Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

**Barry** · 03-21-2011 01:36 PM

We've embarked on War Number 3!

Do you think this is warranted??

I would have definitely not supported unilateral action, or even with a select coalition.

However having the UN support, and especially that of the Arab league, makes it worthy to consider, IMO.

Perhaps the most profound thing happening is that we find our selves on the same side as other Arab nations. This is huge and may lead to the healing of the terrible/costly rift between us and (the new) "them".

What do you think?

**zenekar** · 03-21-2011 08:08 PM

Don't believe the hype spewed by corporate media. It has been said, the first casualty of war is truth.

Today on Democracy Now!:

Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, called for an emergency meeting of the Group of 22 states to discuss Libya. He requested a report into the bombardment, which he alleged had "led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians." Moussa said, "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians."

https://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/..._enacted_as_us

_

**"Mad" Miles** · 03-21-2011 09:07 PM

I reluctantly support it. Wish it wasn't necessary, but the alternative would have been the impending "Slaughter of Benghazi".

I've been all over the issue on Facebook for the last four days and just posted a compilation of my contributions to the discussion.

If anyone wants to read it, who can't open it on FB, reply privately and I'll email you a Word document attachment.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=201778763185290

**urlove** · 03-21-2011 09:50 PM

I don't think we can sit back and watch as a crazy leader massacres his people. I also think having the UN and the Arab league behind this was imperative.

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

We've embarked on War Number 3!

Do you think this is warranted??

I would have definitely not supported unilateral action, or even with a select coalition.

However having the UN support, and especially that of the Arab league, makes it worthy to consider, IMO.

Perhaps the most profound thing happening is that we find our selves on the same side as other Arab nations. This is huge and may lead to the healing of the terrible/costly rift between us and (the new) "them".

What do you think?

**Barry** · 03-21-2011 10:37 PM

Posted in reply to the post by zenekar:

Don't believe the hype spewed by corporate media. It has been said, the first casualty of war is truth.

Today on Democracy Now!:

Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, called for an emergency meeting of the Group of 22 states to discuss Libya. He requested a report into the bombardment, which he alleged had "led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians." Moussa said, "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians."

https://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/..._enacted_as_us

_

I have no doubt that some civilians may been killed. It's been a clear practice, especially in Muslim countries to use both Islamic holy sites and civilians has shields for valid military targets. In my view, that practice then makes it makes the civilians and sites acceptable collateral damage. It also makes for great propaganda for country being attacked.

What's more its been very clear that even within the Muslim sectarian violence, that religious targets are often used as both shields and terrorism.

I'm also uncomfortable, though not surprised, by the expansion of the agenda from preventing the attack of the Libyan people by the state to "regime change".

Seems pretty clear to me, that this is now a civil war, though what difference does that make?

**zenekar** · 03-22-2011 11:13 AM

It is not only Muslims who act as human shields. In 2003 prior to US invasion of Iraq, US citizens went to Iraq to act as human shields to protect Iraqis.

Let's not make excuses for US aggression, again dominating the invasion of another sovereign nation. Some of the Arab League agreed to "No Fly Zone." But the US with a coalition of twisted arms, has already broadened the attack on Libya. Remember, the US and Europe have had a love/hate relationship with Gaddafi over Libya's oil fields. The US with it's European allies has an agenda and it is not to help the movement for democracy in the region.

US propaganda delivered by the corporate media is harmful to the psychi of citizens.

Attila
_

**zenekar** · 03-22-2011 01:07 PM

US hypocrisy never ceases. While the US gov. justifies bombing Lybia for killing protesters, Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh gets away with killing peaceful demonstrators because he is an ally for US interests. Same in Bahrain.

See article: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/22-11
Also check today's Democracy Now: https://www.democracynow.org

**Barry** · 03-22-2011 01:20 PM

Posted in reply to the post by zenekar:

US hypocrisy never ceases. While the US gov. justifies bombing Lybia for killing protesters, Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh gets away with killing peaceful demonstrators because he is an ally for US interests. Same in Bahrain.

See article: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/22-11
Also check today's Democracy Now: https://www.democracynow.org

Point taken, though scale of the attacks is/was quite different in Libya vs Yemen and Bahrain.

**"Mad" Miles** · 03-22-2011 01:30 PM

Barry,

While Libya is a muslim country, it is fairly secularized. The politics going on there are more about the populace rising up against their dictator, when they thought they had a chance, given events in the region. As for human shields, Gadhafi has some support, and those who have gathered around public buildings are there voluntarily.

Attila,

Your characterization of what is going on, which matches the general opinion being expressed on the Liberal/Left, does not acknowledge relevant and important facts.

If you read my responses to these/your criticisms, that I provided access to below, you will see that the fast and loose use of terms and phrases like: No Fly Zone, Invasion, Twisted Arms and Attack, do not match what is going on, as any observer can see from monitoring multiple and independently verifiable news sources.

Yes, there's a lot of propaganda, both official and "for" as well as alternative and "against". I have not been brainwashed, confused or had my psyche damaged, at least not by this turn of events.

It's a complex situation, I am very sympathetic to and completely understand the anti-war and anti-imperialist arguments. I've made all of them and more, in the past about previous U.S. launched wars.

But I'm more sympathetic to the vast majority of Libyans. And their actions since the air war creation and enforcement of a no fly zone, has confirmed to me, why they should have our sympathy and support. You heard about the treatment of two American (U.S.) flyers who bailed out southwest of Benghazi, right? ("Accidental" plane crash. First casualty of war, and all that.)

I go into much more detail in my "Note" on Facebook. Anybody who is arguing against, criticizing, these actions by the West, should look at what I've had to say. Most of it is directed towards you/them. Not all of what I wrote over the weekend has been available in the mainstream media.

I've provided background sources, on my FB feed as well. Two excellent articles, on about the history of Libya, from a perspective against this military intervention. And one in depth report about the rebels, their culture, politics and organizational methods and style. Very enlightening stuff, that you'll see nothing like, in the MSM. Or in the anti-war movement discussions. At least not most of them, the discussions that is.

I count those of you with the anti-war position as my friends and allies. I take no pleasure or satisfaction in arguing against you. But I believe (a term I seldom and only reluctantly use) that you are wrong in this matter. Not that I don't have my doubts as well, but that's par for this complex course we are on in this complex world.

If there is an argument against this military support for the rebels, that I think is the most powerful, it's the money issue. Yes, there is a serious world financial crisis. And we Americans (U.S.) have a very big share of that problem. But from our camp, which loves to point out hypocrisy (Why not Bahrain, Saudi, etc.?) it rings hollow.

Isn't one of our central values, our philosophy in a nutshell, "People Before Profits"?

**Sara S** · 03-23-2011 06:43 AM

Jon Carroll's column in yesterday's SF Chronicle:

I guess we are at war with Libya. The no-fly zone has been implemented, because the United Nations has voted in favor of it, and several European countries are participating avidly.
And make no mistake: A no-fly zone is war. It starts with hostilities, bombing assets on the ground (like anti-aircraft guns and interceptor fighter planes) that could shoot down the planes sent to enforce the no-fly zone. If you bomb another country, that's an act of war. Many would say that it's the first step to an act of invasion.
Do we really want to fight three wars at the same time? I understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are "winding down," but people are still dying and killing. Also, we're sending drones into Pakistan, which I guess is American war 2.3. Now we want to start another one. Is this wise? Is there anything in the history of the United States over the past 50 years to suggest that it is wise?
Do we really want more bodies coming home in flag-draped boxes? I don't think we do.
We can all agree that Moammar Khadafy is a bad guy, a supporter of international terrorism, a corrupt dictator, and probably half crazy as well. He decided to make peace with the United States a while ago, for reasons of his own, but that didn't make him any nicer, it just made him Not Our Problem.
How did he become our problem again? The demonstrators in Bahrain are presumably just as sincere as the ones in Libya; why aren't we helping them? Why aren't we helping the dissidents in Yemen? It's all geopolitical, of course. Our great friends the Saudis are helping the government of Bahrain, so no go there. Yemen is too volatile a place; if we started there, we really would be in a big war.
Libya doesn't have a lot of friends in the Arab world. Not to say that Islamic fundamentalists who wish us ill wouldn't make hay out of America invading yet another Muslim country, because they would. But Egypt on one side and Tunisia on the other side would probably be fine with Khadafy out of office. He's a rogue.
Saddam Hussein was a rogue too, for all the good that did us.
But play the scenario out. We (meaning us and some other Western European countries, and possibly but not likely some nations in the Arab League) would bomb the military and communications structures in Libya. Khadafy would be crippled, but he'd still have the troops on the ground, plus a whole lot of African mercenaries he could purchase with oil money.
The rebels would have to do it themselves, helped perhaps by some arms we managed to get to them via, say, Egypt. What does that sound like to you, not being an expert at all? What it sounds like to me is a stalemate. Which would mean we would keep maintaining the no-fly zone, keep pushing more men and material into the region in the hopes of ending a stalemate, and pretty soon, "You know, if we just put some troops on the ground ..."
The drumbeats in Washington are already starting.
It might be pointed out that Libya represents no threat to the territory of the United States. It might be pointed out that the only dog we have in this fight is oil, and gosh, didn't that work out well before?
I have great sympathy for the rebels in Libya. I want them to win, because I want Khadafy gone. But what comes next? Do we try to influence the direction of the next government? Do we train candidates, run elections, send in advisers or even "advisers"? What if there is a pro-Khadafy counterinsurgency? Are we talking about more military contractors? What does the country look like in five years, and how big a role are we playing?
"No-fly zone" sounds so clean and easy. It sounds like a helping hand. But this is Libya. The fighting is going to be on the ground. Suppose Khadafy wins. Now we have a very rich, demented enemy in the middle of North Africa. He'd be motivated. A battle like this would make him feel 10 years younger. Plus: He'd be an unlikely hero to all the anti-Americans in the region. Oh joy.
I guess it's going to happen, this attack on Libya, and I have to say I'm against it. Now let's see what happens.
Oh good, American war 3.0, a battle in the Arab world. Hasn't that worked out wonderfully before?

Read more: https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...#ixzz1HQiXoWZ3

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

I reluctantly support it....

**Dixon** · 03-23-2011 11:20 AM

[QUOTE=urlove;131446]

I don't think we can sit back and watch as a crazy leader massacres his people.

urlove, the US has never had any problem with sitting back and watching innocent people being massacred. Remember Rwanda in the 90s, when we sat back and watched at least 600,000 innocents being hacked to death with machetes? We didn't intervene because our ruling class saw no profit in intervention.

Very often, we don't just sit back and watch the massacres, we actually support them with money, weapons, and diplomatic support. Pinochet in Chile, the Duvaliers in Haiti, the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein in the 80s, the Taliban in the 90s--I could mention many more.

Understand this: If "our" government intervenes against this particular "crazy leader" (Khadafy), it's not because he's massacring innocents. The US constantly demonstrates that it has no problem whatsoever with massacring innocents. Intervention in Libya (as in anywhere) is because the US ruling class has some financial or power-based interest there, probably having something to do with oil, and perhaps to do with wanting a new client state to watch out for US interests in North Africa now that our Egyptian stooge Mubarak is out and the malleability of whoever takes over in Egypt is uncertain.

I also think having the UN and the Arab league behind this was imperative.

Obama's rhetoric was that both widespread African and Arab support was imperative, but when the organization of African nations withheld support, he dropped that point from his rhetoric and went ahead with only Arab League support, LOL!

Furthermore, the Arab League made it clear they were only supporting a no-fly zone to protect civilians, with no mandate to do unrelated things like bombing Khadafy's residence and other such things that kill civilians! They are reportedly horrified by such US military actions, so we can't really say we have Arab League support for what we're really doing in Libya, as opposed to what we said we'd do, which is, as usual, different.

This is a complex situation and a good case can be made for international intervention (not necessarily US intervention) to protect civilians. But in the context of obvious US aspirations to world domination, "our" intervention in Libya is best understood as another example of US imperialism, ultimately aimed at increasing the wealth and global influence of the US ruling class.

**theindependenteye** · 03-23-2011 11:53 AM

>>>urlove, the US has never had any problem with sitting back and watching innocent people being massacred. Remember Rwanda in the 90s, when we sat back and watched at least 600,000 innocents being hacked to death with machetes? We didn't intervene because our ruling class saw no profit in intervention.

I don't quite see the logic in this rebuttal. Are you saying that because we've failed to intervene in atrocities before, we should continue to ignore them? (Perhaps we should, but that's not my point here.) Or that because the US probably has a vested interest in the outcome, we should recuse ourselves from involvement?

>>> in the context of obvious US aspirations to world domination, "our" intervention in Libya is best understood as another example of US imperialism, ultimately aimed at increasing the wealth and global influence of the US ruling class.

No disagreement there. But this pretty much suggests that virtually *any* action undertaken by the US Government is fundamentally meretricious — kind of a new twist on Original Sin. It's hardly news that we have a ruling class, that power & money are major factors in any decisions, and that the US does vile things (though we certainly don't have a monopoly on it). Extend that logic and we should never have intervened against Hitler — and you'd certainly get lots of right-wing support for that idea, then and even now, perhaps. But has there *never* been a circumstance when US foreign policy has an intention or an outcome that is "morally good," whether or not it also benefits the robber barons?

I'm only concerned that the axiomatic belief in the incurable syphilis of US foreign policy leads to as much knee-jerk reaction on the Left as on the Right. (not sure if syphilis affects the knees - mixed metaphor there) No way can a nominally Liberal administration *ever* please us sharp-eyed Lefties, so why ever bother to try?— we know what you're really up to.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

**zenekar** · 03-23-2011 12:42 PM

It's not a left or right debate. History shows that the US has always acted in it's own interest (the interest of the capitalist ruling class). This was true even in the war against the Nazis -- while US troops were fighting German troops, industrialists like Ford and Rockefeller were supporting Hitler's regime.

**Dixon** · 03-23-2011 01:37 PM

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

I don't quite see the logic in this rebuttal. Are you saying that because we've failed to intervene in atrocities before, we should continue to ignore them? (Perhaps we should, but that's not my point here.) Or that because the US probably has a vested interest in the outcome, we should recuse ourselves from involvement?

No, Conrad, I'm not saying nor implying either of those things. (Note that later in my post I acknowledged that a good case can be made for intervention in Libya). My message is more like:
1. If we accept the righteous-sounding rationalizations given by the US and most (all?) other governments for their actions, we'll have an unrealistic view of political realities, and that's likely to create problems, such as public support for brutal acts which do more harm than good (regardless of whether that turns out to be true in the current example).
2. Our default position should be skepticism re: governments' protestations of righteous motivations for any kind of military intervention, especially when the government involved has demonstrated consistently imperialistic and sociopathic values/behaviors. Remember, for instance, that Hitler's sweet-sounding concern for the freedom of Sudeten Germans turned out to be nothing more than a pretext to invade Czechoslovakia, where his regime change, of course, involved installing a government friendly to his global aspirations. This is not substantially different from US actions/aspirations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya.
3. Should someone intervene in Libya on behalf of the citizens, against Khadafy? Sure! I'll take it farther than that--someone should intervene in most countries, including the USA, guillotine the criminals in charge, and install an actual democracy. But before we decide that such an effort should be directed by, e.g., the USA, we should think realistically about what the real agenda is and whether the people of Libya and of the world will ultimately suffer more from the "cure" than from the malady. I'm thinking maybe a United Nations effort with the US taking a supportive role only--which is NOT what's going on--to minimize the chance that such an intervention would result in imperialistic gains for any participant, might be in order. I hope that's clearer.

>>> in the context of obvious US aspirations to world domination, "our" intervention in Libya is best understood as another example of US imperialism, ultimately aimed at increasing the wealth and global influence of the US ruling class.

No disagreement there. But this pretty much suggests that virtually *any* action undertaken by the US Government is fundamentally meretricious — kind of a new twist on Original Sin.

Not really. Original Sin assumes that everyone is tainted prior to their ever having done anything. My jaundiced view of governments in general, including the USA, is based on their actual behavior--and not just a few cherry-picked incidents, but rather the remarkable consistency with which self-serving power-grabbing can be discerned under the veil of sweet rationalizations--even when some of what we do helps some people.

It's hardly news that we have a ruling class, that power & money are major factors in any decisions, and that the US does vile things (though we certainly don't have a monopoly on it). Extend that logic and we should never have intervened against Hitler

Conrad, that conclusion does not follow from my logic, nor even from your (quite accurate) summary. Opposing Hitler was clearly the right thing to do, just as opposing the Europeans was the right thing for the Indians to do, the only difference being that the good guys lost in the Indians versus Europeans war while they won in the Axis versus Allies war. And hooray for the good guys! But of course, "good guys" and "bad guys" are more ambiguous concepts than we'd like them to be. In the case of WWII, US involvement was not primarily motivated by altruism (any more than in our Libyan intervention); it was motivated by self-preservation. The US was quite content to let Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo gobble up country after country, with some factions such as Henry Ford and Prescott Bush supporting them, until it became clear, with a little help from Pearl Harbor, that our asses were on the menu, too. Only then were we galvanized into action.

... But has there *never* been a circumstance when US foreign policy has an intention or an outcome that is "morally good," whether or not it also benefits the robber barons?

I think there's always someone who has pure motivations involved, such as the various soldiers, American, Nazi, or whoever, on every side of every war, who are convinced that they're fighting for what's right. Sometimes they're on the right side, too, even if the motivations of the generals and presidents who command them are likely to be imperialistic or otherwise self-serving. But can you think of one single example of US foreign policy that was motivated by altruism rather than self-interest, Conrad? Something like the Berlin Air Drop might come to mind, and it certainly helped people, but of course it was a move in the global domination chess game between the US and the Soviets. Note that even when someone does something that happens to have some positive effects, their motivation should be judged based on their generally demonstrated values. If Jeffrey Dahmer invites us in for dinner and a drink, he may be just being friendly, but a clear-eyed assessment of his history leads us to a more negative interpretation of his real motivations.

I'm only concerned that the axiomatic belief in the incurable syphilis of US foreign policy leads to as much knee-jerk reaction on the Left as on the Right...

The term "knee-jerk" implies "automatic and unthinking". Is it really fair to characterize my attitudes as "knee-jerk", Conrad? I have very reluctantly progressed from the usual, comfortable nationalistic stance we're all programmed with to a much less comfortable, jaundiced but realistic view. Does that seem "unthinking" to you? I think you should either provide a few examples of US foreign policy that we can realistically interpret as altruistic rather than self-serving, or consider apologizing for the "knee-jerk" characterization of those of us who, based on reasonable interpretation of the facts, see dark values at the heart of our country.

No way can a nominally Liberal administration *ever* please us sharp-eyed Lefties, so why ever bother to try?— we know what you're really up to.

That's right, we do know what they're really up to--they want to rule the world, and they don't care who gets stepped on in the process. If they coincidentally do some good stuff in that process, that's alright with them, but they're just as willing to screw people over too. It's up to us to oppose that as best we can by speaking the truth, no matter how bleak it seems.

So, back to Libya. We should be asking ourselves:
1. What is the real agenda of the USA and other interveners (which *ahem* coincidentally happen to be the colonial powers)?
2. How likely is it that, once the interveners' agendas are played out (including long-term effects of US dominance in North Africa), the ultimate result of the intervention will be more good than bad?
3. Is there a better way for intervention to occur in Libya, that will help the people with less negative effects?

**zenekar** · 03-23-2011 01:56 PM

Dixon, thanks for elaborating. I've studied European/US colonization and Imperialist interventions, racism, theft of resources, exploitation of labor (slavery) but I don't have time now to go into detail here.

**Hotspring 44** · 03-23-2011 05:48 PM

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said to an audience of West Point cadets:
“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined”

Comparatively referring to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan he went on to say:

...“officers of lower and lower rank were put in the position of making decisions of higher and higher degrees of consequence and complexity.”...

... “The opportunity to conduct the kind of full-spectrum training — including mechanized combined arms exercises — that was neglected to meet the demands of the current wars.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/w...ates.html?_r=1

I am thinking that, similar to “Operation Desert Storm”...

Operation Desert Storm

Timeline
Statistics
Ground Forces
Air Forces
Allied Contributions
Financial Contributions
References

...what is happening in Libya right now is a combination of the show of force and testing the waters for continuity between Middle Eastern governments, United Nations and the United States/key European allies for compatibility within the realm of regime change.

I think United States, figuratively speaking has told the United Nations in the first meeting about creating a “no-fly zone” gave the governments in that meeting the impression that we were only going to stick in our toe to test the water, but in reality, “we” already knew that it was certainly going to at least go ankle deep. However, “we” were prepared to go up to the knee before any further consultations either for or against with regards to the United Nations body.

In regards to the aspect of United States “ground forces” getting involved in Libya (not). I think the plan, that the United States war planners had/have (?) in mind was more like (the) “vietnamizeing” the Vietnam War comparatively speaking.
Although I actually think it goes a little further than that; they don't want the United States to pay that much for it either.
They would much prefer that other countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others from Europe like maybe France and the UK to pay money for what the rebels are obviously going to need if they are going to actually prevail against the "dictator" Gaddafi and his forces.

As for whether I am for or against the so-called “no-fly zone” scenario... ...because I am not absolutely certain what the goal/s of/or the real, actual (unstated) reasons are; (based on past experience, as far as my knowledge is concerned on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as Vietnam for that matter)... ...I would say that I don't really know what the buzz (codex) term “is in our national interests” really is supposed to mean anymore when the politicians say it.
That being said, because of the lack of transparency or at least my perception of the lack of transparency; I'm basically saying I am against (or at least not for) it; however, because we all pay taxes in one form or another for things that we use in our daily lives like the rest of us here; like or not, willing or not, ( barring an all-out hunger and purchase strike) I/we am/are actuality; “supporting” it.

I just feel that the government lies and or conceals so much in regards to why we get into things which cost so much in lives, environment and treasure; I think it (“Libya: War Number 3!...”) is just a bad idea in the first place.

I think if it weren't for certain.../... (So-called interests)... ... which I suspect are major, concealed, interests, of allies, and maybe ourselves too;... ...For all I could tell we would not otherwise get involved in that conflict. Or maybe we actually (covertly) started it (?); I don't really know.

I wonder what kind of minerals or previously uncharted oil and/or gas reserves that may have been found using new orbiting satellite technology within the borders of Libya.... ...Or for that matter, the chartered ones.

One thing, I think I need to say here is that I hope those people (the citizenry) in Libya are not merely being used as pawns as so often happens in geopolitical politics.

**"Mad" Miles** · 03-23-2011 07:03 PM

Zenekar/Attila,

During WWII P. Bush and H. Ford did not support the Nazis, they were supported by the Nazis, from investments they'd made in Germany that profits on were being paid into their Swiss bank accounts. Prior to December 7, 1941 they supported Hitler, quietly for the most part. Lindburgh was outspoken as an isolationist and Nazi sympathizer, not sure how much he had invested in German businesses. Then of course there was the German Bund, but they were shut down by the FBI after the U.S. declared war on Japan (well, technically they declared war on us, via a fait accompli called The Attack on Pearl Harbor) and the Axis allies of Japan then declared war on the U.S..

My grandfather had the firm belief that FDR let the attack happen, so war with Germany would be inevitable. He was of English and Scots-Irish ancestry not German by the way. He also was firmly convinced that FDR was a communist and should have been impeached. But as a serving U.S. Army officer, he couldn't do much about advocating it publicly.

Dixon,

We're usually on the same page, this is painful. I don't have any real objections about your systemic critique and views of modern U.S. history in relation to the rest of the world. Even if we've reached opposite conclusions in this instance. But I disagree, in fact you're wrong, about this:

"Remember, for instance, that Hitler's sweet-sounding concern for the freedom of Sudeten Germans turned out to be nothing more than a pretext to invade Czechoslovakia, where his regime change, of course, involved installing a government friendly to his global aspirations. This is not substantially different from US actions/aspirations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya."

This argument does not apply to the Libya situation. In the Sudetenland nobody was being killed, except in false claims by Joseph Goebbels via Nazi propaganda. In Libya, many people were killed prior to the intervention, and many more looked to be slaughtered without an outside intervention. That is the KEY difference here, and all the arguments against the U.N. / French, American, British, Dutch, etc. attack tend to elide and confuse this point. For me, it was the deciding factor.

And here's a list of U.S. foreign policy initiatives which, while they may have had an element of self-interest, were substantial contributions to the well being of other nations.

The Marshall Plan

The Rebuilding of Japan

Natural Disaster responses in: Indonesia, Haiti (although, yes, that's a highly contested, totally fucked up can of worms), Various Caribbean nations, Columbia (hurricane, not the Drug War), Nicaragua (also Hurricane not the dirty war against the Sandinistas), Japan most recently, etc., etc.

I'm sure there are other initiatives that we could agree were primarily intended to help, not steal. Controversial ones are: Interventions/Peace Keeping efforts in, Bosnia-Herzogovina, the bombing of Serbia to protect and split off Kosovo, the ill-fated intervention in Somalia, etc., etc...

I mostly agree with you, just not here about Libya. Because of imminent danger the Libyan people faced at the end of last week. No one else was going to step up, unless the Great Yankee Imperialist Neo-Colonialist Empire Headquarters, anted up and kicked in. I have been calling for arms supply to the rebels for two or three weeks now. Arms that would work to take out Gadhafi's tanks and planes. Read on.

Looks like I'm going to have to post all of my discussion for the last six days about this here, since it's obvious the active participants on waccobb are not reading what I've worked on and have so kindly offered. Once you have, and you know you're wrong and I'm right about this!!!! (Snork!) We can get back to talking about less painful subjects, or not, as the case may be.

Here it comes!!! Watch out!!!!!

P.S. Barry, I might have been partly wrong about the human shield thing. At least the rebel opposition has printed a cartoon about Libyans being used as a turban band, substituting for dynamite, on a giant Gadhafi head as he lights their fuse, blowing up them and him and everything. Plus I've heard references to cities east of Tripoli where the local populace, if not already wiped out for their obstreperousness and temerity, are effectively held hostage by the Dictators forces, to prevent the rebels from taking the towns back. War SUCKS!

**"Mad" Miles** · 03-23-2011 07:30 PM

Why Bombing Gadhafi's Air Defenses Had To Be Done

by Miles Mendenhall on Monday, March 21, 2011 at 6:50pm

My Facebook Friends & Fellow Wacoons,

Over the past three days I've written a lot about the war in Libya. I've taken a heterodox view for a radical leftist, and support the "allied" attacks on the air and ground "defenses" of Muammar Gadhafi's regime. There is a lot of repetition in the following, and I don't have the time to reedit it. But it contains a precis of my views on war, imperialism, violence, current events in Libya, and what is the right thing to do in a bad situation. Many of you might have already read this. Perhaps I'm only compiling it here to keep it in one place, just for my own vanity? Whatever the case, here goes:

(I'm not going to include the other comments I'm replying to, that would be too unwieldy and constitute intellectual theft. I think I removed all personal names of those I was replying to. xxxxx represents several different people.)

3/18/11 3:45 p.m.

I support an international effort to stop Gadhafi from slaughtering people in Libya. I didn't support a no fly zone, because I didn't think the U.N. would go for it, plus all the reasons the left focuses on (imperialism, oil , greed, etc.) and I try to balance my politics with a sense of practical reality, even though I'm still a Green Party partisan.

I called for giving arms to the rebels that would allow them to take out Gadhafi's tanks and planes. Shoulder launched SAM's, TOW's, etc.. Also ammunition resupply. I know that even this idea has many drawbacks and is ripe for unintended consequences. (See: Afghanistan in the eighties and early nineties, actually up until today.)

This Security Council resolution surprised me. How it is implemented is key. I know all of the arguments against. I am an anti-imperialist, just not a doctrinaire one.

So far the effect is for Gadhafi to stop his advance on Benghazi, and sue for a peace that will allow him to stay in power. The first two outcomes are excellent, the celebrations last night by the rebels, showed the relief of the pardoned condemned, all over their faces. How things go down the line...? We'll see.

This is good, should have happened two weeks ago. But getting an agreement at this juncture, in the U.N., is nearly a miracle.

The world isn't a simple place. Bad actors do good things for bad reasons. And every combination and permutation thereof.

No time to go into the historical details, at the moment.

3/19/11 4:51 p.m.

P'as D'accord xxxxx. I proposed a different way to help the Libyan rebels, but it had its own drawbacks and uncertainties. The difference between hands off, and these attacks, is the difference between a slaughter of rebels and innocents in Benghazi, and later as Gadhafi "cleaned house" on his people, taking place all across the country. Reports say it's going on in Tripoli now.

VS. a solid chance to remove a murderer and his thugs, mercenaries and torturers, giving the people a chance to work on making their hopes real. With him, there was no hope.

The attacks on Black Africans gave me serious pause, it's a big issue, but the regime has as much responsibility for the social deformations that led to it, as the insurgents. Not that that excuses them.

I just wrote more extensively on this on another friends wall. Check that out quick before he unfriends me!

And xxxxx, I thought you were committed to the right to life, based on its sacredness? So how do you reconcile that, with your willingness to let Gadhafi and his minions rampage free to exact revenge for the obstreperous behavior of "his" long suffering people? Life is full of tough choices, this is one of them.

Please don't say that, you were never willing to allow Gadhafi a free hand. That you're just not willing to condone the French, British and American attacks.

Watching an ongoing crime and doing nothing, when you have to means to help stop it, is not the same as actually committing the crime. But there is still a moral obligation to help if you can. Passivity is morally wrong in such cases.

If you can agree with that general dictum, and clearly you oppose what "we" are doing, what is your suggestion for an alternative response?

3/19/11 4:22 p.m.

xxxxx, I agree. But don't expect those who have a binary oppositional logic fixation to accept what you're saying. Been having these arguments for thirty-five years. First, I want to express my condolences to you and the loved ones of your friend. Death is always some sort of tragedy, for someone, although when murderous deluded thugs get it, not much of one, except for his/her family I suppose. Any violent death due to Gadhafi's disconnect with the rest of the planet is a major tragedy. And that includes his henchmen, mercenaries and thugs.

I hope the attacks from outside 'Imperialist' forces stop his slaughter of other Libyans, and of course given where things have gone, that means Libyans will die. Hopefully most of them will be his thugs, and not innocents or the opposition. But we all know the term "precision bombs and rockets" has only a loose relationship with reality.

This, like all these matters, was a tough choice. I was afraid the outside world would dither and the slaughter in Benghazi would be enormous. This gives the rebels a shot. It's not the best solution, but it's the only one with the potential to end this, and give them a chance at what they've been demanding.

By the way, the whinging here about what constitutes a NFZ displays rank ignorance of current events. Defense Secretary Gates testified to the Senate days ago. It was well reported. Basically he said, "A NFZ is not a clean and easy operation, it is war."

How it goes down is anybody's guess. But what was happening before yesterday in Libya was a certainty, a very bad one. That principled anti-imperialists were/are willing to countenance that, in the name of the greater good of fighting the Empire, troubles me greatly.

It's the result of blinkered and ideologically unsophisticated thinking. Most likely the legacy of Marxist-Leninism, although a large number of Anarchists on the left also buy into these reductionist and essentialist views. I'm talking to you guys!

Read some MORE theory and history books guys, read the books criticizing those books. Have debates and conferences. Talk to people outside of your own belief system and groupuscule. You might not change your mind, but then again, you might. I've done so in major ways at least three times in the course of my life as an activist. Admittedly I was never a doctrinaire Marxist Leninist, I had already had one period of being a true believer, when I chose to break with that, I knew the signs and I was no longer susceptible.

The UN Security Council resolution surprised me. I was pretty sure China and Russia would veto. We are living in a very new geo-political reality, although of course the powers that be will continue as they've done before. When and where they can get away with it. "The crimes of the fathers weigh upon..."

What is new is that abandoning popular uprisings to the dictators whims, is no longer a certainty. IF you have the right dictator who is not a client of a major power. That's the difference between Bahrain, Yemen, etc. and Libya. Motive is key in these things, as in most other human endeavors. Once in a while good things are done for bad motives/reasons, by bad people. Not everything is simple. In fact, with regard to politics very little is. IF you dig deep enough and try to understand the nuances.

I could go on. I'll leave it here. I'm an anti-imperialist with a long record of activism, in that cause and related ones. But I'm a humanitarian first, and anti-imp/cap second.

Go ahead, call me deluded, misinformed, a dupe, bourgeois, traitor etc. Been there, done that.

I can assure you that I'm not, but for true believers I'm probably wasting my time and effort. The problem of ideological and political rigidity is an old, old story on the Left. But some of us keep trying to seek common ground, and contribute to the movement for human good, justice, equality, democracy, etc., in spite of the received culture.

3/19/11 6:23 p.m.

I won't go on like above. Just want to say, watching the Japan Disasters CNN Special, the air attack in Tripoli has preempted that.

