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.
Although, on that point, I hope that we have.
Still, the better solution would be to deny ourselves of Libya’s oil, even at the cost of this oil being used by others. We belong to a culture of capitalist-democracy, which is increasinlgy capitalist and decreasing democratic: Why can’t we deny ourselves Libya’s oil, even though it be bought by others? Why are our political ideals secondary to our economic priorities? Especially, when the benefits of our economy are going to an ever smaller minority. Is democracy really something that can only be afforded by the wealthy?
In relation to Brian’s recent article about the effects of an increase in military confrontation as being one of the possible mid-term outcomes of climate change, we need to be working on mechanisms that provide peaceful diplomatic solutions to inter/national conflicts.
Globalisation based on capitalism is dangerous because it’s promoting international economic conflict, when what we need is international politcal dialog. This is the great problem with the Chinese/ American relationship. The Chinese expect to see some tangible benefit for their being exploited by US consumers. Instead of being able to manage in a much more stable fashion, the economic development of underdeveloped countries we have these typically violent capitalist boom/ bust patterns, except this time it’s at a national level.
In any case the whole Thing is predicated on our ability in the future to insure our economic development through renewable energy sources.
Joe,
I am yet to read a single post here that names a leader of the rebels, and that leader’s politics.
Where is the manifesto? Where is their vision of Libya written so that we can see what we are supposed to be dropping bombs for.
Its a big elephant, and its a small room.
Does the ghost of Troksty infect the left so much that every time a bomb goes off somewhere, some on the left cheer before thinking?
It’s not about oil as far as the West is concerned. For Gadaffi it may be about oil – it’s the main prop of his regime, how he buys support. When the rebels went after the oil fields they were striking at the main pillar of Gadaffi’s regime – not because they felt like risking their lives for foreign oil corporations. That’s a nonsense argument, Brendon.
Many people during the first Gulf war said it was all about oil – and they were right (despite themselves). It was about denying a dictator the use of Kuwati oil for his own dangerous aggrandizement and to bully the rest of the Gulf.
And true, we are taking a risk supporting the rebels – Gaddafi has trotted out the bogey that he is fighting al Qaeda. But we know Gadaffi all too well: his sponsoring of terrorism, the Lockerbie bombing (over 250 innocent people killed). If anyting, the west has shown admirable restraint against this tinpot dictator.
Old Yobbo – (any relation?)
Lefty E, Adrien, Heff, Katz and other inactivists
I think you misunderstand me. Just because I’m aware of the realpolitik don’t mean I’m no fascist.
I think Obama blew it. I think he had an opportunity to convert decades of bad policy into lasting friendship. Thing is, in order to succeed, he would have also consolidated the US Imperium in the Middle-East. He would have had to.
Why? Because the authoritarian regimes that are friendly to US interests would be miffed if he supported the Egyptian revolution outright and crushed the Gaddafi’s capacity to butcher his people from the air. He would then have to read the the riot act and, if they resisted, take ruthless measures to stem that resistance.
I think, considering, it would have been the right move anyway.
It’s very tricky which is why he’s done nothing. He’s not up to it. Is suspect finally, he’s just a slick technocrat who believes his own media bullshit.
I might be wrong.
Ginja,
So what you are saying is its not about the oil for the west or the rebels, but its about the oil for the the Libyan government. You are saying the rebels took the oil fields to show this, and the West is protecting those oil fields. OK. I’m having trouble following that.
In 1996 the British used Al Qaeda agents in an attempted assassination on Gadaffi. Look it up under:
Guardian Sunday 10 November 2002
Al Qaeda does operate in Libya. And you can’t tell who the leaders of the rebel army are.
Obama finally acts.
Bravo.
Now it gets really tricky. Lotsa nervous sabres about.
When Carthage was sacked, Scipio said that he feared it could be applied to Rome in the future
The fashion has become to protect innocent civilians in resource rich countries. I’m not looking forward to the day when China accuses the Australian government of rounding up Chinese immigrants and torturing them just for fun. I’m pretty sure the Chinese peoople will automatically believe this and cheer as their military bomb the crap out of us. Of course the Chinese will have to move in troops and secure their new borders and ensure new elections free from the former tyrant Prime Minister Greg Combet. It will be necessary of course to re let the resource contracts. All legal, of course.
Errr, China would have to get the UN Security Council to sign off on that first, Brendon.
Its really quite a silly analogy you’re making.
I strongly suspect we’ve just seen thousands of people saved from a massacre in Benghazi. Its going to get messy and complex now, yes, but Im seeing that as ‘so far so good’.
With the greatest respect to Paul Haddick of the Small Wars journal re “His soldiers and mercenaries will abandon their uniforms and travel by bus, accompanied by civilians, refugees, and friendly media for shielding against air attack.”
I tink he’ll find the Benghazi defenders will be setting up checkpoints asap and seeing to disarm anyone who enters.
No doubt this is why Gaddafi has sought to control the entry points to Benghazi. The fight for the outskirts is the big thing to focus on now.
I’m also wondering why much civilian traffic from the west to the east into Benghazi would be occurring at this particular point in time, unless they were hostages of Gaddafi’s forces.
There’s a guest post today at Left Flank which takes on the issue of humanitarian intervention, including looking at what happened in Rwanda. Was the main problem really that the West didn’t militarily intervene?
I think it was more like 270 people killed in the Lockerbie atrocity – my apology.
Brendon, I’ll trust Obama’s motives over those of a murdering, ridulous fashion-victim any day.
What I am arguing – it’s not complicated – is that Gaddafi uses oil revenues to buy the loyalty of supporters (or to pay murdering foreign mercenaries because he obviously can’t trust Libyans to kill fellow Libyans).
Put yourself in the place of Libyan rebels: do you honestly think they risked their lives because they felt the need to be part of some Western plot to control Libyan oil?
I would have ignored your post, but you did knock the Left.
Lefty @157
Over the past 3 weeks, the Libyan government repeatedly offered truces and mediation. But at the request of Britain and France, and the promise of military support, the rebels refused.
There were no tanks in Benghazi. That was a lie. It was a rebel plane. So, that was a lie.
Since the Libyan government did not break the ceasefire. Why are they being attacked? Does the UN mandate say “fire at will”?
Iraq is a mess. Afghanistan in a drug state and a disgrace. Saudi Arabia is a disgrace. Nigeria is a disgrace. And Libya will follow in that proud tradition.
Well done.
Lefty E @ 157.
I’m talking 10-20 years. As the landscape changes, and as the power shifts, I’m sure for the right price, America would let us go. Britain would abstain. God bless ‘em.
Well, I’ll leave you with those fevered imaginings of yellow peril circa 2030, Brendon.
In the meantime, some problems I see with the “this is imperialism” thesis:
- ‘the West’ had in fact reached a well-known accord with the Gaddafi regime, like, 10 minutes ago, and completely rehabilitated him. Presumably because they felt it in the their interests.The UK govt staked quite a lot on this. I suspect the foreign policy establishments are in fact quite opposed to this action.
-As SG has noted, this would have been called imperialism if they hadnt acted, intervention only when it suits etc. Grubby oil compromise etc. Its an indiscriminate term that doesnt help us analyse this situation in the least.
- The Arab league is in support. Yes, it contains some tinpot authoritarians, like Gaddafi, but it also freshly renewed with several regimes in post-authoritarian transition.
- There’s a major popular Libyan uprising calling for a No Fly Zone. They also have an demonstrable track record of not inviting foreign intervention for the sake of it.
- What does Gaddafi represent that is progressive again? He’s a oil kleptocrat with a few crazed populist overtones. Is this case simply “respect sovereignty at all costs = I am anti-imperial”? I guess that would make China a good international citizen.
- Far from Brendon’s claims that Gaddafi was interested in a ceasfire for week, he has in fact been marching eastwards with superior military force to wipe out a popular revolt with seriously inferior military capabilities
- There’s a UNSC resolution, making it completely unlike Gulf War 2.
Again, the parallel Id make is with the Shi’a uprising in 1991 – no one came to help, despite their pleas. They were massacred.
Sinophobes, watch this and keep it real.
Dr Tad, if you’re so pissed about the great left conspiracy to extend US imperialism, then get yourself to Tripoli so you can help the regime to shoot down oppositionists.
Let the hand wringing begin
This just in:
Allied airstrikes kill 48, 150 wounded: Libya TV
TUNIS | Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:17pm EDT
TUNIS (Reuters) – Airstrikes on several Libyan cities killed 48 people and wounded 150 in “civilian areas,” a statement read out on Libyan state television said on Sunday.
————————–
All those dead bodies. Hope you people sleep well tonight.
That’s ‘This just in from the Libyan State TV‘, Brendon.
Ill await a reliable, non-combatant source. There’s plenty of media organisations on the ground to report.
Yes, terrible people the Libyans. Don’t trust a word they say.
I’m sure the MSM will have soothing words for you. Maybe some General denying eveything. Or maybe one of those “Gosh, we are sorry.” statements.
Expect the Libyan State TV building to get bombed any time soon of they keep reporting the casualties. More civilian deaths.
Just like the slaughter in Fallujah. The first time the doctors in the hospital there blew the whistle on the enormous civilian casualties. So the next attack, the Americans just bombed the hospital.
Bringing civilization to the Middle East.
Brendon @168
You have clearly identified that you believe that Libyan State TV is the same as the Libyan people.
This is a cool concept, the state always represents the people, and the people always speak with one voice.
So is this a situation peculiar to Libyans? In which case it is a racist conceit.
Or have you declared the end of politics? No more oppression in the world because Brendon said so.
Brendon, I didn’t support the war in Iraq. It is possible to see one war as just and necessary and another war as unjust. I’m also sceptical about civilizing missions abroad.
And I would have thought the Soviet Union deserved the lion share of the blame for the state Afghanistan finds itself in today. Just maybe the US isn’t responsible for all the world’s ills.
Ginja said:
I’m just going to stipulate without starting a threadhijack that I regard that as utterly without merit. “The state Afghanistan finds itself in today” is the result of a great many things, that have little to do with the USSR and much more to do with the history of the British in India, the creation of Pakistan and western intervention in the region thereafter. Until the early 1970s, the Soviet impact on Afghanistan had been relatively benign.
Well, I was thinking more Al-Jazeerah or similar, Brendon, but sure, you stick with the official Libyan state news outlets.
‘All those dead bodies. Hope you people sleep well tonight.’
If you want to talk about casualties, this doesnt even amount to a minute proportion of those who have already been liqudated, not to mention those targetted for future liquidation, by gadaffi in his campaign of revenge/retribution, supposedly on behalf of those very ‘Libyan people’ he is systematically slaughtering.
It all comes down to feats of arms now. The UN mission has set limits on itself which prevents completion of regime change.
The only people who can bring about regime change under present limits are the people of Libya.
I suspect that the supporters of the UN resolution may be a little too sanguine about the unpopularity of Gaddafi and about the military prowess of the rebellion.
This will get messy and it is more than possible that Gaddafi’s feat of arms may be victorious.
Then what? Did the supporters of the UN resolution even consider this possibility?
Brendon said:L
The question is poorly put. The question of intervention turns on whom you think is the voice of authentic Libya. Does one recognise as authentic those wielding against civilians weapons crafted for war against armed states and promising not to stop until “the traitors” are “crushed” or those who are in the cross-hairs of those with the weapons?
The regime said it would go “house to house” looking for traitors against whom it would “show no mercy” — a clear acknowledgement by the regime that the enemy of Libya-as–they-declare-it was perhaps to be found in every house in every town. Should one accept or reject the regime’s specification when it declares so unambiguously that the Libyan population is the true enemy of Libya?
Fran Barlow, I don’t think the Soviets had a benign influence on any country (I’m sure Afghans would agree!), but then again I belong to the anti-totalitarian tradition of the Left.
