Is it possible to both oppose Gaddafi and oppose a war on Gaddafi? Absolutely.In addition to the points he makes about the absurdity of supposed American European moral high ground....in light of their support of brutal dictators in other countries, we could also point out the fact that no one acted during the crises in Darfur or Rwanda as well as other places. Why?
We all know why. It's not about altruistic humanitarian interests, it's about money, resources and power.
If anything these actions once again expose the leaders of the International Community for what they really are....power mongers and neo-Imperialists. No one is really interested in created some kind of peaceful global government. It will never happen...fallen man won't allow it.
Imperialism today looks quite a bit different than it did in the 19th century. While we speak of the world as being smaller, in reality it's much bigger and complex. There's more to control but because of the much vaster complexity, it also means there are many more ways to control nations and cultures than merely planting your flag on their territory. This is why America can have the vastest most powerful empire in the history of the world and at the same time maintain an appearance that it does not. Anyone who bothers to read history and current events knows better, but the masses often do not.
I'm always reminded of this when I hear the old guys standing around the hardware store griping about, "Why does America always have to be the policeman, rescuing everybody?"
They don't get it. If America is the policeman, they're policing their streets. And if you let someone else clean up the streets....it's now their street.
Policeman isn't an accurate label or concept. It's more like street gangs fighting over turf. International Thugs is really what they are, some like Gaddafi are just a bit more colourful.
For many Americans what they fear is global government.
I realize the fear concerning this issue stems for many from a misguided view of Biblical Prophecy. I don't believe the Bible teaches we need to look forward to and/or fear a global government.
In one sense it won't ever happen.
In another sense, we already have it and have had it for some time.
It doesn't have to be a perfect political unity and it doesn't mean the Elites/Thugs control every country and every spot on the globe.
When you read pre-WWI history, there are constant references to 'The Powers' meaning Russia, Britain, France, Germany, and the Habsburg Empire...sometimes Ottoman Turkey as well.
All the post WWII talk surrounding the setting up of the UN was supposed to end not just dictatorships and oppression, horrific war and genocide, but it was 'supposed' to insure an equal playing field.
Of course it was ruined from the beginning....because there was NO WAY the powers that remained as well as the new post-war powers were going to give up their power by sharing it.
So while they all will make use of the UN when it's convenient and will certainly use it for propaganda and dramatic purposes (like some of the powers are doing right now with Libya)....they (all the powers) do much to circumvent it and keep organizations like the UN weak. In the end, national sovereignty and the power-brokers who are keen to maintain status-quo are all that really matter. If the UN doesn't serve them, they will set aside it very quickly. The United States often does it without hesitation.
So while they operate under a UN mandate, the world is hardly unified in supporting the Libya action. Will this turn into a NATO operation? I don't know. Bush almost broke NATO and some of the fissures haven't quite gone away. We'll see what happens.
While Gadaffi is certainly a complete lunatic, it's disgusting to hear the moral superiority in the tones of American and European diplomats. What a joke, a rather sick one I might add. And, does the media question any of this? Do they expose the internationalist game? Al Jazeera and a few others do, but none of the mainstream media outlets even touch it. They are mouthpieces of power as was exhibited in their lavish praise of the late Richard Holbrooke.
And once again we see how 'liberal' the Nobel laureate Obama is turning out to be.
If he thinks this action will please those on the far-right and in the Neo-con sector, he needs to think again....they will not praise him for this. No matter what happens they will continue their assault on his presidency.
The same thing happened in the 90's. The Right was less than enthusiastic about Clinton's Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. We all saw how 'patriotic' they were and how much they really 'support the troops.'
Patriotism? That's a tool all those in power use to manipulate the naive. The Republicans are not patriotic, they're after power.
Speaking of naive, I'm beginning to think the term is an apt description of our president. I think he really means well, but has found out you can't swim in a septic tank and not get dirty. Or maybe he hasn't quite figured it out yet.....
This is the 'Change' he promised?
