|
|
May 24, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Those Useful TyrantsPosted on Mar 21, 2011
Anyone looking for principle and logic in the attack on Moammar Gadhafi’s tyrannical regime will be disappointed. President Barack Obama and his advisers should acknowledge the obvious truth: They are reacting to the revolutionary fervor in the Arab world with the arbitrary “realism” that is a superpower’s prerogative. Faced with an armed uprising by democracy-seeking rebels, Gadhafi threatened to turn all of Libya into a charnel house. The United States and its allies responded with overwhelming military force that is clearly intended to cripple the government and boost the revolt’s chances of success. Thus begins our third concurrent Middle East war. No one has the slightest idea how, or when, this one will end. I have to admit that I, too, would have found it hard to stand idly by as Gadhafi drenched the streets of Benghazi in blood. But what makes it any easier to watch other despots do the same thing? In Yemen, forces loyal to dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh have slaughtered dozens of defenseless protesters seeking democratic reform. Saleh, who has ruled the nation for 33 years, clings desperately to power despite having been abandoned by many of his political supporters and some of his generals. He has shown nothing but defiance. “Every day we hear a statement from Obama saying, ‘Egypt you can’t do this, Tunisia don’t do that,’” Saleh said in a speech earlier this month. “Are you president of the United States, or president of the world?” Advertisement In Bahrain, the ruling al-Khalifa royal family has responded to peaceful demonstrations with violent repression. While the world’s attention was focused on the unfolding tragedy in Japan and the looming tragedy in Libya, Bahrain’s leaders brutally cleared Pearl Square of its protest encampment and even destroyed the towering monument that had become the pro-democracy movement’s most powerful symbol. But for Bahrain, too, we have polite words rather than decisive action. Why? Because the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is based there, astride the Persian Gulf shipping lanes through which 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil shipments must pass. The base gives the United States a way to counter Iran’s growing power. Also, the Khalifas are close allies of the Saudi royals, who are desperate to keep the protests in Bahrain from spilling over into the nearby kingdom. The Saudi rulers sent troops to help crush the Bahrain demonstrations and have banned any kind of pro-democracy agitation at home. For the House of Saud, however, the White House has barely managed to choke out a tsk-tsk. Why is Libya so different? Basically, because the dictators of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia—also Jordan and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, for that matter—are friendly, cooperative and useful. Gadhafi is not. You will recall Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s initial assessment that the regime of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak was “stable.” We knew that Mubarak was brutal and corrupt, but only when it became clear that his hold on power was slipping—and that the Egyptian military establishment would not fire on peaceful Egyptian citizens—did the Obama administration position itself on the right side of history. In explaining why the U.S. would join in establishing the Libya no-fly zone, which immediately became much more, Obama tied himself in rhetorical knots. If Gadhafi were to commit atrocities against his people, Obama said, “The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.” Well, duh. As he no doubt has noticed, the region is already destabilized. Friendly regimes are already being threatened, but not by Gadhafi. They are endangered by the democratic aspirations of their own people. Gadhafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn’t going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We’ll know this isn’t about justice, it’s about power. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.  TAGS:
|
After Oklahoma Disaster, Give Thanks to Government
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Marshall, March 25, 2011 at 4:07 am Link to this comment
By Patrick Wright, March 23 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment
Saudis kicked out our bases in 2000 so your theory doesn’t stand up.
Report thisBy Napolean DoneHisPart, March 23, 2011 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment
The U.S. Government ( not we, for I do NOT affiliate with these murderers and shysters ) is in Libya because fat cats are crying that their money machines aren’t producing enough expected returns.
People’s incomes are being disrupted, and that is the reason the money machine know as the U.S. military is creating more debt service… remember how WWII was THE event which brought the U.S. out of a depression.
History repeats itself, does it not?
The financial interests and the high-society / hierarchy of the pedigreed is what is being hurt, NOT the chattel / labor force of Libya.
Let’s see things for how they really are and work in this dark world and STOP the adolescent bantering.
Report thisBy Patrick Wright, March 23, 2011 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The only reason we’re bombing Libya today is that Libya kicked out our military
Report thisbases in 1970. Although we won’t bomb France, it is the same reason that France
officially ridiculed by the US. Kicking out our bases is an example that can never
be left unpunished.
By Byard Pidgeon, March 23, 2011 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment
Eugene Robinson, you must be doing something right, to be getting both
Report thisthoughtful comments and idiotic rants from all directions.
Keep it up.
By Aarky, March 23, 2011 at 10:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Lafayette: You sound like you attended the briefing session for Hillary, Susan Rice, Joe Lieberman and other like minded war mongers who were pushing for this attack. But Wait! This has been such a SNAFU so far that this must be the briefing session they didn’t azttend. We have been doing the heavy lifting/shooting so far and our best hope is that NATO might take this mess off our hands. Good Luck with that one! One piddling Arab country will send four jets to help out. Most of the members of the UN Security Council abstained until we ran out and arm twisted a couple countries to vote for our new adventure. The US excels at shooting herself in the foot again. One more FUBAR!
