How can you believe any of these military attacks are ever for humanitarian purposes?

To avoid distractions, before my main argument, allow me to note the following three points:

1. YES, IT'S A "COALITION." I agree with those who say that in this case, France and Britain led the drive to intervene, and the US showed some reluctance. However, the Pentagon would never allow such an action without playing the military top-dog among equals, even if it hands off the command -- we'll see -- after it has once again displayed its power and willingness to flatten stuff from the air. (Also, it must seem very convenient given the current budget deliberations that there is now an even tinier chance that the Pentagon budget will be debated. But that's probably a secondary point.)

2. So this IS a US action, in coalition with France and UK as the three primary military actors. They DID get a resolution passed (with important abstentions) by the Security Council (which is one arm of the United Nations, and should be called the Security Council, not "the United Nations"). The resolution does NOT authorize everything that is now being done, although the coalition members will claim it does so. This is not remotely a "no-fly zone," and it's time to retire that description. This is a protracted bombing campaign aimed at ground forces, with concurrent statements from the coalition nations that they intend to see Gaddafi be deposed from power. In other words, it is an attempted regime change.

3. I'm willing to say for the sake of argument that, in exceptional cases, a hostile action may coincidentally have the effect of saving more civilian lives that it costs. That is not my point.


This is my question:

Do any of you really think that the Western powers ever undertake any hostile military action for humanitarian reasons? Do you really believe that's the reason for the intervention in Libya?

If Gaddafi's tanks were advancing on Bengazi, but Bengazi was located in Central Africa (far from Europe, which doesn't like refugees), absolutely nothing of the sort would happen. It wouldn't even come before Charlie Sheen in the US news.

And if tanks were advancing on Yemeni cities in revolt... oh, well, it's possible we're about to see what happens.

The revolts in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya are all part of the same wave of Arab uprisings set off by Tunisia and Egypt.

In Yemen, US forces have been helping that government directly in military operations designed to kill the country's insurgents. US forces have killed many civilians in the process. They will continue to do so, assuming the Yemeni government doesn't fall (as now appears possible).

Saudi Arabia has just sent an occupation force to Bahrain. They've fired on Bahraini protesters. They've also killed hundreds of protesters in Saudi Arabia, and are bound to continue killing many more. No amount of murder by Saudi forces, either in their invasion of Bahrain or in their own country, will cause a Western intervention there. They can flatten Shiite cities with tanks.

The only thing that might prompt a Western intervention in Saudi Arabia would be the fall of the monarchy. Because then a need would be seen to stabilize the situation, to prevent it from spreading, to keep the oil coming out and the refugees bottled in.

I'm not even saying stopping Gaddafi will turn out to be a bad thing. In this case, it might work out okay. (Very unlikely, but again, I'm saying so for purposes of argument.)

I am saying that the war supporters should stop fooling themselves with the propaganda about humanitarian interest. That is just a joke, coming after the aggressive war on Iraq and a thousand other actions that invalidate any moral standing for the members of this coalition to make such claims.

They intervene in self-interest. You may even agree that it's a good idea to "stabilize" Libya. Stabilize means getting it back pacified under whoever is willing to do business on the global capitalist market, as Gaddafi did until a few weeks ago (when he was still a Western darling) but can now no longer do.

Stabilize means preventing tens of thousands of refugees fleeing over the Mediterranean toward the EU, which a longer civil war or a Gaddafi victory would cause.

Stabilize may presumably also mean throwing a divide-and-conquer spanner into the momentum of the Arab uprisings.

But it requires a very special naivete (the one associated with the misnamed syndrome known as "patriotism") to believe the French-UK-US coalition is acting for humanitarian reasons rather than out of perceived political, economic and geostrategic interests.

So at least be honest with yourselves.

.

.

Note: Respondents are not allowed to abuse World War II as an example of a humanitarian intervention. The US entered that war only after the Japan attacked and Germany declared war. Most every country "entered" the war because they were attacked by the Axis powers. Thank you for complying. ;)

I tried to quantify this by saying you have to look at how many would be killed and will an attack be less but there has to be more. No matter who, what or where, if there is no financial motivator, it does not happen.

So we must look beyond the humanitarian element they are selling us and see what is the greed factor in this effort. Only 7% of Libyan oil comes to the US so why are we involved? How is going to win financially here?

It is always GREED!

We're just doing a favor for a friend? So greed is not the only motive on the planet.

When you oversimplify into idiocy, you screw up your case.

I said we only get 7% of Libya's oil
Did not say we had no finical int erst, but rather prompted to look for the financial interest.

yup

Profiteering always plays a role and any war will generate profit for someone who may therefore support it primarily so that they can get a piece of the business (whether that's in arms, security, mineral resources, debt management, rebuilding contracts, and so forth).

However, what drives the political decision making is mainly the policy-makers' (executive and military) perceptions of the political, economic, and geostrategic interests of their "country" (as they may define it), clients and supporters, allies, etc. These can often be twisted, and are often not-so-incidentally self-serving.

But again, purely humanitarian motives? Please!

Like with Libya, there was a whole lot of begging for intervention in WWII. Being the darlings we are, we didn't budge till we were personally attacked. WHAT A VIRTUE.

YES, SWEETIE, WE GO TO WAR IN OUR OWN INTEREST AND PEOPLE DIE. That's how all of us got to live here.

What sanctimonious fucking endless hypocrisy.

In case you haven't noticed, the Mediterranean is drenched with refugees NOW. Doing one damn thing on the side of the rebels is not the worst thing we can do as the power repositions.

