NEWS JUNKIE POST
Mar 20, 2011 at 4:48 pmLibya: Sometimes It’s Right To Fight!
When your neighbor is being assaulted or abused do you turn up the television set and pretend that you don’t hear? If you come across a child being attacked in the street, do you simply put your head down and walk on by? Or, just as bad, do you stand uselessly by and simply yell “stop” and allow the attack to continue?
While peace, and peaceful means, should always be the choice in our interactions, crisis resolution, and problem solving, unless we accept the responsibility to enforce and police such a peace we, as a society, will always be the victim of tyrants. Just as there will always be those who, given the opportunity, will seek to exploit and oppress the vulnerable, there must always be the courage and determination to oppose them.
The Libyan people are no less our moral obligation to defend than is our neighbor. The global community that gets so much lip service suddenly becomes eagerly divided when it may incur investment or sacrifice. To invoke national borders, and respect for sovereign space, as an excuse not to render aid to those pleading for assistance, is no less lacking in intestinal fortitude than claiming that the fence dividing your yard from another provides them with the right to continue their abuses while their victims scream out for help.
To complain of the financial cost of providing needed aid to the people of Libya is no different than refusing to aid the helpless child in the street for fear that you may be required to miss time at work for any ensuing police testimony or litigation. It’s all excuses to avoid doing what you know is the right thing, but which you fear, whether it be out of honest cowardice or calculated selfishness.
Yes, each Tomahawk Missile cost is $1 mil. So what. What is the acceptable price tag for the freedom and self-determination of the people of Libya? What is the price tag you are willing to put on your own freedom? The only way to ensure ones own rights is to stand up and ensure the rights of all.
Pacifism, as an unconditional rule, is a selfish luxury not afforded by the victims of violence. Those oppressed by tyrants may have little tolerance for the demands of peaceful resolution, and unwillingness to ‘get involved,’ from the citizens of countries that support such dictators and provide a home, with aid and sustenance, to the corporations that profit from their exploitation. Thousands of lives are put in jeopardy, and lost, every day because of the actions and choices of the governments and corporations supported by those who would attempt to deny aid to the people of Libya on the basis of their morals. Pacifism becomes a despot’s best friend when applied this way.
To simply paint any military action with the same wide brush stroke because it happens in a similar geographical region, or in an area occupied by people of a similar cultural or ethnic background, is disingenuous at best. Libya has absolutely no similarities to Iraq unless you view the situation through an ethnocentric lens. Iraq and Afghanistan are illegitimate wars of choice. Libya is a war of necessity. Action in Libya is in response to the request of the people being victimized by a dictator and is under the supervision of the international community. Iraq and Afghanistan are expansionist wars of aggression opposed by that same international community.
Qaddafi can no longer claim to legitimately govern the people of Libya. The people of Libya have voiced their democratic opinion through their actions and their resistance to his tyrannical rule. They have told the abuser to leave and have called on the international community to ensure his eviction. The people of Libya want a restraining order against Muammar and they have called on their neighbors in the international community to assist them in imposing it. Do you respond or do you pull the blinds and tell yourself it’s not your problem? Do you stop the blow from landing on their face or do you explain to them that their pain is justified by your self-righteous pacifism.
A promised ceasefire by Qaddafi is not an acceptable a reason to sacrifice the people of Libya to his will. His crimes have already been committed and their freedom must be ensured. Just as the abuser or attacker mentioned above does not receive clemency based on a promise not to repeat their offenses, nor should Muammar. Qaddafi must be deposed and required to answer for his crimes.
Perhaps we can justify our callous disregard for the suffering of the Libyan people by pointing out the possible negatives that may occur from the involvement of countries with agendas of their own. The corporate interests of big-oil that give so much money to American politicians are certainly worth concern. But, rather than using it as an excuse for apathy it should simply be a caution against what cannot be allowed. The international community cannot simply unleash the dogs of war and then allow them to become worse than that which they were set upon. We must ensure through our vigilance that this is not allowed to happen rather than attempt to avoid it through our own irresponsibility or cowardice.
War is never a good thing. It is never glorious, but, in certain situations, it is necessary. And, if prosecuted in the defense of the vulnerable and for the protection and security of their equal rights to freedom, justice, and equality, it can even be noble. Libya is one of those situations. Your neighbor is crying out to be freed from abuse and exploitation. Will you help them or will you simply continue to look for excuses not to?
Editor’s Note: Pictures 2,3,4, courtesy of B.R.Q. photostream.
Fantastic article Liam ! The international left seems to have a vast array of problems with this military action in Libya. But, what they seem to forget is that unlike Iraq this war is sanctioned by a UN resolution. Amy Goodman and friends are missing the points: Firstly, this is not a US lead operation despite the news coverage in America. Secondly, how can anyone support a criminal thug/lunatic like Gaddafi? As long as no foreign troops are on the ground ( the requirement of the Libyan National Council- already recognized by France), the attack is on the request of the Libyan revolution. I would like to know when the left decided not to support revolutions. Is it because the pseudo-Marxist/dictator Hugo Chavez say so? Two weeks ago, Gaddafi was accusing Al-Qaeda to be behind the revolution, but now he is changing the narrative and called the attack imperialist and neo-colonialist. So, he should make his mind.
Sure, it’s right to fight when you’re sitting in the comfort of your livingroom, drinking coffee and talking ideas. I can’t speak for any other person, but my rhetorical question for you is: should be invade Burma? should we invade Iran? should we invade Cuba (oh wait, that didn’t work out, did it?). How ’bout Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Why didn’t we fight South Africa? We supported all of these regimes. We do business with a Communist Country!!! So, are we dictators, too, who tell other countries how to run their affairs. Let Europe handle this problem. We already have two wars. It’s not about being a Pacifist. It’s about the common sense of a country that is bankrupt, running around shooting up other countries (our Defense Dept questioned this move, mind you) because all of a sudden people want regime change.
If you think the United States is running the show on this you are cruelly mistaking. DOD Gates didn’t want to go in, and NSA chief was stating that “Gaddafi would prevail” etc. This military undertaking came about with a huge diplomatic pressure from France and Britain put on the US to go along while convincing Russia and China not to use their UN Security Council veto power to block the UN resolution.
Thank you.
“Those oppressed by tyrants may have little tolerance for the demands of peaceful resolution, and unwillingness to ‘get involved,’ from the citizens of countries that support such dictators and provide a home, with aid and sustenance, to the corporations that profit from their exploitation.”
Something we all need to think long and hard about and take responsibility for. Great post.
Brilliant Liam! Very well written, wonderfully laid out, and put in an inductive manner that is hard to refute. I for one think your arguments are tremendous! You have settled the issues, for those out there that think doing nothing to help is still an option. Although war is never just, there are times when it is necessary.
I think it is somehow difficult to be selective in terms of intervention. While it may be considered acceptable to attack Libya, we must not forget other countries in the region ruled by dictatorships of some kind. These include UEA, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait. If these action are taken in the name of Democracy one can only be sceptical about the real objectives. As an outsider it almost seems that it is hypocritical to only discipline those regimes that not supplying access to cheap oil to the west. Furthermore what are the long term effects of such actions both within the West and within other moderate Arab and or Muslim countries.
Just because a certain country is not led by a popular government, it does not mean that other means of controlling a country are bad by definition. I have good friends living in the UAE (Dubai) and they have a very good life, though naturally they have to abide to local rules and regulations.
Also, most African countries face great problems due to “local” opposition such as the Sudanese north-south conflict, current Libyan east-west opposition, or even Nigeria or Cote D’Ivoire. All of these areas were a mesh of various tribes that were forced into more manageable countries with the colonization. Obviously at the moment the breaking up of Libya sounds bad simply due to the wealth distribution, and the action of the regime against the “rebel forces”, but maybe it is the only long-term solution. Mind you, the fact that this war is basically a war of tribal oppositions has been voiced many times over the past few weeks.
On the other hand Qaddafi will be supported by some, given the above mentioned tribal structure. The coalition forces need to be aware of the fact that these civilians will willingly risk their lives for the regime.
Is it Europe’s job to defeat Qaddafi? Obviously not. There are Libyans for this very reason, they are the ground troops, and they are the reason why ground troops do not need to be and should not be deployed by Europe or the US.
Is it a European invasion of an Arabic country? No, though the Arab League tried to claim so after the first bombing runs. Both the African Union and the Arab League asked for a no flight zone weeks ago. Though they imagined it happening without a single shot fired. Well reality is reality sadly enough and regimes will not stop flying planes, and attempting to shoot down “enemy” planes just because you look “very-very menacing”.
Also to point out, these countries have asked for the UN intervention, but did little or nothing to actually aid the execution of resolution 1973. Now we can hear about more and more countries joining, but it is Europe who had to carry the torch, simply because Arabic countries were not willing. The current feedback from the league proves that it is not only Quadaffi who tries to sit on two horses at the same time. Ask for everyone else to act, and when they do they are blamed on unproven grounds, talk about popular politics.
Does Europe need to act on every occasion? Answer is simply no. Neither are we nor is the US the word police. Should we act if a neighboring country destabilizes and falls into genocide (Clearing towns from “house to house” is one of Qaddafi’s promises, and given the tribal nature of the conflict, if escalated it could (did?) lead to genocide.)
Whether this attack was for control of oil resources? Well if I look at how much the US messed around I was having a feeling that they bet on a third horse to win the race. Also Qaddafi supported many politicians currently in power. With the US investments, I would be surprised if he did not support Obama as well. Is it in the financial interest of these parties to attack him? No. Still, amongst the first ones was Sarkozy, who has reportedly accepted funds from Qaddafi, who stood up against the atrocities. Also in the current situation European countries that did receive oil from Libya previously, have been cut-off, even if only temporarily. So if anything, it was NOT in the interest of current political leaders to make an issue out of the Libyan situation.
Whether it costs a fortune? Well I know it is against accounting principles, but it isn’t like the rockets fired were not purchased and paid already. Those funds were spent for this very purpose, to acquire rockets that are to be fired when required. So money spent. (or well spent IMHO). Flying fighters is another issue, as they require like 10x maintenance hours for every hour of flight, but that was asked for by the UN so it is part of the basic costs of the operation.
Would it not cost a fortune if we did not act? Well, for once, we would have to face a greater threat of terrorism, as people who have asked for our aid (amongst them the biggest tribe in Libya) would probably be rather disgruntled if we let them to be massacred (by a lunatic). Europe would need to deal with refugee waves that would not only stress the financial situation, but if settled, will cause further problems by localizing the (very rightfully IMO) angry survivors of a massacre that should have been prevented.
So we have fired rockets that we have spent money on (already). Bad for the balance sheet, has nothing to do with liquidity. Dealing with increased threat of terrorism, economic strain of supporting refugee populations that get localized, are angry, and will have problems integrating due to past grievances. Worse. I think we chose right by logic and by hearth in this case (finally).
A well thought out comment. Thank you. You identify many of the concerns that must be kept in mind during this conflict as well as considerations regarding others. These issues are complex, but, as you state, in the end, the principle behind the decision clear and comparatively more simple.
While there is a UN Resolution to back this up, under US Constitution attacking another nation is considered an act of war. Gaddafi is not a good leader and should be removed, but for this to be done, there needs to be approval from congress. Lack of approval form congress is what made the invasion of Iraq wrong. The same applies for this, our president should follow the rules set forth by our own government.
I would give you a thumbs up, but when it comes to a massacre and follwoing time consuming paper work, or action before you are too late I pick number two (UN effed around way too much, sadly this prevents a proper local hearing but thousands of people saved vs paperwork well done. I think the balance is good. Also you can withdraw ships and US planes will not take off again, and thats it you are officially out of the war. Withdrawing ground troops, now that could be messy and cost+time consuming, but luckily no such action required).
My replies seem out of order – the last one was meant for your first message, and this for your second. I agree that action was necessary. The time delay was certainly unfortunate. If the time was spent in trying to ensure that any action taken would be under UN international control and that all responsibilities to international law were followed then, although it may have been ‘time well spent’ in terms of principles and intent, it outlines a challenge to make the international body more streamlined and efficient for dealing with such issues in the future.
Additionally, I’m not as convinced as you seem to be that this will not involve ground forces as well. It will certainly involve some, definitely from France, likely from England, and possibly from the U.S.. There is still much to be seen, much to look out for, and much to learn from.
As this opinion piece is about principle, and not the litigious reasons that may be used to participate or not, I will respond using the same example as in the article.
To base this on official congressional approval (which is not clear in this situation) is the same as saying ” I didn’t step in to help my neighbor in need because my house-mates said that I couldn’t, or shouldn’t.”
It may provide you with a reason not to act, but it doesn’t affect whether it was right or wrong to act.
We have procedure in place, the bureaucracy, to prevent despots from usurping the American People. Either change the polices, or use them. Do not dictate.
We are a nation of the People. We must convene on issues of this magnitude.
Wrong and deeply immoral. If Mr Fox thinks you can’t put a price on freedom, then he should shut up, join up and volunteer to pay the ultimate price.
I understand your challenge, but not your charge. The willingness to fight for freedom, and for a righteous cause, is precisely what I’m saying and personally willing, and able, to do. I understand the potential cost and am willing to pay it. This does not mean being part of an organized military willing to blindly accept orders to prosecute an illegal war or killing civilians because a ‘superior’ has instructed me to do so. That being said, accepting oppression of myself and others, because the cost seems too high, is an unacceptable choice that seems based on either cowardice, selfishness, or both.
What I don’t understand is how is this “deeply immoral?”
I’m adamently opposed to Obama’s getting the US involved in another war while we’re still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. You may believe the US has a moral duty to wipe out evil regimes throughout the world, but I believe it’s never moral to kill other human beings, period. By your thinking, the US has a right to make war on any country led by an evil dictator. So who should we attack next? Pakistan, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Somalia? I’m sorry, but I’m too busy paying the price for Bush’s misadventures to help finance another one. If atheists and “secular humanists” want to, then they can pay for them out of their own pockets. While you’re at it, read Washington’s Farewell Speech, warning us about foreign entanglements.
So really, if some rebels in Texas decided to fight the government and the government decided to show no mercy. You’d be absolutely okay with a foreign country ‘helping’ the rebels out and bombing Washington for good measure.
(Im not even going into the fact of it all culminating in assassination and regime change?). This is murder. Make no mistake about it. Cold blooded cruise missile fueled murder.
If American citizens needed to fight against a tyrannical dictator for their basic democratic rights as outlined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Absolutely. I would hope that the international community would show more support for global principles of democracy, and equal rights and justice for all, than the American government, and often the American citizenship, has.
If your ‘rebels’ in Texas were simply fighting to take over a democratic government and impose an authoritarian rule of law on the rest of the country, different story.
Liam….where will you go next?
Your definition also includes Syria, Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, all have dictators that are using force to oppress their revolutionaries. Just how many Tomahawk missiles are onboard the USS Barry?
Those are all places that citizens of this planet are being denied their universal rights. The UN should take a proactive role in all of those, and more. If America was not so involved in illegal wars and occupations, their share of the shared responsibility in a UN force wouldn’t be so burdensome.
A President’s first duty is to protect the people who elected him. If instead he exposes them to danger, he should be removed from office. By the same token, people who live under a dictator should do the same.
While the US must itself against attacks by foreign countries and/or those who’ve declared war on us, Libya has not. Recent history has shown that regime change can backfire when one dictator is replaced by one who’s twice as evil. Or weak.
Study your history and heed the advice of George Washington and people like Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul. If you’re a Christian, as most Americans are, then follow Christ’s example and teachings.
LOL, so what is the US doing there? The US citizens are losing jobs and homes at record pace, they cant afford healthcare yet their Government is off to yet another place it has no business to waste more endless billions. Pathetic!
http://www.real-privacy.it.tc
Link Building Services…
Best Link Building Services…