PJB:How Killing Libyans Became a Moral Imperative

[Winehole23]

How Killing Libyans Became a Moral Imperative


Patrick J. Buchanan March 24th, 2011










“Who would be free themselves must strike the blow.”


So wrote the poet Byron, who would himself die just days after landing in Greece to join the war for independence from the Turks.


But in that time, Americans followed the dictum of Washington, Adams and Jefferson: Stay out of foreign wars.


America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own,” said John Quincy Adams in his oration of July 4, 1821.


When Greek patriots sought America’s assistance, Daniel Webster took up their cause but was admonished by John Randolph. Intervention would breach every “bulwark and barrier of the Constitution.”


“Let us say to those 7 million of Greeks: We defended ourselves when we were but 3 million, against a power in comparison to which the Turk is but as a lamb. Go and do thou likewise.”


When Hungarian hero Louis Kossuth came to request a U.S. fleet in the Mediterranean to keep the czar’s warships at bay, when Hungary sought to break free of the Habsburg Empire, Webster backed him.
But Henry Clay and John Calhoun stood against it.


“Far better is it for ourselves,” said Clay, “for Hungary and for the cause of liberty that, adhering to our wise, pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore as a light to all nations than to hazard its utter extinction amid the ruins of fallen or falling republics in Europe.”


When Hungarian patriots rose up against the Soviet occupation in 1956, Khrushchev sent in hundreds of tanks to drown the revolution in blood.
Hungary was behind the Iron Curtain, the Yalta-Potsdam line to which FDR and Truman had agreed. There were no U.S. troops on any Hungarian border. So Eisenhower did — nothing.


Indeed, that same month, Ike ordered British, French and Israelis to end their intervention in Sinai and Suez and get their troops out or face sanctions, including the U.S. sinking of the British pound.
Was Ike an isolationist?


Until the modern era, the idea of sending armed forces across oceans to kill and die for moral or humanitarian causes would have been seen as an insult to the Founding Fathers, an abandonment of a vital American tradition, and ruinous to the national interest.


Why are we in Libya? Why are U.S. pilots bombing and killing Libyan soldiers who have done nothing to us?


These soldiers are simply doing their sworn duty to protect their country from attack and defend the only government they have known from what they are told is an insurgency backed by al-Qaida and supported by Western powers after their country’s oil.


Why did Obama launch this unconstitutional war?


Moral, humanitarian and ideological reasons. Though Robert Gates and the Pentagon had thrown ice water on the idea of intervening in a third war in the Islamic world — in a sandbox on the northern coast of Africa — Obama somersaulted and ordered the attack, for three reasons.


The Arab League gave him permission to impose a no-fly zone. He feared that Moammar Gadhafi would do to Benghazi what Scipio Africanus did to Carthage. And Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power conveyed to Obama their terrible guilt feelings about America’s failure to stop what happened in Rwanda and Darfur.


This is the three sisters’ war.


But why was it America’s moral duty to stop the Tutsi slaughter of Hutus in Burundi in 1972 or the Hutu counter-slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994? Why was that not the duty of their closest African neighbors, Zaire (Congo), Uganda and Tanzania?


These African countries have been independent for a half-century. When are they going to man up?


The slaughter in Darfur is the work of an Arab League member, Sudan. Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab nation, is just down the Nile. Why didn’t the Egyptian army march to Khartoum, a la Kitchener, throw that miserable regime out, and stop the genocide?


Why doesn’t Egypt, whose 450,000-man army has gotten billions from us, roll into Tobruk and Benghazi and protect those Arabs from being killed by fellow Arabs? Why is this America’s responsibility?


When Spain had its civil war in the 1930s, in which hundreds of thousands perished, FDR declared neutrality. A million Ibos died in Nigeria’s civil war from 1967-70. No one raised a finger to help them or the million Cambodians who perished in Pol Pot’s killing fields.


Since Bush I, we have intervened in Panama, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya. Had Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman gotten their way, we would have been fighting Russians in Georgia and bombing Iran.


Add up all those we have killed, wounded, widowed, orphaned or uprooted, and the number runs into the millions. All these wars have helped mightily to bankrupt us.


Have they made us more secure?
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/03/24/how-killing-libyans-became-a-moral-imperative/

[SnakeBoy]

The cons on the left and the right do not approve of this article.

[Marcus Bryant]

Amen.

[boutons_deux]

"All these wars have helped mightily to bankrupt us."

"us" of course excludes the UCA ruling plutocracy and controlling MIC that war-profiteer enormously, over and over and over, to insulate themselves from the bankruptcy and increasing poverty they visit on the non-plutocracy as they suck the wealth from the ATM furnished with taxpayers' $Ts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When we were three million the French helped us.

Ike did not go into Hungary and told the UK to stop on the Arabian peninsula because it was pissing the soviets off.

Kazakhstan is right there.

Those are two horrible examples.

If you want examples of why intervention is bad look no further than South and Central America. Kissinger was a real douchebag.

[Winehole23]

But the compromise that puts NATOhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_11pxw.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42247045/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/#) in charge of clearing the skies still leaves the U.S. responsible for the more difficult task of planning attacks on Gadhafi's ground forces and other targets. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42247045/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

[MannyIsGod]

The whole NATO bit is just a bullshit smokescreen about where Obama can hide that we're really running the show. Its so fucking annoying.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The whole NATO bit is just a bullshit smokescreen about where Obama can hide that we're really running the show. Its so fucking annoying.

Really?

You obviously do not know shit about french politics. They have a hard on for Libya because a ton of immigration comes from there. Perhaps you have heard about the law about a veil or the muslim neighborhoods during the labor strike last year?

[vy65]

It's problematic to cite examples from 18th and 19th century America as reasons for why the US should stay out of conflicts in the 21st century. Society, government, and the Constitution have radically changed.

One could argue that the American mandate, laid out in its founding document - the Declaration of Independance - shows this country is a champion of human rights, democratic rule of law, etc... not just here but abroad.

[Winehole23]

One could also argue that the historical results of liberal intervention seldom conform with the humanitarian intentions propelling it. Iraq and Afghanistan are notable examples.

[vy65]

One could also argue that the historical results of liberal intervention seldom conform with the humanitarian intentions propelling it. Iraq and Afghanistan are notable examples.

That's not much of an argument - I'd be hard pressed to think of a single humanitarian intervention that conformed with said intentions.

The question then becomes - what do you do? There are those who would foresake the humanitarian cause because of said results. Others would insist on the perfectability of the laws and institutions said to reflect these intentions and would keep fighting on.

Personally, I think too much is at stake to simply say fuck it, intervention hasn't worked in the past so we should give up.

[Winehole23]

What's at stake for the USA?

[vy65]

What's at stake for the USA?

I don't think that's the right question to be asking.

I understand I'm in a minority on this one though.

[Winehole23]

That's not much of an argument - I'd be hard pressed to think of a single humanitarian intervention that conformed with said intentions.

The question then becomes - what do you do? There are those who would foresake the humanitarian cause because of said results. Others would insist on the perfectability of the laws and institutions said to reflect these intentions and would keep fighting on. When reality shows the theory is wrong, disregard reality and keep the theory. Genius.

[LnGrrrR]

It's problematic to cite examples from 18th and 19th century America as reasons for why the US should stay out of conflicts in the 21st century. Society, government, and the Constitution have radically changed.

One could argue that the American mandate, laid out in its founding document - the Declaration of Independance - shows this country is a champion of human rights, democratic rule of law, etc... not just here but abroad.

Do you think America has the ability to transform another country's politics for the better? If so, please provide examples, along with the amount of time and money it took to reform said examples.

Then, tell us which countries need reform and which don't.

[Winehole23]

I don't think that's the right question to be asking.
You said there was "too much at stake" to do nothing. What did you mean?

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think that's the right question to be asking.

I understand I'm in a minority on this one though.

You realize that your wishes would be supported by living and breathing Americans, right?

If America is always the first (and frequently, the heaviest) lifter on an international stage, what would possess other countries to do their fair share of the workload?

[vy65]

When reality shows the theory is wrong, discard reality and keep the theory. Genius.

That's a matter of perspective. You could easily say "work to force reality to conform with the ideals."

[vy65]

You said there was "too much at stake" to do nothing. What did you mean?

Genocide.

[LnGrrrR]

That's a matter of perspective. You could easily say "work to force reality to conform with the ideals."

My ideal is that we are able to make ice cream out of sand. Our government is not doing enough to make this a reality? Why do they hate our children!?!? [/snark]

[vy65]

You realize that your wishes would be supported by living and breathing Americans, right?

If America is always the first (and frequently, the heaviest) lifter on an international stage, what would possess other countries to do their fair share of the workload?

I think it's more about working with and through international institutions. So while it would involve US manpower, other countries would be obligated to shoulder the burden too. The burden has to be shared - and not be US-centric.

I'm speaking of what should happen - not what is the case, or even what is likely the case. My point is that international institutions have the possibility of changing international relations for the better, and that is something the West should strive for.

[vy65]

My ideal is that we are able to make ice cream out of sand. Our government is not doing enough to make this a reality? Why do they hate our children!?!? [/snark]

Ice cream is delicious tbh, you raise a good point.

[LnGrrrR]

Genocide.

1) Why is America responsible for another country? Because we believe in freedom and liberty? Pretty sure we're not the only country.

2) Do you think we can prevent genocide indefinitely, without any other sort of negative consequences arising from our actions?

3) Where do you draw the line at who we should and shouldn't help?

[Winehole23]

Genocide.There's been one going on continuously in the Congo for about 20 years. Millions have already died. Don't we owe them something too?

[LnGrrrR]

I think it's more about working with and through international institutions. So while it would involve US manpower, other countries would be obligated to shoulder the burden too. The burden has to be shared - and not be US-centric.

I'm speaking of what should happen - not what is the case, or even what is likely the case. My point is that international institutions have the possibility of changing international relations for the better, and that is something the West should strive for.

I can see that viewpoint. However, when push comes to shove, which side do we go with? Do we go with our ideals and do the "right thing" even without help? Or do we remain pragmatists?

[Winehole23]

Anytime, anywhere there is genocide, we must go?

[vy65]

There's been one going on continuously in the Congo for about 20 years. Millions have already died. Don't we owe them something too?

Yes.

[vy65]

These two quotes - while long - make the argument much better than I could hope to do so


But without necessarily subscribing to the whole Marxist discourse (which moreover, is complex, evolving, heterogeneous) on the State and its appropriation by a dominant class, on the distinction between State power and State apparatus, on the end of the political, on "the end of politics", or on the withering away of the State, and, on the other hand without suspecting the juridical ideas in itself, one may still find inspiration in the Marxist "spirit" to criticise the presumed autonomy of the juridical and to denounce endlessly the de facto take-over of international authorities by powerful National-states, by concentrations of techno-scientific capital, symbolic capital, and financial capital, of State capital and private capital. A "new international" is being sought through these crises of international law; it already denounces the limits of a discourse on human rights that will remain inadequate, sometimes hypocritical, and in any case formalistic and inconsistent with itself as long as the law of the market, the "foreign debt", the inequality of techno-scientific, military, and economic development maintain an effective inequality as monstrous as that which prevails today, to a greater extent than ever in the history of humanity. For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelise in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realised itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the "end of ideologies" and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, never have so many men, women, and children been subjugated, starved, or exterminated on the earth. . . .



The "New International" is not only that which is seeking a new international law through these crimes. It is a link of affinity, suffering, and hope, a still discreet, almost secret link, as it was around 1848, but more and more visible, we have more than one sign of it. It is an untimely link, without status, without title, and without name, barely public even if it is not clandestine, without contract, "out of joint", without coordination, without party, without country, without national community (International before, across, and beyond any national determination), without co-citizenship, without common belonging to a class. The name of the new International is given here to what calls to the friendship of an alliance without institution among those who, even if they no longer believe or never believed in the socialist-Marxist International, in the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the messiano-eschatological role of the universal union of the spirits of Marx or Marxism (they now know that there is more than one) and in order to ally themselves, in a new, concrete, and real way, even if this alliance no longer takes the form of a party or a workers' international, but rather of a kind of counter-conjuration, in the (theoretical and practical) critique of the state of international law, the concepts of State and nation, and so forth: in order to renew this critique, and especially to radicalise it


Whenever I speak of the New International in Specters of Marx, emphasising that, in it, solidarity or alliance should not depend, fundamentally and in the final analysis, on class affiliation, this in no wise signifies, for me, the disappearance of "classes" or the attenuation of conflicts connected with "class" differences or oppositions (or, at least, differences or oppositions based on the new configurations of social forces for which I do in fact believe that we need new concepts and therefore, perhaps new names as well) . . . the disappearance of power relations, or relations of social domination . . . . At issue is, simply, another dimension of analysis and political commitment, one that cuts across social differences and oppositions of social forces (what one used to call, simplifying, "classes"). I would not say that such a dimension (for instance, the dimension of social, national, or international classes, or political struggles within nation states, problems of citizenship or nationality, or party strategies, etc.) is superior or inferior, a primary or a secondary concern, fundamental or not. All that depends, at every instant, on new assessments of what is urgent in, first and foremost, singular situations and of their structural implications. For such an assessment, there is, by definition, no pre-existing criterion or absolute calculability; analysis must begin anew every day everywhere, without ever being guaranteed by prior knowledge. It is on this condition, on the condition constituted by this injunction, that there is, if there is, action, decision and political responsibility -- repoliticization.

[vy65]

Anytime, anywhere there is genocide, we must go?

Begs the question of what "we" means.

[vy65]

I can see that viewpoint. However, when push comes to shove, which side do we go with? Do we go with our ideals and do the "right thing" even without help? Or do we remain pragmatists?

I get your point - and its fair.

But you could have asked an activist in any social struggle (civil rights, women's rights, etc...) in the past 150 years the same question.

[Winehole23]

The USA. We are discussing US foreign policy. Did you forget the frame?

[LnGrrrR]

Begs the question of what "we" means.

That's kinda the point.

While it may be a moral imperative to relieve suffering, that is obviously limited by real world resources.

So, given a finite amount of resources, what is one to do?

Here are some big moral questions that you haven't answered yet:

Does the international community have the resources to combat genocide anywhere and everywhere?

Does America have the resources to combat genocide anywhere and everywhere if the international community won't participate?

Is America obligated to help combat genocide, even if we don't have the resources to effectively fight it?

Is there a possibility that fighting genocide might have unintended negative consequences?

Finally, is it moral to take resources from American people to further aims that may provide little to no benefit to the American people?

[LnGrrrR]

I get your point - and its fair.

But you could have asked an activist in any social struggle (civil rights, women's rights, etc...) in the past 150 years the same question.

So what's the answer?

No one's saying that activists can't do everything within their power to help combat genocide. Many famous people are doing so already (Bono, Clooney, etc etc).

But you're implying the American gov't get involved, which is obviously a different issue.

[Winehole23]

(If you're not from the US, please overlook my loose phrasing -- the intent ought to have pretty clear.)

[LnGrrrR]

Note: We haven't even gotten to other deplorable activities like children soldiers in wartorn areas, human trafficking, etc etc.

I think it smacks of hubris to think we can change all of these things.

[vy65]

That's kinda the point.

While it may be a moral imperative to relieve suffering, that is obviously limited by real world resources.

So, given a finite amount of resources, what is one to do?

Here are some big moral questions that you haven't answered yet:

Does the international community have the resources to combat genocide anywhere and everywhere?

Does America have the resources to combat genocide anywhere and everywhere if the international community won't participate?

Is America obligated to help combat genocide, even if we don't have the resources to effectively fight it?

Is there a possibility that fighting genocide might have unintended negative consequences?

Finally, is it moral to take resources from American people to further aims that may provide little to no benefit to the American people?

You're gonna hate this but:

Derrida’s exploration of Abraham’s strange and paradoxical responsibility before the demands of God, which consists in sacrificing his only son Isaac, but also in betraying the ethical order through his silence about this act (GD 57-60), is designed to problematise this type of ethical concern that exclusively locates responsibility in the realm of generality. In places, Derrida even verges on suggesting that this more common notion of responsibility, which insists that one should behave according to a general principle that is capable of being rationally validated and justified in the public realm (GD 60), should be replaced with something closer to an Abrahamian individuality where the demands of a singular other (eg. God) are importantly distinct from the ethical demands of our society (GD 61, 66). Derrida equivocates regarding just how far he wants to endorse such a conception of responsibility, and also on the entire issue of whether Abraham’s willingness to murder is an act of faith, or simply an unforgivable transgression. As he says, “Abraham is at the same time, the most moral and the most immoral, the most responsible and the most irresponsible” (GD 72). This equivocation is, of course, a defining trait of deconstruction, which has been variously pilloried and praised for this refusal to propound anything that the tradition could deem to be a thesis. Nevertheless, it is relatively clear that in The Gift of Death, Derrida intends to free us from the common assumption that responsibility is to be associated with behaviour that accords with general principles capable of justification in the public realm (ie. liberalism). In opposition to such an account, he emphasises the “radical singularity” of the demands placed upon Abraham by God (GD 60, 68, 79) and those that might be placed on us by our own loved ones. Ethics, with its dependence upon generality, must be continually sacrificed as an inevitable aspect of the human condition and its aporetic demand to decide (GD 70). As Derrida points out, in writing about one particular cause rather than another, in pursuing one profession over another, in spending time with one’s family rather than at work, one inevitably ignores the “other others” (GD 69), and this is a condition of any and every existence. He argues that: “I cannot respond to the call, the request, the obligation, or even the love of another, without sacrificing the other other, the other others” (GD 68). For Derrida, it seems that the Buddhist desire to have attachment to nobody and equal compassion for everybody is an unattainable ideal. He does, in fact, suggest that a universal community that excludes no one is a contradiction in terms. According to him, this is because: “I am responsible to anyone (that is to say, to any other) only by failing in my responsibility to all the others, to the ethical or political generality. And I can never justify this sacrifice; I must always hold my peace about it… What binds me to this one or that one, remains finally unjustifiable” (GD 70). Derrida hence implies that responsibility to any particular individual is only possible by being irresponsible to the “other others”, that is, to the other people and possibilities that haunt any and every existence.

[vy65]

The USA. We are discussing US foreign policy. Did you forget the frame?

The point I'm making would also work to redefine what is meant by that. It would take seriously the position that America is a part of a larger, international network, and to that end, has obligations that stretch beyond its borders. It would mean something like working within international laws and norms to expand our current conceptions of what exactly is within "our community."

[vy65]

Note: We haven't even gotten to other deplorable activities like children soldiers in wartorn areas, human trafficking, etc etc.

I think it smacks of hubris to think we can change all of these things.

You're right - but the point is that we should work towards changing all of these things knowing that it's impossible to actually do so.

[Winehole23]

These two quotes - while long - make the argument much better than I could hope to do so


Originally Posted by Derrida http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5079664#post5079664)
But without necessarily subscribing to the whole Marxist discourse (which moreover, is complex, evolving, heterogeneous) on the State and its appropriation by a dominant class, on the distinction between State power and State apparatus, on the end of the political, on "the end of politics", or on the withering away of the State, and, on the other hand without suspecting the juridical ideas in itself, one may still find inspiration in the Marxist "spirit" to criticise the presumed autonomy of the juridical and to denounce endlessly the de facto take-over of international authorities by powerful National-states, by concentrations of techno-scientific capital, symbolic capital, and financial capital, of State capital and private capital. A "new international" is being sought through these crises of international law; it already denounces the limits of a discourse on human rights that will remain inadequate, sometimes hypocritical, and in any case formalistic and inconsistent with itself as long as the law of the market, the "foreign debt", the inequality of techno-scientific, military, and economic development maintain an effective inequality as monstrous as that which prevails today, to a greater extent than ever in the history of humanity. For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelise in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realised itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the "end of ideologies" and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, never have so many men, women, and children been subjugated, starved, or exterminated on the earth. . . .Do you have the audacity to neo-evangelize in the name of liberal democracy, or do you seek a new International inspired by the spirit of Marxism?












Originally Posted by Derrida http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5079664#post5079664)
The "New International" is not only that which is seeking a new international law through these crimes. It is a link of affinity, suffering, and hope, a still discreet, almost secret link, as it was around 1848, but more and more visible, we have more than one sign of it. It is an untimely link, without status, without title, and without name, barely public even if it is not clandestine, without contract, "out of joint", without coordination, without party, without country, without national community (International before, across, and beyond any national determination), without co-citizenship, without common belonging to a class. The name of the new International is given here to what calls to the friendship of an alliance without institution among those who, even if they no longer believe or never believed in the socialist-Marxist International, in the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the messiano-eschatological role of the universal union of the spirits of Marx or Marxism (they now know that there is more than one) and in order to ally themselves, in a new, concrete, and real way, even if this alliance no longer takes the form of a party or a workers' international, but rather of a kind of counter-conjuration, in the (theoretical and practical) critique of the state of international law, the concepts of State and nation, and so forth: in order to renew this critique, and especially to radicalise itYou seek to radicalize the critique, how? By replacing the revolutionary class/cadre with "radicalised" critique from the standpoint of the phenomenological observer? :lol













Originally Posted by Derrida http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5079664#post5079664)
Whenever I speak of the New International in Specters of Marx, emphasising that, in it, solidarity or alliance should not depend, fundamentally and in the final analysis, on class affiliation, this in no wise signifies, for me, the disappearance of "classes" or the attenuation of conflicts connected with "class" differences or oppositions (or, at least, differences or oppositions based on the new configurations of social forces for which I do in fact believe that we need new concepts and therefore, perhaps new names as well) . . . the disappearance of power relations, or relations of social domination . . . . At issue is, simply, another dimension of analysis and political commitment, one that cuts across social differences and oppositions of social forces (what one used to call, simplifying, "classes"). I would not say that such a dimension (for instance, the dimension of social, national, or international classes, or political struggles within nation states, problems of citizenship or nationality, or party strategies, etc.) is superior or inferior, a primary or a secondary concern, fundamental or not. All that depends, at every instant, on new assessments of what is urgent in, first and foremost, singular situations and of their structural implications. For such an assessment, there is, by definition, no pre-existing criterion or absolute calculability; analysis must begin anew every day everywhere, without ever being guaranteed by prior knowledge. It is on this condition, on the condition constituted by this injunction, that there is, if there is, action, decision and political responsibility -- repoliticization.
Ghost dance for Marxist Internationalism. Strong.

[Winehole23]

The point I'm making would also work to redefine what is meant by that. It would take seriously the position that America is a part of a larger, international network, and to that end, has obligations that stretch beyond its borders. It would mean something like working within international laws and norms to expand our current conceptions of what exactly is within "our community."The so-called international authorities to which Mr. Derrida refers upstream. Strikingly akin to off the rack liberal internationalism, don't you think?

[vy65]

Do you have the audacity to neo-evangelize in the name of liberal democracy, or do you seek a new International inspired by the spirit of Marxism?

I think it's the opposite of liberal democracy.

Granted, Derrida does vacilate between the two - but he certainly would concede his conception is animated by Marx.


Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the "end of ideologies" and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, never have so many men, women, and children been subjugated, starved, or exterminated on the earth.

No community without exclusion. No liberal democracy without violence. Rather than gloss that over - Derrida's argument is to continually point it out. His is a criticism of liberal democratic institutions - with the recognition that we have to work within them to move beyond them.


You seek to radicalize the critique, how? By replacing the revolutionary class/cadre with "radicalised" critique from the standpoint of the phenomenological observer? :lol

I'm not sure what you mean by phenomenological observer. The critique is "radicalised" by recognizing that international institutions bear the promise of something beyond the liberal democratic nation state - that the very systems of oppression and violence bear the kernal of their own undoing.

[vy65]

The so-called international authorities to which Mr. Derrida refers upstream. Strikingly akin to off the rack liberal internationalism, don't you think?

Not at all. While he recognizes that we are constrained by liberal democratic limitations - we have to work within the nation state - international institutions bear the possibility of something different. Liberal internationalism is a stepping stone for a different kind of internationalism.

[Winehole23]

What international institutions?

[vy65]

What international institutions?

The UN, the EU, the ICJ, the ICC, and NATO to name a few.

[Winehole23]

Gotcha.

[MannyIsGod]

Really?

You obviously do not know shit about french politics. They have a hard on for Libya because a ton of immigration comes from there. Perhaps you have heard about the law about a veil or the muslim neighborhoods during the labor strike last year?

