Thursday, March 17, 2011

Folks should oppose Clinton and Obama advocating bombing Libya

Because they most likely don't have pure, good-hearted, humanitarian intentions in mind. What's happening in Libya, with Ghadaffi bombing and waging war on the eastern half of the country and on rebels elsewhere, as bad as it is, is a great pretext for bombing (and engaging aircraft) and then if that doesn't work possibly invading a country that's been pegged as one of the prime enemies of the United States since the 1980s. Even though what Ghadaffi is doing is bad, even though the opposition itself is calling for a no fly zone, if Obama and Clinton are allowed to put one into effect today without opposition they'll find another pretext to doing the same thing to another country tomorrow.

Simon Tisdall, in an op-ed for the Guardian, notes that the UK and France are also pushing for the no-fly zone, which means that Cameron, the Tories' Tory, and Sarkozy are pushing for it as well. I would also say that the notion that Obama's hand has been forced is kind of an apologia for the man doing something that the author doesn't like.

If there was going to be an intervention, it would have to be truly multinational and overseen by the UN, with the UN actually in control and not just following the orders of the big countries. It would be limited. But that's not what's in the offing at the moment. Imperial ambitions legitimated by suffering is what the current bid for intervention is about.

No comments: