SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home We Choose Consultations

WORLD FEBRUARY 25, 2011

We Choose Consultations

BY LEON WIESELTIER

“This violence must stop.” So President Obama declared the other day about the depravity in Tripoli. This “must” is a strange mixture of stridency and passivity. It is the deontic locution familiar from the editorial pages of newspapers, where people who have no power to change the course of events demand that events change their course. This “must” denotes an order, or a permission, or an obligation, or a wish, or a will. It does not denote a plan. It includes no implication, no expectation, of action. It is the rhetoric of futility: this infection must stop, this blizzard must stop, this madness must stop. But this infection, this blizzard, this madness, like this violence, will not stop, because its logic is to grow. It will stop only if it is stopped. Must the murder of his own people by this madman stop, Mr. President? Then stop it.

There are various ways in which the horror can be brought to an end. Is a no-fly zone really too complicated to negotiate? Then let NATO planes fly over Tripoli to shoot down any Libyan aircraft that make war on the Libyan population. Is the United States really prevented by its past from deploying the small number of troops that would be required to rescue Tripoli from Qaddafi’s bloody grip? Then let a multilateral expeditionary force be raised and a humanitarian intervention be launched to free Libya from its tyrant and then leave Libya to the Libyans. Europeans, Africans, even Egyptians may join the campaign. And impose sanctions; and freeze assets; and summon The Hague. There is no lack of proposals for acting against this monster out of Tacitus. But the president is not yet interested in action. His outrage seems to be satisfied by “consultations” with our “allies and partners,” and with the Human Rights Council in Geneva next Monday. Yes, next Monday: what’s the rush? The main point of Obama’s statement on Libya was that “the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice,” and that “we join with the international community to speak with one voice.” He is calling for words! He actually said that “the whole world is watching,” that foul old slogan of the bystander.

Why is Obama so disinclined to use the power at his disposal? His diffidence about humanitarian emergencies is one of the most mystifying features of his presidency, and one of its salient characteristics. These crises—in Tehran two years ago, in Cairo last month, in Tripoli now—produce in him a lame sort of lawyerliness. He lists the relevant rights and principles and then turns to procedural questions, like those consultations. The official alibi for Obama’s patience with Qaddafi’s atrocity is his concern for the Americans who are still stranded within Qaddafi’s reach; I was amused to learn from a friend that the spin out of the White House includes the suggestion that Obama’s restraint is actually the wisdom of the hostage negotiator. But Obama’s statement about Libya suggests another explanation for his slow pace. This was its climax: “So let me be clear. The change that is taking place across the region is being driven by the people of the region. This change doesn’t represent the work of the United States or any foreign power. It represents the aspirations of people who are seeking a better life.”

They are fighting authoritarianism, but he is fighting imperialism. Who in their right mind believes that this change does represent the work of the United States or any foreign power? To be sure, there are conspiracy theorists in the region who are not in their right mind, and will hold such an anti-American view; but this anti-Americanism is not an empirical matter. They will hate us whatever we do. I do not see a Middle East rising up in anger at the prospect of American intervention. I see an American president with a paralyzing fear that it will. In those Middle Eastern streets and squares that have endured the pangs of democratization, the complaint has been not that the United States has intervened, but that the United States has not intervened. The awful irony is that Obama is more haunted by the history of American foreign policy in the Middle East than are many people in the Middle East, who look to him for support in their genuinely epochal struggle against the social death in which their tyrannies have imprisoned them. He worries about the repetition of an old paradigm. They are in the midst of a new paradigm. He does not want to be Bush. They want him to be Obama; or what Obama was supposed to be.

It is a fine sentiment, Obama’s insistence upon the autonomy of the peoples who are making these democratic uprisings; but a number of things need to be said about it. For a start, there already are foreigners who have intervened in Tripoli. They are Qaddafi’s mercenaries, the savage thugs whom he has imported to save his regime by sowing fear. The deployment of Western air power over Libya would be an intervention against this intervention. Is Qaddafi to be allowed outside help and the people of Libya denied it? And help, after all, is all that the terrorized population of Tripoli is beseeching us for. The point that weirdly eludes Obama is that assistance does not compromise the autonomy of those who receive it. Sometimes autonomous people cannot do it alone. This does not mean that we should do it for them. Helping them is not doing it for them. Indeed, they are already doing it: half of Libya has been liberated, the regime has been robbed of any semblance of legitimacy and authority, there are anti-Qaddafi forces fighting effectively near Tripoli, the dictator is quite plainly doomed. We, the United States, accomplished none of this. But the death throes of Qaddafi’s rule could be terrible, and it is only to thwart a slaughter that we need to act. Even if we intervene, we will not have democratized Libya. Libya will have democratized Libya. And it is both our moral duty and our strategic responsibility to align ourselves with this emerging and emancipated Libya.

The idea that assistance does not compromise the autonomy of the assisted is in fact one of the central beliefs of liberalism. We invoke it in our social policies all the time. We help people to help themselves. And that is all that is being asked of us by these liberalizing revolutions; no less, but no more. We disappointed Tehran. We disappointed Cairo. Now we are disappointing Tripoli. It is so foolish, and so sad, and so indecent.

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 260 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

260 comments

"Then let NATO planes fly over Tripoli to shoot down any Libyan aircraft that make war on the Libyan population. " I'm very impressed that you feel so empowered to decide that somebody should shoot down a soverign country's aircraft. That you so casually demand such an act of war tells me you've learned nothing in the past 10 years regarding the US relationship with Arabic countries. Qaddafi is already saying his internal revolution is created by outsiders. Do you really want to validate his claims? Do you really want to instigate a wider war?

- AllanL5

February 25, 2011 at 9:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A nation divided, one side supporting atrocities against its own people, the other side supporting freedom. A bloody civil war. What should the civilized world do? Send troops to support the side of freedom? Limit support to financial aid and encouragment? LW makes a very good case for sending troops. On the other hand, how different would America be today if England had sent troops to America to support the side of freedom rather than let Americans resolve their own bloody civil war.

- rayward

February 25, 2011 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Count me as impressed as AllanL. "The idea that assistance does not compromise the autonomy of the assisted" It might not compromise their autonomy, but it will also certainly compromise their legitimacy in the eyes of the people who count, i.e. other citizens. Not to mention the obvious inference that others will draw: "Look, the Libyans gave up their nuclear program (the only demonstrated way to keep the Americans from dropping bombs on you) and the Americans promptly dropped bombs on them!". Can't see that working contrary to our long term interests in any way.

- Nari224

February 25, 2011 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why doesn't Obama have a plan to assist Libya?" Because, among other considerations, this is a rapidly evolving situation in which: hundreds of potential American hostages sit in a ferry in Tripoli's harbor; potentially thousands Americans are still in the country, many likely in areas still controlled by the Qaddafi regime; Obama doesn't want to take steps that could allow that tottering regime to claim that it is defending Libyan/Arab interests against US imperialism; there is an even bigger field that any intervention will play out against, across the Arab and Islamic worlds and not just Libya; a good plan could involve consultation and/or coordination with NATO, European and Arab leaders, to name a few; and, most generally, and as much as I admire your commentary on many important issues, the view from the White House is justifiably a lot more complicated than that from the desk of a literary editor. Having said all this, it could be that Obama should be doing more. It could also be that steps are being considered right now, including one that has been discussed elsewhere though not in your article--telling Libyan military and political leaders still loyal to Qaddafi that they will face war crimes/human rights prosecutions should they be implicated in civilian deaths. But give him credit for grappling with a complex challenge in which it is important to assess whether emotionally appealing steps will really do any good or might even prove counterproductive.

- Thunderroad

February 25, 2011 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How is it possible that anyone writes so much non-sense? Where in the constitution does it state that on of the jobs of the US President is to be the policeman that arrest any head of government that has a population hating him? On the other hand the US was deeply involved in the creation of the UN that has one of it's international jobs to defense of civil rights wold wide. In fact it has a special council named for this exactly called UNCRC. In fact Libya itself up to now was one of its members as were other states beside Libya with similar civil rights. This council has acted and made pronouncements, virtually only against Israel. Durban I, II and III calling Zionism racism. So Mr. Wieseltier why didn't you speak out long before those events in Libya? Why don't you question the UN and it's reason for existing that has been viciated by the controlling Arab block votes?

- Poupic

February 25, 2011 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought this article was terrible weeks ago, and it's still terrible now that Leon has search-and-replaced Mubarak with Qaddafi, Cairo with Tripoli and Egypt with Libya. We get it, Leon, we get it. You want the U.S. in a war. Point made.

- W_Bombay

February 25, 2011 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

*another war

- W_Bombay

February 25, 2011 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The usual crowd will hate this excellent critique because it’s a criticism of Obama’s rule, not his policies but the way they are being implemented by him. Still this is one of the most succinct comments about Obama’s style of leadership anywhere: “Why is Obama so disinclined to use the power at his disposal? His diffidence about humanitarian emergencies is one of the most mystifying features of his presidency, and one of its salient characteristics. These crises—in Tehran two years ago, in Cairo last month, in Tripoli now—produce in him a lame sort of lawyerliness. He lists the relevant rights and principles and then turns to procedural questions, like those consultations.”

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“A nation divided, one side supporting atrocities against its own people, the other side supporting freedom. A bloody civil war. What should the civilized world do? Send troops to support the side of freedom? Limit support to financial aid and encouragment? LW makes a very good case for sending troops. On the other hand, how different would America be today if England had sent troops to America to support the side of freedom rather than let Americans resolve their own bloody civil war.” Bad and irrelevant analogy. In any case, which was the side of freedom in our civil war? The side that supported slavery, or the side that wanted to abolish it?

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Everyone who wants the United States to INTERVENE NOW to overthrow Qadaffi and save the Libyan people has to stop for just a wee moment before putting finger to keyboard and think -- what if my American wife, son, daughter or parent was in Libya today and would be taken hostage or killed by Qadaffi's murderers in order to prevent American action against his government? Would I still want strident American rhetoric or American bombs to rain down on Qadaffi knowing that my own flesh and blood may likely die in the process? My guess is that any person with a shred of decency -- which certainly includes Leon Wieseltier, no matter how much he enjoys the occasional literary pose of severe Roman stoicism in the face of tyranny -- would not be so cavalier with the lives of those who are in trust to him or her. I understand that the ferry dispatching several hundred American citizens and embassy staff finally departed Tripoli today. From the President's perspective, those persons are the equivalent of his children, his parents or his spouse -- Americans whose lives are in his trust and who did not volunteer to be placed in harm's way. After they are secure, the President can and should unleash the full force of American rhetoric (for whatever it's worth) and American diplomacy and arms on behalf of the incredibly brave Libyan people and against the savage tyranny of Qadaffi. But not before those Americans whose lives are in his trust are safe and secure. And, until that time, every word urging action that could have resulted in the deaths of those Americans is just a lot of insolent noise.

- wildboy

February 25, 2011 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Qaddafi is already saying his internal revolution is created by outsiders. Do you really want to validate his claims? Do you really want to instigate a wider war?” Allan, who exactly believes that the revolt was instigated by outsiders? Do they also believe that the demonstrators are on drugs, as Khadafy also claimed? Who would be involved in this wider war?

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 11:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Everyone who wants the United States to INTERVENE NOW to overthrow Qadaffi and save the Libyan people has to stop for just a wee moment before putting finger to keyboard and think -- what if my American wife, son, daughter or parent was in Libya today and would be taken hostage or killed by Qadaffi's murderers in order to prevent American action against his government?” This may be one consideration, but there are other more salient ones. He US could if need be protect its own citizens and Khadafy is aware that if he harms Americans he will pay the ultimate prize. Every American living overseas is a potential hostage. People travel at their own risk. When the US declared war on Germany in 1941 many Americans in France were detained and held.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find it impossible not to be moved by the plight of the Libyans trying to throw off the yoke of a brutal dictator. However, it remains the case that there are only two clearly permitted bases for military intervention under the UN Charter: immediate self-defense or UNSC authorization. There is a possible third, the evolving doctrine of "humanitarian intervention." For better or worse, if the last of these is not quickly to hollow out the limitation established by the first two, then it should be carried out multilaterally, also with the possible exception of a state immediately adjacent to the state in crisis and thus in a unique position to intervene as well as potentially threatened. We are nowhere near Libya. If intervention were to comport at all with international law, then the force should be deployed at the very least by NATO and must include Moslem countries. It IS a repeat of imperialism to have western powers policing the Moslem world and it is foolish to think there cannot be and will not be consequences to that. Moreover, the United States simply cannot be the sole and universal judge of when it is and is not permissible to intervene militarily. That will bring disaster upon us. If we arrogate that power to ourselves, then there will be others who will inevitably do likewise and will not by any means limit themselves to the cases that we think appropriate. Soon we are back in the world before the UN Charter. There is an international system. In the absence of imminent threat to ourselves, we need to work within it. It is feckless and unfair to ascribe that to a misplaced "lawyerliness." Wieseltier is wrong here, although I do not question at all that he is moved only by decency.

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“There is an international system. In the absence of imminent threat to ourselves, we need to work within it. “ How is this system being used at this time?

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“It is feckless and unfair to ascribe that to a misplaced "lawyerliness." Wieseltier is wrong here, although I do not question at all that he is moved only by decency.” Feckless? Why feckless?

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is why I'm glad Obama is president and not (with all due respect) bloviating pundits. Give me a break --- there are hundreds of Americans stranded in Libya, in Tripoli, surrounded by pro-Qaddafi security forces, still waiting to get out of the country. Our ferry has been blocked by stormy seas. If Obama makes wild threats against Qaddafi now and his security forces decide to act in any way against Americans under their control, who would get blamed then? Furthermore, it's crystal clear that it is far more in the US interest to make it clear we sympathize with these movements but are not orchestrating them in any way. The more the international community, especially the West, directly intervenes, the worse the outcome for us, because any government that arises in the aftermath of such an intervention could be painted by certain forces hostile to the United States as having been installed by the US or by the West, even if these charges are absurd. Yes, it may be clear to bloviating pundits in the US that we aren't orchestrating these events, but this notion is hardly farfetched to people who have in fact watched us orchestrate events from toppling Mossadegh in Iran to Salvador Allende in Chile to our most recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For better or worse, the US can and has orchestrated many events over the decades, so such a charge is hardly as farfetched to folks in the developing world as it may seem to us. This is not to say that some foreign intervention may not be necessary in Libya; but it is far better that it be international in scope, and since that takes time, there's literally no reason for Obama to jump the gun and issue direct threats at this point, particularly considering the Americans still trapped in Tripoli. He's already made veiled threats (speaking of a whole array of options, which is obviously code for options including military ones, such as enforcing a no-fly zone), and he's consulting with our allies and at the UN. What more do you want? It's easy to rattle sabers from your living room or office. Thinking about the long-term geopolitical consequences requires a little more foresight.

- mitsu

February 25, 2011 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon, your suggestions don't make sense. There were American citizens are scattered throughout Libya when the violence erupted -- do think it is feasible to send commando teams to pluck them out individually from who knows where? Would those American commandoes be safe themselves when they parachute into chaotic war zones? Wouldn't the intervention of American military aircraft just lead to the murder of American citizens, just as the Administration feared in the first place? Recall that the US first wanted to charter commercial jets to fly Americans out of Libya but was denied landing rights; it then considered sending military aircraft (according to CNN reports) but concluded that this might be considered by Qadaffi as an act of military intervention and would lead to exactly the hostage-taking scenario that we are trying to avoid. The chartering of the ferry was apparently the best way to get American citizens out of Libya, which unfortunately could not be done any sooner than today given the delays and the bad weather. As for your example of World War II, American citizens were detained by the Nazis because Nazi Germany declared war on the United States first -- not the other way around.

- wildboy

February 25, 2011 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Assume we always did as Leon W would have us do. And when the people of Libya, Egypt, Iran, and for that matter Iraq and Afghanistan, have replaced their evil dictators with other evil dictators, what then would we make of the role played by American military interventions? What would our losses, and the inevitable loss of civilian life at our hands, mean to us and the world in the aftermath of such events? What is so liberal about this vision? Is not the shameful history of TNR's support for the invasion of Iraq a useful lesson here? It is not so clear to me that America does nothing when we refrain from sending troops -- surely some credit must be given to private diplomacy -- but it is very clear to me that this notion that we ought to invade all these countries is terribly unwise and profoundly indecent. Usually, I find Mr Wieseltier's writing to be thoughtful and even inspiring. In this case, no. Neil

- purcellneil

February 25, 2011 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Arnon, your suggestions don't make sense. There were American citizens are scattered throughout Libya when the violence erupted -- do think it is feasible to send commando teams to pluck them out individually from who knows where? Would those American commandoes be safe themselves when they parachute into chaotic war zones?” Of course it doesn’t make sense, wildboy, if your imagination and knowledge of action is limited to some inchoate dream of parachuting commandoes “into chaotic war zones?” There are more realistic and efficient ways of handling the situation. Also Libya is not Somalia and I assume that the army learned its lessons from that operation. “As for your example of World War II, American citizens were detained by the Nazis because Nazi Germany declared war on the United States first -- not the other way around.” True, I should have made this clearer. Still, the principle that foreign national in many countries are vulnerable to the vicissitude of local affairs is still valid.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is not so clear to me that America does nothing when we refrain from sending troops -- surely some credit must be given to private diplomacy -- but it is very clear to me that this notion that we ought to invade all these countries is terribly unwise and profoundly indecent." If the "nothing" we do works, fine, but in this case it doesn't seem to be working. BTW: LW didn't say we should "invade all these countries." This is something you made up.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with 02/25/2011 - 11:35am EDT | arnon "Still this is one of the most succinct comments about Obama’s style of leadership anywhere: “Why is Obama so disinclined to use the power at his disposal? ..." but I also see Libya more about EU than US leadership. The UN can not even stop a civil war from erupting in Ivory Coast in the absence of a peaceful transfer of power after a fair election. So, while it IS too soon for the "West" to help Libya's people except for the sprouting refugee camps in Tunisia and Egypt, Obama really does NOT have the voice of a leader, even of a leader of moral authority, and Wieseltier is quite correct about that major deficiency in this post. The UK sent the RN Cumberland to evacuate Brits from Benghazi - ironically the last Cumberland mission before it is retired into scrap. Germany and Turkey sent war ships to assist in evacuations of their citizens. NATO's Rasmussen said yesterday that NATO will not be deployed in any way.

- K2K

February 25, 2011 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The tribal structure of Libya actually makes Somalia a relevant comparison if/when Qadaffi and his seven sons are removed from power. Remember the film "Air Force One"? Where the US Special Ops kidnap the genocidal dictator from his bedroom?

- K2K

February 25, 2011 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The message that President Obama with his non-action is sending to those who want democracy in Iran is: YOU ARE ALONE. And the message to the state security apparetus in Syria and in Iran (the worst of the dictatorships) is: DO WHAT YOU WISH. By contrast, doing something--even saying something verbally verbally sharp directed at Qaddafi and his henchmen--would encourage not only the Libyans but the Iranians. And it might discourage Qaddfi's henchmen, and perhaps split them (as Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post today). A student came to see me today and told me that her Arab friends hang on every word Obama says, and at the moment they are "totally bummed out."

- ProfEthan

February 25, 2011 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LW was quoted in the NYT a few days ago that, when TNR launched The Book, he dictated that there would be no comments because he didn't want to be subjected to them. I suppose he doesn't think much of TNR's commenters; on the other hand, it suggests he reads the comments. I too read many of the comments and understand LW's distaste for the vitriol. But I am impressed with the directness of most of the comments, in particular many of those with which I strongly disagree. It's to the commenters' credit that they are direct. Which brings me to my problem with many of LW's posts: he doesn't say what he really means. Does anybody really believe he cares one whit for Libyans. Of course not. What he cares about is controlling the selection of the successor government. Professing love for democracy is one thing; accepting the outcome of democracy of something entirely different.

- rayward

February 25, 2011 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Which brings me to my problem with many of LW's posts: he doesn't say what he really means. Does anybody really believe he cares one whit for Libyans. Of course not. What he cares about is controlling the selection of the successor government. Professing love for democracy is one thing; accepting the outcome of democracy of something entirely different." This is pretty cynical.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One deals with one problem at a time. If the Libyans end up with another tyrant there is nothing we can do. But we shouldn't react to a current tyrant because his successor(s) might be worse.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is it every time something happens overseas Obama is criticised up down and sideways for what he (and his SecState) says in public with absolutelky no regard for what is going on behind the scenes? Take Egypt... the administration said we needed to be cautious, that what needed to be avoided most of all was an out-of-control and bloody overthrow of the government. While clearly wanting to facilitate a change at the top, the President made it clear in his public pronouncements that we needed to act prudently and cautiously... and, as usual, he was roasted for not being forceful enough, for not taking the proverbial bull by the horns and acting with decisive force and blah blah blah. And what happened? Mubarewk is out. Very little blood was shed, and Mubarek is out. And now you have all these talking heads droning on about how this has happened in SPITE of the administration. Does everyone truly think there was nothing going on behind the scenes? That the only action on Obama's part was to make a few public pronouncements and then to sit on his hands? We lived through 8 years of Texas-style diplomacy. I have no desire to go back to the ready-fire-aim method of international relations, yet there are many who seem to want just that. let NATO planes fly over Tripoli to shoot down any Libyan aircraft that make war on the Libyan population? Are you freaking KIDDING me?? First of all, not to defend Qaddafi, but Libya last time I checked is still a soveriegn nation. And even if you wanted to invade (for that is what it would be) and shoot down Libyan planes attacking civilian targets, this isn't World War I. You don't just hang around a couple hundred years behind the enemy and wait for them to fire on civilians, our planes engage from dozens of miles away. Raise your hand if you're prepared to explain to the international community why you just shot down a few civilian aircraft going from point a to point b, or blew a fighter wing out of the sky when those fighters happened to belong to a unit that had just - surprise! - defected to support the rebels and was on their way to take out of of Qaddafi's C3 centers. I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but even at the cost of civilian lives in Libya that MIGHT have been saved in retrospect had Obama ordered the military to do something sooner, I still support an administration that acts slower, with copious amounts of wisdom, consideration, and planning. The last thing we need is Bush Part III when it comes to...well, when it comes to anything I suppose, but especially when it comes to Obama's responsibilities as Commander in Chief and the breathtaking destruction he is capable of unleashing should he chose to do so.

