The Marxist Argument For Libyan Intervention
Marxist scholar Gilbert Achcar grew up in Lebanon, and is currently Professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London. Some of the argument contained in this piece is shoe-horned into some rigid ideological boxes, but the core of his thesis is a potent rebuke to the knee-jerk "no intervention" chants.
Here's a few key graphs but read the whole piece via the link above:
The idea that Western powers are intervening in Libya because they want to topple a regime hostile to their interests is just preposterous. Equally preposterous is the idea that what they are after is laying their hands on Libyan oil. In fact, the whole range of Western oil and gas companies is active in Libya: Italy's ENI, Germany's Wintershall, Britain's BP, France's Total and GDF Suez, US companies ConocoPhillips, Hess, and Occidental, British-Dutch Shell, Spain's Repsol, Canada's Suncor, Norway's Statoil, etc. Why then are Western powers intervening in Libya today, and not in Rwanda yesterday and Congo yesterday and today?......To these considerations one should add the following: it is nonsensical, and an instance of very crude "materialism," to dismiss as irrelevant the weight of public opinion on Western governments, especially in this case on nearby European governments. At a time when the Libyan insurgents were urging the world more and more insistently to provide them with a no-fly zone in order to neutralize the main advantage of Gaddafi's forces, and with the Western public watching the events on television -- making it impossible that a mass-scale slaughter in Benghazi would go unseen, as it was so often the case in other places (like the above-mentioned Hama, for instance, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo) -- Western governments would not only have incurred the wrath of their citizens, but they would have completely jeopardized their ability to invoke humanitarian pretexts for further imperialist wars like the ones in the Balkans or Iraq. Not only their economic interests, but also the credibility of their own ideology was at stake. And the pressure of Arab public opinion certainly played a role in the call by the Arab League of States for a no-fly zone over Libya, even though there can be no doubt that most Arab regimes were wishing that Gaddafi could put down the uprising, and thus reverse the revolutionary wave that has been sweeping the whole region and shaking their own regimes since the beginning of this year.......Can anyone claiming to belong to the left just ignore a popular movement's plea for protection, even by means of imperialist bandit-cops, when the type of protection requested is not one through which control over their country could be exerted? Certainly not, by my understanding of the left. No real progressive could just ignore the uprising's request for protection -- unless, as is too frequent among the Western left, they just ignore the circumstances and the imminent threat of mass slaughter, paying attention to the whole situation only once their own government got involved, thus setting off their (normally healthy, I should add) reflex of opposing the involvement. In every situation when anti-imperialists opposed Western-led military interventions using massacre prevention as their rationale, they pointed to alternatives showing that the Western governments' choice of resorting to force only stemmed from imperialist designs....
March 24th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
“is shoe-horned into some rigid ideological boxes”
As I said earlier Anchar’s makes a nuanced and strong case for a NFZ. This piece stopped me in my tracks and certainly deserves a hearing. I’m not sure, when I read him, how “we” go about expressing full defiance to actions that go outside the parameters of the resolution, much less rein in the state would be carrying these actions out. A problem with his argument perhaps.
Not nitpicking when I say that I take issue with the “rigid ideological box” comment. To me, Judis, with his assumption that the “west” naturally, by force of mythic desire, would align itself with democratic reform, if only it could, truly resides in a surreal, detached, ideological fantasy world. He wouldn’t have to go far to name countervailing examples; states in the region who have and will enjoy a free hand when suppressing their own populations. Gilbert cites them. But American discussion on the Middle East or the larger world for that matter, even on the liberal left, is suffocated by the blanket of American exceptionalism. Reminds me of a great quote by the rascally Alexander Cockburn who said, of the bourgeois press, their role is ” to fire dense volleys of cliche into the prejudices of the audience.”
March 25th, 2011 at 12:15 am
Wow, The Guardian’s Seumus Milne who wrote a memorable book on the 1984-85 miner’s strike in Britain comes out foursquare against military intervention.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/nothing-moral-nato-intervention-libya
March 25th, 2011 at 7:55 am
When the “left” applies exactly the same “analysis” to each and every situation, no matter how different, it is no longer analysis but rote thinking. But since Noam Chomsky does it that way, some leftists can nevertheless think they are being brilliant.
March 25th, 2011 at 8:19 am
Merkel’s government demurs from Libyan involvement. Cites hypocrisy:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,753126,00.html
Even Sarko seems at odds with the US over the Libyan mission:
” Sarkozy also made clear last night that the ongoing military campaign against the forces of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya did not aim to produce regime change. Referring to the United Nations authorisation for the use of force, Sarkozy said that the aim of the air strikes was “the whole mandate” and “nothing but the mandate”. He said that the mandate would be fulfilled “the minute [Qaddafi's] troops return to barracks and stop threatening civilian populations”.”
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2011/march/french-german-libya-rift-deepens/70661.aspx
Which leads then to ask why the stated goal of the US for regime change exceeds the UN mandate. Of course under the present arrangement where there is no debate or restraint on the POTUS, there is no limit placed on military solutions- and thus less need to engage in preventive diplomacy or accept criticism for the untoward accumulated results of (failed) foreign policy.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:23 am
This is what you get when you think you NEED the approval of every world organization, and Pablo’s. A Kabuki Dance between what needs to be done and fucking political cover for the UN, and Pablo’s, do-nothings. At least the UN was willing to let us establish a benign NFZ at our own great expense, as long as we were willing to apparently leave Gaddafi alone. After-all, what skin is off their ass, now and into the foreseeable future, if he stays. It’s OUR MONEY and OUR PROBLEM!
This is the reason the USA IS exceptional. Where it can, it will not sit idly by and let innocent people be massacred. It always has, where it thinks it could, and always will do SOMETHING, including military force were absolutely necessary, to save lives now and into the future, by deposing fucking dictators.
It was able to use its substantial political influence in Egypt to resolve that conflict without military intervention. It was just not possible in Iran. It is possible in Libya and we must try. Further we must not leave until the Dictator is gone AND until we are assured as possible another one does not follow.
I understand why the President must be unclear and obfuscating, in order to try to keep the support of a mandate that does not allow regime change. But he must, and I think he will, do the right thing make sure the problem REAL PROBLEM is for the long run. If he allows the bastard to stay, or we allow a Theocracy to replace him, he will be a loser a loser in two ways.
President Obama deserves much credit for doing something that he, being left of center, would normally strongly oppose. He is taking a risk for doing the right thing. It’s called courage. I hope, and I expect, he will be highly rewarded for WINNING!
I can support this war and the President now because, even though I have not heard from dear leader Sean Peen, Katrina vanden Heuvel did weigh in on CNN this morning and she is close enough. She is dead set against it…..oh and Pablo too on Marccooper.com.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:27 am
“Peen” is “Penn”…..as in Pennhead.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:22 am
JimR should read a bit more carefully.. Believe it or not I am not german, nor have I visited there. I don’t speak german or drink beer. There is also wipespread criticism of the mission in Libya eminating outside of the ‘left’.
The german ambivelence being but one I cited.
JimR lectures me: “This is the reason the USA IS exceptional. Where it can, it will not sit idly by and let innocent people be massacred.”
The key words here being, “Where it can..”
Here the (leftist, Chomsky-ist?) Merkel gov’t cited in Der Spiegel:
“On Thursday night, Niebel said that the German abstention was correct “because not all non-military possibilities had been exhausted.”"
I am heartened that in some western countries
there are procedural debates within their respective governments which define (and limit) the scope of military involvement. It is indeed ‘exceptional’ Jim that the US government could not do the same during the last six weeks.
It is diverting to assume that criticism of involvement is limited to the left… and as our host wrote above there are those on the left who support intervention.
So leave me out of it, Jim. Speak to the german reaction. Comment on the scope of limited involvement as understood by Sarkozy versus the broader intent indicated by some in the Obama gov’t. Give us a sense as to how much power this or any President should have to engage in military action.
Modernly a Presidents power to act unilaterally is greatest when there is a clear and present danger to the US. This crisis doesn’t meet the smell test. The slippery slope of unfettered executive power to wage war is a greater danger to the Republic than the crisis at hand.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:44 am
The slippery slope of unfettered executive power to wage war is a greater danger to the Republic than the crisis at hand…
so…
Try to imagine the result of this much power in the hands of a Palin or a Gingrich or a Walker.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:42 am
One of the strongest, non dogmatic, persuasive cases against the intervention was made by Vijay Prasad, who I have plenty of time and fondness for. At one point, weighing the dire reality in Lbya, he says “in the camp of the Left, certainty is no longer an option.” Yes. In a sense I agree with Balter. Some anti imperialist diatribes on Libya, in the last week or so, read as if they’re written on auto pilot. Same script. Allergic to thought.
ps Vijay http://counterpunch.org/prashad03232011.html
March 25th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Take a look at some of these reactions from around the world.
No good deed goes unpunished. We should have stayed out of it.
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//110325/481/urn_publicid_ap_org9c48a338a4b7426bb6be65f563aaaf7e/#photoViewer=/110325/481/urn_publicid_ap_org8fc83711589c4442b26bf421eaaca83b
March 25th, 2011 at 11:51 am
My personal favorite:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//110325/481/urn_publicid_ap_org8fc83711589c4442b26bf421eaaca83b/#photoViewer=/110325/481/urn_publicid_ap_org1c1d950b4c4d4832b47c436e71568351
March 25th, 2011 at 11:53 am
“It always has, where it thinks it could, and always will do SOMETHING, including military force were absolutely necessary, to save lives now and into the future, by deposing fucking dictators.”
What to do when one encounters blind faith posing as an argument? There are, of course, many ways to intervene here. Actually, a thought. At some point, down the line, ask Marc about his experiences as a youngin in Chile working for Allende. Start here and maybe then the world will appear in greater complexity. My people are better than yours, only we are the true benighted ones, is an age old comforting belief. You can do better, man.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Big difference between you and me, Jim R, is that Katrina Van Den Heuvel doesn’t play a role in my analytical processes. Nor does Pablo.
Must be a burden…
March 25th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
So I guess what you would want is a U.S. President who applies balanced thinking to each situation and who’s record suggests the use of force was applied with discretion, when truly required. Of recent Presidents, Clinton pretty much owns that field. Yet no President was more hysterically vilified by the fringes of the right AND left, with the Michael Balters of the world leading the way. Sorry seems to be the hardest word….
Alas, with the help of Hillary Clinton, Obama has come closer to the W model. Even were that not true, it’s odd that the healthy skepticism that should be brought to bear on any intervention-even one from a President who COULD seem to say no to the Military-is treated with such contempt here. Odd, but for thinking Marc Cooper readers, not surprising.
March 25th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
I will admit, however, to taking Ahmed’s concerns into account because, despite his periodic apologetics for The Surge (this one expending “ZZZZZZs” and premature obituaries here, not that other one) he’s got a sense of humor.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Where it can, it will not sit idly by and let innocent people be massacred. It always has, where it thinks it could, and always will do SOMETHING, including military force were absolutely necessary, to save lives now and into the future, by deposing fucking dictators.
Or supporting them when its view of its interests are in conflict with freedom for another countries citizens:
Saddam Hussein 1983
No freedom for East Timor.
Twenty-five years of oppression in Chile with US support.
About the same for Brazil.
See Jim, I’ll forgive you your wargasm, but this is why I can’t take you seriously. The US doesn’t act like knights in shining armour. Like any nation it acts in its own self-interests – and usually its own self-interests in the short term.
March 25th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Katrina Van Den Heuvel doesn’t play a role in my analytical processes. Nor does Pablo.
————
Ed and Rachel fill that role, Jim… but, no worry mon, Katrina and I get a comedy gig, force a smile outta that grumpy old man in slippers, and (et voila!) our concerns may also be taken into account.
Ahmed del’d the bad news from the Guardian and also from England.. Pablo serves up DerSpegel.. but Ahmed gets the laughs.
Suspect the wagons are tightly circled on this one.
Case of shooting the newsboy who delivered the news from Berlin in today’s Der Spegel.. and then doin’ the jive on what the paper reported. Btw Jim, what is the spin over on Hannity?
March 25th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Ahmed del’d the bad news from the Guardian and also from England.. should read…
….and also from India…
March 25th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
“Ed and Rachel fill that role, Jim”
Actually, that tired obsession serves a bigger role in your “analytical processes” such as they are. Feeds your sense of self-regard I guess. I actually couldn’t tell you what Rachel or Ed think about Libya because I haven’t had time to follow them. Nor do I particularly care…but if you need to recycle this fixation as part of some fragile psychodrama playing out in Marc’s comments thread, feel free.
March 25th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
reg Says:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Big difference between you and me, Jim R, is that Katrina Van Den Heuvel doesn’t play a role in my analytical processes. Nor does Pablo.
————————–
Somewhat reflexive with you, isn’t it…
Speak to the german reaction. Comment on the scope of limited involvement as understood by Sarkozy versus the broader intent indicated by some in the Obama gov’t. Give us a sense as to how much power this or any President should have to engage in military action.
Modernly a Presidents power to act unilaterally is greatest when there is a clear and present danger to the US. This crisis doesn’t meet the smell test. The slippery slope of unfettered executive power to wage war is a greater danger to the Republic than the crisis at hand.
Contained in the german accusation of hypocrisy is the unfettered support by the US for the monarchy in Baharain and for the Saudis.
Too facile to say that both crisis are equal in magnitude but it isn’t too much of stretch then to look closer at motive.
I suppose that played into the german demur and I would not categorize them as leftists.
As I review some of the threads on Dissonance regarding this crisis I am struck by the implication made that only the left opposes the intervention. I am no longer sure if that is the case.
March 25th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Michael Balter raised Noam Chomsky as emblematic of left rote thinking so I had to look (having read the book):
On Chomsky: “He envisages a repositioning of US power across North Africa, especially in Egypt.
He believes the Wall Street Journal accurately observed that the West – the US in particular – now has a problem.
“It hasn’t yet figured out how to control the new rising elements; the assumption is of course that we have to control them,” he says.
On shifts in western alliances with authoritarian regimes, Chomsky says that in a long series of cases it became impossible for the West to support its favourite dictators.
“At that point there’s a game plan that goes into operation. It’s being followed in the Arab world, basically to send dictators out to pasture when you can’t support them any longer and produce ringing declarations of your love of democracy,” he says.
Saudi Arabia provides an example of the contradiction in western policy, he says.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0321/1224292709087.html
I suppose there is a zombie in there, somewhere..
March 25th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
The idea that Western powers are intervening in Libya because they want to topple a regime hostile to their interests is just preposterous.
Preposterous eh? What kind of Marxist would utter such certainty about the West’s benign motives? (He also contradicts himself on that below). The idea that national interests are involved here should not even be in dispute, given the blind eye turned elsewhere – during the same time frame in the same region. I do agree that oil is overplayed by many critics – here and in Iraq. Escalating oil prices might have been a factor for Obama, but it is far too crude to just take control of oil.
Not only their economic interests, but also the credibility of their own ideology was at stake.
True ideology or ideology for public consumption? To pretend that saving human lives is the core mission of the current “alliance” is again, terribly naive. I’m not saying some leaders are not sincere in wanting to prevent tragedy, but if this was truly at the core of their ideology, we would not be living in a world where thousands die every day needlessly.
Can anyone claiming to belong to the left just ignore a popular movement’s plea for protection, even by means of imperialist bandit-cops, when the type of protection requested is not one through which control over their country could be exerted?
Again, it is hopelessly naive to think that this new rebel-West alliance will not allow the West gain a foothold in the country, and exert influence and control, if indeed Gaddafi goes down. The rebels will owe their newfound glory and riches to Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama.
This type of thinking also plainly ignores the danger of encouraging would be protesters to become violent. If you truly believe the West has an obligation to intervene whenever a group of insurrectionists bomb some police stations and march with AKs on a few cities of a divided nation, then what is to stop people from thinking that violence is the always answer? Strangely, I don’t remember this being the predominant view when people of the world were fighting from freedom from colonialism and imperialism. But again, I guess we’re all insurrectionists now.
