 |
|||
|
|
|
 Western Intervention in Libya Should Not FlyPosted on Mar 8, 2011To intervene in another country’s internal conflict has always posed a prudential judgment, weighing one’s own national interest, alliances, treaty obligations, the global balance and international law. The 20th century has greatly complicated the matter by adding to this combination humanitarian convictions and considerations, mainly inspired by the modern experience of deliberate atrocity and ideologically motivated genocide in and since the Second World War. Humanitarian military intervention in the affairs of another country, as a great many people wish to see happen in support of the Libyan popular rebellion against the grotesque and oppressive dictatorship of Col. Moammar Gadhafi, can be inspired by moral convictions (in this case, more a matter of simple moral outrage inspired by the character of Gadhafi’s rule), rooted ultimately in religion or in abstract conceptions of justice, or in established international law or agreement. It can also be a bloody blunder. Finally, it can disguise a policy of self-interest, greed, political ideology or exploitation—or be interpreted as such—as was the case in the American and British-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979—although the Soviets were also the victims of American entrapment, as Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in a French magazine in 1998. (This did not prove to have been a very smart move by America in the long run, although as Mr. Brzezinski has explained, it did deal the fatal blow to a moribund Soviet Union. It is also why the U.S. is in Afghanistan today.) An Egypt ruled by a military elite suited the American interest and that of its Israeli ally until earlier this year, not because of any American concern for Egyptian national interest or the Egyptians’ well-being, but because it suited Washington (and its European allies) to have Egypt—and Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan, the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia and the other Muslim states in the region (Iran the self-elected exception)—politically passive and obedient to the prevailing international economic norms and practices of the Western world. That is the way international interest works. When the Egyptian uprising broke out, after the one in Tunisia, Washington found itself in a dilemma. Its conservative Arab and Israeli allies—far more important to American economic and domestic political interests than Egypt—urged U.S. intervention in the non-humanitarian interest of defending the Hosni Mubarak dictatorship. So did many in Congress, the Pentagon and American business. Advertisement The alternative would have been what we see now in Libya. Western opinion currently appears in favor of imposing a “no-fly” zone to support the uprising. This is understandable. The insurgents want to be free from Gadhafi’s loathsome, fantasy-laden and brutal rule. We wish them success. However, overt military intervention would transform a civil conflict into a war between the existing Libyan government and the West—the U.S., NATO and Europe. The essence of the general Arab uprising is that it has been popular, authentic, spontaneous, democratic and (with respect to established international political and economic interests) disinterested. This has been its marvel and the source of its strength. It has been unique. An overt foreign military intervention threatens to discredit all that, undermining the essential quality of the Arab Revolution. In addition, although it may seem heartless to say this, the Arab uprising is not our affair, and we should stay away from it. It is theirs, and they must do with it what they wish if they are to maintain their self-respect, their newly achieved power and their ability to go forward from here to bring deep renewal to their cultural world. The civil struggle in Libya is not merely Gadhafi versus the people but an affair of the tribal attachments of an Arab and Berber population, whose separate regions (Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan in modern times) were under Ottoman domination from the 16th century forward and were not united until the 20th century, and separatism undoubtedly persists even now. Western policy planners, military men and even humanitarian enthusiasts do well not to blunder into things they know nothing about. Readers may recall that George W. Bush, having eagerly invaded the Muslim world, had to be sat down and have explained to him the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, and why this implied that he was handing Iraq over to predominantly Iranian influence. Moreover, military intervention is highly destructive. A no-fly zone sounds sensible and prudent, but the U.S. (as Robert Gates has warned Washington) does not intervene anywhere without first suppressing all possible defensive threats to American forces. Hence a NATO or U.S. no-fly zone would be preceded by days if not weeks of systematic bombardment of Libyan defensive sites, inevitably located near cities and oil installations, with much “collateral damage” and many civilian casualties. It is not a humanitarian policy. Visit William Pfaff’s website for more on his latest book, “The Irony of Manifest Destiny: The Tragedy of America’s Foreign Policy” (Walker & Co., $25), at www.williampfaff.com. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.  TAGS:
|
Say ‘Hi-Ho!’ as They Strip-Search You
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By rosemerry, March 13, 2011 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with most of the comments, but not voice from the east; btw jimch, Israel is as usual moaning, and asking for another $20billion from the USA to continue its aggression on all its neighbours.
I agree there should not be intervention, but unfortunately there already is, and the West has enjoyed its dealing with the hated régime for many years. Hypocrisy as always.
Report thisBy Jim Yell, March 13, 2011 at 11:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Internation Corporations and the governments that are controlled by them (aka most all the governments in the world) conspire to keep Gadafi in power, have supported and kept him rich. That even though we know he has attacked our countries with terror.
Why no support for the people of Libya? For all the talk of Freedom and Democracy what the Corporations want are dictators who can supply them with huge profits at the expense of the countries involved. That is why the legally elected governments of Chili and Guatemala were overthrown. That is why any move of people to democracy is blocked to enable a leader to come forward who will play the corporate game.
We don’t have to fight for Libyans we just need to do what we do best and see they have the weapons they need to kick Gadfi out and let them sort out their own mess themselves. That is a new thought.
Report thisBy drbhelthi, March 11, 2011 at 4:37 am Link to this comment
“Leaving the people of a country to “solve their own problems” is just a free pass to the brutal regimes to continue what they are doing.”
Looking at what has happened to the former VietNam, Jugoslavia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, after U.S./Zionist intervention, and the CIA/MOSSAD/Blackwater-EX-terrorist campaigns in the Mid East, which is worse?
The human destruction and illness, the defective children, family misery from “depleted-uranium” rounds, alone, is too much!
No country on the earth needs the WWII NAZI, GHWBushSr/Zionist brand of “American Democracy.” The American Citizenry especially not.
Report thisBy jimch, March 10, 2011 at 1:23 am Link to this comment
As a consequence of all the uprisings and turmoil in the Arab countries, the Israelis have to be smiling. So long as it persists there is zero chance of their being tampered with.
Report thisBy Blackspeare, March 9, 2011 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment
By doing nothing, the world sides with al-Qadhdh?fi.
Report thisBy Voice from the East, March 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Great article, but I do have a few points to make about its conclusions. I live in Serbia, not the US, so my perspective might be a little different.
Yes, humanitarian interventions are highly doubtful in regards of both their legitimacy and effectiveness, but sometimes, the alternatives are frightening.
Just remember Rwanda in 1994, where there was no intervention. A shame.
At the other hand, air-strikes on Serbia in 1999 eventually did help us to bring down a dictator, although at the first moment they just galvanized support for him, as he was seen as a national hero fighting “the evil imperialists”. The price for this is that overwhelming majority of Serbian people still have a highly negative opinion about US. Maybe our democratic movement would succeed without the NATO bombing, but who knows.
There must be a better form of intervening out there to be found and I hope US finds it before it is too late. Leaving the people of a country to “solve their own problems” is just a free pass to the brutal regimes to continue what they are doing.
Report thisBy frecklefever, March 9, 2011 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment
BRZEZINSKI GLOATED THAT POLICIES HE HELPED FORMULATE BROUGHT DOWN THE SOVIET
Report thisUNION..BUT IT TRAPPED AMERICA IN AFGHANISTAN… AND IS BRINGING ABOUT AMERICAS
DEMISE…LIKE THE CHINESE FINGER PUZZLE FOREIGN POLICY CAN TRAP THE UNWARY…AND
WILLIAMS ARTICLE POINTS OUT THE STICKINESS THAT CAN RESULT FROM A SUPERFICIAL
ASSESSMENT…
By TDoff, March 9, 2011 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment
Why don’t we just give MOSSAD the OK to drop a Neutron Bomb on Godaffy? Not only would that make Libya a No Fly zone, it would also become a No Walk, No Talk, No Crawl, No Pee zone. AND THE OIL WOULD CONTINUE TO FLOW, UNDISTURBED!
Report thisAs far as the rebels go, well, too bad, being a rebel is a risky business, they take their chances. Look at Assange, Manning, Sheen, et.al.
And we could donate the Libyan oil rights to Israel in exchange for cutting back 10% on our foreign aide to them, which would give US enough extra cash to educate our kids sufficiently that they’d learn not to do the stupid things that brought US to our current debacle.
By DavidByron, March 9, 2011 at 11:55 am Link to this comment
“The insurgents want to be free from Gadhafi’s loathsome, fantasy-laden and brutal rule.”
I was under the impression that Libya had a better standard of living and better civil conditions than any other country in Northern Africa?
So-called “humanitarian” interventions are outlawed by the UN charter. They are criminal wars of aggression. They are also NEVER made for actual humanitarian reasons.
And why all this pretense that the US is not already backing the civil war launched against the government of Libya?
Report thisBy Big B, March 9, 2011 at 7:46 am Link to this comment
We will do exactly what our Saudi bosses tell us to do in order to “keep the oil flowing”.
Our government has but one goal in the 21st century, keep the flow of relatively cheap energy coming to the west. Without it, our civilization would fall.
We are crackheads, just ensuring our next fix.
Report thisBy FRTothus, March 9, 2011 at 6:19 am Link to this comment
Subversion and sabotage is the essence of US policy,
Report thisboth foreign and domestic. To argue now against US
intervention comes very late in the game, and
wrongfully assumes that up until this point, the US has
been the innocent by-stander, when it has been, in
fact, the prime mover in ruthlessly and intentionally
overthrowing democratic governments and installing and
supporting brutal dictatorships and police states,
while remaining the greatest sponsor and practitioner
of terrorism in the world, and the greatest threat to
peace.
By drbhelthi, March 9, 2011 at 3:32 am Link to this comment
Hitler would be very proud of the Georg H. Scherff Sr. and the GHWBushSr family and their tool, the C.I.A. If all CIA/MOSSAD and mercenaries were to be withdrawn from their socially and politically disruptive activities in the Mid-East, all the current protests would swiftly cease to exist, expecially the Lybian uprising.
Why remove Moammar Gaddafi, when Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere demonstrate that Zionist Imperialism, under the guise of “American Democracy” is much worse?
Using Americans to wipe out the Arab Moslem folk has proven to be a useful tactic of the Zionist Hitler Society. Sad days for Americans, Europeans, Moslems, genuine Jewish folk, and the entire world.
Report thisBy MeHere, March 9, 2011 at 2:10 am Link to this comment
Thanks, W. Pfaff. So many questions and issues come to mind.
Since when humanitarian aid from the US has been provided with no strings
attached? It just hasn’t happened. At the same time, many places in the world
enduring even more extreme suffering than Libya have been ignored. It doesn’t
add up.
The type of intervention many are asking for will likely cause enormous harm
and unpredictable confusion in a culture we know nothing about -and
“we” includes those who are paid to know and make decisions. Any violence
from the outside could easily result in the crushing of the aspirations of those
engaged in overthrowing the unjust regime.
If we were sincerely committed to saving lives and sparing suffering, we would
Report thisbe implementing changes in national and foreign policy that could achieve that
goal. So the first thing we need to do is clear our minds and distinguish
between self-serving humanism and authentic concern for the well-being of
others.
By Not One More!, March 8, 2011 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment
The Hungarians were encouraged to revolt in 1956, and they got the same amount of help as the Libyans.
By the way, are we still buying their oil?
If the US practiced true justice in the world, this article would be outrageous in its lack of humanity.
I wonder if this writer spoke out when Obama continued the illegal war? And I wonder if he justifies Obama’s policy in Guantanamo.
The last thing the US stands for in world politics is peace, justice and liberty for all.
Report thisBy gerard, March 8, 2011 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment
Instead of supporting Ghadaffi and selling him arms and training, the U.S. could have been leading him toward more democratic rule for decades, encouraging him as an example by cutting back on our own overblown “homeland security” apparatus, its prisons, torture and secrecy and by stopping our oil wars against Arabs whenever, wherever.
It is hypocritical in addition to being dangerous to intercede with a pretense of helping democracy take root—unless and until the U.S. is asked to intercede by the people who are themselves trying to unseat Ghadiffi.
It can be safely presumed that other Arab nations understand conditions and ideas current in Libya and are more qualified to help in ways possibly more compatible with indigenous needs. We could donate funds through them for humanitarian aid. It is not smart to go in using military equipment or strategy or to take initiatives alone. Our reputation is less than sterling in these areas, you know, and there are places where nobody loves us—for our brand of democracy, our military force,—or for anything else, for that matter.
Report this