The immediate aftermath of the NATO bombing of Libya was a time of high gloating. Just as Iraq War advocates pointed to the capture and killing of Saddam Hussein as proof that their war was a success, Libya war advocates pointed to the capture and brutal killing of Muammar el-Qaddafi as proof of their vindication. War advocates such as Anne-Marie Slaughter and Nicholas Kristof were writing columns celebrating their prescience and mocking war opponents as discredited, and the New York Times published a front-page article declaring: “U.S. Tactics in Libya May be a Model for Other Efforts.” It was widely expected that Hillary Clinton, one of the leading advocates for and architects of the bombing campaign, would be regarded as a Foreign Policy Visionary for the grand Libya success: “We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton sociopathically boasted about the mob rape and murder of Qaddafi while guffawing on 60 Minutes.
But the much bigger question was when (not if, but when) the instability and extremism that predictably followed the NATO bombing would be used to justify a new U.S.-led war — also exactly as happened in Iraq. Back in 2012, I asked the question this way:
How much longer will it be before we hear that military intervention in Libya is (again) necessary, this time to control the anti-US extremists who are now armed and empowered by virtue of the first intervention? U.S. military interventions are most adept at ensuring that future U.S. military interventions will always be necessary.
We now have our answer, from the New York Times:
Worried about a growing threat from the Islamic State in Libya, the United States and its allies are increasing reconnaissance flights and intelligence collecting there and preparing for possible airstrikes and commando raids, senior American policy makers, commanders and intelligence officials said this week. … “It’s fair to say that we’re looking to take decisive military action against ISIL in conjunction with the political process” in Libya, [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Joseph] Dunford said. “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use military force.”
Just as there was no al Qaeda or ISIS to attack in Iraq until the U.S. bombed its government, there was no ISIS in Libya until NATO bombed it. Now the U.S. is about to seize on the effects of its own bombing campaign in Libya to justify an entirely new bombing campaign in that same country. The New York Times editorial page, which supported the original bombing of Libya, yesterday labeled plans for the new bombing campaign “deeply troubling,” explaining: “A new military intervention in Libya would represent a significant progression of a war that could easily spread to other countries on the continent.” In particular, “this significant escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops” (the original Libya bombing not only took place without Congressional approval, but was ordered by Obama after Congress rejected such authorization).
This was supposed to be the supreme model of Humanitarian Intervention. It achieved vanishingly few humanitarian benefits, while causing massive humanitarian suffering, because — as usual — the people who executed the “humanitarian” war (and most who cheer-led for it) were interested only when the glories of bombing and killing were flourishing but cared little for actual humanitarianism (as evidenced by their almost complete indifference to the aftermath of their bombing). As it turns out, one of the few benefits of the NATO bombing of Libya will redound to the permanent winners in the private-public axis that constitutes the machine of Endless Militarism: It provided a pretext for another new war.
Top photo: French President Nicholas Sarkozy, left, Libya’s NTC leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, center, and British Prime Minister David Cameron, right, gesture during their visit to Benghazi, Libya, Sept. 15, 2011.
Wanna know how scummy the French capitalists are, read “Poisoned Wells) about western involvement in the oil industry in west Africa. If you like his writing, try “Treasure Islands”, on the offshore system and just how big it is, the British version is better, includes more of “The City of London”. You won’t believe how big it is in Wilmington Delaware either, check it out Joe. Most leaders have always come from the sociopathic class and they still do folks.
Sarkozy and Cameron are obviously in phase with the U.S government’s agenda. Yet in this case, they initiated the war. Especially Sarkozy who accepted to put down the one who allegedly financed his presidential’s campaign (Gaddafi). This would have been instructed by Qatar’s monarchy, who hated Gaddafi, in exchange for lots of money and investments…in France. Easy to verify how tied to Qatar Sarkozy actually is. What I mean is that it’s not only about the U.S, but also France, England, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and so on. Are they only U.S.A’s puppets ? Or is it bigger than the U.S ? Do we face a shadow government lead by a U.S military-industrial complex, or just a global international corporations ‘ mob ? (and i’m just talking about the axis of “good”, for there are many others involved too ) ! Or maybe it’s just business practiced by cruel kids…
U.S. and U.S./NATO aggressions are mainly for the purpose of taking resources, like just about all wars. “Humanitarianism” is just used as a pretext for these wars, as it was in Iraq and Libya. Notice that the first thing that western forces do after attacking is to get the oil. That’s all you really need to know about this issue.
All good people oppose all wars and even lesser military interventions, with only very rare exceptions like stopping Hitler. Just ignore the BS and keep your eye on the ball. The U.S. and western Europe wouldn’t be involved in the Middle East if not for oil, pure and simple.
The Libya war represented desperately changing standards until anything that resembled a positive outcome under any narrative was reached. So alas, we reached the point where “brutally massacring a successful identity figure in another nation” counts as a positive under some warped perspective. I remember bitterly arguing against that war at the time, remembering the experience of being victimized by another, earlier “humanitarian” venture. But establishment is hard of hearing, and has a weird preference for less-than-serious policy views. Even here you’ll find propagandists who are more than willing to spin your experience as something less meaningful – it’s all a big, rather offensive circus.
“Just as there was no al Qaeda or ISIS to attack in Iraq until the U.S. bombed its government, there was no ISIS in Libya until NATO bombed it.”
Greenwald’s propaganda, pathetic, and imbecilic journalism at its finest!
It is a FACT that Islamists have been active in Libya since the 90s! The Al Qaeda affiliated LIFG decided to establish an “ISLAMIST STATE IN LIBYA” in 1995!
By the way there was no ISIS in Syria…until?
There was no ISIS in Tunisia…until?
There was no ISIS in Indonesia..until?
No wonder you quickly ban whomever exposes your propagandist anti American worthless material. You really have to maintain an inventory of bozos as commentators to support your nonsense arguments!
“It is a FACT that Islamists have been active in Libya since the 90s! The Al Qaeda affiliated LIFG decided to establish an “ISLAMIST STATE IN LIBYA” in 1995!”
Propaganda! needs! exclamation! points!
You have no idea what you’re talking about. The U.S. created all these Muslim extremists in order to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Forget Al Qaeda or ISIS, the Taliban didn’t even exist until the U.S. created the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Once the U.S. did that, the rest of these groups followed.
On top of that, Libya was all about oil, as are all the military interventions and wars in that part of the world. Your comments are really clueless.
And we keep hearing talking heads like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and many others like him refer to Clinton as having unmatched foreign policy “expertise” Heaven help the people of the middle east. With foreign policy “expertise” like Clinton’s who needs Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice and Feith…Clinton has did just fine carrying out neocons rearranging of the middle east policies. Deadly.
Interesting how the msm is now trying to define Bernie’s latest ad pointing out that Goldman $achs walked away from any REAL accountability as “negative” campaigning. Why is it that when facts are used to expose corruption (Wall Street) and those connected to it (Hillary and other Republican candidates) it is called “negative” campaigning? Pathetic
Chris Matthews and others trying to spin Hillary as “center left” For years Matthews has referred to Hillary as a war hawk. years.
They DO have foreign policy expertise: they know how to effectively propagandize for resource wars.
So many people are completely up to speed about the evil doings of their government and no one does a thing about it. Having Bernie Sanders as president would be a step in the right direction. He may not be able to deliver on all his promises since we have the same lame congress, but he has a way of exposing the bought and paid for government for what it is.
People said the exact same thing about Obama, and look where that got us.
Thank you.
I made a compilation:
Killary’s War (Graphic Content)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXVfQKNUAB4
Hillary and Obama (and others involved) should be in prison for life.
We are a defacto militarized dictatorship. Congress has become almost irrelevant let alone completely complicit with the illegal actions of the executive branch. When will the “international community” begin demanding that U.S. officials be brought to justice for the massive war crimes committed against the people of the middle east and now Africa?
“The immediate aftermath of the NATO bombing of Libya”
The *illegal* NATO bombing of Libya. This was a Nuremberg crime of aggression, which would be punishable by hanging for all the top people involved.
Would it be illegal if the United Nations Security Council authorized it?
Obviously it would be much less illegal.
I may be the only commenter here who has actually been in Quaddifi ruled Libya. In the late 70s on oil related business. My last report urged our firm to get out (after 40 years there). They did, and a few months later Reagan dropped bombs on Quaddifi. (No cause and effect on our part of course.)
Problems there were purely political. American doesn’t take anyone’s “anti Americanism” lightly. No matter how rhetorical or designed for internal political purposes. It makes a handy excuse for war (see: Iran).
The late Jonathan Kwitney wrote a prophetic book in the mid 80s titled “Endless Enemies”, documenting the trajectory of US foreign policy and its purposes and intents. Great title which is all too applicable today.
The Merchants of Death and the related Warfare State-Deep State needs a constant supply of invented enemies. Libya is back on the list.
Somewhere the shade of George Orwell is sighing, if not weeping about this.
My apologies for going off topic here, but there is a current debate that I feel needs to be highlighted. It is, however, related to the ideology of the warmongers in this story, which is why I chose it for my comment.
Hillary has chosen to wrap herself in Obama’s mantle and is claiming she will be the more effective defender of Obama’s legacy, and in making progress on the issues Dems care about in an attempt to beat Bernie Sanders for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.
Hillary is claiming her insider approach is more pragmatic, while Bernie’s outsider approach is “fanciful”, “pie in the sky” idealism, where he will “wave a magic wand” making “unicorns and rainbows appear”… (which is nearly identical to the argument she tried to make against Obama in 2008 when he too supported single payer healthcare, reining in Wall Street, and campaign finance reform)).
The politics behind Hillary’s approach is that she is trying to create a divide between Obama supporters and Bernie supporters… because she knows that Bernie is less likely to beat her in the primaries if she can depict Bernie as running against Obama instead of her.
And her campaign, her supporters and the elected, establishment Dems that support her are singing the same tune-
Hillary wants to advance Obama’s legacy, and Bernie wants to destroy it… or at the very least won’t get anything done.
This was highlighted yesterday at Huffington Post by Sam Stein in an article titled “In the Clinton-Sanders Spat Over Getting Shit Done, the Party Sides with Clinton”.
In the article, David Axelrod says Obama learned the “limitations of governance” that exist because of the obstructionism by Repubs and conservative Dems, and suggests that Hillary knows this reality but Bernie is in denial about it.
The article points out that Obama converted his campaign organization into Organizing For America… an organization “meant to support the presidents legislative agenda through district based lobbying campaigns”.
It then quotes an “anonymous Dem lawmaker” saying “it was great in theory. Not so much in practice”… in order to attempt to support Hillary’s approach and to claim Bernie’s outsider approach won’t work.
In the early example of the ACA healthcare fight, one of the major criticisms of Obama from the left was that he began the negotiations on his proposals by meeting Republicans and Blue Dog Dems half way, and then compromised more and more to get Obamacare passed.
No attempt to get a single payer system was made, and then Obama abandoned the “public option” too… and we ended up with a plan that closely resembles the plan produced by the Heritage Foundation , a right wing, Wall Street friendly think tank… a plan that addressed some problems, but one that entrenched the profit driven corporate interests (who are the root of the problem) into our healthcare system, at a huge cost to Americans.
During the negotiations, millions and millions of Americans (led by nurses) were rallying on street corners and in public spaces all over America to pressure Congress to include the public option as an alternative and competitor to the higher cost, lower coverage corporate health insurance plans.
Where was Organizing For America?
Nowhere.
Obama and the rest of the establishment ignored the millions of Americans rallying in the streets and kept negotiating their backroom deal with the Big Money corporate interests .
Then there was Wall Street reform.
Obama began negotiations by meeting Repubs and Wall Street friendly Dems half way, and then compromised more and more… and we ended up with “reforms” that did not address the root problems. None of the Wall Street criminals that crashed the economy went to jail, the regulations enacted won’t prevent future fraud, and the Too Big To Fail banks are all even bigger now.
Where was Organizing For America?
Nowhere.
Occupy Wall Street protestors were ignored by OFA, Obama and Congress, infiltrated and spied on, ridiculed and then forcibly broken up.
The typical establishment approach to prevent any change to the status quo.
Campaign finance reform?
Nothing.
Where was Organizing For America?
Nowhere.
Millions of American women have lost access to or had restrictions imposed upon their legal abortion rights during Obama’s presidency.
Where is Organizing For America?
Nowhere.
Black Lives Matter same deal.
Where is Organizing For America?
Nowhere.
So, the notion that Obama tried an outsider approach but failed is utter bullshit.
Obama tried the “noble, but futile” insider approach.
In fact, the only time I ever heard from OFA was in 2012 when they suddenly rediscovered my contact info in order to get out the vote for Obama’s reelection campaign.
The notion that Bernie’s anti-establishment proposals need to be vetted and approved by the establishment he wants to reform before we should take them seriously is likewise bullshit.
Hillary claiming an Obama-like “pragmatic” approach is the best way to address the issues we care about is also bullshit. And Obama’s legacy is proof of that.
There are many things that Bernie, his supporters and I all like about Obama, but he and Hillary deserve the criticism on these issues and others.
It’s obvious that we won’t address the problems voters care about if we follow Hillary’s approach where we don’t even try or just tinker around the edges.
Hillary has the financial support of Wall Street and the political support of the establishment because they don’t want a change in the status quo.
When it comes to foreign policy, Bernie is a more typical establishment Dem, but he voted against the war in Iraq and suggests he is not supportive of more unnecessary interventionism.
Hillary is a rabid supporter of interventionism like the Republicans.
She voted for the war in Iraq, she supported the disastrous and ongoing war in Libya as this article points out clearly, she still wants regime change in Syria despite the already disastrous results our efforts have created, and on and on and on… up to, and including (see the recent article by Robert Naiman) wanting to undermine the nuclear deal that Obama reached with Iran, in order to prevent the normalizing of relations.
There is absolutely nothing effective or “pragmatic” about Hillary in those policies.
A lot of people don’t believe that Bernie is anti-establishment enough.
And there is ample evidence to support that view.
But Hillary is spinning lies in her campaign, she is completely entrenched in the failed ideology of the establishment, her policies are coopted, and her finances are corrupted.
Bernie isn’t perfect, but he is far better than Hillary. And a citizens movement that changes the makeup of Congress and keeps the pressure on is how we’ve gotten major progressive changes in the past.
Thanks!
It appears only Muslim countries are targeted. This seems to fall in line with journalist Robert Fisk’s great books “The War For Civilization. The conquest of the Middle East”.
So this may actually be, as some have suggest, a new Crusader War against more than a billion people worldwide, including, eventually, Indonesia.
It’s an ongoing crusade. It started when Napoleon invaded Egypt. Since then the Europeans ruled the Arab world and most of the Muslim world.
It’s not a new crusade as you said, it’s almost two centuries old and there is no end in sight.
The u.s. military is and has been in the business of making enemies and wars since 1952. Dwight warned us about them. The M.I.C. needs a reason to live so, they don’t just make shit up, they fuck shit up with the help of congressional whores who are backed by warfucking contractors who extract money from the citizens of the u.s. who just want to live and celebrate life here in the u.s. with their entitled return on productivity.
But the thieving warfukkers have borrowed the future earnings from all americans and awarded to themselves and now their pimped out whores in congress want to threaten age security!
The warfukkers have swelled beyond reason with a whalish bloated sense of self im-po-tense. They insist that every citizen worship them or be branded as something negative. This is no different than the times of the Spanish Inqusition.
When you look at the big picture of these contorted and profoundly corrupt relationships, you might see a semblence of an insect colony. The result of this monstrous frankenstinian perversion is the spreading of their own mutant virus called – for lack of a short version name – “humans arent good enough so fuck’m”.
Because real and good humans do not need a standing army, having one imposes upon the civilisation to instead submit themselves to the will of one that does – it’s automatic.
It’s so shockingly obvious that these foreign policy actions of our western governments are causing civil wars and thousands of deaths that it can’t possibly be out of ignorance.. It is horribly evident that these actions are coordinated with the needs of the powerful oil industries bottom lines. We must regain control of our leaders and stop the’re maniacal slaughter for money!
A good interview that goes a long way towards explaining how America destroys countries, Mehdi Hasan interviews Paul Bremer:
What is that Ahmadinejad and Musharraf did that Saddam and Qaddafi, and now Assad, did not do? Leaders should realize that it is best to keep shuffling the person who rules the country. Then demonization of the ruler and the pretext to attack no longer works. Nothing has changed in the way Iran and Packies are being ruled, but the “Bomb bomb bomb Iran” dance never quite hit the stage.
I would say it’s those leaders fault that they did not know the best way to tackle outside interference in their country.
From down thread:
Yes, sadly. Even after contacting an author on another thread about this recurrence (which was handled promptly, thanks for that) it seems the multiple links per post are once again holding up the commenting here.
Unsure if this a security or a technical issue (such as external links requiring additional time to process?) but it is damnably frustrating.
If nothing else, a notice at the top of the comment thread when these things are occurring would be nice to see.
Gives one a warm feeling knowing Hillary could soon be president. Supporting people that sodomize with bayonets can only be a plus in this wonderful country. Makes me want to run and hide.
Oakland has returned their bayonets to the federal government. Michigan, though, seems to be resisting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/us/some-sheriffs-bristle-at-recall-of-military-equipment.html
Imagine, local police will no longer have the capacity to wage war on their citizens. They’ll have to go back to using broomsticks when they need to rape unarmed immigrants.
One of the more amusing effects of the Arab Spring is that US academics have been recruited in an effort to ‘predict global populist uprisings’ – so that they can be nipped in the bud. What did George Schultz say some decades ago? “Weeds are always growing, and they have to be ripped up” – a neocolonialist perspective.
Of course the Arab Spring pro-democracy protests were a threat to US and British and French neocolonial interests in the Middle East – after all, buying off a few thousand Saudi Royals with lucrative deals is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying off the entire population of the Middle East – so we back the hereditary dictatorships, selling them tech to oppress their population, because otherwise – well, a $500 million bribe doesn’t go very far when divided between 100 million people – would you give up all your rights for $5? Probably not. But if the bribe is given to 10,000 aristocrats, well, that’s tasty – $50,000 each. You can buy a lot of Middle Eastern politicians for that sum, can’t you? Just gotta make sure they can keep their populations in line.
PR monkeys, you gotta love ’em. It’s free entertainment.
Hitler would be so proud of America.
Definitely!! Specially with BLACK man commanding the most powerful army in the world and providing military support to a Jewish state.
Humanitarian intervention is not really a useful pretext for starting a war, as the average citizen doesn’t care two figs about people in foreign countries. The most effective way to start a war is to induce someone else to attack you – or at least make it appear that way – as it awakens the xenophobia which is latent in every citizenry. But that is another story.
The war in Libya happened because the opportunity which presented itself was too good to pass up. The lesson learned from the Iraq war was that a full scale invasion and occupation was very expensive. The French were actually the first to realize that they could do a bit of nation building and get their hands on some oil, just by providing some air support to rebels on the ground. They quickly talked their NATO allies into the plan, as described in Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. Of course, nothing would have happened if it hadn’t suited the United States, but in this case they were content to lead from behind.
It wasn’t an unqualified success for France, as Total (their petroleum company) has recently had to write off some of its assets in Libya. But as described in the linked article, they have more than made up for that with increased arms sales to the Arab world. They may, however, have somewhat underestimated the effect on their own Arab population, as they’ve recently had to introduce martial law. However, that’s also a good way to dampen the expectations of their notoriously protestive citizens, so they probably see it as a bonus.
The goal this time will be to throw support behind whatever group can secure the oil fields. That may very well be ISIS, so we might see a repeat of the situation in Syria, where Turkey, while nominally fighting against ISIS, is actually aiding them by attacking the Kurds. So in Libya as well, ISIS may counter-intuitively get stronger and stronger, the more it is ‘attacked’.
Of course, Italy has had long experience in pacifying Libya, 1912-1940, and perhaps they might have some advice if the U.S. wants another adventure there, next administration.
Italy engaged in pacification through colonization. The US traditionally needed labor and so had little interest in exporting its own citizens. However, I’ve noticed a change, and immigrants to the US no longer seem to be as warmly welcomed. In fact, many complain there are too many undocumented immigrants. So perhaps it’s time for the US to consider a program of colonization, as Europe once had, in order to secure its military gains.
Truth is, Duce, the U.S. Marines have believed Libya theirs – for a very long time.
“From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli…”
I think they gave Mexico to the CIA.
Actually Italy was strongly against the invasion of Libya at the time. And even now are trying to postpone military intervention until there is come clear pacification between the two main governments.
Libya has always been crucial for Italian interest, mostly but not only for its oil. ENI (Italian oil company) was and still is by far the main contractor in the country. Italy even had a deal with Libya concerning the migrants (whose numbers were close to zero before the war).
Given the position and the past, a stable Libya has always been the major aim of Italy in the region.
Au Contraire! The U.S./NATO bombing of Libya only happened because it had been on the Pentagon’s agenda since a mere few days after World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7 (The Solomon Brothers Building which housed the CIA , the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Secret Service (among many other agencies/corporations):
Here is Gen. Wesley Clark detailing the “classified” memo he was handed a few weeks after 9/11 which listed the “seven countries the U.S. would be invading and occupying” over the next five years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
What were those “seven countries”??
“Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, LIBYA, Somalia, Sudan and finishing with Iran.”
Odd that Libya WAS the richest country on the continent of Africa:
http://www.infowars.com/libya-from-africas-richest-state-under-gaddafi-to-failed-state-after-nato-intervention/
SHAME SHAME SHAME on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
To think that she is running for president of the United States is a truly sickening state of affairs for ALL Americans. Especially considering the THOUSANDS of innocent lives that have been taken due to her brazen imperialistic hubris. She, along with all those who backed her policies, should be cuffed and perp-walked straight into the Hague!
Sen. Bernie Sanders is not perfect, but compared to the foreign policy record of Hillary Clinton (this goes without mentioning her vote to invade and occupy Iraq or her brutal hand (along with her sycophant Victoria Nuland) in the overthrow in Ukraine), Sanders is FAR superior to Hillary Clinton!
The American people have been and are being PLAYED by the Obama administration, the Democrat and Republican parties AND the U.S. mainstream media via their overt and covert lies, fraud and deceit.
The American people need a hardcore dose of the TRUTH and the sooner the better.
“… in conjunction with the political process …”
George Orwell would have been proud to have included such phraseology in his dystopias.
Maybe we need military interventions here in the US “…in conjunction with the political process,” too.
It’s not a US intervention only. NATO, France and Britain should not get away unnamed here
“Just as there was no al Qaeda or ISIS to attack in Iraq until the U.S. bombed its government, there was no ISIS in Libya until NATO bombed it.”
It’s even worse, Libya had locked up more than 2000 returned Jihadi/Qaeda ect. Besides normal criminals the radical islamists made up for the major population in prison. Most other political prisoners had been released.
Libyan human rights record and jail population was well researched before 2011. Libya even got praise at the UNHRC for improvements –in 2010, no joke
http://justiceinconflict.org/2011/04/28/no-joke-2010-un-review-praised-libyas-human-rights-record/
It was not without reason that Nelson Mandela called Ghaddafi one of the greatest champions of human rights.
The reason we had to invade, behind all the lies, is that he, Mandela, and other Elders of Africa were hammering out a gold-based (debt free) Pan-African Dinar, which would allow Africa to benefit from her abundant resources, rather than the European colonialist bankers.
Could the double-tap of a follow-up war be an intended consequence? This may not be militarism run amok. It is part of a broader destabilization agenda. The old belief was that the installation of a US-friendly government was the end-game. Now the goal seems to be chaos in and of itself. It’s how the Israelis have kept their boots on Palestinian necks for so long.
We can always set July 1 as the start date for Libyan Victory II, since that would be a swell way to commemorate the centennial of the Battle of the Somme, another smashing success. Indeed, 1916 teaches us a series of lessons in how empires can raise expectations on the uses of power, whether it’s the British conduct of defense (excuse me, ‘defence’) policy (The Somme), internal security (Ireland, Easter Sunday), naval strategy (Jutland), Middle East policy (the campaign in Mesopotamia, esp. the battle of Kut) — not to mention the conduct of France, Russia and Italy that year.
If they make a movie about this Libyan campaign, though, they’ll have to find a title other than “Oh, What A Lovely War,” since that’s already taken.
Americans need to be honest with themselves. America isn’t founded on some universal notion (at least not among its founding fathers or leaders past and present) of peace, democracy, liberty or freedom as fundamental human rights.
It is founded in a continuous struggle since its inception to advance the US government’s global economic hegemony through force of arms. In fact there hasn’t been any extended period of time in America’s history since its founding when it wasn’t using its military against some group or nation to bring them under the yoke of American control. People and other nations either play ball with America’s agenda (or formerly ally with it), or they are put down.
This should surprise no American with an informed understanding of America’s history: ours is a nation born of human slavery, genocide of indigenous people, and continuous/continual/continuing perpetuation of violence against other people and nations.
Anybody who thinks America’s leaders in total, and/or throughout its history, have ever given a flying fuck about “humanitarianism” or “fundamental human rights” (say the right to self-determination, or the freedom and liberty not to be killed in the service of America’s “national interests”) is either being willfully obtuse, is propagandized beyond repair, or is deluded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
There are 196 countries in the world today (give or take one or two). America has military bases and military personnel stationed in over 1/3 of the nations on the globe. Pretty much tells you all you need to know about how America. It will be interesting to see how much longer America’s little experiment in empire will last. I’ve always thought America will go down in human history as the empire that had the swiftest rise and greatest reach, and also the swiftest fall.
http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-us-has-a-military-presence/
But Russia and Putin are the “evil empire”???
Say, what?!
I blame Alexander Hamilton.
Another post vanished into the ethers because the same link was used twice: in the headline of the quoted article and in the “More” at the end of the excerpt.
Not worth going to the trouble to write to see the work disappear because of basic technical incompetence.
Vanishing?
NATO General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned far back : http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw&feature=youtu.be&t=147
Libyans lived in abject poverty? And you believe that he threw babies onto hospital floors? Viagra for the troops?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1iHgz-f_10
Yup, vanishing for a long time — well over an hour in some cases.
It’s a long-standing periodic problem here.
It looks like the posts that were lost in the ether are beginning to reappear, and that yours came through after the (no doubt temporary) fix.
When the Arab Spring broke out in Tunisia, Gaddafi was a fierce critic:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/16/muammar-gaddafi-condemns-tunisia-uprising
At that time, Gaddafi was a loyal ally of the US, Britain, France, Italy – following in the footsteps of the Saudis. How did this come about? Go back to 2003 – Gaddafi had opened up his oil fields to the US and British oil majors, and Italy’s ENI – unlike Saddam, who had locked those producers out. Gaddafi was quickly declared ‘terrorist-free’ and ‘WMD-free’ (though, it turned out, he had retained chemical weapon precursors and a large stock of processed uranium ore, aka ‘yellowcake’ – Saddam, on the other hand, had nothing of the sort).
From then on, he was embraced by one leader after the other – Blair, Sarkozy, Bush’s Condi Rice, Italy’s Berlusconi – there are endless images and records of the love-in that persisted right up to the first months of 2011. Gaddafi, at that point, was a cooperating ally of the ‘western economic consensus’, not a Russian-Chinese turncoat, like Saddam (who had also gone off dollars and onto euros). There was absolutely no desire or need to get rid of him – Gaddafi was not Libya’s version of Iran’s Mossadeq.
So, what went wrong? The answer is that Gaddafi was too stingy to his own people (unlike the Saudi Royals, who clearly make efforts to ensure a basic standard of living for almost everyone in their country) – many lived in abject poverty, while government funds created little suburban enclaves for a small fraction of the population – a classic French Revolution situation, with the starving masses looking angrily over the fence at relative luxury enjoyed by a few. That’s what sparked the populist revolution, as in Tunisia.
However, immediately after the revolution began, and it became clear that Gaddafi would not last, the interventions began. First the French bombed Gaddafi’s tanks that were trying to take over Benghazi, and then everyone else piled on – and their goal should be obvious, they were trying to make a deal with whoever would be Libya’s new rulers, ideally a captive puppet partner (which is what Gaddafi had become) to ensure that access to and control of oil and exports would continue.
One has to understand that the US and Britain goal regarding the Arab Spring pro-democracy movement was to crush it into oblivion, thus protecting their partners from democratic reforms – i.e. the Saudi Royals, Bahrain, Kuwait, all hereditary dictatorships must be retained as they are ‘a source of stability’ – standard puppet regime theory. There was also an effort to hijack the Arab Spring to remove dictators that were not obedient to the ‘western economic agenda’ – i.e., Assad. It also seems very likely that the Saudi Royals and their partners ramped up funding for Islamic State terror groups in this time, with the aim of using them to attack and undermine the pro-democracy movement in Libya and elsewhere.
Funny..Wasn’t Libya (and Syria) on former NATO General Wesley Clark’s hit list?
So Libyans lived in abject poverty? The forgein workers did not have it so good – The CIA started the Arab Spring in Libya with forgein workers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1iHgz-f_10
“So, what went wrong? The answer is that Gaddafi was too stingy to his own people (KSA make efforts to ensure a basic standard of living for everyone in their country) – many lived in abject poverty, while government funds created little suburban enclaves for a small fraction of the population”
Somebody is swallowing more PSYOP BS here. Did your comment finish with Viagra?…I couldn’t finish reading it….Libya provided a basic standard of living and clean water.
As de Toqueville noted:
Libya made the mistake of raising people’s expectations.
Libyans lived in abject poverty? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1iHgz-f_10
Was Viagra given to the troops also? Wasn’t Libya (and Syria) on the hit list a long time ago? NATO General Wesley Clark tells of how ME destabilization was planned way back: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f7NsXFnzJGw&feature=youtu.be&t=145
Do you also believe the NYT/WaPo when they tell you that Chavez was a dictator who starved the people of Venezuela and fixed elections?
There’s so much wrong here that it’s best just to start over. I’d suggest Slouching Toward Sirte.
Well, Hugo Chavez was an ally of Libya, yes, but Chavez relied heavily on crude oil sales to the USA, didn’t he? Nothing is what it appears to be.
Consider that the U.S. academic system has been recruited to ‘predict future Arab Spring-type events’ – because if the US and Britain had been able to predict the uprising in Libya, they could have intervened to protect Gaddafi from the populist uprising.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110913/full/news.2011.532.html
“You could have foreseen the Arab Spring if only you’d been paying enough attention to the news. That’s the claim of a new study that shows how data mining of news reportage can reveal the possibility of future crises well before they happen.”
Gaddafi was a tool of the US and Britain, loved by Blair, Condi Rice, etc. His overthrow was not anticipated nor desired. Once it happened, the US and Britain and France, much dismayed, rushed in to try and establish a new control system. So did Saudi Arabia, who financed the Islamic State in an effort to crush pro-democracy protests, which threatened their own grip on hereditary dictatorial rule (aka: monarchism).
Got to admit I do miss that all-green flag of Gaddafis, it was so incongruous for such a colorful dictator. If you have to have a dictator, and Libya definitely does need a strong man, I generally prefer the kooky ones. And Gaddafi was totally willing to play ball, he was the one who exposed Pakistan’s Nuke-for-sale program. Unfortunately he was a bit too crazy to make any worthwhile allies (killing Musa Al-Sadr –for no reason– was a really big mistake) and as we all know friends matter
Now Glenn I think you make a poor case for Libya, because anyone can point out that things weren’t going peachy in Libya either way. It’s not like Gaddafi bombing his own people would have likely led to peace and stability. And you can always juxtapose it with Syria, where the dictator wasn’t raped to death (yet) and point out that things actually could be worse. As for the presence of “ISIS” well that’s just the cool name jihadists are using these days (Nidal Hassan claims to be ISIS now).
The real objection is that it’s none of our business, it’s just an excuse to justify the continued existence of the Military Industrial Complex. I don’t think the world will really be such a better place without the MIC, I just don’t want to pay damn thing.
“It’s not like Gaddafi bombing his own people would have likely led to peace and stability.”
Yes, yes all rebels are liars, everybody knows this, ask Patrick Cockburn about his Dad’s work during the Spanish Civil War. Anyways I’m pretty sure the Col would have used his air force more extensively against the rebels had he known he was going to get raped to death. Let’s give him some credit.
As I said I miss Col Gaddafi, I appreciate colorful demagogues. Trump 2016!
Our primary foreign policy is dropping bombs on cities. And, each time we do it, we do it with impunity–without challenge–thus, the system self-perpetuates, guaranteeing that the cycle continues. It’s time to consider–with the seemingly bottomless money barrel made available to the rulers and their cronies courtesy of the American taxpayer–that this is exactly the system they want. It’s been designed, you might say.
America is forever mixing it up: Stirring the pot; playing all sides of the world against the middle in foreign affairs. I’ve come to take it for granted that a solution to America’s militarism may never be found, which brings us back to the money.
The amounts of money being made available to the war industry are simply too great for our money first, country second super patriots to pass up. It’s simply so lucrative that they’re willing to trade in fabricated bloodbaths for their livelihoods.
These are our leaders…
So true it hurts…..
Hurt it does, in a variety of ways.
This may not be necessary, but, it’s bugging me, so, I want to correct the last sentence of the last paragraph of my original post. The bloodbaths aren’t fabricated, they’re all too real. The reasons for the bloodbaths are much of what is fabricated.
“We came, we saw, he died” is a beautiful example of spin, a defeat dressed up as a victory. The logical implication is “we came, we saw, we didn’t conquer” and indeed, we didn’t win in any way at all.
The claims that the world is going to run out of oil and the U.S. needs military aggression to secure its share are all bunk. The U.S. and Canada have actually been producing a fine share of shale oil, with huge reserves left underground, enough to do more than our part of the noble work of giving the Earth a Venus makeover. Had we simply stopped all import and export of fossil fuel (or, rather, put a 30% tariff on it to slow it down to the degree that would be enforceable anyway), then we’d have a stable but modest mining industry that wouldn’t be tanking our stock market as it goes out of business, until the Saudis hike our gas to $10 a gallon and it really tanks.
It seems like all these wars are perpetual, but we already know from the Soviet Union what happens: eventually the money runs out, there is great talk of freedom and reform, cosmetic improvements are made, the rich make off with anything public and valuable, and everyone else over 50 just dies in the name of Capitalist Efficiency. But at least the wars end… for a while.
The shale oil cornucopia is a fraud. The soaring production was only made possible by high prices and cheap money, and even then the producers had to drill more and more wells every year to cover the incredibly rapid depletion of the ones they had just drilled, in order to keep up payments to the banksters.
Anyway, the “The Largest Oil Producer on Earth™” is still a net importer by about 25% and 45% (more or less) of the crude refined here is imported.
And just watch what happens (is already happening) to all those shale plays as oil hangs around at $20-$30.bbl.
The truth is that cheap oil is gone. The oil that can be produced now can only be produced using incredibly expensive technology, often in ridiculously difficulty (read deepwater, Arctic, etc.) environments. It can only be produced at a profit for the oil companies at a price that the world economy can’t afford.
Must read carefully: Shale Bubble
And, for another look at the reality:
Not so fast. Fracking has seen significant improvements in extraction technology. They made money at high prices and when the price fell they improved the technology and they are still making money at $30/barrel.
And Bakken has nothing to do with shale; Bakken is crappy tar sand.
You couldn’t be more ridiculously wrong if you tried.
That piece was written when oil was a about $50/bbl. It closed today at $32.30.
My fully reply to you is being held in multi-link limbo.
For now, just this: Your post is misinformed nonsense.
Sorry, Doug. I was thinking of Athabasca tar sands. The reserves in the Bakken are staggering. And yes they are not sinking new wells but that doesn’t mean existing wells aren’t producing.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bakken-formation-will-it-fuel-canada-s-oil-industry-1.761789
They may not have the margin they want now but cost of production is continuing to slide. Over the last 5 years, they’ve nearly doubled the amount of sand injected per well. That directly translates to production. Shale oil/gas has the potential to cripple the ME when the Saudis can no longer produce below $30.
“The United States Department of Energy estimates that the ex-situ processing would be economic at sustained average world oil prices above US$$54 per barrel and in-situ processing would be economic at prices above $35 per barrel. These estimates assume a return rate of 15%.”
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/Oil_Shale_Economics_Fact_Sheet1.pdf
nuf & Doug
From the perspective of a state (Ohio) that has been accepting fracking waste from a state (Pennsylvania) whose legislators know better than to keep it, I would just say that, at some point, the obvious faults/limitations of the existing methods of storing that waste will implode. When that happens people will look back on what happened in Flint, Michigan with fondness…and Governor Kasich will have long exhausted his most intimate fantasies of governmental power, so will likely be held unaccountable for his greed and poor choices.
For those who have been paying attention, Fukushima has shown the extraordinary lengths of the limitations put on the examination of long term consequences of extractive/nuclear energy policies. As we’re seeing with exquisite clarity now, the ones who suffer are never those who profit most.
@Pedinska
“I would just say that, at some point, the obvious faults/limitations of the existing methods of storing that waste will implode.”
I’m not sure I ‘m willing to Give PA much credit for smarts, considering the unholy mess they’ve made of much of their state with fracking, but I’m pretty sure you’re absolutely correct about waste storage.
The amounts produced by fracking a single well are absolutely staggering and, of course, we don’t actually know what’s in there — trade secrets, you see. And oil and gas production waste are exempt under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act .
Wasting Away: Four states’ failure to manage oil and gas waste in the Marcellus and Utica Shale
“And yes they are not sinking new wells but that doesn’t mean existing wells aren’t producing.”
Reverse Engineering the North Dakota Bakken Data
Good link.
The graph I found most interesting was Initial Production (Fig 10).
Clearly, the rate of initial production has a dramatic ramp-up during the last year and this is due to technology advances. Better targeting, drilling, and more sand per well is responsible for the trend. It’s not just faster oil, it is faster and more.
Impossible given that we (the U.S.) are currently net exporters of oil. $10/gallon gas would also bring a lot of the idle shale fields in the U.S. and Canada into production, limiting price increases. Anyway, the Saudis are not the monopolists of oil and cannot choose (only influence) the price.
Hmmm. (1) Money doesn’t “run out.” When you spend money, the money supply is the same before and after the transaction. Money isn’t scarce. Resources are. Humans can and will use a wide variety of items for money, so a lack of money is never the problem, not even in prison camps. (2) A lot of the “rich” you are talking about became rich during perestroika; they weren’t already rich. Some of them earned their fortunes, some of them stole it, just like in the U.S. But you paint with too broad a brush. (3) (Semi-)Capitalist countries have increased life expectancy, which is much higher in Russia than it was in the USSR. Tens of millions of people starved to death in the USSR (you can even rely on pro-socialist Russian scholars for that info if you’d like). When’s the last time you heard about a famine in Russia? So let’s raise a glass to “Capitalist Efficiency,” shall we?
Not true. We are net importers by about 25% and a full 45% of the oil that is refined is imported.
You, along with much of the world, have been lied to and conned.
Check the EIA data, carefully.
OK — I was relying on press reports (and the the lifting of the export ban in Dec. 2015, which I assumed was needed because we produce more than we consumed), and this is well outside of my wheelhouse. I took a quick look at the data and it seems you are correct. Regardless, all I need for my point is that Saudi Arabia is not an oil monopolist, which I assume you agree with?
Absolutely true that KSA does not have a monopoly, and may not even still have the swing power in OPEC that it has “always” had. That is especially likely with Iranian production coming back into the market.
However, since 2002-2004, only the top eight oil-producing countries on the planet have increased production. Overall, production in the entire rest of the oil-producing world has been in steady decline.
Libya’s pre-revolution oil output was 1.6 million barrels a day, and is now only 300,000 barrels a day, with the trade dominated by shady war-zone oil dealers like Britain’s Glencore. Increasing production would just lead to another fall in global oil prices, as demand for transportation fuel continues to plummet (electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, solar power? ).
Don’t forget, once upon a time, whale oil was the hot product for lighting one’s home, and camel dung was a valuable fuel in the desert – fossil fuels are going the same way.
To be clear, I would hope that a domestic-only fossil fuel market would support moderately high prices that allow sensible renewables to take hold. There are supposedly places where solar is cheaper than coal for electricity already, which is saying something. But I think renewable development is harmed more by the deliberate OPEC-induced uncertainty that fossil fuel prices could go/stay way down than by the marginally lower price of fossil alternatives on average, since fossil fuels themselves carry a huge built-in uncertainty.
I’m aware that the U.S. was only to the point of contemplating exporting fuels – and I was not pleased to see the ban fall, since that means that Americans see no benefit from all the fracking in this country, but pay the same prices as anyone living ten thousand miles away. What I want to see is national defense via consistency, the feeling that a company will stand or fall by virtue of how efficient and smart it is, not the whim of some Saudi prince or the number of American boots on the ground.
@Macroman: I understand that even now, OPEC would be hard pressed to raise prices to the point where gas in $10 a gallon. First the lingering holdouts have to be wiped out in that sea of red ink on Wall Street, then there need to be regulatory and legal hassles that tie production from the bankrupted wells, and then probably a few of them have to deteriorate to the point where there’s some big visible environmental disaster to turn public opinion against production. Meanwhile, demand needs to be nursed with a few solid years of homeowners buying their oil burners and car makers discontinuing their electric development. But I suspect eventually, when we least expect it, we’ll get the knife to the back, and OPEC will get seven big fat years to more make up for the seven lean ones.
Probably your reading of the situation is in line with the Saudis’, as far as I can tell, so we’ll have to wait and see if their cunning little plan works. And I second your desire to see companies compete for business not political favors.
In your response to photsymbiosis you say
But the world oil price will fall and that will benefit Americans (as well as every other oil consumer in the world). Granted, it may very well be that the environmental costs outweigh the benefits of lower prices for U.S. citizens, especially those with ruined water and land. I can understand your sentiment, but “no benefit” is a bit strong.
The collapse in oil prices is causing investors to drop fossil fuel stocks. The oil companies threaten a future explosion in oil prices as investment in new discovery and production falls – but the demand will be met by those invested in renewables, and then the fossil fuel sector’s loss of market share will be identical to the 19th century collapse in demand for whale oil as cheap kerosene became widely available (courtesy of Rockefeller and Standard Oil).
It’s happening again, with fossil fuels playing the role of whale oil.
I think the U.S. has a very Third World profile when it comes to export of raw materials. We’re sending coal to China so that they can burn it (under very unenvironmentalist circumstances) to run cheap industry to sell us widgets so they can buy more coal. That’s a winning strategy … for China. And while there has been a tendency to blame those burning a fossil fuel for the carbon dioxide emissions, I think it is more logical to blame those digging up the coal in the first place – which is to say, the U.S. owes it to the world, and to its people, to decide for itself how much to dig up and how much to leave in place. And the same is true of oil and other fossil fuels. I think though it is more obvious that if we hoard the oil during (man-made) shortages that will help avoid disruptions to our economy, and indeed, even help the rest of the world by removing a chunk of the profit motive for those shortages to happen in the first place.
(I’m writing this in the hope that we all haven’t died of old age before this comment gets through moderation) — JLocke
We also seem to be back to comments with single links posting while those with multiples languish. Or maybe it’s something I did wrong… :-s
Let’s see. I just posted a multiple-link response to Wnt, above. It’s not here.
We’ll try this one with no links.
Now one with one link:
No Fracking Way
Yup. Think you nailed it, Pedinska.
Looks like it’s the multi-links getting caught (again). [sigh]
My comment to JLocke’s post just below still has not shown up. I tried to post it almost an hour ago.
– “My comment to JLocke’s post just below still has not shown up. “
That’s OK Pedinska, whatever is was that you wrote, cannot compare with what I’m imagining! Was it a murder mystery Homeric poem, written as an internal monologue, with flashes of James Joyce and the Bronte sisters???
from a leaked copy of your next novel:
ROFL! I think you’re giving me credit that probably belongs to coram nobis. Not sure I’m quite THAT inventive, although this,
yes I kiss them wearing me helmet,
definitely sounds like something a former HIV researcher would advocate. :-)
At first glance I was excited that there might be a thriving anarchist movement in Libya, as many across the Arab world were influential in the Arab Spring, and still are in the Rojava Revolution.
But, no, it’s just another Western Liberal colonizing the term anarchy (one of the oldest ways of living, where there was no concept of warfare) into a pejorative
Agreed, Greenwald should know better.
Ironically, after Ghaddafi renounced all formal power in 1976, and established the Jahamariya system outlined in his Green Book, this was probably the closest to an experiment in Anarchism on a nation-sized scale that modern times have seen (at least until the Charter of the Social Contract established in Rojava, which is still not at the scale of a full nation). It was a full participatory democracy, as was pretty well documented by the BBC during the time (one of the few times that the truth got past the incessant lies promulgated by the West.)
Iceland’s attempt to crowdsource a new Constitution along Participatory Democratic lines was using the Green Book as one of its main references.
Is it just me, or does this headline make you want to vomit:
“equality”? What… do Danish police rob non-refugees as well? Or is Denmark so badly off, that they have to search the pockets of people who are fleeing starvation, drowning, rape, and torture?
Danish Police – “jackpot, I found a coin!!”
Other Danish Police – “Don’t forget to check her for gold fillings!”
Is it just me, or does this headline make you want to vomit:
Nope. Not just you. Same nausea I felt when reading about this:
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/9/8/headlines/czech_republic_writes_numbers_on_refugee_arms_evoking_holocaust
My husband, who defected from the Czech Republic at the age of 19 had this to say:
“Fucking Czech Nazi Nationalists…”
On our first trip to Prague we visited the Pinkas Synagogue which is dedicated to the memory of Czech and Moravian Jewish Holocaust victims. My experience of that tragedy, distilled by necessity through the exhibits in this memorial is difficult to explain. Mere words are not enough.
The children’s drawings, and the soft tolling of the names of the victims which you hear throughout your entire visit, broke my heart in ways that still leave me breathless when I consider what it must mean for those whose experience was much more direct than I can ever know.
http://www.prague.eu/en/event/432/memorial-to-the-jewish-victims-of-the-holocaust-from-bohemia-and-moravia-childrens-drawings-from-terezin-1942-1944
More good news from France. Fresh from burnishing their image as a “secular” state, by telling Muslim women, not to look like Muslim women, Christiane Taubira, one of France’s few visible minority politicians to get elected, (once compared by one of France’s colour blind politicians as a monkey “un singe”), has resigned as justice minister. Leaving the “left wing” government *cough, cough* of Hollande to rewrite the constitution.
Apparently she, unlike all the white guys, doesn’t understand that French citizenship is so uniform, (so much so that it requires a hijab-free dress code), …that it requires that there will now be two classes of citizens, those that are born in France, and those that can be stripped of citizenship and sent back to where they came from.
Why would a “justice” minister , and a black one at that, resign over the issue of treating different groups of people differently, of giving different punishments based on ethnicity? I know, It’s a mystery to me too. One clue is in something Taubira said:
She’s saying that we, France, should not give a victory to terrorism, not even a symbolic one.
I think she’s right, a few guys with guns shooting up Charlie Hebdo, should not be used as an excuse for France to take their constitution apart. (or re-write it in secret….the American way).
Growing up in Apartheid South Africa I always looked at Europe as the more enlightened bunch. Obviously not Britain. There they had Thatcher. The equivalent of P.W Botha in drag. But yes, the rest of Europe I saw as quite progressive.
And then? Then I realised that I was looking at them through censored eyes. That the whole EU was in fact just controlled by corporations that couldn’t give two fucks about human rights. Yes, if you play by their rules the first world sure looks much better than the 3rd world, but if you want to see their true side, that fascism that they so cleverly hide, you must dare question their modus operandi.
I believe the proposed constitutional amendment is to permit dual nationals who were born French to be stripped of their French nationality if convicted of “terror-related” crimes. [My scare quotes, not real quotes.] Taubira’s objection was that it has no deterrent effect on potential homegrown jihadists and is a tactical cooptation of xenophobic, sectarian National Front policy that repudiates basic French legal tradition. I would call that more than a symbolic concession, but rather part of the beginning of a very slippery constitutional slope.
Meaningful debate in Congress? Now that’s just funny, those idiots can’t agree on the color of toilet paper.
You wrong the members of Congress, because they agree on the colour of toilet paper, and pretty much everything else. They all agree that toilet paper should be whatever colour their biggest lobbyists/donors tell them it should be. The issue is that when those lobbyist/donors differ, Congress has to wait until the lobbyists/donors can work out something that benefits them (lobbyist/donors, not Congressmen or the American public)
They all agree that toilet paper should be whatever colour their biggest lobbyists/donors tell them it should be.
Green. And the greater the ply the better.
The corporate owned congress only pretends to
have opposition parties. They always seem to find
a way to promote the growth of the war industry
and criminal banks at the expense of equal justice.
Those who fail to see the collusion and who continue
to support the democrats and republicans are
setting themselves up for more of the same corruption.
What’s with the formatting, Clark? Are you writing in iambic pentameter and I just can’t see it?
I believe in distance.
I scroll past Clark’s comments because of his shitty formatting.
Thanks Glenn. Isn’t it so ironic that the price of crude has tanked as the supplies pile up and the economy tanks with it after the USA and allies laid waste to the ME to keep control of crude so the supply could be secure.
Stephen Colbert put it to Rumsfeld last night on the Iraq debacle.
Alas, the West stumbles from disaster to disaster while most of its people fiddle with electronic gadgets.
“Stumbles” is far too generous a word for those engineering and profiting from global instability.
In 1851, the U.S. military was actively protecting the whale oil industry in the same way. Securing whale oil supplies was critical to the health of the American economy – it was, after all, the #1 illuminating fuel.
“1851 – Johanna Island (modern Anjouan, east of Africa): In August, forces from the U.S. sloop-of-war Dale exacted redress for the unlawful imprisonment of the captain of an American whaling brig.”
Crude oil will go the same way as whale oil, the slide has begun and nothing will stop it.
All these actions taking out dictators are just the warm up for what will happen when the oil runs out in 20-30 years. We will need a strong military then to ensure the US has it’s fix of oil. The destabilized countries make it easier to swoop in and get oil at a discount. Now when that oil runs out the entire world that has economies based on oil will collapse into total anarchy. Whether this helps the US’s interests remains to be seen. One must be prepared though for a new system where any oil is a huge asset. It’s when the oil runs out that the real fun begins. These current events will seem like a sandbox scuffle compared to the next chapter of human history.
This is the war the never ends, it just goes on and on my friends
Some people started shooting, not knowing for what it was
And they’ll continue shooting them forever just because.
Muammar Gaddafi wasn’t just better than what is going on in Libya now. He was one of the most selfless and honest human beings, let alone leaders, in modern times.
This is what I know to be true, but search for the Truth yourself.
Libya, had the most fair and democratic social and political climates in modern times…and probably ancient times as well. As outlined in his “Green Book”. His “Third Universal Theory” though not perfect is, nonetheless, the closest humans can (currently) come to true democracy.
He kicked out all the western vampires from his country, and amazingly succeeded in making the country’s natural resources and wealth actually reach the people, instead of European and American companies. This has not been done before or since, as far as I know.
Yet, even then he didn’t keep it to himself. He spent countless billions, on helping African countries. I, personally, met a Nigerian boy who was named after him. A common Nigerian boy.
In African countries he is known as a great leader and supporter for the poor and the oppressed. For example, Libya had a law in which whoever comes to Libya escaping oppression or persecution would never, under any external intimidation, be refused help. Libya, he wrote, was the Haven for the persecuted.
Gaddafi, for example, was a vital part of South-Africa overcoming the apartheid, it has been said that without him South-Africa would still be enslaved. Nelson Mandela loved him so much, he not only broke the no fly zone enforced by the West once he was out of prison, he actually named his Grandson after Muammar Gaddafi.
Mandela has also been vocal about the crime against humanity that was assassinating Gaddafi. It is very telling, to me, when the ones that mourned his death were Castro, Chavez and Mandela. While the ones that celebrated were Obama, Cameron and Hillary Clinton.
And there are stuff like this…
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/muammar-gaddafi-the-african-who-cleansed-the-continent-from-the-humiliation-of-apartheid/
…that we never hear about.
(I’m writing this in the hope that we all haven’t died of old age before this comment gets through moderation)
– “Muammar Gaddafi wasn’t just better than what is going on in Libya now. He was one of the most selfless and honest human beings, let alone leaders, in modern times.”
To anyone actually caring about humanitarianism, Gaddafi’s selflessness and honesty, or lack thereof is beside the point. Is the leader of France “one of the most selfless and honest human beings”? Is the leader of Denmark?, Kyrgyzstan? Columbia? Are they the most selfless and honest?
And is it just happy chance, that the biggest armies are commanded by people competent to make this determination? Bush, Obama?
Or is it simply that we are seeing bullying of the strong against the weak, on an unprecedented scale?
I mean just think about it, Gaddafi was so disliked, that it took the combined forces of NATO, the strongest military alliance on Earth, to help the rebels overthrow his tiny government in his tiny country. And all the refugees that have died fleeing the wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya? Are the refugees fleeing because the humanitarian situation has improved?
Might does indeed make right. But it did not take the combined the forces of NATO to help the rebels overthrow his government; that’s a bit overstated. NATO provided an air force, both to bomb Gadaffi’s positions as well as keep his air force from being used against the rebels. Crucially, U.S. intelligence also provided the rebels with Gadaffi’s location and allowed them to end the war quickly. Otherwise I would expect it would now be akin to the Syria situation, which one might argue is actually better (though many more people have died violently in Syria as far as we know).
– “But it did not take the combined the forces of NATO to help the rebels overthrow his government; that’s a bit overstated.”
That’s funny, because the papers reported that it was a NATO operation, only made possible by the participation of its most powerful member.
If you are looking for more information on “Operation Odyssey Dawn” also known as the war on Libya, there’s a Wikipedia page on it. It’s got a list of the massive number of ships and planes the US and Europe devoted to attacking Libya.
But, perhaps in saying “But it did not take the combined the forces of NATO to help the rebels overthrow his government; that’s a bit overstated.” you mean that some other country, or set of countries, with less military might than the West, could have, theoretically achieved the same chaos? I guess so, theoretically Russia or China could have found some way to set up air bases nearby and drop bombs on Libya, I suppose. But what actually happened was that even all of Europe combined, was clearly unable to crush Libya without US cooperation. First of all they need US assent to use the “AWACS” planes that are based in Europe, that coordinate the attacks, they need US intelligence and satellite information, and they need American refueling planes for their bombers, and of course, they need the bombs, which come from…you guessed it, America. And America is the world’s most powerful military. So I’ll have to disagree, it did take “the combined the forces of NATO” to overthrow the government of Libya.
….or are you arguing that the US didn’t need Europe? Let’s blue sky this! Militarily, no, they don’t need the European contribution, which is mainly bombers. Although they would still need basing and overfly rights for US planes. I suppose the US could launch strikes from Egypt or Israel. (wonder why they didn’t do that?) And going it alone without “the coalition of the willing” would have cost Obama the fig-leaf that America’s was playing “a supporting role” in the attacks, drawing more ire from his political opponents in congress. In any case, what happened was that Obama decided he needed all of NATO in on the attack. That is what happened.
I think I possibly misread your original comment as implying that it took all of NATO’s horses and all of NATO’s men to overthrow Gaddafi. Libya did not, by any stretch of the imagination, get subjected to the full power of NATO. Ask an Iraqi what that looks like.
I also think you misread my comment, because it ain’t “funny” if that word is to mean anything.
Rereading your second comment, it still seems like you are implying that we brought the hammer done as hard as we could. I can’t understand how anyone would think that when we had hundreds of thousands of troops NOT deployed in Libya. Same goes for “all of Europe combined.” Obama did not need nor get “all of NATO” in on it unless each NATO member sending some token contribution is what you mean. There were millions of NATO troops not deployed to Libya. Prince Harry was not deployed to Libya, but he was to Afghanistan, for example. If your point from the Washington Post article is that Europe was short of munitions, well, we got that! That problem can be remedied in an afternoon. That shortage in no way indicates that Europe was using all of its power to fight Gaddafi — they did not divert production of cars into production of tanks, etc.
But maybe we’re just talking past each other. I agree it seems like NATO was necessary to overthrow Gaddafi (quickly), but I do not agree with your implication that NATO deployed everything it had. That is objectively not what happened. What happened is what I said (and your source says) happened — NATO dropped some bombs and made some phone calls. Describing that as “the combined forces of NATO,” as I interpret the phrase, is a clear overstatement, as I said. Apologies if I just simply misread you.
Yes we are talking past one another. I wrote:
it took the combined forces of NATO, the strongest military alliance on Earth, to help the rebels overthrow his tiny government in his tiny country.
My meaning being it took the entire alliance, not every soldier of said alliance!
Yes, I often misuse “funny”…as in “isn’t it funny, the coming apocalypse!!” or “I read a funny article today, on how we are all doomed”
I’m starting to suspect there’s something seriously wrong with my sense of homour, probably caused by reading too many “Gloom Grimworld” articles.
Yeah, as long as he had his billions, his harem, and his annual plastic surgery, other people were allowed to eat. Not that he would kill people to achieve that or anything. Wait, how did he come to power initially? And how did he keep it? Did Abu Salim prison have anything to do with all that? These are rhetorical questions, by the way.
You better check the ancient Greeks and go from there on this capital-T Truth myth you seem to believe in.
Gaddafi was the permanent “Leader of the Revolution” and maintained personal control over oil exports and many other things. So….
Gaddafi was about as good and as bad as the U.S. government. So not that good. He did have his redeeming qualities, like his speech to the Arab League after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which I would happily watch daily, but if you pretend that he wasn’t a dictator by definition and that his rule was “democratic,” you’re a fool, a liar, or both. Heck, his response to the initial uprising belies your whole point and shows your comment to be rank propaganda. And he even admitted that his response to the Arab spring protests was murderous, unlike Assad who denies reports of soldiers firing on protestors. So I’m not sure why, if Gaddafi was so honest and great, that you don’t believe his own words that his response to the Arab spring in Libya was anything but democratic. If you went against Gaddafi in Libya, he would kill you and probably torture you first, and if he was still alive he would tell you that to your face.
Kind of hard to imagine Nick Kristof as a war cheerleader.
But that’s exactly what he is.
Maybe more of a naive optimist.
No its not, and one doesn’t have to imagine. “Liberal” cheerleading for war has evolved into an institution, with its own “academic” institutes, e.g. Brookings etc.
You’re just being “pissy.”
A better article title:
Get ready for the Superbowl, The U.S. Intervention in Libya Was Such a Smashing Success That a Sequel Is Coming.
You know I’m totally out classed here in this comment section…yet I will persist if I may.
Last year in the EU we in the UK knew from reports including UN planing for this. That Libya was to be targeted for land attacks to stem the refugee crisis and so the corollary of human trafficking occurring. Who is it now, Frontex on the Mediterranean Sea and their pitching battles with pirates and traffickers?!
We also knew that Turkey was to be approached (as it has been) to itself stem the refugee tide and that sums of say 4 billion euros ir whatever, should be advanced to the country to aid…etc…etc. And yet no cash and the souls keep coming (to here in the EU). Nor has Greece been but left in its state at the hands of EC private deliberations too for help.
Well, my point is that I’ll begin to note the Intercept here and around because these arguaments made within its pages are important here and now .
I know HRC almost seemed to gloat over the death if Gaddafi…I know drones based in wherever (not to sound trite) are now doing a man’s job of it. And I surmise that Mr Greenwald is bob on to crit and journalistically opinionate and so forth.
But, and this is a crux for me. All if this activity in real time planning for, and possibly execution of a war part II in Libya. Well I can no longer support the current UN and say reports of Saudis in Yemen, Nyt comments on whatever or Guardian stances here and there except as these being the current human face of the eyes which see.
I mean, this world is ACTIVE!! It’s a MOTION!! And for myself I can no longer see it in any terms but as these.. Active motion. The lot if it too.
I want a new data analysis please. This is Human Nature gone nuts. In Nature. and we’re all watching our own parts too within it.
Mr Greenwald on DN! and interviewed by Amy Goodmanham you spoke of the issues of say, congressional etc. partisan divide amongst the topic of whatever and Secrecy and war on the show last year. And you surmised it was all to paraphrase, ” coming down to the Nature…of us… or… them.”
Indeed!! I’m off outta here now from this comment ..and I ‘ll predict not a war…but a rolling activity to arrive soon. An activity and motion of such subsuming horror so blatant it would be ireportable (if I may neologise in the sense) in current parlance. But yes, we’ll see death stats with fact!!! And then what language will the UN, the EU, the US and us lot use to even utter of it, attempt to stop it or other wise articulate as it maybe arrives infront of us?
I needed to say this…Thank-you…it’s difficult to endure even witnessing…G’day.
John,
Your cry is being heard and (unfortunately), I absolutely agree with you. But don’t let pessimism numb you. There is a whole world to talk to. And people listen, even if they act as if they don’t. That, at least is the assumption you have to make when you want to change things for something better. I hear you.
*chuckle* “G’day” is Australian.
The actions taken in the congress of the fake USA
at the time of the destruction of Libya show how the
democrats and republicans manage to share the same
agenda and simultaneously pretend to be in opposition.
The senate (in its pretentiousness) UNANIMOUSLY passed a
a resolution endorsing the removal of Gaddafi (while
leaving the UN “Security” Council to arrange the attack).
The fake house of representatives failed to pass a
resolution endorsing the actions of the imperial president
and then failed (again) to cut off any funding for
what they pretended to oppose.
In the house votes, the democrats and the republicans
made sure that there were enough of their co-fakers
to cross over and vote against the approval and also to
cross over and vote against cutting funding for what
they pretended to oppose.
The bipartisan congressional pretense made sure that the
Obama administration was shielded in its imperialism
while writing the necessary Checks and undermining
any Balances.
Glenn, one with a jaded view might say that NYT’s current position on Libya is motivated by a perverse desire to reserve this inane and inhumane mission-accomplished bombing campaign for Hillary – the President they are rooting for! NYT’s patrons want Hillary to claim her war machismo early on by bombing a few building and a bunch of civilians.
My favorite Libyan war apologist is Rachel Maddow, who at the outset of the war lavished praise on Obama’s pledge not to expand the mission into a regime change project. She held this up as proof that Obama wasn’t a dimwitted cowboy like George W. Bush.
Months later Maddow was on television yukking it up with Bill Maher, both of them gloating about President Obama’s removal of the evil Libyan dictator. Turns out she’s just fine with regime change projects when they give Democrats a chance to brag for a day.
Even Sanders, in his junior role as war cheerleader, attacked Clinton on her role in Libya. After all, there is oil in Libya. Smug she is, but even he saw the destructive reality of ‘humanitarian intervention’ – at least there.
The question is, is this destruction of societies actually intentional? I’ve been waffling on this, thinking they can’t really WANT to rip up the fabric of these fragile societies. I can’t just think ‘they are stupid.’
Could it be as a boon to the military/rebuilding complex? As a threat to others? To justify a situation of constant war, surveillance and austerity at home? It does endanger the oil, after all, but getting the oil away from Daesh and Al Quada was unneeded when Kahdafy supplied it eagerly.
Sanders was part of a unanimous senate endorsement of
the removal of Gaddafi. He did not so much oppose the
military attack as he preferred that it to be over quickly.
Of course, we were also told in 2003 that the illegal war
against Iraq would be short-lived and Sanders didn’t think
another long war would be a good idea.
So, here we are with another continuing horror show,
thanks to the democrats and republicans.
Full tinfoil in action: Supposedly both Saddam and Qaddafi supported idea of trading oil in gold rather than USD. Coincidence?
Euros, I heard. If oil stopped being traded in USD the USA would be right up the creek, no paddle. the clout that Saudi Arabia has within OPEC and their defence of the oil dollar is probably the main reason this state, that beheads more dissidents than ISIL, funds more terror than ISIL or Al Qaiada, was more than likely responsible for 9/11, is left alone ( actually defended heavily) by the USA and its poodle the UK, supplied with high tech weaponry and is being allowed, right now, to get away with killing civilians and bombing hospitals in Yemen
Here is an article that discusses that in detail, as well as other considerations being opined on at the time:
http://ellenbrown.com/2011/04/16/libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking/
Pepe Escobar got it right the first time. Libya was cobbled together from 3 states by Italy, and 32 tribes. The only way to hold this conglomeration together was by force. That was what it took to keep the country unified to a degree by Arab standards. Now it is a disaster case waiting to happen.
There’s added irony to the emergence of ISIS as a new reason to bomb Libya.
The immediate justification for intervening in Libya was that Qadafi was threatening to massacre political opponents in the east of the country – specifically Benghazi. What went unmentioned was that these opponents included extreme Islamists. Whether removal of Qadafi was an ultimate aim or not, it is indisputable that we intervened to the benefit of the Islamists we now regard as a threat.
So I see this as more a repeat of what of what’s going on in Syria rather than Iraq, but they are all part of the same genre – that we intervene in a civil war, and end up fighting against both sides.
It would be farcical if it weren’t so tragic and deadly.
Youre right, there is but, it’s highly doubtful that America is that caring or compassionate to intervene in a civil war for humanitarian reason(s); it’s doubtful that America even cares about nation building or maintaining nations.
The commercials “America’s Navy — A Global Force for Good” is merely State propaganda.. as well as the other military commercials.
My comment is less about compassion/humanitarianism, and more about plain self interest. Common sense, even.
Intervening in a civil war (or any war) means taking sides. And whatever the rights and wrongs of taking a side, it’s at least a logical step. Fighting both sides is absurd. Of course we’ve done it often enough in the Middle East to be regarded in the region as dangerous idiots, but I guess it’s still a tough habit to quit.
Understood.
What is America’s self interest in intervening in civil wars, only to end up fighting both sides? It seems we are told that we do this because we care.
What are we doing it for? Comments here have written oil; I agree. But is there something else?
Hmmm, It looks like I’m in pre-moderation purgatory or something, anyway in the hope that there is a technical glitch, I’ll try again….
….I hope this, taking hours to post isn’t permanent, I’ll find something else to do if my comments aren’t welcome anymore under Greenwald articles.
Clinton – “We came, we saw, he died,”
Clinton is misquoting Caesar, but her camp still hasn’t accepted that she’s an imperialist. They don’t even accept that their country could possibly be an empire, because….America!
I wonder how many Libyans would take back Gaddafi if they could.
If we look at the people that could conceivably be the next President (Clinton, Trump, Rubio, Sanders, Cruz, and Bush), my guess is that all of them would intervene in Libya. Good thing we have democracy.
Typo, 2nd to last par.: “…until NATO bombed its.” it.
Bombing for human rights and demoracy is always bombastic!
The Wikileaks docs showed just how much oil drove NATO’s murderous campaign in Libya. Gaddafi was making speeches about how Libya and Africa in general need to nationalize their resources. He was calling for a “United Africa.” But of course that would mean the US, France, UK, etc., couldn’t plunder these countries for their resources anymore. So they spilled however much blood they needed to to ensure that cheap Libyan oil would stay cheap. And once again, they’re turned a foreign, sovereign country, whose only mistake was calling for its independence and that before its destruction was relatively stable with virtually no terrorism, into one that has spiraled into chaos, bloodshed, and terrorism. And NATO couldn’t give a rat’s ass as long as they can occupy and plunder that oil.
Never forget that when the US murderously and illegally invaded Iraq, the first thing it did was occupy/set up base at oil fields while letting museums with priceless artifacts get looted (and hundreds of thousands of people get slaughtered).
The absolute horrors of this country’s crimes are yet to come to the surface for the majority of the American people. They still don’t understand what a terroristic, criminal entity their country is. But someday soon, it will be mainstream knowledge, and all responsible will have to pay for their crimes.
It should also be noted that Gadaffi was also pushing for using a new currency for oil transactions. Such things ruin your reputation.
Clinton – “We came, we saw, he died,”
Clinton is misquoting Caesar, but her camp still hasn’t accepted that she’s an imperialist. They don’t even accept that their country could possibly be an empire, because….America!
The unfortunate truth about the US military and their supporters is that they are incapable of admitting defeat, that their approach to problem solving is defective, and as a result they are unable to learn anything from those defeats. Arguably the only victory that the US military has brought about since 1953 was the brilliant victory against overwhelming odds against Granada. This is not, as some would have it, the exclusive fault of the US military, but rather of our leadership at the highest level. The greatest cheerleaders for the series of wars in the Middle East never saw combat, most never even wore a uniform, and none have sons or daughters who will be put in harm’s way.
What astounds me most about our current situation is not the arrogance of most Americans and their leaders, but rather how Hillary Clinton, a sociopath who rode to power on the coat tails of her husband, who embodies none of the traditional virtues of a woman leader, can claim so many young women as adherents, when Jill Stein, a woman of principle, a physician, who appeals to the highest principles, is available as an alternative.
Oh, and the lead photograph is just perfect. There we have Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron beaming at the thought of all the oil that will now fall into the hands of Total and BP. The true reason for the NATO intervention in Libya. But wherever BP and Total are, Chevron and Exxon cannot be far away.
Voila! The tired old problem that General Smedley Butler complained about, well, well, well… Old Hell’s Devil saw himself as an Al Capone for Standard Oil, .. even believed he could show Capone a thing or two about running a racket on a few continents.
You’re assuming they see it as a defeat. The did get rid of governments with independent tendencies, in both Iraq and Libya. Even if that doesn’t pan out, it sends a message of sorts. Why would stability matter to them? You have to look at it through the mentality of a Mafia boss.
It’s like when people say “sanctions haven’t worked.” There’s a reason they’re kept in place, though.
You misunderstand me. My assertion is that they do not see it as a defeat, and thus see no need to critically examine what they did.
And excuse me, I would not grace them with the association with a Mafia boss. The Mafia may be a criminal organization known for its brutality, but if they were as stupid as Barack Obama and GW Bush they’d have been put out of business decades ago.
What’s gender got to do with it? And what are these “traditional virtues?”
Jill Stein will a bigger disaster than Obama, though the chances of her being President are the same as mine, so who cares? Mitt Romney has better odds according to the bookies and he’s not even running. Hilary’s one redeeming quality is that she will actually be qualified for the position in the sense that she understands, at the very least, not to ask Iran for the U.S. stealth drone they hacked and confiscated. We already elected an unqualified person, and we have paid dearly — even many pro-Obama voters admit that by now. Syrians have paid a much larger price, including being gassed by agents of the Turks because Obama was stupid enough to make his red line comment. An amateur President kills the people s/he wants to and then some more. It’s time to put that particular problem to rest.
The only respect in which Hillary is more qualified than Jill is in following in the footsteps of her predecessor. I completely agree that Jill Stein would not be able to accomplish much, because it would unite the two branches of the Party as never before in opposition to everything she espouses. However, I view that as a good thing, for a number of reasons. For instance:
1. Congress would actually have to exercise its Constitutional duty and declare war for US troops to embark on their next adventure in imperialism;
2. It would demolish for once and for all the argument that one branch of the party differs in any significant way from the other; and
3. It would demonstrate to the world, and to such a degree that even our most adoring allies would recognize it, that the USA is completely lacking in moral authority.
It might possibly also scare the democrats and republicans to such a degree that they would reform themselves, but I do not include it in the list because I think it to be highly unlikely.
Couldn’t agree more on everything but the first sentence. My contention is that Hilary at least has the experience necessary to know what the Presidency is and what it is not. I agree that she will most likely use that knowledge for nothing good, but we might avoid some trouble if we have two-term first lady-two-term Senator-secretary of state-actually accomplished lawyer (as evidenced by the fact that she is not in jail for her long list of known felonies) instead of 2-year Senator-community organizer-great orator-and-constitutional scholar who can’t speak and hasn’t read the constitution.
Notice you didn’t bite on the sexism baiting. I’m disappointed; thought that would be fun.
I watched The Spymasters — CIA in the Crosshairs. You know they (the spymasters) said they never reported a connection between Iraq and 911; they also said that going into Iraq was just a policy makers dream of shaping the MidEast (or something like that); they also said (ironically) that we can’t kill our way out of this. Hah! All the while CIA has added paramilitary assassination to their resume.
Part of this dilemma (if I want to be kind) reminds me of the apocryphal tale of the child seeing a moth struggling out of its cocoon feels sorry for and helps it out by breaking the hole in the cocoon… not realizing that it’s part of the process.. the struggle was so the moth could clean off its wings and fly; now the moth is permanently damaged.
But I don’t thing we feel sorry for Africa; something else is going on here.
Thomas Paine said (when talking about America’s future military power and current threats) dismissively that Africa was in a state of barbarism. That seems to still hold true today. So why have we engaged Africa? Paine might ask..
Oh yes, how to resolve the dilemma; how to get out of a continuous war posture in the MidEast?
Answer: Return to Constitutional or Founding principles.
1. The Army and Navy need to be stood down and downsized. Paine used privateer Captain Death as an example. I think it’s appropriate here.
2. Establish a real Constitutional militia (one w/o Federal funding or equipment or control).
3. Once 1 and 2 have occurred follow Paine’s advice on merging commerce and defense (in a non facist way) by allowing every American household to have military equipment. Simultaneously, high schools need to teach every able bodied and minded (and willing) girl and boy how to operate and respect military equipment.
4. Do not subsidize or regulate forms of energy to the benefit of one over the other. ie if coal is cheap, then coal has the market, etc..
5. Manufacturing is a national security issue; again reference Paine so, we need to dig for coal to produce steel to make things like pots and pans, roads, bridges, firearms, generators, and so on.
I’ll just stop there… perhaps we need to move toward an anti-Federalist and Isolationist policy.
Sounds frightening doesn’t it?
In some ways, it would be a dream come true. Would to God Jefferson had reformed things after the abuses of Adams, or Franklin’s Pennsylvania Constitution with a regularly elected legislative branch and an executive council been adopted- or, had Daniel Shays stood firm… perhaps hitting Washington in the brisket.
I would differ with “isolationist”. We’d still be involved with other countries. (We’ve never had an Isolationist policy- even Washington favored foreign trade….and his criticism of “entangling alliances” was for allying with our allies, the French. He didn’t say a word when Adams was pushing us into a quasi-war with France and cozying up to England.)