An Open Letter to the Left on Libya, by Juan Cole -- "learn to chew gum and walk at the same time"

[jefferson_dem]

An Open Letter to the Left on Libya
Posted on 03/27/2011 by Juan

<SNIP>

I am unabashedly cheering the liberation movement on, and glad that the UNSC-authorized intervention has saved them from being crushed. I can still remember when I was a teenager how disappointed I was that Soviet tanks were allowed to put down the Prague Spring and extirpate socialism with a human face. Our multilateral world has more spaces in it for successful change and defiance of totalitarianism than did the old bipolar world of the Cold War, where the US and the USSR often deferred to each other’s sphere of influence.

<SNIP>

Some have charged that the Libya action has a Neoconservative political odor. But the Neoconservatives hate the United Nations and wanted to destroy it. They went to war on Iraq despite the lack of UNSC authorization, in a way that clearly contravened the UN Charter. Their spokesman and briefly the ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, actually at one point denied that the United Nations even existed. The Neoconservatives loved deploying American muscle unilaterally, and rubbing it in everyone’s face. Those who would not go along were subjected to petty harassment. France, then deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz pledged, would be “punished” for declining to fall on Iraq at Washington’s whim. The Libya action, in contrast, observes all the norms of international law and multilateral consultation that the Neoconservatives despise. There is no pettiness. Germany is not ‘punished’ for not going along. Moreover, the Neoconservatives wanted to exercise primarily Anglo-American military might in the service of harming the public sector and enforced ‘shock therapy’ privatization so as to open the conquered country to Western corporate penetration. All this social engineering required boots on the ground, a land invasion and occupation. Mere limited aerial bombardment cannot effect the sort of extreme-capitalist revolution they seek. Libya 2011 is not like Iraq 2003 in any way.

<SNIP>

The intervention in Libya was done in a legal way. It was provoked by a vote of the Arab League, including the newly liberated Egyptian and Tunisian governments. It was urged by a United Nations Security Council resolution, the gold standard for military intervention. (Contrary to what some alleged, the abstentions of Russia and China do not deprive the resolution of legitimacy or the force of law; only a veto could have done that. You can be arrested today on a law passed in the US Congress on which some members abstained from voting.)

<SNIP>

I would like to urge the Left to learn to chew gum and walk at the same time. It is possible to reason our way through, on a case-by-case basis, to an ethical progressive position that supports the ordinary folk in their travails in places like Libya. If we just don’t care if the people of Benghazi are subjected to murder and repression on a vast scale, we aren’t people of the Left. We should avoid making ‘foreign intervention’ an absolute taboo the way the Right makes abortion an absolute taboo if doing so makes us heartless (inflexible a priori positions often lead to heartlessness). It is now easy to forget that Winston Churchill held absolutely odious positions from a Left point of view and was an insufferable colonialist who opposed letting India go in 1947. His writings are full of racial stereotypes that are deeply offensive when read today. Some of his interventions were nevertheless noble and were almost universally supported by the Left of his day. The UN allies now rolling back Qaddafi are doing a good thing, whatever you think of some of their individual leaders.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/an-open-letter-to-the-left-on-libya.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+juancole%2Fymbn+%28Informed+Comment%29

[eomer]

1. The reason is oil and the end goal is not democracy but rather a puppet regime.

It's not the beginning of the intervention that progressives are wary of but rather the end.

[druidity33]

2. nonetheless...

Juan Cole has been a respected voice on Middle East affairs for a very long time. I have often been convinced by his persuasive arguments and wealth of experience. I do not doubt his sincerity here.

:shrug:


K&R

[eomer]

5. I didn't and don't question his sincerity; I just think he is wrong.

But I do hope he is right. I hope that as our actions play out it becomes clear they are intended and well-crafted to bring democracy rather than a regime that is favorable to us. If that happens it will be counter to our history.

[GliderGuider]

3. I am in compete agreement with Juan Cole.

I've been on the side of the revolution since the first day of protests. I was heartbroken that it took so long for the world to come to their aid as Qaddafi murdered Libyan women and children in the streets with anti-aircraft cannons and put his own generals to death with flame-throwers. The Libyan citizens screamed and screamed, and finally some help arrived.

The fact that Libya has a bit of oil makes everyone's antennae quiver, but frankly all that did was get them the attention they deserved to begin with from a purely humanitarian point of view. Oil may have factored into how clearly NATO heard the message, but it's not "the reason" we're there. Libya's oil makes no real difference on the world market, but unrest in the ME generally is a major concern. That's why I'm even more surprised that we went in on the side of the revolution. If this war was really about oil and ME stability, I'd expect us to be flying cover for Qadaffi's fighters and bombing Benghazi ourselves.

I hope Qadaffi wakes up one morning to find a Tomahawk next to him in bed. For about a millisecond.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Great post.

:thumbsup: