a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

I get that ruthless, bloodthirsty dictators make nonviolent revolution costlier and all the more horrible, but that doesn't mean that nonviolent revolution is impossible.

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf

if only the rebels had this PDF, we could really respect their position then

^they did in Egypt and used it. You people really are smug. Sorry for having principles.

that third sentence kind of undercuts the second just a tad

Right, true. I defer to the zing masters.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/08/world/08Libya2_cnd/08Libya2_cnd-articleLarge.jpg

My main point is that it is the epitome of bordering-on-imperialistic first world privilege to prejudge the outcome of this conflict before it's even finished. The thing you wrote that generated bad reactions was:

I hear you, but I have trouble believing in the righteousness of a government and society that emerges from violence.

This is either a wholly vacuous thing to say as no society has ever been established without violence, or drastically misstated as even your followup example of Egypt happened due to what could arguably be called a military coup.

(note that page 5 of your PDF is all about how coups suck)

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/07/what_obama_needs_to_do_with_libya_and_with_the_joint_chiefs_of_staff_today

tom ricks runs through some possibilities.

1. Best option: Give the Libyan rebels the aid they need to win. This may be no more than some secure communications gear and a couple of thousand rocket-propelled grenades to deter Qaddafi's tanks and SUVs. (This may be already happening in some form.) Can we start flying discreet charter flights of stuff into some airports in the east? This needs to be ready to go ASAP -- like yesterday.

I don't want to come off as some kind ideologue; I fully realize that regime change is an unstable and dangerous process and I also fully realize that I have never known repression and violence. My point is that violent resistance perpetuates tyranny and is more likely to fail in it's ultimate goal of promoting a civil society that embraces freedom and respect for rights. Clearly events in Libya could prove differently, but my original assertion, that revolutions that espouse principles of freedom and civil rights lose some of their legitimacy when it uses violence still stands. That's all I really have to say.

Xp

You would have a more tenable argument if your position was "violent resistance perpetuates violence". The legitimacy argument continues to strike me as wholly specious unless you are also arguing that both the American and French Revolutions (to name a couple of examples) were illegitimate.

violent resistance perpetuates tyranny and is more likely to fail in it's ultimate goal of promoting a civil society that embraces freedom and respect for rights

have no idea what sort of historical precedence you could cite for this, sorry. every conceivable paragon of civil society re: freedom and respect for rights has been borne of violence whether you're referring to Greece, Rome, England, America, France, etc. maybe India, I guess? but they're hardly a paragon of a successful civil society what with the whole caste-system/slavery thing and ongoing ethnic slaughter

precedents argh

well just as, as a baseline belief, i think the US should avoid bringing 'extra' violence to the libyan situation, sitting here in america i can't exactly disapprove of libyans who have tooled up on their own.

the libyan protests seem to have been a weird hybrid of street demos and anti-state violence from the beginning. and Qdf's response was violent right away, so, what's a guy to do. plus i'm not exactly sure how much this is grounded in 'principles of freedom and civil rights' -- being against a dictator kind of puts you in that camp as a side-effect. i have no idea how idealistic this revolt is, seems more of a "bodily" undertaking, if that makes sense. it's not my "principles" that are being violated, but my life, it's not "the state" that is oppressing me, but this one nutty guy and his hired guns.

xps

Even Gandhi realized that the reason his non-violent way worked was because the British were capable of being shamed. It actually made non-violence more effective. Gaddafi has always been thoroughly shameless and unapologetically ruthless - non-violence in its traditional form wouldn't work against him and his thugs.

it's not "the state" that is oppressing me, but this one nutty guy and his hired guns.

^^^this. it's not like the rebels' goal is to revise some antiquated and unfair legal system. there basically is no legal system.

I think a pretty sound argument could be made about the illegitimacy of the American Revolution. Anyways, the past is obviously not a great model for nonviolent approach - that is kind of the point. But maybe lofty principles are better left for another day. Because I fear I am sounding like a sanctimonious twat.

Xp

Your pdf that you attached referred to Burma which is not yet a democracy.

tom ricks runs through some possibilities.

1. Best option: Give the Libyan rebels the aid they need to win. This may be no more than some secure communications gear and a couple of thousand rocket-propelled grenades to deter Qaddafi's tanks and SUVs. (This may be already happening in some form.) Can we start flying discreet charter flights of stuff into some airports in the east? This needs to be ready to go ASAP -- like yesterday.

That appears to sound good. I read a former Bush official, Former U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley suggest we start dropping in that plus anti-aircraft machinery for the rebels. He made it sound easy to provide and use the latter. But the Pentagon is insisting that it would be incredibly complex for us to stop air attacks, so this former Bush official's suggestion may not be so simple.

obviously if there is a way to get weapons into the hands of the rebels – if we can get anti-aircraft systems so they can enforce a no-fly zone over their own territory, that would be helpful.

