Let me see if I understand this argument Juan. If we are opposed to US intervention that automatically translates into support for Chinese intervention. You're not very good at this whole constructing arguments business are you?
This is terribly disingenuous Juan. Everyone knows that China does not have a long history of overt and covert attempts to overthrow governments in order to secure their economic interests. Western powers have a long history of doing exactly that, which you have conveniently left out of your analysis.
The US spent massive resources on conquering Iraq, certainly much more than it was worth. So does that mean there weren't imperialist motives behind it? I think you are forgetting that, in the case of Gambia or Iraq, the costs of administration are socialized while the gains are privatized. How exactly was Lenin wrong about that?
"He can be not just the president who killed Bin Laden, but the president who killed the pretexts for radical violence against the US."
That won't happen as long as the US continues to bomb Pakistan with drones, or as long as the US continues to bomb Libya. That won't happen as long as the US supports the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, or as long as they demonize Iran. Nor will it happen as long as the US subverts democracy in Palestine, and continues its support of Israel.
The US is far too embedded in the Middle East as an imperialist power. Killing Osama Bin Laden does virtually nothing to change that.
By the way Juan, this is two days in a row that you are celebrating the death of US "enemies". I wonder when Americans will learn that violence just breeds more violence?
I don't think anyone disagrees that the Qaddafi family is terribly corrupt and has concentrated the nation's wealth in their hands. But that doesn't justify external interference in Libyan affairs.
Need I remind you that in the US we also have an extremely wealthy and corrupt ruling class, that is also capable of extreme violence against innocent civilians? Does that mean outside forces like say China or France should intervene to overthrow the US government?
Libyans, just like Americans, should be allowed to control their own future without external interference.
Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.
That's right Al. Obama should neither support tyrants, nor push them out. He should allow the people of those countries to decide their fate without outside interference. That is what self-determination means.
"The Obama administration has finally decided that Saleh must go. Is that imperialism or supporting reform? You decide."
Juan, if you cannot see why the US president "deciding" when other heads of state "must go" is by nature an imperialist action, then I'm afraid you've internalized the logic of the Empire.
Regardless of how horrible Saleh is, it is simply NOT the role of the US president to decide when other heads of state have to go anymore than it is the role of the President of Mongolia.
When are people in the US (let alone scholars) going to understand the meaning of SELF-DETERMINATION??
"You may not like the post-WW II order, and it does not always work as its founders intended, but it is the only framework for something other than international anarchy that we have got."
Uh, what? Are you trying to say that if it weren't for a US-dominated UN and NATO that there would be "international anarchy"???
Me thinks that the imperial framework has infiltrated your ideas Mr. Cole.
"the alliance of forces moving against Colonel Qaddafi is as close to a global endeavor as one can realistically imagine."
Really? Tell that to China, Russia, Brazil, and India, which make up a majority of the world's population, and which did not vote in favor of the intervention.
"We will look back on it in future years as a return to the internationalism of the pre-Bush years"
In the pre-Bush years there were plenty of terrible interventions around the world, including the one-sided arming of conflicts such as Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc. We should all be aware of how well those "interventions" turned out.
I also have to take issue with number 1. Yes, the UN Security Council approved a measure, but now both Brazil and the Chinese government have come out against the measure, so it seems clear that they were opposed to it. One can only imagine why they abstained instead of voting against it. It is no secret that the US yields great power in these matters.
Juan, I agree with this for the most part, but a few things I disagree with:
3. If the West went around intervening in countries every time there was a massacre of civilians they would be constantly involved in many countries around the world.
4. The Arab League wanted a no-fly zone but thought the attack on Libya had gone too far. Notably, the African Union opposed any intervention. Are they less relevant?
7. It is hard to imagine how this could possibly be ended in a matter of days, and how it will be resolved without an outright invasion to stop Gaddafi.
9. I think it is too soon to say whether or not the US pressured other countries to vote in favor of this in the UN, or to abstain as many did.
Let me see if I understand this argument Juan. If we are opposed to US intervention that automatically translates into support for Chinese intervention. You're not very good at this whole constructing arguments business are you?
This is terribly disingenuous Juan. Everyone knows that China does not have a long history of overt and covert attempts to overthrow governments in order to secure their economic interests. Western powers have a long history of doing exactly that, which you have conveniently left out of your analysis.
Juan,
The US spent massive resources on conquering Iraq, certainly much more than it was worth. So does that mean there weren't imperialist motives behind it? I think you are forgetting that, in the case of Gambia or Iraq, the costs of administration are socialized while the gains are privatized. How exactly was Lenin wrong about that?
"He can be not just the president who killed Bin Laden, but the president who killed the pretexts for radical violence against the US."
That won't happen as long as the US continues to bomb Pakistan with drones, or as long as the US continues to bomb Libya. That won't happen as long as the US supports the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, or as long as they demonize Iran. Nor will it happen as long as the US subverts democracy in Palestine, and continues its support of Israel.
The US is far too embedded in the Middle East as an imperialist power. Killing Osama Bin Laden does virtually nothing to change that.
By the way Juan, this is two days in a row that you are celebrating the death of US "enemies". I wonder when Americans will learn that violence just breeds more violence?
Juan,
I don't think anyone disagrees that the Qaddafi family is terribly corrupt and has concentrated the nation's wealth in their hands. But that doesn't justify external interference in Libyan affairs.
Need I remind you that in the US we also have an extremely wealthy and corrupt ruling class, that is also capable of extreme violence against innocent civilians? Does that mean outside forces like say China or France should intervene to overthrow the US government?
Libyans, just like Americans, should be allowed to control their own future without external interference.
"Israel was heavily criticized for dropping cluster bombs on south Lebanon"
Indeed they were, but a NATO intervention to overthrow the government of Israel wasn't the response. I wonder why?
Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.
That's right Al. Obama should neither support tyrants, nor push them out. He should allow the people of those countries to decide their fate without outside interference. That is what self-determination means.
"The Obama administration has finally decided that Saleh must go. Is that imperialism or supporting reform? You decide."
Juan, if you cannot see why the US president "deciding" when other heads of state "must go" is by nature an imperialist action, then I'm afraid you've internalized the logic of the Empire.
Regardless of how horrible Saleh is, it is simply NOT the role of the US president to decide when other heads of state have to go anymore than it is the role of the President of Mongolia.
When are people in the US (let alone scholars) going to understand the meaning of SELF-DETERMINATION??
"You may not like the post-WW II order, and it does not always work as its founders intended, but it is the only framework for something other than international anarchy that we have got."
Uh, what? Are you trying to say that if it weren't for a US-dominated UN and NATO that there would be "international anarchy"???
Me thinks that the imperial framework has infiltrated your ideas Mr. Cole.
"the alliance of forces moving against Colonel Qaddafi is as close to a global endeavor as one can realistically imagine."
Really? Tell that to China, Russia, Brazil, and India, which make up a majority of the world's population, and which did not vote in favor of the intervention.
"We will look back on it in future years as a return to the internationalism of the pre-Bush years"
In the pre-Bush years there were plenty of terrible interventions around the world, including the one-sided arming of conflicts such as Afghanistan, Nicaragua, etc. We should all be aware of how well those "interventions" turned out.
Juan,
I also have to take issue with number 1. Yes, the UN Security Council approved a measure, but now both Brazil and the Chinese government have come out against the measure, so it seems clear that they were opposed to it. One can only imagine why they abstained instead of voting against it. It is no secret that the US yields great power in these matters.
Juan, I agree with this for the most part, but a few things I disagree with:
3. If the West went around intervening in countries every time there was a massacre of civilians they would be constantly involved in many countries around the world.
4. The Arab League wanted a no-fly zone but thought the attack on Libya had gone too far. Notably, the African Union opposed any intervention. Are they less relevant?
7. It is hard to imagine how this could possibly be ended in a matter of days, and how it will be resolved without an outright invasion to stop Gaddafi.
9. I think it is too soon to say whether or not the US pressured other countries to vote in favor of this in the UN, or to abstain as many did.
Juan,
what do you make of Russian reports that Khaddafi has not carried out any air-raids or bombings of protesters:
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/airstrikes-in-libya-did-not-take-place-russian-military/