hanks for your frank defense of the intervention, but I think you may be going too far, making your case harder to convey. A few quick responses here:
I think most progressives are divided or confused on the Libya situation, given the dangerous consequences of “humanitarian intervention” turning into quagmires or civil wars. Only a few are so flatly anti-imperialist that they oppose anything the U.S. [or “the West”] does in Libya.
Since we are ambiguous over whether the initial intervention was justified, and since it’s more than a week old, I think it’s best to focus on these urgent questions:
- Will the intervention keep Qaddafi from massacring thousands in Benghazi?
The answer is yes.
- Will the intervention protect the insurgents on the road west?
The answer is yes, to an extent.
- Should the military intervention target Qaddafi and his troops in areas like Tripoli?
Here I think the danger of civilian casualties is significant, and air power should be avoided.
- Does that mean Quaddafi will stay in power and Libya will be partitioned for a time, with international supervision?
Yes, it could happen.
- Or is the wisest path to allow the contradictions within Tripoli and Quaddafi’s own power base to manifest in some sort of abdication or removal from below and within?
In other words, the use of U.S. military force to protect civilians in eastern Libya doesn’t mean U.S. military force should be used in cities like Tripoli.
You of all people have taught us to much about the intricacies of the Middle East and the follies of past interventions. But you seem to be letting your trusted objectivity go out the window when talking about your “unabashed” support of military power against Libya.
It changes as it goes along, but I think that the peace movement should be in a position of questioning always. The big question for me is to prevent our troops and tax dollars becoming buried in another quagmire; Libya has cost hundreds of millions of dollars already. The second question is whether the popular movement can be supported more effectively by political and diplomatic means as an endgame nears. The third question is how the U.S. should respond to the brutal use of force in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. And perhaps the most important, should there be an immediate rethinking by our establishment and media of the Long War, now that nearly all our allies in the “war on terror” are going down the drain?
Looking forward to more dialogue.
Copyright 2011 LA Progressive