The US hardly went into this with enthusiasm. it felt compelled to do "something" to repair or more likely prevent its standing with the democratic forces in the region from falling even lower, which was sure to happen if it stood by as Gadaffi perpetrated massacres. But it has no exit plan, besides trying to get out real quick -- viz the past couple of days of buck-passing. France and UK are a rather different matter and are acting much more in the neocon mode, or that of their colonialist forbears in the region, and it's their conduct and ambitions that we should be really worried about here -- they see an endgame, which is Gadaffi gone, and they see a military route to that. The only sensible course of action right is a huge mediation effort (but by who?), and a quick cessation to the military intervention, to avoid a drawn out civil war and quagmire.
Hein
On 25 Mar 2011, at 5:25 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>> Of course I agree with the thrust of your analysis, but am less
>> certain that the aim is partition.
>
> Do the intervening parties have any idea what they're doing? There's
> always this tendency that the bourgeoisie has a huge file drawer
> full of plans, but the Western powers are divided against each other
> - and the USG is divided against itself.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk