Marc Cooper's Blog, page 5

Saving Benghazi

If you want to oppose the military intervention in Libya because you think a) the U.S. should never intervene anywhere under any conditions b)  this intervention will lead to a quagmire ground war with U.S. troops c) you are a simple isolationist d) you don't give a flip about Arabs d) we cannot afford this economically e) or you believe this is unconstitutional, then I can disagree with your affirmations but accept they are offered in good faith and have some reasonable grounding.

But tell me this is an "attack on a Muslim nation," that this is senseless killing of innocent civilians or that this is an unnecessary commencement of a war, then all I can say is cut the crap.

This war was begun by a monstrous dictator who has ruled, unelected and unchecked, through torture, murder and repression while he and his perverted sons have sacked their nation of billions. When civilians, or as you prefer — innocent civilians– finally rose up and said they had had enough, it was Mr. Gaddafi who initiated the war. All he did was kill innocent civilians and threaten to kill thousands more.  Given that NO information from Libyan sources is reliable, the number of people this fascist has butchered in the last month are unknown.  Conservative estimates are a minimum of 2,000. Opposition sources say the figure is more than 8,000.

THOSE are the innocent civilians murdered in this war — not by U.S. or U.K. or French munitions but rather by their own government.

The western military intervention, if anything, was late. Obama, understandably, was hesitant to act precisely because he was acutely aware of the damage inflicted on U.S. prestige by its intervention in Iraq.  He waited as long as he could, which was probably a bit too long, but he — and the Europeans– had their hand forced this week as Gaddafi massed his armies on the outskirts of Benghazi and the mad dictator went on state TV and promised a wholesale massacre.

I see no option other than to have supported this military action and — tonight– less than 48 hrs. later, I am rather heartened by what I read.

The Wall Street Journal carries eyewitness reports on how the allied air strikes wiped out a Gaddafi armed column, blunting the attack on Benghazi. The wreckage seen by reporters were stretched out over a delightful 15 miles. This was not a trail of dead civilians. These were the smoked-out remnants of military attack force of the dictatorship.

The Guardian carries a similar report on how some of Gaddafi's ground forces have been chewed up by the allied strikes. May that chewing continue, please.

And we learn that one of the administrative buildings in Gaddafi's command compound was also flattened Sunday night — probably by a European-launched missile.

These seem like worthy targets to me. And the Libyan revolutionary forces are asking for even more intensified strikes.

Thank heavens they don't have to rely on the shriveled conscience of American cafe revolutionaries to have their wishes granted.

P.S. This is sort of off point, but something I feel like remarking upon. Read through the #Libya and #NFZ Twitter feeds, I am seeing a lot of hand-wringing retweets condemning the intervention that originate from @MMflint.  That's Michael Moore (remember him? The guy who portrayed Saddam's Hussein as one big kite-flying field).  Anyway, clicking over to his Twitter home page, I noticed that Moore has just about 800,000 followers — sort of the number you would expect from a man with so many admirers.  And how many people does he follow back? How many fellow Tweeps in the whole world does he think it is worth following and reading? Or, at a more base level, to how many of his fans does he believe he owes a simple click of the mouse to return a droplet of recognition, of gratitude, of acknowledgment?   200,000? 100,000? 10.000? 1,000? 100?

Nah. 68.  This has got nothing to do with Moore's political positions. But to me, it's a little detail that tells you a lot about the character of the man — or the lack thereof.

This Is Not Iraq

Michael Moore accuses Barack Obama of acting like George w. Bush.  Danlel Ellsberg gets himself arrested outside the White House. Others on the left waffle and shuffle and — in my view– abstain on the moral issue underlying the U.S. and allied attack on Gaddafi. (Though it isn't clear if Ellsberg, whom I generally respect, was protesting only the anniversary of the war in Iraq or was also opposing the action in Libya).

I have no idea what the outcome of this will be. I don't know what the endgame is, or if Obama and his allies know either.  Nor do I know what all the consequences of this action will be.