- Tristan

February 25, 2011 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Qaddafi Cracks Down on Tripoli as Sarkozy Calls for Departure" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-25/qaddafi-bolsters-defenses-in-tripoli-as-france-u-k-press-for-sanctions.html

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

to say Obama was caught flat footed is more ignorance. The Ferry with hundreds of Americans was stuck in the port of Tripoli waiting for the weather to clear. If we did anything and Gadhafi killed them then you can be sure Conservatives would have called for Obama’s head. And now that the ferry has left, at this point since most of the rest of Libya is in the rebellions hands, even the main military airbase has fallen to the rebels so a no fly zone seems counterproductive, what precisely can Obama or America do? Invade Tripoli? What about the millions of innocent civilians who would be caught in the crossfire? It seems like Gadhafi is living on very borrowed time, the victory of the Libyans will belong to themselves entirely, which will go along way into bolstering their own pride, that they were not rescued but that they rescued themselves. If worse comes to worse, if he does begin a genocide in Tripoli then we should consider responding in whatever manner we can, until then we should continue as we have been. As to what is occurring behind the scenes, what with all the defections of high ranking people, Obama might be far more involved with these elements that anyone knows.

- blackton

February 25, 2011 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think ProfEthan is on to the right balance. I think the talk about invasions and the like--as if this is something the U.S. woiuld consider-- is wildly extreme. But the call for at least, in prof ethan's words, "even saying something...verbally sharp directed at Qaddafi and his henchmen" could be beneficial, adding wind to the rebellion and would counter argue the lachrymose impression Obama gave (at least to me) by his poor speech on Libya and recent seeming passivity. If one takes Wieseltier's comments on "lawyerliness" as a metaphor for the sluggish moral impression Obama conveys (at least to me) about Libya, I think it's apt. I can imagine at least some sign of American power as a visible message to Qadaffi not to be heedless about American lives let alone as an encouragement for him to abate and others to fortify their resolve. And when the future rolls around and people calculate now how an American show of force might then perceived, what calculation is there for how American timidity and virtual indifference might then be perceived? As for Britain involving itself in the American civil war: what does that have to do with anything? And, finally, as for questioning Wieseltier's motives in what he wrote--as opposed to, say, Roiduboulois who while disagreeing with Wieseltier saw the best intentions in him: "although I do not question at all that he is moved only by decency"-- we get this ad hominem nonsense: ...Does anybody really believe he cares one whit for Libyans. Of course not. What he cares about is controlling the selection of the successor government. Professing love for democracy is one thing; accepting the outcome of democracy of something entirely different... which, even as ad hominem, makes no sense at all.

- basman

February 25, 2011 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

p.s. Mightn't the establishment of a no fly zone specifying Libyan planes or any planes meant to bomb civilians--and as called for by Libyan diplomats-- be a balanced measure in the circumstances?

- basman

February 25, 2011 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman - I can see where some would consider that a measured response, but please read my comment above. IMHO, I think the establishment of a no fly zone would play right into qaddafi's hands. All he has to do is keep sending aircraft over the line... non military at first, then military on other-than-combat runs... and he's got us beat. The last thing we want to do is take some credibility and international sympathy away from the US/Nato/UN, etc, and give it to that monster, and that's exactly what will happen if we shoot a civilian aircraft (or anything else that isn't actively engaged in killing civilians) from the sky.

- Tristan

February 25, 2011 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman: One of the salient characteristics of no fly zones is that aircraft sometimes get shot down by mistake: viz: Iran Air 655, or the two UH-60 Blackhawks shot down by F-15s over Iraq, for example. Not sure how forbearing Wieseltier et al would be if an airliner was shot down by mistake in those circumstances....

- SMacEachern2

February 25, 2011 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K makes the point that Jackson Diehl and others have been making, that Obama's refusal to directly threaten military intervention in Libya was craven even if he was concerned about the lives of Americans in the country because other countries, like France, have also stridently criticized Libya while their citizens are in the country while Britain and Turkey sent warships to retrieve their citizens. The key difference between the US and those othe countries is that only the United States actually has the military capability to intervene in Libya in a way that could affect the course of the uprising there. Therefore, the stakes for the US are a lot higher than they are for France and the UK. If Qadaffi takes some French citizens hostage in response to Sarkozy's criticism, it won't much matter because Sarkozy lacks the military resources to do anything about it -- he can send some commandos or try some desultory bombing runs but otherwise lack the capability of sustained action against the Qadaffi regime. Same for Britain, Turkey and the rest. But if Qadaffi takes Americans hostage, he can actually insulate his regime from military action that could bring it down. Thus, it's important for Americans to get their citizens out of harms way before so that America's hands are tied by hostage-taking or worse. I'm about 100% certain that the Joint Chiefs and Bob Gates discussed this in their consultations with the President and Secretary of State about Libya.

- wildboy

February 25, 2011 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

02/25/2011 - 12:07pm EDT | arnon “There is an international system. In the absence of imminent threat to ourselves, we need to work within it. “ How is this system being used at this time? 02/25/2011 - 12:08pm EDT | arnon “It is feckless and unfair to ascribe that to a misplaced "lawyerliness." Wieseltier is wrong here, although I do not question at all that he is moved only by decency.” Feckless? Why feckless? _____________________ The international system consists of institutions, a certain machinery, but also consists of a regime of law. Like domestic law, the law is there even when it is not being invoked placing boundaries on what can and cannot be done. I find it impossible to square any unilateral US intervention with international law as it presently exists. The only basis for intervention would be humanitarian. Although that is an evolving doctrine of humanitarian intervention, it has only been legitimately invoked on a multilateral basis so that it is not one nation deciding to use force and claiming the right to do so on its own. For better or worse, this requires consultation with others to see if some sort of consensus exists for collective action, as a matter of both will and prudence. Among the meanings of "feckless" is "careless or irresponsible," and it is in this sense that I use the word. It is appropriate for Obama to consult with allies and other proximate nations to discern the existence or non-existence of a consensus for intervention, and not to propose that there will be such in advance of consensus. Feckless in that the accusation against Obama does not take account of the larger consequences of the action that Wieseltier advocates, only of the immediate need. He is thus careless where Obama is careful, and if carefulness is what is required, as I think it is, that the carelessness is irresponsible. As far as the moral dimension of Obama saying something, I think it is generally assumed without examination that this cuts in only one direction, favorable. But we should have in mind the precedents of Hungary in 1956 and the revolt in Iraq of the southern Shi'a (was it in 1991 or 1992?). In both cases, American rhetoric, without the slightest intention of giving material aid and no ability to do so, "put wind" into the rebellions. Both were crushed. To the extent that American rhetoric encouraged people at risk to take unreasonable risks for themselves, not correctly gauging their strength relative to the despot they were trying to overthrow, that was morally culpable behavior. We are not there. We are not ourselves at risk. I think one should properly be cautious about pressing people into danger that they might not, and perhaps should not, otherwise be willing to undertake, particularly when there is no intention to extend material aid. As for threats, those should be reserved for the cases where they are needed and should not be offered before they are necessary, as they too can do harm. If threats were necessary to protect Americans, I am sure that Obama would levy them.

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 2:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The international system consists of institutions, a certain machinery, but also consists of a regime of law. Like domestic law, the law is there even when it is not being invoked placing boundaries on what can and cannot be done. I find it impossible to square any unilateral US intervention with international law as it presently exists." I don't need a lecture on "international law." I also didn't call for unilateral action.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Among the meanings of "feckless" is "careless or irresponsible," and it is in this sense that I use the word." LW can be criticized for of many things, but not of being "careless or irresponsible." You haven't offered any proof that he is "feckless." It's a baseless charge.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon, I am making nothing up. LW calls for a no-fly zone and for shooting down Libyan aircraft. He calls for a military expeditionary force to go in and suppress the forces of the regime, and remove the regime. He points to Egypt and Iran as other instances in which we should have done such things, or in any case, something more than "words". Are we to assume that he would use force in Libya but not Egypt and Iran? What then does he think we ought to have done differently in those cases? What is there between "words" and force that you think he is advocating in this piece? I cannot find it. Neil

- purcellneil

February 25, 2011 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is this feckless too? "Diplomatic Push on Libya Intensifies" By STEVEN ERLANGER "PARIS — The world should intervene to stop the killings and bloodshed in Libya, a senior official with the United Nations said Friday. France and Britain also called on the international organization to approve an arms embargo and sanctions on Libya, and NATO said it was ready to help to evacuate refugees." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/world/middleeast/26diplomacy.html?_r=1&hp

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 2:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not surprised that so many commenters act as if any criticism of Obama is some kind of "right wing plot."

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Somewhat fuller assesment of no fly zone idea: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/24/act_now?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full

- basman

February 25, 2011 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll just note that broader than the no fly zone issue is Ibish's attempt to make the case for doing something by way of international effort. And he makes the opposite argument against the argument that intervention will create long term animosity in the M.E. He argues, rather, that doing nothing will.

- basman

February 25, 2011 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Is this feckless too? "Diplomatic Push on Libya Intensifies" By STEVEN ERLANGER" Everything that is described as being in contemplation in this article consists of multilateral action using the machinery of international institutions acting in accordance with international law. Hence, it can hardly be said to suffer from the heedlessness of such institutions for which I criticize Wieseltier. One might read Wieseltier as calling only for collective action, but I don't, as he is criticizing Obama for not using "his power." Obama does not have the power, unilaterally, to take multilateral action. I think it is pretty clear that Wieseltier expects Obama to act and/or urge the rebellion onward. In the absence of an intention to act, the latter is of dubious morality. And an intention to act unilaterally is contrary to international law. If, as you say, you understand perfectly well the institutions and structure of international law, then what is this supposed to mean? “There is an international system. In the absence of imminent threat to ourselves, we need to work within it. “ How is this system being used at this time?

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How many people were killed in Yugoslavia's death throes before we acted? How many people died in Rwanda? In Darfur? or the rest of Africa's brutal wars? The fact is we have no easy or quick way to prevent another Shoah but does this mean we should simply ignore the situation and wring our hands out of concern for public opinion that may or may not coalesce sometime in the future? Last night CNN ran tape of a terrified woman in Tripoli. People don't know if they will be alive tomorrow. Protesters are greeted by live ammunition, by foreign mercenaries who kill mercilessly. Hospitals set up to deal with routine illness and car accidents are overwhelmed with the casualties of modern war. In her voice, I imagined a voice from the Warsaw Ghetto. Would anybody bomb the camps?

- Sophia

February 25, 2011 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Russia and China will veto any UNSC resolution that could become a precedent for their use of military force inside their official borders. That is why whatever happens in Libya is going to be EU/NATO led, or maybe Egypt & Algeria-led. Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Egypt have official relationship with NATO through their Mediterranean Dialog: http://www.nato.int/med-dial/summary.htm wildboy: I never would use the word "craven" to describe Obama. Actually, I tend to be with the "what is happening behind the scenes" camp, because of the complexity, rapidity, fluidity, and uniqueness of each 'Arab revolution'. Libya is absolutely the most complicated because there IS a risk of a Somalia-like state failure. I think the eastern oil fields and Benghazi can become functional (like Somaliland), but the African Union has a ban on re-drawing colonial boders in their charter, which makes the really artifical borders of today's Libya a huge problem. More than half of Libya is desert that even Qaddafi never had full control of. BTW, France has forces in Chad that can act in a heartbeat. adding to the mix is this very interesting analysis: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/24/in-libyas-chaos-an-opening-for-al-qaeda/ "...an al-Qaeda "franchise" or affiliate called al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has been particularly active in southwestern Libya, along the border with Algeria and Niger. AQIM has long been active in Algeria. But according to assessments by the State Department and the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, AQIM has expanded its operations, becoming more aggressive across the region. It has attacked police stations, detonated suicide bombs, and focused on kidnapping Westerners and holding them for ransom or killing its hostages. AQIM sent squads of fighters into combat against U.S. forces in Iraq, and according to European police officials, has recently expanded into Europe, becoming what some U.S. officials characterize as a true regional terrorist organization. In Libya, Wehrey said AQIM, exploiting tribal animosities, has used local training camps and smuggling routes in southwest Libya. Whether AQIM and other Islamist groups can exploit the growing chaos there and in eastern Libya, he said, "is an open question.'' ..."

- K2K

February 25, 2011 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

02/25/2011 - 2:56pm EDT | roidubouloi Your response doesn't make sense.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Then let a multilateral expeditionary force be raised and a humanitarian intervention be launched to free Libya from its tyrant and then leave Libya to the Libyans. Europeans, Africans, even Egyptians may join the campaign." Actually, take Leon at his word. Except that I am not sure how this "let a ... force be raised ... intervention be launched ..." is anything but the same "the rhetoric of futility" that he complains about. Expeditionary forces are not raised in and of themselves; they need - oh yeah - C O N S U L T A T I O N S among states (you know, with those Europeans and Egyptians and Africans) to get them to 1) agree on objectives; 2) make a political decision; 3) commit forces; 4) commit finances; and 5) bring their own populations into line with the political decision. There is no evidence that these consultations are not now going on in some way; and, in fact, if my memory of NATO Council during the Serbian war serves me correctly, those meetings are going on right now, between the political and military command structures. So this is as far as the raising and the launching. But ... As for leaving things to the Libyans ... it is said that Generals always fight the last war; it ought to be amended to say that soi-disant pundits and moralists and intellectuals and professional critics - especially someone who, like Leon, thrives on being negative - always forget the last war, any war, any history, any notion of politics or possibilities, and wish to reinvent the wheel each time. Whatever one thinks of the Iraq adventure, surely we cannot forget the one lesson it taught us: wars are unpredictable. To say that we can go into Libya, liberate Tripoli, snatch civilians through some sort of mystical "special forces", remove Ghaddafi and then leave Libya to its people, reflects an astonishing lack of insight into what Harold Macmillan termed as "Events, dear boy, Events". NOT to mention that once you are in occupation of a country, you are responsible for it. You cannot just remove the head and leave. Iraq taught you that. Despite W.'s aversion to state-building, the US had to stay behind; and because of that aversion, it had failed to actually prepare for the responsibility. So even if the force is raised (how long will it take? The first Iraq war required six months of preparation in a friendly country) and launched (from where? on land, from Tunisia? From Egypt? From the sea?), and even if we manage to limit civilian casualties (see Iraq), how long will we have to stay there to pacify Ghaddafi's thugs enough to return Libya to its people (assuming you can tell which people)? What about the famous no-fly zones? Right. Except that ... what if the Rebel Alliance manages to get its hands on a few warplanes? Will we let them fly, or will we impose a general no-fly zone? (The "no arms shipments to the former Yugoslavia" policy seriously hamstrung the Bosnian defence and may have contributed to thousands of additional deaths ....) I could go on, but you get the picture. And this taking Leon at his word. ...

- icarusr

February 25, 2011 at 3:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon - you have this one-line attacks on everyone, plus the usual canard about "ooooh, they don't let me criticise Obama." Get some new materials or just get a copy of "Humanitarian Intervention for Dummies" and read it in your bubble bath before wading into matters of which you evidently know little.

- icarusr

February 25, 2011 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon : 02/25/2011 - 1:16pm EDT | arnon Last I checked the French have their own aircraft carrier that they could sail down and start doing what they wanted (or at least threaten it). After all, that is the point of having such an expensive vessel. However as Wildboy explained above, they will not do anything, and neither will the British. The French are particularly bad at backing up their military commitments (see recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon) with actual resources. Or even the Balkans. Thus all the posturing in the world out of Paris is of no consequence and everyone, especially Quadaffi, knows this. However the US has *already* bombed Libya, with the express purpose of killing him, a fact which I'm sure Quadaffi remembers only too well. Thus to refer to what amounts to the peeping of mice as if this should influence the US is meaningless. And I say this as a Europhile; what Europe says and wants in cases like this doesn't matter unless they are going to put up - and they won't.

- Nari224

February 25, 2011 at 3:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And lest you worry that Quadaffi is sitting pretty because Reagan isn't in the whitehouse, I'm sure there's a bunch of AQ and Somali pirates who would like to disagree with you that Obama is a bit weak in the knees. But they can't, as they've been killed by US forces acting under Presidential orders.

- Nari224

February 25, 2011 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If there was ever a place for the President to speak out blandly and do nothing more, then this is it. Libya can (and probably will) be liberated by Libyans. The situation is evolving rapidly, quite likely toward a bloodbath. Just what is it that our troops would do upon arrival? Who would they shoot at? Who are the good guys? How would we even recognize them? Intervention now would be the stupidest thing we could possibly do--a combination of Somalia and Iraq. Just once I would like to see someone advocating such an intervention who had actually participated in one. This is armchair generalship at its absolute worst.

- gwcross

February 25, 2011 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Arnon - you have this one-line attacks on everyone, plus the usual canard about "ooooh, they don't let me criticise Obama." Learn to read, I said much more than that, Icarusr. When people have little to say they come up with personal attacks.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat that editorial sounds like it sets out good starting points and it also reflects a general precepton that goes to the brunt of Wieseltier's frustration about Obama here. I respectfully think those complaining about Wieseltier's lack of military expertise or the frailties in his list of possible courses of action are beside his main point. There are those deeply immersed and quite able to swim in the deep waters of the tactical and strategic considerations as what should be done. I'm not one of them and neither, I'm sure he wouldadmit, is Wieseltier. His point in what is, finally, a cri de couer: do something; convey the impression you are doing something; create some ballast for the yoke thrower offers; stand meaningfully against quite insane, illimited butchery: "There is no lack of proposals for acting against this monster out of Tacitus. But the president is not yet interested in action."

- basman

February 25, 2011 at 4:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"02/25/2011 - 3:28pm EDT | arnon 02/25/2011 - 2:56pm EDT | roidubouloi Your response doesn't make sense." Plainly not to you. I have been searching here for the allegation that any criticism of Obama is attributed to a rightwing conspiracy. I cannot find it. __________________ With all due respect to the NYT, it is hard to imagine that a dictator who is described as being willing to kill hundreds or thousands of his citizens to cling to power is likely to be swayed by an asset freeze or a travel ban or the suspension of arms sales (unless the deliveries were scheduled for this week). Particularly since he probably expects to be dead if he loses. This seems to me to be about the appearance of doing something. The actions that the US just took seem somewhat more to the point, but I still think that doing anything that has no material impact on Khaddafi's ability to wage his war while encouraging people to risk their lives by making them believe that we are riding to the rescue is of dubious morality. I dissent from the point of view that doing anything is obviously better than doing nothing beyond deploring violence. I don't think that is obvious at all. Indeed, it may be more directed to the consciences of those in the west than it is in any meaningful way aid to those at risk.

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Plainly not to you. I have been searching here for the allegation that any criticism of Obama is attributed to a rightwing conspiracy. I cannot find it." It's there, and don't forget to look inside your heart, Roidubouloi.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: "His point in what is, finally, a cri de couer: do something; convey the impression you are doing something. ..." Which - the doing or the conveying of the impression? And what is that something? The multilateral force? I have set out why that "multilateral force", the "something" (or one of the somethings) that Leon talks about is not, in reality, a "something" that will in the short or the medium term do the thing it is expected to do. So it is really not a something at all; it is at best a nothing. Then you swat my objections aside by the observation that W is not a strategic expert. Well, bully for the moralist in him - and I am certain that everyone on this post has the same revulsion of the violence as W, and I would go further, that Obama shares the revulsion - the moral, strategy-free, revulsion against the wanton bombing of civilians. But so what? He is asking for "action" and proposing "action" - and you cannot act without considering practicalities. So it really is not an answer to say, "I am an ignoramus in strategic terms but am revolted by the strategic inaction of Obama." But what got me particularly interested in this thread was the great W's calumnious observation: "But the president is not yet interested in action." We do not know what the President is "interested" in, yet or otherwise. For any number of practical reasons that an unschooled arm-chair military history buff like myself can figure out with about three books on "Military fuck-ups" and fifteen minutes of reflection, the President has decided that this is not the time for a certain type of action publicly announced with banners and ticket-tape parades. This does not mean he is not interested; it does not mean that there is no action; it does not mean that 'consultations' are not taking place or that a 'multilateral force' is not being prepared, or that blueprints for rescue operations are not being ordered or that the Fifth Fleet is not on its way off the coast of Libya or that the two pilots of the Libyan air force now stationed in Malta are not being debriefed or that AWACS are not flying over Libya or that ... and, in fact, it is neither incumbent upon the President, nor would it be appropriate for him, to actually announce any of these "actions". Any one of which would be far more useful than blindly encouraging the Libyans to rise up, calling up 125,000 soldiers the United States does not have, transport them from the US to the Libyan coast overnight (physically impossible) and so on. You don't to be a strategic genius to know that a "no-fly" zone did sweet bugger all for the Shi'ites in Iraq and worked in Kurdistan only because the Kurds did not have any warplanes of their own. (And because Iraq is around one fifth, in area, of Libya.) You don't need to be a geopolitical expert to know that China has client states all over Africa and that without Chinese cooperation, boycotts and sanctions and even outright attacks against Libya are not workable - or, at least, quite expensive. One can, thus, argue that "as an ignorant blowhard, I will say impractical things that should not be taken seriously, because my heart appears to be in the right place, and will criticise the absence of public pronouncements as evidence of absence of all action and all interest in all action". But don't expect me to take it seriously, as criticism or as morality.

- icarusr

February 25, 2011 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It's there, and don't forget to look inside your heart, Roidubouloi." Indulge us and show us where. Unless, of course, you can - based on your statement here - look into the hearts of others. Oh yeah, Peretz and the Weasle do this all the time with Obama, so why shouldn't you?

- icarusr

February 25, 2011 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama can stand criticism, even from other Democrats. He is no Mubarak and he won't melt.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: "So, you think the Obama Admin's approach is wrong?" In "The March of Folly", Tuchman observed that folly can be said to exist not just where outcomes were undesirable, but also where reasonable alternatives were open to governments, and that these alternatives were widely discussed and accepted as reasonable at the time the folly was engaged. (Otherwise, we are talking about strategic mistakes, which are of a different category from "folly" strictly defined.) It seems to me that criticism of actions, or inactions, should always incorporate this signal observation of Tuchman's: are there avenues reasonably available to policy-makers that do not result in worse adverse consequences to the polity than the course pursued? Have they been considered adequately? Why were the reasons for their rejection? On the first, we have a moral cry and no more; on the second and the third, we have assertions and no evidence. And so, I submit, we are not in a position, yet, to judge.

