“I was wrong to oppose military intervention in Libya – wrong, wrong, wrong”

[Waiting For Everyman]

Just a few weeks ago I stood on a public platform and vigorously slammed proposals for Western military intervention in Libya.

The hasty scramble by the Americans, French and Britons lacked strategy and a clear goal.

To me it appeared to be yet another oil-fuelled, reckless act by gung-ho leaders who would end up being sucked in to a long military campaign as futile as the Bush-Blair adventures into Iraq and Afghanistan that we are still paying for in terms of wasted lives.

“Here we go again,” I said. “Another imperialistic adventure with the long-term aim of getting our grubby hands on other peoples’ oil.”

<continued at link>

http://feb17.info/news/op-ed-%E2%80%9Ci-was-wrong-to-oppose-military-intervention-in-libya-%E2%80%93-wrong-wrong-wrong%E2%80%9D/

____________

This writer was able to honestly reconsider her earlier position, and she tells why.

[indurancevile]

1. For a while, Respect politician Yvonne Ridley was singing from the same hymn sheet

as the rest of her organisation. That is until she did a complete U-turn yesterday, declaring herself to have been “wrong, wrong, wrong”. Ridley, whose time with the Taliban prompted her conversion to Islam, is a new devotee of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, pleased that the West has responded to the Libyan people’s “cries for help” and merely bemoaning the fact that Turkey has not joined in. How can one not be moved by Ridley’s tales of accepting thanks from grateful Libyans on behalf of the UK military? It’s like she flew the planes herself.

I shouldn’t laugh. After all, Ridley has made an informed decision, even seeking advice of spiritual leader Sheikh Mohammed Bosidra, who backs NATO’s actions.

Does Ridley also back Western intervention in Iran these days, or is she only for war with the nasty regimes she doesn’t take money from?

http://infantile-and-disorderly.com/2011/05/02/yvonne-ridley-is-wrong-wrong-wrong/


it's all fraudulent, & they're all bought by someone.

[Waiting For Everyman]

3. It's really sad,

that some are so cynical that they can't even accept a rare moment when, somewhere in the world, a big step toward freedom and self-determination happens.

It is absolutely ridiculous to maintain that the Libyans celebrating in the streets don't know what they're celebrating about. Or that they are so ignorant (compared to us enlightened Westerners) that they simply fail to understand their own self-interest. I can't imagine anyone being arrogant enough to openly defend racism which is so overt.

But nevertheless some do it.

[joshcryer]

10. It's racist, xenophobic, disgusting, vile.

There is no room for the rebels to be freedom fighting regular Muslims who just want to achieve freedom from a tyrant. Every single discussion is laced with hatred, and implications that they are the exact opposite. It's been there from the beginning, using terrorism and Al Queada as the daily Emmanuel Goldstein. What's worse is that there are people who say it could go either way but in their language it is obvious that they would not be happy about the situation unless it turns out bad, never even leaving room for the possibility that things could turn out good.

You can see cheer leading of a failure in the freedom fighter ranks from the same people who all along supported Gaddafi, while at the same time hundreds of daily successes go mostly ignored (stalemate, my ass).

[chrisa]

21. You seem to have a rosey, unrealistic picture of these rebels.

This, when nobody knows their true intentions. They could set up a government based on strict Sharia Law tomorrow, and the West would look like idiots for supporting them. Why should we help people who are just going to kill us in the future (Oil)?

[Waiting For Everyman]

24. Nobody knows anybody's future intentions. So we should void all foreign relations then?

And since when does looking foolish trump lives lost, or an entire nation living in tyranny for 42 years? Libyans deserve (and fought for) their chance at freedom. What they do afterward is their learning curve. Every nation had one.

Who are we to tell them that we prefer that they stick with their dictator because it might get messy for us if they don't? And that's a better position for us to take? That logic is hilarious.

[chrisa]

31. They deserve their freedom, but let them fight for it.

Let's stop meddling in their affairs, and giving them money. Everybody knows we wouldn't even care if it weren't for the oil there. In fact, if Gaddafi gave us favorable oil deals, we would be his best friend.

We don't know enough about these rebels. Those helping them just want the oil deals. We might be creating our future enemy.

[Waiting For Everyman]

35. They did fight for it.

And Libya isn't a significant supplier of oil to us. Excuses, excuses, and more excuses. It all comes down to keep the brown people down.