I opposed the Gulf War and the Iraq War (and many others before during and current) months before "we" attacked. The boosterism and glee from the reporters going on right now on my living room TV, the pornographic focus on the light show, the military expert / retired general talking tough (I'm an Army Brat, my dad was cool, except for his job, family tradition that four of five in my generation, only one followed) the whole "show" SICKENS ME.

People are dying. I in no way celebrate or relish this. For all of my years in the "trenches" (on the left) I've worked with and been friends with: Philosophical Pacifists, Tactical Pacifists like myself, All stripes of Anti-Capitalist Revolutionaries, Liberals, Radicals, Anarchists, Socialists, Leninists, people motivated by their religious beliefs, people motivated by their anti-religious beliefs (or lack thereof), Wing-Nuts, quite possibly some Police Agents but didn't know it, Crazy Bad Asses, Naive Sweethearts, Crazy Badass Sweethearts, Regular non and a-political poor, working class and middle class people, even a few wealthy ones.

I've loved them all, until a few of them gave me reason to intensely dislike them, and even then I still loved their humanity and weirdness. I hate violence, of any kind, especially grinding systemic economic and psychological exploitation.

There is nothing about what is happening now in Libya that I like. Except the chance that the Libyan people will be able to flush the dictatorship and be allowed self-determination. I know that's a long shot, but they took it, and they deserve to have the chance to see it through, at least to try.

And I know all the dark theories of conspiracy and manipulation regarding Middle East oil, imperialism, CIA Covert Ops. There's probably some truth to them. Some day we may even find out some of the details. Julian? Is your crew on this? (I know, they just publish, they don't solicit or steal. It was a riff.)

Apologies for lying about not, "going on like above"!

Peace Out.

3/19/11 6:49

Libya is different from Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan. The Libyan people begged for "our" support. If the U.N. / NATO had not jumped in, after gaining UN Security Council support (or acquiescence in the case of Russian and China, Imperialist regimes as well, just not the centers of the current dominant capitalist empire) many, many innocents and rebels alike would have soon been toast. It's complicated, I'm done writing about it today. Check my wall if you're my friend, if you want additional details.

Just for the record, I'm a longtime Tactical Pacifist, and Anti-Imperialist. But I am a humanitarian before I'm anything else. I also know that general opinion on the Left, to the left of Liberal, does not agree with me. Yet, I am not a Liberal. Go figure.

I HATE what's happening in Tripoli and elsewhere in that country where Gadhafi holds sway. But I understand why it is the only recourse at this juncture, that is justifiable. Unless one is willing to stand aside and witness a massive slaughter of people who demanded nothing less than what we have and we constantly fight to not have taken away from us.

And yeah, I'm fully aware of how my rhetoric here echoes the mainstream narrative. Guess that means, in this regard, I agree with the bosses.

xxxxx, while you're right that it's an imperialist narrative, it's also a real event where people are suffering and dying. Not every act of an Empire, is immoral. Bad systems, policies, power structures, don't ONLY do bad things. Things are much more complex, they always have been.

3/19/11 8:17 p.m.

Explore the distinction and nuanced interactive differences between long term and short term goals. Reality is a range from dark to light, with a wide swath of grey in between.

Your dichotomy is an example of binary oppositional thinking. Self Determination is a goal and a value, perhaps even a reality for some people somewhere, U.S. Imperialism is a hegemonic socioeconomic/military system for the extraction of wealth from colonized lands and peoples (or neo-colonized for the most part these days).

Yes we should aspire and work towards overthrow, but in the mean time, standing aside and saying, you're not doing it for the right reasons, so I'm against it! Doesn't do anything for the people of Libya.

I'm not saying you don't value life. Anti-Capitalist Revolutionaries are clearly motivated by our love for humanity, for all life. But the question is, "What is to be done?"

What you affirm shows who you are.

"So sorry, you're all pawns of the capitalists, this whole situation was a plot to steal your oil" (as if the West didn't already buy their oil, so that criticism does not match reality) "so, you're on your own, you shouldn't have risen up and demanded freedom, democracy, an end to your nutball quasi internationalist socialist cult leader" (Remember Jim Jones?) "who tortures, disappears and terrorizes anyone who makes a peep. You're just victims of history, Sayonara. We'll talk well about your naive efforts for a few years."

Blaming the sneaky capitalists who control everything that happens in the world. If they help you, that means you are on their side. Since I'm their enemy, that makes you mine.

Maybe that's acceptable to others. It's not for me.

Western Rationalist Reason: A or not A, but not A & not A.

Dialectical Reason: A or not A, & A & not A, better summarized by, Thesis, Antithesis ---> Synthesis

The first requires binary oppositional thinking. The second denies it as a useful way to understand the complexities of life.

If you think everything is simple and clear, that integrity requires rigid thinking that ignores nuances and contradictions, you're not paying attention. Anyone with a basic overview of modern history, say the last three hundred years, knows that rigid binary thinking has been a significant part of the root causes of the worst atrocities committed by humans.

By the way, it's a flaw of many forms of ideology. In fact it may be the problem with ideology per se. Marxist Leninism is only one of the newer ones. Capitalism itself requires the same basic blinkered logic. Profit/Loss? Boss/Worker? Master/Slave?

3/19/11 8:57

It was the Shia in the south who were hung out to dry, xxxxx. Mostly in Basra. The Kurds in the north got a U.N. safe zone, with a no fly airspace enforced by NATO. They were not slaughtered. They held their own, with Western aid and heroin money, against Hussein from '92-'03, and were ready to hold their ancestral lands (in Iraq) after the U.S./NATO/U.N. invasion in March of '03. Today's the 8 year anniversary. "Whoohoo"

The massacre of the southern Iraqi Shia had a lot to do with their resistance to the U.S. occupation government since '03. Moqtada Sadr just returned from several years in Tehran, he looks like he'll be in the cat seat sometime soon. He has no love, to put it mildly, for the U.S..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr

As for being asked by the Iraqi government, I don't count compradors, although given the state of the world it could be argued that everyone is a bought agent of capitalism. Your irony is well taken though.

I actively opposed the Gulf and Iraq wars, still do, also Afghanistan and many other "interventions". I don't support this one because Obama chose it. I support it for the reasons already stated.

When Saddam Hussein was captured, tried and executed? I normally oppose the death penalty, especially in the United States. But after he invaded Iran, and everything since, I was glad to see him go. It would have been better if he'd been tried in The Hague and were still serving time. But that wasn't in the cards.

Nothing is easy and simple.

3/19/11 11:38 p.m.

xxxxx, I was totally with you until this:

"...we as human beings when following such principles various forms of pacifism should have a personal responsibility to deescalate such events of violence by not perpetuating the violence. In Libya right now we are perpetuating violence."

The shift you make from the last phrase of the first sentence I've quoted, to the second sentence, does not match my understanding of the reality in Libya.

It's literally true. By attacking Gadhafi's forces, "we're" (The U.S., some European powers, i.e. The West) engaging in violence.

The question of who is the perpetrator, is more complicated. On the face of it, your version is historically inaccurate.

Whereas in Iraq and Afghanistan, the incursions by the west, however much or little they might have been provoked by the authorities in those countries prior to the U.S. invasions, were primarily the unilateral decision, based on rank lies in the case of Iraq, of the U.S. elites as represented by President G.W. Bush.

And don't get me wrong, I don't think President Obama is, much, better. That's another conversation though.

On the question of perpetration, I think it's important to know what is offensive and unprovoked violence done by a bully to gain some end, and defensive violence to deter and oppose a bully's, a perpetrators, attacks. While this is a complex topic, usually who is doing what to who, is fairly clear.

I oppose offensive violence which is only prompted by greed and other oppressive purposes. I try to avoid and resolve violent conflicts, or the threat of them, by non-violent means. And I have some personal experience in this matter.

But when non-violence has failed, or has been preempted by a perpetrator, I reluctantly and provisionally advocate effective use of defensive violence. Preferably by threat and bluster, deterrence, or by efficient use, whenever possible, of superior violent means to stop the perp from succeeding in accomplishing their goals, and reducing the harm that they have initiated.

When the perp is an oppressor and they have left the oppressed no other choice but to use defensive violence to survive and stop the oppression, then things get real complicated. Differentials in force require creative strategies by the oppressed. When the oppressor has an overwhelming force differential advantage, a monopoly, as is often the case in an Imperialist world, resorting to defensive violence is most likely self defeating and self destructive.

