Say No to Libyan Intervention

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Following the US-lobbied UN authorization of military death dealing in Libya, the murderous regime of Colonel Gaddafi said immediately that it would stop all killing. That put Obama's war on hold, for now. It seems that the crazy colonel has learned a thing or two about American foreign policy. If you pretend to favor the stated goals of the empire and comply with its stated dictates, you can otherwise do what every government in the world is structured to do: stay in power at all costs.

Gaddafi learned this lesson about a decade ago, when, with much fanfare, he announced that he would stop his nuclear weapons program and join the war on terror. The United States then decided to rank him and his regime among the world's good guys and proceeded to hold him up as an example of wise statesmanship. Then he proceeded to dig in more deeply and tighten his despotic control over his citizens, all with the implied blessing of the United States.

For weeks, American officials have been decrying Gaddafi's bloody attacks on his people, but does the United States really have a problem with dictatorship of his sort? This fact is unknown to Americans, but in the Middle East, and in Arab nations in particular, American commercial interests are regarded as a force for liberation, but not the US government. The United States has been the key to the power of Middle East dictatorships for decades, among which are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen.

So it is something of a joke that the United States would push a war against Libya in order to save that country from dictatorship. More likely, the real issue here is the same one that inspired the wars against Iraq: the ownership and control of the oil. And even if freedom were the driving motivation, when in modern history has war ever actually brought that to people? All war by nation-states today ends in massive civilian deaths, destruction of infrastructure, political upheaval without end (see Afghanistan and Iraq), vast expense, and bitterness all around.

War will not achieve its claimed objective. It might even end up entrenching Gaddafi's power. But let's say that he, like Saddam Hussein, ends up dead. What then? The new government will be handpicked by the victor, and never gain any credibility, just as in Iraq. People resent foreign conquerors even more than local despots, and this resentment is not a good foundation for a future of liberty.

President Obama probably looks at the prospect of war rather lustily, just as Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, et al. did before him. But this time, there is a problem. The United States simply cannot afford to be seen as attacking yet another Muslim country (though that is what it is doing) at a time when all the world knows that US foreign policy is primarily based on whipping up anti-Islamic feelings the world over, and taking over the oil.

For this reason, the Obama administration must seek the cover of the United Nations and the cooperation of other Arab states. England and France have been reliable, but not Germany and not other Arab states, so the operation could end up more tricky than the president initially supposed.

Let's just pretend for a moment that the US government really does want to free the people of Libya from a wicked man. What is the right way to go about it? There is the assassination option, which I oppose but which would nonetheless be a much better choice than war. What of the United States' legendary CIA hit men that can take down anyone on the planet following a few orders from on high? Where are they now?

Recall that in the last days before the last war on Iraq, a spokesman for Saddam actually did propose a duel between Bush or Cheney and Saddam or his vice president. It was not an unserious suggestion. This would have been a much better option for both Iraq and America, but then the government doesn't really get what it wants out of war, which is a chance to blow things up, spend gobs of money, whip up the population in war frenzy, and inspire another bout of nationalistic frenzy to help consolidate power for the war-making regime.

Is it possible to both oppose Gaddafi and oppose a war on Gaddafi? Absolutely. This is a position that all Americans should adopt. In the same way, it is possible to oppose the Obama administration but also oppose having a foreign army oust him in order to liberate us.

In the early days of the protests in Libya against Gaddafi, the protesters held up signs opposing any foreign intervention. This is still the right approach. There should be no war, no blockades, no impositions of a "no-fly zone," or anything else. The United States has been a supporter and backer of Gaddafi for a decade. That damage is already done. Going to war would only compound it.

For the sake of freedom and human rights, we must say no to war. We must also say no to all forms of foreign intervention that support dictatorships until they become too politically embarrassing to Washington, DC.
__
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of The Left, the Right, and the State. Send him mail. See Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.'s article archives.

SHARE:

Email This

Latest Commentary
- How Private Policing Trumps Government Law Enforcement
- Martial Law vs. Market Law: Reflections on Boston
- Ron Paul: The IRS's Job Is To Violate Our Liberties
- Molyneux: The Truth About Benghazi Murders, IRS Attacks and AP Phone Records Thefts
- Government Is the Problem
- The Terror Cartel Strikes in Idaho
- The Re-Education of Lauryn Hill
- Think Progress? Ha!

Comments

Add Comment

Page 1 of 1

Anonymous

Posted: Mar 20 2011, 4:37 AM

Link

205208

The Western no-fly, no-ship and no-drive attacks on the Gadhafi regime have nothing to do with an interest in oil -- it's about altruism and compassion for the oppressed Libyan people in rebellion against the Gadhafi regime. No on-the-ground offers have been made to the insurgent provisional government recognized by France (with a very large Arab and Arabic-speaking population for recruiting and planting undercover political agents), or other potential new regime leaders, for weapons, medical and food supplies and financial assistance, and rebels forces and leaders have not promised favored thank-you oil deals for regime-change assistance. The bulk of the oil fields and oil extraction industry, the source of Libya's main income, is not in eastern Libya, the area from which the Gadhafi regime troops have been ordered to retreat -- marketers and credit companies do not know when one has secured a job, graduated from college, come into an inheritance, won the lottery or retired with a supplemental pension plan. The insurgency of eastern Libya is not being accorded Western military interventionist protection and support that is not being given to the long-term black-African civilian genocidal and slaughter victims of rogue governments, marauding tribal goons and terrorist guerrilla armies in Southern Sudan, Cote d' Ivore, the Congo and Sierra Leone. Once the Gadhafi regime is deposed, Western bankers and corporate interests will not swarm and chum up to liberated Libya with generous loans, products of every kind for export to there and development and contractor deals, for rebuilding much of Libya, to the new central government and subordinate governments of Libya. The Western-nations-controlled World Bank and International Monetary Fund will not be among these and will advocate caring populous economic policies on the part of the new central government to better the health and economic quality of life of all of the deprived and oppressed people of Libya, particularly of eastern Libya, like the do for poor of all of their client nations. Ex-patriots will not return back to Libya in droves to attempt to politically reconstruct and lead Libya and glom onto and broker the oil-wealth potential of Libya and many are not already in contact with rebel sources by the internet and telecommunications prodding on the insurgency. If all of the Middle Eastern oligarchical oil regimes are overthrown by Western encouraged populism, not disparaged in their own increasingly libertarian-leaning nations, that does not mean that the replacement regimes will become Western debt, export-market and redevelopment and oil-extraction management clients, and that Western nations might try to control the availability and expense of oil to rising economic competitor nations to their own, especially economic giants China and India.

Add Comment

Name

Comment

* No HTML

Verification *

Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

PLEASE NOTE

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy