Muddled Thinking?

[Marmora Man]

A recent flyer from the Alliance for Workers Liberty - formerly the Socialist Organiser - probably will have another name next year

Libya: "Marxists, 'Humanitarian Intervention' and Imperialism"

The Western military intervention in Libya poses complex questions for socialists.

> Should we really oppose limited military action to aid the rebellion against Qadaffi?

> Or is such opposition the only way to remain principled opponents of US, UK etc militarism and imperialism?

> If the US, UK, NATO have not changed their spots - and of course they haven't - is 'No intervention the only thing we can say?

> Beyond that, is 'Humanitarian Intervention' just old-style imperialism under a new guise?

> What do 'imperialism' and 'anti-imperialism' mean in today's world?

Could be a stonking discussion but I doubt it will come to any decision or have any impact in the real world where people are dying in Libya; gunned down by Qadaffi's forces or missiled by NATO forces. But then, for committed socialists - opposition and righteousness is far more fun than doing something.

[????]

Kind of supports the view that extreme leftism is just about understandable among idiotic naive students but beyond that you really should grow out of it- Tony Benn, acclaimed as some sort of hero by the left, soon enough resigned from Govt when he was a minister on grounds of 'principle' ie when he had to actually do some governing raher than pontificate on his idealism, the greatness of the Soviet Union and how wonderful Mr Mao was....

the full "......has no heart.....has no brain" quote seems one of the wisest political lines.

Idealism, I spit on it.

[????]

..not that the more idealistic of the libeterian right have been fantastic in their interpretation of global events nor has the application of their ideas on the world stage has been great

[david_carnell]

Nice caveat ????.

If we ignored who those questions were from and the fact that debates by these organisations descend into chaos, then the questions being asked are pretty valid ones.

Rory Stewart MP last night on BBC QT put it succinctly in that we need to take a long hard look at what we want to achieve in the world. Are we really prepared to commit the resources to try and maintain the illusion we are a credible world player? Or should we move to closer to the current German position of, essentially, a greater Switzerland - make the country a sound business and leave foreign affairs to others?

You can't expect to conduct things like strategic defence reviews before you even know what you want to achieve.

Stewart said, unsurprisingly given his background, that he would prefer resources directed to intelligence, diplomats at the FCO and experts (Arabists, Kremlinologists etc) rather than to big boys toys in the armed forces. But spending less than the current 2% of GDP on defence will be unpopular with the MoD, the armed forces and the Telegrpah/Times/tabloid press.

[????]

I spit on idealism DC...that works left and right

[????]

If the US, UK, NATO have not changed their spots - and of course they haven't - is 'No intervention the only thing we can say?

Sounds like a lecture, not a debate

[Jeremy]

Surprised to hear you say this david, I thought you advocated high military spending?

I'm most definitely in favour of a smaller armed forces, and a less active role in various military operations around the world. I'm not saying that we shouldn't retain the ability to exercise military intervention, but we need to stop pretending that we're still a major power, and get a sense of perspective.

And the veil of moral obligation is starting to wear rather thin, when the true agenda is so obvious.