Glenn Greenwald: The manipulative pro-war argument in Libya

[Better Believe It]

The manipulative pro-war argument in Libya
March 22, 2011

I understand -- and absolutely believe -- that many people who support the intervention in Libya are doing so for good and noble reasons: disgust at standing by and watching Gadaffi murder hundreds or thousands of rebels. I also believe that some people who supported the attack on Iraq did so out of disgust for Saddam Hussein and a desire to see him removed from power. It's commendable to oppose that type of despotism, and I understand -- and share -- the impulse.

But what I cannot understand at all is how people are willing to believe that the U.S. Government is deploying its military and fighting this war because, out of abundant humanitarianism, it simply cannot abide internal repression, tyranny and violence against one's own citizens. This is the same government that enthusiastically supports and props up regimes around the world that do exactly that, and that have done exactly that for decades.

By all accounts, one of the prime administration advocates for this war was Hillary Clinton; she's the same person who, just two years ago, said this about the torture-loving Egyptian dictator: "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family." They're the same people overseeing multiple wars that routinely result in all sorts of atrocities. They are winking and nodding to their Yemeni, Bahrani and Saudi friends who are doing very similar things to what Gadaffi is doing, albeit (for now) on a smaller scale. They just all suddenly woke up one day and decided to wage war in an oil-rich Muslim nation because they just can't stand idly by and tolerate internal repression and violence against civilians? Please.

For the reasons I identified the other day, there are major differences between the military actions in Iraq and Libya. But what is true of both -- as is true for most wars -- is that each will spawn suffering for some people even if they alleviate it for others. Dropping lots of American bombs on a country tends to kill a lot of innocent people. For that reason, indifference to suffering is often what war proponents -- not war opponents -- are guilty of. But whatever else is true, the notion that opposing a war is evidence of indifference to tyranny and suffering is equally simple-minded, propagandistic, manipulative and intellectually bankrupt in both the Iraq and Libya contexts. And, in particular, those who opposed or still oppose intervention in Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, the Sudan, against Israel, in the Ivory Coast -- and/or any other similar places where there is widespread human-caused suffering -- have no business advancing that argument.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/22/libya/index.html


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

In the Mideast, U.S. policy is still driven by realism
By Eugene Robinson
March 21, 2011

But for Bahrain, too, we have polite words rather than decisive action. Why? Because the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is based there, astride the Persian Gulf shipping lanes through which 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil shipments must pass. The base gives the United States a way to counter Iran’s growing power.

Also, the al-Khalifas are close allies of the Saudi royals, who are desperate to keep the protests in Bahrain from spilling over into the nearby kingdom. The Saudi rulers sent troops to help crush the Bahrain demonstrations and have banned any kind of pro-democracy agitation at home. For the House of Saud, however, the White House has barely managed to choke out a tsk-tsk.

Anyone looking for principle and logic in the attack on Moammar Gaddafi's tyrannical regime will be disappointed. . . . Why is Libya so different? Basically, because the dictators of Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia -- also Jordan and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, for that matter -- are friendly, cooperative and useful. Gaddafi is not. . . .

Gaddafi is crazy and evil; obviously, he wasn’t going to listen to our advice about democracy. The world would be fortunate to be rid of him. But war in Libya is justifiable only if we are going to hold compliant dictators to the same standard we set for defiant ones. If not, then please spare us all the homilies about universal rights and freedoms. We'll know this isn’t about justice, it's about power.

Read the full article at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-mideast-useful-and-non-useful-tyrants/2011/03/21/ABeWu38_story.html

[polichick]

1. Oh-oh, these truths might be a bit inconvenient for some.

k&r

[sabrina 1]

19. Sad, isn't it that people simply cannot first face facts, I see the unrecs

already, then decide what to do about it. That is why things just keep getting worse and worse, because Republicans won't admit that our policies are wrong when their guy is in power, and Democrats won't admit our policies are wrong when their guy is power. And that is exactly how the Powers behind the government want it. There is always half the country supporting the exact same rotten policies.

[polichick]

45. And it doesn't help that when Dems are in power they adopt Republican policies...

Democratic policies are popular when presented without the labels.

[gateley]

2. Superpowers don't make take any action unless they stand to benefit in some

way, and people should know that. If we can help these people get a more level playing field with the minimum of involvement, then I still support it.

We're adults, it's reasonable for our nations to be concerned about anti-West despots stepping in a vacated spot. Gotta drag out the tired "look at Iran".