Report thisBy EmileZ, March 23, 2011 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
Here’s to you… Ok nevermind, Kudos to you Mr. Robinson!!!
Report thisBy Marshall, March 23, 2011 at 4:28 am Link to this comment
By Blackspeare, March 23 at 12:35 am Link to this comment
As I recall, Saddam was a mass murderer and the prevention of genocide was one
Report thisof the humanitarian reasons cited for going to war. Why is Iraq different from
Libya?
By Blackspeare, March 22, 2011 at 8:35 pm Link to this comment
There is a strong rationale for Obama approving US involvement in Libya. During the Clinton and Bush I years there were international coalitions to prevent mass atrocities Bosnia and Kuwait being the two examples. It appeared the world was aligned to cooperate and intervene when necessary to protect civilians. Rwanda stands out as the example of what happens when nothing is done! However, that cooperation for preventing genocide had been undermined by George W. Bush’s unilateral intervention in Iraq, which discredited U.S. military action abroad and made building coalitions to stop war crimes seemingly impossible. Now, Obama has the chance to correct that vision and once again have the world powers cooperate to build coalition and consensus to stop mass murders by deranged dictators. Libya now serves as that example.
Report thisBy mackTN, March 22, 2011 at 5:07 pm Link to this comment
A Nobel Peace Prize? Based on what? His stand against the Iraq War? As I recall
George Bush went to the U.N., too, and mustered together a “Coalition of the
Willing” to give him some cover. Why US? Why not tell Saudi Arabia to deal with it,
or Egypt? After all this, will gas prices decline? Did they rise to court public
support?
Why can’t we ever get an honest story out of anyone? There is always the Press
Report thisVersion and the Private Version. Everything is manipulated, but in the end it’s We
the People who pay the bills.
By Bacilo de Koch, March 22, 2011 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment
“What is this useful and myopic idiot not saying today? Bush did it, Bush did it, Bush did it!”
Report thisYeah… That worked out so well…
By Go Right Young Man, March 22, 2011 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment
It’s been well known for decades that Libya harbors “terror” groups and individuals.
Nonetheless, that is not what this is about.
Report thisBy Lafayette, March 22, 2011 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment
Oh, yes, I see it very clearly now:
1) The US has no reason whatsoever to intervene when the lives of civilians are being taken unless (and only unless) al Qaeda is operating in that same country.
Which means that,
2) Americans are bereft of any sense whatsoever as regards basic Human Rights - except where they happen to coincide with Uncle Sam’s own internal security imperatives or domestic need for oil imports.
Got it. Thanx.
Report thisBy felicity, March 22, 2011 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment
It is odd that so far we’ve given Yemen a pass given
that we, supposedly, intervene militarily in
countries that threaten to perhaps deny us their oil
and/or harbor terrorist cells. Yemen, if rumors are
to be believed, harbors, big time, terrorist cells.
Of course, Libya neither harbors terrorist cells nor
supplies us with much oil - so go figure the no-fly
zone action. (The bulk of our oil comes from Canada,
Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, in that order.)
Maybe it’s time to step back and take an in depth
Report thislook at our foreign policies? Like, do we really
need 15,000 marines stationed on Okinawa? And how
about including the costs of wars in the budget
deficit?
By Lafayette, March 22, 2011 at 11:54 am Link to this comment
Why not glide over to Fox News, get your finger out, and watch some eyecandy for the ignorant masses.
Obama-bashing around here is so dull it’s borrrrrinnnnnggggggg!
Report thisBy Lafayette, March 22, 2011 at 10:17 am Link to this comment
THE FIX HE IS IN
Because, as PotUS, you do what you can when you can.
Thankfully, for the Libyan rebels, ER is not PotUS. He’d have dithered till Benghazi was in flames? With rebel-heads hung from every lamp-post?
Had France not sent 3000 troops and a naval fleet to help Washington, our English-english would be “perfect”.
Admittedly, the French did to England what England has been doing to France. There was no love lost between Louis XVI of France and the “rebels”. He would lose his head in the French rebellion 13 years latter.
But history is like that. Leaders take advantage of circumstance, try to think them out, but never procrastinate when fate comes knocking hard on the door. Prying the colonies away from England was a “good move” for France.
Just like promoting an Arab Springtime is a “good move” in the fight with al Qaeda. It cuts its support base at ground level. If Uncle Sam can push the obstreperous Israelis into a peace treaty with the Palestinians.
The disaffected youth, suppressed by autocratic governments, are feeding al Qaeda with its kamikazes. That source will suffer if, at home, there is democracy and jobs - along with a Palestinian Homeland at peace with Israel.
That’s true, but so what? War is war, we try to avoid it but when the time is opportune it becomes ineluctable.
It is pettifoggery to think this war will go the same way as the Gulf War or Afghanistan - since any on-the-ground combat troops are out of the question. (UN Resolution 1973 forbids it.)
So, what’s next? Here’s one exit scenario:
* First a stalemate on the ground, such that the Gadaffi Guys understand that they cannot “win” this war.
