this from tariq ali---who, btw, you would never see get a prominent spot in a us-based media outlet, such is the extent of the exclusion of actual left viewpoints from the round of interchangeable reactionaries that comprise the american punditocracy:
Quote:
Libya is another case of selective vigilantism by the west
Bombing Tripoli while shoring up other despots in the Arab world shows the UN-backed strikes to oust Gaddafi are purely cynical
* Tariq Ali
The US-Nato intervention in Libya, with United Nations security council cover, is part of an orchestrated response to show support for the movement against one dictator in particular and by so doing to bring the Arab rebellions to an end by asserting western control, confiscating their impetus and spontaneity and trying to restore the status quo ante.
It is absurd to think that the reasons for bombing Tripoli or for the turkey shoot outside Benghazi are designed to protect civilians. This particular argument is designed to win support from the citizens of Euro-America and part of the Arab world. "Look at us," say Obama/Clinton and the EU satraps, "we're doing good. We're on the side of the people." The sheer cynicism is breathtaking. We're expected to believe that the leaders with bloody hands in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are defending the people in Libya. The debased British and French media are capable of swallowing anything, but the fact that decent liberals still fall for this rubbish is depressing. Civil society is easily moved by some images and Gaddafi's brutality in sending his air force to bomb his people was the pretext that Washington utilised to bomb another Arab capital. Meanwhile, Obama's allies in the Arab world were hard at work promoting democracy.
The Saudis entered Bahrain where the population is being tyrannised and large-scale arrests are taking place. Not much of this is being reported on al-Jazeera. I wonder why? The station seems to have been curbed somewhat and brought into line with the politics of its funders.
All this with active US support. The despot in Yemen, loathed by a majority of his people continues to kill them every day. Not even an arms embargo, let alone a "no-fly zone" has been imposed on him. Libya is yet another case of selective vigilantism by the US and its attack dogs in the west.
They can rely on the French as well. Sarkozy was desperate to do something. Unable to save his friend Ben Ali in Tunisia, he's decided to help get rid of Gaddafi. The British always oblige and in this case, having shored up the Libyan regime for the last two decades, they're making sure they're on the right side so as not to miss out on the division of the spoils. What might they get?
The divisions on this entire operation within the American politico-military elite have meant there is no clear goal. Obama and his European satraps talk of regime change. The generals resist and say that isn't part of their picture. The US state department is busy preparing a new government composed of English-speaking Libyan collaborators. We will now never know how long Gaddafi's crumbling and weakened army would have held together in the face of strong opposition. The reason he lost support within his armed forces was precisely because he ordered them to shoot their own people. Now he speaks of imperialism's desire to topple him and take the oil and even many who despise him can see that it's true. A new Karzai is on the way.
The frontiers of the squalid protectorate that the west is going to create are being decided in Washington. Even those Libyans who, out of desperation, are backing Nato's bomber jets, might – like their Iraqi equivalents – regret their choice.
All this might trigger a third phase at some stage: a growing nationalist anger that spills over into Saudi Arabia and here, have no doubt, Washington will do everything necessary to keep the Saudi royal family in power. Lose Saudi Arabia and they will lose the Gulf states. The assault on Libya, greatly helped by Gaddafi's imbecility on every front, was designed to wrest the initiative back from the streets by appearing as the defenders of civil rights. The Bahrainis, Egyptians, Tunisians, Saudi Arabians, Yemenis will not be convinced, and even in Euro-America more are opposed to this latest adventure than support it. The struggles are by no means over.
Obama talks of a merciless Gaddafi, but the west's own mercy never drops like gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It only blesses the power that dispenses, the mightiest of the mightiest
|
Libya is another case of selective vigilantism by the west | Tariq Ali | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
the problem here is that ali is also correct, in my view.
it is possible to hold these positions simultaneously---supporting the fact of the nato intervention on humanitarian grounds while asking oneself---why libya and not elsewhere? why is the united states saying nothing about bahrain? is ali correct about the american response to any threat to the saudi royal family? is that option not foreclosed by the other tactical choices that the us has made (i think it is.....i think the decoupling that the obama administration is trying to argue for isn't ultimately going to hold water and that if they act to protect the saudi regime they'll entirely squander any positioning advantage they've acquired so far....advantage that presupposes one does not read the game in cynical terms....but is requires being read in cynical terms)...
more exactly---and accurately---there is obviously an attempt playing out in front of us to co-opt or contain these revolts.
that this is not primary thematically in the spineless american press---which has never met a corporate status quo it did not worship---changes nothing.
what i think ali overstates is the cynicism of it. i think it's all predictable that geopolitical interests would be acted upon following one logic and sold following another. the only difference between obama moderates and extreme right wingnuts and neo-cons is the style of the selling. but it's a rhetorical difference only. that's also obvious.
but i suppose if you actually believe what's being said as if it were a self-contained description of why the dominant powers are acting in libya and the fact that there's nothing self-contained about it were to suddenly dawn on you
o shit
then it'd appear cynical, yes?