anyone else following Egypt on Aljazeera?

[Lethevich]

     Still, it's remarkable how much readier Europeans are to jettison Qaddafi than they were with Mubarak. I chalk that up to A) lessons learned and B) Lockerbie.

I think also that Mubarak was a faceless automaton who got things done - Gaddafi's ridiculous Berlusconi-meets-Castro posing makes him difficult to be seen to endorse.

Edit: Gadhafi's regime now subject to war crimes probe

[drogulus]

     There's an interesting article in about the spread of democracy.

     The Fourth Wave
Where the Middle East revolts fit in the history of democratization—and how we can support them.


     It begins:

    Carl Gershman
    March 14, 2011 | 12:00 am

Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that all the great events of the past 700 years—from the Crusades and English wars that decimated the nobles, to the discovery of firearms and the art of printing, to the rise of Protestantism and the discovery of America—had the ineluctable effect of advancing the principle of equality. Political scientist Samuel Huntington went further and identified several historical waves of democratization. The First Wave began with our own revolution in 1776, which was quickly followed by the French Revolution. The Second Wave followed the victory of the Allies in World War II.

The Third Wave, according to Huntington's thesis, was a global process that began in 1974 with the fall of the military government in Portugal and the death in 1975 of Francisco Franco, followed in both countries by successful democratic transitions. It then spread to Latin America, Asia, Central Europe and Africa, with the number of countries judged to be democracies in the Freedom House annual surveys more than tripling from 39 in 1974 to a high of 123 in 2005. This wave was the result of several factors, including economic growth, the spread of democratic values that undermined the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes, policy changes in Europe and the United States, and the demonstration effect of earlier transitions that Huntington called "snowballing." To this thesis, Huntington also added the idea of "reverse waves," or reactions against democratic progress, the first being the rise of fascism and communism in the 1920s and '30s, and the second the resurgence of authoritarianism in Latin America, Africa, and Asia in the 1960s and '70s.

[Florestan]

So according to Mr. Huntington --- or is it Mr. Gershman misinterpreting / misquoting him? --- the fall of the Central and Eastern European Communist regimes in 1989 is not significant and momentous enough to deserve a wave of its own.   

Or is it a mere belated aftershock of Franco's death? 

As for the rest of the article, it boils down to this: it wouldn't be good if the things went bad and it wouldn't be bad if the things went good. 

[drogulus]

As for the rest of the article, it boils down to this: it wouldn't be good if the things went bad and it wouldn't be bad if the things went good. 

      I didn't get that. What I got was that the thesis that democratic values are Western and can't be imported looks a bit shaky (not for the first time, but once again). This is the decisive moment. If we let these movements be crushed we'll regret it. Who are we storing up credit with that makes this betrayal worthwhile? The Saudis, the Gulfies? No, it doesn't make sense to oppose the future to hold on to a dying order. Besides, if we don't support the rebels that merit our support isn't it likely that when the revolution succeeds a few years later we'll be worse off? I'm afraid the next time they won't want our help. Would that be better?

[Florestan]

      the thesis that democratic values are Western and can't be imported looks a bit shaky (not for the first time, but once again).

A thesis supported by Mr. Huntington himself. 

It all depends on what you mean by "democratic values".

This is the decisive moment. If we let these movements be crushed we'll regret it. Who are we storing up credit with that makes this betrayal worthwhile? The Saudis, the Gulfies? No, it doesn't make sense to oppose the future to hold on to a dying order. Besides, if we don't support the rebels that merit our support isn't it likely that when the revolution succeeds a few years later we'll be worse off? I'm afraid the next time they won't want our help. Would that be better?

Let's take the case of Libya. Do you advocate immediate military intervention in order to overthrow Gaddafi?

[Lethevich]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009

Possibly too late though.

[Lethevich]

Shootan tiem nao

Link

[Lethevich]

Lessons dictators could learn from Gaddafi:

1. If given an option to stop doing the actions which are prompting an invasion of your country, don't kid yourself that you can continue to do them on the sly in a high technologial and media-driven world.

2. Don't fall under the misapprehension that all western governments are war-shy and decadant. A good, short war is a great way to boost the political fortunes of an incumbent government.

3. Don't use "tough guy" violent rhetoric which can be used by the would-be attacking western forces to demonstrate to their own populations how brutal and sadistic you are.

4. Don't run PR campaigns claiming that civilians are being murdered while simultaneously claiming to be intending to arm every Libyan, therefore bring them all into close into "enemy combatant" legal territory.

5. Stop breathing through your goddamn mouth, it makes you look like a diagnosed moron.

[drogulus]

A thesis supported by Mr. Huntington himself. 

