<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div id="outer">
<p class="title">Liberals March to War</p>
<p class="pagesub">“Humanitarian” interventionists salute their
commander-in-chief</p>
<div class="details3"> by <a
href="http://original.antiwar.com/author/justin/" title="Posts
by Justin Raimondo">Justin Raimondo</a>, March 23, 2011 </div>
<div id="navcontainer"> <a
href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/03/22/liberals-march-to-war/emailpopup/"
title="Email This" rel="nofollow"><br>
</a><a href="http://antiwar-talk.com"></a> </div>
</div>
<div class="entry">
<p>Well, that didn’t take long. </p>
<p>Now that President Barack Obama has <a
href="http://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/22/us-troops-shoot-six-libyan-civilians-during-rescue-mission/">intervened</a>
in Libya, his army of apologists is mobilizing to defend his
“humanitarianism,” declaring that <i>his</i> war <a
href="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-20/opinion/bergen.libya.us_1_arab-league-obama-administration-libyan-intervention?_s=PM:OPINION">isn’t
at <i>
all</i></a> like Bush’s wars. It’s something new, and
different – and <a
href="http://crookedtimber.org/2011/03/22/libya-the-case-for-intervention/">admirable</a>.</p>
<p>I’m not at all surprised. Are you? The anti-interventionist
veneer of most American liberals and assorted “progressives”
peels off quite readily when a little “<a
href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-0302-gates-libya-20110301,0,1323291.story">humanitarian</a>”
lotion is applied – especially if it’s poured on thick by a
liberal Democratic President with a domestic agenda they can
endorse. </p>
<p><i>Mother Jones</i> magazine, to cite one exemplar of this
chameleon-like transformation, is no stranger to cheerleading
the dark side of Obama’s presidency. You’ll recall that the
magazine launched a <a
href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/04/13/liberals-smear-wikileaks/">scurrilous</a>
attack on Julian Assange, in which the author <a
href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/04/13/liberals-smear-wikileaks/">compiled</a>
a lot of quotes from self-described “experts” to the effect that
WikiLeaks suffers from a lack of “transparency” – to the US
government, no less! – and, alternatively, is a CIA “front.”
That didn’t sit too well with their readers, as a <a
href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/04/wikileaks-julian-assange-iraq-video?page=1">look</a>
at the comments appended to that article attests, but a shill
for power’s gotta do what a shill is born to do, and that is
“spin” every event to make the team –Team Obama, in this case –
look good. And certainly <a
href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/libya-obama-anti-bush-doctrine">David
Corn is up to the task</a>.
</p>
<p>“A ghost hung over President Barack Obama,” writes Corn, “as he
stood at a podium in the East Room of the White House on Friday
afternoon to talk about Libya: the ghost of George W. Bush.”
</p>
<p>Well, not really: that was the ghost of <a
href="http://antiwar.com/horton/?articleid=5711">Woodrow
Wilson</a>. Bush, I would remind Corn, isn’t dead yet. But
such details don’t bother a progressive on his way into battle.
The latest US attack on a Muslim country in the Middle East may
<i>seem</i> very similar to Bush’s wars – “absent references to
WMD” – what with the rhetoric (He’s killing his own people! He’s
a tyrant! He’s a terrorist!) and the stern Bushian mien. But
that just shows how much <i>you</i> know ….</p>
<p>Because, you see, according to Corn, the President “in the
second half of his remarks departed from the Bush-like script.”
He then cites a single sentence in which the President refers to
the “international coalition” arrayed against Gadhafi – one <a
href="http://factreal.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/war-obama-libyan-coalition-smaller-than-bush-iraq-coalition/">smaller
than Bush</a>’s, by the way – and includes some reassuring
phrases about how, this time, we’re “shaping the conditions for
the international community to act together.”
</p>
<p>There – feel better now? Take two bromides that Bush himself
could – <a
href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/12/national/main521781.shtml">and
did</a> – utter, and call me in the morning.</p>
<p>Here is Corn’s translation of this vague happy-talk:</p>
<p><i>“That is, we’re not cowboys. This will be, Obama suggested,
true multilateralism—one including Arab nations. His
administration and the governments of France and Britain had
quickly guided a forceful resolution through the Security
Council (with China and Russia abstaining), and the United
States, Obama noted, would be ‘enabling our European allies
and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone.’ US
leadership, yet European and Arab action. He added, ‘The
United States is not going to deploy ground troops into
Libya.’”</i></p>
<p><i>“Noting that ‘our British and French allies, and members of
the Arab League’ will take a lead role in enforcing the
resolution, Obama declared, ‘This is precisely how the
international community should work, as more nations bear both
the responsibility and the cost of enforcing international
law.’ That is precisely the opposite of how the neocons of the
Bush-Cheney crowd viewed the world. They were not interested
in tying their strategic desires to international law or in
developing a global order in which the United States would not
be the top-dog decider and enforcer.”</i></p>
<p>We’re not cowboys: we’re <i>
social workers</i>, the kind with <a
href="http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20110315/capt.747f4f6c85744308bda907dd5b03c968-747f4f6c85744308bda907dd5b03c968-0.jpg">mean</a>,
<a href="http://images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com/66753_5_.jpg">pinched</a>
faces and a moralizing, condescending air – armed with <a
href="http://www.hdnewsroom.com/coalition-forces-strike-ghadafi-rebels-push-forward/0143">fighter
jets</a>, <a
href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-international-military-coalition-launch-assault-gadhafi-forces/story?id=13174246">guided
missiles</a>, and <a
href="http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html">nuclear
weapons</a>, and determined to Do Good.</p>
<p>Now that the United States has <a
href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368942/Libya-war-Federal-Reserve-officials-fear-missiles-cost-100m-1-day.html?ito=feeds-newsxml">bankrupted
itself</a> by spending <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures">more</a>
on “defense” than the rest of the world combined, the
“multilateralists” take up the task of convincing the American
people they’ve got to pursue the dream of empire to the very
end. Oh no, they say, we’re good “liberals,” <i>
we </i>don’t dream of empire – only of “international law”
and a “global order.” Top dog? Not us! We’ll leave that onerous
job to the UN Security Council.</p>
<p>Yes, and <a
href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8390035/Libya-Live.html">you’ll
note</a> the Obama-ites went to the Council, not the Congress,
to ask permission to strike: and just to show we’re <i>not </i>
the Top Dog, they let the Brits and the Frenchies take the lead.
What generosity.</p>
<p>The “argument” presented here is the one progressives have
salved their perpetually guilty consciences with ever since this
manifestly unqualified ex-“community organizer” took up
residence in the White House: he’s <i>not Bush</i>! That’s why
they remained silent when he <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/world/asia/21intel.html">extended</a>
our perpetual “war on terrorism” into Pakistan, why they kept
mum as the PATRIOT Act was <a
href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/09/obama-seeks-longer-patriot-act-extension-republicans/">reauthorized</a>
at the behest of the administration, and why they put the covers
over their heads and stuck their fingers in their ears as George
Bush’s <a
href="http://pubrecord.org/torture/7806/obama-doing-bagram-part-one-torture/">torture
regime continued</a>, unabated and even <a
href="http://news.change.org/stories/it-gets-worse-the-ongoing-torture-of-bradley-manning">expanded</a>,
under Obama. It’s why they ignored our <a
href="http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_17655488">failure
to withdraw</a> from Iraq, as promised by candidate Obama, and
why they smiled politely and changed the subject whenever anyone
had the poor taste to mention these unpleasant subjects. </p>
<p>Corn supplements the Not Bush argument with a new variation, an
ideological rationale for knee-jerk defenders of the Obama
regime: the we’re-not-neocons meme. Obama’s war in Libya is an
example of what Corn actually dubs “the Anti-Bush Doctrine,”
which is “precisely the opposite of how the neocons of the
Bush-Cheney crowd viewed the world.” </p>
<p>The Anti-Bush Doctrine – and let’s call it that, because it
reflects the partisan nonsense that passes for informed debate
in Washington <i>and </i>
in the San Francisco offices of <i>Mother</i> <i>Jones</i> –
is merely the Bush Doctrine turned inside out, and left side up.
</p>
<p>Mandated with a “responsibility to protect,” our self-appointed
World Saviors and Bearers of Good Governance in the Obama White
House are pledged to police the world in a multi-cultural and
politically correct manner, kind of like the Federation on <i>Star
Trek</i>, minus that bothersome <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive">Prime
Directive</a> they hobbled Captain Kirk with. Think of the
vision of futurity in <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_to_Come"><i>Things
to Come</i></a>, that fictional rendition of a parlor pink’s
wet dream, where the <a
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS3fQtHoaNA">Airmen</a>
take control after a world war, and patrol the earth disabling
petty warlords and ragged barbarians with “<a
href="http://www.orwelltoday.com/wellspeacegas.shtml">peace
gas</a>.” </p>
<p>This very same “peace gas” is now being emitted by the likes of
Corn and <i>Mother Jones</i>, in defense of the Big O’s very
own war of “liberation.” This is the same crowd that cheered the
Clintons’ war in the Balkans, where American fighter jets bombed
some of the oldest cities in Europe at 20,000 ft. The Kosovo of
<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2278048/">organ-harvester
Hashim Thaci</a>, a state run by outright gangsters, is their
monument. The gods only know what they’ll do to Libya. By the
time they get through with the place, every Libyan will have
guaranteed state-run healthcare – and a family member dead or
missing. </p>
<p>Consider our Libyan war as a <a
href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs101.html">Keynesian
exercise</a> in “stimulus” spending: liberals who might
otherwise object can take solace in the fact that Operation
“Odyssey Dawn” has so far cost us the equivalent of the
Republicans’ entire proposed budget cut. Every missile we send
sailing into Gadhafi’s bunker costs anywhere from <a
href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/20/explosions-gunfire-heard-tripoli-allies-continue-military-strikes-libya/">$600,000</a>
to over a million. And by going to war with Libya we won’t just
be selfishly stimulating our own economy, we’ll also be helping
the Libyans even as we unleash destruction from the skies – at
least, that’s the sort of Bizarro-logic employed by champions of
the <a
href="http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp">“broken
window” fallacy</a>, such as <a
href="http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/2011/03/krugman-joins-broken-window-fallacy.html">Paul
Krugman</a>.
</p>
<p>As to the name given this operation by the Psyops department
over at the Pentagon, “<a
href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0319/US-leads-Odyssey-Dawn-initial-attack-on-Libya">Odyssey
Dawn</a>,” it sounds like a women’s perfume, which brings to
mind the true authors of this war, the three Amazons of the
State Department: <a
href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-20/libya-airstrikes-hillary-clinton-and-the-women-who-called-for-war/">Hillary
Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power</a>. These busy gals
are the real powers-behind-the-throne, who reportedly nagged
Obama until he reluctantly agreed to intervene. It’s what you
might call an ultra-feminist foreign policy: we’re taking the
whole world to America’s maternal breast. With these Amazons at
the helm – acting in concert with its European allies, and
whichever Third World despots know what’s good for them – the US
will act on its “responsibility to protect” – what? Whom?
Whatever victim group can be sufficiently valorized to play the
lead in a familiar narrative, one that always ends with sending
in <a
href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9CypuyfNQ4wKoTA6mNaeQcRf2fQ?docId=0ef6ba3b61df41b1bc2bc0b8be3a4c49">the
Marines</a>. </p>
<p>It just so happens Libya is an <a
href="http://www.businessinsider.com/map-of-the-day-libyan-oil-infrastructure-2011-3">oil-rich</a>
prize, with the eastern part of the country – now detached from
the rest by the “no fly, no go” zone –especially favored. It
also <a
href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/chart-top-importers-of-libyan-oil/71619/">just
so happens</a> to be the energy-hungry Brits and the equally
voracious French who are taking the lead – at Obama’s insistence
– in the allied war effort. You’d have to be one of those
dreaded “conspiracy theorists” to think there’s some connection
between oil and this war, in which case <a
href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein">Cass
Sunstein</a> – Samantha’s hubby – would like to give you a
good talking-to. </p>
<p>“The United States will join in a multilateral fight for
democracy and humanitarian aims when it is in the nation’s
interest <i>and</i> when the locals are involved and desire US
participation.” This is Corn’s reading of the Anti-Bush
Doctrine: yet, how, exactly, is this any different that its
alleged antipode? Going into Iraq, Bush, too, boasted of the
number of his alleged allies, the famous “coalition of the
willing.” But so what: is a gang rape better than a one-on-one
deal? Not in my book. </p>
<p>Bush, too, assured us “the locals” would be supportive:
remember how we were supposed to be greeted as “liberators,” and
showered with rose petals? Except <a
href="http://www.amazon.com/America-Lost-Iraq-Aaron-Glantz/dp/1585424870/antiwarbookstore">it
didn’t quite work out that way</a>.</p>
<p>As for the “humanitarian” nature of this intervention, I have
my doubts. Obama’s rationale for military action is that</p>
<p> <i>“Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that
Qaddafi </i>
<b><i>would commit </i></b><i>atrocities against his people.
