Mrs. Graybeard, who is nothing if not a good researcher, stumbled upon a couple of interesting things last night. Evidence that what's going on in Libya is not just disaffected students and oppressed locals crying out for freedom.
To begin with, they've apparently instituted a central bank; their own version of our Federal Reserve. I won't comment on the wisdom of a central bank, but doesn't it seem strange that a ragtag group of fighters, while not having sufficient C3I to fight a meaningful resistance still has a group that opens the "Central Bank of Benghazi", and signs an oil agreement? (C3I is short for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence - no modern conflict can be won without it).
Oil agreement?? That's right, according to the BBC, they've already signed a deal to export oil to Qatar. Bloomberg concurs, and fills in more details than that short BBC piece. More interestingly, the Bloomberg piece is datelined March 22nd, over a week ago, which is very early in the rebellion to create a central bank and an oil industry. Shouldn't you actually, you know, win before you do this?
What does it mean?
For openers, it implies more organization than you might expect, and that this has been under preparation longer. It's curious to observe how quickly the rebels fielded a fighting force (such as it is). Could you put together a force so quickly in your area of operations? Does it seem reasonable to put together a Public Relations website, in English, this quickly?
Second, it might mean that Responsibility to Protect stuff is just a cover. The attention to Samantha Power, then, could be a distraction. What's the other hand doing?
Is it just a "war for oil?" Probably not on our part. Due to our longstanding trade restrictions, we don't buy much Libyan oil; but France is perhaps the biggest instigator of this action, and they do buy Libyan oil.
You will pardon me if I get even more suspicious about this whole operation, won't you?
It seems to add up to something, doesn't it?
ReplyDelete[sarcasm] Its a good thing that its only about "protecting civilians" and not something more sinister. [/sarcasm]
And this "responsibility to protect" stuff has me wondering as well - wasn't this the same stuff all the Dems and libs were complaining about with Bush? Where did they get this Demoliberal Neocon from - and why is it now a good idea? Just more evidence that both sides are opposite wings of the same bird of prey.
I'm shocked, shocked!
ReplyDeleteThis explains the normally retreating Frogs interest...(is that politically incorrect?)
I just heard the Belgian Air Force shot down a Libyan jet.
ReplyDeleteThe Belgian Air Force? When was the last time the Belgian Air Force shot down someone? Has it ever happened?
No disrespect to the Belgians, you understand. Just puzzled.
Re: the Responsibility to Protect. My "Five Minute University" study of Samantha Power says she was motivated by disappointment that Billary Clinton did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide, and enlarged her study from there. Could be wrong, but someone led me to think that. So one would guess her principles would lead her to want to stop Saddam Hussein from his genocide of the Kurds, or the Marsh (Madness) Arabs. I have always thought the principled objections of the Euro-weenies was due to the liberal spreading around of cash Saddam was proven to do. There are a few principled people and she may be one; only time will tell.