“And I think that’s what really they are calling for: Help and support. But they want to be empowered to do it themselves, rather than have someone do it for them,” Hadley continued.

as someone who is about as close to a pacifist as it gets, i sympathize with super cub's instincts here. it is a bit, er, problematic, though, to criticize these people for "taking up arms" when faced with the brutal conditions they find themselves in - essentially telling these people to choose between being massacred and continuing to live their lives under undignified oppression isn't the best look

the reason, perhaps, that almost no government exist that hasn't been borne of violence is that the government itself represents the legitimate use of force/violence...it's only natural that when that legitimacy is questioned it will lead to violent struggle.

^^^*ding ding*

"state" = "institution with a monopoly on violence"

Forces loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi pounded rebel positions with airstrikes here Monday as Britain and France began drafting a United Nations resolution for a no-fly zone in Libya that could balance the scales

no society has ever been established without violence

uh. i don't agree with this. maybe *most* - but not all. Canada, for example, had a few uprisings - but they had little/nothing to do with setting things in motion towards dominion.

that said, i very much disagree with Super Cub here. the opposition in Libya (as far as i'm aware) started off relatively peacefully. what would you have these people do when they're demonstrating in a public square and suddenly tanks/gunmen show up and start blasting away? you're options are: stay & likely die right then there (and maintain legitimacy i guess?), go home to be oppressed further and possibly killed at a later date (still legitimate?), or fight back (illegitimate!).

if violence was the first thing they went for in their revolution toolbox, i might agree with you. but here i do not.

What about the First Nations tribes?

yeah I don't think libyans wld do well to follow the canada model

Wouldn't put it past Gaddafi to wear a Mounty uniform though.

What about the First Nations tribes?

their treatment was shameful - but overpowering them with arms was never a necessity for self governance nor was it the case (you're thinking of the states). the closest thing i can think of, in Canada, of violence leading to the nation's establishment is the two uprisings (which ultimately led to little/nothing) and the defeat of the french at the Plains of Abraham - but that only lead to British rule over the american colonies and did not really establish Canada either (and happened in 1750-fucking-9)!

xpost - i guess the war of 1812 really helped forge a Canadian identity - but that was a reactive violence to an invasion and was 50 years before dominion.

this is getting silly

i also respectfully disagree with Super Cub, was my point.

Ivo H. Daalder, the U.S. ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, told reporters that the number of Libyan air force flights has been decreasing after a peak last week. And, he added, it is hard to suppress helicopter attacks using such a tactic.

"No-fly zones are more effective against fighters, but they really have a limited effect against … helicopters or the kind of ground operations that we've seen," he said. "Which is why a no-fly zone, even if it were to be established, isn't really going to impact what is happening there today

So what do you suggest Ivo?

so now obama is talking about talking about a no-fly zone a week after gates smacked down david cameron for doing same

think the west has played this pretty badly so far

Attention, the West: please let these people be self-determining FOR ONCE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF IMPERIALISM.

Do you think western govts actually want to intervene? I don't feel an imperialist urge there at all - more like a heavy-hearted "Oh fuck, I wish the rebels would just win already and let us off the hook".

Why intervene in Libya when they haven't lifted a finger in various other far bloodier conflicts in the same continent? Stupid question?

Depends on what answer you're getting at. Do you think they should intervene?

Not at the moment

Why intervene in Libya when they haven't lifted a finger in various other far bloodier conflicts in the same continent? Stupid question?

some call it black gold

John Simpson on BBC just now saying that the rebels he's spoken to, even ones being bombed by Gadaffi, say they don't want foreign intervention. Obviously they don't speak with one voice but it should be the rebels' call.

Forget taking up arms. I've been wondering how some of the rebels got camo uniforms so quickly! Jungle camo, too.

x-post - The NY Times was quoting rebels who do want assistance.

The rebels have rejected any foreign invasion of the country but would welcome a no-fly zone, saying they can handle Colonel Qaddafi’s soldiers, tanks and rockets, but not his warplanes and helicopter gunships. On Monday, Britain and France said they would seek United Nations authority for a no-fly zone, but Russia, which holds veto power, has already rejected any form of military intervention.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/world/africa/09libya.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1299592815-wVV3pqUufSBbAAAfvZAF+A

Ha, well there you go - depends which rebels you're speaking to.

Attention, the West: please let these people be self-determining FOR ONCE IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF IMPERIALISM.

― anna sui generis (suzy), Tuesday, March 8, 2011 12:27 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

i'll revert to using 'the_west' to underline the satirical intent

anyone who makes their living exporting to the_west, as libya present and future does, is sort of going to be part of the scene, ditto goes for allowing 'western' corporations in to come in and do the development work, training you experts in the_west, etc. the libyans have good grounds not to want military interference, but i'd imagine some of them are asking for some forms of assistance someplace quiet. even nasser, the og arab independence dude, sought 'advice' from mother russia.

Why don't they ask the Chinese then?

There's plenty of them there too, and all over Africa

well, they might, at some point in the near future. id guess from a libyan pov china and the US both look about equal, 'propping up shitty regimes in africa'-wise.

but at the moment they don't have the military resources to help

Would be fun if the Chinese decided to go ahead with a no-fly zone, perhaps with the Russians helping them out

Arab foreign ministers will meet on Friday at the Arab League in Cairo to discuss the Libya crisis, a League official told Reuters on Tuesday

How about these folks taking their time

They may as well, they have no influence on anything or anyone anywhere anytime