Yes, this scam to “protect the Libyan people” is very reminiscent of that time we “protected the Bosnians” when we were really only after their oil.
… Oh, wait. Bosnia only produces sunflower seed oil? :smack:
Uh. Nevermind.
Can you explain why the US decided to interfere in the case of Libya and not in the countless other recent and not-so-recent cases where a lot of civilians were being killed?
If you believe that it is indeed to “protect the Libyan people”, why are they deemed more worthy of protection by the US than other people?
ETA: Maybe “it’s for the oil” is too simplistic an explanation, but so is “it’s to protect the Libyan people”
Why not just admit that after 41 years of putting up with this crazy assed Gaddafi motherfucker and his terrorism, we’re quite happy to latch on to ANY reason to take him out?
We’re dancing around it, whereas I think this is the perfect job for the French Foreign Legion.
The USA was dragged into the conflict because some European powers insisted. The Europeans interfere in Libya and not Bahrain or the Ivory Coast for the same reason that the USA is more concerned about what takes place in Mexico than in Bhutan: it’s closer.
For decades, especially the last 20 years, the U.S. has been seen as The Great Satan in the Middle East. When we were slow to provide military support to the Libyan revolutionaries, they were all like ‘You bastards! Why don’t you help us?’
We have to be very, very careful if we want to redeem ourselves.
Good question, perhaps worthy of its own thread. Bosnia is in Europe; people we didn’t help were mostly Blacks in out-of-the-way Africa; so I’m afraid a form of racism may be a big part of the reason. Certainly, the fact that the West has a long history of hatred against Gaddafi may play a big role in the specific Libyan decision.
But oil? I think the West would and should act militarily to protect international oil trading but, as someone else mentioned, that doesn’t seem to be reason for the intervention; indeed we might have sided with Gaddafi if oil were the primary consideration.
The biggest pushers for intervention have been the UK and France, both members of the EU. I’m not sure why there’s a fascination on this board with the American angle on this issue. Obama’s been lukewarm at best on the issue of air strikes and intervention, and virtually had to be beaten into agreeing to go along with the NFZ, and handed over control of the operation within days; pretty damned quick in political terms.
Further, I think there’s more other convincing explanations for EU-led intervention in Libya than the oil angle (I don’t think the UK or France get any significant amounts of oil from Libya, whereas Italy might, but again, they were pretty hesitant in getting involved, given Berlusconi’s love of the bunga-bunga parties that Ghadaffi throws him in his Bedouin tent, or so I’ve heard).
For one, Libya’s a “border state” for the EU (yes, I realize it’s across the Mediterranean) and the EU has always had an interest in what happens immediately outwith its borders for rather obvious reasons. It’s in the EU’s interests to have stable well-developed countries outside their borders, not countries run by megalomaniacs who keep the country poor.
I also don’t think many Mediterranean-EU members relish the thought of being flooded with immigrants and asylum seekers following the brutal crackdown that any Ghadaffi victory would see. Siding with the “least bad” side seems best, and if the EU then floods the country with development money, like we did with Eastern Europe, where every road, school and hospital had “Funded by EU development fund” outside of it, then that would do a lot to bring Libya “into the fold” so to speak.
Finally, I really do think that the Libyans are ready for democracy, or at least some approximation to it. The Libyans aren’t a backwards people, as a postgrad I knew many who were enrolled as students in our petroleum engineering , and if we have to play Lafayette to help them get rid of Ghadaffi, then so be it.
Can you explain how this concept works? If I don’t have physical direction over something, nor do I make decisions about how something is bought and sold, I cannot figure out by what means I can be considered to have control over an item.
How does our military “control” oil if it isn’t able to direct who owns it or where it goes?
All your answers are here, explained by Angry Birds: Three Big Pigs - YouTube
It’s about oil. Maybe. There are plenty of other humanitarian crises in the world, and even in Africa, that we’re more or less ignoring. But you have to remember how we got into this. France took the lead, and pulled us in. Guess where a huge part of Libya’s oil goes? So, it is about oil, but the good news is that it’s not the US who is worried about it. If that matters.
Remember that the US did pretty much the same thing in what used to be Yugoslavia when Clinton was in the WH, and there isn’t any oil there. So we know that the US is capable of leading a humanitarian effort just like this when oil is not involved.
The oil explanation makes absolutely no sense. It’s not as if Libya hasn’t been keen to open its oil fields to European companies in the last few years (witness BP’s operations there), after they were brought in from the cold.
