> This seems like a reasonable point, but this:
>
>> "The request immediately reshapes reality, because it puts upon you a
>> question that you must answer – will I help in the manner requested of
>> me (in this instance, by campaigning for an NFZ and arms supplies), or
>> will I refuse the request?
>
> shows how it is mistaken, I think. It depends on the belief that somehow
> military intervention could be an act on the part of the western left,
> that the western left could force western states to intervene even if
> the states did not wish to. I don't think that's the case. Western
> militaries do not act on behalf of the western left, so nothing they do
> can possibly be an act of solidarity from that left.
Yes, I basically agree with your take on Rundle's argument - this is why I disagree with his line that there is no sitting on the fence. He overstates the responsibility the left has here. I don't think he's saying, though, that western militaries act on behalf of the western left, though, or that what they do is an act of solidarity from the left - which is obviously ridiculous. He's just saying we shouldn't oppose intervention in this case, because it was called for by the rebels. In fact, I guess, he's saying we should support it, whereas my own position is not to oppose it.
Mike