The UN Security Council voted to establish a “no fly zone” in Libya. I know Obama had been pushing this, and I would really like to know how he got Germany, Russia, and China to abstain rather than veto. Obama has his international cover.
Gadhafi made it easier by talking like a psycho.
The United Nations authorized military strikes to curb Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, hours after he threatened to storm the rebel bastion of Benghazi overnight, showing “no mercy, no pity.”
“We will come. House by house, room by room,” Gaddafi said in a radio address to the eastern city late on Thursday.
With a Rwanda type massacre in the works, I actually have mixed feelings. Unlike some who post here, I am not a pacifist. I do respect pacifism. But I do believe that war which violates national sovereignty is sometimes justified under three conditions:
1. National defense against attack.
2. Defense of a fellow nation under attack.
3. Prevention of genocide.
I would have supported WWII to prevent the Holocaust. In retrospect, I would have supported military action to prevent Kmer Rouge’s “year zero” genocide, and perhaps Rwanda.
The “no fly zone” strategy was effective in Serbia. Much less so in Iraq. I have no idea how it’ll play out here. Will it drag us in further to a long term war, or can the coalition tip things in favor of the opposition. Do we even have the capacity for a third war front, justified or otherwise? Is it even going to happen in time to prevent Gaddafi’s attack on Benghazi?
But please, spare me the “it’s all about oil” cliches. It’s such an oversimplification that it’s not even really true anymore if it’s true. The motives to fight the Nazis a half century ago weren’t all pure either, nor are most ventures of any sort. Mass genocide is indeed bad for most business, but that’s really beside the point. The question for me is whether this intervention will save lives.
Is the violation of national sovereignty principles and the perpetuation of the notion of the US (even in coalition with other countries) as the perpetual cop of the world a greater or lesser evil than the pending massacre? You tell me.
Addendum: A very powerful photo slide show on Libya.
70 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 18, 2011 at 6:44 am
Rose
And if were President Bush? This must be really hard on you.
March 18, 2011 at 6:58 am
Plain Jane
Rose doesn’t understand the difference between the UN authorization and the “coalition of the willing” being bribed and threatened to join in the attack on Iraq absent UN authorization? I wouldn’t classify myself as a pacifist because I believe all countries have a moral and legal duty to intervene in genocide / mass murder of civilians. Further, I believe they wouldn’t occur with such frequency if those prone to use brutality to hold power knew they would be held accountable by the rest of the world. Case in point: Since the UN decision was announced, Libya has announced it will stop the attacks.
March 18, 2011 at 7:10 am
Anonymous
1. I don’t care squat about the UN. We are supposed to set an example.
2. The prez didn’t push for squat. He was too busy golfing, choosing his basket ball picks and packing for Rio.
3. I am appalled at this administrations disconnect with democracy and with issues that will have a profound effect on the people of this country.
March 18, 2011 at 7:10 am
Mitch
Rose,
Talk about knee-jerk reaction.
Just be glad the Obama Administration was able to get the world community to support intervention here without completely discrediting the word of the United States the way the Bush Administration did. You can still be as conservative as you want.
March 18, 2011 at 7:17 am
Randy
Gaddafi is crafty, so I’m not surprised that he’s declared a ceasefire just in time for the UN resolution. But what does he have to lose by doing so? He is still in power and has effectively crushed the resistance. Sure, his assets are frozen, but history teaches us that oil always has a home and that someone will buy it, just like someone bought Iraq’s oil during the embargo against that country. While the West is busy patting itself on the back for a no-fly zone, Gaddafi will be quietly eliminating the remains of the resistance on the ground and I predict that the West will set on its hands while this occurs, just like they did in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
March 18, 2011 at 9:04 am
Plain Jane
ALLIES REJECT LIBYAN CEASE FIRE
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19libya.html?hp
March 18, 2011 at 9:16 am
moviedad
Man, would you look at the guy’s hair?
Thanks for the post Erik. I think this situation goes to another problem with two simultaneous illegal wars; what happens when a real situation comes up and we are stretched to thin making money for our billionaires. Just forget the damn pipeline already. It’s like painting the deck-chairs on the Titanic. Oil is on the way out, no matter what the Profiteers claim. They have been the biggest deterrent to new sources of energy so far. Most informed people know that a coalition of Oil companies want to build a pipeline across Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. They have exploited every event in those regions.
While Libya doesn’t factor in the pipeline issue, they still have lots of oil and that practically guarantees western military involvement. If only I could believe it was for humanitarian purposes. But I’m just to damn jaded by a lifetime of governmental lies, cover-ups and crimes against……, to believe anything they say.
The only reason Khaddafi has remained in power for so long is because of our (USA) back-room deals with him.
March 18, 2011 at 9:47 am
Eric Kirk
And if were President Bush? This must be really hard on you.
Rose, you haven’t read my posts on Afghanistan obviously. Nor the first gulf war (that was a Bush too).
Personally, I think Bush would have allowed the massacre to happen – not because he wanted to see it happen or was indifferent to it, but because there aren’t sufficient American interests involved and Gadhafi didn’t try to kill his father.
March 18, 2011 at 9:49 am
Eric Kirk
1. I don’t care squat about the UN. We are supposed to set an example.
2. The prez didn’t push for squat. He was too busy golfing, choosing his basket ball picks and packing for Rio.
3. I am appalled at this administrations disconnect with democracy and with issues that will have a profound effect on the people of this country.
Actually, it appears that Obama played this one perfectly, and that obviously sticks in your craw. And yes, he did push for the resolution, only unlike other presidents, he doesn’t showboat about it. There are a lot of things about Obama which drive me nuts, but he does have finesse in these matters.
March 18, 2011 at 9:52 am
Eric Kirk
Randy – If the US plays it the way it has in the past, it’s probably getting weapons to the opposition right now, probably including Stingers after which the UN may not even have to enforce the no-fly zone. Either way, the longer the opposition survives intact the stronger it will get. Time will tell.
I would say that Ghadhafi isn’t stupid, but his remarks yesterday may have been his undoing.
March 18, 2011 at 10:05 am
Joel Mielke
“I would have supported WWII to prevent the Holocaust.”
Wow, you’re so magnanimous, Eric. Thanks for the inane speculation, but you’ve obviously got the United States confused with some imaginary do-gooder nation you saw in a movie. Perhaps you should read something other than fiction in your spare time.
And poor Rose, still defending her moronic hero.
March 18, 2011 at 10:20 am
Eric Kirk
So Joel, does that mean you support intervention here, or do you oppose it?
As I said, I’m much less concerned about motives than results.
March 18, 2011 at 10:47 am
Joe Blow
Eric, This statement by you defines your inability to understand your very question if answered: Is the violation of national sovereignty principles and the perpetuation of the notion of the US (even in coalition with other countries) as the perpetual cop of the world a greater or lesser evil than the pending massacre? You tell me.
First you, when not violating other people’s INDIVIDUAL sovereignty yourself (on this blog), are allowing others on your blog to do so. Second, the issue is NOT about “sovereignty principles.” It is about LAW. Consequently “evil” has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue.
Third, your question, as postulated, is obscene and offensive. It demonstrates your inherent corruption and weak reasoning as defined in these statements: “sovereignty principles” and “lesser evil than the pending massacre.” Why not the same question for Bahrain and Yemen?
If memory serves me, Hitler’s threat to exterminate Jews was not an issue at the start of WWII, nor the reason for the U.S. joining the fight.
And … “Obama has finesse in these matters” – Still don’t get it, do you?
March 18, 2011 at 11:44 am
Eric Kirk
If memory serves me, Hitler’s threat to exterminate Jews was not an issue at the start of WWII, nor the reason for the U.S. joining the fight.
Half right. It was an issue, beginning at latest with Krystallnacht in 1938, and arguably much earlier. However, you are right in that it was not the reason for the US joining the fight. On the other hand, it would have been one of two reasons I would have supported US involvement in WWII from the outset. And by the end of 1942, all three of my grounds for war were met.
The illogic I am hearing and reading from people is that we should not support intervention because the US’ motives are impure. That to me is irrelevant. What is relevant is the result – will it prevent genocide or some equivalent?
March 18, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Plain Jane
At what point did the Allies know there was an actual holocaust occurring?
March 18, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Eric Kirk
To hear them tell it, not until after the war. But there was plenty of information and Jews were desperately seeking refuge in various countries and sometimes turned away – including from the US.
March 18, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Mitch
There’s “know” and then there’s “know.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/02/national/main299399.shtml
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Chronology_1942.html
http://www.ushmm.org/lectures/kalb.htm (search on “mills of the gods”)
March 18, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Plain Jane
I’ve read about that Eric, but wouldn’t the fact that they were being allowed to leave make talk of death camps less believable? Even in hindsight, what they did was incomprehensible to a sane person. I knew an elderly Christian German couple who immigrated after the war. They thought they were being deported or put in labor camps, but not murdered. My friend actually spent time in a labor camp when they just picked up all the people at his factory.
March 18, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Plain Jane
That they didn’t sound a warning to Jews after receiving that document is unconscionable. There was a LOT of anti-semitism going around then, especially in the American elite.
March 18, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Eric Kirk
45 very powerful images from Libya’s civil war and elsewhere.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/gallery/2011/03/1following-democratic-uprisings-elsewhere-in-1.php?img=1&ref=fpblg
By the way, in responding to Rose – allies of the Muslim Brotherhood are involved in the Libyan opposition as well. Where are the conservative concerns about them now?
March 18, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Mitch
PJ,
I know you mean well by your comment at 12:35. Just look at the timeline from 1942 — the second link, but no one needed to alert the Jews.
The fucking NY Times, by 1942, was printing stories about the murder of Jews by the hundreds of thousands. It’s a miracle of the human mind that anyone can ask when the West knew. And it’s a sad comment on the left’s “intellectuals” that they don’t banish those of their number that describe Israel’s activities against the Palestinians as being like the Nazis.
March 18, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Mitch
My cut and paste confused my last message. The first paragraph should read: “I know you mean well by your comment at 12:35. But no one needed to “alert the Jews.” Just look at the timeline from 1942 given in my second link.”
March 18, 2011 at 1:37 pm
ChumBolly
Eric, please stop pretending this about anything BUT oil. We don’t order no-fly zones over nations that have no black gold, we didn’t do shit in Rawanda and we aint doing shit in Sudan now. The reason Libya is a player at all is because of the oil under the sand. There is no other reason we would even give them the time of day.
We have stood aside as all manner of atrocities have been perpetrated in all corners of the globe. To pretend now we must intervene in Libya because a oil-supported dictator is shooting down his own citizens in what is quickly becoming a civil war is nonsense.
It’s about oil we and our allies have yet to gain full control over and to back that assertion I’ll kindly ask you to take a look at what is happening in America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier — Bahrain. You gonna call for a no-fly zone and military intervention into Bahrain followed by an incursion into Saudi Arabia? No, because those assholes happen to be our dictators and the only reason we are involved with both nations is because of oil.
Libya’s oil reserves …
Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world with 41.5 billion barrels (6.60×10^9 m3) as of 2007. Oil production was 1.8 million barrels per day (290×10^3 m3/d) as of 2006, giving Libya 63 years of reserves at current production rates if no new reserves were to be found. Libya is considered a highly attractive oil area due to its low cost of oil production (as low as $1 per barrel at some fields), and proximity to European markets. Libya would like to increase production from 1.8 Mbbl/d (290×10^3 m3/d) in 2006 to 3 Mbbl/d (480×10^3 m3/d) by 2010–13 but with existing oil fields undergoing a 7–8% decline rate, Libya’s challenge is maintaining production at mature fields, while finding and developing new oil fields. Most of Libya remains unexplored as a result of past sanctions and disagreements with foreign oil companies.
March 18, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Eric Kirk
Chumbolly – sorry, but I find that response rather dogmatic and irrelevant. The situation on the ground is that people may die without intervention. “It’s all about oil” is a left-Pavlovian cookie cutter response to every situation in the Middle East, and it’s a gross oversimplification and simply serves to duck the complexity of the situations. Even when there’s no oil in the country, we hear about speculative piplelines.
Put down books like “Crossing the Rubicon” and read some substantive history on these countries, and actually listen to the people who live there.
To put it simply, if saving the lives of thousands in Benghazi means turning over other oil to western interests rather than Gaddafi’s own sweetheart deals, I can live with tat. So can tens or even hundreds of thousands of Libyans, who will otherwise die within the week.
March 18, 2011 at 2:11 pm
ChumBolly
Eric, I am sorry, but there are plenty of abusive regimes in this world, some of the very worst are directly supported by us. Again, you suggest no intervention in Bahrain which is as much of a bloodbath as Libya, why not? Because armchair generals and backseat Secretaries of state refuse to call out our brutal allies and the manner in which they brutalize their populations.
We, as a nation, have a long history of supporting oppressive regimes because of economic considerations and claiming that somehow we should be supporting Libyans because they are human flies in the face of our inaction or, even worse, our abetting of those very regimes gunning down innocents in the street.
You claim claim complexity and I agree with you wholeheartedly that these are complex political, social and economic issues, but to claim that we have no interest on where Libya’s oil goes is sticking your head in the sand.
War is a political act and every conflict is inherently an economic battle whether its over land or resources such as manpower and minerals.
I have never read “Crossing the Rubicon” but it appears I should. As for listening to the people who live there, why are Libyan lives and voices more valuable than a voice from Chad, or Bahrain or Egypt?
Libya has enormous oil resources and that’s why the French, Brits and Americans are interested. If you think it’s more complicated than that, well think away, but sometimes we ascribe complexity to the uncomfortable simplicity of looking out for our own economic interests to the detriment of “the people who live there.”
March 18, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Not A Native
Gotta pretty much agree with Eric on this one.
I regret only that so many people had to die in order for the UN to be able to justify action. But the price of justice ultimately includes blood. People can agonize over that, but I believe its simply a truth, denying it equates to believing people can reliably be saints.
The UN vote surprised me somewhat but it seems to define a boundary that Russia and China won’t tolerate in defense of sovereignty. Ghadaffi is a pretty high standard for violating sovereignty, but its comforting to know that a real standard exists at the UN.
March 18, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Eric Kirk
ChumBolly – this is going to sound patronizing, but your posts are exactly what I would have written about the issue – when I was 18 or 19. The difference between Libya and Bahrain right now is scale. Gaddafi is openly bragging about the massacre he intends to conduct. There are brutal regimes around the world, but some are worse than others, and some moments are different from others.
I can see a dialogue with a Benghazi resident right now – “Gosh, I just can’t support the UN resolution to save you from aerial bombing. You see, it’s all about the oil. And yes, you and your family, and your whole neighborhood might be bombed and later rounded up and executed or tortured, but that evil just doesn’t compare with the possibility that Arco might get at your reserves rather than BP (currently doing business with Gaddafi). Actually, Exxon and Conoco are currently doing business with Gaddafi as well, and I think Arco is now a subsidiary of one of them, so really, there probably won’t be much of a difference in how business is done no matter who takes over. Gaddafi isn’t Mossadegh. He isn’t even Hussein really. He’s a member of the club, or was until his bloodthirst emerged again for the first time since the 1980s. Bloodthirst isn’t good for business.
The left really needs to update its analysis and its slogans, and younger leftists really need to challenge the orthodoxies. Until we have a little bit of a renaissance of thought and dogma on the left, it will continue to be marginalized.
March 18, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Eric Kirk
NAN – I think nobody wants to be blamed for a Rwanda repeat. Obama’s people probably put that to them, and they probably have to think about long term business should Gadhafi be replaced shortly.
By the way I did read Hank’s column and I will write something about it. Thanks for the email.
March 18, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Not A Native
Eric, by opining that China and Russia are significantly motivated by business concerns, you’re simply echoing ChumBolly, but in a more subtle and suave way.
Both Russia and China are large countries with somewhat unstable borders. They both see a real potential to supress successionists with violence, and are legitimately concerned that their actions will be deemed beyond the pale by the UN.
I would hope Obama convinced them that, at least for now, there’s a quantitative difference between their security needs and Khadaffi’s. But Taiwan, Tibet, Chetznya, and Georgia present similar political threats to them as the Libyan ‘rebels’ do to Khadaffi.
March 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Joel Mielke
“I think nobody wants to be blamed for a Rwanda repeat.”
Is there any evidence for that Eric, or do you just have an uncanny instinct for how reputations are burnished and maintained in Washington? Do you think that Madeleine Albright or Bill Clinton lose sleep over Rwanda?
“The left really needs to update its analysis…”
Oh yes, we could learn so much from you, Eric.
March 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m not saying that oil and business aren’t factors. They always are. I’m criticizing the left’s propensity argue it is the primary or driving factor for every occasion, based on something they read by Noam Chomsky when they were freshmen in college and reinforced continuously on Democracy Now. I’d like to see a little more free thinking and a little less dogmatism – and the Middle East is a serous weak spot on the left on both counts.
