EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Libya and the Familiar Patterns of War
The Los Angeles Times, March 18, 2003:
U.S. Raises Terrorism Alert Amid Concerns of Retaliation
Bracing for a backlash from impending war with Iraq, the Bush administration put the nation on high alert for a terrorist attack and announced that it was redoubling efforts to enhance security at home.
The decision to raise the terrorism threat level from yellow to orange, the third such move in the last six months, followed several months worth of intelligence reports indicating a strong likelihood of some type of terrorist attack or retaliation if the U.S. went to war with Iraq. Those strikes, officials said, could come from organized Al Qaeda cells or groups sent here by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, or from individuals or small groups who sympathize with them.
American Official Warns That Qaddafi May Lash Out With New Terrorist Attacks
The United States is bracing for possible Libyan-backed terrorist attacks, President Obama’s top counterterrorism official said on Friday.
The official, John O. Brennan, said that the military attacks on civilians ordered in recent days by Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, coupled with his track record as a sponsor of terrorism, had heightened worries within the administration as an international coalition threatens military action against Libya.
Asked if American officials feared whether Colonel Qaddafi could open a new terrorism front, Mr. Brennan said: "Qaddafi has the penchant to do things of a very concerning nature. We have to anticipate and be prepared for things he might try to do to flout the will of the international community."
Among the threats the United States is focusing on is Libya’s stockpile of deadly mustard gas, he said.
The attack on Iraq and the intervention in Libya are, in critical ways, vastly different, and glib comparisons should be avoided. Fear-mongering was the primary means of selling the Iraq war to the public. whereas purported humanitarian goals have taken center stage now (though humanitarian appeals -- rape rooms, mass graves, chemical attacks on his own people, and sadistic sons!! -- were also prominently featured in 2003 and in virtually every other war ever started). That the Arab League advocated the Libya intervention, and it now has U.N. endorsement, lend a perceived international legitimacy to it that Iraq so disastrously lacked. Because both political parties' leaders are even more supportive of this military action than they were for Iraq, the domestic debate will be much less contentious. At least for now, Obama is substantially more cautious than Bush ever was in limiting the U.S. commitment. And given that the Libya intervention has not even begun, no comparisons can be made between its execution and the brutal, inhumane slaughter and destruction that characterized the eight-year assault on Iraq; it's possible (though far from guaranteed) that this intervention could be short, relatively bloodless and successful.
All that said, it is striking how wars -- no matter how they're packaged -- ultimately breed the same patterns. With public opinion split or even against the war in Libya (at least for now) -- and with questions naturally arising about why we're intervening here to stop the violence but ignoring the growing violence from our good friends in Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere -- the administration obviously knows that some good, old-fashioned fear-mongering and unique demonization (Gadaffi is a Terrorist with "deadly mustard gas" who might attack us!!) can only help. Then there's the fact that the same faction of war-loving-from-a-safe-distance "hawks" that took the lead in cheering for the attack on Iraq -- neocons on the Right and their "liberal interventionist" counterparts in The New Republic/Brookings/Democratic Party officialdom world -- are playing the same role here. And many of the same manipulative rhetorical tactics are now wielded against war opponents: the Libyan rebels are the new Kurds (they want us to act to protect them!), and just as those who opposed the attack on Iraq were routinely accused of indifference toward if not support for Saddam's tyranny, those who oppose this intervention are now accused of indifference to Gadaffi's butchery (as always: are those refraining from advocating for military intervention in Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or the Sudan or dozens of other places indifferent to the violence and other forms of suffering there?).
Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin reports that Obama just this week changed his mind on Libya from opposing to supporting intervention because he became convinced that this would change America's posture in the region by placing us on the side of freedom and democracy. But would it really do that? As our Saudi, Yemeni, Bahraini, Jordanian, Kuwaiti, Egyptian and Iraqi close friends continue to impose varying degrees of domestic oppression and violence, is yet another military intervention in an oil-rich Muslim nation really going to transform rather than bolster how we're perceived in that region? This claim -- we'll be viewed as strong and magnanimous in the Muslim world -- was also, of course, a featured claim justifying the attack on Iraq. And just as was true for Iraq, how this ends up being perceived, and what it turns out to be in fact, depends on a whole slew of unknowable factors, including what we end up doing there, how long it takes, and whom we end up supporting.