I DO wish we wouldn't prop up evildoers because they treat us "kindly", but maybe that can begin to change. The whole world is watching now as never before and taking an interest. We all want what's best for these oppressed people.

[sabrina 1]

17. Well, to answer the question whether or not the Libyan

people will benefit from our interference, we have only to look at Iraq and Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

We could also look at how our support and interference has helped get an 'even-playing field' for the people of Yemen, of Egypt and Tunisia (until they kicked our specially chosen leaders for them out and we were still trying to keep them there until it was no longer possible), the people of Bahrain, of Uzbekstan, of Haiti, in fact is there ANY country where we are supposedly 'helping' the people, that has ever ended up with an even playing field for any of them???

We don't do that, we are primarily interested in helping Global Corporations. In fact we don't even 'even the playing field' right here in the U.S.

So, our record on helping people over Corporations, is pretty horrific. I fear for the people of Libya. As they said, they do not want to become another Iraq, 'Democracy, U.S. style'. Did you see the protesters in Iraq being mowed down by our specially chosen democratic government last week??

[gateley]

38. We won't know until it's over (or until it becomes endless!). It's not automatic

this will result in another Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (and we could add more!), but it's worrisome, I admit.

No - I didn't see that in Iraq - there is absolutely nothing that surprises me, though, about that nightmare, nor in Afghanistan. I'm so frustrated and angry about our presence there that I almost can't breathe when I think about it.

And no, our history hasn't shown that we've helped much in any way, but I'm hopeful that this might be changing. I think I feel this way because of the success Egypt had, and that the fires of rebellion have been started all over the globe -- and here. If they hadn't asked for help I wouldn't feel this way, but for the time being, anyway, I'm fervently hoping this might end better than the others. And end quickly!

[damntexdem]

3. I don't give a fuck about the 'motives' for the U.S. to participate.

I only care that the U.S. at last IS participating. The intervention was just in time. Thank goodness that it did occur.

[Romulox]

7. Thank GAWD it passed! Oops. I meant Thank GAWD he bombed!

Another catastrophe averted just in the nick of time!

[TBF]

10. Yes, those gas prices were getting high weren't they?

Tough to fill up the 'ole SUV.

[LoZoccolo]

12. How will this intervention lower gas prices?

[TBF]

15. Overall, this "intervention" is about stabilizing the contracts in Libya

and sending a message to the rest of the Arab world not to fuck with the US.

Gadaffi had been making comments in early March about awarding contracts to China, India and Brazil outside of the normal bidding process (and potentially cutting into the western oil companies' billion dollar business).

[Amonester]

24. Bull. If China wanted these oil-contracts so much, please explain....

why they "decided" NOT TO VOTE AGAINST the UNSC Resolution 1973 (that is, ONE VOTE that would have "scraped" the multilateral get go)???

You can't explain it?
Me neither...

[TBF]

26. In another OP someone told me that China and Russia

abstained for political reasons. They didn't approve it, but wanted to be able to criticize it after the fact. :shrug:

I still think it's about the oil and the overall unrest ... we like it to be as stable as possible over there because we depend upon that oil. As to the political reasons of China and Russia your guess is as good as mine.

Whether prices will go down again? Some of that depends upon the speculation. My guess is that if this action has the effect of dampening protests in the region then the oil companies will feel more comfortable and prices will drop.

Granted I started doing a lot of research about Libya only this weekend - I am playing catch up on this topic.

[patrick t. cakes]

27. they're playing a long term game?

don't want to look the bad guy so much anymore by voting outright no.
Better to let the U.S. do its thing, fuck up, continue to look like the imperialist ass that it is.


(spitballing)

[Catherina]

33. Something about providing the capitalists with rope...

China and Russia pulled a really fast one. Their abstention was calculated to watch the West drain its resources and open itself up to the precise criticism they can happily dish out now. In the game of international whatever dimensional chess, we're playing Battleship.

Payback is hell.

I don't see how the outcome of this whole bloody mess can end in the West's favor. By the time this is over, China and Russia are going to take a big bite out of Europe's oil supply, the globalized interdependent West is going to have to share a smaller supply and everyone's going to start pointing fingers at everyone else, pretending they only went along reluctantly, or went along out of loyalty to an ally. When the bullshit starts flying, it's going to be quite a show. There's a reason people like Chavez are warning the US not to even think about it right now.

The show has barely begun.

[patrick t. cakes]

39. I agree 100%...

China and Russia don't need to vote NO, they have no interest in the people of Libya
nor do they care about MQ. By abstaining they take no sides in the clusterfuck
and take moral high ground when it washes out.

The U.S. (and the west along with it) is driving headlong toward the cliff, why the hell get in the way?

(+1 on Chavez too.)

[riderinthestorm]

50. Yup, +1.

[Lucinda]

30. A friend said that he believes it's intent is to cause fear

and result in HIGHER prices.

[2banon]

60. What say you about Bahrain, Yemeni, Syria, Saudi Arabia?

To name just a few who are doing exactly what Kaddafi is/was to his own people. Ok, so Syria isn't an Alley like Kaddafi was, what of what's going on this very moment, in Yemeni and Baharain? Should we invade these countries while we're at it? I mean since we're in the region and these same exact atrocities are going on there, why not intervene in these countries right this minute before it's too late?

Oh wait, these countries are our allies, they're brutal dictators committing horrible crimes against their own people, but they're our friends.

let's not examine the very serious and obvious problems with this Modus Operendi, eh?

[nashville_brook]

4. k and r

[myrna minx]

5. These are exactly the things I'm agonizing about in my attempt to

make sense of all of this. :-(

[tcaudilllg]

6. He fails to account for the role of religion

and the limits it places on cultural evolution in certain contexts. The monarchies claim power by divine right handed down and described in the Koran. This is why they are surviving/will survive the protests and the U.S. cannot do anything about it.

The pitiful thing is that while the U.S. is occupied with little Gadhafi in Libya, it's basically precluded itself from attacking Iran's leading ally in the region, Syria. That's about as counter-productive a policy as you get, I think, because if we do go to war with Iran it will be Hezbollah which kills our citizens in first few weeks afterward, not Gadhafi.

[sabrina 1]

21. Go to war with Iran? Why would we do that?

Are they planning on attacking the U.S.?

[Amonester]

31. No. Going to war with Iran is for when the neocons will greet us a Coup d'Etat 2.

You know, voting machines and all that jazz...

But when they will succeed (and they will, thanks to the 'keep out of jail for their war crimes "non-trials"), AND IF this UNSC Resolution 1973 turns out to have been successful, these rich creeps (and war criminals) would have a lot thougher time to DERIDE the United Nations on their next pack-of-lies(TM) to do whatever they want to SEND GROUND TROOPS on their way to Tehran (or their coffins), LIKE THEY DID BEFORE.

Again, THAT in itself ("trying to bring back LEGITIMACY to the UN" in order to PREEMPT the next round of NEOCON WAR CRIMES for world DOMINATION) is important.... EXTREMELY important, that that UNSC legitimate resolution must be successful, and AS FAST as possible (of course).

THEY WILL BE BACK (because we "had to look FORWARD" to what? Their next "Coup d'Etat"?)...

WE HAVE TO FIGHT TO RESTORE THE UNSC's "legitimacy" since WE have NO power to launch True Justice prosecutions against the neocons war criminals: WE AT LEAST HAVE TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO FIGHT THEM, so may this difficult task be successful, and FAST enough...

We Have To Stop Bitching About What We Can't Do, And Start Thinking CLEARLY About What Will Happen Next (because, ouch.... THEY WILL BE BACK!) :grr:

Sorry for the caps. It's for emphasis.

[sabrina 1]

40. They never went away. 40 of them, including Elliot Abrams

Liz Cheney and the usual suspects, wrote a letter to Obama insisting that he go help the people of Libya, and they are all over the media practically salivating over another war. Wolvowitz, Kristof et all. People who should have been prosecuted are still be asked for their opinions on war!

Yes, we do have to do something, maybe the same thing the Egyptians did and are still doing. Because nothing has changed and no one has been held accountable and apparently never will be. And yes, Iran is definitely on their list for the next big war, this time who knows what kind of weapons we'll be testing.

[2banon]

61. interesting..

I don't have tv now, so i missed this bit of factoid regarding neo-cons pressuring pro-war stance.. f*cktards.

explains a lot.

[killbotfactory]

8. Some other things that should be taken into consideration:

1. Was our help was requested by the poeple being slaughtered?
2. Would our help actually accomplish anything other than make the situation worse?
3. Would any action taken by the US be legal under international law?

No other country in the Arab world that is undergoing uprisings has escalated into the level violence that is occurring in Libya, and no other group of rebels has requested UN assistance.

