Should we or should we not support war on Libya? This question is being seriously posed by many on the left and in the progressive world, and I’ve honestly been quite surprised by who has gotten behind the use of military force.
At the end of one particularly nasty piece, after telling a story about how terrible Qaddafi is, Juan Cole, whose analysis I often like, wrote: “Payback is a bitch.” Even Phil Weiss of Mondoweiss has written of his mixed feelings on the attack.
How people who are so knowledgeable about US foreign policy can buy in to the humanitarian argument for war is beyond me. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who really pays attention that the US doesn’t ever intervene out of concern over civilians or because of our desire to uphold democracy, human rights and freedom. These nice ideals are used only to sell war to the public.
If they were our highest concern, how can you explain US support throughout history of dictators in too many countries to mention and our often successful attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments that challenged “US interests”?
How do you make sense of our military, economic and diplomatic support of the dictatorial or autocratic regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain and many other countries in the region, even as their people rise up and are shot down for democracy, human rights and freedom?
The historical record is clear: in almost every case the US intervenes in other countries to protect its perceived economic or geostrategic interests. The same is undoubtedly true in Libya, which sits atop the largest oil reserves on the African continent and has largely been a hold out against neoliberalism.
On top of this question of motive, in an op-ed in the Guardian, editor-in chief of the London-based pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi Abdel al-Bari Atwan offers several other pragmatic critiques of military intervention.
To summarize, he writes that in some ways it’s likely to play into Qaddafi’s hands, that the no-fly zones didn’t work in ending Saddam’s reign in Iraq, and that:
Finally, there is the worry that the Arab spring will be derailed by events in Libya. If uprising plus violent suppression equals western intervention, the long-suffering Arab subjects of the region’s remaining autocrats might be coerced into sticking with the status quo.
In another solid piece in the Guardian, Symon Hill argues that nonviolent alternatives have not been exhausted:
Now, as then, those who raise questions are told: “We can’t just do nothing.” This is the old warmongers’ trick of pretending that there are only ever two options – violence or passivity. But pacifism is not passive. To be a pacifist is to take a stand against the dominant values of our society, and this cannot be done passively.
There is nothing more naive than believing that violence will always work. Of course, some nonviolent movements have been more effective than others. But the many successful uses of nonviolence are often forgotten, while war is applauded and written about in history books. Advocates of war rarely speak of the repeated failure of violence to achieve its aims even in the short term, let alone the long term.
As the German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, argued: “The alternative to military options is hardly inaction.” Suggestions for alternatives include financial assistance and intelligence-sharing with anti-Gaddafi movements, working with Libya’s neighbours to prevent the flow of non-Libyan mercenaries to Gaddafi’s forces and various economic and political pressures.
And from a more principled perspective on nonviolence, I have to say that I personally just don’t believe that war is ever the answer. It doesn’t matter whether the Arab League is supportive or whether a majority of the Libyan people are calling for foreign military intervention. Just because someone supports violence or asks for you to kill doesn’t make it right. Killing is wrong. It is immoral.
As a Christian, I believe that not only are we not supposed to kill, but we are called to love our enemies and do good to those that harm us. And while love of enemy can take many forms, I’m pretty sure that means we can’t bomb them. This of course is dangerous and difficult and could get one killed. But Jesus not only preached this, he lived it. By giving his own life on the cross and forgiving those who killed him, rather than taking up the sword to defend himself, Jesus was really the perfect embodiment of nonviolence.
Does it suck that the US only intervenes in such conflicts domestically, yes? Is that an excuse to say that the US should sit back and let Qaddafi slaughter more people? No. We might not always do the right thing, but we are here.
sorry, “domestically” was supposed to be “selectively.” Curse you autocomplete.
