Libyan Transportation by Independent
France and Great Britain , the two principal European victors of World War I, shaped the Middle East to meet their political objectives and formed an area of despotic regimes and constant conflict. Now, joined by the United States , the same nations, by either aggression against established regimes (Libya and Iraq), neglect in assisting legitimate rebellions (Syria , Yemen and Bahrain), and support for despotic regimes (Saudi Arabia), are reshaping the Middle East; for sure into greater conflict. The allied powers of the western world have one common trait; they are rarely correct in their assumptions and usually damaging in their endeavors.
Operating from concepts that their economic systems solicit and have less significance to nations who lack industrialization, the western powers carelessly attempt to impose political arrangements and social values on contrary systems -- similar to bringing tomato plants to the Eskimo for planting. Industrialization seeks free labor and free labor requires political democracy. It does not work in reverse. Beneficial institutions for the highly industrialized western economies do not suffice for single resource (or resource limited), agriculture lacking and water scarce nations Democratic concepts, as defined by western nations, are sometimes redefined and overshadowed by the immediate need for jobs, dignity, education, organization, stability, more equal distribution of a sparse wealth, and less corruption in other nations.
According to United Nations statistics, the Libyans have advanced advantages in education and health care. The nation was relatively stable and, as it recovered from years of sanctions and Gadhafi's challenging misadventures, the country, slowly moved to resolve other problems. If history is a predictor of itself, the civil war and NATO attacks will only bring decades of struggle, death, and anguish to the Libyan people.
Since the year 2003, when the international community welcomed Colonel Gadhafi's nation into the world community, Libya has been received with the same courtesy as other oil producing nations -- its revenue invested in western enterprises, foreign corporations constructing Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya's infrastructure. In a few weeks of February and March 2011, everything changed. Why?
The excuse was that leader Gadhafi intended to liquidate at least 100,000 of his opponents, a 100 times exaggeration and an obvious impossibility.
According to President Barack Obama, "Gaddafi declared
that he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and
threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment ."
"Muammar Gaddafi told Libyan rebels on Thursday his armed forces were coming to their capital Benghazi tonight and would not show any mercy to fighters who resisted them. In a radio address, he told Benghazi residents that soldiers would search every house in the city and people who had no arms had no reason to fear. He also told his troops not to pursue any rebels who drop their guns and flee when government forces reach the city."
Logic tells us that few
Benghazi residents could even have guns to hide and Gadhafi's forces were too
limited to carry out any large scale purge, Gadhafi's comment (much different
than Obama's presentation) was only meant to create a fear. No leader would tell
his people he intended to kill masses of them. If so, they had nothing to lose
by fighting. Why encourage them? Nonsense!
The next morsel of food for thought relies on the fact that the civil war was no threat to any NATO nation. The clincher -- the western nations had not considered any changes in Libya's future. Suddenly, with no plan, no knowledge of the rebel forces constituency, and no idea as to where the interference would lead, NATO attacks Libya.
A comparison to Iraq is obvious. After Saddam Hussein had quieted and Iraq was beginning to recover from years of sanctions, a made for consumption story of WMDs led to a US invasion and eventual destruction of Iraq. The obvious objective for the US attack -- the destruction of a nation that could become a strong and leading Arab nation.
Fast forward to the present.
After Moammar Gadhafi had quieted and Libya began to recover from years of sanctions, NATO attacks Libya, using as an excuse a made for consumption story that Gadhafi was prepared to commit a genocide against his own people. The obvious objective of the NATO attack -- the destruction of a nation that could become a strong and leading African nation. Consider also that. The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has tremendous oil and water resources. Libya's Great Man-Made River project (GMMRP) has tapped The Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) one of the world's largest aquifers,. Although oil and water don't mix, the liquids in the dual pipelines are a tempting cocktail for those who could use both resources. Liquid goal is gaining more significance each day due to excessive droughts and irrigation demands. The GMMRP, due primarily to Gadhafi's personal interest supplies drinking water and irrigation to Libya's northeast region of Cyrenaica, the area in rebellion. Gadhafi did not overlook the Cyrenaica in deference to Tripoli.
As in the Kosovo war, NATO
is testing weapons and strategies.
As in the Kosovo war, NATO's tactics are destroying infrastructure, creating refugees and killing civilians. A bombing of Gadhafi's youngest son's not too elegant home killed the son and three grandchildren. And Gadhafi is accused of war crimes.
As in the Kosovo war NATO's cowardice is apparent and disturbing; attacking a defenseless nation with high flying airplanes, missiles launched from sea, and helicopter gunships spraying missiles and bullets. Acting as a protectorate to prevent slaughter, NATO has augmented the killing, behaving as a killing machine with no other objective than to destroy. Arguments between the European nations and the United States reveal that NATO has run out of ammunition and needs more armaments . According to the Daily Mail, June 9, 2011, The U.S. as of June 11, has spent $665 million in the conflict. (Editor: Link does not work) NATO will repay some of this business of death.
Maybe Colonel Gadhafi has outlived his usefulness to the Libyan people and must go; a consensus of world leaders seem to approve this suggestion. Nevertheless, bluntly telling him he must leave is sure to make him want to stay; so why is this being said? Besides, is Gadhafi the problem, or is it the condition of Libya, a mildly prosperous nation ($14,000 per capita GDP) that must balance the spending of today with assuring survival after the oil runs out? Finding other than low service employment in a nation that has few large businesses outside of oil extraction and refinement is not a defect due to poor organization or negligence; it's a difficult task nations in all single resource nations. A question: Why is the U.S. concerned with a nation 4,000 miles from its shores and not resolving a similar unemployment situation within its shores?
The news reports, or lack of news reports, reveal contradictions. If the Libyan rebels are popular, why are there no demonstrations of affection for them? Where are the welcoming crowds, and the usual pictorial destruction of statues and monuments of the despised regime? Where are the augmentation of rebel ranks and volunteers flocking to join their liberator? News scenes indicate the fighting is between armies that are the size of much more heavily armed Los Angeles street gangs, each trying to get out of the way of bullets.