let the right one in, military-style
Mar. 1st, 2011 10:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
intertribalOne of the most enduring characteristics of U.S. foreign policy, it seems to me, is a complete disregard for other states' sovereignty coinciding with a very stubborn insistence on American sovereignty. At best it's Julianne Moore's character in The Lost World: "She has to touch it. She can't not touch." At worst it's Azathoth on the loose. There are exceptions of course - most of the African continent appears safe from U.S. foreign policy, for better or for worse - and there are regions that are particularly prone to recurring U.S. infection (as one of my college professors said, "pray to God that you don't have oil"). Related is the characteristic to respond to a dog bite with a machine gun.
So the U.S. now has military aircraft and ships edging closer to Libya. Because "all options are on the table." And "they were held back until Friday because of fears that the Libyan government might take its diplomats and other Americans there hostage." Oh dear.
As usual, people in the military are trying to drag their feet. Why? "There is no appetite for assigning ground troops to any mission," and "any United States military presence could undermine the legitimacy of the Libyan revolt as an internal, grass-roots movement" and "Qaddafi supporters — and even those across the Arab world who do not like the dictator — could denounce American action as being only about oil" and the problem of "the limits of force and the difficulties and complexities of contemporary military operations." (European countries continue to be wary of their colonial legacy, too, something that can't be said of the U.S. - "what colonial legacy?" ba-dum-bing) And of course, it would play right into Qaddafi's hands. What would happen after the "crazy" man is gone? Would we ("the U.N."/"NATO"/"coalition forces") stay to make sure things don't get out of hand? Would we perhaps set a date for free and fair elections? Or how about sending some nation-building experts? Well, we'd need to find somebody good to replace the crazy before we could leave (maybe somebody like the fine gentlemen featured in this book). And suddenly, aw, another itty bitty American colony. And the U.S. would succeed in, once again, vanquishing a bottom-up democratic trend in the Middle East. It is, as always, Congress and certain think tanks - left and right - who are pushing for action.
Humanitarian intervention is tricky, yes. But what's happening in Libya is not genocide. It's a conflict between pro-regime and anti-regime forces. There is an opposition force in Libya that wants to get Qaddafi out themselves. There is no indication that they're slowing down or giving up, and it is impossible to know whether or not they'll succeed. David Cameron's bombastic remarks about "not leaving the people of Libya to their fate" (too much Lord of the Rings, Prime Minister? Gondor "called for aid," remember) are belittling and unnecessary. The possibility of self-determination is not out of the picture here. Not until the U.S. takes it out of the picture by taking the conflict into America's own hands. Does that mean "sit around and do nothing"? No. Believe it or not, a whole range of possibilities exist between thumb-twiddling and invasion. Humanitarian aid to opposition forces and civilians is a very good idea. Working with refugees along the borders is another very good idea. Military intervention is not. Military aid in the form of training and ammunition and strategic planning might be a good idea, but I'm not convinced the U.S. would be capable of restraining itself to the level of "consultation" when trying to overthrow a regime (the U.S. has a better track record in that regard when trying to help a regime suppress opposition). Maybe if we start calling this a "covert mission" the U.S. will restrain itself, although that would mean the involvement of the CIA.
What do the people in Libya want?
So the U.S. now has military aircraft and ships edging closer to Libya. Because "all options are on the table." And "they were held back until Friday because of fears that the Libyan government might take its diplomats and other Americans there hostage." Oh dear.
As usual, people in the military are trying to drag their feet. Why? "There is no appetite for assigning ground troops to any mission," and "any United States military presence could undermine the legitimacy of the Libyan revolt as an internal, grass-roots movement" and "Qaddafi supporters — and even those across the Arab world who do not like the dictator — could denounce American action as being only about oil" and the problem of "the limits of force and the difficulties and complexities of contemporary military operations." (European countries continue to be wary of their colonial legacy, too, something that can't be said of the U.S. - "what colonial legacy?" ba-dum-bing) And of course, it would play right into Qaddafi's hands. What would happen after the "crazy" man is gone? Would we ("the U.N."/"NATO"/"coalition forces") stay to make sure things don't get out of hand? Would we perhaps set a date for free and fair elections? Or how about sending some nation-building experts? Well, we'd need to find somebody good to replace the crazy before we could leave (maybe somebody like the fine gentlemen featured in this book). And suddenly, aw, another itty bitty American colony. And the U.S. would succeed in, once again, vanquishing a bottom-up democratic trend in the Middle East. It is, as always, Congress and certain think tanks - left and right - who are pushing for action.
Humanitarian intervention is tricky, yes. But what's happening in Libya is not genocide. It's a conflict between pro-regime and anti-regime forces. There is an opposition force in Libya that wants to get Qaddafi out themselves. There is no indication that they're slowing down or giving up, and it is impossible to know whether or not they'll succeed. David Cameron's bombastic remarks about "not leaving the people of Libya to their fate" (too much Lord of the Rings, Prime Minister? Gondor "called for aid," remember) are belittling and unnecessary. The possibility of self-determination is not out of the picture here. Not until the U.S. takes it out of the picture by taking the conflict into America's own hands. Does that mean "sit around and do nothing"? No. Believe it or not, a whole range of possibilities exist between thumb-twiddling and invasion. Humanitarian aid to opposition forces and civilians is a very good idea. Working with refugees along the borders is another very good idea. Military intervention is not. Military aid in the form of training and ammunition and strategic planning might be a good idea, but I'm not convinced the U.S. would be capable of restraining itself to the level of "consultation" when trying to overthrow a regime (the U.S. has a better track record in that regard when trying to help a regime suppress opposition). Maybe if we start calling this a "covert mission" the U.S. will restrain itself, although that would mean the involvement of the CIA.
What do the people in Libya want?
This happy ending, however, is marred by a fear shared by all Libyans; that of a possible western military intervention to end the crisis... one thing seems to have united Libyans of all stripes; any military intervention on the ground by any foreign force would be met – as Mustafa Abud Al Jeleil, the former justice minister and head of the opposition-formed interim government, said – with fighting much harsher than what the mercenaries themselves have unleashed.But who cares what they want, right? It's a shame the U.S. isn't more of a vampire, really - that way we'd have to wait to be invited in.
Nor do I favour the possibility of a limited air strike for specific targets. This is a wholly popular revolution, the fuel to which has been the blood of the Libyan people. Libyans fought alone when western countries were busy ignoring their revolution at the beginning, fearful of their interests in Libya. This is why I'd like the revolution to be ended by those who first started it: the people of Libya.
So as the calls for foreign intervention grow, I'd like to send a message to western leaders: Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy. This is a priceless opportunity that has fallen into your laps, it's a chance for you to improve your image in the eyes of Arabs and Muslims. Don't mess it up. All your previous programmes to bring the east and the west closer have failed, and some of them have made things even worse. Don't start something you cannot finish, don't turn a people's pure revolution into some curse that will befall everyone. Don't waste the blood that my friend Ahmed spilt for me. (via: Please Don't Intervene)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-01 04:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-01 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-01 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-01 05:30 pm (UTC)If no one else has, I would like to register a formal DO NOT WANT on that.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-01 06:04 pm (UTC)Nothing puts the whiff of military intervention into the air like OIL, however. Just saying. When gas prices rise, the aircraft carriers move out. The
spiceoil must flow.no subject
Date: 2011-03-01 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-01 06:13 pm (UTC)If you want to see troops move out in double quick time, contemplate an uprising in Saudi Arabia.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-02 01:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-03-02 04:55 am (UTC)