The Hypocrisy of the Libyan Conflict = by Lawrence Davidson March 20, 2011

[L. Coyote]

Support Consortium News.
They allow posting entire articles!!

==============
The Hypocrisy of the Libyan Conflict
By Lawrence Davidson
March 20, 2011 = http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/032011a.html

Editor’s Note: The United States entered its third war in the Middle East on Saturday with missile attacks on Libyan government air-defense and communications centers. But a difference from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was that this one lacked the militaristic bombast that President George W. Bush relished.

President Barack Obama took a low-key approach, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton making the unusual point that the United States would not be in the lead on this conflict, leaving that to France and Great Britain with some symbolic support from Arab monarchies. Nevertheless, there is an overriding hypocrisy to this new war, as Lawrence Davidson notes in this guest essay:

Whether you believe that the United Nations resolution authorizing extensive intervention in the Libyan civil war is justified or not, and whether you believe that the admittedly eccentric 42-year rule of Muammar Gaddafi over a complex and fractious tribal society has been cruel, there is one thing that all objective observers should be able to agree on.

All should agree that the rationale put forth by the United States government for supporting the impending NATO intervention – that this action is to be taken to bring about an immediate end to attacks on civilians – is one of the biggest acts of hypocrisy in a modern era ridden with hypocrisy.

There is, of course, no arguing with the principle put forth. The protection of civilians in times of warfare, a moral good in itself, is a requirement of international law.

Yet it is a requirement that is almost always ignored. And no great power has ignored it more than the United States.

In Iraq, the civilian death count due to the American invasion may well have approached one million. In Afghanistan, again directly due to the war initiated by U.S. intervention, civilian deaths between 2007 and 2010 are estimated at about 10,000.

In Vietnam, United States military intervention managed to reduce the civilian population by about two million.

And then there is United States protection of the Israeli process of ethnic cleansing in Palestine. America’s hypocrisy as Washington consistently does nothing about the Israeli blockade of Gaza and the slow reduction of a million and half Gazans to poverty and malnutrition.

And, finally, the unforgettable hypocrisy inherent in U.S. support for the 2009 Israeli invasion of that tiny and crowded enclave. The 2009 invasion was the most striking example of an outright attack on civilians and civilian infrastructure since the World War II.

And the American government supported every single moment of it.

Thus, when President Obama gets up before the TV cameras and tells us that Libyan civilians have to be protected, when U.N. ambassador Susan Rice tells us that the aim of the U.N. resolution is to safeguard Libya’s civilian population and bring those who attack civilians, including Gaddafi, before the International Criminal Court, a certain sense of nausea starts to gather in the pit of one’s stomach.

If Washington wants regime change in Libya, which is almost certainly the case, government spokespersons ought to just say it and spare us all a feeling of spiritual despair worthy of Soren Kieregaard!

It was Oscar Wilde who once said that "the true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity."

I think that politicians learn, some easier than others, to live their lives like this. And, as I have said before, the only way they can be successful in sharing their delusions with the rest of us is that the majority do not have the contextual knowledge to analyze and make accurate judgments on their utterances.

The successful hypocrite and his or her ignorant audience go hand in hand.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest; America's Palestine: Popular and Offical Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.

[soryang]

1. The citizens attacked In Libya are armed rebels

How does the Libyan government pose a threat to the security of other nations? There is no legal foundation to the Security Council resolution. There was no fact finding before the resolution. It is mostly disinformation and propaganda. The head of Libyan air force is not even a Qadafi supporter. The aircraft shown in video belonged to the rebels.

This whole operation is naked imperialism, a naked grab for Libyan resources, seeking to achieve the destruction of Libyan sovereignty for western corporate benefit.

[malaise]

2. Excellent read

And, finally, the unforgettable hypocrisy inherent in U.S. support for the 2009 Israeli invasion of that tiny and crowded enclave. The 2009 invasion was the most striking example of an outright attack on civilians and civilian infrastructure since the World War II.

And the American government supported every single moment of it.

------------

What's more Israel bombed a UN building.

[sabrina 1]

3. Reading the world press, watching foreign news,

no one believes they are to protect civilian life. How can a coalition that is destroying civilian life in one country, pretend it is a matter of concern to them? Could someone tell them how foolish they look using that as their rationale to drop tons of bombs on yet another oil-producing country?

If Washington wants regime change in Libya, which is almost certainly the case, government spokespersons ought to just say it and spare us all a feeling of spiritual despair worthy of Soren Kieregaard!

Yes, there is something about the truth that makes things easier. It gives a true starting point to argue for or against. But lying about caring for civilian life, keeps the debate far from where it needes to begin, because really, is there anyone in the world now, who believes that, and we are wasting time being forced to comment it.

However, if they stated the truth, the question is, why do they want regime change since Qadaffi was handing out huge oil contracts, admittedly with some very unsavory, to the west, demands?

Did the early signs of rebellion scare them after Egypt and Tunisia that the country was going to become unstable and another one of their dictator friends was about to be ousted and all the contracts they had were threatened?

One thing no one doubts, except for the willfully blind, we are not there to protect civilians.

In Yemen this week, government snipers fired at protesters killing 42 of them. The killing is escalating in Yemen.

Somalia, the civilian death toll there increases on a regular basis. Democratic voices from Somalia have been begging for help for years.

The list of countries where brutal dictators are threatening the lives of civilians is long.

It's time to drop the pretense and start telling the truth. Who knows, maybe they can even make a case for why interventions in oil rich countries are necessary. But if they never admit, we can only assume it is all for profit.