John..if US want to solve problem he can solve it peacefully. Qaddafi killed 100 people but US is killing 100 thousand peoples now. Fighting fire with fire will not solve any problem it will burn everything. Use water instead…
My goodness, here we go again! The U.S. is damned if it does or if it doesn’t. Just three weeks ago, the world was crying for intervention, now the armchair analysts are criticizing. Read the Responsibility to Protect for the full debate and justification: http://www.iciss.ca/report-en.asp I am not justifying military intervention, but it is so easy to judge when you’re not on the ground. Bill Clinton will be known for non-intervention in Rwanda, and when I worked in Bosnia in 1996, I was admonished by Bosnian citizens for the U.S.’ lack of engagement for so long. I would not be so harsh on Obama just yet. These are extraordinarily difficult decisions that government leaders have to make based on realities on the ground, and of course, government interests will always help form part of the decision.
Vanessa,
It’s a powerful case you point to here—that our military can come in and intervene, and that it risks being blamed if it doesn’t. (Unfortunately for me the link you provided wasn’t working.) I understand that Samantha Power, who has done so much to draw attention to genocide over the years, played a role in pushing Obama to act for precisely this reason. What’s distressing also is that the idea of the American military stepping in and saving the day with bombing raids has become internalized by so many people around the world. Yet I think Eric is on to something when he says, “Just because someone supports violence or asks for you to kill doesn’t make it right.” I think we have a responsibility to show the world—and ourselves—that conflicts can be handled differently than the Gaddafis do.
Too often, leaders have rushed to military force as an easy solution. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were expected to be quick and easy; instead they have become long, costly disasters both for us and for those countries and their neighbors. Nonviolent alternatives, such as Symon Hill begins to list above, require patience too, but at least they don’t involve slaughtering more people, and making more enemies of orphaned children. They stop the cycle of violence and resentment. There are other alternatives, too, such as putting observers, aid workers, and documenters in harm’s way—like the captured New York Times reporters—which require a kind of sacrifice Americans seem unwilling to make. And these aren’t likely to offer the instant gratification of seeing Gaddafi’s headquarters turned into a mushroom cloud. But they do put on display a different kind of world order, one in which violence won’t be tolerated from anybody.
Nathan, thanks for your reply. Is there an illusion that military force is an easy solution?! As I mentioned in my comment, these are incredibly difficult decisions that have to be weighed, and I’m sure Obama and the coalition really wrestled with this. I’m not ready to throw him under the bus for his recent decision.
Of course I would prefer — always — nonviolent solutions, but the world just sometimes doesn’t work that way. I would love to see a massive global undertaking of education and dissemination of knowledge of nonviolent resistance. However, as someone who has been deeply involved in that endeavor, the people who work toward this ALSO get criticized for being conspirators of the CIA! It’s crazy. The very people who disdain wars and U.S. intervention also despise and criticize people and organizations trying so hard to show people that there are other alternatives to violence. How fantastic that Gene Sharp has become “mainstream” in less one month. And last year and years before he was accused of conspiring with the likes of the FBI and the CIA. But I digress…
A massive global campaign is what the world needs, but short of that decades-long investment, I believe that sometimes, military intervention is needed to avert massive humanitarian disasters. We should have done so during the Darfur slaughter campaigns and also Rwanda. And if we start now the with the nonviolent education endeavor I’m talking about, then maybe 20 years from now we won’t have to intervene military to avert what we saw last week in Libya.
We have to balance our idealism and values with reality, though.
