By Sarah El Neweihi
As a general rule, I tend to avoid Facebook fights, but recently I had to make an exception. A large number of the anti-war activists whom I have stood side by side with at many a protest have shocked me with their statements condemning all foreign intervention in Libya and even shaming the rebels for asking for help. This hypocrisy confounds me. It was my understanding that leftist activists were supposed to support the people against those who oppress the people, and in this case, it is obvious that the only one oppressing the people of Libya is their dictator, Gaddafi.
When a brutal dictator makes repetitive threats to his people on the radio that his well- equipped forces will hunt those who oppose him “dar, dar” (house by house) and “zenga, zenga” (street by street), and actually starts to follow through on these threats, he leaves no choice to the international community but to try to stop him from massacring his own people. The same people who are now in effect defending Gaddafi on Facebook were huge supporters of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. Was that only because they were able to do it on their own? So, we are willing to support the people with words but not with actions? It is clear that there is not a level playing field in Libya’s current civil war. Even if we say that there are Libyans who still support the government, those who are against Gaddafi do not stand a chance against his superior weapons and technologies. Also, the only reason the protesters took up arms in the first place was because they were being brutally attacked during their peaceful demonstrations. How long was the world to sit back and watch as Libyans were murdered by the man whose job it is to protect them? Gaddafi has shown through his ludicrous lies (for example, who can forget the recent gem that Al-Qaeda was giving the protesters hallucinogens which was causing them to rise up) that he is unstable, not only as a leader, but as a person. In Egypt, many were willing to condemn Mubarak solely because he had been in power for 30 years. Gaddafi has been in power for 41 years. For or against him, it is time for a change for the Libyan people.
It is my belief that since the Iraq War is our most recent memory when we think of foreign intervention, it is making everyone nervous. However, there are so many key differences that distinguish this from Iraq. First and most importantly, there are no troops on the ground. This is the element that will remain key to my support for the intervention. As long as the strikes are systematic and only from the air, it rules out the possibility of an occupation, which is something that I can never support. Therefore, the knee jerk cries of “oil, oil!” from those opposed to this foreign action, is completely ridiculous. In order to control Libyan oil, there would need to be an outright invasion and occupation, not air strikes alone. Furthermore, however much money the U.S. spends buying oil from the Middle East, it makes that back and then some from selling weapons and other technology to the Middle East, due to the region’s unfortunate lagging behind in this field.
Bush’s hasty unilateral intervention in Iraq should not paralyze the world when international military intervention is needed to prevent war crimes or humanitarian atrocities. These interventions were justified and essential in the Balkans and the first Gulf war. Inaction can lead to more costly intervention later. After the first Gulf war, the world stood and watched as Saddam crushed the uprising by the Kurds and the Shia, and brutalized his nation for another decade. A strategic intervention at that time could have prevented the more costly war of 2003 and would not have been based on lies and U.S. interests. It should be said that I am usually first in line to criticize the flawed policies of the U.S. but to criticize an action just because it comes from the U.S. is irrational and immature. This was not a unilateral action, and Obama has said that the U.S. will reduce its role in upcoming days to ensure that the burden of the UN resolution is shared. “We will be one of the partners among many,” Mr. Obama said (BBC). This in itself counters claims that the U.S. is acting solely for its own selfish interests. I cannot continue my work for peace and justice if I do not believe that sometimes countries act solely because they want peace or justice.
The bottom line to me, and the most important question to ask in all of this is “What do the Libyans want?” The Arab League approved the current campaign and the Libyans wanted the no-fly zone. Gaddafi needs to stop killing his people, and the Libyans have shown that they need help to achieve this goal. As long as the goal remains to stop Gaddafi and the foreign troops stay off Libyan soil, then I believe it is the responsibility of the international community to protect its members when they are in peril that they cannot handle alone. One of my Facebook feuding partners wrote that the foreign intervention violates the sovereignty of Libya. More accurately, a legitimate government is a cornerstone of a sovereign country and Gaddafi has undermined Libya’s sovereignty through his brutal actions and failure to represent his people. If foreign intervention will help Libya attain a legitimate government that truly represents their interests and protects them rather than murdering them, then I do not see a problem with it.
Sarah El Neweihi is an Egyptian American who will complete her MA in Near and Middle East Studies in London next year. As an undergrad at DePaul University, Sarah was a key leader of Students for Justice in Palestine, and represented the University at the 2009 World Social Forum in Brazil. Since graduating in 2009, Sarah studied Arabic in Cairo, Egypt, and has served as the Middle East Intern for the American Friends Service Committee in Chicago.
I agree with you. We could sit here in the west and condemn the military intervention, but it’s the people there whose opinion matters. They’ve asked for help, and while it may be late in the making, the international community has responded. Like you, I am against unjust war. Sometimes war is necessary. As long as the terms of the resolution are adhered to, I support the military intervention to assist the people of Libya.
I would only have to disagree with a couple of points. Firstly, there will most certainly be ground troops. Its only a matter of time. Also, the U.S. is and will be taking a leading role in this, whether its through a multi-national coalition or through NATO.
Secondly,to dismiss the imperialist nature and interests of the U.S. based simply on empty rhetoric from a president who gives more speeches than the last 5 presidents combined is a bit simplistic.
It is perfectly fine to be anti-Gaddafi yet still be weary of foreign intervention led by the U.S. I definitely share your frustration with the Left and their hypocrisy. Some on the Left have been critical of those in the anti-Gaddafi movement since the early days of the revolution.
Sarah! Thank you so much for writing this article! Even though I might have small issues with it here and there (you know I’m too scared of you to outwardly disagree with you) I still find it very persuasive.
Honestly, I’ve been having a lot of trouble thinking through this intervention (maybe it’s a good thing I’m not in charge of anything). On the one hand, there’s clearly a much more legitimate indigenous call than there ever was in Iraq and I can’t ignore that. On the other hand, if it really is a civil war, what’s the mandate on the intervention? Is the international community taking the side of the rebels and actively pursuing regime change? If not, and we’re just leveling the playing field – my God, does that mean we’re actually trying to prolong a civil war? If we are explicitly seeking regime change, are we just favoring one group within Libya over another?
Sure you can blame Gadaffi for pitting different tribes against each other to shore up his own power (I know I do). But that doesn’t change the fact that you can’t really untangle such awful situations with ground invasions, let alone by hurling Tomahawks from afar. If you consider all the complexities, it’s entirely possible that rather than making anything better, we’re actually making it worse. I mean, wasn’t Afghanistan a similar case, where we supported a rebellion (the Northern Alliance) and it turns out they didn’t have a much better track record than the Taliban.
Yet despite all this, I have to agree with you that “we can’t just do nothing” (I’m totally ripping off the title of a relatively mediocre article by Richard Just). I just feel that without any idea of what kind of endgame the intervention is supposed to bring about, without any kind of local understanding other than a few justifiably terrified reporters and the occasional twitter feed, do we really have any idea what’s going on, or what effect we’re having? Maybe Berlusconi knows someone… nevermind.
Hey Yotam, haha, you better be scared of me! Just kidding. Although I stick with what I said, I was very much torn on my stance for a while and am still nervous. However, consider the alternative…Gaddafi would have surely crushed the rebels and we would be left with a bunch of dead Libyans and a lunatic still in power oppressing his people. I’m not sure what the outcome will be, but we still don’t know what the outcomes will be in Egypt or Tunisia, but we all agree that the dictators had to go, and I feel that it is the same case in Libya for better or worse.
@Uncle Sam…I’m not sure that I dismissed U.S. imperialistic tendencies solely because of what Obama said, but through the other various points I made. I honestly don’t think that oil is the goal in this case. If you are correct and troops on the ground become a reality, then I will have to change my position, but for now, I stand by what I said. I wish foreign intervention wasn’t necessary, but I still believe that for the time being it is.
Desiring the U.S. death machine is really as simple as signing a pact with the devil.
I have to say I strongly disagree with this article. While I agree with you that some leftist activists have taken the wrong approach by trying to portray the anti-Kaddafi forces as Western proxies or even prettifying Kaddafi himself as some sort of progressive anti-imperialist, it doesn’t make their opposition to a US/NATO intervention completely invalid.
I think we can both agree that Kaddafi is a murderous, kleptocratic thug, and that the Libyan people are right to rebel against him. But you think that the solution to the Libyan people’s problems is for them to get an even more powerful murderous thug(the US military) on their side? This does not make sense.
The US government is not doing this because it gives a damn about Libyan deaths. It’s kind of amazing that after years, actually decades, of American imperialism killing literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men women and children, backing Israel to the hilt when it brutalizes the Palestinians, and directly collaborating with the torturer Mubarak in Egypt(to say nothing of US intervention that has slaughtered millions in Korea, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Cambodia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador etc etc etc) that there are those who still think that the US military and CIA can somehow be used for ‘humanitarian’ ends. Guess what, it won’t and it cannot. These are not ‘flawed policies’. This is a conscious, deliberate and for the most part successful imperial strategy for global hegemony.
Even when a group of oppressed people benefit in the short term, they are cut loose as soon as they outlive their strategic usefulness. Just ask the Kurds.
As for the claim that ‘this isn’t like Iraq’, you seem to forget that Iraq started with bombing(in 1991), then with a decade of sanctions, then with an outright invasion. This ‘no fly zone’ is a foot in the door for further intervention and ultimately further misery for the Libyan people.
Finally, I am not even sure that ‘the Libyan rebellion’ requested this intervention. I hear people repeating this as if it is a documented fact, but what’s the evidence that this is the actual leadership of the rebels, or if the rebels have a coherent leadership at all? Isn’t it quite likely that this is simply being ‘hyped’ to justify an intervention that has been decided beforehand?
The Arab League gives this no legitimacy. It’s a bunch of corrupt puppet regimes, dependent for their very existence on the Europeans and Americans.
In closing, the most inspiring thing about the rebellions in the Arab world is the Arab masses are themselves the agents of their own liberation, showing up the notion that Arabs need Western imperialism to ‘uplift’ and ‘save’ them to be the shallow, racist, self-serving lie that it is. Your support of foreign intervention reveals a lack of faith in the masses of the Arab world to chart their own course. Yes, they may be defeated in some places. But the Arabs must liberate themselves or they will not be liberated at all. To oppose foreign intervention and oppose Arab despots is to oppose the same apparatus of oppression. Their both heads on the same Hydra.
This is a very informative post. Thank thank you.
It is so distressing that a Middle Eastern person still hasnt seen thru why the Western forces do what they do in such places as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan. It doesnt matter if there are troops or not. the bombing and the death and the burning of civilians is probably the worst part of an attack by the west.
the author of this article can’t possibly believe that either Britain, France or the US is doing this for humanitarian reasons.
they are doing it for one, they need to use up their weapons to ask for more and to help the military industrial complex. And secondly, Gaddafi has never played ball with the West as much as the West would like. The principle of non-intervention is the only one that makes sense.
France, Britain and the US are not the police or the police dogs of the world. Have no illusions, they will never do anything to help the people of Libya. Have they changed their natures all of a sudden?
Respected sarah!…Your lines compelled me to write here that …….”Rise ….Rise….Rise….until Lambs become Lions……………..”
You have written something different which other may not agree but for me was a “missing the big picture” on our side as we are accustomed to see the things not knowing the fact-pact exactly what happened, cuses which it let to blow the whistle and finally what was our job so we could foresee it before it damaged us. Anyhow ,,,it is a good article……keep on..
Knowing what you do about Palestine, US backing of Israel’s genocide and the UN’s refusal to act against it, you must question the forces and interests at work here – the US is NOT acting on behalf of or in the interests of the people of Libya, regardless of how repressive Gadaffi is. “European imperialist powers have joined the U.S. in the slaughter, hoping to carve up Libya in the post-Qadaffi era, even bring the old colonialism back: Italy, which carried out massacres in Libya when it dominated it as a colony… France, which killed over a million Algerians to maintain its grip… and Britain, which dominated Egypt and many other parts of the Arab world for decades. This is the imperialist “multi-lateralism” that the U.S. claims legitimizes this criminal enterprise.” There is much more – about the UN, the Arab League, etc. Please read the full analysis at http://revcom.us/a/227online/libya-en.html exactly because you care so much about the future of the people of Libya, the Middle East and the world.
For a Moslem person to think that the country that maintained Mubarak in power for 30 years in Egypt, the country that sponsors the apartheid system against Palestianians for 60 years, is going to be the country to “free” Libya, I find amazing. If the people in the Middle East think like her, then it seems they are doomed to decades and decades of darkness, despair, and oppression.
I would like to ask all of those who have disagreed what their alternative would be. If you discredit all forms of foreign intervention, what is the purpose of organizations like the UN and NATO?
@Barry Lyndon: As for 1991, the first Gulf War, it was meant to dislodge the Iraqi army from Kuwait, it did not say that they were going to only establish a no-fly zone. So you can’t accurately predict what will happen and to think you can is foolish.
Also, what do you say about interventions in places like Kosovo? Should they have left that alone too?
“The UN is a cabal of reactionary states dominated by the world’s big imperialist powers. The UN is an institution whose purpose is maintaining capitalism-imperialism’s domination of the planet, including when necessary legitimizing its violent aggression against those who stand in the way of the U.S. and other big powers. The UN authorized the 1991 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, whose purpose was to maintain U.S. imperialist control of the Persian Gulf, which resulted in the slaughter of over 200,000 Iraqis and the destruction of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure. The UN approved sanctions against Iraq that led to the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children and probably over a million other Iraqis during the decade of the 1990s. Just as the U.S. has fully backed Israel and all the crimes it has committed against the Palestinians, the UN has refused to act against Israel, not even putting sanctions on them, despite being in flagrant violation of UN resolutions for over 40 years! Now, suddenly, at the U.S. behest, the UN is acting.”
There is a great deal we can do to support justice for the people of Libya, primarily by getting into the streets NOT to oppose imperialist intervention, whether in the UK, the US or France. These murderers are fighting to extend their empire, and that will only mean more death and destruction for Libya.
@Stan Smith….how do you know I’m a Muslim?? That is rather racist of you. There are Arab Christians you know. My religion has nothing to do with my views and is none of your business.
Also, I never said the U.S. is going to be the country to liberate Libya, but if they can weaken Gaddafi enough so that the Libyan people can take care of the rest, then I’m totally okay with that. Who are you supporting then? The Libyan people? Clearly not because you would realize they cannot oust Gaddafi on their own.
Also @Stan Smith…..maintained Mubarak? So are you suggesting the U.S. should have intervened while Mubarak was there? Hmm….that seems rather hypocritical….
Sarah, thank you so much for safe guarding the integrity of, what should be, the aim of all our efforts- the self-determination of the Libyan people on THEIR terms. Regardless of what many leftists activists fear because of the global community’s intentions and historically clandestine actions, its important to provide Libyans with with the support that THEY see fit. Your article was straight forward and unapologetically static.
P.S: Ignore any comments that start off with “for a Moslem person.”
Contrary to popular insensitive prejudice, your predilections are not determined by your religious identification. We should never retreat back into the idea the Muslims are a monolithic horde that unconsciously sway in one direction…
Quote-
****@Barry Lyndon: As for 1991, the first Gulf War, it was meant to dislodge the Iraqi army from Kuwait, it did not say that they were going to only establish a no-fly zone. So you can’t accurately predict what will happen and to think you can is foolish.****
I can’t predict what will happen for sure but I have a pretty good idea that US intervention in Libya will do more harm then good, judging by decades of US foreign policy. It’s better then basing my political stance on wishful thinking.
****Also, what do you say about interventions in places like Kosovo? Should they have left that alone too?****
Actually, if the US government had simply left Yugoslavia alone and hadn’t actively worked to destroy it because it was the last Soviet-style economy in Eastern Europe(especially with the Foreign Appropriations Act of 1990, which promised foreign aid to specific ethnic groups if they broke from Yugoslavia), then there wouldn’t have been a civil war and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Bosnia to begin with.
Then the accusation is ‘what is the alternative?’ You falsely pose the question as if there are only two choices-for people in the Third World to be murdered by their own despots, or foreign imperialist bombing and intervention. It’s kind of amazing that in spite of the uprisings in the Arab world, which show that a third force is indeed possible, you continue to cling to this false dichotomy.
Your sorts of arguments are nothing but appeals to emotion ‘oh people are dying therefore we shouldn’t have to think about anything or the political implications of this or that policy’. These de-politicizing, moral blackmail approaches do not help us understand what the long-term solutions to these problems, how we can prevent such situations from arising in the first place.
This is all spectator sport for them. Never trust the Far-Left in this country, they have long watched my people being slaughtered until there are only 5% left
I agree with the objection to generalizations about “Muslims,” and that extends to generalizations about “the Libyans” as well. Libya, like every other country in the world, is composed of classes and has a complicated history and social structure, so I think arguments that hinge on “what the Libyans want” are equally baseless. That holds true for decrying the disloyalty of “Leftists” too. You say don’t count on “the Leftists” but you think you can count on the US to assist in attaining any kind of relief from oppression that would be in the interests of the majority in Libya? Remember, the no-fly zone over Iraq lasted a decade and resulted in the death of at least half a million Iraqi children, which then-Sec. of State Madeleine Albright thought was a reasonable price to pay for US domination of Iraq, all in the name of dislodging another dictator. See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
Amazing article! I agree with with you, Sarah. I feel that the leftists in the US who are arguing against the no-fly zone are themselves Orientalist and imperialist. They totally disregard the wishes of the Libyan people. It’s a very privileged position for non-Arabs living in the US to speak for the people who are the victims in this situation and to decide what would or would not be best for the Libyan people. Every Arab I have spoken to has been FOR the No-Fly Zone while every white leftist has been against it. That in itself speaks volumes. They are limited to their ideological loyalties and they are complaining about US intervention, but I don’t see any of them providing any other viable option to keep Gaddafi from killing his own people. Foreign intervention is not ideal, but what else is there?
I’m one white leftist who is for the UN intervention, but I’m also a military vet and I also have a lot of Middle Eastern friends. All my ME friends are for this, and that tells me which way is the best way to go on it.
I also think that ideology wilts on contact with the real world, but a lot of these white leftists you’ve dealt with have probably got very limited exposure to the real world.
This isn’t great but it’s the best option I see right now. It will be interesting to see how things develop. I think those of us in the US or American citizens elsewhere in the world are very lucky that we have an intelligent and careful president who isn’t beholden to his personal ideology and who is willing to adapt his policies to the situational realities. That cowboy moron Bush would have invaded Libya by now, and “liberated” the shit out of the Libyan people.
The argument revolves around the motive and interests of the US and other major powers launching this attack. That is the issue, not “the wishes of the Libyan people.” Your dismissal of the factual and historical arguments being made here amounts to little more than “I don’t care to believe them because I don’t like them. And I’ll attack those who continue to rain on my parade.” I’m afraid it is indeed the people of Libya who will pay the price for this aggression, whether you care to face the facts or not.
I like all the ignorant white people who are claiming that the author doesn’t know what shes talking about. Apparently, white people know the Middle East better than the Middle Easterners do. Anyways, nice article Sarah
KsCyote: ****This is all spectator sport for them. Never trust the Far-Left in this country, they have long watched my people being slaughtered until there are only 5% left****
Wait, so your advocating that the same imperialist state that exterminated the Native Americans should have free rein to bomb Libya???? How does that makes any sense.
And I had no idea the ‘Far Left’ was responsible for the genocide of Native Americans.
I’m really kind of amazed at the vitriol aimed at leftists on here. I mean, I myself don’t agree with the stances a number of leftists have taken and have had my disagreements, but to attack and make sweeping generalizations against leftists is ridiculous. First of all, all ‘leftists’ are not white, in fact in a global sense MOST leftists are not white. Second of all, just because you are Arab and/or Muslim does not make your stance on the politics of the region automatically valid.
I am going to politely bow out from any further debate on this article. We’ll all have to agree to disagree. If it turns out that things get worse in Libya as a result of this, I will be the first to admit my mistake in judgment, so I guess we should all just see what happens and pray for the best for the Libyan people, especially since, at the end of the day, we are not the ones who make the decisions.
I do think that people need to remain respectful when addressing one another on this blog and in general. Attacking people and calling them names does not give any argument legitimacy. I think everyone is entitled to an educated opinion and most of us seem to have one, even if they are at odds with each other.
Anyway, I appreciate that you all took the time to read my article, whether you agreed or disagreed with it. I think we are all speaking from a position of privilege as none of us are Libyans in Libya right now, and my thoughts and prayers will remain with them.
“One of my Facebook feuding partners wrote that the foreign intervention violates the sovereignty of Libya. More accurately, a legitimate government is a cornerstone of a sovereign country and Gaddafi has undermined Libya’s sovereignty through his brutal actions and failure to represent his people. ”
Oh, that explains everything – obviously unlike Gaddafi ,Saddam Hussein was a legitimate leader who never undermined Iraq’s sovereignty through his brutal actions and failure to represent his people.
Just for the sake of argument, NATO is a Western tool of imperialism founded to fight off Soviet/communist expansion in Europe and further Western interests. That’s the sole purpose of NATO. Its not the Red Cross.
But what I think is sorely lacking in the discourse by some of those on the Left is a sense of faith that the Libyan people will not simply roll over and overthrow Qaddafi just to be occupied and colonized by the West. They will not accept their nation’s resources to be exploited. Have some damn faith!
I do believe its perfectly fine to criticize the no-fly zone, but to now show concern over possible civilian deaths from bombs and missles is a little late in the ball game. Weren’t Libyan civilians already getting bombed by Qaddafi?
http://www.facebook.com/SarahBurris/posts/955540741699?notif_t=feed_comment_reply#!/note.php?note_id=10150134547732370