March 18, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Eric Kirk
s there any evidence for that Eric…
Yes Joel. Gaddafi’s stated intentions and his actions thus far.
March 18, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Joel Mielke
Eric, for read the quote and my comment again. One would think that you’d started blogging very recently.
March 18, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Joel Mielke
Oh, I was going to say “for fuck’s sake” (above) but thankfully, I didn’t.
March 18, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh, you mean evidence for Russia and China’s change of heart? The timing of their sudden abstentions several hours after Gaddafi’s statements. Evidence.
March 18, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Joel Mielke
“I think nobody wants to be blamed for a Rwanda repeat.”
Is there any evidence for that Eric?
There. I reposted your goofy assertion and my question so that you might take a moment and read it.
March 18, 2011 at 8:02 pm
tra
Let’s consider the other options:
(1) That somebody DOES want to be blamed for a Rwanda repeat.
Not sure who that would be.
(2) That some DON’T CARE whether or not they are blamed for a Rwanda repeat.
Most likely that is true for some leaders, for whom there are other overriding concerns. But I think what Eric was getting at was that fears of Rwanda-type situation probably did play an important role in clearing the way for the current action by the U.N. Security Council.
I would note, however, if “not wanting to be blamed for another Rwanda-type genocide” was enough to spur decisive action by world powers, the situation in Darfur would not have been allowed to drag on so long. So I’m sure that all the other geopolitical considerations are playing a role as well.
Personally, I hope that Gaddafi can be contained and/or deposed without the U.S. and other outside forces having to play too heavy a role, since in the long term it will be far better for Libya if the local pro-democray / rebel forces can stay in the driver’s seat, as opposed to owing their survival entirely to outside forces.
March 18, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Ben Schill
Khadaffi is one smart megalomaniac.. It is now almost inconceivable that he will lose… We waited too long. He will kill just the number of opposition fighters that the international community will tolerate. He will make appeasing statements and then when things settle down he will wipe out the opposition. They have already lost. His greatest fear will be an oil embargo.
March 18, 2011 at 8:42 pm
tra
Ben,
Your dire prediction is, unfortunately, entirely believable. But it’s not inevitable that this will all turn out well for Gaddafi and his cronies.
As badly as we may have flubbed the situation in Bosnia, for example, in the end Slobodan Milosevic still died in a holding cell, awaiting trial for war crimes. Gaddafi will hang on by his fingernails, if need be, because he know there’s at least some chance that he will be in the same position Milosevic was…sitting in a cell, awaiting prosecution for war crimes.
March 18, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Eric Kirk
Joel – the evidence is the timing of the abstentions in relation to the psycho comments, in conjunction with the tune those countries had been singing mere hours before.
Ben – I read it differently. I think he’ll be out in a couple of months if he pushes the issue, and he may even be angling for a respectable alive retirement in Paraguay.
March 18, 2011 at 9:03 pm
tra
he may even be angling for a respectable alive retirement in Paraguay.
Isn’t that where Bush Jr. has his ranch? Hey, they might end up being neighbors…or roomies.
March 19, 2011 at 9:23 am
Plain Jane
Paraguay seems to be favored due to its extradition laws. I keep hoping Bush will need them. It would restore a little faith in our system.
March 19, 2011 at 10:35 am
Joel Mielke
“…the evidence is the timing of the abstentions in relation to the psycho comments, in conjunction with the tune those countries had been singing mere hours before.”
Uh, okay.
March 19, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Joel Mielke
And Eric, would it be too hard for you to find a photo of Gadaffi without a big watermark running through it?
March 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Plain Jane
Suitable for framing?
March 19, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Eric Kirk
PJ – Andy had an answer for you, which I posted in the Radio Show thread.
March 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Eric Kirk
And Eric, would it be too hard for you to find a photo of Gadaffi without a big watermark running through it?
I’ll see what I can find. Most of those available seem to deliberately make him look menacing.
As to the evidence, Obama’s emphasis on the same point in his speech today would suggest that’s where he made his breakthrough.
March 19, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Eric Kirk
While I am cautiously supportive of the UN action, I do question whether the 100 cruise missiles today were reasonably related to a “no fly zone.” I’m not an expert, but I suspect the allies will stretch the definition when they think they can.
March 19, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Plain Jane
Thanks, Eric. I’m having trouble finding an affordable one now. They’re all on back order.
