====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
At 02:05 20/08/11 -0400, Fred Feldman wrote: > >Introductory comments to article from Tripoli >........ > >The US, France, and Britain have committed their prestige and honor, such as >they are, to removing Gadhafi, dead or alive, from power. For them to appear >to abandon this goal would be a blow to NATO, which is already under >pressure from the European economic crisis. I find it hard to believe that >they can drop this objective without something worse than embarrassment Here Fred has accidentally spoken a word of profound truth. Namely that the reason for the continued NATO intervention in Libya on the side of the revolution has to do with maintaining PRESTIGE. And avoiding "something worse than" EMBARRASMENT. In other words, all of the made-up explanations for the imperialist intervention, being designed to steal Libya's oil wealth, to curb any supposed "militant" tendencies of Gaddafi, etc. -- all of these explanations that have been cited (but conveniently only after the NATO intervention began) are NOT the reason they continue, BY FRED'S OWN ADMISSION. Having heard this now from a vocal left opponent of the Libyan revolution, confirming what I have believed to be the case, now gives me all the more reason to reject the idea that there is any underlying principle involved in concentrating on ending the intervention that should overshadow our support of the Arab revolution of 2011. Nowhere is there a suggestion that ending their intervention would be a blow against the substance of imperialism. It would, again by Fred's admission, have the effect of embarrassing them, of reducing their prestige. And while it always brings me joy when they are embarrassed or humiliated, I'll be damned if I'm going to abandon supporting a revolution just in order to feed that petty desire. Even the imperialist partners themselves have made it clear in their own circles that their intervention in Libya was a MISTAKE in essence, based on an incorrect assessment (one which many of us shared), namely that the eventual fall of Gaddafi was certain, and they didn't want to be on the losing side (still recognizing the legitimacy of Gaddafi as his regime fell). As a result of their mistake, they got in over their heads and now can't be seen as backing down. And they have made it clear that they are not going to repeat that mistake in Syria, where the situation is similar in every important respect. (One caveat: once it becomes absolutely clear that Assad really is going to be overthrown by revolution, which might be the stage we're entering right now, then swooping in to "save" the people of Syria would no longer be a mistake on their part. But they're nervous about reaching that conclusion after their unsettling experience in Libya.). And one telling truth from the article itself. Franklin Lamb: >Assassinating Gaddafi is widely believed here to be the only reason NATO >continues to re-bomb, some as many as five times, the so-called "command >and control center" sites that these days could be just about anywhere in >Tripoli. Exactly. They are trying to KILL him, which is absolutely NOT what the rebels had expected when they accepted (requested?) NATO air strikes in defense of their territorial gains. They surely want to put him on trial! And the imperialists surely don't want him telling all he knows in court, so they are out to kill the witness more than some evil leader they fear. Just as they did with Saddam. I hope they fail and that the revolution succeeds, and that Gaddafi's wish of "dying in Libya" comes true, but not too soon! - Jeff ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