I don't understand how this contradicts what I said? I get the French have a national interest but what does that have to do with the United States military being the main entity in the attacks? NATO is just a way to politically smoke screen that just in the way that the coalition of the willing was a way to smoke screen the US going it alone in Iraq.

[MannyIsGod]

Genocide.

I would love to see a case made for there being genocide in Libya.

[LnGrrrR]

You're gonna hate this but:

Derrida’s exploration of Abraham’s strange and paradoxical responsibility before the demands of God, which consists in sacrificing his only son Isaac, but also in betraying the ethical order through his silence about this act (GD 57-60), is designed to problematise this type of ethical concern that exclusively locates responsibility in the realm of generality. In places, Derrida even verges on suggesting that this more common notion of responsibility, which insists that one should behave according to a general principle that is capable of being rationally validated and justified in the public realm (GD 60), should be replaced with something closer to an Abrahamian individuality where the demands of a singular other (eg. God) are importantly distinct from the ethical demands of our society (GD 61, 66). Derrida equivocates regarding just how far he wants to endorse such a conception of responsibility, and also on the entire issue of whether Abraham’s willingness to murder is an act of faith, or simply an unforgivable transgression. As he says, “Abraham is at the same time, the most moral and the most immoral, the most responsible and the most irresponsible” (GD 72). This equivocation is, of course, a defining trait of deconstruction, which has been variously pilloried and praised for this refusal to propound anything that the tradition could deem to be a thesis. Nevertheless, it is relatively clear that in The Gift of Death, Derrida intends to free us from the common assumption that responsibility is to be associated with behaviour that accords with general principles capable of justification in the public realm (ie. liberalism). In opposition to such an account, he emphasises the “radical singularity” of the demands placed upon Abraham by God (GD 60, 68, 79) and those that might be placed on us by our own loved ones. Ethics, with its dependence upon generality, must be continually sacrificed as an inevitable aspect of the human condition and its aporetic demand to decide (GD 70). As Derrida points out, in writing about one particular cause rather than another, in pursuing one profession over another, in spending time with one’s family rather than at work, one inevitably ignores the “other others” (GD 69), and this is a condition of any and every existence. He argues that: “I cannot respond to the call, the request, the obligation, or even the love of another, without sacrificing the other other, the other others” (GD 68). For Derrida, it seems that the Buddhist desire to have attachment to nobody and equal compassion for everybody is an unattainable ideal. He does, in fact, suggest that a universal community that excludes no one is a contradiction in terms. According to him, this is because: “I am responsible to anyone (that is to say, to any other) only by failing in my responsibility to all the others, to the ethical or political generality. And I can never justify this sacrifice; I must always hold my peace about it… What binds me to this one or that one, remains finally unjustifiable” (GD 70). Derrida hence implies that responsibility to any particular individual is only possible by being irresponsible to the “other others”, that is, to the other people and possibilities that haunt any and every existence.

Or you could have just answered the questions in your own words. That's why I was asking. I'll wait.

And you're right that I hate it; not a huge fan of Derrida. Not a big fan of his take here either, though I am a bit biased, being an atheist. Just because Abraham was being "faithful" doesn't mean he was being "moral. I'm not a big believer in "God = moral".

As well, the idea that one has to make sacrifices doesn't make one "less moral". We all live in a real world, and therefore, one shouldn't be judged on morality based off some sort of fantasy-world version of morality that doesn't exist. It's perfectly justifiable.

This part alone



Derrida hence implies that responsibility to any particular individual is only possible by being irresponsible to the “other others”, that is, to the other people and possibilities that haunt any and every existence


shows how much of a quack Derrida can be. He took a great idea (deconstruction) and then applied it everywhere he could, without limit. His splitting everything into this-or-that dichotomies is farcical.

[Winehole23]

The UN, the EU, the ICJ, the ICC, and NATO to name a few.All of these plus NGOs and so forth are preferable to putatively outmoded political states, why?

[vy65]

I would love to see a case made for there being genocide in Libya.

Never said that there was one.

[MannyIsGod]

All of these plus NGOs and so forth are preferable to putatively outmoded political states, why?

That is a hell of a question, IMO. Trying to lead the way for a new form of international morality through international organizations ignores that all countries are out to protect their vital interests and ignoring that and using a different approach is not going to make them follow but simply allow ones own interests to be overridden.

[LnGrrrR]

No community without exclusion. No liberal democracy without violence. Rather than gloss that over - Derrida's argument is to continually point it out.

Which does what? Might as well point out that there is no "up" without "down", no "in" without "out".


His is a criticism of liberal democratic institutions - with the recognition that we have to work within them to move beyond them.

Which begs the question of how one is to "move beyond" these institutions. Your earlier Derrida post underlied that exclusivity is natural and world-wide. How does one get past "community"?


The critique is "radicalised" by recognizing that international institutions bear the promise of something beyond the liberal democratic nation state - that the very systems of oppression and violence bear the kernal of their own undoing.

If said systems of oppression and violence bear the kernel of their own undoing, why does it require an outside influence to realize the undoing?

[MannyIsGod]

Never said that there was one.

Fair enough then - I inferred it.

[Winehole23]

His splitting everything into this-or-that dichotomies is farcical.Not as farcical as the appearance of a doctrinaire Derridean in this forum.

(Guffaw!)

[LnGrrrR]

Also, some more quackery from Derrida:



no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, never have so many men, women, and children been subjugated, starved, or exterminated on the earth. .


Is he pulling this out of his arse? Why not use percentages instead of raw numbers? Even when using raw numbers, I would think that times of the black plague and others may rival it.

Additionally, what about the degree of suffering? Hardship? Toil? Is Derrida arguing that all of these are greater than in the past?

[vy65]

Or you could have just answered the questions in your own words. That's why I was asking. I'll wait.

And you're right that I hate it; not a huge fan of Derrida. Not a big fan of his take here either, though I am a bit biased, being an atheist. Just because Abraham was being "faithful" doesn't mean he was being "moral. I'm not a big believer in "God = moral".

As well, the idea that one has to make sacrifices doesn't make one "less moral". We all live in a real world, and therefore, one shouldn't be judged on morality based off some sort of fantasy-world version of morality that doesn't exist. It's perfectly justifiable.

This part alone



shows how much of a quack Derrida can be. He took a great idea (deconstruction) and then applied it everywhere he could, without limit. His splitting everything into this-or-that dichotomies is farcical.


Fair enough. You're gonna have to get in line with all the other haters.

Gift of Death is one of my favorite pieces of philosophy.

That being said, I'm not a fan of your take on his reading of the Abraham story. He reads Abraham as being moral (i.e. obeying God) by being immoral (killing his son Isaac). The point here is that one's responsibility to one moral order engenders irresponsibility to another; by obeying one moral command to do God's bidding, Abraham disobeys another moral command to not kill. Derrida uses this to show how responsibility "deconstructs" (I hate using that word) itself. For example, by intervening in Libya, we spend time, resources, manpower, etc... that could be used elsewhere. Selective intervention is our reality - and simultaneously - places a greater responsibility on us (the West, the US, international organizations, what have you) to do something about those others who we foresaked.

[vy65]

All of these plus NGOs and so forth are preferable to putatively outmoded political states, why?

Truthfully, I don't know how I feel about the NGOs, simply because they're not constrained by the charters, proclamations, and other legal documents of the international organizations I listed. I'm not so sure you can simply roll those in with the list I gave.

The reason why international institutions are preferable is because they have the potential to move us beyond the political unit "nation-state" into something that is more inclusive. For Derrida, these institutions problematize the notion of state sovereignty by asking us to think of political organizations that do not revolve around the nation-state. As a starting point for a politics of an increasingly globalized 21st century, I'd say that begins to explain why it's preferable.

[vy65]

Also, some more quackery from Derrida:

Is he pulling this out of his arse? Why not use percentages instead of raw numbers? Even when using raw numbers, I would think that times of the black plague and others may rival it.

Additionally, what about the degree of suffering? Hardship? Toil? Is Derrida arguing that all of these are greater than in the past?

Keep in mind this is being translated from French, so that may not necessarily be what he means. But I dunno the original French, so I'm guessing here.

[vy65]

Not as farcical as the appearance of a doctrinaire Derridean in this forum.

(Guffaw!)

I'm pretty ashamed tbh

[MannyIsGod]

I would argue moving past the nation state is far far less inclusive.

[vy65]

Which does what? Might as well point out that there is no "up" without "down", no "in" without "out".

What that means is that every political organization is founded on a violent act of exclusion - knowing what constitutes the "we" necessarily entails knowing what isn't a part of that "we." America's founding and the resultant extermination of the native population is an example.

I know that the rhetorical flourish can be annoying to some.


Which begs the question of how one is to "move beyond" these institutions. Your earlier Derrida post underlied that exclusivity is natural and world-wide. How does one get past "community"?"

Two things: 1) he concedes the impossibility of getting past conceptions like "community" and notes that exclusion is inevitable; 2) he posits that our ethical obligation is to work through said institutions despite such inevitability.


If said systems of oppression and violence bear the kernel of their own undoing, why does it require an outside influence to realize the undoing?

There is no outside influence. That's his point.

[vy65]

shows how much of a quack Derrida can be. He took a great idea (deconstruction) and then applied it everywhere he could, without limit. His splitting everything into this-or-that dichotomies is farcical.

He definately would think his philosophy attacks the notion that dichotomies are stable, matter of fact propositions. In fact, the quote you highlighted is meant to show that, by being responsible, we are at the same time irresponsible. In other words, embedded within "responsible action" is irresponsibility. He'd extrapolate that to show that there is no responsible-irresponsible dichotomy because irresponsibility is embedded within responsibility.

[Winehole23]

The reason why international institutions are preferable is because they have the potential to move us beyond the political unit "nation-state" into something that is more inclusive. Inclusion is an unqualified good?

For Derrida, these institutions problematize the notion of state sovereignty by asking us to think of political organizations that do not revolve around the nation-state. As a starting point for a politics of an increasingly globalized 21st century, I'd say that begins to explain why it's preferable.It does nothing of the sort. You can barely explain it yourself, except in sophomoric bromides: inclusion, globalization, perfectibility of international institutions.

[vy65]

Inclusion is an unqualified good?

I don't know the answer to that.



It does nothing of the sort. You can barely explain it yourself, except in sophomoric bromides: inclusion, globalization, perfectibility of international institutions.

I haven't read any of this shit for years, so cut me some slack. What haven't I been clear about? Keep in mind some of the vagueness is intentionally placed on his part ... but I have a feeling you're going to take an issue with that too.

[Winehole23]

His is a criticism of liberal democratic institutions - with the recognition that we have to work within them to move beyond them.You just described old-timey social democracy. Modernismo, bro.

[LnGrrrR]

That being said, I'm not a fan of your take on his reading of the Abraham story. He reads Abraham as being moral (i.e. obeying God) by being immoral (killing his son Isaac).

Which is my whole point. He implicitly states that obeying God is moral, ipso facto, prima facie, insert other Latin terms here.

Does he justify this point? If I don't already believe his premise, it renders the whole argument moot.


The point here is that one's responsibility to one moral order engenders irresponsibility to another; by obeying one moral command to do God's bidding, Abraham disobeys another moral command to not kill. Derrida uses this to show how responsibility "deconstructs" (I hate using that word) itself.

Of course, it's easy to deconstruct when you create a strawman.


For example, by intervening in Libya, we spend time, resources, manpower, etc... that could be used elsewhere. Selective intervention is our reality - and simultaneously - places a greater responsibility on us (the West, the US, international organizations, what have you) to do something about those others who we foresaked.

But that says nothing to the moral/immoral dichotomy in the first place, which I reject as false. You can't judge morality based off some fantastical premise.

It's much the same with the whole "Would you push someone into a bus to save 3 children?" morality question. In some frameworks, it's valid. For me, it holds no purpose, for either choice can be viewed as morally correct.

Using your argument, the most fair choice would be strict non-intervention: by not intervening anywhere that does not directly serve our interests, we do not burden ourselves with responsibility to others. Of course, some people would say that would be morally reprehensible, as we aren't using our greater resource to help.

The only sane AND moral answer therefore (in my eyes), is a rational policy that intervenes only when necessary, with the realistic expectation that some countries might be left out.

America does not have enough gum for every country in the world.

[Winehole23]

I haven't read any of this shit for years, so cut me some slack. Can't back up your own bs? Too bad.

[vy65]

You just described old-timey social democracy. Modernismo, bro.

il n'y a pas de hors-texte, bro.

[vy65]

Can't back up your own bs? Too bad.

Under the circumstances, I think I've done a fairly good job. Sorry if you disagree.

[LnGrrrR]

What that means is that every political organization is founded on a violent act of exclusion - knowing what constitutes the "we" necessarily entails knowing what isn't a part of that "we." America's founding and the resultant extermination of the native population is an example.

Again, by claiming that an act of exclusion is "violent" is begging the question. Humanity without exclusion is no longer humanity; it's part of what makes us what we are. Might as well argue that humanity has violently excluded itself from the act of growing wings, or violently excluded itself from growing another head, etc etc.

Extermination of native peoples is a completely different factor than the act of exclusion itself.


Two things: 1) he concedes the impossibility of getting past conceptions like "community" and notes that exclusion is inevitable; 2) he posits that our ethical obligation is to work through said institutions despite such inevitability.

And yet, you still follow him, while noting that he acknowledges something as an impossibility, but advises doing so anyways?

1) Growing another head using thought alone is an impossibility

2) That said, our ethical obligation is to work our hardest at achieving 1)

Makes about as much sense. His faulty premises lies in his faulty assumption that concepts like "community" are inherently immoral.

Yay! I can deconstruct Derrida! :p

[Winehole23]

il n'y a pas de hors-texte, bro.Go tell it to the Libyans.

[vy65]

Which is my whole point. He implicitly states that obeying God is moral, ipso facto, prima facie, insert other Latin terms here.

Does he justify this point? If I don't already believe his premise, it renders the whole argument moot.

He's looking at a particular moral order. Under that moral order - Christianity - I think that obeying God would be considered "moral, ipso facto, prima facie." But then again, I'm no Christian.


Using your argument, the most fair choice would be strict non-intervention: by not intervening anywhere that does not directly serve our interests, we do not burden ourselves with responsibility to others. Of course, some people would say that would be morally reprehensible, as we aren't using our greater resource to help.

I don't think that's not right - by not intervening, we condemn people to death by not helping out. I think his philosophy is centered around an argument for intervention - with the recognition that said intervention also engenders violence, death, etc... because, as you say, America does not have enough gum for everyone in the world.

[vy65]

Go tell it to the Libyans.

ok.

[LnGrrrR]

He definately would think his philosophy attacks the notion that dichotomies are stable, matter of fact propositions. In fact, the quote you highlighted is meant to show that, by being responsible, we are at the same time irresponsible. In other words, embedded within "responsible action" is irresponsibility. He'd extrapolate that to show that there is no responsible-irresponsible dichotomy because irresponsibility is embedded within responsibility.

He'd extrapolate that because he is a quack. :p:

Derrida did a good job of showing certain biases in the system, as well as some dichotomies that we do have in society. But as I said upthread, he then tried to break everything down into some "x has y and y has x and they are at conflict" scheme, which doesn't always work.

Said "responsible" action is only "irresponsible" if one has infinite resources and time. Otherwise, it's called "reality". In Derrida's world, there is NO way to be moral. Either you do nothing (which is immoral) or you do something (which is immoral, because you did X instead of Y). The only MORAL answer (doing everything) is obviously impossible. Which is why it's stupid.

[Winehole23]

Trying to lead the way for a new form of international morality through international organizations ignores that all countries are out to protect their vital interests and ignoring that and using a different approach is not going to make them follow but simply allow ones own interests to be overridden.Yep.

"Transcendent" international authority will be experienced as exclusion by the political community(s) it transcends. Hard to see how that's avoidable.

[LnGrrrR]

He's looking at a particular moral order. Under that moral order - Christianity - I think that obeying God would be considered "moral, ipso facto, prima facie." But then again, I'm no Christian.

That's because the whole "God=moral" thing is flawed. It's like me showing you a bike with no seat, and saying, "This bike has no seat, and can't be ridden, demonstrating that bicycles can be both ridden and not ridden."


I don't think that's not right - by not intervening, we condemn people to death by not helping out. I think his philosophy is centered around an argument for intervention - with the recognition that said intervention also engenders violence, death, etc... because, as you say, America does not have enough gum for everyone in the world.

That argument only works if you accept his premise that, by intervening in one place, we are immoral for not intervening in all places, which I've rejected already.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I would love to see a case made for there being genocide in Libya.

Kadahfi said on state TV that he was going to go house to house in Benghazi and kill anyone in there.

I guess that not technically genocide but it is along those same lines. Thats what precipitated the Arab League to action because it pissed off the entire region.

[vy65]

He'd extrapolate that because he is a quack. :p:

Derrida did a good job of showing certain biases in the system, as well as some dichotomies that we do have in society. But as I said upthread, he then tried to break everything down into some "x has y and y has x and they are at conflict" scheme, which doesn't always work.

Said "responsible" action is only "irresponsible" if one has infinite resources and time. Otherwise, it's called "reality". In Derrida's world, there is NO way to be moral. Either you do nothing (which is immoral) or you do something (which is immoral, because you did X instead of Y). The only MORAL answer (doing everything) is obviously impossible. Which is why it's stupid.

Truthfully, what I haven't mentioned is the whole Levinas angle - the philosopher whose work he's building on. I'd rather not get into that, but we can, but Derrida's operating from a baseline that one has an infinite obligation to others.

We can get into that if you want, but that's his baseline.

[vy65]

Yep.

"Transcendent" international authority will be experienced as exclusion by the political community(s) it transcends. Hard to see how that's avoidable.

That's a problem - and one that he recognizes is present in his idea.

That being said, isn't there a distinction between the state's that would resist participation and the people? Isn't that like equating the rebels in East Libya with Quadafi?

[MannyIsGod]

Kadahfi said on state TV that he was going to go house to house in Benghazi and kill anyone in there.

I guess that not technically genocide but it is along those same lines. Thats what precipitated the Arab League to action because it pissed off the entire region.

You can't be serious about the 2nd part, Fuzzy. Half the Arab League is killing their own civilians. They are using Kadahfi as a sacrificial lamb because they've never liked him but to claim the Arab League is in this for humanitarian reasons is just not correct.

[LnGrrrR]

Truthfully, what I haven't mentioned is the whole Levinas angle - the philosopher whose work he's building on. I'd rather not get into that, but we can, but Derrida's operating from a baseline that one has an infinite obligation to others.

We can get into that if you want, but that's his baseline.

Which is what I object to in the first place. What good is a moral framework that is impossible to fulfill?

[MannyIsGod]

You can't be serious about the 2nd part, Fuzzy. Half the Arab League is killing their own civilians. They are using Kadahfi as a sacrificial lamb because they've never liked him but to claim the Arab League is in this for humanitarian reasons is just not correct.

You might be able to make that reasoning for totalitarian regimes but not for democracies.

[MannyIsGod]

Which is what I object to in the first place. What good is a moral framework that is impossible to fulfill?

Intellectual masturbation.

[vy65]

Which is what I object to in the first place. What good is a moral framework that is impossible to fulfill?

This is hard to explain, but the good comes not in achieving the goal, but in fighting. Perfection is unattainable, sure, but there is something, noble, ethical, etc... in trying to get there.

[vy65]

Intellectual masterbation.

Solid take :tu

[MannyIsGod]

Solid take :tu

Serious question, are you a philosophy student?

[Winehole23]

ok.Seriously. I dare you to tell them that getting slaughtered by Gaddafi or bombed by the US is an interpretive matter, that there is no "outside the text."

[vy65]

Serious question, are you a philosophy student?

Nope.

[vy65]

Seriously. I dare you to tell them that getting slaughtered by Gaddafi or bombed by the US is an interpretive matter, that there is no "outside the text."

I'll get right on it.

[vy65]

Serious question, are you a philosophy student?

Why's that relevant anyway? Weren't you complaining about making things personal a couple days ago?

It still doesn't make complaining about something as intellectual masterbation any less shitty of a take.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can't be serious about the 2nd part, Fuzzy. Half the Arab League is killing their own civilians. They are using Kadahfi as a sacrificial lamb because they've never liked him but to claim the Arab League is in this for humanitarian reasons is just not correct.

You really do not follow foreign policy.

I am not kidding about the 2nd part. I said nothing about their motivations to reacting to Kadhafi's statements.

I know those autrocratic states consider their own powers first.

Did you ever stop and think why the Arab League signed off?

It certainly was not because allowing the west to intervene in another autocrats country sets a good precedent for future relations.

The internet and al-jazeera are changing the middle east. The social control that these regimes have been ablet o force through propaganda and shutting off outside influences is over.

The majority of the middle eastern population supports the Libyan rebels and all of these autocrats are so worried about uprisings in their own country they signed off on it.

i am sure Bahrain wanted to get some heat off their own mess.

What i do not get is why you think that matters.

The bottom line is that the Arab League and NATO sans Germany asked us to intervene.

Holding up the American revolution as an example of how nonintervention is justified jsut goes to show how little context you are going by.

Without French intervention Washington, Adams, et al. do not make it to 1779.

We are a country directly because a world power stepped in and got involved.

Then there is the whole barbary coast historical context of tripoli but hey just make shit up and people have no idea of history so we will get it to stick it seems.

[vy65]

Seriously. I dare you to tell them that getting slaughtered by Gaddafi or bombed by the US is an interpretive matter, that there is no "outside the text."

And that's not even the point. You claimed what I was saying as rank modernism. I fail to understand 1) why saying you have to work within the institutions = modernism 2) what you mean by "modernism" and 3) why my position is untenable, unstrategic, bad, etc...?

How you get from that to Libyan intervention and Quadafi, I honestly don't know.

[Winehole23]

Far be it from me to deprive you of your dimly recalled and barely coherent sophomorism. You can keep it.

[vy65]

Far be it from me to deprive you of your barely coherent and dimly recalled sophomorism. You can keep it.

ok.

[MannyIsGod]

Why's that relevant anyway? Weren't you complaining about making things personal a couple days ago?

It still doesn't make complaining about something as intellectual masterbation any less shitty of a take.

Did you feel insulted by the question? I was just curious.

It wasn't a shitty take, IMO. You disagree with it because you value the philosophy but I stand that ideologies and philosophies with no value in the real world are good for little more than intellectual masturbation. There's plenty of that in this forum so its not a big deal.

[vy65]

Did you feel insulted by the question? I was just curious.

It wasn't a shitty take, IMO. You disagree with it because you value the philosophy but I stand that ideologies and philosophies with no value in the real world are good for little more than intellectual masturbation. There's plenty of that in this forum so its not a big deal.

Fair enough. And I wasn't insulted - just wondering where you were coming from.

[MannyIsGod]

You really do not follow foreign policy.


Alright man, this is the 3rd time you've gone down this road. If you want to lob ad hominem at me go ahead but I'm far from WC and I'm not as ignorant as you want to paint me here.



I am not kidding about the 2nd part. I said nothing about their motivations to reacting to Kadhafi's statements.


There motivations are certainly an important part of the equation and they have to be taken into account whether you mentioned them or not.



I know those autrocratic states consider their own powers first.

Did you ever stop and think why the Arab League signed off?
[quote]

Um, hello? See above.

[quote]
It certainly was not because allowing the west to intervene in another autocrats country sets a good precedent for future relations.


Its not about precedent. The precedent for US and Western intervention was set long before this conflict. Its about deflecting pressure from their internal struggles outside and to make it seem as if they are behind change. You can't possible take anything the Arab League does seriously regarding this situation considering what they do at home.



The internet and al-jazeera are changing the middle east. The social control that these regimes have been ablet o force through propaganda and shutting off outside influences is over.


Maybe so but that doesn't mean they're all of a sudden going to stop trying.



The majority of the middle eastern population supports the Libyan rebels and all of these autocrats are so worried about uprisings in their own country they signed off on it.


Obviously - but its to deflect pressure and not because they actually believe in the humanitarianism.



i am sure Bahrain wanted to get some heat off their own mess.

What i do not get is why you think that matters.


You don't think its important to analyze the motivations of an action ?



The bottom line is that the Arab League and NATO sans Germany asked us to intervene.

Holding up the American revolution as an example of how nonintervention is justified jsut goes to show how little context you are going by.

Without French intervention Washington, Adams, et al. do not make it to 1779.

We are a country directly because a world power stepped in and got involved.


This is a fair point, but it also ignores the context of modern intervention and how it has failed spectacularly in most cases.





