In the area of the world that the Bush administration and the G8 have labeled the “Greater Middle East” civil unrest has grown uncontrollable, at least in the eyes of many absolute monarchies and military dictatorships that litter the landscape. The unprecedented chaos which has arisen out of a growing strife in 21 countries in a 4,800 mile region; which is home to over 425 million people. It is not only interesting, but also disheartening, that our government and mainstream media have deliberately chosen to focus on Libya. It is also frustrating that the humanitarian focus on regions like Libya, and to an even greater extent with the tragedies in Japan, has been downplayed, while fear mongering is in full effect. As usual, in traditional American journalistic fashion, our paltry pundits refuse to ask genuinely pressing questions, and have elected to rephrase political talking points spewed from the President's administration, and which have been passed off as “real” journalism.
The same talking points that were used to sell the American public on not one, but two interminable wars in the middle east, which to their own credit haven't even been resolved yet, are not only frightening but reek of the globalist agendas of “stability” and “strategic interest”. Pundits and politicians talk about the threat Muammar Gaddafi is to his own people and his excessive use of force. But this discussion shouldn't be about what Gaddafi has done, but rather how he has done it. No one has made a case for the excessive force that Gaddafi has used, except for maybe Saudi Arabia, in the form of reflective action. Saudi Arabia, much like Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, has used excessive forces and bribes not only to control their marginalized and angered masses, but have sent troops to countries like Bahrain and neighboring Yemen to help quell protests there as well.
President Obama said in his speech, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.” In what way are we different? Our country, and its leaders, have been known in the past to focus on removing dictators of certain countries that have resources that we covet, while turning a blind eye to other humanitarian atrocities. Of course Obama also fails to address the fact that his administration approved 40 billion dollars in weapons sales to countries including Egypt, Bahrain and Lybia over the last two years, which have led to the cries of foul play when tear gas canisters in Egypt were labeled “made in the USA”. Almost all of the equipment approved in 2009 was aircraft parts and, in 2008, $1 million was approved for explosives and incendiary agents which the State Department claimed were used “In oil exploration”. To make matters even worse some of the main contributors to the European Union, specifically Germany, United Kingdom, Paris and Italy, which makes up a majority of the NATO military coalition, have supplied €834.5 million (roughly 1.5 Billion US dollar), in arms to Libya over the last 5 years.
So maybe the question that should have been asked isn't “Is Gaddafi dangerous and should he be removed?” but “Why, and how has Gaddafi attained the means of his absolute political and military power, and how can we prevent monetary contributions to these fiascoes in the future?” If this country is really the beacon of peace that political talking heads, specifically presidents past and present, claim it to be, then why do we always find that we've substantially contributed, at least monetarily, to the tools of oppression that are utilized by the very dictators that we then turn around and condemn, while we turn their countries into rubble? It's as if our leaders sell these weapons with little or no discretion, while allowing our military to be reduced to nothing more than some kind of demolition subcontractor for contractors, like Halliburton, looking to capitalize on any skirmish in the “Greater Middle East”.
In the speech he gave Monday night about Libya, President Obama stated that, “For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom.” I have to admit that I snickered a little after I heard that as I said under my breath, “well... “Unique” is one way to put it,” especially if you’re an idealist high on your own bullshit. Realistically are role has drifted further from “an anchor of global security”or “an advocate for human freedom” and become more of a global enabler and prime offender of ubiquitous and violent fiascoes, which ooze uncontrollably with lies and hypocrisy. Rhetoric like this is nothing more than a reaffirmation of American imperialism, which more times than not is unjustified, and becomes more fruitless with each passing decade. As Obama rattles off an endless stream of talking points about a “strong and growing coalition”, which seems hell bent on doing anything to get their economies out of a rut, everything the president says becomes increasingly disingenuous. He also mentioned the “historic resolution”, which not only creates a no-fly zone, but also a no-drive zone that may be a precursor to ground troops in Libya. That being said, it should be no surprise that the same day Obama was getting ready to defend, not a war, but a “kinetic military action”, Libyan rebels announced their intentions to begin trading oil for the first time in a month.
Once again another question, which is one that should probably be asked, though it might never be answered are about Gaddafi's opposition, who have merely been referred to by the media as “Rebels”. For instance, who are the rebel forces and what are they going to do with the money? Let us not forget about all of our past nation building attempts where the rebels minorities eventually became the oppressive majority. All you have to do is look at the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Iraq and Cuba to see how our willingness to fund the opposition to a sworn enemy always seems to create new enemies in the long run. These “seeds of democracy” that we've been planting since World War II, and more frequently since the advent of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, have a history of producing more rotten apples. Which leads me to my final question...when is it going to end?
-The Dead Guy