Log in

View Full Version : From Kasama: Libya -- Local Bloodsucker Weakens, Global Bloodsuckers Gather



kasama-rl
1st March 2011, 18:30
by Mike Ely (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/no-foreign-intervention.jpg) (first appeared on Kasama (http://kasamaproject.org/2011/03/01/libya-small-blood-sucker-weakens-global-blood-suckers-gather/#more-28385))




Over the last days there have been building threats of intervention by the U.S. and European powers in the affairs and events of Northern Africa. It is being announced (as usual) in the name of helping democracy — but, in fact, the deployment of weapons and planes would involve an inevitable power-grab, an attempt to influence (read: control) who emerges with power in Libya, and an attempt to justify the right of imperialist power to continuous and future intervention in the Middle East and Africa.


We should not assume that the U.S. plans some full invasion. They are currently tied up in two losing wars already — Gates just quipped that those who advocate U.S. land wars “should have their heads examined.”

The U.S. is likely to threaten “power projection” — by air, by arms supply, perhaps by dropping an electronic curtain over Libya. It will certainly support actions by its partners-in-crime, like Britain or France (or even various African puppet forces they have cultivated and trained).



http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/iraqi-faces-after-us-intervention.jpg?w=273&h=400 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/iraqi-faces-after-us-intervention.jpg)
Faces of Iraqi children in the aftermath of U.S. attacks.
Let us not forget what the world has learned.



One of the most ugly features of American political life is the casual chit-chat about “the best use of our power” — where both liberal and conservative pundits, politicians, talkshow commentators (Rachel Maddow!) and even assholes drinking coffee in your neighborhood greasy spoon debate their ugly views on how the U.S. “should” pound distant people — running down Pentagon “options” like they are participants in some global war room. The right of imperialism is assumed. The sense of superiority is overwhelming. You can’t help imagining the blood dripping off their lips and down their chins.



http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/no-foreign-intervention.jpg?w=350&h=233 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/no-foreign-intervention.jpg)
"No foreign intervention - Libyan people can manage it alone."



Just as we should not be confused by the U.S. bullshit about “helping democracy” so we should not be confused by their claims of restrained and cost-free bullying.

Even a “no fly zone” is an outrage. Just the movement of their navy toward Libya is an aggressive provocation. Every threat they now make is a precedent for more and coming interventions around the world.

We urge everyone to help expose and oppose these imperialist moves — especially the actions of the United States government.

For those unclear on the sinister nature of these moves — we urge you too look closely at the lives and faces of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, where U.S. invasion has led to massive suffering, permanent counter-insurgency, deepened ethnic fragmentation and the rise of utterly corrupt political forces. Worst of all: Where the gun goes, power follows. The intrusion of western military power will never produce liberated people — it will be an attempt to shape turmoil into new regimes of running dogs.


http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/uss-enterprise-a-pirate-ship.jpg?w=350 (http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/uss-enterprise-a-pirate-ship.jpg)
U.S. Enterprise moving toward Libya
(after so-called pirate hunting off Somalia).
Who are the real pirates haunting the seas?

Like a kaleidoscope, the U.S. justifications for “power extension” vary. One minute, under Bush, it is “war on terror” on a string of Muslim countries and with the next administration it now becomes “protecting” Arab people and enabling their “democracy.” But the forms of democracy the U.S. would promote and the political forces it would anoint will never serve the people (as a century of U.S. imperialism has shown, over and over and over.)

In Egypt, the U.S. has long and carefully financed a reactionary army that it could urge to take power (away from the people in the streets, in the name of the people in the streets, Mubarak without Mubarak). In Libya, it is seeking to expand U.S. power by intervening at a pivotal movement — to portray itself as the guardian of peoples, not their exploiter. A few planes to prevent Libyan government advances, a few arms to bolster the rebel forces of eastern Libya, an approaching nuclear navy to convince Gaddafi to flee (or his inner circle to kill him). In the hopes, that the U.S. will emerge (after months of revolt against its brutal allies) with the false sheen of liberator.

As if people have no eyes to see, no minds to think, no mouths to speak, and no memories at all — and as if they don’t have their own hands to win victory.

Libya is a major oil producer — its pipelines run to the sea, and from there to Italy and Europe. U.S. and British threats have nothing to do with any sympathy or self-determination for Arab people (witness their relentless support for the brutal Mubarak regime and others in the region!) It is about exerting U.S. power to consolidate U.S. domination. It is not about saving Libyan lives in an emerging civil war, but exploiting Libyans for the rest of their lives.

We urge you to post links here (http://kasamaproject.org)to reports of U.S. intervention, and (especially) plans being made to oppose and expose these actions.

U.S. Get Out of the Middle East! Navies Out! Troops Out!

Omsk
1st March 2011, 18:44
Over the last days there have been building threats of intervention by the U.S. and European powers in the affairs and events of Northern Africa. It is being announced (as usual) in the name of helping democracy — but, in fact, the deployment of weapons and planes would involve an inevitable power-grab, an attempt to influence (read: control) who emerges with power in Libya, and an attempt to justify the right of imperialist power to continuous and future intervention in the Middle East and Africa.
We all know that,just like they 'save' everyone else,they have to 'save' Libya.

We should not assume that the U.S. plans some full invasion.
They are prepared to go all the way with this.They need oil and more influence in the Muslim world.

every threat they now make is a precedent for more and coming interventions around the world.
You need to get used to the fact that they took the position of a 'world' police.

One minute, under Bush, it is “war on terror” on a string of Muslim countries and with the next administration it now becomes “protecting” Arab people and enabling their “democracy.
The US changes it opinion every-once in a while,like in WW2 and the years after that,first it was "Damn Nazi's!!" But the moment when the nazis fell and the Soviets emerged as the superpower,the US changed their view,so,instead from "Damn nazi's" they automaticly went on "Damn commies!" The Germans being their friends now.

and as if they don’t have their own hands to win victory.
They have,but the US is tying their hands up.

Urban Rubble
1st March 2011, 19:07
I'm not sure that we should be overly concerned with another example of U.S. sabre rattling when it comes to Libya. As always, vigilance is necessary to ensure that the "revolution" (or whatever you want to call it) is not co-opted by pro-Western factions backed by the State Dept. However, the idea that the U.S. is in any position to mount a ground invasion of Libya seems to far out of the range of possibility.

Fungy
1st March 2011, 19:37
Quick Ely, better erase all the other crap you posted, before people realize that you're just another phony-communist and water-bearer for imperialism.

Sinister Cultural Marxist
1st March 2011, 19:59
Obama is getting pressure from the American right to attack. No fly zones are likely, an invasion isn't under current circumstances

kasama-rl
2nd March 2011, 16:11
I'm not even sure "no fly zones" are likely -- Gates announced today that they are beyond the capability of the forces the U.S. can deploy without degrading their war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The U.S. can launch such operations (and clearly Clinton threatened that they might)... but it is not like you just flip a switch and it happens.

We should not dismiss the possibility that the U.S. will intervene militarily, or that th eEuropeans will, and we can be certain that they will try to influence events with threats, embargoes, and covert political interventions.

But it is also true that every noise from washington is used by the tankie chorus to (yet again) support some ugly regime against its own people (like they did in Iran, or Tienanmen, or Jaruzelski Poland, or the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan).

We should oppose and expose U.S. interventions (which are not just potential, but already happening in the form of maneuvers, condemnation and threats). But we must not suddenly act like that is the only thing going -- or as if U.S. moves means that the Libyan opposition is (somehow) attacking (nonexistent) progressive features of Libya's state.

kasama-rl
2nd March 2011, 16:12
BTW:Fungie is clearly a troll who joined yesterday and has been trolling one thread after another. I assume he is someone previously banned for this (who just cant resist).

Moderators?

khad
2nd March 2011, 18:34
I think the troll is the one who willingly writes this rot when the so-called rebels are now hosting NATO special forces and are demanding NATO air strikes. Get with the times, man, and stop burying your head in the sand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/01/AR2011030106071.html


But in the eastern city of Benghazi, the center of the resistance, some members of the committee formed to run the city said they expected to issue a formal request to the international community Wednesday for military assistance.

And in Misurata, a town about 120 miles east of Tripoli that is besieged by Gaddafi's militias, a spokesman for the newly formed committees set up to run that town said residents also want foreign help against Gaddafi.

"A no-fly zone would limit his movements, his ability to move mercenaries from south to north and to recruit mercenaries from sub-Saharan Africa," said a member of the media committee, Saadoun, who requested that he be identified only by a nom de guerre because Misurata remains hotly contested.

"Providing military equipment and arms to our free army in the east will help the free army march to Tripoli," said Saadoun in a telephone interview. "And we want surgical military strikes to target his militia and make this end swiftly and quickly and not to shed any more innocent Libyan blood."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23426


Islamabad—The United States, Britain and France have sent several hundred “defence advisors” to train and support the anti-Gadhafi forces in oil-rich Eastern Libya where “rebels armed groups” have apparently taken over.

According to an exclusive report confirmed by a Libyan diplomat in the region “the three Western states have landed their “special forces troops in Cyrinacia and are now setting up their bases and training centres” to reinforce the rebel forces who are resisting pro-Qaddafi forces in several adjoining areas.

A Libyan official who requested not to be identified said that the U.S. and British military gurus were sent on February 23 and 24 night through American and French warships and small naval boats off Libyan ports of Benghazi and Tobruk.

The Western forces are reportedly preparing to set-up training bases for local militias set-up by the rebel forces for an effective control of the oil-rich region and counter any push by pro- Qaddafi forces from Tripoli .

Other reports claim that efforts to “neutralize” the Libyan Air Force were also underway to limit Qaddafi’s rule in Tripoli if not fully uprooted from the country.

Jose Gracchus
3rd March 2011, 18:30
I'll take bets Fungy is a banned poster sock; probably Soviet dude or Intelligimate, judging by how he talks.

Anyway, it seems clear the rebels are going to be co-opted by the West. On the other hand, I'm sure bloody reprisals and quality of life - much less the an expansion of space of independent working-class political organization - would result from a Gaddafi victory. So nonetheless I hope the rebels win because that will increase the capacity for working-class political organization and probably involve fewer purges and executions. The premise of the 'anti-rebel' types is that there is anything to salvage in the Gaddafi regime, hence the fevered desire to "call out" their opponents on rebel character, but no policy alternative in sight. Agitate against intervention? Sure. But it is clear most of you would have favored the indefinite tenure of Gaddafi as some "anti-imperialist".

kasama-rl
8th March 2011, 15:41
I think these discussions and comparisons of analysis have considerable value.

And I think some differences of method stand out.

Clearly some people think that the only thing happening (and the only thing worth evaluating) in Libya is the question of U.S. intervention (which is, at this point, still largely at the level of threats).

And if you look at events through those lenses you liquidate the OTHER thing that is happening: that people are rising up against an oppressive Libyan government.

This mechanical method is continued (rather clearly, right in front of us): So that the only question to ask about the people rising in revolt is whether they have a clear public and uniform rejection to foreign aid. (And they are suddenly labeled using the chilly, distanced term of "opposition").

Even someone like Inform Candidate is swept along and say "Anyway, it seems clear the rebels are going to be co-opted by the West." Really? Based on what?

Certainly that is possible. Probably it is likely. But why is it clear (as if it is the only possibility)?

In all of the countries with anti-government movements (Iran, Egypt, Tunisia, etc.) various pro-Western forces are involved (and working hard) -- which is inevitably anywhere in the world at this point of history. But why would we assume that the people (and various currents contending among them) are not able to find ways to oppose that (or to differentiate themselves from wannabbe allies of the U.S.)?

And in an utterly simplistic way, ANY appearance of contact with the outside world on the part of the rebels is seen as a litmus test of their intentions and politics (as if meeting with a western representative is proof of pro-imperialist politics etc.) This is childish.

There is no revolutionary force in history that did not meet with all kinds of forces (especially when they were in a life and death struggle for power). Mao and his forces certainly met with the U.S. representatives in their fight against Japan. The Vietnamese has contact with all kinds of people and took aid where they could (especially from the sharply opposing camps of China, on one hand, and the Soviet bloc on the other).

It is important that we (in the U.S.) consistently and energetically work against U.S. military actions -- and train our audiences to see the sinister intent of the U.S. behind all such actions. But that hardly means we are required to denounce any popular council in North Africa who (in the heat of battle and facing aerial attack) sees value in the external isolation of the Libyan government.

In fact there are two quite different dynamics going on:

* There is a popular revolt against an oppressive pro-imperialist government (the corrupt and repressive Gaddafi family)

* There is all kinds of maneuvering of external imperialist powers so that the emerging new governments of the Arab world serve their interests (and their arrangements for oil and Israeli security.)

We have opinions on both of those two dynamics (as we should) -- but we should also expect that (given the nature of our world and its complexity) that these two dynamics will clash and intersect in difficult ways.

Only seeing one thing (only seeing one aspect) makes for a mistaken approach: in this case it (once again) leads well-meaning people to support an oppressive third world dictatorship because (in their mistaken view) this is somehow "anti-imperialist." This is a view that has zero faith in the people, little support for complex revolutionary outbursts, and which will find itself supporting oppressors instead of the oppressed.