Why Progressives Should Cautiously Support The Libyan No-Fly Zone

Should progressives and leftists really support military strikes by the most powerful forces in the world against yet another Muslim country? I think this position stinks, but it stinks much less than the alternative.

The alternative is that we continue to use words and money to support the rebels and undermine Gaddafi. Maybe in the long term that would help the Libyans overthrow Gaddafi and begin a democratic transition. But in the short term it would mean Gaddafi crushes this uprising with air, land, and sea power. It would mean a siege and heavy bombardment of the second largest city in Libya. It would mean mass executions in the cities that supported the revolution (which is most of them). Are we willing to watch all that happen so that we can take a principled stand for pacifism or non-intervention? Not me.

American progressives have cheered on the protests and uprisings in the Middle East since they began in Tunisia in January. We have rallied in solidarity. We have linked our own struggles for justice to those in the Middle East. We have pressured our government to ditch its puppet dictators in the region and side with the people. We have encouraged these uprisings in many ways. In Libya the uprising has been met with brutal and overwhelming military force by a dictator who is allied with Western governments and oil companies. We cannot now just look the other way while the dictator crushes the uprising and slaughters its people.

We must support a no-fly zone and the air strikes that go with it. Our attention now should shift toward preventing "mission creep" and unnecessary escalation. We can't allow the US government or anybody else to turn this into a war for foreign domination of Libya. For some in the West, it is probably already about extending their own power. A number of peace activists and intellectuals are already making the case that the US rarely if ever intervenes militarily in foreign countries for purely humanitarian reasons. Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies argues that the US government is more interested in being favorably positioned in the region and with a new Libyan government than in preventing atrocities. Yes, that's true. All of the usual arguments from the left against war and intervention are true. But they are not reasons to oppose a no-fly zone in Libya. They are reasons why the international left must keep up the pressure on governments once the no-fly zone and air strikes begin.

How We Got Here...

Over the last week there's been a dramatic shift in the international community's position on the fighting in Libya. At first, France and Britain were the only countries making much noise in support of a no-fly zone over Libya. The US was dragging its feet. Then, the 22-member Arab League voted unanimously to call for a no-fly zone. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's forces were rolling through Ajdabiya, the last major town before they reached Benghazi--the capital of the anti-Gaddafi uprising. Soon the talk of a no-fly zone would be a moot point, because the rebels would control no territory of significance.

And then suddenly the United States changed its position yesterday and threw its weight behind the push in the UN for military action. On Thursday the UN Security Council voted to authorize "all necessary measures" short of ground invasion to protect Libyan civilians. At any time in the next few days, US, European, and Arab nation air strikes are likely to begin against Gaddafi's heavy artillery, tanks, and air power. Although it would have been nice to have seen this move a week ago, before the regime forces had driven so far east, this does seem to me like remarkably fast maneuvering by the UN, all things considered.

And Where We Should Go

So there's a strong mandate from the world for the use of force. But what should that use of force look like? The first goal should be to stop a government assault on Benghazi. That means defending the desert road between Ajdabiya and Benghazi. The second goal should be to dismantle Gaddafi's ability to make war on other cities. That means preventing his armor and artillery from simply rolling back into Ajdabiya or heading back further west to crush remnants of the uprising in other cities.

What do you think? What's the "least bad" option?

Yes, A Libyan No-Fly Zone Would Be Easy

In Libya, the United States seems content for now to watch Gaddafi brutally reassert control. The regime is using its superior organization and firepower to drive the revolutionaries further and further to the east.

NATO and the UN have, to varying degrees, discussed the idea of enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Gaddafi from bombing the rebel strongholds in the east. Although, I think it's a general rule that when the US government proposes military action, its stated aims are almost never its true aims, a no-fly zone deserves consideration. We are watching a brutal dictator crush a revolution, bombing civilians with Russian and French-built military aircraft. A revolutionary army to oust Gaddafi cannot move across wide open desert roads toward Tripoli under an all-out military assault.

And keep in mind, the rebel-controlled National Council, which France was the first to recognize as the legitimate government of Libya, has asked for a no-fly zone. If the case for humanitarian intervention is ever valid, why not here? Why should the international community simply stand back and watch?

Defense Secretary Gates has been going around making the case that enforcing a no-fly zone would not be easy. He's wrong. It would be easy. Crater Gaddafi's airfields. The west could prevent military planes from even taking off in Libya, let alone shoot them down once they're flying. We've also heard explanations of how hard it would be to maintain a no-fly zone once in effect. That's beside the point. Who says a no-fly zone has to be 100 percent enforceable from the moment it's declared? Announce it, enforce it when and where you can, and set up the logistics to make it more effective as quickly as possible.

I do not understand the slow motion we are seeing from the administration. France and Britain are calling for a no-fly zone, and Italy has offered use of its bases. But the US drags its feet. Is this just diplomatic positioning? Does Obama want it to look like we were dragged in by the international community rather than leading the push?

