[Marxism] For the defeat or unconditional end of the NATO war on Libya

Fred Feldman ffeldman at verizon.net
Tue Jul 19 13:30:11 MDT 2011

Lueko quotes Manuel:
➢ The problem does not lie in the conclusion (good thing), but in the 
motivation that extends the opposition to imperialist intervention into the 
"lesser-evil" that "means that the Gadhafi regime remains in power for 
however long. . ." 

And then Lueko comments:
That is no "lesser evil" in any count. It is to support the fight for 
democratic rights, which begin with the right of the nation to determine its 
own fate. The most important democratic right for the Arab nation is the 
independence and sovereignty of the current separate Arab countries, their 
ability to determine their affairs without regard of the wishes of the former and wannabe colonial masters
Fred comments: 
Lueko’s point is aimed primarily at my argument, not Manuel’s which simply acknowledges mine without comprehending it.. It was I who introduced the concept of an imperialist defeat as a lesser evil, rather than as a mighty victory, in and of itself, for democratic rights and national independence.  Obviously, if I select a lesser evil, it is because I see the possibility that more positive results can come from this outcome.

But it also is based on my judgment that the imperialist intervention builds upon a substantial setback throwing back the broad uprising of the Libyan people, before it could forge a leadership consistent with its goals and extend its reach across the various lines of division in Libyan society.

This, together with the imperialist attack which has reinforced all divisions, has strengthened Gadhafi's position in Libya politically. The Guardian reports that most of Libya's neighborhoods support the dictator, though many eastern sectors stand with the rebels. It turns out, when reporting from the area gets more precise for whatever reasons, that the Misrata region is divided, not united against Gadhafi. And of course, villagers in the Western mountains flee to the last person in the face of the arrival of their "liberators," and the rebels burn and plunder the homes of those they apparently consider to be soft on Gadhafi.

And there is no evidence that the "rebels" are either politically or militarily competent to take Tripoli or Sirte, where the regime has had a base for a long time, without imperialist bombing that would go way beyond the current limitations.

Gadhafi’s  initial victory over the people actually served as the basis for the imperialist’s decision to present itself as the ultimate and most powerful enemy of the Gadhafi regime, through the no-fly zone and the general war against the regime that naturally, inevitably and intentionally followed.  

>From the standpoint of the real masses, the defeat of the first wave of the struggle and the diversion of the struggle by the calls for imperialist intervention, with the full support of the rebel leadership, threw everything into reverse.

So Gadhafi's  survival in the face of  the imperialist attack and the shift of orientation of the leaders of the revolution, cannot be treated as a mighty victory of the revolutionary struggle in the Middle East. No, the best that can be expected from his survival, would be avoidance of the than the qualitative expansion of the defeat that would be represented by an imperialist victory and the inevitable imperialist occupation (UN. I assume) that would have to follow. 

I have come to the conclusion that all but a few of the young rebels, at most, are at this point conscious national liberation fighters and almost none have enough political experience at this point to take on the pro-imperialist strategy of the entire leadership.

Manuel claims to  oppose Gadhafi and the imperialists exactly equally (unlike just about all the rebels, as far as I can tell, who have made a strategic choice in favor of imperialism, not corruptly in every case I am sure 

Manuel, by contrast, refuses to make any choice. I gather that he is open to any outcome that does not involve defeat for the rebels.  (Am I wrong? He should inform me and I will accept his correction.)

Manuel leaves no doubt that the worst outcome for him is a rebel defeat, no matter what the circumstances and alternatives, While he is opposed to the imperialist victory, he nonetheless seems to me to insist that no outcome except a rebel victory can be a "lesser evil" even if it takes place under imperialist auspices.  

I opt for the defeat of the NATO imperialist attack, whether it improves or weakens Gadhafi's position. But yes, in this situation, "Down with Gadbafi" or "Victory to the Rebels" are slogans I reject because, in the existing circumstances, they cannot be achieved without imperialist bombing and all the rest.

If Manuel knows different -- if he knows it is possible to defeat the imperialist war without any threat of weakening or defeating their rebel allies, he should let me in on his knowledge, which I would be glad to hear about.

Manuel has a perfect right to advocate exclusively immediate and unconditional defeat for both NATO and Gadhafi,and he is entitled to ignore that achieving both of these at once seem off the reality agenda. He can thus ignore the choices actually confronting real human beings in the Libyan situation. Imperialist victory is unacceptable but Gadhafi victory is at least equally unacceptable, since is the SUPER-ULTRA-MEGA-DEMON we read and hear about every day in the media in the imperialist countries.

I am not trying to start a big new round of discussion. This, I guarantee, is my last contribution in this round.

More information about the Marxism mailing list