I do know this much: if every exercise of American military power took place in the context we see today, I would be much less of a general opponent of its use. Notice I said general opponent. That's different than being an automatic opponent as some apparently are.  If one believes the old Maoist claptrap that the "primary contradiction" is between "the people of the world and U.S. imperialism" then you should probably stop reading now.

The world, as it turns out, is a much more complicated place with myriad faces of evil (including Mao's heirs) and to choose up sides in a dogmatic, knee-jerk fashion is something we can ill afford.

In short, as I said weeks ago, it will give me great pleasure to see Gaddafi's planes blown from the skies, his tanks burnt to a crisp and his regime smashed to smithereens. Nor would I mind terribly much if a missile hit his compound while he donning one of robes in the shower.

Do I believe that the interventionist forces are selfless humanitarians? Hardly.

Do I think they are hypocrites for intervening in Libya while giving cover to the repressive regimes in Bahrain and Yemen (and Saudi Arabia and Jordan). You bet.

Do I think this intervention is a horrendous blunder and act of aggression as was the invasion of Iraq? NO.

Absolutely not. Double absolutely not.  Libya has been the stage for a popular uprising for the last several weeks, the same one sweeping much of North Africa and the Arab world.  The western military intervention now taking place against a clearly delusional and butcher dictator comes, effectively, in direct support of the revolutionaries facing down the regime. This action also comes with the full support of the Arab League. It comes with no opposition from any member of the UN Security Council.

Further, this action comes at a time when not only Libyans, but also tens of other millions of Arabs have invested their hopes in regional renaissance.  I am proud, I am happy that the U.S. — for once and for whatever calculation– finds itself on the side of those fighting against oppression. In some sense, then, I see this action by the Obama administration to be somewhat redemptive. After decades of supporting one Arab dictatorship after another and, precisely, after watching the Iraqi debacle of the last decade, I feel we sort of OWE the Arab world the surprise of showing up, albeit erratically, on the right side of things.

Let me also add that the success of the Gadaffi regime in smothering the rebellion in blood would be quite a destabilizing force for the very young and unsure Arab revolution which has sprouted in Tunisia and Egypt and which struggles to be born elsewhere. I feel great solidarity with the insurgents in Iraq and would aid them any way I could. If the U.S. Navy wants to pitch in, I'm good with that.

So with all of the reservation noted above, of course, I support the military action.  My greatest fear, only, is that it won't be effective enough.  But I stand with the Arab League, with the National Council in Benghazi and with the overwhelming majority of Libyans in supporting this action and hoping it will accelerate the fall of Gaddafi,  I support this action just as I would have supported a U.S. military strike in favor of the Kurds and Marsh Arab uprising that took place right after the Gulf War. I support this action the same way I would have supported the U.S. opening an air bridge before it was too late in Rwanda.

I am ready to be called a Cruise Missile Leftist or a running-dog imperialist rather than have silently watched Gaddafi carry out his threat of two nights ago to enter Benghazi, show "no mercy" and hunt down his opponents door to door.  I will leave that latter task to Hugo Chavez.

Let me also concede, in advance, that there will be civilian casualties involved. This is inevitable in any armed conflict.  I supported the Salvadoran revolutionaries in the 1980′s and I saw with my own eyes more civilian casualties than I cared to count.  There were piles of civilian casualties during the Spanish Civil War and IF only the West had militarily intervened on the right side it would have saved the Spanish from four decades of Franquismo.

But it is Gaddafi,  not the cruise missiles, that has already killed thousands and who rather blithely threatened to kill thousands more.  Want to stop the killing of civilians in Libya? So do I. The best way is to overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi.

From EFCA To FCKYA: Winning?

Photo: Natasha Vargas-Cooper

It's ok if a psychopath like Charlie Sheen yells out "winning" when he's really losing. It's not OK, if the rest of us do it.  Sorry, I have to depart from former Nation colleague John Nichols' deeply rose-tinted account of what happened in Wisconsin as some sort of victory.

I followed the Saturday rally in Madison of 100,000 or more quite closely, mostly because I was sick at home and had time to do it and also because my daughter Natasha was there writing about it.  Truly inspiring to see so many different types of folks come out into the streets to defend basic rights. This was a Heartland of America moment, for sure.

But we were not winning.  This was not, as Nichols put it, a "momentary legislative defeat."  It was, instead a jolting tectonic shift that, if not properly recovered from, could become the beginning of the end of American trade unionism as we know it.

There is absolutely NO guarantee that there is anything "momentary" about this.  If the recalls through and IF Democrats can replace some of the Republican legislators, then –yes–maybe the lost ground can be recovered. In the meantime, the anti-union forces are pushing full steam ahead in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and New Jersey among other places.

Labor has been forced to rouse itself and so have some local Democrats here and there (but not the case in D.C.) and it remains to be seen whether we have in front of us some sort of coherent movement or just some sporadic and episodic pushback.

My daughter Natasha has two perspectives to contribute to this question.  On the personal side, she writes in Slake about how earth-shaking it is when Middle American White People get mobilized as they have been in Madison. Call it what you want, but it's reality. That's the real sleeping giant in the American political process.  She will be filling this thought out in depth in the weeks to come when she publishes a long take in the same literary mag founded and now run by former friends and editors of L.A.Weekly, Laurie Ochoa and Joe Donnelly.

She also writes, rather correctly, I think in The Atlantic today that Wisconsin was a bruising battle in which everybody lost something.  It's way too early to make a final tally sheet but to declare that the unions somehow won by losing seems, well, a little off.  Likewise, there's the real possibility of snapback here against Gov. Walker and the GOP and a victory lap by their side might be equally premature.

What I do know is that this whole thing is quite depressing. Even if there is a new labor movement before us (and we don't know), it certainly is beginning on the defensive. It is acting against a reactionary agenda set by others.  And the whole thing begs the central question of whether or not one new worker has been organized into a union yet as a result of the last month of protests (not that I know of).

Remember two years ago when Obama came into office? It was supposed to be a new Golden Age of Labor.  We were going to have the Employee Free Choice Act that would have leveled out the playing field for union organization. That died without as much of a whimper.  Obama didn't lift a finger and neither did any significant number of Democrats.

Here we are almost on the cusp of the 2012 campaign and what did the unions get out of this deal — except a couple of noxious new free trade agreements and relentless assault from GOP state houses?

Now, I fear, it's time for another round of kabuki. Hundreds of thousands have been raised in the name of the Wisconsin fight. OK, but where does it go and what will it mean? A demonization of the Republican right and stepped-up GOTV efforts by unions on behalf of Democrats.  Fair enough. But it all seems like a hamster running on a cage wheel.

What is going to allow this movement to become a movement and if it does, where will it go and what will its political expression be? Elect Democrats?

.

Oil, Politics, Morals and Ideology

What turbulent times these. Revolutionary times.  From Cairo to Benghazi to Madison. ( the latter reference a blatant plug for my daughter Natasha's report for The Atlantic from the front lines in Wisconsin). I find myself exhausted from straining to consume and process all the information pouring in and quite literally around the clock.

My emotions are a jagged jumble. I am exuberant over the fight for freedom and I am chilled by the blood spilled to obtain or suppress it. I am filled with hope as revolutionary forces advance toward Tripoli and terrified that the tide may turn against them.

I am thrilled to watch Egyptians break down the doors of state security.  I am nauseated by the self-serving justifications of some progressive academics for their having done some whoring for Gaddafi.

I am not among those, not by a long shot, who believes ideology has no importance.  But count me firmly among those who are convinced that the categories we have grown accustomed to often mean very little.

Don't lie to yourselves. Admit that there have been "leftists" who have been historically soft on a fascist like Gaddafi… look no further than the case linked above regarding Benjamin Barber. Or if you prefer, take a gander at "anti-imperialist" Hugo Chavez who has allied himself with the Libyan family that skims the oil and Coca-Cola bottling profits while it machine guns its subjects.

The U.S. certainly has an imperial history in the region. Can you honestly say, however, that it would be an imperialist act to clamp down a no-fly zone on The Butcher of Tripoli?  In that scenario, who would be the Right and who would be the Left? I opposed the war in Iraq but I readily concede (and celebrate) the previous no-fly zone which led directly to the liberation of Kurdistan.  Was the freedom of the Kurds under a U.S. air umbrella in the last years of Saddam an act of the Right or the Left?

No suggestion of shrug-your-shoulders neutrality is being made here. There is a simple position to take on these matters and that position is UNEQUIVOCAL support for those fighting for freedom and NO concessions toward authoritarian and repressive governments — of any color.

A few days ago I said I was amused by Fidel Castro predicting that NATO would launch an attack on Libya in order to gain control of its oil.  Fidel, however, has no words of condemnation for those already attacking the Libyan people i.e. the government of Libya. And last time I looked — which was about ten minutes ago– the Gaddafi dictatorship was still very much in cahoots in the oil business with the imperialists of BP and a whole other host of first world corporations and governments.  Who in this scenario is the Right and the Left?

Would the U.S. intervene deeper in the Middle East for oil resources? I imagine so.  I oppose that. How many Americans support $10 a gallon gasoline and how many sacrifices are they, we, willing to make to not consume so much oil?

And while we're on the subject, what did Mr. Castro do to secure oil for Cuba? Simple answer, he early on surrendered an independent revolution and turned his country into a police state in exchange for Soviet support, including, oil. Was he "forced" to do so by American Imperialism? That seems an argument with some merit. Was the solution, however, allying yourself with a totalitarian state and importing its system of state security.

I continue to ask….six months, a year, two years from now when Cubans also over-run the Havana headquarters of  the Seguridad Del Estado and face down the tanks of the regime, who will be the Right and who will be the Left?

That, of course, is the wrong question.

The only question that matters will be, as it is tonight, who is fighting for more freedom and who is trying to suppress it?

.

Egypt: "The Army and the Police Are One Hand"

I don think this comes as a tremendous surprise but it is a sad confirmation of what one might suppose.  The Egyptian army rather brutally broke up a demo last night in Tahrir Square protesting the slow pace of post-Mubarak reform.  Indeed, the incident is the tip of an iceberg that chills the very thought of a post-Mubarak era.

The fine blog Occupied Cairo raises all the questions:

The sad events of tonight will hopefully bury that relatively misguided phrase ????? ? ????? ??? ?????, "the people and the army are one hand" and reveal that the true nature of the situation in Egypt is better described as ????? ? ?????? ??? ????? "the army and the police are one hand." A group of several hundred peaceful protestors, attempting to stay the night in Tahrir square and in front of the People's Assembly to protest continued military rule and the persistence of the old regime's illegitimate presence in government, were violently attacked and driven away by Military Police, Army officers and commandos wearing balaclavas and wielding sub-machine guns. One protestor, taken inside of the People's Assembly building by army officers and beaten, was told bluntly "don't fuck with the army."

Read the rest here.

Fight To The Finish

You sort of need a program to know who all the revolutionary players are every day.  Just as Gaddafi hangs by a thread, we have an outbreak of protest in Iraq — you know, that hotbed of democracy.  Click the graphic or click here for an interactive guide detailing the Middle Eastern revolt country by country.

I remain the most fascinated by the revolt in Libya.  One just has to hope that Gaddafi doesn't take a few thousand innocents with him as he sinks into the muck.

Of course, the real lesson of these last several weeks how nothing is predictable and how official policies, be they in Washington, Paris, Rome or Cairo often have so little to do with reality.

We spent the last decade wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives in imposing, by outside force, two farcical "revolutions" on Iraq and Afghanistan.  Imagine, please, if we had instead invested an enth of those financial resources in backing the democratic forces that –today– with sheer will, courage and mostly bare hands, are overturning more authoritarian Arab regimes than the delusional neocons could have ever dream of.

The reaction of the West, and the U.S. in specific, has been less than stellar.  I am thankful, however, that it is Obama and not a Bush or, God Forbid, a McCain who is sitting in the White House as this drama unfolds.