* Blockade oil exports from those refineries under Gaddafi’s command. Allow refineries under rebel command to sell oil.
* Sequester all foreign funds of the Gaddafis. And use it as a bargaining point. They probably have money stashed somewhere in Emirates as did the Tunisian Ben Ali family.
* Gaddaffi sooner or later will not be able to pay for the mercenaries who are the point-men in his assaults. And the mercenaries declared outlaws in Europe.
* Negotiate a settlement that guarantees the Gadaffi Guys’ lives, but not in Libya.
* Or offer them a national election that is both run and guaranteed by external advisors (including members of the Arab League). They’d probably lose it or be forced to share power with the rebels.
* A total blockade of the country will bring it to its knees. The slack in the loss of Libya’s oil exports has already been assumed by Saudi Arabia.
* So, sooner rather than later, Gadaffi will have to find a way to pay for and obtain the food that goes to all those Libyans who “love him”. These will be bargaining points when negotiating with him.
* Or, he will be faced with food riots. Which will bend the remaining army over to the rebel side. Without money, they cannot feed their families. (All those women you see on TV reports wearing green and waving Gadaffi’s picture, saying that they “love him”? They are the wives of Army soldiers.)
NB: To get his Air Force pilots (who “love him” also) to fly their aircraft, he sequestered their families whilst they were on patrol and brought the planes back.
There are not 35 ways for Gaddafi to get out of the fix he is in either.
Report thisBy RUTH A SHALOM, March 22, 2011 at 9:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It is all about OIL
Report thisThe Ivory Coast is just as bad, but, alas, they produce only cocoa
By Go Right Young Man, March 22, 2011 at 7:34 am Link to this comment
This short-sighted bigot, Robinson, is arguing that the Middle East is awash with people crying out for freedom from tyranny and a chance for representative forms of government.
What is this useful and myopic idiot not saying today? Bush did it, Bush did it, Bush did it!
Report thisBy glider, March 22, 2011 at 2:53 am Link to this comment
Kudos to Eugene for stepping away from his usual Obamabot posture and pointing out the hypocrisy of Obamas words and actions.
Report thisBy Matty, March 22, 2011 at 2:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
There is an obvious distinction between Libya and the uprisings in Yemen and Bahrain that just about every critic leaves out of their analysis: Gaddafi had already perpetrated violence several orders of magnitude greater than his counterparts in Yemen and Bahrain. We’ve watched Libya over the past four weeks as forces commanded by its deranged leader and his sons systematically destroyed entire cities to root out some hundreds of brave, if untrained and poorly armed, freedom fighters. If the “rebel” estimate of 8,000 dead is anywhere close to accurate, and given the interminable nature of Gaddafi’s rampage, intervening in Libya is completely justified.
Report thisBy wildwest4me, March 22, 2011 at 1:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Response to TDoff:
FABULOUS COMMENT! MADE MY DAY. THANKS.
Report thisBy Napolean DoneHisPart, March 22, 2011 at 1:08 am Link to this comment
Debt from warring on folks is big business.. how else do empires keep funding their operations?
I think the military is the spear-head for the economy… Look at how Rome had to keep expanding, looting, pillaging and raping their defenseless neighbors and had to enslave sovereigns in order to keep their coffers filled… is it any different today for the Amerikan Empire?
Yet, can anyone see that dictators exist stateside too?
Can anyone name the first Amerikan Dictator?
You may need to read or see the interview with Gary Wills, the author of “Bomb Power.”
Or watch this:
http://fora.tv/2010/02/10/Garry_Wills_Bomb_Power
Report thisBy Marshall, March 22, 2011 at 12:03 am Link to this comment
So the left is now arguing that we should attack more countries on humanitarian
Report thisgrounds? I assume the author then feels that our removal of Saddam was justified
after all.
By Artful Dodger, March 21, 2011 at 10:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Why is Eugene Robinson sounding like William Krystol? I am so discouraged with these court eunuch liberals. No, it is not right for us to intervene in Libya or anywhere else in the world. This Obama administration is the third term of GW Bush in so many ways. I really loathe my government in Washington. It has its hands down your pants at the airport, and now it wants more wars in Africa and Arabia. Kucinich is calling for impeachment of Obama after pushing it for Bush. But the whole idea of impeachment seems too have lost any bite too it. The threat has been issued so often from Reagan to Obama without any follow through. Presidents know they are bullet proof against it. The very bowels of DC need deep enemas. This system is too plugged with encrusted purifying masses. Elections don’t work. We need to set some coffee to boil and then pour it into the rubber sack. A gallon of tepid joe should do some good. Anything else is such weak tea.
Report thisBy TDoff, March 21, 2011 at 10:14 pm Link to this comment
Instead of this ‘humanitarian’, sticking-up for the principles of democracy warring, in obscure places like Libya, why don’t we attack and destroy folks who are actually damaging the US and it’s citizens? Why not sail our fleet into New York harbor and start Tomahawking Wall Street and the Fed?
Report this