In reply to Josh Marshall

[Clio the Leo]

And let me commend him for posting this...

in reply to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=634206&mesg_id=634206 )

Another View on Libya
Josh Marshall | March 21, 2011, 10:36AM

We've gotten a lot of response, positive and negative, to my comments last night on our intervention in Libya. Here's an email from a reader and American foreign policy professional in the region, taking a different view

<snip>

I understand your wariness about the reception among Arabs towards the prospect of another U.S. intervention in a Muslim country. Understand it, and would share it under normal circumstances. But these are not normal circumstances. I watch Arabic satellite news, read the newspapers, and more importantly interact with people on the street. And I can tell you that the feeling towards this intervention is overwhelmingly one of relief and hope.

Arabs see that for the first time since these protests began, we are really supporting the movement in a tangible way. This is important, because there is a huge amount of anger towards the United States for our realpolitik-driven support of these autocrats in the past. By responding favorably to the please from the rebels for our intervention, we have, hopefully, made some progress towards erasing some of that resentment. Which, of course, serves our interests.

But what frustrates me about yours and others' "realpolitik" critiques of the national interests of intervening is that people seldom stop to consider the alternative. What if we had stood by and done nothing, ignoring in effect the pleas of the Libyan people and the Arab League? As you said Qadhafi probably would have prevailed. And likely the payback would have been terrible for the people of Benghazi and elsewhere. His resentment towards the West for the sanctions and statements of support would have also been enormous, turning him into even more of an enemy than he was before.

Also likely is that the Arab spring would have stalled. And that would have been unfortunate, for many reasons.

But more imporantly, the people of the entire Arab world would have felt betrayed. Look, they would have said, for all its talk about democracy and human rights the U.S. ignored the pleas of the Libyan people for support. Seriously, people on the street were already using those lines with me last week. The damage to our standing with the Arab people would have been enormous and long-lasting.

And that, without a doubt, would have been terrible for our "interests."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/another_view_on_libya.php

A rebel celebrates on a street in Benghazi March 20, 2011. Western forces pounded Libya's air defences and patrolled its skies on Sunday

[denverbill]

1. I am in complete agreement with that reply to Josh.

That's exactly why I support this intervention.

Our support for the Shah 40 years ago turned us into 'the great Satan'. If we hadn't overthrown their nascent democracy and installed the Shah way back when, how different would the middle east look today? Iran may well have been a reasonably progressive, western leaning state instead of a repressive, anti-Western theocracy.

Unfortunately, there are a whole slew of other repressive dictators who we support and I don't see that support ending anytime soon, sadly.