Libya: a legitimate and necessary debate from an anti-imperialist perspective
Friday, March 25, 2011
"The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was indeed a compromise with the imperialists, but it was a compromise which, under the circumstances, had to be made. ... To reject compromises 'on principle', to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to consider seriously ... One must be able to analyze the situation and the concrete conditions of each compromise, or of each variety of compromise. One must learn to distinguish between a man who has given up his money and fire-arms to bandits so as to lessen the evil they can do and to facilitate their capture and execution, and a man who gives his money and fire-arms to bandits so as to share in the loot."
Vladimir I. Lenin
The interview I gave to my good friend Steve Shalom the day after the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1973 and which was published on ZNet on March 19 provoked a storm of discussions and statements of all kinds -- friendly, unfriendly, strongly supportive, mildly supportive, politely critical or frenziedly hostile -- far larger than anything I could have expected, all the larger because it was translated and circulated into several languages. If this is an indication of anything, it is that people felt there was a real issue at stake. So let's discuss it.
The debate on the Libyan case is a legitimate and necessary one for those who share an anti-imperialist position, lest one believes that holding a principle spares us the need to analyze concretely each specific situation and determine our position in light of our factual assessment. Every general rule admits of exceptions. This includes the general rule that UN-authorized military interventions by imperialist powers are purely reactionary ones, and can never achieve a humanitarian or positive purpose. Just for the sake of argument: if we could turn back the wheel of history and go back to the period immediately preceding the Rwandan genocide, would we oppose an UN-authorized Western-led military intervention deployed in order to prevent it? Of course, many would say that the intervention by imperialist/foreign forces risks making a lot of victims. But can anyone in their right mind believe that Western powers would have massacred between half a million and a million human beings in 100 days?
This is not to claim that Libya is Rwanda: I'll explain in a moment why Western powers didn't bother about Rwanda, or don't bother about the death toll of genocidal proportions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but intervene in Libya. Reference to the Rwandan case is given here only to show that there is room for discussion of concrete cases, even though one adheres to firm anti-imperialist principles. The argument that Western intervention in Libya is bound to make civilian victims (I'd actually care even for Gaddafi's soldiers from a humanitarian perspective) is not determinative. What is decisive is the comparison between the human cost of this intervention and the cost that would have been incurred had it not happened.
To take another extreme analogy for the sake of showing the full range of discussion: could Nazism be defeated through non-violent means? Were not the means used by the Allied forces themselves cruel? Did they not savagely bomb Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing huge numbers of civilians? In hindsight, would we now say that the anti-imperialist movement in Britain and the United States should have campaigned against their states' involvement in the world war? Or do we still believe that the anti-imperialist movement was right in not opposing the war against the Axis (as it was right indeed in opposing the previous one, the 1914-18 world war), but that it should have campaigned against any massive harm purposely inflicted upon civilian populations with no evident rationale of a necessity in order to defeat the enemy?
Enough now with analogies. They are always subject to endless debates, even though they serve the useful purpose of showing that there can be situations where there can be a debate, situations where you have to give up to bandits, or call the cops, etc. They show that the belief that any such attitudes should be automatically rejected as a "breach of principles," without taking the trouble of assessing the concrete circumstances, is just unsustainable. Otherwise, the anti-imperialist movement in Western countries would appear as only concerned with opposing their own governments without giving a damn about the fate of other populations. This is no longer anti-imperialism, but right-wing isolationism: the "let them all go to hell, and leave us in peace" attitude à la Patrick Buchanan. So let us calmly assess the concrete situation that we're dealing with these days.
We shall begin with the nature of Gaddafi's regime. The facts here leave little room for legitimate disagreement. It is only for the attention of those who believe, in good faith and out of sheer ignorance, that Gaddafi is a progressive and an anti-imperialist that I discuss it. True, Gaddafi started as a relatively progressive anti-imperialist populist dictator, who led a military coup against the Libyan monarchy in 1969 imitating the Egyptian coup that toppled the monarchy there in 1952. His first hero was Gamal Abdel-Nasser, although his regime was initially more right-wing ideologically, with much more emphasis on religion (later, Gaddafi pretended to give a new interpretation of Islam). He started very early on recruiting people from poorer countries as mercenaries in his armed forces, initially for the Islamic Legion that he set up.
He proclaimed the replacement of existing laws with the Sharia in the early 1970s, just before embarking on an imitation of the Chinese "cultural revolution," with his own Islamic version of Mao's Little Red Book: the Green Book. He also imitated the pretense of the "cultural revolution" of instituting "direct democracy," through the creation of a system of "popular committees" supposedly turning Libya into a "state of the masses" -- actually one with a record proportion of people on the payroll of the security services. More than 10% of the Libyan population were "informants" paid for exerting surveillance over the rest of the society. Gaddafi extensively jailed or executed opponents to his regime, including several of the officers who had taken part along with him in the overthrow of the monarchy. In the late 1970s, he decided to turn the Libyan economy into a combination of state capitalism in large enterprises and private capitalism with workers' "partnership" in smaller ones and abolish rents and retail trade (even hairdressers were nationalized!). He also devoted part of the state's oil revenue to improving the living conditions of Libya's citizens, a "revolutionary" version of the way in which some of the Gulf monarchies with high per capita oil income cater to the needs of their own citizens in order to buy themselves a social constituency -- while, as in Libya, mistreating the immigrant workers who constitute a major part of their labor force and their population.
In the next decade, faced with the disastrous results of his erratic policies and the crisis of the USSR, upon which he depended for his arms purchases, Gaddafi pretended to imitate Gorbachev's perestroika, liberalizing Libya's economy, but hardly its political life. His next major political turnabout took place in 2003. In December of that year, he came to the political rescue of Bush & Blair, announcing that he had decided to renounce his weapons of mass destruction programs. This was badly needed boost for the credibility of the invasion of Iraq as a way of halting WMD proliferation. Gaddafi was suddenly turned into a respectable leader and was warmly congratulated, with Condoleezza Rice citing him as a model. One after the other, Western leaders flocked to Libya paying him visits in his tent and concluding juicy contracts. The one who built the closest relation with him is Italian hard-right and racist prime minister Silvio Berlusconi: his friendship with Gaddafi was not only very fruitful economically. In 2008 they concluded one of the dirtiest deals of recent times, agreeing that poor boat people from the African continent intercepted by Italian naval forces while trying to reach European shores would be delivered directly to Libya instead of being taken to Italian territory, where they would have to be screened for asylum. This deal was so effective that it reduced the number of such asylum-seekers in Italy from 36,000 in 2008 to 4,300 in 2010. It was condemned by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, to no avail.
The idea that Western powers are intervening in Libya because they want to topple a regime hostile to their interests is just preposterous. Equally preposterous is the idea that what they are after is laying their hands on Libyan oil. In fact, the whole range of Western oil and gas companies is active in Libya: Italy's ENI, Germany's Wintershall, Britain's BP, France's Total and GDF Suez, US companies ConocoPhillips, Hess, and Occidental, British-Dutch Shell, Spain's Repsol, Canada's Suncor, Norway's Statoil, etc. Why then are Western powers intervening in Libya today, and not in Rwanda yesterday and Congo yesterday and today? As one of those who have energetically argued that the invasion of Iraq was "about oil" against those who tried to outsmart us by saying that we were "reductionists," don't expect me to argue that this one is not about oil. It definitely is. But how?
My take on that is the following. After watching for a few weeks Gaddafi conducting his terribly brutal and bloody suppression of the uprising that started in mid-February -- estimates of the number of people killed in early March ranged from 1000 to 10,000, the latter figure by the International Criminal Court, with the Libyan opposition's estimates ranging between 6,000 and 8,000 -- Western governments, like everybody else for that matter, became convinced that with Gaddafi set on a counter-revolutionary offensive and reaching the outskirts of Libya's second largest city of Benghazi (over 600,000 inhabitants), a mass-scale slaughter was imminent. To give an indication of what such repressive governments can perpetrate, just think of the fact that the Syrian regime's 1982 repression of the uprising in the city of Hama, with less than one third of Benghazi's population, resulted in over 25,000 deaths. Had a massacre on a similar scale occurred with Gaddafi's rule consolidating as a result, Western governments would have had no choice but to impose sanctions and an oil embargo on his regime.
The conditions of the oil market that prevailed in the 1990s were characterized by a depression in prices, at a time when the US was going through its longest economic expansion ever, the bubble-sustained boom of the Clinton years. It was very comfortable for Washington and its allies to maintain an embargo on Iraq during that decade (at a quasi-genocidal cost). It is only at the end of the decade that the oil market started moving out of depression into a rise of prices that everything indicated to be of a structural nature, i.e. a long-term rising tendency. And it is no coincidence that George W. Bush and his cronies came out then in favour of "regime change" in Iraq. For it was the condition without which Washington wouldn't tolerate lifting the embargo on a country whose major oil deals had been granted to French, Russian and Chinese interests (the three leading opponents of the invasion at the UN Security Council -- surprise, surprise!).
The present conditions of the world oil market are indeed conditions where oil prices, after falling briefly under the shock of the global crisis, have resumed their upward movement, several months before the revolutionary wave in North Africa and the Middle East. This, in a condition of unresolved global economic crisis, with an extremely fragile fake recovery. Under such conditions, an oil embargo on Libya is simply not an option. The massacre had to be prevented. The best scenario for Western powers became the fall of the regime, thus relieving them of the problem of coping with it. A lesser evil option for them would be a lasting stalemate and de facto division of the country between West and East, with oil exports resumed from both provinces, or exclusively from the main fields located in the East under rebel control.
To these considerations one should add the following: it is nonsensical, and an instance of very crude "materialism," to dismiss as irrelevant the weight of public opinion on Western governments, especially in this case on nearby European governments. At a time when the Libyan insurgents were urging the world more and more insistently to provide them with a no-fly zone in order to neutralize the main advantage of Gaddafi's forces, and with the Western public watching the events on television -- making it impossible that a mass-scale slaughter in Benghazi would go unseen, as it was so often the case in other places (like the above-mentioned Hama, for instance, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo) -- Western governments would not only have incurred the wrath of their citizens, but they would have completely jeopardized their ability to invoke humanitarian pretexts for further imperialist wars like the ones in the Balkans or Iraq. Not only their economic interests, but also the credibility of their own ideology was at stake. And the pressure of Arab public opinion certainly played a role in the call by the Arab League of States for a no-fly zone over Libya, even though there can be no doubt that most Arab regimes were wishing that Gaddafi could put down the uprising, and thus reverse the revolutionary wave that has been sweeping the whole region and shaking their own regimes since the beginning of this year.
Now, what do we do with that? A mass uprising, facing an all-too-real threat of large-scale massacre was requesting a no-fly zone in order to help them resist the criminal regime's offensive. Unlike the anti-Milosevic forces in Kosovo, they were not calling for foreign troops to occupy their land. On the contrary, they had good reason for having no confidence in any such deployment: their awareness, in light of Iraq, Palestine, etc., that world powers have imperialist agendas, as well as their own experience of the way the same world powers cozied up to the tyrant oppressing them. They very explicitly rejected any foreign intervention on the ground, only asking for an air cover. And the UNSC resolution excluded explicitly upon their request "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."
I won't dwell on the unacceptable arguments of those who try to shed doubt on the nature of the uprising's leadership. They are most often the same as those who believe Gaddafi is a progressive. The leaders of the uprising are a mix of political and intellectual democratic and human rights dissidents, some of whom have spent long years in Gaddafi's jails, men who broke with the regime in order to join the rebellion, and representatives of the regional and tribal diversity of the Libyan population. The program they are united on is one of democratic change -- political freedoms, human rights, and free elections -- exactly like all other uprisings in the region. And if there is no clarity about what a post-Gaddafi Libya might look like, two things are certain: it can't be worse than Gaddafi's regime, and it can't be worse than the quite more obvious likely scenario of a crucial role of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood in post-Mubarak Egypt, given by some as an argument for supporting the Egyptian dictator.
Can anyone claiming to belong to the left just ignore a popular movement's plea for protection, even by means of imperialist bandit-cops, when the type of protection requested is not one through which control over their country could be exerted? Certainly not, by my understanding of the left. No real progressive could just ignore the uprising's request for protection -- unless, as is too frequent among the Western left, they just ignore the circumstances and the imminent threat of mass slaughter, paying attention to the whole situation only once their own government got involved, thus setting off their (normally healthy, I should add) reflex of opposing the involvement. In every situation when anti-imperialists opposed Western-led military interventions using massacre prevention as their rationale, they pointed to alternatives showing that the Western governments' choice of resorting to force only stemmed from imperialist designs.
There was a non-violent solution out of the Kosovo crisis: for one, the offer made by Yeltsin's Russian government in August 1998 of an international force to implement a political settlement jointly imposed by Moscow and Washington. It was relayed by then US ambassador to NATO Alexander Vershbow, and just ignored in Washington. The same could be added about February 1999. The Serbian and NATO positions were different, but negotiable, as was shown after 78 days of bombing, when the UN resolution was a compromise between them. There was a non-violent solution to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait in 1990: aside from the fact that he could not have withstood for long the tight sanctions that were imposed on his regime in order to force him out, he was offering to negotiate his withdrawal. Washington preferred to destroy the country's infrastructure and send it "back to the stone age," as the reporter for the UNSC described the country's situation after the war in 1991.
What then was the alternative to the no-fly zone in the Libyan case? None is convincing. The day when the UNSC voted its resolution, Gaddafi's forces were already on the outskirts of Benghazi, and his air force attacking the city. A few days more, they might have taken Benghazi. Those who are confronted with this question give very unconvincing answers. A political solution could have been contemplated had Gaddafi been willing to allow free elections, but he wasn't. He and his son Saif gave the uprising no choice other than surrender (promising them an amnesty that nobody could have trusted), or "civil war." I'll ignore those who say that the population of Benghazi could have fled to Egypt and taken refuge there! It is not worthy of comment. I'll also ignore those who say that Arab armies only should have intervened, as if an intervention by the likes of the Egyptian and Saudi armed forces would have caused fewer casualties, and represented less imperialist influence on the process in Libya. The answer that sounds more convincing is the one advocating arms delivery to the insurgents; but it was not a plausible alternative.
Arms delivery could not be organized and become effective -- especially if we're thinking of sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles -- in 24 hours! This could not have been an alternative to a massacre foretold. Under such conditions, in the absence of any other plausible solution, it was just morally and politically wrong for anyone on the left to oppose the no-fly zone; or in other words, to oppose the uprising's request for a no-fly zone. And it remains morally and politically wrong to demand the lifting of the no-fly zone -- unless Gaddafi is no longer able to use his air force. Short of that, lifting the no-fly zone would mean a victory for Gaddafi, who would then resume using his planes and crush the uprising even more ferociously than what he was prepared to do beforehand. On the other hand, we should definitely demand that bombings stop after Gaddafi's air means have been neutralized. We should demand clarity on what air potential is left with Gaddafi, and, if any is still at his disposal, what it takes to neutralize it. And we should oppose NATO turning into a full participant of the ground war beyond the initial blows to Gaddafi's armor needed to halt his troops' offensive against rebel cities in the Western province -- even were the insurgents to invite NATO's participation or welcome it.
Does it mean that we had and have to support UNSC resolution 1973? Not at all. This was a very bad and dangerous resolution, precisely because it didn't define enough safeguards against transgressing the mandate of protecting the Libyan civilians. The resolution leaves too much room for interpretation, and could be used to push forward an imperialist agenda going beyond protection into meddling into Libya's political future. It could not be supported, but must be criticized for its ambiguities. But neither could it be opposed, in the sense of opposing the no-fly zone and giving the impression that one doesn't care about the civilians and the uprising. We could only express our strong reservations. Once intervention started, the role of anti-imperialist forces should have consisted in monitoring it closely, and condemning all actions hitting at civilians where measures to avoid such killings have not been observed, as well as all actions by the coalition that are devoid of a civilian protection rationale. One article of the UNSC resolution should definitely be opposed though: it is the one confirming the arms embargo on Libya, if this means the country and not the Gaddafi regime alone. We should on the contrary demand that arms be delivered openly and massively to the insurgents, so that they no longer need direct foreign military support as soon as possible.
A final comment: for so many years, we have been denouncing the hypocrisy and double standard of imperialist powers, pointing to the fact that they didn't prevent the all-too-real genocide in Rwanda while they intervened in order to stop the fictitious "genocide" in Kosovo. This implied that we thought that international intervention should have been deployed in order to prevent or stop the genocide in Rwanda. The left should certainly not proclaim such absolute "principles" as "We are against Western powers' military intervention whatever the circumstances." This is not a political position, but a religious taboo. One can safely bet that the present intervention in Libya will prove most embarrassing for imperialist powers in the future. As those members of the US establishment who opposed their country's intervention rightly warned, the next time Israel's air force bombs one of its neighbours, whether Gaza or Lebanon, people will demand a no-fly zone. I, for one, definitely will. Pickets should be organized at the UN in New York demanding it. We should all be prepared to do so, with now a powerful argument.
The left should learn how to expose imperialist hypocrisy by using against it the very same moral weapons that it cynically exploits, instead of rendering this hypocrisy more effective by appearing as not caring about moral considerations. They are the ones with double standards, not us.
Gilbert Achcar grew up in Lebanon, and is currently Professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London. His books include The Clash of Barbarisms: The Making of the New World Disorder, published in 13 languages, Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy, co-authored with Noam Chomsky, and most recently The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives.
ZNet Articles
ZAudios
ZVideos
Questions and Answers
By Grinder, Matt at Mar 30, 2011 05:23 AM
Q: If Quadaffi had won the civil war (assuming he will lose it now) would he have massacred many people for opposing him?
A: Very very likely he would have. He operates on fear and intimidation, those who oppose him must suffer, or else his rule will be challenged again. Thousands of innocents would probably have died.
Q: If the rebels win the civil war, will they massacre many people who supported Quadaffi?
A: Maybe, but probably not. Those fighting are risking their lives for a better future, they appear to want democracy and so on, that shouldn't translate into a bloody massacre, after victory, since they want a civilized country, but it might. I would say that though the probability is not zero of a large massacre, it is sizably less than the probability of Quadaffi massacring thousands.
Q: Will the NATO no fly zone kill many people (if all it is is a no fly zone, plus some strikes on tanks and similar stuff).
A: Maybe a few hundred, at the most? I don't know how to estimate these things. Less than a massacre by Quadaffi, probably.
Q: Were the people of Lybia requesting a no fly zone?
A: They certainly appeared to.
Q: Will NATO put troops on the ground in Lybia?
A: Probably not, they will face stiff opposition from the rebels if they do. They will be fighting another guerrilla war, which they don't seem to want to right now. They will lose even more credibility with their own population if they do.
Q: Does NATO want to protect civilians?
A: Obviously not.
Q: Will NATO try to influence the rebel government if it wins? Will they succeed?
A: Undoubtably. Will they succeed? Who knows? the probability is less that they can succeed if they have no troops on the ground.
Q: With a no fly zone, is it more likely that less will die and there is some chance that Lybians will get social progress, than without a no fly zone?
A: yes, with a no fly zone there would likely be a large massacre and a continued dictatorship. With a no fly zone (and no foreign occupation) there is more likelyhood of less dying and social progress. Though nothing is guarenteed.
Q: If you answer yes to the above question, does this mean you "support" a no fly zone implemented by NATO?
A: No. "Support" can mean that you support the objectives of the western powers. So no. If "support" ONLY means you think a no fly zone will be of the most benifit to Lybians, then yes. BUt he question is too ambiguous to answer without qualifying it.
Q: Should we do our best to demand that our governments act responsibly?
A: Yes.
Q: If NATO has no interest in protecting civilians, why are they implementing the zone?
A: We can only theorize. They obviously want regime change now, why is unclear. Quadaffi was a great guy in their eyes until recently. before that they tried to kill him because he would't play ball in the 80's. After the Iraq war he became a good guy in their eyes. POssibly they don't trust him cause he's nuts. I think Achar has a good point that they are afraid of the economic consequences if they have to impose an embargo on him fo rappearences sake. Obvioulsy they also want a new dictatorship, but seem to be limited intehir powers to get one, if they don't put troops on the ground.
All these leads me to conclude that the No fly zone is probably the best thing Libyans could have realistically hoped for in this terrible mess. Likely it will lead to less loss of life, and hopefully social progress. That doesn't mean I "support it" as implemented. There are of course different answers possible to the questions I posed than my answers. IF I'm wrong about some of my answers, then my conclusions might be wrong too.
Reply this comment
The user who created this comment no longer exists.
Questions
By Mclennan, Ewan at Mar 28, 2011 10:47 AM
Putting aside some of the other crucial issues for now, I would like to focus on one particular point in the hope that it might lead to a better exploration of the argument and perhaps even some constructive agreement?
Do you support only a Western-imposed 'no-fly zone' or do you advocate the far broader military attacks - including the bombardment of tanks units, long and short-range artillery, command and control structures, and far more - that are currently being carried out?
If you only advocate a 'no-fly zone' and if you stand by your above comment that "we should definitely demand that bombings stop after Gaddafi's air means have been neutralized", then I would argue your demands for the cessation of Western bombardment in Libya should begin immediately. It has been acknowledged within defence circles and amongst the Western military command that for more than five days now Ghadaffi's air force and air defence capabilities have been essentially eliminated. This was announced in a public statement on the 23 March by UK Air Vice Marshall Greg Bagwell: "Effectively, [Libya's] air force no longer exists as a fighting force...And [Gaddafi's] integrated air defence system and command and control networks are severely degraded to the point that we can operate over his airspace with impunity". This comment has been echoed in the days following by other military commanders from the 'coalition' nations. Do you acknowledge this to be the case, and if so will you begin in earnest to demand the cessation of Western bombardment? If not, what is your evidence that Ghadaffi's air-force still exists or poses a serious threat, contrary to the views of the above?
If you advocate the current Western military actions and objectives that go far beyond a 'no-fly zone', do you acknowledge that you are effectively supporting Western-imposed regime change in Libya? With the air force essentially eliminated, for days now the intervention has focussed on targets that are completely unrelated to the imposition of a 'no-fly zone', but that instead have everything to do with weakening Ghadaffi's military, intelligence, and control stuctures to the point where he is unable to repel rebel attacks or to govern effectively.
I would greatly appreciate an answer to these questions and hopefully we can move the debate and our response on.
Ewan McLennan
Reply this comment
The user who created this comment no longer exists.
Assumptions
By Brussel, Morton k. at Mar 26, 2011 16:52 PM
How is he so sure? Yet, he is willing that many deaths most probably will be caused by a no-fly-zone action from NATO. A war. Is that not even a more likely assumption? Arguments using examples such as the Ruanda massacre are "after the fact" arguments, and hence should have little bearing in the current situation. Here, we only have debatable assumptions.
What we have is a civil conflict. Gadaffi is the devil known. The uncertain consequences of the rebels winning with the help of NATO and company is the devil known as well.
Finally, one can only sympathise with Michael Albert. He wants ZNet to run smoothly with all its progressive, if not radical, friends…, but he explains too much. War is such a pain, in fact and in mind.
Reply this comment
WRONG INFERENCES
By snow, keith harmon at Mar 26, 2011 03:06 AM
My perspective and understanding has changed consistently since my visit there in 2009 and over the past months as I have researched more. I read the article above with an open mind, and perhaps I might have responded more gently, but its a very serious uphill battle to get folks to wake up on Rwanda, Congo, Sudan etc. Also, I'm uncertain what you are referring to as some "obscure reproduction of some rambling irrelevant article". Please feel free to clarify.
If anyone would like to understand my position on Libya they could glean some framework of understanding from the following--which represent my thinking at fixed points in time. Meaning, [1] my article was pre-NATO bombing and [2] my Russia today piece did not allow me to get into some important points. Hence, someone could infer (by omission) that I would be quite enraptured to see the rebels slaughtered, or any other inference or assumption....and that would be that person's wrong assumption.
See, for example:
1. Genocide in Libya? NATO invasion underway. It's the oil, Stupid. http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2011/03/petroleum-empire-maps-for-north-africa/
2. Russia Today -- March 20, 2011: "Following in Footsteps of Recent leaders, will Libya be Obama's War?"
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2011/03/following-in-footsteps-of-recent-leaders-will-libya-be-obamas-war/
3. Russia Today March 18, 2011: "Opinion Split Over Libya Attack"
http://rt.com/news/opinion-split-libya-attack/
blessings -- keith
Reply this comment
Re: WRONG INFERENCES
By Jones, David at Mar 26, 2011 06:45 AM
What seems relevent is Ashcars initial question: " would you have opposed a UN-authorized-Western led military intervention deployed in order to prevent Rawandan genocide?"