Also, since about 2004 Gaddafi had friendly relations with the west. Mubarak had friendly relations with the west for a few decades. At least in the most recent uprisings, the current administration is favoring the side of democracy over the status quo.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Well, we can now add Glenn Greenwald to the -getting longer list- of people DU

now dislikes immensely!

1. Michael Moore
2. Dennis Kucinish
3. Liberal Congressional Democrats
4. Glenn Greenwald.

I have a feeling the longer this WAR goes on, the longer this list will be.

[tcaudilllg]

16. Should I add you to my ignore list?

Who is "DU"?

[Better Believe It]

18. I'm sure they meant a small minority of DU posters.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. Would you please?

I'd appreciate it. Thanks! :hi:

[Raksha]

36. I don't dislike any of them immensely.

Even if I agree with Glenn Greenwald and Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich 95% of time, I don't agree with them in this particular case. Why is the hyperbole necessary?

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. You must have missed the threads over the weekend.

It's NOT hyperbole, trust me. Michael Moore, Liberal Democrats and Dennis Kucinich were the scourge of the Earth here because they had the NERVE to speak out against this unaffordable WAR BO has taken us into.

[krabigirl]

41. Seriously. Corporate Dems agree more with the likes of McCain and Gingrich than with liberals.

[L. Coyote]

52. DU does not dislike anyone.

There is no WE here. There only are individual voices.

Oh yeah, and the disruption trolls using multiple personality disorder software :rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

11. Glenn Greenwald: automatic unrecommend n/t

[Better Believe It]

13. And of course any other writer who spouts that liberal stuff!

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

[DirkGently]

22. Here! Here! Let us throw this "Greenwald" on the pyre with the traitorous Hamsherites & Maddow-ins!

[LoZoccolo]

25. Who else is on automatic unrecommend?

[sabrina 1]

23. Rec'd and thank you for a perfect demonstration

of what I stated in a comment just now.

We are destined to keep the Bush status quo which we had hoped to change, because Repubs won't admit our foreign policies are all wrong when their guy is in the WH and Dems won't admit it when their guy is in the WH.

When Bush was president, Glenn Greenwald was a Democratic hero. He hasn't changed, still standing up for the same principles. Only the letter after the name of the president has changed.

As I said, thanks for perfectly demonstrating my point.

[krabigirl]

42. Yeah, we can't tolerate those pesky defenders of civil liberties around here. Lol.

[LoZoccolo]

43. There are other defenders of civil liberties who are not on the automatic unrecommend list. n/t

[sabrina 1]

46. Well, in the case of Libya, those glorious defenders of democracy

and humanitarianism, the neocons, have suddenly become the defenders of civil liberties for the people of Libya, not Bahrain or Yemen so much, but still, I was absolutely speechless when I saw Paul Wolfowitz and Kristoff supporting the rights of the Libyan people and absolutely insisting that we must bomb their country and do more, according to Wolfowitz, like 'put people on the ground' to help in any way we can! Amazing. I'm sure the Libyan people will love the neocon's idea of democracy.

I know I'm on the right side when Bush's war criminals are on the other side. Wolfowitz sounded positively progressive on the matter of people's human rights. No one asked him about the million dead Iraqis or the tortured victims of his last adventure in the ME though.

[ReggieVeggie]

53. not a surprise

no bigger partisan than you

[inna]

55. automatic recommend; thanks for reminding

[snot]

14. K&R'd

[DirkGently]

20. Yep. Plenty of despots out there killing their citizens. Most suffer no U.S. "humanitarianism."

[Catherina]

28. Rec'd in full agreement. Both articles. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

29. k & r

[leftstreet]

34. K&R

[whatchamacallit]

35. K&R (nt)

[Ramulux]

44. Glenn nails it yet again

Everything he says is right on point, I couldn't have put it better.

[readmoreoften]

47. What angers me about the strident pro-interventionists is the denial of the reality of US intentions

and total ignorance of our foreign policy record. It's an absolute refusal to actually investigate into the matter or face the dark fog of our foreign policy goals. I support the Libyan people--as much as I support Egypt and Bahrainis and Yemenis in their struggle for freedom. I'm glad that they think--or some of them quoted in US media outlets think--that the US intervention is helping them. And I hope it does. But the bottom line is that we do not give a shit about people's freedom, rights, or democratic movements. We aren't in Libya to help Libyans and anyone who says we are is spitting in the face of every protestor who is CURRENTLY fighting a US-backed regime. The government who supports the Saudis and is giving the thumbs up to the slaughter or Bahrainis, who two months ago considered the Mubaraks as "family" have not suddenly become inspired by the Libyans fight for freedom.

If the rebels win, we will have a hand in everything. We will back the rebel group that we want to be in power. The majority of the Libyan people will end up hating this group as much as Gaddafi because they will screw the Libyan people just as Gaddafi does. We want their natural resources. It's what we do. It's who we are. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. It's a river of blood in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Bahrain, Gitmo. And let's not forget about the dried rivers of blood across Latin America and Timor.

[leftstreet]

48. +1 This should be an OP

:applause:


And just: :cry:

"It's a river of blood in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Bahrain, Gitmo. And let's not forget about the dried rivers of blood across Latin America and Timor."

[inna]

56. +2

[2banon]

62. Absolutely Spot on..

I like your moniker btw.

OT:

Did you happen to catch Charlie Rose last night? I generally don't watch his shows, can't stand that guy, way too milketoaste, but sometimes it's interesting to monitor the propagandists and their message machine in action and i found it incredibly insiteful.

It appears that the Exit Strategy for Afghan may soon be appearing in a theatre near you, sometime in the coming months perhaps. It's going to involve certain players on the "inner circle" meaning "al queda" leaders (I take it)along with taliban chiefs, Afghan government officials etc., agreeing that we're at an impasse and that this shit has to end.

After consensus on that point has been reached, the Inner Circle will invite the Outer Circle (U.S. and Western Allies) in on the discussions, after which a nice tidy settlement will be negotiated for a yet to be determined amount of $ and resources and all will be well..

We can finally call it a wash.

Back to this topic, we will certainly have a direct hand in Lybian's political and economic affairs, of which there should be no doubt.

[stockholmer]

63. +3

[Distant Observer]

64. US intentions are ALL GOOD. The rebel group are such wonderful freedom fighters

:sarcasm:

[Toucano]

49. Kick/Rec n/t

[Mimosa]

51. K&R a superb OP!!! n/t

[avaistheone1]

54. k&r

[davidthegnome]

57. Yes...

We aren't in the business of rescuing people for noble or selfless reasons. We are in the business of doing so only when it suits our need or desire.

Power? Wealth? Simple words to describe the great greed of the corrupt and those of us who are beyond caring. Of course we're in Libya because we're looking for greater wealth and power - that does not end. Ridding the world of Gaddafi is simply a... a side bonus, if you will. How much gold is he sitting on? How much oil? Our role here - is it to rescue the Libyan people when so many are desperately in need of it? The ivory coast, for example.

Removing the evil dictator is a plus - and an excellent way of justifying our own self interest. Frankly, we need oil, we need gold, we need more... always more, to fuel to the empire that America has become.

It is good and just to rid the world and the Libyan people of an evil bastard like Gaddafi. It is, however, far more out of corporate interest that we take the steps to do so. Why? Because we seek a government more friendly to our interests, more willing to parlay and to trade. Gaddafi may be a madman, but one thing he has right - the western world is using him for their own purposes. He has given us a reason, an excuse, something we can pawn off on the people as being necessary and just. He's simply too out of his mind to understand what that really means.

Expect this military adventure to last until we have benefited as much as we can. Expect death and destruction until we (and by we, I mean our government and the corporate interests which command them) are satisfied that we have gained all we can. Whether through humanitarian means or... more violent methods, no longer matters. It is need, desire - ultimately greed which drives this great war machine many of us have come to suspect and despise. Some times there are side benefits, such as ridding a Nation of a cruel and violent dictator. Some times we simply cover everything with lies and propaganda - a little salt, if you will.

Make no mistake, however, that the end result and goal is the same. The greater wealth, benefit - and power of the "greater" Nations of the world.

There ARE good and noble reasons for interfering in Libya. That is, however, NOT why we are doing so. Were that the case, you could have expected intervention in Darfur long ago. It's for the oil, for the gold, for the profit. In a time when the world is beginning to run short of all necessary non-renewable resources, we take what we can, when we can. Gadaffi is a means to accomplish goals which benefit our corporations and our people through increased access to oil - and even gold. One hundred and sixty tons? Hell, given my pathetic, unemployed, uninsured condition, I can't say I'd refuse to fight for as much. If it meant finally having the means to support my family..... there is little I would not do.

[swilton]

58. The bankrupt logic boils down to this

It's okay for US bombs (aka smart weapons) to kill civilians in order to save them from being killed by foreign dictators.

[2banon]

59. drat.. too late to rec.. n/t

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: