How To Help Libya? The Rabble Says Do Nothing

The political left is not alone in advocating what amounts to no support at all for the Libyan opposition forces fighting the dying Gaddafi regime. More than a few conservative commentators have suggested that "we don't have a dog in this fight" and as such, America and Europe need to take a hands-off approach to what's happening in North Africa. They're all wrong, of course.

With Gaddafi facing what may be an imminent rout, the free world ought not to sit this one out. If anything, we're late to the game. That no-fly zone should have been put in place weeks ago. The jet planes that dropped bombs on protesters should have in turn been converted into flying balls of flaming scrap.

Conservatives may disagree, but it is the representatives of the wingnut anti-imperialist left who disagree most entertainingly. Their heads are spinning so hard they're liable to fall off. A sort of case study may be found in Rabble contributor and Socialist Voice Co-Editor John Riddell's convoluted one-man boxing match, How to help Libya's freedom movement.

Riddell starts out by listing the awful brutality of the Gaddafi dictatorship:

His air force has carried out air strikes against unarmed civilians. On Feb. 25, Gadhafi followers aimed murderous fire at anti-government protests in his last stronghold, Tripoli.

Yes, this is awful. Over at The Propagandist, we're in full agreement.

Then, Riddell points out the wimpy position taken by the UN Security council to enforce sanctions against Tripoli. OK, we're on board with that line, too. Good for you, Riddell.

Uncharacteristically, Canada's socialist NDP, not known for advocating robust war-fighting measures in the defense of freedom, suggests a no-fly zone is just the thing.

Riddell the Rabble rouser doesn't like this idea one bit. Why, a no-fly zone means war! And that would be bad, Riddell notes, because "We know the logic of such actions from Iraq, where a U.S.-imposed no-fly zone was an initial step toward a murderous all-out assault."

Interesting thought, what with all of the discussion of late by plenty of pundits suggesting that the US' overthrow of Saddam Hussein - a dictator whose bloody crimes dwarfed Gaddafi's by most measures - is what has belatedly helped contribute to the wave of revolutions cascading across the Middle East these days.

Yes, the American assault on Iraq was murderous. And it was all-out (though the scale of follow-on forces left much to be desired). That's what you do when you fight tyrants. A pacifistic, half-hearted assault wasn't likely to get the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division into Baghdad.

In any event, Riddell thinks a no-fly zone is a bad idea, since that would mean US aircraft going to war against... that fellow he mentions in his first paragraph as a brutal dictator. Right.

Next, Riddell brings up the position of the Canadian Peace Alliance, where spokesperson Derrick O'Keefe says sending in NATO "would be like calling the arsonist to put out the fire".

While that statement does give some insight into how O'Keefe's mind works, it doesn't do much to help the people on the ground who are suffering from Gaddafi's to-the-death intransigence. In this scenario, we all know Gaddafi is the arsonist. NATO are more akin to a swat team sent in to deal with this persistent nutcase who has a well-deserved reputation for starting fires in other people's neighborhoods.

Further into Riddell's piece, the wheels really start coming off the bus.

In an earlier period, the imperialist powers were at odds with the Gadhafi government, vilifying and harassing it. Indeed, in 1986 the British and U.S. governments carried out a brutal airstrike against the country, in which 60 Libyans were killed and 40 aircraft destroyed. 

Reading those words, you can't help but think that Riddell's intent was to portray Gaddafi as an innocent victim. Since the imperialist powers were, well, imperialist, that would mean that the 1986 bombing was "brutal" and unjustified.

Maybe it was brutal. Airstrikes are supposed to be. Riddell fails to note that the airstrikes were conducted to punish the regime for terrorist attacks in Europe and elsewhere.

Is Riddell suggesting that Gaddafi was any less of a homicidal maniac back then, when the West chose to confront him?

That must be it. Because before that paragraph is done, Riddell points out that "in recent years, the Gadhafi regime has been on the best of terms with the NATO powers." In other words, maybe he wasn't such an awful dictator to start with, but then he fell in with a bad crowd, the imperialist gangster crew. And that's when he really became a villain.

Now it's time for Riddell to point out the real motivation for NATO intervention in Libya. It's all about the oil.

To the NATO powers, that spells "instability" and an insecure oil supply. If they intervene, it will be in an attempt to quell the insurgent movement and reassert control in the guise of a new client regime. And Gadhafi's murderous war against his people, if it continues, offers the NATO powers an opening for such an intervention.

Yes, of course. The master plan of the West is to overthrow Gaddafi so that they can install... another Gaddafi.

That is the grand conspiracy laid bare by this Rabble-ious genius. It's obvious that the West wants to crush Libyan democracy, by raining down hellfire on a tyrant. Why can't anyone else see this?

The last bit of Riddell's piece is a classic. He suggests the Libyan insurgents' main goals are in keeping with those of "the great rising of Arab peoples, whose aims are democracy, human rights, popular sovereignty, and a chance to struggle for social justice." Naturally, "the Libyan and other Arab insurgents deserve our full support."

And what does that support amount to, Mr. Riddell? Sanctions? Not good enough. A no-fly zone? Too warlike. A UN-sanctioned invasion force to help put the final kibosh on this tyrant before he sends more mercenaries against civilians or sets fire to the oil fields (the only significant Libyan resource on which to base some sort of recovery after all this chaos is over)? Who are you, Dick Cheney?

Then, how are we to support these freedom fighters? "Do nothing," is what Mr. Riddell's opinion amounts to. "Stay home. Don't help. Leave the people of Libya to sort it out."

And if the fighting drags on for weeks? Months? Civil war? Bodies piled up in the streets? Rape and pillage? A human rights catastrophe?

"At least if we stay out of it, we won't be acting like imperialists," one can imagine Riddell - or any other Rabble columnist, mouthing with self-righteousness.

Not good enough. Not nearly good enough.

Jonathon Narvey is the Editor of The Propagandist