This story is fairly predictable. It is from the Russian news outlet “RT.com” (Russian Times*). I was told by Polish Wolf that Obama’s wars, as opposed to Bush’s, were smarter, better waged, kinder and gentler … something like that.
So we bombed Libya, murdered its leader, and the liberals now have all moved on to more murder and mayhem in Syria. (Some things never change. It was the liberals who initiated the Southeast Asian wars, and the millions killed there.)
In the meantime .. I love the last line of this story:
However, if the new Libyan authorities fail to bring peace to the country, that wouldn’t become an obstacle for the US to control its vast oil reserves, believes Richard Spencer, founder and co-editor of AlternativeRight.com.
“I think the US is very happy if Libya becomes a chaotic place where there is no real central power opposing anything they do,” he shared adding that “political stability and having the oil flow are two very different things.”
______________
*The Washington Post, demonstrating its acute self-awareness, referred to RT as the “Russian propaganda outlet.”
Piece of Mindful 
Richard Spencer is your source here? Because I know I try to be a little cautious with anyone who throws around the term ‘race reality’ or refers to the “natural behavior of black people or the lie of ‘equality’. Not that I knew who he was before, but a little due diligence goes a long way. You are quoting a racist, and also one who thinks Medicare is unconstitutional. I only got through a few articles before I was satisfied that the man was a poor source for any critical thought, but you are welcome to find his foreign policy posts if you want any more evidence.
On to what he actually said: that political stability is not necessary for oil flow. Take a cursory glance at Iraqi oil production before 2003, after 2003, and currently, and you’ll note that this is patently false. Oil production requires highly skilled workers and extensive infrastructure. Both of those are vulnerable to violence and sabotage. Russia itself is a prime example, showing that reserves are less important than organization in becoming a top petroleum exporting country.
Back to Richard Spencer – he’s a racist with a clear disdain for ‘Africans’; the Russia Times does itself a disservice by quoting him regarding an African nation. If you actually want to learn about Libya, I’d suggest al Jazeera, as they are almost certainly in a better position to get news than most other media outlets. This article confirms my biases: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/07/2012731132420473906.html
You might be able to find some that confirm yours, as well, but either way you’ll find much better information that doesn’t feel the need to quote American racists, as well as a well-deserved focus on the ongoing situation in Egypt, which is also cause for hope (with a dash of anxiety).
LikeLike
Spencer is part of the fringe right, and appropriate source for views on the aftermath of the destruction of the Libyan government. He offered an opinion, and it is the substance of the opinion, and not the source, that matters to me. I see it at work right now, as Iraqi oil, now under control of the west, flows freely even though the US has destroyed the country and murdered hundreds of thousands of its citizens, this after starving half a million kids to death in the 1990’s. The oil flows freely.
And it is interesting to get your perspective, as you are a part of the Democratic Party, which represents the “left” boundary of acceptable opinion in this country. I cannot distinguish between you and the other party. You all sound like militant extremists to me.
LikeLike
Iraq has not yet matched its oil production prior to the Gulf War. The oil has not flowed freely since that point, though it is starting to catch up now that some minimal amount of stability has returned to the country. Spencer believes Africans to be inherently less intelligent and more violent than other peoples. His views on the fate of an African nation, therefore, are suspect. I’m not going to bet on the future of Libya, because it could go either way, but I will trust sources that speak Arabic and have a connection to the country before I trust American racists.
And while I’m pretty sure you’re asking my perspective rhetorically, I’ll repeat it once more. The US should generally avoid starting wars, internal or external. However, once a conflict has begun, the US ought to determine whether any faction in the conflict meets four requirements: 1) Enjoys support from a large segment of the population (majority support is difficult to determine), 2) Has to potential to be victorious, 3) Is reasonably capable of granting the population an equivalent or better standard of human rights than other factions capable of being victorious, 4) Would improve US geopolitical situation by their victory.
In those cases, the US should invest in said faction to the extent possible without removing any of the previous four circumstances, and as long as the investment does not outweigh the potential geopolitical benefit. It’s a simple governing philosophy – realism infused with a basic respect for human rights. It’s a philosophy so far followed in Egypt, Libya, and Syria, and to some extent Afghanistan. It is not at all the philosophy behind the Iraq war.
LikeLike
I marvel at the imperialist hubris that assume we can do anything in the way of war without use of the UN. You are at odds with the majority of the American public, our treaty agreements and to the right of public opinion, as are both parties.
