Uncategorized

Is Stephen Walt Blind, a Complete Fool, or a Big Liar?


From the blog of Martin Peretz, writing for The New Republic:

I’ve been trying to add to my knowledge of the Arab countries now in the “massacring-their-people” stage. All of the big powers have both rewarded and connived with Colonel Qaddafi to keep him and his family in power for 42 years. Not, by the way, that he is a king or anything. Moreover, he is not the first of the military colonels in the Arab world to take control of the state and turn it into a “revolutionary socialist” regime, so-called. More formally: the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. It’s been in power since 1969, which makes it the oldest continually ruling one-man regime in the world.

Anyway, in my search for new viewpoints on the Arab world, I came across an article by Stephen Walt, who is the Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard (his chair was donated to the Kennedy School by a good Zionist family; so much for the control bought by Jewish money) and co-author with John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, of The Israel Lobby,in which I play a supporting role. I’ve written about this book on The Spine and so have others in TNR like Jeffrey Goldberg.

Walt’s Libya article was published in Foreign Policy barely a year ago. So it has the reassuring quality of being up-to-date. In the few hours he had in Tripoli, the capital city, he had the opportunity to talk with various high officials and get a real feel for the country. Here’s part of what he had to say on January 18, 2010:

My own view (even before I visited) is that the improvement of U.S.-Libyan relations as one of the few (only?) success stories in recent U.S. Middle East diplomacy. Twenty-five years ago, Libya and the United States were bitter antagonists: U.S. and Libyan warplanes clashed on several occasions in the Gulf of Sidra, and Libyan agents bombed a discotheque in Germany that was frequented by U.S. soldiers. U.S. aircraft attacked Libya more than once, targeting Qaddafion at least one occasion (and killing his adopted daughter Hannah). Libya was also held responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 (though some recent accounts have questioned its culpability) and it had an active WMD development program and received substantial nuclear weapons technology from the illicit A. Q Khan network.

Yet a fortuitous combination of multilateral sanctions, patient diplomacy and Libyan re-thinking has produced a noticeable detente in recent years. In a rare display of policy continuity, the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II administrations managed to simultaneously keep the pressure on and keep the door to reconciliation open. (Great Britain played a key role here too, and the effort may have succeeded precisely because Washington remained in the background). This effort paid off in when Libya agreed to dismantle all of its WMD programs in 2003 and to re-engage with the West. (A key part of that deal, by the way, was George W. Bush’s decision to explicitly renounce the goal of “regime change,” in sharp contrast to his approach to some other countries.)

Libya has also been a valuable ally in the “war on terror” (having had its own problems with Islamic radicals), and Ghaddafi’s son Saif reportedly played a key role in persuading a Libyan-based al Qaeda affiliate to renounce terrorism and to denounce Osama bin Laden last year. Overall, the remarkable improvement in U.S.-Libyan relations reminds us that deep political conflicts can sometimes be resolved without recourse to preventive war or “regime change.” One hopes that the United States and Libya continue to nurture and build a constructive relationship, and that economic and political reform continues there. (I wouldn’t mind seeing more dramatic political reform—of a different sort—here too). The United States could use a few more friends in that part of the world.

What an insightful man Walt is.

Read the rest of the essay, here.

9 replies »

  1. Walt truly is a dolt. I remember him blabblering on and on about how Israel was trying to force the US to bomb Iran (false) and that all the Arab and Muslim leaders would turn against the US if that were to happen.

    Then wikileaks shows it is the Arab and Muslim leaders BEGGING, I mean BEGGING the US to bomb Iran.

    And then Walt suddenly shut up about the Israeli conspiracy.

    The whole complaint about AIPAC is retarded. AIPAC is an ordinary lobbying group just like the hundreds of others active in Congress. Walt just doesn’t understand the political dynamics of Washington. It takes a lot of faith to think that all these pro-Israeli jewish movements somehow work together in one big, conspiracy concerted effort to hijack US policy in favor of Israel.

    We’ve sold ten times as many weapons to Israelis enemies than to Israel. How has AIPAC managed that?

  2. d. all of the above

    not one of the far left nutters who consider themselves intellectual scholars has been right about the goings on in the middle east.

    why anyone with a brain pays attention to their blatherings is beyond me

  3. I just googled this site after searching “CIF – censorship.” I was recently BANNED, yes BANNED from CIF.

    When accessing my profile I get an error message, and near the comment box it says: “Comment privileges for this account have been disabled.”

    I’ve only made 6 or 7 comments.

    One of them can be found here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/27/nick-cohen-arab-middle-east-conflict#start-of-comments

    Search “CillianCapa”

    This is totally ridiculous. Comment is NOT FRACKIN FREE! these guardian freaks are obsessed with controlling the image and spin in their little phony forum scam. I say the guardian should be BOYCOTTED until it starts honoring true liberal values, like FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

  4. Contact all advertisers in Der Guardian and ask them if they wish to support that racist, islamofascist embracing rag, and whether they want their customers to know that they support that racist, islamofascist, terrorist supporting, national socialist rag.

    If they do, a boycott of those advertisers and all their products/services is appropriate.

  5. CillianCapa

    Thanks for drawing attention to another of Nick Cohen’s excellent articles. He is probably on the same path as others who have left the Guardian in disgust, like Melanie Phillips and Julie Burchill.

    As for being banned – wear it as a badge of honor.

  6. AKUS, “As for being banned – wear it as a badge of honor.”

    That is a GREAT IDEA that should be exploited.