Friday, March 18, 2011

Libya (myth busting)

Many of my conservative friends like to claim that anyone to the left of Jesse Helms doesn't understand the reality that "the world can be a tough and ugly place." They seem to want to channel Col. Nathan Jessup (a fictional zealot who has one of his troops beaten, inadvertently causing his death) while claiming to stand-up for liberty and a willingness to pay "that price" so that all of the rest of the "soft" masses can sleep easily at night. A task for which we are to thank him and be on our way.

Of course, just as in the movie, where the irony of Jessup's conduct counter-balances his sacrifice in that he needlessly brutalized his troops (denying them the liberty he professes to cherish) in a very selfish and self-serving way, the reality in life is that such prices are sometimes warranted, sometimes needed, and it's hardly the case that recognizing such is the sole province of the "ready, shoot, aim" crowd (e.g. the ultra-conservative, xenophobic and ethnocentric violence lovers on the far right).

Libya was, under George W. (Dubbya) Bush, declared a "friendly" Arab/Muslim nation. One which had changed it's "evil" ways, abandoning (supposedly) weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum, and Libya AFTER being declared "not so bad" by Bush, was found to have been trying to buy Uranium Hexaflouride (U-Hex) from North Korea - something the Bush crowd attempted to ballywhoo as justifying their animosity toward North Korea UNTIL it became known that the U-Hex was tran-shipped through Pakistan (with Pakistani governmental assistance) and was being shipped through (you guessed it), Dubia - including being handled by Dubai Ports World (the company to which Bush wanted to turn over security control of the majority of the US' major ports). Irony indeed.

Now, we find out that ole' Moamar Qadhaffi isn't perhaps the changed man he was proclaimed to be. We find out that he's killing his citizens while proclaiming they love him. Apparently the only good and loyal Libyan rebel is a dead Libyan rebel in Qadhaffi's eyes.. and of course, the UN and the US are seeking to prevent genocide in this civil war. So here's the thing, Qaddafi was a problem under Bush - this action certainly could have been taken after 9/11 - rather than invading Iraq. Qadhaffi (like Hussien) sponsored Hamas in Lebanon. He has killed his own citizens - but apparently if you're a cooperative "little Muslim" all's well - especially if you make oil available. But in truth, "realpolitik" is a poor approach to the world - he's a thug, has been for decades, and it's damned well time for him to go. Having an army so that you can invade a country to take it's oil (as was done in Iraq - make NO mistake) is a crap-poor reason to have an army. Having an army to stop genocide, like we did in Bosnia (and the right bitched about without stopping during a time of war), is exactly why you have an army, it's the noble and right(eous) thing to do - I support it wholeheartedly, and I don't need to ask you to be grateful - it is one of the best things about America that we have the will and strength to act when others won't. Sometimes violence is the last act of diplomacy and sometimes it's necessary. This is one of those times.

4 comments:

  1. Anyone who proclaims that George HW Bush had any understanding of foreign relations is proving their own ignorance. Heck, candidate Bush was quite candid in his views on Saddam Hussien during the Iowa caucuses when he told Sam Donaldson that if given the chance, he would invade Iraq … it did not take 9/11 for President Bush to fullfill his pledge.

    Bush was a weakling on foreign policy … heck, let’s remember that the whole focus was on Russia up until 9/11/01 (and btw, on 9/10/01 Senator Diane Feinstein was informed that VP Cheney’s review of Counterterrorism Legislation would take six months longer … and Cheney was appointed by Bush to be the Administration’s lead. They had no interest in Al-Qaeda before 9/11.)

    Remember that Libya’s decision to abandon its’ WMD program started when President Clinton’s then-Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk began secret negotiations with Libya in 1999 …. Bush was just there to accept the “decision” … and Bush knew of the Khan connection as Qaddafi’s decision to abandon his WMD was reinforced after U.S. officials gave Libya a compact disc containing recorded conversations between the chief of the Libyan nuclear program and representatives of the Khan network.

    Bush was our worst foreign policy president ever.

    IMO, President Obama is a little late in getting involved, but he is on the “right” side.

    BTW: Fareed Zakaria, someone whom I have consider to have reasonable foreign policy views, writes in TIME last week : President Obama has made it unambiguously clear that he wants Gaddafi to step down. The U.S. is actively seeking his ouster. To have him survive would be a humiliation for Washington at a moment and in a region where its words still have great impact. It would also send a disastrous signal to the other rulers of the region — in Syria, Algeria, Iran — that Mubarak made a mistake and that the way to stay in office is to engage in mass slaughter, scare the U.S. away and wait out the sanctions and isolation. America would lose its opportunity to align with the rising forces of the Arab world. So the U.S. must follow through in its efforts to get Gaddafi out of office, pushing all diplomatic levers and seeking maximum multilateral support. It should ask the Libyan opposition for a public set of requests, so that Washington is seen as responding to Libyans, not imposing its will. If the Libyans request military assistance, Washington should move in that direction. I don't believe that a no-fly zone is a magic bullet. It is a high-profile policy that puts the U.S. military directly into the conflict but would actually make little difference. Gaddafi's main advantage is not in the air but on the ground. He has tanks, armored vehicles and massive firepower.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Both Hussien and Gaddafi are nothing but thugs. At the time we invaded Iraq Hussien was attempting to obtain wmd and Gaddafi was acting as if he was giving his up. You take the opportunity to remove thugs when it presents itself, Hussien gave Bush an excuse and Gaddafi is giving Obama one. As far as Obama getting involved late, I don't like him much but I will defend him on that one, after Bush taking a beating on Iraq he probably wanted to make sure he had UN backing. Gaddafi himself helped with that by declaring a cease fire and then instead of negotiating launched a massive offensive. Also Libya, after Reagan bombed them, has one of the best air defense systems in the area and it takes planning to remove that before you want to fly planes over. According to the news today us and the British launched 112 cruise missles targetting the radar and anti-air installations on the coast. The French have already gone beyond no fly zone and bombed a few tanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tuck, we'er having the same problem with disappearing comments from you that we had before - still no idea why you are apparently the only person so afflicted.

    (Re)posted for TTucker:
    ttucker has left a new comment on your post "Libya (myth busting)":

    Both Hussien and Gaddafi are nothing but thugs. At the time we invaded Iraq Hussien was attempting to obtain wmd and Gaddafi was acting as if he was giving his up. You take the opportunity to remove thugs when it presents itself, Hussien gave Bush an excuse and Gaddafi is giving Obama one. As far as Obama getting involved late, I don't like him much but I will defend him on that one, after Bush taking a beating on Iraq he probably wanted to make sure he had UN backing. Gaddafi himself helped with that by declaring a cease fire and then instead of negotiating launched a massive offensive. Also Libya, after Reagan bombed them, has one of the best air defense systems in the area and it takes planning to remove that before you want to fly planes over. According to the news today us and the British launched 112 cruise missles targetting the radar and anti-air installations on the coast. The French have already gone beyond no fly zone and bombed a few tanks.

    Posted by ttucker to A Penigma - a mystery, under a pseudonym at March 19, 2011 6:31 PM

    ReplyDelete
  4. CORRECTION :

    Anyone who proclaims that George HW Bush had any understanding of foreign relations is proving their own ignorance.

    Should have been George W. Bush (#43) ... his father, George HW Bush (#41) had great experience and appreaciation of foreign relations.

    My error.

    ReplyDelete