VABALOG

Skeptiliselt Liibüas toimuvast sekkumisest

Pooldanud omal ajal Saddam Husseini kukutamist (nii massihävitusrelvade väidetava olemasolu kui repressiivse ja järjest kaootilisema diktatuuri kukutamise ettekäändel) ei kiirusta ma ÜRO resolutsiooni toel Liibüasse tormamist just takka kiitma. Mõtlesin, et kirjutaks natuke pikemalt põhjustest ja kaalutlustest taolise seisukoha kujundamisel, kuid eile sattusin Josh Marshalli postituse otsa, mis ühtib piisavalt minu enda seisukohaga, et hoopis viidata ja natuke tsiteerida:

So let’s review: No clear national or even humanitarian interest for military intervention. Intervening well past the point where our intervention can have a decisive effect. And finally, intervening under circumstances in which the reviled autocrat seems to hold the strategic initiative against us. This all strikes me as a very bad footing to go in on.

And this doesn’t even get us to this being the third concurrent war in a Muslim nation and the second in an Arab one. Or the fact that the controversial baggage from those two wars we carry into this one, taking ownership of it, introducing a layer of ‘The West versus lands of Islam’ drama to this basically domestic situation and giving Qaddafi himself or perhaps one of his sons the ability to actually start mobilization some public or international opinion against us.

I can imagine many of the criticisms of the [critical] points I’ve made. And listening to them I think I’d find myself agreeing in general with a lot of it. But it strikes me as a mess, poorly conceived, ginned up by folks with their own weird agendas, carried out at a point well past the point that it was going to accomplish anything. Just all really bad.

Arvestades sellega, millised olid sõjalise sekkumise tagajärjed ettevõtlusele (eriti üliolulisele väikeettevõtlusele) ja seeläbi laiemalt tervele ühiskonnale Iraagis, ei ole mul erilist usku, et agressiivsel sekkumisel Liibüa kodusõjas oleks just kõige positiivsemad väljavaated.

Ent sellegi poolest ei saa ma jätta viitamata ka Chritopher Hitchens’i Slate’i kolumnile Don’t Let Qaddafi Win, mis toob välja neid samu argumente (millega põhimõtteliselt võiks nõustuda), mida eelnevalt toodud tsitaadis tõi välja Josh Marshall. Ma lihtsalt ei usu, et teise liivakasti ronimine, seal laamendamine ja siis sealt vaikselt lahkumine on võimalik või isegi soovitav. Lõppude lõpuks on Gaddafi näol tegu kui mitte juba hulluks läinud, siis hulluks minemise äärele jõudnud isikuga, kes on omal ajal märksa parema vaimse tervise juures hakkama saanud reisilennukile pommi paigaldamise sanktsioneerimisega.

Vast kõige markantsem on kogu Liibüa afääri juures aga tõsiasi, et lennukeelu tsooni kehtestamist Liibüas on USA tipp-poliitikute seas toetanud eelkõige naised:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, and White House chief of staff William Daley all argued against a no-fly zone in Libya.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said laying the groundwork for a no-fly zone would take “upwards of a week.” That was two days ago, and already the bombs from allied jets are falling on Libyan military targets. So are cruise missiles from US Navy ships in the Mediterranean Sea.

But as Qaddafi’s army and air force kept pounding the rebels and the United Nations moved – faster than its typically glacial speed – to stop the Libyan dictator from killing more of his own people, it was senior women in the administration who pushed the process toward military intervention.

That included Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and National Security Council senior aide Samantha Power, according a New York Times report.

“The three women were pushing for American intervention to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe in Libya,” according to the newspaper.

Tagged with:

Categorised as: ...