Finally, this idea that it was just a “plea for protection” is nonsense. The rebels wanted the West to come in and clear the way militarily for them to advance on other cities. They were quite clear about that. The West got in not sure if they were going to go this far or not, but the die seems cast. As the bombing campaign proves ineffective in achieving any of its objectives, pressure is already building for a different kind of war. With the help of good-hearted liberals around the world, they will get their way.
March 25th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
?Nice to see you standing with Merkel, Pabs. As Dan Rather used to say, “Courage!”
Contradictions in US policies? Who knew? Get this news to Maddow, or…whoever…
March 25th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
“Pablo serves up Der Spiegel.. but Ahmed gets the laughs.”
That’s actually a cogent point.
March 25th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Why I hate the NY Times or lies, damn lies, and statistics
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/03/how-many-birds#
a must read of this blog but more importantly one must scan down the comments section
the whole exercise a perfect illustration of how to wank an agenda and how stupidity goes viral with statements like “Obama is a socialist” is analogous to the NY Times quoting the bird conservancy statistics on how many birds are killed by cats– the comments section is illuminating…its a lesson in…..noo ahnz and context. one can see how dangerously stupid and irresponsible a lot of journalism–media is.
March 25th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
‘Again, it is hopelessly naive to think that this new rebel-West alliance will not allow the West gain a foothold in the country, and exert influence and control, if indeed Gaddafi goes down. The rebels will owe their newfound glory and riches to Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama. ‘
ummmm i thought it was stated just how much of a foothold the west already has in Libya. ya think daffi gets his dinero from selling camel dung and sand?
March 25th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
“Katrina Van Den Heuvel doesn’t play a role in my analytical processes.”
My objections to her are grounded in the political and aesthetic. I really can’t stand her when she appears on those televised panels. Neither provocative nor insightful, her somewhat detached, patriarch, calm but still hectoring aunt style demeanor serves only to annoy. For that reason I don’t listen to her. For what it’s worth Maddow’s a lot smarter.
Analysis can be tedious and indulgent but so can an allergy to such thought. Jim’s “love” of America is probably internalised as a sign of great self pride. But what he describes to me doesn’t sound like anything like genuine love, it’s idolatry often verging on narrow tribalism. At it’s worst (okay maybe not worst) you get dumb and dumber, represeted by Gm and Woody (not sure in what order). Btw, for all my apologetics for Sergio yours truly by now receives in response to his posts an equivalent amount of “zzzzzzzzzzzz’s” as Reg.
March 25th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
ummmm i thought it was stated just how much of a foothold the west already has in Libya. ya think daffi gets his dinero from selling camel dung and sand?
Yeah, I’ve been hearing this all the time lately – that Gaddafi actually was a pawn of the West – selling out his oil for cheap to Western companies. In fact, he imposed “stringent fiscal terms” on western oil companies. The foreign investment deals (with the State oil company retaining control) was really only to get production back to where it should be following sanctions. Libya is probably the most untapped sweet crude source in the world.
Beyond oil, Libya’s economy was on fire prior to the recession and tanking of oil prices (their GDP nearly tripled from 2002 to 2008).
The “allies” figured out if they did nothing and the rebels were victorious, they were likely to be shut out again. Likewise, if Gaddafi remained, they’d still be shut out, given their public stance. So the only way to remain with their fingers in the pie, was to back the rebellion and make sure it succeeded. For that reason along, Gaddafi will not be allowed to stay. Never-mind what the people of Western, Central and Southern Libya think.
March 25th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
@Ahmed
I commend you for your willingness to probe all sides of this issue. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that you are refusing to actually take a position. Isnt that a bit of an indulgence?
I do not engage with AVT2S as it is beneath me. I will not to third parties however that he is actually supporting Gadaffi and, more hilariously, as socialist revolutionary he actually claims to be concerned that some “insurrectionists” would go to the extreme of employing violent tactics in a struggle against a ruthless dictatorship! My, my how impolite. And how wretched the stench is. Wretched and nauseating.
4th Time Around is just an idiot and obsessed Clintonite. But AV2TS is really our most lucid example of a rancid leftist totalitarian. I am sincere in saying that I thank heavens he is just an Internet troll and NOT somebody who has any real power. If he were the latter, those living at his mercies would really really be fucked.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
So, being called obsessed with Bill Clinton by Marc Cooper,
hmmm…. well, I guess I could still get called oversexed by
Hugh Hefner, erratic by Charlie Sheen, perhaps abusive by
R Lee Ermey?
If you think Coop is soft peddling his much brained
response to Kosovo, and if you think it had nothing to do
with his childish (but bill paying) irrationality as to The
Hunt for Bill Clinton, you could probably be called naive
by Gomer Pyle.
Love to see Coop post and link to his piece before 0-11,
where he celebrated the Gary Condut scandal and gave the
press high marks for it’s work that summer. Then I’d
happily be called an idiot by Marc Cooper every day for
the rest of my life.
March 26th, 2011 at 8:21 am
“Stringent fiscal terms”?
Gadaffi was a ruthless shakedown artist. See this:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/03/24/pm-shady-business-deals-with-foreign-firms-helped-keep-gaddafi-in-power/
March 26th, 2011 at 9:23 am
4th Time:
It’s creepy the way the your periodically land here with anecdotes that none of us can contextualize.
Borderline obsessive… No, just obsessive.
Over the course of a life all people make mistakes, are insensitive, hurt others, and looking back are not the person they want to see in the mirror. I would readily admit this about myself and would imagine that Marc also is subject to the ordinary vagaries of the human condition.
Conversely it is also degrading to feel slighted and victimized; unable to have a wrong put right… and the resentment builds when the people you know are indifferent. Have you noticed then in this situation people in pain tend to turn to strangers? At best, a cabbie may tell you that it’s really too bad, a salesclerk pauses a second while filling your bag, or a lover may listen a bit in the dark.
Everyone of us try to get thru the day and are wary of those who cannot. The best you’ll get is feigned sympathy.
I feel sorry for you. And I have to say that you scare me.
March 26th, 2011 at 9:36 am
I’ll get to Marc’s question in a bit. Okay, now I feel sympathy for 4th time too. Here, then, is a throwback track that, I’m a fan of. For what it’s worth, 4th, your nailed the campaign song. I heart Fleetwood Mac. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrzUDODznE
March 26th, 2011 at 9:38 am
Yikes I barely woke up. Um, that’s “your man nailed the campaign song”.
March 26th, 2011 at 10:41 am
@ Rob G re Gaddafi as corporate shakedown artist…
well, he isn’t all bad, then, is he? very funny the the pot calling the kettle a “kleptocracy”.
and though i know it must have pained you to validate a point of mine…ta.
March 26th, 2011 at 10:45 am
“pablo Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 9:23 am”
Credit where it’s due – good comment.
March 26th, 2011 at 10:50 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/25/london-march-for-alternative
OT, but the Tory slash and burn in UK is being mirrored by what is happened in Wisconsin and other encroachments by this same free market/privatize and fuck the public good juggernaut. Rick Scott in Florida is busy getting a whole re vamping Medicaid in Florida so he can stuff his pockets with Medicaid dollars through his interests in a chain of walk in clinics.
It is no accident that the UK and US– are both being overrun by the Barbarians. Talk about yer global economy…
would be nice if we could have a thread about this very sinister and well financed onslaught– here its been done through the mid term elections and then state legislatures and or governors donning their bearskins and and hatchets.
more to come…
March 26th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
I appreciated reading your comment Pablo. Props.
March 26th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Fearful that if I did not comply with his repeated requests to link to my ten year old column on Gary Condit that 4th Time would don a black trenchcoat and wade into the local school with a 9mm glock, I am now complying.
http://www.laweekly.com/2001-08-02/news/congressman-condom/
Re-reading the piece, I have to say my ONLY regret is that ten years after writing it, I am saddened that with age I have lost some of my rhetorical sharpness!
I actually stand by every word in it. Gary Condit was a douche bag, he was a prime example of a certain breed of low life congressmen, and while he apparently did not kill his one time secret lover, I don’t say in the piece that he did. All I say is the truth: he lied to investigators about the whole thing and it’s relevant because his personal behavior directly contradicted his public conservative social policies. I also think I give a pretty fair picture of the state of cable news and if 4th Time wasnt indeed such a fucking idiot he would have caught on that what I was saying was mostly tonque in cheek anyway. But then again, there isnt a lot of room available for interpreting nuances when one’s head is crowded with so many competing whispering voices ’round the clock. So, 4th Time, take a long hike up Hillary’s backside and take this along as companion reading material.
March 26th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
I do not engage with AVT2S as it is beneath me. I will not to third parties however that he is actually supporting Gadaffi and, more hilariously, as socialist revolutionary he actually claims to be concerned that some “insurrectionists” would go to the extreme of employing violent tactics in a struggle against a ruthless dictatorship!
I guess I am “supporting Gaddafi” because I noted their economy was growing faster than just about anywhere in the world. The only reason I said that was to highlight the desire for Western companies to get in there and make money off all the construction projects…. as we were being told nonsense like the West has no interests in Libya (later contradicted in his own piece).
My concern with armed revolution is not personal, as I do believe it is sometime legitimate (some criteria I use is knowing who you are backing and that peaceful alternatives are not possible). My concern is with the blatant hypocrisy employed by the rest of the world – those who do not hesitate to condemn every other insurgency (except the Contras perhaps) ever attempted but conveniently found room to encourage this one. My concern is that we are in a very delicate time in the Middle East, and if people get the idea that violence is the path to change, it could be a very bloody spring – and also lose its original moral force. Even more so with Western bombs falling in support.
March 26th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Go away. Or don’t. It doesnt matter, really.
March 26th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I would say it was rather obvious that the path to change in a psychotic dictatorship like Libya was going and is going to be violent. That’s a choice made by the regime, punk. When you allow no legal opposition, when there are no political parties, when freedom of assembly is banned, when you are obligated to act like a monkey in public and jump up and down with Dear Leader’s Green Book in your hand and recite mindless slogans, when protesters are accused of being drug-addled hooligans, when whatever peaceful assemblies were tear gassed and riddled with bullets, when the be-robed maniacal leader comes on TV and calls you rats and threatens your extinction, when the army and air force are called out to quell domestic disorders, when the ruling family has sucked the country dry and looted it of billions and shows no inclination toward loosening it kleptocratic grip, I dont think the employment of violence against the regime i disturrbs any “delicate” balance, nor does it cross any moral boundaries. It’s hilarious to watch a self proclaimed revolutionary use all of the panty-wringing can- we-all-get-along-rhetoric of a muddle headed limp liberal when it’s one of his phony pseudo-revoltutionary regimes that is confronted with a true people’s uprising. At least it’s practice for what it is certain to come sooner than later in Cuba. Next week we will probably be hearing how the capitalist hooligan drug-induced, oil-company-manipulated, violent youth is unfairly tossing molotovs at the Baath Socialist Peoples Paradise in Syria.
Going off now to take a hot detox shower with this one thought… How delightful it would be to be a motivated, idealistic unemployed, hungry 19 year old with an AK-47 in hand trying to overthrow a regime populated by the pontificating hypocrites of the likes of AV2TS! Something worth dying for…
March 26th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Oh, this is good to know.
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
March 26th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
@ Pablo
Given the harsh rhetoric I generally employ against you, I offer you my sincere appreciation for your quite intelligent and humane insights into the foibles of all us who are humans. Myself included. I am man enough to concede this to someone I, perhaps unfairly at times, employ mostly as a punching bag. Thanks.
March 26th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
“Marc Cooper Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 3:19 pm”
Ditto…
March 26th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Marc insists there was no choice but Western bombardment. The International Crisis Group and African Union beg to differ. The AU had a peace delegation almost in the air, when they were ordered by the West to stand down, stay away and shut up. The media obliged and we were told only the Arab League position matters. Same with other peace initiatives. They would have shone a spotlight on who is the intransigent party – the ones linked to Al-Qaeda, with stolen guns trying to take over towns because they will only be happy with Gaddafi on a stick and their all Eastern “council” taking over.
To argue there were no options but insurrection and military intervention, Marc gives us laundry list of exaggerated claims that sound right but don’t stand up. They certainly do not prove that the protesters had no choice but to begin throwing petrol bombs and attacking police stations. To respond to any of it forces me to be seen to be “defending Gaddafi” on human rights. I’d cite HRW reports that have said that Libya has very few political prisoners (mostly LIFG Islamists, who were released in February) and mostly allows demonstrations, despite their official prohibition (like most ME countries). It would require me to link to Washington Post and Guardian articles admitting that Gaddafi does have lots of supporters in the capital, who accost them in private and speak convincingly of their devotion. I’m not going to do all that – just like Marc is above responding to my points.
March 27th, 2011 at 12:40 am
I’m loving Marc at 3:19 pm. Ironically 4th may have have into motion a process that’s elevated the discourse here. A watershed moment, who knows? Props, again, Pablo.
March 27th, 2011 at 3:16 am
AV2TS
I think we need to go back to first questions here because I’m curious about your view given the remarkable ways in which you defend Gaddafi.
Just leaving aside the West’s involvement in this affair, and any related questions for a moment, I would like to know if you acknowledge that Gaddafi is a dictator, with all the usual condiments on that sandwich, repression, political jailings, torture, press restrictions, etc, and whether, because of that, he should go.
That’s it. For purposes of this question, I’m not really interested in the CIA or Bahrain or US rendition or Mumia or the GDP of any country.
Just simply, is Gaddafi a dictator, and as such would you agree that the world and the Libyan people would be better off (or at least freer, with a chance at self-determination) with him not in power?
March 27th, 2011 at 6:40 am
I definitely agree with those who say that the war in Libya has a lot to do with the reputation of the world leaders involved in the conflict. That’s why the representatives of the Arab League first approved the resolution and then criticized the Western countries for its implementation. I think they hoped that the vote would never pass in the Security Council. Moreover, the victory in Libya would mean that the popularity of the French and British leaders would increase as it was the case after the Falklands war in the 1980s and that’s exactly what those leaders need right now.
March 27th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Steve Clemons has one of the most thoughtful “contrarian” pieces on the downsides of the Lybia action I’ve seen to date:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2011/03/tally_on_libya/
Worth checking out…I still think the “best” decision was made, but just because it’s “best” doesn’t mean it’s all good.
March 27th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Ahmed: “Ironically 4th may have have into motion a process that’s elevated the discourse here.”
Well, I for one refuse to be tricked into becoming a better person…
Nice try, Ahmed. But no dice!
March 27th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Thanks for the Clemons piece, Reg. The lesson this episode is inevitably teaching Iran and North Korea (and others) is very important – do not abandon your nuclear programs because it only will weaken your security. That is a pretty serious thing no?
I am heartened by Obama’s apparent peristence in trying to keep NATO’s “hands off” – but apparently he has lost that argument to Sarkozy.
March 27th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
“Well, I for one refuse to be tricked into becoming a better person…”
It’s working well for you so far reg.
Pablo’s nice comment reminds me of that old Proverb, “A gentle word turns away wrath.” Damn, I feel like a Gaddafi.
March 27th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
“It’s working well for you so far reg.”
I appreciate your support.
March 27th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Dan O: You haven’t been paying attention. The gentleman you query believes that Gaddafi is indeed a dictator but he’s also an anti-imperialist, except when he’s a partner with the imperialists. He admits that said dictator carries out repression but never with heavy weaponry against unarmed and peaceful protesters, only against violent insurrectionary and hooligan youth. He also believes that the regime is corrupt but it is more corrupt to want to have regime change. He is in favor of protecting the people and citizens of Benghazi except those he politically disagrees with and except any who have broken the law of Greater Libya. He is in favor of interrupting the war making capacity of the dictator unless it is interrupted by material manufactured in the U.S. or Europe. Good news is he is willing to pay you $10 for every dead Libyan you can produce with tank shell shrapnel in his or her body. Hope that answers your questions for you.