I just found a fascinating article by Conn Hallinan that refutes Juan Cole’s suggestion that the US participation in the Libyan conflict is all about stopping “massacres of people” and establishing a “lawful world order.” Hallinan ridicules the idea that the US really cares about anybody’s massacres from an altruistic point of view and attracts out attention to the importance of Libya’s supply of oil as an explanation for the Americans’ interest in the country:
The charge that this was about Libya’s oil is “daft”? Libya is the largest producer of oil in Africa, and the 12th largest in the world. Its resources are very important for NATO’s European allies, and over the past several years there has been competition over these supplies. The Chinese have made major investments. During the war China, Russia, and Brazil supported the African Union’s call for a ceasefire and talks, and pointed out that UN Resolution 1973 did not call for regime change. One of the first statements out of the Transitional National Council following Qaddafi’s collapse was that China, Russia and Brazil were going to be sidelined in favor of French, Spanish, and Italian companies. Quid pro quo? The war was not just over oil, but how can anyone dismiss the importance of energy supplies at a time of worldwide competition over their control? The U.S. is currently fighting several wars in a region that contains more than 65 percent of the world’s oil supplies. Does he think this is a coincidence?
I know there are Juan Cole’s fans reading the blog and I’m not aiming to hurt their feelings. However, Hallinan’s non-sentimental discussion of the US’s involvement in the conflict in Libya sounds a lot more convincing to me. Like Hallinan, I don’t think that this is exclusively about oil. It is, however, one of the factors that condition the US involvement in the area. Stopping massacres is not because it has never been.
Clarissa's Blog 
The vital thing though, is that NATO (not just the US, UK and French air forces did a big share of the fighting) intervention DID stop massacres of civilians and the crushing of the Libyan rebellion in Benghazi.
The intervention can be about a stable world oil supply, and at the same time also about supporting the Arab spring, giving the chance for the creation of a free Libya, and removing a dangerously eccentric tyrant.
LikeLike
I disagree with you Dave. The NATO intervention in Libya was to forstall an invasion by Egypt. Don’t you find it a bit strange that Egypt which has a million and half citizens in Libya sending back remmittances that help keep the Egyptian economy afloat never mention once a concern over their safety? Egypt has a few gas wells but no oil and much of its scarce currency was sent to pay for foreign oil (not Libya with whom they had a war). A take over of Libya which would have been a cake walk for the largest professional army in Middle East and the installation of a puppet government would have been an economic coup for Egypt and a solution to its huge external debt. Western governments have never had a problem with Libyan dictatorship or the abuse of its citizens as long as the government didn’t pose a threat to themselves. I’m very suspicious of the noble sentiments expressed by the West especially considering their past behaviour.
LikeLike
Whenever I hear Americans talk about the need to remove a tyrant from power, I know that something fishy is going on.
LikeLike
A take over of Libya which would have been a cake walk for the largest professional army in Middle East and the installation of a puppet government would have been an economic coup for Egypt and a solution to its huge external debt.
What do you base that theory on?
So the Egyptian Army would have invaded, and taken over Libyan oil wells… and then what? sold the oil and kept the money? Hmm… seems a little implausible.
Regardless – the fact remains that Libya has had a far better outcome so far and has every reason to expect a good future, with a NATO intervention than without one. So whatever you think were the motivations of the NATO powers, they don’t really matter at this point.
LikeLike
Maybe not……………..but…………….
LikeLike
That’s very interesting.
LikeLike
I understand it can be Russian anti-USA propaganda and I am not an expert, but this post on politics of USA’s help to Africa seems very interesting:
http://smerd-andreyka.livejournal.com/344014.html
If it’s 100% true, I am not surprised. Politics is dirty like that.
I am surprised you’re surprised the US Participation in the Libyan Conflict stems from other motives than “Let’s bring them democracy”.
LikeLike
I’m not surprised at all. I’m surprised that American Progressives are so naive as to refuse to see the economic reasons for the US involvement. Try telling an American progressive that the US is not trying to help the good guys beat the bad guys out of the goodness of its heart here and they will bite your head off. 🙂
LikeLike
As for the article you quoted, the Republican Congress will defund USAID completely very soon. So then we’ll see who will benefit from that and how much. All of this criticism of USAID is nothing new and always comes from the very conservative circles in the US. They are also the ones who are in favor of removing all internal subsidies for industries.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/20/165_house_republicans_endorse_defunding_usaid
LikeLike
As someone who worked in Iraq for several years and now in Afghanistan, my wife gets enquiries every once in a while about working for USAID. The last time she told the recruiter that her understanding was that USAID was a group of “secret squirrels” (nickname for spies & covert agents) disguised as “economic development” workers. The recruiter agreed with her assessment.
LikeLike