This Time is Different

03/20/2011

So, the US has invaded a third Muslim country, under the pretense that we’ll be greeted as liberators.

Don’t be blinded by the UN resolution, or the coalition. This is another ill-considered fool's errand without an exit strategy.

1. For those who think that invading Iraq was a bad idea, but support invading Libya:

Was Saddam not evil enough? Would Iraq really have worked differently if the US had “international support”, which apparently means France? You’re a hypocrite.

2. For those who think that the invasion of Iraq was a success, and that Libya will also be one:

a: Are you European?

If Iraq was a success, then I don't want to imagine what failure looks like. Go intervene with your austerity militaries. But don’t grandstand while expecting the US to do all of the hard work.

b: Are you American? Did the idea of your government using your tax dollars to subsidize your fellow American’s health insurance make you go crazy?

Does the idea of your government using your tax dollars to nation-build in Libya make more sense?

Let’s do a quick recap. The US is bombing Libya to protect “civilians”. Who are the civilians? Anyone who is fighting Gaddafi? Residents of Benghazi? Can you think of a more nebulous, arbitrary mission?

The people of Libya won’t be safe until Gaddafi is gone. If the US just pushes him back and then pulls out, it’s Iraq in the 1990s. If the US arms the rebels, pushes Gaddafi out, and then leaves, it’s Afghanistan in 1990s. If the US pushes him out and then sticks around, it’s Iraq 2003.

And I’ll wager my life savings that whatever the US/UK/France does, the Arab Muslim world will not be grateful. After all, we’re just in it for the oil.

I wish I saw a way for the US, with Arab support, to save lives and help Libyans to rule themselves. But I’ve lived through the 2000s. And I’ve learned that bombs are not the seeds of democracy. I wish I could say the same about my representatives in the White House.

Comments

Frank Jr.

03/22/2011 10:32

Sorry, I fall into category one: a guy who supports the air strikes on Libya but didn't support the war in Iraq. And your presupposition that the argument is as simple as "Qaddafi is a bad guy" or "now we have international support" is way off. The difference between the two is this: we went into Iraq under manufactured pretenses with the faulty presumption that the silent masses would greet us as liberators thereby making everything okay. We're going into Libya with the FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that the masses are actively fighting for their liberation - and asking for help to boot. And this is no group of riled up students... it's the continuation of a youth movement that has already toppled two autocratic regimes through sheer will and perseverance. Viewing the Libya situation as stand alone is disingenuous. The youth of the region have taken a stand against autocracy.

As for an exit strategy, if we don't send in ground troops then what is there to exit? And why does a Qadaffi-less Libya equal Afghanistan? Why not Egypt or Tunisia? After all they've begun to work things out in the aftermath of their revolutions. I prefer to give Libyans the respect to belive that they will too.

Evan

03/22/2011 21:43

Frank Jr., I don't think Jon is far off on this.

Let's look back on Iraq again. Did Saddam have broad based support? Hell, no. The Shiites despised him and so did the Kurds. Saddam's rule there was just as illegitimate as Gaddafi's in Libya. If we are playing that game, Rummy had "FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE" that the Iraqi masses also yearned for liberation. Really want to go there?

As for your argument that what is happening is Libya right now is another example of the youth rising against autocracy, I'll have to see some more evidence.

All indications are that this conflict breaks down roughly along tribal lines. In every stage of Libya's development, the Ottomans, through Italian colonial rule to Gaddafi's dictatorial reign, tribal affiliation has shaped politics in the country. How is the current conflict different? Are the Warfallas more democratic than the Qaddadfas? To think so is to deny years of Libyan history during which tribal disputes resulted in a number of coup attempts against Gaddafi and his family.

To frame the rebels in Libya as the scion of the January 25 movement is completely misleading.

As for your final point, surprise surprise, U.S. troops have already hit Libyan soil. While it's a small footprint, the Air Force's search and rescue mission is a prime example of how a seemingly clean and tidy mission can quickly become more complicated.

Finally, to think that the U.S. can prevent a massacre by enforcing a no-fly zone is hubris pure and simple. As we protect the open desert, Gaddafi is going door to door in Tripoli, Misurata, Zawiyah, etc. killing anyone who might be considered a possible threat. And this massacre will sadly continue regardless of what we do to make ourselves feel better about it.

Frank Jr.

03/23/2011 11:04

Of course Sadam didn't have broad based support. But are you really comparing the sentiment in 2011 Libya to that in pre-invasion Iraq? Have you watched the news? Do you have a Facebook account? Contrary to your assertion, to frame the rebels in Libya as anything but the scion of the January 25th movement is misleading. Do you think, it was a coincidence? That the youth in the Arab world happened to start rising up against tyranny just as the rebel Warfallas were plotting their latest coup? Let me guess your response, those scheming Warfallas quickly saw an opportunity and boot-strapped their revolution onto the groundswell of pro-democratic youth movements in the region. I think maybe we ought to try applying Occam's razor instead.

Evan

03/23/2011 16:19

For all of our sakes I hope your explanation of what is happening on the ground in Libya is correct and that the intervention quickly opens the door for democratic protesters to stream back into public squares all across Libya.

From most of the sources I've read, seen and heard, however, the reality on the ground isn't that simple. The conflict in Libya has changed significantly since the protesters first took to the streets. We are now in a situation where we have a rebel group on one side and government forces on the other. If that isn't a civil war, I don't know what is. At least that much you have to concede.

P.S. An aside on the Warfallas: Rumor has it elements in the Western part of the countries are back on Gaddafi's side and claiming they never left. If so, rebels' job just got harder.

This Time is Different

Comments

Leave a Reply