An Open Letter to Juan Cole [New]
Today Juan Cole has written An Open Letter to the Left on Libya. In it, he urges …the Left to learn to chew gum and walk at the same time, meaning that it should support the UN Security Council/NATO/US bombing enterprise in Libya. (Among all these august agencies, it’s hard to know which is wearing the fig leaf here — and which isn’t — but I suppose that rounding up all the usual suspects stands a decent chance of including the real actors in this latest morality play put on for us by the rulers of Oceania.)
Since my views make me more or less part of the Left, albeit not what you’d call a very prominent part, I feel duty-bound to respond:
When I read of the The Responsibility to Protect, I’m reminded of the motto of the old Strategic Air Command: Peace Is Our Profession. There’s a sense in which that motto was perfectly true, and another sense in which it represented a ghastly moral inversion—Thanatos dressed up as Eros, complete with rouged cheeks and false eyelashes.
I remember too that the Pentagon found Dr. Strangelove insulting. Perhaps it was, but it was also a cry of desperation, which, now I come to think of it, had less to do with H-bombs per se than it did with the men who built and deployed them with such perfectly clear consciences.
I first wrote that elsewhere, for another audience, but it will do very nicely for Juan Cole today, or, for that matter, for anyone overcome by such well-meaning delusions of grandeur tomorrow.
Cross-posted from Canecittà
What Do You Think?
23 Responses to 'An Open Letter to Juan Cole'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
David [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 8:33 am
Cole offers one of the most nuanced defenses of intervention I’ve seen. I could do without the trope of “the left” since we seem to be quite divided and there is lots of nonsense being proffered by those who support the intervention uncritically as well. More to the point, I find the emphasis of most of the discussion on whether the intervention itself was warranted to be odd. It’s happening, it’s going to continue to, so the discussion is largely moot. (Discussion of the continuing potential risks is not, but that seems to devolve quickly into the question of the rightness of the intervention itself. Discussion of when such things are justified is also not moot, but it often i is really just people justifying their positions on the present intervention.)
What is still missing is much attention to any of the other tools we have to prevent (or not contribute in the first place) to such crises. That question is less relevant to whether this particular intervention is justified, but that is why we need to change, or at least expand, the conversation. The hypocrisy charge, as he puts it, is in part about this – why are avoiding using the power we have to advance human rights when that power does not involve mass arial bombing or invasion? If you only focus on the merits of this case, such selectivity may be justified (although I still think Cole gives it short shrift). But if you instead ask how can we advance the cause we proclaim then it is entirely relevant.
We’l be told there is nothing that can be done – our only tool is the blow things up (or more likely, it will be assumed). But that is false, as the NYT makes clear in this story on the US, Jordan and Syria:
Or, it should be noted, Yemen, or Bahrain or Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and on and on, all of whom, by contrast we have leverage we are not presently using to advance democracy or human rights.
Well Liked:
5 
0
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 8:43 am
All well and good, but the problem is this, as I see it: If you’re going to police the world, you have to have the right to govern the world. Does the UN, as presently constituted, have that right? Could we confer that right on any agency which stands the slightest chance of being created in the foreseeable future?
There’s this obstacle we call the consent of the governed, which we all claim to believe in, but which none of us can manage to measure without laboriously conceived and executed appurtenances like ratified constitutions, etc.
Shall we just ignore all that and press forward? Some people, like Juan Cole, seem to think that we should. We’ll get to justice eventually, if we just keep gnawing away, seems to be the thrust of their thinking. I don’t doubt their good intentions, but frankly, I think that they’re wrong. Bombs are blunt instruments, not to mention the politics of those who wind up having all the bombs, which are blunter still.
Well Liked:
5 
0
David [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 9:00 am
I have doubts that NATO is authorized to engage in such action, I know that the US Constitution denies the president this authority, and I’m fairly certain the War Powers Act is being violated too (and positive it does not in fact authorize it, as some have suggested). And these things matter, and caring about them does not make one pro-dictator or anti-human rights. (This is even more true when you are critical of American support for other human rights violating dictators or autocrats). In fact, I’ve been harping on this theme, much to the frustration of those who think the only issue is how bad the regime is we are targeting.
I’m also disposed to think that we vastly overstate the utility of force (and therefore understate the utility of just about everything else).
But I’ve found when your discussing the utility of force, I want to talk about the ways a punitive Treaty of Versailles, for example, helped create the conditions that led to WWII while others wish to talk about what you do once Hitler invaded Poland. That framing obscures a great deal, which I’d like to reveal.
To invade or not invade cannot be the only question. It is, to borrow your word, too blunt.
Well Liked:
6 
0
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 9:03 am
Precisely.
pieceofcake [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 10:20 am
Or, it should be noted, Yemen, Bahrain or Jordan or Saudi Arabia, should not be ‘contrasted’ or compared to Libya or even more impossible to Egypt or to Tunesia.
I haven’t been to Libya or to Yemen yet but I can tell you each of the other countries you named are as comparable as Texas to New York. And as an American you probably would not accept to throw them into the same pot?
So please: The worst part of this discussion always has been: ‘But we don’t support democracy in these other countries’ and thus comparing a butcher like ‘the colonel’ to ‘dictators’ like Mubarak.
SpitBall [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 8:02 pm
They are comparable in at least one way, PoC. Each is engaged in a public upraising and all are those revolts are linked to each other.
So Please: the worst part of the discussion is when folks try to divide humans one from the other.Each of these places has different leaders and different cultures (some interpenetrate, too). All share humanity with us, do they not?
pieceofcake [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 9:56 am
When I read Coles Letter and all the responses I thought: Perhaps we could have done that a few days ago?
Discuss it in that manner.
And I would have learned a lot.
But somehow we didn’t or we couldn’t?
jlars [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 10:58 am
This, to me, is reminiscent of discussing the immigration issue by whether to build a fence or not. There are root causes that ARE important (in the case of Libya the conditions surrounding the specific country we choose to “intervene,” constitutionality of the way in which we use military force, etc.) and these causes DO and SHOULD influence the conversation even after the military intervention has begun. Because it’s almost always the case that a temporary military intervention with a short term goal becomes a permanent fixture of our MIC (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq I and II, Philippines…). So in the case of Libya we have to consider the wider context and in the future we have to make sure the narrative begins with some of the less blunt tools available.
Emocrat [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 11:12 am
How very well said. It’s been rather disappointing to read Cole’s rationalizations for interventionism in this case. He just doesn’t seem to realize just how badly he’s being played by interests who oppose everything he really believes in. When he sees the New Bosses, he’ll dependably offer up a mea culpa, but until then…..
I’m working on a post about this very topic. Not the larger debate about the utility of force, but rather the specifics as to why the US and EU have such a melodramatic attachment to regime change in this instance. Put simply, they’re not supporting revolution, they’re supporting a coup. The MENA Counter-Revolution is going “hot” in Libya.
Cole will become embarrassed by all this at some point. But at least he’s a decent sort and will admit he was wrong when the time comes.
Well Liked:
5 
0
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 11:55 am
Emo, if you haven’t seen them, check out the Crooked Timber threads on the two Conor Foley posts. (Sorry for the generic link, but I’m trying to avoid moderation.)
We all had quite a donnybrook going, and it might help save you some time to tick off the points made there in your own diary.
Emocrat [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Well, that is a bit of a confusing jumble, isn’t it? Right now though, I’m more interested in the “order of battle,” as it were, rather than philosophical/legalistic/political interpretations of these interventions. Although there was one distinction made which should be more clarifying: “military intervention” vs “humanitarian intervention.”
This particular instance is clearly a military intervention, as I think it will become clear this is really more about business than those poor innocent civilians. I think folks like Cole are willing to simply ignore all that, even though it bodes ill for any notion of positive change after the guns fall silent.
pieceofcake [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 2:49 pm
sorry – but from the ‘business’ side the intervention always made the least sense. As not only Cole has recognized: “Dictators are pretty reliable to do ‘business’ with’. ‘It’s the messy democracies which give the businessoriented types a lot of trouble.
SpitBall [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Come on, a “good” business plan will take regime change into account. Everyone buys their guns from the same stores and construction is a big business for dictators, rich as sin kings, and emerging democracies.