- icarusr

February 25, 2011 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: the point is not whether Obama can stand criticism; the point is whether the criticism - of whomever - is actually soundly argued and properly supported. if I say, "he done wrong", it is incumbent upon me to point out how, under existing conditions and given existing realities, he could have done otherwise. This is criticism. To simply say, as Peretz does, "it's all Obama's fault because he does not denounce Islam enough", or "he has not sent in the Marines to assassinate Ghaddafi" as W appears to do here, is just carping. And to respond, each time one points out the daftness of the carping, "you guys can't stand Obama being criticised", is silliness on stilts.

- icarusr

February 25, 2011 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

RE: the no fly zone everyone is talking about. The rebellion already controls most of Libya's military airfields, and there has been no report of any bombing from the air of Tobruk, Benghazi, or any rebel held territory. At most the Libyans have used military helicopters in Tripoli lately, which would make it impossible to enforce (do we really want to shoot down a helicopter over the heart of Tripoli?) And lately I have no heard of any reports of any helicopter attacks, they have been all mercenaries in suv's shooting up the streets. This leaves us with very few options militarily.

- blackton

February 25, 2011 at 6:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr "arnon: the point is not whether Obama can stand criticism; the point is whether the criticism - of whomever - is actually soundly argued." It's soundly argued even if you don't agree.

- arnon

February 25, 2011 at 7:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr. There has been unleashed on the Libyans, unlike thus far in the other recent wave of uprisings, a blood bath of suppression leaving thousands dead, with the promise of massively more deaths to come, some of that accomplished by outside mercenaries. There is a large perception that at least hitherto Obama has been relatively flaccid during much of this and that his speech was trite, unmoving and failed to rise to the level which the occasion of its giving demanded. He is now, it seems, starting to take some steps. Some will argue, Wieseltier amongst them, that this recent passivity is of a piece with his relative indifference to great democratic outbursts in the course of his administration. But be that precise point as it may, what is the point is that Obama has been singularly uninspiring with respect to Libya, at a time when at a minimum genuine moral and political leadership, words tied to action, even actions to come, would have been all to the point. The doing of something is not to be separated from the impression of doing something. The doing of some things will lead to the impression of doing something. And now Obama has started doing some things as noted recently in this thread, which themselves shatter the notion advanced here that Obama is wiser doing nothing in these circumstances. You say “bully for the moralist in” Wieseltier. But you misconceive his criticism and you pose false choices in writing off his criticism. His frustration is of a piece with a general expression of frustration coming from a variety of mainstream and espected critics across the political spectrum who have sensed to date political impotence. Theirs has been a clarion call for action, and before action appropriate words, not of conferences and consultations, from the “leader of the free world,” but words adequate to the insane butchery that was going forward with the promise of more. There are examples of that kind of bold, direct articulation of outrage that speaks to and for the masses of people who hear them. Obama could not even bring himself to say Qadaffi’s name for goodness's sake when he addressed his country and the world on Libya. You cannot hold those calling for action, for appropriate words as a prelude to action, to task for not at the same time writing policy, unless in policy they know what they are talking about. But one can hold Obama to task for conveying political impotence in the circumstances and that is what they have done. Your use of the word “ignoramus” conveys the misdirectedness of your argument here. An ignoramus is an utterly ignorant person. A knowing person—and Wieseltier is certainly that-- who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn’t know is the opposite of an ignoramus. I argue that Wiesletier has done a great service by eloquently, intelligently and forcefully calling for action and for the appropriate rhetorical equivalent to match it. He has added his strong and respected voices to a chorus of other strong and respected voices which form part of the American national debate in which Obama moves and makes decisions. It is no failing on his and others’ parts that they are not attending to the costs and benefits and the “practicalities” of measures to be taken. There are people who can do that. Obama has people who can do that. And as we speak they have made and are making these calculations for his consideration. Who knows what effect the cascading mounting of such criticism has had on Obama’s resolve to take action? So I say again that your self admittedly armchair knowledge of military tactics brought to bear against the incidents of Wieseltier's essential complaint rather than its substance proceeds therefore from an inapposite premise to a fairly irrelevant conclusion, respectfully.

- basman

February 25, 2011 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman - perhaps Obama's reticence to mention Quadaffi's name is symptomatic of a lack of interest in these democratic outbursts. Or perhaps it is informed by the knowledge that when the US has intervened in foreign countries, whether overtly or covertly, the results have rarely been what we presumably wanted. And this is especially true in parts of the world where the US is, shall we say, mistrusted. The US is probably not going to invade these countries to support the protesters. So for him to sound off about his support will be as useful as for him to denounce Islam per Marty. It won't help anyone we want to help, and will almost certainly alienate some. There's nothing quite as well received as one country telling another what to do, or for certain groups to be identified as "puppets of the US" etc.

- Nari224

February 25, 2011 at 8:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nari 24 I just don't have the will now to address what I see as your deeply flawed reasoning. Take a look at my link to Ibish's post cited above. Maybe someone else does now or maybe later by me, but for now later for me.

- basman

February 25, 2011 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks Malahat.

- basman

February 25, 2011 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman: "...the appropriate rhetorical equivalent ..." really hits the heart of what is missing from all the world leaders in response to Qaddafi's insane call for butchery of Libyans who dare to oppose his rule. and, icarusr' comment that includes "the President has decided that this is not the time for a certain type of action publicly announced with banners and ticket-tape parades..." reflects the reality of what can or can not be said, but need not exclude moral leadership. If ever there was a time for rhetorical moral clarity, if not inspired by Qaddafi, then when? btw, the one place I wish Obama WOULD send in the Marines right now is to seize all the cocoa beans being held hostage in the warehouses of Ivory Coast as she descends into civil war, despite the weeks of efforts of the UN and the African Union. Cocoa beans will rot, and I do not want to see the world deprived of cocoa. It is a very effective anti-depressant. sorry for the digression, but I see Ivory Coast as a harbinger of the failure of multi-lateral institutions at a moment in history when they are needed to be effective. They had a fair election, but no peaceful transfer of power. Is the post-colonial world of the ME and Africa really going to blossom into an iteration of Jeffersonian democracy any time soon? I hope so, especially in North Africa. well, time to hoard 100% cocoa for baking. could become a valuable commodity for trade when the chaos comes :)

- K2K

February 25, 2011 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"roi, "...I dissent from the point of view that doing anything is obviously better than doing nothing beyond deploring violence..." So, you think the Obama Admin's approach is wrong?" Not sure that you are parsing my sentencing correctly. There is the alternative of doing nothing other than deploring the violence and making symbolic gestures toward that, such as suspension of diplomatic relations. I take this as the minimum. I do not believe that anything at all more active than the minimum is necessarily better. To believe that it is is to believe that there is no downside to anything and I do not so believe. This does not logically imply that there is nothing better than than minimum, only that not everything is better than the minimum. In my opinion, the only thing better than the minimum is multilateral action that includes some Moslem nations of significance, in importance or numbers or both. On that basis, I would be in favor of intervention to stop violence if there are adequate means and a sensible operational plan. Absent that support, I would not advocate intervention or measures or gestures designed to encourage rebellion

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And in order for there to be multilateral action, there must first be consultations amongst those who may participate. If a nation other than the US makes public calls for action, that may draw the international community together and does not hold much danger of encouraging the Libyans to believe they can put themselves at risk because "help is on the way." In contrast, if the US does this, people are much more likely to believe that intervention will rescue them. This is what happened in Hungary and Iraq and is the reason why the US in particular has a responsibility not to let its rhetoric outrun its means and intentions. For these reasons, I would not be prepared to say that what Obama is doing is correct, because we don't have any idea how consultations are proceeding or even what is being discussed. But I do say that Wieseltier's criticism is not justified. It might be in retrospect, but not today.

- roidubouloi

February 25, 2011 at 10:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: good post, but misguided. For one thing, as Roid mentioned - and as I stated in my post - you can't have multilateral 'action' without multilateral consultations. And of course, we hear now that the UNSC is moving on multilateral sanctions. Because images flood the airwaves, we keep thinking that statesmen and heads of states and heads of government should respond with the same speed and "act" with the same speed. Not so. For another, this line of yours struck me as quite interesting. "Obama could not even bring himself to say Qadaffi’s name for goodness's sake when he addressed his country and the world on Libya." We were just talking about that with friends. Apparently, this was quite deliberate: Gadhafi is a megalomaniacal narcissist. The more attention is paid to him, the more he is likely to want to stay in the limelight. The omission of his name was, thus, quite deliberate, rather than Obama not being able to bring himself to talk about the old fool. We are not in a position to judge, as I stated above; but agree with roid that W's criticism is not justified.

- icarusr

February 25, 2011 at 10:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hope people will pause a moment to think about the news of the sanctions: http://bit.ly/dM6HYv

- JTester

February 25, 2011 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The longer a discussion goes on the less the comments have to do with the article that inspired it or the related news story. The news about Libya is changing hourly and what was true when LW wrote the article is no longer applicable since Obama has signed a sanctions bill against Khadafy’s regime and looking to institute more sanctions.

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 12:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And that, Arnon, is precisely why it is just daft to criticise Obama as events are unfolding.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 1:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr "And that, Arnon, is precisely why it is just daft to criticise Obama as events are unfolding." The criticism, coming from many quarters, may have led to Obama's having to act more forcibly.

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 5:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr "And that, Arnon, is precisely why it is just daft to criticise Obama as events are unfolding." The criticism, coming from many quarters, may have led to Obama's having to act more forcibly.

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 5:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman - I had read the link you kindly provided and found it unpersuasive. While it is difficult to not be moved by the events unfolding before us, many posters above have provided very good reasons why a no fly zone is more an invitation to be trapped than likely to help. And this call was coming (also as many noted above) at a time when Libya was full of potential hostages or even potentially dead US citizens. It is a tragedy for the Libyan people, but the rebels appear to be doing fine without our intervention. While many of us find it dissapointing, Obama clearly prefers actions that work to words that make us feel good. If the rebels will live or die by verbal US support, then they will not survive long term. If they are not dependent on this, then Obama's apparent lack of interest (an opinion I find difficult to agree with) is irrelevant. If we find that the administration is taking no steps to organize a coalition to embargo or otherwise pressure the regime over the next few days (while waiting for the picture to become clear, or to see how events he has access to that we do not pan out), then I will agree with you that there is a significant problem there. Now apologize if I gave the impression that I don't believe the US should do anything or if I had misunderstood your post as mainly calling for Obama to speak out more. I support action, but action which involves allies and neighboring countries and that has specific goals and targets. That appears to be underway. Actions speak louder than words, however much we may wish otherwise. And I will admit that I found Obama's reticence to mention Quadaffis name curious, but find iccys suggested reason quite reasonable.

- Nari224

February 26, 2011 at 7:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: How dare you blaspheme the holy one, BO, may his name be blessed. Don't you know that everything he does is perfect? Don't you see how all the icaruses are spreading their wax wings to defend his honor? Let this be a lesson for you.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 26, 2011 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My observation is not at all that criticism of Obama is "not permitted." What I see is that his critics think that their criticism, no matter how ill-founded, ought itself to be immune from criticism or rebuttal, that we must all accept it as is. When they are rebutted, they retreat into the claim that they are not being permitted their criticism. Or, unable to address the rebuttal, they claim they are being attacked. You put your criticism into the public domain, it is no more sacred than anything else. If it turns out that it was ill or incompletely thought out, think harder next time.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 9:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"While many of us find it dissappointing, Obama clearly prefers actions that work to words that make us feel good." This applies not only here, but to much of the rightist criticism of Obama's foreign policy.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

NATO has stated they will help with refugees, and I take that to mean the mostly migrant workers fleeing by foot or auto to the Egyptian and Tunisian borders. I am still wondering what happens to Libya's economy if they are so dependent on 1.5 million foreign workers, with more than one million being low-skill non-EU/OECD foreigners. I would think what happens along the Egyptian and Tunisian borders may very well be the next phase of this Libyan crisis, more critical to the eventual outcome than sanctions, which Erdogan is against, but Italy is now for. excerpt from a very long Interview of Bernard Lewis on the Arab protests and elections in which Lewis emphasizes the importance of 'consultations' in Muslim traditions, but I really enjoyed reading this bit from Lewis: "...One of the most moving experiences of my life was in the year 1950, most of which I spent in Turkey. That was the time when the Turkish government held a free and genuinely fair election – the election of 1950 – in which that government was defeated, and even more remarkably the government then quietly and decently withdrew from power and handed over power to the victorious opposition. What followed I can only describe as catastrophic. Adnan Menderes, the leader of the party which won the election, which came to power by their success in the election, soon made it perfectly clear that he had no intention whatever of leaving by the same route by which he had come, that he regarded this as a change of regime, and that he had no respect at all for the electoral process. And people in Turkey began to realize this. I remember vividly sitting one day in the faculty lounge at the school of political sciences in Ankara. This would have been after several years of the Menderes regime. We were sitting in the faculty lounge with some of the professors discussing the history of different political institutions and forms. And one of them suddenly said, to everyone’s astonishment, “Well, the father of democracy in Turkey is Adnan Menderes.” The others looked around in bewilderment. They said, “Adnan Menderes, the father of Turkish democracy? What do you mean?” Well, said this professor, “he raped the mother of democracy.” It sounds much better in Turkish... This happened again and again and again. You win an election because an election is forced on the country. But it is seen as a one-way street. Most of the countries in the region are not yet ready for elections. ..." http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=209770

- K2K

February 26, 2011 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makover: your sarcasm only confirms that (most) criticism of Obama on this issue (and on many others) is simply juvenile. Please read my posts. I clearly, and on more than one instance, noted that we cannot yet judge the effectiveness (or not) of Obama's actions or purported inactions or statements or lack of statements. And the trajectory of events as well as the actual results on the ground (in terms of US actions) have demonstrated that the criticisms were somewhat premature. Yes, it IS possible that Obama read W's cri-de-coeur and suddenly, and overnight, took action that takes days of "conferences and consultations" to organise. It is also possible that in respect of an event that no one had foreseen - not because everyone is blind, but because the event itself was unforeseeable, because no one could have imagined three weeks ago that the Libyan people would take up arms against Gadhafi - with serious consequences for the US, for Europe, for the Arab/Muslim world, instead of mouthing off, Obama decided to reflect on how best to approach the issue in consultation with allies - the same allies who would be expected to pony up arms and soldiers and sanctions and so on. And it is telling, quite telling, that aside from basman, all critics of Obama fail to answer substantively to the points raised, and instead resort to glib one-liners and adolescent sarcasm.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 11:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roidubouloi “My observation is not at all that criticism of Obama is "not permitted." What I see is that his critics think that their criticism, no matter how ill-founded, ought itself to be immune from criticism or rebuttal, that we must all accept it as is.” I don’t know who or what this refers to since to me “criticism” is the essence of dialogue. I am not “a critic of Obama” though I do agree with criticism of his policies from time to time. The attempt to turn around the obvious view that some people here can’t stand any criticism of Obama by saying the same of people who criticize him is a cheap shot.

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover "arnon: How dare you blaspheme the holy one, BO, may his name be blessed. Don't you know that everything he does is perfect? Don't you see how all the icaruses are spreading their wax wings to defend his honor? Let this be a lesson for you." Well, Icarus does seem to get a little too exercised by criticism at times.

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It is a tragedy for the Libyan people, but the rebels appear to be doing fine without our intervention." Nari224 http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Libyan-Protesters-Brace-for-Violence-in-Tripoli-116976538.html "Opposition protesters in Libya could be facing increased pressure Saturday to end their efforts to oust leader Moammar Gadhafi. Gadhafi Friday offered to arm civilian supporters across the country in an effort to quash dissent. On Friday, thousands of opposition protesters staged a new push to oust Gadhafi. Protesters amassed in cities including Benghazi, where anti-Gadhafi forces appear to be in control. Meanwhile, news agencies quoted residents as saying forces loyal to Gadhafi opened fire in several districts of Tripoli after protesters began marching in the capital following Friday prayers."

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More on the killing fields in Libya: "Gadhafi's son, Saif al-Islam on Friday spoke to foreign journalists invited to Tripoli by the government. Speaking in English, the British-educated younger Gadhafi said there were no casualties in Tripoli and that the capital is calm and peaceful. He also said the government was in negotiations with the opposition and that all problems will be "solved" by Saturday. The force that has attacked rebels on behalf of the government is one that Gadhafi - distrustful of his own generals - has built up steadily for years. It is made up of special brigades headed by his sons, segments of the military loyal to his native tribe and its allies, and legions of African mercenaries. The overall death toll has been impossible to determine but is said to be in the hundreds. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Wednesday more than 1,000 people have likely been killed in Libya's weeklong uprising. Tens of thousands are fleeing the country - to Tunisia, Egypt and Malta - including members of the government."

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Gaddafi secretly transfers £3bn to Mayfair-based fund as European leaders say 'brutality and intimidation will not be tolerated'" By DAILY MAIL REPORTER "Rescue flight leaves Gatwick as Britons in Libya STILL try to flee Barack Obama freezes Colonel Gaddafi's assets in U.S. British special forces 'ready to extract oil workers from rebel-held areas Security forces abandon working-class districts of Tripoli as defiance grows" Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360850/Gaddafis-3bn-British-transfer-European-leaders-wont-tolerate-brutality.html#ixzz1F5CnverC

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: And the Lewis interview is relevant because Libya of 2011 is identical to Turkey of 1950? And what is the point of the conclusion that "Most of the countries in the region are not yet ready for elections"? We should continue to support brutal dictatorships? We should say nothing when said dictatorships turn on their own people and launch a homicidal, and potentially genocidal, civil war? As late as 1990, the (male) voters of the Appenzells in Switzerland considered that their women were not ready for democracy. By 90%. In the West generally, "democracy" continues to be a perfectible project - and it has been going on, in fits and starts, for about four hundred and fifty years in the Anglo-Saxon world, just over two hundred years in France, and about sixty years in Germany. Brazil was a US-backed dictatorship until thirty years ago - and so was Chile, and Argentina - and the Right considered each of those to not be ready for democracy ... and while each has issues, they are vibrant democratic regimes that are already serving as models to the region. Turkey has issues, but it is a remarkable testament to the resilience of its somewhat-democratic tradition that a dozen generals can be arrested and charged with treason, and Erdogan's neck is still unbroken by a military noose. So what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama decided to reflect on how best to approach the issue in consultation with allies" This reminds me of a long forgotten Sanbaggars' episode: Decision by Committee: http://www.moviewatch.in/watch-895101-The-Sandbaggers-Decision-by-Committee "C: You can't have the power without the responsibility. Burnside: And you mean I'm irresponsible? C: Not as you see it I know. But we're answerable to the government of the day. You can't have the tail wagging the dog. Burnside: But you will allow the dog to bark. C: To bark yes, but it must bite strictly within the rules."

- noga1

February 26, 2011 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The attempt to turn around the obvious view that some people here can’t stand any criticism of Obama by saying the same of people who criticize him is a cheap shot." "Well, Icarus does seem to get a little too exercised by criticism at times." Arnon
Kettle, meet coal mine. As usual, an assertion backed up by nothing other than its own sense of self-righteousness.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And it is telling, quite telling, that aside from basman, all critics of Obama fail to answer substantively to the points raised, and instead resort to glib one-liners and adolescent sarcasm." Yes, so...? It's not as if you, icarus, have not been a rather consistent and even exuberant, practitioner of the exact method of engagement you accuse makover of being. Does that mean you have matured beyond the "glib one-liners and adolescent sarcasm." ?? I confess I like your comments better when you damp down on your reflexive sarcasm. As you know, I don't like sarcasm and I agree with you that makover's self-indulgent sarcastic comment did nothing to shed light or provide a different perspective on the issue. I don't know if anybody has already linked to Hitchens' latest, expressing a secret suspicion that Obama might actually be a crypto-Swiss. Now there's a nice sleight of sarcasm, for all would-be sarcasizers: http://www.slate.com/id/2286522/ "The Obama administration also behaves as if the weight of the United States in world affairs is approximately the same as that of Switzerland. We await developments. We urge caution, even restraint. We hope for the formation of an international consensus. And, just as there is something despicable about the way in which Swiss bankers change horses, so there is something contemptible about the way in which Washington has been affecting—and perhaps helping to bring about—American impotence. Except that, whereas at least the Swiss have the excuse of cynicism, American policy manages to be both cynical and naive…"

- noga1

February 26, 2011 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon - I am not seeing any dispute here that atrocities are being committed against the Libyan people, or that anyone here is not appalled by what is going on. As Blackton noted, the rebels appear to be in control of most of the military airfields and there are no reported bombings of rebel held areas. There is a lot going on in Tripoli, but this is becoming a civil war, the losing side of which is likely to be largely executed. Of course Quadaffi is going to fight it out. So what is your point exactly, and more specifically, what would you have the US right now other than use stern words, the use of which are very unclear? I still note that the de Gaulle hasn't showed up by itself off the Libyan coast to bring teeth to Paris' scoldings, nor do there appear to German or British troops parachuting in to show the Americans how it's done.

- Nari224

February 26, 2011 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“And what is the point of the conclusion that "Most of the countries in the region are not yet ready for elections"? We should continue to support brutal dictatorships?” I also read the interview and there was no hidden to Lewis’ observation. He said it because he believes that any election right now in say Egypt will not produce a democratic system. That may or may not be true but that’s what he believes. Nothing complicated here, Icarus.

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://somalilandpress.com/libya-at-least-four-somali-refugees-are-killed-and-many-forced-out-to-the-desert-20422 makes an interesting point that there are tens of thousands of sub-saharan migrant workers and refugees from other conflicts who are now at risk of being confused for Qaddafi mercenaries by opposition forces. bad time to be dark-skinned in Libya? icarusr: I just wanted to share the Lewis interview somewhere where a few commenters might want to know about it. His account of Turkey in 1950 caught my interest. Nothing specific to Libya. The opinion of Bernard Lewis on whether "Most of the countries in the region are not yet ready for elections" is just something to consider. No need to get hostile - not as though I was inserting an interview with Justin Bieber on the Islamic concept of democracy, which I expect CNN to do :)

- K2K

February 26, 2011 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

02/26/2011 - 11:44am EDT | icarusr as usual a cheap shot by icarus.

