A perspective on our Libyan involvement. What are your thoughts?

[PurityOfEssence]

(This is a re-posting of a thread that was locked due to citing a source that is not considered valid by the moderators. Since this is the ONLY reason stated for locking, I am reposting without that source; it was not the prime substantiation, nor was it a compelling reason for the thread.)

We don't like Qaddafi, and he's a certified tyrant, but in addition to all that--although we sure as hell don't have any problem with other allies who are worse--the things that put him in the cross-hairs are vengeance for past slights, our frustration at not having gotten rid of him already, and OIL.

There's true, sincere support for those who would throw off the chains of this oppression, and because of that, many of the traditional anti-war elements are removed from play.

Amid the sweep of infectious regional revolution, good people, as well as Neocons, Oil Barons and Imperialists saw an opportunity for "conquest on the cheap", but misread the abilities of the revolutionaries as much as they did themselves. When the rebels sought international recognition and threatened other nations with retaliation by reducing or denying oil if they didn't help, it gave quite a few nations pause: they saw a chance to pick a side, and it also looked like these guys would win and they could get a better deal on the goodies for a mere pat on the back.

France, who suffered a blow from Qaddafi in 2009 when he reduced the percentage of oil they could keep from what they extracted under threat of nationalization, saw an opportunity to get a better deal. They also didn't like being at the mercy of someone who could cut them off whenever he pleased, and seemed disposed to do so. (This should completely dispel the constant refutation from the war camp that Qaddafi wasn't messing with access, so thus there was no oil component to the sheer altruism of this sweet mission of love.)

They recognized the Provisional Transitional Government, thus throwing their lot with the rebels, and then Qadaffi suddenly struck back so effectively that it looked like it was all over. If he had prevailed, they'd be up la riviere du merde; Qaddafi'd laugh in their faces. Suddenly France, which gets 10% of Libya's rather special light sweet crude that's hard to find elsewhere had to act immediately and they, and others forced the issue.

It's notable that they were the first to officially recognize the Provisional Government, it's notable that they were the first to attack and it's notable that the attack in question wasn't a no-fly kind of thing: it was an attack on military vehicles en route to engaging the Rebels. (Ooops, sorry; that's "civilians...")

No, it's not just the French. The British have some interests there, as do we and others, including the Libyans' former Colonial oppressors, the Italians. (The Italians are being very cautious.)

Neocons like Bill Kristol, Richard Perle (Mr. Loyalty himself, who's literally been working as a paid consultant for Qaddafi to rehabilitate him with the West) and Paul Wolfowitz are pushing for this, as are other neocons and assorted American Exceptionalists and assorted Imperialists. Pure vengeance is never to be discounted as a motive here, and echoes of Rumsfeld's line about 911 being an opportunity to roll up everything, go big and mop up a lot of unfinished business rings prescient here, too. (Rumsfeld has been against the intervention, by the way; this is one complex mess, alright...)

There's certainly true, heartfelt sympathy for the protesters, but the emotional feeling also seems to blur the realities of some of the players in the revolt.

I don't discount the freedom-loving sincerity of many among our government and coalition, but it's not the pure thing many would think, and it seems to be a hasty reaction to a bad call on the abilities of protesters that led to choosing sides. They thought they could take advantage of a historic moment for a cheap bit of renegotiation, and it bit 'em in the ass. Then, as my grandfather used to say, we had to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

Your thoughts?

Oh, here are some links:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-w...

http://priceofoil.org/2011/03/14/libyan-rebels-threaten... /
Alert | Add to

[2gabby]

1. Before the thread disappears. I wish we were there to help

I missed it the first time, when it got locked.

My thoughts, well I can't get past feeling I wish "we" were in Libya to help freedom fighters, but, when was the last time our government did that? That's just how I feel, I cannot believe we're going to help. It's not what we do. I'm not sure any facts will convince me otherwise, because I don't think I'd trust them to be true. And I could be wrong, but I can't imagine what it would take to change my mind.


Now I'll try to read everything you posted, but from a glance it looks like you're in similar mindset.

Editing to say, I meant before this thread scrolls off page one, not that it would be pulled/locked. Don't wanna start no trouble

[PurityOfEssence]

2. The older I get, the more I trust my instincts

Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" comes to mind.

The French and the British came to us haranguing us to get involved. The French had thrown their lot in with the rebels, and suddenly the Government forces were taking the initiative in a big way.

The same old rhetoric flew in the same old tones of rectitude, and it just didn't add up.

The sheer numbers didn't add up: only three protests with more than 10 fatalities that could even be CLAIMED; callous though that sounds, it just doesn't seem to get anywhere our threshold of giving a damn.

We simply don't know what's going on there, and pretending that we do smacks of secret agendas, plus, when the neocons are all for it, I want more information.

[2gabby]

3. yes, and we were involved before we knew about it too, stealthy. nt

[riderinthestorm]

4. This is a good piece and deserves a kick.

The author deals with the ambiguities fairly.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. Different from Iraq, and imperative.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. Not sure I get your point. Just because it's "different" from Iraq doesn't mean it's "good"

Again: I'm not sure what you're saying here, but in this exceedingly complex world, we're continually being told that things are "simple" when they're not.

Much of our impetus for stomping Iraq back in ott-three was sheer vengeance on Hussein, who hadn't somehow admitted our superiority and somehow paid for his own removal. That dynamic is VERY much alive here, and then there's that oil component. The more people protest the pristine ethical reason for this WAR as being simply to protect "protesters", the more the whole thing stinks to the stratosphere.

Regardless of whether our intentions and motivations are more decent on the balance than they were in Iraq, one could be a scurrilous dick of legendary proportions and still fall quite short of the calumny that was our invasion of Iraq.

There's a sickening tendency by the apologists that anything short of George W. Bush's naked grandest-of-thefts and war or revenge is just fine. Besides, Obama's "good", so therefore anything he does is good, and we should shut up and not aid the Republicans or rattle the warm and fuzzy self-righteousness of those who demand absolute obedience and blanket approval.

This is a colossal mess. It's also highly suspect and undeniably fraught with business interests. The more people deny ANY monetary or oil component, the more everything else they claim rings false.

It's a problem.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Iraq was about the New World Order privatising more of the planet.

Libya is about genuine freedom, the same as with Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Iran, and much of that region, which is undergoing an obvious Trend.

We simply must support that Trend. In this case, at this time, it is that simple.

[PurityOfEssence]

8. Read the articles: it's about foreign corporations wanting more of the country's wealth

Nothing is ever as simple as you claim, certainly not this.