Bad economy is a matter of perspective. The corporations that profit from war-making (and rebuilding) play nations off of each other. For them, its Boom Time (literally, and on two levels at once!).
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 3:29 pm
What intrigued me about those threads was that Conor Foley appears to be slightly more than the disinterested observer that he portrays himself to be. If what he claims to do for a living is anything to go by, it would appear that the tireless civil servants of the UN and the NGOs, who aren’t among the power-brokers themselves, nevertheless think of these situations as just another opportunity to defend a Platonic ideal of the good.
No matter how many times they visit the smoking rubble, and comfort the wounded and afflicted, they never, ever see themselves as someone who could be on the ground looking up at the bombers. They always see themselves as agents of order, never as victims of chaos.
If you were as uncharitable as I am, you might say that they’re the perfect foils. They cling to whoever has the power to do anything like doctrinal pilot fish. It doesn’t matter that their advice is ignored; it only matters that they’re the ones giving it.
Emocrat [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 3:45 pm
They cling to whoever has the power to do anything like doctrinal pilot fish.
I have to agree. Of course, it depends on the specific people/NGOs/departments and so, but yes, since they’re mostly ignored or insulted by those in real power, this is like a day in the sun for them, isn’t it?
But the more I drill into the arguments being hoisted on the public, the more dishonest they seem to be. Somehow, the various conflicts of interest, coupled with seeming doctrinal incoherence, are all variously ignored or played down within the “debate.”
So we’re increasingly stuck with threads like those, where well educated people get hung up on definitions to the point where everyone is just talking past each other. Of course, this is precisely why Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs prefer the doctrine of “strategic ambiguity.” It short-circuits any real attempt to get at the facts of the matter.
I’m having to totally reorganize my own post. I’m just going to start with Revolution vs. Counter-Revolution, put in key people and where they fit in that continuum. Things seem a bit clearer that way and these Libyan opposition people aren’t pro-democratic activists. They’re die-hard Neo-Liberals, for the most part.
jlars [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Something in what you said about “arguments being hoisted on the public,” got me thinking about the real possibility that “those in real power,” might have more than one motive for doing what they’re doing. Obama may be intervening because he thinks it is the right thing to do, AND he realizes it will be easy to sell to the MIC and other corporate interests, AND he once again wants to appeal to the conservatives out there that will STILL never vote for him, etc.
There is another way to look at what is happening in Libya which is one that takes into account only what has happened and less of why it has happened. There is a dictator killing his own civilians. The US is dropping bombs on his military. Fewer civilians are being killed(???).
Viewed in that context the immediate WHY is less important than the immediate RESULT — fewer people are being killed (or are they?). So in this regard IF the actions are causing an overall decrease in death and suffering of the Libyan people, than they have been good thus far. I don’t know if we can reliably say that our bombs have “saved lives” yet because we don’t know what will happen regarding our continued presence there and the outcome of the Libyan revolutionaries efforts (and of course “suffering” is a tricky word to define).
I bring this all up because I think the utility of any discussion needs to account for the possibility that despite evil, pro-empire motivations “those in real power,” are still capable of doing good if only by accident.
Please don’t take this for a justification of what happens in the future or an apology for what has already passed. The WHY’S make a WORLD of difference, but they are much more difficult to determine.
We should focus our energy and attention toward making clear to MSM/Congress/anyone who will listen that the US must not deploy troops or intervene beyond preventing genocide and now that we’ve bombed Libya to smithereens its time to focus money and effort toward humanitarian aid. Lastly, and most importantly, the US must end the intervention as soon as possible.
PS – What would/does George Lakoff think of the framing term “intervention,” anyway? I suppose you’d have to know whether he views this as morally right or not.
Emocrat [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Interesting comment. Yes, I think you’re more than correct in asserting there are many reasons for justifying this particular action.
Obama may be intervening because he thinks it is the right thing to do, AND he realizes it will be easy to sell to the MIC and other corporate interests, AND he once again wants to appeal to the conservatives out there that will STILL never vote for him, etc.
I don’t doubt you’re also correct here. Of course, all that really shows, as some sort of logical “proof,” is that this is an administration that isn’t really grounded in any real sense. It’s all just politics, if that’s the way they really think. Morality, the National Interest… whatever… that’s all just background noise for them, not matters of State worth seriously pondering.
