Another country starts to fall into Daesh control... Of course, it's the one where USA armed "opposition"

[C0ckney]

I'm not convinced we have tried many different approaches, the American way of waging war and dealing with less developed nations hasn't really changed much. After Hussain you had a temporary rise in Iraqi Shia/Kurd optimism and a rise in Sunni fear that the majority Shia would take revenge for the years of Sunni dominance. At that point a swift and intelligent restructuring of the army and police forces to ensure all factions were represented in the top leadership, a truth and reconciliation effort introduced to try and resolve simmering old issues and a focus on creating a fair and just constitution that met the needs of the Iraqis instead of being pushed on them by Americans could have resulted in a much more positive outcome. Instead we had de-Baathification, power handed to exiles, heavy handed attempts to push US ideology onto the locals and of course the often brutal and callous anti-insurgent tactics which did little more than convince the Iraqi population that the people kicking in their doors and shooting people from armed convoys were actually the enemy.

I suppose my question would really be: why couldn't it work? Why should we expect that people in Iraq are incapable of living in a peaceful country? If the sectarian divisions are so deep they cannot be healed internally then break it up into separate countries. Why not?

we tried nation building in afghanistan, 'liquidation and reconstitution' in iraq and a hands off approach in libya; the only common thread has been failure. i don't think people need much convincing that foreign invaders are the enemy.

i think you encapsulate the problem nicely in the second paragraph. a dictator can hold a country like iraq together, but a democracy cannot continue if most of the demos no longer wishes to be part of it. in iraq the kurds are basically independent and the fiction that they are not is only maintained to appease other powers in the region, whereas many sunnis have been happy to throw in their lot with insurgents and ISIS because they don't wish to part of the new iraq.

[PLATO]

well, it's fine to say to that libya should never have been a country, but that does little to change the reality that it was. gaddafi would certainly have killed some, though i think tens of thousand is probably an overestimate, but he had managed to hold libya together for a long time and there's no reason why he couldn't have continued to do so. lots of dictators have managed to after failed uprisings after all.

It would be equally applicable to say that many dictators have not been able to hold a country together after a rebellion as well. That being said, that was not my point. My point was that Gaddafi was aging and at some point he would not be in the picture anymore. At that time there certainly would have been a further rebellion. This is a reality based on how the country was formed, which was why I brought that up. The old divisions still remain and are the basis of the current unrest. As to killing tens of thousands, was it not Gaddafi's position that he was going to "wipe out" Benghazi? Surely with tanks on the way that threat should be considered credible.

the agreement may be good, but i wouldn't get too excited about it just yet. it appears that many on the members of both parliaments are not happy with it, and therefore it may in fact exacerbate the divisions as many of those who are not happy have power over the militias; we'll have to wait and see but i'm not holding my breath. i did love the spin about wanting to do things on their own without the UN (whose envoy left in exasperation) though.

I agree. The agreement may not take hold, but my point is that there is a working framework in progress. If there had been a mass slaughter of one side by the other, it is hard to imagine that they would be at this point now. Thanks for the complement on the UN spin...just couldn't help but mention it.

My overall point is this. I believe that the civil war, if you will, in Libya was inevitable. While it is probably true that, at the cost of thousands if not tens of thousands of lives, Gadaffi probably could have held power a little longer, it is my belief that this would have led to a bloodier and more divisive civil war in the end with a much longer period before reconciliation. Today we at least have the major factions talking and trying to work toward a solution. I guess our major difference here is deciding if Libya having a civil war was ultimately inevitable and my position is that it was and that this fact is based on how the country was originally formed.

I do respect your opinion on this (one of the few libs here who actually provide well thought out and coherent posts. ), but we just disagree.

If you want to criticize the post over throw involvement of the West and its lack of understanding root problems to be dealt with, then we will probably find some areas of agreement.

[C0ckney]

plato, my comment on the spin wasn't directed at you, but rather the way libyan politicians themselves portrayed it. and likewise, i always enjoy our exchanges, even though we're politically far apart, because you're a thoughtful and intelligent guy.

i understand a little better what you mean now. i think it's hard to say what would have happened had gaddafi remained in power, beyond the immediate aftermath. gaddafi wouldn't have lived forever and one can certainly make the argument that his death would have sparked a violent struggle; but equally, one might say that given the level of social and economic development in libya there would have been demands for greater political freedom and participation and his death could have the moment for them to be realised. we'll never know for sure, of course.

unfortunately, we still don't know just how long the current political crisis and civil war will go on for. as you say, there has been some progress recently, but there's still a long way to go; and even further still if we're talking about getting back to where libya had reached under gaddafi.

this is the current situation:



so even if the political deal is reached, there's still ISIS to combat and the tuaregs to negotiate with.

[NICE MOBIUS]

Gaddafi had a whole bunch of sons waiting in the wings. I think the one actually being groomed to take over was reasonably decent and progressive, by relative standards. Also, until the uprising, Gaddafi had been generally behaving himself for quite a while, hence why the West had accepted him back into the fold. Saif. Things were moving in the right direction, I'd say...

