Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Now That It's Over ... Why Libya?

Now that the Libyan Kinetic Military Action is winding down, Qadaffi is on the run, and Sharia Law is being safely ensconced into the new Libyan legal system, I have to go back to wondering:  why there?  This has always been in the pile of "things that make you go WTF??" for me.  When this first started back in March, I commented on some things that just didn't seem right to me: 
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?... Shouldn't you actually, you know, win before you do this?
and included short mention of Samantha Power (wife of the regulatory czar Cass Sunstein) and the UN Responsibility to Protect movement, (which WSRA links to today):
Second, it might mean that Responsibility to Protect stuff is just a cover.  The attention to Samantha Power, then, could be a distraction.
Still, why Libya?  Is it that they were not virulently anti-Israel enough for Samantha Power and George Soros, who has employed her in the past?   Human rights?

No doubt Daffy Qadaffi, the Transvestite of Tripoli, was not a beneficent ruler who allowed freedom for this people in absolute terms, but Libya is reported to have had the best standard of living in Africa (and here, too) so they certainly didn't have it as badly as many other populations under dictatorships. 
For Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur for human rights in Palestine, the “degree of repression” in Libya is not "more pervasive and severe" than in other authoritarian countries. Even according to Amnesty International's country reports of human rights conditions, that of Libya differs little from many other countries; regarding the Arab allies in the NATO war alliance, such as Saudi Arabia, it is even much worse.  (source)
They publicly dismantled their WMD program in late '03 during the early phases of the Iraq war.  They were trying to open tourism with the rest of the world again.  They were, by all I can tell, not a problem in the region.  Unlike Syria, where "Butcher" Al-Assad is killing his people by the hundreds.  Unlike Sudan, where Muslims are killing Christians in prolific numbers.

If you were going to ask me to point out a global hot spot of oppression that needed to capped, Libya would not have made my list. 

No, if we were going to get rid of an oppressive dictatorship, we don't have to go over to Africa; one of the worst is right here, 90 miles from Florida.  I'm talking about Cuba, of course.  Read Babalu blog if you're not familiar with the reality of Cuba, or a nice summary of the early days of the regime, here.  It's one of the most brutally repressive regimes on earth.   I refer to Chavez in Venezuela as "Fidel's Dumber Brother".  His regime is trying to achieve the same levels of stupidity as Fidel's in Cuba.  If we just wanted to show off a bunch of military hardware, we could have off'ed Kim Jung Il and liberated North Korea, where people don't have even a tiny fraction of the quality of life of the Libyans, and where everyone is starving, even the Army (who gets more than the people).

This clearly wasn't some sort of altruistic move, motivated by higher things.  I come down to just a couple of possible reasons:
  1. Oil - for the Europeans mostly.  True, the US doesn't buy Libyan oil directly, but oil is pretty dang fungible, and any added to the world supply affects the price of all of it.  But oil was already flowing from Libya.  I doubt there's a big increase coming.
  2. Israel.  Always the center of goings on in the Middle East and north Africa, Libya just wasn't anti-Israel enough for the thug-nuts in DC. This is probably down the path a bit, but there sure is a lot of evidence that leftists and Islamists are working together to overthrow Western, free-market life.  Destroying Israel would be a big part of that.  Followed shortly thereafter by the destruction of the US. 


  1. I think you are pointed in the right direction. Not simply making them another Israel-hater, but the fundamental base of that, which is another Arab/muslim Brotherhood entry onto the world stage. I think the PTB - such as Soros and his ilk, along with the rest of the Marxist useful idiots - feel a Universal Caliphate would be easier to control than a bunch of free and individualistic Americans, Brits, Czechs, Aussies, etc. Libya had no real friends as such, and was seen as a piece of cake to destabilize.

    The real players are simply setting up the system as they want it, with control of what oil is produced, a central bank for economic control, etc. Doesn't matter if the "rebels" haven't actually "won" yet. They never will, really. It will be the Brotherhood and the behind the scene Marxists, when it all shakes out.

  2. It certainly seems like "someone" orchestrated a power play to put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of most of the Mideast. The involvement of Bill Ayers wife, Bernadine Dorn, and the palestinian "peace flotilla" ties the Muslim Brotherhood to the administration. There's a video going around of Canadian Imam warning the Muslim Brotherhood is in the White House.

    I guess the question is if when the Caliphate is established, do they turn on each other and you get Godless Commies vs. Godless Musloids. A smackdown match for the ages. My bet is yes, they do.

    Who'll win that? Hard to say who the most brutal of those two groups is, isn't it?

  3. Why Libya? Review the long term plans and the big picture:


  4. Thanks for that summary, GardenSerf.

    Anyone who comes along and finds this should go to the link he posted.