You could say yes, I would have opposed it knowing the duplicitous nature of the actors, let events proceed as they will.
Or you could say no. I would have supported such an intervention in the hope ( idealistic perhaps) suffering could have been averted.
Transferred to Libya, the choice is very much the same. Personally, I believe imperialist forces are acting against their history, instinct and normal tendency and supporting a revolution they do not care for because they found themselves totally boxed in. I think it is beautiful and ironic that they so limited their own options. It is rare and we should enjoy their befuddlement. This is as much about Spectacle as it is reality.
As for Justin's argument, I say absolutely, NATO should go all in SHORT OF ground troops. Entirely possible option. Bleed the empire AND piss all their citizenry off. Then the rebels can nationalize the oil fields and have a good life for awhile. Why is everyone so pessimistic? Why do they need assurances as to exactly how everything will turn out?
People want revolution but they dont want A revolution.
Reply this comment
The user who created this comment no longer exists.
Re: Re: WRONG INFERENCES
By snow, keith harmon at Mar 27, 2011 23:21 PM
Yes, you are totally missing something. And, beyond the greater awareness you do not have about Rwanda and Uganda and why Kagame and Museveni's comments on Libya are relevant, the additional (or initial) point is that the "initial question" posed by the author and reposed by you is meaningless (given a proper understanding of what happened in Rwanda and who was involved).
k
Reply this comment
But this takes the biscuit
By Leven, Jim at Mar 25, 2011 20:13 PM
Need I comment? Hands up anyone who can't think of anything worse? And can anyone point me to anyone who isn't a zionist who thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is anything but a moderate petty bourgeois party?
Reply this comment
The user who created this comment no longer exists.
When in a hole stop digging.
By Leven, Jim at Mar 25, 2011 20:05 PM
Sad to say, Znet, not so long ago very worthwile, is just turning into another Green/Democrat/Libertarian tittle tattle blog, Who needs it?
Reply this comment
I know Michael wouldn't want me to, but...
By Podur, Justin at Mar 25, 2011 19:55 PM
I have no interest in trying to prove Gilbert wrong. But I think they do matter, both for how we think about the next NATO intervention and for how we think about the consensus position of trying to stop the expansion of the war. There is a logical problem here. Specifically, with this part:
"And it remains morally and politically wrong to demand the lifting of the no-fly zone -- unless Gaddafi is no longer able to use his air force. Short of that, lifting the no-fly zone would mean a victory for Gaddafi, who would then resume using his planes and crush the uprising even more ferociously than what he was prepared to do beforehand. On the other hand, we should definitely demand that bombings stop after Gaddafi's air means have been neutralized. We should demand clarity on what air potential is left with Gaddafi, and, if any is still at his disposal, what it takes to neutralize it. And we should oppose NATO turning into a full participant of the ground war beyond the initial blows to Gaddafi's armor needed to halt his troops' offensive against rebel cities in the Western province -- even were the insurgents to invite NATO's participation or welcome it."
I read this and I wonder, why? Why is air power some kind of magical thing? If the consensus is that we want the rebels to win, shouldn't we want them to win even if Gaddafi has no airpower? Suppose Gaddafi is able to use artillery, tanks, RPGs, APCs, shoulder-mounted missiles, etc., to crush the rebels. If they need NATO for airpower and we support that, why don't we support it if they need NATO for ground power? If the invitation to neutralize airpower is sufficient to support intervention, why isn't the invitation to neutralize ground power?
My concern from the start, which is coming to pass, is that a "no-fly zone" is like a ball at the top of a hill. Gilbert was saying, tip that ball over, obviously, any decent person would want to tip that ball over because it will prevent a massacre. Now the ball is rolling down the hill and he is saying, of course we should want the ball to stop rolling a little ways down the hill. But just like any decent person would want the ball tipped, anybody who knows about gravity knows that they don't just stop rolling when you think they should. They accelerate and gather speed.
If we support the initial intervention to stop the massacre, to support the rebels, to get rid of Gaddafi, then I don't see how we can say we don't support ground troops or whatever else it might take to get rid of him.
I agree with all the consensus positions that Michael laid out, but I think that we're going to end up confused with yes to airpower, no to anything else, and that the inconsistency and confusion of that position will end up making it harder to advocate for the consensus against the widening and expansion of NATO's war.
NATO has now inserted itself militarily right in the middle of the Arab Revolution in a way that is politically confusing and difficult to resist. This all happened incredibly quickly and anti-imperialists are divided and confused.
Reply this comment
Re: I know Michael wouldn't want me to, but...
By Emersberger, Joe at Mar 25, 2011 20:35 PM
You pointed out one perhaps the most logically problematic passage of the essay - this last sentence was especially so
"And we should oppose NATO turning into a full participant of the ground war beyond the initial blows to Gaddafi's armor needed to halt his troops' offensive against rebel cities in the Western province -- EVEN WERE THE INSURGENTS TO INVITE NATO'S PARTICIPATION OR WELCOME IT"
Suddenly - with NATO ground troops involved - all the risks of the West's destructive power become so grave - and, presumably, extend so far beyond Libya - that we are finally justified in saying "NOW this is too dangerous and destructive for us to support no matter what the Libyan rebels say."
It just doesn't make sense. The grave risks are there from the outset.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: I know Michael wouldn't want me to, but...
By Emersberger, Joe at Mar 25, 2011 22:41 PM
Consider Saudi Arabia
http://www.unicef.org/sowc2011/pdfs/Table-1-Basic-Indicators_02092011.pdf
Cuba - a country that is not a source of stupendous natural wealth like SA - had a child moratilty rate of only 6 per 1000 live births
The number of avoidable deaths in Saudia Arabia - in the previous year alone works out to about 9000 children under 5 years old. (Using the differential between SA's child mortality and Cuba's)
This is - only part - of the ongoing death toll from western backed distatorship in SA. This is part of the death toll while it has its people sufficiently beaten down so that very unseemly massacres are not necessary.
The media has us looking at Libya with a far greater sense of urgency than Saudi Arabia and countless other places where truly constructive and non violent intervention would be quite easy - removing support for the dictatorship.
. .
Reply this comment
Re: Re: I know Michael wouldn't want me to, but...
By Albert, Michael at Mar 26, 2011 13:56 PM
See my answer to Justin re why a sensible person could disagree with the also sensible things he wrote.
Joe - you say it doesn't make sense to you to have doubts about this, It seems that clear cut. Okay, it's fine that that is the way it seems to you. But in fact it does make sense to others to have doubts. So the question is, what do you conclude about them?
You say above we should not tear each other apart. But everyone who is tearing each other apart, or will do it, would have said the same thing before they started doing it. So just saying it, while important, clearly isn't enough.
What does it take to not tear each other apart - when we have lots and lots of people, and once the mutual attacks start, like the ball Justin discusses (war) - the name calling and splitting, or leaving in frustration - not to mention the folks outside watching it and wanting no part of it - has a built in life of its own, as well.
I think what it takes is that we all need to conclude that while we each believe we are right, in fact we may be wrong. We may be missing something. The reason someone with good values and clear thinking disagrees with you or me, say, may be that they are seeing something you or I aren't seeing, or weighing some vague information differently than you or I.
If we aren't going to tear each other apart - and we are going to continue to work together and respect one another - I am inclined to think anything short of the above degree of humility and respect won't cut it - particularly in cases of assessing complex situations and even more so in cases of assessing possible tactics and strategy. That is my point.
There is one mitigating factor - the extent we think we can win and that unified action is critical to do it. That can bring together people who are momentarily being hostile to one another. Sadly, however, I suspect that view, confidently and strongly held, is even harder to come by than mutual respect based on some humility.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: I know Michael wouldn't want me to, but...
By Emersberger, Joe at Mar 26, 2011 18:26 PM
"Joe - you say it doesn't make sense to you to have doubts about this, It seems that clear cut. Okay, it's fine that that is the way it seems to you. But in fact it does make sense to others to have doubts. So the question is, what do you conclude about them?"
It tells me they underestimate the danger of endorsing any use of military focre by their governments. I think that in many cases their decent impulses - the desire to do something decisive and immediate to help people in Gaddafi's crosshairs - lead them to forget an entire world in the West's crosshairs - in particular Iran at the moment. It also causes them to downplay non-military alternatives (for Libya) that - while not as immediate and decisve in their impact - carry much less risk.
I think they underestimate the capacity of the corporate media to control what we think even when we despise it and and reject its worldview. The corporate media has the resources to set the agenda for public debate, to generate a sense of urgncey and complaceny about issues. Progressives, and progressive media, are not isolated from this. That is why we are here discussing Libya in such detail and not Saudi Arabia..
I woud never have guessed , after the undeniable disaster in Iraq, that the West would be so beligerent towards Iran, so audacious as to recylce the same propaganda strategy that had just been exposed so completely in Iraq - but they have.
I would never have guessed that Obama would dare to have a US servieman (Bradley Manning) tortured in broad daylight - but he has.
Why did I fail to anticipta eboth those things? I don't think it is stupidity or lack of insight (though there are plenty of leftists who will leap at the chance to tell me it was) but becasue our corporate media tends to make us underestimate what our governments are capable of.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: I know Michael wouldn't want me to, but...
By Albert, Michael at Mar 27, 2011 00:36 AM
> It tells me they underestimate the danger of endorsing any use of military focre by their governments.
Why does it tell you that? It doesn't follow. Perhaps, instead, they understand the dangers really well as, say, Achcar certainly does. They might think, however, that for various reasons, in this case, the typically very real dangers will not or at least may not be manifest. Or they could think, despite the dangers, the positive by product outweighs them.
> I think that in many cases their decent impulses - the desire to do something decisive and immediate to help people in Gaddafi's crosshairs - lead them to forget an entire world in the West's crosshairs - in particular Iran at the moment.
Is that plausible? Do you really think long time anti imperailists who have been instrumental in fighting against and writing about the ills of u.s. foreign policy for years, or decades - have suddenly forgotten what they thought? Isn't it more likely that they remember, that they still count the dangers as incredibly important, that they still hate imperial policies, but in this case they feel that other factors are also at play and important, or in this case they feel while the dangers are real, there is a very high likelihood they will be or can be largely avoided? They could be right or they could be wrong - but this is a far more likely explanation for their views, isn't it?
> It also causes them to downplay non-military alternatives (for Libya) that - while not as immediate and decisve in their impact - carry much less risk.
Same thing - why must it be that their thinking is clouded? Why can't it be that they are thinking very clearly, have unchanged values quite like yours, but simply arrive at a different position? For example, they doubt that any such option was remotely feasible? This strikes me as far more likely - not that your explanation is impossible, just not likely, and certainly not something to take for granted.
> I think they underestimate the capacity of the corporate media to control what we think even when we despise it and and reject its worldview. The corporate media has the resources to set the agenda for public debate, to generate a sense of urgncey and complaceny about issues. Progressives, and progressive media, are not isolated from this. That is why we are here discussing Libya in such detail and not Saudi Arabia.
Actually, we are discussing Libya primarily because there is a massive uprising there - and not in Saudi Arabia - though what you describe often operates, I agree. But again, why do you assume that the people you disagree with are thinking unclearly or are losing track of the issues you see? That is not impossible. But why can't they see just what you see - but perhaps also something else - that you miss? That is also not impossible.
What I am trying to get across is that in disputes it is very easy, and seems correct, often, that those you are differing from must have something interring with their arriving at the same view as you - they must lack information, have wrong information, clouded thinking, bad values, etc. But (a) how about, instead, that they might be correct? And (b) how about, instead, that in a situation of limited information and complex circumstances, they know what you do, or more, and simply arrive at a different take?
Put like that it can obviously happen. The hard part is to keep that firmly in mind...
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know Michael wouldn't want me to, but...
By Emersberger, Joe at Mar 28, 2011 03:40 AM
"The corporate media has the resources to set the agenda for public debate, to generate a sense of urgncey and complaceny about issues. Progressives, and progressive media, are not isolated from this. That is why we are here discussing Libya in such detail and not Saudi Arabia."
Michael replied
"Actually, we are discussing Libya primarily because there is a massive uprising there - and not in Saudi Arabia - though what you describe often operates, I agree."
Saudi Arabia just invaded another country - Bahrain - to help violently put down put down a major uprising. If the corporate media wants to make a very big deal about that then it obviuosly can. See what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 or when the USSR invaded Afghanistan (using an identical pretext to Saudi Asabia - being "invited in" by the Afghan government at the time).
Saudi Arabia also supplied most of the 9/11 bombers and is among the most backward and brutal regimes on earth. Ample ways to justify major coverage right now of SA if the West were not fine with what SA is doing.
.
Reply this comment
Re: I know Michael wouldn't want me to, but...
By Albert, Michael at Mar 26, 2011 13:42 PM
Hi...
I am not sure I understand why you think you are disagreeing wtih me, or why Joe doesin the next comment I see below yours. I am not saying there aren't lots of important issues wrapped up in a decision about the no fly zone, etc., many of which Achcar raises, some really well, I think, others not as well. There are. I am saying instead something intellectually trivial, but strategically important, that people with very similar values, who are all thinking clearly and carefully, can and sometimes will disagree - and it should not lead to them thinking those with different views must have changed spots, basically, or lost their mind.
I actually had a similar reaction to yours to Achcar's paragraph you note. But it did NOT make me think he was a war mongering agent of imperialism - nor did you think that. But others say things like that - and that is actually what I am trying to curtail.
Talking about it, and thinking it through in ways that don't interfere with the current needs we all feel and need to act on, is a good thing to do, of course. Talking about it with a tone that says anyone who has a view other than mine is a war monger, or is a naive air head, or a reflex ideologue, is not helpful. That is my main point. It shouldn't have to be said at all, by anyone. But it does.
On the substance - here is a counter argument to your perfectly sensible and wise concern that Achcar - or someone - might make. He might say, we agree that we are weighing off preventing the massacre of the opposition and the predictaable and even, being cautious, unpredictable, dangers of external actions. However, he might add - or someone might - I think this situation involves far far less risk of the ball rolling all the way down the hill, or even far down the hill - even though tipped over the top - than usual situations do. Why? Because in this case u.s. and even nato troops literally entering and staying in Libya would be so incredibly bad - not just for the populations, which it would, but the U.S. doesn't care about that - but for U.S. elite interests, that it won't happen. And now speaking for myself, if I had to predict, I would follow that logic and predict there will not be any serious ground troops much less occupation. There could be, but I very much doubt it.
Yes, the person replying to you might say, war has an internal logic - the ball that is violent war moves in part of its own accord, so to speak, once unleashed. BUT - war also is an outgrowth of the interests of state and wealth, and when those interests themselves and also because of likely resistance and the threat it represents, both domestically and in the region, militate against ground troops and occupation, and when considerable good can come from a no fly zone and calamity is likely to occur without it - and when the precedent also itself has an upside in the newly emerging international context - that is, as people are beginning to point out - if the un can protect the civilian population in libya, than why not in bahrain or palestine - maybe the risk is acceptable.
Okay, so we have two positions, squaring off, about a complex situation - which has already happened. There is much muddy information and missing information specific to the case. The situation is highly unlikely to be exactly replicated- so the real issue in discussing it is to extract general flexible lessons - but, even more so, at the moment - to get on with trying to add to the pressures acting against that ball rolling much further. I suspect we agree!
Reply this comment
When?
By D, Martin at Mar 25, 2011 18:07 PM
So....
Can Achcar or anyone else cite an instance of US/NATO "intervention" that was so surgical, controlled and precise in its objectives and more importantly its results? Michael Albert characterized the interventionist's dream as “a no fly zone and modest other acts.” Wha?
The false choice we're being asked to accept is "standing idly by" (Samantha Powers anyone?) vs. believing in a fantasy of controlled and limited intevention by serial invaders with nearly inexhaustible means of destruction at their disposal as a reponse to a situation that was as Michael Albert clearly stated (though he implored us to show respect to the interventionist's view - I have) was a "very fluid" situation with "barely known data."
There were alternatives that many have cited. But the interventionists -as is the case in every act of war- force our minds into the crushing and unrelenting vice of time - as in "there's none left!!" This argument of "no time!" was specious or at least reasonably in doubt. This is hysteria dressed up in sober and dare I say "moral" analysis.
We're being asked to believe that the unleashing of massive US/NATO violence shown repeatedly over decades to exponentially increase the death and destruction in service to western power is the only response to an opaque swamp of a civil war. We are to accept that contrary to elementary logic and mountains of evidence we can unleash it and yet like never before in the history of humankind force it to do only that which we ask of it.
Call me "immoral" but this is nonsense.
Reply this comment
Re: When?
By Jones, David at Mar 27, 2011 20:00 PM
"Can you or anyone else cite an instance when a just, sustainable society was created ?" History determines it is impossible because it has never happened. Therefore there is no sense trying. End of argument.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: When?
By D, Martin at Mar 27, 2011 20:19 PM
I'm not sure that analogy works.
I don't see how you can compare a fanciful "just society" never before realized and hardly likely to be achieved in anything more than modest and fitfull terms (which I agree is worth the effort) with the appalling record plain to see of every single past US/NATO intevention. Nothing is impossible in human affairs but my argument is the probability is extremely low not because what hasn't happend but because of what has.
In terms of probability based on concrete examples I stand by my argument.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: When?
By D, Martin at Mar 27, 2011 20:21 PM
Reply this comment
Achcar's yearning
By Green, Chris at Mar 25, 2011 17:36 PM
Achcar says that the rebels are led by people who are hot for democracy and human rights and that is probably true to a significant extent, though it probably dosen't apply to Gadhaffi's thuggish former interior minister who has been running the military side of the rebels operation. It is worrisome that the the rebels may be falling under the dominance of some rather reactionary people, the sort of people the US is trying to cultivate. Today the LA Times has a story about how the rebels are engaging in repression against people in their zone with alleged links or sympathy with Qadhafi and they appear to be engaging in substantial abuse of African migrant workers. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-prisoners-20110324,0,5389027,full.story
Achcar is right to say that argument along the lines of "the US supports human rights violations and massacres in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc. etc." is not sufficient to demonstrate that the attack on Libya should be opposed. However I wish he would show a little more scepticism. History shows that when the US claims it is engaged in humanitarian intervention it dosen't actually engage in humanitarian activities but concentrates on trying to terrorize people into submission to its dominance. Maybe in this situation, the pursuit of US imperialism of its interests will result in a better situation for LIbyans than existed before, in the sense that the threat of massacres of will abate. But as Martin MpSmith01 implies, the threat of an epic massacre in Bengazhi may have been exagerated. I just don't trust the US government. I need alot more information than I've been getting.
Reply this comment
We're "Immoral?"
By D, Martin at Mar 25, 2011 16:48 PM
I thought his "standard narrative" about Rwanda was hugely problematic and undermined his credibility and was going to cite Ed Herman and Keith Harmon Snow on the matter but Keith beat me to it.
It seems to me that cutting through much of Achcar's arguments we come down to an issue upon which the whole thing rests: There was no choice. Massive slaughter was imminent.
We'll set aside the obvious fact that this excuse is standard issue. I certainly don't blame decent anti-imperialists with good intentions for thinking this was a probability they couldn't ignore. But I find it difficult to take this assertion as fact because well, there was scant evidence to back it up. At least it was debatable as Patrick Cockburn points out:
"Even before the air strikes Gaddafi had not been able to mobilise more than about 1,500 men to advance on Benghazi, and many of these were not trained soldiers. The reason for their advance is that the rebels in the east were unable to throw into the fighting the 6,000 soldiers whose defection touched off the original uprising."
Having been raised Catholic I know a lot about moral pronouncements. I find them repellent and hugely counterproductive.
Michael, do you care to step in and admonish Achcar for violating the rules of civil debate?
Martin Donovan
Reply this comment
Re: We're "Immoral?"
By Albert, Michael at Mar 26, 2011 14:10 PM
I agree with you that Achcar was wrong to say those who disagree with him on this are being immoral. He should not have done that. And I think it is quite similar in "wrongness" so to speak, to those who read Achcar and say he is a war monger, for example.
This is my point, exactly. No one benefits, in a case like this, from that kind of rhetoric - nor from that kind of feeling simmering beneath civil rhetoric, for that matter.
I agree!
I haven't, however, "stepped in" with anyone - I have instead only answered people commenting on what I wrote, or addressing me, as you have here, in comments about something someone else wrote.
I assure you, if Achcar replied to my piece, or to this comment, saying that he disagreed and that he thought it was important to call opponents of no fly immoral, I would have wasted no time at all letting him know that I thought that that was a horrible attitude that would be destructive.
Fact is, I don't know him personally, or I would have written him in email by now, too.
There are multiple issues, including.
(1) How should we talk about and treat one another.
(2) How should we actually truly feel about one another.
(3) What do we think about the unfolding situation and our positions up until now. What general lessons, if any, can we extract.
(4) What do we think we ought to be doing now.
All are important. I think 1, 2, and 4 ought to be easy to agree on. 3 is, I think, much much harder.
4 is, for the moment, most important, but the others could easily and in fact are interfering with getting on to 4.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: We're "Immoral?"
By Green, Chris at Mar 26, 2011 15:50 PM
Reply this comment
Re: Re: We're "Immoral?"
By D, Martin at Mar 26, 2011 22:26 PM
I respect your emphasis on the importance of tone and mutual respect among those who generally speaking and in most other contexts seek to mitigate the damage wrought by rampaging super powers, empires what have you. I don't know how anyone could disagree with you on these basic tenets of civil discourse. I think you have alluded to yourself as having to struggle with this as I most certainly have especially when it comes to the use of extreme violence to solve a problem. The killing of innocents tends to get our blood boiling. I understand that it is in fact the potential of such atrocities being carried out by in this case Gaddafi that has (had) pushed well meaning anti-imperialists into supporting a very limited use of US/NATO force in this instance. So all of us are coming from the same place of being sickened by slaughter happening potentially or as we speak. Understood. That’s my take on issue (1).
I’m not sure at the moment problem (2) is relevant.
As for (3):
My personal stand has a lot to do with one particular lesson I've learned from Noam over the years (I've lost count of how many lessons I've learned) and that is we can only be responsible for what we do. So in this case, the killing of innocents (and as others have argued - even loyalist troops) by US/NATO forces is something we would do and therefore that is what we should be focusing on in this discussion as it relates to what I still believe was and is a very murky situation in Libya. It really boils down to does this situation meet the heavy burden of proof required to “authorize” us to kill more people? I disagree with others who claim that now we’re in it, this discussion of the right or wrong of intervention is purely academic. Well let’s put it this way, it being academic doesn’t mean it’s not a very valuable discussion that has a bearing on the “now” of the situation and just as importantly all the inevitable calls for intervention in the future. For the reasons in opposition to intervention are now very much in play and it seems absurd to propose they can be detached from the question of what to do now.
There were (are) at least half a dozen solid reasons why intervention was a bad thing all previously hashed out at this site and elsewhere: the Himalayan sized mountain of corpses still rotting from all previous “interventions”, the wrong motives, hypocrisy, laws of unintended consequences, “logic” of war, historical record, common sense assessment of western capital investment and resource extraction and it being the final arbiter of the Libyan people's fate especially if the "rebels" “win” based on western military support. These were all recognized to be ipso facto valid concerns of the pro-interventionists but it was argued massacres were imminent and we had no choice but to intervene. This argument was based on the concept of “time running out.” As I’ve argued elsewhere citing credible reports from serious correspondents that most of us have come to count on for sober analysis this claim of “no time” with its resultant panic had limited evidence to back it up. I would argue that what I heard was mostly conjecture and a lot of that was critically enhanced by citing past atrocities poorly framed, even distorted (Rwanda, Kosovo) so as to call up the shame and guilt of having “stood idly by” whilst tens of thousands were butchered. In the case of Rwanda the omission of US/Western support for Kagame and the RPF makes the standing idly by claim baseless and further, as Ed Herman and Keith Harmon Snow and others have meticulously documented the actual killing in Rwanda does not conform to the standard narrative of Hutu genocide against Tutsi but was a far more complex spasm of violence much of it under the direction of the US backed Kagame. And in Kosovo/Bosnia we will probably never expunge from popular history the exaggerated numbers alleged to have been killed in massacres or raped or ethnically cleansed by sadistic and vile Serbs led by the monstrous Milosevic -a veritable unleashed zombie of death- as touted by humanitarians in support of that NATO romp. There was no time left in Panama or Grenada, none left in Kosovo, there was no time left in Iraq (twice!) we had to kill al Qaeda NOW in Afghanistan, there was no time left in Libya and I’m sure soon time will run out in Iran, Lebanon, Gaza or other states deemed to harbor terrorists or guilty of being an existential threat to world peace and the current world order. This tyranny of “time” forces us to reject all non-violent alternatives being offered because... well because there’s not enough time. It’s the neocon’s version of the ticking time bomb. The suspect must be tortured to find out where it is before the damn thing goes off! So what do we have in the end? “We have no choice.” Why does that sound like the Devil whispering in my ear?
So with all of this precedent it seems to me very important for us to pause when we hear reports of massacres and imminent slaughter not because they couldn’t be happening but because it never turns out to be happening the way it’s being described and most certainly not when the powerful or self-interested and their media supplicants (or even well intentioned people succumbing to the panic) are ringing the alarums.
Putting all of this aside (I don’t know why we should) I eventually zeroed in on one of the remaining planks of the argument made by my anti-imperialist friends namely the hope that the intervention could be controlled or limited. You make a not very convincing case that it’s possible. Lot’s of things are possible but this is hardly enough to convince me we have a shot at directing western interests and their integrated national security elements to do as we’d like them to after they’ve been sprung into a military engagement.
“Limited” in what sense? Limited number of bombs dropped? (I might be wrong but I have never thought ground troops would be considered – other than the usual black ops types). Limited in terms of objectives? What are the objectives? They’re murkier every day. When do we know we’ve reached our limit? When do we know when we’ve dropped enough bombs? Let’s say we agree we’ve reached that point. Now what? Will US/NATO agree with the anti-imperialists that enough is enough? What about Libya now? Who’s in charge? US/NATO packs up and leaves? Really? “Here you go folks! The country with its oil and mineral wealth is all yours! Nationalize away! Take control of it and use it for the social welfare of your people! We have no interest in further destabilizing your country so as to subdue nationalist or Islamist tendencies in the ‘rebel’ political camps. Nope. You’re free to go on your merry way. It’s up to you. If you want to have total control over oil and mining interests in your country you have that right. Why heck, even if you want to favor the Russians or the Chinese or the Iranians or someone else in the contracts you sign that’ll be fine. That’s what spreading democracy is all about. You want to elect an Islamist party government? Knock yourselves out.” What chance do we have of seeing any version of this scenario unfolding? What I felt really tipped the balance against intervention was the impossibility of limiting or controlling the damage because the damage done will go far beyond Libya’s borders. No matter the right or wrong of this intervention and whether anti-imperialists (let alone US/NATO) agree or not as to its ultimate success the powerful actors will either work hard to control the future of Libya or kill a lot more people trying. Either way it’s not good. A lot more Libyan people will die to maintain independence from foreign capital’s control or there will be some kind of pact with the devil which will gloss over and distort the true outcome of the “revolution” to serve western interests insuring use of massive violence again somewhere else to achieve the same objective. When you side with the use of massive violence carried out by states whose overarching ethos is that of depraved indifference toward human life in its pursuit of corporate profit you have to take responsibility for what this action will certainly engender not only in the given state but far beyond its borders into the indefinite future. That’s a lot of killing. This is not a small factor in the calculus of lives lost/lives saved by this action. I simply did not see this aspect being taken seriously by those in favor. And why we might ask? Because there was no time.
That sums up issue (3).
And issue (4)? Do everything we can to head off what I outlined in issue (3).
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: We're "Immoral?"
By Albert, Michael at Mar 27, 2011 01:08 AM
We have Achcar among others, and we have you, among others - presenting contending assessments and interpretations. I am happy to let those stand as arguing the merits of each position. I continue to ask mainly that the two sides realize that the other side doesn't have to be either ignorant, or forgetting its values, or clouded, etc., much less war mongers or reflex ideologues. I hope you and he, and others, can do that.
For myself, I would be incredibly surprised if there was any kind of U.S. invasion much less occupation. Very nearly everyone who I know well, and respect highly, and have asked about it, has a pretty similar perception. Likewise I think it is quite likely the U.S. will wind up with no more and likely less say over Libyan oil and policies than it has had, less of an ally there than Qaddafi has been in recent years - though of course things might go the other way. We will see.
Agreeing on 4, meaning trying to prevent enlargement of attacks, any land invasion, any occupation, and any insinuation of u.s. power or influence, allows us to try and do what we can to impact the situation positively.
I agree with some of your points, not some others. I think some things are missing, others rightly present. To go through it all item by item is not something I have time, or expertise enough to think I ought to be doing.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: We're "Immoral?"
By D, Martin at Mar 27, 2011 02:48 AM
I just want to go out saying that the spector of occupation or invasion was not even on my list of concerns so I'm not sure why you felt compelled to discount that possibility in your response. My saying "pack up and leave" was a figure of speech. I don't see a military invasion. I see the usual swarm of economic hit men most of whom I'd wager will be from France and the UK.
I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong and the Libyan people end up with reasonable prospects for autonomy and self-determination and further that the unprecedented pressures brought to bear by this "Arab spring" will keep the imperial powers, NATO, AFRICOM etc., in check.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We're "Immoral?"
By Albert, Michael at Mar 27, 2011 02:54 AM
Reply this comment
Great Attempt
By Jones, David at Mar 25, 2011 16:34 PM
These two obviously ( inferred by ommission) were perfectly fine with the destruction of the Libyan revolt and could just say so in so many words. That would be clarity instead of obscure reproduction of some rambling, irrelevant article.
More troubling is the perspective of the Germans, the so-called new internationalism that assumes that webs of interdependence created by the global economy should make all problems solvable through negotiations and dialogue. Many Western liberals believe in this new order. I think it was Thomas Friedman who said "no country with a Mc Donalds will attack another country with a Mc Donalds".
This logic serves empire in a subtle way and willfully ignores the disastrous dysfunction caused by generations of soft power imperialism, development regimes, oil concessions and direct foreign investment. The Germans think they can avoid getting their hands dirty now that the whole global order is unravelling. As do many leftists.
Reply this comment
The user who created this comment no longer exists.
MUSEVENI'S FASCIST PROPGANDA
By snow, keith harmon at Mar 25, 2011 16:02 PM
http://www.wavuti.com/4/post/2011/03/president-yoweri-k-musevenis-article-on-libya.html#axzz1Hcx60wJS
However, one passage warrants special note;
MUSEVENI: "The stopping of genocide in Rwanda and the overthrow of Mobutu, etc., were as a result of efforts of independent-minded African leaders. KHS: BACKED BY BRITAIN AND THE USA AND MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS. Muammar Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist. I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests. KHS: OH THE HYPOCRISY FROM THIS WESTERN PUPPET. Where have the puppets caused the transformation of countries? I need some assistance with information on this from those who are familiar with puppetry. KHS: MUSEVENI KNOWS THAT HE CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS RUSE BECUASE WETSREN PEOPLE ARE SO IGNORANT OF WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR HIS PUPPET MASTERS. Therefore, the independent-minded Gaddafi had some positive contribution to Libya, I believe, as well as Africa and the Third World. I will take one little example. KHS: NOW HERE COMES THE HOT REVELATION FOR THOSE LEFTISTS WHO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF GADDAFI THE REVOLUTIONARY! At the time we were fighting the criminal dictatorships here in Uganda KHS: MILTON OBOTE WAS THE BEST LEADER THAT UGANDA EVER HAD AND THATS WHY HE WAS REMOVED WITH US & BRIT BACKING, we had a problem arising of a complication caused by our failure to capture enough guns at Kabamba on the 6th of February, 1981. KHS: A TRUE WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL SHOULD EXPOSE WHAT MUSEVENI DID AT KABAMBA. Gaddafi gave us a small consignment of 96 rifles, 100 anti-tank mines, etc., that was very useful. KHS: WONDERFUL> THANK YOU MR. GADDADFI FOR SUPPORTING THE WAR CRIMES OF MUSEVENI AND THE NRM. He did not consult Washington or Moscow before he did this. KHS: HOW TELLING! HOW INTERESTING! IS IT BECUASE HE DIDN'T HACVE TO? This was good for Libya, for Africa and for the Middle East. We should also remember as part of that independent-mindedness he expelled British and American military bases from Libya, etc.
The Museveni letter is full of cute little deceptions and some genuinely incriminating facts. But I don't see leftists paying any attention to Kagame, or Museveni, or if they do its like the author of the Libya letter above: nonsensical.
keith harmon snow
Reply this comment
KAGAME'S FASCIST LIBYA LETTER IN TIMES
By snow, keith harmon at Mar 25, 2011 15:42 PM
( * Letters to the editor of The Times: letters@thetimes.co.uk.)
The Times (U.K.)
