39 thoughts on “Libya, rape, and Achcar’s false analogy

  1. http://www.counterpunch.org/bihn03282011.html

    March 28, 2011

    Gilbert Achcar Joins the Interventionists
    Cruise Missile Marxists?


    “The U.S. is scrambling to check the most widespread and powerful revolutionary upheaval since 1848 from sweeping its strongmen into the dustbin of history. The no-fly zone is damage control, an attempt to co-opt the Libyan revolution.”

    When the U.S. and its allies imposed a no-fly zone over Libya, cruise missile liberals at the New York Times and MSNBC jumped for joy. No surprise there. The surprise came when Marxist and self-described anti-imperialist Gilbert Achcar joined them.

    Achcar’s support for the no-fly zone rests on two key arguments: 1) Gaddafi’s forces were at the gates of Benghazi and would slaughter thousands if they entered the city and 2) the rebellion’s leaders demanded the imposition of a no-fly zone to neutralize Gaddafi’s air superiority.

    Achcar’s first point is indisputable. Nothing is more humiliating to a ruling class than a successful rebellion; such rebellions have historically been drowned in the blood of tens of thousands of people. Benghazi would not have been treated any differently than the Paris Commune in 1871, Hama, Syria in 1982, or Fallujah, Iraq in 2004.

    Does that mean opponents of imperialism should support the latter’s imposition of a no-fly zone because there was no alternative means to stop Gaddafi’s forces? Achcar argues yes. He goes on to say that he would’ve supported imperialist intervention in Rwanda and implies that he would’ve supported the U.S. in the Second World War. For him, the dead civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden were just so much “collateral damage” on the road to defeating German and Japanese imperialism.

    Achcar’s opposition to imperialist intervention is based on the following: “What is decisive is the comparison between the human cost of this intervention and the cost that would have been incurred had it not happened.”

    So what is decisive for Achcar is the body count.

    Every imperialist intervention in world history has been waged under the pretext of saving lives, whether said lives were in real danger or not. How many lives will be “saved” by a given intervention is impossible to calculate beforehand, unless Achcar has a crystal ball. Imperialist interventions unleash a chain of events that cannot be foreseen with any meaningful accuracy; there is no way of knowing for sure how many lives will be lost due to intervention as opposed to allowing events to run their course without imperialist interference.

    George Bush Sr. ordered 30,000 marines into Somalia ostensibly to stop mass starvation caused by local warlords who were pilfering food convoys from relief organizations. No one could’ve predicted that 18 Americans and 1,000 Somalis would be killed in a single firefight immortalized by Hollywood in the film Black Hawk Down. Achcar asks about Rwanda rhetorically: “[C]an anyone in their right mind believe that Western powers would have massacred between half a million and a million human beings in 100 days?” By the same token, who in their right mind would demand that U.S. marines land in Rwanda given the fact that 1,000 Somalis were killed in a single firefight during a “humanitarian” mission?

    The body count must be rejected as a means to determine whether or not to support an imperialist intervention. This is especially important because imperialist wars that start small and limited tend to end up being large and bloody.

    Achcar’s second argument is much stronger. The rebels in Libya did call for a U.N.-sponsored no-fly zone because Gaddafi was using his air superiority to pound the poorly armed disorganized rebels into retreat after retreat. No amount of obfuscation can cover up this fact.

    So how do anti-imperialists in the West respond?

    The first thing to understand is why the rebel leadership, organized around the Libyan National Council (LNC), called for a no-fly zone. It was not because they were comparing “the human cost of this intervention and the cost that would have been incurred had it not happened.” For them, it was a question of the revolution’s victory or defeat; desperate times called for desperate measures.

    No anti-imperialist in the West should begrudge them for this act of desperation. Our job isn’t to dictate tactics to Libya’s revolutionaries. We should support revolutions against tyranny and oppression no matter where they break out, who they are (mis)led by, or what their political program is.

    That said, we shouldn’t close our eyes to weaknesses within the revolutionary wave stretching from Algeria to Iran. Unlike in Egypt, Libya’s revolutionaries have not appealed to the rank-and-file of the military to switch sides, nor have they sought to mobilize the country’s workers to strike against the regime. This took social revolution off the table and confined the struggle between Gaddafi and the rebels to a purely military dimension, guaranteeing him the upper hand and setting the stage for the LNC’s desperate plea for help from the region’s most anti-revolutionary force: the U.S. government. This failure was no accident; many members of the LNC are top figures from Gaddafi’s decrepit and brutal regime. Instead of mobilizing workers, they’ve issued proclamations honoring all contracts with foreign oil companies.

    By inviting imperialist intervention in the form of a no-fly zone, the LNC risks becoming dependent on the good graces of Washington which will use its newfound leverage to contain the revolution even further. Limiting and weakening the revolution will strengthen Gaddafi.

    Achcar began his article with a quote from the Russian revolutionary Lenin about the childishness of rejecting all compromises in the name of being principled. This is ironic, given that Achcar has seemingly forgotten Lenin’s articles dealing with World War One. In those writings, Lenin did not dwell on the respective body counts of French, British, Russian, German, or American imperialism. Instead, he argued that “war is politics by other means.”

    Here are the politics of the war in Libya: Gaddafi is trying to crush a democratic revolution; the revolution’s leadership prefers to call for imperialist intervention under a U.N. fig leaf instead of mobilizing the masses to bring down the regime; the U.S. is scrambling to check the most widespread and powerful revolutionary upheaval since 1848 from sweeping its strongmen into the dustbin of history. The no-fly zone is damage control, an attempt to co-opt the Libyan revolution. Washington is setting the stage for a new client state in eastern Libya to emerge under its air cover and “regime change” in Tripoli would be the icing on the cake (hence why Gaddafi’s compound was attacked early on in the establishment of the no-fly zone).

    All anti-imperialists should oppose the no-fly zone. Revolution? Yes! Intervention? No!

    Pham Binh’s articles have been published by Asia Times Online, Znet, Counterpunch, and International Socialist Review. He can be reached at anita_job@yahoo.com.


  2. Pingback: US atrocities in Afghanistan like in My Lai | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  3. Pingback: Kony 2012, humanitarianism or war? | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: Libya war, poem by Attila the Stockbroker | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  5. Pingback: NATO kills 19 Libyan civilians, wounds 150 | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Pingback: Libyan US ambassador murder, what politicians forget | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: Ancient Chinese play in England | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  8. Pingback: NATO war in Syria? | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  9. Pingback: United States war in Africa | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  10. Pingback: France and Libya, Mali violence | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  11. Pingback: Bahrain dictatorship and David Cameron | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  12. Cette gauche qui prend ses désirs pour la réalité


    MICHEL COLLON : Syrie, Libye, Yougoslavie, Irak, Afghanistan… Comment se fait-il que la majorité de la gauche française à gauche du PS, qui était traditionnellement en pointe dans la luttte pour la paix, se retrouve actuellement en pointe dans la lutte pour… la guerre ?! Et qu’au lieu de défendre le droit international, elle réclame qu’on le foule aux pieds ?! Et qu’au lieu de se méfier de l’info des grands médias, elle la recopie sans esprit critique ?! Et qu’elle n’étudie pas du tout le programme politique des forces en présence, se rangeant systématiquement du côté des plus réactionnaires ?! Suicidaire ? Des questions cruciales que Jean Bricmont pose de façon originale et lucide.



  13. Pingback: Al Qaeda, Pentagon friends or foes? | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  14. Pingback: Libyan war, two years later | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  15. Pingback: Libyans on strike against paramilitary violence | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  16. Pingback: Extreme right demonstration in France | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  17. Pingback: Ukrainian neonazis murder political opponents | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  18. Pingback: Bloody oil war in Libya | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  19. Pingback: ‘New’ Libya warplane kills Greek sailors | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  20. Pingback: Violence, from Ferguson, USA to Iraq | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  21. Pingback: ISIS’ weapons from the USA | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  22. Pingback: Refugees suffer, die, who is to blame? | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  23. Pingback: ‘Humanitarian’ wars, inhuman for refugees | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  24. Pingback: Britons against Cameron’s Syria war plans | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  25. Pingback: ISIS, Libya and the New York Times | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  26. Pingback: Donald Trump, Islamophobia and warmongering | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  27. Pingback: Money for war, not for teachers, in the USA | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  28. Pingback: From NATO’s Libya child soldier to Manchester terrorist | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  29. Pingback: Protests against Libyan slave markets | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  30. Pingback: Belgian police arrests anti-slavery demonstrators | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  31. Pingback: European Union helps torturing refugees in Libya | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  32. Pingback: From NATO Libyan war to Manchester terrorism | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  33. Pingback: Stop Internet censorship | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  34. Pingback: Libya, yet more bloodbaths threaten | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  35. Pingback: Macron helps Libyan anti-refugee armed gangs | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  36. Pingback: Warplanes, guns kill Libyan torture camp refugees | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  37. Pingback: ‘Leftist’ Achcar advising British neo-colonial warriors | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  38. Pingback: French Macron’s war on refugees | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  39. Pingback: Bolsonaro’s Brazilian Amazon fires update | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.