Gadhafi & Obama, two strange guys
The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya condemning the U.S.-led air assault on Libya and said Sunday that he would call a league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention.
Amr Moussa stated, “What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone. And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”
The Arab League expected the establishment of a no-fly zone, not the surface bombing which is killing innocent Libyan citizens.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that a UN resolution resembled mediaeval crusades after the second wave of air strikes saying, “The resolution is defective and flawed. It allows everything. It resembles mediaeval calls for crusades.”
The U.S. denial that Gadhafi himself is a target is hard to believe in light of the direct British missile hits on Gadhafi’s residence. The Arab memory goes back to 1986, when Reagan ordered air strikes against Gadhafi’s compound killing more than 100 people, including Gadhafi’s young adopted daughter.
A shift away from the Arab League endorsement would be a setback to the U.S.-European campaign and lend credence to Gadhafi’s claims of Crusaders and colonialists. It would also support the charge that Western powers were seeking to get their hands on Libya’s oil reserves rather than limit the bloodshed in the country.
Even Secretary of Defense Gates warned that it will complicate the consensus around the UN Security Council resolution on no-fly zone over Libya if there is an attempt to expand the goals of military strikes against the North African nation.
President Obama, the silent, continues on his family vacation to Brazil and South America—a vacation marred by protests and riots—over Hillary’s war in Libya.
Naturally, the Europeans are much in favor of the war, and seek to profit by it. British Prime Minister David Cameron outlined to Parliament what the UK’s role would be saying we “can’t stand by as a dictator kills his own people.” He could have continued by saying, “we will kill them, ourselves.”
Libya was once part of Italy, while Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia belonged to France.
Libya was an Italian colony from the 1910s until 1947, when it became independent under King Idris. In 1969, when absent on a visit to Turkey, King Idris was deposed in a bloodless coup led by a 27-year old captain, Moamar al-Gadhafi.
Who cares if a new leader emerges from the Libyan rebels? It’s all about the oil. It’s a Crusade!
However, if Gadhafi goes will be Libya’s next ruler be any better? Will America’s oil supply be any more secure?
“However, if Gadhafi goes will be Libya’s next ruler be any better? Will America’s oil supply be any more secure?”
As Western military might is again used, most likely the outcome will be another Iraq in the making. Or another Afganistan. Or a Western supported Afgan leader like Hamid Karzai emerging. Has the outcome turn out better in these cases? No lessons learnt from these cases?
I hope for the sake of the Libyan people that the next leader of Libya remains determined to work for the Libyan people whatever America’s oil interest.
I have my doubts that the unknown opposition with its “flickers” of Al Qaeda and jihadists can be expected to be any better than Gadhafi. Meanwhile America goes deeper into debt, slowly sinking below first-world level.