TEL AVIV JOURNAL FEBRUARY 23, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I’ve been trying to add to my knowledge of the Arab countries now in the “massacring-their-people” stage. All of the big powers have both rewarded and connived with Colonel Qaddafi to keep him and his family in power for 42 years. Not, by the way, that he is a king or anything. Moreover, he is not the first of the military colonels in the Arab world to take control of the state and turn it into a “revolutionary socialist” regime, so-called. More formally: the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. It’s been in power since 1969, which makes it the oldest continually ruling one-man regime in the world.
Anyway, in my search for new viewpoints on the Arab world, I came across an article by Stephen Walt, who is the Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard (his chair was donated to the Kennedy School by a good Zionist family; so much for the control bought by Jewish money) and co-author with John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, of The Israel Lobby,in which I play a supporting role. I’ve written about this book on The Spine and so have others in TNR like Jeffrey Goldberg.
Walt’s Libya article was published in Foreign Policy barely a year ago. So it has the reassuring quality of being up-to-date. In the few hours he had in Tripoli, the capital city, he had the opportunity to talk with various high officials and get a real feel for the country. Here’s part of what he had to say on January 18, 2010:
My own view (even before I visited) is that the improvement of U.S.-Libyan relations as one of the few (only?) success stories in recent U.S. Middle East diplomacy. Twenty-five years ago, Libya and the United States were bitter antagonists: U.S. and Libyan warplanes clashed on several occasions in the Gulf of Sidra, and Libyan agents bombed a discotheque in Germany that was frequented by U.S. soldiers. U.S. aircraft attacked Libya more than once, targeting Qaddafion at least one occasion (and killing his adopted daughter Hannah). Libya was also held responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 (though some recent accounts have questioned its culpability) and it had an active WMD development program and received substantial nuclear weapons technology from the illicit A. Q Khan network.
Yet a fortuitous combination of multilateral sanctions, patient diplomacy, and Libyan re-thinking has produced a noticeable detente in recent years. In a rare display of policy continuity, the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations managed to simultaneously keep the pressure on and keep the door to reconciliation open. (Great Britain played a key role here too, and the effort may have succeeded precisely because Washington remained in the background). This effort paid off in when Libya agreed to dismantle all of its WMD programs in 2003 and to re-engage with the West. (A key part of that deal, by the way, was George W. Bush’s decision to explicitly renounce the goal of “regime change,” in sharp contrast to his approach to some other countries.)
Libya has also been a valuable ally in the “war on terror” (having had its own problems with Islamic radicals), and Ghaddafi’s son Saif reportedly played a key role in persuading a Libyan-based al Qaeda affiliate to renounce terrorism and to denounce Osama bin Laden last year. Overall, the remarkable improvement in U.S.-Libyan relations reminds us that deep political conflicts can sometimes be resolved without recourse to preventive war or “regime change.” One hopes that the United States and Libya continue to nurture and build a constructive relationship, and that economic and political reform continues there. (I wouldn’t mind seeing more dramatic political reform—of a different sort—here too). The United States could use a few more friends in that part of the world.
What an insightful man Walt is.
But other less pretentiously identified people—not a “professor of international affairs at Harvard”—report other facts out of Libya.
Take, for example, The New York Times dispatch this morning by David M. Kirkpatrick and Mona El-Naggar in which “witnesses” from Tripoli described the capital as a war zone. Or the Reuters report about a “weeping Libyan [who] says 26 die in coastal town attack.” Apparently, airplanes and helicopters were used to spray protestors more or less at random. Estimates of the dead ranged from 500 to 700 half a day ago.
Walt has not been heard from with reference to his year-ago evocation of this wonderful country. He began that article with a citation to Sidney Verba, a much wiser professor of government at Harvard, who had said that one should not write anything about a country one hasn’t flown over. Having spent half a day there, however, Walt was encouraged to judge the country’s politics and its culture without a drop of doubt.
He has written this week again in Foreign Policy not maybe to express second thoughts about the murderous place he praised so fulsomely a year ago. Walt perorates about Israel, on which he’s always been a cheat, and about America and those of its citizens whom he considers disloyal. This time, however, Walt has gone over the top because he, in a cowardly manner, has effectively accused President Obama of caving to the Jewish—oops, no—the Israel lobby. Jewish interests over American interests and the wrong side of history, besides.
Now back to the hundreds of Libyan dead and their murder by the government which Walt thinks so civilized. I have been pilloried for observing that Muslim life is too often cheap to other Muslims. But in the case of Libya’s dictator, this sadly seems to be the case.
Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.
45 comments
mojo back! perhaps Walt is just lazy. http://countrystudies.us/libya/ would have given him perspective on the tribal-ness of what became Libya, with the most artificial post-colonial borders designed as a vague afterthought in order to finalize the WW2 peace treaty with Italy. and he might have considered a side trip to Benghazi. must have been distracted by the Ukrainian nurses.
- K2K
February 23, 2011 at 12:31am
When a country's own UN diplomats suggest Great Leader should step down maybe Prof. Walt should shut up.
- Sophia
February 23, 2011 at 3:38am
"Walt was encouraged to judge the country’s politics and its culture without a drop of doubt" No no no - even in the above quotation Walt does none of this, as he's simply talking about Libya's relationship with the US. There's clearly a huge difference between a country's foreign relationships with other, specific countries and its internal politics. Walt isn't saying a word about the latter (much less it's culture) because he's really only concerned with the former. You don't have to like Walt's "realism" but if you want to critique it you have to understand it.
- NR851651
February 23, 2011 at 5:54am
I woul suggest that Walt is an anti-semite. End of discussion.
- jneuberg
February 23, 2011 at 10:20am
What a typically spiteful Peretz piece. Does anybody really believe his transparently disingenuous opening about trying to “add to [his] knowledge about Arab countries”? No, Walt wrote a piece in FP that Peretz didn’t like, but rather than simply critique its substance directly, Peretz deviously and deliberately goes searching for old Walt articles on Libya so as to attack him “in the flank” and create a springboard to discredit the the Is/Pal article in particular and Walt in general. In fact, in respect to Libya, we are better off strategically in this revolutionary period than almost anywhere else in the Middle East. We have not been subsidizing the corrupt regime as in Egypt and Jordan. We (unlike the British) have not sold arms to Gadhafi as we have in Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon. We have not invaded the country as in Iraq or involved ourselves in semi-covert counterinsurgency ops as in Yemen. We have not established military bases there, visibly aligning ourselves with the repressive regime, as in Bahrain. We don’t even consume the oil production which goes almost exclusively to Europe. In short, though our Libya policy has hardly been hypocrisy-free (see al Jazeera TV for ongoing discussions of this), we have less to incriminate us in Libya than just about anywhere else in the Middle East. On a relative basis, going forward, post-Gadhafi Libya will likely remain a strategic success story for the US. Of course, Walt’s piece, a year on, is hardly flawless. The business about cooperation in the WOT, which Gadhafi undoubtedly used to suppress domestic discontent, and his hopes for political reform from Gadhafi are rather shallow. The trend with Gadhafi has been towards greater kleptocracy, hoarding of power, and domestic repression, not less. Walt also failed to mention the serious East vs West (i.e. Cyrenaica vs Tripolitania) and associated tribal dynamics that constitute the biggest threat to a unified, democratic post-Gadhafi Libya. But in the main, Walt’s article is still right a year later in claiming that we have played Libya RELATIVELY well. As with the rest of the Middle East, our strategic position will suffer as popular government means opening up the region to more strategic competition from China and elsewhere. Our declining economy, Israel-before-all-else policy, support for repressive dictators, and ill-advised interventions, combined with China’s large surpluses that can be invested in the Middle East to underwrite debt, build infrastructure, etc mean deep trouble for us. Over the longer term, Libya is likely to be a relative bright spot.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
February 23, 2011 at 11:03am
"I have been pilloried for observing that Muslim life is too often cheap to other Muslims." Interesting to see that Peretz is still lying about what caused the firestorm of months ago. The truth, of course, is that there were no qualifications. He didn't write that "Muslim life is too often cheap to other Muslims." He wrote, straight out, that "Muslim life is cheap." He didn't write that "Muslim life is cheap to Muslim terrorists." He wrote that "Muslim life is cheap." Steve Walt is a sleazebag. Peretz could've made that point without (again) airing his bitterness over the fact that anyone would dare criticize him, but as long as M.P.'s going to vent the bitterness, he ought to be kept honest about the words that started it all.
- JTester
February 23, 2011 at 11:22am
Tester, you're too desperate to take Marty's original words out of context. Gotcha!
- amidut
February 23, 2011 at 12:49pm
@amidut-Are you trying to be clever? Here's a link to the original article (http://bit.ly/aMUb8J), and here's the full vent from which the sentence in question came: "But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood." See that phrase, "most notably to other Muslims?" Not to al Qaeda, not to dictators, MUSLIMS. Has Peretz communicated with Muslim supporters of Feisal Rauf? Does he know, or even care, that Muslims saved Lara Logan? Does he know, or even care, that in the shadow of the Fort Hood Massacre, Muslims serve loyally and competently in our armed forces? I'd say a heck of a way of protesting Islamist violence is signing up to fight against it, wouldn't you? Does he know, or even care, that when the FBI asked for translators right after 9/11, they got 500 calls from Muslim and Arab Americans in 24 hours? I don't know what kind of mass protests Peretz is expecting, but it is he who is desperate, desperate to believe something very, very dark.
- JTester
February 23, 2011 at 1:26pm
In terms of a snapshot assessment in the tradition of clueless American "regional studies," many people of varying political positions would probably have written much the same about Libya a year ago. Incidentally, as of last night, most observers were saying there is no evidence -- so far, at least -- for the stories of aircraft attacking protesters. But that may have changed.
- ironyroad
February 23, 2011 at 6:01pm
Doesn't "emeritus" mean, in Latin, something like, "retired?" Why, Marty, can you no longer write an article involving Israel, Muslims, and violence anymore? This is your first article since the delayed retirement of "The Spine." Diversify you intellect, as it once was!!
- RJSampson1
February 23, 2011 at 6:29pm
Another completely inane article from Martin Peretz. I was sad I wasted my time, until I saw this gem "But other less pretentiously identified people—not a “professor of international affairs at Harvard”. Less pretentiously identified people, coming from the "editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic". Fucking classic. If it was accurate it would say: "Owner who was forced to stop publishing because I kept saying offensive things and was embarrasing the magazine."
- jnordlander
February 23, 2011 at 8:39pm
A lot of people thought Qaddafi's behavior was going to change for the better after 2003. And in any case he is just one of the despots the U.S. has supported because they have helped us in some way or other. Now we say, "I'm shocked--shocked--to find that there is gambling is this establishment!" In any event, Walt is right about the U.S.'s veto of the U.N. settlement resolution--sheer hypocrisy and ultimately harmful to Israel and the cause of peace.
- mlottman
February 23, 2011 at 11:34pm
Sophia "When a country's own UN diplomats suggest Great Leader should step down maybe Prof. Walt should shut up." Exactly so, Sophia. Some people here would attack Peretz' writing no matter what he says. I don't even bother to read them anymore.
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 10:51am
NR851651 "No no no - even in the above quotation Walt does none of this, as he's simply talking about Libya's relationship with the US." Is he, NR851651, when he praises the khadafi family to the skies? jneuberg., got it right when he wrote, "I woul suggest that Walt is an anti-semite. End of discussion."
