With all due respect your analysis is 180 degrees of.
US/EU dominance of the so called freedom fighters will end up co-opting & controlling the adjacent 'revolutions'.
As always the rule to follow is:
We are the friends of freedom every where but the defenders of liberty at home.
as some one else said your standing as a commentator remains undiminished despite the straw-manish special pleading character of your piece; the left's assessment of MQ in Libya is problematic at best,
BUT
1) the main problems of your arguments center around (as many commentators note) the fact that there are few calls for intervention in other ME country's where governments are mowing down citizens; substantial experience makes that fact alone a very strong signal that the real motives are other than those stated
2) the points made @J.Kessler are dead on; since the early 20th century political defeat of outright US Imperialsts, the issue is never about direct control of the OIL (or other resource) fields, simply that production continues to the benefit of the US/EU economies which are facing rising OIL Prices in the context of economies which are shaky at best.
There can be little doubt that the rebels are the best option for achieving the goal of re-starting OIL production/exports most quickly and are most likely to let the vast OIL reserves at the most favorable terms.
The first step will immediately reverse the current upward trend on OIL prices and the latter (not withstanding the longish lead time to bring on line) will likely bring them down significantly. This twofer on world OIL prices will almost certainly be a major domestic political boost to Sarkozy, Obama, etc. all of whom are on shaky political ground as it is, just as Bush was in 2001-3.
So once again
Oh, Oh, Oh What a Lovely War
I would further add that i do not agree with the premiss that Big O's domestic policy is not in trouble.
Everything for him depends on the doestic economy and were world OIL prices to further increase or even stay at the $110/barrel level, the US and other EU economies will `recess` again and even worse because not only will unemployemt rise to much more dramatic and politically disastrous levels, but we will have substantial OIL price driven (cost push) inflation across the board.
Yesterday i the NYTimes an article suggested about .25% GDP decline for every $10 / barrel rise in OIL price.
Thus the parmount need for a `spendid little war`.
as to `Mr Bill`;
perhaps it is too nuts even for the Big O at least all parts of my scenario
but i assert that the US is stiill crazy after all these years (not just in the SHRUB era)
consider the unravelling policy for and the lies about what's really going on in Afghanistan
this suggests to me i may be closer than u want to allow, as i said - `still crazy after all these years`
as to `Mr Zubair Ahmed`;
kind of u to say, the bit about the Suez canal may be way overdrawn however
as to Mr `Ttitakjang`
perhaps u are correct, but i don't think i was saying Mr. O is vain or crazy or whatever
Our times (much to my distress) are witnessing the re-mergence of uber-Capitalism (aka neo-liberalism) and its necessary attendant Imperialism in the US and in Britain and really the rest of Europe via the agency of the EU, IMF and World Bank (escapees like Iceland nothwithstanding).
Just as O's domestic progressiveism does not exclude continuing massive tax cuts and other goodies for the already uber-wealthy because that's good for growth (never mind that all that growth also goes only to the already uber-wealthy) so too his foreign policy is needfully still rooted in an `American Century` view even though i agree with u that we are most definitely on the declining side of that.
And what, at the end of the day, is the basis of this decline, OIL (the lack thereof) adequate supplies of which to keep the economy humming and profits big as under the regulated capitalism consensus of the Cold War years.
This lack began in earnest with paek Aerican Oil in the early 1970's and is ever worsening. Hence the now all but unstopable steam roller of world wide uber-capitalsim until ?.
Add to the that the fact that Big O as well as almost all Dem presidents after FDR (and possibly him too if Charles A Beard & Willima A Williams are to be believed) are as much a part of that (albeit a kinder gerntler version with a limosine liberal masque) as the most hard bitten Republican (e.g., McCain).
Finally add to that the advantitous domestic poltical reality that `saving the Zionist/Theocracy' is an inescapable political necessity for all elected politicians of every stripe, at least until my generation (born 1948) passes from the scene.
(My 35 yr old son says he does not know a single acquantance under 40 who is not a christian fundementalist or is Jewish who does not think that the problem is Isreal.)
So i argue the fundementals of the neo-liberal world outlook are driving Big O or another possible POTUS not mere domestic policy or the lack therof.
I agree the later might at least seem have been behind the otherwise feckless SHRUB POTUS's gabbing hold of the possibilities of the 9/11. Howeverm, even there, i would suggest that the seeming fecklessness was because they did not yet control all of Congress (pre-2002 midterms) and they could not yet figure a way to steam roller through all the essentials of their neo-liberal doestic policy. (They did get through the bi-partisan NoChild dung becasue of Sen Kennedy.)
The US will allow Gadaffi to counterattack until the `humanitarian crisis requires` NATO intevention first in the form of No Fly Zones to control the Lybian air space and then having control of ...that they will eviscerate his armored division(s).
Having militarily incapacitated Gadaffi, the Marines under the quise of NATO and the UN resolution land at Benghaszi.
The Big O, has his own spendid little war and thus proves that he is stong enough to lead Amerika to new heights of glory.
