3.20.2011

the arabist: five questions few are asking about libya

Yippee, a no-fly zone, because it's much better for the West to kill Libyans than for Gaddafi to do it! Hey, those crazy Arabs can't liberate themselves, you know. They need our help. Just ask the Iraqis! Those who have survived, anyway.

Some excellent analysis by The Arabist: 5 questions few are asking about Libya.

Thanks to Hysperia for the Arabist post.

Also:

Stop the War Coalition (UK): The real reasons behind the United Nations' Libya vote:
A new war has been declared in the Middle East. With the bloody and failing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan still in place, the USA, Britain and France are now committed to an escalating armed intervention in Libya.
Dissident Voice: Mission Creep and Slippery Slopes, Bombs Away Over Libya

6 comments:

Cool Hand Luke said...

I mean it's been 8 years yesterday since the U.S. started a war. It's about time to start another one right.

laura k said...

I added more links to this post. Andrew Murray, national chair of the UK's Stop the War Coalition, expands on CHL's thought.

allan said...

CNN: "The U.S. military has launched its first missiles in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi's forces ..."

Yes, every single one of those missiles will hit only Gadhafi's forces. ... Still, shouldn't take more than an afternoon to wipe them out. Put the kettle on ...

allan said...

I mean it's been 8 years yesterday since the U.S. started a war. It's about time to start another one right.

After Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been Pakistan and Yemen (and probably another one or two I have forgotten). No way the US can go 8 years without a new war.

allan said...

Abdel al-Bari Atwan (editor-in-chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi, the pan-Arab newspaper based in London), writing in the Guardian:

First, what motives lie behind this intervention? While the UN was voting to impose a no-fly zone in Libya, at least 40 civilians were killed in a US drone attack in Waziristan in Pakistan. And as I write, al-Jazeera is broadcasting scenes of carnage from Sanaa, Yemen, where at least 40 protesters have been shot dead. But there will be no UN no-fly zone to protect Pakistani civilians from US attacks, or to protect Yemenis. One cannot help but question the selective involvement of the west in the so-called "Arab spring" series of uprisings. ...

Finally, there is the worry that the Arab spring will be derailed by events in Libya. If uprising plus violent suppression equals western intervention, the long-suffering Arab subjects of the region's remaining autocrats might be coerced into sticking with the status quo.

***

Which may be (one of) the point(s).

allan said...

And there are people who think that if you do not support X, then you must wholeheartedly support Y.

These people are unable (or, to be generous, unwilling) to acknowledge there are often more than two possible solutions to any given problem, and that the world does not exist in black & white.

Anyone falling back on that small-minded argument is admitting that he is incapable of considering anything other than the two yes/no options that the mainstream media has dictated to him.

Chris Floyd, Empire Burlesque:

To decry the course of action being taken by the interventionists in Libya is not to "support" Gadafy. (Unlike his present attackers, who have supported him most sumptuously for years.) This should go without saying, but of course it can't; this witless denunciation is invariably trotted out against anyone who does not immediately jump on the bloodsoaked bandwagon whenever our leaders start killing people. (You can only oppose this mass production of foreign corpses after it's over -- and even then, you can only describe it as a mistake, or an example of good intentions gone awry through incompetence or happenstance.) But as I noted in the comments here recently:

"To oppose an outside military invention is not the same thing as "supporting" whomever the intervention is aimed against. It is simply to look at the historical record and see what the fruits of these interventions actually are. They are, invariably, a widening of the conflict, a vast increase in civilian suffering (even in interventions ostensibly launched specifically to prevent civilian suffering), years of widening, rippling instability, pervasive corruption by war profiteers, and a further militarizing of world society. It is exacerbating an evil by contributing an equal or even greater evil to the mix."

****