Riots in Tunisia (and throughout the Middle-East)

[Túrin Turambar]

I don't see how anyone can claim that one popular movement in the Arab world this Spring had more support than any other. We simply don't know. It was obvious that most people in Cairo were determined to bring Mubarak down, for example, but that doesn't take in the feelings of tens of millions of Egyptians in the countryside. Likewise in Iran, Libya, Syria, and the other countries which saw unrest.

The question of western intervention was raised in Libya because, unlike in Egypt, the regime responded to the protests by shooting the protestors. The fact that NATO bombed Libya and not Egypt says nothing about the relative opposition to the rulers of those two countries. Even with the air strikes, I don't see how the Libyan government could have been overthrown unless its opponents on the ground were more numerous and determined than its supporters. Nobody ever changed the government of a country simply by bombing it.

[SirDennis]

I fail to see how the death of one individual changes anything. He did not act alone. As for why Lybia, why now? Perhaps the fear of the power vacuum events in Egypt and Tunisia created has something to do with it? Perhaps there was a fear that Gahdaffi's influence would spill into his neighbours' still leaderless lands?

[Holbytla]

I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but if memory serves, Egypt has a population of 85 million and Libya has a population of less than seven.
Sheer volume disparity has to account as a factor if nothing else.

[yovargas]

Even with the air strikes, I don't see how the Libyan government could have been overthrown unless its opponents on the ground were more numerous and determined than its supporters.

This has largely been my thought to GBG's tiresome "Western coup" claims.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Even with the air strikes, I don't see how the Libyan government could have been overthrown unless its opponents on the ground were more numerous and determined than its supporters.

This has largely been my thought to GBG's tiresome "Western coup" claims.

Except that it is on record that British and French Special Forces were active in Benghazi from the very start. It was because of the fomenting of dissent, and the supply by these forces, that Qaddafi's forces mobilised. And it was the spurious claim that a "no-fly zone" was needed to protect Benghazi from a possible slaughter (alleged, but not actual) that the UN Resolution was passed (which the Russians claim they were conned into), and Nato began its "defence" of civilians. This defence consisted of total degradation of Qaddafi's military, whilst at the same time the rebels were being supplied with arms.

Whether the claims of a western coup are "tiresome" or not, a large force without air cover can be, and routinely is, beaten by a small force with air cover. Expecially when the former is being targeted across the spectrum, with strikes against communications as well as more general military targets.

Nato fought and won this war from the air, with the assistance of rebel forces to mop up those areas degraded by Nato assaults. All the rhetoric of mad dogs and despots doesn't hide the fact that this was a Western coup.

As For Syria; no oil, and the prospect of a non-pliant neighbour to Israel (as Syria is Israel's 'best of enemies') is too disturbing a prospect...

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

As for Ghân's tired invocation of Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos, which yet again have no relevance to this discussion, I can only echo someone for whom I have mostly felt only disdain for for most of my adult life: "There you go again."

And I could respond with "There you go again", not being able to see how the hyperbole used to describe this "monster" is ridiculous when his actions over his 40+ years, and the resulting deaths, are compared with the acts of Johnson, or Nixon, or... The relevance is that it suits those with a skewed agenda to demonise enemies, but when it is pointed out that their own side is guilty of far greater 'crimes', they become all dismissive.

In reality, compared to G W Bush (for example), Qaddafi was insignificant in the 'monster' stakes, but as that doesn't fit with the holier than thou narrative, TPTB deem it to have no relevance. When I see Tony Blair acting as Middle East peace negotiator, I am astonished by the chutzpah. This man has more blood on his hands than a thousand Qaddafis. If you want to go monster hunting, start there...

[Túrin Turambar]

Nato fought and won this war from the air, with the assistance of rebel forces to mop up those areas degraded by Nato assaults.

As Israel found out in Lebanon in 2006, you cannot 'fight and win' a war from the air. The rebels ran the government forces out of Benghazi on February 18, and controlled half the country by the end of the month. NATO only began its air strikes on the 19th of March. The actual events simply do not support the narrative that your ideology demands. I mean, is the idea that the majority of Libyans decided that they didn't want Gaddafi's narrow and unaccountable kleptocracy really that hard to stomach? A bad government is a bad government regardless of whether it is a friend or foe of Washington or London. And besides, if we can apparently bring down a stable and popular regime with a couple of hundred air strikes and a few commandos what were we doing keeping hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for years?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Nato fought and won this war from the air, with the assistance of rebel forces to mop up those areas degraded by Nato assaults.

As Israel found out in Lebanon in 2006, you cannot 'fight and win' a war from the air. The rebels ran the government forces out of Benghazi on February 18, and controlled half the country by the end of the month. NATO only began its air strikes on the 19th of March. The actual events simply do not support the narrative that your ideology demands. I mean, is the idea that the majority of Libyans decided that they didn't want Gaddafi's narrow and unaccountable kleptocracy really that hard to stomach? A bad government is a bad government regardless of whether it is a friend or foe of Washington or London. And besides, if we can apparently bring down a stable and popular regime with a couple of hundred air strikes and a few commandos what were we doing keeping hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for years?

