1. Under the cover of regional unrest, encourage bankers with ties to the US security establishment to declare themselves the legitimate government of a country.
2. Make humanist noises about the terrible conditions for the oppressed people of that country.
3. Pretend very loudly that the leader of said country plans to massacre or slaughter thousands of his poor citizens.
4. Get the UN and NATO to rubberstamp, yet again, a "no fly zone" and limited defensive operations. For the good of the people about to have their lives massacred by the newest Next Worst Dude Since Hitler. Remember to remind the American public that "no boots [will be] on the ground." Make noises about not intending to do regime change.
5. Bomb the bejesus out of said country. Indiscriminately. If possible, bring to bear your infamous sky death robots.
6. Continue bombing.
7. Wait for the Fourth Estate to discover a missing white woman. Or a Princess's penchant for snazzy dress.
8. Recognize said bankers as the one, true, only legitimate government of poor, benighted nation suffering in the clutches of the Bad Dude Who Reminds Reasonable People Of Hitler. Free up Bad Dude's seized assets and hand them over to the new "legitimate government." Make no mention of Bad Dude's copious supplies of gold, the country's strict policy of preventing capital flight, or its relatively stable currency. Neglect all reference to its vasty vast catalog of natural resources.
9. Sign trade deal, concessions agreements and military pact with new "Legitimate Government."
Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.
24 comments:
You're so skeptical, Jack.
This time, we're really are bombing people out of the goodness of our own hearts.
The oil is merely a coincidence.
*Obi Wan hand gesture*
~
Our State Dept now recognizes the "rebels" in Libya as the quasi official government.
This will now free up the funds to finance them.
Sound familiar?
Proxy wars are a tool for regime change.
Will O have the balls to send ground troops into Libya.
I think so.
He needs to run as a war president.
He knows he can not run on the economy.
If not Libya, he might prefer Yemen, or even Somalia.Iraq has still not given the U.S. permission to stay after December of this year.
War is Peace, Peace is War.
so are you asserting that the extreme brutal repressiveness and kleptocracy of the gaddafi or assad regimes is a sheer fabrication? i'm not going to believe that without some actual evidence for it. i suppose a good policy would be to oppose all movements for democracy everywhere.
I'm suggesting that the conditions on the ground don't matter at all to the Obama Administration, Congress, or any of their predecessors, crispy.
Qaddafi and Assad aren't in the cross hairs because they're bad men. They are targeted because US policy and regional hegemony demands it.
And the Libyan "rebels" are not and have never been a "movement for democracy." They are bankers, stooges and ministerial defectors who will set up a client state which as rapidly represses actual democratic discontent the moment the concession dollars start to roll in.
And they're going to have a lot of it on their hands, since neoliberalizing the Libyan economy, freeing up its capital and gold, breaking its oil distributions, selling off its state held industries and imposing Euro-American style austerity is going to hurt a lot of the Libyan people.
Basic research, crispy. Basic stuff, here.
http://www.truth-out.org/congress-and-its-colonialist-agenda/1310502773
Interesting read.
Now would be a good time to show you this
and <a href="http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/category/libya/> this</a> Qaddafi being progressive doesn't really matter, he was kowtowing to Italy's empire anyway and yes, NATO's made it all worse.
I've read t's essay and outline, JM. But, as I'm not making a Marxist argument, nor care to apologize for Qaddaffi, I guess it needs repeating that it doesn't matter if Col. Q was a very bad man who was perfectly willing to do the business of business with more fully capitalized states.
Well, it ain't working out too well for the NATO boys:
CounterPunch Diary
NATO's Debacle in Libya
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
http://counterpunch.org/cockburn07152011.html
And I'm sure you've heard about all the deals Qadaffi is now cutting with the Chinese and India. Fail.
Yeah, okay. I remember you saying you don't really give a shit. Sorry.
One can give a shit even while understanding that given shit's impact on the machine.
Yup, giving a shit is as irrelevant as whrlether qadaffi is good or bad. You just have to make Chomsky's old argument: What if Libya's primary export was broccoli?
Nobody really gave a shit about Saddam until he tried to link oil to euros instead of dollars. When some people give a shit, the machine moves. Gadaffi's mistake was not joining the central banking system when joined the Mediterranean economy. They didn't give a shit about road building and education, but gold bars, no debt and oil? People started giving a shit. Me? I don't give a shit.
JM,
drip, Mr. Red and the fish have all left better replies that I would have.
Way I see it, strong emotions and verbal loyalties have no power to physically alter the world on their own. It all has to be translated through labor. And that's a good thing. If we all gave a shit and that had efficacy on its own, the world would be more of a hell than it already is.
It doesn't matter if Qaddafi was a terrible person. No one needs to reach a single conclusion, or have a sole emotion, about Qaddafi in order to understand why his regime is in the cross hairs.
'Good guy/bad guy' thinking is what helps the ruling class sell ever more endless bullshit.
From 'democracy crusaders vs. evil despot' to 'moose-hunting fascist vs. liberal black guy' to 'bad apple banker on show trial vs. smart guys creating wealth'.
It's all shadow-boxing - even if it does result in very real carnage and poverty (and political idiocy/apathy). Screenplay cliches don't explain any of it.
Nicely distilled, Jack.
fish's reminder brings to mind yet another example of how the D brand is worse than the R brand: At least Herbert Walker admitted to not liking broccoli.
Not to mention that Africom wants another boot print in MENA.
Libya may be partitioned [Balkanized] the same as they are trying to do for the rest of the region.Globalization by the multi national corps. is promoting these regime changes, and new lines in the sand map.
All I'm saying is there was a legitimate concern in the beginning of all this with Qaddafi crushing descent. it didn't warrant NATO, it didn't warrant any cunts claiming to represent the rebels, in fact, many opposed intervention
JM,
It was never legitimate. This was a banker's "rebellion" from day one. Qadaffi, whatever his other failures, has armed the hell out of the people he is supposedly trying to crush.
These are the same arguments routinely trotted out against the Chavez state. Even lonely anarchists (like my own self) can see that Chavez and Qadaffi arming large numbers of people who supposedly hate and fear them puts the lie to an immediate test:
"Recent pro-government rallies in Tripoli have been vast. Libya has a population of about six million, with four million in Tripoli. Gaddafi barrels around the city in an open jeep. Large amounts of AK-47s have been distributed to civilian defence committees. Were they all compelled to demonstrate by Gaddafi's enforcers? It seems unlikely."
Read more: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/81667,news-comment,news-politics,alexander-cockburn-libya-david-camerons-other-misjudgment-unravels#ixzz1SIl5v95d
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25630
Thank you, RZ.
"All I'm saying is there was a legitimate concern in the beginning of all this with Qaddafi crushing descent."
Well, Saddam Hussein was one evil, oppressive motherfucker (I know this because the TV kept telling me since I was still at school). However, 'regime change' made the world - and definitely Iraq - a far worse place, and opened the door for the Iraqi population's oppression to step to a higher level of horror.
NATO staying out of Egypt kept matters relatively bloodless, despite Mubarak's 30-year crushing of dissent. So whudoeyeknow?
It ain't Star Wars.
During the cold war we were told that America was fighting communism and to bring about freedom and democracy.
That was a lie.
We were promoting and fighting in order to promote corporate capitalism.
Now we are being told that we are fighting terrorism.
And that we are bringing about freedom and democracy to the rest of the world.
Same as before, is true now.
We are still promoting, fighting, killing, being killed, for corporate capitalism.
Qaddafi really, really hasn't recently represented the idea of being against capitalism very much
That said, it doesn't surprise me that Qaddafi's popularity has risen among some people what with NATO wrecking havoc, all the sane protesters were probably killed by their bombs.
Post a Comment