Not a good way to approach matters of War & Peace, methinks. Pretty fucking stupid and petty, actually. Not to mention wholly destructive over the longer-term….
The thought occurs that maybe when bombs are falling and thousands of people are being showered in white hot shrapnel…. well, maybe rationalizing seems absurdly petty.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting you think this way. Nor do I think you’re advocating that kind of thought. I’m sure Lakoff will sound off on that level at some point. Hopefully he’ll have something useful to say.
We should focus our energy and attention toward making clear to MSM/Congress/anyone who will listen that the US must not deploy troops or intervene beyond preventing genocide and now that we’ve bombed Libya to smithereens its time to focus money and effort toward humanitarian aid. Lastly, and most importantly, the US must end the intervention as soon as possible.
This is eminently sensible, of course. But if you follow the arc of logic surrounding it, you’ll also see how it feeds the Monster Of Intervention as well. I would hope you can see the fact that blowing shit up per the Pottery Barn Rule just isn’t good enough. We’ve been pulling this crap for decades now.
There’s nothing even remotely humanitarian in the way “we” do things. There’s never any followup. There’s never any real “rebuilding” or “humanitarian” aid. It’s really just about blowing shit up.
It’s time to get real about all this.
jlars [New]
Monday, 28 Mar, 2011 at 6:55 am
Fair points all around, and you can see in my earlier comment on this post that I absolutely agree about the larger context being disregarded time after time. We can never forget that Iraq never had WMDs, that the Gulf of Tonkin was bogus, as was the USS Maine and that our presence in Libya is about corporate hegemony.
My only point is that we have to acknowledge the possibility that in this specific case, shutting down Qaddafi’s military may have had an overall positive effect (and that it’s up to us to make sure the US doesn’t go any farther than it already has).
We know from that same history of Iraq, Vietnam, etc. etc. etc. that what has happened this week isn’t the whole story. And while we can’t go back and un-drop those bombs, we can certainly fight like hell to make sure we don’t let ourselves sink into the Libyan quagmire like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That’s a discussion I’d like to see: how do WE HERE set about to ending Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya as quickly as possible?
Emocrat [New]
Monday, 28 Mar, 2011 at 9:17 am
Good question. At this point, public opinion is against all these wars, although they probably do support the rebels in Libya–it’s a part of our revolutionary heritage after all. I tend to think that’s why Obama, Inc. has tried to make it look like we’re “just helping out.”
I still tend to think public opinion about all these wars will become genuinely bitter once the austerians do their magic (er, sabotage) on the economy.
pieceofcake [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 11:29 am
If you work on a post on this topic and you are serious about including the specific as to why the EU has such – what you call ‘melodramic attachement’ try to forget ‘politics’ for a second and think about Frau Merkel. She decided not to vote for the UN-resolution because she knew ‘politically’ her German voters are against military interventions.
She just forgot that in certain cases feelings ‘trump’ everything!
pieceofcake [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 1:59 pm
and it is like the reaction to Coles letter – I wrote my letter to the Left about Libya in a different way – because I couldn’t stand the idea that some ‘conservatives’ could pretend that all their lies about waging war suddenly had this true ‘humanitarian’ ring to it and they were on higher moral ground while I was one of these unempathetic monsters who stuck to my ‘nonintervention’ dogma.
But at least I understand and accept Mr.Coles stand and I don’t think he ever will have reason to be embarrassed about it – while I’m not so sure about my own ‘principles’ in this case.
SpitBall [New]
Sunday, 27 Mar, 2011 at 8:13 pm
You’re kidding, right?
pieceofcake [New]
Monday, 28 Mar, 2011 at 3:14 am
Not really.
As I confessed before, emotionally I’m all on the side of the ‘rebels’ and thus glad for any help they got. It’s only my rational anthropological approach which opts for non intervention especially if there is some danger that a conflict might develop into ‘tribal wars’. A careful anthropologist doesn’t want to get caught up in one of these. But I’m not proud about the retreat into the role of a mere observer, who likes to play it safe. You couldn’t call that ‘humanitarian’ either. Rather the downside of an anthropological approach.