Make no mistake. Another Washington-led resource war targets Libya's riches, besides wanting new US base locations for greater regional dominance.
America doesn't covet regional sun, sand and sea. "Humanitarian intervention" is a lie. So are notions about peace, not war, liberation, equity, justice, and other democratic values. Washington tolerates none of them abroad or at home, plundering the world roguishly.
All US presidents are war criminals. Obama is one of the worst, doubling Bush's lawlessness, adding Pakistan and Libya aggression to Iraq and Afghanistan, spending $1.5 trillion annually for militarism plus multi-trillion dollar handouts to Wall Street crooks, while pleading poverty to cut essential homeland social benefits.
As a result, it's no exaggeration saying America is on a fast-track to tyranny and ruin. It's no longer a fit place to live in. Young people have a choice - leave or be exploited, a shocking indictment of a corrupted, declining, lawless nation.
Unchecked Global Militarism
Waging wars at home and/or abroad every year in its history, a permanent war agenda has been policy since WW II. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:
Historians Charles Beard and Gore Vidal called it "perpetual war for perpetual peace," at all times concealing the real agenda. As a result, since WW II, America's been a global menace, today calling "terrorism" the main threat. In fact, it's bogus nonsense to justify militarism, homeland repression, imperial wars, wanton destruction, and lawless killings, heading the nation for moral, political and economic ruin.
In his book, "Another Century of War," Gabriel Kolko observed:
"The way America's leaders are running the nation's foreign policy is not creating peace or security at home or stability abroad. The reverse is the case: it's interventions have been counterproductive."
In his newest book, "The World in Crisis," he said America's decline "began after the Korean War, was continued in relation to Cuba, and was greatly accelerated in Vietnam - but (Bush II did) much to exacerbate it," what Obama extended further.
No wonder Kolko believes US influence is declining globally. Other nations will surpass its "economic might." As a result, America's "century of domination is now ending." Moreover, each new imperial war hastens it. The fools running the country don't give a damn as long as short-term gains are possible, no matter how many corpses it takes to achieve them.
In his noted trilogy, Chalmers Johnson called American imperialism a "suicide option," noting its undermining effects, explaining what he called:
"isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy," combined with authoritarian rule, a fantasy democracy, social decay, and loss of Bill of Rights freedoms.
Immanuel Wallerstein thinks America "has been a fading global power since the 1970s, and the US response to the (9/11) terrorist attacks has accelerated this decline. (The) economic, political and military factors that contributed to US hegemony are the same (ones) that will inexorably produce the coming US decline."
Obama's latest Middle East adventurism accelerates it further, compounded by destructive homeland policies, notably economic ones plunging Main Street into deepening depression affecting growing millions. Wallerstein, in fact, believes capitalism's contradictions will doom it, perhaps in the next four or five decades.
What replaces it, however, may be better or worse, what he calls "hierarchical and exploitative" or "relatively democratic and egalitarian." No one knows which one, he says, but today's destructive system won't survive, especially given its permanent war agenda.
Besides letting Wall Street run the country and loot the treasury, war takes precedence over everything at a time America has no enemies. As a result, growing millions lost jobs, incomes, civil rights and futures. Perhaps desperation will one day will erupt.
America's leaders trashed people for power and profit. The criminal class in Washington is bipartisan. There's not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans on all major issues, especially corporate favoritism and imperial wars.
War Rages in Libya
On March 21, New York Times writers Elisabeth Bumiller and Kareem Fahim headlined, "US-Led Assault Nears Goal in Libya," saying:
Bombing and cruise missile attacks continue. In defiance of the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 letting only Congress declare war, Obama "said in a letter to (lawmakers) that he had the power to (order) strikes, which would be limited in duration and scope, and that preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya was in the national interest."
False! Obama lawlessly created a humanitarian crisis, initially by enlisting, inciting, funding and arming insurgents to generate one, now greatly exacerbated by "shock and awe" bombings. Reportedly, hundreds have been killed, many more injured, as well as extensive destruction, including hospitals, a medical clinic, at least one civilian airport, and perhaps other non-military sites, whether deliberate or accidental. Falling bombs and missiles aren't as accurate as claimed.
Moreover, most casualties are civilians, including many children. In addition, US jets slaughtered noncombatant government forces leaving Benghazi. Gaddafi twice appealed for ceasefire. Washington declined until completing its killing machine mission.
Conveniently in South America, Obama again demanded Gaddafi step down, what growing Arab anger joined by millions globally demand of him and Pentagon high command killers.
International condemnation also is growing, at least rhetorically, responding to widespread public opposition to more war. NATO countries, in fact, are split. Turkey blocked joint action. Norway said it won't participate. Italy may withdraw use of its bases.
Russian Prime Minister Putin called "Operation Odyssey Dawn" a "medieval call to crusade," and UN Resolution 1973 "defective and flawed." South African President Jacob Zuma expressed opposition to "the regime change doctrine (and) foreign occupation of Libya." India called for an immediate ceasefire. Chairing the Security Council in March, China wants more discussion, perhaps reconsideration of Resolution 1973.
On March 21, Reuters said the Security Council "turned down a Libyan request for a special meeting to discuss Western air strikes," when, under its Charter Article 51 mandate, it's required to do so on matters of naked aggression.
Instead, according to an unnamed Council diplomat, a March 24 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon scheduled briefing will proceed as planned "to receive (his) report about the implementation of Resolution 1973 and will then discuss the situation in Libya," giving America more time to wage war.
On March 22, New York Times writers Elisabeth Bumiller, Kareem Fahim and Alan Cowell headlined, "American (F-15) Warplane Crashes in Libya as Ground Fighting Continues," saying:
Mechanical failure, not hostile fire downed it, with no further explanation. In fact, Gaddafi's surface-to-air (SAM) missile capability very likely shot it down, the Pentagon in denial.
Foreign Forces in Libya
According to Stratfor Global Intelligence, reports suggest "European and Egyptian special operations forces (are) deploying" near Benghazi. Unconfirmed sources say 100 or so Egyptian commandos, in plainclothes, joined opposition rebels in early March, likely at Washington's behest. UK SAS and US Special Forces as well as CIA operatives have been there for many weeks, maybe months as explained above and in earlier articles.
On March 22, the Israeli news site Debka.com said reports about "jubilant Libyan rebels encouraged by (cruise missile attacks) to resume their offensive against Qaddafi's forces Monday were misleading at best." Rebels, in fact, have only one organized platoon, no match against government forces without supportive air strikes, as well as "American, British, French," and perhaps Egyptian and other Arab ground troops joining them. "The rebels must therefore be satisfied with holding Benghazi downtown and a few sectors for as long as they can."
UN Resolution 1973 prohibits a "foreign occupation force." By implication, Western and Arab ones may invade but not stay once hostilities end. Whether large numbers are coming remains conjecture. Given Washington's determination to remove Gaddafi, it's possible, perhaps even claim a reason to stay. Discount nothing when Washington arrives.
Short of killing him, whether Gaddafi falls isn't certain. Libya is very tribal. He has considerable support from half or more of them and the army. They'll lose out if he's gone. As Stratfor explains, he "was very careful to reward his friends and hurt and weaken his enemies, (so) his supporters (are) substantial and motivated."
Moreover, rebel forces aren't "democratic, much less organized or cohesive." It's why Gaddafi routed them. In addition, no-fly zones alone are ineffective. As a result, Saddam's removal took invasion and ground war. Expect it perhaps in Libya, again claiming "humanitarian intervention" with or without Security Council approval, what America prefers but isn't deterred without it.
However, Gaddafi didn't last 42 years by being stupid, "but rather because he speaks to a real and powerful dimension in Libya," and rewards the right people to support him. As a result, nothing ahead is certain. Gaddafi has everything to lose by defeat, including his life. It's incentive enough to hold on.
Moreover, whether "coalition" adhesion sticks as civilian casualties grow is unknown. Bomb and missile diplomacy only goes so far. For sure, it doesn't make friends, especially in a region very uncomfortable about America's presence. Growing anger strongly objects to another Arab state's destruction and colonial takeover.
If he's well hunkered down, it may be what Gaddafi needs to survive. Then maybe not. No one knows for sure. After the Gulf War, Saddam lasted another 12 years. At age 68, matching him may be all Gaddafi needs.
A Final Comment
In his new article titled, "Obama's Bay of Pigs in Libya: Imperial Aggression Shreds the UN Charter," Webster Tarpley states:
"Anglo-American propaganda portrays Qaddafi as a kleptocrat." Perhaps so, yet a UK Daily Mail March 1 Kate Loveys article headlined, "London School of Economics (LSE) takes 1.5 million (pounds) from Gaddafi's son as chief admits embarrassment at relationship with the regime," saying:
Donated by Saif Gaddafi, half the research grant was spent. "And a video has emerged of its leading academics lavishing praise on Colonel Gaddafi, welcoming him as a statesman." Saif, in fact, earned a LSE PhD in 2008 for the Study of Global Governance. The Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation donated the funds. The remaining amount will go for scholarships, not returned.
That aside, Tarpley said:
"Libya is one of the most advanced developing countries, ranking 53 on the UN Human Development Index, making it the most developed society in Africa. (It) ranks ahead of Russia (65), Ukraine (69), Brazil (73), Venezuela (75) and Tunisia (81). The rate of incarceration is 61st in the world." By far, America ranks highest, ahead of China with four times its population. Moreover, Libyan longevity "increased by 20 years under" Gaddafi.
Though no democrat, he "shared the nation's oil income better than the rest of OPEC." Perhaps the lesson is that some despots are better ones than others. America supports the worst of them, supplying some generous aid.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.