As for Brennan's warning that this action may trigger Terrorist attacks on the U.S., I suppose -- just as was true for the similar 2003 warnings -- that this is a possible repercussion of our intervention. But doesn't that really underscore the key point? If we really want to transform how we're perceived in that part of the world, and if we really want to reduce the Terrorist threat, isn't the obvious solution to stop sending our fighter jets and bombs and armies to that part of the world rather than finding a new Muslim country to target for war on a seemingly annual basis? I have no doubt that some citizens who support the intervention in Libya are doing so for purely humanitarian and noble reasons, just as was true for some supporters of the effort to remove the truly despicable Saddam Hussein. But the intentions of those who support the war shed little light on the motives of those who prosecute the war and even less light on what its ultimate outcomes will be.
* * * * *
There's one other difference between Iraq and Libya worth noting: at least with the former, there was a sustained, intense P.R. campaign to persuade the public to support it, followed by a cursory Congressional vote (agreed to by the Bush White House only once approval was guaranteed in advance). By contrast, the intervention in Libya was presidentially decreed with virtually no public debate or discussion; it's just amazing how little public opinion or the consent of the citizenry matters when it comes to involving the country in a new war. That objection can and should be obviated if Obama seeks Congressional approval before deploying the U.S. military. On some level, it would be just a formality -- it's hard to imagine the Congress ever impeding a war the President wants to fight -- but at least some pretense of democratic and Constitutional adherence should be maintained.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
64 Comments so far
Show AllGlenn
All those statements by American Security Officials are fabricated, and nothing but a written justification for their bureaucratic existence.
Usually, I am very appreciative of Glenn Greenwald's analyses, but this article seems to be guardedly going around the periphery.
The comment that, "glib comparisons should be avoided" seems almost disingenuous when Mr. Greenwald makes a point of NOT focussing harder on the role of oil greed and military expansionism in this,
the latest,
corporate,
move.
What is the difference between "glib"ness and facing facts?
With North Sea oil on the decline it is interesting that the two most eager parties in this are France and GB. Oh where to draw the line on the ground.. considering the oil fields are western and eastern Libya.
Greenwald's closing is heartbreaking: "at least some pretense of democratic and Constitutional adherence should be maintained."
"Some pretense of democratic and Constitutional adherence" is what we've had and all we've had for a long time. The president or those who pull his strings could declare even those suspended if they can decide it's a "state of emergency." Lincoln did it with habeas corpus so there is precedent.
Greenwald asks "why we're intervening here to stop the violence but ignoring the growing violence from our good friends in Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere?" I would note the ongoing brutality in Saudi Arabia against foreign workers, women and dissidents.
Our stated goals make no sense, do not pass the laugh test. Our previous US military actions are completely relevant, since we are still the US and the military is the military. They do what they do. It is their nature. If a leader threatens to raise the minimum wage and that would affect the US rag trade, he gets deposed (Zelaya, Aristide). If a leader wants to control his own countries resources, he gets assassinated (Lumumba, Mossadegh). We generally ignore the conditions of women and children as long as the nation's resources are available to us, including raw materials, labor, places for naval and army bases.
When we or France or UK intervene in other countries' business on the pretext of humanitarian relief, the result is rarely an improvement in humanitarian conditions.
Yes, the Mossadegh coup was an imperialist act that eventually backfired when the Shah of Iran was deposed but Mossadegh was not assassinated. He died under house arrest in his own house in 1957. Salvador Allende of Chile would be a better example.
Watching the Aljazeera and BBC reports, it's hard to countenance us doing nothing while Gaddafi slaughters and tortures thousands of people. I'm the opposite of a hawk, but I can't help but sigh in relief as the French got in there. Of course, it's sheer hypocrisy that we stand by while Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, and Yemen murder and suppress their people and that we continue to murder innocents in other countries ourselves.