Vanessa
Hundreds of civilian black Africans have been murdered by the rebels and their supporters. Darker-skinned Libyans have also faced terror from the rebels. That’s genocide going on in Libya, that’s a massacre. The West has done nothing to stop it, and instead has encouraged it, by siding with the rebels violently. There are many credible reports of what the rebels are doing to black Africans, such as http://www.wbur.org/npr/134065767/-African-Migrants-Say-They-Face-Hostility-From-Libyans
I would just like to cite this paragraph from Maximilian Forte’s recent article:
“We can’t stand by and do nothing”–and why not, when it is precisely what you are doing every day when it comes to the slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan (courtesy of our own troops), when it comes to the “secret” war in Pakistan, the “secret” war in Yemen, the “secret” war in Somalia, or for that matter, the killing of civilian protesters today in Yemen and Bahrain? How about how we stood by and did nothing, as our allied torture state, Uzbekistan, boiled alive opponents and the detainees sent to them by the CIA? Boiled alive–whisper it, because not even Gaddafi has imagined perpetrating such horrors. Whisper it, so you can forget it again: “Andijan massacre;” “Uzbekistan: Repression Linked to 2005 Massacre Rife;” “500 bodies laid out in Uzbek town;” “‘High death toll’ in Uzbekistan;” “’700 dead’ in Uzbek violence.” Surely, by now, we have abundant practice in doing nothing at all–we must be a hardened people, with very thick skin, and an ability to ignore the screams coming from the basement whenever we like. So why must Libya be this exception? What made you wake up, and wake up in such a way that you wanted to be the hero of someone else’s story?
http://zeroanthropology.net/2011/03/18/the-libyan-revolution-is-dead-notes-for-an-autopsy/
Thanks for the link, Michael—looks like a fascinating site. I didn’t know about it. And this passage certainly points to the odd selection criteria for intervention. The Congo also comes to mind.
I consider myself to be generally against war. However to construe this as a ‘war on Libya’ is misleading at best. It is at most a war on gaddafi who, by definition of the uprising, no longer represents Libya as a whole.
I’m sure oil positioning did play an important part in the decision to intervene but, so long as the intervention also protects those who would be slaughtered by gaddafi, maybe it is an acceptable compromise?
It is certainly true to say that the allied forces (and yes it is allied – for once the US is not going it alone, which has to be a good thing!) have to be VERY careful about how far they allow themselves to become involved in this. The mission should be purely to protect those who would be slaughtered by Gaddafi. Any more general war/occupation/regime change effort would be neither acceptable nor desirable.
The world could have done far more to help by providing humanitarian assistance and helping the refugees and evacuating Libyan civilians, than by bombing. Choosing sides in the civil war is a catastrophe. Black Africans are being terrorized by the rebels, as even the mainstream press has begun to acknowledge.
I’m not a fan of this intervention for all the reasons Hill and Stoner mention (even the religious ones).
One up side, though, has to be the return to UN-based multilateralism. That’s an important step I reckon.
again a helpful critique of the situation in Libya and those who are abandoning nonviolence in this “too-hard-basket” situation. I’m thankful for the links on the rebels, I haven’t read yet, but I’ve been wondering two questions: 1. has the UN bombing created civilian casualties (independently varified), and 2. who are the rebels, and what do they want?
to @Vanessa, you wrote, “Of course I would prefer — always — nonviolent solutions, but the world just sometimes doesn’t work that way.” I disagree. The world doesn’t change it’s basic ways of operating in a selective case. Yes, on the immediate surface things look grim and desperate. But if nonviolence can work elsewhere it can work here. But there won’t be a “quick fix”, just as military intervention won’t be.
The other interesting issue raised is, why are we willing to risk lives in military intervention, but when it comes to peaceful intervention we fail to imagine that it might cost life, particularly those preventing violence? If soldiers are willing to die in foreign countries, can we not retrain soldiers to use nonviolence with the same sense of bravery and courage? Or is the willinginess to die with a gun in hand something different?
US has really bad policy to get rid of his competitors countries. If you work according to them then you are safe and if you don’t them you have to pay. US dont want other countries to get strong in economy and military.
I have observed that if any country increase it military power he is answerable to US,UN. if you look at the military strength US has all the latest and powerful weapons he invented them and now he is testing them on these countries. All those war against Russia,Korea,Vietnam,japan,Afghanistan,Iraq,Libya and it will keep on going. So many lives they have taken till now.
Because of them entry world is suffering hate rate,angry is increasing.