Tell that to the Marines, Muammar

Robert Tulip · Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:22 pm

As the line in the Marines Song “to the shores of Tripoli” says, the USA has a proud record of standing up to pirates and thugs in Libya.

Stagnant Arab fiefdoms need democracy as a precondition of development. After the imperial overstretch in Iraq, the USA has done the right thing to lead action against Gaddafi, showing that America is a true friend of democracy. It is not about turning Libya into a Western protectorate, but rather giving the country back to its own people.

Roosevelt’s 1942 speech on the need for American global engagement is at http://www.answers.com/topic/roosevelt- ... ruary-1942


	Quote: This generation of Americans has come to realize, with a present and personal realization, that there is something larger and more important than the life of any individual or of any individual group- something for which a man will sacrifice, and gladly sacrifice, not only his pleasures, not only his goods, not only his associations with those he loves, but his life itself. In time of crisis when the future is in the balance, we come to understand, with full recognition and devotion, what this Nation is, and what we owe to it. The Axis propagandists have tried in various evil ways to destroy our determination and our morale. Failing in that, they are now trying to destroy our confidence in our own allies. They say that the British are finished- that the Russians and the Chinese are about to quit. Patriotic and sensible Americans will reject these absurdities. And instead of listening to any of this crude propaganda, they will recall some of the things that Nazis and Japanese have said and are still saying about us. Ever since this Nation became the arsenal of democracy—ever since enactment of lend-lease- there has been one persistent theme through all Axis propaganda. This theme has been that Americans are admittedly rich, that Americans have considerable industrial power- but that Americans are soft and decadent, that they cannot and will not unite and work and fight. From Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo we have been described as a Nation of weaklings- "playboys"—who would hire British soldiers, or Russian soldiers, or Chinese soldiers to do our fighting for us. Let them repeat that now! Let them tell that to General MacArthur and his men. Let them tell that to the sailors who today are hitting hard in the far waters of the Pacific. Let them tell that to the boys in the Flying Fortresses. Let them tell that to the Marines!

Background on US history in Libya - The First Barbary War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

JulianTheApostate · Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:06 am


	Robert Tulip wrote: After the imperial overstretch in Iraq, the USA has done the right thing to lead action against Gaddafi, showing that America is a true friend of democracy.

That statement is somewhat self-contradictory. After if the US military is already overstretched when dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, should it also take on Libya at the same time?


	Robert Tulip wrote: It is not about turning Libya into a Western protectorate, but rather giving the country back to its own people.

To be honest, I agree that helping out one side in a civil war that's already started is more acceptable than invading a country with the hope of setting up a better government. While I don't think US intervention in Libya is a good idea, my opposition to the Iraq War was much stronger.

The problem is that most military actions don't end well, and I doubt that Libya will be an exception. Josh Marshall 's essay Just a Bad, Bad Idea sums up the reasons more coherently than I can.

DWill · Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:29 am

Then there's the unpleasant reality faced after most revolutions--the late realization that the hated dictator, surely worthy of ouster, was keeping the lid on forces that then burst forth and present problems for the U.S (or for Israel, in this case), that are at least as great. Who are these revolutionaries? What kind of system do they have in mind?

Robert Tulip · Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:53 am

Despite the title of this thread, I hope there is no need for NATO ground troops in Libya. The alternative to the no-fly zone, allowing Gaddafi to crush the rebellion, would give cheer to tyrants around the world, from Harare to Caracas to Pyongyang. Libya has been a disaster under Gaddafi, with a corrupt and insane regime utterly failing to invest the oil wealth for sustainable economic growth.

Even if an Islamist minority gains more say, as seems likely in Egypt, the overall result is that the NATO forces have intervened on a humanitarian basis, preventing mass slaughter and consolidation of tyranny. This stand on principle, at the request of the Arab League, can only create the impression that the West would welcome a Libya governed in the interests of its people. This stand on democratic principle will help to suck the oxygen from the Islamist groups headed by Iran. Security, stability and development are served by friendly, prosperous, legitimate states.

War is dangerous and expensive, but as Roosevelt explains in the speech quoted above, failure to stand up for principles is often worse than war. The principle here, refusing to allow a mad tinpot bully to disregard all human values, is worth the cost and risk, especially through the message it sends to other would-be Gaddafis.

I was initially sympathetic to the Iraq invasion for similar reasons, but the gross incompetence, expense, lies and lack of planning in the Bush strategy led me to the containment view that the US would have been better off isolating Iraq rather than invading. Containment of Iraq would have allowed the US to go hard against the Taliban in Afghanistan, who after all were the real state backers of Al Qaida behind the 9/11 attack. The claimed three trillion dollar price tag for the Iraq war is not worth it. That money could have been used to promote development in ways that would have built security and stability far more effectively than the invasion. The Iraq invasion was motivated, in my view, by a personal vendetta on the part of George Bush. Allowing war on such inadequate grounds was wrong. I don't see that the Libya action has similar flawed motives.

etudiant · Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:18 pm

Quadaffi will certainly be no loss. But the hard fact is that the US, and the west in general, have not always backed democracy in the world. Democracy if possible perhaps, but autocrat if expedient, has been the general rule. Even in WW2, arguably one of the more straightforward moral conflicts in history, the west embraced Stalin's Soviet Union. Expediency trumpted ethics. They may have been no other way in that case, but the point is that this world-view has carried forward to today. Saudi Arabia is (or at least has been up until very recently) fairly stable, and a reliable producer of oil. Hence, the west has accepted the regime there, despite the fact that it has a mentality grounded in the middle ages. Iran was another case of supporting a strongman who seemed expedient, until the collapse in 1979. Quaddafi himself was tolerated for almost half a century, despite some very unsavory behavior. The list could go on. As far as democracy goes, I think most in the lessor developed parts of the world who scheme on these things are well aware that they can get away with things in proportion to how much value their particular piece of real estate is to the powers that be (and to be more exact, where they fit in in a cost-benefit analysis any potential conflict). If, for example, the Saudi's decided to turn off the spigots, for the greater glory of god, or some such reason, there is little doubt we would see an effective and comprehensive military campaign. Yeman's push for greater freedom won't be so "lucky", we can safely bet. Many other places, the Congo, Somalia, Zimbabwe, for example, likely won't be seeing the marines very soon either.

DWill · Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:35 am

Sometimes the U.S. is criticized for being inconsistent, in intervening to defuse a threat like Saddam but not getting involved in perhaps a greater threat like North Korea. But obviously no country can or should act towards every possible threat; a county has to pick and choose, guided by realpolitik.

Chris OConnor · Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:45 pm

Happy Birthday Robert Tulip!

Kevin · Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:28 pm


	Robert Tulip wrote: War is dangerous and expensive, but as Roosevelt explains in the speech quoted above, failure to stand up for principles is often worse than war. The principle here, refusing to allow a mad tinpot bully to disregard all human values, is worth the cost and risk, especially through the message it sends to other would-be Gaddafis.

I'll give you a principle that whips the hell out of Roosevelt's: Don't sell weapons to dictators! I don't care how much they might be liked at the time. Just don't do it. Then you could gracefully summon the principle of refusing to allow a mad tinpot bully to disregard all human values to your side without having to ignore a whole lot of history, including the bit about both the USA and Europe finding it acceptable to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weaponry to the mad tinpot bully Kaddafi who had a history of disregarding all human values! Roosevelt? Ike! It's not about human values. It's never about human values! Bah. Democrats are Banana Republicans. It is, both symbolically and literally, more about bananas!

ps: Happy Birthday!

Forum rules

Tell that to the Marines, Muammar Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!