From Tahrir to Taksim: West Reserves Right to Interfere

[polly7]

Saturday, June 29, 2013

By Ramzy Baroud

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Intellectual opportunism however is not a distinct phenomenon, but a reflection of a wider western conception of political opportunism. Once the ‘Arab Spring’ was recognized as an opportunity of sorts, the US, Britain and France were quick to capitalize on it, either to politically reshape the Middle East region or to ensure that the outcome of the revolutionary fervor was to their liking.

While Arab dictators brutalized mostly peaceful protesters, wars, in the full sense of the word, didn’t actualize until the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries began meddling. In Libya, they guided an uprising with a limited armed component to a full-fledged war that resulted in the death, wounding and disappearance of thousands. The war in Libya had changed the very demographic landscape of parts of the country. Entire communities have been ethnically cleansed. Benghazi, whose fate British Prime Minister David Cameron seemed particularly worried about, is now savaged by numerous militias vying for influence. Following recent clashes in the city, the interim head of the Libyan army, Salem Konidi, warned on state Television on June 15, of a ‘bloodbath’. But this time, such a warning barely registered on NATO’s radar.

While selective ‘humanitarian interventions’ is a well-known western political style, the recent protests in Turkey demonstrate that western countries’ appetite to exploit any country’s misfortunes to its advantage is insatiable. The Turkish government however has itself to blame for providing such an opportunity in the first place.

Full Article: http://www.zcommunications.org/from-tahrir-to-taksim-west-reserves-right-to-interfere-by-ramzy-baroud

[cheapdate]

1. Gadhaffi's army was moving toward Benghazi

with the intent to destroy the rebel city and everyone in it. The bulk of Gadhaffi's army was about a day away from the city when the United States and NATO destroyed his army on the highway outside of Benghazi.

I favor less US military involvement in the Middle East and North Africa, not more. In that sense, I'm somewhat in agreement with the author of the piece, Ramzy Baroud. But, I don't agree with many of the author's speculative assertions, for instance, his assertion that the revolt in Libya was merely "an uprising with a limited armed component" until "North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries began meddling."

That's not how I remember the situation. A number of top Libyan military commanders defected from Gadhaffi and had formed a substantial fighting force that captured Benghazi and other Libyan cities -- all on their own, without NATO or the United States.

In my opinion, unbalanced, one-sided articles, which give all credit for events in these countries to the Western powers, unfairly dismiss the role that the people themselves play in their own affairs.

The United States and NATO didn't create the entire set of tensions that led to the revolt in Libya and elsewhere. The religious, political, ethnic, and class tensions in these countries are not entirely of our making, and the extent to which some of these tensions are in some measure attributable to the West is overstated, IMHO.