Then there is the whole barbary coast historical context of tripoli but hey just make shit up and people have no idea of history so we will get it to stick it seems.

Modern intervention is both extremely expensive and doesn't work very often. I'd love to see the case of how a very weak and losing rebel force in a civil war is a good candidate for intervention because so far no one has made one.

[LnGrrrR]

This is hard to explain, but the good comes not in achieving the goal, but in fighting. Perfection is unattainable, sure, but there is something, noble, ethical, etc... in trying to get there.

Poppycock and rubbish.

You can't say "the good is in doing something" and then simultaneously call it immoral.

That's not even touching the stupidity of trying to achieve the impossible (as opposed to the highly improbable).

[LnGrrrR]

Shoot, is Derrida's goal of "non-community" even believable? Desirable? Achievable? I'd say no to all three.

[LnGrrrR]

We are a country directly because a world power stepped in and got involved.


One thing you left out, though, is that 1) the French had something to gain from our independence, as it would directly hurt a rival and 2) the French really hated the British.

I don't think either of the two applies to this case.

[LnGrrrR]

It wasn't a shitty take, IMO. You disagree with it because you value the philosophy but I stand that ideologies and philosophies with no value in the real world are good for little more than intellectual masturbation. There's plenty of that in this forum so its not a big deal.

+googolplex

[LnGrrrR]

Bumping so VY doesn't miss this.

[vy65]

Miss what?

I don't think I'm going to change the world or anything - that's why I didn't go to grad school. But saying this shit has no practical effect is an exageration.

Whether this shit is desireable, attainable, etc... is up for debate. I presented a side of it - and you have your opinion. What more do you want from me?

[vy65]

Poppycock and rubbish.

You can't say "the good is in doing something" and then simultaneously call it immoral.

Why not?


That's not even touching the stupidity of trying to achieve the impossible (as opposed to the highly improbable).

That's the argument - and I agree with it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but you haven't really said much other than "Dats stoopid."

[Wild Cobra]

According to Her Thighness, we are doing this to save lives. With the sides more equally matched, more lives will be lost rather than would over a swift win over the rebels.

[ChumpDumper]

Did you think up that cute little nickname all by yourself?

[LnGrrrR]

Whether this shit is desireable, attainable, etc... is up for debate. I presented a side of it - and you have your opinion. What more do you want from me?

You seemed to be of the opinion that Derrida is correct.

In that case, is there ANY action America can take that would be moral without also being immoral?

[LnGrrrR]

Why not?

Because there's no point in determining morality if said morality is impossible.

If each choice also produces immorality, there is no 'moral' choice.


That's the argument - and I agree with it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but you haven't really said much other than "Dats stoopid."

That's because it is eminently stupid. Should I have to argue about why 2+2=4, as well?

His system of thought works well in small doses, but when applied to everything, falls apart at the seams.

Derria is a critic that doesn't create. He pokes at the flaws in others logic, but doesn't try to provide a complete worldview of his own. (Which makes sense, as the little I've read that he does espouse doesn't stand up to its own internal logic either.)

[LnGrrrR]

Don't get me wrong; I think Derrida's work in language/interpretation of text is pretty good. I just don't think that means you can apply some false dichotomy to every facet of life.

[MannyIsGod]

Did anyone else want to know more about the cost of this intervention? Considering this intervention likely wiped out even the most draconian cuts envisioned by the Republicans in the House of Representatives, how the hell are we supposed to both carry out these kinds of military interventions and pay for them? You know what leadership is? Leadership is announcing to every American that their 2011 taxes will go up by $10 per person in order to pay for what we have done. Leadership is making sure people understand that in these times, you cannot have both guns and butter unless you are willing to pay for both.

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/03/presidents-speech-libya.html

[LnGrrrR]

That's kinda the point.

While it may be a moral imperative to relieve suffering, that is obviously limited by real world resources.

So, given a finite amount of resources, what is one to do?

Here are some big moral questions that you haven't answered yet:

Does the international community have the resources to combat genocide anywhere and everywhere?

Does America have the resources to combat genocide anywhere and everywhere if the international community won't participate?

Is America obligated to help combat genocide, even if we don't have the resources to effectively fight it?

Is there a possibility that fighting genocide might have unintended negative consequences?

Finally, is it moral to take resources from American people to further aims that may provide little to no benefit to the American people?

Still wondering if VY could answer these in his own terms, rather than reply back with an esoteric philosophical quotation.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess nobody disagrees with my last statement, huh?

[Winehole23]

I take it you disagree with Sec'y Clinton: more lives will be lost because of our intervention, than would have died had we left well enough alone. Correct?

[Wild Cobra]

I take it you disagree with Sec'y Clinton: more lives will be lost because of our intervention, than would have died had we left well enough alone. Correct?
Did she say that?

If so, I misunderstood her words because that is my assessment as well.

I'll have to look again now. I though she said this was a necessary action to save lives.

[Winehole23]

No no, that's what I thought you were saying.

[Winehole23]

Maybe I got a wire crossed. Do you agree with Clinton, that US intervention will save lives, or were you saying more lives will be lost because of it?

[LnGrrrR]

It was worded somewhat awkwardly.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe I got a wire crossed. Do you agree with Clinton, that US intervention will save lives, or were you saying more lives will be lost because of it?

I'm saying more lives will be lost because of it.

[Winehole23]

My snap take on that is you're probably right.

[Winehole23]

Another elective war of indeterminate length and objectives, waged against a country that neither attacked nor threatened us, and in which no vital national interest is at stake, is so not what we needed right now.

[Wild Cobra]

My snap take on that is you're probably right.
My opinion...

Right or wrong, the rebels were easily outnumbered. It would have been a quick decisive victory for Kadhafi. Now that the battlefield is leveled, I see a long drawn out civil war occurring and more regional destabilization than if we all just sat back and ate popcorn.

I'm no fan of Kadhafi, but I like the devil I know better than the one who will likely replace him. Too many radical forces influencing the populace to start this rebellion. I don't see true democratic forces in play, but rather, using democratic words as a way for world acceptance.

Think about this for a moment. If Kadhafi is overthrown, who will replace his sorry ass?

[Winehole23]

I have no idea. I doubt our government has any good idea. Maybe we've got some stooges we'd like to install there.

[Wild Cobra]

I have no idea. I doubt our government has any good idea. Maybe we've got some stooges we'd like to install there.
Maybe, but it seems there is no plan. Right or wrong, at least we had stated goals for Iraq. What goals have anyone stated over Libya that does not set the stage for a long drawn out civil war?

[Winehole23]

The heavy emphasis on air power might tend to actually produce the humanitarian crisis that was our ostensible pretext for getting involved in the first place. Maybe it already has.

[Winehole23]

Maybe, but it seems there is no plan. Right or wrong, at least we had stated goals for Iraq. What goals have anyone stated over Libya that does not set the stage for a long drawn out civil war?Vague humanitarian bullshit, like Iraq.

[Marcus Bryant]

Another elective war of indeterminate length and objectives, waged against a country that neither attacked nor threatened us, and in which no vital national interest is at stake, is so not what we needed right now.

At least the administration put on the pretext of being against it before it was for it, I guess.

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe, but it seems there is no plan. Right or wrong, at least we had stated goals for Iraq. What goals have anyone stated over Libya that does not set the stage for a long drawn out civil war?

I guess they could just say there are WMD's in Libya... :stirpot:

[Marcus Bryant]

I guess they could just say there are WMD's in Libya... :stirpot:

Looks like they went with the 'we're tired of this asshole so let's just take him out once and for all' rationale.

[LnGrrrR]

Looks like they went with the 'we're tired of this asshole so let's just take him out once and for all' rationale.

So... they ARE using the same rationale as the Iraq War? :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

I think that was the initial rationale. Or perhaps it was the third.

[Winehole23]

Upholding international law --> WMDs --> moral responsibility to rid Iraq of a brutal dictator --> spreading democracy and universal human rights, as I recall.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/shock-and-waugh/


He rejected the notion that Western leaders—because they had nice smiles and wore nice suits and had come to power through democratic elections—were necessarily more virtuous than the heads of other nations. “The main trouble with our limited democracy is the scope it gives to the power maniacs in society to impose their bossy urges and fatuous opinions,” he wrote. “It may be lovely for bossy people who like deciding how the rest of us should live, but it is hell for those at the receiving end.”

The basic problem, according to Waugh, was that politics attracts all the wrong people. “Politics is for social and emotional misfits. The purpose of politics is to help them overcome their feelings of inferiority and compensate for their personal inadequacies in the pursuit of power.” By contrast, the people who would make the best leaders have no interest in public office—they are far too nice and modest to think they should have authority over others.

[Winehole23]

Man is neither angel nor beast; and the misfortune is that he who would act the angel acts the beast.

[Marcus Bryant]

Or, politics and governance are the natural results of high school student council.

[Winehole23]

Another open ended war with no military solution?


NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Tuesday he would not guess how long the alliance's military mission would last in Libya, but there could be no solely military solution.

Speaking after an international coalition pledged to continue military action against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and agreed to set up a contact group to coordinate political efforts, Rasmussen urged all parties to seek a political solution as soon as possible.


"I am not going to guess," he told Reuters when asked how long the NATO mission could last and whether it could become a financial burden for alliance states on top of their long commitment in Afghanistan.


http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE72S29720110329?sp=true

[Winehole23]

(http://www.wired.com/dangerroom)
NATO is taking command of the Libya war. But the real strategy for victory over Moammar Gadhafi is found on the airwaves above Libya: communications frequencies telling his commanders to simply give up fighting. If that sounds like hope masquerading as a plan, then you’re receiving the message loud and clear.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/u-s-plan-to-end-libya-war-hope-the-generals-quit/

[RandomGuy]

(http://www.wired.com/dangerroom)http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/u-s-plan-to-end-libya-war-hope-the-generals-quit/

Standard psy-ops. I think the journalist was using something normally done in the course of any conflict with a "strategy" because of his/her dislike of the engagement.

The article's premise is fatuous, IMO. If one wants to criticise it there are plenty of other valid criticisms without making stuff up. :lol

[Winehole23]

I see no coherent war aims or strategy. Perhaps you will be so kind as to point them out for me.

[LnGrrrR]

Standard psy-ops. I think the journalist was using something normally done in the course of any conflict with a "strategy" because of his/her dislike of the engagement.

The article's premise is fatuous, IMO. If one wants to criticise it there are plenty of other valid criticisms without making stuff up. :lol

I was going to say this too. America (and I'm sure other nations) always engage in some sort of propaganda. I believe that in Desert Storm/Shield they dropped flyers saying to give up, and where soldiers could go to surrender, and that they would be provided with food, water, safety, shelter, etc etc.

Of course, I'd like to think that our psy-ops were perhaps more subtle. But I don't know what works best for propaganda purposes.

[Marcus Bryant]

Maybe they need to distribute some of those cool recruiting commercials.

[Winehole23]

If one wants to criticise it there are plenty of other valid criticisms without making stuff up. :lolI've recently posted a few less flippant criticisms of this shitty little war, if you care to read them.

[LnGrrrR]

I see no coherent war aims or strategy. Perhaps you will be so kind as to point them out for me.

Are you talking about strategy or tactics? RG and I were discussing the former (psyops being a tactic) moreso than how effective it might be able to accomplish the latter (ie. helping Libya.)

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe they need to distribute some of those cool recruiting commercials.

:lol Recruiting is definitely rooted deep into propaganda... and the commercials as well.

[Winehole23]

Are you talking about strategy or tactics? If there's no clear strategy, what good are tactics?

[coyotes_geek]

I see no coherent war aims or strategy. Perhaps you will be so kind as to point them out for me.

war aims = taking advantage of the opportunity to use a civil war to take out a bully who we don't get along with.

war strategy = under the guise of "protecting Libyans", bomb the shit out of the "bad" Libyans so that the "good" Libyans will have an easier time killing them off.

[LnGrrrR]

If there's no clear strategy, what good are tactics?

Eh, I think we can discuss kinds of tactics in a vacuum, of sorts. But yes, if there's no clear strategy, tactics can't be of great use.

That said, criticizing the tactics seems silly when you actually want to criticize the strategy.

[Winehole23]

False dilemma. I don't see why both can't come in for ridicule.

[LnGrrrR]

False dilemma. I don't see why both can't come in for ridicule.

Eh, I don't really think it's a false dilemma. Sure, you can ridicule both, but it would be nice if the journalist provided more clarity; does he think psyops in general is useless? Or does he think that the way they are using psyops in this campaign is useless/poorly thought out?

At best, all I can sum up is him saying, "If asking them to quit is the best we have, that's a poor strategy!" Which is a false argument as well; just because we're using propaganda and telling them to quit doesn't mean that's what we're "reduced" to using. It may be an effective tactic. The journalist doesn't bother to do the research to see whether or not that tactic has been used before, used succesfully or unsuccesfully, etc etc.

If he's going to ridicule it, he should at least make it clear to the reader why he's ridiculing it.

[Winehole23]

His mocking flippancy befits the care and consideration that went into what appears to be a half-cocked and largely improvised war of choice, imho.

[Winehole23]

The action is open ended, our aims unclear, our tactics muddled. The results are likely to be inconclusive even if we do oust Qaddafi, leading to another protracted peacekeeping/nation building effort and more Americans killing bad guys who never did anything to us, on behalf of good guys we don't know very much about, with civilians caught in the middle.

Sucks for us, sucks for them. Who wins?

[LnGrrrR]

His mocking flippancy befits the care and consideration that went into what appears to be a half-cocked and largely improvised war of choice, imho.

Again, that's all a comment on the war itself. That doesn't say anything about whether said psyops tactic is useful or not. He assumes it is a last gasp measure, when we have no idea if it is or not.

[LnGrrrR]

The action is open ended, our aims unclear, our tactics muddled.

The tactics don't seem very muddled... no-fly zone air campaign, and bombing certain structures. The strategy behind it certainly can be.


The results are likely to be inconclusive even if we do oust Qaddafi, leading to another protracted peacekeeping/nation building effort and more Americans killing bad guys who never did anything to us, on behalf of good guys we don't know very much about, with civilians caught in the middle.

Agreed. But that doesn't really say anything about tactics.

I'm being a bit asinine here, but tactics, strategies and goals are all three different things. People tend to use the three interchangeably.

[Winehole23]

I'm being a bit asinine here, but tactics, strategies and goals are all three different things. People tend to use the three interchangeably.Perhaps you'd like to define them all for us so we can start to have a properly structured, precisely calibrated discussion.

[Winehole23]

Then maybe you clould explain to us how tactics can be effective at all without clear strategies and militarily achievable goals.

[LnGrrrR]

Perhaps you'd like to define them all for us so we can start to have a properly structured, precisely calibrated discussion.

Goal - Long term, overall vision. ie. (I want my company to achieve 20% more profitability by 2020.)

Strategy - The key ways you intend to realize that goal (ie. draw in more female clientel, appeal to younger demographics, etc etc)

Tactics - How you intend specifically to carry out those strategies (ie. purchase more books catering to women, update the store's layout to look more modern, etc etc)

That's the basic understanding I have of the three. usually, if it involves a clear, concrete action, it's a tactic. Sending out messages for leaders to quit would be a tactic, in order to accomplish a longer-term strategy (perhaps, in this case, to lessen morale among the Libyan military) to achieve an overall goal (help the rebels, we'll say.)

[LnGrrrR]

Then maybe you clould explain to us how tactics can be effective at all without clear strategies and militarily achievable goals.

Ultimately, without a good strategy or goal, even the best tactics will have limited impact.

But if you're upset with the goal, or strategy, why make a comment on a particular tactic? If he doesn't like the psyops tactic deployed, by all means comment on it. But the journalist does so from a position of ignorance; he assumes/implies that asking their leaders to quit is the best idea the military has. He says nothing to the historical efficacy of psyops, and whether or not he disapproves of the tactics as a whole, or of the tactic in this particular situation.

[Winehole23]

But the journalist does so from a position of ignorance; he assumes/implies that asking their leaders to quit is the best idea the military has. I'm all ears.

[Winehole23]

The whole thing seems like a bad idea to me.

[Winehole23]

U.S. President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding," within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.


Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/President+Barack+Obama+authorizes+secret+support+r ebels+overthrow/4530415/story.html#ixzz1I7QyzvnT



http://www.vancouversun.com/news/President+Barack+Obama+authorizes+secret+support+r ebels+overthrow/4530415/story.html

[LnGrrrR]

I'm all ears.

I'm certainly not a walking dictionary on the effectiveness of psyops, but here are some examples from previous wars/confrontations/etc.

Here's a good article from Time about Psyops, which mentions the leaflet tactic.

From the link:





Military psyops has always been as much art as science. American armies have used psychological operations since the Revolutionary War. Psyops leaflets were passed out to British soldiers at the battle of Bunker Hill promising free land if they defected. Over the years, it gained a reputation as a black art, the stuff of Tokyo Rose and Nazi propaganda. But today's psywarriors are like Madison Avenue advertising executives — except they wear combat fatigues and jump out of planes.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,179827,00.html#ixzz1I7VsVm8T



So, the journalist suggesting that this is some sort of "last-ditch effort" doesn't quite ring true to my ears.

Whether THIS particular tactic (suggesting military leaders give up) is effective, I don't know. From reading the article, I'm assuming the journalist doesn't either.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's an example of TTP (Tactics, Techniques and Procedures).

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-302.pdf

Check Chapter 7 for a listing of different tactics. Of them, "surrender appeals" is explicitly listed under section 7-20.



Surrender Appeals

7-20. Surrender appeals are most effective against hostile forces that are degraded or surrounded or that have been exposed to other conditions that affect their will to fight. By inducing surrenders, the TPT can assist the supported commander by reducing the number of hostile forces he may have to face. Coordination must be conducted with the supported unit before executing a surrender appeal. The supported unit must be prepared to handle all hostile personnel who surrender. The members of the supported unit must also ensure that they adhere to any statements made to the TA.

Not too hard to find, if the journalist spend a modicum of time/effort researching it.

[Winehole23]

Surrender appeals are most effective against hostile forces that are degraded or surrounded or that have been exposed to other conditions that affect their will to fight. By inducing surrenders, the TPT can assist the supported commander by reducing the number of hostile forces he may have to face. Coordination must be conducted with the supported unit before executing a surrender appeal. The supported unit must be prepared to handle all hostile personnel who surrender. The members of the supported unit must also ensure that they adhere to any statements made to the TA. So then, based on these criteria, how effective were our appeals to Qaddafi's generals to surrender likely to be? Isn't it just possible that Wired's spit take was essentially correct?

[LnGrrrR]

So then, based on these criteria, how effective were our appeals to Qaddafi's generals to surrender likely to be? Isn't it just possible that Wired's spit take was essentially correct?

The journalist didn't seem to be talking about 'effectiveness' in this one instance, though. He seemed to imply that, by using surrender appeals, that US forces were out of other good ideas. The reality is most likely that the surrender appeals are not some last-gasp idea, but one tactic working in concert with others to demoralize the enemy.

As far as how good is it working, well that depends on how you define it. If you want to know how many enemy commanders actually surrendered, probably poorly. (Of course, the article doesn't ask nor answer that question.) But has it demoralized the combatants? Hard to say right now.

And even if it HASN'T worked, that doesn't mean it's useless to try. It's relatively cost-effective, and the negative consequences of it not working are limited. (The only real drawback is that it motivates the enemy to fight back harder.)

Again, if you re-read that article, surrender appeals and the like have worked before in history, and for quite awhile. I'm not sure about surrender appeals to higher echelon types, but it works well against those in the lower rungs of the military.

[Winehole23]

That's not really an answer to my question, but I appreciate the reply nonetheless.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not really an answer to my question, but I appreciate the reply nonetheless.

Short answer: If you're just looking at "how many generals surrendered" as your metric, then probably not very effective. (I doubt the govt will release numbers, especially so early into the conflict.)

That said, I still don't think the article was well-written. The authors implication was that such psyops showed desperation on our part, which is misleading.

[Winehole23]

It's a blog post. Calling it an article is a bit grandiose, and your charge that it is misleading rests on your own invidous gloss. What you call an imputation of desperation could just as easily be called one of cluelessness or stupidity.

[MannyIsGod]

It's a blog post. Calling it an article is a bit grandiose, and your charge that it is misleading rests on your own invidous gloss. What you call an imputation of desperation could just as easily be called one of cluelessness or stupidity.

Except its not. Its a low cost tactic used by the military. You know I hate this action just as much as anyone out there, but that doesn't mean LNGR is wrong in his critique of the post.

[Winehole23]

Doesn't mean he's right either. If the strategy sucks the tactics are out to lunch too.

[Winehole23]

The conditions (as outlined by LnGrrR upstream) likely to make the tactic effective arguably do not exist yet: Qaddafi's troops are not surrounded, not demoralized and are not significantly degraded relative to the insurrectionary forces they face. Moreover, those forces are weak, disorganized and are not a credible authority to which Qaddafi's generals could surrender.

[Winehole23]

That said, the Wired bit wasn't great analysis by any stretch, but deapite its flippancy it's plausibly correct. Before we have degraded or demoralized Qaddafi's troops, showering them with leaflets urging them to surrender amounts to a Hail Mary at best and at worst, only steels the resolve of the enemy.

[Winehole23]

"The so-called humanitarian raids have killed dozens of civilian victims in some neighborhoods of Tripoli," said Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli.http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=214560

[LnGrrrR]

The conditions (as outlined by LnGrrR upstream) likely to make the tactic effective arguably do not exist yet: Qaddafi's troops are not surrounded, not demoralized and are not significantly degraded relative to the insurrectionary forces they face. Moreover, those forces are weak, disorganized and are not a credible authority to which Qaddafi's generals could surrender.


That said, the Wired bit wasn't great analysis by any stretch, but deapite its flippancy it's plausibly correct. Before we have degraded or demoralized Qaddafi's troops, showering them with leaflets urging them to surrender amounts to a Hail Mary at best and at worst, only steels the resolve of the enemy.

That's a fine analysis, and if the author had said that, I wouldn't be complaining. Arguing that the tactic is being used ineffectively in this instance (ie, they aren't demoralized so it isn't working) is a decent argument. Saying "Our best solution is to just ask them to surrender? How dumb are we?" is not a good argument.

Edit: Just noticed, but the author gives some inkling that troops are already demoralized in the article.


Say this for the war, which NATO will soon run in its entirety: it appears to have given the rebels some oomph. For the first time since Gadhafi went back on the warpath in mid-March, they’ve retaken the eastern city of Ajdabiya, which loyalists attacked for over a week, and now claim to control Sirte, Gadhafi’s hometown, further west. Al Jazeera reports that Gadhafi’s forces, weakened by heavy coalition airstrikes, aren’t fighting: a “column of military vehicles including truck-mounted anti-aircraft guns” was spotted falling back “in the direction of Tripoli.”

[LnGrrrR]

Doesn't mean he's right either. If the strategy sucks the tactics are out to lunch too.

The problem is that it seemed to me the author implied the tactic itself was a weak one, not just in this instance, but as a tactic by itself. (Ie. Said tactic is useless/desperate in any situation.)

There are various tactics that ones uses to compete any strategy. Why focus on a relatively low-cost one? Why not critique the way that they are running the no-fly zone, for instance? I'd say that has much more bearing on the outcome of the situation.

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=214560

Interesting that you didn't bold THIS part of the article...


Also on Thursday, British Foriegn Secretary William Hague said the defection of Libya's former Foreign Secretary Moussa Koussa to Britain would encourage others close to Muammar Gaddafi to abandon the Libyan leader.

[lefty]

War sucks


Yeah I really went out on a limb on that one

[Winehole23]

Interesting that you didn't bold THIS part of the article...I'm frankly more concerned about the humans on the receiving end of our humanitarian bombing campaign than any evident progress toward establishing either a western satrapy or a hardline Islamic state in Libya. Besides, the defection relates only superficially to our discussion of tactics. Self-interested calculation, rather than US psyops, is the likely mover here.

[LnGrrrR]

It's a blog post. Calling it an article is a bit grandiose, and your charge that it is misleading rests on your own invidous gloss. What you call an imputation of desperation could just as easily be called one of cluelessness or stupidity.

If the writer doesn't clearly explain his reasoning for not liking the tactic, that's his own fault.

Rereading his article now, he is all over the map. Let's see...


If so, that’s a big reversal, right as NATO assumes command of both the no-fly zone and the airstrikes. Whereas once the loyalists did the besieging, now they might be preparing for a siege of Gadhafi’s capitol. No wonder the call for defections is ringing out.

But that’s the only endgame that Clinton and Gates articulated. And NATO’s announcement that it’ll take over the war stopped short of measures to directly tip the military balance on the ground.

So he assumes that asking the generals to give up is the 'last plan' we have for the rebels to win. It's right there.

Then, further in the article:


But it’s an open question whether the poorly trained and outgunned rebels can defeat Gadhafi’s mechanized forces, even if they march all the way to Tripoli. For what it’s worth, the top U.S. intelligence official assessed that Gadhafi’s military was simply too strong, although that was before the U.S. and its allies launched the war. That sets up a stalemate on the ground, with NATO planes flying over the protracted war.

I don't think he realizes exactly what air power can do. His assumption that there is a "stalemate" is incorrect. Along with the no-fly zone is the "plus"... the US is also hitting communication towers, which severely hurts any modern military. Communications is a force multiplier; it allows rapid decision making in the face of crises. Without that comm, groups are isolated and may not work in a coordinated fashion, severely limiting their effectiveness.

Finally, if Gadhafi's forces ARE being sieged, the author doesn't mention anything about "starving out" Gadhafi's forces, cutting the supply lines to the military, or any number of tried-and-true methods that could also be considered part of the "end-game".

[LnGrrrR]

I'm frankly more concerned about the humans on the receiving end of our humanitarian bombing campaign than any evident progress toward establishing either a western satrapy or a hardline Islamic state in Libya. Besides, the defection relates only superficially to our discussion of tactics. Self-interested calculation, rather than US psyops, is the likely mover here.

Are we moving some goalposts here? Earlier you decried the usage of the psyops, asking how many people high up have defected. Now we have one, and you dismiss the psyops, saying it was likely self-motivation, as if the two couldn't be used together. That's the point of psyops, to demotivate/demoralize the enemy into surrendering. It does so by giving the surrendering party reason to surrender (ie self-interested calculation).

Now, I don't know why he defected, or whether psyops had to do with it. But let's not move goalposts.

And if you're concerned about humanitarian bombing, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with the overall tactic of psyops, or psyops deployed in this war.

That's like saying, "I don't believe it's moral to eat meat. Also, there's no point in using marinade."

[Winehole23]

So he assumes that asking the generals to give up is the 'last plan' we have for the rebels to win. It's right there.Not exactly. All he did was take war propaganda at its word. Perhaps that was naive.

Look, I'm not really invested in defending a crummy little blog post. I thought it highlighted what to date has been an incoherent, improvised and frankly incoherent intervention to date.

Tear it to pieces; I'll not defend it.

[Winehole23]

Are we moving some goalposts here? Earlier you decried the usage of the psyops, asking how many people high up have defected. I asked no such thing. And all I did was make fun of a particular tactic. I did not deride psyops as such. Exaggerate much?:lol

Now we have one, and you dismiss the psyops, saying it was likely self-motivation, as if the two couldn't be used together.Laughably naive in this case, but you're welcome to think so.

But let's not move goalposts.What goalposts? I have a number of objections to our intervention. Am I restricted to talking about one thing at a time? Absurd.

And if you're concerned about humanitarian bombing, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with the overall tactic of psyops, or psyops deployed in this war.I have no objection to psyops as such, or in principle even to such silliness as leaflet bombs. But I think I'm allowed to point out the silliness.

[LnGrrrR]

Not exactly. All he did was take war propaganda at its word. Perhaps that was naive.

Did he quote any general saying that surrender appeals were the military's last plan? If so, I missed it.


Look, I'm not really invested in defending a crummy little blog post. I thought it highlighted what to date has been an incoherent, improvised and frankly incoherent intervention to date.


Could've fooled me, what with the two pages of replies or so. :)

And if you think the intervention is poorly managed, incoherent, etc etc, that's a whole different topic than the effectiveness of surrender appeals, either in this conflict alone or in historical usage.

[Winehole23]

Could've fooled me, what with the two pages of replies or so. :)The surrender appeals thing is a sidebar, one of little importance and slight interest to me. I kept up my side of the conversation mainly as a personal courtesy to you.

[Winehole23]

Did he quote any general saying that surrender appeals were the military's last plan? If so, I missed it. I said it was sloppy, even called it crummy. Not sure I could be any more emphatic.

[Winehole23]

Maybe you'd like me to delete the post?

[LnGrrrR]

I asked no such thing.

Really?


So then, based on these criteria, how effective were our appeals to Qaddafi's generals to surrender likely to be? Isn't it just possible that Wired's spit take was essentially correct?

That certainly seems to ask how effective psyops were at accomplishing their goal. Then, when I pointed out that one person had defected (in the article you linked to), you then put it on self-calculation.

Heck, if you're going to do that, then psyops are NEVER effective, because you can always rationalize a different reason for any enemy surrendering, no?


Laughably naive in this case, but you're welcome to think so.

If anything is laughable, it's your idea that psyops isn't effective because people surrendered due to self-interests.


What goalposts? I have a number of objections to our intervention. Am I restricted to talking about one thing at a time? Absurd.

Whoever said you're limited to one thing? I didn't. But if you're going to focus on one particular tactic, and make fun of it, then you should at least have some sort of knowledge about it. Which I provided even, free of charge.


I have no objection to psyops as such, or in principle even to such silliness as leaflet bombs. But I think I'm allowed to point out the silliness.

What's silly is that you find surrender appeals silly.

You say you're upset about deaths caused by bombing, which is one thing that surrender appeals are designed to limit. Surrender appeals aren't usually just for higher ups, they're for the ground troops too. (While the article asserts that the surrender appeals are for the higher ups, it doesn't say whether or not the rank and file are getting them too.)

By accepting surrender, we reduce enemy casualties while maintaining a moral upper hand by giving them an out before we start an attack.

Why you think that's "silly" is beyond me.

[LnGrrrR]

The surrender appeals thing is a sidebar, one of little importance and slight interest to me. I kept up my side of the conversation mainly as a personal courtesy to you.

How kind of you. And here I was, thinking I was educating someone who was indeed earnest in wanting to know the whys and hows of an aspect of military warfare.

If you don't want to waste time next go-round, you could just admit that the article was poorly written, and you don't have any knowledge of why surrender appeals are a rather effective tactic.

[Winehole23]

You're gettin carried away with this. I don't believe anything of the things you're inferring.

[LnGrrrR]

I said it was sloppy, even called it crummy. Not sure I could be any more emphatic.

Since you were the one who posted the article, I assumed you gave it some merit. I'm glad I could change your mind. :tu

[LnGrrrR]

You're gettin carried away with this. I don't believe anything of the things you're inferring.

A bit vague there. What "things" that I'm inferring don't you believe?

[Winehole23]

How kind of you. And here I was, thinking I was educating someone who was indeed earnest in wanting to know the whys and hows of an aspect of military warfare.I appreciate the info, even incorporated it into an argument. Thanks for filling me in on something I was ignorant of.

If you don't want to waste time next go-round, you could just admit that the article was poorly writtenI did. More than once. Please take the wax out of your ears.

(btw, I don't consider the time wasted. If you do, sorry.)

[Winehole23]

you don't have any knowledge of why surrender appeals are a rather effective tacticYou've not demonstrated this, but I can see how it's worth doing. I wasn't criticizing them in the abstract. You seem to have lost sight of this.

[Winehole23]

A bit vague there. What "things" that I'm inferring don't you believe?Asking how likely it is the tactic would be effective in this case is not tantamount to asking how many generals have surrendered, and criticizing the particular case, even ignorantly, does not amount to denouncing psyops as such. You're really starting to reach here.

Are you spoiling for a fight?

[Winehole23]

Since you were the one who posted the article, I assumed you gave it some merit. Honestly, I didn't much reflect on it before posting. That ever happen to you?

[LnGrrrR]

You've not demonstrated this, but I can see how it's worth doing. I wasn't criticizing them in the abstract. You seem to have lost sight of this.

Edit: Did you not read the Time article I linked to, describing the many uses of psyops/surrender appeals and how they were effective? In Desert Storm, for instance, they prevented many deaths.

Are you criticizing a specific way they are using the tactic? (For instance, you think they're using it too early?) That they're using the tactic at all? Or the intervention in general?

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5094780&postcount=169

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5094784&postcount=170

[Winehole23]

Short memory? Your fire seems to have unbalanced you.

[LnGrrrR]

Honestly, I didn't much reflect on it before posting. That ever happen to you?

Occasionally. I take a bit less time to backtrack/denounce though. :toast

[Winehole23]

So I didn't agree with you promptly enough? :lol

[Winehole23]

Called it flippant here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5094784&postcount=170

[Winehole23]

Expanded my criticism here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5094784&postcount=170

[LnGrrrR]

Asking how likely it is the tactic would be effective in this case is not tantamount to asking how many generals have surrendered, and criticizing the particular case, even ignorantly, does not amount to denouncing psyops as such. You're really starting to reach here.

Oh come now. You asked how effective psyops could be, without listing what criteria you thought would gauge it's effectiveness. I stated that, at the least, determining how many people surrendered (esp higherups) would be a good metric for determining psyops effectiveness. (I can quote the post, if you want.)

Then, when I pointed out that one higher-up surrendered already, you poopooed the idea that psyops had anything to do with it.

How do you think the effectiveness of psyops should be measured WH? What metrics would you use? Doyou require that all soldiers who surrender state openly and unequivocally, "I'm surrendering due to the appeals and not for personal self-interest!"?

[LnGrrrR]

So I didn't agree with you promptly enough? :lol

Essentially. :)

[LnGrrrR]

Both of your "criticisms" were couched with your own unfounded beliefs though. Let's see.


That said, the Wired bit wasn't great analysis by any stretch, but deapite its flippancy it's plausibly correct. Before we have degraded or demoralized Qaddafi's troops, showering them with leaflets urging them to surrender amounts to a Hail Mary at best and at worst, only steels the resolve of the enemy.

How do you know this? Do you have anything backing up your assertion? Why couldn't it just be one of a myriad of tools designed to help demoralize?


The conditions (as outlined by LnGrrR upstream) likely to make the tactic effective arguably do not exist yet: Qaddafi's troops are not surrounded, not demoralized and are not significantly degraded relative to the insurrectionary forces they face. Moreover, those forces are weak, disorganized and are not a credible authority to which Qaddafi's generals could surrender.

And yet, the surrender of that Secretary undermines this very argument, does it not? And if the troops are not demoralized, why does the article point out that Gadhafi's troops were shown fleeing from an engagement?

[Winehole23]

Face it: you got bent out of shape about a crappy little blog post. I acknowledged its crappiness the same day you complained about it. If that makes me a backtracker, so be it. I suppose you'd have preferred a foolish consistency.

[Winehole23]

Essentially. :)That's perfectly asinine.

[LnGrrrR]

Face it: you got bent out of shape about a crappy little blog post. I acknowledged its crappiness the same day you complained about it. If that makes me a backtracker, so be it. I suppose you'd have preferred a foolish consistency.

Your words and actions don't go together though; you call the article poor, but then state in your own words reasons why you think the tactic is ineffective, as evidenced by the post above. Are you saying now that you didn't put your own spin on what you thought of the tactic? That you didn't agree that the tactic was a "hail mary at best"?

I'm not bent out of shape; I'm merely educating. :)

[LnGrrrR]

That's perfectly asinine.

As is your unfounded opinion that surrender appeals are "silly". Unless you've changed your mind on that, as well.

[Winehole23]

How do you know this? Do you have anything backing up your assertion? Why couldn't it just be one of a myriad of tools designed to help demoralize?Sure, why not.

And yet, the surrender of that Secretary undermines this very argument, does it not? Maybe, maybe not. Beg the question much?

And if the troops are not demoralized, why does the article point out that Gadhafi's troops were shown fleeing from an engagement?Tide seems to have reversed since then. Does that undermine your argument?

[Winehole23]

You're not without recourse to a specious rationality either, hoss.

[Winehole23]

As is your unfounded opinion that surrender appeals are "silly". That's not my opinion. I meant to criticize an instance, not the tactic as such. The tactic is fine. I think I've emphasized that a couple of times now. If by some imprecision of phrasing I've left you with the opposite impression I disclaim it now and forever.

[Winehole23]

Jeez, you're hard headed. Don't you pay attention to what people say?

