Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Evidence Of Possibility

When a Terror War ally behaves in Terror War ways, why the shocked surprise? Hypocrisy covers only so much. At this late date, hypocrisy is sawdust on a wet floor. Gaddafi's violent effort to maintain power confuses and twists minds across the spectrum. An instructive display. Neocons call for war. Liberals call for no-fly zones. Radicals call for Libyan state support. The narrative is shattering, forcing those inclined to chase after shards in high winds.

Some say these are revolutionary times in the Arab/Persian world, potentially everywhere else. Could be. I've never lived through a world revolution, so I don't know the signs. Clearly, inmates are restless. Increasingly dispossessed angry restless. Hence elite concern and accelerated class war from above.

These motherfuckers are trying to take it with them, trampling millions along the way. Question is, How deep is the inmate uprising? How resilient? Most importantly, how adaptive? Imperialists scramble about, seeking hooks and explanations. Events confuse them, which means that fear is setting in. This has been building for several years, and a united inmate resistance could gain significant ground right now. Problem is, old narratives chain high and low alike.

The idea of a US/NATO assault on Libya is absurd. It may happen, but to what end? With whose money? Gaddafi has been a loyal servant to global powers, much more than Saddam. There's really no reason for the US to overthrow his regime. Gaddafi's more predictable and reliable than any unknown quantity. And he's willing to crush opposition. That's long been a plus. Most "humanitarian" chatter misses this rather large reality, and I'm not sure who they think they're fooling with their so-called sorrow.

No-fly zones are an Iraq meth high. That Saddam wasn't allowed to touch the Kurds is considered a great democratic triumph. Never mind NATO Turkey's treatment of Kurds -- no no-fly zones for them. Iraq's Kurds caught a major break thanks to an imperial shift, and soon began sorting out their own personal grievances and tribal claims.

Some liberals believe that no-fly zones are a one-size-fits-all solution, a proven problem solver. It might slow Gaddafi, but not weaken him. If anything, he could point to the planes as imperialist interference, which would be true. But again, why would the US undermine a staunch ally like Gaddafi? To prove a rhetorical point? Many liberals think that the imperial state must behave ethically. And you wonder why the Democrats are still in business?

Radicals who see Gaddafi as a flawed yet stalwart revolutionary nationalist have nowhere to go. Marginalization frees them to spout any theory, for what traction do they enjoy? That some embrace dated scenarios simply deepens their irrelevance. I understand. Old arguments require no new thinking. They serve as life rafts in a wading pool. I've done my share of wading pool floating. It's pleasant, so long as the sun's not too direct and your drink has plenty of ice.

The takeaway? Our owners are nervous. Perhaps vulnerable. They still own the firepower, which is hard to get around. But I'm all for trying. What else is there to do?