UN Actions in Lybia are Somewhat Confusing

By the time Gaddafi's troops were entering Benghazi, much of the world looked on, horrified, wondering if anyone would come to the rebels' aid. The UN resolution calling for a no-fly zone, and the attendant air strikes were viewed, initially, with relief. Then, as time allowed for more thorough contemplation, questions arose.

Why, for example, is their no intervention for Bahrain, where scores of protesters are being murdered? Where is the aid for protesters in Yemen, where government forces are mowing them down? How is it that we can silently observe the Saudi government viciously crush pro-democracy protests there? There are a few simple answers.

The despotic Saudi government sits on the world's largest oil reserves, and they are our allies--indeed they are creatures created by the US. We are nearly as fearful of democracy in Saudi Arabia as is the royal family. We have turned a blind eye to the thousand Saudi troops which invaded Bahrain to crush the protests there. The Saudis fear that a pro-democracy uprising among Bahrain's Shiites might incite Saudi Shiites to rise up as well. It's been suggested that we quietly endorsed the Saudi invasion in exchange for their support for the UN no fly zone.

Yemen is a bit harder to fathom. I suspect the Yemen's relative lack of oil might have dampened the interest of "coalition" partners to engage in military adventures there despite US backing for Yemen's beleaguered president as a bulwark against Al-Qaeda.

Looking at the makeup of the "coalition" (the US, Britain, France, Italy and various unspecified Arab states), it is interesting to note that Russia and China have stayed out of the no fly adventure. They have now joined the chorus of voices claiming the "coalition" is engaged in a
"Medieval Crusade" against Gaddafi. Given that Libya has considerable oil reserves, it is surprising that Italy would join the "coalition", since it gets a huge percentage of its petroleum needs from Libya. Italy must be fairly certain of this intervention producing regime change. Obviously, if Gaddafi survives this interlude and remains in power, Italy would likely need to look elsewhere for petroleum.

There seem to be two outcomes that would serve Western interests: either Gaddafi goes, or the country is divided into areas controlled by rebels (principally in the east where most of Libya oils is found). In any event, is seems likely that, once again, Western military adventurism is directed by Middle Eastern oil. If the western powers were truly interested in protecting civilians, there are plenty of places--in the Middle East alone--where such actions are sorely needed.

The US has engaged in many wars during my lifetime, and not one of them had a primary goal of protecting innocents--well, maybe Bosnia, though I could never fathom Nato's interest in that area. The other conflicts, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan and Iraq--to name the obvious ones--had other, more bizarre, rationales. Libya appears to be an opportunity afforded by an impending slaughter of rebels and innocent civilians, for the Western powers to secure yet another chunk of the worlds oil reserves. I may be wrong, but the West's (particularly the US) "track record" has not been good.