[LnGrrrR]

Sure, why not.

That's what I've been saying all along. I'm not the one saying that surrender appeals are a Hail Mary.


Maybe, maybe not. Beg the question much?

You're free to answer that psyops had no say, as you did upthread.


Tide seems to have reversed since then. Does that undermine your argument?

Not really. My argument all along has been that surrender appeals are just one tool in a big toolbox. If the tide has reversed, it could be due to any number of factors.

[LnGrrrR]

You're not without recourse to a specious rationality either, hoss.

Who isn't? :D

[Winehole23]

Fuck this shitty little war.

[Winehole23]

Defend the tactics all you want. They're making the humanitarian situation worse. So fuck the the whole lot of it.

[LnGrrrR]

That's not my opinion. I meant to criticize an instance, not the tactic as such. The tactic is fine. I think I've emphasized that a couple of times now. If by some imprecision of phrasing I've left you with the opposite impression I disclaim it now and forever.

Fair enough. Given your earlier posts:


I have no objection to psyops as such, or in principle even to such silliness as leaflet bombs. But I think I'm allowed to point out the silliness.

I assumed that you thought surrender appeals/leaflet bombs were silly in all instances. I think you'll agree that my take wasn't entirely unjustified. Regardless, disclaimer accepted.

[Winehole23]

I think you'll agree that my take wasn't entirely unjustified. Disagree. You selectively ignored fairly clear statements to reach the conclusion you did. Defending that now weakens your point, frankly.

[LnGrrrR]

Defend the tactics all you want. They're making the humanitarian situation worse. So fuck the the whole lot of it.

An understandable position. I haven't decided one way or the other; I'm not a fan of leaders committing genocide on their own people, but I also doubt our ability to affect long-term positive change.

[LnGrrrR]

Disagree. You selectively ignored fairly clear statements to reach the conclusion you did. Defending that now weakens your point, frankly.

Defending what now?

And I didn't see any clear statements that surrender appeals were an effective tactic; I remember seeing a lot of "probably/possibly" qualifiers. If I misread, mea culpa.

[Winehole23]

Having to repeat myself over and over, is annoying. But, my verbal precision was maybe lacking.

[LnGrrrR]

Having to repeat myself over and over, is annoying. But, my verbal precision was maybe lacking.

It's a character fault of mine, but when debating, I usually prefer clear, black and white statements if possible. It's why I repeat questions often; I don't like to argue a point if it isn't clearly defined. (Which is probably the main thrust of why I disliked the article/blogpost in the first place.)

[Winehole23]

(in time out)

[LnGrrrR]

I made my points cavalierly; you can't help being pedantic about that. I should have known better.

Being pedantic on this board is a near-requirement, I find. If it makes you feel any better, I do the same to everyone I argue with here. You can ask WC or DarrinS; I'm sure they'll back me up on my pedanticity. (sp?)

[MannyIsGod]

To be fair, one man's clear point is another man's Winehole post.

[Winehole23]

Being pedantic on this board is a near-requirement, I find. I don't think so. Vive la difference.

[MannyIsGod]

[T]he U.S. mission is aimed at the overthrow of Qaddafi. The U.S. is engaged in sophisticated propaganda operations urging Qaddafi’s troops to turn on him. And it’s reported that the U.S. is negotiating with Qaddafi about a secure exit from Libya.

In fact, the U.S. mission is as deeply concerned with European energy security as with the humanitarian crisis. Critics correctly point out that the US has managed to ignore many other humanitarian crises – and is in fact ignoring one right now in the Ivory Coast. This particular crisis is occurring in a country from which NATO ally Italy buys more than one-fifth of all its net oil imports and in which Britain has a very large investment. We are not going to war for oil. But we very rarely go to war without oil.

http://www.frumforum.com/the-real-libya-policy-obama-wont-admit

[Winehole23]

Let the Europeans fight if it concerns them so much. Besides a bunch of humanitarian hooey, why should it be our fight?

[Winehole23]

Frum gives a decent gloss of what the US strategy is, but no vital US interest is at stake.

[MannyIsGod]

Obviously it shouldn't. Our military is basically a mercenary outfit at the moment. We have the largest and most capable so we've been called upon to lead this action even if we have no fucking direct interest. I just have to wonder what we're getting out of it, don't you?

[vy65]

lol Derrida.

[LnGrrrR]

Obviously it shouldn't. Our military is basically a mercenary outfit at the moment. We have the largest and most capable so we've been called upon to lead this action even if we have no fucking direct interest. I just have to wonder what we're getting out of it, don't you?

Agreed that we are only in it because we have the capability. If we're a mercenary outfit, we're the least profitable mercenary outfit in the history of the world.

[MannyIsGod]

This gives credence to the reports that Hilary Clinton, the secretary of state, Susan Rice, the U.S. permanent representative to the U.N., and Samantha Power, N.S.C. senior director for multilateral affairs, led the charge to war specifically to avoid "another Rwanda." The latter two especially have been outspoken in their belief that the United States was wrong not to intervene to stop the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which the ethnic Hutu Interahamwe militia slaughtered some 800,000 fellow Rwandans in a few weeks while the world watched. One diplomat told Power she shouldn't let Libya become "Obama's Rwanda," according to the New York Times. Rwanda looms darkly in the liberal conscience as a powerful prod of guilt, whispering "Next time, do something. Do anything. Anything is better than nothing."

Liberals have a point about Rwanda. It was grotesque that troop-contributing countries actually withdrew their forces from the U.N. Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR), rather than beef it up with more resources and authority, as the genocide unfolded. (However, Power betrays her ignorance of military realities when she argued in her book, A Problem From Hell, that the U.N. could have stopped the genocide with the assets it had on the ground at the time).

But Libya is not Rwanda. Rwanda was genocide. Libya is a civil war. The Rwandan genocide was a premeditated, orchestrated campaign. The Libyan civil war is a sudden, unplanned outburst of fighting. The Rwandan genocide was targeted against an entire, clearly defined ethnic group. The Libyan civil war is between a tyrant and his cronies on one side, and a collection of tribes, movements, and ideologists (including Islamists) on the other. The Rwandan genocidiers aimed to wipe out a people. The Libyan dictator aims to cling to power. The first is murder, the second is war. The failure to act in Rwanda does not saddle us with a responsibility to intervene in Libya. The two situations are different.

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/30/libya_is_not_rwanda

[Winehole23]

I just have to wonder what we're getting out of it, don't you?I wonder too. What are we getting out of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[MannyIsGod]

We are only in it because we have the capability. If we're a mercenary outfit, we're the least profitable mercenary outfit in the history of the world.

It's a cylce: nations request our help, so we increase our capabilities. Then other nations see we've increased our capabilities, so they ask for help as well. It's at the point now that it's near-expected we'll help, due to how much we've invested. And of course, the military/civilian leadership needs to find ways to keep all these toys in use, or else suffer blowback for not using the items.

I never said we were a profitable mercenary outfit, LnG. :lol

With all due respect to you and those who serve, I do think the military is an extremely bloated tool that is misused to an extreme extent. I think the term mercenary outfit was a poor choice of words in retrospect, but I choose it because I could think of no other way to effectively hammer home just how ridiculous it is to use OUR military to protect the energy interests of Europe. I really makes you wonder WHY Obama is doing this. If we're in this because we were just sweet talked I'm even more upset and disappointed in our government but I do seem to think there is something in it outside of that.

Would our president trade our military services for something or was he just a gullible fool? I guess either is just as likely.

[MannyIsGod]

I wonder too. What are we getting out of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Afghanistan was an obvious response that for political reasons we just won't leave. Iraq was due to having the wrong people in charge of our government at the worst possible time and another place we won't leave for political reasons.

Perhaps Libya is more of the same of Iraq: The wrong person in charge at the wrong time, but I would think that Obama was smart enough to learn from the other two.

Its probably as simple as the fact that he didn't learn.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think so. Vive la difference.

This post is a bit late, but: another factor is debating online; one can't pick up the body language, inflection, etc etc.

[RandomGuy]

http://s3.credoaction.com.s3.amazonaws.com/comics/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/TMW2011-03-30colorlowres.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

I never said we were a profitable mercenary outfit, LnG. :lol

With all due respect to you and those who serve, I do think the military is an extremely bloated tool that is misused to an extreme extent. I think the term mercenary outfit was a poor choice of words in retrospect, but I choose it because I could think of no other way to effectively hammer home just how ridiculous it is to use OUR military to protect the energy interests of Europe. I really makes you wonder WHY Obama is doing this. If we're in this because we were just sweet talked I'm even more upset and disappointed in our government but I do seem to think there is something in it outside of that.

No offense taken. I agree that the military can be bloated, especially at the higher levels, where there's rarely accountability. There's tons of moral hazard in the military as well. (For instance, budget money: squadrons are allocated a certain amount of money in their budget. Near the end of the fiscal year, there's always a rush to spend the extra money leftover. Why? Because if squadron DON'T spend that money, then the powers-that-be will assume they can get by with less, and will budget accordingly. Always bothers me, and I try to realize cost savings where/when I can over my limited area of responsbility.)

Not to mention the very real fact that cutting off funding to some areas can absolutely threaten the lives of soldiers downrange.

I think the term "mercenary" has a (deserved) negative connotation, that one is just out for the money. That's pretty much the opposite of what our military does. I liken us much more to "world police" than mercenary.


Would our president trade our military services for something or was he just a gullible fool? I guess either is just as likely.

I don't think it's a "trade" for anything; I just think the idea of possible genocide weighs heavily on Obama, and he wants to do what he can to prevent that. Whether it's misguided or not is certainly up to debate. It's hard to say what one would do, given the power/resources, to have to decide whether to engage or not. I think most of us in this thread (myself, you and WH) are mostly isolationist, or at best, very dubious of world policing. That said, I don't think it can be easy at times, knowing that by not intervening you might possibly condemn people across the world to death.

[MannyIsGod]

Its quite possible Obama has a huge Rwanda button considering his personal history and I know Clinton has one given it happened on her husbands watch so she probably slammed down on Obama's after hers was pushed.

I guess it really is easy to see how it happened given the personal history of those two. Probably some dots I never really connected until now.

[Winehole23]

Its quite possible Obama has a huge Rwanda button considering his personal history and I know Clinton has one given it happened on her husbands watch so she probably slammed down on Obama's after hers was pushed.
Last night was a liberal expression of the same impulse that drives some people to insist that America is the greatest country in history. Where many mainstream conservative enthusiasts of American exceptionalism define that exceptionalism in terms of being the freest, most prosperous country or the one with the greatest social mobility, some liberals want to define it in terms of superior idealism or morality. It doesn’t make it any better if Obama conceives of this as a struggle (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-29/obamas-speech-presented-his-vision-of-american-exceptionalism/) to make America more idealistic and moral. In fact, it makes it worse in some ways. It’s one thing to recognize past American mistakes and crimes and vow never to do such things again, but it’s something else entirely to see the use of military force as an appropriate means to expiate past national sins.
Right now, if you’re a Libyan and you’re not on the side of the rebels, you have some good reasons to fear American planes overhead. Even anti-Gaddafi civilians in cities controlled by Gaddafi’s forces are going to have reason to be afraid of the gunships and tank-killers buzzing overhead. Restrictive rules of engagement, precision weapons, and training notwithstanding, all of the people living in Sirte and Tripoli have good reasons to be afraid. The ease with which humanitarian interventionists seem to forget that they are cheering on the deliberate killing of people who have done nothing to them and theirs is bad enough, but the notion that America is making great moral progress if it uses force to kill the right sorts of people for the right reasons, and especially when the conflict has nothing to do with us, is simply evil.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011/03/29/killing-our-way-to-a-better-america/

[Marcus Bryant]

Hesitancy to intervene is seen as either American weakness (the popular conservatism view) or American amorality (the popular liberal view). Despite all the drawbacks made clear by the Iraq invasion, Imperial America remains the reality and any desire to reduce or eliminate American interventionism is seen as either a throwback to traditional conservatism or, of course, the dreaded "isolationist" tag.

The problem with Iraq was not that it involved intervention, but rather that success was not quick and it quickly became a cluster. Or, the target and result rather than the act itself. From this perspective, quick success in Libya will only set the stage for future interventions, much like the memory of Gulf War I set the stage for Gulf War II.

One hopes, of course, for not another quagmire in Libya, but one should be concerned about the precedent it sets beyond.