On 2011-03-23, at 2:05 PM, Somebody Somebody wrote:
> You might argue then that there was no rebellion in Iraq at the time, in contrast to Libya. Well, if there was, would you have supported Bush's war?
No, because American military forces invaded and occupied the country. This may be a small detail to you and Carrol, but it was not a small detail to the Iraqis, who suffered far more casualties and disruption to their conditions of existence under the extended occupation than they did in the air strikes accompanying the invasion. This is not the case in Libya, nor is it likely to be.
No, because the main opposition to the Baathist regime, based in Iran, aimed at the establishment of a theocratic rather than a democratic state and was essentially hostile to the social forces I identify with and the social values they represent. The more inclusive Libyan opposition is an alliance of secular democrats and Islamists whose political model, particular in relation to the role of religion in public life, seems drawn more from Turkey than Iran. This is another trifling detail to you, but not to me.
No, because the main Iraqi Shia opposition initially welcomed the invasion and occupation of their country. They subsequently turned against the occupiers when it became clear the Americans were attempting to install a puppet regime under Chalibi dominated by an American proconsul. The Libyan bourgeois leadership of the occupation, in no small measure because of the lessons of Iraq, has declared against foreign occupation, and media accounts indicate that this sentiment is felt particularly strongly at the rank and file level. I'm confident that in the unlikely event of a "Bush's war" in Libya, the opposition would split and many armed combatants would resist an invasion. This is another detail which you have not thought through or is conveniently absent from your analysis.
No, because the Shias were not being assaulted by the regime and their fighters threatened with extermination like "rats" and "cockroaches", "without mercy". The Libyan democratic opposition was. Before the government offensive, it rejected the idea of a no-fly zone. When it became cornered, it desperately called for one, aware of the political risk this decision involved. You treat Gadhafi's threat lightly, partly because you are not at risk (none of us are) but mainly because you do feel less a political connection with the opposition than with a regime you still naively consider to be "anti-imperialist". Or if that is unfair and you do feel some kinship with the opposition, then you must believe with equal naivete that it could have staved off destruction without compromising itself by calling for tactical air support. So you cry both "No to Gadhafi! No to Intervention!" in order to avoid, it seems to me, having to make a difficult and unpalatable choice at that crucial point in the conflict.
> For that matter, when there was a rebellion, right after the Gulf War, would you have supported a continuation of that conflict? I suppose that the pro-war leftists around here would have, putting them to the right of the first Bush administration.
You'll have to pose this question to the unidentified "pro-war leftists" on the list. I didn't support a US invasion of Iraq (or Kuwait) in 1991 for the same reason I oppose an invasion of Libya today. But I do think cities and movements under seige and threatened with destruction by repressive regimes - each armed by the West, let it be noted! - do have the right to seek help from any quarter they can get it. It's a right that has to be balanced against the right of non-interference in the sovereign affairs of states, even those groaning under the weight of dictatorships. It is never an easy decision, but that is no excuse to run away from it.