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 12^th 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.