For decades, the Middle East has been a minefield…this guy our guy….that guy bad man….this guy (who the Hell knows)….there has been war in the ME since they were fought sticks and stones and every age has had its humanitarian problems…..now I ask which one is a humanitarian problem?
I ask this because we are told that the US had NO choice but to act in Libya because of the degrading humanitarian situation….at least that is the official tag line……but what made Libya a humanitarian situation? The threat of people dying with an attack on Benghazi? If we use that explanation….why was the Sudan, where 2 million civilians have died, not a humanitarian crisis? Or Yemen, where the government forcves are killing their residents….or Bahrain where the Sunni majority is killing Shi’a majority this time with the help of Saudi Arabia, who by the way are Sunni….why are these NOT in the crosshairs of the UN or the US? Could it have anything to do with the oil reserves in Eastern Libya?
The ME is a minefield with young “facebookers” fighting old establishment and moderates…..or tribe against tribe…..or Sunni against Shi’a…….there is NO one size fits all in the ME…….each one is different….but one thing is a constant in the ME….despotism!
And then there is another land mine to worry about…..who do we stand behind in each of these conflicts? We have NO idea who are the leaders, if any, of any of these developing situations……..and then there is this…..what are the chances that say AQ gets their hands on oil and the money that it generates? Would that constitute another armed intervention? Yet another war?
This piece of American adventurism leaves more questions unanswered than it answers……what will we do? What will be our future in the next 5-10 years? Will we be fighting Arabs? Because that seems to be a war that we cannot win and hopefully that is NOT on the agenda in Washington.
On a side note: The US will give Tunisia $20 million to help promote democracy…..think about that for a moment……maybe we should spend that $20 million in the US because it looks like our democracy is in its waning days…..JUST A THOUGHT!
I understand your points, but I don’t agree with the sentiments implied.
Firstly, I think that oil is of course (as ever) important, but is a secondary factor.
Secondly, the significant difference in Libya is that a large section (a majority???0 of ordinary people (NOT your average freedom fighters) is threatened by HUGE military power that may well crush a rebellion that is otherwise likely to be successful for another half century. On top of that, I suspect that the West would have liked to remove Gaddafi fifty times a week over the last thirty or so years, but there was never a credible alternative in view at the time.
Of course, if we’d remained “friends” with Saddam Hussein and gone for Libya and Iran (by supplying and helping the indigenous resistance) instead of Iraq, then the whole of the ME might by now be a much more stable place.
But then we rarely get it right in the ME, do we? Is that because we understand damn all about those places and their cultures – and could probably care little less?
TRue that but why not use this whole humanitarian thing to do something in Iran when there were popular uprisings? This is starting to smell like a PSA in the making like with Iraq……but we cannot appear to be after anything but what is best for the “people” and that has been a slogan with NO validity……
http://lobotero.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/who-gets-iraqs-oil/
Yes. True. But is it really all about oil? It was when Saddam Hussein was originally in Kuwait, but he started it then. However, I suspect that Iraq was more about “family vendetta” in the end and failure to act in Iran has been more because we’re bloody scared of them!
I take your point, but “humanitarianism” is as good an excuse as any…
If you look at recent times – Egypt MAY have moved (or be moving) towards some kind of democracy, Tunisia also; many other Arab countries are trying to follow suit, but there is no current clarity as to whether the “uprisings” in those countries have any real degree of popular support, or that they are based upon a viable future alternative government – we HAVE to “wait and see”. The Sunni-Shi’a thing? I’m no lover of strong religious beliefs and Sunnis are generally more “modern” in outlook, so I’m the wrong person to ask about that, but I repeat that I can’t see why we attacked Iraq and left the Shi’a dominated others alone, but there you go… who knows what goes through the minds of the elite (if anything).
However, supporting the clearly “popular” uprising in Libya by “ordinary” arabs is probably the most “pro-arab” thing the US has done for a century or two and, frankly, Obama needs to get off the f*cking fence and be just A LITTLE more proactive and positive, or the US will once again lose a REAL opportunity for a propaganda coup! He needs to help to MAKE sure the rebels WIN!
Iraq was pissed in 1991 that Kuwait and its friends were side drilling into an Iraqi reserve…plus Kuwait had been a province of Iraq landmass and became a country because the al-Sabah family was in bed with the Brits in 1917……I would support the pouring out of grassroots dissent…the probably in Libya is that the rebels have NO chance without the West and it is basically a tribal thing….different tribes than is in power…..
I will agree with you on the fence thing…..either jump on or get the Hell off!
Well, yes to the Kuwait history, but how far do you want to go back? Babylon? Troy? What is, is. SH didn’t like things and got too upitty and got a very bloody nose. Iraq itself was in any event an artificial country to a large extent.
As to dismissing Libya as “a tribal thing” I think that is totally wrong and (for once) you seem to be falling into the American exceptionalist mould.
The UK’s press description of Gaddafi is “Mad Dog” and, apart from the fact that it denigrates both dogs and lunatics, I’d say that’s about right. If someone’s “special forces” had taken him out and shot him forty years ago, much of the world including the arab world would be a better place – a bit like if someone had drowned GWB and Gordon Brown at birth.
We could say that about most of the countries in the ME….Gertrude Bell and Lawrence pretty much drew up the boundaries at the end of WWI……Qadafi is from one tribe the rebels mostly another…..yes they are tired of being crapped on and are doing something about it it but that does preclude the tribal division…..I agree it has been way too long in the coming…..but where or what will be done with Qadafi?
Who cares?
Quin, do not know why this one went to my spam filter….sorry
No problem – that’s life, eh? 😆
First, I love the title. Humanitarian. Hmm. I believe in 99% of the cases, when there is something in it for us, we’re humanitarian.
Thanx Spinny…I do have my moments….LOL
Are you saying that we are selfish humanitarians? If you are….then I agree….
I say “more selfish than humanitarian,” but then I’ll be labeled one of those “dang libruls who hate America.” 😉
You know they say “the truth hurts” and do not get me started on the patriotism thing…..BTW I have been called an un-American radical and that was by David Duke of KKK fame….we were suppose to debate and I lost it and threaten him…the debate was called off…..so being a liberal is pretty good to be called for ALL social successes can be attributed to liberal ideals….not bad you are in excellent company…..
I have always hated the misconception that you can’t be liberal and patriotic. Bull poo poo.
Hell yes, we are proud liberals!
Spinny, that is the same group that say liberalism is a disease…John Stuart Mill said “conservs are not stupid but most stupid people are conserv”…..I am just saying …it works both ways……
Ah, yes… David Duke – I preferred Daisy (especially in the film).
BTW, he is a p*ssy!
That expression may mean something different in my language – and I could STILL get into serious trouble over Daisy Duke – with the utmost pleasure (if she’d let me that is) 😈
I know what you mean…yum!