But I would never presume to lecture others, from other countries, societies, experiencing far different socioeconomic conditions from my own, how to fight their own fights for survival. Except to offer information about non-violent techniques and strategies for social change, and then only if I've been asked for it.

As it is now in the U.S., doing that with any group that has defended itself violently against the hegemon, is illegal and subject to sudden visits in the night, and possibly felony prosecution.

So much for the elites "commitment" to non-violent change!

3/20/11 3:51 p.m.

Sorry, I don't read Dutch or Flemish as the case may be. In response to xxxxx's first statement: That's one point of view. I've got plenty of beefs against Western governments, particularly my own. But in this case, something had to be done.

If the impending "Slaughter of Benghazi", as looked likely prior to these UN/US/part of the EU/Arab League actions, had happened, what would be the tune the anti-war, anti-interventionist, anti-imperialist crowd (of which I am normally an active member, sometimes organizer) be singing? Who would they/you blame?

I used to be resistant to accusations such as; kneejerk reactionary leftist radicals, even if I have those tendencies. But in the last twenty-four hours, I'm beginning to see the point.

3/20/11 3:51 p.m.

xxxxx, how you got "Liberal" from a comment in which I said I have "kneejerk reactionary (in the sense of reacting to, not implying a position on the political spectrum, reactionary mostly has been used in reference to conservatives, but it can describe anyone who responds without thinking, hence this clarification) LEFTIST RADICAL?

Who wrote: "...the anti-war, anti-interventionist, anti-imperialist crowd (of which I am normally an active member, sometimes organizer)".

All I can say is it doesn't say much for your perceptual and intellectual capacities.

xxxxx, You didn't listen to Gates Senate testimony last week did you? Neither did I but I read the news reports and saw them on CNN. I also read the left news analysis, which I get by daily email digest, on a list that I moderate.

As for "sending troops into a country", are you watching and reading the same news that I am? That the U.N. Security Council Resolution, while it allows "all means" to protect civilians ("all means" surprised the hell out of a lot of professional observers) has been interpreted to mean air strikes, and, I suspect, arming, perhaps even training the Libyan rebels.

The mantra of "no boots on the ground are planned" has been hammered over and over. Yes, they lie, but usually for discernible reasons, reasons available to any close observer.

Language is powerful, using it precisely and accurately enhances ones believability. I'm, among other things, an English teacher and an activist. When my side exaggerates, inflates and elides, it hurts our cause.

Plus the Right Wing nutballs funded by the Koch brothers are much better at it, and have much bigger, more ubiquitous and louder megaphones. We shouldn't try to beat them at their own game. What we have on our side is TRUTH and JUSTICE. Don't give them up.

I HATE that this is happening. But I've hated more what Gadhafi and is ilk have been doing that led to this.

OK, start slinging the slurs and misreading my fairly carefully crafted prose. The ability to think is not required for the role of naysayer and crier of high crimes at the sky. I've been known to act the same. But usually I try to back up my rhetoric and my insults with some facts. It makes them so much more persuasive and cogent.

3/21/11 12:22 p.m.

Watch out! This is long it will take two comment boxes because FB won't let me post more then 1,000 characters --

All of the criticisms expressed above, about hypocrisy, selective interventions, greed, ulterior motives by the West, the history and pattern of Imperialism, are all right on, and accurate. I agree with them. But I still, critically, reluctantly, support what is being done to stop the slaughter of the Libyan rebels, their families, friends and neighbors.

As for having "drunk the koolaid" of the MSM. Don't make me laugh! I've been a news junkie since I was ten, I'll be fifty-five at the end of May. I look at many, many diverse sources, mostly from the alphabet soup of the Left with an emphasis on the independent non-dogmatic left, also variations from the mainstream. I don't normally monitor right wing stuff, but what I do read and watch, covers the highlights of that area as well.

I am informed by a varied tradition of political theory, from the standard classical Liberal rationalist, to the critics (Marx, Lenin, Post-Marxists, Frankfurt School, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Heideggerians, Freudians and more.) And I am part of, or have supported, many movements and causes (but not ALL) associated with the left. I disagree with the Marxist-Leninist theory and have great problems with the slaughters and police states done in its name.

I do not think that politics and revolution are a science in which the truth is objective and can be known and used to shape social reality. That view, on the left and on the right, has led to some of the worst crimes in modern history. I do not support nor will I participate in, mass murder. Whether it's being done in the name of private profit, or the masses of people. My opinions in that area, may be the root of our disagreements here. Based on experience, I'm pretty sure that's the case.

I keep my ears to the ground, my nose to the wind and my eyes on the horizon and the sky. Guess where my feet are planted? As for the Middle East, I'm an anti-Zionist, I belonged to the Palestine Solidarity Coalition in Chicago from 1990-1993. I've been active on the Left since 1975. BUT, I am my own man, I make up my own mind, I do not apply cookie cutter, reductionist ideology in a wholesale matter to all things, people, times and places. I speak for myself, nobody else.

As for Hitchens, I enjoy his writing, but when he joined the Bush II cheerleading team leading up to the Iraq War, and on, I completely disagreed with him. With the sole exception that I shared his revulsion for Saddam Hussein.

While things are always more complicated then either/or, here's a relevant distinction that might be worth considering. There are wars of aggression and wars against aggression. Obviously the issue of violence, personal, communal, national, social, economic and international is a complex set of issues in which there is much disagreement and controversy. I won't go into any details here. It's a field I've been interested all of my life.

I consider the Gulf and Iraq wars to have been (Iraq still) wars of aggression. I know that wasn't the premise given by the American (U.S.) presidents during the lead ups. But that's my view. Even though it's much more complicated given the actual events. (Kuwait invasion, Saddam's actions post-Gulf War, etc.)

End of Part 1 of Part I, Post #19 is the next installment.

**"Mad" Miles** · 03-23-2011 07:33 PM

Continued. Waccobb/Barry won't let me put it all in one post.

(No this isn't Part II, it's the second part of Part I! Got that?)

3/21/11 1:30 p.m.

An annudah few tings --

Here's my litmus test for making the distinction between wars of aggression and wars against. Generally in wars of aggression, the instigator, the attacker, has a choice. Whatever the problem that needs solving there are options that do not require military attack. In the case of wars against aggression, violence, aggressive violence has already begun, and the choice is to allow it to continue, letting innocents die in great numbers, or to use military violence to end the violence of the aggressor.

Note: the word "aggression" when used in a sufficiently abstract manner, applies to all violence. A robust defense, militarily speaking is highly aggressive. So the bombing of the Libyan regimes air defense installations, that everyone is decrying, is obviously highly aggressive.

My first use of aggressive above, refers to violent attack which is either unprovoked, or unnecessary to successfully deal with a threat. Usually between nations and groups, such aggressive violence is for the purpose of theft of some kind or other. That's also true with violence from individuals. In a global kleptocracy, it becomes tricky to figure out who is stealing from who, and who did it first. But it is very possible, if one does the research.

Obviously non-violence is always preferable and should be exercised whenever feasible. I'm a tactical pacifist. But when non-violence is not the answer and aggressive violence must be met with defensive violence to stop the murder of innocents, it is justified, and if feasible, necessary. Morally imperative.

These distinctions are fluid and subject to interpretation, war is politics by other means. People, all people, have biases and interests they're willing to defend, at the expense of morality. At the expense of others.

Bullies always justify their violence as defensive, even though they're lying when they do. Defenders can go too far, and become the bullies, the unjust aggressors. The U.S. decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are among the most egregious examples of the latter problem. (See Gar Alperovitz "The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb" for this argument.)

What the global, regional, national consequences of the "Allied" attacks on Libya, focused on Gadhafi's regime, will be, remain to be seen. All of the anger and fear from you anti's may turn out to be justified.

But I don't see those who are crying out against this intervention, answering this question. Once the rebellion started and Gadhafi and his forces responded with overwhelming force of arms, shooting people down in the street who are peacefully demonstrating, and when the rebels armed themselves, as best they could, the dictators forces started smashing the rebels, when it looked like Benghazi was toast, and a massive slaughter was in the offing - What should have been done?

Let it happen? Stand aside condemning western capitalist imperialism for provoking the confrontation? Saying "they brought it upon themselves, they should have known better, they're now victims of history."