Soon it will be foreign troops who slaughter and torture Libyan civilians. Where will you stand on that as Libya devolves into another Iraq or Afghanistan? I also see that you mentioned Iraq, where both the Iraqi government and the U.S. military slaughter and torture Iraqi civilians. Think about that.
How many civilians did we murder today with our barrage of missiles?
48 Libyan civilians were killed and around 150 wounded... because of French artillery!
So much for saving the Libyans for Gaddafi. I bet Mark Abram and the other interventionists are loving this though. At least it's the United States, the United Kingdom and France killing Libyans instead of Gaddafi!
I'm not for war, invasion and destruction, and I don't have a pro- position on this. I'm just saying that it would be very hard to know that Gaddafi was successful in going into Benghazi and slaughtering and disappearing tens of thousands of people, in the same way he did that in Tripoli and other towns he took over. I don't know the solution after maniacs are able to take control and who don't care at all about the consequences of their control fetishes. Unfortunately, the world is full of these people who'd rather cause misery than to go hiking or swimming or read a book or something relaxing and healthy.
jclientelle wrote: "I would note the ongoing brutality in Saudi Arabia against foreign workers, women and dissidents."
Absolutely.
And now SA military forces, at the invitation of Bahrain's leadership, are brutalizing and slaughtering the protesting citizens of neighboring Bahrain in their own streets, who are seeking their freedom and democracy from a dictatorial regime.
And the US congress just recently approved a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia... that will provide it with massive amounts of firepower with which it can become an even stronger bullying force in the region, and to its own people.
As has been pointed out on CD before, SA is a brutal, totalitarian police state. Yet the leadership of the US gov't and military, along with our weapons manufacturers, are as cozied up with and supportive of the Saudi ruling regime as can possibly be.
This is a travesty and an absurdity. All among us who value democracy, freedom, political justice, or human decency should be opposed to it.
This is going to fit your expectation of a typical anti-war Lefty response, but I can't help thinking I've heard the last few lines of your post somewhere before, too.
Things are not going to stay within the parameters that have been so far declared. Things don't do that. A few more lesser-of-two-evils binary choices and the Great Herpes Powers (once you've got 'em, you can't get rid of 'em) will be establishing Green Zones in Tripoli.
I hope things go another way this time round, really I do. The Sarkozys/Camerons/Obamas of this world should to remember that doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is indicative of insanity.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Has anyone informed President Sarkozy that there are no great pyramids in Libya that he can visit and exclaim that thousands of years of history are looking down on him?
I quote you: "it's pretty hard to see how allowing Ghadaffi to use the massive arsenal supplied to him over the years by the major powers (in exchange for oil) to crush the uprising against him is the more moral alternative".
Fundamentally the civil war in Libya has nothing to do with morality. It has been a principle of such long standing that no one really knows when it began that rulers/governments are expected/allowed to use any force available against armed uprisings intending to overthrow them. The fact that unarmed civilians are also killed is regrettable but alas inevitable (see: Afghanistan) French and English kings (ironic is it not now that the French and English are in the forefront of ignoring their own history) have done that for centuries, President Lincoln was completely within this principle when he answered the attack on Fort Sumter, and so was Tzar Nicholas I of Russia in December of 1825. Or do you disagree? History has always been written by the victors who, by their own definition occupy the moral high ground.
You mention "oil" in "exchange of oil". Are you sure that the foreign intervention of Libya has to do more with morals than oil? And the exchange with Kadaffy has not always been arms. Remember the prisoner of Lockerbie?
And Saddam gassed his own people ......and......and....
George W.drowned his own people. I am not familiar with your postings. Maybe this is your schtick here. No problem, i am not disturbed, if that is your intention.
rita
Based on your comment, would you qualify yourself as the pro-war Left? Oh wait, you're one of the frequent Obama-bot posters.
The "previous U.S. military" actions are still current and relevant. What the hell is wrong with you? Have not been paying attention?
Judging from American actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it's fair to say that the United States will not only kill Libyan civilians indiscriminately but that it will meddle in LIbya's national affairs too beyond removing Gaddafi. It's also rather conveniently selective that the United States and its allies are invading Libya rather than the other nations you've listed.
