Libya – Making sense of the intervention
By Chris Clancy
We're nearly two months into it now.
Like most people I was left scratching my head when the UN announced that it would intervene in Libya.
The history of such interventions is clear.
After two months they are mired in what has become described as a "stalemate".
So what exactly was the point? Yes, of course, oil is a factor – but the oil still would have flowed regardless of whether Gaddafi was in power or not. Anyway, even if Libya stopped its supply it wouldn't make much difference – it accounts for less than 2% of the world's crude.
Many excellent commentators have tried to figure out what's going on.
The official justification was said to be "humanitarian". The object being to protect the civilian population from the impending onslaught from government forces against the rebels. Where was the hard evidence for this?
No, this was just nonsense and hypocracy of the highest order..
So what was it about?
Was Libya nothing more than a smokescreen – an attempt to distract attention from what is going on in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, to name just three?
Not in the age of mass communication.
Butler Schaffer in this article likens information dissemination before the internet to a pyramid. The elite at the top controlled what filtered down to the proles at the bottom. He says that what we now have is a sphere rather than a pyramid. I wouldn't go that far. Maybe the shape now is more like the top half of a hard-boiled egg!
So where are we with finding the real reason for intervention? It's not humanitarian, it's not just about the oil and it's not a smokescreen.
Is it about the military/industrial complex slurping the last dregs from the trough before it all comes to an end? Possibly. Is it about keeping emerging nations away from the oil? Possibly
Or is it just about the dollar? Almost certainly.
Because, just as I was coming to the conclusion that there was no rational explanation for the intervention – that it was yet another monumental blunder – I came across this article by Peter Dale Scott.
In the article he writes that Gadaffi planned to form an African Union with its own currency based on the gold dinar.
The beginnings of a return to sound money?
Oh no, the elite couldn't have that. Once the BRICS countries climbed on board It would have signalled doomsday for the dollar and the West.
In his article, Scott writes:
He quotes Ellen Brown who points out in this article that both Iraq and Libya were attacked shortly after announcing that they would stop selling all their oil for dollars:
If this is all true then the elite had a concrete reason for "doing something"!
The cheapest and most expedient "something" would have been Gaddafi's assassination.
Indeed, where are they now?
Again, in his article, Scott writes:
So they chose military intervention instead of assination - although they did target his military compound when it all started, in the hope of taking him out straight away.
He's still there two months later, inspite of a second attempt to blow him to pieces - and now he's asking for a ceasefire.
Relatively speaking, "going in" is the easy bit, but without a credible exit strategy, "getting out" is the hard bit.
Maybe the assumption was that the regime would simply collapse once military intervention began. Well, it didn't happen and it won't. Gaddafi ain't going no-where. He's there for the long haul.
If Iraq and Afghanistan can be compared to trying to dig a hole in a swamp – Libya can now be added.
How will it all end? Who knows.
It's three dimensional chess on steroids
Too many variables.
Chris Clancy, has been living and working in China for the last 7 years. He is currently employed as associate professor of financial accounting at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan City, Hubei Province, PRC. © 2011