I will not take that route. Even if the outside international defenders are tainted and have selfish motivations for intervening. In the instance of such crises, what matters most is what people do. Why they do it, can be sorted out later. First save the people from annihilation by the dictators.

Would I have liked to see armed interventions in Darfur, North-Eastern Congo (where there was a limited one, that's gone to shit for many complicated reasons), Burma, Tibet, Yugoslavia early on once the Serbs showed their intentions, Chechnya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, etc., etc. ?

You bet! But history, politics and economics are complex. Sometimes it's not in the cards for the people being ground up by a monster to be saved, by other people or other monsters. But when it is, and the choice of not doing anything is obviously worse? Action is imperative.

Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi, Yemen, many other Arab countries, the government violence against non-violent demonstrators (and I have a nuanced set of opinions about this dynamic) should be opposed.

Opposed by using influence; diplomatic, economic, public protest, appealing to the global court of public opinion, etc. Military intervention? Not in those cases, quite yet. And if it became imperative, good luck with that given the array of interests and forces involved.

It's kind of sick, but maybe the Libyans are "lucky" to have Gadhafy as their dictator, because when they rose up, nobody with any effective power was on his side. Whereas Arabs elsewhere are the unlucky ones.

But that's a binary oppositional equation, and we all know life is much, much, much more complex.

Victory to the Rebellion! End the dictatorship!!! Let the people decide their future!!!

Those slogans are where I come from in the core of my being. How I interpret them? Opinions differ.

Missiles are bombs, but the sense of what a bomb is, is a munition dropped from an airplane, called a bomber. Semantics.

We're bombing Libya, true. But we're not bombing everyone in Libya. So saying we're "bombing the people of Libya." Is not true. We're bombing some of the people in Libya, the ones trying to kill large numbers of other people in Libya.

Much of the hysteria from my anti-war crowd, fails to make this crucial distinction. Which does not speak well for our credibility.

3/22/11 10:00 a.m.

"We" are attacking Gadhafi's air defenses, air force and armored ground vehicles. Also his armed forces on the ground encircling Benghazi and elsewhere. I support that, regretfully.

"We" are NOT bombing civilians. He is. That's why the west via the U.N. asked for by the Arab League, intervened.

But in an air war, collateral damage to civilians is likely. The generals say they're trying to reduce the risk of casualties to non-combatants, but given the nature of the weapons, there is a good chance some people, other than Gadhafi's forces, will be killed.

And then there're his non-combatant supporters. The "human shield" issue is complex as well. From reports Gadhafi isn't rounding anyone at gunpoint to hang out with him and his. He does have some support from the populace. Compared to those who would like him gone, not many, but still hundreds, maybe thousands in Tripoli and the south. Read up folks!

The other choice was to let Gadhafi's mercenaries, thugs, Republican Guard (Yes, he has one, just like Saddam did.) slaughter large numbers of civilians and rebel combatants in Benghazi. He already has done so in smaller but significant numbers, in coastal towns to the west of Benghazi.

This is war, things are confusing and rapidly changing. Specifics matter. I'm reading a lot of sweeping statements from my anti-militarist friends and allies, that are quite inflated and inaccurate. And there is plenty of hyperbole from the supporters of President Obama and this intervention.

That's normal, "the first casualty in war, is the truth", but it is avoidable if you pay attention, look at the various accounts and take into consideration the bias of those giving the accounts. But who has the time? I DO!

3/23/11 4:44 p.m.

Basic choice the world faced last Friday, let Gadhafi slaughter a large portion of 700,000 Benghazis, or do something to stop him.

The UN, France, US, England and others did something. Not something perfect or easy or cheap or pure, but som...ething, and the slaughter was prevented. Everything else, all concerns, criticisms, arguments are secondary to those facts.

For everyone opposed to the creation and enforcement of the No Fly Zone, what alternative response, or non-response would you prefer?

At its simplest, I don't care who did it, why they did it, or what they want out of it. Now I do, but five days ago, it had to be done, or else there would be a stain on the conscience of all humanity, because of a preventable mass slaughter.

And yes, we already have stains from Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq in the nineties when the Bush Clinton No Fly Zone and sanctions were killing tens of thousands of Iraqi children (with Saddam's active participation in the murders), etc. Right now, today, it's too late for the countless victims of those crimes. It was not too late six days ago. I'm glad, in spite of all the whinging and nay-saying, that we didn't blow it again.

The world has changed since 1989, we can do better, there is enough to go around (if we only figured out how to properly distribute our wealth).

As much as I dislike President Obama for his policies in many other matters, he, along with the "coalition/allies" did the necessary and right thing.

What the future holds is ominous for the world, our country and the Libyan people, but they've gotten a chance to survive and get rid of an insane, greedy, murderous, torturing thug. Their options last week, were much more limited.

May we all get a chance to do the same in our own countries!

------

xxxxx

Wait...Gadhafi was readying to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Benghazis? I'm not buying that.

------

Then you're not reading and watching the same news sources that I am, xxxxx. Especially listen to his "speeches" in the last few weeks, and read a history of Libya. I highly recommend:

https://dissidentvoice.org/2011/03/l...litary-attack/

The scholar/activists interviewed are most likely against this military intervention. But as a political and economic history of the country, it's the best I've read in recent days, or years for that matter. I learned a few things from it, that I hadn't been exposed to before. And I'm pretty up on world events.They're M-L's but they know their stuff.

Here's an excellent account of the rebels, from before the "U.S. / Western Imperialist oil grabbing" (makes no sense, Libya sold its oil on the world market, what was there to grab?) intervention:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/arc.../battle-libya/

My friend replied:

From your link: " In the case of Libya, it is necessary to be very careful with the information that reaches us. One day there is talk of 2,000 deaths, and the next day the count is revised to 300. It was also being said from the very start... of the crisis that Gaddafi was bombing his own people, but the Russian army, which is observing the situation by satellite, has officially given lie to that information. If NATO is preparing to intervene militarily in Libya, we can be sure that the dominant information media are going to spread their usual war propaganda.

In fact the same thing happened in Romania with Ceausescu. On Christmas Eve, 1989, the Belgian prime minister, Wilfred Martiens, made a speech on television.He claimed that Ceaucescu’s security forces had just killed 12,000 people.It was untrue.The images of the famous Timosoara massacre also did the rounds all over the world.They were aimed at proving the mindless violence of the Romanian president.But it was proved later on that it was all staged. Bodies had been pulled out of morgues..."

-----

I responded:

Yep, read and marked that. Still, I was glad to see Ceausescu go down, he was the epitome of the torturing gulag running hard communist dictator. That the economy of Romania went in the toilet after his ouster, is as much the history of his regimes fault as any Capitalist machinations to bring him down.

Consider the source, those two guys are Marxist-Leninist partisans, as well as scholars. I trust their information about historical facts. Their spin on that information, well, let's just say I try to read around their bias.

You've read my long compilations of my FB comments, in a "Note", right? I go into much more substantive detail there, for why I have reached my conclusion about all this.

And I've acknowledged the "fog of war", "first casualty of war, the truth" factors. "We but only see through a glass darkly." (the latter a paraphrase from memory.)

There's no way of knowing exactly how many would have died in Benghazi without this intervention / war. We still don't know how many have died in the cities and towns to the west, that have changed hands back and forth. Someday we will.

A key factor in my thinking is the words of Muammar. And his history. I know he was lying when he claimed all of "his" people love him. I do not believe he was lying, or exaggerating when he shouted that "we will punish them."

My memories are clear and distinct of the harangues on Rwandan radio, when the Hutus were djinning up genocide against the Tutsi, and any Hutu associated or sympathetic to the Tutsi. I remember the phrases coming out of Milošević's and Karadžić's mouths back in the nineties. I could come up with many, many others examples.

The phraseology of someone who is likely to commit mass murder, is not that hard to spot, once you know enough history. And when that someone has the means, motive and pattern, I tend to err on the side of caution. We may never know what might have happened exactly, but we do know what was probable.

Whatever transpires, however quick or agonizingly long this war in Libya turns out to be, we will find out what the death squads of secret police, mercenaries from Chad and elsewhere, and other Gadhafi loyalists, have been up to for the last few weeks. From reports in Tripoli and cities/towns to the east, it's not going to be easy to "process".

