| Page: 1 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
Libya: A War We Shouldn'T Believe In
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» databoy replied on Tue Mar 22, 2011 @ 7:49pm |
 Coolness: 106225 | by Ted Rall
U.S. forces fired 110 cruise missiles at Libya on the first day of the war. Each one cost $755,000 to build; $2.8 million to transport, maintain and shoot. Austerity and budget cuts abound; there's no money for NPR or teachers or firefighters. Note to union negotiators: the government has lots of money. They're spending it on war. For people too young to remember Bosnia, this is what a violent, aggressive, militarist empire looks like under a Democratic president. Where Bush rushed, Obama moseys. No one believed ex-oil man Bush when he said he was out to get rid of the evil dictator of an oil-producing state; Obama, the former community organizer, gets a pass under identical circumstances. Over the weekend, also the eighth anniversary of the start of the Iraq quagmire, there were few protests against Obama's Libya War, all poorly attended. I spent the weekend in New York at LeftForum, an annual gathering of anti-capitalist intellectuals. "What do you think about Libya?" people kept asking. What passes for the Left is ambivalent. In part this waffling on Libya is due to Obama's deadpan (read: uncowboy-like) tone. Mostly, however, the tacit consent stems from televised images of ragtag anti-Qadafi opposition forces getting strafed by Libyan air force jets. We Americans like underdogs, especially when they say they want democracy. Still, the President is not a dictator. He can't declare war. And while he might be able to lie his way into one, he and his party will pay at the polls if he fails to explain why we're attacking a nation that poses no threat to the United States. There are a lot of questions we--and journalists--should be asking Obama. Obviously, we're broke. Our military is overextended, losing two wars against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. How can we afford this? Also: 1. Whom are we helping? The U.S. and its allies are destroying Libya's air force in order to tip the balance in the civil war in favor of anti-Qadafi forces. A similar approach, aerial bombardment of Afghan government defenses, allowed Northern Alliance rebels to break through Taliban lines and enter Kabul in 2001. It could work again in Libya. But who are these anti-Qadafi forces? Rival tribes? Royalists? Radical Islamists? What kind of government will they establish if they win? What are their ideological and religious affiliations? If anyone in the media or the White House knows, they're not telling. Or perhaps, as in Iraq, the White House doesn't have a governance plan for post-Qadafi Libya. Which, as in Iraq, could lead to chaos. No nation should go to war without considering the long-term consequences. Before we pick sides in a conflict, shouldn't we know for whom we are going billions of dollars further into debt? 2. Does Qadafi have the right to defend himself? From Shay's Whiskey Rebellion to Confederacy to the Red Scares to the Black Panthers and the Weathermen, the U.S. government has violently suppressed armed rebellions. How then can the U.S. claim moral authority to prevent other governments from doing the same thing? ("The U.S. is more moral than Libya" is not an acceptable response. Obama murders and tortures more people than Qadafi.) 3. What about self-determination? If the Libyan people rise up and overthrow Qadafi, an authoritarian despot well past his expiration date, that's great. Shouldn't that struggle be a Libyan matter, to be settled between Libyans? Isn't a government that emerges from indigenous internal struggle more likely to enjoy widespread support than one that results from outside intervention? "Free men set themselves free," said James Oppenheim. Can a people truly feel emancipated when they owe their freedom--and later, inexorably, their oil and gas--to a foreign superpower? 4. Why are we OK with some dictators, but not others? Since the Middle East began blowing up we've heard a lot of talk about Obama's dilemma: How do we reconcile American values with American strategic interests? In a good country--at least a non-hypocritical one--they are the same. Obama is employing circular logic. "Why strike only Libya, when other regimes murder their citizens too?" asks Chris Good in The Atlantic Monthly. "Obama's answer seems to be: because the UN Security Council turned its attention toward Libya, and not other places." But the UN reacted in response to the U.S. In other words: We're agreeing to a request that we made ourselves. Ideology and policy must be consistent to be credible. If we have a policy to depose dictators, then all dictators must be targeted. We can't just take out those in countries with lots of oil. We ought to start with tyrants for which we bear responsibility: our allies and puppets. At this writing the U.S. supports or props up unpopular authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Yemen, and elsewhere. 5. Is Libya our geostrategic business? The United States has no substantial historical ties with, innate cultural understanding of, or geographic proximity to, Libya. Even under the imperialist doctrine of "spheres of influence" that governed international relations during the Cold War, Libya falls under the purview of other would-be interventionists. Italy, and to a lesser extent Britain and France, are former colonial masters. The Arab League and African Union have interests there. Even if you buy the sentimental argument--"Are we going to stand by and watch Qadafi slaughter his own people?"--why us? Why not the Africans or Europeans? Ted Rall is the author of the new books "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," and "The Anti-American Manifesto" . His website is [ tedrall.com ] |
| I'm feeling tilt right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Tue Mar 22, 2011 @ 10:18pm |
 Coolness: 145310 | this war is dumb. |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» DynV replied on Tue Mar 22, 2011 @ 10:44pm |
 Coolness: 108915 | Originally Posted By BASDINI
this war is dumb. LOL |
| I'm feeling <3 sexi_babe_69 right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Wed Mar 23, 2011 @ 4:43pm |
 Coolness: 102875 | [ www.independent.co.uk ]
quote: Inside the Disunited Nations... Arab League What they said: The League's head Amr Moussa, caused ripples on Sunday when he condemned the air strikes on Libya, saying: "What we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians." What's the impact: His comments were the first sign of splits in the coalition, and undermined Western assurances that the action on a Muslim nation had Arab backing. What's are the motives? Arab leaders are walking a diplomatic tightrope over Libya, with many League members facing their own protests and keen to keep the international community on-side. But the mostly Muslim nations also have to consider domestic opinion, which has previously been vehemently against the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. China What they said: The Chinese government has expressed "regret" at the air assault, and state media compared the military strikes on Libya with action in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling it "armed action against sovereign countries". What's the impact: Practically, not much, as it chose not to use its veto when the UN Security Council voted last week. However, as an emerging world power, developing nations look to China as an alternative voice to the West. What's are the motives? China has a long history of staying out of what it says are other countries' internal affairs, in the hope that the nations will repay the favour when China comes under fire for its repressive political system and human rights abuses. It also relies heavily on the Middle East for oil, and has to balance its economic interests. Russia What they said: Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was scathing yesterday, calling the UN resolution "defective and flawed", adding that it "resembles medieval calls for crusades". What's the impact: Like China, Russia also opted not to wield its veto at the UN, but Mr Putin's harsh comments come as Barack Obama tries to improve ties with Moscow. What's are the motives? Mr Putin said the action showed Russia is right to boost its defence capabilities, and indeed military posturing is a large factor, with Mr Putin also keeping an eye on a presidential poll. Russia also tends to avoid getting entangled in other nations' affairs. Turkey What they said: Prime Minister Recep Erdogan said UN action must not turn into an occupation and Nato "should only enter Libya to determine that Libya belongs to Libyans and not to distribute its natural resources and richness to others". What's the impact: Turkey is so far opposing a Nato military strategy that would allow the alliance's participation and possible lead in the intervention, throwing the operation into turmoil as European nations urged a united front. What's are the motives? Some diplomats claim Turkey was angered by its exclusion from an emergency summit to discuss the crisis in Libya, and there have been protests in Ankara, right. Turkey is the only predominantly Muslim Nato member, thus its support is crucial to the alliance, keen not to alienate the Islamic world. Germany What they said: Germany argued at the UN that the no-fly zone carried risks – Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has told parliament that "any military operation brings civilian victims". What's the impact: Germany abstained at the UN Security Council, but its decision not to take an active role has more domestic impact, with some analysts saying it has isolated itself from Nato allies, France and Britain. What's are the motives? German public opinion is firmly against military intervention of any kind, and with crucial state elections this year, commentators have suggested Chancellor Angela Merkel, right, is looking to boost her popularity. The country is also bogged down in the war in Afghanistan, which is deeply unpopular at home. United States What they said: "Our consensus was strong and our resolve is clear," Barack Obama has said. "In the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians, our coalition is prepared to act and act with urgency." What's the impact: There was little appetite on Capitol Hill initially for another military intervention and caution over the no-fly zone, so there was relief from Britain and France when the US finally put their weight behind the operation. What's are the motives? Washington was determined not to be caught on the wrong side of history, watching as a dictator unleashed violence against his people, but the US has taken a back seat in the diplomacy, keen not to be seen as pushing "regime change" which battered its standing in the Muslim world after Iraq and Afghanistan. France What they said: "It's a grave decision we've had to take," President Nicolas Sarkozy said at the weekend. "Along with our Arab, European and North American partners, France has decided to play its part before history." What's the impact: France opposed military action in Iraq, and for Britain and the US, their involvement has helped boost the operation's credentials as a global push rather than unilateral action. What's are the motives? President Nicolas Sarkozy's enthusiasm is partly domestic. He is floundering in the opinion polls before the presidential election next year, and was much criticised at home for France's early stumbling response to the pro-democracy revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Libya has been a perfect opportunity for Mr Sarkozy to appear pro-active, energetic and statesmanlike. Britain What they said: "He continues to brutalise his own people and so the time for action has come," David Cameron has said. "We have to enforce the will of the United Nations and we cannot allow the slaughter of civilians to continue." What's the impact: Britain and France were the two nations spearheading the diplomatic push for a no-fly zone and strong action against Colonel Gaddafi and their armed forces are leading the operation, although the US is playing a key role in the military strategy. What's are the motives? Britain, like the United States, has been bruised by the Iraq war, while the current government has also suffered from revelations of the links between the establishment and the Gaddafi regime, as well as arms sales to Arab nations that are meting out heavy punishment on protesters, including Bahrain. |
Libya: A War We Shouldn'T Believe In
| Page: 1 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
