It is not necessarily a matter of whether there is a consensus of right or wrong, it is an issue of political will. When was the last time a western leader has been brought to justice for committing war crimes? One can bring up Milosevic, but unfortunately for him he was not friendly with the US or any of the other major western world powers. The major western powers only go after those that they find politically convenient at the time. I cannot think of any instances in recent history. Most people can agree that unjustified wars of imperialism are wrong, but why haven't any of these leaders been brought to justice for their wars? It is pretty simple, western nations do not want to rock the boat. They are all complicit in these wars of imperialism, and have neither the incentive or the political will to take action. It would create precedent that would rock the foundations of our modern political world.Trying a president for crimes such as rape or bribery does not have the same far reaching impact, as trying those for war crimes.
The situation in Libya and Iraq are not the same, but close enough to warrant the comparisons being made by those critical and weary of further US military aggression. Why would the US be "dragged" into any military intervention? The US is the most powerful nation in the world and does not have to bow to the will of any other nations. This has been extremely evident throughout US history. If the US really did not want to go into war they should have put their foot down and said no. In practically every other situation the US is defiant, and does as it pleases. Obama's lack of a spine is rather disturbing, and is unfortunately his defining characteristic. He is always trying to please someone else. How about we need to start thinking about the American people. Can the US really afford another potential war monetarily and politically?
The threat to the world posed by Gadaffi and especially US interests is minimal at best. The fact that Gadaffi will undermine democracy in other parts of the North Africa is highly speculative as well. This is the same old rhetoric that is used to get people to support military intervention. There is hardly any evidence to prove that contention, and is a moot point. Also, just because the UN creates a resolution that has the support of the Arab League does not make the military action legitimate. The UN's and especially the Arab League's legitimacy is greatly in question considering their dismal track record tarnished by double standards and overall ineffectiveness. Flawed policy does not become legitimate because a large gang of imperialist bullies authorizes it.
Finally, it is difficult to say the level of involvement that the US will actually face in the coming days or weeks. It is already clear that US is already shouldering most of the burden, even though that was not supposed to be the deal. Leading up to the Iraq war we were told several times that it was going to be a quick and easy victory. In this case the US is saying that they will not stay for a prolonged period of time, and will have a limited role. History does usually repeat itself, and is likely to do so in Libya. I hope that I am mistaken, but I have a strong belief that things are going to turn ugly.
According to my understanding of the situation after researching and doing my own analysis I have come to my own conclusions on the matter in Libya. Most of the time I fully agree with your analysis and objective reasoning. What perplexes me about the situation in Libya is that many progressive thinkers, not only you have not been critical about western military aggression in Libya. In some cases many progressives have been in full support. It seems to me that you have taken a middle of the road stance on the issue, which seems to be at odds with other views that you have expressed regarding similar circumstances in the middle east. Maybe my interpretation of your views on other issues such as Iraq has been wrong all along. I would just like some clarification as to why you have not been critical on intervention in Libya. I do not mean this as a personal attack, but I cannot see where you are coming from on this particular issue.
Professor Cole, I usually agree with most of your insight regarding the middle east, and I appreciate the hard work that you do. Your analysis surrounding Libya is deeply flawed in my opinion. History has clearly proven that military intervention in the middle east is not successful. The current military aggression perpetuated by the US and other western nations will fail for the same reasons that it failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The no-fly zone will prove to unsuccessful, because it has come far too late in the game. It might have proven successful if it was implemented two weeks ago when the rebels had control of 80 percent of the country. What benefit will it serve at this point?
Since the no-fly zone will not be enough to defeat Ghdaffi and his gang, the western allies will be left with no other choice but get further involved in the civil war. They will eventually become the hated imperialist, as the US became in Iraq and Afghanistan. This coalition will be forced to police a dirty civil war, which is the type of quagmire that we should be avoiding at this point in our sad history.
If I understand your position on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, you were against it from time of its inception. How is this any different? If anything Saddam was far more brutal than Ghdaffi. During Saddam's rule he killed at least 200,000 Iraqis. According to your current logic, would you have been supportive of the invasion of Iraq if it was successful?
Despite whether this military invasion is successful or not it is a grave mistake. The bottom line is that western nations should not be meddling with other countries internal affairs, especially since it is being done in a hypocritical and reckless manner. According to your current logic the Iraq war was justified and future military intervention in the middle east will also be justified. At what point do we draw the line? Many people could argue that Syria should be invaded as well, because of their brutal regime. It is a slippery slope that we should not be skiing down.
The sad irony here is that Olbermann is considered to be a radical left winger by our corporate media. This sentiment could not be any further from the truth. It seems that anyone who can deliver news in a fairly logical and objective manner is automatically labeled a fanatic. If Olbermann is an extremist I have some beach front property in Arizona to sell you.
I don't believe there is a specific formula that we can pinpoint when it comes to corporate media. A couple things that we know for sure is that their primary objective is to either make money, or are used as a vehicle by the government to coerce the masses when deemed necessary to fit the government agenda of the time. This scenario was extremely evident when the US was trying to win public opinion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were bombarded 24/7 with propaganda for those wars. The media during this period had very good ratings. I believe it is possible to manufacturer demand for almost anything and news is no different. Of course war coverage tends to sell, but that does not mean that people would not be interested in hearing about a modern day revolution in North Africa. The main reason for not highlighting the coverage is because it does not fit within the agenda of the US government. It would be in bad form to highlight positive attributes of Muslims and Arabs, because that does not fit in neatly within the confines of US discourse.
