CCDS Statement on Libya – a Critique

Posted by admin on August 2, 2011 under Antiwar, Libya, Solidarity | 6 Comments to Read

By Clay Claiborne

By The Committees of Correspondence for Democracy & Socialism
March 27, 2011:  In war, the first casualty is truth. Nowhere is this maxim more relevant than the current air and naval bombing campaign against Libya initiated by the U.S., France and Great Britain, and involving other NATO countries.

IMHO this is already taking a position that equates the Qaddafi regime with "Libya." NATO would argue that their military activities are against the forces of the Qaddafi regime not Libya, and frankly the revolutionaries would agree. As a matter of fact there is very little evidence that NATO has attacked Libyan population centers or infrastructure in the way they did in Iraq.  [see my How Many Libyans has NATO Killed? for details and background]

Furthermore, the statement "the current air and naval bombing campaign against Libya initiated by the U.S…." reinforces the view that Qaddafi=Libya. The Libyan opposition would say that the "current air and naval bombing campaign against Libya" was initialed by Qaddafi with his naval bombardment of the people of Misrata and his aerial bombing of the people of Benghazi and Tripoli, which preceded the NATO intervention and which was stopped by that intervention.

What is more important, behind all the anti-imperialist rhetoric, the practical application of CCDS’s basic demand under the concrete conditions currently existing is that Qaddafi would be allowed to continue his naval and aerial bombardment of any population centers in Libya where the people have forced him out on the ground.

So far I don’t see anything in the CCDS statement that Qaddafi would object to.
The air and missile strikes on Libya are acts of war.

No argument there. Of course I would also argue that Qaddafi’s air and missile strikes on Libya are also acts of war, and contrary to the wishful thinking of pacifists, sometimes violence must be put down with violence. Sometimes you can only put an end to "acts of war" is by countering them with "acts of war" to stop the initial perpetrator of the violence.


Is it the position of the CCDS that it would oppose intervention by any outside force to prevent say, another Rwanda, if it the interventionists were allowed to use "acts of war?"

All the talk of ‘no fly zones,’ ‘protecting civilians from massacre,’ ‘humanitarian intervention’ and so on are diversions if not falsehoods.

This sounds like the CCDS doesn’t believe the threat to Benghazi was real. This statement would also lead me to believe it is discounting all the stories about cluster munitions, Grad rockets, and land mines being used by Qaddafi forces on population centers. Well they can stick their collective heads in the sand and Qaddafi will applaud them for it, but I don’t know of any serious close observers outside of the Qaddafi camp that doubt, with 200+ tanks just outside of Benghazi on March 17th, and Qaddafi saying they there going to "go house to house" and "clean out the rats", a million people were in grave danger when the UN passed resolution 1973. If CCDS could have its way, Qaddafi would have been allowed to move forward with his plans for Benghazi. As far as the Benghazi threat goes, and the other stuff about Grad rockets, cluster munitions and land mines. I’m here to tell you there is overwhelming evidence. I mean overwhelming.

A ‘no fly zone’ means more than preventing military aircraft from taking off as we have already seen. It means destroying aircraft and their hangars. It means destroying any airports and airfields. It means destroying refineries and fuel supplies. And most important, it means destroying ‘command and control centers,’ which means bombing any structure or location where the military planners think Gaddafi or his loyalists might be.

I’m not sure what a "no fly zone" means but I am sure that UN resolution 1973 authorized much more than a "no fly zone." Like it or not, it authorized just about anything short of ground troops. The falsehood that the UN only authorized a "no fly zone" and that therefore NATO is in violation of the UN resolution is another Qaddafi talking point that just isn’t true.

We’ve seen this movie before in Iraq.

To me, this is the most embarrassing statement in the whole document for anyone trying to practice dialectical materialism. It’s saying that there is nothing new to see here, that it’s basically like Iraq. So what do I think is different? The "Arab Spring" wasn’t in the movie last time I saw it. The "Arab Spring" as it is being called, is so far the greatest people’s revolt of the 21st century and the Libyan uprising is part and partial of the Arab uprising in MENA. The Libyan revolt is the first place the Arab uprising was forced to go over to armed struggle and this is what precipitated the international intervention.
The sad thing is that it wasn’t the people’s revolt that really got CCDS’s and many others on the lefts attention, it was the NATO intervention. Not only have they not seen this movie before, they came into this movie in the middle and they think they know what’s going on without first finding out about the parts they missed. That is why you hear so many US left commentators parrot the Qaddafi line that the rebels were armed from the start. Nobody that was observing this struggle from the start will even give such an person a penny for his thoughts.

