(no subject)
I respect Hitchens' intelligence and generally find his opinions wise and well-considered. But he is completely on the wrong side of history here. Libya's in a civil war. Civil wars are messy and tragic and many people will die. But its situation needs to resolve itself. Yes, Daffy Qaddafi is a nutcase and a dee-bag and a terrorist against his "own" people.
Three reasons, apart from the ones to which Hitch paid lip service, that we (i.e. the American government) shouldn't get involved in Libya.
(1) How do we know the rebels would create a friendlier government.... that is, friendlier both to the "West" and to their own citizens? And wasn't Soviet-era Afghanistan a lesson? Give weapons to allies of convenience, and watch them use said weapons to attack you 20 years later. Just because Qaddafi's "bad" doesn't automatically imply the alternative will be better. And where's your evidence, Christopher, that it would be?
(2) Why is the Arab World such a mess these days? Foreign intervention. The haphazard creation of borders by Ottoman Turkey, then by France and Britain, where none historically existed (see also: sub-Saharan Africa.) The last time the Arab World was fully self-sufficient? The so-called Islamic Golden Age, i.e., the era Muslims always reference to demonstrate how progressive and intelligent and high-functioning they can be, given the right circumstances. Yes, it is noble in theory to want to assist the development of democracy in the Middle East. Sadly, there is much violence left to be witnessed in the Arabs' near future. But by intervening, we'd only delay the Arabs taking full control over their own affairs. Or how about this: Why is US democracy so effective? Because we developed it by ourselves and on our own terms. We need to give other countries the same respect.
(3) A knife in the heart of neocons here and everywhere (and Hitch does have neocon tendencies): American prosperity and national security would be better served by MINDING OUR OWN BEESWAX. And using our defense budget (which could be way, way, smaller, with funds reinvested in more positive and/or productive initiatives) to simply secure our borders and prevent attacks. (Attacks which, by the way, would decrease in number and severity if we were to stop meddling in everyone else's affairs and fostering in them the desire to attack us.) Getting our forces involved in a THIRD Muslim country (Libya) would siphon MORE of our tax dollars into the military-industrial complex, all while making more accidental enemies from which we'd need to protect ourselves. Roman Empire, folks.
http://www.slate.com/id/2288214/
Three reasons, apart from the ones to which Hitch paid lip service, that we (i.e. the American government) shouldn't get involved in Libya.
(1) How do we know the rebels would create a friendlier government.... that is, friendlier both to the "West" and to their own citizens? And wasn't Soviet-era Afghanistan a lesson? Give weapons to allies of convenience, and watch them use said weapons to attack you 20 years later. Just because Qaddafi's "bad" doesn't automatically imply the alternative will be better. And where's your evidence, Christopher, that it would be?
(2) Why is the Arab World such a mess these days? Foreign intervention. The haphazard creation of borders by Ottoman Turkey, then by France and Britain, where none historically existed (see also: sub-Saharan Africa.) The last time the Arab World was fully self-sufficient? The so-called Islamic Golden Age, i.e., the era Muslims always reference to demonstrate how progressive and intelligent and high-functioning they can be, given the right circumstances. Yes, it is noble in theory to want to assist the development of democracy in the Middle East. Sadly, there is much violence left to be witnessed in the Arabs' near future. But by intervening, we'd only delay the Arabs taking full control over their own affairs. Or how about this: Why is US democracy so effective? Because we developed it by ourselves and on our own terms. We need to give other countries the same respect.
(3) A knife in the heart of neocons here and everywhere (and Hitch does have neocon tendencies): American prosperity and national security would be better served by MINDING OUR OWN BEESWAX. And using our defense budget (which could be way, way, smaller, with funds reinvested in more positive and/or productive initiatives) to simply secure our borders and prevent attacks. (Attacks which, by the way, would decrease in number and severity if we were to stop meddling in everyone else's affairs and fostering in them the desire to attack us.) Getting our forces involved in a THIRD Muslim country (Libya) would siphon MORE of our tax dollars into the military-industrial complex, all while making more accidental enemies from which we'd need to protect ourselves. Roman Empire, folks.
http://www.slate.com/id/2288214/