It is not necessarily a matter of whether there is a consensus of right or wrong, it is an issue of political will. When was the last time a western leader has been brought to justice for committing war crimes? One can bring up Milosevic, but unfortunately for him he was not friendly with the US or any of the other major western world powers. The major western powers only go after those that they find politically convenient at the time. I cannot think of any instances in recent history. Most people can agree that unjustified wars of imperialism are wrong, but why haven't any of these leaders been brought to justice for their wars? It is pretty simple, western nations do not want to rock the boat. They are all complicit in these wars of imperialism, and have neither the incentive or the political will to take action. It would create precedent that would rock the foundations of our modern political world.Trying a president for crimes such as rape or bribery does not have the same far reaching impact, as trying those for war crimes.
The situation in Libya and Iraq are not the same, but close enough to warrant the comparisons being made by those critical and weary of further US military aggression. Why would the US be "dragged" into any military intervention? The US is the most powerful nation in the world and does not have to bow to the will of any other nations. This has been extremely evident throughout US history. If the US really did not want to go into war they should have put their foot down and said no. In practically every other situation the US is defiant, and does as it pleases. Obama's lack of a spine is rather disturbing, and is unfortunately his defining characteristic. He is always trying to please someone else. How about we need to start thinking about the American people. Can the US really afford another potential war monetarily and politically?
The threat to the world posed by Gadaffi and especially US interests is minimal at best. The fact that Gadaffi will undermine democracy in other parts of the North Africa is highly speculative as well. This is the same old rhetoric that is used to get people to support military intervention. There is hardly any evidence to prove that contention, and is a moot point. Also, just because the UN creates a resolution that has the support of the Arab League does not make the military action legitimate. The UN's and especially the Arab League's legitimacy is greatly in question considering their dismal track record tarnished by double standards and overall ineffectiveness. Flawed policy does not become legitimate because a large gang of imperialist bullies authorizes it.
Finally, it is difficult to say the level of involvement that the US will actually face in the coming days or weeks. It is already clear that US is already shouldering most of the burden, even though that was not supposed to be the deal. Leading up to the Iraq war we were told several times that it was going to be a quick and easy victory. In this case the US is saying that they will not stay for a prolonged period of time, and will have a limited role. History does usually repeat itself, and is likely to do so in Libya. I hope that I am mistaken, but I have a strong belief that things are going to turn ugly.
According to my understanding of the situation after researching and doing my own analysis I have come to my own conclusions on the matter in Libya. Most of the time I fully agree with your analysis and objective reasoning. What perplexes me about the situation in Libya is that many progressive thinkers, not only you have not been critical about western military aggression in Libya. In some cases many progressives have been in full support. It seems to me that you have taken a middle of the road stance on the issue, which seems to be at odds with other views that you have expressed regarding similar circumstances in the middle east. Maybe my interpretation of your views on other issues such as Iraq has been wrong all along. I would just like some clarification as to why you have not been critical on intervention in Libya. I do not mean this as a personal attack, but I cannot see where you are coming from on this particular issue.
Professor Cole, I usually agree with most of your insight regarding the middle east, and I appreciate the hard work that you do. Your analysis surrounding Libya is deeply flawed in my opinion. History has clearly proven that military intervention in the middle east is not successful. The current military aggression perpetuated by the US and other western nations will fail for the same reasons that it failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The no-fly zone will prove to unsuccessful, because it has come far too late in the game. It might have proven successful if it was implemented two weeks ago when the rebels had control of 80 percent of the country. What benefit will it serve at this point?
Since the no-fly zone will not be enough to defeat Ghdaffi and his gang, the western allies will be left with no other choice but get further involved in the civil war. They will eventually become the hated imperialist, as the US became in Iraq and Afghanistan. This coalition will be forced to police a dirty civil war, which is the type of quagmire that we should be avoiding at this point in our sad history.
If I understand your position on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, you were against it from time of its inception. How is this any different? If anything Saddam was far more brutal than Ghdaffi. During Saddam's rule he killed at least 200,000 Iraqis. According to your current logic, would you have been supportive of the invasion of Iraq if it was successful?
Despite whether this military invasion is successful or not it is a grave mistake. The bottom line is that western nations should not be meddling with other countries internal affairs, especially since it is being done in a hypocritical and reckless manner. According to your current logic the Iraq war was justified and future military intervention in the middle east will also be justified. At what point do we draw the line? Many people could argue that Syria should be invaded as well, because of their brutal regime. It is a slippery slope that we should not be skiing down.
The sad irony here is that Olbermann is considered to be a radical left winger by our corporate media. This sentiment could not be any further from the truth. It seems that anyone who can deliver news in a fairly logical and objective manner is automatically labeled a fanatic. If Olbermann is an extremist I have some beach front property in Arizona to sell you.
I don't believe there is a specific formula that we can pinpoint when it comes to corporate media. A couple things that we know for sure is that their primary objective is to either make money, or are used as a vehicle by the government to coerce the masses when deemed necessary to fit the government agenda of the time. This scenario was extremely evident when the US was trying to win public opinion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were bombarded 24/7 with propaganda for those wars. The media during this period had very good ratings. I believe it is possible to manufacturer demand for almost anything and news is no different. Of course war coverage tends to sell, but that does not mean that people would not be interested in hearing about a modern day revolution in North Africa. The main reason for not highlighting the coverage is because it does not fit within the agenda of the US government. It would be in bad form to highlight positive attributes of Muslims and Arabs, because that does not fit in neatly within the confines of US discourse.