Apparently the idea that a country other than The Great Satan could have something to answer for in their foreign policy will always be “utterly without merit” with some of my comrades. Is Moscow still sending out the correct line via the Comintern?
I think I understand why some on the Left blame the US and the West for everything – saves the trouble of actually thinking.
Ginja said:
Powerful refutation, and so clever, since it required no thinking at all. I’m glad you told us what you think Afghans of the 1960s would have thought, because without your declaration, based for all we know on careful research we could scarcely have known.
Perhaps your last line should be recomposed:
I think I understand why some on the
Left{right} blame theUS{the Soviets and leftwingers} for everything – saves the trouble of actually thinking.Lefty E: ‘the West’ had in fact reached a well-known accord with the Gaddafi regime, like, 10 minutes ago, and completely rehabilitated him.
I that is an overstatement LE. The attitude of Western states varied widely – and I suggest that many were diplomatically being polite to a madman. I can’t recall any support for G amongst conservatives, other than a high profile Italian one, since G had a number of characteristics not compatible with Western conservatism:
1. He is a raving lunatic
2. His best mates are Chavez and a collection of Cold War opponents of Western ideals
3. He has close military ties to Russia
4. He has long been suspected of supporting terrorism
5. He is perceived to be a darling of the Left because he hates America.
Given a Tomahawk cruise missile can spread shrapnel up to 800 metres and some of the targets were in urban areas, its quite possible there have 48 civilian casualties of the Nato air raids.
But honestly, I know its the weekend and all, but you pro-NFZoner’s really need to work the phones to Paris, Washington and London…after all still no airstrikes on Bahran and Yemen…for some reason…
@PeterTB #178
I think your sarcasm meter needs recalibrating.
Chav, you and Brendon have been making a great point – why Libya, and not any number of other Arab *&&^holes? I would have broadened the “target” states to include a number of Sth American and African cases.
I think that in earlier times, when the West was confident of itself, decisive action would have come early, and often – but we have moved on from our colonialist past. Perhaps we need to rediscover the inherent superiority of Western, and particularly Anglophone civilisation, and do the rest of the world a favour by providing much needed guidance and leadership?
Starting with Rhodesia, for instance.
Fran @175,
The American regime threatened to bomb Baghdad with MOAB, the biggest non-nuclear bomb in the world. They also threatened Iran with nuclear attack.
So now we are bombing people over threats? Long queue.
The Libyan government also offered truces and concessions that were turned down.
But the so far unknown rebel leadership, with their so far unknown agenda and politics turned them all down. So, Gadaffi talked big and threatened big and rattled his sabre. At the same time his son was ofering a truce. Carrot and stick.
Anyway you want to cut it, the Libyan government was ready to deal. The Americans, French, and British – the biggest bunch of capitalist pirates in the world these past 200 years – said no deal.
They don’t want a political solution. Thry want to blow the place up. They want to instal a pliant corrupt government so they have total control over the resources. If you control the world’s oil supply, you control the world. That is what this is about.
What Kazai’s brother doing? Maybe Chalabi. The Shah of Libya has a ring to it. Groundhog Day.
Iraq’s Parliament in based inside the Green Zone. Yay for democracy. Afghanistan is drug country run by the Warlords and the CIA. Saudia Arabia is a joke. Every country that is controlled or is a client state of the West in the Middle East is a digrace. Why will Libya be any different.
Brendon here is a link to the webpage of the rebel leadership.
http://ntclibya.org/english/
It covers all the bases that are bothering you: who they are what their agenda is and what their politics are. Sadly for you they seem to be in favour of freedom, justice and democracy, and therefore nothing you would support.
Lefty E @172
You would rather believe the western media than the Libyan news station?
Sorry to digress, but what was your favorite lie The New York Times help spread re the march to war in Iraq. There are dozens to choose from. The Al Qaeda terrorist training camp near Bagdad that didn’t exit? Mobile Weapons Labs? Atta’s secret meeting with an Iraqi diplomat in Prague that never took place? Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program? (breathlessly reported by Judith Miller). That the CIA had solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade? The biggie, WMDs?
And dozens more to choose from.
Which piece of lying propaganda by the western media you trust so much was your favorite back then?
Actually Brendon he cited Al Jazeera as his preferred news source, not the western media. I’d rely upon them too in preference to the western media, and certainly in preference to Gaddafi’s news station.
One thing has me curious. Your use of the word ‘favorite’ in your last sentence.
Where are you posting from?
Australians will know the import of my question.
We may not hear to much from Al Jazeera. Is it only suspicious when ‘western’ powers try to silence the media?:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/20/3168730.htm
Thank you GregM, protector of the favoright way to spell favorite.
Fran, tell us about your “careful” scholarship into the Afghans’ reaction to the the Soviet invasion. Did they welcome their Soviet liberators with flowers? Shades of Paul Wolfowitz.
Joe, I know that you are not the brightest spark on the planet but since Brendon has never posted on LP before the Libyan crisis and has posted on no other subject it is legitimate to ask him if he is a sockpuppet or a troll.
Let me get this right. The country that Mark Bahnisch routinely disparages as the Imperial War State now has the go ahead to enforce a NFZ in Libya with Mark’s full support. Seriously dudes. Seriously.
Melbourne, Belgrave. I must have beren reading too many NYT articles. lol
GregM,
you are right O Protector of the Right Way to Spell Things, O’ Sharpest of the Tool Shed. You are too kind — you need make no excuses to this dim spark.
Sincerest apoplexies, etc. etc.
[BTW. why aren't you over there in Libya, exploding flak all around, Euro-fighter slicing through the enemy ordinance, you dip your wing one way sweep back the other offload your cargo of hot screamin' metal before heading back for a ciggie and a couple of beers on the boys. GregM in another life, eh?]
Ginja said:
Unlike you, I made no declarations on the opinions of Afghans in the 1960s. I spoke only of the impact of the Soviets on Afghan life. They built stuff and gave aid. There’s some evidence that Afghans benefited from it and certainly weren’t the worse for it (ergo: “relatviely benign” is a fair description). They continued to run their own show in the ramshackle way that such places do this kind of stuff.
Also unlike you, I can distinguish the late 1960s from the late 1970s.
At any rate, I doubt the building that transmits the Libyan TV news will be around much longer. Along with invasions and occupatiions, torture, resources theft, blowing up civilian buildings is all the rage in international politics nowadays.
‘A defiant Moamar Gaddafi says he will arm civilians to defend Libya from “colonial, crusader” aggression’
The obvious problem with this strategy is that the civilians are more likely to turn the guns on the butcher himself rather than any ‘external aggressor’
GregM, Brendon has been here before. He is the genius who told us South Park is racist because it has a black character called Token.
I suspect some less lefties are pro Gaddafi owing at least in part to the Chavez connection. Remember Chavez, the South Ameribright can thug that has quite a following in Australia.
@191 –
Chkdsk, I’ve argued repeatedly that the US was in fact quite reluctant to be part of any intervention in Libya, and that is now becoming clearer as Obama’s role is being better understood.
Two other points:
(a) I’ve also made the argument that the US’ power is declining, and that use of that power is characterised by more strategic and ideological confusion. I think the US’ role in the whole sequence of events from Tunisia onwards reflects that. I’d also point out that while I’ve been consistent in describing the US in terms of its imperial and military role, but that doesn’t obviate a more nuanced analysis of its actions.
(b) The intervention is under UN auspices, with Arab League support. So I don’t see it as some sort of US military adventurism at all. I’d add that to see all this as “being in support of the US” or something is to fall into all the traps I’ve been criticising. In fact, this is an intervention which has multilateral support and composition supported by a legitimate justification in international law.
Mark @ 198
I appreciate your concession re US reluctance in relation to the Libyan sitation, but nevertheless, your post and subseq1uent comments are silent in respect of Russia’s involvement. Do you subscribe to the Baraholka @127 view of the world?
Good point, Mark. Apparently the Arab League are now horrible imperialists.
Fran: the US, European countries, Japan offer aid and build stuff all the time. In fact, the aid budget of non-communist countries always made the Soviet Union’s look pathetic by comparison. What’s your point?
Those silly little Afghans with their “ramshackle” ways – they couldn’t govern themselves and needed white Soviet imperialists to whip them into shape.
Are you sure you are on the Left?
GregM @184
Thanks for the link, Greg.
Read it. Took 3 minutes. Doesn’t say much at all. I’m sure you are now a fervent adherent. Democracy and freedom, eh? Iran has elections. So too does Iraq. These are just words, Greg. The folowing, however is the result of the last time the west went in to liberate a country from a despot, nearly 7 years on:
4. Vulnerable Groups
Human rights conditions across Iraq remain extremely poor for vulnerable groups, particularly women, minorities, and men suspected of homosexual conduct.
Violence against women and girls continues to be a serious problem, with insurgent groups and militias, soldiers, and police among the perpetrators. Even in high-profile cases involving police or security forces, prosecutions are rare. Insurgent groups have targeted women who are politicians, civil servants, journalists, and women’s rights activists, and also attacked women on the street for what they consider “immoral” or “un-Islamic” behavior or dress. “Honor” killings by family members remain a threat to women and girls in Kurdish areas as well as elsewhere in Iraq. Sixty percent of Kurdish women have reportedly undergone female genital mutilation in the Kurdish areas of Iraq.
Armed groups continue to persecute minorities with impunity, particularly in the disputed territories in northern Iraq. Since June, 2009, assailants have launched horrific attacks against minority groups: in Nineveh province alone, a series of bombings in four towns and cities killed more than 137 and injured almost 500 from the Yazidi, Shabak and Turkmen communities.
In February 2010, eight Christians were killed in Mosul over a ten-day period. The attacks appear to be politically motivated, given the country’s looming national election. While the identities of the perpetrators remain unknown, the spike in attacks against Christians comes only days ahead of Iraq’s March 7 vote, and recalls the orchestrated campaign of targeted killings against Christians in Mosul in late 2008 that left 40 dead and caused more than 12,000 to flee their homes in Mosul.http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/25/iraq-s-2010-national-elections
Women’s Rights have gone backwards under American occupation. So too minority groups.
So please get off the high horse.
‘use of that power is characterised by more strategic and ideological confusion’
Mark – Another more subjective factor here is the quality of current US political leadership, particularly in comparison with the Bush administration in the 2nd Iraq invasion. Obama is well known for his cautious, inclusive approach and his tendency to seek out and weigh up different views before making a final decision on an issue. We saw something like this in his early attempts at engendering bipartisanship in American politics.
As it is no doubt a dual (military/civilian) use building and therefore a legitimate military target under the international laws of war I think that you are probably correct.
Not that that is a bad thing.
And you are from Belgrave? I know it. A veritable hell-hole. I can understand now your bitterness against western capitalism and its evils.
When I lived in Kew we often discussed your plight in Belgrave at our dinner parties (which were delicious and fun) and wondered if you would ever rise up to overthrow us. I think our joke went on about the last capitalist and the last lamp-post. Can you refresh my memory about that one? It must be constantly on your mind.
Cheers
“Chkdsk, I’ve argued repeatedly that the US was in fact quite reluctant to be part of any intervention in Libya, and that is now becoming clearer as Obama’s role is being better understood.”
If the US did not want to be involved then presumably it wouldn’t be involved. In spite of all the silly and ill-informed mewling, the speed of the intervention, which had to be preceded by the evacuation of foreigners and then required negotations with the AU, NATO, EU, AL, UN etc etc has been extraordinarly rapid. The NFZ over Northern Iraq, as you would be well aware, took much longer to organise.
I think it’s apt to remind of you your past opposition to the UN sanctioned Kuwait intervention. What’s the diff? Why were you so willing to countenance Baathist rape, torture and murder in Kuwait but not in this current crisis?
Good grief! lol
They must grow skin fairly thin down there in good ol’ Kew. Ha ha!
Well Greg, I hope you have invested in War Bonds or whatever, and that you make a lot of money out of other people’s misery. It was war and weapons that got Gaddafi into power. And kept him there. The Brits and French were selling him teargas until just recently.
I’m of the old left. The antiwar left. The motto is: War Is A Racket.
It has always been so since before the Greeks.
I think you are of the unread and unlearned left, Brendon. Read Orwell on the “old” pacifist left, and how when it suddenly became ideologically convenient (post German invasion of the USSR) they almost universally became pro-war antifascists.
ps. do you still think South Park is racist, dude?
Greg M @203 says:
“As it is no doubt a dual (military/civilian) use building and therefore a legitimate military target under the international laws of war I think that you are probably correct.”
I’m pretty sure their news broadcast building is a government run civilian organization. Like the ABC here. Probably not so independent. But not military.
@204 – Chdsk, I’m not at all sure about what you mean regarding my “past opposition to the UN sanctioned Kuwait intervention”, given that it was in 1991 and I was 23 at the time and an undergraduate students. Blogs hadn’t been invented.
Again, there’s a lot of material suggesting that it took Obama quite some time to overcome his reluctance to act. The co-ordination of the operations can be accounted for by contingency planning in advance of a decision:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/19/endgame-libya-world-time-gaddafi
I’d also make the point that, as I said in the addendum to the OP, I don’t see states as unitary and as single actors. That is to say, the US state is not purely an “Imperial war state” but is torn in a number of other directions, decisions are taken by individuals and groups with conflicting interests, and different decisions at different times are influenced by electoral and strategic calculus, as well as the balance of forces.
That really was the point I was making.
By the way, if this discussion continues to be so personalised and grumpy, it won’t be continued. I’d remind everyone of the comments policy.
chkdsk @206
I’m pretty old. I may have read Orwell before you were born. Who knows. I’m a voracious reader. But apparently not the same books or essays you have read.
Re Orwell, I’d hardly rate Libya with the fascists of the 1930′s. And I’m not a pacifist. Libya has invaded no-one. Its hardly a militaristic fascist country. And it is a much more civilized country from a Western POV and standards than say Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, and the Kingdom of Bahrain.
Now when I come to think of it, is there a secularist state in the Middle East the west has not invaded? Syria should be nervous.
I don’t mind SouthPark. I may have said that to stir you. lol
Peace
Brian @208
Its ok Brian. I’m trying to calm the waters.
Ginja said:
That the Soviets underpinned Afghan welfare during the 1960s and early 1970s rather than subverting it?
This approach is what people do when they realise they have the poorer side of an argument. My advice would be to take a deep breath and admit you’ve made a mistake instead of trying to move the goalposts or bait me.
If you want a serious exchange, then you have to make a serious claim, though I’d suggest an open thread rather than here as it is not germane.
@Brendon, it’s Mark not Brian.
@GregM, Brendon has actually been a commenter here for quite a long period on and off. So while I obviously disagree with his view here, it’s incorrect to suggest he’s appeared out of nowhere to put it.
Brendon @ 211, he’s Mark, I’m Brian. I’m the one who hasn’t commented on this thread so far. OK?
Relief will fade as we see the real impact of intervention in Libya
from Abdel al-Bari Atwan in The Guardian
This is a complete mess.
Well, at least it’s technically legal, I guess? But is it right?
Everyone who supports this type of action is responsible for the effect that it has on the international community in general. Amidst headlines like ‘The World has had enough of Gadaffi,’ the world is not China and Russia. And I would wager that even states in Asia and South America (not to mention Africa) are watching this display of muscle flexing with great interest. What interest do these states have in aligning themselves with the US if not economic?
Sorry about that, Mark, Brian.
And in Summer, Iran? Or aren’t they evil enough for you? We could take Iran in a pincer attack — advancing simultaneously from Afghanistan and Iraq. They wouldn’t stand a chance!
Tally-ho!
Huh Fran? I wasn’t aware there was an argument from the other side. Just some murmurings from musty old pro-USSR-line Trot pamphlets from the 1980s.
No doubt the Soviets turned Afghanistan into such a wonderful Swedish-style welfare state that the next logical step was to invade the place. Pity no one told the mujahideen what wonderful benefactors the Soviets were.
Honestly, you can’t be serious.
Libya had under Gadaffi:
1. the highest Human Development Index in Africa, equal with Portugal
2. a BIP of 9350 USD was second only to Saudi Arabia.
3. Social rights, while not being equivalent to a country such as Sweden, were far more advanced than it’s neighbours, in particular Saudi Arabia.
The soon to be liberated Libyans must really be looking forward to free elections like in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean that’s worked out so well in those countries.
Yes-sir, they sure will thank us for bombing the b’Jeezus out of their country, when this thing is over.
And Libyans aren’t being bombed by Gadaffi, Joe?
Joe, Libya is a country with vast oil reserves and a population around the size of New Zealand. It should have one of the highest living standards in the world, but thanks the Gadaffi’s misgovernment and the isolation of the country for so many years – brought about by Gadaffi’s play-acting as a third-world revolutionary – it has very serious social problems.
Have people been dropping Meow Meow or crystal meth or something on this thread?
What great friends of Mankind the US, France and Great Britain are: Finally trying to liberate the democratic freedom fighters of Libya in their unfair fight with the evil Colonel Gadaffi.
The freedom fighters are being armed by Egypt and the plane that they shot down — that was their own plane?! No really. And the terrible death toll — it’s clear that something had to be done! The first victim in war is truth.
Remember the “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, the “Poison gas” etc. etc.
Anyway, the first thing that the military of the west have to do is take out the anti-aircraft positions, which just happen to be near civil populations — but don’t worry, this is a precision attack and some collateral damage is acceptable. The population will just have to sit this one out.
The actual war is going to be a war of images, a media war so that everyone will forget just what the hell the point of it all is — and even that at the beginning there was no real point anyway.
Just ask the Iraqis…
Ginja, you could probably say the same about the US. Good to see, that you’re starting to think along these lines though…
Strange bedfellows ……
This on al-Jazeera:
“2:04pm The Taliban has issued a statement condemning the strikes in Libya, saying they represent a “politically-motivated and uncalled-for intervention and adventure” of Western nations in the internal affairs of the country.
“The “anti-Islamic” and “colonialist” forces don’t want a solution to the bloodshed, the statement said, but rather plan to weaken Libya and take its oil through “direct invasions.”
“The Taliban called on Muslims and rulers in the Islamic world not to remain neutral and to help Libya to “wriggle free” and “save itself from the tentacles of the foreign colonialism.” “
Well then, its amazing there was a massive popular uprising when things were so fab in Libya.
I guess some people will never be happy. Or are they all ‘Al-Qaeda’ there in Benghazi after all ? I’m pretty sure I heard that on Libyan State TV.
On that, Al Jazeerah reports their team has been arrested by Libyan security forces: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/201132082949535527.html
Evidently Gaddafi isnt too confident the facts will speak for themselves on Arab Street.
I may be proven wrong – but my guess is after 42 years Gaddafi’s popular support is minimal, not running far past key patronage networks and representing about 20% of the population, with 20% resisting, and the other 60% shitting their pants, keeping their heads down, and hoping he gets strung up in a square by his balls like Mussolini.
A la Timor pre 1999: the military and its industries buy off about a fifth, and police the rest. They’ll turn quick on him if they see him lose the upper hand. His support was vanishing town by town till they hit back with full military force.
I wager there’s no love at all, only fear. One split in his ranks and he’s gone to Zimbabwe.
Benghazi’s hospital is full of civilians attached by Gaddafi’s forces on Saturday. He has snipers on the roof of Misrata taking pot shots at civilians a la Yemen.
Seriously, to hell with the fucker.
Fran, you haven:t read Flashman at the Charge have you? Russia’s been involved in Afghanistan for a lot longer than the Soviets, and mostly negatively. And without much support. In defence of this claim I give you the ultimate historical source, General Flashman. He was there.
Brendon, you claim Gaddafi made repeated ceasefire offers. That video of his son on TV declaring he would kill everyone, did it pass you by?
Please kids, can we update our analysis of imperialism to include, um, the modern world?
Also Brendon, your analysis of the rebels’ site is painfully lmiited by your lack of arabic. If you click on the arabic version of the site and scoot across three menus, you:ll find a page full of extensive links. Click on the English version again, scoot across three menus, you find a page with no links. What is that page? “Members.”
Like many websites created by people for whom English is not a first language, the site has only a summary in English. The full information is there for, how would we say this, “their arab brothers.” click on the fourth menu and you find an apology that nothing is ready in English yet.
I would really appreciate the presence of more arabic-speaking Muslim/Arabic/African nationalists in the Australian leftist blogosphere. But for some reason they aren’t hanging out with us. Why is that, I wonder? Is it because they’ve rushed in where marxists fear to tread, and are currently Shooting Down Arseholes in Libya? Or is it that they don’t find the Australian left particularly welcoming…?
… and I’ve just heard people in Misrata on the BBC calling for help, Lefty E.
But I suppose they’re imperialist dupes or something, according to some on this thread.
@sg – I think Fran’s right. Discussion of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is off topic for this thread.
Why is it necessary to destroy Libya’s air defence to secure a no fly zone? That seems a little too pro-active: that would be the same as saying to speeding we need to remove the breaks from cars.
The Arab League is now also criticising the bombings. This is not a no-fly zone but an attack on Gadaffi’s air defence and other military capability.
I am not at all sympathetic to Gadaffi, but this is going to create long term problems if it continues. This isn’t a good look.
I understand the imperative nature of the mission due to the impending atrocities that were about to be committed against the revolutionaries by Gadaffi’s foot soldiers, but the response needs to remain proportionate and the context is far broader than the immediate future of the Gadaffi regime.
I feel very concerned that this intervention will come back to haunt us in the not too distant future. There simply has to be a better way to achieve one’s goals as through military engagement.
This is a defeat for Western diplomacy.
sg, I haven’t read the book you allude to either but I have read, Seven Years in Tibet, and of course, the Russians were a concern for the British during the time of the British Raj.
Central Asia was a possible confrontation point for these two empires.
Anyway, I’ll definitely look into the book you mention. It’s certainly a fascinating part of the world.
Just as a quick aside, I had an Afghani friend in Sydney, who grew up in the apparently relative piece and prosperity of 1950s Afghanistan. She was the daughter of a Professor at the University i Kabul and said that Kabul during this time was secular and in any case Afghanistan had it’s own particular flavour of Islamism, and certainly a long and rich heritage.
Modernity is historically always found amidst such historical destruction, one is reminded of Klee’s Angelus Novus. The transition from feudalism to industrialisation is always bought with much blood and barbarity. The sculpting of a corpse of willing citizens has much more in common with Dr. Moreau than we like to think, when we look at the mirror in the mornings.
Joe asked:
Because enforcing the NFZ implies unchallenged command by the enforcers of the NFZ. Air defences are a challenge to the NFZ. Moreover, UNSC1973 declared that all necessary measures could be taken to protect civilian populations. That could entail airlifting supplies to civilian populations. Yet these aircraft would be at risk of attack by Libyan air defence.
Not just a no-fly zone [updated]
I guess you better keep dancing until the music stops, then…
Gadaffi apologists are jumping through hoops to justify a non-interventionist stance. Let us not forget the Tripoli regime has a long history of murderous oppression and of military attacks on foreign soil. These foreign military attacks include La Belle nightclub and Lockerbie.
C’mon Brother Brendon.
You still haven’t explained how your analysis was reached that the Gaddafi is not murderous and reactionary. Is it unique to Libya that shooting down thousands of opositionists and prisoners is revolutionary? Or is this your preferred method for advancing the international proletarian revolution?
Now that the Arab Condemned these attacks on a soveriegn state while a ceasefire was in place, will you join them in condemning these attacks also.
Russia says the air raids have destroyed roads, bridges and a medical centre.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/russia-and-arab-league-condemn-libya-attacks
Arab League leader Amr Moussa, “What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said today. “What we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0320/Arab-League-now-worried-about-Qaddafi-retaliation-after-supporting-Libya-no-fly-zone
I don’t think the Arab League would be too happy either with calls by Australians here that bombing a civilian news building with resulting civilian deaths is OK.
harleymc @233
France and Britain and America have a long history of murderous oppression and of military attacks on foreign soil that would put Libya’s efforts to shame. Ask the Algerians, the Iraqis that survived Abu Grahib, the slaughter at Fallujah, 3 million Vietnamese, their combined support of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, the constant and reckless bombing of civilians in Afghanistan…the list goes on.
Lockerbie was a terroist attack. So too was Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655), a civilian jet airliner shot down by U.S. missiles on 3 July 1988 killing over 290.
A medical centre in Libya was attacked and civilians killed yesterday. That is a terrorist attack. The Arab League has denounced the capitalist pirates’ actions. What say you?
All this heaping of praise on Gaddafi, Brendon, still begs the question as Lefty E said: if things are so fabbo, why was there a revolution in the first place?
The BBC last night featured a suggestion that the Arab League statement was probably accounted for by cold feet on the part of dictators and tyrants among the membership, which seems plausible.
Thankfully there are some people in touch with reality here – sg, harleymc, Mark, Lefty E.
Why are the people here who seem so concerned to defend a thug like Gadaffi only outraged by the deaths that will result from airstrikes from the international community?
Aren’t you outraged at Gadaffi using jets against his own people? Or using foreign mercenary death squads to do the disgusting dirty work that he knows Libyans can’t be relied on to do.
I wish the rebels all the help they can get. And if they win then I hope they spend their oil revenues on their own welfare, instead of on war, terrorism, secret police, the self-aggrandizement of a clownish dictator.
@228. Many Iraqi oppositionists also called for US intervention, I suppose we should have uncritically supported their calls..?
*Western forces have already begun attacking Libyan ground forces. Mission creep began immediately the NFZ was announced. What in past actions of the powers doing the bombing makes one think it will not creep further?
*Still no Western bombing of government forces Bahrain, Yemen and their allies in Saudi Arabia,why is the US able to be dragged ‘kicking and screaming’ into bombing Libya but not other repressive regimes? Perhaps they are acting in their own interests..?
“The BBC last night featured a suggestion that the Arab League statement was probably accounted for by cold feet on the part of dictators and tyrants among the membership, which seems plausible.”
The Guardian had an interesting take on the AL dynamics and positioning, last month.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/23/protesters-demand-arab-league-condemn-gaddafi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
“Aren’t you outraged at Gadaffi using jets against his own people? Or using foreign mercenary death squads to do the disgusting dirty work that he knows Libyans can’t be relied on to do.”
Perhaps outrage at the West selling him these weapons in the first place may have been useful as well…
There’s a bit of a difference between Ahmad Chaladi and a million people in Benghazi, Chav, and for that matter, people in Misrata who are being picked off by Gaddafi’s snipers.
The point is not to acclaim or support the US, or not to criticise hypocrisy, but to support the Libyan revolution.
It would have been useful, Chav.
Times change. I held very similar positions to yours in the case of Iraq in 2003. I cannot apply those arguments to Libya because there are so many differences.
The closest parallel for me personally is East Timor in 1998(?)
I hate the fact that dragooned Libyan soldiers will now be killed. Just as I hated the Colin Powell’s Basra Road Turkey Shoot. But Gaddafi was about to destroy Benghazi. The UN intervention for me is clearly the lesser of two evils.
Exactly, wbb. I don’t think anyone here is anything other than conflicted and saddened by the whole sequence of events.
@241 ‘A majority of Iraqis actually welcome the US invasion on their country though the jury is still out on whether coalition troops should pull out immediately or stay back, according to an opinion poll conducted by NDTV in Baghdad.’
‘As per the poll, a sizeable 54 per cent of the respondents believed that America did the right thing by invading Iraq while 32 per cent felt it was wrong.’
Ahmad Chaladi must have access to a cloning machine.
Of course the majority of Iraqi’s soon changed their mind once they realised the US and friends weren’t going to pack up and go home after ‘Mission Accomplished’ and then experienced the reality of occupation.
This demand from the pro-NFZ ‘Left’ that the Libyan revolutionary leadership’s views cannot be challenged whilst giving the revolution wholehearted support is quite the turn around. Imagine if I demanded that no criticism of the Bolshevik’s policies was to be permitted…oh, the shrieks of indignation!
Brendon: Iran Air Flight 655 was a mistake, not a terrorist attack, notwithstanding the USA’s refusal to apologise.
Dear god, all we need is a Gaddhafi mental breakdown, him realising all is lost, and his suicide, and we can make a copy of Der Untergang: Libyan Edition.
Do you think Bruno Ganz could pull of a good Gaddhafi?
I’ve posted today on Left Flank about the fact that the US, far from being dragged into this conflict, has been leading the manoeuvres to get an intervention, and what motives are really driving it.
@246 – Saw that, Dr_Tad. Basically you’ve cherry picked an article from the WSJ which seems to support your contention, and ignored a host of contrary reports.
It would be helpful, as I said above (and implied in the article linked to in the OP) if the US state weren’t seen as a monolith. All this “US imperialist motives” stuff presents it as if it were; but actually there’s significant dissensus, and a stack of contending pressures (including Obama’s electorally driven reluctance to be involved in another MENA armed conflict). It’s part of the fallacy I was criticising.
‘The point is not to acclaim or support the US, or not to criticise hypocrisy, but to support the Libyan revolution.’
But surely if you think supporting the revolution means supporting the NFZ you are supporting those who implement it?
I would have thought an important task would be in explaining how the US and co. can one minute be humanitarian freedom fighters (Libya) and propping up tyrants (Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi) the next.
Mark @236
Mark, no proper analysis can be done on something like this unless the root cause of the conflict with these countries is acknowledged.
I must have missed the bit where I heaped praise on Gaddafi. I have said that Libya is more socially advanced than its neighbours who are firm Western client states. I think that statistics and laws and social outcomes prove this pretty conclusively.
But don’t mistake my view that France, America, and Britain, are acting like a pack of capitalist gansters under the guise of humanitarian intervention.
Two days before France and Britain pushed so hard for a UN NFZ and got it – after dragging their feet for weeks on the issue – the Libyan government put out a statement that from now on they would be looking to countries like India and China for the development of their oil fields.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-oil-idUSTRE72I1UA20110319
Immediatley after that statement, France and Britain went apoplectic. The Russian ambassador at the UN called it “passionate”, as I remember.
And to repeat, my first thought when seeing all this is as usual: War is a racket. It should be anathema to the Left except for defence.
I was sure in advance that this would be no humanitarian effort designed to flex some muscle and get the warring parties to the negotiation table to produce a political settlement. This is about installing a new government so they could keep their juicy oil contracts. If you start with the premise that war is a racket, its easy to predict.
And thats how it turned out. There were no tanks pouring into rebel strongholds, and the only planes flying overhead breaking the NFZ was a rebel one. All lies. Yet they still bombed the place and tried their level best to completely destroy Libya’s defence force.
Obama was right to be reluctant. I think there may be a huge backlash over what is about to happen. Once the killing starts, its not easy to turn off. I hope they can.
@248 – Chav, no, I’m under no obligation to defend or exculpate the US and all its doings as what I am supporting is the imposition of a NFZ which is legitimate under international law. Since I don’t accept the frame you see all this through (see again the OP link), I’m not obliged to argue in its terms.
I have to say I’m with Mark, Lefty E, ginja, SG and harleymc on this debate. I don’t think I can really add much that’s original to the arguments that these contributors have made.
@245 Paul, don’t you think that labeling every tin pot dictator that comes in for Western attention as “The New Hitler” is slightly disrespectful to the Jewish people (aside from using the language of the US establishment)?
Except to recall reading an introduction to a collection of Marx’s writings whicih was published in the 1970s. Amongst other things this collection included Marx’s articles supporting the Union in the American Civil War, and framing the issue in terms of “free labour or slave labour”. The editor of the collection, clearly under the influence of the “anti-imperialist” and Third Worldist tropes of the 70s, couldn’t help editorialising about how unfortunate it was that Marx oouldn’t see that the emergence of “US imperialism” (represented by the Union) was really the key issue. Such are the absurdities to which intelligent people are led by essentialist anti-Americanism and essentialist “anti-imperialism”.
Chav @252, there are several Pauls who post and/or comment here. It helps if people try to be specific when responding to one or other of us.
Apologies Paul, it was Paul Austin @245 I was referring to.
Probably stupid question, but is there a reason a “no fly zone” can’t be maintained without preemptive strikes? Because it’s not clear to me at all that the strikes so far have been somehow absolutely necessary in order to keep Gaddafi’s planes from firing on civilians.
Chav:
Maybe i was too flippant. It was an attempt at humour. In retrospect it was too inconsiderate of the victims of f a s c i s m.
@Wizofaus, to maintain a NFZ it’s necessary to disable air defences.
@252 – Chav, I note that Gaddafi’s address on Libyan public tv yesterday referred to the “crusader forces” as new Hitlers and Mussolinis.
@259. LOL. Well, that might be a case of the table being turned for once!
Mark – that’s my question though – *why* is it necessary? I’d've thought US military technology is adequate enough that within minutes of any of Gaddafi’s planes being detected in said zone they could be shot down before having the chance to to inflict any damage.
@261 – I don’t know, wizofaus, maybe it’s not adequate enough!
wizofaus, another problem I’ve seen referred to is the possibility of Gaddafi disguising military helicopters as Red Crescent craft or craft from some other neutral and/or humanitarian body, which Coalition forces would obviously not want to fire on. This tactic would be less effective if landing facilities can be taken out, or if the copters can be destroyed on the ground.
It sounds like the preemptive strikes are not strictly part of maintaining the NFZ – the UN resolution was to “take all necessary measures…[to]…protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack”.
I never really had qualms about positioning of forces necessary to monitor and enforce the NFZ, but I can’t feel anything but uneasy about what is actually occurring.
Let’s be clear about one thing: the easiest way for the west to maintain a series of sweetheart deals in relation to Libyan oil was to continue to back Gaddafi.
This is to me the key problem of the ‘imperialism’ thesis.
In a very real sense, Gaddafi is the pro-Western stooge here.
Incanting bizarre left populist nonsense from a Green Book is a neat cover for that reality, sure. Full marks for originality.
One could make a more convincing case that intra-West tensions are part of the picture. The French caught the others on the hop somewhat Id say – pedalled it harder than Albion was ready for, but they didnt want to be left out. I believe the US establishment right now is privately wondering wtf they’re doing there when they had Gaddafi poodled on a nice little sinecure – and quite a cost to the former UK govt’s credibility, incidentally.
So much for a cunning ‘imperial’ strategy.
Paul, sounds rather unconvincing…surely even in a worst case scenario where a craft in red crescent livery that can’t be positively identified is not responding to calls for it to leave the NFZ could be forcibly escorted away rather than being shot down. But I’d happily hear an explanation from somebody that knows what they’re talking about.
Chav: they look like Soviet jets to me.
wizofaus – It was explained prior to the NFZ being approved that the first step of establishing a NFZ would be to destroy the anti aircraft facilities – there was some general on ABC radio explaining why last week but I can’t remember the details.
It might be as simple as minimising the risk to pilots who are enforcing the NFZ. And the last thing they want to have to do is send in ground forces to rescue a downed pilot….
Lefty E @265
Not much point being clear about one thing, if you are behind the curve on what was happening.
Gadaffi was in bed with pro-western interests.
But after the rebels took control of the oil fields, and the SAS and French agents were openly seen playing footsies with the rebels, the Libyan government put out a statement that it would be looking to India and China for future oil development. Barely a day goes past the French and British are pushing through the NFZ through the UNSC in no time flat.
@267. They are indeed russian built aircraft, however…
“Documents from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills show the government has issued several permits for the export of small-arms ammunition and riot control weapons as well as sniper rifles to Libya since 2008.
Reports said Rangemaster sniper rifles manufactured by the Kent-based RPA International were on display at Libdex.
Libyan snipers killed at least 15 mourners during a barrage of attack on protestors mourning the killings of demonstrators in the African country’s second city Benghazi on Saturday February 19.
Birmingham Barbed Tape, RPA International and Primetake, which produces tear gas cartridges and rubber bullets, did not comment on the issue.”
@265. Perhaps the US/Nato intervention is primarily about the US attempting to take back some control of the rapidly moving events in MENA and channel the revolutions in the area into safer, more compliant neoliberal democratic forms?
an administrative building of Kadhafi’s residence in Tripoli has just been flattened by bombs. Its where they meet and greet foriegn guests.
Gangsters.
I’m outta here.
I totally do not get this support for bloodshed.
Nobody here that I can see protesting this was ever in support of Gadaffi’s rantings.
“A missile has totally destroyed an administrative building of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s residence in Tripoli.
The building which was about 50 metres from the tent where Gaddafi generally meets guests was flattened.
Look out Chinese embassy!
Elsewhere, it would seem even the bourgeois press are to the left of the NFZers…
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/cornerstone-of-attack-quickly-crumbling-20110321-1c2ti.html
Agreeing with Mark, Lefty E etc. here, Gaddafi had been rehabilitated into the classic pro-Western stooge. It’s a miracle of Imperialist spin that they managed to turn the lockerbie bomber into a trading partner, and an example of the utter failure of essentialist anti-imperialism that this doesn’t enter into the calculations of the Dr Tads and Brendon’s of the world.
Regarding the decision to seek investment from China and India – I really doubt that has much influence on modern “Imperialist” thinking. What you’re suggesting here Brendon is that the US has scrambled to war to destroy China’s ability to get to resources. Do you think that China would have allowed such a conflict to play out through the security council?
No, the closest you can come to an imperialist explanation here is that the oil-using powers (including China) were worried about instability in Libya affecting oil supplies, and also deepening tensions elsewhere in North Africa. Civil wars disrupt oil supplies. So they decided to get rid of the unstable one (Gaddafi) and send a message to the others to get their house in order.
Or perhaps our Imperial Overlords are starting to realize that actually democratic governments are more stable than dictatorships…
That’s right Brendon – he threatened the actually existing sweetheart deals if they intervened.
They intervened anyway. Apparently against their actually existing interests. Despite high level intellience advice to the House of Congress to the effect that Gaddafi would likely win if they did nothing.
A 24 hour turnaround on the Wests established view of their ‘imperial’ interests, in the middle of a complete state of flux on the ground, is simply not how these things work. You are trying to impose a very tortuous road of continuity between quite different positions, which again highlights problems in the ‘imperial thesis’.
I think instead we have two developments: the pan-Arab uprisings have thrown established western foreign policy into a fair deal of dissaray. These uprisings have played on contradictions within those policies quite effectively – though probably without much intent.
They are overthrowing pro-western dictators in the name – more or less – of democratisation and a form of cultural and economic glasnost. Gaddafi is really no exception in my view. They’ve also done so without overt resort to Islamism of any sort – which was the last rhetorical line of defence for propping up the same dictators. Theyve really left the west without a figleaf to wear.
Why do you think Gaddafi has been so keen to carry on with (a species of abject nonsense, even you would agree) that the uprising is ‘all Al-Qaeda’?
Its like when the cold war ended – nobody loved or needed Suharto anymore. The old schtick didnt work anymore. Boohoo.
Its also happened at a conjuncture in which US power is in relative decline, with a short term multpolarity (FR/UK), trending more long term to the emergence of other actors, like China, as you note. I dont think the US is pulling the strings on this one – though it does aid some Obama-led variants which see the UNSC as a work-through, where Neo-Cons did not (and pretty much failed to establish their view as valid).
In sum – these uprisings have changed the situation – the west is catching up, and still trying to work out what their new strategic interests are. In the meantime, something half-decent has wobbled through the UNSC without a veto.
True enough, Chav. I don’t support selling weapons or riot control gear to the likes of Gadaffi. But can you honestly say that the Western countries approve of the way he has used that weaponry or equipment? The fact remains that almost all Gaddafi’s weapons come from either the old Soviet Union or Eastern Bloc countries (doubtless Russia has continued to be Gadaffi’s arms supplier).
Fran might like to take note of that fact. Sooner or later some on the Left will have to accept that the West does not manipulate everyone in the world like a puppet and that evil is done by countries other than the US.
Katz, 18 March 2011, @ 55 upthread
Libyan government communique, 20 March 2011
The Libyan government has clearly been reading this thread!
I saw that Katz! How do you feel about offering aid and succour to a tyrant?
A quiet sense of professional pride, I guess.
I don’t see why there needs to be a NFZ at all. If History teaches us anything at all, it’s that the key to successful rebellions is to send a small band of scrappy archetypal characters on a long, tortuous journey where they meet lots of other characters, survive dangerous escapades by a hair, rescue a princess, and then either deliver the Secret Plans to the rebel leaders, or else throw the MacGuffin into the MacGuffin-Destroying Device. Either way, the Evil Palace in Tripoli gets all ‘sploded up with one lucky shot, and then you have a big party with some dancing koala bears.
What’s so hard about that to understand?
j_p_z: unfortunately in this situation the small band of scrappy characters would have to have been an international brigade of marxists, but they were too busy writing blogs about how this is all just an imperialist trick, and so didn’t go out to the local tavern where they would be thrown together by circumstance and forced to begin the quest to clear their names.
See how the internet has destroyed heroism…
sg @274,
As I said before its impossible to analyze this if you refuse to acknowlegde the root cause of this.
Just a little info for you. Canada has joined in on sending jets to attack Libya. Verenex, a Canadian firm lost big time recently when Libya forced them to sell off to Chinese interests. Funny, that.
Gadaffi was rehabilitated into the classic pro-Western stooge. Not really. The Libyans weren’t doing their dirty work for them like Saudi Arabia does. And the Libyan government is very nationlist, and was driving hard bargains in oil deals with the west. So when did the West decide he was an unacceptable dictator? Before or after he lost control of the oil fields? After, wasn’t it?
Britain and France scrambled sg, not the US. And China does not have the military muscle to stand up to the West when things like this happen. Its that simple. Up coming contracts were to affect these countries. Less so American interests. So, now you understand why its France and Britain. And Canada.
sg, your imperialist explanation for worry about oil supplies in Libya does not stand up since it was clear that the Libyan government was on the verge of defeating the rebels. And therefore no instability worries about oil supplies. If anything, this action has increased instability.
The Imperial overlords have been invading these countries and making public pronouncements about liberating the people in the resource rich M.E. for a century. So no, thats a joke. More likely is been precipitated by Gadaffi’s suggestion last year to nationalize the oil industry as much as anything else.
Some US flack was asked what the NFZ enforcers would do if and when the rebels attacked loyalist troops. Would the NFZ enforcers continue to bomb loyalists who were acting in self defence?
*/cue crickets/
One gets the sense that the NFZ supporters didn’t think through many of the implications and consequences of their actions.
I’m making a bold prediction here. Western boots will hit the ground in Libya.
Mission creep, anyone?
One doesn’t have to be an apologist for Gaddafi to raise doubts about the wisdom of this intervention. James Fallows at the Atlantic has a nice blog piece questioning the action primarily on the basis that he doubts that the end game has been fully thought through (as it wasn’t in Iraq or Afghanistan). It is worth a read. While I’m not ordinarily much of a conspirator about such things and certainly find the “imperialist” line unconvincing, it is also reasonable to raise questions about Sarkozy’s motivations. Sarkozy has had myriad domestic political problems in recent years and is deeply unpopular. One wonders whether he hopes that being seen as a successful war leader and defender of the Libyan revolution will help him regain some popularity before the 2012 Presidential election. Lastly, on oil, with Libya responsible for only 2% of global production, it seems unlikely to me that it is an important motivation for the western actions.
@273 : “even the bourgeois press are to the left of the NFZers”
Chav, Paul McGeough is the last person you could describe as “bourgeois press”. I totally respect his concerns, but remain confident the UN attacks on Libya’s military will avert murder in Benghazi and elsewhere.
Mark @247, the constant claim from you that I and others see the US state as “monolithic” misconstrues what is being said about imperialism. The point is not that there may not be significant disagreements (and even sharper ones now that there is so much volatility) about how to enforce the US national interest, but that the US heads a system of regional domination in the Middle East, and that is what sets limits to the debates that do occur.
Perhaps, though, you’re not convinced that such a systematic process of domination (i.e. one that is not simply accidental viz. material interests within the US and other rich nations) operates? The general direction of your argument would seem to indicate that this may be the case.
That much oil is very important, LO. However in this case Libya’s 1 million barrels per day will eventually be put back online – Gaddafi or no Gaddafi. Europe will still be the customer and the current companies will continue to pump it out. The same 6 million people will benefit from the proceeds. (with any domestic Libyan distributional changes dependent on the outcome of the war.)
The endgame of the outside attack on Libya was thought through. The endgame was to effect an emergency halt on Gaddafi’s attack on Benghazi and surrounds.
Unforeseable consequences remain unforseeable at this stage.
“One gets the sense that the NFZ supporters didn’t think through many of the implications and consequences of their actions.”
The mid and long term ones, probably not. The short term ones (viz, preventing a vengeful rampage through a thinly defended city of one million civilans) however, were quite well thought through.
Indeed, that has been a complete success thus far, I’d say. A lot of supporters will be very satisfied with that for now. I certainly am. One of the things about taking R2P seriously is that its a priority. I would add, I dont consider that was the sole motivation at UNSC level, though it was part of it. And that part I approve. I also think it was fairly obvious the idea was to neutralise teh air advanatge held by Gaddafi – with one possible outcome being the rebels succeed. I dont have a probelm with that either, and am not sure it constutites ‘mission creep’.
Boots on the ground, well yes. Attacking Gaddafi in defence – its somehting of a grey area if he would otherwise be attacking.
Mission creep is certainly something to be monitored, and as you note, a lot of questions re unanswered about what’s next. However, (and this is not @ Katz, but generally)I remain quite sanguine about not allowing Benghazi’s civilians be murdered en masse in the interests of a full consequential flowchart analysis, or maintaining the most pure anti-imperialist credibility. That many lives are worth the doubt. We are also in a position collectively to help influence future events.
@281 I’m sure if they had they would have been accused of ‘terrorism’ by all and sundry…
@284 –
Sure, LO, and Kim alluded to that in the earlier post linked to from the OP.
But this is kinda circling around to one of my central points. People (and states) act for a variety of reasons, self interest being one of them. But it’s not the sole one, and in some instances, as Guy Rundle has been arguing here, that self interest can be harnessed to what appears to be a greater good. I am far from making an argument that R2P and other ‘humanitarian intervention’ doctrines are perfect (and as I’ve observed, I’d prefer a different and more political justification for what is occurring now), but conversely, they mean something and acting in such a way to maximise the content we’d like to see within those concepts is, to me, meaningful action (and meaningful action on the left).
This also goes to my point to Dr_Tad: yes, very clearly there is a systematic form of domination in the international state system (and in the MENA region). But it has always been thus. To expect that action can be taken outside its parameters is, as I said earlier, to be one of the “beautiful souls” Merleau-Ponty criticised. Politics is not a realm of purity. The whole point here is that the current (and very contingent) conjunction of events and forces opens up a space for an intervention by states in favour of peoples.
That’s what is completely obscured by a narrow focus on ‘imperialism’, among many other things.
What is in effect an abstentionist perspective by people who think like Dr_Tad is bizarrely conformed to state sovereignty too (“we” have to protest actions by “our” governments – against Cameron in the UK, or Rudd here, or Obama in the US) because such actions are seen as designed to reinforce imperial power over another sovereign state (Libya). Hence the bizarre way some such (not all) people want to absolve Gaddafi. It’s quite bizarre, because it claims to be an internationalist perspective but effectively reinscribes national spaces and enhances sovereign power while claiming to do the opposite.
Or, alternatively, it resolves into something closer to an anarchist or nihilist perspective.
More on the European impetus for the intervention:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/20/europe_libya/index.html
Ps – @290 – what I’m getting at here also goes to the failure of ‘imperialism’ to have any explanatory power. Whatever occurs is because of ‘imperialism’ and is bad because ‘imperialism’ is bad.
That really is about the gist of the (non)argument.
As I said in the addendum to the post, there weren’t any foreseeable circumstances where any of the Arab revolutions wouldn’t end up being shaped to some degree by the power dynamics of the international state system and the capitalist global political economy. The question is one of degree. But that question of degree is crucial.
“One of the things about taking R2P seriously is that its a priority.”
As Lucy said to Charlie Brown, “No really, this time you can trust me. Scout’s honor!”
“We are also in a position collectively to help influence future events.”
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, “What you mean by ‘we’?”
Well, its pretty much a case of res ipsa loquitor, JPZ.
Hands up who thinks Gaddafi was heading into Benghazi town last Saturday to hold a ceasefire, reconciliation and forgiveness meeting?
“I’m unaware of any no-fly zone that’s been imposed by the United States that didn’t ultimately end up with military intervention that actually put soldiers on the ground. Bosnia and Herzegovina started out as Operation Deny Flight…If you look at Iraq, we established the no-fly zone in 1991. The no-fly zone ended in 2003 with Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
-D.B. Grady, a former paratrooper with the U.S. Army Special Operations Command and veteran of the Afghanistan war, interview on National Public Radio:
#294 — That isn’t my point. I can see welcome humanitarian outcomes possibly stemming from this like you say, and I can also see some ugly fallout. What will happen? Dunno. To me the key factors have little to do with principle. (R2P, wow it’s even got a cute acronym already; I wonder if we could have found a way to call it A.S. I.F., though.) The key factors have more to do with a) Libya has a small population, b) it’s conveniently located in an easy-to-reach neighborhood, c) Kaddafi has spent a long career making enemies, so he’s hard to weep for, and d) there aren’t a lot of countervailing circumstances in play, like pesky naval bases.
It’s a fortuitous alignment of planets, in other words. Good luck seeing it again any time soon. So be very careful of trumpeting R2P as a generalizable principle with, as they say, reproducible results. I can see it all already…
PUPPET-HEAD PROTEST CROWD: R2P! R2P! R2P!
GENERALISSIMO BAN KI-MOON: That’s right, comrades! We have successfully established a new principle of zany UN oversight!
P-H-P CROWD: R2P! R2P!
GENERALISSIMO BAN KI-MOON: That’s why I have decided, our next target of liberation, which we have a grave moral responsibility to protect, is… Tibet! Aux armes, citoyens du monde! A bas les chinois!
CROWD: Um, uh… wow, hmm. You know I just remembered I have a Baudelaire seminar to teach this afternoon… hmm… well, good luck with the whole grave moral thingy there, Ban… We’ll be with you in spirit.
@292. Well Mark, given that imperialism is a stage of capitalist development on a world scale(for Lenin, it was the highest stage) and not a policy carried out by individual states, then yes, what occurs is down to us living in the epoch of imperialism.
Really, the onus of explanation is on those who support the supposed NFZ. If the US can simply turn on a dime and be freedom loving superheroes one day and then tyrant loving sugardaddys the next (Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi, UAE. Pakistan etc)there is obviously no structure to international relations and no real way of understanding or attempting to predict likely policies and outcomes..
…except, that there is, and the policies of the imperialist powers can be summed up by the phrase, “Any ye shall know them by the trail of dead”.
Lefty E @ 294, Might I ask why you think Saudi+ army has gone into Bahrain? The protesters are of course armed and dangerous. (what about Yemen) When do the numbers count?
And just to make it very clear; I do not support Gaddafi, I think he is a monster.
Heh. Very amusing, JPZ, but I would say (re the serious bit of your comment) that looking for consistency in the state system is a bit pointless, and therefore sometimes, beside the point.
I mean, its worthy n shit, but (and I think youd might agree) all a bit undergrad. Suffice to say, yah, Id like to see it in Tibet too etc, but then again, maybe I guess I won’t leave others to the vultures where it actually is possible, just for the sake of making myself ‘consistent’.
Re the state system, I’d rather bowdlerise Rumsfeld here and talk about consistent inconsistents, inconsistent consistents etc. R2P probaly an inconsistent inconsistent, but fuck it, its kinda good anyway if you can get sucker airborn – even in some non-repeatable magic realist elevation episode at Lourdes.
“Lefty E @ 294, Might I ask why you think Saudi+ army has gone into Bahrain? ”
To violently repress the protestors, I should think Debbieanne, concerned over ripple efffects in Saudi Arabia. Why do you ask?
Keep pushing their Chav, you’re almost at the point of truth with
If you just add “in terms of the useless and bankrupt ideology of lenin and his thuggish coterie.”
Lefty E @294
It would have been like Fallujah 2004 only bigger, I would expect.
But there was already international pressure brought to bear, and there had been several conciliatory attempts by the Libyan government for mediation and a truce with the rebels. Each one was turned down by the rebels, as they called for armed intervention.
Now, I ask you. What do you think would have happened if the West had called on the rebels to accept the mediation offered and organized a political dialogue between Libya government and the rebels?
France and Britain could have done this as soon as the ceasefire was called and before the bombing. But they didn’t.
Unless you support the slaughter of all the Gadaffi supporters, you must support political dialogue. Yet Britain and France went in with all guns blazing and our headlines today are how the west is going to destroy Gadaffi.
I’ve got it!: “the Assurance of Security through International Force”, aka A.S. I.F. Aux armes!
“looking for consistency in the state system is a bit pointless…”
I’m not looking for consistency anywhere, nor expecting any, since I didn’t proclaim a wacky theory that has no basis in practical thinking and no way of being implemented coherently over time. You guys are the ones who do that, remember? Let’s keep our roles straight here, if nothing else.
After all, if Iago starts playing Hamlet, it all gets very confusing by act four.
#297: “given that imperialism is a stage of capitalist development on a world scale(for Lenin, it was the highest stage)”
So, I’m curious. What, for Lenin, was imperialism a stage of, back before there was such a thing as capitalism? (For empires surely predate capitalism.) Also what, for Lenin, was the brutal insane imperialism of communist powers like Lenin’s a stage of?
And while we’re quoting great thinkers here, what was Charles Manson’s view of all this? (see how I did a little Godwin duck-and-roll there?)
“…there had been several conciliatory attempts by the Libyan government for mediation and a truce with the rebels.”
You keep asserting this Brendon, but there’s simply no evidence of it at all. In fact, Gaddafi’s military forces werre moving eastward through Misrata, Ajdabiya en route to benghazi at the time you say this was happening.
After the intial UN vote, Gaddafi switched course and then made his sole pronouncment to that effect- but then under that cover in fact moved troops into the outksirts of Benghazi, in which Benghazi’s hospital were “flooded with victims” , with “heavy shelling in civilan areas” as reported not by “the western MSM”, but by Al Jazeera, and Mahhamed Nabbous, a pro-democracy opposition activist who Al Jazeera has been inrerviewing, was shot and killed.
The reason I ask Lefty E, is that it just makes no sense at all that we should support the nfz to protect Behgahzi’s citizens, but the same we (as in govt, particularly US) makes little or no noise about Yemen or Bahrian. It appears that they will be able to use the Libyan crisis to drown out what is happening in the peaceful protests. “See we are doing something”.
I accept that its inconsistent Debbieanne. Thats obvious enough.
What I dont accept is that therefore I should oppose the one that is happening. That makes absolutely no sense to me – perhaps you could explain.
Id love to see the same happen in Bahrain.
@301 “If you just add “in terms of the useless and bankrupt ideology of lenin and his thuggish coterie.”
That’s a great analysis you got going there…nice…and so convincing too..
@303. ‘So, I’m curious. What, for Lenin, was imperialism a stage of, back before there was such a thing as capitalism? (For empires surely predate capitalism.) Also what, for Lenin, was the brutal insane imperialism of communist powers like Lenin’s a stage of?”
Well, for Lenin there wasn’t an imperialism prior to capitalism. It was a term used to describe the stage of capitalist development that involved the merging and concentration of numerous firms into bigger conglomerates and their pressure on the state to protect their interests on the international arena. It subsequently involved the dividing up of the globe between said states.
Empires do predate capitalism, and I believe the stage prior was referred to as mercantilism.
I don’t know how Lenin referred to Stalinism and its variants as well, he was dead before, they took off.
‘Asked if the Gaddafi regime would retaliate by launching strikes on Western commercial aircraft, Saif al-Islam responded: “No, this is not our target. Our target is how to help our people in Libya, especially in Benghazi. Believe me, they are living a nightmare. A nightmare, really.”
Why anyone would think it possible to engage in a dialogue of rapprochement and reconiciliation with people as delusional as this is beyond me.
Left E @304
There were numerous offers for negotiation from the Libyan government. On 21 Feb Gadaffi’s son (who seem to run things of late) admitted the crackdown on protesters was an over reaction and offered reform as alternative to a violent civil war.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/21/138515.html
Before the NFZ the Libyan government has operated under several self imposed ceasefires. That is in the news, I won’t bother linking that.
But the most telling hypocricy of all is from Al Jazeera citing a psycho-hatred for Gaddafi that outdoes anything he has said of recent:
Al Jazeera television said Libyan rebels on Monday rejected an offer by Muammar Gaddafi to hold a meeting of parliament to work out a deal under which he would step down.
Al Jazeera said sources from the rebel interim council told its correspondent in Benghazi that the offer was rejected because it would have amounted to an “honourable” exit for Gaddafi and would offend his victims.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8367791/Libya-protests-as-it-happened-March-7.html
Whatever Gadaffi is, these rebels sound like homocidal manics hellbent on slaughter and civil war.
Lefty E,
Al Jazeera television said Libyan rebels on Monday rejected an offer by Muammar Gaddafi to hold a meeting of parliament to work out a deal under which he would step down.
Al Jazeera said sources from the rebel interim council told its correspondent in Benghazi that the offer was rejected because it would have amounted to an “honourable” exit for Gaddafi and would offend his victims.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8367791/Libya-protests-as-it-happened-March-7.html
These guys (rebels) are crazy. No wonder they are being hidden by the West.
They themselves will want to wreak revenge on Gadaffi supporters. Offers of negotiation have only ever come from one side.
What about a No Train Zone or a No Spider Zone?
Brendon said:
They are right about that. Also, why would anyone trust him for a second? This is a person who in the last week promised to “show no mercy”. This is a person who unleashed foreign mercenaries on civilians. He can and will say anything that suits his convenience.
There is no honour for someone like that. Gaddhafi is clearly a murderous psychopath. Assuming he survives the troubles — and ideally he would — this person and his coterie needs to be handed over for trial before a suitably resourced tribunal.
Gees, mow it’s the victims fault for not trusting their brutaliser. What a strange world you live in, Brendan.
yes, Brendon, you now appear to be in a special category of your own in this debate – and have gone beyond the remit of the “imperialism” objectors to some weird species of outright Gaddafi apologism.
Which, it has to be said, others critical of the intervention have not felt necessary to indulge in. I dare say its not winning territory to be occupying. Pull back!
‘They themselves will want to wreak revenge on Gadaffi supporters. Offers of negotiation have only ever come from one side.’
So apparently everyone can simply ignore 40 years of the butcher’s violence, brutality and repression and just assume he is an honest broker? For a different perspective which shows the heroic nature of the rebels’ struggle:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_af/af_libya_ragtag_rebel_army_1
As the article notes, everyone of the rebels could recite a litany of grievances against the regime, whether a disappeared relative, a stint in prison, or even more mundane concerns.
Dear Colonel Ghaddaffi,
Here is the deal.
You fuck off before we get to you or we will kill you when we get to you.
Regards
The Libyan People
Fran Barlow@ 313
He offered to stand down. They refused, which is the same as demanding civil war when there is a peaceful alternative.
The rebels did not agree to this and then were deceived. Why do you say that.
Just saying Gadaffi is evil all the time does not cut it. It does not explain this.
Brendon – the question for you is this:
At what point after a dictator begins, then for four decades systematically continues lying to, repressing, brutalising and killing his people does it become reasonable for them to trust him?
I would suggest that “when suddenly his back’s to the wall” is not a very good answer.
“Never” would be mine.
What’s yours?
Well, I’ll let other readers make up their minds.
FDB,
perhaps when there is a chance to avoid tens of thousands dead in a bloody civil war?
What about you? Would you take that chance in such a situation.
“perhaps when there is a chance to avoid tens of thousands dead in a bloody civil war?”
Well, there’s the rub, right? Who are you to say that the rebels’ distrust of THEIR OWN LEADER OF 40 YEARS is misplaced? That they ought have trusted at face value the claim that he was prepared to leave peacefully, after decades of brutality?
Perhaps you have good information from an inside source, to the effect that this time the brutal dictator’s fingers were uncrossed?
We aren’t dealing with Hitler here, you know. Getting a little hyperbole, much.
Just to get things in perspective. Gadaffi is no Saddam Hussien. He did not kill thousands in mustard gas attacks.
Using Saddam as a yardstick
Gadaffi has killed thousands less of his own people than Saddam and he’s never used WMD. Gadaffi never invaded his neighbors or launched SCUD missiles at civilian targets. Gadaffi played wanna-be terrorist for awhile but after Reagan blew up his house and knocked a few limbs off the family tree he’s been relatively quiet. Meanwhile, Saddam was in persistent violation of UN resolutions, shot at coalition aircraft almost daily and even tried to kill a former US president.
So lets calm down a little, eh?
“On 21 Feb Gadaffi’s son (who seem to run things of late) admitted the crackdown on protesters was an over reaction and offered reform as alternative to a violent civil war.”
Yet – extraordinarily – the protestors didn’t seem to believe him. Forty years of murderous oppression appears to invoke a quite unreasonable degree of cynicism, for some reason.
FDB,
can I ask why it is that you want a civil war in Libya so badly, with all its attendant years of suffering
Whats in it for you?
How the hell can he trick them if he steps down? He would or he wouldn’t step down. The issue of him lying or not would be settled fairly quickly, don’t you think. So I don’t even really know what you are talking about.
I don’t want to think that you have just been hit between the eyes with knowledge that completely blows your world view in this apart and you just can’t handle it.
So Brendon, in answer to my “who are you to say…” poser, you respond with:
“Some guy who reckons Saddam was worse”.
Wow. Shoulda known better than to question your insights. That shit is TIGHT.
Now indulge me… why do YOU think the rebels rejected their erstwhile dictator’s sudden offer of free puppies and chocolate for all?
a) Decades of ingrained and thus far well-placed mistrust.
b) For the lulz.
c) Other (please specify).
It may yet be that the air strikes will be enough. The Guardian is reporting the destruction of armoured columns and flight of regular soldiers.
FDB,
Good Question!
Why would the rebels, that you really know absolutely nothing about (but fervently support), turn the offer down?
Why would they allow a civil war that would cost tens of thousands of lives, just to try one guy?
the answer would be that they are tribal psycho murderers themselves and that if Gadaffi did step down, they would not get the civil war they want. Thats the too obvious and only answer there is.
If Gadaffi steps down and avoids a war then a peace must be negotiated, right? A political solution with most of Gadaffi’s support base still intact, still alive and kicking.
The rebels want to get armed by the west and kill and terrorize all of Libya. They want to liquidate the supporters of the previous regime. Not just Gadaffi. He is old, nearly seventy. They want to kill the supporters in Tripoli. By the thousands. Tens of thousands.
In short, they want to do everthing and more that you accuse Gadaffi of wanting to do.
They can’t have their war if Gadaffi steps down.
Do you know another reason? All I can think up.
No surprise Sg. Armies which are in fact Internal security apparatus usually go to water quick. Not that I blame them at all. Save yourselves – quit! The question is more what they once they dump their uniforms.
“They want to kill the supporters in Tripoli. By the thousands. Tens of thousands.”
Who are you? Saif Gaddafi? It’s a dictatorship, Brendon. Has it not occurred to you that people expressing suppport for the guy – for international TV consumption – might have a self-preservation motive (and a bet each way)in mind?
The Gaddafi family runs Libya like a feudal fiefdom. They’ve made billions of dollars out of doing so and they’re unlikely to give it all up without missing the opportunity to wreak a bloody revenge on those who they think have ‘betrayed’ them.
If what you say is true Geoff, then the war will be over by tonight. His military has been routed by a vastly superior one. And nobody will fight for him or any movement that is associated with him. If you are right.
And that will be a good thng.
Over by tomorrow, or the day after.
With next to no bloodshed.
According to you.
FDB, it’s obviously for the lulz.
1. Lenin was talking about a specific type of imperialism that, according to him, grew out of mature capitalism. Before that, there were empires without imperialism. Lenin didn’t invent this idea, rather he adapted it from, among others, J. A. Hobson.
2. Lenin didn’t live long enough to see the maturity of Stalinism, whose program of “socialism in one country” served the basis of the normalisation of the Soviet Union as just another player in The Great Game. The debate over the Treaty of Brest Litovsk did set the Soviet Union off in that direction and Lenin was responsible for a statist response.
LE,
Real soldiers, like the Anzacs just sit tight in their Bushmasters while tomahawks rain down from above.
Everyone on this board, myself included, needs to dwell on the fact that the discussions on this board aren’t political in the sense that there is a victor, who gets to enact a real change in the world. We are much more in the realm of philosophy — i.e. discussing ideas. We don’t need to doggedly stick to a political position, polemicise our concepts, verbalise others or even exaggerate things. In fact, these more practical tactics probably reduce the quality of the debate.
Regarding military action: Glorifying the military is a tradition, but as we see again in Libya, military action is about having superior fire-power and using it to defeat an opposition. Whether or not it’s Gadaffi with his air-force or the combined might of NATO and friends. If there ever was something like honour in battle there’s no honour in modern warfare.
Modern warfare doesn’t solve any problems: There’s no moment of defeat/ victory. The best that can happen is that one side’s ability to wage war is withdrawn for a short time through lack of material. The actual conflict exists in the minds of the combatants.
As alienated as Gadaffi is, the current action has the possibility of further inflaming a Huntingesque clash of the civilizations conflict. It is, seen from a broader international perspective, a very high-risk, delicate, political operation, which has the potential to cause a lot of trouble down the road.
In recent history, the colaition of the willing used the Egyptians to torture their prisoners and then supported Mubarak until it just became impossible to continue to do so. The revolutionaries are ow being supported by the Egyptian army. The regional issue seems to be to consolidate support around the equivocally nominal pro-US countries surrounding Saudi Arabia. The noose tightens around the neck of Iran.
Well, that may be a good thing. But there were other alternatives, not least being the accession of power by one of Gadaffi’s sons. A more Egypt-like transition.
There doesn’t have to be a massacre in Libya. Rebel leaders can duck over the boarder still.
–
To sum up, I think that the military response was a poor choice. Soft power would have been preferable.
And if you wanted any more evidence: Turkey is against the current strategy of the NATO [Türkei blockiert Einsatz der Nato].
Joe since when has Libya been the private property of the Gaddafi family such that those who rule it is decided by dynastic succession rather than by the consent of the governed?
And I can’t understand your Egyptian allusion. One of the happy consequences of the recent events in Egypt is that Mubarak’s son will not succeed him in power.
I’m still holding out for a “No Moral Posturing Zone”.*
*He says, striking a very moral posture here.
GregM,
Sorry, if I didn’t express myself clearly, but I was trying to say that Gadaffi is getting old (like Mubarak) and as he inevitably reduces his role in the regime there is a natural opportunity in that period of transition to effect a change, which doesn’t require an outside military attack. But this is only one possible alternative.
I just don’t feel satisfied alternative strategies to military action, as the last resort, were exhausted or even seriously explored.
Well Joe, they certainly weren’t explored by Gaddafi. e.g. when his son went on tv threatening to kill everyone.
But by who Joe? The Gaddafi family? They could have explored the alternative strategy of getting on an aeroplane and out of Libya to Venezuala or Zimbabwe where I am sure they would receive a warm welcome and live out the rest of their lives happily, if in reduced circumstances.
Why do the oppressed have to do all the heavy lifting and satisfy you that they have exhausted or even explored all alternative strategies?
Why do you not put that same burden on the dictators? Is there, in your mind, something special in dictators that absolves them from the moral strictures you impose on the oppressed when they rise up against their oppressors?
I really want to know.
sg, yeah, but he is still just the son. Anyway, cross fingers and hope everything works out.
GregM, I don’t believe you are being serious now.
Oh come on Joe, Gaddafi made threats too and the son is expecting to inherit (unless he becomes a professor at LSE, I suppose…) They were working together. And alternatives were explored by the protestors – they tried demonstrations and were shot at by snipers.
Unless you now want to argue Gaddafi is just a figurehead…?
Joe. My question is a completely seious one. It deserves a serious answer.
The premise you have been following, even if you do not understand it, is the legitimacy of dictatorship, and the need for those who oppressed by it to explore every alternative before they overthrow it.
I do not accept that view. For me dictatorship is never legitimate. Only rule with the consent of the governed is.
If you cannot answer my question or choose not to do so then that is your right, of course.
sg, alternative actions were possible for the European, US and NATO. Stop being so obtuse.
Greg, perhaps you should define what you understand by legitimate? Is a monarchy legitimate? Theocracy? I don’t have much time to discuss this right now though.
Katz @333
I’ve been re-reading the history of Rome of late, and an idea has been forming in my mind about pre-capitalist imperialism. It’s still only half formed, but it’s based on the venerable institution of slavery and the limits of pre-industrial technology. The wealth enjoyed by the Roman ruling class was almost entirely derived from a constantly renewed supply of slaves, and this could only be obtained in the empire-building phase from conquest and enslavement of the conquered. The slave population was, despite what a cattle farmer would call ‘natural increase’, forever inclined to diminish as household slaves were given freedom and the many slaves working dangerous jobs died without breeding. The same is pretty much true of the great European empires in their early centuries, and in the case of some (e.g. Belgium) into the the 20th century. The Russians and Holy Romans enslaved their own populations.
Any way, this isn’t the thread to conduct this discussion. Sorry.
And what were those alternative actions Joe? With Gaddafi’s armed forces at the gates of the last rebel stronghold and ready to storm it?
You know what they are. You tell us.
joe, alternative actions weren’t tried by Gaddafi and his sons. So now they get to see the pointy end of the actions they did try. boohoo.
Joe any form of government which is formed on the consent of the governed and the legitimacy of which is reformed through regular free and fair elections is a legitimate form of government.
An absolute monarchy is not a legitimate government. It does not derive its authority from the consent of the governed. A constitutional monarchy, , where the governed can remove the monarchy through the direct expression of their will in free and fair elections, silly though I think such social institutions are, is a legitmate government.
A theocracy supported by the governed is, for better or worse, a legitimate form of government. Once it loses the consent of the governed it ceases to be legitimate.
But now that I have answered your questions please answer mine.
Greg, we are not talking about Tasmania! A democracy, as you seem to understand the meaning of democracy, is simply impossible in this part of the world.
My dream solution would have been largely diplomatic. Secure a cessation of hostilities:
1. Put Gadaffi under economic pressure, with the help of China.
2. Secure a truce by giving the revolutionaries a role in the oil production, which is also in the interests of Gadaffi.
3. Develop a political relationship with the Revolutionaries. They are not yet an organisation ready capable of government, based on what I’ve seen of the footage of their military operations.
Joe, that’s bullshit. A democracy is possible, and as soon as western governments stop financing and arming attempts to stop that democracy taking hold, it will do so. It may not happen overnight or prettily, and it may not be the type of democracy that you like, nor will it be a dictatorship of the proletariat, but it will happen.
I see this intervention as a big step down that road. Everyone in the region now knows that even if they are armed up by the west, there’s a limit to how far their friendly local arms dealer will let them go in resisting democracy. We’re going to see all sorts of reforms over the next few years, as the currently untouched dictatorships give serious thought to the fact that every power that can fuck them up has hung the Big G out to dry. There are now two more democratic seats in the Arab League, and there’ll be a third once Gaddafi gets the lynching he deserves. The region is changing, and it’s changing so fast that Western realpolitik can’t keep up. This has to be bothering the other dictators.
No Joe, we are not talking about Tasmania. We agree on that.
Now explain to me why democracy is simply impossible in Libya.
Also please explain to me your apparent view that Libya is the personal property of Gaddafi and his family and why they should have any part in the future governance of Libya when it is fairly evident that after 42 years of their misrule the people of Libya don’t want them to be part of it anymore.
What is this thing you have about caring for the rights of dictators and your obvious contempt for democracy?
Oh and this:
You should have been around in 1947. You would have said the same thing about the Indian independence movement.
Sadly you seem to believe that the right to form government is based on the ability to organise military operations and not upon the consent of the governed.
Never let it be said of you that you have the slightest interest in or support for democracy.
Greg,
I think, your example of India is not particularly good. For the following reasons:
1. The Indian war of independence was indeed a war against a European colonial power.
2. There was a class of Indian professionals and bureaucrats which were very capable of being able to run the country (and which were already actually doing so.)
3. Even in India the transition to something resembling a democracy was a long, traumatic and violent affair which included a number of civil wars.
4. India is also not in the same sense that Tasmania is a “democracy”.
In fact a developed economy is not possible without violent struggle. The social structures of a country like Afghanistan need to first of all be destroyed before anything like capitalism/ democracy can replace them. This cannot be achieved from outside. Categories or judgements like legitimate are not appropriate when discussing “governments,” the Afghan tribal system has an internal logic which has worked for a very long time.
You perhaps fail to recognise the incredible organisation that characterises your own society and indeed liberty: Private property, legal system, supermarkets, public transport, education systems, factories, etc. etc. I challenge you to find a developed economy which has not undergone a violent struggle in its cultural/ social history.
It is possible to argue on humanitarian grounds, that an intervention is necessary, but the democracy argument is a bridge too far. Here you are entering the domain of propaganda.
sg,
Gadaffi is unique in the Middle East. He’s not the big G, he can be far better categorised by his independence. Little G.
Democracy cannot be enabled from outside. It requires a radical change in thinking. Go read some stuff about the French Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety
sg, will in any case agree with your aesthetic sensibilities, I believe
Are you a leninist, joe? “The social structures of a country like Afghanistan need to first of all be destroyed before anything like capitalism/ democracy can replace them.” sounds like marxist crap to me.
If democracy cannot be enabled from the outside, what happened in the USA, Cambodia, Germany and Japan?
US: inherited European institutions and the war of independence and the civil war (arguably the most brutal war in modern history.)
Cambodia: N/A
Germany: You have to be kidding? Weimar republic?
Anyway, I gotta go do some work.
Not sure about that GregM.
The Congress Party was a powerful, consultative, broad-based organisation in the decades leading up to Indian independence. The Congress Party became the party of government quite smoothly.
There is nothing similar to the Congress Party in Libya. That is not to say that Libyans are incapable of creating and operating analogous organisations, but the point is that they have not.
And the British deserve some credit for not standing in the way of the rise of the Congress Party. Gaddafi, on the other hand, has not allowed the development of political opposition to his regime. Look at the way in which both sides negotiated a non-violent outcome of the famous Indian National Army trials after WWII.
I can’t imagine anything similar in Libya in 2011.
One can always hope for a sudden respect for the rule of law. But one must have a rule of law before one can respect it. And one of the great legacies left to the Indians (and the Americans) by the British was the rule of law.
Iraq is a theocracy.
The people can vote people into office, true. But Supreme law does not rest in the sovereignty of the state (pssst, the state is the people). and Supreme law in Iraq isn’t the constitution. It is the Koran. So the sovereignty in Iraq lies in God. Therefore the democratic process has to be limited.
This has all sorts of flow-on effects. The ruling class can ignore a law in the Constitution, and use a passage in the Koran as an excuse for that. This is why women’s rights have gone backward at a very fast rate since 2003. Here is last year’s Amnesty Report:
Iraqi prisons suffer from crowding and unfavorable sanitary conditions, as about 30,000 Iraqis are held without trial or charge. Some are denied access to doctors and medications, and many are tortured. The Iraqi government has yet to investigate allegations of torture, especially in the cases forced confessions led to death sentences.
While all Iraqis are at risk, minorities in Iraq are particularly susceptible to violence and persecution. More and more women are choosing to stay home rather than work or go to school, Christians have fled the country in great numbers, and gay men live in fear for their lives.
Journalists and human rights activists have been harassed, beaten, detained and even killed. While Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has promised to protect their rights, including their freedom of speech, few killings have been investigated and a culture of impunity prevails.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/iraq/page.do?id=1011173
Marvellous stuff that. Isn’t intervention grand.
So, what makes you think rebels in Libya who bear the Islamic Crescent on their flag will be any different, or any better than the last attempt?
joe, the US got its independence and its institutions with a bit of help from a military intervention.
Germany’s democracy was revitalized after world war 2. As was Japan’s, after a 15 year period of military rule built on a very flawed German-modelled “democracy” prior to that. Democracy can be imposed from outside, under the right conditions.
Democracy can also be stifled from inside, under the right conditions, e.g. if your friendly local arms dealer arms you up and then leaves you to it.
Well sg, as far as I know, that is not a typical explanation.
I don’t think that the Japanese learned about democracy from the Germans. Not really an expert here, but the Meiji period is the reform period in Japan, isn’t it?
Japanese history, the bit I’ve read about it, is incredibly fascinating though.
And in fact democracy will always be stifled from inside. It is born out of conflict, that is th point I’m making above. So, why does democracy seem to win out eventually? Not because force from outside enables it, but there are no doubt many theories about how this kind of thing works.
South Africa after the end of apartheid is another interesting example, there they used the so-called truth commissions to try and repair the damage done by the apartheid regime.
Anyway… back to Libya. Fingers crossed, huh?
Hey, I read in Al Jazeera that the Yemen tyranny is about to fall – the military is deserting the regime. The Sauds are already committed in Bahrain. Interesting times.
It is undoubted that the Weimar Constitution was the product of a mindset that was deeply contemptuous of democracy.
But even that constitution could have survived if enough Germans wanted to defend it. The fact is that by 1933, for a variety of reasons, too few Germans were willing to defend democratic institutions.
After 1945, West Germany adopted a constitution that removed the ability of the President to rule by decree (Article 48). This was the back door by which Hitler rose to power.
All this worked fine until the great year of 1968. Thoroughly terrified by the youthful insurgency of 1968, the German governing classes reinstated a version of Article 48. Yet, since then, no one has invoked this power. This must be a result of a growing German consensus in favour of responsible government and the fact that Germany has not yet suffered anything so bad as the Great Depression. Yet, the fuse for the constitutional time-bomb has been ticking ever since 1968.
@brendon : “So, what makes you think rebels in Libya who bear the Islamic Crescent on their flag will be any different, or any better than the last attempt?”
The international attack on the Libyan military is designed to stop Gaddafi’s destruction of Benghazi. It is neutral as to the makeup of any successor regime.
We left Gaddafi in power happily for four decades. We have only stepped in now because the world’s attention was on his war against the people of Benghazi. There is nothing consistent about the way the world goes about this stuff, but as of now, for whatever chance concurrence of events, it is doing the right thing.
Memo to Brendon: Most people in the Middle East and North Africa are Muslims (with significant minority Christian populations in Egypt, Syria and Palestine). The Arab revolutions are not being made in the name of Islam but in the name of democracy.
One thing that hasnt come up on the thread thus far is Gaddafi’s use of African mercenaries in Benghazi. There’s really only two possible reasons for this:
1. He questioned his own ability to command the loyalty of the Libyan army at that point, or,
2. He was asking them to do things to civilians the Libyan army most likely wouldnt.
… or both, Lefty E.
Let’s hope they’re mercenaries. Not doubting it especially just haven’t seen any solid evidence yet?
joe, Japan got its constitution from Germany. They sent a delegation to Europe to examine Western constitutions and adopted a roughly German model in 1883. This was one of the consequences of the Meiji restoration, which was really just a separation of military and state power. I wonder if Japan’s role in WW2 can be seen as a long, 15 year struggle by the military to reverse Meiji – a struggle that they lost to external, rather than internal forces. Hence the post-war democratic reforms stuck, because their main opponents (the military) were destroyed from without and discredited by their behaviour in the war.
When you turn on your own people, you lose credibility, and a military defeat of sufficient proportions will enable your people to repair the damage quite quickly. Gaddafi may be about to learn this the hard way.
Kim @366,
Well, you are one up on me Kim, because I don’t even know who the rebel revolutionaries in Libya are, let alone their politics. Someone provided a link to a hastily thrown together website, but it had about 30 words of platitudes and that was it. So I’m still in the dark.
At any rate, would you share what you know about their manifesto or whatever. I would be interested to read it. I’m assuming from the enthusiastic support here for the rebels in Libya that I’ve missed the boat on being informed of what they actually stand for.
Well, if they’re anything like their neighbors in Tunisia and Egypt, Brendon, the profile is: educated but chronically underemployed youth, Muslim but not radical, net-savvy, sick of economic stagnation, seeking cultural renewal, political rights, and deeply sick of the pro-western stooges like Ben Ali, Mubarak and yes, Gaddafi, that have tyrannised them for decades with a police state.
Re mercenaries, obviously I cant vouch for these reports Wbb, but nonetheless it is reported that “Rebels and reporters in the area have said many of the dead fighters around those vehicles were African mercenaries.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/21/3169786.htm
And it looks like Saleh in Yemen will fall.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/yemen-teeters-as-generals-defect-20110321-1c3pf.html
sg: “I wonder if Japan’s role in WW2 can be seen as a long, 15 year struggle by the military to reverse Meiji – a struggle that they lost to external, rather than internal forces.”
No, that’s not accurate at all — it’d be completely irrelevant to this thread of course, but the Japanese slide into the racist ultra-nationalist hypermilitarist regime that led the way into the war is a complex saga that has many causes and tentacles. But that’s for another day.
“And it looks like Saleh in Yemen will fall. ”
OK, that’s it – I’m going real long on ME specialists/pundits.
No stuff that. I’m going into talent management : any wannabe Arabists out their – please signup at http://www.nix-ricky.biz
Australia is not then a developed economy in your view then Joe? I don’t recall violent struggle playing a significant role in its history.
And Denmark? The same for Switzerland?
Greg,
you obviously know nothing about European history and the industrial revolution in particular.
But keep asking questions. I’ll do my best to answer them for you.
Well then Joe answer my questions above.
When were the violent struggles which established the developed economies of Denmark, Switzerland and Australia?
New thread: Libya, the Left and a No Fly Zone III.