Prof. Cole: Would you support intervention in Egypt, considering that the military government has killed a lot more peaceful protestors than Qaddafi did before civil war broke out in Libya, and given that, unlike Qaddafi, Sisi actually overthrew an elected government?
I'm guessing the answer is no, and I'm guessing it is because in Egypt it was the "liberals" who supported the overthrow of the Islamist government, for whom you had little sympathy.
Personally, I'm against intervention anywhere in the Middle East, since it destroys a lot of lives and entire cities (albeit on lovely pretexts).
Germany and Japan were destroyed because they attacked other countries, not because they were dictatorships. As for Japan, even that destruction was unnecessary, as it was possible to have peace without requiring Japanese surrender.
Super390: Think about the absurdity of what you're saying. We normally don't like dictators because they have a destructive effect. To destroy a country on the pretext of removing dictators is hypocrisy, since it causes even worse destruction. I'd make an exception only for a dictator like Hitler who was killing people by the millions.
Is Hafter against Islamism per se or against anybody, including the elected Parliament, that stands on his way to power?
Also, it's a little unsettling that yesterday's freedom fighters are now called "extremists" -- a total of six times in this article -- on the authority of this one strongman. But Hafter is an extremist, too. His use of violence proves that he is. He's no better than the folks he's attacking.
1. You wrote, "There has been no military intervention in Syria." The first thing the "Friends of Syria" announced was their decision to pay the salaries of the rebels. Since then, there has been a steady stream of financial and military aid flowing to the rebels from the US, Qatar, Turkey, and other countries. That is military intervention.
2. You wrote, "There was no ... military intervention in Egypt." Yes. Thank God. And that is why Cairo has not be reduced to rubble, unlike cities in Libya and Syria, and in Egypt only 1,000 people have died in recent months. Egypt is now a dictatorship, but at least it is not destroyed. Libya and Syria could have been like that. These examples together show that interventionism is catastrophic.
3. You wrote, "the lesson is that revolutions are often messy." This treats the human cost as an abstraction. We should always remember we're talking about lives being destroyed.
The real lesson is that power politics is not worth destroying people's lives. Toppling a dictator is a crime itself if it destroys a country. Finally, putting the label of "extremist" on someone doesn't justify fanning the flames of civil war.
Prof. Cole: Would you support intervention in Egypt, considering that the military government has killed a lot more peaceful protestors than Qaddafi did before civil war broke out in Libya, and given that, unlike Qaddafi, Sisi actually overthrew an elected government?
I'm guessing the answer is no, and I'm guessing it is because in Egypt it was the "liberals" who supported the overthrow of the Islamist government, for whom you had little sympathy.
Personally, I'm against intervention anywhere in the Middle East, since it destroys a lot of lives and entire cities (albeit on lovely pretexts).
Germany and Japan were destroyed because they attacked other countries, not because they were dictatorships. As for Japan, even that destruction was unnecessary, as it was possible to have peace without requiring Japanese surrender.
Super390: Think about the absurdity of what you're saying. We normally don't like dictators because they have a destructive effect. To destroy a country on the pretext of removing dictators is hypocrisy, since it causes even worse destruction. I'd make an exception only for a dictator like Hitler who was killing people by the millions.
Is Hafter against Islamism per se or against anybody, including the elected Parliament, that stands on his way to power?
Also, it's a little unsettling that yesterday's freedom fighters are now called "extremists" -- a total of six times in this article -- on the authority of this one strongman. But Hafter is an extremist, too. His use of violence proves that he is. He's no better than the folks he's attacking.
1. You wrote, "There has been no military intervention in Syria." The first thing the "Friends of Syria" announced was their decision to pay the salaries of the rebels. Since then, there has been a steady stream of financial and military aid flowing to the rebels from the US, Qatar, Turkey, and other countries. That is military intervention.
2. You wrote, "There was no ... military intervention in Egypt." Yes. Thank God. And that is why Cairo has not be reduced to rubble, unlike cities in Libya and Syria, and in Egypt only 1,000 people have died in recent months. Egypt is now a dictatorship, but at least it is not destroyed. Libya and Syria could have been like that. These examples together show that interventionism is catastrophic.
3. You wrote, "the lesson is that revolutions are often messy." This treats the human cost as an abstraction. We should always remember we're talking about lives being destroyed.
The real lesson is that power politics is not worth destroying people's lives. Toppling a dictator is a crime itself if it destroys a country. Finally, putting the label of "extremist" on someone doesn't justify fanning the flames of civil war.