Posts Tagged ‘Iraq

02
May
11

The Death of Bin Laden: And Nothing Changed…

President Obama has just confirmed the killing of Al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden.

Osama Bin Laden is dead and nothing has changed.

Don’t get me wrong, no matter what your social or political perspective is, the events that have transpired in the past week mark an iota of justice for those dead, both American and otherwise. However, let us not delude ourselves into imagining that the world tomorrow is going to any different than it was yesterday or the day before.

I watched the news at a friend’s house- one of her roommates went to bed before the speech, commenting “I know I’ll be alive tomorrow”.

That’s simply not something any of us can say.

With emotions running free on all fronts, we might forget that Bin Laden was as much the leader of Al-Qaeda and affiliated networks as Queen Elizabeth is the ruler of England. His death no more defeats Al-Qaeda and the Taliban than the death of the queen would obliterate the UK. The actual leaders of Al-Qaeda are as alive as ever, these recent events constitute, at most, an ideological defeat.

So is it over now? Will the Orwellian policies in the US- such as the Patriot Act or the invasive TSA scanning procedures- be repealed? Will US and coalition forces withdraw from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and elsewhere? Has the situation anywhere in the world been in the least altered by the death of Bin Laden?

The answer to everything is a resounding “No”.

Even in his announcement, Obama has announced the continuation of the wars and policies in place since September 11th. Again, nothing absolutely nothing has changed.

So we have to ask the question- “when?“. “When will we be able to end the wars, repeal the invasive policies? When will the sacrifices we have all made pay off? When is it going to be over?“.

And yet, as I’m writing this, we all already know the answer. It’s not going to be over. The sacrifices of privacy and personal liberty these things, once given up, are gone for good. The increase in government power, militarism, bureaucracy cannot be scaled back. again the world of yesterday is the world of tomorrow. There is no victory.

When was the American public’s chance to defeat it’s attackers? It was one September 12th. It was when the public was faced with the option between security and liberty.

27
Mar
11

Libya

Over the past couple days, the Libyan rebellion forces have been moving west towards the Gaddafi controlled cities of Tripoli and Sirte. While the past weeks have been bloody, it appears that the conflict will be won by the Libyan people.

Of course, while I’d like to spend the next few paragraphs exalting the power of the people and solidarity for the struggle of all oppressed peoples across the world, there is a nagging issue that I feel has to be addressed- that of Western intervention.

With the US, Britain, France, and other countries involved in the conflict (apparently bombing the HQ of a foreign head of state doesn’t constitute an act of war), there’s been no little controversy as the exact legitimacy and justification of American and European intervention. Perhaps not without good reason- the US, Britain, and a number of other allied countries are already neck-deep in two long, expensive, unpopular wars (excuse me- operations) with no end in sight. After ten years in Afghanistan and seven years in Iraq, it’s tough to take Western leaders seriously when they claim that their goal is to simply help the citizens of those countries. By now terms like “intervention”, “operation”, and “campaign” all seem like euphemisms for “invasion”, “occupation”, and “destruction”. On the whole, the left seems fairly unified in opposition to America-and-friend’s latest adventure in the Middle East, and I can’t say my position is any different.

First, let’s look at similar instances of this- Iraq and Afghanistan being the most obvious examples. In both situations, the US and coalition forces have become hopelessly entangled in both situations and have no discernible exit strategy. It’s hard to see how Libya will be different than any other conflict.

And that brings us to the second issue- other conflicts. I’ve got the same problem with the American-led/backed coalition attempting to unseat Gaddafi that I had when America and it’s allies attempted to unseat Saddam Husein. As bad as these dictators are, they’re far from the worst despots out there. Why does the US et al. feel compelled to get involved in Libya and not Burma? The oppression and genocide has been going on in Burma far longer than in Libya, and there’s been a resistance movement (both violent and non-violent) for about as long. Again- why hasn’t Than Shwe’s compound been bombed?

Which brings us to the third problem- motivation. When the West has decided to become involved in a conflict like this, despite their insistence that their goals are merely the propagation of democracy and freedom, there’s always something in it for the invaders. Be it the installation of a pro-Western puppet politician like Hammed Karzai in Afghanistan or the elimination of WMDs/securing oil supplies (depending on which you believe was the US’s real motivation), you can safely bet that if the West becomes involved in a conflict, it’s for their interests- not the interests of the people.

 

Look- I’m not saying that Gaddafi shouldn’t be unseated- he should. I’m not saying we shouldn’t support the Libyan people’s struggle- we should. I’m saying that America and the West’s professions of revolutionary fervor should be taken not so much with a grain of  salt, but with a small ocean.

02
Feb
11

On Egypt (and a little bit about Tunisia)

There are those who’ve asserted that, after over a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Middle East is incapable of democracy. They’ve claimed that tribal divisions run too deep, and that the ideals of Islam and democratic, representative government are diametrically opposed.

 

In the past days, Tunisia and Egypt have proven to be shining examples that those claims just aren’t true.

 

Not that it was ever true to begin with. Hamas was, despite it’s vilification by Western powers, democratically elected in Gaza. Indeed, the majority of areas where this “always-has-been-dictatorship-always-will-be” stereotype have had democratically elected leaders- just not pro-American democratically elected leaders. And if without the West’s blessing, democracy in third-world countries tends to be tragically short lived. Just look at the US sponsored coup that ended the life of Salvador Allende, or the US attacks on the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, or the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

 

And here’s the rub. While it cannot be denied that the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt are a great victory for the peoples of those countries, I can’t help but wonder how long it will last. The Tunisians and Egyptians have shown that, without the West and indeed, depsite the West, they are, and always have been, capable of autonomy. They can forge their own destiny- but what if that destiny isn’t to the approval of America, Britain, and other world powers? Let us keep in mind that the Mubarak regime was emphatically supported by the US (despite recent, less than elegant attempts to flip-flop on their position). Indeed, the issue isn’t so much “what if the people in the region begin to act in their own interests?” but “when the people in the region to act in their own interests- how will the West react?”. The entire reason US diplomats and politicians are tripping over each other to voice support for the Egyptian public is because of a desperate need to keep the country as an ally. However, with the US having invested so heavily in the 30-year Mubarak regime, it’s difficult to imagine the Egyptian people particularly fond of America, the West, and the ever expanding power of globalization.

 

So it brings us back to the original problem- it’s wonderful that the Tunisians and Egyptians have freed themselves, but how long will they be free?