Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[Proton Soup]

something that's been a bit of a buzz in online discussion recently is that a couple of years ago, gadaffi was making some noise about nationalization of petroleum assets to better manage price disparity in imports vs exports.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/daf1303c-eb1a-11dd-bb6e-0000779fd2ac.html

Mr Gaddafi told King Juan Carlos of Spain and a Spanish business delegation at the weekend that by taking full control of its energy assets, Libya could better adjust production and influence prices. He described as “very dangerous” the fact that oil prices had fallen so sharply last year, while the cost of Libyan imports had barely changed.

“If we end up taking this decision, it will be because we didn’t have any choice,” he was quoted as saying in the Spanish press on Sunday.

seven months later, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_Ali_Mohmet_al-Megrahi" is released from prison

 

[alt]

I have lost complete confidence in UN after its attempts to resolve this ongoing Libya crisis. I wouldn't even call "resolve" but more like creating more troubles. It was the least intellectual thing to interfere in Libya's internal affair IMO.

Few are considering arming unorganized rebels now which would only result in more casualties.

(Underlining is mine)

Makes you wonder doesn't it ?

And there's been plenty of suggestion in the past - and some confirmation presently - that those rebels are riddled with AQ.

 

[cobalt124]

I still think it was the right thing to do. There is a sense of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" to it, but given that the Arab League and the U.S. and Europe agree for once, action would seem better than inaction, as you have a more influence over the outcome. No one can state the outcome of any choice made in this. Saying that, I can't get over the feeling that arming the rebels may be a dangerous thing to do.

 

[russ_watters]

This, I think, helps inform as to why the US is having so much difficulty giving up a role it wasn't supposed to have in the first place:

The NATO request for the United States to continue flying its planes capable of striking at Libyan troops on the ground has raised concern that coalition forces do not have the military equipment needed for the type of strikes necessary to continue degrading Libya's military.

The United States was expected to stop flying its A-10s and AC-130s this weekend as NATO took over leadership of the entire mission. The planes are equipped to fly lower and slower than fighter jets, which improves accuracy in targeting of troops and tanks that are in and around cities...

But a NATO official said that, weather aside, only the United States has the ability from the air to strike at mobile troops and equipment.

NATO needed that from the United States, the NATO official said.

"Specifically the A10s and the AC-130s nobody else but the U.S. has," the official noted.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/04/libya.us.nato/index.html?hpt=T2

While the article is imprecise in its wording as to what exactly we still have there and what has recently left, it makes sense that a large air force would have special purpose aircraft while a smaller one would not. Everyone has multi-role fighter-bombers and the basic support aircraft such as tankers, but when you're on a limited budget you have less room for weapons with a more specialized role. A-10s and AC-130s fulfill a role in between attack helicopters (vunerable to small arms fire and RPGs) and multirole fighters (fly too high and too fast to be optimal for close air support) that others just don't have.

 

[Dale]

I have been reading up on Bayesian analysis and thought this would be a good (guesstimation) problem:

So the rebels need help that only the US can provide. Estimate the prior probability that the rebels are anti-American, then estimate the posterior probability that the rebels are anti-American (a) given that the US provides the support and (b) given that the US does not provide the support.

 

[russ_watters]

British, French and Italian military "advisors" are being sent to Libya to help train the rebels to be a more effective military force, while being quick to point out that they are not "ground troops":

France and Italy announced Wednesday that they will send military officers to advise rebels fighting for the ouster of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's regime.
Following a similar announcement by the British government Tuesday, French government spokesman Francois Baroin said a "small number" of French troops were being sent to advise the rebels' Transitional National Council.
French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet again ruled out sending ground troops to fight alongside the rebels.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/20/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T1

While these small numbers won't be engaging in autonomous combat, they are, nevertheless, armed foreign military personnel, on the ground, in Libya.

 

[rootX]

British, French and Italian military "advisors" are being sent to Libya to help train the rebels to be a more effective military force, while being quick to point out that they are not "ground troops": http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/20/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T1

While these small numbers won't be engaging in autonomous combat, they are, nevertheless, armed foreign military personnel, on the ground, in Libya.

I think they should stop engaging in these silly games instead should just kill Gadhaffi. British, French and Italian are only fueling a civil war and contributing to more causalities than there would have been without their intervention IMO.

One thing I find most disturbing that no one saw these revolutions coming (I read a BBC article in Feb that it was surprise for US). They could have been prevented if everyone including west acted responsibly (promoting economic reforms in these countries).

 

[mugaliens]

I think they should stop engaging in these silly games instead should just kill Gadhaffi.

Can't. That's called assassination and was outlawed in 1976 by President Ford. However, executive order 12333 relaxed that, somewhat.

British, French and Italian are only fueling a civil war and contributing to more causalities than there would have been without their intervention IMO.

Last time I checked, the Libyan's started it. Not the British, French, or Italians.

One thing I find most disturbing that no one saw these revolutions coming (I read a BBC article in Feb that it was surprise for US). They could have been prevented if everyone including west acted responsibly (promoting economic reforms in these countries).

I doubt it. Things have been on edge throughout the Middle East for decades, complete with riots, rebellions, uprisings, and tons of murderous oppression. Things have been on a hair-trigger for a long time. All it took was the spark of Tunisia's successful ousting of their dictator, combined with viral Internet action, and the rest spread like wildfire.

As for the West promoting economic reforms, we meddle enough as it is. They're sovereign countries. It's no more our responsibility to stick our fingers in their pots than we'd allow them to dictate how we should run our own country.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I think they should stop engaging in these silly games instead should just kill Gadhaffi.

I think it's far from obvious that this would make he situation better. Someone could easily step into his role and continue his regime, except they might need to be even more brutal to assert their legitimacy

 

[russ_watters]

John McCain flew to Libya to talk to the rebels and push for an expansion of our involvement: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/22/mccain.libya/index.html?hpt=T1

At least he is talking to the side that we support, unlike the last guy, but he's still undermining the power of the President by being there. I really hate it when Congressmen do this type of thing.

 

[rootX]

Last time I checked, the Libyan's started it. Not the British, French, or Italians.

I doubt it. Things have been on edge throughout the Middle East for decades, complete with riots, rebellions, uprisings, and tons of murderous oppression. Things have been on a hair-trigger for a long time. All it took was the spark of Tunisia's successful ousting of their dictator, combined with viral Internet action, and the rest spread like wildfire.

As for the West promoting economic reforms, we meddle enough as it is. They're sovereign countries. It's no more our responsibility to stick our fingers in their pots than we'd allow them to dictate how we should run our own country.

See post#https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3216126&postcount=241".

Tunisia:

The
European Union and external actors supported Ben Ali’s regime almost unconditionally,
swayed by the former president’s pursuit of neo-liberal economic liberalization, as well
as his cooperation in securing other EU objectives, notably the fight against terrorism
and illegal migration.

The events in Tunisia of the last few weeks have brought to the fore the fundamental
difference between apparent stability and long-term sustainability, revealing how the
point at which an unsustainable status quo tips towards political and social instability is
often closer than expected.

http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iaiwp1102.pdf

While it's not West's responsibility to promote long term sustainability in those countries but it is in the interest of West not to rely on knee-jerk unthoughtful policies.

 

[lisab]

John McCain flew to Libya to talk to the rebels and push for an expansion of our involvement: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/22/mccain.libya/index.html?hpt=T1

At least he is talking to the side that we support, unlike the last guy, but he's still undermining the power of the President by being there. I really hate it when Congressmen do this type of thing.

Me too, Congressmen or celebrities. Of course I hold Congressmen to a higher standard, though.

 

[russ_watters]

NATO just attempted to kill him:

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi escaped a NATO missile strike in Tripoli, but his youngest son and three grandchildren under the age of 12 were killed, a government spokesman said...

The attack struck the house of Gadhafi's youngest son, Seif al-Arab, when the Libyan leader and his wife were inside...

Seif al-Arab Gadhafi, 29, was the youngest son of Gadhafi and brother of the better known Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, who had been touted as a reformist before the uprising began in mid-February. The younger Gadhafi had spent much of his time in Germany in recent years.

Moammar Gadhafi and his wife were in the Tripoli house of his 29-year-old son when it was hit by at least one bomb dropped from a NATO warplane, according to Libyan spokesman Moussa Ibrahim.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-04-30-libya-gadhafi_n.htm

I'm very surprised. I didn't think anyone in the west had the stones to do something like that. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, though.

 

[Ryumast3r]

NATO just attempted to kill him:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-04-30-libya-gadhafi_n.htm

I'm very surprised. I didn't think anyone in the west had the stones to do something like that. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, though.

They tried it back 20 years ago... That's when he stopped being such a douche to the west



until now that is...