I also take it that you're a chickenhawk. I've been throwing that insult around lately, but it's very relevant. Does the concept of the "White Man's Burden" ring a bell to you? That's what your "opinion" reeks of: you're a condescending, bigoted white man, who is detached from the situation in Libya, cheerleading for a war that you're not participating in. All you know about Libya is what you've gotten from the mainstream media. I bet you don't even really care about or understand what is going on there.
Why aren't you in Libya? Why aren't you a soldier or an aid worker? Why aren't you Iraq or Afghanistan either? You must support those wars if you're going to back the Libya invasion. Other people have to die for your cause that you're blissfully detached from. I'm sure you won't care what happens to Libya after the invasion, because at least Gaddafi will be gone right?
I was wondering when someone would call me "Useless". Not surprised that it's you. :)
I'm very active in the anti-war movement. I make no exceptions for opposing wars of aggression that are mislabeled as "humanitarian". There's no such thing humanitarian wars.
It's very hard to believe you're anti-war at all Mark, since you have no problems with U.S./NATO forces bombing indiscriminately in Libya already. Give it time, those same forces will be meddling with the Libyan government, killing Libyan civilians and setting up military bases. If you've been paying attention, you would know that our bombings aren't stopping Gaddafi's bombings. It will result in an invasion, and it will apparently have your blessing.
Well, let's focus on what is happening in Bahrain. Why have there been no calls for intervention there? Or Yemen?
Or, let's just look at Libya itself. What do you hope to achieve? Force a ceasefire? After that what? Force Gaddafi to go? Let's assume he does not go. What do you propose to do? Send in ground troops? Or, let's assume he does go, after negotiating some agreement where he and his family are allowed to go into exile with their millions / billions. Then what? Elections of some sort, I assume? Who is going to run them? The thing here is no one, both those supporting and opposing the invervention, appears to have really articulated what they want to see happen, what they are actually proposing, despite all the shouting and screaming and ranting.
Right now France is occupying a bunch of nations in Africa,empowering the thugs and the dictators from Niger,Chad,Central African Country,Equatiarla Guanuya and so on. Why shoudl we believe France ? As usual Arab League dominated by Jordan,Morocco,UAE,Sadia Arab,Kuwait,Bahrain,Yemen ( Saddam possibly would ahve supported this interevntion also) have agreed to pay for the cost.
I will post yet and yet again that the justification for intervention (don't call it a surge) will be the link to terrorism and specifically al-Qaeda.
The justification and legality claimed by government and obeyed by the military is due to a law that we should stop ignoring.
Our feckless Congress signed over way too much power when they passed Public Law 107-40.
Our President now can intervene the US military into Libya in order to prevent future terrorism.
Familiar Patterns, indeed.
Funny thing, Gaddafi claims that the rebels are al-Qaeda.
I've been around long enough to recognize some patterns myself.
About two weeks ago, when there appeared to be a genuine (as opposed to Tea Party) populist movement building in this country, and the protests in Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin and elsewhere were crowding out more corporate-friendly issues in the media, I asked myself: "Okay, what can we expect next?" I answered my own question: "Obviously, there will be another terrorist attack or possible military action, most likely in the Middle East."
Well, the pattern certainly holds true, doesn't it. There is nary a mention of the populist uprising in our own country; meanwhile military intervention in Libya is crowding out virtually every other story in the national media.
The coverage of the tragedy unfolding in Japan was certainly understandable and necessary. However, I would like to have seen more acknowledgements of the threat nuclear power and nuclear waste pose to this planet and its inhabitants for thousands of years to come. Instead, much of the coverage seemed focused on defending the nuclear power industry in our own country.
However, the coverage of the Libyan situation (including the Mustard gas we are told the Libyan government could unleash on the world at any time), is sounding more and more like the media coverage prior to the invasion of Iraq. (Does anyone still remember the "weapons of mass destruction" George W. Bush and his administration insisted Iraq was about to unleash on the world?)
Meanwhile, with a few exceptions like Ed Schultz's show, the emerging populist movement of working class Americans is receiving virtually no coverage in the national media.
One doesn't have to be a grizzled Old Guy to have seen this one coming. This is a pattern even the casual purveyor of the corporate-owned media could have predicted as the populist uprising was gaining momentum.
Right on OldGuy. You nailed it.
Has anyone checked to make sure that the Lybian rebels/freedomfighters/terrorists ( depending on you particular spin) are not working for Blackwater, US Special Forces or the CIA?
It all just seem too convenient.
Two months ago Gaddafi was a reformed terrorist who was best pals with big US and UK oil concerns.
Greenwald's article does a good job in showing how the US warmongers trick the US populace into supporting their military actions.
And to answer your question I think Chris Floyd has done an incredible job with his recent article on what is happening in the Libyan rebel movement.
"And so now, another war. Led by the United States and the religious extremists in Saudi Arabia, the UN Security Council voted to intervene on behalf of one side in the Libyan civil war. Having already armed and trained Moamar Gadafy's armies and security forces, the Western war-profiteers have now decided to do the same for his opponents.
These opponents, it must be noted, are at present led by top players who only weeks ago were at the center of Gadafy's murderous, repressive regime -- which was itself, only weeks ago, considered a worthy partner by Western governments and business interests. As As'ad AbuKhalil -- a fierce critic of Gadafy for many years -- noted today, before the UN vote:
The Libyan people have been betrayed. Their revolution against the Libyan tyrant has been hijacked by US and Saudi Arabia. That lousy henchman for Qadhdhafi, Mustafa Abd-Al-Jali [leader of the rebel's Libyan National Transition Council], is now a Saudi stooge who hijacked the uprising on behalf of a foreign agenda. I mean, what do you expect from a man who until the other day held the position of Minister of Justice in Qadhdhafi's regime, for potato's sake? And don't you like it when Western media constantly refer to him as "the respected Libyan minister of Justice." Respected by who? By Western governments."
Read more here => http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/
1-latest-news/2105-a-people-betrayed-west-
launches-new-war-for-oil-in-libya.html
I would love to know why Chris Floyd is still not cross-published here.
He's too middle-of-the-road for CD ;-)
Floyd's the best.
It is instructive to compare the Presidential actions in the cases of Iraq and Libya. President Bush was openly contemptuous of the United Nations. He never asked nor got a second green Security Council light for his invasion of Iraq but he did ask Congress for support in advance. Perhaps not exactly what the framers of the constitution had in mind but he asked elected representatives to back him up.
Now take a look at what President Obama has done. He has asked and obtained a green light from the UN Security Council but has not asked the Congress for any support yet while he is already up to his hips involved in warfare against a state that has neither threatened nor attacked the United States of America. That support may still come in the form of a special budget request which will undoubtedly go by some fancy name such as “Libyan Freedom Greasing the Skid”. Once that is granted he is constitutionally OK at least as far as the US Supreme Court ruling of 1990 is concerned.
Which of these two Presidents has stuck closer to the demands of our constitution with regards to going to war? In my opinion that is President Bush, the much reviled, by a light-year. I am not surprised when I consider what I wrote in the spring of 2008 namely that candidate Obama is a died-in-the-wool imperialist.
Any representative or senator who has ambitions of running for the presidency must remember how candidate Obama pummeled candidate Clinton with her “aye” vote on Iraq and must therefore be leery of having to vote for an analogous Libya resolution.
It was predictable that the word "terrorist" in connection with Kadaffi would sooner or later appear in the White House vocabulary. No surprise there.
"International community" is USan elites' euphemism for nothing more than their own private imperialist juggernaut.
With Japan needing more foreign oil....................
You CAN fool all the people all the time.
perhaps - but can you FUEL all the people all the time?
Is it Gaddafi, Kaddaffi, Qaddafi, or El Qaddafi? Anyway, hopefully we wont have to worry about that one soon.
Funny thing, Hillary just met with some of the other arab dictator kings and they decided to help fight Kaddafi, one of their own.
is the world going mad or what? The end times must be near.
Hi EZ....I don't think he is necessarily 'one of their own'. I think individual differences in both personality and agenda exists here.
Not to mention wardrobe
Wars are easy to start, but almost impossible to end. Here we go again. Another oil-rich country about to be bombed back the the stone age. The notion that you can bomb a country to peace runs deep here. Ultimately, everybody loses except the war profiteers.
There's the skinny.
Can someone explain why a policing a "fly-free zone" is accompanied by ground attacks?
Surely a "fly-free zone" could be policed by projecting force IF AND ONLY IF Libyan military aircraft become airborne?
After all, this is the premise that accompanies the so-called missile defense shield
The air-to-ground attacks target the radar and anti-aircraft weaponry that would normally protect the enemy's airspace from invading aircraft or missiles. Enemy air support assets (air bases, communications, etc.) are also targeted to cripple basic flight capability. Additional enemy assets may be targeted according to field-specific rules of engagement. Ultimately, the airspace can be patrolled at will or at least with minimal risk.
Exactly.
It is not a "You will be shot down if you try to fly" zone, it is a "we will destroy your ability to fly or counter our ability to fly" zone.
The idea that this is anything other than the opening round of a war is accomplished by the People's seemingly unshakable credulousness and lack of history or desire to understand complex situation.
Destroying some parts of some other nation because of something their government is doing is called being at War with that nation, in my book.
But I'm no Constitutional Lawyer like ol' Bomb'em Barry, am I?
Since Viet Nam we see the same mistakes over and over: NO clear objective, NO knowledge of the culture, Probably, if Iraq is any indication NO body who speaks the language, NO timetable, NO plan for withdrawal.
Congress has become the Sheriff of Nottingham, charged with stealing everything the poor have. They seem to have forgotten that it is THEIR responsibility to declare war. Any opinion polls consulted about starting a THIRD war? Ever occur to anyone it could become world war III?
This is at best stupid and incompetent and reckless, and at worst a criminal invitation to terrorists. Next time it happens let's not be so goofy as to wonder why or go looking for who is to blame. We have met the enemy...---Pogo
"...the intervention in Libya was presidentially decreed with virtually no public debate or discussion; it's just amazing how little public opinion or the consent of the citizenry matters when it comes to involving the country in a new war. That objection can and should be obviated if Obama seeks Congressional approval before deploying the U.S. military. On some level, it would be just a formality -- it's hard to imagine the Congress ever impeding a war the President wants to fight -- but at least some pretense of democratic and Constitutional adherence should be maintained."
That's what we've come to. Fake democracy, which the majority would not claim it believes in, is what the majority gets. Greenwald doesn't suggest we can have the real thing, although like other commentators, he eshews clear language. We have a fascist society - in all of our advanced, capitalist (socialism for a minority) states.
Here's how bad it is - and we the people must carry a lot of blame for allowing this situation to develop. Greewald suggests at least pretending to have democracy by consulting the people before doing things like going to war. But if our elites and their tools have severely dumbed down the people in our advanced countries, then even 'genuinely' consulting them would yield... What? Insane suggestions?
Democracy, of the common, not elite, sort, requires citizens to be educated, informed, engaged rather than excluded from decision-making. Talk about a big boat to turn around! We are far from democracy and can only get there now through enormous struggle over a protracted fightback taking a long time.
The time to worry about the catastrophe is before it happens, not after it happens.
There is a reason schools, libraries, are being closed. The powers would prefer an illiterate population.
I remember the monks who poured gasoline on themselves then lit a match to bring attention to the oppression of Vietnam civilians. Right away the U.S. sent advisers over under the guise of helping the innocent civilians but when the war was in full combat mission the U.S. troops could not tell the difference between the friends or foe. Civilians were engaged in military actions against the troops. This is the same in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Libya. The U.S. media reports the lie that smart bombs and missiles are being used to save civilians and do not kill civilians but the civilians know better and turn on the military attacking their country. Patterns of Wars
Consider the following:
1) the leaders of the National Transition Council, that is the leaders of the rebellion or the ones who are filling the political vacuum in the absence of Gaddafi are former regime officials;
(2) the NTC has been colluding with the West. This ought to sound alarms that this isn't a revolution but a regime change; that the U.S. is in effect getting a client regime. The NTC has been saying they have "western values" and want a no-fly zone and military attacks and that if they gain power they will honor foreign oil contracts and will "remember" their "friends";
(3) the plight of black africans is again ignored by the "liberal left." Black Africans in Libya, both citizens and immigrant workers, are the most oppressed group in the country. They make up more than 1/3 of the country, but they are not present in this revolution. Why? Apparently that is because this is an "Arab revolt" and blacks are fleeing the revolution in terror, which is also attacking them;
(4) it is awfully strange that the NTC adopted the Kingdom of Libya flag and that the "heir to the throne" is pleased by that and is saying he is ready to return to the country to "be a servant to the people."
Important bits of information to consider, no?--and are consistently missing in left media outlets--in order to understand what is going on. Former government officials colluding with the U.S. and the West to gain power while the most oppressed social group flees in terror and the heir to the throne is talking about returning is not symbolic of a progressive revolution the left should be supporting.
A third war---insanity. But Just because our leaders keep us confused does not mean that they themselves are confused. The cabal of billionaires and corporations have the best and brightest behavioral scientist working 24/7 to keep us cooperating in their bid to rule the world with an iron fist.
Never again will the poor be allowed to become comfortable enough to garner political power. Illiterate, impoverished, and too exhausted after a 12 hour shift to do anything but fall into a bunk, politics will be the last thing on their minds. They will pray for the strength to get up the next morning, because without a full day's work there will be no food.
Behavioral scientists typically starve dogs until they have lost a third of their body weight. The subject must be highly motivated to do as his handlers demand. Besides, when all they can think about is food they will be causing no trouble.
Very perceptive analysis Nietzsche.
"Never again will the poor be allowed to become comfortable enough to garner political power. Illiterate, impoverished, and too exhausted after a 12 hour shift to do anything but fall into a bunk, politics will be the last thing on their minds. They will pray for the strength to get up the next morning, because without a full day's work there will be no food."
Slavery has not been disengaged in the US, it has been expanded to effectively control the lives of the under- and middle-classes.
They withhold food from the underclass, health care and opportunity from the middle classes.
We have almost all been made politically illiterate through public education systems that reward conformity and punish creative/critical thought as they rob us of our history and dignity.
Their strategy of containment has been horrifically successful. Up to this point.
Their weak link is the repetitiveness of pattern, and people are beginning, just beginning to see the pattern and question the outcome.
I was in Madison last weekend. The demonstrators had a lively spirit of solidarity and purpose that I haven't felt in many moons. They knew why they were there. They have no intention of backing off. They EXPECT to win justice.
But, the thing that was even more heartening, and should shake Gov. Walker and his cohorts in DC to the core is the smaller St. Patrick's day "parade" the following day.
Thing is, it wasn't a parade. It was another demonstration. A huge percentage of the revelers carried picket signs supporting Wisc workers and condemning Gov. Walker. Well over 2/3 of the St. Patty's marchers were with the protest. THAT was significant and good.
Are we on the left prepared to take advantage of the opportunities for radical change that are beginning to present?
Think that scenario is far fetched? Don't. When the US brought some 400 of the greatest scientists, philosophers, psychologists from Germany in 1945 to the US they learned a lot more than just about rockets.
You think we have no Gulags? no concentration camps? think people don't disappear as they did in Argentina? So far they choose people with no families, no close friends, nobody who will miss the victim. As we grow accustomed to and accept that, they will feel free to go after political dissidents.
They are watching us closely from a distance. What can they do to some of us that the rest of us will be quiet about? They have tried just about everything with partial success. If they can get half of us to fight the other half, they have won.
Think about this the next time you complain about immigrants or welfare queens or the old or the young or the black or the white. They do not care who is the scapegoat just as long as they have one.
If you think this can't happen, think about how different this country was as recently as the year 2000. What if it changes that much again by the year 2022?
Libyan civilians are already getting killed by American and French bombs. No surprise there.
Are you happy Mark Abram? Those civilians were killed in the name of saving them, but they're probably just "collateral damage" to you anyway. Who cares if our country commits the same crimes as long as it's done under the banner of humanitarianism, right? That's what the pro-war chickenhawks believe.