[chrisa]

37. We had no right to even intervene in Libya, and neither did the rest of the West.

I don't believe the West did it for anything other than economic reasons.

Hopefully they stay friendly to us, but it's a gamble in a region where our policies have been known to blow up in our face.

[Waiting For Everyman]

40. The UN gave the right, and NATO was asked to do it.

Libyans asked - begged- the West to help.

[tabatha]

50. Thos are your biased beliefs.

Try reading this:

http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html

10. This was a war for Libya’s oil. That is daft. Libya was already integrated into the international oil markets, and had done billions of deals with BP, ENI, etc., etc. None of those companies would have wanted to endanger their contracts by getting rid of the ruler who had signed them. They had often already had the trauma of having to compete for post-war Iraqi contracts, a process in which many did less well than they would have liked. ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. and Repsol. Moreover, taking Libyan oil off the market through a NATO military intervention could have been foreseen to put up oil prices, which no Western elected leader would have wanted to see, especially Barack Obama, with the danger that a spike in energy prices could prolong the economic doldrums. An economic argument for imperialism is fine if it makes sense, but this one does not, and there is no good evidence for it (that Qaddafi was erratic is not enough), and is therefore just a conspiracy theory.

[dionysus]

45. Gaddafi did in fact have favorable oil deals with western europe, fyi.

[joshcryer]

25. I can't say I know all of their true intentions, but I can say I know the direction...

...that those who have the power within the rebellion want it to lead. And it is not the way you describe. It's not "rosey" and "unrealistic" though. Some people want to see a perfectly secularized Libya! I thought we were through with colonialism? Shall we go raze the mosques to keep them from "killing us in the future"? It's really just starting to upset me this line of reasoning so maybe I should shut the fuck up before I start getting posts deleted.

[chrisa]

32. Some people want to see a secularized Libya, but it doesn't mean that's

what the fight is about. If the Libyan rebels proclaimed that they were fighting for a modernized, secularized Libya, I would feel much better.

The West supported Al Qaeda in the past. I have a hard time trusting our judgment on Middle Eastern affairs.

[Ikonoklast]

27. So rebels that chafed under forty years of autocratic rule will set up another autocratic system

of Sharia Law to replace it?

Not very likely.

Is it happening in other Islamic countries that have risen up against oppressive regimes?

No.

They want freedom, and that includes freedom from any autocratic graybeard theologians stuck in the fifteenth century.

[pinboy3niner]

36. This "nobody knows the rebels" is a stale meme

The U.S. sent a delegation to Benghazi early on, to check them out. So did EU nations.

We've had people on the ground in Benghazi for months, and they gave the NTC a clean bill of health. IIRC, we had a staff of nine there a couple of weeks ago, and it's probably more now.

When the U.S. recognized the NTC, it happened only because the council, its members, and others close to the rebel leadership had been vetted. If there had been any serious problems, that would not have happened.

"We don't know who these guys are" may have been true five or six months ago. After we've had our own team there with them on the ground for months, and they've been satisfied with the results of their investigations, that "we don't know them" meme is a huge FAIL.

[chrisa]

38. The US's judgment on Middle East affairs has been absolutely terrible.

I'm for staying out of the region in general.

[pinboy3niner]

8. Accusations that someone is "bought" normally are accompanied by evidence

If you have any evidence that Yvonne Ridley was "bought," please present it.

Tick-tock.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

2. President Obama and NATO

gives lesson to Republicans as to how one properly brings down a dictator.

[pampango]

4. Bachmann exhibits no such ability to reconsider her position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/us/politics/23repubs.html?_r=1

Representative Michele Bachmann stood by her original position on Monday. “I opposed U.S. military involvement in Libya and I am hopeful that our intervention there is about to end,” she said.

But in expressing hope that the new government would be “one that will be a good partner to the United States and the international community,” Mrs. Bachmann’s statement lacked earlier, ominous notes.

“We to this day don’t yet know who the rebel forces are that were helping,” she said during a June 13 debate. “There are some reports that they may contain Al Qaeda of North Africa. What possible vital American interests could we have to empower Al Qaeda of North Africa and Libya?”

Her spokeswoman, Alice Stewart, did not respond to an e-mail asking whether Mrs. Bachmann is still concerned about possible terrorist elements within the Transitional National Council.

[CJvR]

15. It seems...

...as if there are plenty of Bachmannites here whining over Libya.