 

[mugaliens]

NATO just attempted to kill him...

You are incorrect, Sir.

They tried it back 20 years ago...

You are incorrect, as well.

Folks, we do not target the leaders of countries. Our targets are military in nature, and the mere presence of a country's leader does NOT in and of itself qualify a target to be labled as "military."

On the other hand, if a country's leader chooses to remain at a decidedly military target, they're taking a significant risk upon themselves. Furthermore, if a country's leader drags their family with them to military targets, they're putting their family in harm's way, as well.

Khadafi and other leaders in the broader region have repeatedly resorted to the practice of hiding military operations behind civilians (or other non-combatants) in the mistaken hope that the military targets would be protected. This practice was common during both the initial and second invasions of Iraq in the early 90s and early 00s, both by dragging civilians to military targets, as well as moving military targets into civilian (non-combatant) facilities, such as hospitals. Under International Law, the first action holds the leader liable for any civilian deaths (such as the death of his daughter years ago, and his son and grandchildren today), and the second action is subject to a war crimes tribunal.

Khadafi appears intent on choosing courses of action which have and will continue to wind up badly for himself and his family.

Meanwhile, British, French, NATO, and other forces have, and will continue to abide by well-established international law governing the warfare.

 

[russ_watters]

Folks, we do not target the leaders of countries. Our targets are military in nature, and the mere presence of a country's leader does NOT in and of itself qualify a target to be labled as "military."

On the other hand, if a country's leader chooses to remain at a decidedly military target, they're taking a significant risk upon themselves.

Sorry, it's you that is incorrect. The leader of a country is the head of the military and as such is always a military target, just like any other military leader. His presence at the house of a civilian can turn that house into a military target. While it's possible there was a military facility in/under it (we don't actually have information either way), I don't believe in coincidences. The timing of the attack points to an attempt to kill Ghadaffi.

Furthermore, if a country's leader drags their family with them to military targets, they're putting their family in harm's way, as well.

It was his son's house! The only one "dragged" there was his wife! His son died in his own house.

Khadafi and other leaders in the broader region have repeatedly resorted to the practice of hiding military operations behind civilians (or other non-combatants) in the mistaken hope that the military targets would be protected.

While that's true, that does not appear to be the case here.

And frankly, I think it is naive to believe that we (or in this case NATO, possibly without our input) wouldn't go after him specifically, regardless of Carter's executive order.

 

[rootX]

NATO just attempted to kill him:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-04-30-libya-gadhafi_n.htm

I'm very surprised. I didn't think anyone in the west had the stones to do something like that. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, though.

BBC analysis suggests that this might not be a good for NATA from diplomatic perspective.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13252192

 

[russ_watters]

Good analysis in that article, including of the issue of legality of an assassination attempt:

Assassination of a head of state is illegal under international law, and forbidden by various US presidential orders. On the other hand, the targeted killing of those woven into the enemy chain of command is shrouded in legal ambiguity.

Given the personalistic nature of the regime, and the "all means necessary" clause in UN Resolution 1973, it might be argued that killing Col Muammar Gaddafi and certain members of his family - such as his son Khamis, commander of an elite military brigade - would be permissible, even if it posed a risk to those non-combatants around the regime.

Legality, though, indicates neither legitimacy nor prudence. This strike, and the death of Saif al-Arab, have produced little military result at the greatest diplomatic and symbolic cost to Nato.

 

[russ_watters]

A month has passed since my last post here. What has changed?

Nothing.

...except perhaps the level of impatience:

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives issued a rebuke of President Barack Obama's Libya policy Friday, passing a measure declaring that the president has failed to provide a "compelling rationale" for military involvement in the North African country.

The non-binding resolution criticizes the president for insufficiently consulting Congress before launching air strikes in Libya and urges the administration not to put any ground troops in the country, something Obama has already promised not to do.

The measure, reflecting what GOP leaders consider a lack of presidential deference to the legislative branch, passed in a 268-145 vote. Most Republicans supported it, while most Democrats were opposed.

House members rejected a separate resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the NATO-led military operation. Kucinich's measure was defeated in a 148-265 vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/03/house.libya/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

That's potential ammunition for a War Powers Act fight, but so far it is just rhetoric.

Also recently, NATO extended the air campaign by another 90 days (past the first 90 days): http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/01/nato-extends-libya-military-campaign/

And for the first time, NATO (but not the US) is using attack helicopters: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-06-04-libya-bombing_n.htm

So here's my issue: We discussed right from the start that this would likely become an insta-quagmire and it did. So what did Obama and NATO think would happen? How did they misplay this so badly? Did they launch an air campaign based on wishful thinking? What is their plan now?

 

[rootX]

1)
Just some fancy (and stupid) stuff:

In Benghazi, Ms Obeidi's home city, Marwa al-Obeidi said a human rights group helped by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had organised for Eman and their father to travel in a private plane to Washington, via Malta and Austria.

"We just want a chance for her to be treated psychologically and to rest," she told the Associated Press news agency. "My sister has just been through so much."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13663266

I don't know why they always have the tendency to turn everything so hollywood ...

reminds of recent mine workers accident - people went so crazy over that stuff and you will see same sensationalism here.2)
Libya: Benghazi rebel visit for senior US official

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13501251

 

[Proton Soup]

seems there is some effort afoot to get fuel and euros to the rebels.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576357294173075536.html

meanwhile, libyan rebel leaders deny that any of this talk with Eni involves scrapping/renegotiating of old contracts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-energy-libya-deals-idUSTRE75154220110602

so there's a lot of talk, rumors, and denials about meetings with people over money. hard to not think there's something up. and just now, the libyan top oil guy defects. that probably means he knows what is up, and that the old regime is about to get cut off.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/me_libya0682_06_05.asp

so what now? well, there was a NATO attack on gadafi just yesterday before the defection. probably to soften things up a bit for the rebels to go in and seize the oil port of Brega.
http://tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=6119

anyhoo, looks like things might be heating back up again, russ. assuming their ducks are all rowed now.

 

[Proton Soup]

so NATO has no UN authorization to go in and occupy Libya. but what they seem to be doing at them moment is fighting the battles so that rebels can move into occupy the deserted positions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13665963title is deceiving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZKGpsunkTA

how much fighting will the rebels actually do? maybe one last battle at tripoli? then we hand them the economic keys and leave them to it?

 

[Proton Soup]

i don't get it. what's the holdup with the finances?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375593529584086.html

 

[russ_watters]

Obama was sued today (again) over potential War Powers resolution violation wrt our involvement in Libya. Also today, Obama says the Libya involvement is too small for the War Powers resolution to be relevant:

"The president is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of 'hostilities' contemplated by the resolution's 60-day termination provision."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/15/war.powers.libya/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[rootX]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13820727

Barack Obama overruled the advice of administration lawyers in deciding the US could continue participating in the Libya conflict without congressional approval, The New York Times reports.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13820727

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp

The theory Mr. Obama embraced holds that American forces have not been in “hostilities” as envisioned by the War Powers Resolution at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to a supporting role providing refueling assistance and surveillance — although remotely piloted American drones are still periodically firing missiles.

The administration has also emphasized that there are no troops on the ground, that Libyan forces are unable to fire at them meaningfully and that the military mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

great. so it's just a video game now. and we're completely numb and immune to the effects of violence if we feel safe from any retribution.
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_and_video_games_playing_with_violence

even if our being there is justified, I'm finding the reasoning used to justify avoiding congressional approval totally psychopathic.

 

[russ_watters]

It's definitely going to be interesting if that lawsuit goes forward. He could be fighting two meaty lawsuits while campaigning for re-election!

 

[Jack21222]

While I hesitantly support the actions in Libya, I strongly support getting congressional approval for continued action. If congress does not vote for continued support, we need to back out until they do. I support Obama on many things, but he's dead wrong here.

 

[Proton Soup]

south carolina senator Lindsey Graham was on Meet the Press sunday. he said that if we didn't get gadaffi, that oil prices were going to double. in fact, he spoke it twice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43441440/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, you know, one, I would take the course that conservatives have been taking for the last 30 years. The War Powers Act is unconstitutional, not worth the paper it's written on. It requires congressional approval before the commander in chief can commit troops after a certain period of time, and it would allow troops to be withdrawn based on the passage of a concurrent resolution never presented to the president. So I think it's an infringement on the, the, the power of the commander in chief. The president's done a lousy job of communicating and managing our involvement in Libya, but I will be no part of an effort to defund Libya or to try to cut off our efforts to bring Khaddafy down. If we fail against Khaddafy, that's the end of NATO. Egypt's going to be overrun and the "Mad Dog of the Mideast," what Ronald Reagan called Khaddafy, if he survives this, you're going to have double the price of oil that you have today because he will take the whole region and put it in, into chaos. And I will be--I won't be any part of that. So from my Republican point of view, the president needs to step up his game in Libya, but Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Khaddafy. Because he wrote a letter to the Congressional leadership basically thanking them for their involvement in trying to end this conflict.

SEN. GRAHAM: Well, we do. We had an opportunity to end this very quickly. The day you took American air power out of--off the table, NATO became a weakened organization. But we are making progress. Khaddafy is on his last leg. The rebels are getting stronger. They've taken the fight to Tripoli. I said about four weeks ago, "Go after Khaddafy's inner circle, break their will." We're pounding Tripoli. But the big mistake was to take American air power off the table. What I would like to see is for America to rejoin NATO when it comes to an aerial bombardment. We don't need ground troops. And if you don't think Khaddafy surviving affects America's national security interests. We're just on different planets. If this guy survives, it's the end of NATO, our standing in the world goes down, Egypt gets overrun by refugees and the Mad Dog of the Mideast, Khaddafy, is out of his cage, and you're going to see oil prices double.

and apparently, the price of oil is a national security interest.

i can see NATO being a national security interest, but much of that is the fault of the rest of the NATO countries cutting their own defense budgets and losing former capabilities. how else to get europe to change its behavior and fund their own militaries? if we "step up to the plate" now (more than we have), they will have no incentive to do so.

middle east chaos? we're pretty selective about that, eh? things have only gotten worse in bahrain, our home base for the navy there.

and I'm not sure our standing goes down. it's been pretty clear from the beginning that we don't want to own this war, we're just supporting our allies. maybe Graham should be the one to "shut up" about libya.

 

[vici10]

It seems that Qaddafi has some support from Libiyan people. On Friday June 17, thousands of people went to demonstration in Tripoli to support Qaddafi.
One can find this information in reuters' website http://in.reuters.com/video/2011/06/18/thousands-march-in-pro-gaddafi-rally-in?videoId=216060503&videoChannel=-9994"

Unfortunately, I could not find any information on this demonstration in NY tymes or BBC. If someone can please let me know.
The demonstration and speach of Qaddafi one can find on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt3l_dm0zhE

 

[apeiron]

and apparently, the price of oil is a national security interest.

I'm confused. Are you saying the middle east is ever really about anything but the oil? Count the number of US bases in the region, let alone the number of military interventions over the past few decades.

I'm not sure on what grounds the senator is claiming that Gaddafi has intentions to take over Egypt or anyone else, so the quotes sound off-beam. But he is speaking realpolitik in saying that US believes it has the "national security right" to ensure oil prices stay low.

It's not about democratic principles or human rights or any other namby-pamby issue.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'm confused. Are you saying the middle east is ever really about anything but the oil? Count the number of US bases in the region, let alone the number of military interventions over the past few decades.

I'm not sure on what grounds the senator is claiming that Gaddafi has intentions to take over Egypt or anyone else, so the quotes sound off-beam. But he is speaking realpolitik in saying that US believes it has the "national security right" to ensure oil prices stay low.

It's not about democratic principles or human rights or any other namby-pamby issue.

yes, i know, but there are some here who do not believe in realpolitik, they believe we are engaging in wars for much higher purposes, like preventing rebels from being slaughtered (have you seen the vids of refugees being slaughted escaping syria?). and so it becomes necessary, whenever evidence presents itself, to present it. and that is all that i am doing here.

you can find some other posts I've made on the topic if you dig for them. if you ask me, much of this goes back to prior mumblings from gadaffi about not getting enough money for libya's oil, and talking openly about nationalizing the oil to set the price. ~1 year after saying that, britain releases the Lockerbie terrorist under suspicious testimony from a couple of doctors. the Arab Spring then leads to demonstrations and crackdowns in various arab nations, leaving a convenient opportunity to get rid of him.

 

[apeiron]

yes, i know, but there are some here who do not believe in realpolitik,

OK, I'm less confused now. I misread the reason for your quoting.

As for US policy in the Middle East, that still is confusing as, for realpolitik, it seems to have lost touch with reality.

It definitely used to be just about the oil. With Carter Doctrine, Reagan corollary, and senior official statements up to 2000, there was no doubt that repressive regimes were fine so long as the oil flowed.

But with Bush junior and neo-con organisations like the Project for a New American Century, the US did switch to a public declaration that it was about re-engineering the politics of the region, believing democratisation would be a pancea for the problems of the area.