Many thousands </i>
<b><i>could </i></b><i>die. A humanitarian crisis </i>
<b><i>would </i></b><i>ensue. The entire region </i>
<b><i>could be</i></b><i> destabilized, endangering many of our
allies and partners. The calls of the Libyan people for help
would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for
would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international
community would be rendered hollow.”</i>
</p>
<p>The emphasis is mine, and it illustrates just how completely
enslaved to the Bush Doctrine the current administration really
is. For the essence of the Bush Doctrine was and is the
principle of <a
href="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/kennedy1.html">preemption</a>:
for the first time, the United States was saying to the world
that it would not only respond to actual threats but to any
potential threat anywhere in the world. The Obama Doctrine takes
this one step further, and says that we have a responsibility to
protect not only our own alleged interests, but also the
interests of peoples vulnerable to <i>potential</i> violence
directed at them by their own governments. Bush told us Saddam
was “killing his own people,” and now Obama is telling us
Gadhafi <i>could</i> possibly kill “many thousands” of Libyans.
</p>
<p>Emblematic of the liberal collapse before the onslaught of the
Obama cult is <a
href="http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html">Juan
Cole</a>, whose pathetic <a
href="http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/03/20/juan-cole-20/">performance</a>
on Scott Horton’s radio program, defending the intervention, is
an embarrassment he will not soon live down. </p>
<p>Cole’s “argument” boiled down to a catchphrase that surely has
been uttered by every warmongering neocon who ever walked the
earth: pressed by Scott to justify his stance in support of the
‘no fly” zone, he declared “I’m not an isolationist!” The
‘i’-word is what every interventionist drags out when cornered:
it is a <a
href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/isolationism.html">meaningless</a>,
content-less coined word, what Ayn Rand would call an <a
href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-concepts.html">anti-concept</a>
– like “<a
href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works/enemies-of-extremism.html">extremist</a>”
– which is meant to end the discussion rather than enable it. </p>
<p>It’s downhill from there: “What’s to stop [Gadhafi] from making
a move on Tunisia?” he asks. This is precisely the same argument
Bush posed to Iraq war opponents: Saddam, we were told, was <a
href="http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/17/215133.shtml">a
threat to his neighbors</a> – although it seems the Libyan
despot has his hands full just keeping control of his own
country. Professor Cole then goes on to aver, like any <a
href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8153555086218873684#">neocon</a>
circa 2003, that our chosen Enemy of the Moment is “a
terrorist,” and “an element of instability in the region,” one
who, left in power, will “go on to play a sinister role.”</p>
<p>This last point is curiously circular, because if we hadn’t
intervened then presumably Gadhafi wouldn’t play such a sinister
role – indeed, he would have played the same role he played <a
href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/lockerbie-update-201102">when
Tony Blair went to visit him</a>, and the two signed a
security agreement. The role he played ever since he came in
from the cold, made his peace with the US and its European
allies, and donated a lot of money to the London School of
Economics and (<a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/16/sarkozy-election-campaign-libya-claim">so
I hear</a>) the election campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy. </p>
<p>The capitulation of the “liberals” to the War Party comes as no
surprise: we saw this during the Clinton years, and we’re seeing
it again. This time around, however, the War Party is even
stronger. Although Corn is eager to persuade the readership of <i>Mother
Jones</i> that the administration has not been taken over by
the neocons, the truth is that the “humanitarians” are <a
href="http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/21/what_intervention_in_libya_tells_us_about_the_neocon_liberal_alliance">in
bed with the neocons</a> on this one, just as they were in the
run up to the Kosovo war. Back in the 1990s, the neocons lent
their names to innumerable “<a
href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1830887/posts">open
letters</a>” urging Bill Clinton to strike at the Serbs, with
prominent progressives such as Susan Sontag <a
href="http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Sontag.html">leading
the charge</a>. George Soros financed a “grassroots” pro-war
campaign, and the neocons were more than happy to jump on board
the bandwagon – just as they are today. </p>
<p>Pushed into war by a coven of relentlessly nagging neo-liberal
Amazons, and a cabal of round-shouldered flabby-faced neocons,
President Obama has been captured by ideologues just as surely
as was his predecessor – and, I’ll predict right here and now,
with equally disastrous results.</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>