Who would you prefer to have as the major military power on this planet?

But it is not in our interest to go broke on this deal so I hope we pick up some favored oil rates and WE MUST INSTITUTE A 90% GROSS INCOME OVER $7 MILLION WAR TAX IMMEDIATELY.

Our rich don't fight, they can at least buy the bombers.

!

Wouldn't it? That would mean raising taxes on their obscene wealth. We couldn't ask that when we can cut salaries of working class teachers, firemen & police; or we can cut public education or healthcare. :sarcasm:

First, because in a short time (historically speaking) no one will be able to play that role any more. The spread of national industrial development is increasingly making that impossible.

Second, because this role has allowed much carnage and mischief that would have been impossible otherwise. This major military power on the planet has found noble reasons to directly murder millions of peasants in their sleep.

Third, trough its covert arms, through its incessant use and threat of use, it has generated many of the worst conflicts that it later claims to intervene in as an outsider. It's going on 40 years (Indochina) since the last time that the US was able to find a tyrant to bomb who had NOT once been a client or valued ally. Do you really think that's a coincidence, rather than the predictable result of concerted policy?

I think the problem lies in your apparent assumption that there must be such a power. At any rate, the time is coming when the US will have to learn to live without that power. And there will be no replacement, so your question is silly. China's not going to be doing military interventions in countries thousands of miles from its borders, so you can sleep tight.

And please, don't call me "sweetie." Condescension would discredit you even if your argument was not so lame.

.

It's very unclear how many tanks were involved & what they were actually doing, we probably will never know. There has been no information about anything going on there other than what we are getting from sympathetic cable news and BBC reports. After so many years of being fed propaganda from all of these wars all these years, one might expect a more wary public, but it's never the case.

I think that might be the issue here, people are not reading how the protesters feel via twitter.

They wanted help. They appreciate we prevented a slaughter. They want NO GROUND FORCES!

Stop watching the corporate 'news'.

being sent by those people? Could I be a freedom fighter and tweet for help from/in Libya?

I prefer to listen to the people, it is much harder to control messages from millions of people.

The revolution is on Twitter....read all about it on wiunion. WE would know nothing of the real story in Wisconsin if it weren't for Twitter.

Air strikes prevented a slaughter in Bengazi. For that I am grateful, and they are too.

WE can best spend our energy making sure NO GROUND FORCES as per the protesters request.

Someone should check on it.

It authorises more than is currently being done, up to and including use of ground forces (but not occupation forces).

...to protect civilians? You know that if this war goes on longer, precisely the passages you highlight will be claimed by the coalition as a blank check to take all possible measures, up to an occupation (as you point out, it just needs to be called temporary for military purposes). And meanwhile, some of the states that voted for it will claim it doesn't say that. Because it doesn't. And it does.

Let's get past the letter of the resolution for the moment and ask simply: Why are they doing it? Do you really think it was to save the people in Bengazi, pure and simple, no other interest involved?

have both said "Gaddafi is not a target" and "targeting Gaddafi goes beyond the scope of the mission".

Things are never pure and simple, but at this point the intervention HAS prevented Gaddafi's forces from rolling into Benghazi with tanks and artillery, which is surely a good thing. "We will go from house to house; there will be no mercy." THAT'S what Gaddafi was saying; that's what's been prevented. That the governments pushing for a resolution are more concerned with public perception in light of the Gaddafi regime's actions of continued energy industry interests in Libya and that the EU is in part intervening to head off a refugee crisis that would see an influx of tens or hundreds of thousands of Libyans claiming asylum into France, Italy, Spain, the UK, etc is something I don't doubt, but at the same time the fact that there may be a degree of self-interest behind the actions of Western governments in Libya does not preclude the intervention from being a good thing on balance. Things are rarely as black and white as we might wish.

I don't give a damn.

WE should be going after Bush people- THIS is just what they want, meanwhile NBC is preparing a puff piece on Bush's great leadership to be shown next week.

Elizabeth de la Vega's Criminal Indictment of George W. Bush Et A-NOW is the time to go after them
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x715679

We can't wait for party 'leaders'

WE MUST TAKE THE LEAD!

I'm sure Libya is no different but that doesn't mean that they won't be helped to some degree as a side effect just like our own tattered safety nets. Those are there to ensure profits as well whether directly or to keep the natives from massing at the barricades and hurting the flow of commerce.

Those that are really in charge don't always mind doing something beneficial if they make money on it. I'm sure the IMF and the WTO will be rolling in, munitions and armament companies get more orders to replace depleted stocks, it is ensured the oil stays on the open market, the media has something to push, and it goes on and on.

It is always self interest at work to some degree but none of that means that the Libyans won't come out slightly ahead with less of their people killed.

The outcome may be a net positive and still be motivated by self interest.

what would "maybe" look like in 50 years if the US used its still-preeminent position NOW to lead the world in the general conventional and WMD disarmament of all states (with minimal forces kept for border defense and disaster management) and an end to the international arms trade? Because I would argue, passionately, that incomparably more lives will be saved that way than through any humanitarian intervention, never mind the more common and far worse "humanitarian" ones.

Let's have some vision for peace, insted of this treadmill gradually slipping from its moorings and into an abyss.

kinda like a Cadbury egg in that after the survivors clean up the kill site...they can look around for Snickers bars and maybe an ancient Pork and Rice MRE that noboby wanted. :sarcasm:

"Do any of you really think that the Western powers ever undertake any hostile military action for humanitarian reasons?"

Was that not the reason NATO involved itself in the conflict in Bosnia?