For the last decade I've read my Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald. In 2007 I co-captained a busload of Minnesotans on an overnight, weekend jaunt to Washington D.C. to participate in demonstrations against the wars. If he'd stayed in the race until my state's caucus night, I would've voted for Dennis Kucinich, one of the farthest-left liberals in the U.S. Congress, in the 2008 Democratic primaries. I regularly post angry criticisms of Barak Obama on Facebook. I've declared to my Facebook friends that I am so disgusted with his presidency that I will not be voting for him in 2012.
On the issue of a U.N.-imposed No-Fly Zone on Libya, I've parted ways with my radical left brethren.
The Rebels Want the No-Fly Zone
Here is the reaction of citizens in rebel-held (and Gaddafi-targetted) Benghazi at the announcement of the U.N. No Fly Zone:
For the purpose of this blog entry, no need to view beyond the 35-second mark
This report by the Real News network (non-corporate media a la Democracy Now!) shows an earlier rally of Benghazians calling loudly and passionately for imposition of the No-Fly Zone.
Before the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, a strong argument against the invasion was the testimony of an anti-Taliban commander and U.S. ally Abdul Haq (whom the Taliban would kill not much later):
[M]y view is that the US should keep up the pressure, above all with money, but should not bomb... if the US keeps bombing and helps the Northern Alliance, then our work will be much more difficult... The anti-Taliban campaign needs two stages: a military strategy to split and remove the Taliban, which should be carried out by Afghans themselves, not the US...
Haq's opinion was echoed by a gathering of over 1,000 anti-Taliban Afghan tribal leaders in Peshawar, Pakistan in late 2001, where "many spoke out against the U.S. bombing."
I've opposed pretty much every U.S. military undertaking in the time of my political consciousness, particularly the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, on the principal of self-determination; I've seen all those undertakings as instances of the U.S. imposing its will on other nations, or imperialism. In this Libyan instance, the call for the No-Fly Zone has been led by Libyan rebels, not to mention "endorsements by the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Libya's National Transitional Council and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference." It feels like the more arrogant mindset in this instance would be that opposed to the action being called-for by the democratic forces represented by the rebels.
The Rebels and Libyan Citizens Are Currently Under Attack and in Imminent Danger
We have a pretty clear case of a dictator trying to squelch democracy and attacking his citizens. The argument against this action is that it will kill civilians. This is one case where the evidence is clear and compelling that civilians will be killed without action. Gaddafi has re-taken cities that were under rebel control. He is militarily stronger than the rebels and acting aggressively already.
Citizens actively engaged in attempts to overthrow a dictator, the dictator violently suppressing the resistance with a military force capable of massacre until the rebels surrender, imminent danger of new strikes against civilians and rebels, rebels imploring the international community to help, these seem like rather clear grounds for international intervention.
Without calling specifically for a No-Fly Zone, Human Rights Watch recently stated:
[E]ach state has a responsibility to prevent war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and genocide within its borders. When it fails in that duty, other states, through the United Nations, have the responsibility to use those measures that are necessary and appropriate to protect civilian populations from such crimes.
The UN Resolution Does Not Authorize Foreign Troops on the ground in Libya
As loudly as many Libyan rebels are calling for imposition of the No-Fly Zone, there seems to be an even more unanimous declaration from them that foreign ground troops should stay off of Libyan soil. The UN resolution authorizes “...all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamhariya, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.” (emphasis mine)
Prominent twin cities anti-war activist, and recent target of unjust FBI raids and investigations, Meredith Aby stated on Facebook: "The US and the UN should not bomb Libya. The US bombing Libya will not lead to "liberation". It will lead to civilian casualties and to the US stealing Libyan oil for US corporations." This seems a succinct and fair summation of "anti-war" sentiment towards U.N. intervention in Libya.
Whether the attacks will "lead to liberation" can not be known for certain. Given the uncertainty, the people in the best position to judge whether it's worth a try are those being victimized by Gaddafi. They certainly can not share the same opinion, but there seems to be a pretty public, fervent call among many of them for the No-Fly Zone.
In a piece written to refute the idea that the Iraq invasion qualified as humanitarian intervention, Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch laid out criteria for what would qualify. He wrote:
We recognize that an intervention motivated by purely
humanitarian concerns probably cannot be found. Governments that intervene to stop
mass slaughter inevitably have other reasons as well, so we do not insist on purity of
motive. But a dominant humanitarian motive is important because it affects numerous
decisions made in the course of an intervention and its aftermath that can determine its
success in saving people from harm.
By this criterion it is hard to quibble with someone opposed to U.S./U.N. Libyan intervention. There is no doubt that plenty of factions within the coalition imposing the No-Fly Zone have oil on the brain. It seems pretty fair to assume Libyans know the record of their would-be western saviors. They're calling for the No-Fly Zone anyway.
The U.N. resolution did not authorize any occupation force. If this limit is observed, it would limit the U.S./U.N. ability to forcefully impose some imperial will. Libyans clearly do not want foreign troops on the ground in Libya, any incursion of U.S./U.N. ground troops onto Libyan soil would be a glaring sign that the intervention is morphing into an imperialist crusade that lacks regard for Libyan self-determination. Any coalition behavior like that will be roundly opposed by Libyans, and thus should cleraly be opposed by us.
Until then, I find it difficult to condemn giving the people what they want.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
mad_typist
john blumenthal
Something Catchy
AtHomePilgrim
Kressskin
Andy Wolfenson
Salon.com
Comments
It doesn't matter if you like the current government or not. There will always be a next one. What happens if you like the next overthrow target and the UN picks the other side to win? Are you going to support military action then?
The other problem with the no fly zone is it's to little to late. If you wanted to do it, you should have done it weeks ago when this started. Now the government has just about taken all the country back. Why do you want to go in after the fight to say let's support the losing side?
At this point in time, you need to let self determination go it alone. If enough of the people want a change in the current government they they can rise up and take over. As it looks now only enough to make war want change. Not enough to win a war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War
That was some justified war for sure.
But the initial opposition to the proposal in the UN Security Council shows how contentious and difficult this issue is going to be. The question for us isn't whether ultimately this will help the "rebels" (why no revolutionaries?) to win, but whether this will turn out to be another instance of a country being pulled into geopolitics. Remember, Afghanistan had an enlightened, secular-left government before it was drawn and quartered by the geopolitical struggle between two bigger powers. The end of the cold war does not mean that the toxic effects of geopolitical contest have gone away--on the contrary, they've gotten worse, and more shifty. How many people realize that China supports the government in Sudan? Or that Russia and ourselves have been engaged in a series of conflicts in the Caucasus that, other than the Angolan conflict, go beyond anything seen in Africa during the cold war years? Libya may yet turn out to be a proxy war between us and Russia (there's some proof that the Russians have already been supporting Gaddafi with military aid during these events on the side). I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but once we get involved, there are other things to think about...
Rated.
I too am in favor of a no fly zone in Libya.
Any objectors worth listening to, i.e. Arabs, are on board and for the reasons you have outlined in your post it is needed.
Mr. Gadhafi needs his feathers yanked.
I see this as the same garden path for oil. I wish the US had human rights as a motive. "Human rights" is the bait and switch to get the country on board and then the imperialistic ego of the administration and military industrial security complex war machine go into motion and stay in motion. And then a cowardly Congress beholding to war profiteers and scared sh*tless to be accused of being soft on terrorism doesn't do its homework or have a conscience either about human rights, whether foreign or domestic. US and its 180 bases globally that we can't afford and that shouldn't be breathing down the necks of so many countries and a war budget in the Fall of $719 billion, when we were furious when Bush had one for $320 billion a while back when our people are going through economic terrorism from the banksters.
I wish I could trust my government. I don't. It sells arms to everyone and anyone and wants to divide up and conquer post conflicts it benefits from everywhere and anywhere so that it can easily use its might makes right ultimately to rape and plunder resources in its global war games.
There is the need to believe that THIS TIME the US will do the right thing. You think under Obama's watch and the military leadership we have, neocons and neolibs and new world order mania, and a Congress that doesn't respect its own people let alone global peoples the US is on the right side of history now with Libya? If US is so concerned with Arab welfare, it can prove it by being sane about what is going on with I/P!!!!
US powers that be want EVERYONE broken for power. It is heartbreaking and were it not so. American interests have nothing to do with human welfare. Say it with me now ...
but look on the bright side: if in time, cheaper oil. if too late, "we tried!"
meanwhile, saudi arabia is stamping out rebellion in bahrain, and the silence from the west is deafening.
Nicely argued post.
-R-
You can't have a favorite cause/nation/people whose war you espouse without admitting that while this may be your 'favorite', Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else is the cause celebre of someone.
Jeez, be consistent, even when its tough or give up the moral high ground forever.
In Iraq, while Saddam was certainly no saint, he was not engaged in active slaughter of his own people at the time the U.S./U.N. "intervened." In Libya, Gaddafi very clearly is. The difference there is illustrated rather clearly with the contrast of Human Rights Watch's response to the two situations: in Iraq, Ken Roth wrote a long piece explaining why the Iraq "intervention" could not qualify as humanitarian intervention, whereas HRW cleary stated their belief that the U.N. Security Council should take action to intervene.
Sudan/Tibet/Myanmar are different discussions which I've stated no opinion on because I don't know enough about them to have one. I would apply basically the same principles to asses those situations.
— Thomas Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)
The first is whether or no the international community has the responsibility to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation whose government is clearly conducting massive murder against its own people. If yes, then at what point? When there is consensus among the nations?
The second question is, if the intervention in Libya is justified (which I personally believe it to be) then what about other nations where ongoing human rights abuses continue unabated but where no one has intervened of the peoples' behalf? Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Congo, Ruwanda are stunning examples of the international community looking the other way. (If anyone thinks Mugabe is any more sane - or ruthless - than Khadafy, then he is delusional. Yet, the UN does nothing about that maniac.)
Could it be that Libyan oil is a primary source of oil for the Euro countries on the other side of the Mediterranean?
Sorry.....there is more than altruism at play here.
I was TIPPED.
TIP. fbi ~ huh.
FBI get facelift.
Children scream.
Stop the slaughter.
I'll E-mail to Sam.
Uncle Sam? nope.
Sam Kass the cook.
What a great role.
Retire with f'eds.
Golf on o'clock.
Sell a nephesh.
That's lost soul.
I read the post.
FBI huh says`
hoot and pot`
pew\sit/pot`
no killings
no snoops
no sell soul
but you did
impromptu.
sigh...
hi FBI.
call Pope or
Santa Clause
ask for cash
blood money
serve - sevile
pay homage
devil's tool
stooge yes
for sure
enough
sad day
baloney
devil do
tattoos
folks
as you
sorry
rethink
no sell
a soul?
The "responsibility to protect" (r2p) civilian populations is being discussed now - but not approved. This action by the UK-France and US goes well beyond the proposed R2P approach, which would require a "grave" crime against humanity and a serious commitment to try to negotiate first.
There may be war crimes here - likely on both sides - but to suggest a crime against humanity was happening in Libya shows a terrible understanding of the term and events.
Libya, like any country, has the sovereign right to defend its territory from roving bands of AK-47 toting youth. Libya also has the responsibility to protect true civilians. Can I ask what evidence there is that Libya has not? Libya allowed civilians to leave cities facing a battle, and did not go after areas that were not under the control of armed rebels. Do you have some evidence I don't?
The reports in the beginning of the war were simply non-credible, coming only from one-side - the rebel propaganda machine, which have shown themselves incapable of telling the truth on anything. Look up the news on Feb 16th - reports of petrol bombs and setting police stations on fire in Al-Bayda and Benghazi. No reports of deaths. The next day - fires and petrol bombs spread throughout Benghazi and there were deaths. What would the correct response be when people firebomb police stations and govt. buildings in your town?
These kids burning things represent a tribal/regional point of view. The NY Times says the common denominator with them is their fervent religiosity (and belief that Gaddafi is not religious enough, or worse yet, a Jew). Jefferey Goldberg, certainly no dove, has met many of the rebel leaders and this is what he said "they didn't fill me with good feeling about their intentions or their beliefs. Or, for that matter, their competence."
We simply know very little about Libya, except that we hate Gaddafi. Intervening in this will certainly not improve the prospects for social harmony in Libya - or across the Middle East. We are showing the world that violence pays. France offers to send anti-riot equipment to crush protests in Tunisia but joins this Civil War in Libya? Are we supposed to believe this is for real?
Gaddafi has been a pain in the side of the UK, US and France for a long time. When they tried to prop up corrupt colonialist dictators across Africa, Gaddafi opposed them. They found a good shot to bring him down and are going for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRAfs_LPFI4
watch these and consider why had America not intervened when the Indian PM was actually visiting the US to garner support for what was happening here?
No one is going there to save "people". Americans probably deep inside still hate Africans or Asians - anyone that is not white probably.
Someone asked why did Russia or China not use their vetos? Well why wd they want the US to do the right thing? If US succeeds how wd that help Russia or China? They would in fact like to see US getting its hands dirty fighting wrong wars and make more and more enemies.