This Week Marks One Year Anniversary Of Turning Point In Libyan Civil War
The real turning point actually was when NATO and Western Nations became involved, in March 2011, but it was made manifest with the August 20 Assault on and August 22 Capture of Tripoli, the Libyan Capital. While the US/NATO involvement in Libya was short lived, and therefore relatively inexpensive, the unintended consequences of it and similar moves now being planned for Syria will likely last for generations. And that’s just if Iran isn’t dragged into the conflagration.
I have long maintained, even if I haven’t exactly stated it all that often on this blog, that one of the main motivations of US interventionism, has been the Federal Government’s (rather, the Federal Reserve’s) desire to retain world reserve currency status for the US Dollar (rather, the Federal Reserve Note). Interventionism kills two birds with one stone in this regard. First, we defend the Dollar by attacking nations (Iraq, Libya, soon Iran?) that have stated as one of their goals to become independent of the Dollar. Second, we prop up the dollar with additional spending that increases GDP, which not only instills confidence (in those who don’t know that GDP is a bogus number these days), but provides stimulus for industries within the Military-Industrial Complex, which instills even more confidence (in those who don’t know that paying people to dig holes so others can be paid to fill them back up again is not an engine of economic growth).
But our ability to keep our enviable status can not go on forever, and that’s without even considering our fiscal and monetary woes. You see, it’s easy enough to depose Dollar-dissenters who also happen to be radicals and crackpots, but what happens when the day arrives when relatively moderate and sane nations like China, Japan, Russia, Germany, India, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, and Australia decide to steadily ditch or abruptly dump the Dollar? Wait! This trend has started already in some sectors! Should we just strong-arm them as well to uphold the illusion of solvency? Not unless we can paint them as dangerous extremists.
Back to Libya. Here are some (very cynical) theories that I adhere to:
We bombed them and deposed their tyrant because they were about to go off the Dollar. God Bless America!
Sarkozy was elected in part thanks to illegal donations from the Gaddafi regime. That’s why he bombed Libya. Vive La France!
Cameron bombed Libya because the British Government didn’t want any more details about its secret oil deals (remember when Cameron’s predecessors freed terrorist and mass murderer Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, three years ago yesterday?) to get out. The sun never sets on Her Majesty’s Dominions.
Berlusconi bombed Libya because the Italians suffer from an inadequacy complex and were sore about losing its colony during World War Two. Plus, they and France probably think they can get some cheap oil. Per l’onore d’Italia!