Didactic Synapse

Deviant SynCast #51: Drones and Thrones

Episode #51 of the Deviant SynCast is now available for your listening pleasure. I’ve submitted it to iTunes, but apparently it hasn’t been approved yet, so downloading it here is your only option for now.

I went a little long this week — 45 minutes. Many thanks to everyone who sent feedback last week. Please respond with thoughts or questions!

Here are the links:

Syria

• Associated Press Q&A
• Paul Conroy on Homs: “systematic slaughter of the civilian population”
• SMH on Atrocity Claims
• Red Cross Denied Entry to Homs
• Marwan Bishara on NATO and Libya
• Tom Engelhardt on Drones

Economics

• BP Reaches Deal with Gulf Region Plaintiffs
• Nick Hanauer: Raise Taxes on the Rich
• BusinessWeek on OWS and ALEC
• Banksy on Advertisers

Hip-Hop

• Davey D on Whitney
• Yasiin Bey: “NIP”

Education

• UChicago: “Failed Tests”

I’m opposed to the US airstrikes against Libya, mostly because I think we raced into war (yet again) without carefully deliberating on what it will mean for us and the people of Libya. Some folks in Libya want US and other countries to step in; some do not. The Arab League supported the no-fly zone idea, but the AL chief spoke out against the US airstrikes.

Despite his insistence in 2007 that the President could not legitimately order military action without consulting Congress, that’s exactly what Obama did here. He’s telling us it will be over quickly, that we’ll get rid of The Bad Man, that we’ll stay focused on our main purpose, and we’ll have Mission Accomplished before you know it. Well, as the postcard on my bulletin board at school says: “I’m not cynical. I’ve been taking notes.”

Obviously there are other despotic leaders doing exactly the same things that Gaddafi has been doing. Yemen, Bahrain. This has a lot to do with oil and geopolitical power and US hegemony, no question. I simply don’t trust the people who order US forces into battle. I don’t believe we’re actually interested in human rights or democracy or the rule of law. (If we were, we’d demand that Israel cooperate with UN Security Council resolutions, too.)

At the same time, it’s clear that the world community has insisted that Gaddafi back down from killing his own people, and that he refuses to do so. Obviously it’s a false choice to pretend like we have to either drop bombs on everywhere, or “do nothing”. So what do we do?

I’ll admit: I don’t know. I heard that we only gave the sanctions two days to work. Seems like the original no-fly zone (and only the no-fly zone) would be a good place to start, and see what happens if we only do that. But then Gates said on 2 March that we can’t have a no-fly zone without airstrikes. So then what?

“To do a great right, do a little wrong”?

Is it possible that arrogant US imperialist military action could in the end save lives? Madsimian will be happy to hear me admit that this may have, in fact, happened in Kosovo. I don’t know; I don’t feel qualified to judge that situation. Chomsky refers to a Wall Street Journal analysis that contradicts the official version of NATO involvement in Kosovo. But then Milosevic withdrew only after the bombing campaign left him with no alternative. Right?

At the very least, we need to ask ourselves the following questions:

• Are we willing to bomb schools and TV stations? (As we did in Kosovo, since Milosevic was using them for military purposes.)
• What if we bomb foreign embassies and/or civilians?
• What’s the endgame? It seems so very tough for us to leave a warzone but we’re always so quick to jump into them.
• How much will it cost? (I thought we were broke!)

As I say, I’m opposed to the entire affair. But I’m very interested to hear what other folks have to say.

TimeWasterâ„¢

I’ve become a fan of the Al Jazeera English show Empire, even though the host Marwan Bishara speaks in a somewhat annoying way. Here’s the show about Libya from 12 March.

Today I’m listening to: Meat Beat Manifesto! (It’s in my brain now.)

I’m very nervous about the airstrikes the US (and our trusty omnipresent but amorphous “coalition”) is launching on Libya. Aren’t airstrikes a different thing from enforcing a no-fly zone? This is not a rhetorical question; I want to know. (TPCQ: “Dad, do you even know what ‘rhetorical’ means?” “Do I know what rhetorical means!?”)

The Arab League supports the UN-resolved no-fly zone, but AL chief Amr Moussa has already spoken out against the airstrikes:

Protecting civilians does not need military operations. Protecting civilians needs suitable action such as a no-fly zone. This is what we asked for from the very beginning to avoid any additional developments.

Why do I feel like the only person who doesn’t like where this is headed? Why don’t I hear lots of other people complaining about an acute sense of deja vu? I just don’t trust US policy planners when they start talking about how much they love democracy and want to protect human rights.

Apparently Andrew Sullivan is also nervous, but for slightly different reasons. Matthew Rothschild also wrote an interesting piece recently. And — what a shock — Noam Chomsky has something to say about it. (And he gives a shout-out to Madison. Woo!)

TimeWasterâ„¢

Sometimes US foreign policy feels like a big ruse. (One of my students recently used that word, and of course it reminded me of this.)

Today I’m listening to: DemocracyNow!

Via Al Jazeera’s Listening Post:

“When the instrument of government is a dictatorship, a society has no means to express its position and rectify the situation other than through violence. It has no other option but to rise in revolt.”

Muammar Gaddafi, 1988