Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Finally A War For Oil?

I am a proponent of what the United States & N.A.T.O. are doing in Libya, but wasn't this simply supposed to be a humanitarian mission to setup a no-fly zone to protect civilians? One where we were not taking sides or getting involved in an apparent non-war civil war? The establishment of this no-fly zone seems wholly different from ones of the past, Kosovo and Iraq during the 1990s instantly springing to mind. The U.S. and N.A.T.O. have become little more than air support – an essential component in any modern military action – in obvious support of and benefit to the opposition forces, bombing strategic installations of government forces separate from the requisites of establishing a no-fly zone.

Obama Backs Libyan Political Pressure To Oust Gaddafi

Now we are going to arm rebels, who coalition forces admittedly know nothing about???

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan faced Congressional investigation over the Iran-Contra affair, in which the administration faced allegations of illegally funneling arms to Iran – who at the time was involved in a six-year old conflict with Iraq and under a U.N. arms embargo – and funding Nicaraguan Contras from those arm sales in violation of U.S. law. Flash forward to 2002, when President George W. Bush was accused of illegally involving the U.S. in the internal struggles of Iraq as part of the broader "War on Terrorism." Now, the Obama Administration appears poised to do both – send arms to rebels, and involve the U.S. in an internal conflict. Openly, and still without Congressional consultation or approval. Guess one must have a short memory as a politician.

Like a majority of people, I am simply confused as to what exactly is the mission in Libya and the apparent hypocritical disconnect in undertaking it. Why only Libya? Why not other places whose governments are slaughtering their people? Is this precedent for future interventions, or a blind eye to those situations? In 1990, President George H.W. Bush formed a coalition against Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, touted by opponents as an alleged “war for oil” conflict due to that country’s oil production. In 2002, his son, the aforementioned George W., led another coalition against Iraq, and again opponents labeled it a “war for oil” conflict. As evidenced by history, neither affected the oil industry such nomenclature would dictate; examining gas prices throughout both, quite the opposite in fact. Now, the U.S. finds itself involved in Libya whose primary export is oil, which begs the question – is third time the charm?

©2011 Steve Sagarra

No comments:

Post a Comment