|
On the surface, our action in Libya appears to be noble, the best of what our country has to offer. A large, powerful country coming to the rescue of a group of freedom fighters to help overthrow a dictator. After all, I'm not a complete pacifist, I recognize that in this cold, cruel world, there are times when peaceful means of change simply won't cut it.
However, I'm no longer a child, and no longer an innocent. I recognize what is underlying this action on our part, namely the ongoing business of profit and empire. Face it, we wouldn't be involved with Libya if oil wasn't involved. After all, the UN and the US have time and again turned their back on similar situations in other African countries, the only difference being that they didn't have oil, while Libya does. Why do you think that European powers were so eager to jump into the conflict with us? Europe receives much more of its oil supplies from Libya than the US.
I also find another disturbing pattern in this armed conflict, namely that we are once again blowing a country to hell and back, a country whom we had previously armed. Despite his being a "madman dictator", administrations over the years, including Obama's, have had no problem selling Gaddafi arms, weapon systems and munitions. Once again we are seeing a familiar pattern unfolding in Libya, namely that the US is spending massive amounts of money, resulting in more massive profits for the MIC, in order to overthrow a dictator with whom the MIC has already conducted lots of business. The MIC is making obscene profits both coming and going, again.
This action also has another familiar theme to it. As in Iraq, we are setting up another oil rich country for prolonged conflict involving the US. For ten years the US established a no fly zone over Iraq in order to "protect civilians". The trouble is, during that time the US managed to kill a half million innocent Iraqi civilians. The oxymoronic nature of this sort of action simply didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now, that is unless you consider the fact that we are repeating a strategy that has been repeated a number of times since WWII. Namely that now, with the Iraq conflict supposedly winding down, and the Afghan conflict scheduled to wind down in three years (though I have my doubts about that), we are once again doing what we did in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and other countries, namely paving the way for another full blown conflict that the MIC can make obscene profits off of once our current money making conflicts are concluded.
Finally, there is the issue of whether this action on the part of the Obama administration is even Constitutional. I recognize that the necessity of having Congress weigh in on any armed conflicts has become a quaint, old fashioned notion, held on to by those old fashioned folks who still believe that the Constitution actually means something in this day and age. Yet the fact remains that according to the Constitution, the President can only take armed action against a country, can only wage war unilaterally if there was a clear and present danger to the US. In all other cases, Congress must weigh in with a declaration of war. That hasn't happened, and the contempt that Obama is thus showing for the Constituion matches the contempt shown by Bush I, Bush II, Reagan and other such luminaries.
If I were as innocent as a child, then I would support the US action in Libya. However I'm a grown adult, one who has studied our history in previous post WWII conflicts, seen how we have cynically used war and rebellion in order to enrich the MIC and play the grand game of Empire. Being an adult, well versed in history, I cannot support the action in Libya. It is simply another war of empire and enrichment, one that is neither noble nor right.
Peace.
|