And of course the rebels exaggerate, lie, and dissemble about what their enemies are doing, as well as about themselves. It's how these things work. That's why I choose to sift the available evidence, from many opposing perspectives, weigh the patterns, records and motivations of the players, and make the best assessment I can, before I reach a conclusion.

I've done that, many people who I'm normally in line with on these matters have reached different conclusions. I think they're wrong, reacting based on their own deepseated biases against anything western governments, or governments anywhere, do. I share those biases, but I try not to let mine be definitive in all things and all places.

By the by, many people who I am also generally in agreement with, but who fall into the moderate left, rather than far, hard or radical left political territory, have expressed agreement with my position. They're not as outspoken, I've my theory as to why, but they can speak for themselves, should they so choose.

In the end, the Truth will out. To the extent we can ever even know what the hell that is.

3/23/11 5:20 p.m.

xxxxx

(different person, a very active local anti-war organizer)

I have to admit to really struggling with this - not wanting people to be slaughtered, knowing it's about more than a democratic uprising, knowing that the US response is NEVER primarily humanitarian, knowing there's no perfect answer, etc. etc. etc.

xxxxx

(new interlocutor)

It would be refreshing for the person in power to say "We're almost out of energy so we're sending soldiers yonder to fetch more of it, even if blood is let. If you don't like it, go to that other side." Bottom line: survival.

Miles

I agree that it would be refreshing xxxxx. But I've learned never to expect truth in politics, let alone war.

In this issue I also don't think it's true, completely. Of course oil is a major reason that Libya gets this attention from the west, as opposed to Darfur, Southern Sudan, North east Congo, Burma, etc. But it's also true that Gadhafi's actions in response to the rebellion, in response to Tunisia, Egypt, etc. brought it on.

The most interesting anti-intervention theory I've heard posited, from my anti-war camp that I've defected from in this instance, is that with the unrest and instability in the Arab world, "we", the U.S. and Europe have "attacked" Libya in order to take lead of The Arab Revolt so we can keep the region in our fold by being seen as the heroes in Libya.

That that, more then oil, more than saving Libyan lives, more than wanting to blow up big bombs, is the driving concern for taking these expensive with uncertain outcome, risks.

Even if that theory is true, I think intervening at the point in time "we" did, was the least bad option. But I do think this paranoid thinking about geo-strategic intentions, makes for a great complex story!

Meanwhile, in R'as Lanuf...???

3/23-24/11 12:23 p.m.

To Cindy Sheehan (via her Radio Show FB avatar)

Cindy, I have great respect for you, the loss you still suffer of your son, your commitment to peace and social justice, your hard, hard work. But you and Dennis are wrong on the issue of the intervention in Libya, along with much of the vocal left. Here's why:

(links to these Notes)

If, after you've checked this out, you or anybody else wishes to discuss it with me, cool, it gives me no pleasure to be swimming against the tide of Leftist opinion. I'm much more comfortable going with the flow of radical critique. Just won't do it in this case, for all the reasons linked above.

Cindy's reply today:

"Miles, sorry, but you are going with the flow, not swimming "against" anything. It's we who recognize that there is no such thing as a humanitarian war who are swimming against public opinion."

Me again:

The pond I've swum in for thirty-five years has been the Left, hence my comment about going against the current. Did you read my comments?

"there is no such thing as a humanitarian war" Sweeping statements such as that, which sound nice on the face of them, which in the abstract I completely agree with, are not sufficient in all places at all times.

And it's that tendency among political actors, that alienates people who recognize that reality is complicated and not easily reduced to, and I'm using the following word intentionally as it is the most appropriate one I can think of in spite of the risk of alienating one of my heroines, platitudes.

Listen to the Libyan rebels, to their cries for justice, freedom and democracy, should their cause have been sacrificed for the sake of peace, anti-imperialism, whatever case one wants to make against this intervention?

We've been here before, many times in history, and the price of standing aside, in instances like this one, is the slaughter of innocents.

Maybe you, Medea, and a whole host of demonstration culture leaders are willing to accept that. As a minor, local player in the same movements and culture, I'm not.

I've read "Homage To Catalonia" by George Orwell, about the debacle that political purity and factional differences created in Spain. Non-intervention by the Liberal Bourgeois powers at that time, was another reason the Spanish Republic was hung out to dry, and Franco gained the upper hand and the slaughter gained momentum.

First I'm a tactical pacifist, but when non-violence has failed, or was never an option to begin with, desperate people fighting for their lives and the lives of their loved ones, should get the help they need to survive and prevail. Whenever that is feasible.

I'm not about to apply some abstract standard of perfection, to every instance of conflict, injustice, and revolt. To do so makes me an accomplice to the oppressors, and useless to the oppressed.

Morals and values should serve as guides to good behavior, not shackles to prevent effective actions in the defense of those unable to defend themselves.

Please, read my compilation of comments, much more detail there, and many, if not most, of the anti-intervention arguments addressed. Unless your mind is so firmly made up that nothing, no persuasion, no appeal to reason, no cry for justice, is going to sway you from your wholesale stubborn grip on ideas that you apply to all things, all times, all places and all people.

There're words for that attitude, I'm too polite to use them here. I do use some of the less emotional ones in my writing that I urge everyone to look at.

------

3/23/11 4:50 p.m.

OK! If you've read this far you're as much a glutton for punishment as me! Feel free to share.

P.S. On Monday, I blocked one of my most prolific FB friends, after he implied that my position here makes me some kind of a proto-, neo-, quasi-liberal. That was the final straw in our "friendship". Too bad, he seems nice, concerned and informed. But he kept misreading me, regurgitating known info (me guilty too, but I try to mix it up and not just repeat easily googled info as if it were verbatim. I'm probably not as original and creative as I'd like to think I am, but what can ya do? I try. This guy became too tedious, and I don't respond well to being told what to do, nor will I accept obtuse insults that contradict exactly what I've just written. Take another tack, crack wise, I'll forgive a lot. Bore me, regurgitate public information, insult uncreatively... You're gone! From my life at least. If you, dear reader, read all of the above, you know I can slang an insult. I am as measured and polite as I think appropriate in internet discussions. And in person. But if a person pushes me enough, they, do not want to be around when I'm being blunt, forceful and directly derisive. Words have power, I know how to use them. With power comes responsibility. I have been known to be irresponsible from time to time. I always feel bad afterwards. But I can't deny that sometimes, I'm awesome in my rage. That's not just my narcissism speaking, it's what others have told me, who were standing just outside of the line of fire. And I claim to be a pacifist???

I'm a lover, and not a willing fighter. But I make exceptions, when the circumstances persuade me that fighting is the best course of action, in order to avoid a greater wrong.

**theindependenteye** · 03-23-2011 08:33 PM

Dixon—

Yes, I indeed apologize if my "knee-jerk" phraseology implied that you or Attila are non-thinking automatons -- not at all my intent. My comment was in regard to what I feel to be a general tendency of people whose politics I generally agree with (and that's why I'm hypercritical) to take an instant I-know-the-truth posture no matter what the US does. I'm really responding to the ton of progressive blogs I tune into now and then. If we didn't intervene in Libya, we'd be damning ourselves for sitting idly by as in Darfur, etc., and speculating on the secret deal Exxon made with Khadafi.

I'm not arguing that the US has *ever* acted out of purely altruistic motives. I'd be hard put to name any country that has, ever. I don't know that *I* have ever. My point is that in considering the wisdom of any foreign policy action, while we shouldn't be unmindful of vested interests regarding money & power, we shouldn't automatically assume that the action is evil because some billionaire somewhere is going to benefit from it. I didn't intend to say that's what you were doing — I was just using your comments to launch my own wig bubble.

I believe we do live in a plutocracy, but I don't believe all the plutocrats are united into one great Bohemian Club in the Sky. They're much better than we are in finding common cause, but they also have the capacity to cut each other's throats faster than Stalin nailed Trotsky. I think it's a great weakness of the Left that we see them as this implacable unified force rather than exploiting their dissensions as well as they exploit ours. But I'm just a playwright, not the Machiavelli we need right now.

Anyway, again, sorry if I chose my words badly. You certainly do think, and that's the next best thing to going to the gym.

Cheers--
Conrad

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Re: Libya: War Number 3! Do you support it?

Similar Threads

Libya 'to halt military action'

Libya crisis: no 'happy ending' for Colonel Gaddafi

Libya can still count on a few allies

reply load test number number number one of two

MoveOn petition to support Congress on war timeline

Bookmarks