No, this does not redeem a half century of American backing of these same hateful regimes.  But at a minimum, we see no rush to defend them either. The real test, for sure, will come if and when Saudi Arabia blows apart.  Don't know how the White House will react.  I do know much of the media will treat such a cataclysmic event as more or less a story about gas prices!

In the meantime, I can wake up every morning with the expectation of reading the headline that Gaddafi has been overthrown and captured. Maybe tomorrow morning?

Gaddafi: With Friends Like These!

Here I am apologizing again. Every time I promise to start blogging again, some Arab nation or another blows apart and sucks me back into work. I've been putting in about a 1000 hours a week over at our USC-based Neon Tommy web site and I invite you to take a peek as we have been all over the Libya story (and everything else).

I've been fascinated by the Libya story as I had the great displeasure of spending some very brief time in Colonel Gaddafi's little paradise back in 1973 and I have been waiting a long time to see him get strung upside down from a lamp post.  It's been great, once again, to have Al Jazeera's live stream and live blog to stay abreast and I'm sure there's little I can add to bring much light to this dark subject.

I am obligated, however, to note the wonderful little ironies that have popped up in the sub-culture of The Left, a demi-monde in which I spent a great part of my life.  The Atlantic notes that the blood-soaked dictator is getting virtually NO international support except from a few would-be and has-been dictators down in Latin America.

Hugo Chavez, a Gaddafi butt-buddy who has had five personal encounters with the Libyan leader expressed his solidarity by saying ""Qaddafi is to Libya as [Simon] Bolívar is to us."  Why, of course!  You all remember that passage in your history books where Bolivar flew warplanes against his own people and sent out machete-wielding thugs to slice up civilians, don't you?

Then there's the senile and now rather pathetic Fidel Castro who, while hemming and hawing a tad about waiting to finally judge the Butcher of Tripoli, nevertheless says: "For me it is absolutely evident that the United States is not worried about peace in Libya, and will not hesitate to give NATO the order to invade this rich country maybe in a matter of hours or very few days."  Really? if only. If only NATO or the U.S. or the E.U. had the moral courage to clamp down the same sort of no-fly zone that it did on Iraq 20 years ago and blow any of Gadaffi's planes and choppers to smithereens before they mowed down any more protesters. I wish. And the Libyans should only be so lucky. Truth is, the Yankee Imperialists and the Decadent Europeans don't give two shits about Libyans and really don't care how many get massacred in finally overthrowing a regime the West couldn't for 40 years.

Then there's the absolutely  execrable Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. The once heroic leader of the scrappy Sandinistas now turned into a corrupt, petty tyrant who claims to be a Marxist but imposes punishing economic austerity while banning all abortions.  The L.A. Times reports:

Ortega said this week that he had spoken to Kadafi by telephone to give words of encouragement and sympathy. "I told [him] that in difficult moments, loyalty is put to the test," Ortega said. He said Kadafi was trying to "defend the unity of his nation."

There is, quite obviously, no excuse for this sort of embracing of a blood-soaked delusional like Gaddfi who has not only imposed one-man rule, but whose family has literally sacked Libya. While Pop talks about revolution, he and his degenerate children have had their fingers in every state enterprise possible, conduct family feuds over who will run the Coca-Cola franchise, buy fleets of Ferraris, and fork out a million bucks to have hoo-ah Maria Carey perform four songs for a private party. Some revolutionary!

Ahh, Marc, why waste one's time noting such horrors?

It IS a waste of time! Totally. Completely. Absolutely. But it is a handy reminder of why the now-old New Left, the Third-Worldist "anti-imperialist" movement coming out of the Sixties has become an historic and rather embarrassing relic. When its heroes of yore — Fidel– and its idols of today — Chavez — soak themselves in the same bloody rags as a monster like Gaddai, there is, simply, no redemption.

I have been saying this since the early 90′s and I will repeat it again: When the Castro regime goes down, it will go down much like Egypt or, worse, like Libya. When the tanks roll out in the streets and start firing, which side will you be on?

Paging Oliver Stone. Paging Ramsey Clark,

P.S. Here's a nice video of the Gaddafi children leading the masses in revolution!

Bastard Boehner

So, Speaker Boehner affirms that it is NOT his job to tell people what to think — including thinking that President Obama is lying about where he was born.c

That's goood. I support Speaker Boehner because this is what I think:

I think John Boehner is a cynical, transparently hypocritical, unpatriotic, un-American, lying, stinking, repuslive douche-bag bag man for the tobacco lobby with a mid to low level of intelligence and zero integrity.

He's also a stain on American politics and culture.

Fall Of The Dinosaurs

Friday 1o:oo pm

I've been up almost all night and this is the first chance I have gotten to write a few words about the fall of Mubarak.  Let me begin by noting what an utterly repulsive and disgusting creature he is, in every sense. And my only hope is that he doesn't make it out of Egypt to live out his last years with billions of loot and a case of Grecian Formula.

Not sure what the victorious protest movement can or will want to do in the coming days, but this guy and his cronies deserve to be tried and allowed to die in one of the many dungeons they have maintained as horror chambers for the last three decades.

You needn't be a rocket scientist to figure out all the challenges ahead for Egypt. But you have no heart and no soul if you do not deeply rejoice in watching what we've seen over the last 18 days. The absolute decency and humanity of the Egyptian people are quite moving for me. Their ability to resist 30 years of oppression and then to respond and react with the maturity, dignity and mutual aid that we have seen can only be characterized as the purest expression of our better angels.  I found the whole thing to be quite restorative and I salute those who stared down one of the most corrupt and brutal regimes in the world.

I also want to note, in passing, that while he was late and unsure in coming to the game, Barack Obama fully acquitted himself today with his own display of dignity and compassion when he recognized the valor of the Egyptian people. I am not proud of the history (nor am I particularly optimistic about the future) of our relations with Egypt, but for a few minutes today I was delighted to hear an American president speak the way he did about a Third World revolution. Bravo.

The larger political implications here are, however, rather sobering.  The garish display of just what a loathsome, reptilian gargoyle Mubarak is repelled the entire decent world (except for jagoff demagogues like Beck and Limbaugh who openly aligned themselves with a fascist dictator).  Problem is, this gargoyle is the guy we have banking on (quite literally) to keep the peace for us in the Middle East.

Last time I checked, the Bush administration plunged us into a hellhole of a useless war in Iraq in order to bring democracy to the region. And now we see that the birth of however imperfect democracies in that region occur in spite of our policy, not because of it. While the U.S. has spent billions and billions in the name of democracy to bankroll the likes of Mubarak and the Saudi royal family, and the gangsters who rule the Gulf, Yemen and who used to sit atop Tunisia, it was precisely the pro-democracy Arab activists who languished in the jails financed by our tax dollars.  Isn't that rather precious?

Even now, in the wake of the Egyptian Revolution, we hear the same  worried chatter about the specter of the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Cairo. Not gonna happen. But if it did? Do any of these hand-wringers have ANY idea what the Brotherhood really is? Or are these basically the same people who believe, or more likely want others to believe, that Barack Obama is a Muslim — as if that would matter.  The Brotherhood is no friend of mine. The Brotherhood, more to the point, is also infinitely more moderate a force than the pro-Iranian sectarians now ruling Iraq, the Islamic cult for which our children are sent to defend with their lives.

Just how low of an IQ must one possess to not immediately understand that regimes like that of Mubarak's — a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S.— are the most effective incubators of Islamic radicalism?  Is it an accident that Egypt has, indeed, provided much of the intellectual leadership of the Islamic fringe? Might that have anything to do with having outlawed free expression for the last 20 or 30 years?

My sincere hope is to awake tomorrow, or next week, or ten days from now to see tens of thousands besieging the palaces in Amman, Jedda, Sanna, Damascus and Tripoli and with their passion and probably with too much blood bring about the sort of change that gangsters like Bush and Cheney not only were never sincere about but whom, with all of their efforts, have always opposed.

Props to USC journalism student and Neontommy.com graphic artist Ebony Bailey for the outta sight infographic!

Courtesy of Al Jazeera here is the footage from Tahrir Square the moment news broke of Mubarak's fall.

Yes We Can