|
that is certainly a more reasonable position than complaining about some imaginary condescension in the delivery of the speech. and the explanation for the american role is likely two-fold: (a) logistical and (b) empire. the logistical claim rests on the fact of the matter: given that the un resolution passed at the last possible moment (tanks outside benghazi, the showdown maybe 24 hours away) and the time required to get a nato structure into place (about a week as it turned out) in response to the security council resolution....that the us because it is in a position to act did so is no surprise. it is possible that france could have done the same thing---or england----and i have no answer for why neither of them took the lead except to point to the second factor---the persistence of the american empire----and strangely enough, in geo-political terms, i would argue that this action in libya restores something of the credibility of the american imperial presence that was---i thought fatally---damaged by the bush administration (read: iraq war) in part de facto and in part because of the discursive shift away from the simple/simplistic dick-waving preferred by the neo-cons. the neo-cons made the mistake of allowing american imperial power to refer to itself and to follow that by fucking up in a genuinely epic manner. it's smarter to pretend to have the interests of "humanity" in mind. if you think about it, rhetorically at least, that's a better tactic for the long haul of empire maintenance. we give and give and give.
at the same time, i don't buy the claim that there's no national interest involved with the action. i see the revolution(s) as primarily directed against the national-security state model, which can be extended to include the cold-war inspired realpolitik that justified supporting friendly dictators (and using them to avoid legal niceities as the bush people used egypt as torture proxies---no fucking problem there---no reason to prosecute those assholes for war crimes----o no----but i digress).....the united states has clearly made a policy decision that it makes sense to try to get out in front of these revolutions in some way so as to contain them.
want proof? look at what's happening in egypt.
the united states is self-evidently acting in order to preserve, to the greatest possible extent, continuity in its geo-political position. this position is centered around several factors---among the most important if control of access to petroleum. this does not require that the americans buy it from country x or y. this is clear. there are some good books about this. the second is the spineless policy toward israel. but this is getting more and more complicated---syria for example is in a complicated space at the moment. if asad falls. then.....
of course the us will say "yay democracy" while it manoevers through the military to make sure this democracy business doesn't get out of hand.
not that different from the management of democracy in the united states, if you think about it.
aside: we should be learning from north africa---learning to mobilize against the national security state and what happens if you win. egypt is way ahead of us in this respect. but i digress.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|