France has taken the lead in NATO intervention, this is new. They didn’t want to have anything to do with the war in Iraq – remember "freedom fries?" 

What else is new? Well, the role of the Internet is absolutely new and deserving of deep study and developing practice by revolutionaries. The hacker group Anonymous started #OpTunisia on Jan 2, #OpLibya and  #OpEgypt soon followed. Internet activists were able to work together to insure that the revolutionaries always had Internet access in spite of regime attempts to shut it down, while at the same impeding the regimes use of the Internet. You know, I once played courier for a vital message from Alexandria to the Egyptian opposition in Tahrir Sq and I never left Venice Beach to do it. As a revolutionary this role was very new to me.

IMHO revolutionaries today should be studying the Arab uprising, and especially where it has developed to the point of armed struggle in Libya, in the spirit with which Marx studied the Paris Commune. The masses are teaching us many important lessons about making revolution in the 21st Century. It is our job to refine them and return them to the masses but if we think we’ve been through this movie before then we think we already know it all. 

It means the usual ‘collateral damage’ of widespread civilian death and destruction
I absolutely challenge this. That the NATO campaign has caused "widespread civilian death and destruction" is another Qaddafi talking that has been backed up with fraudulent claims by the Qaddafi regime. In the war on Iraq the US dropped 29,199 munitions in the first 30 days, in Libya the US claims to have dropped munitions on 132 targets in the first 100 days. Qaddafi would like the world to think that he is being bombed the way that Iraq was during shock and awe so I’m sure he would be happy with the way CCDS portrays things.  Again see  How Many Libyans has NATO Killed? for details.

—all done in the name of preventing civilian deaths.

Which doesn’t exactly address the question of whether on not they have actually prevented civilians deaths, but would seem to imply that they haven’t. Well IMHO, more Libyans were killed in the 4 weeks before NATO intervened than in the 4 months since and I challenge anyone in CCDS to make a creditable argument to the contrary.

And as in Iraq,

Same movie, different country, nothing new here.

the US is dropping bombs containing depleted uranium, which will destroy Libyan lives for generations.

NATO DU use in Libya is another Qaddafi talking point that is a little short on proof. Without going into details, there are good reasons to believe they are not using DU in Libya for the same reason they eventually stopped using Agent Orange in Vietnam. The bad PR eventually trumped the military advantages of the stuff. Besides they have developed other substitutes for DU, even more toxic substitutes, and there is reason to believe that is what they are using in Libya. I asked a leading CCDS member about the basics for the claim that NATO is using DU and I was referred to a pro-Qaddafi "expert" that said his tests indicated NATO may be using DU. But "may" is not "is" and why is this "expert" qualifying his opinion with "may", isn’t DU radioactive? Didn’t this expert have a Geiger counter? How come none of the reports I’ve seen reporting DU in Libya include tests for radioactivity?

It’s one reason why the African Union refused to support the UN measure and why the Arab League began criticizing it as soon as they saw the reality of what they had put their name too.

Opinions vary.

We in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism join with many others around the world to oppose this aggression and call for its immediate and unconditional cessation. Cease Fire!

Since nothing in this statement so far indicated that the Qaddafi regime is attacking the Libyan people, it sounds like this cease fire demand does not include Qaddafi’s forces. I don’t see any opposition to Qaddafi’s aggression anywhere in the CCDS statement.

We urge that Libyans resolve their differences without resort to arms.

It would have been good of CCDS to have urged this before Qaddafi attacked protesters with military aircraft and tanks. [Note: It’s interesting how more proof on this continues to come out.  Just this evening on BBC World New I saw an interview with an immigrant from Libyan that had made it safely home to Bangladesh. He said the greatest threat they faced in Misrata was from bombs dropped from helicopters – this was before NATO, only Qaddafi had helicopters.]  To demand this now but not before is also a position that Qaddafi would support. To demand peace, once the the revolution has been forced over to armed struggle and while the people are winning that armed struggle is counter-revolutionary. And make no mistake about it, all defeatist talk of "stalemate" aside, the rebel army has been making slow but sure progress on three military fronts with important victories near Brega and Ziltan as I write this.

We support international diplomatic efforts aimed at assisting Libya to resolve their conflict politically – a path that was ignored in the lead up to the intervention by the U.S. and others.

This is turning the recent history of the Libyan uprising on it’s head!. It blames "the U.S. and others" and not Qaddafi for turning this conflict into an armed struggle and not choosing to resolve the people’s protests politically. And to suggest that at the time the French started air strikes near Benghazi on Qaddafi forces that were already starting to enter the city, that instead they should have limited themselves to "diplomatic efforts" is to wish the people of Benghazi a very bad day. Qaddafi has got to love these guys.
At bottom – ‘kinetic military activity’ – the new Pentagon euphemism for imperialist war is simply a grab for power and oil in a third world country temporarily weakened by an internal crisis.

Which we definitely won’t take sides on. The struggle between a dictator and the people is an internal struggle. After the US, EU, and UK have armed the dictator they should stay out of it and let the people and dictator fight it out.

Libya has huge oil reserves that are state owned—

Which in Libya pretty much means Qaddafi owned.
including much oil that is easily accessible. Libya has a huge territory where oil exploration has yet to be completed, due to former disputes between the government and foreign oil explorers. Due to past Western boycotts of Libya, China and India have joined its prime customers, and there is now competition and rivalry for future oil deals with the Libyan government.

With the escalating confrontation between Israel and the Arab states, and the mass movements arising in the Arab states for economic and political democracy, the US and its allies are focused on controlling events on the ground. A key means to this end is the establishment of a U.S. military command center in Africa – AFRICOM. AFRICOM is spearheading the military intervention in Libya for the U.S. But it is located in Germany because African countries have refused to host the command center.

According to Wikipedia "of all the African nations, only Liberia has publicly expressed a willingness to host AFRICOM’s headquarters."

The war on Libya offers the justification for placing this new imperial command center in an African nation.

Again "The war on Libya" by which CCDS means the combined attack by the Libyan opposition and NATO air support on the Qaddafi regime is the same as a war on Libya.. Justifications are a dime a dozen. If they find the place that will accept a base and they want it there, the justification will take care of itself.

Unjust wars abroad always extract a price at home. This one has a high price in White House hypocrisy. While claiming to advance democracy abroad, these acts of war have been carried out with complete disregard of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act. These laws place war making powers in the hands of the American people through Congress.

On the first night of the attack on Libya, the US rained $240 million of cruise missiles on Libya. The total costs for the US deployment will exceed $1 billion per month. Yet, the American people are told to tighten their belts because there is no money for healthcare, education, transportation, law enforcement, job safety, pensions, social security. The empire can no longer provide guns and butter. The attack on Libya and the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan are inextricably bound to the attacks on the rights of American workers to organize and bargain collectively for a decent living.

This argument seems to work only because you fail to acknowledge the threat to Libyan’s from Qaddafi. If you do, it becomes more like "We’d really like to do something about Rwanda or the Jews being persecuted by the Nazis but we have our own problems and just can’t afford to get involved."

This is why Kucinich was able to forge such a broad coalition, including many normally pro-war and isolationist Republicans in his effort to strip whatever protection he could from the people of Benghazi and Misrata.

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and a few other Members of Congress are standing up and speaking against this threat to our Constitution, the inevitable loss of our livelihood, the lives of our soldiers and the people of Libya. We strongly urge others in Congress to open debate on this matter, and cut off the funds supplying it.
Many mass actions are scheduled in the coming days and weeks against the efforts to impose austerity measures and against the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We urge the formation of ‘Jobs Not Wars’ contingents to join them, raising the banner of ‘Hands off Libya, Stop the Bombing Now!’, ‘Let Libyans Shape Their Own Future!’ and ‘Bring ALL Our Troops Home Now!’

So they wish to refocus the anti-war movement to put opposition to the "War in Libya" in 1st place, while depreciating the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan [no banners called for] even though NATO has boots on the ground in both those countries and are carrying out much more vigorous war policies in then as compared to Libya.

And on the question of this revolutionary struggle CCDS is "neutral", meaning not one word of criticism of Qaddafi and not one word of support for the rebellion. The CCDS will raise high the banner ‘Let Libyans Shape Their Own Future!’ which I assume means, remove UN backed military involvement, continue to recognize the Qaddafi government as the legit gov’t of Libya, continue to pay Qaddafi for Libya oil and probably even, continue to sell Qaddafi EU, UK & US military hardware, and then let Qaddafi and his thugs on the one hand and the unarmed popular opposition on the other "Shape Their Own Future!" Splendid!

For my opinion on what NATO should and shouldn’t be doing in Libya, please see:
2011-07-04 NATO’s Game Plan in Libya

For more background on the Libyan Revolution and links to lots of information see my other writings at the DailyKos and WikiLeaks Central:

NATO over Tripoli – Air Strikes in the Age of Twitter
How Many Libyans has NATO Killed?
Qaddafi Terror Files Start to Trickle Out!
Have Libyan Rebels Committed Human Rights Abuses?
Tripoli Green Square Reality Check
Behind the Green Curtain: Libya Today
Gilbert Achcar on the Libyan situation and the Left
NATO slammed for Libya civilian deaths NOT!
2011-07-01 Qaddafi’s Million Man March
NATO’s Game Plan in Libya
February 21st – Tripoli’s Long Night
Did Qaddafi Bomb Peaceful Protesters?
Tripoli Burn Notice
Libyans, Palestinians & Israelis
‘Brother’ Qaddafi Indicted plus Libya & Syria: Dueling Rally Photofinishs
An Open Letter to ANSWER
ANSWER answers me
2011-06-22 No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum
Are they throwing babies out of incubators yet?
Continuing Discussion with a Gaddafi Supporter
Boston Globe oped supports Gaddafi with fraudulent journalism
2011-04-13 Doha summit supports Libyan rebels
Current Events in Libya
Amonpour Plays Softball with Gaddafi
Arming Gaddfi
North African Revolution Continues
Is Libya Next? Anonymous Debates New Operation

In Solidarity,
Clay Claiborne

  • Ted Pearson said,

    I think this is a very complicated question, not one that is easily filtered by a lens that only permits a vision of black or white.

    First of all I think history shows that even when the United States does a good thing it always does it to extend the military and political power and clout of U. S. big business. So U. S. intervention is always a mixed bag. This was true even in World War II, where the defeat of Nazism was a universal demand of humanity.

    Secondly, in Libya the Kaddafi regime is itself contradictory. Among African leaders Muamar Kaddafi was widely viewed as one of the few who acted to actually benefit the masses of people. He had broad popular support. At the same time his regime appears to be filled with cronies who enrich themselves and who have restricted civil liberties, repressing dissent.

    Thirdly, the “revolutionaries” are also a very mixed bag. The assassination of Abdel-Fattah Younis is more reminiscent of the mafia than it is of a democratic revolution. Who are these revolutionaries? We progressives don’t know. However, it is likely that the CIA knows more than we do and when it bets on one side in a civil war it’s probably not because they are mainly interested in democracy.

    Should the U. S. have intervened in Rwanda? Wouldn’t a better question be why we progressives did not do anything while the French and the U. S. were tilting toward those who committed the genocide?

    I’m not sure that a general principle of non-intervention can be rigidly applied to every situation, but surely we have an obligation to think long and hard before we accede to ANY military intervention by external forces in the internal affairs of another country. In the case of Libya I think events show that the U. S. intervention has not helped the Libyan people at all. It has only prolonged a civil war and risked a much wider war in the region that will only serve the U. S. multinational, especially the big oil companies.

  • Jonathan Nack said,

    I’m no expert, but I don’t see how this intervention in Libya is going to turn out well for anybody, except perhaps those who will come to get rich off of the Libya’s oil wealth.

    I certainly don’t defend the Qaddafi regime. Firing on unarmed protesters, and other documented crimes committed by that regime are indefensible.

    At the same time, I find Brother Clayborne’s position of supporting of the rebel movement shocking. I have no faith that the rebels will be able to control the civil war they’ve initiated, let alone improve the conditions in the Libyan people.

    While I have sympathy for those oppressed and exploited by the Qaddafi regime, and those rebels who call for more democracy and human rights, I haven’t read anything to give me confidence that the rebel movement will lead to such improvements.

    The rebel coalition has been described as a diverse grouping, but I’ve heard nothing of any socialist or left groups in it. Are we to believe that a pro-capitalist rebellion which clearly includes radical Islamic fundamentalists, in alliance with the leading capitalist imperial powers, will bring democracy and social justice to Libya?

    I think it’s more likely that this imperialist intervention will plunge Libya into a prolonged civil war with incredible atrocities, likely to drag on long after the Qaddafi regime falls from power.

    Again, I’m no expert, but I think Brother Clayborne has yet to make a convincing arguement that the CCDS should support the Libyan rebels, let alone abandon our position in opposition to U.S./NATO imperialism

    The CCDS Being against the U.S./Nato military campaign does not put us in support of the Qadaffi regime. It does not signify that we have no concern for the lives and rights of Libyans. Rather, it reflects that we are not fooled by the typical lying by the U.S. ruling class about it’s motives in engaging in imperialist wars.

  • Clay Claiborne said,

    Since the first three paragraphs of my submission weren’t printed on the CCDS Discussion website and because I think this discussion has a wider application, I have published the unabridged version of my critique on my DailyKos dairy.

    In the sections that were deleted I gave a timeline of the Libyan struggle that I believe is crucial to understanding the differences between some, like CCDS, that spoke out only after their country got militarily involved and those that supported the Libyan people’s struggle against Qaddafi before that.

    I also said I find it absolutely shameful that much of the left, including CCDS remain silent in the face of the Syrian people’s cries for international support. I would like to emphasize that.

    Last Friday many Syrians were murdered by the Assad regime. They called the protest that day “Your Silence Is Killing Us.” While their focus was the major cities in Syria that have yet to join the protests and the Arab League, they have also made clear that “The silence of the international community is killing us.” So this means you too.

    Once again a tyrant is using military violence against unarmed protesters and for months now. He may be in the process of killing 25 thousand like his father did in February 1982. And this is met by more silence and the pleads of the Syria people are dismissed with reasons like “Any day of the week, there are probably tens of thousands of outrages going on in every country in the world.”

    Despicable. And I say again shameful!

    (You do realize that this could get to be a trend? Remember how that movie ends? “When they came for me, there was no one left…”)

    As to the the remarks by Ted Pearson and Jonathan Nack. In general, I think they’ve got their story and they are sticking to it. They haven’t read much of what I’ve written on Libya or I think much on Libya period, but I will deal with a few points in detail.

    Ted, defends Qaddafi, saying “Among African leaders Muamar Kaddafi was widely viewed as one of the few who acted to actually benefit the masses of people.” So he is using these African leaders as a character reference for Qaddafi. I would ask Ted which of these African leaders that support Qaddafi “acted to actually benefit the masses of people” in their own countries? I think most of these African leaders are a plague upon their people. I think a lot of these African leaders support Qaddafi because they have personally benefited from Qaddafi’s control of Libyan wealth.

    Ted also says “He had broad popular support.”

    I would like to know how you go about calculating that in a police state. Do you include all the people on his pay roll? All his security people and their families? Do you also count all the people who attend his rallies under threat of death? Do you count people like the soldier McKinney interviewed that likened Qaddafi to Hitler. Of course “broad popular support” is a tricky thing because Hitler did have “broad popular support” but so did the Tsar when he was overthrown.

    News Flash! Every regime overthrown by a revolution still enjoyed “broad popular support” when it was overthrown.

    He also says “Who are these revolutionaries? We progressives don’t know.”

    And who’s fault is that? Never before in history has a revolutionary movement been so accessible to an outsider. I correspond with many of the Libyans and you can follow the whole movement minute by minute on Twitter. How much time have you spent on or any of the many other Free Libya websites? There’s a ton of YouTube videos. Never before has a revolution been so televised. With Google translates, which is remarkably good with Arabic (they worked to improve it as things started heating up last winter) even much of the Arabic is accessible to the English reader. In the case the the Libyan revolutionaries we progressives don’t know because we progressives have been lazy. But that’s not something we should be holding against them.

    Finally Ted repeats the mantra “In the case of Libya I think events show that the U. S. intervention has not helped the Libyan people at all.”

    He doesn’t dispute the fact that NATO jets stopped Qaddafi tanks from entering Benghazi where he promised another bloodbath. He doesn’t address my assertion that more Libyan were killed in the four weeks before NATO intervened than in the four months since. He doesn’t present a single fact in defense of his position. He doesn’t defeat my facts. He just ignores them. He’s got his story and he’s sticking to it.

