[lbo-talk] Theory of USG seeming confusion over Libya

Gar Lipow gar.lipow at gmail.com
Fri Mar 25 10:47:39 PDT 2011


On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:15 AM, martin schiller <mschiller at pobox.com> wrote:
> If the USG plan was simply to divert attention from Wisconsin and our 'hope for the future', and then found the 'plan' unnecessary following the Japan 'diversion', that might leave confusion regarding their goals. A comparison timeline may prove me wrong, though.


>
> (Oil and partition might represent deeper, more fully considered USGoals, but they don't ring any bells for me)

I don't know about bells, but in terms of goals:

1) refugees - a massacre by Gadfaffi would increase the number of refugees, already high

2) Oil, a massacre might lead to a deeply underground insurgency. Blowing up oil facilities is a possible tactic for such an insurgency.

3) Oil again. Gaddaffi has been very friendly to oil companies, and they have a lot of investment in Libya. If a massacre is allowed public opinion might force them pull out, at least nominally. Similar public opinion might force a boycott of Libyan oil. There would be ways around these, but there would be high transaction costs, and it is possible that Libya might find investors and customers elsewhere.

So my guess is that the U.S. (don't kid yourself, this is a U.S. operation) wants to overthrow Gaddaffi. Maybe they would settle for a partition as a backup plan. But I doubt it is well thought out. If U.S./Nato succeeds in overthrowing Gaddaffi, there are a lot of reasons to think that will improve the lot of the Libyan people. If they do that, with friendly rebels ready to take power, there would be no reason for an occupation. To the extent the U.S. succeeds in its primary goal, the goals of the empire really do coincide with the common good. Stopped clock and all that. But what the U.S. will do if that fails is another question. I very much fear what we will see if that happens is the usual: continued bombing over the course of years. Blunt force sanctions that amount to state of siege and destruction of water, power, sewage and medical infrastructure. Basically the method Israel and the U.S. have developed in an iterative process of learning from one another over the decades.

To me that seems a serious risk, something there is a real chance will happen. Juan Cole disagrees, but so far only by assertion. I will be interested to see Cole's argument for WHY this is not a risk.


> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

-- Facebook: Gar Lipow  Twitter: GarLipow Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598 Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list