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 11:03am
Xenophon “No, Walt wrote a piece in FP that Peretz didn’t like, but rather than simply critique its substance directly, Peretz deviously and deliberately goes searching for old Walt articles on Libya so as to attack him “in the flank” and create a springboard to discredit the the Is/Pal article in particular and Walt in general.” Walt never writes anything I agree with, Xenophon. But then I don’t listen to al Jezeera the way you and possibly Walt do. Peretz got it right about Walt and Libya and you got it wrong. Relations between countries are seldom hypocrisy free and only a naïf or a partisan would bring this up when discussing it. The British and the Italians must be the most embarrassed by the massacres in Libya. Italy has extensive economic relations with the mad leader and Britain just released the Lockerbie bomber at the request of the Khadafy
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 11:03am
“Walt never writes anything I agree with, Xenophon.” Thanks for letting me know. You might want to issue a press release on that. “I don’t listen to al Jazeera the way you and possibly Walt do.” Why not? They’ve had by far the best live coverage of breaking events in the ME. You don’t have to agree with their editorial policies to find that useful. “Peretz got it right about Walt and Libya and you got it wrong.” That’s a very compelling argument, Arno. “Relations between countries are seldom hypocrisy-free...” OK. “...and only a naïf or a partisan would bring this up when discussing it.” LOL. Gee, is that all ya got, Arno? Better start eating your Wheaties.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
February 24, 2011 at 12:09pm
"Why not? They’ve had by far the best live coverage of breaking events in the ME. You don’t have to agree with their editorial policies to find that useful." Did they? Did they tell you that "Recently I was a guest on Neil Cavuto’s show on the Fox Business Channel. Before I spoke, Neil’s guest was Congressman Gary Ackerman from New York. The Democratic congressman waxed eloquent about our need to support the goals of the Egyptian protesters and to urge Mubarak’s ouster as quickly as possible. Cavuto asked the giddy congressman how he knew that these protesters were genuinely representative of democratic values, at which point Ackerman blurted out that it was just obvious, that all one had to do was to look at the crowds and look at the enthusiasm on the Internet. Well, it wasn’t obvious to me, nor apparently to Cavuto. It clearly wasn’t obvious to the Israelis who simultaneously share our values and a long border with Egypt and whose media did not suppress images of anti-Semitic hate speech among demonstrators. I feel quite sure that it wasn’t obvious to Western reporters beaten by the mobs, or the one who is reported to have been sexually assaulted and beaten by a crowd of 200 militants chanting “Jew, Jew, Jew.”....." http://blogs.forbes.com/jerrybowyer/2011/02/23/democracy-the-god-that-failed/
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 12:59pm
Xenophon, the only thing you foreign to is truth and common sense.
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 1:00pm
Wow, that's a pretty authoritative judgment, Arno. Are you the Minister of Truth or the Minister of Common Sense?
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
February 24, 2011 at 2:15pm
Just someone who doesn't post out of hatred as you seem to do. Exhibit one: "What a typically spiteful Peretz piece. Does anybody really believe his transparently disingenuous opening about trying to “add to [his] knowledge about Arab countries”?" Xenophon
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 2:32pm
That's your example of hatred? I guess you ARE from the Ministry of Truth. You certainly have a gift for Newspeak.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
February 24, 2011 at 3:27pm
"No, Walt wrote a piece in FP that Peretz didn’t like, but rather than simply critique its substance directly, Peretz deviously and deliberately goes searching for old Walt articles on Libya so as to attack him “in the flank” and create a springboard to discredit the the Is/Pal article in particular and Walt in general. " No. Marty wanted to propose that there is a pattern of wrongness to Walt's thinking and sentiments. He admires the wrong people while he demonizes Israel and her Jewish supporters in US. The earlier article and the recent one cited both follow that pattern. Walt's intention in the earlier article was to encourage such good relationships with Lybia and in the present article to poison whatever good relationship exists between Israel and the Obama administration. Walt is a professor whose credentials should have been severely disfigured after he conducted his own selection between Righteous Jews and Unacceptable ones. I'm surprised but not really shocked to see ironyroad weighing in on the discussion to salvage whatever is left of the respectability of Walt's academic reputation. I mean, what is there to salvage after that ignominy?
- noga1
February 24, 2011 at 4:08pm
"I have been pilloried for observing that Muslim life is too often cheap to other Muslims. But in the case of Libya’s dictator, this sadly seems to be the case." Andre Glucksmann: From surrealistic geopolitics to apocalyptic delusion. http://www.signandsight.com/features/894.html "The outrage of so many outraged people outrages me. On the scales of world opinion, some Muslim corpses are light as a feather, and others weigh tonnes. Two measures, two weights. The daily terrorist attacks on civilians in Baghdad, killing 50 people or more, are checked off in reports under the heading of miscellaneous, while the bomb that took 28 lives in Qana is denounced as a crime against humanity. Only a few intellectuals like Bernard-Henri Lévy or Magdi Allam, chief editor of the Corriere della Sera, find this surprising. Why do the 200,000 slaughtered Muslims of Darfur not arouse even half a quarter of the fury caused by 200-times fewer dead in Lebanon? Must we deduce that Muslims killed by other Muslims don't count - whether in the eyes of Muslim authorities or viewed through the bad conscience of the west? This conclusion has its weak spots, because if the Russian Army - Christian, and blessed by their popes - razes the capital of Chechnian Muslims (Grosny, with 400,000 residents) killing tens of thousands of children in the process, this doesn't count either. The Security Council does not hold meeting after meeting, and the Organization of Islamic States piously averts its eyes. From that we may conclude that the world is appalled only when a Muslim is killed by Israelis." Impossible not to look at Obama's caution and the slowness of European capitals and Leftist organization to get angry about what happens in Lybia. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-pathetic-response-libya_552426.html "This is not so much a feeble response as a non-response. It is an announcement to Qaddafi that we won’t even get the secretary of State moving for five more days—five more days of likely slaughter. The verbs the president employed in his remarks are toothless: we will “monitor” and “coordinate” and “consult.” We will “speak with one voice.” While he “strongly” condemned “the use of violence in Libya” the president could not bring himself to condemn the regime or its leader, the man who is imposing this reign of terror. He did say “the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights.” But at what cost? He did not say. The closest the president came to speaking of action was this: “I’ve also asked my administration to prepare the full range of options that we have to respond to this crisis. This includes those actions we may take and those we will coordinate with our allies and partners, or those that we’ll carry out through multilateral institutions.” No one knows what this means, but it presumably may mean sanctions. Maybe. Next week. Because "prepare" is not an action verb either. "
- noga1
February 24, 2011 at 4:16pm
Xenophon "That's your example of hatred? I guess you ARE from the Ministry of Truth. You certainly have a gift for Newspeak." You are from the Walt and Mearsheimer Ministry.
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 4:28pm
Noga, I understand the point you are making: “Marty wanted to propose that there is a pattern of wrongness to Walt's thinking and sentiments.” And yes, I agree, that is exactly what Peretz wanted to do. But what he actually produced was a cheap, lazy, and dishonest hit piece. Here’s the ultimate example of Peretz’s mendacity: Peretz said this about Walt’s piece on Libya: “He began that article with a citation to Sidney Verba, a much wiser professor of government at Harvard, who had said that one should not write anything about a country one hasn’t flown over. Having spent half a day there, however, Walt was encouraged to judge the country’s politics and its culture without a drop of doubt. Now, here’s what Walt, himself, had actually said in the full article--not quoted by Peretz, of course: “Unfortunately, my plane from London was five hours late (thanks again, British Airways!), so the scheduled lecture never took place. But I did get to meet with several Libyan officials and spent a few hours touring Tripoli itself. Mindful of Verba's warning, however, I can't offer anything like an informed assessment, so what follows are just a few quick and provisional impressions.” Peretz translates “a few quick and provisional impressions” into the completely false idea that Walt felt “encouraged to judge the country’s politics and its culture without a drop of doubt.” I find Peretz's lack of integrity in writing this article deplorable. So, to reiterate, I agree with your understanding of what Peretz was trying to accomplish. But he went about it poorly and with intellectual dishonesty to boot. And that, in my view, is the “pattern of wrongness” in Peretz’s thinking--and writing.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
February 24, 2011 at 7:20pm
Peretz’ point has less to do with how many hours he spent in Libya than with the quality of his judgment. “Walt’s Libya article was published in Foreign Policy barely a year ago. So it has the reassuring quality of being up-to-date. In the few hours he had in Tripoli, the capital city, he had the opportunity to talk with various high officials and get a real feel for the country…. Take, for example, The New York Times dispatch this morning by David M. Kirkpatrick and Mona El-Naggar in which “witnesses” from Tripoli described the capital as a war zone. Or the Reuters report about a “weeping Libyan [who] says 26 die in coastal town attack.” Apparently, airplanes and helicopters were used to spray protestors more or less at random. Estimates of the dead ranged from 500 to 700 half a day ago. Walt has not been heard from with reference to his year-ago evocation of this wonderful country.” Your defense of Walt is pretty thin. Walt supported Khadafi in the name of realism just as he rejects Israel in the name of the same realism. If Khadafi survives I expect he will give Walt a medal of truthfulness just as he gave Erdogan and others of his ilk medals for “human rights.”
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 8:51pm
Here is Walt's conclusion to hs article: "Libya has also been a valuable ally in the "war on terror" (having had its own problems with Islamic radicals), and Ghaddafi's son Saif reportedly played a key role in persuading a Libyan-based al Qaeda affiliate to renounce terrorism and to denounce Osama bin Laden last year. Overall, the remarkable improvement in U.S.-Libyan relations reminds us that deep political conflicts can sometimes be resolved without recourse to preventive war or "regime change." One hopes that the United States and Libya continue to nurture and build a constructive relationship, and that economic and political reform continues there. (I wouldn't mind seeing more dramatic political reform -- of a different sort -- here too). The United States could use a few more friends in that part of the world." Who has it wrong, Peretz or Walt?
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 8:53pm
"Peretz’ point has less to do with how many hours he spent in Libya than with the quality of his judgment." Peretz has no point at all, Arno, except that he detests Walt. Thats the problem with his "argument." "Who has it wrong, Peretz or Walt?" Really, Arno. I already answered that question in my original post. That's why you should focus on substance and not get sidetracked on the burning issue of who is watching al Jazeera. I bet if you take the trouble to scroll all the way back there, all will be revealed to you.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
February 24, 2011 at 9:45pm
Xeno: “Peretz has no point at all, Arno, except that he detests Walt. Thats the problem with his "argument."” No, that’s the problem with your reading. "Who has it wrong, Peretz or Walt?" “Really, Arno. I already answered that question in my original post. That's why you should focus on substance and not get sidetracked on the burning issue of who is watching al Jazeera.” Yes, Really, Xero, I told you that watching TV news especially a biased network like al Jezeera will lead you astray. I’ll take Peretz’ view over Walt’s and naïf like you any day. For a “realist” to get his information about a country ran by a tyrant from talking to officials is about as sensible as satisfying your hunger by watching food commercials. For all your sense of superiority and contempt for the point of view of other posters you are about as bright as a burned out light bulb.
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 10:02pm
Once again the megaphone camp is on the move. In their world, it only matters what Obama SAYS. Nothing else seems to count. Not the danger of exacerbating anti-American feelings latent in the region; not the danger of promising help we can't deliver; not the downsides of taking a position we might need to back away from in the near future; not the need to think of longer-term U.S. interests and needs; not even the fact that our first responsibility is to make sure Americans are removed from a danger zone, rather than what our grade is going to be in some historical review in five or ten or twenty years' time. We can't determine the history of the world! There are all sorts of forces swirling around in the ME at the moment, and an apparently legitimate push on the scales here can have unforeseen consquences there. Guess who's going to be responsible if we don't like those consequences? Right, Obama. And who's going to remember they were calling for him to thus push? Exactly, nobody.
- ironyroad
February 24, 2011 at 10:36pm
Stop your whining, Arno. You're quite the passive-aggressive, aren't you? You like to stick your finger in somebody else's chest, and then, when you get push-back, you start crying. Well, that kind of behavior IS contemptible. If you can't stand the heat...
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
February 24, 2011 at 10:39pm
Xenophon "Stop your whining, Arno" You are the whiner, Zeno! You can't make an argument so you resort to insults. Passive aggressive? Did you learn that in a correspondence course? What a dork!
- arnon
February 24, 2011 at 11:19pm
ironyroad: More recently you quoted Fouad Ajami approvingly. Here is what he says: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/mideast-unrest-is-a-change-the-world-should-believe-in-scholar-says-1.345607 ""My general view of it is now President Obama has a chance with Libya. If I was a policy advocate in a more direct way, I would call on President Obama to declare that the Ghadafi regime is hereby illegitimate and fallen. We consider any regime that uses helicopter gunships and mass terror and mercenaries against its own people, we consider it an illegitimate regime and we will no longer traffic with it. Now people will say, what will you get for this? And I would say a lot. If indeed the president of the United States were to declare Ghadafi's goons illegitimate, there are many, many people sitting on the fence in Libya who would take heart from this. "Senator [John] Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something very compelling. He said that we should put the commanders in Libya on notice, that we know who they are, that we are going to follow what they are doing, and come the fall of the regime, we will hold them responsible for war crimes. This would make a tremendous difference. "I don't agree that there's nothing in the middle between either sending the Marines or wringing our hands. We're not going to send the Marines, that's not going to happen, but wringing our hands is morally and strategically problematic. If it takes declaring the Ghadafi regime illegitimate, an outlaw regime, if we say this unequivocally, not through the secretary of state, not through Vice President Biden, but through Barack Obama himself, standing up in broad daylight saying, 'Look, we've seen all we need to see from this regime, we don't think Muammar Gadhafi is redeemable, and we call upon the Libyan people to hold these criminals accountable' - this would make a tremendous amount of difference."
- noga1
February 25, 2011 at 9:17am
Well, I have to confess I'm torn on this -- as I was on Iran two years ago, where I felt both urges (wanting Obama to come out more strongly for the Green movement and wanting him to keep his eye on the nuclear ball which the regime was holding firmly) but in any case I understood the decision he made. Ajami makes a very good case here. I also want to emphasize, I'm not saying people shouldn't call on Obama to state clearly and unambiguously that the U.S. is on the side of Libyan democracy and not of the Libyan dictator. But there has been a strain of criticism here and elsewhere, starting about five minutes after Obama took office, that seemed to willfully ignore anything and everything the administration was doing to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, to deal with the Iranian nukes, to repair relations with the Arab/Muslim countries, etc in favor of parsing speeches or White House statements for their lack of some favored vocabulary or formulation.
- ironyroad
February 25, 2011 at 1:08pm
What's the second part of your comment ("... a strain of criticism...") got to do with the first part of your comment ("call on Obama to state clearly and unambiguously that the U.S. is on the side of Libyan democracy")?
- noga1
February 25, 2011 at 3:07pm
It's meant to explain (somewhat, at least) the motivation behind my previous post.
- ironyroad
February 25, 2011 at 3:15pm
Which is.. what? That Obama has got to be defended no matter how much you may disagree with his reactions to these revoits?
- noga1
February 25, 2011 at 4:37pm
Well, not exactly that. More that I saw that particular type of criticism as somewhat obsessional and blind to obvious realities. And then, yes, defending Obama was required. Or so it seemed to me.
- ironyroad
February 25, 2011 at 6:00pm
BTW Noga, if you check in here, I left a reply over on the Wieseltier/Libya thread for you -- on the punctuation issue.
- ironyroad
February 26, 2011 at 7:07pm
Yes. And if you check in here, I left a response to your reply on the same said thread.
- noga1
February 26, 2011 at 8:31pm
With some prevarication.
- noga1
February 26, 2011 at 8:32pm
As you might well have expected.
- noga1
February 26, 2011 at 8:32pm
Or not ...
- noga1
February 26, 2011 at 8:33pm
Indeed.
- ironyroad
February 27, 2011 at 1:35am
Are we getting a little too desperate, Mr. Peretz? Let me see...Stephen Walt has contributed significantly to open democratic discussion in America. He is a patriot and believes America should look after the interests of AMERICANS. Mr. Peretz hides in a foreign country that spies on us, steals money from us and forces us to go into completely unnecessary wars. When the Americans start realizing and stop listening to Mr. Peretz, he starts defaming 1.5 billion people with racist slurs in a desperate attempt to get any attention. Are we a little jealous, Mr. Peretz? Please move on, leave us alone and practice your racist, apartheid philosophy somewhere else, Mr. Peretz. Thank you.
- MSA70
March 26, 2011 at 10:29am