[SavWriter]

5. Oh Good, so we can expect more Progressives to support

wars in the future. Just wonderful. At least 8,000 people are dead in Libya, with that number possibly going much higher. The UN Human Rights Council estimates between 10,000 and 15,000 people have died. With over 3,000 reported civilian deaths so far, we are going to celebrate this as a victory?

On the other hand, the Egyptian Revolution, which we wisely remained out of, had less than 1,000 reported casualties.

I weep for my party, and I can't believe that the Democratic Party has become the champions of preemptive war. Did Dick Cheney (Evil lying bastard) somehow get our mailing lists?

[ixion]

7. They're all neocons now

really.

[joshcryer]

12. Are you calling me a neocon? Really?

[ixion]

16. I'm calling people who support neocon policies neocons

not you, in particular. I don't claim to know your motivations.

[PufPuf23]

47. The correct label in this case is neoliberal as opposed to liberal.

Neoliberals are similar in foreign policy and foreign and domestic economic policy to neoconservatives.

[LanternWaste]

33. I suppose the easiest and most convenient route to take is simply

I suppose the easiest and most convenient route to take is simply to label those with different opinions with a pejorative to better minimize their positions.

Although it may be as dogmatic as a Sunday morning televangelist, and although it presupposes an absolute knowledge of the affairs in Libya, and although it denies any place for nuance and context, it certainly does validate those bumper sticker philosophies we seem to hold so dear.

Really.

[ixion]

39. It's not 'different' opinions, it's straight from the PNAC playbook

I'm not saying it to minimize the position, I'm saying it because it's a neocon policy. No rhetoric. Just a fact.

http://www.truthistreason.net/the-surprising-pnac-connection-to-libya

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

11. Before R2P was adopted I recall many a liberal being upset over African atrocities.

Times change, though, and Bush's illegal Iraq invasion has irreparably harmed liberal reason and consciousness, just as it was designed to do.

[rucky]

14. How do you prevent civilian deaths at the hands of Qadhaffi

without getting involved?

It's a serious question, and to me the answer is not as cut & dried as you present it.

[SavWriter]

57. I just got this link from a friend

The war in Libya, our intervention so far, has cost nearly $1 Billion. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/us-military-intervention-in-libya-cost-at-least-896-million-.html

A billion dollars that was spent on Humanitarian aide, like food. Personal protective equipment like gas masks and helmets. Mostly it was spent on bombs and missiles fired from Drones.

We didn't bomb Egypt, and the death toll was much lower as they overthrew the Dictatorial thug Hosni Mubarak. The Egyptian people did it far less violently, because the US wasn't there advising them to bomb the snot out of their enemy. We don't even consider diplomacy anymore. We only have one thing left on the shelf, and that is violence.

Is the violence more moral if it is carried out by a robotic drone flying through the air?

We bombed the Libyan people, causing our share of the estimated ten thousand dead according to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. Did we have United Nations Authority? No, we had European approval. The same Europeans that fought to keep Libya and the region as a proper colony after World War II. We pressured those colonial masters into giving up their holdings after the war. We opposed the attempt by France and England to retake the Suez Canal after Sadat nationalized it.

We let the people of the region, of the individual nations determine their own futures. Self Determination doesn't mean supporting those who we think will be more amiable to our desires. Self Determination means letting them find their own way.

France was wrong, Great Brittan was wrong, and we were wrong to get involved. Haven't we learned yet that we can't do good deeds with bombs? We firebombed Dresden, intentionally slaughtering nearly 25,000 civilians. Yet we were never tried for a crime against humanity. That could never be, and never should be considered a good deed. I'll skip the obviously immoral and indefensible act of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

Now, in thirty years or so, a man will be elected to high office in Libya, and will tell the story about how American planes dropped the bombs that slaughtered his Father, or Mother, or Brother or whatever. We will have more people who hate us for hundreds of years. All so we can feel better about ourselves, and can look tough to a few closed minded people.

Guns are not toys, neither are bombs. We should stop pretending that they are designed to do anything except one thing. They are designed and built to slaughter and maim. Nothing good comes from lowering yourself to the level of a barbarian. We progress only when we rise above.

[indurancevile]

58. the man was in power 40 years. what is this bullshit "prevent civilian deaths"?

[chrisa]

19. And more Americans dead in the future as well.

Because we're creating our future enemies.

We as a country will never learn.

[Waiting For Everyman]

23. “Thank you, we will never forget what you have done for us.”

"And who knows, for once, Western intervention might just be regarded as a force for good."

Those are two quotes from the article.

I really doubt that participating in this action has made us future enemies in Libya. Then again, maybe it will make us other enemies - among RWers and among some other dictatorships around the world. But so what?

[chrisa]

30. 'They will greet us as liberators with flowers' - The US's opinion about Iraq in 2003.

'Al Qaeda are a bunch of ragtag freedom fighters' - The US's opinion during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Even "Rambo III" was dedicated to the Taliban!

[Waiting For Everyman]

34. My quote said by a Libyan, yours by the US military - see the difference?

But you knew that, didn't you? Nice try.

[al bupp]

29. Actually, I think it's quite the opposite in this case

In Libya I beleive we are making at least a generation of allies, among the large majority of youth particularly who have never known anything but the rule of a tyrant. They see US/NATO support as a critical part of overthrowing their dictator, not as some rash western meddling. I think it was the brilliance of Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice who saw that a relatively small risk to our service members and expense could result in a huge win for our political interests in North Africa.

Some things are worth fighting for. As Churchill said, "war is bad, but slavery is worse".

[ixion]

6. Too bad she changed her mind. She was right the first time

and has apparently been suckered in by spin. This was about oil, not liberation, and will become very clear as this plays out.

[joshcryer]

13. If the draft consitution as written is adopted and upheld the oil will remain nationalized.

[ixion]

17. We'll see how that plays out...

you'll pardon me if I'm skeptical.

[joshcryer]

20. I'm just as skeptical, mind you, which is why I say "if" "adopted" "upheld."

But there's nothing else to really go on, the point I'm making is that the NTC has tried its damndest to avoid the imperialist handshaking, and they get no credit for it.

No to troops on the ground (ie, occupation forces).

No to oil contract renegotiation (ie, keep 90% of the revenues).

[ixion]

22. I really hope it works out as you say...

NATO is still flying aerial campaigns, so whether there are 'boots on the ground' or not is inconsequential. Bombs cause plenty of damage.

I'm willing to keep an open mind about it, but I'm not ready to declare it liberation for liberation's sake at this point.

[joshcryer]

26. The main thing is going to be as the country needs to be repaired.

As oil facilities will need fixing they will have to fight hard to keep the oil companies from demanding a renegotiation of the contracts in order to start pumping oil again. If they can do this (in the next 2-3 years as things get rebuilt) I think there's complete justification for being optimistic.

But I can see it now, these EU oil companies saying they want a larger piece of the pie to fix and repair things, and possibly the US would try to get their grubby hands on things, and it'll just be really bad. Worst time to take advantage of a country is when it's rebuilding, but we see it time and time again with contractors. They have to be strong.

[PufPuf23]

49. Be honest please (and that includes not calling me a Qaddafi supporter).

GWB was a Qaddafi supporter and I am no GWB.

1. Qaddafi had stated plans to diversify his oil markets by selling to China, India, and Russia reducing the crude sold to the West.

2. Qaddafi was negotiating a naval basing agreement with Russia (so Russia would have two naval bases on the Mediterranean, the existing base is in Syria).

3. Initially, the Libyan rebels did not want any outside intervention. One has to be naive or dishonest not to believe the USA/NATO did not have covert ops before the uprising. Tunisia and Egypt were organic uprisings (as were Bahrain and Yemen)

4. Qaddafi wanted to strengthen the African Union including the possibility of an African currency and common market.

I hope the fighting ends ASAP and Libyan People benefit.

Libya was one of the 7 nations in the PNAC jigsaw puzzle of reorganizing the Middle East.

[pinboy3niner]

18. K&R

[dkf]

28. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq? It's not the toppling that is hard, it's what comes after.

Say what you will, this was a civil war that we tilted in the favor of one group over the other. Who then rules this country and how will they act towards the other side?

Moreover you have an entire country now armed to the teeth. How will they solve disputes and govern?

All I see is a boatload of more nation building expenses for us.

[ixion]

41. Humans don't learn, collectively speaking.

Sadly, that appears to be a constant.

