[identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
America is now back to the usual post-JFK business of creating dictators who have ties to American intelligence and military appratuses and don't have a leg to stand on as far as ther own abilities to take and maintain power. This General Haftar will no doubt end up, if he really does represent Libyan definitions of Libyan interests as a Gadaffi of the many spellings Mk. II, and if he represents purely American interests serving in a few decades as the next Hosni Mubarak. Above all Libya confirms once again the exact same lesson that the collapse in the 1950s of the empires carved in the 1910s should have made loud and clear the first time. Southwest Asia is about as good a pace to implement the White Man's Burden as Afghanistan, and attempts to do so are doomed to fail before they start. Of course this latest dictator propped up in the name of freedom and democracy will be a nice secular demagogue until he proves to be the slighest bit independent, 'twas ever thus:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/unravelling

(no subject)

Date: 18/2/15 00:58 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] oportet.livejournal.com
If we're going to place people into leadership positions in other countries, why are we taking risks with ones who are likely to turn?

If we know what we're doing, but pretend we don't know, and the world knows what we're doing, but pretends they don't know either - let's go the extra mile, be honest with our dishonesty, and just put a full blooded 'merican in charge. A Tim Johnson, a Bob Smith - somebody the world may sigh at - but at least we wouldn't immediately start second guessing ourselves once they put the crown on.

(no subject)

Date: 18/2/15 07:18 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com
"Back to"? When has America detoured from the above-described course of action?

(no subject)

Date: 18/2/15 17:48 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com
Oh. Officially.

(no subject)

Date: 19/2/15 04:10 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mikeyxw.livejournal.com
While the US has certainly supported it's share of bastards, maybe a bit behind the UK and USSR, I'm not sure what the alternative would be in this case. While it would be nice, the chances of a democratically supported leader arising and ending the civil war in Libya is about zero. We're left with a bunch of folks who make up for their lack of legitimacy with foreign support, one of whom is likely to be the winner. There is a good argument for picking the least bad alternative, General Haftar, from what little I know of him, seems to be a good candidate. I suppose the US could try to support someone who is all about freedom, democracy, and unicorns sliding down rainbows, but, really, what's the point. Maybe we should stay out of the civil wars in Syria and Libya and let those who supported the former governments who are mostly responsible for where things stand today to take care of their own mess, but this isn't exactly path of freedom and democracy either.

(no subject)

Date: 20/2/15 11:58 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com
This is what happens when we try to have our cake and eat it too.

Some how we've gotten to the point where half-assed interventions, propping up dictators, bombing without building, etc... is seen as a better option than actual intervention, or disengaging entirely.

Either take up the white man's Western Civilization's Burden or don't.
Edited Date: 20/2/15 12:09 (UTC)

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
910 1112 131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
OSZAR »