Gadaffi did not give the west everything it wanted as far as oil is concerned. The state retains a 70 per cent interest in projects. A new government could privatize that interest and it would be a huge boon for foreign oil. I do not know how having a ceasefire and negotiating a solution would have more casualties than allowing battles for cities. Even if Gadaffi is actually defeated in a short time there could be a situation as happened in Iraq after the defeat of Hussein. Loyalists kept on the struggle to the present with continuing casualties.
Cheers, ken ----- Original Message ---- From: Gar Lipow <[email protected]> To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, March 28, 2011 12:42:47 PM Subject: Re: [Pen-l] from Juan Cole: An Open Letter to the Left on Libya If this succeeds, and it does look like it may, it will kill a lot fewer people than Gaddafi would have if left alone. Not being done for humanitarian reasons, but will probably have humanitarian results. Incidentally, for those who sneer at the idea that this is about oil and refugee, it is not a criticism of the rebels to say that this invasion is in the interests of U.S. and allies. Given that the Libyan rebels had neither ability nor wish to tackle the U.S. empire, creating a situation where the U.S. rulers saw themselves as better off supporting the rebel majority than continuing to support Gadaffi or standing neutral was the best the rebels could hope for. Putting our rulers in that kind of situation is the goal of movements about 99.99% of the time, and most of the time we don't achieve that much. So: it is just hilarious, say some, to suggest that this is about oil because Gaddafi gave the west about every concession on oil one can imagine. Yup, and that is why he had the support of the powers that be until his most recent massacre. But the problem for the masters of the uninverse is the G has not just lost the support of about 80% of the Libyan people. The Libyan people know that 80% of the people oppose him, that they are not alone. So if G had been allowed to retain power by massacre what would have happened? Doubt people would have gone back to peacful protest to be killed. Doubt they would continued to fight pitch battles against a better armed and train force. They would have done what rebels always do in that situatution gone underground. Normally undergrounds have at best the tolerance of the people. Can you imagine how deadly an underground that has actual support from a majority would be. At any rate that kind of guerilla warfare would most likely have targeted oil infrastructure. At the very least anyone looking at the situation from U.S. and Nato viewpoint has to consider that this is a serious risk. So now it is about oil, but it is about oil because the G's actions against the rebels created a situation where he can no longer guarantee oil. Other things too - public opinion would mean if he created oil, Italy and Nato would have had to pretend to boycott Libyan oil and divest from operations in Libya. Ways probably would have been found around it but it would have been a pain. And perhaps enough of a pain that Gadaffi would have sold to the Chinese instead. Refugees - the same thing. Libya was a big importer for foreign workers before this. But once the revolution started, Libyan foreign works fled in massive numbers. Libyan citizens fled in massive numbers. Post rebellion, having the rebels take power is more in the interest of U.S. and Nato than leaving Gadaffi in power or creating a stalemate. I don't know why supporters of the intervention would deny this. It is an argument for rather than against internention. To rely on U.S. altruism would be enormously stupid. But if U.S. and Nato selfish interests happen to coincide with a course of action that is a lesser evil compared to what would happen otherwise, that is huge argument for at least considering supporting their actions. Now initially my fear was that this would not be over quickly and the converging interest would diverge. And that is still a risk. But it is looking more and more like those who though Gadaffi could be overthrown quickly were right. Now as to what Hanley is saying: yes a U.S. that actually had humanitarian motives might have found a different course, accepted the cease fire and so on. But anyone supporting this is not support a U.S. with the motives it has because the actual actions a U.S. acting the way the U .S. always acts will take have less bad consequences than doing nothing. It is really rare for that to happen. And I'm still not 100% sure that is what will happen here. But it looks like the odds are a lot better than I thought they were. On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Jurriaan Bendien <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm with Ken on this. BTW the "chew gum" reference by Juan Cole seems to be > to Bob Dylan's "Subterranean homesick blues" ("Don't want to be a bum/ you > better chew gum/The pump don't work/because the vandals took the handles"). > > Juan Cole is very enthusiastic about getting rid of Muammar Gaddafi, that is > why he is now supporting the Anglo-American axis on this. > > I suppose this is as good a time as any to read Richard Seymour's "The > liberal defence of murder". > > Jurriaan > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598 Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
