>
> I think Gilbert Achcar
> offers a characteristically informed and sober perspective:
>
> <clip>
>
> "The fact remains, nevertheless, that if Gaddafi were permitted to
> continue his military offensive and take Benghazi, there would be a major
> massacre. Here is a case where a population is truly in danger, and where
> there is no plausible alternative that could protect it. The attack by
> Gaddafi's forces was hours or at most days away. You can't in the name of
> anti-imperialist principles oppose an action that will prevent the
> massacre of civilians. <clip>"
The interview is very informative as usual but here I think Gilbert gets it wrong. The rebellion, which I support, was in a rotten situation, facing defeat at the hand of a brutal state. I completely sympathize with the instinct of scrambling to save their day.
But if that leads you to support a US/France/UK lead intervention, you are stuck thinking within the parameters they set, instead of thinking politically. Leaving aside the fact that France and the UK have been arming Khadafi, there are a number of things that could have been done to support the rebellion. (People have suggested releasing the regime's cash held abroad to them, giving them weapons, opening borders to facilitate volunteers helping, etc.)
The first political consequence of intervention will be a touch of death in Libyan, African and Arab opinion for the rebellion, with the spectacle of US/French/British bombs raining on the country while the rebels play hide and seek with the remains of the regime's forces. (On this by the way, watch this space for possible ground intervention)
The second will be a demoralizing influence on the North Africa/Gulf democratic movement, with ordinary people thinking they may just end-up getting the country bombed if they keep organizing.
Now purely from the human suffering point of view, there are a lot of things you can do in hours or days in terms of providing safe passage and shelter to activists. Benghazi is a port and is not far away from Italy, Greece and Egypt. On the other hand, if you consider: -the fate of Iraqi soldiers on the 'Highway of Death' in the Gulf war -the lack of options of a regime with its back to the wall -the tiping of the civil war scales back towards balance -the precarious situation of black african migrants The situation looks grim for the people there now that intervention has started
I know Gilbert was reacting to the UN resolution, not the bombing, and the interview may have been done before that started. It is easy to say in hindsight, but given the US/UK/French record, the way things have turned isn't a big surprise.
For those who were there, what was the predominant view on this at the Left Forum?
> If everybody's done pissing on each other's legs
Quit the head boy tone please, I was the only one pissing and afaic the jury is still out whether I actually was.
Yann