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Bernard Lewis" is a name that serves as red rag to a bull. He, of course, is the leading and most scholarly historian about the Middle East to date. With one notable exception: Edward Said..

- noga1

February 26, 2011 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164482658051692.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t Bari Weiss' interview: "A Democrat's Triumphal Return to Cairo Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the former prisoner of the Mubarak regime, on the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt's political future" "...For the 72-year-old sociologist, the revolution against Hosni Mubarak has been many years in the making. His struggle began 10 years ago with a word: jumlukiya. A combination of the Arabic words for republic (jumhuriya) and monarchy (malikiya), the term was coined by Mr. Ibrahim to characterize the family dynasties of the Mubaraks of Egypt and the Assads of Syria. ... Mr. Ibrahim's Ibn Khaldun Center—the Muslim world's leading think tank for the study of democracy and civil society... Mr. Ibrahim thinks that holding elections six months from now is "not wise." If he had his druthers, it would be put off for several years to allow alternative groups to mature. Still, he insists that the Brothers—some of whom he knows well from prison, including senior leader Essam el-Erian—are changing. ... he doesn't mince words about Mr. Obama's record so far. The president "wasted two and a half years" cozying up to dictators and abandoning dissidents, he says. "Partly to distance himself from Bush, democracy promotion became a kind of bad phrase for him." He also made the Israeli-Palestinian conflict his top priority, at the expense of pushing for freedom. "By putting the democracy file on hold, on the back burner, he did not accomplish peace nor did he serve democracy," says Mr. Ibrahim. 'Dislikable as [President Bush] may have been to many liberals, including my own wife, we have to give him credit," says Mr. Ibrahim. "He started a process of some conditionality with American aid and American foreign policy which opened some doors and ultimately was one of the building blocks for what's happening now." That conditionality extended to Mr. Ibrahim: In 2002, the Bush administration successfully threatened to withhold $130 million in aid from Egypt if Mr. Mubarak didn't release him. So what should the White House do? "Publicly endorse every democratic movement in the Middle East and offer help," he says. The least the administration can do is withhold "aid and trade and diplomatic endorsement. Because now the people can do the job. America doesn't have to send armies and navies to change the regimes. Let the people do their change." " [the entire interview is very interesting, but is solely about Egypt]

- K2K

February 26, 2011 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"With one notable exception: Edward Said." Said was a historian?

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: I thought you reference to Lewis without more of an intro was an implicit agreement with the substance of the observations, hence my question to you. But, the question might as well be put to Lewis himself. There is no hostility on my part to you; there is consternation to the multiple-personality-inducing perspective of some commentators and commenters. For example, let us take Lewis at his word: what then? Dictatorships tend to oppress, suppress, torture and kill - that is their normal way of surviving. Democracies, especially in countries where there is no democratic tradition, tend to be messy and unstable. What conclusion do we draw? Obama should denounce Libyan atrocities, send forces and ... what then exactly? Run the place? Hand it over to another dictator? Assuming American forces alone can pacify the country to, in fact, hand it over to the locals .... Lewis' point is as trite as it is pointless. There are no Arab or Muslim Philosopher-Kings or Solons waiting in the wings - and even in its birthplace, Pericles subverted Athenian democracy in the face of actual external and perceived internal threats. In that region, the best we can hope for is a muddle and some internal disciplines on additional bloodshed. The question is simply how to get there - and you do not get there either by a hectoring US President, US bombs or tsk-tsking Middle East Experts.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 12:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: I think this forum owes you a debt of gratitude for scouring the Internet and linking to articles that provide a much more multifaceted picture from a selection of sources.

- noga1

February 26, 2011 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: exactly. Are you contesting my "thirty years" (it was a rough figure, and of course you are right about the date)? Or the fact that the Right supported these dictatorships because they were afraid that democratic institutions would usher in Communism (as it had done in Chile, they argued)? (I should tell you that I had a Brazilian partner for years, and count Brazilian jurists and diplomats as close friends - so know something about the place.)

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: I am probably far more sympathetic to Lewis than you would think; have never read Said and don't intend to (books are long; life is short; gotta choose). For me, arguments matter, not who expresses them. This is why I have no compunctions about quoting Rumsfeld on "unknowns" or "evidence", despite the fact that I think him one of the most dangerous, duplicitous, cynical, incompetent and potentially criminal political figures in the post-war United States (right up there with Kissinger). And, on the whole, I would rather know what the posters here think than what they can link to ... ;) ...

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"With one notable exception: Edward Said." Said was a historian?" What I wrote was :With one notable exception: Edward Said.. Unfortunately I don't pay much attention to proper punctuation. But I think icarus got my intention. Unlike arnon, who did not. (How does one express an ironical intent in punctuation? Perhaps ironyroad can enlighten the less lit)

- noga1

February 26, 2011 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The attempt to turn around the obvious view that some people here can’t stand any criticism of Obama by saying the same of people who criticize him is a cheap shot." Quite to the contrary, my point was actually understated because you seldom read anyone whining about the fact that Obama is being criticized, although they do take issue with the criticism. However, we CONSTANTLY read the whining of those whose criticism is rebutted or criticized, that they are being unfairly attacked or not permitted to criticize. What they demand is to make their criticism free of rebuttal or even disagreement. The cheap shot is the whining that it is not possible to criticize Obama here. Indeed, calling it a cheap shot is being far too kind.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Two words: Thatcher; Pinochet. :) But if you go back to the debates at the time - roughly after Argentinean transition and before Brazil's move to democracy, and right up to Chilean hand-over, there was a lot of hand-wringing in "conservative" circles about those countries going Communist - which is another way or saying we don't think those poor schmucks are ready to decide their own fate. I began reading TNR at that time, and you can go through the archives, especially Krauthammer and Barnes, and see how they did not think that the US should push the dictatorships into precipitous transition ... in fact, much of the Conressional-White House foreign policy tensions of the time related to persistent US support (underwritten by ITT and United Fruit Company) for South American dictatorships at the expense of the moral standing of the United States in those countries. This is not to say Communism and the Soviet Union were not real threats; it is, rather, that large elements of the "right" - the hawks - considered that supporting right-wing dictatorships in South America - and elsewhere - was preferable to messy democratic outcomes (such as in India) that threatened to remove certain countries out of the sphere of US influence and into the Soviet orbit.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: irony is a conspiracy between the utterer and the listener; in a sense, it can only work - and it is demonstrated as irony - only where there are those who don't get it ;) .... It is fundamentally elitist humour, which is why it thrives in the UK, and it is why it has been 'democratised" in the US by transformation into sarcasm. Much in the same way that British black humour invariably degenerates into cynicism in the US.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"For me, arguments matter, not who expresses them." Geez, icarus. You simply fail to understand that arguments do not matter at all. What matters is discerning who is and who is not an anti-Semite and relative degrees of love for Israel, which happens to be identical to the love of freedom, democracy, human rights, faith, truth, justice, the American way such that there is no need, ever, to discuss such matters based on any arguments about them. Claims are to be evaluated on that scale alone as all else is superfluous. Where did you get this crazy idea about "arguments" anyway? Have you been consorting with anti-Semites? You can repent by reaffirming your love for Israel, repudiating this subversive idea about arguments, and sinning no more.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid: I was raised a Baha'i. There is no repentance; only Sin, Fall and Banishment. But I do love Israel; I even toyed with the idea of moving there (apparently I am eligible for citizenship), and then the second Intifada happened ... and having lived through one revolution, decided did not have the courage to go through more instability ... I guess that does not count :).

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And, just as there is something despicable about the way in which Swiss bankers change horses, so there is something contemptible about the way in which Washington has been affecting—and perhaps helping to bring about—American impotence." Heck, Washington cannot even get Israel, its client, to refrain from building what Martin Peretz so loves to refer to as "a few apartments in Jerusalem." All Obama needs to do is whistle and the world will roll over at his feet, or it would if he were not bringing about American impotence. I think it is long past time that we invaded another country. It has been eight years since we demonstrated the potency of American power with a nice, inexpensive, brief, and of course righteous invasion. That's the problem here. We are overdue for an invasion. Hence, the perception of our power is that it is waning. What the held are the American armed forces, costing hundreds of billions a year, for if we are not going to kill some people at regular intervals? I propose we invade Israel. They have a lot of American equipment which, by our refusing to resupply, should make it a short battle. Most everyone speaks English so we won't have all those nasty problems about failing to understand what is going on "on the ground." And New Yorkers at least should be able to get the local humor.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's a start, icarus, but enough already with this "arguments" thing. You have to get over that, regardless of where you choose to live.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Er ... while the dictatorships were in place, they were being supported by what, in the US, would have been considered "hawks" or "conservatives". The transition happened, in each instance, for internal reasons and was unencumbered by active US (Administration - not Congress) support for transition. When you support a dictatorship because you think that the people, left to their own devices, will choose a communist dictatorship, you are implicitly (and sometimes expressly) saying that the people are not ready for democracy. "So and so is not ready for democracy" has been a rallying cry of conservatives, in modern electoral term, since the Reform Acts of the 1830s; that, having lost the domestic battle, they would transfer it internationally is - or ought not - be a controversial point. The target moves (property-less men, illiterates, blacks, women, the young, Muslims), but the essence of the argument does not change. In fact, Sulla's Senate reforms in Rome 2100 years ago reflected much the same sentiment ;) ... in modern terms, Sulla would be characterised as being in the "right".

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are you re-writing history, malahat? I would have thought it beyond dispute that during the Cold War the US supported many right-wing dictatorships as long as they remained within the American sphere of influence. I am, frankly, astonished that anyone would even contest this.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not funny? Surely you jest.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, let's see. We were not supporting democratic movements in those countries. We were assisting those governments with tools and means to suppress those movements. We were not particularly critical of repression there. We certainly were not threatening sanctions or anything else in order to curb that repression. Yet, somehow, we are to understand that the political right, the chief advocates of this realist approach, were not opposed to the transition to democracy in those states? In every practical sense, they were, out of fear that transition might move these countries out of the US orbit or, worse, into the Soviet orbit.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But parodying the arguments of those who seem to think that invasion is all in a days work, including that not doing so is tantamount to impotence, is necessary. We have had far too much of these lethal demonstrations of "power." Killing people is even less funny than ridiculing the people who are so anxious to get in there and do some.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Suggesting killing people is never funny." Methinks, this is precisely what roid is trying to get at. We blithely assert the right, the NEED, for US military intervention here and there, without really thinking about the fact that military intervention, even for humanitarian purposes, means war, and people die in wars. We somehow, without reflecting too much, think that the human costs of humanitarian war - whether in terms of our own soldiers or local innocents - are acceptable because will have warded off greater evils: when we heard of thousands of Iraqi civilians being killed as a result of the war, it was normal for the supporters of the war to note that Saddam Hussein killed more people in a comparable time-frame before the war ... You reaction, perfectly understandable, is, I think, what roid was trying to elicit: a visceral, tribal revulsion at the killing of the Self, even as this thread is replete with pleas that would lead to the indiscriminate killing of the Other.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat: in law, there is something called "judicial notice". That is, some things are so obvious that judges may take notice of them as facts without additional evidence. As well - and this not to question your good faith - in the blog world, it is a routine reaction of some to derail an argument by demanding proof (or empirical support). Ii did, in fact, give you at least two sources: the archives in this august magazine, with references to Barnes and Krauthammer; the position of the US Administration in the early Eighties is not really contestable, nor are its "Right Wing" credentials. You can read the writings of William F. Buckley - who, in an extreme moment, appeared even to sanction the assassination of Swedish (socialist) long-time Prime Minister Olof Palme (an extreme form of "they don't deserve democracy"). The fact that a generally coherent intellectual tradition that could be termed as "the Right" or "the conservatives" supported military dictatorships in client states of the United States and resisted attempts, by left-leaning Democratic politicians, to support nascent democratic movements in South America ought not be open to much controversy.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"irony is a conspiracy between the utterer and the listener " Ooh. Nice. I like. _________ "I propose we invade Israel. ..." Not funny." But not as outlandish as one might think. Remember Brzezinski (or whatever his name is) already suggested that American jetfighters will attack Israeli jetfighters in case the latter are on the way to Iran to bomb the nuclear sites. From that type of thinking to attacking Israel type of thinking may take more than a step, but the propositional direction is already planted as a seed in the administration that employed B's expertise at one point or another. Nothing is beyond the possible, as unlikely as it may seem.

- noga1

February 26, 2011 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In 1985, the US Administration did not oppose transition to democracy in Brazil. In 1984, the Administration, and its intellectual enablers, did nothing to encourage transition and provided active support to the dictatorship and argued vehemently against Democratic/liberal attempts at bringing about transition on the grounds that transition to democracy would result in communism. "They are not ready for democracy because ..." is a constant refrain of those who identify themselves as conservatives. Whether the justification is lack of culture or concern about communism is not really the point. The liberal/progressive ethos has been, at least since the 1830, aimed at expanding the franchise and enabling democratic traditions, even if it means/meant that in the short term, the outcomes would be messy or not in line with short-term interests. You can challenge these as much as you want; the basic timelines and broad lines of argument - of conservative against democracy and liberals for, domestically and internationally - are, it would seem to me, a matter of public record and, in general, uncontestable.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hello? Are we still here on planet Earth? "The possibility of Allende winning Chile's 1970 election was deemed a disaster by a US government who wanted to protect US business interests and prevent any spread of communism during the Cold War. In September 1970, President Nixon informed the CIA that an Allende government in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him. The CIA's plans to impede Allende's investiture as President of Chile were known as "Track I" and "Track II"; Track I sought to prevent Allende from assuming power via so-called "parliamentary trickery", while under the Track II initiative, the CIA tried to convince key Chilean military officers to carry out a coup." http://www.tnr.com/article/world/84191/obama-libya-intervention-qaddafi-iran-egypt?page=2 ___________________ Thank you, icarus. A far more eloquent explanation than any I could have mustered in my own behalf. However, I was also pointing at the fact that US power, other than military power, is much more limited than critics will admit. One way I point to this is with our singular lack of success in getting the Netanyahu government to refrain from further construction in the West Bank, something that the Israeli government had already agreed to under the Roadmap. In contrast, while we have a lot of military power, its use comes at a price, to ourselves and others, toward which the inciters for the use of this power are quite blithe -- unless it is mentioned with regard to them. While we have no known case of Americans shooting at any Israeli craft, there is a case of Israel sinking a US naval vessel. Nothing is beyond the possible, as unlikely as it may seem. Wars are messy affairs, never as simple as the advocates would like to claim.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The US role in Mosaddegh's overthrow was not formally acknowledged for many years, although the Eisenhower administration vehemently opposed Mossadegh's policies. President Eisenhower wrote angrily about Mosaddegh in his memoirs, describing him as impractical and naive. However, Eisenhower did not admit any involvement with the coup. Eventually the CIA's involvement with the coup was exposed. This caused controversy within the organization and the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. CIA supporters maintained that the coup was strategically necessary, and praised the efficiency of the agents responsible. Critics say the scheme was paranoid, colonial, illegal, and immoral--and truly caused the "blowback" suggested in the pre-coup analysis. In March 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mosaddegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." In the same year, The New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on declassified CIA documents." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not just the US Administration of the day, but the intellectual edifice of conservative foreign policy. I am relying on memory, which is highly unreliable, but I cannot recall a groundswell of encouragement for transition on the part of the conservative commentariat, and much opposition. I will dig up the references :) ... I gather, though, that you enjoyed the tah-dig :) ...

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This may or may not have anything to do with anything - but it's deeply upsetting to see Gaddafi portrayed as a "Jew." Where does this come from? Beyond the obvious antisemitism and the insult to us all, it makes me think that no matter who "wins" the progressives won't.

- Sophia

February 26, 2011 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No cigar, malahat. Diem was far from being a democratically elected leader or leading a democracy at the time. He was in the way of our anti-communist crusade in Vietnam. So, what we have are examples of the right assassinating democratically elected leaders who will not remain in the US sphere of influence and the left assassinating a right-wing despot who is frustrating our anti-communist efforts. As well, you seem to require, as does arnon, that unless we can demonstrate ideological purity and consistency we cannot speak meaningfully of the left and right. I don't think that is the case and, from the evidence, neither does anyone who writes about political affairs. As well, I am pretty confident that if you did a survey of the incidence of political assassination in the last hundred years in general you will find considerably more cases of assassinations of democratically elected leftists than of democratically elected rightists and more cases of assassinations of leftists, period.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Out of curiosity, malahat, I think I am correct that you are Israeli, but your English is absolutely colloquial. Are you a native-speaker of English? Were you educated in an English-speaking country? Or are you just very good with languages?

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or am I confusing you with, makover? Wouldn't be the first time.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Libya: Daring SAS mission rescues Britons and others from desert RAF Hercules fly more than 150 oil workers to Malta – but up to 500 still stranded in compounds." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/26/britons-rescued-libya-desert-raf/print

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Labour leader Ed Miliband, writing in today's Observer, said the pro-democracy movements had shown the need for a profound rethink of foreign policy. "The extraordinary events of the past few weeks have served to underline that our alliances should be defined by our values, rather than our values defined by our alliances," he says." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/26/britons-rescued-libya-desert-raf Sounds good, I'd like to know how it will play out in actuality.

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...you will know that you're responding to points that I never made... The only way I have ever won an argument in my life: in court we (uhhm, some of us) call this "think Yiddish speak British."

- basman

February 26, 2011 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My jokes: a thread kiss of death.

- basman

February 26, 2011 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Roi, Re: your post about about Diem, Left/Right, etc. if you read my earlier posts, you will know that you're responding to points that I never made.” This occurs very often with Roid, malahat. He would rather make up straw arguers than deal with what someone actually says. One more reason not to take what he says too seriously.

- Newly84

February 26, 2011 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon - thanks for the Guardian link re the SAS operation. That would be the British parachuting in, so I will have to eat my words there. However the overall point remains the same, as the same article from a not overly US-friendly paper makes "Obama sharpened his tone after the evacuation of US citizens". The British only rescued their citizens (and all credit due to them for it) from the desert. Not for example, from Tripoli harbor for example where the US-filled ferry was sitting, and these operations have done nothing to prevent whats going on in the non-rebel areas. As for Ed Miliband's musings a) They seem odd in view of the fact that the UK has only recently normalised relationships with Libya after Lockerbie. b) Doesn't strike me as the first time that I've heard that out of London (from the government or opposition), yet the British continue to be the world's #1 arms manufacturer and exporter. And those who share said values are conspicuously curtailing their defence expenditures, so I sadly won't be holding my breath.

- Nari224

February 26, 2011 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

newly is smarting because he made the assertion not long ago that the neo-cons have been consistent in their support for transition to democracy even if there is risk of a new government contra to American interests. He was careful first to except Krauthammer whose recent utterances are to the contrary, but it did not take much to demonstrate that newly is wrong. However, despite his frequent errors in matters of fact, or excessive claims in that regard, I take everything he says very, very seriously. _____________________________ Forgive me, malahat, both for confusing you with makover and for missing some nuance of your argument. Contra the snark of newly up there, I am not deliberately avoiding it. As I understand the discussion, the claim was made that the right-wing, contra professions here, has long opposed transitions to democratic government where American interests may be threatened and has, to that end, often been willing to support right-wing dictatorships (while, I should add, seeking to undermine left-wing dictatorships and in some cases left-wing democracies). You seem to be questioning the attribution of this policy specifically to the right, to which icarus responds, I think properly, that this is a fact so notorious that it ought not require proof even if there is not absolute ideological consistency on either the left or the right. You also seem to me to be questioning whether this is so specifically with respect to three South American countries, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. icarus addressed this and I called attention to the egregious example of our role in the overthrow and assassination of Allende. For good measure, I cited to our similar action with respect to Mossadegh in Iran. Your response is to call attention to the coup we backed in Vietnam during a Democratic administration, to which I pointed out that Diem was not a democratic leader. So, whatever we were doing, we could hardly have been said to be upending a democratic government. Indeed, one cause of the Vietnam war was our refusal to countenance elections there, per the agreements in Paris, in the knowledge that Ho Chi Minh would win. Hence, there too we were resisting democratization if it meant a left-wing government. You said you had three words for me, Ngo Dinh Diem. Now you say I am responding to points you never made. So then, what is your point? Do you continue to disagree that the right has supported right-wing dictatorships and resisted transition to democracy where it meant left-wing government not in the US sphere of influence? Or what else then are you trying to say that I fail to understand?

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"it makes me think that no matter who "wins" the progressives won't." Sophia: that rather depends on how you define "progressive" and how they (Libyans, Quardianistas and ilk) define the very same term. After the Palestine leaks were published, it was the Guardianistas who took most offence at the notion that the Palestinian Leaders even purported to make a few concessions to Israeli realities. Compromise and the prospect of peace are not commensurate with the "progressive' agenda of these people. Therefore, be careful when you wish for "progressives" to win anywhere. You may unwittingly be empowering reactionaries and war-mongerers.

- noga1

February 26, 2011 at 6:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi “newly is smarting because he made the assertion not long ago that the neo-cons have been consistent in their support for transition to democracy even if there is risk of a new government contra to American interests. He was careful first to except Krauthammer whose recent utterances are to the contrary, but it did not take much to demonstrate that newly is wrong. However, despite his frequent errors in matters of fact, or excessive claims in that regard, I take everything he says very, very seriously.” roidubouloi knows that what he said above isn’t true. I had stated that he was in error when he suggested that all neocons were against the removal of Mubarak. I had linked to articles showing that many neo-cons did indeed support the demonstrations in Egypt and that there was a debate within that community on this issue. Here is the article I linked to: ”The Neocons Split with Israel Over Egypt” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-neocons-split-with-israel-over-egypt/70636/ And here is another article on the on the neocon split: “Turmoil in Egypt Divides Neocons Over ‘Democracy First’ Agenda” Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/135154/#ixzz1F6ovtubH

- Newly84

February 26, 2011 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nari224, the situation is very fluid and of course it’s still not over. I agree with you description of Ed Miliband's musings.

- arnon

February 26, 2011 at 6:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I don't think it's really possible to communicate irony by way of punctuation alone (irony is more of a totality of relationship between meaning and communicative context), but one way it can help is to have individual sentences where a continuous sentence would have been the more likely option. Example: So Obama has decided to condemn Gadaffi with more emphasis. So, Obama has decided. To condemn Gadaffi. With more emphasis. Somehow the short declarative sentences (sentence fragments, technically) release an ironic shadowing that subverts the fairly banal meaning of the original, long sentence.

- ironyroad

February 26, 2011 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, the Guardianistas are anything but progressive imo. That goes double for other European antisemites. In the Middle East there will be generations of damage to confront. In the long run this will probably be easier in open governments where people have access to information instead of rants blaming the Mossad for sharks etc.

- Sophia

February 26, 2011 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, one would have to say either that newly knows what he is saying is not true or that he likes to set up "straw arguers" because he would rather argue with those than with some point that is actually being made here. I'm working from memory, which is a bit like dancing on the high wire without a net, but I don't believe I ever made any claim about neo-cons and Mubarak. Rather, I made the general point that the neo-cons have hardly been "democratic absolutists" as they and their fellow travelers would now like to contend. To the contrary, they have a history of supporting authoritarian government where in their view that advanced American interests, very much like the right in general. To this, newly responded with the claim that the neo-cons have been virtually unanimous in supporting the removal of Mubarak (although as we all know it remains very unclear that that represents anything other than changing the face on the military government). I undertook to check on this claim of newly's and it did not take long to find evidence to the contrary, most notably the very recent statements of John Bolton when interviewed on Fox News. Despite these mistakes of his, as to both the political world and the course of the discussion here, I will continue to take everything newly says very seriously.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well then, malahat, I really don't understand how you exclude the case of Allende unless you are limiting your claim to such a specific time window and set of circumstances that it is incapable of being falsified. I don't get the impression that icarus understood your point that way. No you didn't make a point about the democratic credentials of the target of a coup. I did in response to your comparison of Diem to Allende and Mossadegh. I think your three words were unresponsive. So be it.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

02/26/2011 - 6:42pm EDT | roidubouloi I am not going to bother responding to a self serving liar. MY link to the article about the debates among neocons speaks for itself.

- Newly84

February 26, 2011 at 7:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, ironyroad. But your suggestion goes to style and I think is somehow too explicit and therefore not quite ironic in the sense that I mean it. I can't really see the irony in that formulation. More of a sarcastic banging on the table. Irony, to be suspected or understood, has to rely to some kind of prior knowledge, either of the speaker's known positions and inclinations or some universally accepted knowledge. Thus, when I suggested that Edward Said's erudition reaches beyond Bernard Lewis's, I'm sure you would never have misconstrued my intention as being straightforward. You know what I think of E.S. And icarus suspected that was the case from merely being familiar with my general inclination in that regard.

- noga1

February 26, 2011 at 8:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In the long run this will probably be easier in open governments where people have access to information instead of rants blaming the Mossad for sharks etc." Sophia: Fouad Ajami agrees with you. I too want to believe: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/mideast-unrest-is-a-change-the-world-should-believe-in-scholar-says-1.345607 "How does Israel fit into this new reality? "I think Israel should not be afraid of Arab democracy. I've been very friendly to Israel and [to] the prospects of reconciliation between Israel and the Arab world, so take this as advice from a friend. I can remind you of what Natan Sharansky pointed out when he said that democrats who hate you are less dangerous than dictators who love you. There is a certain level of security that comes from autocracies, and Israel is not alone in this. The United States went to many lands and preferred dealing with autocrats because there is stability there. But the bargain with an autocrat is never a good bargain. "Israel had made peace with pharaohs, but the peace between Israel and the Arab people has not yet come. And I understand that it's harder and more risky, but I still think that the peace of democracies makes more sense. There is something we now fully understand: Dictators that made peace with Israel and an accommodation with the U.S. - they always played from the bottom of the deck and always resorted to anti-Americanism, anti-modernism and anti-Semitism. I call that the 'holy trinity.' Therefore, Israel shouldn't be afraid of the coming of democracy in the Arab world. I've thought about it, it wasn't always the position I held, I understand the stability of dictatorships, but in the long run, if you want a long-lasting peace, you have to be willing to bet on this democratic experiment."

- noga1

February 26, 2011 at 8:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And ... UNSC resolution on Libya passed unanimously. No abstentions. Extensive sanctions, referral to the ICC and so on. I guess all those conferences and consultations and - well, effective diplomacy - actually worked. Now we can move on to the next pointless and premature criticism of Obama's donothingness.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 8:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: the problem is that irony depends on shared underlying assumptions in respect of a thing that are not shared or understood by others. The elipsis and capitalisation underline the point of the irony in such a way as to signal to everyone that Something Other than the stated sentence is meant, thus obviating the ironic point of the, well, intended irony. There is no way to demonstrate irony with punctuation, much in the same way that there is no way to properly verbalise irony through inflection: the point of making an ironic statement is the straight face with which it is delivered, the shared conspiracy between those who get it, and the exclusion of the others from the conspiracy. If you state the irony with a changed inflection that gives away that something is afoot, you do not have irony any longer. The ironic point of the Said comment required the shared knowledge, between me and noga (and others who know her) that she is not a great fan. The ironic value of the statement was precisely the fact that some did not get it.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 9:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks noga. My take is that the Libyan migrant worker refugee situation will become THE major test for the international community. I had not considered that many migrants are from the same sub-Saharan countries as Qaddafi's mercenaries - from countries who are too poor and dysfunctional to do anything - before news.google unearthed that article from Somaliland, still trying to be recognized as an independent nation-state despite the African Union insistence on maintaining colonial boundaries, and the world's obsession with palestinians. I wish I could remember who recently wrote about how often countries seem to need a transition from autocracy and/or military rule BEFORE democracy emerges (South Korea as one example), because of the need to establish rule of law in a reasonably literate population at a certain level of per capita GDP. Tribal societies are beyond my commentary. I totally agree with Bernard Lewis about the role of women as a distinctive factor in the evolution of democracy in Muslim countires. Just recovering from another three hours of shovelling ice and watched "Air Force One" (again) whilst recuperating. Getting back to Weiseltier's point about infusing rhetoric with morality, this speech makes some relevant points with my apologies to Kazakhstan for being the example used by the screenwriter in 1997. The opening scene of this film has US Special Forces snatching the genocidal dictator from his bed in his heavily guarded palace. TNT has been playing AFOne almost every day/night since Libya erupted. Not a coincidence. I expect "Wind and the Lion" to re-appear if any hostages are taken :) From the 1997 film "Air Force One": President Marshall [translated from Russian]: "The dead remember our indifference. The dead remember our silence." [in English] I came here tonight to be congratulated. But today when I visited the Red Cross camps, overwhelmed by the flood of refugees fleeing from the horror of Kazakhstan, I realized I don't deserve to be congratulated. None of us do. Let's speak the truth. And the truth is, we acted too late. Only when our own national security was threatened did we act. Radek's regime murdered over 200,000 men, women and children and we watched it on TV. We let it happen. People were being slaughtered for over a year and we issued economical sanctions and hid behind a rhetoric of diplomacy. How dare we? The dead remember. Real peace is not just the absence of conflict, it's the presence of justice. And tonight, I come to you with a pledge to change America's policy. Never again will I allow our political self-interests to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons and to those who would use them: Your day is over. We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid." http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechairforceone.html

- K2K

February 26, 2011 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat: of course, any communication requires shared assumptions - about the meaning of the words used, for instance. But within a conversation, there would be underlying assumptions that are hidden to some listeners. So a given sentence ends up having two senses: the sense that everyone hears and understands, and the ironic sense that only those "in" on the irony understand. Irony, in this sense, is not dependent on the medium, but the audience.

- icarusr

February 26, 2011 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

February 28 issue of The New Yorker is a real treat. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/toc/2011/02/28/toc_20110221 Wendell Steavenson "On the [Tahrir] Square: between the protestors and the military" is free online, and the most revealing account I have read; for subscribers: John Cassidy on "Can Islam and Capitalism work together?"; and David Remnick profile of Haaretz "The Dissenters: Israel's embattled liberal voice". retiring to face the new snow tomorrow in order to face the sleet due Monday...

- K2K

February 26, 2011 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder if perhaps my discomfort with Obama on the suspect silence has more to do with the implied dimensions of that same silence. As if it might reasonably be inferred a kind of self defeating priority on this 'support' of democracy. It would seem that a degree of deference and undeserved warrant is afforded a kind of statist 'multicultural' status that demands subservience of the inalienable capacities of the dignity of freedom and individual identity. This individual identity maximum is after all what the real contentions are all about. I think Obama is going to have to husband and vouchsafe this issue and its expression needs for collective health sake. I think he's up to it. Come on rev, give us some of that good pulpit. Let me hear you say, Yes!

- jacko

February 26, 2011 at 10:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What annoys me about Wieseltier isn't his opinions, which I sometimes disagree with, but his sheer obnoxiousness. {{The main point of Obama’s statement on Libya was that “the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice,” and that “we join with the international community to speak with one voice.” He is calling for words!}} I'm not sure it's a given that "speaking" is always literal speaking {{He actually said that “the whole world is watching,” that foul old slogan of the bystander.}} What nonsense. Whether the slogan is foul (it's neither fishy nor fowl) is a matter of opinion, but if we treat it as old, then it isn't the slogan of the bystander--it was originated by demonstrators getting the crap kicked out of them in the late sixties. The inane parenthetical pun was my hommage to Wieseltier. And now that M. Peretz is gone, can someone please start editing LW's stuff?

- mnkoplow

February 26, 2011 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't want to claim that newly is a liar because I don't think he is deliberately lying. It is just that he is confused again here as he so often is. In his muddled re-imagination of who said what to whom he thinks this is what happened: "roidubouloi knows that what he said above isn’t true. I had stated that he was in error when he suggested that all neocons were against the removal of Mubarak. I had linked to articles showing that many neo-cons did indeed support the demonstrations in Egypt and that there was a debate within that community on this issue." In actuality, this is what happened, pretty much in accord with my memory: http://www.tnr.com/article/world/84087/middle-east-peace-fallacy-us-foreign-policy 02/24/2011 - 7:36pm EDT | roidubouloi The right is very flexible on the subject of human rights, rhetorically supporting them when there is the potential to undermine an unfriendly regime and ignoring them to support a friendly regime. They are kissing Saddam Hussein one day and excoriating him the next depending on whether he is in the friendly or unfriendly corner, but all the while he was a vicious tyrant. 02/24/2011 - 7:57pm EDT | Newly84 Who here is "the right?" Is there only one "Right" or left position? Many so called right wingers support the overthrow of Mubarak. Get yourself a different line, RD. 02/24/2011 - 9:46pm EDT | roidubouloi Yeah, when did many so called right wingers support the overthrow of Mubarak? Yesterday. You trying to tell me that the right or any significant part of has been vocally supporting the downfall of Mubarak at any point before it became a fait accompli? The right, and yes there is a right with certain shared views, opposes despots who are hostile to the US and supports despots who are friendly to the US. Trying to present this as support for democracy and human rights is just propaganda. 02/24/2011 - 10:29pm EDT | Newly84 What do you think the neocons were talking about when they proposed bringing "democracy to the Mid-East? I thought that that was nonsense, and I still do. I wish I was wrong. Nothing would please me more than seeing real democracy flourish in Egypt, Iran, Libya or Syria. 02/24/2011 - 10:50pm EDT | roidubouloi Most certainly not the overthrow of any regime friendly to the United States. What they were talking about is regime change for unfriendly regimes to make them friendly regimes. They are quite open about using American power to prevent democratically elected unfriendly regimes. When you want to take issue with my factual claims, why go right ahead. So far, I don't think that you have in any discernible way beyond declaring that I am wrong (and by inference that you are right). 02/24/2011 - 11:14pm EDT | Newly84 They talked about bringing democracy to the whole area. This is why when the Egyptian demonstrations broke out they debated its meaning on many of their websites. Some like the Washington post columnist Charles Krauthammer were against them but many of them weren't. Like many doctrinaire leftists you have a hard time with actual facts. You have a way of generalizing about everything you write. You'd rather believe in "logic" of a positions than the actual position a person holds. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-neocons-spl... "But the neoconservatives, who have made democracy promotion in the Middle East an overarching goal, are scratching their heads at what they see as Israeli shortsightedness. I asked Elliott Abrams, formerly of the Bush Administration National Security Council, and now at the Council on Foreign Relations, what he makes of the Israeli longing for Mubarak. He was scathing in his response" You will twist and turn until you prove to yourself that the "neocons" are lying or are not true to their principles. 02/24/2011 - 11:35pm EDT | roidubouloi I will get to work on it. I take it however that although there is no such thing as a left or right position on things, that we can speak in general about a neocon position without abusing the principle you advocate that there is no way to identify a left or right on anything. 02/25/2011 - 12:10am EDT | roidubouloi Here we go. So much for the "uniform" neo-con point of view, excerpted from "Neocons' Tepid Reaction To Egyptian Democratic Revolution" By Stephen J. Sniegoski 2-6-11 http://www.rense.com/general92/rg.htm "John Bolton, a long-time member of the neoconservative nexus, who currently is making noises about running for the Republican presidential nomination, did not even pay lip service to democracy in his negative portrayal of the political upheaval in Egypt. It should be said that this complete slighting of democracy makes Bolton something of an outlier among the neocons. Instead, he focuses solely on the Muslim Brotherhood bogeyman. He went so far as to say that he did not "think we have evidence yet that these demonstrations are necessarily about democracy. You know the old saying, 'one person, one vote, one time.' The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't care about democracy, if they get into power you're not going to have free and fair elections either." To Bolton, the issue was one revolving fundamentally around American geostrategic interests. "Let's be clear what the stakes are for the United States," Bolton asserts. "We have an authoritarian regime in power that has been our ally." He believes, and seems to hope, that the Egyptian army, which he describes as the real power in the country, could take actions to suppress this revolutionary development. _________________ Oddly, newly now links an article that articulates the rather longstanding view of at least some, I think a majority, of the neo-cons that democracy should not be encouraged when the result will be hostile to US interests, tending to make my point rather than his own. Like I said, I don't think newly is lying. He is just perpetually confused and cannot abide that others are not as confused as he. Your stated decision not respond is probably wise, newly. You are only going to dig your hole deeper. You ought to have a care at least to get your facts reasonably straight before you accuse other people of lying.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sigh, will TNR never fix that bug. Here we go again: I don't want to claim that newly is a liar because I don't think he is deliberately lying. It is just that he is confused again here as he so often is. In his muddled re-imagination of who said what to whom he thinks this is what happened: "roidubouloi knows that what he said above isn’t true. I had stated that he was in error when he suggested that all neocons were against the removal of Mubarak. I had linked to articles showing that many neo-cons did indeed support the demonstrations in Egypt and that there was a debate within that community on this issue." In actuality, this is what happened, pretty much in accord with my memory: 02/24/2011 - 7:36pm EDT | roidubouloi The right is very flexible on the subject of human rights, rhetorically supporting them when there is the potential to undermine an unfriendly regime and ignoring them to support a friendly regime. They are kissing Saddam Hussein one day and excoriating him the next depending on whether he is in the friendly or unfriendly corner, but all the while he was a vicious tyrant. 02/24/2011 - 7:57pm EDT | Newly84 Who here is "the right?" Is there only one "Right" or left position? Many so called right wingers support the overthrow of Mubarak. Get yourself a different line, RD. 02/24/2011 - 9:46pm EDT | roidubouloi Yeah, when did many so called right wingers support the overthrow of Mubarak? Yesterday. You trying to tell me that the right or any significant part of has been vocally supporting the downfall of Mubarak at any point before it became a fait accompli? The right, and yes there is a right with certain shared views, opposes despots who are hostile to the US and supports despots who are friendly to the US. Trying to present this as support for democracy and human rights is just propaganda. 02/24/2011 - 10:29pm EDT | Newly84 What do you think the neocons were talking about when they proposed bringing "democracy to the Mid-East? I thought that that was nonsense, and I still do. I wish I was wrong. Nothing would please me more than seeing real democracy flourish in Egypt, Iran, Libya or Syria. 02/24/2011 - 10:50pm EDT | roidubouloi Most certainly not the overthrow of any regime friendly to the United States. What they were talking about is regime change for unfriendly regimes to make them friendly regimes. They are quite open about using American power to prevent democratically elected unfriendly regimes. When you want to take issue with my factual claims, why go right ahead. So far, I don't think that you have in any discernible way beyond declaring that I am wrong (and by inference that you are right). 02/24/2011 - 11:14pm EDT | Newly84 They talked about bringing democracy to the whole area. This is why when the Egyptian demonstrations broke out they debated its meaning on many of their websites. Some like the Washington post columnist Charles Krauthammer were against them but many of them weren't. Like many doctrinaire leftists you have a hard time with actual facts. You have a way of generalizing about everything you write. You'd rather believe in "logic" of a positions than the actual position a person holds. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-neocons-spl... "But the neoconservatives, who have made democracy promotion in the Middle East an overarching goal, are scratching their heads at what they see as Israeli shortsightedness. I asked Elliott Abrams, formerly of the Bush Administration National Security Council, and now at the Council on Foreign Relations, what he makes of the Israeli longing for Mubarak. He was scathing in his response" You will twist and turn until you prove to yourself that the "neocons" are lying or are not true to their principles. 02/24/2011 - 11:35pm EDT | roidubouloi I will get to work on it. I take it however that although there is no such thing as a left or right position on things, that we can speak in general about a neocon position without abusing the principle you advocate that there is no way to identify a left or right on anything. 02/25/2011 - 12:10am EDT | roidubouloi Here we go. So much for the "uniform" neo-con point of view, excerpted from "Neocons' Tepid Reaction To Egyptian Democratic Revolution" By Stephen J. Sniegoski 2-6-11 http://www.rense.com/general92/rg.htm "John Bolton, a long-time member of the neoconservative nexus, who currently is making noises about running for the Republican presidential nomination, did not even pay lip service to democracy in his negative portrayal of the political upheaval in Egypt. It should be said that this complete slighting of democracy makes Bolton something of an outlier among the neocons. Instead, he focuses solely on the Muslim Brotherhood bogeyman. He went so far as to say that he did not "think we have evidence yet that these demonstrations are necessarily about democracy. You know the old saying, 'one person, one vote, one time.' The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't care about democracy, if they get into power you're not going to have free and fair elections either." To Bolton, the issue was one revolving fundamentally around American geostrategic interests. "Let's be clear what the stakes are for the United States," Bolton asserts. "We have an authoritarian regime in power that has been our ally." He believes, and seems to hope, that the Egyptian army, which he describes as the real power in the country, could take actions to suppress this revolutionary development. http://www.tnr.com/article/world/84087/middle-east-peace-fallacy-us-foreign-policy ___________________ Like I said, I don’t think newly is lying so much as perpetually confused and furious that not everyone is as confused as he. This results in his sputtering. Oddly, he now links an article that expresses the neocon point of view that democracy should not be encouraged when it will result in regimes hostile to the US, tending to make my point rather than his own. Your stated decision not to respond is probably wise on your part, newly. You will only dig the hole you are in deeper. But you really should try and get your facts straight before you accuse other people of lying. Go and sin no more.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With apologies. It takes but a few words to accuse someone of lying. Inevitably, it takes many more to set the record straight. That's why accusations of lying, though they be unambiguously false, are often effective. Pity.

- roidubouloi

February 26, 2011 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ridiculous roidubouloi spent hours composing a post that few people will care to read and which didn’t prove an anything. This is more of an answer that he deserves.

- Newly84

February 26, 2011 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You read it, newly, and that suffices, because what it proves is that if you are not a fabricator you are a dolt and if you are not a dolt you are a fabricator. And, it was really no trouble at all. What apparently would take you hours to compose takes me only a few minutes, probably less time than it takes you to read it. There are those with quick minds and those with slow minds. There is little doubt about which category you fall into. What is also increasingly obvious is that while you complain about personal attacks on posters, it is you who are belligerent and constantly seeking opportunity to be insulting or attack others. I never doubted that, and I can well understand. It is a result of the inevitable frustration of one such as you who is not able to keep up, becomes enraged at his own lack of ability, and, as a result, lashes out. This is, by the way, exactly the answer that YOU deserve. Neither more nor less.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 12:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good night, loser

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 12:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since the discussion on irony (the concept, not the man) rages on, here is Roger Scruton: http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_1_the-west.html "The late Richard Rorty saw irony as a state of mind intimately connected with the postmodern worldview—a withdrawal from judgment that nevertheless aims at a kind of consensus, a shared agreement not to judge. The ironic temperament, however, is better understood as a virtue—a disposition aimed at a kind of practical fulfillment and moral success. Venturing a definition of this virtue, I would describe it as a habit of acknowledging the otherness of everything, including oneself. However convinced you are of the rightness of your actions and the truth of your views, look on them as the actions and the views of someone else and rephrase them accordingly. So defined, irony is quite distinct from sarcasm: it is a mode of acceptance rather than a mode of rejection. It also points both ways: through irony, I learn to accept both the other on whom I turn my gaze, and also myself, the one who is gazing. Pace Rorty, irony is not free from judgment: it simply recognizes that the one who judges is also judged, and judged by himself." Interesting that he opposes irony to literalness and then explains how Jesus was ironic and Mohammad literal. And how that distinction impacts their followers today. "Forgiveness and irony lie at the heart of our civilization. They are what we have to be most proud of, and our principal means to disarm our enemies." Punctuation is an instruction on how to read and therefore interpret a certain statement. It is supposed to clarify with remove doubts and ambiguities. Irony, if it could be properly punctuated would no longer be irony. There would be no doubt about the person's intention. It would be like those riddles in kid's magazines where the answer is provided right bellow the text but is turned upside down so as to avoid TOO easy detection.

- noga1

February 27, 2011 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One more thing and then l'll go away: There is a dimension of playfulness to irony that gives pleasure to those who indulge in it. It can indeed be disarming when the receiver "gets" the sender and both can have a chuckle over it. Now I wonder where that pleasure comes from. Shared bigotries can also be transmitted and understood by two persons, leaving the third one injured by this type of sharing. How can we tell? Perhaps it is not irony if you don't get that sense of play, of fun. But the shared prejudice is pleasurable to the two bigots. Perhaps the virtue of irony is in its ability to provoke thinking and open possibilities, it's a kind of challenge, it's also inclusive in some way. All that's needed to be included is to understand and thus to be understood. So in a way, irony generates forgiveness. While the bigotry example shuts down that desirable end.

- noga1

February 27, 2011 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: In this case sarcasm is not only appropriate, it is required. When defenders of Barak Obama go into their Pavlovian stance, salivating at every utterance of their "dear leader" and plugging their ears, no other response is appropriate. Their blind and slavish defence of every action (or inaction) of the president deserves nothing but sarcasm. "I'll get you everything you wanted I'll get you everything you need don't need to believe in hereafter just believe in me" Phil Collins icarus: "I guess all those conferences and consultations and - well, effective diplomacy - actually worked." It did? Did we missed something? Did Kaddafi's thugs withdrew in fear? What worked? another sanctimonious declaration of "solidarity with the Libyan people"?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 27, 2011 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga. Your observations and commentaries on the characteristics of irony are well received for my part. Punctuation might manifest as !? or ?!. Not to forget the tongue in cheek 'framing' quotation marks. Still the shared audience to witness is a necessary. Efforting with written is not without devices. Fullness is much better achieved face to face. Punctuation via tenor and facial emphasis.

- jacko

February 27, 2011 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makover - if you could quote the pavlovian responses that so bother you, I'd be interested in seein them. If however your real view is that criticism cannot be responded to in any way, all I can say is good luck with that. If an argument is so weak that it cannot withstand criticism itself (and instead the poster has to fall back whining that certain statements are verbotoen), perhaps there is a problem with the original argument? And yes, criticizing a course of action without proposing an alternative is just whining. As for the UN resolution - unless you are advocating a unilateral US military response - that is a significant achievement and really all that can be done at this point. That China and Russia would countenance direct interference in a countries' internal affairs is nothing short of astounding, and reflects well on probably both the US and European diplomatic efforts.

- Nari224

February 27, 2011 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover: "What worked? another sanctimonious declaration of "solidarity with the Libyan people"?" Well, makover, a statement such as this ought elicit a dismissive "what an ignorant ass" and not more; but the armchair historian and the practicing professor in me rebels from time to time, especially when obvious signposts of living history are dismissed with an assertion to the right to engage in juvenile behaviour. On February 26, 2011, under the Obama Administration and as a direct result of its diplomacy, the Westphalian System and the Congress of Vienna died. Mark this date in your calendar. But mark it also because once the Republicans discover what just happened, you may well see the whole impeachment thing in full swing. The moment hinged on one vote and three words. The vote belonged to China and the three words are "International Criminal Court". Let me explain. First, a UNSC Resolution replete with "decisions" rather than "recommendations" is a binding instrument of international law. Not a "statement". Your dismissal of the UNSC resolution reminds me of Ahmadinejad's reaction; great minds, it would seem, think alike. Second, the UNSC resolution imposed a travel ban on Gadhafi and his family. This is binding on all members of the UN. Gadhafi, unlike Ben Ali and Mubarak and Idi Amin and Baby Doc countless other dictators past and present, no longer has a place of exile. He will die, or he will be arrested. He cannot flee. Third, the UNSC resolution was passed unanimously. Remember that even in respect of the first Iraq war, there were two abstentions. That in itself is a triumph of diplomacy, but there is more. China voted to send the matter of a sitting president to the ICC on the basis of the president's order to fire on his people. That is, China, the land of Tiananmen Square, declared, by its vote in respect of the UNSC resolution, that its own past behaviour was an international criminal act. No dictator anywhere in the world will now be able to rely on China's "national sovereignty" and "internal affairs" arguments to defend himself in the future against referral to the ICC. The die is cast; the Rubicon is crossed: waging war on your own people will not be tolerated, not even by China, not even by Russia. Fourth, the US, a number of valid and stupid reasons, is not party to the ICC statute; let's just say elements in the Republican Party are not enamoured of international institutions. The US, under Obama, actively lobbied to have the matter of a sitting president engaging in human rights violations referred to the ICC. Remember, the US is not a party; the Senate has not ratified the ICC statute. And yet, the US Administration has now given its active stamp of approval to the ICC. Fifth, as has been demonstrated above, none of the military options that have been mooted had much of a change of implementation or of success in the short-term, the Weasle's daft "Let there be light" notwithstanding. But there were diplomatic options, multilateral options, options to being the world along, united, against the Madman of Tripoli. The Weasle refers to Europe, and Arnon referred to the SAS rescue, but of course anyone who has been following Europe - France, Italy, Germany and the UK - has seen not action, not decision but farce. In comparison, and in the light of the united front now on display in the UNSC resolution, what is clear is that even as European countries were paralysed due to rank incompetence (UK - the PM and the Acting PM were on vacation and not talking) or outright corruption (France, Italy), the Obama Administration patiently, quietly, without fanfare or banners or triumphant declarations - indeed, without sanctimonious statements but with almost clinically-detached patience and method - gathered together the international community for a decision of far-reaching and historic impact. I don't think this would have come about if Obama had got ahead of the international community too quickly, or had personalised the matter too soon. I said before we should wait and judge. The Butcher is all but dead or in jail. But now are in the position to provide a preliminary judgement: in the UNSC resolution, we have a decision of earth-shattering impact. This is not a "Pavlovian stance" - whatever that might mean in this context - but an assessment of the actual results on the ground, rather than silly mutterings and tut-tuttings on the basis of perceived lack of force of utterances.

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nari: :).

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: I am not at all certain that irony, as a mode of speaking, has any moral import or impact. The shared prejudice of bigots can also be expressed, by bigots, in ironic format. We may label one "prejudice" and the other, the inclusive aspect, "irony", but the mode of expression in either instance would be the same. Rorty's point is, of course, silly: For one thing, I am not an expert, but if I take Bloom on seriously, the Western Canon is replete with instances of great irony, stretching back to Cervantes (and the Book of J, in his reading at any rate). Fanny is either a damp squib or a character of sublime irony, and I doubt Austen would have drawn such a character without a firm tongue in her cheek. For another, irony can be a powerful instrument of judgement: "Mr. President," said the 17-year old Italian model as she saw Berlusconi at the dinner table, "you have omitted to invite Great Leader Gadhafi." Finally, irony, by relying on unstated, private shared assumptions, is precisely the opposite of affirming the otherness in oneself; it affirms one's self in the Other. It is a conspiratorial bond drawing some listeners, among others, into the world of the utterer, and not the other way around, and excluding the rest. The very point of irony is to exclude. Actual exchange: Head of Committee: So we will be inviting the firefighters and the police to the charity event. Me: Any Native leaders? Head of Committee: I am not sure ... Me: Or construction workers? All members of the committee over the age of 35 burst into laughter; three committee members, all under 35, remain quiet. Head of Committee: the Indian Chief was my favourite. (More laughing.) Young Member: what's funny about inviting construction worker unions or Natives to the event? More laughter. Me: I show you on YouTube later .... (The event had to with civic workers ....)

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In this case sarcasm is not only appropriate, it is required. When defenders of Barak Obama go into their Pavlovian stance, salivating at every utterance of their "dear leader" and plugging their ears, no other response is appropriate. Their blind and slavish defence of every action (or inaction) of the president deserves nothing but sarcasm." _______________________ This is just a propaganda technique, an effort to disallow, as somehow per se illegitimate, rebuttal of one's own position. What makover demands is that whatever criticism is levied at Obama, the American government, anything he doesn't like, must be accepted uncritically. Most of the criticism of Obama is intensely stupid, no other way to put it. Because the critics are accustomed to trading their petits mots in fora, including the dinner table, where they are applauded and not subjected to criticism, they come to think that they are both self-evidently correct and quite brilliant all at the same time. When they come here and discover that their fatuous remarks are not greeted with acclaim and are often easily punctured, they are incensed. Then, invariably, they start complaining that no one is allowed to criticize Obama. It seems quite apparent to me, and will I think to anyone who reads these threads with an open mind, that seldom if ever does anyone complain about the fact of criticism of Obama. To the contrary, it is invariably his critics who whine and moan that their criticism does not itself go uncriticized. This they claim absurdly is the refusal to allow Obama to be criticized. In this particular case, icarus was rightly pointing out that the particular critic, have rapidly exhausted his limited intellectual ammunition upon receiving the slightest push-back, was reduced to petulant sarcasm. He had nothing of substance to offer in defense of his position. Of course, pointing this out further infuriates the critics because it lays bare not only their intellectual poverty but the very games they play to try and conceal same. This is intolerable to the critics who become infuriated that the hollowness of their ideas is exposed and that they will not be accorded the outsize respect they have come to expect by talking to themselves.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga: In this case sarcasm is not only appropriate, it is required. " makover: I'd like to respond to your comment by quoting from Scruton, again: "However convinced you are of the rightness of your actions and the truth of your views, look on them as the actions and the views of someone else and rephrase them accordingly. So defined, irony is quite distinct from sarcasm: it is a mode of acceptance rather than a mode of rejection."

- noga1

February 27, 2011 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Their blind and slavish defence of every action (or inaction) of the president deserves nothing but sarcasm." And of course, nothing I wrote yesterday was in any way a defence of Obama, but rather a critique of W's criticism. To describe the discussion of strategy and geopolitics above as "blind" or "slavish" may not be done without some risk, at least, of terminological inexactitude. Basman and I had a reasonable disagreement on one subject; malahat and I had a reasonable disagreement on another. Arnon jumps in with repeated ad hominems, but even he recognised, I think, that the critique might have been premature. Having been proved an ignorant adolescent, he now compounds it by defending the indefensible, and by ratcheting up the hyperbole. Quite amusing, all said. :)

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus, Although I shall be accused by noga of fawning (which I don't mind a bit), I hope that in my next life I can write like you. I write like a lawyer. You have a broader awareness and a literary flair that I can only envy.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: but makover means to reject, not include; and if makover were capable of self-reflection, he would not be endlessly whining about not being able to mouth off ignorantly with impunity.

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: "This [sarcasm] is just a propaganda technique," A few lines later, roi, again, resorting to the very technique he decries as propaganda: "This is intolerable to the critics who become infuriated that the hollowness of their ideas is exposed and that they will not be accorded the outsize respect they have come to expect by talking to themselves." In other words, roi and those who share his positions are thoughtful commenters. The rest only talk to themselves (implying a certain type of mental dysfunction, or projection) and express hollow ideas. Now that, of course, is not sarcasm, or propaganda by contemptuous belittling.

- noga1

February 27, 2011 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Icarusr must have pulled up one shy of fill last night. He is on a roll. Some fairly well and bruted commentary this Sunday morning.

- jacko

February 27, 2011 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, as ever, misses the point. You can criticize my positions all you want. You either have the intellectual heft to make your point or not. We do not see defenders of Obama against criticism complaining of the fact that he is criticized. If they disagree, they do their best to rebut the criticism. When so pushed actually to defend a position, what comes back is the a meta-accusation that rebuttal of criticism is not to be permitted. And then, of course, you arrive to argue that rebuttal of that complaint is likewise not permitted. But, we are up a level of discussion, to a critique of the discussion, so my remarks are appropriate. Icarus did not insist that whoever it was could not employ sarcasm. He pointed out that it betrayed the inability to respond in substance. It is only you and yours who are constantly trying to police the discussion and disallow certain arguments because you cannot respond to them. It does not logically follow that because most of the criticism of Obama is fatuous and cannot withstand scrutiny that anything else said by anyone else is sound and worthy of respect. As ever, you cannot follow the logic of anything.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus: "makover means to reject, not include; and if makover were capable of self-reflection, he would not be endlessly whining about not being able to mouth off ignorantly with impunity." I don't think makover was complaining about "not being able to mouth off ignorantly with impunity." Since he is doing just that. Now if you are a man of your principles you will admit that roi presents a much greater challenge than makover ever did, or does or will, when it comes to "endlessly whining about not being able to mouth off ignorantly with impunity." You can come to an understanding with makover without resorting to demonization. roi's main thrust here is in rejecting and excluding while trying to cosy up to those he suspects are even remotely sympathetic for one reason or another (he is not too picky on that) to his positions. roi is incapable of irony. He is all sarcasm and martyrdom, accompanied, quite naturally, by a propensity to cringe. By way of evidence I will send you to his repeated, unfathomable, attacks upon my sexual life because of the banter we once shared about a paradigm shift in the way society views marriage. ____________ I don't understand your point about the Western Canon containing irony. I thought that was exactly the point Scruton was making ... ? That irony is an elementary component in Western thinking, going back to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament?

- noga1

February 27, 2011 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, when push comes to shove, noga will, as ever, resort to blatant lying. She can only succeed by inventing a reality that will accord with her narrative. Didn't take long. Would noga care to find some instance of me complaining as she alleges? I don't complain of ill-treatment or anything else. I push back (which, perversely, noga thinks of as cringing). Then noga complains. Whining, complaining, and faux martyrdom are indeed noga's particular speciality. Part of the tactic is to project her own behavior onto everyone else who doesn't buy her shtick (indeed I recently found and republished a delicious quote from icarus about noga's propensity for false martyrdom). Please, noga, do republish the entire exchange about your own comments about your sexual life. Do so early and often. I think it is directly relevant to your bizarre ideation and relentless efforts to make posters you don't like, rather than posts, the subject of discussion. You think that it is perfectly acceptable to make other posters, rather than posts, the subject, but then whimper insufferably and proclaim yourself a tragic victim when you too become a subject for having done so.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Absolutely. For example, Genesis is full of irony." Yep. Or Job or.......... just about the entire canon.

- jacko

February 27, 2011 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It does not logically follow that because most of the criticism of Obama is fatuous and cannot withstand scrutiny that anything else said by anyone else is sound and worthy of respect. As ever, you cannot follow the logic of anything." Nor does it follow that Obama cannot be roundly and soundly criticized on many grounds merely because the majority of the criticism of Obama levied here is splenetic, tissue thin (in a word, Peretzian) and cannot survive even modest push-back (resulting in makoverian eruptions of frustration). That the criticism is fatuous does not make Obama right. It makes the criticism unfounded.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

02/27/2011 - 10:02am EDT | icarusr posted an analysis of the UNSC vote well worth reading. I am not quite as certain "the Westphalian System and the Congress of Vienna died" or willing to give Obama as much credit as icarusr does (his quote below). Yes, I want to know why China and Russia voted yes, but I do not see Russia ending their military attacks against their citizens in the North Caucausus, or China renouncing use of state force against certain kinds of dissent in outer provinces. I give far more credit to the Libyan delegation to the UN and UNHRC, who openly shifted their allegiance to the opposition and/or resigned for the UNSC votes against Qaddafi and his family, binding votes that were NOT against the nation state of Libya. icarusr assigns far too much credit to "...the Obama Administration patiently, quietly, without fanfare or banners or triumphant declarations - indeed, without sanctimonious statements but with almost clinically-detached patience and method - gathered together the international community for a decision of far-reaching and historic impact. ..." Considering that Sudan's Bashir continues to serve as Sudan's president while under indictment by the ICC, I think it laughable that Qaddafi and his kin have nowhere to flee. You think Somalia, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or North Korea, would care about the UNSC or ICC? I personally think Qaddafi will choose martyrdom in Tripoli rather than flee into exile, but his sons may not be quite so passionate. I do not know the topography of Qaddafi's tribal home, but, deserts and mountains provide stubborn redoubts for grinding battles of tribal autonomy. The Pashtuns have been successful at it for more than two thousand years.

- K2K

February 27, 2011 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

one of the most encouraging signs coming from the opposition protests in Benghazi (or should we start calling it Cyrenaica again?) was the use of humor/satire in protest signs. I defer to the irony specialists whether that has anything to with irony. I tend to think the world of Islam needs a lot more humor and satire if they are to progress to some form of democracy. Actually, the U.S. congress needs sharper wits. Perhaps Britain's parliament can give lessons.

- K2K

February 27, 2011 at 11:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you both malahat and K2K for returning this thread to a subject from its excursion into a discussion of itself and its participants.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: I was objecting to Rorty's "post-modernism" statement, and the notion that irony is not capable of judgement. As in fact I observed, while I am not an expert, I am persuaded by Bloom that the Book of J at any rate is replete with irony - hardly post-modern, or bereft of judgement. (The judgement against Yahweh and Noah is pretty damning, I'd say.)

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This report from India assigns credit to the Arab League and Libya’s permanent representative to the UN, Abdurrahman Mohammed Shalgham, for the yes votes by China, Russia, and India's at the UNSC. "...India dropped its customary caution to agree late this evening to a unanimous United Nations’ Security Council vote imposing sanctions against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, including a travel ban and a freezing of the assets of his inner circle, as well as a referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC). India is not a member of the ICC. The 15-0 vote at the Security Council came despite objections by the Chinese and the Russians, who sought to dilute critical language in the prepared text against Gaddafi, but dropped these when the Arab League issued a strongly worded statement against the Libyan leader, and Libya’s permanent representative to the UN, Abdurrahman Mohammed Shalgham, strongly supported the UN move. India held off directly criticising Gaddafi, however, citing concerns over the security of its nationals, even as the government mobilised passenger ships in the Indian Ocean and ordered three naval ships, the INS Jalashwa [a Landing Platform Dock type of amphibious platform which is comparable to the USS Kearsarge positioned south of the Suez Canal], as well as two destroyers, to embark for the Libyan port of Benghazi and evacuate the [18,000] Indian citizens. The operation, codenamed ‘Safe Homecoming’, ...As Indian Navy ships set sail for Benghazi, the Chinese diverted a modern warship, the Xuzhou, from anti-piracy operations off Somalia to the Libyan coast to protect passenger vessels evacuating its own nationals. ....the wave of democratic protests continued to sweep West Asia and North Africa, where nearly 5.4 million Indians work to send more than $18 billion home in remittances every year..." http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/cautious-india-supports-unsc-vote-against-libya/426757/ The Suez Canal is a busy place these days! Meanwhile, CBS reports that 50,000 Egyptian migrant workers have crossed over into Tunisia, whose interim Prime Minister Ghannouchi just resigned. Thank you roid. Now, off to find a map that shows where the tribes of Libya live before I have to go shovel another ton of snow.

- K2K

February 27, 2011 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More neocon criticism of Israel. February 27, 2011 "Wolfowitz rebukes Israelis" Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, echoing his former Bush Administration colleague and fellow neocon Elliott Abrams, sharply rebuked Israeli leaders for what his interviewer on CNN today, Fareed Zakaria, described as "nostalgia" for fallen Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. "It's crazy. The Israelis should welcome what's happened in Egypt," Wolfowitz said. "If only cynically, I mean, they -- instead of associating themselves with a dead, doomed regime, they should try to find allies in Egypt. And I would assume there are millions of Egyptians who do not want to restart a war with Israel. and Mubarak wasn't such a great bargain. He filled the Egyptian state-controlled media with anti-American junk, with anti-Israeli, even with violently anti-Semitic junk. So -- but the nostalgia -- I think the nostalgia is misplaced, but it's completely irrelevant now. They and we should be thinking about the future. "" http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Wolfowitz_rebukes_Israelis.html

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have been enjoying the discussion about irony. To the experts on the irony "what isn't ironic in writing?"

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: the comment about the Administration's efforts is based, in part, on knowledge of negotiations yesterday in New York (with fifteen countries in the room and many others milling about, a bit of leakage is inevitable :)) and also reports, in the media, of behind the scenes negotiations. It is a nature of the beast - criticism of the Obama - the goal posts move constantly, evidence is dismissed or discounted, criticism of criticism is met with whinging whining ... first allegations that nothing was done; something is done, allegations that he did not do it; faced with evidence that he might have done it, expressions of doubt as to the value of the thing done ... quite amusing :) ...

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To wit: "India held off directly criticising Gaddafi, however, citing concerns over the security of its nationals, ...". And Obama was criticised for not directly naming Gadhafi. The Libyan Ambassador's plea certainly tipped the balanced, but the UNSC was brought to the balancing point through patient US diplomacy.

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

*balance

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr: I do not discount US efforts, but I doubt the vote would have been 15-0 without pressure from both the Arab League and Libya's Abdurrahman Mohammed Shalgham, and wording that targeted Qaddafi, not the Libyan state. a bit of map and tribal research, and my prediction (at this moment in time) is to watch what Algeria does, or maybe what the Berbers and Touregs of Algeria and Libya do, in the west, where the gas fields that feed the gas pipeline to Italy are located. Berbers have their own self-determination issues... The rich oil fields and pipelines are mostly in the Cyrenaica/Benghazi area. I do not rule out a request for Egyptian military assistance to control what is becoming the new statelet due to trans-border tribal affiliations. The African Union may finally have to confront their legacy of colonial borders. Readers can follow the tribes (with variations on spelling to contend with) who will most likely fight from Tripoli to the north center coastal territory. http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=24257

- K2K

February 27, 2011 at 1:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/middleeast/28youtube.html?_r=1&hp "Arabs Embrace Israeli’s YouTube Spoof of Qaddafi Rant" By ISABEL KERSHNER

- K2K

February 27, 2011 at 1:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

k2K: the Arab League and the Libyan ambassador did not, and do not, exert pressure on China and Russia, because they are not in a position to do so - and they were not in the vanguard of proposing the measures. The sanctions were first proposed, by the US, UK and Germany, and when faced with the objections of Russia and China, the Libyan Ambassador was prevailed upon to support the sanctions. I am not quite sure what you mean about no sanctions against the Libyan state: all shipment of arms to Libya is prohibited, to either side. The asset freezes and travel bans are specific to the ruling circle, because that is what the point of the sanctions was. The signal success of the Administration, as opposed to the Iraq adventure, was precisely that it was not personalised - it was not that Obama disliked Gadhafi personally. He and his family are the criminals, but it is not a personal vendetta ....

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"k2K: the Arab League and the Libyan ambassador did not, and do not, exert pressure on China and Russia, because they are not in a position to do so - and they were not in the vanguard of proposing the measures." We don't know what is going on behind the scenes. China and Russia may have decided that Khadafy is done for. Libya is rich in oil and it is in their interest to be on the good side of the next government there. The Libyan UN representatives will have some say in the mew government. They are not without some power.

