Nothing says humanitarian like the aerial bombardment of population centers and the harrassment of retreating units.
Interesting to watch them attempt to draw the fine distinctions, though:
“There’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities,” [Hillary Clinton] said, “and police actions that frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”What a fucking catastrophe. What a nightmare. I am somewhat astonished to find myself proven wrong in one regard, however. I predicted that Obama would bring a certain cold-blooded competence to the business of empire, a managerial discipline that the sprawling, gaudy, sententious Bush junta lacked. I was wrong. In retrospect, Rumsfeld and Cheney and all the villains of that unlamented regime are beginning to look positively professional.
42 comments:
Yeah, NPR did a piece this morning on how they're now dropping bombs on civilians--I mean, on towns where "Qadaffi loyalists" (the bad guys, that is) are holed up. It's so predictable you might think they were following a script or something. But hey, somebody somewhere in Libya asked for "our" help, so I guess we gotta give it to 'em.
I think Ted Leo had a song about this, and by song I mean "career."
The incompetence you mention here is disappointing. I find myself disappointed repeatedly despite having expected so little.
In politics, you think you've found the bottom. But there's always a deeper, blacker bottom.
,.. feeling my way around here .. .the last thread was a ..don't do drugs ad ..right ? ..of both syn' and justin .. .
Why do you have to be so, like, ideological, IOZ?
From the same article: The [U.N.] resolution authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. It also called for an arms embargo that applies to the entire territory of Libya, which means that any outside supply of arms to the opposition would have to be covert. (my emph.)
Ah, the NYT! So brazen.
Darkness warsh'd over the Dude - darker'n a black steer's tookus on a moonless prairie night. There was no bottom.
i haven't quite figured out what the two scenarios Clinton is offering for comparison up there are specifically. not sure i want to know. is it some kind of veiled threat?
She was comparing Qaddafi to Bashar Assad. You see, Assad is a 'reformer' while Qaddafi is a 'dictator'. Bashar good; Qaddafi bad.
Well, of course they're professionals! They personally have been doing this for almost 50 years. And just because their names don't always come up in the papers anymore, it doesn't mean they aren't in the room.. They probably have McNamara's cadaver propped up in a chair also.
I couldn't finish the article.. makes me want to puke that there are people who believe this. I think your prediction was on the money. Bush made us laugh.. this guy is starting to look like a Haitian dictator.. How much longer until we start seeing him pin on a bunch of medallions, and Lieberman becomes supreme chancellor?
Question: is it more of a nightmare than the siege of the rebels in Misrata by the Libyan state? Why or why not? Either all states are evil and nightmarish or you're anti-imperialist first and foes of the state only secondarily if at all. In fact in your comments here and elsewhere there is more than a whiff of respect for state sovereignty, which is about as far from anarchism as one can possibly get.
Anarchists who do not cheer wars between states are secret statists. By contrast, wars by coalitions of powerful coalitions of states against weaker states are inherently anarchic enterprises. Oh, wow, what a well-formulated argument. Lemme retire to my study for a few decades to try to formulate an adequate response.
If you want to spend a few decades talking to yourself be my guest. That summary doesn't bear any resemblance to what I wrote.
you're anti-imperialist first and foes of the state only secondarily if at all.
This sentence is precious. I love that anarchism has such cachet that we need to distinguish between the truly anti-statist and the merely anti-imperialist. You're not a real anarchist unless you're railing against neighborhood associations, island nations whose sole exports are TLDs, and the Oneida commune.
Down with the Friends of the Library!
Well in this case one might want to distinguish between an anarchism and authoritarian nationalism, being as the premise of this post was lifted from the spokesman of one of the standard-bearers of that particular statist ideology.
Either all states are evil and nightmarish or you're anti-imperialist first and foes of the state only secondarily if at all.
This is untrue.
All states are evil, in that they violate the non-aggression axiom of moral conduct. So, I agree with there. But "nightmarish" is an aesthetic judgment, not moral. I would say that most states are not nightmares. Au contraire: they are depressingly mundane. Even USG is depressingly mundane in 90% of what it does.
The second half of your disjunction is also false. I am anti-imperialist because I am a foe of the nation-state. "War is the health of the state."
In previous posts I have seen you trash the NYTimes and it's readers, well deservedly, but now you are citing it. WTF? Over
Leonard, thanks for your response. I do see what you mean about "nightmarish," that's a fair point. But realize that I took my terminology from the top-post: if the aerial assault on Qaddafi's military infrastructure is a "nightmare," then in his formulation states are all nightmares. Nightmare and aggression are being equated, and as you add aggression is universal to states. That holds true for the Libyan government's siege of Misrata and it holds true for the U.S. missile strikes against the troops besieging Misrata. Both of them are equally evil and nightmarish, adjectives applied to aggression.
A disjuncture can't be false, it can only be invalid. If I hear you and IOZ correctly, all states are equally evil (and possibly nightmarish), and that drives your anti-imperialism in the case of Libya. So the proposition is actually valid.
All that said, don't you see a problem in having to borrow a situation analysis from the representative of one state aggressor (Qaddafi's spokesman) and reject a situation analysis from other state representatives (US newsmedia which describe this as an action against the Libyan government's instruments of violence)? In trying to formulate a position, you are drawn to the advocacy of one side or another simply by the arguments that you use.
I wouldn't bring this up, since it's an inevitable part of living in the world. Except that IOZ and his commentators (perhaps not you) spend quite a bit of energy pillorying non-conformists as stooges and enablers of the American state, when their stance is often equivocal in exactly the same way. They do not identify with it, except situationally, just as you do not identify with Qaddafi, except that at the moment it is his Libyan state institutions bearing the brunt of U.S. aggression.
i know it's hard because there are a number of people on here but who leveled the charge "enablers of the American state"?
the American state is what it is. it would undo a lot of what i've come to understand from discussions here to admit it was possible to for BLAWGers to "enable" the state.
try "enthusiasts for" in place of "enablers of."
But they are not enthusiasts for it any more than you are enthusiasts for Qaddafi. The accusation could just as easily be turned around on you, and with just as little justice.
Someone who argues that the U.S. state is habitually aggressive/evil but in this instance it is for complex reasons doing something one might approve of (mitigating the aggression of an authoritarian state) is not an "enthusiast" for statehood or for empire. Someone who argues that imperialism should be denounced because states are evil is not an "enthusiast" for authoritarian military regimes with bizarre post-colonial ideologies simply because in the particular case at hand it is such a regime that is bearing the brunt of the imperial adventure.
I do see what you mean about "enabling," though-- good point.
Logically speaking, a disjunction can be false. P or Q is false iff both P and Q are false. I think this is what you mean by invalid.
And no, I would not say all states are equally evil. True that they all engage in at least some evil actions. But there's plenty of room for distinction within the broad category of evil. I.e. the Holocaust was more evil than, say, USG forcing us to pay income taxes, even though both are equally violations of rights. (If you do not view taxation as a necessary evil, then feel free to substitute "denying our right to state-subsidized abortions", or whatever rights you may believe in.)
It may be problematic to "borrow a situation analysis from... one state aggressor... and reject a situation analysis from [another state aggressor]". I don't think that is necessarily true. A state can tell the truth, and individuals can come to know the truth. I don't see how, in this case, IOZ or anyone else is borrowing any analysis from anyone really. USG flagrantly admits what it is doing; that is what IOZ is criticizing. The Libyans don't have to complain about USG bombing them for us to know; USG admits it and they are proud of it! That is what Mrs Clinton means by “police actions that frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”
As for what drives my anti-imperialism, it is not the evil USG is perpetrating on Libyans. (That is objectionable, certainly, but then the world is full of evil.) Rather, what bothers me is the evil USG is perpetrating, and will perpetrate on me, my family, my nation, my country, and my civilization. The USG as currently constituted opposes the interests of every one of those groupings. Its health is my misfortune, and the misfortune of those I care about. Therefore I pray for its sickness, namely: peace and prosperity.
The empty arguers are drawn to IOZ these days.
So many words, so little said.
Quickly - by invalid, I mean a particular fallacy -- p or q is invalid if p and q. I see that you were falsifying the particular expression due to "nightmarish." In any case, thanks for the clarification of your views, I understand them better now.
@Clusterfuck: I was trying to be polite and get a better sense of your views. Would you prefer I parachuted in and said 'You morons are stuck in a rolling bukkake circle jerk, a game of guilt by association that turns around just as easily on you?' Would that be less empty? I'm not sure it's true, mind you, it's only my first impression.
Would it shock you to discover that no one cares? It's strange, really, the number of people who accuse IOZ of masturbating and then complain about that he isn't giving them a reach-around.
Actually the masturbation was irrelevant-- it's the guilt by association that I find puzzling/objectionable.
Only the guilty need fear the Association.
True. But maybe a reacharound for the guiltless? I do see your point.
It may be problematic to "borrow a situation analysis from... one state aggressor... and reject a situation analysis from [another state aggressor]".
Does this translate to:
"What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassins?"
There's an as yet unexplicit (as far as I've seen anyway) divergence among the IOZ commentariat between opponents of nation-state action and opponents of state action, period. Most of the latter group oppose military intervention as in Libya on its face. Many of the former group decry intervention on largely the same terms, but many others--- like Obama--- find ostensibly anti-imperialist moral comfort in military action authorized under regional, global, or "collective" auspices, as if for the good of the world's People.
A state that does nothing withers and dies.
"What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassins?"
Condemnassination.
A state that does nothing withers and dies.
I would certainly hope so
I would argue the ability to ruthlessly turn on a dime and brazenly lie about it *is* a Michaelesque demonstration "certain cold-blooded competence to the business of empire" This is, after all, strictly business - unlike the last time, where there was some personal stuff left over with it being pappy's unfinished business.
Aeolus pwn3d the fukk out of you "anarchists" lolololol
u mad?
Apparently we need to intervene (through bombing) because they were rounding up and throwing in jail teenagers that wrote graffiti on walls.
Inky, if enough people vote for something, it's right. Conversely, if you don't get to vote on a policy, it's probably wrong. It's wrong for a nation-state to kill random foreigners, because the victims don't get a say. But everyone gets to vote at the UN, so if the UN bombs your house you have to just accept the democratic outcome. Thus multilateral action via the UN can solve the vexing problem of "it's wrong to kill innocent people in a war". We can just tell the Libyan people: win some, lose some, you know? Gotta break some eggs for that juicy omelet of peace.
Don't let's forget that this war was initiated by a bona-fide Nobel Peace Prize winner. This guy, unlike Bush, will dot the i's and cross the t's before starting up with the killing.
i enjoy the President's .. Neville Chamberlain-like deference to the King of Bahrain. what is left for America, after all, but to play mercenary army for the House of Saud and their allied families?
Leonard---
That's the problem with the new (true?) Coalition of the Willing---its moral authority is at least as fallacious as good old fashioned American unilateralism. On its own terms, on subsequent occasions, it may be the civilian population of a Libya that needs to be killed off for Peace.
pacifists dont exist, anarchists or otherwise. Prof. Cole, says can be acknowledged and then moved along
why do they hate rwandan orphans?
Post a Comment