Further, if oil was the reason, we’d be supporting Ghadaffi, not a ragtag bag of revolutionaries kickstarting a civil war that could last for months, if not years, disrupting the oil supply. We’d want the civil war crushed in a matter of weeks. Which would have been easy, if we’d have supported Ghadaffi and allowed him free reign. Further, I’ve never bought that any war was “about oil”. Oil is sold on an open market. If a country wants money flowing in, as pretty much every country in the world does, it needs to sell its oil somehow. How can Libya have possibly threatened the European oil supply? By selling oil to Russia, and not to Europeans? If so, how?
Not to the UK, which also took the lead along with France.
Face it, this has nothing to do with oil. It’s about the EU not wanting a mentalist running a country just outside its borders, slaughtering all and sundry, and flooding the whole continent with migrants.
Why should France care where Libya sells its oil? Libyan oil isn’t any cheaper than any other kind of oil. There’s no quality advantage to Libyan oil. What makes Libyan oil so precious to France that they would go to war over it?
Actually Libyan oil is noted for its higher-than-usual quality (low sulfur content) and lower-than-usual extraction costs (not very deep)–wars excluded, of course.
Not that I believe this is all about oil.
Gaddafi’s brutality towards the initial demonstrations in his country surpassed the combined efforts of the dictators in Yemen, Bahrain and Syria. Combined with the latent but enduring shame that some felt over the international community’s failure to act in Rwanda, and the proximity to Europe (which raised both stakes for the Europeans, while reducing logistical concerns about mounting a response)… Gaddafi was basically asking to be made the example.
Yes, and Afghanistan was about a natural gas pipeline and Iraq was about getting cheap oil to the U.S. The fact that neither of these things ever happened is no impediment, right? I’m sure this time it’s about the oil. They wouldn’t do that to you three times in a row.
Opportunity. It’s really as simple as that. There are protests in Bahrain and Syria, there is an armed revolt in Libya that made some major gains before it stalled. So for the West, there’s an opportunity to encourage the rebels in Libya to get rid of a hostile dictator. That’s not the case in the other countries. It’s unfortunate that people in Syria and Bahrain aren’t getting help but it’s also not impossible to understand why that’s the case.
It seems pretty obvious that the U.S.’ Libyan intervention is not primarily about oil. Something like 1% of our oil imports come from there, and if protecting them was so important we’d have stayed out of the current conflict or actively supported Gaddafi once it appeared he had the upper hand.
I have to say though that the “No blood for oil!” screamers have an inanely naive view of factors driving foreign policy and on occasion, military intervention. In this worldview no intervention in any foreign conflict may be countenanced unless it is strictly for humanitarian reasons and does not benefit the U.S. in any way. If an action can be seen even in small part as being in the national interest (especially in (gasp) some economic way) it is Stone Evil.
Of course there is such a thing as designing intelligent policy that benefits long-term national interests, which is something we haven’t seen a lot of lately.
The notion that we’re bombing Libya in order to extract more oil will be news to BP who were just about to invest around ten billion dollars in order to actually drill some wells ‘n’ stuff.
We are in Lybia for Oil. And for humanitarian reasons too.
Lybia is a key oil supplier to Europe. Yes, the UN–at the behest of the US & EU–agreed to implement a no-fly zone to protect civilian slaughter and prevent the wave of popular uprisings in the ME from crashing down. I believe it was a good decision and I am all for it. But. . . .Lybia is a key oil supplier to Europe.
Why was there no UN/NATO military intervention in Darfur where hundreds of thousands have died? No precious resources benefical to whoever would intervene were at stake.
Wait…whaaaaa?
You do realize that the US has been the primary impediment to democracy in the Middle East, right? We were Mubarak’s number one fan, and gave him millions in military aid. Mubarak Egypt was the third highest recipient of US aid after Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gaddafi has been on our “we don’t like this guy” list for ages. Hasn’t the second Gulf War shown that when the US decides they personally hate you, they will go through hell and high water to get you removed?
I think it’s more complex than “we like white people better.”
We don’t get Africa. In Bosnia, we could understand the conflicts between Christians and Muslims and the forces manipulating them into war. In Africa, we still think of it as “some kind of ethnic thing.” We are so inundated with images of African suffering that it all kind of starts looking the same. But white European suffering is novel, and thus compelling.
And why the lack of intervention in Southern Sudan, where there is scads of oil? Or is that just inconvenient?