Libya And A Craven West

From the desk of William Holland on Mon, 2011-03-14 03:00

The revolt from Islamic autocracy throughout North Africa and the Middle East have put Western cognoscenti at a dear disadvantage.  For decades, Western intelligentsia have treated the region and its peoples to the soft bigotry of low expectations embodied in belief that stability was superior to liberal democracy.  

We are now witnessing an Arab secular revolt unhinged from the geopolitical moorings of any Western agenda.  Our anemic response embodies a betrayal worthy of Julien Benda!  Western liberals cannot bring themselves to defend the very liberty that informed the cry that has now consumed so much Islamic soil.  

Our hesitation to embrace and shape such a revolution reveals a stark lack of political acumen bordering moral duplicity.  For the youth that engendered such a revolution have weighed both the ideological fervor of militant Pan-Arabism and the promise that is liberty.  They have chosen freedom and continue to brave lead in the hope that the West will choose to honor a commitment grounded in human nature itself.  

It’s really this simple, do we honor Jefferson or Machiavelli?  

The navel gazing that consumes NATO and most of the West has a stark cost, for Libya has all the markings of becoming a vengeful Somalia.  Every day that passes without political resolve from the West to foster freedom throughout the land of Arabia will tarnish our own heritage abroad.  The realists understand that the arena of international affairs is a stark meddling of uncompromising virtue with vice.  The current uprisings are no different.  Muslims know better than anyone that this opportunity to shape and discern the very foundation of their governance will not arrive again with passing.  

The democratic aspirations of millions have already spoken.  Can the Western liberal conscience find reason to assist and support a nascent drive to freedom?  Waiting for an Islamic Solzhenitsyn, Havel or Walesa bespeaks a cynicism unworthy of our own heritage.  

Let’s Roll!

- It would only "help"

Submitted by Spyridon29 on Fri, 2011-03-18 08:33.

- It would only "help" Kaddafi and all traditional Arab Governments any intervention by any external Powers, especially NATO or USA.

- What we call "revolutions", in Arab countries are actually Upheavals of the local societies and have unclear ideological basis.

- Being restricted by their own religion, they are unsure of the changes they want !

- Let's consider their DATE, year 1400 about, and make a parallel with Christian Era.  

 

Come on....

Submitted by Matthew Roberts on Fri, 2011-03-18 05:14.

What is wrong with realism?

 

In his Politics, Aristotle noted that different population groups are better suited for different forms of government (monarchy, oligarchy or democracy).  

 

Isn't it Jacobin to insist that EVERYONE must be a democracy?

 

And what is so great about democracy?  McDonalds and WalMart?

 

Any why should Western governments interfere in a civil war in Libya?  How is it in our interest?   

Kappert Wades Ashore

Submitted by Capodistrias on Mon, 2011-03-14 13:55.

Kappert welcome to the mainland! I knew you had at least one thoroughly rational post in you, you've shown too good a sense of humor and tenacity, no matter how wrong, over the years.

Your comment is remarkably succinct and to the point.

@MPresley

Precisely, a very disturbing article. Especially, in light of the author's background. From this Catholic's perspective, it has been bad enough hav ing to deal with the Marxist and neo-Marxist drivel over the years now we have have to deal with a gorgon's head of confused and wild neo-isms from the right. "The Gorgon Sisters now playing everywhere on the international stage."

jester's roll

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2011-03-14 12:33.

Who is speaking of 'liberty' in Libya? From the first day of the revolt, unlike Tunisia and Egypt, it was a military coup starting in the East and targeting the capital Tripolis. The government's reaction was the elimination of ammunition depots – since then the revolt is in a stalemate and has no support from the civil society, very different compared to Tunisia and Egypt. Some French jester 'recognized' the rebels without knowing who and what they are, Wolfowitz wants to arm them (he wants to arm everybody), and Mustafa Abd-al-Jalil (the one rebel leader saying that Ghadafi will kill millions of people) is a potential messenger for Wahhabi tyranny who can foil the democratization of Libya. So I wonder where the author wants 'to roll'?

We?

Submitted by mpresley on Mon, 2011-03-14 16:36.

Just exactly who are the "we" that are supposed to roll?  And what, exactly, are the "democratic aspirations" of the Muslims?  This sort of neo-conservative or Wilsonian liberal thinking is what must be abandoned, as we recognize that naive "we are the world" thinking is gnostic in theory, and impossible to attain in practice.

Ambiguous Title

Submitted by Capodistrias on Mon, 2011-03-14 04:28.

I thought for sure when I saw the title the article would be about Sarkozy.

Let's Roll? How insulting to their memory.