Look, I'm no expert in diplomatic relations or the geo-political scene of the middle east. I know that Gaddafi is a brutal tyrant and all the rest, but isn't this 'humanitarian war' starting to look a little bit more like just another war? I pray that I am wrong, but I still don't believe that heavy artillery and bombing brings 'peace and stability' to the region. Any region. Like Iraq, do we really expect Libya to be a peaceful, serene city after the 'job' is done and 'mission' is 'accomplished'?
We know that Gaddafi has had the West over a barrel, a barrel full of oil, for many, many years. We know that he promised to cut off his new enemies (the West) and give new contracts to his friends (China and Russia). Sensing blood, or perhaps sensing the running dry of the oil tap, the West now steps in to once more 'liberate' the people with the Arab League in tow to justify it to those who were suspicious. We know how much money there is to be made out of war for certain companies. We know that the military industrial complex in the US and the UK is still strong.
Further, we know that our leaders are convinced that might = right. We know that Iran will henceforth consider itself encircled by pro-Western governments which will delight the Western governments. We can be assured that after this war, another war will be looming as more, hostile, middle eastern states fall into line in the 'new world order'. All that is needed is the right excuse with which to sell it to the people of the West. Let us not be so naive as to think that Western coalition bombs only hit pro-Gaddafi forces and somehow miraculously miss civilians. If they want to 'take out the tyrant', why can't they just take out the tyrant! How much blood will be spilled in an effort to get to him!? After we have blown up thousands of his men, can we take the moral high ground!?
Let us also not be so naive as to think that the scene pictured above is what a 'no fly zone' looks like, as the Arab League have been quick to point out. Good for them for standing up and saying it, but doubtless they will see themselves as having been deceived. Let us not be naive. Our Governments do not go to war to 'liberate' peoples of the World. Governments only go to war when motivated by self-interest and just because Obama is the US President doing it, just because Cameron is the British Prime Minister doing it and just because Sarkozy is the French President doing it, does not change the motivation - self-interest.
President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, for instance, has been starving and crucifying his own people for ages. No 'regime change' there. And while we're bombing another sovereign nation, we're just arming another group of 'rebels' with whom we have sided. This isn't a Mother Teresa war. This is just another war and just because the Nobel Peace Prize winner is involved (that's Obama by the way, not Bl.Teresa of Calcutta) it doesn't make it holy or just. It is worth reminding ourselves that another winner of the Nobel Peace Prize was Henry Kissenger, that other 'man of peace' who, said of the Egyptian uprising: “This is only the first scene of the first act of a drama that is to be played out.” Still, it appears, even he didn't see this one coming...
Let's face it. One of President Obama's first acts upon assuming office was an act of war. Which war? The war on America's unborn children. As one winner of the Nobel Peace Prize so rightly said, "Abortion is the biggest destroyer of peace". Before we try and end tyranny in other lands for dubious reasons by dubious means, let our elected leaders at least strive to end tyranny in our own. The other famous Executive Order signed by Obama was the one commanding the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Funny how that one wasn't followed up with quite the same zeal and enthusiasm. It remains as open for business as it was under his predecessor. Two presidents. One was a blithering idiot, another a dithering idiot. Not too much difference between the two really, just that this one plays more golf than the last one.
No comments:
Post a Comment