I haven't written anything about the ongoing strife in Libya because, frankly, I am feeling a bit torn. As a pacifist, I tend not to favor military solutions. On the other hand, the people protesting the current despotic regime are being killed and brutalized. What is a pacifist to make of such a desperate situation?
If we lived in a more just world, I might favor a very limited police-like international action to remove Qaddafi from power. But we don't live in a just world and it defies credulity to believe that a US-led NATO force would limit themselves to such a narrow parameter. It is far more likely that Libya would become another Iraq and Afghanistan.
Military intervention of almost any kind will cause one of the actions it hopes to prevent: the killing of innocents. No matter how careful or circumscribed a military action might be, making war is a sloppy business. Innocent citizens invariably become caught in the crossfire and so the casualties we've witnessed over the past month could easily turn into a drop in a bucket.
Then there is the issue of national sovereignty. While there is no question that Qaddafi is a brutal tyrant, who are we to take sides? I know it sounds callous -- it even feels callous -- to say that we should allow the Libyan people to work out their own governance in their own way, but would we want the Organization of American States to swoop in to take out by force Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker!?
Another consideration involves the global hegemony. The ruling elite are more apt to seek a military solution ONLY if it enhances profit. As Michel Chossudovsky writes at Global Research, "A war on Libya would have an immediate impact on the price of crude oil. The latter has risen by 18 percent since the beginning of the insurrection in Libya."
The above consideration represents one of the prime reasons I am suspicious of the UN's recent decision to establish a "No Fly Zone" and/or attack Libya. Qaddafi has been killing his own countrymen left and right for over 6 weeks. There is only one stronghold of opposition left -- Benghazi.
It really makes one wonder why this decision has been rendered now and not before most of the carnage had taken place. This leads me to believe that the decision has little to do with the protection of the lives and human rights of the Libyan people and far more to do with the price of oil and other economic machinations.
Finally, as I continue to work my way through Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, it has left me to wonder if the world's neocons simply are preparing Libya for the next dose of shock and awe. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that they have waited for the carnage to grow worse and worse so they can swoop in at the last moment to put the shock doctrine in place -- their way of stealing Libyan resources, while impoverishing millions of people!
What is your take on this whole situation?
If we lived in a more just world, I might favor a very limited police-like international action to remove Qaddafi from power. But we don't live in a just world and it defies credulity to believe that a US-led NATO force would limit themselves to such a narrow parameter. It is far more likely that Libya would become another Iraq and Afghanistan.
Military intervention of almost any kind will cause one of the actions it hopes to prevent: the killing of innocents. No matter how careful or circumscribed a military action might be, making war is a sloppy business. Innocent citizens invariably become caught in the crossfire and so the casualties we've witnessed over the past month could easily turn into a drop in a bucket.
Then there is the issue of national sovereignty. While there is no question that Qaddafi is a brutal tyrant, who are we to take sides? I know it sounds callous -- it even feels callous -- to say that we should allow the Libyan people to work out their own governance in their own way, but would we want the Organization of American States to swoop in to take out by force Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker!?
Another consideration involves the global hegemony. The ruling elite are more apt to seek a military solution ONLY if it enhances profit. As Michel Chossudovsky writes at Global Research, "A war on Libya would have an immediate impact on the price of crude oil. The latter has risen by 18 percent since the beginning of the insurrection in Libya."
The above consideration represents one of the prime reasons I am suspicious of the UN's recent decision to establish a "No Fly Zone" and/or attack Libya. Qaddafi has been killing his own countrymen left and right for over 6 weeks. There is only one stronghold of opposition left -- Benghazi.
It really makes one wonder why this decision has been rendered now and not before most of the carnage had taken place. This leads me to believe that the decision has little to do with the protection of the lives and human rights of the Libyan people and far more to do with the price of oil and other economic machinations.
Finally, as I continue to work my way through Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, it has left me to wonder if the world's neocons simply are preparing Libya for the next dose of shock and awe. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that they have waited for the carnage to grow worse and worse so they can swoop in at the last moment to put the shock doctrine in place -- their way of stealing Libyan resources, while impoverishing millions of people!
What is your take on this whole situation?
I'm also torn. But it seems it might be good PR for America with the Arab world to do this thing, and anyways it's hard to watch a despot beat down a populist revolution. I guess I'm a lukewarm supporter of the intervention, dismayed that it has to happen in this world, and doubtful of its honesty or high moral stance.
ReplyDeleteI could certainly see this as yet another devastating attempt of private interest to control the economy/natural resources of a poor and disenfranchised country.
ReplyDelete