And then there's this:

"The regime will prevail," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said darkly at a Senate hearing on Friday. What?! I must not have gotten the memo that it was time to write off the Libyan opposition. Once again, I do not understand what the Obama administration is doing here. The US should continue discussing a no-fly zone, but the focus on the difficulty of such an operation seems overblown and dishonest.

Of course, as always, the American people should be suspicious of a push by the political elite for any military action. But we should also be vigilant that the US government is ready to sell out a people's movement to keep a predictable, western-friendly dictator in power.

(And yes, Gaddafi has been a friend of the US, Britain, and Italy since 2003.)

This Is What Class Warfare Looks Like

Everyone should know by now that the American super rich have been gobbling up a larger and larger piece of the American pie since around 1980, as shown by the first chart above. One of the ways they've been able to do this is by crushing the labor movement in the private sector, as shown in the second chart. Power has been consolidated in the hands of upper management, and wealth has been consolidated in the bank accounts of the richest of the rich.

But the logic of modern hypercapitalism is that enough is never enough. So now the right wing--the corporate elite, their puppet Republican Party, and their duped working class foot soldiers who make up the Tea Party--have set their sights on one of the last vestiges of organization and power left in the working class: public employee unions.

This has nothing to do with budget deficits. That's just the PR strategy from the right. In Wisconsin, the forefront of the battle right now, the unions have agreed to all of the financial cuts that the Republican governor has asked for. But he's not to content simply to strip away union benefits. He wants to dismantle the unions themselves.

Public employee unions are the obvious and logical next target for the right wing and the so-called conservative movement. Union density is still fairly high (36%) in the public sector. That's roughly the union density we had in the private sector in the 1950s when America was a much more middle-class nation. By crushing public employee unions, the right wing crushes one of the last pillars of the once great American middle class and they get an even bigger piece of the pie of our national wealth. The fat cats are never full.

La Femme Follette had an excellent post a couple of days ago that lamented how even many seemingly progressive "hipsters" view unions as "a quaint...relic whose time has passed." If the right wing is able to destroy public employee unions the way they have private sector unions, that's how we'll be describing the middle class pretty soon.

The glimmer of hope I see in all of this is the militant response by the labor movement--public and private sectors--in Wisconsin and the solidarity rallies all across the country this past week. Here, locally in DC, I can tell you that the assault on Wisconsin unions has ignited a broad coalition of progressive groups centered around the labor movement. Even though I believe the right has been planning this assault on public employee unions for a long time now (more on that later), I still believe they've been surprised by the forceful reaction from the left. But rallies and marches are one thing, organizing the unorganized is another. What we saw in the auto industry of the 1930s with the great sit-down strikes, we need to see today in the retail and fast-food industries. Bosses everywhere need to fear that their workers are talking about a union. That is where the progressive/labor movement can actually begin to turn the tide and once again build power and economic justice for working people.

An Injury To One Is An Injury To All

In case anyone thought Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's "Budget Repair Bill" was actually about the budget, think gain. The state's public employee unions have agreed to the wage and benefit cuts asked for by the governor. But Governor Walker will not budge on his true priorities in the bill--dismantling the unions by stripping away collective bargaining rights and the ability to negotiate benefits and working conditions.

This should come as a surprise to no one. The right wing has made no secret that public employee unions are their next target. After destroying the labor movement in the private sector over the last 30 years, the public sector is the logical next step. But keep in mind, this assault on unions has almost nothing to do with state budget deficits and everything to do with destroying the last bits of organization and power in the working class.

What may have surprised a lot of people is how hard the workers have fought back. The pushback against union-busting Republican governors is spreading to other states in the Midwest, and solidarity rallies in support of the Wisconsin workers are taking place all over the country. There should be no doubt that the fight taking place in Wisconsin is not merely a Wisconsin issue. It really is about whether there will continue to be a middle class in this country or whether the right will mop up the last organized resistance to plutocracy.

Today, I will be at a solidarity march and rally in downtown DC. (Here it is on Facebook.) We are meeting outside the DC offices of Koch Industries. The Koch brothers are the right-wing billionaires who backed Gov. Walker's campaign, funded "Americans for Prosperity," and the Tea Party in general. We'll then march over to the Wisconsin Governor's DC office.

If you're in the area, come on down. If not, you can follow me on Twitter, where I'll be posting live updates.

Let's Get Over "Stability"

Listening to analysts and news people discuss the uprisings across the Muslim World, you hear the word "stability" come up a lot. As in, "It is in the United States' interest that there be stability in the Middle East." Or, "Now that Mubarak has stepped down, the priority for Egypt should be a return to stability."