March 23, 2011
Rwandans know why Gaddafi must be stopped; My country is still haunted by memories of the international community looking away
Paul Kagame
No country knows better than my own the costs of the international community failing to intervene to prevent a state killing its own people. In the course of 100 days in 1994, a million Rwandans were killed by government-backed "genocidaires" and the world did nothing to stop them.
KHS: NO, THEY WEREN'T. NOT ONLY ARE THE NUMBERS WRONG, BUT THE VICTIMS (GOVT) AND THE KILLERS (RPF) ARE REVERSED. ALSO, THE KILLING CANNOT BE REDUCED TO 100 DAYS. THE US OVERTHREW THE GOVERNMENT OF JUVENAL HABYARIMANA WITH KAGAME AS PROXY.
So it is encouraging that members of the international community appear to have learnt the lessons of that failure. Through UN Resolution 1973 we are seeing a committed intervention to halt the crisis that was unfolding in Libya. From what the world saw on the sidelines of this conflict, had this action not been taken, the bombardment of that country's towns and cities would have continued, Benghazi most likely would have borne the brunt of a furious administration and hundreds of thousands of lives could well have been lost.
Given the overriding mandate of Operation Odyssey Dawn to protect Libyan civilians from state-sponsored attacks, Rwanda can only stand in support of it. Our responsibility to protect is unquestionable — this is the right thing to do, and this view is backed with the authority of having witnessed and suffered the terrible consequences of international inaction.
My main concern however, is whether this necessary action will not be compromised by ambivalence and wavering arguments. Now that the UN Security Council has taken a strong stand and sent the message that our global community will be relentless in protecting civilians under threat, particularly from their own leaders, we cannot be seen to be indecisive about moving forward in completion of this aim.
KHS: KAGAME'S MAIN CONCERN IS THAT THE ARREST WARRANTS FOR WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND GENOCIDE ARE NOT SERVED AGAINST HIS TOP 40 KILLERS, AND HIMSELF.
There are no two ways about it: the resolution authorises the use of all necessary means to protect Libyans — so wherever there is need of protection, the allied coalition should act, and do so in no uncertain terms. The issue is not so much about regime change as it is about saving lives, but we cannot ignore the link between what is happening in Libya and the acts of the current administration.
KHS: THE WORLD'S GREATEST LIVING BUTCHER IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEW DOCTRINE OF "RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT". HOW QUAINT.
From the African perspective there are important lessons to learn, the main one being that we as the African Union need to respond faster and more effectively to situations such as these. Despite the AU Peace and Security Council holding consultations early this month to discuss the crisis in Libya, and subsequently deciding to send a fact-finding mission to that country, this response was slow and in the end overtaken by events on the ground.
However, let me also contend that the international community would have done well to include the African Union in the decision-making process in the same way that, for example, the Arab League was consulted: this certainly would have lent added legitimacy to the operations we are now witnessing.
KHS: JUST AS THE AU HAS BEEN USED TO SERVE WESTERN MILITARY AIMS IN SUDAN< WITH RWANDAN DEFENSE FORCES ON THE GROUND WITH NATO BACKING.
It is regrettable that although Libya is a member of our regional community, Africa's only voice on this crucial issue was that of the few countries that sit on the UN Security Council. This is not sufficient for our Continent: we should be doing, and seen to be doing, the right thing at the right time — not from the sidelines of operations such as this, but right at the heart of solutions to the problems that are facing our people.
KHS: KAGAME DOES NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT AFRICAN PEOPLE.
We cannot assume that there would have been a unanimous consensus on what course of action to pursue, but I do believe the majority of member states would have supported Resolution 1973 for the simple reason that we cannot continue watching the chaos that was consuming Libya while its people were crying out for help. While the support may not have been military, the AU could have offered something far more valuable — political support and moral authority for the coalition's actions on the ground.
KHS: THE HYPOCRISY IS OUTRAGEOUS! KAGAME AND MUSEVENI'S FORCES ARE AT THIS MOMENT KILLING PEOPLE IN CONGO, UGANDA, RWANDA, SOMALIA AND SUDAN -- AND SOME ARE EVEN IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
There would have been other advantages to Africans having been more actively involved in the process that led to this joint action in Libya: first, it would have shown that African nations were ready to step up to the plate, accept their responsibilities and do the right thing. To that extent it might have helped to erode the outdated and negative perception of Africa as a place destined for conflict and endemic poverty.
The truth is that African countries, including Rwanda, have made concerted efforts at political and economic reform in recent years, and should now be highly attractive to foreign investors. I am convinced that Africa presents the next frontier for business.
KHS: THE BLOOD RUNS SO DEEP IN RWANDA, YET US CITIZENS TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY AND MOST LEFTISTS SUPPORT AND REGURGITATE THE PRO-KAGAME PROPGANDA ABOUT HUTUS KILLING TUTSIS IN 100 DAYS OF GENOCIDE [SICK].
Second, African Union support for Operation Odyssey Dawn would have acted as a further deterrent to other African leaders who might be tempted to target their own people with violence.
The uprising in Libya has already sent a message to leaders in Africa and beyond. It is that if we lose touch with our people, if we do not serve them as they deserve and address their needs, there will be consequences. Their grievances will accumulate — and no matter how much time passes, they can turn against you.
[Paul Kagame has been President of Rwanda since 2000. Africans should not be on the sidelines in operations such as this in the course of 100 days in 1994 a million Rwandans were slaughtered.]
Reply this comment
The user who created this comment no longer exists.
AUTHOR's CONFUSION ON RWANDA BRINGS HIS GREATER CONSCIOUSNESS INTO QUESTION
By snow, keith harmon at Mar 25, 2011 15:20 PM
"Just for the sake of argument: if we could turn back the wheel of history and go back to the period immediately preceding the Rwandan genocide, would we oppose an UN-authorized Western-led military intervention deployed in order to prevent it? Of course, many would say that the intervention by imperialist/foreign forces risks making a lot of victims. But can anyone in their right mind believe that Western powers would have massacred between half a million and a million human beings in 100 days?
While he promises to tell us why we should understand Rwandan and Congo in light of Libya, he never does.
Further, like everyone else who tells us that the "rebels" are true freedom fighter's, he doesn't address the Front for the National Salvation of Libya's ties to the CIA or MI6, or the involvement of NED or Freedom House, or the involvement of the Islamic extremists that have been against Gaddafi, and have previously worked with the USA and Britain, etc.
In general, some of his statements are so absolute and off-putting that it makes it very hard reading, even for someone who agrees with the general theme.
However, the greatest disservice to truth is done through the invocation of Rwanda, which occurs in perfect lock-step to the western propaganda. Has Mr. Achcar read Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame's recent (fascist) statements in support of destroying Gaddafi? Does he think that Museveni or Kagame are legitimate -- possibly even revolutionary -- leaders? One wonder's.
The United States and Britain backed Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame's invasion of Rwanda. The "100 days genocide" in Rwanda was the result of the policies and advances and organization of Paul Kagame and the Rwandan Patriotic Front. The UNAMIR forces were there supporting the western intervention. To distill it all down as Mr. Achcar does is to essentialize something that he obviously does not understand.
More critically, however, is the reality that "leftists" will argue their arses off about Libya, precisely because the propaganda system has provoked them into reactionary behavior, while they equally actively ignore the situation in Rwanda, Uganda, Sudan or Congo.
keith harmon snow
Reply this comment
Re: AUTHOR's CONFUSION ON RWANDA BRINGS HIS GREATER CONSCIOUSNESS INTO QUESTION
By D, Martin at Mar 25, 2011 16:50 PM
Be interested to hear more specifics on how you agree with his general theme.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: AUTHOR's CONFUSION ON RWANDA BRINGS HIS GREATER CONSCIOUSNESS INTO QUESTION
By Junebug, Frankie at Sep 28, 2012 14:01 PM
Great post though.
Reply this comment
oil
By Dimaggio, Anthony at Mar 25, 2011 14:03 PM
thanks for the piece. I agree it's silly to say the war is "about stealing libya's oil." but I do agree too that oil is a dominant concern, not at simply a country level but looking at libya as part of a destabilizing pattern throughout a larger region (north africa and the middle east). this lens is typically how U.S. planners have typically viewed the situation, looking at instability in one country as part of a bigger picture threatening their military dominance of a region with the world's largest oil reserves. more on this in the future, as I'm working on a piece that goest through the executive policy planning documents that show just this.
Reply this comment