stay human

look. you may be unhappy with the u.s. record of international intervention. you ought to be. maybe things will now descend into more disasters in libya: a new civil war, even. but right or left, black or white, straight or gay, capitalist or communist, you've strayed too far from your basic human responses and your basic opposition to oppression - if any - if you do not feel exhilarated as you watch the people of tripoli celebrate the end of their dictatorship. there were nato airstrikes. fundamentally, though, this was something that the people did themselves, as they did in tunis and cairo, as they will do in damascus and sanaa. that's one reason this isn't vietnam or iraq. the u.s. government has a rich record of pretending that people want us there, that we are liberators, etc., while engaging in massive (though usually completely incompetent) disinformation in the service of such claims. now, does anyone believe that the situation in libya is like that? then i want some evidence, and some explanation of what we're actually seeing.

Comments

[Frederick]

ONWARD TO SYRIA, LET THE BOMBING COMMENCE! FOUR MORE WARS!

[CB]

Yes because it's worth the long term consequences in relation to the potus new war powers without any oversight precedent! Great anarchist you are. More power to the exec!

[Stephen]

"The wise man, then, when he must govern, knows how to do nothing." - Chuang Tzu

Good job Obama. Not a single soldier lost their life, and Qadaffi is gone. Solid.

[ergo]

Nobody thought Gadaffi could hold on to power in the face of sustained western air power and tremendous financial and military support for a violent insurgency. He eventually fell, and a lot of people are exhilarated that their longstanding dictator no longer rules them, as is to be expected. Furthermore, in a civil war, there is cause for celebration when a/ one side wins, and b/ the immediate bloodshed is ending.

What's really sad about your calculus, crispy, is that apparently one retains their humanity by cheering on a civil war that led to the deaths of thousands (we don't know how many and we probably never will), WITH NO EVIDENCE that removing said dictator is going to reduce the repression of the Libyan people AT ALL. Funny how that calculus can (only) be used to support intervention here, there, and everywhere.

[Xtab]

I can't speak for Libyans, but a lot of commenters at this blog expected Gaddafi to hold out, turning the war into a stalemate eventually leading to partition. This is why they wanted Gaddafi to quickly crush the rebels, ending the war early. They were wrong, of course, and underestimated the weakness of Gaddafi's political support and the ability of the rebels to cut off his forces from their supplies.

The resistance has also freed thousands of people, many of them with signs of torture, from Gaddafi's jails. That's a net reduction in repression, to me, it sounds like. And looking at the platform of the National Transitional Council, I see calls for popular referendum, respecting human rights and political freedoms:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/29/vision-democratic-libya-interim-national-council

Pay close attention to item #8:

"A state which will uphold the values of international justice, citizenship, the respect of international humanitarian law and human rights declarations, as well as condemning authoritarian and despotic regimes."

[Xtab]

Another bit of good news in all of this, pointed out by Juan Cole, is that it seems to have been mainly an uprising by people inside Tripoli. Columns of reinforcements from other parts of eastern Libya drove in at high speed to join them. This should hopefully avoid a tribal fracturing of the country into east and west.

Cole writes:

"Instead of being liberated (and somewhat subjected) from the outside by Berber or Cyrenaican revolutionaries, Tripoli enters the Second Republic with its own uprising to its name, as a full equal able to gain seats on the Transitional National Council once the Qaddafis and their henchmen are out of the way."

http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/the-great-tripoli-uprising.html

[Philboyd]

I'm not entirely sure what to think about the Libya intervention. The best perspective is probably 'wait and see', although I do agree that we should be glad Gadaffi's on the way out.

It's probably worth noting, as IOZ does, that Egypt is now a military dictatorship. Does that mean the uprising wasn't worth celebrating? You tell me, man.

[Stephen]

Actually...you know the best best part of this all? NATO did it, and not just the US in a NATO suit. THEY really did it. We have wanted this for fucking decades. The US presence in europe will be one third of what it is now in less than ten years.
Of course this also means that europe is rearming.

[Lisa Simeone]

Stephen writes:
'"The wise man, then, when he must govern, knows how to do nothing." - Chuang Tzu
Good job Obama. Not a single soldier lost their life, and Qadaffi is gone. Solid.'

Not a single soldier, but who knows how many Libyans we killed with our bombing? They don't count? We didn't "do nothing." We intervened. And not "we," but the President on his own. Just took it on himself to declare war that wasn't war, and hostilities that weren't hostilities. Sort of like what the meaning of "is" is.

And let's quit with the euphemisms. Bombing is bombing, not "air strikes." Just like "no fly zone" is bombing. You don't sprinkle fairy dust over a place and suddenly make it a "no fly zone." It's bombing. Call it what it is. Don't do the govt's dirty work for them.

And Xtab, the U.S. Constitution, laws, and govt mouthpieces also say a lot of wonderful things about human rights, international justice, the rule of law, opposing despots, etc. Yet this country takes a dump on those wonderful things daily.

[Lisa Simeone]

Quoting again: " The US presence in europe will be one third of what it is now in less than ten years."

Only because the economy is going to tank and what's going to happen will make the Great Depression look like a practice run. So there won't be money for a huge US military presence in Europe. Then again, there will probably be money ONLY for military-related things -- militarized police, fear-mongering, further repression of civil liberties. What a great future we have to look forward to!

[Jack Crow]

A gold raid is not liberation. Full stop.

[Andrew Dobbs]

Allahu Akbar, and Sic Semper Tyrannis.

[Dongo]

Arthur Silber has responded to this goofy Airstrike Anarchism with some righteous pwnage:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2011/08/if-pictures-were-arguments.html

[Joe]

Were you exhilarated watching all those people celebrate the election of Barack Obama back in '08? Yeah, I have no evidence to back my suspicion that this is nothing more than a superficial "victory," but you don't have any evidence that it's anything more. And do you really think the US and Europeans are just gonna sit back and watch as the Libyans grope their way toward democracy and freedom, as long as there's even the slightest hint of instability? Doubt it. They're going to back the first cabal that rises to the top, and proclaim its legitimacy so they can get the oil and gas flowing again.

[Lisa Simeone]

"They're going to back the first cabal that rises to the top, and proclaim its legitimacy so they can get the oil and gas flowing again."

As long as said cabal doesn't have scary socialist leanings.

[Nathan]

Prof, you stop digging now, you can start putting the dirt back and clean up the yard and let the healing begin. This phone call, "I'm in China, baby! Everything's upside-down!" somehow fails to convince.

[rosemerry]

Of course Juan Cole is pleased- he has supported the rebels all along. If anyone thinks this will help Libyans, we will see. The oil companies, banks etc that have been unable to steal the wealth from libya will have a field day, just like the selling off of Russian assets to oligarchs by the IMF.

[Stephen]

"We didn't "do nothing." We intervened. And not "we," but the President on his own. Just took it on himself to declare war that wasn't war"

Lisa, I wholeheartedly disagree. I stated in another post months ago that we were gonna take this thing to the end, not cause Obama wanted it, but because everybody in the State Department has wanted this for 30 years. Qadaffi is detested by all levels of US and European governments. The State Department and the Pentagon pushed this far more than Obama did. This is payback for Lockerbie and Qadaffi's funding of terror in the Sahel for the last 40 years.

And this will cause the US to disarm in Europe, which is a good thing. Finally, rail and truck freight numbers have actually been quite stable the last few months. Our economy is bad but very stable. Dean Baker's analysis on this has been fantastic in the face of all the hysterical crap the media says. If you're looking forward to the cleansing fires of a depression... I'm sorry, it's not gonna happen.

[Jack Crow]

How does one leap from "State Dept hates Q" to "now the US will disarm in Europe"?

[Philboyd]

Whoa, Arthur Silber's response to this is pretty cutting. What Dongo said.

[mikeinportc]

Qadaffi was a great guy when we needed somebody tortured. However, when he tried to squeeze BP , he became an evil dictator again. That's it. The reason for Western intervention. Period. The rest is whatever was needed to sell it. Anything positive (or negative) consequences that comes out of this for Libyans, is incidental.

Btw, rosemary, the Libyans, & Qaddafi had nothing to do with Lockerbie, and they all know it.

[mikeinportc]

^ Sorry, rosemary, I meant stephen.

[Xtab]

The theory that NATO is motivated because of Libyan oil never really seemed credible to me. According to the WikiLeaks files, Western oil interests were solidly behind Gaddafi, even pushing the U.S. government to exempt Libya from U.S. anti-terrorism asset laws. Companies like BP were set to make lots of money exploring for oil there, so why would a prolonged civil war and a completely new government (that will have to renegotiate signed oil contracts, with delays lasting years) be in their interest? It doesn't make any sense.

Anyways, this kind of thinking is why I can't sign onto the left. It's a kind of ... useless way of dealing with the world. The Libyan people wanted Gaddafi to go. They were sick of him. They asked for NATO intervention and got it, but all the left can really think about it is the "why" NATO intervened. So NATO has an interest in a government a lot like their own in Libya. That's not shocking or surprising. I would support a government in Libya like that of Italy or France.

[Xtab]

So again, the focus on the "why" with all these conspiracy theories about oil is missing the point. It doesn't matter if NATO is motivated out of self-interest, just as if I'm starving and someone gives me 20 bucks, I don't ask too many questions about why he's doing it. Maybe it's for all the wrong reasons and he's flattering his own ego. Think: charitable giving. But I'm not going to turn it down. If I'm organizing a community and raising funds, I'm going to try my hardest to get the support I need to take action.

The left here preaches cynicism as a form of politics. You're not willing or capable of changing the world for the better so you shit on the efforts of people who are. There are people dying in a war to change a brutal and autocratic government in the developing world, yet you condemn and slander them while blocking any attempts to provide aid to them because your own government's hands are dirty. It doesn't help anyone, it actually makes exercising a constructive and positive foreign policy more difficult.

[Jack Crow]

Xtab,

Are you really typing under the assumption that this criticism, right at this site, "obstructs" good American foreign policy?

[Xtab]

Hah. No. I think I'm letting my rhetoric get the best of me.

[ergo]

Don't care what the motivations for intervention are. What goes on in the minds of our distinguished leaders is both boring and irrelevant. They could be angels who think they are doing good work for all I care. I do know from a casual observation of history that existing power systems like the empire and energy interests exploit power vacuums. Particularly when they help create them.

"They asked for NATO intervention and got it"

They being, not the Libyan people and certainly not the supporters of Gadaffi, but the rebels, specifically the leadership of that faction. Who are we to pick sides in this conflict? If you think the new Libyan regime is going to resemble that of Italy or France, prepare to be disappointed. And giving a starving person $20 is not remotely analogous to killing thousands of people for the benefit of a rebelling faction.

What is constructive about a foreign policy that goes around the world, randomly selects dictators it doesn't like, supports local insurgent movements but only in some countries and not others, bombs those countries to pieces in the name of freedom, patting itself on the back for a job well done? Meanwhile a/ how many people including civilians do we murder, b/ how many combat deaths does our intervention precipitate, c/ how many reprisal killings are carried out by our proxies, d/ how does offering material support to violent proxies facilitate a reduction in repression? Because they freed one side's political prisoners (what's going to happen to those of the other side?) and wrote some nice platitudes for their newsletter apparently.

[Stephen]

Jack, my comment about the US disarming in Europe was actually referenced from another comment I made further up.
The Libyan campaign has showcased a lot of European military hardware. This has helped their overseas and domestic sales. The NATO campaign has also been largely run by Europe. This has been the first time that the US has been able to really get the hell out of a European problem. This is fantastic for us. The sad part however, is that it means Europe is rearming.

[Lisa Simeone]

War is a profit-making machine. Arms dealers and manufacturers need it to stay in business. The U.S. is not going to disarm in Europe or anywhere else unless it's forced to. There's too much money to be made. And if the merchants of death can't make it abroad, they'll make it at home. Increasingly militarized police are only one example of that trend. The mayhem we rain down on other people in other parts of the world is coming to us, at the hands of our own government. I believe chickens and roosting have something to do with it.

And yes, the economy's going to tank.

[CB]

Also, I'm pretty damn sure many NATO allies are actually armed by the US. Lord knows we sell our own goods daily.

[mp]

this ain't no anarchism no more.

you're just a dude who hated school.

[Joe]

Xtab,

I'd say it depends on how many strings are attached to that 20 bucks. One of crispy's problems with the welfare state is that it robs people of their autonomy. The same priniciple applies to foreign welfare--aka "humanitarian intervention."

We may be preaching cynicism (although I think it's actually impossible to be as cynical as the people running the government), but it sounds to me like you're preaching credulity. U.S. foreign policy is making the world a better place? The "Libyan people" asked NATO for help, and NATO, out of the kindness of its heart, agreed to help them? Come on, man.

[Jack Crow]

Stephen,

Who is "us"?

[ohtarzie]

With this post, relying as it does on a photo, a slur and almost schmaltzy appeal to emotions, Sartwell's officially a propagandist. I certainly hope he's getting paid because it is hard to imagine that anyone would make himself so deliberately foolish without an incentive.

The question is why does anyone still bother with this bullshit? Matty Yglesias has been less ridiculous on this.

BTW - Silber's evisceration is a fun read.

[Stephen]

Jack,
By 'us' I mean citizens of the United States. It's a blatant, US-centric statement. I never supported Af-Pak. Libya was worth it though, my mind.

Lisa,
As a matter of opinion, I think that the US will continue the established trend of losing European defense market share. European companies have been beating us at this for years now. It's just easier for a domestic, European company to bribe government officials and get them prostitutes than it is for us. We were better at this for years, but now they're good at it.

And... except for the Philly Fed Manufacturing Number, which is fairly limited, every single economic number has been stagnant and bouncing within a range, but no big declines. Housing is crap and will keep going down, but whether people are 100K or 200K under water makes no diffence in their current spending. The economy IS in the dumps. It's really not going to get any worse.
For fuck sake Lisa, read Dean Baker at CEPR. He's all the lib you could ever want and I'm saying what he's saying.

[Lisa Simeone]

I do read Dean Baker. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.

My thinking is much more in line with that of Ian Welsh.

[La Rana]

"I have no idea what happened, or what will happen, but because I empathize with a momentary feeling in a faraway land it was good to murder people."

How fucking embarrasing. This is the stupidest thing on the web this side of NRO (if you are looking for paying gigs, Sowell is really getting up there...)

And the idea that you do not oppose oppression IF YOU DO NOT ADVOCATE MURDER is fucking batshit crazy doublespeak.

[crispy]

yeah, rana. in fact any armed resistance to despotism is obviously wrong. indeed, tyranny - no matter how extreme - ought never to be resisted except with prayer. or kisses, maybe.

[Xtab]

Great profile of a rebel commander:

“We knew from the start that our revolution would cost lives. We weren’t scared, but we knew. We knew we could not fight tanks with flowers,” Akhdar said a few days before the rebels’ final push toward Tripoli. Protest would not bring change. That was the thinking of outsiders, of Americans and Europeans and expatriates, he said. “Not in Libya. Not with Gaddafi. We have been together for 42 years. No flowers.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyan-rebel-commander-fights-for-freedom/2011/08/22/gIQAv5hUXJ_story.html

[Bruce]

Does anyone contend that the Obamanible Is NOT perpetuating the quest of his MIC Shonuff Warlords for a Greater Eurasian BushCo.-pauperacy Sphere? STILL, Internationally CRIMINAL war of aggression for Company resources AND UN(American)CONSTITUTIONAL.

[Philboyd]

I'm sure if the rebel force was composed of Viggo Mortensen and the House of Gryffindor, we could reasonably describe them as brave souls resisting tyranny. As it is, Crispin, it's a little more complicated than you're making out.

[Stephen]

"Also, I'm pretty damn sure many NATO allies are actually armed by the US. Lord knows we sell our own goods daily."

Yes... some stuff, but this was really actually an operation that was run by the French. Seriously. Do you remember that initial bombing run? It was done by French Rafael (french made) fighter-bombers. We've done some droning, and some F-16s (US made) from Norway/UAE/Jordan have participated... but this was mostly done with Euro-weapons by Euros. The European defense companies are getting tons of money and the european armies are getting their first taste of blood in decades. This will escalate, to the detriment of the US presence. I'm not saying it's good for the entire world- just that it will get us less involved.

[john G]

That ain't Green Square in Tripoli.

[Xtab]

"Greater Eurasian BushCo.-pauperacy Sphere."

Hahaha. Ooh so Orwellian.

[Xtab]

Well, now to be serious there is somewhat of a dilemma when you have a conflict between a third world dictatorship and a global imperialist state or alliance like NATO. Going back to earlier third-world-wars with the imperialist states, like the Vietnam War or the wars in Central America, there was a belief on the left that there was a progressive movement in the NLF (the Cong) or Sandanistas which were being prevented from realizing their progressive politics by imperialism. Right or wrong, that's what the left believed at the time. You had a big imperialist bully and the progressive freedom fighters going up against it.

That's not so easy now. Here, like during the Cold War, the progressive national liberation movement is fighting against a third world autocracy, but the imperialist alliance is on the side of the liberation movement! It's all very confusing. Does this mean the imperialist alliance is progressive? Following the logic I've set out, that would be no. So it's a conceptual trap for you and me too. The problem for the left is that they're sucked into this trap where they defend the dictatorship, and I get into the trap of supporting the empire as a progressive force. I think, ultimately, I have to side with the guerrillas.

[Lisa Simeone]

Nobody's defending the dictatorship here. That's bullshit.

[Lisa Simeone]

Obama's NATO War for Oil in Libya
by Robert Dreyfuss

What do you call it when the full force of a US/NATO aerial bombardment is coupled with political support for a ragtag rebel group that, when victorious, promises to hand over its oil resources to its Western backers? A war for oil.

Don’t believe for one moment that the US backing for Libya’s opposition was about freedom.

Flouting international law and going far beyond the UN resolution that permitted a limited military effort to protect civilians in Benghazi, a decision that was promoted by human rights advocates inside the White House and by certain misguided liberals such as Juan Cole, the Obama administration is in the final stages of imposing forcible regime change against the Libyan leader, Muammar Qaddafi. It was an operation gleefully backed by the kleptocrats of the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, none of whom like freedom very much, but who engineered the Arab League endorsement of the attack on Libya.

Was the US/NATO campaign closely coordinated with each advance by the rebels? In an article in today’s Washington Post, headlined, “Allies guided rebels’ ‘pincer’ assault on capital,” we learn that every inch of the rebels’ advance was facilitated by pinpoint military attacks by NATO. It quotes a Pentagon spokesman [1]: “We have a good operational picture of where forces are arrayed on the battlefield.” Some revolution!

And listen to this. In the New York Times, in a piece [2] headlined, “The Scramble for Access to Libya’s Oil Wealth Begins,” the rebel leader who heads the opposition Libyan oil company, which was formed with support from the Arab Gulf kleptocrats, says that Libya’s new leaders, a combination of wealthy defectors, tribal chieftains, and Islamists, plan to favor their NATO backers when handing out access to Libya’s oil.

“We don’t have a problem with Western countries like Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil,” said Abdeljalil Mayouf, a spokesman for the Libyan rebel oil company Agoco.

Helpfully, the Times points out:

“Russia, China and Brazil did not back strong sanctions on the Qaddafi regime, and they generally supported a negotiated end to the uprising. All three countries have large oil companies that are seeking deals in Africa.”

Oops.

And this:

“Colonel Qaddafi proved to be a problematic partner for international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands. A new government with close ties to NATO may be an easier partner for Western nations to deal with.”

Copyright © 2011 The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/blog/162908/obamas-nato-war-oil-libya

[adamcrazypants]

I am Lisa! fuck those people! they couldn't return the favor if they tried.

[CB]

Not to mention the continued to failure to address the fact that was all this really worth a new precedent in the POTUS power to wage war? I mean is that something that ought to be ignored?

[Lisa Simeone]

CB, exactly. As we've said so often, Obama has not only continued but expanded the Executive power grab claimed by Bush.

Speaking of Bush, did you see that that criminal Dick Cheney has come out with a book? Why have so many other human hearts stopped ticking, yet his just goes and goes?