I call poppycock on this. The focus on stability comes from an imperial mindset in the US foreign policy community. If you're the one holding the gun and standing on a pile of treasure, you want everyone else to just simmer down and not make any sudden movements. This has basically been the US position in regard to the various uprisings.

On Egypt, where Mubarak was a US-friendly dictator, the message at first was that Mubarak is not a dictator, the government of Egypt is stable, the government should pursue "reforms," blah blah blah. Only when it became clear that the protesters in Tahrir had the momentum did the tune begin to change.

On Bahrain, where King Hamad is a staunch US ally and where the US Fifth Fleet is based, there is either the normal language about respect for human rights or there is silence. Today, Bahrain's military began the crackdown on protesters. I'm guessing there will be only vague language about "restraint" from the US State Department.

But on Iran, where the theocracy opposes US power in the region, the US government has come down unequivocally on the side of the protesters.

The United States generally supports democratic movements abroad only when they are seen as boosting US power and/or undermining US enemies. I think the American people want a more principled foreign policy than that.

Some have argued that the US can't simply turn its back on allies like Mubarak and that we need to work closely with some dictators in order to fight terrorism. But let's not set up a false choice. That is after all what dictators like Mubarak said, "You either get me or you get terrorism and chaos in my place." We can and should ally with dictators in order to take on other evils, like Al Qaeda, but this temporary alliance should not be a general endorsement of the dictator. Let's work with dictators on A, B, and C, but also make it clear that we support the democratic forces in their countries and that when a democratic uprising comes, make no mistake that we stand with the people. Would that mean dictators like Mubarak would not work with us in the first place? If so, so be it. If any country can afford to take a principled stand that does not serve our own bottom line in the power equation, it's us.

So in this dream world I am imagining, the State Department would come out right now and say something like this:

"The United States of America stands squarely with the people who are protesting in Algeria, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Tunisia, and Egypt for democracy, human rights, and social justice. It is time for the authoritarian governments of these nations to step aside and for the people to take power through free and fair elections."

I mentioned above how the world looks through the eyes of the person who holds the gun and guards his treasure. For the person who can't get up out of the dirt because there's a boot on his throat, "stability" is the last thing he wants to hear about. "No justice, no peace," is more like it.

What To Do After Pharaoh Falls

Mubarak's resignation caught me by surprise, big time. Egypt's revolution moved farther, faster, and more peacefully than I would have predicted. I thought Mubarak was digging in. Up until yesterday, I thought one of the major lessons from the protests was that big crowds are not enough. I thought the protesters were going to have to start dismantling the government piece by piece--shut off State TV, capture the Interior Ministry headquarters, and so on. But then, less than 24 hours after offering up some more fake concessions, Mubarak quit in a two-sentence statement read by the Vice President. So maybe a major lesson is: When you think the people's movement is losing steam and the autocrat is digging in, you may be on the verge of victory.

I will have more to say about all this, and things are probably going to continue changing rapidly. For now, here are what I think are the next steps for the democracy movement in Egypt.

1. Prevent an immediate counterrevolution. Counterrevolution could of course come in different forms. One of the Mubarak's deputies, including one of the generals, could force himself into leadership, put the brakes on the democratic reforms and begin a crackdown. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, who supposedly has power now during a transitional period, could simply drag its feet forever. This would mean that Mubarak was simply replaced by a handful of his old trusted generals--not much of a change. Less likely would be an outside group, like the Muslim Brotherhood, grabbing power for itself at the expense of everyone else.

To prevent these scenarios, people are going to have to be ready to return to the streets if need be. They will have to keep pressure on the military. The military needs to feel like its interests (which include lots of business connections for top officers) are safest by moving toward a civilian democratic government. The military needs to fear continued revolutionary activity.

It will help for the international attention and pressure to continue. The military will be less likely to drag feet or crack down if it sees that the whole world including its sponsor, the U.S. government, is watching.

2. Build the structures of democracy. The transitional government will have to immediately repeal Egypt's Emergency Law, which is like the Patriot Act on steroids, and other anti-democratic laws. Activists will then have to start building the networks that make up a civil society. Independent trade unions, new political parties, new civic groups, neighborhood councils, all that. The people's movement will have to put down more roots quickly, so that there is a permanent, structural resistance to the drift back toward authoritarianism.

3. Hold free and fair elections. No need to fear groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, if the elections are free and fair. They may end up being anywhere from 10 to 30% of a new parliament. But the best thing that can be done to a sorta scary group is to make it just one more political party with all the rest.

4. Repeat. It would be a mistake to think that the switch from a 30-year tyrant to a parliamentary democracy can be achieved overnight. Mubarak's resignation should be celebrated. But the point of that celebration should be to fuel more demands, more changes, and more activism from the democratic movement. The most powerful force in all of this is going to be the Egyptian people's raised expectations of what is possible. The longer they are willing to work for it, and organize, and turn out in the streets, the better things are going to be.