IMT's website does a good job of highlighting my biggest problem with Trotskyists. Their actions generally support imperialism. That fact was a major tension point for me when trying to do anti-war work with them.

Effort-post below, feel free to ignore if you understand how Trotskyist Parties tend to push the Liberal Interventionalist line uncritically.

I'll focus on their analysis of the situation in Libya as an example.

Any serious-minded person who looked at the situation in Libya would see an imperialist NATO invasion. Here is how people in the Obama administration talked about the affair:

We have a giant deficit. They have a lot of oil. Most Americans would choose not to engage in the world because of that deficit. If we want to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me.

Every single socialist country put out a statement condemning the action, so did most Marxist-Leninist and Left nationalist parties in the world. It was an obvious imperialist intervention in Libya that that needed a broad anti-war front to oppose it. And yet, IMT released an unsourced article about how Libya is actually imperialist and we need to support the "uprising" there.

the workers, youth and poor in Libya have stood up against a dictatorship that has revealed its true character. The uprising that began in Benghazi, the second largest city, has spread to many regions of the country.

Gaddafi responded with brutal violence, and as during the popular uprising in Caracazo, has used the army against the unarmed civilian population. He has also used mercenaries against the people. The fact that Gaddafi was forced to pay mercenaries is evidence of the fact that he does not trust his own soldiers. In Benghazi, the army joined the revolutionary people and this has been repeated in other cities. It is difficult to estimate the death toll, but we know that in Benghazi alone more than 230 people have been killed. Repression has reached such a brutal level that they have used the air force to bomb the demonstrators.

This is the most important part of the article. If true, it would have ramifications for the world socialist movement. But there was no attempt to substantiate this claim.

IMT gladly quoted Hugo Chavez when he said "in Egypt, what is happening in the Caracazo, a sudden awakening of a people. We have just seen the first ripples. They are events that mark a new story in the world." Yet, his comments that the news surrounding Libya were built on a "colossal campaign of lies" fell on deaf ears.

Today all the major oil multinationals are operating in Libya, British Petroleum, Exonn Mobil, Total, Repsol, among others. On the other hand, it is worth noting that Gaddafi holds five percent of the shares of Fiat, as a result of opening the country to the Italian capitalists.

This uprising in Libya has the same causes as those in Tunisia and Egypt. The result of Gaddafi’s deals with imperialism has been an economic disaster for most people, despite the country's oil wealth. Libya is a country with 30 percent unemployment and the cost of living is getting ever higher. The prices of basic foodstuffs such as rice, flour and sugar have increased by 85% in the last three years

Every single point made here would also describe Venezuela. Multinationals operating in their borders, mass unemployment, and inflation. That is not a justification for imperialist intervention in a sovereign nation.