Libya: Humanitarian War? It's a Lie!

ANSWER supports the Syrian dictatorship that is gunning down protesters as I type. ANSWER's stalinism is appalling and shows the utter impoverishment of both "anti-imperialism" and the larger anti-war movement. I'd urge radicals/leftist/anarchists/socialists to divorce themselves from supporting ANSWER led protests.

Why is it that there are only two possibilities: that a person can either support US military action in Libya or be guilty of protecting Gaddafi's dictatorship? According to this particular line of logic, it's 2003 again. Back then, those opposed to intervention in Iraq were pro-Saddam, were indifferent to the butchery suffered by the Iraqi people at his hands and willing to protect his power. Today, those who oppose US military intervention in the civil war in Libya are regarded as indifferent to the brutalities and repression suffered by the Libyan people. According to this reasoning, the war in Iraq was justifiable, right?

It's not "flawed" logic; it's the logic of Anti-Imperialism, which is the ideology that supports some regimes and not others. ANSWER supports all the real existing socialist regimes around the world. As long as the brutal dictators oppress the resident proles in the name of socialism, the Stalinist gangsters of ANSWER will support them. The logic is actually impenetrable.

Many of the people in eastern Libya requested intervention. It's very different from Iraq. There is no perfect solution here. I'm amazed that people can be so abstract about it. The people in Libya were facing death. No one in ANSWER is. It's very easy to condemn the people who requested intervention from the safety of your bay area apartment or home. It's actually very close to a kind of orientalism or racism that ANSWER claims to be against. If the Arabs don't conform to their conception of what an Arab should be they don't support them.

But you are right the logic is impenetrable. It's a kind of debating team "gotcha" logic. I'm amazed that people are not considering the people who are in the conflict itself. Qaddafi is not a great guy and has contributed to numerous assassination attempts, many having little to do with Israel or US imperialism. His "stray dog" policy for instance involved killing Libyans outside the country for not returning. Israel always took him seriously when others laughed at some at some of his plans for killing people. He vowed to kill "all atheists, Marxists, and communists" so it's very clear that ANSWER as an organization could not survive in Libya. But even Muslim groups were not safe. Only Qaddafi's interpretation of Islam is valid.

If someone broke into my apartment and threatened to kill me, I would at least try to barricade myself in one room and call the police. This does not mean that I have stopped thinking of the police as just there to protect the "capitalist ruling class", it just means that I need them at that moment to help me survive a murder attempt.

ANSWER's way of looking at war means that they would be against World War II. They would stand on the streets and protest it. That means if the US had the opportunity to avert the Holocaust before it happened ANSWER would be against it. Knowing that, one can't take too seriously ANSWER's position on Libya. Qaddafi could kill many more people and ANSWER would still be against intervention.

But as usual no discussion is allowed on these issues, which means it has to happen on the internet, which is probably the worst place to discuss the long-term problems that the left faces. ANSWER is right when it says that a genuine anti-imperialist movement is needed, but how that is going to happen I have little idea with very little honest open debate possible. A first step seems to be admitting that you don't know what the answer is, but that seems very difficult for most human beings. Anything but maintaining a posture of complete certainty produces too much anxiety.

Konsider-- I commented on Syria not Libya, a dictatorship the Stalinists at ANSWER support. Syria is gunning down protesters in the present tense. As far as anti-imperialism goes the Libyan rebels can't call on the so-called "anti-imperialist" regimes of Chavez, Ortega, Castro and Morales for support because they support Gadhafi.

That said the Libyan rebel's insurrection was failing and they were about to be slaughtered by Gadhafi so they asked the US and some other states for help. They were in an extremeley compromised position and for that reason I don't oppose the intervention (at least so far).

I'd like to hear Miles's position on the intervention.

I am opposed to war (or military intervention or the imposition of No-Fly Zones or however else you want to sugar-coat it). I am opposed to US/NATO/EU bombing in Libya. I am opposed to ANSWER. I am opposed to Anti-Imperialism. I am opposed to Chavez, Castro, Morales, Gaddafi, Assad, all monarchists, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah...

I am in favor of anti-hierarchical working class self-organization (in workers councils and neighborhood assemblies for example) for the irreversible destruction of class society, capitalism and the State. That makes me some kind of revolutionary maximalist I suppose, which means that I will continually greet anything less than that with extreme skepticism and derision if not contempt. I'm comfortable with not having many allies.

I apologize, I guess I read your comment too fast and thought you said Libya. I am opposed to all US interventions, and I think ANSWER overwhelms, controls and limits are ability to do so. I wasn't aware they were supportive of the Syrian dictatorship, but if they do, it would seem to make sense.