[pampango]

42. Juan Cole: Myth: The Libyan Revolution was a civil war. It was not.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html

5. The Libyan Revolution was a civil war. It was not, if by that is meant a fight between two big groups within the body politic. There was nothing like the vicious sectarian civilian-on-civilian fighting in Baghdad in 2006. The revolution began as peaceful public protests, and only when the urban crowds were subjected to artillery, tank, mortar and cluster bomb barrages did the revolutionaries begin arming themselves. When fighting began, it was volunteer combatants representing their city quarters taking on trained regular army troops and mercenaries. That is a revolution, not a civil war. Only in a few small pockets of territory, such as Sirte and its environs, did pro-Qaddafi civilians oppose the revolutionaries, but it would be wrong to magnify a handful of skirmishes of that sort into a civil war. Qaddafi’s support was too limited, too thin, and too centered in the professional military, to allow us to speak of a civil war.

I agree that Libya faces more difficulties than Tunisia and Egypt. In the latter cases the military largely refused to fire on peaceful protesters and political change came about mainly through peaceful means. There was no need for their peoples to become "armed to the teeth" in order to achieve their political goals. That is probably better for the achievement of the goals of their "springs".

In Libya, as in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and other countries, the militaries have shown none of the discipline exhibited in Tunisia and Egypt. Syrian protesters, in particular, has shown a consistent bravery in confronting a military that has killed over 2,000 of them. We will see if, in the long run, this is successful in overthrowing a dictator. I hope so.

[dkf]

53. Libya now needs boots on the ground By Richard Haass

The jubilation in the streets of Tripoli and the satisfaction in Europe and Washington are understandable. But now the truly hard part begins.
More

It is one thing to kill the king and oust the ancien regime, it is something very different and much harder to put a better and lasting successor in its place.

The rebels – in effect a disparate mix (“coalition” suggests something more structured than is the case) of individuals and groups, from former regime loyalists to liberal secularists to Islamists – have little in common beyond their opposition to the continued rule of the first family. Now that this goal is about to be realised, their disagreements could take centre stage.

None of this is unique to Libya; it is the stuff of revolutions throughout recorded history. What is also likely is that the Libyans will not be able to manage the situation about to emerge on their own.

--

In the days ahead, looting – which so tainted the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 – must be prevented. Diehard supporters of the regime will have to be disarmed or defeated.

Tribal war must be averted. Justice and not revenge need to be the order of the day if Libya is not to come to resemble the civil war of post-Saddam Iraq in the first instance, or the chaos and terrorism of Somalia and Yemen.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/559804f8-cc7f-11e0-b923-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Vrw98boW

[tabatha]

51. You should try following the nes and what the TNC has said.

"All I see is a boatload of more nation building expenses for us. "

Nonsense - they will use the billions of Liyna dollars, and they will probably pay for some of this conflict.

[dkf]

52. Lol like they used the billions in Iraqi oil right? It's a joke.

[OwnedByFerrets]

43. I was not and still am not

Keep the fuck out of other countries business. We have enough GD trouble over here. Fuck this god damned military shit all over the world.

[krabigirl]

56. +1000

[Enrique]

44. this article is from April 30

it's an interesting article, but it's not honest for that website to post it as if it were written today. It's a big difference between April 30 and Aug 23.

The other thing is, notice how much attention this "recanting" article gets, compared to her original anti-intervention views. According to a search of DU, there was zero mention of Yvonne Ridley's opposition to intervention, and now that she has reversed her position she is suddenly of interest here. So I wonder, why is it so impressive that Yvonne Ridley changed her mind when we never knew she was against it and probably never heard of her?

[Zorra]

46. Don't know the real motives behind all this, but Gaddafi really is an asshole.

That's pretty much a given.

[lame54]

48. I respect you coming clean but...

we are not home yet

[Amonester]

54. There are a lot of 'heartless s*ums' in the world ...

In fact, many seem to have showed up in this thread.

> In Derna, more portraits of the sons of Omar al-Mukhtar hung in the town centre and some of the bodies have been buried in a cemetery next to the tombs of three Sahaba and 70 other martyrs who fought against Roman and Byzantine forces in 692AD.

“We have a very fine tradition of producing martyrs in Derna and that is why Gaddafi hates the people of Derna more than anywhere else in Libya,” one woman told me.

And then she pointed to a French Tricolor and a Union Jack whispering: “Thank you, we will never forget what you have done for us.” <


Thanks for posting.

[krabigirl]

55. I was against it then and am against it now. Enough with the gd wars. Why not fix America?