Interesting points, L_M. Your comparison to the Israeli assault on Lebanon is notable, as in some ways Israel did achieve its objectives; the removal of Hezbollah from South Lebanon, and the wholesale destruction of Hezbollah controlled areas. But I am not claiming there was no ground force opposing Qaddafi in Libya; of course there was. The uprising in Benghazi was a popular uprising, in that a large proportion of the population in the East opposed Qaddafi, and with covert support from France and the UK, managed to remove Qaddafi control. Such was repeated in a number of towns, but at no point before Nato airstrikes was "half the country" in insurgent hands.
You do touch on an interesting point with comparisons to Afghanistan. The reason this quagmire persists is the same reason the USSR was 'bled white'; foreign occupying troops uniting the populace. The convenience of blaming al qaeda or the Taliban for the insurgency is simplistic propaganda. In truth, outside (some of) Kabul, the puppet Karzai regime is despised, as are the Nato occupiers. Such is the special case of Afghanistan.
And you woefully under-represent Nato airstrikes as "a couple of hundred"; there have been 25,000 sorties, with 10,000 resulting in military strikes. Every one of them against Qaddafi forces and infrastructure, whilst the rebels engaged in reprisals against loyalist civilians with impunity. It is little wonder that Qaddafi support dwindled, considering the coalition mounted against his regime. Perhaps your ideology blinds you to the facts?

[Holbytla]

..... Perhaps your ideology blinds you to the facts?

Pretty sure that sword cuts both ways.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

..... Perhaps your ideology blinds you to the facts?

Pretty sure that sword cuts both ways.

Well, quite possibly. I tend to oppose aggressors. Hence my weary disgust with the West; serial aggressor transgressors...
But Holbytla, surely you noticed my comment was a nod to L_M's statement above that

The actual events simply do not support the narrative that your ideology demands.

See, L_M was insinuating, as you do, that my ideology unduly affects my perceptions. This is, of course, a universal trait, but with varying degrees. My position is that "they" are held to a different standard to "us". Acts committed by "us" are routinely justified by appeals to nebulous terms such as "democracy", "liberalism", "freedom", as we rain death and destruction on innocents, on a scale unimaginable, whilst "they" are declared "monsters", "despots", "madmen" because they... don't?

Yes, it really is a matter of perception . Words like hegemony spring to mind, but I don't think it's the Arab Spring...

[Teremia]

GBG -- you write so fiercely, as if this forum were filled with people "routinely justifying [bad acts] by appeals to nebulous terms...." but it isn't. That's what puzzles me. You're shouting in a relatively quiet place, filled with a very small crowd of people who are not the people you seem to want to be shouting at. In this place, in my experience, most people have a more nuanced view than "they are monsters; we are great."

Meanwhile, I am sad that Obama's shiniest [meaning most universally acknowledged] "accomplishments" may turn out to be the murders of two men, Osama bin Laden and Gadhafi. (And I realize the second one is not directly our doing.) No matter what those men did, I would rather hear Obama praised for positive and constructive deeds.

(And this comment was provoked by hearing some fairly conservative pundits weighing in on Obama's foreign policy achievements.)

[Holbytla]

I think the objection is more along the lines of the West being blamed for everything, as opposed to their share. There is a lot of culpability to be spread around. The West does not have a monopoly on heinous acts. I think people would be more willing to accept your denigration if it were doled out more objectively and less one sided.

[Primula Baggins]

GBG -- you write so fiercely, as if this forum were filled with people "routinely justifying [bad acts] by appeals to nebulous terms...." but it isn't. That's what puzzles me. You're shouting in a relatively quiet place, filled with a very small crowd of people who are not the people you seem to want to be shouting at. In this place, in my experience, most people have a more nuanced view than "they are monsters; we are great."

This.

GBG, I am beginning to get the feeling that you write one-size-fits-all posts and disperse them mostly in large strident forums where people shout a lot, but also post them here. The tone is off. This is not a criticism of your message, that's a separate issue. But sometimes in quiet surroundings, shouting is not the best way to get people to listen.

Meanwhile, I am sad that Obama's shiniest [meaning most universally acknowledged] "accomplishments" may turn out to be the murders of two men, Osama bin Laden and Gadhafi. (And I realize the second one is not directly our doing.) No matter what those men did, I would rather hear Obama praised for positive and constructive deeds.

(And this comment was provoked by hearing some fairly conservative pundits weighing in on Obama's foreign policy achievements.)

All I can say is, I hope this is not how it works out. If he's to have any chance of being reelected, he will have to accomplish something more meaningful than this.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I think the objection is more along the lines of the West being blamed for everything, as opposed to their share. There is a lot of culpability to be spread around. The West does not have a monopoly on heinous acts. I think people would be more willing to accept your denigration if it were doled out more objectively and less one sided.

Holbytla, the default position here, as it appears to me, is one of exculpating the West. I think that exculpation is unwarranted, and I notice how the enemies of the west are always (seemingly) deserving of this assault, or this sanction, or that attack. they are always monsters or despots or demons. To paraphrase yovargas, it is tiresome. So I point out that this Manichean falsity is untenable, and if realistic comparisons are made, the West really is more culpable for the world's ills than any other grouping, whether it is engaging in wars of aggression, or polluting the planet (per capita), incarceration of citizens (the USA has the highest per capita prison population on the planet), resource greed... the list really is endless.

It is not that the West is being blamed for everything but that the West should be held responsible for its crimes. And there really are so many...

Teremia, I am not SHOUTING, I am simply redressing what I see as bias founded on hypocritical notions of cultural (for want of a better term) superiority. I know that it is not a case of "us" bad, "they" good, or vice versa but that really is frequently how it is presented. I am continuously amazed by how people still take at face value the justifications for ventures such as this coup in Libya. It is as if the lies that underpinned Vietnam, Or Panama, or Operation Desert Storm (babies ripped from incubators?) or Kosovo, or Afghanistan, or Iraq... have been totally forgotten. They lie, these politicians, of all hues. Yet they seem to be given a free pass each subsequent time. It shocks me. Simple as that.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

GBG, I am beginning to get the feeling that you write one-size-fits-all posts and disperse them mostly in large strident forums where people shout a lot, but also post them here. The tone is off. This is not a criticism of your message, that's a separate issue. But sometimes in quiet surroundings, shouting is not the best way to get people to listen.

Then you feel wrong. I don't post anywhere else. I also don't personalise here, but you, yovargas, Voronwë and Holbytla, to name four, have. Because I strongly disagree with the strident and jingoistic terms used to support these criminal (in my mind) ventures does not mean I am shouting. My tone is measured and consistent. At least, it is in my head and as I write it. The fact that it is read differently is, I think, partially a result of the defensiveness of those reading.

When someone(many) name Qaddafi as this despotic villain, deserving of murder, I wonder why the same is not levelled at Bush, or Blair, or... They have far greater quantities of blood on their hands.

I can only conclude that prejudice and "patriotism" preclude a balanced approach. Is that shouting?

[Primula Baggins]

I don't think you hear me right, either. Or read what I write. To me it appears that you hear the imperialist jingoism you seem to think my every belief is founded on.

If, for example, I had ever called anyone, however villainous I believed them to be, "deserving of murder," that would be the first time in my life. The reason I don't think President Bush deserves to be murdered is that I don't think anyone deserves to be murdered. I do not cheer what happened to Ghaddafi. Nor did my country kill him.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I don't think you hear me right, either. Or read what I write. To me it appears that you hear the imperialist jingoism you seem to think my every belief is founded on.

If, for example, I had ever called anyone, however villainous I believed them to be, "deserving of murder," that would be the first time in my life. The reason I don't think President Bush deserves to be murdered is that I don't think anyone deserves to be murdered. I do not cheer what happened to Ghaddafi. Nor did my country kill him.

And I did not name you, Prim. As I said, I'm not personalising. Yet it has been said here that Qaddafi deserved to die.

As for 'your country' killing him... as I don't know what country you refer to, I cannot accurately comment. But if 'your country' is one of those that enacted the no-fly zone, as in a Nato country, then, yes, they killed him. The only caveat is that they didn't fire the final bullet.

I'm puzzled by your response, Prim. It was you that engaged in this psychological profiling of me, not I of you. I am quite simply stating what I see as the currents of global politics. I am most happy to be disagreed with. When repudiations of my position are expressed, then it requires me to reappraise. That is the purpose of discussion, I think. Yet what I experience here is vented anger because I dare to cast 'the West' in a critical light. I don't hate anyone, in the same way that I don't adore anyone. As a card carrying misanthrope, my motto is 'a plague on all your houses'. This position, however, has necessitated my examination of all sides from a position of absolute neutrality; I don't carry patriotic baggage. Albion was called perfidious for a reason!

And now I find perfidious Albion has mushroomed, and includes the USA. And I do find the USA perfidious. I do find her supporters biased, unwilling to recognise the horrendous impact this sole superpower has on the planet. It shocks me, still, how rational, intelligent, kind people can be complicit in this vast nation's cruel excesses.

So, Prim, I don't know if you are American, or French, or Venusian, but it's a fact that a Predator drone attack instigated the murder of Qaddafi. The UN mandate was to protect civilians. A fleeing, hunted animal had become a civilian deserving of protection. He wasn't. He was murdered.

This sickens me, as the lynch-mob sickens me.

[yovargas]

It is generally impossible to try and discuss such difficult, complex, nuanced issues with someone who insists on seeing everything in the absolute starkest black-and-white terms.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Teremia, just because pundits (conservative or otherwise) say that the death of those two men might prove to be President Obama's greatest achievements doesn't mean that they are. There is much that he has accomplished that is more significant, some of which never gets reported. This is not the place to go into detail about that, but I wanted to mention a very brief story I saw recently in which it was pointed out that the president quietly sends personal checks to some of the citizens who are down on their luck. I think that small action says more about his character than the death of bin Laden or Kadafhi.

[River]

I saw that, Voronwë. On one hand, it's seems like a strange thing for a President to be doing, but, on the other, it's nice to know that at least one person in D.C. is listening.