It just look like more of the same....Bush III, bombs and all.
Here's the link and the text from Rockwell:
Another Obama War
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Following the US-lobbied UN authorization of military murder in Libya, the death-dealing regime of Colonel Gaddafi said immediately that it would stop all killing. That put Obama’s war on hold, for a little while. The crazy Colonel has learned a thing or two about American foreign policy. If you pretend to favor the stated goals of the empire and comply with its stated dictates, you can otherwise do what every government in the world is structured to do: stay in power at all costs.
Gaddafi learned this lesson about a decade ago, when, with much fanfare, he announced that he would stop his nuclear weapons program and join the war on terror. The US then decided to rank him and his regime among the world’s good guys, and proceeded to hold him up as an example of wise statesmanship. Then he proceeded to dig in more deeply and tighten his despotic control over his citizens, all with the implied blessing of the US.
But this time it may not work. For weeks, American officials have been decrying Gaddafi’s bloody attacks on his people, but does the US really have a problem with dictatorship of his sort? This fact is unknown to Americans, but in the Middle East, and in Arab nations in particular, American commercial interests are regarded as a force for liberation but not the US government. The US has been the key to the power of Middle East dictatorships for decades, among which are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. I leave aside the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to liberate them.
So it is something of a joke that the US would push a war against Libya in order to save that country from dictatorship. More likely, the real issue here is the same one that inspired the wars against Iraq: the ownership and control of the oil. And even if freedom were the driving motivation, when in modern history has war ever actually brought that to people? All war by nation states today ends in massive civilian deaths, destruction of infrastructure, political upheaval without end (see Afghanistan and Iraq), vast expense, and bitterness all around.
War will not achieve its claimed objective. It might even end up entrenching Gaddafi’s power. But let’s say that he ends up dead, like Saddam Hussein. What then? The new government will be handpicked by the victor, and never gain any credibility, just as in Iraq. People resent foreign conquerors even more than local despots, and this resentment is not a good foundation for a future of liberty.
President Obama probably looks at the prospect of war rather lustily, just as Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, et al. did before him. But this time, there is a problem. The US simply cannot afford to be seen as attacking yet another Muslim country, though that is what it is doing, at a time when all the world knows that US foreign policy is primarily based on whipping up anti-Islamic feelings the world over, and taking over the oil.
For this reason, the Obama administration must seek the cover of the UN and the cooperation of other Arab states. England and France have been reliable, but not Germany and not other Arab states, so the operation could end up more tricky than he initially supposed.
Let’s just pretend for a moment that the US government really does want to free the people of Libya from a wicked man. What is the right way to go about it? There is the assassination option, which I oppose but which would nonetheless be a much better choice than war. What of the US’s legendary CIA hitmen that can take down anyone on the planet following a few orders from on high? Where are they now?
Recall that in the last days before the last war on Iraq, a spokesman for Saddam actually did propose a duel between Bush or Cheney and Saddam or his vice president. It was not an unserious suggestion. This would have been a much better option for both Iraq and America, but then the government doesn’t really get what it wants out of war, which is a chance to blow things up, spend gobs of money, whip up the population in war frenzy, and inspire another bout of nationalistic hysteria that helps consolidate power for the war-making regime.
Is it possible to both oppose Gaddafi and oppose a war on Gaddafi? Absolutely. This is a position that all Americans should adopt. In the same way, it is possible to oppose the Obama administration but also oppose having a foreign army oust him in order to liberate us.
In the early days of the protests in Libya against Gaddafi, the protesters held up signs opposing any foreign intervention. This is still the right approach. There should be no war, no blockades, no impositions of a "no-fly zone," or anything else. The US has been a supporter and backer of Gaddafi for a decade. That damage is already done. Going to war would only compound it.
For the sake of freedom and human rights, we must say no to war. We must also say no to all forms of foreign intervention that support dictatorships until they become too politically embarrassing to Washington, D.C.
March 19, 2011
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.