Has anyone said that yet?
NPR suggested this was mentioned at the London Conference on Libya, but has anyone said it yet?
Ryssdal: Well as long as we're talking about money and funding, what about once the violent stops, once the military campaign is over and the cost of rebuilding comes to mind, any discussion of that?
Beard: No, not at all. This is the great unmentionable. The assumption seems to be, first of all, on the military costs, that the coalition partners are going to shoulder their own military costs -- that in the case of the U.S., by the way, is $550 million and rising. But the cost of reconstruction, the assumption again is that Libya will pay for its own reconstruction. It has, after all, one of the biggest reserves of oil and gas in Africa. Last year it generated more than $30 billion in oil revenues for a country of only 6 million people. So the argument is Libya can easily afford its own reconstruction.
Ryssdal: I want to make sure I heard that right, Stephen, because we were told the same thing about Iraq. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said Iraqi oil will pay for its own reconstruction. Did anybody bring that up today?
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/03/29/pm-coalition-forces-meet-to-talk-about-next-steps-for-libya/We know that Qatar is going to sell oil on the behalf of the "rebels", but what happens when a rebel leader becomes rich once output gets close to $150 million a day (130,000 barrels a day X $105 a barrel) once repairs are made? Are we to assume that this leader will be benevolent and want to share with the people of Libya whom we are currently bombing the shit out of? Who's to say the rebel leader doesnt become a dictator in his own right? Either way, we cant count on oil sales to be the saving grace of this police action/conflict/humanitarian mission (unless you're Occidental Petroleum or Shell)