[lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc (and other responses)

[Dwayne Monroe]

Ravi:

Are there no instances of the U.S participation in U.N
peacekeeping, that has led to a betterment of the
situation? I find the above difficult to believe. Do I
need to Google?

===========================



This thread's subject heading changes as often as Bush
admin excuses for assaulting Iraq.  

But onward...



Regarding UN peacekeeping missions, try this -

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_UN_peacekeeping_missions>


An intriguing list of actions.  I don't think US
troops were deployed under the UN flag in many of
these operations (if any).  Also, it would be an
enlightening exercise to track how much "good" was
done in each situation.  There appears to be a iceberg
of gray there.



Regarding pressuring Washington to participate in a UN
mission for Darfur...



That sounds fine in principal but if Washington
becomes militarily involved it will insist on doing
things its way without "interference" from lesser
powers (the US' de facto stance towards the UN since
the beginning).  This means a peacekeeping mission
heavily dependent upon the use of air power and other
spectacular displays of technoforce - because titanium
plated death deliverance is what we yanks do best.

No doubt, many bad men would be liquidated while
commanders approvingly watched on flat screens in the
Pentagon.  And no doubt, the phrase 'collateral
damage' would get a good workout as spokespersons
described those non-combatants relieved of the burden
of living through laser guided ordinance.

And yet, despite this, 'good' will have been done.  No
doubt.


Now here's the thing...if my only option for rescue is
a bunch of gangsters well, I'm going to pick up the
goddamn phone and call the mofos.  But, once the
immediate problem is dealt with - or at least, held at
bay - I'm contending with a bunch of gangsters who
have gangster style plans for my life. And oh by the
way, I owe them.

Parables about leopards with their non-changeable
spots and a scorpion killing the frog (or some such
animal) helping it cross a river come to mind: you
know, because it's in the nature of some things to
just do what they do.

What Washington does is what great powers have always
done - play games for the benefit of a few well placed
folk.  Nothing new under the sun.

But what you're, more or less, saying is: 'well yes,
that's true but maybe we can pressure these gangsters
into becoming aid workers - if the pressure's great
enough and applied at vital acupressure points, the
geopolitical qigiong can be re-directed; yes, we can
ride this bull, turn it away from plunging its horns
into that quivering flesh (though it longs to do so)
and towards the softer, helping arts.'


To which I say, go to it.  Hope is nice.  If you hope
to alter Washington's course via pressure then good
luck and tell me how I can support the effort –
because, well, “pessimism of the intellect, optimism
of the will”.




More Ravi:


I do realize the perils of U.S intervention,
especially military. Perhaps U.S funding of an
international force may be a better idea. Or something
else. What I think is not an option is that we let
these problems take a back seat, as Doug seems to be
suggesting.

========================



The sort of funding you suggest IS a better idea and
has been for over sixty years. But there's the problem
of “linkage” - if US funds are being used, the US gets
a say and the American style is to turn “a say” into
THE say.  This brings us back to the smart bombs, the
thermobarics and clusters and all the other 'solve the
problem quickly from the air' options our modern
Curtis LeMays' love so well.



Once more with Ravi:


You radical leftists in the West like to think of the
U.S as the root of all evil, or of liberals as
"do-gooders", and so on. Do you also realize that the
rest of the world is a fucked up place with its share
of brutal thugs? If polls in Iraq can be believed at
all, until recently, a majority of *Iraqis* wanted
continued U.S presence (IIRC), exactly to handle the
situation we (the U.S) had created.

==============================



Of course.  

When you're desperate and fed up you'd have lunch with
the devil himself if you thought it'd help your
plight.  And note that, per the polled desires of
Iraqis – at least, “until recently” - the helpful
Americans did indeed stay – and in force with all
their toys.  But, as you know,  this hasn't helped
things at all.  

Quite the opposite, it seems.

There's a lesson to be learned there if we would but
absorb it.

And no, the US isn't the "root of all evil".  It's
just very well placed to do very bad things at the
moment.  If we survive, others will surely have their
turn.   But for now, I think Team America is
disqualified. 




.d.



--------- 
"For ten years Caesar ruled with an iron fist. Then with a wooden leg; and finally with a piece of string."


http://monroelab.net/blog/