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just to clarify, ick, Noga was quoting a brief passage from Rorty but it's a book-length work (Contingency, Irony, Solidarity). Of course, Rorty doesn't deny at all the there are examples of irony in literature going back to the classical era. That's exactly his point. Literature has embraced irony but philosophy has always sought to exclude it. Unlike literature, philosophy has had an absolutist drive to integrate fully or to supplant what has gone before it. But George Eliot didn't write Middlemarch in order to prove Jane Austen wrong in Mansfield Park. Rorty saw Nietzsche as the first philospher who acted more like a literary author, after which philosophy had to concede that ambiguity and ambivalence had their own value, as poets had always done.

- ironyroad

February 27, 2011 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newly: no amount of cynical calculation by Russia or China is worth the sacrifice in principle they have made. The reference to the ICC for human rights violations is a momentous event in the life of the UNSC, and in relations with China and Russia. And Libyan representatives have no "power" in the UN; they provide additional more force.

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: I have not read Rorty - as it is plain enough to see - but based on your brief exposition, I am having trouble understanding why supplanting the past means excluding irony? At least in the sense that I understand the term irony. Isn't Plato's discussion of Aristophanes' theory of love meant to be ironic, for example?

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Newly: no amount of cynical calculation by Russia or China is worth the sacrifice in principle they have made. The reference to the ICC for human rights violations is a momentous event in the life of the UNSC, and in relations with China and Russia. And Libyan representatives have no "power" in the UN; they provide additional more force.” icarusr, Russia and China as permanent members of the UNSC didn’t lose a thing in voting to sanction Libya. The have veto power in that body. They have obviously calculated that it’s in their interest to take the sides of the rebels.

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Literature has embraced irony but philosophy has always sought to exclude it.” I defy anyone to find irony in Le Chanson de Roland. Professors of literature will find irony in whatever they read, even in a menu but that doesn’t prove anything. It’s their job to find irony. I also defy anyone to ignore in Plato’s Socratic dialogues? If they do they will not understand the meaning of the philosophical work.

- Packard

February 27, 2011 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I watched CNN this morning and I didn't get a "sharply rebuked" out of Wolfowicz vis a vis Israel - I got a bit of boy I hope this works out - vis a vis Egypt - along with a well-deserved critique of Egyptian official media under Mubarak which is terribly antisemitic regardless of the regime's cooperation with peace-keeping activities. What Wolfowicz didn't say, and Fareed also didn't mention, was how dreadfully wrong he'd been about Iraq. I remember screeching at the TV when the Iraq war was characterized as "the thinking man's war" and also, when we were assured it would "pay for itself," which is a huge sick joke - and as if the loss of life can be repaid in any case. So anything Wolfowicz says period, I think, and with respect to his intelligence and experience, isn't necessarily gospel in the first place. Secondly though the Israelis have reason to hope and reason to be concerned - bottom line nobody knows what is going to happen and there is potential for great good but also for chaos and another war. So if he wants to rebuke the Israelis he can put his tuchas in Sderot. Further, Wolfowicz defended the Kings of Bahrain and Jordan as "not terrible" and therefore deserving of tolerance (realpolitik anybody?) - Zakaria correctly pointed out that Wolfie has been an aggressive crusader for democracy except I guess when there are kings who aren't "terrible." Of course they must "reform." BTW FZ left out Saudi Arabia when discussing relics of the British Empire - saying it was an important exception to the group of nations created by imperial fiat after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire; however, one could argue that the Sauds expanded their frontiers and their power with some help from the Brits - conquering the Hijaz and its Hashemite rulers, etc. Anyway, as far as the peace treaty with Egypt is concerned, plus the potential for gun-running and so forth into Gaza and the possibility that King Abdullah of Jordan could fall, I think the Israelis have good reason to be cautious. Also I want to see how well the new regime does in Egypt vis a vis solving its daunting economic issues. On that score Wolfowicz says we should help and we should use our leverage, ie money. This I agree with this - however - it comes at a time when union workers are being attacking and blamed for economic disaster in the States, the US is struggling due to wars of choice and economic implosion, 1 out of 6 people are unemployed or underemployed and the GOP is attacking women, children and poor people so I wouldn't blame folks if they threw their shoes at the tube.

- Sophia

February 27, 2011 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: I was quoting an article by Scruton who had referenced Rorty. Sunday I take my daughter to her art class and I have two hours to kill as I'm waiting for her. So I took along a few books on irony to browse and here are a few quotes: From Anne Carson's "Glass, Irony and God": "It is to cut your opponent just at the moment he cuts you. This is the ultimate timing. It is lack of anger. It means to treat your enemy as an honoured guest." ____________ Book of Isaiah There is a kind of pressure in humans to take whatever is most beloved by them and smash it. Religion calls the pressure piety and the smashed thing a sacrifice to God. Prophets question these names. What is an idol? An idol is a useless sacrifice, said Isaiah. But how do you know which ones are useless? asked the nation in its genius. Isaiah pondered the various ways he could answer this. Immense chunks of natural reality fell out of a blue sky and showers of light upon his mind. Isaiah chose the way of metaphor. Our life is a camera obscura, said Isaiah, do you know what that is? Never heard of it, said the nation. Imagine yourself in a darkened room, Isaiah instructed. Okay, said the nation. The doors are closed, there is a pinhole in the back wall. A pinhole, the nation repeated. Light shoots through the pinhole and strikes the opposite wall. The nation was watching Isaiah, bored and fascinated at once. You can hold up anything you like in front of that pinhole, said Isaiah, and worship it on the opposite wall. Why worship an image? asked the nation. Exactly, said Isaiah. The nation chewed on that for a moment. Then its genius spoke up. So what about Isaiah’s pinhole? Ah, said Isaiah. [...] " ____________ 'We are all here on earth to help each other, but what the others are here for, God only knows." W. H. Auden

- noga1

February 27, 2011 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I watched CNN this morning and I didn't get a "sharply rebuked" out of Wolfowicz vis a vis Israel - I got a bit of boy I hope this works out - vis a vis Egypt - along with a well-deserved critique of Egyptian official media under Mubarak which is terribly antisemitic regardless of the regime's cooperation with peace-keeping activities." I second this view. I also watched Wolfowitz and got the same impression as Sophia. I have one rebuke for Wolfowitz, though. What he considers as "nostalgia" for Mubarak is hardly nostalgia but more of a certain fatalistic view that "it was better the devil we knew than the one we don't." Only someone who would dearly like to see Israel's butt kicked for whatever reason (I'm not speculating about the why here) could interpret Wolfowitz's advice as a sharp rebuke.

- noga1

February 27, 2011 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Is Barack Obama Secretly Swiss? The administration's pathetic, dithering response to the Arab uprisings has been both cynical and naive. By Christopher Hitchens http://www.slate.com/id/2286522/

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus: "Isn't Plato's discussion of Aristophanes' theory of love meant to be ironic, for example?" Ick, I went back to Rorty's book to see what he says in that connection. The fairest summation I can give after a brief scan is that he doesn't deny that philosophers have deployed irony, which would of course be silly. The significant difference, however, between the "Plato-Kant tradition" (R's phrase) and what came after is that the belief that one could achieve the kind of knowledge that would either integrate or bury the theories of knowledge that went before, crumbled. So, although Platonic dialogues are of course exemplary for a certain kind of irony, the philosophical project itself is not ironic or contingent, but deadly serious. And the history of philosophy is anti-ironic in its central aim, unlike the project of literature. After Nietzsche and Freud (and beginning with Hegel?), however, philosophy became more like literature in its acceptance that that seamless knowledge could not be found (which literature had always, er, known). Again, Rorty, not necessarily me.

- ironyroad

February 27, 2011 at 5:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, Noga, I didn't see your comment. Yes, sorry, I thought it was Rorty himself. I didn't check back. Auden comment is wonderful

- ironyroad

February 27, 2011 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did Wofowitz say this or didn't he? "It's crazy. The Israelis should welcome what's happened in Egypt," Wolfowitz said. "If only cynically, I mean, they -- instead of associating themselves with a dead, doomed regime, they should try to find allies in Egypt. And I would assume there are millions of Egyptians who do not want to restart a war with Israel. and Mubarak wasn't such a great bargain. He filled the Egyptian state-controlled media with anti-American junk, with anti-Israeli, even with violently anti-Semitic junk. So -- but the nostalgia -- I think the nostalgia is misplaced, but it's completely irrelevant now. They and we should be thinking about the future. ""

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newly: Either you know the tenor of the negotiations all day on Saturday, or you do not and are making inferences. If you do, then your information is better than mine. What I have been able to piece together - and, I admit, the information is not complete - is that the decision was not quite so "obvious", for either Russia or China. Or other members of the UNSC for that matter. A door is being opened, as I set out above, into a world that, veto or no veto, is terra incognita for many members - conceptually. And these misgivings were aired, publicly and privately, yesterday. The vote was pushed to 2000 last night for a reason. If you do not, then your inferences are, at best, uninformed by the history of Chinese and Russian strategic and legal considerations. China, in particular, is uniquely sensitive about legal precedent. When it comes to the UN, it has behaved remarkable responsibly - in the sense that even where it has acted in self-interest, it has not been cynical about letting the law say one thing and then acting in another way. China's enormous reticence about Iran is supporting evidence. India is a democracy with a rich tradition of the rule of law, and (some of) its international lawyers are among the most astute in the world. It, too, will have had to make a signal change in its long-standing "internal sovereignty" position. This not to say that self-interest is not operative; but a share of 1.5 million barrels of oil in a country of six million is not worth sacrifice long-held positions in international law for the second largest consumer and the second largest producer of oil in the world. That is the critical calculation to bear in mind when making pronouncements about cynical and self-interested behaviour by countries.

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 5:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So, although Platonic dialogues are of course exemplary for a certain kind of irony, the philosophical project itself is not ironic or contingent, but deadly serious. And the history of philosophy is anti-ironic in its central aim, unlike the project of literature. After Nietzsche and Freud (and beginning with Hegel?), however, philosophy became more like literature in its acceptance that that seamless knowledge could not be found (which literature had always, er, known)." This is soft stuff. Philosophy after Hegel and Nietzsche includes the positivists.

- Packard

February 27, 2011 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The information is not complete, and your views like mine are pure speculation. Though, I would bet that neither China nor Russia acted against their best interests.

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newly: Noga already cited to Hitchens, like 200 posts ago. As for Wolfie - First, who cares what he says. Second, your "did he or didn't he" question in respect of a single paragraph demonstrates an interesting interpretative approach to text, or "text". I have not seen Wolfie say this, but ... did his eyes bulge and was he sputtering in rage when he said, "it's crazy?" Or was it merely an informal telegraphing of disagreement with a dear friend? Because, after all, if I say, "he's crazy" about Gadhafi and "he's crazy" about Obama, those statements mean fundamentally different things. And *how* I say what I say could change the meaning completely. As well as the entire context (which you have not reproduced). And so, "did he or didn't he" is really a stupid question. Why don't you, instead of trying to play Perry Mason, or Matlock, put the quote in context and respond to the points raised by Sophia and Noga?

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newly: "and your views like mine are pure speculation" ... Well, that my information about the negotiations is not complete (no one, by the way, has complete information of negotiations involving 15 sovereign states), does not make the rest of the information that I have, and my conclusions from those, "speculation". (I have negotiated with and against Chinese lawyers, and taught courses to Chinese lawyers, on matters of international law - so my inferences about China's attitudes to international law are not "speculation".) Instead of sputtering like an idiot about things you - by your own admission - know nothing about, you might actually listen and perhaps learn a thing or two. "Though, I would bet that neither China nor Russia acted against their best interests." Of course. I was making the same point, though evidently it was too subtle for you. There are different sorts of "best interests". There are immediate economic best interests, and then there are strategic best interests. What I wrote was that it is idiotic to expect China to act on its immediate economic best interests - especially in respect of a minor share of a minor oil-producing country - to the detriment of its strategic best interests in upholding dearly held principles. It is astonishing that even as you think you have definitively dismissed my point, your comment actually, and fundamentally supported mine. You really are dense beyond belief.

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My post about Wolfowitz was addressed to those who still think that "necons" all have the same beliefs about spreading democracy in the Mid-East. Make of it what Wolfiwitz said, what you will.

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony - I have always known that there was a reason why I never studied philosophy. So, if I understand correctly, according to Rorty, irony in literature is for its own sake, whereas irony in philosophy drive a serious purpose; except that after Nietszche, philosophical irony has found its legs? And it is in that sense that post-modernist philosophical irony is incapable of judgement (because/for that reason it does not seek to replace old knowledge)? I go back to the point I made: irony, in my view, is merely a mode of expression. Moralistic and philosophical literature may made use of irony to convey a message, much in the same way that "mere" literature would make use of it for entertainment value. In the same vein, philosophers may use the mode of expression to elucidate or rebut a point, and because the point of philosophy is generally more serious than the point of literature (though not necessarily so), it can be inferred that the use of irony in philosophy will be driven by, and have, different objectives than literary irony. If I am right - and, because I do not understand philosophy, I admit to a 98% likelihood that I wrong - then the point is quite obvious - why a book to expose it? :P Incidentally, a friend remarked that the most brilliantly ironic book title in the English language is "Brideshead Revisited". Fitting, from a cynical and snobby English Catholic convert :).

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Packard, in case it's not clear, I was attempting (a) to answer icarus's question and (b) do so by very briefly summing up a part of Rorty's argument. In fact, he deals with the positivists in his first chapter. I don't have a particular dog in this fight, so while I appreciate the gesture toward literature that Rorty makes in CI&S, I'm not an advocate for his theory. If you read the book, feel free to measure its softness as you will.

- ironyroad

February 27, 2011 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ick, I think the question of whether irony is "merely a mode of expression" is where we would disagree. People write books for all sorts of reasons -- contractual duty, sometimes. :) But occasionally to work out a set of issues that someone else might see as "quite obvious."

- ironyroad

February 27, 2011 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, what do you have against dogs?

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But occasionally to work out a set of issues that someone else might see as "quite obvious."" And that, my good fellow, is why I did not go into philosophy. Or literature.

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 6:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Out all day: just checked in here. Has anyone considered the concept of irony? I mean, that is to say, Ironyroad as a concept.

- basman

February 27, 2011 at 9:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I think the question of whether irony is "merely a mode of expression" is where we would disagree." Well, that's the idea behind Roger Scruton's book that impressed me so much, that irony was actually so much more emblematic of our culture than mere expression. That it actually reflects a method, a way of thinking, of seeing the world by which I mean of course of considering the human being, its place and self-image. This article in Dissent first drew my attention to this aspect: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=211 "At the same time, though, Scruton is right to say that the freedoms guaranteed by this struggle are insufficient for a good life in the ethical sense. He is right to draw our attention to the culture of repudiation that has no values other than the freedom to believe. He is right to argue we need something richer, thicker, and deeper than what is offered by liberal citizenship, which he describes as an empty abstraction that can never inspire the commitment required to defend Western freedom. Scruton suggests two values, which he describes as gifts of our Judeo-Christian tradition, that might generate a deeper form of fulfilment and meaning than that given by liberal citizenship: forgiveness and irony. Both of these values are carried historically by the West, but are offered universally, to be shared beyond the West’s historical borders. I find his argument powerful but am troubled by the framing in terms of a Judeo-Christian tradition. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, he says, “the primary act of sacrifice is forgiveness.” In forgiving, we sacrifice resentment, and this is at the heart of our culture. However, it seems to me that forgiveness in this sense is very much a Christian rather than a Jewish value. In the Jewish tradition, Jews are called upon to make a sacrifice, and in this sacrifice is inscribed a covenant with God; Jews are bound to him and his ethical demands as a people. What this act of binding makes possible, in the Jewish tradition, is justice and an ethical life. As Amos Oz says, justice demands that we remember while forgiveness demands that we forget. The gift of the Jewish tradition to the West is precisely justice and the imperative to remember: an uncomfortable gift. (And, I would suggest, it this gift of justice that is carried in the historical sacrifices of those who concretely struggled for the speech of the speechless to be heard in the public sphere.) Forgiveness, in contrast, is the great gift of the Christian tradition. Christ’s sacrifice redeems Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac and allows us forgiveness and forgetting. Like the Greek heritage of freedom, the “Judeo-Christian” heritage of forgiveness and sacrifice contains a tension, a struggle, between two irreconcilable values: justice and forgiveness. The Western, Judeo-Christian heritage contemporary conservatism seeks to celebrate is a creature of our own projections, not something we have been given. If it means anything, it means living out the impossibility of a forgiving justice and a just forgiving. It is this impossibility that we must defend and insist upon in the face of all forms of certitude, not least in the face of those who invoke the sparingly merciful God of the Koran. It is for this reason that Scruton’s second value, irony, is so important. An ironic disposition is the disposition capable of recognizing this impossibility and still carrying on trying. As Samuel Beckett said, “Fail. Fail again. Fail better.” A question arises for me from Scruton’s values. He argues that the West’s democratic inheritance stems from our habit of forgiveness. “To forgive the other is to grant him, in your heart, the freedom to be.” He argues that forgiveness and irony underlie our conception of law as a means to resolve conflicts by finding a just solution. But what would a robust defense of the West against Islamist terror look like if it really enacted our putative habit of forgiveness? The picture Scruton paints of a forgiving, ironic West sits at odds with the way we have fought the war on terror to date. And here we reach another impossible necessity: the impossibility of fighting a war in a spirit of forgiveness and irony. Defending—and defending militarily—the gifts of the Western tradition (however contradictory those gifts might be) is necessary. But can we do that without mirroring the all too sparingly merciful way of the Wahhabi death cult?" The author of this article prefaces these arguments by referring to a history of revolutions. And this is where the ideas of irony and forgiveness actually fit in with the discussion taking place in this thread. (Aside: The academy awards night proves to be more boring than usual.)

- noga1

February 27, 2011 at 10:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, I'm tweeting the Oscars and i'm very funny, if not ironic: Two examples: 1. As the sound mixing award goes, so go the Oscars. 2. Best original score: Yes, baby, yes, I can get you a leading role in Avatar 7, and, yes, you'll be seen in all three dimensions. Just come on up

- basman

February 27, 2011 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay, by popular demandone more; 3. Who's funnier Anne Hathaway and James Franco combined or Amartya Sen? The moral philospher, whether morality is universal or contingent.

- basman

February 27, 2011 at 10:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd settle for fighting the war with sound strategy and tactics, diplomatic, economic, military, security, intelligence, and a minimum of self-inflicted losses. The spirit of the thing will have to take care of itself.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More legitimate criticism of our foreign policy: "Un-American Revolutions" "Most rebellions end in carnage and tyranny. So why are Americans cheering on the Arab revolutionary wave?" by Niall Ferguson http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/un-american-revolutions.print.html

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 10:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This piece by Niall Ferguson contains nothing that might rationally be construed as criticism of anything. Its main points are that George Bush and John McCain have been right all along, the ahistorical claim that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were intended in the service of democratization (can anyone imagine the American people or the Congress having supported such a thing, while Gates says now that anyone who would do that again is nuts?), and that the likely outcome of the revolutionary wage sweeping the Arab world is either epic bloodshed, the emergence of a threatening new world power, or both. Hence, we should not be supporting it. His answer is that we should have been supporting democrat tendencies as we did, he claims, in Eastern Europe. Supporting them to do what? Not peaceful revolution apparently as Ferguson tells us we should not expect that and therefore should have no hope for any revolution but our own. I have seldom if ever read such an incoherent mess. I guess the only thing that Ferguson is in favor of is invasion by the US.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"revolutionary wave" not "wage" Why is the g next to the v anyway?

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 10:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Two weeks ago I criticized the Obama administration for its failure not only to foresee this crisis but also to have any kind of coherent grand strategy to cope with it—resulting in a period of hapless confusion in American foreign policy. A number of critics wondered what such a coherent strategy might have looked like. The answer is this. For many years American administrations tried to have it both ways in the Middle East, preaching the merits of democratization while doing next to nothing to pressure the region’s despots to reform, provided their misbehavior remained within tolerable limits (no invading Israel or Kuwait, no acquiring weapons of mass destruction). The Bush administration put an end to that double-talk by practicing as well as preaching a policy of democratization—using force to establish elected governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama administration was elected by a great many Americans who regretted the costs of that policy. Yet in place of the Bush doctrine came … nothing. Obama’s obsequious 2009 speech in Cairo offered a feeble hand of friendship to the Muslim world. But to whom was it extended? To the tyrants? Or to their subject peoples? Obama apparently hoped he, too, could have it both ways, even shaking hands with the odious Muammar Gaddafi." Niall Ferguson, article on revolutions in general and about the current uphevals in the Arab world is both coherent and on target. I disagree with his view, though, that Bush's policy was effective or that McCain's policies, whom I voted against, would be better than Obama's. Ferguson is a highly regarded economic historian.

- Newly84

February 27, 2011 at 11:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the Ferguson link. I like some of his work, but some of the other stuff is, well, open to question.

"First the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East could turn much more violent, with a death toll running into tens or hundreds of thousands. Then they could spark a full-blown war, claiming millions of lives. Worst of all, out of that war could emerge an enemy as formidable as Napoleon’s France, Stalin’s Soviet Union, or Mao’s China."
Millions dead and an Arab Napoleon, huh. Out of Tunisia. Or Oman. Quite a legitimate, er, criticism of US policy. We shoulda stopped it - like, when the poor Libyan people poured into the streets to topple a murderous dictator of 42 years who was RPG-ing them down, the US should have, like, bomb the crap out of them to stop the next, er, Stalin. What's a few thousand dead to avoid millions dead? Amusing.

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right. "even shaking hands with the odious Muammar Gaddafi." Because it was not Blair, Ferguson's idol, who also shook the hands of the odious Gadhafi, and it was not Gordon Brown, Blair's long-time Chancellor, who released the Lockerbie killer to curry favour with the odious Gadhafi. Where, oh where, do these people come up with such idiocies?

- icarusr

February 27, 2011 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, but you missed quoting the punchline, this bunch of nonsense: "Western support for the likes of Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Solidarity in Poland was real. And it was one of the reasons that, when the crisis of the Soviet empire came in 1989, there were genuine democrats ready and waiting to step into the vacuums created by Mikhail Gorbachev’s “Sinatra Doctrine” (whereby each Warsaw Pact country was allowed to do things “its way”). No such effort has been made in the Arab world. On the contrary, efforts in that direction have been scaled down. The result is that we have absolutely no idea who is going to fill today’s vacuums of power. Only the hopelessly naive imagine that 30-something Google executives will emerge as the new leaders of the Arab world, aided by their social network of Facebook friends. The far more likely outcome—as in past revolutions—is that power will pass to the best organized, most radical, and most ruthless elements in the revolution, which in this case means Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood. The second part of our strategy should have been to exploit the divisions within the Islamist movement. These are very deep, most obviously because Shiite Iran has an altogether different vision of an Islamicized Middle East than, say, Wahhabi Al Qaeda. As I write, the Iranians have made their most brazen move yet by sending two warships through the Suez Canal into the eastern Mediterranean. This should not worry only Israel. It should also worry Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who dreams of a revived Ottoman Empire as the dominant power in the region. In the absence of an American strategy, the probability of a worst-case scenario creeps up every day—a scenario of the sort that ultimately arose in revolutionary France, Russia, and China. First the revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East could turn much more violent, with a death toll running into tens or hundreds of thousands. Then they could spark a full-blown war, claiming millions of lives. Worst of all, out of that war could emerge an enemy as formidable as Napoleon’s France, Stalin’s Soviet Union, or Mao’s China. Yes, Americans love revolutions. But they should stick to loving their own." ______________________ So, we are to understand from highly respected economic historian Ferguson that we are to fear the current wave of revolution because the risk descending into self-consuming violence or spawning an aggressive world power, but if the US had supported movements in the Arab world such as Solidarity or Charter 77, neither of which were due to our inspiration or effort, then we would not have to fear such outcomes. Of course, we have never to my knowledge supported such movements, if any exist, in the Arab world, not under Bush surely. His "democratization" consisted of invasion. In any case, since we have failed apparently to support the current wave of revolution through the prescient support for non-existent democratic movements that conveniently posed no threat to our own interests, now Ferguson urges us to withhold our support. Oh yeah, and what are we supposed to have done to prevent Iranian warships from arriving in the Mediterranean under the doctrine of free peaceful passage that is our particular contribution to maritime law? Incoherent, tendentious nonsense.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 11:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In any case, since we have failed apparently to control the current wave of revolution through the prescient support for non-existent democratic movements that conveniently posed no threat to our own interests, now Ferguson urges us to withhold our support.

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And how can this situation be compared to eastern Europe? In the Arab world there are/were multiple indigenous despots who have become skilled at survival through repression. In eastern Europe, no regime existed that was not dependent on the Soviet Union. With the withdrawal of the support of the Soviet Union, they had little ability to survive on their own, and little desire to, and succumbed largely peacefully

- roidubouloi

February 27, 2011 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And how can this situation be compared to eastern Europe? In the Arab world there are/were multiple indigenous despots who have become skilled at survival through repression. In eastern Europe, no regime existed that was not dependent on the Soviet Union. With the withdrawal of the support of the Soviet Union, they had little ability to survive on their own, and little desire to, and succumbed largely peacefully." Not true for Rumania, not true for Yugoslavia, not true for Albania, etc. It's also true that without Soviet or Western aid and arms the Arab despots might not have survived as long as they did.

- Newly84

February 28, 2011 at 12:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Over 250 posts. That's 200 too many. good night.

- Newly84

February 28, 2011 at 12:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ick, I have nothing against dogs -- hence I don't send them into fights.

- ironyroad

February 28, 2011 at 12:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Er, neither Albania nor Yugoslavia were, strictly speaking, "Soviet-backed"; Rumania had exactly two executions, capital punishment was prohibited ... and the transition was "largely peaceful". Try again. And thanks for demonstrating your ability to count, and to police the number of comments.

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Romania's transition was largely peaceful and Yugoslavia is the exception that proves the rule as it was the one eastern European country with indigenous leaders not dependent on Moscow. Further, its problems had less to do with the struggle against despotism than with its own break-up into national territories. I would love to hear your explanation, malahat, of the "interesting context-setting and analysis" in Ferguson's piece.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2011 at 12:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newly: "It's also true that without Soviet or Western aid and arms the Arab despots might not have survived as long as they did." Which is why Ferguson is right, I guess, that the US should not have supported the Stalin-producing democratic revolutions of North Africa, as it was the West that bankrolled the dictators in the first place. Any more incoherent observations?

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: I was trying to be clever, but as usual, managed it only by half ...

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course the west didn't bankroll or support any Arab despots, icarus. We have already been advised by the very same newly of the long-standing policy of the American right of supporting Arab democracy even at risk to our own interests. You must have missed that part.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2011 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat - seriously, I am interested in knowing what in Ferguson's piece you found interesting, and in what way he was setting a context. I could not make sense of it - and the coda was just bizarre.

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah - Wolfie's admonition and all that. The US has always meant to upend Mubarak, Kuwait's Al-Sabah family and King Abdallah; well, Mubarak, but not King Abdallah, or the Al-Sabah family. Unless King Abdallah falls, in which case the US will always have meant to unseat him. And Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. ...

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 12:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess China and Russia decided that a prolonged civil war in Libya was not in their interest, especially with Tunisia and Egypt still in protest mode. I can understand why China would go along with cover from the Arab League (and Saudi oil) and the African Union. Amr Moussa, Sec-Gen'l of the Arab League today indicated he will run for the presidency of Egypt. Russia does not care about the UN precedent - let us count the days for the next military assault in the North Caucausus. Also, Russia always benefits from higher oil prices, so maybe Putin still aspires to be make nice with the EU. I just do not buy into icarusr' insistence that American efforts were pivotal in this UNSC vote. Helpful, yes, pivotal, no. (icarusr: save your condescension for another time or another commenter. China and Russia could have easily abstained) Qaddafi should have have faked an election or two in order to at minimum have a legitimate job title. Fake elections worked for Bashir and Mugabe. from the Guardian (no, my keyboard did not have a seizure): "...The 15-0 UN vote broke new ground. In 2005, Russia, the US and China abstained from a resolution – thus letting it pass – that referred the Darfur situation to the ICC and led ultimately to Bashir's indictment for genocide. The breakthrough in New York was helped by strong support from the Arab League and the African Union and support from Libya's own UN mission, which has defected en masse to the rebel camp. ... Reports from Moscow said Russia stands to lose up to $4bn in sales due to the arms embargo. ..." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/27/libya-gaddafi-pressure-russia-china I am so glad "The Social Network" lost. And there is no snow in my forecast for at least one week, just an inch of ice tomorrow.

- K2K

February 28, 2011 at 12:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Freedom is binding. The agency of 'I' is a projective with its measurable cause and effect parameters. It is also a means by which accountability is assigned. 'I did this.' rather than, 'This happened to Me.' That following statement seems to be so ridiculously self evident as to invite insouciant dismissal yet it is and has been the central contention in all of Our (the grand WE) religious and philosophical pursuits and contemplations. To be captured in the fullness of accountable choice is both terrifying and irresistible. It's the altar upon which heroes are made of and broken upon. So lives the Paradox and its gentler renter Irony. Please allow that forgiveness is also self interested inasmuch that it further facilitates freedom from being owned by bitter spoils.

- jacko

February 28, 2011 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't normally link to articles, but this one so easily, cogently and marvellously eviscerates both Said (directly) and Ferguson (indirectly) that I thought it worth a look. It is from the National Post in Canada, a conservative newspaper.

In light of everything we are witnessing from Casablanca to Isfahan, the miserable and allegedly “progressive” viewpoint taken by Edward Said’s followers is matched by and coupled with Spencer’s lurid “conservative” cynicism in a symbiotic death grip, each parasitic upon the other, both offering nothing but the ravings of demented Americans.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/28/terry-glavin-middle-east-myths-drop-like-dominos/

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ach. I don't normally link to articles, but this one so easily, cogently and marvellously eviscerates both Said (directly) and Ferguson (indirectly) that I thought it worth a look. It is from the National Post in Canada, a conservative newspaper.

In light of everything we are witnessing from Casablanca to Isfahan, the miserable and allegedly “progressive” viewpoint taken by Edward Said’s followers is matched by and coupled with Spencer’s lurid “conservative” cynicism in a symbiotic death grip, each parasitic upon the other, both offering nothing but the ravings of demented Americans.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/28/terry-glavin-middle-east-myths-drop-like-dominos

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ach ... I don't normally link to articles, but this one so easily, cogently and marvellously eviscerates both Said (directly) and Ferguson (indirectly) that I thought it worth a look. It is from the National Post in Canada, a conservative newspaper.

In light of everything we are witnessing from Casablanca to Isfahan, the miserable and allegedly “progressive” viewpoint taken by Edward Said’s followers is matched by and coupled with Spencer’s lurid “conservative” cynicism in a symbiotic death grip, each parasitic upon the other, both offering nothing but the ravings of demented Americans.
http: //fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/28/terry-glavin-middle-east-myths-drop-like-dominos/

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K: "I guess China and Russia decided that a prolonged civil war in Libya was not in their interest," "In 2005, Russia, the US and China abstained from a resolution – thus letting it pass – that referred the Darfur situation to the ICC and led ultimately to Bashir's indictment for genocide." I don't know how well you are acquainted with state-level strategic decision-making, but countries do not just give up strategic positions to deal with specific problems. Whether they care about an organization or not (and I think I agree with your assessment of Russian cynicism), in diplomacy law (the provinces of the UNSC), "precedent" matters a great deal. Countries fight for punctuations to the point of breakdown in negotiations to preserve and protect principles that arise out of strategic interests. (The famous "people" versus "peoples" debate that delayed the adoption of the convention on the right of aboriginal people(s) for two decades is a case in point.) And so, the change in position from 2005 by the US, Russia and China cannot reasonably be explained, or explained away, by facts on the ground (difference between Sudan and Libya, for example) or cynicism (of Russia). Nor do states change strategic positions in underlined by deep philosophical attachments merely because of impassioned pleas or, for that matter, "cover" by the Arab League or the African Union. Because of its veto, Chinese leaders are in no danger of being referred to the ICC for massacring 3000 protesters in 1989; but don't dismiss the impact of China's vote - its active affirmation that shooting civilian protesters is an international crime - on Saturday on 200-300 million middle class, urban and educated Chinese, and on the Chinese state apparatus as a whole. Not to mention the shockwaves that are going through the capitals of China's client states in Africa, all of whom until Saturday, could have reasonably hoped for a Chinese veto in the UNSC in respect of repression at home, and none of whom right now is certain of that support. A 363-year system takes a long time to unravel, and of course the death of Westphalia has been reported in irrationally exuberant terms before. Writing on the Iraq war in 1992, and then again in a revised paper in 1994, I noted that all talk of a "new world order" and the death of history was bunkum; it saddened me to be proven right over the next two decades. Saturday's vote was different. The change in the votes of the US, China and Russia, and the reference of Gadhafi to the ICC, is not, in my view, a change in degree but of kind. We will not see a new world order tomorrow, but when the history of the post-Wstphalian order is written, I have a sneaking suspicion that Saturday will have been seen as the turning point.

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/28/terry-glavin-middle-east-myths-drop-like-dominos/ Terry Glavin, is by no means a conservative. He is an intellectual in the Orwell tradition, by which I mean that he follows a set of principles unswayable by current ideological fashions. That's what makes his voice so valuable. He is a genuine anti-fascist. And he is Irish, to boot :) By which I mean that he can be quite fierce. Even Christopher Hitchens once had to revise his position after encountering Glavin's unflinching correct account of events. He is also, BTW, quite a fan of Marty Peretz, warts and all.

- noga1

February 28, 2011 at 10:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: Indirectly :) ... I loved this line, which I think (given Ferguson's inexcusable "Stalin is coming!!! Millions will die!!!") was particularly apt: "lurid “conservative” cynicism". And this one is a direct rebuke to Ferguson's lurid prognostication: "All the evidence, from Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Egypt and Iran, shows that democracy, freedom, work, wages and a “normal” life are exactly what the people are demanding." I say this not at all convinced by Galvin's arguments that Obama was passive or that America is irrelevant; this is typically British smarmy pap. But the general tenor, and the specific arguments, do deal effectively with the Saids and the Fergusons quite well, IMHO.

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 10:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He is also, BTW, quite a fan of Marty Peretz, warts and all." Well, nobody's perfect. :P ... I don't know his work or his politics, only that the NP is conservative/libertarian (though it does have a good range of contributors).

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What does this ":P" mean ? Here is Glavin's blog: http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/ He bends knee to nobody but he does it with grace, generosity and great wit. Those who waste his time, he makes short work of. He is BTW, a Canadian author, and professor of Creative Writing. He is also very active on behalf of the women of Afghanistan. No armchair activist, is Terry. He doesn't just talk but walks, too.

- noga1

February 28, 2011 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

:) - smile ;) - wink :D - broad smile :P - (tongue out) playfulness :> - mischief :o - shock :s - confusion :| - speechless :\ - hmmm

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

:\ Thanks #!#

- noga1

February 28, 2011 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here, I think, is Glavin's skewering of Ferguson's claim that it the Arab revolutions are already doomed to descend into self-consuming violence due to the failure of American foreign policy in just the last two years: "It is not just to the price of oil that the rebellions are proving so terribly inconvenient. All the evidence, from Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Egypt and Iran, shows that democracy, freedom, work, wages and a “normal” life are exactly what the people are demanding. The people are not clamouring for the immolation of the Jews anymore than they are hollering for the appointment of Norman Finkelstein as the defence minister. In Egypt, the April 6 Movement that started it all is root and branch a movement of trade unionists, secularists, and young intellectuals, all committed democrats. The Muslim Brotherhood was completely marginalized by it. The Ikhwan failed utterly in its attempts to hijack the uprising and now the aging Brethren sit in their solitary chairs with the rest of the Egyptian establishment, studying ways to mollify the revolt." _____________________ The general tenor of criticism of Obama, which is why I describe most of it as "intensely stupid," goes something like this: 1. If anything goes wrong or fails to go right, it is Obama's fault regardless of whether the critic can describe some alternative course of action for Obama with a plausibly better outcome. 2. If something goes right or fails to go wrong, it is in spite of whatever Obama did or did not do, and things would have turned out better, or at least at a lower cost, if Obama had not done or failed to do whatever he did regardless of whether the critic can describe some alternative course of action for Obama with a plausibly better outcome. 3. All action other than whatever Obama is or is not doing must be taken immediately or, even better, should have been done a long time ago such that it is already to late for Obama to do anything with a plausibly better outcome. Ferguson's criticism is in just this vein. Here are all the things that we are supposed to accept: That the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were the democratization project of Bush and the right. That this democratization project should have been carried own by support for democratic movements in the Moslem world. No explanation for why Bush did not pursue his own so-called democratization project in this manner, rather than literally holding hands with Mubarak for example, in the after-math of his democratization invasions. Nor is there any evidence that Ferguson ever suggested he do so. No description of the movements we were supposed to have supported by analogy to Solidarity or Charter 77 neither of which, thank god, was an American creation. Impliedly, the course of events in eastern Europe was the result of our rhetorical support for Solidarity and Charter 77. The on-going disintegration of the Soviet Union, the unwillingness of eastern European leaders violently to suppress demonstrations (you fire on crowds and win, you are safe, you fire on crowds and lose you can reliably expect to be murdered or executed), the courage of the demonstrators and their leaders, none of that was of particular consequence. The rhetorical support of the US, of already burgeoning movements, was all. Obama, but not Bush, also failed to seize the manifold opportunities to exploit divisions in the Moslem world, such as those between Sunni and Shi'a, resulting in Iranian warships in the Mediterranean. Explanation of how exactly the US should have "exploited" these divisions many of which go back centuries, perhaps by maintaining a hostile relationship with Shi'a Iran and a friendly relationship with Sunni Saudi Arabia? Vice versa? Who knows? It is too late for the US to repeat its singular rhetorical success in eastern Europe in the Arab world because we had to have pursued this dual agenda of democracy and fiendishly clever exploitation of Moslem divisions in the past, not mind you between 2003 and 2008 while Bush was still in office, but over the past two years when Obama came to office. This impossible to implement strategy, begun on January 20, 2009, would have made all the difference in the course of the Arab revolutions. Now it is too late, they are destined to be Stalinist or Bonapartist, or, apparently, to invade North Korea to keep the revolutionary spirit alive. Incoherent, tendentious nonsense. Indeed, despite the gravitas of this esteemed economic historian, it is not inappropriate to describe this too as intensely stupid.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2011 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with 10:20am EDT | icarusr, especially in the significance of the shift on the ICC, and February 26, 2011 as a day that may indeed be a pivot point in history. Where we disagree is whether the U.S. was pivotal, or helpful, in the yes votes by China and Russia. Perhaps both have evidence that Qaddafi has continued to fund "terror" amongst their respectively "restive Muslim minorities"? The UN and AU impotence in Ivory Coast is making the UN seem irrelevant, and China and Russia do not want to lose their international heft if the UNSC continues to be ignored, e.g., Lebanon. I still maintain if Qaddafi held even a fraudulently elected position, I am not so sure China and Russia would have voted yes. Also interesting is the absence of coherent pundit insight into this UNSC vote so far (pundits in :o :s :l mode), and why Turkey is now the sole major nation not willing to impose any sanctions on Libya. So, while I await for more external insight, my read for today is: "America Primed" From the Mar-Apr 2011issue Robert D. Kaplan, Stephen S. Kaplan | February 23, 2011 http://nationalinterest.org/article/america-primed-4892

- K2K

February 28, 2011 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Niall Ferguson's glaring omission of the revolutionary fervor of 1848 is a sign of intellectual cowardice. 1848 does not fit his fearmongering theme.

- K2K

February 28, 2011 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's an excellent article, K2K, although I am only half way through and have to turn my attention elsewhere for a time. I think it is overly optimistic concerning our ability to screw up our own geopolitical position, but it is very thoughtful and ties its arguments to observable realities. That alone is all too rare.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2011 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid, if anyone "ties its arguments to observable realities", it is Robert D. Kaplan. two viable pundits on the UNSC vote: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/opinion/01iht-edcotler01.html "Libya and the Responsibility to Protect" By IRWIN COTLER and JARED GENSER Published: February 28, 2011 "In response to Muammar el-Qaddafi’s continued assaults on civilians in Libya, the United Nations Security Council adopted a unanimous and historic resolution in an unusual Saturday night session. ...First, the firm response to the situation in Libya has only been possible because of the combination of Qaddafi’s horrific actions targeting civilians, his self-destructive comments demonstrating both his intent and disconnection from reality, and the mass defection of his ambassadors, military and civil servants in Libya and around the world. Collectively, there is just no one left to defend him. Any resistance to tough action in the Security Council was reportedly overcome by a strong and unequivocal letter in support of the proposed resolution by Libya’s permanent representative to the United Nations, who later broke down in tears begging the body to save his country. ..."

- K2K

February 28, 2011 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's get back to the article, dated February 25. Here is what the Weasle said: "Europeans, Africans, even Egyptians may join the campaign. And impose sanctions; and freeze assets; and summon The Hague. There is no lack of proposals for acting against this monster out of Tacitus. But the president is not yet interested in action." "Not yet interested in action" on the 25th; and a unanimous UNSC resolution and sanctions and the Hague on the 26th. There were 11 hours of negotiations among UNSC members on Saturday alone; before a matter is brought forward for negotiations, there needs to be a lot of coordination between allies - agreement on text between allies, for negotiations to take place between adversaries. So it can be presumed that even as the Weasel was lamenting the perceived inaction, the Administration was in full swing (we know that Obama called Merkel on Friday already) trying to get a unanimous UNSC resolution. (From about 4 in the afternoon onwards on Saturday, China and another big player (not Russia) were the holdouts, for the reasons set out above.) So, we can officially declare that the cri-de-coeur, the lament, the accusation - implicit and explicit - of cowardice and incompetence and lack of attention, were all crap, bullshit, a calumny based on prejudice and bad faith (in respect of Obama) and ignorance (of machinery of international sanctions/action, or other countries, of the world as we know it). And HOW (the ignorance). Boggles the mind. Go back to this sentence: "Europeans, Africans, even Egyptians may join the campaign." Europeans. Europeans. Yeah, they "may" join a "campaign" that should have started, if we take Leon at his word, before Friday. Here is the Financial Times this morning: as of Sunday night, when the newspaper went to print, and fully twenty-four hours after the UNSC resolution was passed, the EU had still not agreed on ... an asset freeze. Italy, Greece and Cyprus were the hold-outs. After the US and Canada and a whole host of countries had already acted, the EU could still not agree (the HuffPo now reports that the sanctions are in place). And W, criticising Obama for his inaction and tardiness, proposes that Europeans should/would/could/might/may/ought/must be brought in to help, er, speed up the action ... The article was assinine when it appeared; in hindsight, it is a disgrace.

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K - thanks for the links. "who later broke down in tears begging the body to save his country." Methinks policy-makers in Beijing and Moscow - and make no mistake, the decision on the vote was not made by the New York-based diplomats - did not hear the sobbing Libyan, who just two weeks ago would have been extolling the genius of the African King of Kings, or if they did, they did not care. My assessment of the relative importance of US, versus Arab League, persuasiveness is based on the nature of the question (which every knowledgeable commentator is now stating to be "historic" or at any rate Very Important, for the reasons I set out yesterday). The more important, unprecedented, historic and significant the issue, the less likely that it will be decided on the basis of momentary considerations or "pressure" from relatively insignificant players. (And the Arab League is, to China and Russia, in the context of the UNSC, quite insignificant.) We will likely not know the full story, but my guess is that there were calls from the WH to Beijing and Moscow late on Saturday, with the WH reminding China of its client states in subsaharan Africa and the need to ensure collective security when (not if) the region starts collapsing upon its misrulers.

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 2:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarusr: I think Merkel called Putin and the Saudis called China. Guess we shall have to wait until 2013 for Obama memoir, part 3 :) I have to go clear an inch of ice before it freezes overnight. yuck.

- K2K

February 28, 2011 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meanwhile: http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2011/02/27/viral-video-muammar-gaddafi-zenga-zenga-song-noy-alooshe-remix/ :)

- Sophia

February 28, 2011 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, Sophia, bringing together Irony and Libya ... sweet!

- icarusr

February 28, 2011 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay. I'll move the furniture and straighten the coaster so it lines up with a satisfactory symmetry. So it is done and 300 is affirmed. Adrian Monk thanks me I'm sure.

- jacko

March 1, 2011 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Jacko, I love your sense of humor!" I'm pleased it lines up, Malahat.

- jacko

March 2, 2011 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close