Anyway, the irony is that the general public in Libya were as free if not freer than now; safer and had better human rights etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Libya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Islam_Gaddafi

No one is saying that Gaddafi is a good guy, but he was a product of Western intervention. Just that there had to be a better way to transition power than through the ****ed up situation brought upon by further Western intervention. He was no worse than so many of the West's other supposed 'friends' across virtually the whole of the Middle East...

Anyway, read those links above, I know it's wikipedia but the grains of truth are there.

[giblets]

I guess as long as Americans can read and have homes it's no big deal of teh US government tortures people.

[kentonio]

we tried nation building in afghanistan, 'liquidation and reconstitution' in iraq and a hands off approach in libya; the only common thread has been failure. i don't think people need much convincing that foreign invaders are the enemy.

i think you encapsulate the problem nicely in the second paragraph. a dictator can hold a country like iraq together, but a democracy cannot continue if most of the demos no longer wishes to be part of it. in iraq the kurds are basically independent and the fiction that they are not is only maintained to appease other powers in the region, whereas many sunnis have been happy to throw in their lot with insurgents and ISIS because they don't wish to part of the new iraq.

Who cares about holding it together? We usually drew the boundaries in the first place, and one of the US positions was that the country post invasion had to be kept intact. Why? It was just another example of telling them how the new country had to be, rather than actually letting them decide for themselves.

[giblets]

Because Turkey is our friend and Turkey hates Kurds

[kentonio]

Don't get me started on our 'friends'..

[C0ckney]

Who cares about holding it together?

every interested foreign power with the possible exception of iran.

[Ellestar]

I'm not talking theoretical. I'm talking about the reality that democracy doesn't require any oppression of it's people. All democracy does is put the power into the hands of the people to decide who will hold office. What people do with it is up to them. They can choose to elect leaders who oppress them or others, but they aren't required to.

Communism as an ideology requires oppressing it's own citizens' rights to choose for themselves how to live their lives in at least some respects.

But come on. It's just disconnected from reality. Your own country has the biggest number of prisoners in the world, both in absolute numbers, and per 10000 population. How can you say things that democracy doesn't need oppression, if your country is one of the most oppressive in the entire world? I just don't understand. You seem to say mostly reasonable things, but in some cases you're like you come from the moon.

That's why i'm talking about theoretical. Both Communism and Democracy are supposed to give political power to the people (with the difference that Communism is also supposed to give all economic power to the people as well). In practice, both don't, and they both need oppression to keep it that way. So i don't understand what's the point to compare to theoretical Democracy to practical Communism that existed in one specific country.

You need to look at a timeline. Labor and Women's rights started well before there was a USSR. Gay Rights gained most of it's ground after the USSR had fell. Civil Rights happened during the Cold War, but the USSR had nothing to do with that. If anything the fear of Communism in the US put a damper on the development of personal freedoms.

Well, of course they existed. But their existence is not enough, Capitalists need to be forced to actually listen to them.

You keep confusing capitalism with democracy. They are not the same thing. Also, there is nothing baked into capitalism that you claim. Everyone can be a "capitalist" in a free market. Most people in the US make good incomes (especially when compared world-wide and historically), they just choose to consume rather than to invest or save. There does need to be a better safety net in the US than there is, but let me put it this way ... there are US citizens who go to other countries and build nice houses (some cases even mansions), have live-in maids and drivers ... off the money they get on SSI (disability) or Social Security (retirement).

Do we have non-Capitalist Democracy, like, anywhere at all? If we don't, then in practice when you say "Democracy" you also mean "Capitalism". I'm not a scientist to talk about theory only. Nor do i care - as a common man, it's the practice that affects me, not theory. Theory is for theoreticians, i'll leave it for them to discuss. So, no, i don't confuse Capitalism and Democracy.

Americans had (and have) far more human rights allowed them by their government than Soviets had. That's why an American during the Cold War could travel anywhere they wanted in the world (except places that wouldn't let them in, like the USSR), and even live outside the US if they chose. The USSR on the other hand wouldn't allow it's people to travel in most cases, and even killed people who were trying to leave.

Well, and? We were practically in the state of war.

You really should read up on the US Constitution. The US Constitution can be (and has been) amended via democratic process. The US citizen enjoys far more rights than citizens of the USSR did.

Well, you had theoretical rights that may or may not be applicable, depending on how rich a person is. We had practial rights for everyone and we actually had them, all of us. So, that's not an easy question, what's better, more rights for the rich, or more rights for everyone.

Funny enough, in the new Russian constitution made in 1990s by democratic liberals we don't have them anymore, by the way. So yeah, guys who supposedly represented "democracy" = "rule of people", actually reduced our rights that were given to us by a "totalitarian regime".

There's no good reason why 7 billion people (or 10) can't enjoy a quality of life much like that in the US. You need to change some things, mainly personal transport and "disposables", but it can be done. Everyone can have high-end electronics, as many digital products as they can possibly consume, good food to eat, healthcare, and a nice place to live. We aren't at any hard limits on the things required for such a life. We just can't all drive around SUVs and such unnecessary excesses.

That's Communist ideas, you know? That's actually EXACTLY what Communists promised to common men before the revolution. No excesses, enough wealth for everyone. And that's what can't exist in Capitalist economy, because the goal of people there is to become richer, consume more etc. It's completely opposite to the most basic Capitalist ideology.

Communism failed to do it. Capitalism has done it better. The reality is someone doing the lowest paid job in the US had a higher standard of living than the person doing the same job in the USSR ... and likely more than anyone in the USSR outside of corrupt party officials.

I already answered that, but i wanted to say that Communism actually did everything that it promised, both by sharing wealth with everyone in about equal numbers, without any major excesses ("corrupt party officials" didn't have their own cottage or frequently even a car - all of it was state-owned, and they were losing it if they retire or are dismissed). And it succeeded in delivering the quality of life it promised - Capitalists were able to deliver that as well because of the technoligical progress, not because of a fair share of wealth, but that's another point - in 1900s noone expected that it will be possible.

No, you're just wrong. The person in the developing nation who gets one of these jobs actually is increasing their standard of living. That's why they accept the job, because it offers an opportunity to do better than what they had before.
The person in the US who "loses" that job generally finds a new one. (Otherwise we'd have seen rampant unemployment during globalization. But most of the time the US unemployment has been near full employment.

Locally, yes. As a total sum of worker's wealth and capitalist's wealth, obviously, capitalists gain more wealth by reducing wages of their workers by outsorcing, and workers lose wealth. And yes, you do see a rampant unemployment and ballooning loans of western countries as a results of globalization.

It didn't blow up in your faces yet, but you already see a lot of problems. Namely, prisons in US are so full exactly because of unemployment, unfair wealth distribution and the problems coming from it. Unemployment of young people is also rampant in many western countries.

The current problems are largely in immigration restrictions and lack of worker protections in various places around the world.

And capitalists exploit it. Why wouldn't they?

You speak about how the US doesn't give it's citizens any rights, but the reality is that US citizens have more power as individuals to affect their lives and the world than the citizens of any other nation in the history of humanity. It's why I can go to the Philippines and send kids to college, give unemployed people work improving previously unimproved land, give out no interest loans or donations to help with business opportunities or medical emergencies. Nothing in democracy or free markets or capitalism tries to stop me from doing it, it gives me the opportunity to do it. (Or alternatively, it gives me the opportunity to waste it all on personal consumption. Sadly most of us do that most of the time.) The USSR wouldn't have even allowed me to leave the country ... and there's no way I could do what I am able to do now on the income of someone in the USSR either unless I was a corrupt party official, in which case I certainly wouldn't be the type of person who would do such a thing.

It's our failing as a people and as a nation that we don't use those opportunities better, but throwing away democracy and free markets, and even capitalism would simply make things worse, not better. Social democracy with free market capitalism are the best engine we have. They produce more value than the alternatives. The area to focus on improving isn't the engine, it's directionality. We need to distribute the wealth created better, and democracy has shown it has the capability of doing that. Movements such as the Labor movement did that rather well for US workers. Similar movements need to and slowly are moving to protect workers in developing nations, as well as to continue advancing in already developed nations. There's a growing support for increasing minimum wage significantly and/or earned income credits in the US. Yes, there was some stagnation lately for those at the low end of the income spectrum in the US, but it's important to remember that that stagnation occurred at a very high level of income relative to most of the rest of the world. In general (there are exceptions), we whine about not being able to pay the bills (rent, car, internet, electricity, etc), but it's largely because we go for a level of consumption that even well off people in other developed nations don't dream of.

Throwing away the engine would be fatal. It just needs to be pointed in a better direction.

Social democracy exists in some Western European countries, but that's mostly an exception rather than a rule. I don't believe that, for example, US capitalists will be willing to turn the country that way. And all examples of a new "democracies" show rampant pillaging and corruption. So, it's a nice wishful thinking (in the same category where the hopes of communism were), but most of the time it doesn't seem to work.

[Dinner]

Don't get me started on our 'friends'..

Yeah, Saudi Arabia really is where most of this Salafist ideology and money supporting them comes from. The government does ban such support officially but obviously it is not well enforced.

[kentonio]

every interested foreign power with the possible exception of iran.

Exactly, foreign power. If the might of the west was used to protect the new nation while they restructure however the people choose, that would be a genuinely worthwhile use of western power and might actually lead to a decent outcome.

[C0ckney]

well that's arguable, but it's never going to, nor could, happen...

[kentonio]

well that's arguable, but it's never going to, nor could, happen...

Lots of things could happen if we stopped saying they were impossible without ever bothering to try.

[C0ckney]

how do you propose to separate interests from actions?