This was so shockingly naive as foreign policy, and appallingly handled in practice, that most outsiders believed it must be just a front for the latest version of the oil game.

Perhaps there was a "clever" motive in the recognition that nationalised oil companies in the area would be difficult to deal with, and inefficient in their oil extraction, as oil peaked. Forcing democratisation and free markets would allow outside oil companies to move in and do a better job from a consumers point of view.

Yet this seemed a lot of immediate pain (in terms of the various wars) for an uncertain gain in 20 years time.

But what could else could explain US policy as rational rather than naive dreaming?

Yes, there had to be some kind of "war on terrorism", but everyone knew it ought to have been a police action, not a US invasion of random countries.

Some other unlikely sounding reasons have been advance, like the claim it is all about protecting the petro-dollar (people seem to get invaded every time they switch their oil transactions to euros).

Perhaps the reasons were irrational but quite human - the US had built up such a weight of military and flash new military gear in the area that there grew an uncontrollable urge to use it on someone. There was a belief that the US could knock over anyone with minimal losses to self.

And this was a true belief of course. But the disconnect was that after the quick military success would come the inevitable nation-building morasse. Again, the pain would outweigh the gain in any sane longterm rational choice.

Libya is the same set of questions all over again. The realpolitik shows in that very different choices are being made over Libya and Syria, for instance. The West has scores to settle with Libya, it is also more strategic with its oil reserves and under Gaddafi always a dangerous wild card in the area.

So what is the bottom-line diagnosis? That the US has built up such a might of military muscle to police the world's key oil reserves that it has become politically impossible to resist using it for irrational fantasies like defeating terrorism and engineering democracy?

 

[Proton Soup]

there is certainly always a desire to upgrade military capabilities and try out new toys. this goes back to Eisenhower and his military-industrial(-academia)-complex speech. Rumsfeld was rather obvious about his part in this. that fulfilled the defense industry interests. as for the rest of it, the major players and motivators seem to be oil, averting further retaliation on US soil, and israel. maybe banking.

it's not just the middle east, tho. oil nationalization is not appreciated in venezuela and bolivia, either.

 

[vici10]

But what could else could explain US policy as rational rather than naive dreaming?

apeiron,

There is an interesting interpretation of wars in the Middle East by professors Nitzan from York University and Bichler from Israel. They have a complex argument, therefore it is difficult to give it justice in several lines. You can find their article here http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/1/"
Article is published in Journal of World-Systems Research and titled “Dominant Capital and the New Wars”. It is 37 pages long, so if you do not have time I recommend to read chapter 12. ‘Energy conflicts’ and section “The New Wars” in chapter 14.

Briefly, if one compares performance of Fortune 500 companies against performance of major oil companies, one will notice that since late 1960s all major Middle-East conflicts followed by a period in which major oil companies beat Fortune 500 average.
Except year of 1996-1997, major oil company performed worse then Fortune 500 average before the wars and beat the average during the war. It seems that major oil companies need a war to beat Fortune 500 average.

These are bothering facts. Of course, the reasons for war are more complicated than profits of oil companies. And authors do not think that oil companies control US government. They put these wars in broader context of global accumulation. They say roughly that there are two ways of accumulation. One is through breadth that includes merges and acquisitions and green field investments.
This needs peace. And we see it in 1990s with hi-tech boom. But then the cycle comes to end.
Another way is through inflation that goes together with stagnation. During inflation prices do not rise homogeneously, therefore one can accumulate more relatively to others if his prices rises faster than the average. Inflation correlates with high prices of oil. High prices of oil means more profit for oil companies. And as we saw in the previous paragraph, this means war in the Middle-East. Because war creates perception of risk that drives prices up. It seems that this process we see now.

This is very brief summary of the article. I thought it has an interesting perspective.

Perhaps the reasons were irrational but quite human - the US had built up such a weight of military and flash new military gear in the area that there grew an uncontrollable urge to use it on someone. There was a belief that the US could knock over anyone with minimal losses to self.

This is also maybe true. The other beneficiaries of wars in the middle-east are sellers of arms. This is also mentioned in the article.

The West has scores to settle with Libya, it is also more strategic with its oil reserves and under Gaddafi always a dangerous wild card in the area.

it's not just the middle east, tho. oil nationalization is not appreciated in venezuela and bolivia, either.

Nationalization is an interesting point that may have contributed to the wars.