Juan Cole taking a victory lap

    By Flavius on Mon, 08/22/2011 - 10:55pm |

    Here's Juan Cole's summary of why he thought in March we/Obama were right to support the Libyan rebels.

    And still does.

    http://www.juancole.com/

    Comments

    I presume you mean this article:

    http://www.juancole.com/2011/08/top-ten-myths-about-the-libya-war.html


    by Donal on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 8:01am

    Donal, I think the link Flavius is referring to is this one, from March 27th:

    http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/an-open-letter-to-the-left-on-libya.html

    It is a measured, informed and persuasive argument for the intervention, penned just 8 days after NATO dropped the first bombs. 


    by Red Planet on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 9:20am

    Cole took a "victory lap" in March?


    by Donal on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 10:16am

    No victory lap in March.

    Flavius referred to what Cole wrote back in March, but his link was the site's index page. I just thought someone might be interested in the March post.


    by Red Planet on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 10:58am

    Great article. Especially liked the discussion of "civil war" vs. "revolution". Fox News and others quickly adopted the term "civil war", which of course set up one of the best and most convenient counter-Obama argument--that we were wrongly intervening in a civil war. And based on the accompanying news slant of the "hapless" efforts of rebel fighters one could envision a very protracted struggle--all leading to "another failed Obama strategy."

    Of course the McCain gang of three dined with the dictator two years ago  and called him "an intersting man". So now the hapless three are complaining that it was all too slow and that the U.S should have projected much more air power.  


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 8:02am

    From item #10: ENI’s profits were hurt by the Libyan revolution, as were those of Total SA. and Repsol.

    Hurt or delayed? A NY Times article, The scramble for access to Libya's oil wealth begins, has been reposted here.

    Gadhafi proved to be a problematic partner for international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands. A new government with close ties to NATO may be an easier partner for Western nations to deal with. Some experts say that given a free hand, oil companies could find considerably more oil in Libya than they were able to locate under the restrictions placed by the Gadhafi government.

    I'm sure that Qaddafi's role in the Lockerbie bombing, his long history as an antagonist of the West, and his treatment of his citizens played a part in the decision, but Libya's sweet, sweet oil was there, too.

    I also wonder if the message of this revolution is that a Prince must prepare a force that can successfully wage 4GW against his own citizens instead of relying on heavy weaponry that can be targeted and neutralized by an outside power.


    by Donal on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 8:39am

    Like the Basij in Iran, for instance. I guess that sort of thing is more easily developed in a revolutionary republic than in the installation of an autocrat.


    by moat on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 10:54am

    Or the Tea Party in the US.


    by Donal on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 11:02am

    Oh, bitchin'....

    Where are our militia boys now that they have a model for their paint ball exercises

     

    (Alert to Hanibaugh-dagblogger profanes patriots, compares them to oddly named Iranian thugs-this is haboobs all over again.)

     


    by jollyroger on Tue, 08/23/2011 - 10:02pm

    Latest Comments