   Did he think Western values couldn't be exported? I think he'd say that differences between civilizations make it harder.

It all depends on what you mean by "democratic values".

I disagree. If I mean one thing by it and a Libyan thinks it means something else it still works. By now even the people of the Middle East and North Africa have figured out that Islamic Republic and Peoples Republic are not equivalents to what they're striving for. That is, this generation of dissidents has seen the results of confusing the different phenomena. The protesters appear to be aware of how democratically inspired revolutions are highjacked. Maybe they can prevent it from happening now. They need to be given a chance.

Let's take the case of Libya. Do you advocate immediate military intervention in order to overthrow Gaddafi?

     Of course I did support that when it looked like it might not happen. Yes, I support the actions being taken. Obama deserves credit. He didn't want to do this. Like Big Bill C. he obviously loathed the military. But also like BB C. he's the kind of person who learns from experience. When Obama ponders events he doesn't just play for time. He can change his mind.

[Scarpia]

Bombs exploding always makes a good impression on the TV news.  Assuming Qadaffi is toppled, it is unclear that the result will be a more livable country.   Presumably some military commander left standing will take over, which is more or less how Qadaffi got into power.

[drogulus]

Bombs exploding always makes a good impression on the TV news.  Assuming Qadaffi is toppled, it is unclear that the result will be a more livable country.   Presumably some military commander left standing will take over, which is more or less how Qadaffi got into power.

     Each war is messy and terrible in its own way. There aren't many "lessons of Vietnam" that are universally valid, and that applies to lessons derived from Rwanda, Iraq, and Afghanistan, too. So we act knowing that, because at some point the costs of inaction appear even greater.

     I'm not as worried by bombs making an impression on TV. It's an effect, but not a cause. Try to imagine Obama or Bush or Clinton thinking that bombs would make an impression and ending the analysis there. That doesn't seem right to me. Of course it's possible, I suppose, to start a war merely to "send a message", though it's more likely that's an intended effect along with other more pressing concerns like acting before Benghazi falls and the moment is lost.

[Scarpia]

I'm not as worried by bombs making an impression on TV. It's an effect, but not a cause. Try to imagine Obama or Bush or Clinton thinking that bombs would make an impression and ending the analysis there. That doesn't seem right to me. Of course it's possible, I suppose, to start a war merely to "send a message", though it's more likely that's an intended effect along with other more pressing concerns like acting before Benghazi falls and the moment is lost.

I was speaking of the superficial impression of the explosions with respect to the public, not with respect to the leaders (in particular Obama) who are directing the attack.

I suspect it is at root a tribal thing there and if Qaddafi is dislodged whoever takes over will treat Qaddafi's people as bad as he is treating his adversaries.  We are wasting a lot or ordinance to make bomb craters.

[Florestan]

Lessons dictators could learn from Gaddafi:
[...]

And which Gaddafi himself could have learned from Saddam Hussein. 

But I wonder: if the goal of the bombings is to stop a dictator from murdering his own people, does this mean that Sarkozy, Obama and Cameron are willing to bomb each and every country whose governmental army or government-backed militiamen kill innocent civilians along armed revolutionaries? 

[Lethevich]

Libya seems to kind of be a one-off. It is close enough to Europe and has enough history there for this to have been able to be forced through. It was also politically convenient as well.

Ideally every despicable regime should get a good military kick in the teeth - not an overthrow, just a good, cheap, airborne humiliation - but the unintended consequences are a pain, and some of the governments are on the UN security council are proudly amoral. Plus, of course, there is the matter of defining 'despicable'. Gaddafi has practically no allies left on the entire planet, and yet the air blockade was still almost a no-go before extensive lobbying from the three involved western powers, so the situation for the other murderous dictators of the planet is secure.

I really like this Libya action though. The hypocrisy of the west has been exposed even more remarkably than usual over the past few months in its "democracy sure is nice, but hnngg, I'd rather they were still under brutal but quiet repression" hand-wringing. A more morally proative Europe would be a good thing given its general laid-back cowardice of recent years. It will piss some people off, but if you don't stand up for what you believe in, then your ideals are not worthy of respect.

[Todd]

Ideally every despicable regime should get a good military kick in the teeth - not an overthrow, just a good, cheap, airborne humiliation

How on earth is that ideal?  And who determines what constitutes a "despicable regime"?  Is it you?

Surely North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, and Zimbabwe are despicable regimes.  Using your ideal, they should all be bombed, yes?  To what end, may I ask?  How many dead civilians would you find acceptable?  Or do you really believe in "smart bombs"?  We could presumably start letting loose with cruise missiles and sorties pretty quick since we (meaning the US and only the US, let's be honest) have a global military capacity.  Hell, why not?

And what of other countries?  Is Iran despicable enough, or are they just this side of being bombed?  Is Russia really democratic enough?  Really, they send troops to little neighboring countries, or to internal provinces, and squash uprisings.  Just how despicable are they?  What of China?  It's not democratic.  It engages in some questionable activities in Tibet and Xinjiang.  Should Shanghai or Beijing be bombarded as a result?  I'm very interested in the despicable index you use to determine which countries get bombed.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Yawn, here we go with more cruise-missile humanitarianism while the US and its pals sink into a nightmare of debt. Our leaders seem even crazier than usual!

But I wonder: if the goal of the bombings is to stop a dictator from murdering his own people, does this mean that Sarkozy, Obama and Cameron are willing to bomb each and every country whose governmental army or government-backed militiamen kill innocent civilians along armed revolutionaries? 

There has been a civil war going on in the Congo for several years which has killed something around 5 million people. Yet I never hear anyone demand intervention there. I'm sure you can multiply examples.

[Lethevich]

How on earth is that ideal?  And who determines what constitutes a "despicable regime"?  Is it you?

Surely North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, and Zimbabwe are despicable regimes.  Using your ideal, they should all be bombed, yes?  To what end, may I ask?  How many dead civilians would you find acceptable?  Or do you really believe in “smart bombs”?  We could presumably start letting loose with cruise missiles and sorties pretty quick since we (meaning the US and only the US, let’s be honest) have a global military capacity.  Hell, why not?

And what of other countries?  Is Iran despicable enough, or are they just this side of being bombed?  Is Russia really democratic enough?  Really, they send troops to little neighboring countries, or to internal provinces, and squash uprisings.  Just how despicable are they?  What of China?  It’s not democratic.  It engages in some questionable activities in Tibet and Xinjiang.  Should Shanghai or Beijing be bombarded as a result?  I’m very interested in the despicable index you use to determine which countries get bombed.

Plus, of course, there is the matter of defining 'despicable'.

^That was included as what I hoped would be seen as an acknowledgement that it an impossible scenario and an abstract musing. The world is not ideal, and I don't have utopian delusions of any absolutes. I don't consider a single "western" nation to be anywhere approaching perfect, let alone other even more compromised but still reasonably functional nations. But there is also clearly a line between "you have serious issues" and "basket case". Burma, North Korea, DR Congo, Zimbabwe - the only reason those nations are stuck where they are is due to protection by neighbours who wish to exploit them or save face.

If, say, Burma was not supported by the Chinese government, a tactical scenario would be imaginable. Governments like that don't give up on their own, as they begin to feel invincible - as did Gaddafi - but all it took was two sessions of aerial assaults to send his troops running for the hills, and this wasn't even with a mandate to remove him. A little push can be useful and infinitely less ridiculous than a war like Iraq. It depends on the location. Somewhere like southern Africa would work differently, but just leaving intolerable things be is not the "responsible" way to go about things, it remains amoral IMO, full-stop.

[Todd]

If, say, Burma was not supported by the Chinese government, a tactical scenario would be imaginable.

But what does this mean?  Why should the US or any other country bomb the junta there?  What national interests are involved?  What "world" interests?  Okay, so such a calculation is "amoral."  How is engaging in war moral?

[Lethevich]

That is the sad thing - there is no national interest in it, it has to be from public pressure stemming from an ingrained sense of morality. I suppose western citizens have more free time on their hands, as they tend to hassle their governments more about this kind of thing - and support them equally when they make such gestures (although ill-judged blood baths like Iraq or Vietnam excluded). An example: Germany's government did its usual policy of no action on the Libya crisis, which has actually backfired politically, as a large proportion of its population support the action.

In so far as regional interests go, it's not in China's interest to see Burma become another Thailand, because quite simply it'll raise the prices of Burma's mineral wealth and natural resources, and the population will begin to compete more with China's own workforce. A military attempt to weaken the Burmese regime would be no less immoral than what is being done to it already by its neighbour - even with the brutal aspects of war, it would also be much less callous than the current situation. Obviously, nothing will happen to the Burmese government until perhaps its evil embarasses even China too much and they gently install a dictator of a different sort.

I'm sure that I am being naive, but I just feel it unacceptable to consider the treatment of people in certain countries as something that's sad but unchangable. The west offers all manner of aid to countries, but where a select few are unable to be affected, why put ideals aside and say "poor sods, we tried a little, but aren't going that far"

[Todd]

even with the brutal aspects of war, it would also be much less callous than the current situation.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I'd hesitate to make such a claim.