====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
thanks clay. as has been usual in the short time i have been on this listserv you are very thorough and present a compelling case in this instance. i look forward to the reply, which i hope is as substantive. as the contributors here are the usual suspects i think it is important for you to know that there are people like me who have more questions than analysis. i lurk more than write and try to weigh what i read against what i hear and against, of course, my experience and understanding. my silence here doesn't mean i do not pass on what i find useful to those outside this list. the dialogue is extremely beneficial and i can attest that the true word does get out. it helps clarify in this era of wild and uninhibited propaganda when i find it has never been more difficult for the average person to understand the world. so thank you (and louis and andrew) who have helped me more to understand contemporary events than anyone since andrew cockburn. p.s. as an aside i found your blog on benghazi to be the best single source of information on the events leading up to that unfortunate event. i shared it broadly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Serve, Marxism" <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> To: "Faulkner, Charles" <lacena...@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 2:38:28 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] NATO over Libya vs. IDF over Gaza ====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ====================================================================== On 07/26/2014 04:20 AM, Lenin's Tomb wrote: > So, to be clear: > > I point out that the “studies” you are citing /neither attempt nor > claim/ to be comprehensive estimates of civilian deaths arising from > NATO’s bombing campaign. > > And your response is to demand of me that I supplement their data by > providing documented instances of civilian casualties not counted by > them. > > I’m afraid you’re simply not thinking. Lenin's Tomb examples the Left's main error on Libya, which is its failure to learn from its mistakes. Lenin's Tomb has now demonstratively been wrong on Libya but rather than examining its past analysis for errors, it ignores them and doubles down on its generally negative assessment of the Libyan Revolution. Let's examine the record: In March 2011 <http://www.leninology.co.uk/2011/03/un-votes-for-libya-air-strikes.html> this was its best-case scenario for the Libyan revolution, which it thought unlikely: The best-case scenario is that people are killed to little avail, and the former regime elements in the transitional leadership have just diverted energies and initiative down a blind alley. I suppose you might object that the best-case scenario is that the air strikes exclusively kill the bad guys, turning the initiative in favour of the revolutionaries, allowing them to sieze power, build a liberal democratic state, and the cavalry heads home. And the band played, 'Believe it if you like'. My assessment of what did happen is that the air strikes killed 90-95% "bad guys," did turn the initiative in favor of the revolutionaries allowing them to seize power and then the cavalry flew home. Process of rebuilding the state virtually from scratch, and not in the way Lenin's Tomb envisioned, is on going and continues to be the center of political struggle. In April 2011 <http://www.leninology.co.uk/2011/04/springtime-for-nato-in-libya.html>, Lenin's Tomb offered the opinion that after NATO intervention only a puppet government could emerge: Can I just risk a modest proposition? NATO, the CIA and the special forces belonging to the world's imperialist states are not forces of progress in this world. Does anyone disagree with that? If not, then it follows as surely as night follows day that the successful cooptation of the Libyan revolution by NATO, the CIA and special forces is a victory for reaction. It's no good hoping that the small, poorly armed, poorly trained militias of the east of Libya, who are now utterly dependent on external support, will somehow shake themselves free of such constraints once - if - they take power. LT thought the most likely outcome would be a deal brokered by NATO that left the Qaddafi state machinery in place: they [NATO] offer a prolonged civil war at best culminating in a settlement with Saif and his sibling. Given events in Syria, I wouldn't call Libya's civil war "prolonged" and Saif's relation to state power is detention awaking trial. LT elaborates: Yes, I know. A negotiated settlement would be a step back from outright victory for the rebels. But that is an increasingly improbable outcome anyway, and I thought we were trying to save lives here? And as it happens, a diplomatic solution seems to be exactly what is on the cards now. LT came to the conclusion early that the Libyan Revolution had been converted into the US War on Libya: The opposition leaders are now adjuncts to a NATO strategy which may not even have been disclosed to them. Let's at least give credit where it's due. This is NATO's war. And that means, this is Washington's war. As things developed, the US never flew more than about 17% of the strike missions in what LT had called "Washington's war," so LT changed its position accordingly, in April <http://www.leninology.co.uk/2011/04/where-is-bombing-of-libya-going.html> predicting a Qaddafi victory unless NATO put in troops: The US is pulling out of the air war, amid divisions and recriminations, and is saying that it will not engage in the training or arming of the rebels. In short, it is retreating from any explicit military involvement in the Libyan revolt. This may amount to an admission of failure. Qadhafi's recent recovery in some parts of the country may be reversed, but he is unlikely to lose the core western territories that he now commands. Is this the kind of stability that is sought? A constant war of attrition between two slightly better matched forces? What's the alternative, apart from a land invasion? LT thought <http://www.leninology.co.uk/2011/08/libya-downfall.html> "Washington's war" would ultimately result in a re-constituted Qaddafi regime. This was said in August before the uprising in Tripoli vanquished the Qaddafi forces even as the revolutionary armies were converging on the city from four sides: Their weakest point had been the failure of the revolt to spread to Tripoli, which seemed unlikely to fall to the sorts of relatively light bombing sorties that NATO was deploying. Aerial bombing was no substitute for the spread of the revolution, which was actually receding as the initiative passed into the hands of Africom planners and others. Leading politicians in the UK and France were admitting that Qadhafi would not be driven out by military force, and calling for a negotiated settlement. I think we would see a recomposition of the old regime, without Qadhafi but with the basic state structures intact. The former regime elements would become regime elements, within a pro-US, neoliberal state with some limited political democracy. Its not that LT misjudged the situation, we all do that from time to time, but that he so badly misjudged the situation on the side of reaction, on the side of counter-revolution. At a time when the Libyan forces rallied against the fascist dictatorship needed all the support it could get, practical as well as moral, he , we now know wrongly, predicted failure on all fronts. Of course, as revolutionary Marxists, it is incumbent on us to always tell the truth to the people and never take the ultra-left road of advocating a struggle that can't be won. So we should be cautious in setting doable goals so the people can go from victory to victory, but I think the far greater "danger," if you can call it that, is the outright avocation of the failure of the revolutionary forces when that is not called for by the facts. I put "danger" in quotes because it isn't a danger for the forces of counter-revolution generally, it is what we expect them to do, but it is an embarrassment to Lenin that someone taking his name should also take that stand. With its predictions of a negotiated settlement leaving the Qaddafi regime largely intact, NATO boots on the ground and a puppet government controlled by Washington, all proven wrong by history, one might hope that a historical materialist would get busy examining the basic assumptions that led to these counter-revolutionary conclusions. To have at precisely the moment when the revolutionary forces are engaged in desperate battle and need all to rally to their cause and have heart, have faith in their eventual victory, to at that moment incorrectly predict failure and defeat, to so publicly underestimate the strength of the revolutionary forces and the revolutionary possibilities of the situation has to be ranked as a first rate failure for a Leninist. Such a failure should be the subject of serious examination. Not so with LT, instead it calls for <http://www.leninology.co.uk/2011/08/libya-is-free-it-must-be-occupied.html> an outcome congruent with its initial vision, it calls for a US occupation of Libya: Now Nato has to deal with its own success. International assistance, probably including an international force, is likely to be needed for some time to help restore and maintain order. The size and composition of the force will depend on what is requested and welcomed by the Libyan National Transitional Council and what is required by the situation on the ground. President Barack Obama may need to reconsider his assertion that there would not be any American boots on the ground; leadership is hard to assert without a presence. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/lacenaire%40comcast.net ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