March 19, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m going to look for one too.
March 19, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Joel Mielke
“Most of those [photos] available seem to deliberately make him look menacing.”
Uh, again Eric, do you have any evidence to support this opinion?
March 19, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Eric Kirk
Google him and call up the images and decide for yourself.
In the meantime, the Institute for Policy Studies is opposed to the military action, but uncharacteristically restrained.
http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/un_declares_war_on_libya
This Australian paper has a dramatic shot (with callous captions IMO) of a rebel fighter crashing after being hit by a government missile. I didn’t even know the rebels had planes.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/battle-for-benghazi-20110319-1c1cj.html
Lebanese Marxists support the intervention.
http://www.zcommunications.org/libyan-developments-by-gilbert-achcar
March 20, 2011 at 6:35 am
Plain Jane
If you find a source, please share Eric. I’m torn between ordering one on back order or continuing to look for one available to ship today.
March 20, 2011 at 7:48 am
tra
“…I do question whether the 100 cruise missiles today were reasonably related to a “no fly zone.” I’m not an expert, but I suspect the allies will stretch the definition when they think they can.”
The U.N. resolution contains authorization for more than a “no-fly zone.” It authorizes “all necessary measures” to stop Gaddafi’s attacks on civilians. While it specifically disallows any “foreign occupation,” it certainly allows air attacks on Gaddafi’s ground forces, including tanks and artillery. It may also allow Special Forces operations or other time-limited actions by ground forces.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12782972
March 20, 2011 at 9:13 am
Joel Mielke
“Google him and call up the images and decide for yourself.”
Are you incapable of answering a direct question, Eric? It appears that you imagine a conspiracy between Al Jazeera and Fox News to make the Libyan dictator look bad, so you’ve called upon a fifteen-year-old stock photo of a less drug-addled Colonel for the benefit of your readers. Gosh, thanks.
March 20, 2011 at 12:03 pm
fantomex9
Oh, it’s not just the Middle East that the left has a weak spot about, Eric-its everything else too. The best example I can give of super-dogmatic left-wingers like Joel Mielke is the commentary at the discussion forums on this Canadian site, Rabble. Anytime I’ve been there and have commented on anything, the people who are legacies there have toasted my ass and have also gotten others who posed any questions they deem ‘impertinent’ kicked off of the board, never to return unless they use a program that disguises their IP as a different one. In all of my born years, I’venever seen discussion as dogma-driven as this, although other sites like Rabble probably have it just as bad. Mr. Mielke would probably love it there too, since everything is in ideological lockstep-just as we claim most of the right-wing and the Tea Party is.
As to what Eric was saying, Joel; why don’t you do as he advises and not be so ideologically dogma-driven? I think that he’s answered your ‘questions’ pretty well.
March 20, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Joel Mielke
Why would the thin-skinned Fantomex (who probably gets his ass toasted because he makes such pea-brained arguments) assume that I haven’t done an image search for Ghaddafi? That’s where I found this one.
And I could only appear to be a “super-dogmatic left-winger” to a dimwit, or an ideologue. Which are you, Fantomex?
March 20, 2011 at 5:18 pm
fantomex9
I don’t know, what kind of dogmatic person are you, sir? Also, why can’t you see the logic in Eric’s argument?
March 20, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Joel Mielke
You’re the one who called me dogmatic, Fantomex, so by all means, you tell me. I’m all ears. And Eric didn’t bother to answer my questions, so I don’t see any “logic,” though he did take time to ramble incoherently (I think he was stoned).
March 20, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Anonymous
Joel,
Get some air. Erik Kirk’s choice of photos to illustrate a blog entry on Just War will not have an impact on current events. No, not even a little. Watermark or no watermark, more addled or less addled, bouffant or no bouffant. It just doesn’t matter. Get a grip.
March 20, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Eric Kirk
Joel, I thought you said I was drunk!
Anyway, the bombings of the past couple of days do seem to extend beyond any reasonable “no fly zone.” In addition to an attack on Gadhaffi’s compound, several tanks have been destroyed. I don’t think the tanks had anti-aircraft capability.
Did they save lives in Benghazi? Maybe. But that is beyond the parameters of the resolution itself. Quite frankly, I think the “no fly zone” is just window-dressing to give the abstainers reason not to veto.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-air-strikes-rain-down
March 20, 2011 at 8:23 pm
tra
“…several tanks have been destroyed. I don’t think the tanks had anti-aircraft capability…Did they save lives in Benghazi? Maybe. But that is beyond the parameters of the resolution itself.”
Eric,
Again, the U.N. Security Council resolution includes, but is not limited to, a no-fly zone. In fact the resolution authorizes “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, and specifically mentions the Benghazi area. For better or for worse, the attacks on tanks, artillery and other ground units are definitely part of what was authorized:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12782972
I guess the problem is that the media keep referring to the “no-fly zone” as if that was the only important component off the resolution passed by the UN. It’s not that the airstrikes have gone beyond the U.N. mandate, it’s that the U.N. mandate goes well beyond the “no-fly zone” that has been emphasized in the media. Basically the Security Council seems to have authorized a wide-ranging “air war” against the forces of Col. Qaddafi, in effect providing “air cover” that may allow the rebels an opportunity to regroup, organize, arm themselves better, and fight back.
I don’t know whether this international military intervention was, on balance, justified or not — I can see some validity in the arguments on both sides, and there are also some serious weaknesses in the arguments on both sides. But as a practical matter, the intervention might have worked out a whole lot better if it had started a week or so ago, before Gaddafi’s army had seized back most of the country. At this point, the outside forces are apparently going to attempt to control (or at least greatly influence) outcomes on the ground, while operating solely (or mainly) from the air and water. That’s a pretty tall order.
If it turns out that the air strikes and air cover allows the rebels to at least hold their positions, and maybe push Gaddafi’s forces back, then the air strikes will probably be seen as at least some kind of success by the rebels and by the international community. But even that rosy scenario is still pretty far from any kind of real resolution to the situation. It’s hard to see where all this is going, but it’s clear that it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
March 20, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Eric Kirk
New York Times – “a very liberal intervention”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/opinion/21douthat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
March 20, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Ed Denson
I’ve always liked the Declaration of Independence – probably because I have Libertarian leanings- in which the proper function of a government is set forth along with the people’s right to change it when it is destructive of their rights. Rights like “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There is nothing about national sovereignty in that document, which is as it should be, because the nation-state is not necessarily congruent with a government, as another document put it, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” In Libya we are finally able to take some practical steps to help people get self-government, due to a unique combination of factors. Lets not lose sight of the fact that we are, finally, on the right side in one case. After Iraq and Afghanistan that is a relief.
March 21, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Eric Kirk
Michael Walzer, known as the hawkish liberal, literally wrote the book on Just and Unjust Wars. Though he opposed the invasion of Iraq, he has supported many a military venture most of the left opposes. He opposes this one.
http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=462&sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d87d0ce23b09496%2C0
March 22, 2011 at 7:19 am
Joel Mielke
“…I thought you said I was drunk!”
I’m beginning to think that you’re oxygen deprived.
March 23, 2011 at 9:09 am
Joe Blow
What made America a legitimate sovereign nation-state was its adherence and enforcement of Constitutional Law. As such these people justified the basis for the Declaration of Independence. Law was the Ruler of the people as it established their “legitimate” rights as INDIVIDUALS. If anyone wonders how this nation came to be ruled by men they have but to consider the rational of a practicing “law”yer Ed Denson as posted above. This reasoning is pure, unadulterated anarchy – “the ends justify the means.” The Rule of Man is one hell of a way to “get self-government” when that way is mob rule.
March 23, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Ed Denson
“nation-state
noun
a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.”
It is not clear that America is one of these. Anyone born here is a citizen, regardless of homogenity. We are, ideally, a nation of individuals held together by a common philosophy (“the American Way”) rather than language or descent. Cf Turkey, Israel, China, etc which are nation-states.
March 29, 2011 at 8:06 am
Joe Blow
Denson, Thanks for defining and establishing the basis for how you think. You also explain why the U.S. Constitution isn’t worth the paper it is written on. And proved my point.
March 29, 2011 at 9:28 am
Joe Blow
Dictionary.com:
nation-state
–noun
a sovereign state inhabited by a relatively homogeneous group of people who share a feeling of common nationality.
World English Dictionary
— n
an independent state inhabited by all the people of one nation and one nation only.
homogeneous
–adjective
1. composed of parts or elements that are all of the same kind; not heterogeneous: a homogeneous population.
2. of the same kind or nature; essentially alike.