    Jonathan Nack finds my support for the revolutionaries “shocking” because he has “no faith that the rebels will be able to control the civil war they’ve initiated.” I find it despicable that he blames the protesters for starting the civil war even though he finds the Qaddafi regime guilty of “Firing on unarmed protesters.” Do they not have a right to armed self-defense?

    As I said despicable and shameful.

    I will continue this discussion @

  • Clay Claiborne said,

    Re: “African Union refused to support the UN measure”

    From: What has Zuma to gain from rescuing Gaddafi?

    It appears to be that coincidence of history that has given rise to a mutual interest between the NATO countries and the plebiscites of rebel armies in ousting Gadhafi.

    South Africa’s Jacob Zuma reported to parliament and the African National Congress Youth League, that his committee of African Union ambassadors was of the opinion that NATO is “abusing” the United Nations resolution that sanctioned the use of force to protect citizens from murderous leaders.

    The AU position, Zuma says, is that the NATO countries invoke the UN resolution in order to effect ‘regime change’. By some weird African logic, the AU ambassadors feel duty bound to protect Muammar against the people’s uprising that has reached its limits of tolerance for hunger and joblessness despite what appears to be good levels of education, especially among the youth.
    The ambassadors recommend ‘negotiation’. Between who and who? On the basis of what offer by who, and what response from who?

    Look at it another way. Would Zuma’s party have preferred the situation in which the rebel detachments were weakened military, thereby enabling Gadhafi to hang on for yet another 42 years?

    Does President Zuma fail to appreciate, having been a leading member of Umkhonto We Sizwe, that the military retreat of the popular forces of liberation can only make the ‘oppressor’ that much more intransigent? Why suddenly, does that military rule of thumb suddenly escape Comrade Zuma?
    And now, Zuma has his blue eyed boy, Julius Malema, singing out of the same hymn book on the SABC’s ‘Morning Live’ last week. Did he say the ‘rebels’ are not revolutionaries but ‘terrorists? Something to that effect. What does he know?

    Clearly, President Zuma must be blinded by the ridiculous rule of the Southern African Development Community that says that any kind of political regime is fine as long it behaves in accordance with its constitution. We are told nothing about the expected standards which should be set out for democracy by the constitution. So, because SADC can live with a dictatorship in Swaziland, so must the Libyans tolerate Gaddafi and his Little Green Book!

    There is a civil war in Libya ignited by the intransigence of Muammar Gaddafi who has overstayed his turn, however glorious. It would appear that there is only one issue to negotiate – and it shall be appreciated that such negotiation was precipitated by the people’s rebellion – and that is: To which country should Gadhafi be allowed to retire? South Africa perhaps? That should be far enough from Libya.

    The observation should be made, yes, that it is self- contradictory from an Africanist point of view, that what began as a Libyan people’s uprising should be appropriated by the NATO countries who are driven more by the sinister motive of destabilising the Arab countries so that they can exploit their oil, rather than the altruistic purpose of protecting the people against a tyrant.
    But then the theory of contradictions does permit that the primary conflict, as things stand, is that between dictatorship and people’s power.

  • admin said,

    Gaddafi’s hanging on ‘another 42 years’ is a bit of hyperbole, Clay. Mother Nature will take her course long before then, even if the political situation doesn’t.

  • Walter Teague said,

    Libya and Vietnam? Have not seen Clay’s film, but I’d bet that it emphasizes both the Western intervention and the Vietnamese resistance in spite of the suffering they endured. So the lessons of Vietnam are many, but the first lesson is the deadliness of imperial interventions, whether they succeed for a time (China and then the Portuguese, French, and Japanese and British briefly) or are painfully expelled ultimately. The updated weaponry and political strategies of modern western imperialism are far more deadly and sophisticated than years past. So even if it turns out that in Libya, removing Gaddafi was worth the bloodshed, the oil and per-historic water reserves benefit the whole Libyan people, the subsequent government and society are comparatively just, Clay ignores the larger question of whether this “rebel victory” made possible only by NATO strength and money will improve or weaken the ability of the imperial forces military and economically to oppress billions in the future? Does anyone believe that NATO and US forces were either humane or naive in this intervention?

Add A Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.