1) The Zionist/Theocracy is saved
2) We now control the Suez Canal (?? Up Ur's Gamal baby ??) and have THE historic locus of control and real choke point for Imperial access to the Indian sub-continent (Pakistan-Afghanistan in particular). Admittedly not as important as bfore air travel was invented.
3) Egypt is `stabilized` by new US miltary base(s) in east Lybya.
4) Algeria and Tunisia are eventually `stabilized` by new US marine base(s) in Tripoli (u know, `From The Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli`).
5) Unrestricted access to North African OIL
6) Big US OIL Interests are brought in to restart production in ernest
7) World OIL prices fall back and US consumers are delirious
8) Big US OIL Interests announce intent to ramp up OIL production by developing the vast untapped reserves of Lybya thus bringing world OIL prices down below where they were by taking out the speculative fever in the commodities markets (??? says Big O `who else has the know how to do this u sa, certainly not the sheiks of arabee, we have no choice if we are to have world stability and thus peace)
9) He accomplishes what the SHRUB could not by his disastorus invasion of Iraq (neo-cons reallly are ass****s)
The Big O, having accomplished all this is politically triumphant and shoots up in the pools, crushes the ?R? in 2012 and possibly leads his party to recover its majority in the House and regain a super majority in the Senate.
Aren't you ignoring the elephant in the room in the opening discourse on how Iran is able to resist while Egypt fell in 18 days?
Iran can be resist (upto an as yet undefined point) its revolutionay elements because the regiem has OIL and thus an intrinsic income and a big and now rising tide of it at that.
Egypt's economy has no such income and there is heavy dependence on external money (both Gov - Gov $ Diplomacy largess) and tourism.
once again the question for experts
it is now being raised on left wing blogs, that what may reallly be going on is the peeling off of eastern oil rich libya from the colonel and his nationalization of that oil from western euopean dominace
I would be most interested in prof Cole's (and others) comments
? for the experts
? i think prof cole has commented on this a while ago
? Is it not an essential, possibly detremining factor, that the Iran ruling clique has Oil income to back it while those in Egypt and Tunsia do not
Excellent !!!
as Dr Zewail said and you implied
"2. The economic situation: the masses of the poor have been left behind, the situation of the middle class has actually gone backward, while a small elite at the top benefits from what economic progress there is– because of a marriage of power and capital."
sounds familiar doesn't it
a description of the whole capitaist world, the US in particular - there will be an explosion in more places than the middle east
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Absolutely!
The demse of Libya (regardless of what yoiu thought of the MW regieme) had much to do with ts bandonment of nuclear.
Moreover, any country in ts right mind wants to stay away from western det financing scheems/scams as mch as possible.
With all due respect your analysis is 180 degrees of.
US/EU dominance of the so called freedom fighters will end up co-opting & controlling the adjacent 'revolutions'.
As always the rule to follow is:
We are the friends of freedom every where but the defenders of liberty at home.
as some one else said your standing as a commentator remains undiminished despite the straw-manish special pleading character of your piece; the left's assessment of MQ in Libya is problematic at best,
BUT
1) the main problems of your arguments center around (as many commentators note) the fact that there are few calls for intervention in other ME country's where governments are mowing down citizens; substantial experience makes that fact alone a very strong signal that the real motives are other than those stated
2) the points made @J.Kessler are dead on; since the early 20th century political defeat of outright US Imperialsts, the issue is never about direct control of the OIL (or other resource) fields, simply that production continues to the benefit of the US/EU economies which are facing rising OIL Prices in the context of economies which are shaky at best.
There can be little doubt that the rebels are the best option for achieving the goal of re-starting OIL production/exports most quickly and are most likely to let the vast OIL reserves at the most favorable terms.
The first step will immediately reverse the current upward trend on OIL prices and the latter (not withstanding the longish lead time to bring on line) will likely bring them down significantly. This twofer on world OIL prices will almost certainly be a major domestic political boost to Sarkozy, Obama, etc. all of whom are on shaky political ground as it is, just as Bush was in 2001-3.
So once again
Oh, Oh, Oh What a Lovely War
Well said to Mr. Cole!
I would further add that i do not agree with the premiss that Big O's domestic policy is not in trouble.
Everything for him depends on the doestic economy and were world OIL prices to further increase or even stay at the $110/barrel level, the US and other EU economies will `recess` again and even worse because not only will unemployemt rise to much more dramatic and politically disastrous levels, but we will have substantial OIL price driven (cost push) inflation across the board.
Yesterday i the NYTimes an article suggested about .25% GDP decline for every $10 / barrel rise in OIL price.
Thus the parmount need for a `spendid little war`.
as to `Mr Bill`;
perhaps it is too nuts even for the Big O at least all parts of my scenario
but i assert that the US is stiill crazy after all these years (not just in the SHRUB era)
consider the unravelling policy for and the lies about what's really going on in Afghanistan
this suggests to me i may be closer than u want to allow, as i said - `still crazy after all these years`
as to `Mr Zubair Ahmed`;
kind of u to say, the bit about the Suez canal may be way overdrawn however
as to Mr `Ttitakjang`
perhaps u are correct, but i don't think i was saying Mr. O is vain or crazy or whatever
Our times (much to my distress) are witnessing the re-mergence of uber-Capitalism (aka neo-liberalism) and its necessary attendant Imperialism in the US and in Britain and really the rest of Europe via the agency of the EU, IMF and World Bank (escapees like Iceland nothwithstanding).
Just as O's domestic progressiveism does not exclude continuing massive tax cuts and other goodies for the already uber-wealthy because that's good for growth (never mind that all that growth also goes only to the already uber-wealthy) so too his foreign policy is needfully still rooted in an `American Century` view even though i agree with u that we are most definitely on the declining side of that.
And what, at the end of the day, is the basis of this decline, OIL (the lack thereof) adequate supplies of which to keep the economy humming and profits big as under the regulated capitalism consensus of the Cold War years.
This lack began in earnest with paek Aerican Oil in the early 1970's and is ever worsening. Hence the now all but unstopable steam roller of world wide uber-capitalsim until ?.
Add to the that the fact that Big O as well as almost all Dem presidents after FDR (and possibly him too if Charles A Beard & Willima A Williams are to be believed) are as much a part of that (albeit a kinder gerntler version with a limosine liberal masque) as the most hard bitten Republican (e.g., McCain).
Finally add to that the advantitous domestic poltical reality that `saving the Zionist/Theocracy' is an inescapable political necessity for all elected politicians of every stripe, at least until my generation (born 1948) passes from the scene.
(My 35 yr old son says he does not know a single acquantance under 40 who is not a christian fundementalist or is Jewish who does not think that the problem is Isreal.)
So i argue the fundementals of the neo-liberal world outlook are driving Big O or another possible POTUS not mere domestic policy or the lack therof.
I agree the later might at least seem have been behind the otherwise feckless SHRUB POTUS's gabbing hold of the possibilities of the 9/11. Howeverm, even there, i would suggest that the seeming fecklessness was because they did not yet control all of Congress (pre-2002 midterms) and they could not yet figure a way to steam roller through all the essentials of their neo-liberal doestic policy. (They did get through the bi-partisan NoChild dung becasue of Sen Kennedy.)
What unfolds in Lybya is this (IMO of course):
The US will allow Gadaffi to counterattack until the `humanitarian crisis requires` NATO intevention first in the form of No Fly Zones to control the Lybian air space and then having control of ...that they will eviscerate his armored division(s).
Having militarily incapacitated Gadaffi, the Marines under the quise of NATO and the UN resolution land at Benghaszi.
The Big O, has his own spendid little war and thus proves that he is stong enough to lead Amerika to new heights of glory.
1) The Zionist/Theocracy is saved
2) We now control the Suez Canal (?? Up Ur's Gamal baby ??) and have THE historic locus of control and real choke point for Imperial access to the Indian sub-continent (Pakistan-Afghanistan in particular). Admittedly not as important as bfore air travel was invented.
3) Egypt is `stabilized` by new US miltary base(s) in east Lybya.
4) Algeria and Tunisia are eventually `stabilized` by new US marine base(s) in Tripoli (u know, `From The Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli`).
5) Unrestricted access to North African OIL
6) Big US OIL Interests are brought in to restart production in ernest
7) World OIL prices fall back and US consumers are delirious
8) Big US OIL Interests announce intent to ramp up OIL production by developing the vast untapped reserves of Lybya thus bringing world OIL prices down below where they were by taking out the speculative fever in the commodities markets (??? says Big O `who else has the know how to do this u sa, certainly not the sheiks of arabee, we have no choice if we are to have world stability and thus peace)
9) He accomplishes what the SHRUB could not by his disastorus invasion of Iraq (neo-cons reallly are ass****s)
The Big O, having accomplished all this is politically triumphant and shoots up in the pools, crushes the ?R? in 2012 and possibly leads his party to recover its majority in the House and regain a super majority in the Senate.
indeed excellent!
Aren't you ignoring the elephant in the room in the opening discourse on how Iran is able to resist while Egypt fell in 18 days?
Iran can be resist (upto an as yet undefined point) its revolutionay elements because the regiem has OIL and thus an intrinsic income and a big and now rising tide of it at that.
Egypt's economy has no such income and there is heavy dependence on external money (both Gov - Gov $ Diplomacy largess) and tourism.
once again the question for experts
it is now being raised on left wing blogs, that what may reallly be going on is the peeling off of eastern oil rich libya from the colonel and his nationalization of that oil from western euopean dominace
I would be most interested in prof Cole's (and others) comments
? for the experts
? i think prof cole has commented on this a while ago
? Is it not an essential, possibly detremining factor, that the Iran ruling clique has Oil income to back it while those in Egypt and Tunsia do not
Excellent !!!
as Dr Zewail said and you implied
"2. The economic situation: the masses of the poor have been left behind, the situation of the middle class has actually gone backward, while a small elite at the top benefits from what economic progress there is– because of a marriage of power and capital."
sounds familiar doesn't it
a description of the whole capitaist world, the US in particular - there will be an explosion in more places than the middle east