And I love the use of the word “stability,” as in actual use it means that a secure pro-US government is in place. Saudi Arabia is stable, Egypt was, and Libya and Syria are candidates for stability exercises. Venezuela is not, nor is Egypt at this time, but Colombia is, and Paraguay is returning to the fold of stability.
In Iraq the object form the beginning was control of the oil, not for US needs, but for geopolitical leverage and currency stability. The existing wells were an issue, of course, but more important were the large undeveloped potential in Iraq. That is why it was considered a prize. It was these lands that Cheney and several US oil companies were divvying up among themselves in early 2001, shortly after taking office. (We know this due to an FOI suit. There is a famous map floating around the Internet from that lawsuit, never, of course, mentioned in trustworthy American media.) Enron and Ken Lay were among those spoiling for action.
LikeLike
“I marvel at the imperialist hubris that assume we can do anything in the way of war without use of the UN.”
We can. We do. Can we do so legally? We’ve been through this – a law with no enforcement mechanism cannot be considered binding. I will give you this though – if the UN General Assembly condemns our action, or preemptively warns us against it, the action should be discontinued or avoided. On the other hand, if the GA is condemning our inaction, we might take that as a hint (but again, leaning heavily on those four rules). But outside the express opinion of the GA, the UN is a poor guide for action.
“And I love the use of the word “stability,” as in actual use it means that a secure pro-US government is in place.”
Stability was your guy – your source brought up stability, I’m using his vocabulary here. The point is, a country with a government likely to stick around for a while, that maintains and enforces a consistent set of laws, is ‘stable’ by most definitions. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a legitimate political theorist to actual make a case that Venezuela is unstable, though maybe if you keep trolling through the right wing, racist fringe you’ll find someone.
I agree with you on Iraq, because it fails every test. There was no major violence beforehand, there was no faction that had any chance of taking control, there was no possibility to objectively improve living standards and the investment well outweighed the geopolitical gain (though as you point out, for the oil companies the investment was minimal and the gain amazing). Those four basic rules form a pretty good bright line between an Iraq-style debacle and Libyan Realpolitik.
LikeLike
On the UN, my only point is that your party is in complete harmony with the other party, and you offer no alternative, and you and they are far to the right of public opinion.
You don’t have to go far in the annals to find voices calling for “regime” change in Venezuela. The elections there have upset the status quo, and return to normalcy is needed. The rest is semantic debate – both parties want Chavez gone.
And your party supported the Iraq invasion. Again, we have no meaningful alternative with you guys, yet you tell us that with you things get done. Indeed you do, but it would be nice to have an alternative party.
Realpolitik is a nice ideal, Machiavellian reality and all of that, amoral means to ends. I’m no stooge. But listed some names at ID of people I admire. None of them were realists as you describe it. They were fighters and agents of change. Democrats are not.
LikeLike
Well Mark, we’ve successfully stopped talking about the original topic at all, and brought it back to ‘Democrats are the worst.’ Point stands : there is a huge difference between Libya and Iraq. And do read the article I linked to, it is addressed to people like you. I think the author is highly biased, obviously, in that she wants to see her country succeed and so is likely to see the best things about it, but at least she is there, on the ground, and gives some much-needed perspective.
LikeLike
I’m sitting in the jury pool today, and have time on my hands. I did not know I’d be stuck in a room doing nothing, and so did not bring a book. So I’ve been reading top ten lists at Listserve.com.
Here are my top ten similarities between Libya and Iraq:
10: Both countries were ruled by former US clients conveniently demonized for propaganda purposes.
9: Both countries were on a list of seven that The Bush regime intended to topple.
8: Both countries had strayed from the dollar as their reserve trading currencies for oil.
7: Both attacks involved concoction of huge lies for justification, Iraq WMD’s and Libyan massacre-in-the-works.
6: Both military campaigns were done in a vacuum with media coverage reserved for distance shots of exploding bombs without mention if human suffering.
5: Casualty tolls for both adventures are a mystery, and of no concern to military planners.
4: Both claimed freedom and democracy as their goals.
3: Both campaigns center around continued intrigue in installation of new governments, needing a compliant Vichy form while looking for convenient reasons to exclude domestic democracy movements.
2: Quislings, academic intellectuals, foot soldiers and American media have stepped into the aftermath to justify the motives and distance government from the unsavory results.
1: it’s the crude, dude.
Top two differences:
2: NATO was used as a front for Libya
1: Bush was president when one happened, Obama for the other.
LikeLike
So I take it the following reasons are ultimately unimportant from your perspective? That’s a rather cold perspective. The real differences between the two, in no particular order.
1. One was already in the midst of the civil war, the other was more or less at peace.
2. One cost American lives, the other didn’t.
3. One was initially authorized by the UN, the other wasn’t (admittedly we probably overstepped our UN authorization in Libya, but the difference in international law, which you claim to so adore, is enormous).
4. One bankrupted the country, the other had little fiscal impact.
5. One cost at least ten times more lives than the other.
6. There is no reason to believe that the lives lost in Libya wouldn’t have been lost sans US intervention in the ongoing fighting.
7. One made us an international pariah and left our alliances in tatters; the other saw us working with the Arab league and re-solidifying our trans-atlantic partnerships.
8. One actually improved our geopolitical situation – the other increased the influence of one of our regional rivals.
9. One was planned out years in advance for the benefit of a few; the other was undertaken at the behest of people on the ground in a dynamic situation
10. One involved an invasion and occupation, the other was merely assistance to an extant, indigenous ground army.
Note that while your list deals with theoretical similarities, mine are primarily actual differences that actual have an effect on people’s lives.
LikeLike
No two wars are alike – war is by it’s nature an unpredictable enterprise. The Bushies thought the sanction regime and the death of all those kids under Clinton would have broken the will of the Iraqi people, making the invasion a cakewalk. They miscalculated.
You don’t know why Libya was in civil war – there are many unknown details beyond Aab Spring. It could have been fomented, as with Syria, for the very reason of justifying an attack. The point is, you don’t know.
I don’t adore international law. I only want us to follow it and stop with the killing and massacres. We are the assholes of the planet.
I’m so happy for you and your war makers that this war was not as expensive as the last one. So far.
As DeGaulle said, NATO was a mere device to keep US troops in Europe and European countries under our thumb. Attacking Libya in an unprovoked manner would have been openly and brazenly illegal under our much-tattered laws, so the Obamaites used NATO. It was not partnership. It was coercion.
Your #6 is the unfalsifiable hypothesis again, a nice place to pitch your tent.
The “Arab League” is in tatters. Going all the way back to Nasser, the one thing the US feared most was Arab alliances. This is one reason they were so loony and brutal with Iraq – it was a natural leader of such an alliance.
Both wars “improved” our geopolitical position, Iraq more so because of the sheer quantity of oil that came under control and it’s strategic position. Libya is important as well, however, as it is part of a new thrust into Africa. After WWII that continent was left to Europe to manage, but it is in play now.
I agree that Libya was opportunistic, playing the Arab spring to our advantage. No one said these people are not smart.
Your #10 is a tad idealistic, as if countries operate on high motives. The attack was not for the benefit of Libyans. Tha did not cross anyone’s mind. What lay in store for them is unknown, but it is not self-rule. Not allowed. Perhaps the co try will be split in two, one with oil, one to rot away.
And most importantly, it was not “Obama.” The American executive is a figurehead, a ribbon cutter. Foreign policy is concocted on Wall Street and carried out by the Pentagon with a large propaganda arm to make sure the American people don’t get rowdy about it as happened in the 60’s. Some presidents are stronger than others, Nixon, for instance. Clinton might have gotten uppity – Monica-type stuff is no coincidence. Obama has been compliant from the day he took office. The timing of Israel’s attack on Gaza, January of ’09, was probably a message to Obama reminding him that other people run the show.
He dowsn’t appear to have a fighting bone in his body.
LikeLike
Nice of you to ignore the most important points – there were no American deaths, and less than a tenth the number of civilian deaths. But clearly, that doesn’t concern you.
As to the US ‘coercing’ Europe, there is every reason to believe that the Europeans were more concerned with Libya than the US. And where is your evidence that the Arab league is in tatters? They had every reason to want Gaddafi out – he shunned them for the more manipulable African Union.
Now I’ll admit that we have no idea to what extent the civil war was assisted by the US. I will say it seems highly unlikely that it was entirely caused by the US, simply because the US had little time to organize such an effort, or the political will to get involved immediately. We would have been perfectly happy to keep working with Gaddafi, but after the uprising it was impossible to do so – there is a human rights line even allies can cross, i.e. Uzbekistan.
As to number 6 – yeah, it’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis, but there’s plenty of evidence. More Libyans died before our intervention than after, and there is no reason to believe that Benghazi and Misrata would have been conquered easily. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which fewer people would have died sans our intervention.
And as much as we all love your mantra of ‘self rule is not allowed’, there is little evidence that that is not happening. The US is exerting little influence over Tunisia or Libya, and is allowing the Muslim Brotherhood president to dismiss key military figures.
LikeLike
As far as I can tell, though it is still playing out, In Egypt the old guard is out, a new one is in. All of the new faces look like the old faces, sans wrinkles. I don’t see change in the works there. The US did not fund a military dictatorship there for thirty years only to walk away when it was challenged.
During the 1990’s when “Clinton” (as if) enforced sanctions against Iraq and half a million kids died of preventable and avoidable disease and malnutrition, no American kids died by his hand. I guess you can say that policy was a success too.
The US dominates Europe – evidence? US troops stationed there sixty years after the end of conflict, US control of their oil resources, and the existence of NATO, a group of military organizations that are smaller than the US and appear to act at its behest. It is for that reason that the asshole DeGaulle refused to join – he did not want France to be a pawn of the US. (There are no allies in international relations. There are only enemies and potential enemies.)
And I did not say the the Libyan uprising was “caused” by the US – quite the contrary. The Arab Spring in total was a natural set of events, a revolution against authoritarian governments, most backed by the US, a few not. (The US supports the Arab Spring insofar as it is upsetting governments it wants changed.)
Libya was only half-heartedly accepted, but Quaddafi was erratic and unreliable, and had indeed abandoned the dollar.* Syria, brutal and authoritarian, is not backed by the US. Ergo, that’s a good uprising. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain – brutal and authoritarian, are backed by the US. Those uprisings hardly make the news. There is a pattern if you are willing to look for it.
You seem to suffer illusions that permanently separate us: 1) US elections are a determinant factor in US foreign policy; 2) The president runs the executive branch; 3) US planners are concerned about human lives and human rights; 4) US planners cannot fart and chew gum at once, and 5) that I somehow think the US is always able to enforce its will.
Anyway, take a look at recent Pentagon activities and you’ll find new objectives in reaction to events beyond its control: A new division devoted solely to African matters, and a new emphasis on encirclement of China.
______
* Forgot – it appears as though Qaddafi was also trying to shake down some banks. That may have sealed his fate.
LikeLike
If you want to keep arguing that elections make no difference in foreign policy, be my guest. We’ve already gone through that – I can’t prove that Gore wouldn’t have attacked Iraq, and you can’t prove that he would have. That doesn’t make Libya the same as Iraq. You haven’t, and won’t, addressed the main differences: the US did not start that war, it merely chose the winner, and the number of civilian casualties is much, much smaller. That’s what I care most about: whether the violence is caused by us, and how bad it is. If it is not caused by us, and can be contained, then an action is worth considering if it can help our national interests.
LikeLike
On a large continuum, the worst possible outcome would be a war that destroyed civilization, and at the other end … Grenada? That Libya was less destructive (so far) means nothing. It’s a smaller country. What you are doing is a fallacy – you are scaling evil, saying that it is measured by the size of conflicts, and not the objectives and means used.
The overriding principle is this: Aggressive war is the ultimate crime for which we hanged Germans at Nuremberg. Your lesser-evil game is a fallacy because there is no upper limit to evil, and so there can be no lesser quantity. Libya falls under the heading “aggressive” war because the US, using NATO, exceeded its UN mandate to establish a no-fly zone, and did a full-scale military attack.
LikeLike
By the way, if you wonder how the US can use coercion over Europe, think in terms of geopolitics and control of their oil. That’s why the Mideast is considered “the prize” – control of that oil is leverage over the rest of the planet. That’s why the cost of Iraq was considered well worth every penny of US taxpayer money.
LikeLike
“Democrats are the worst” as a characterization of arguments against your party is a deflection device, as you are avoiding substantive arguments.
Top ten reasons not to be a Democrat
10: Democrats offer notional ideals but do nothing to advance them
9: Democrats act as a ratchet, solidifying right wing advances and preventing backsliding.
8: Enough Democrats jump ship to avoid passage of virtually all critical legislation.
7: Democrats enable the filibuster.
6: Democrats offer the very same foreign policy as Republicans.
5: Democrats viciously attempt to quash third party movements.
4: Democrats absorb popular progressive movements, and then, de-ball them.
3: Democrats don’t properly vet candidates or disciplne them in office. It is therefor way too easy for a Republican to pretend to be a Democrat.
2: Democrats are satisfied to win an election, and then go to sleep.
1. Democrats have advanced the Bush terrorism agenda, flanking neocons to the right with drone assassination, indefinite detention of Americans, and assassination of American citizens.
Top two reasons to be a Democrat
2: There is a marginal progressive body within the party, though ineffective.
1: Election victories are a good time to party it up.
LikeLike