Living the Dream.





Thursday, February 24, 2011

re: "Obama Condemns Violence in Libya; Somehow Manages to Not Mention Moamar Qadhafi"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ has some observations.

Money quote(s):

"Although I should be fair: I don't think I want tangible American action here. Arabs have enormous chips on their shoulders about the West and like slightly-demented loser little brothers they sort of need to make their own way, even it it's a bit pathetic. American involvement gives them what they most need -- a scapegoat, someone to blame their failures on."

Passing over how generally bad an idea it is to make sweeping generalizations about entire regions, cultures, or ethnicities; I think he's got a point.

"On CNN... A guy is saying that Libya, the state, may not survive Qadhafi's ouster; the state may split into tribe-controlled regions.

Does anyone care about this? Is there a single good reason to champion these arbitrary lines and larger-than-needed-or-wanted states which unite tribes that don't want to be under a single authority?

Do we have some sentimentalism about our old maps? Do we fear having to draw new ones?
This expert wasn't necessarily against Libya splitting into smaller states, but his general tone was one of alarm.

I don't get that. Why do we care if Libya splits into seven more homogeneous tribal regions?"

You'd think it'd be no skin off the United States' nose, but consider the following.

Making a single heterogeneous Third World state into seven homogeneous Third World states means that a single pool of resources (human, mineral, &tc.) able to support a nation state become divided, unevenly (because that's how God distributed them), between seven smaller Third World states. All of them aren't going to get the petroleum reserves.

Another thought; seven smaller tribal states mean seven new states liable to fall prey to any number of the ills small tribal states are liable. Islamicism (which would certainly capture at least one) would be bad enough; Al-Qaeda is worse and becomes an immediate problem for the West.

Lastly, what about Libya's stocks of non-nuclear WMD, chemical munitions, and not-yet-weaponized uranium?

No comments: