No Business Like War Business: Who Stands to Profit from Intervention in Libya?

[EFerrari]

From the Pentagon to the French government to the water privatizers, here are some of the beneficiaries of the campaign in Libya.

Asia Times / Pepe Escobar

March 30, 2011 |

Lies, hypocrisy and hidden agendas. This is what United States President Barack Obama did not dwell on when explaining his Libya doctrine to America and the world. The mind boggles with so many black holes engulfing this splendid little war that is not a war (a "time-limited, scope-limited military action", as per the White House) - compounded with the inability of progressive thinking to condemn, at the same time, the ruthlessness of the Muammar Gaddafi regime and the Anglo-French-American "humanitarian" bombing.

United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 has worked like a Trojan horse, allowing the Anglo-French-American consortium - and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - to become the UN's air force in its support of an armed uprising. Apart from having nothing to do with protecting civilians, this arrangement is absolutely illegal in terms of international law. The inbuilt endgame, as even malnourished African kids know by now, but has never been acknowledged, is regime change.

Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard of Canada, NATO's commander for Libya, may insist all he wants that the mission is purely designed to protect civilians. Yet those "innocent civilians" operating tanks and firing Kalashnikovs as part of a rag-tag wild bunch are in fact soldiers in a civil war - and the focus should be on whether NATO from now on will remain their air force, following the steps of the Anglo-French-American consortium. Incidentally, the "coalition of the wiling" fighting Libya consists of only 12 NATO members (out of 28) plus Qatar. This has absolutely nothing to do with an "international community".

The full verdict on the UN-mandated no-fly zone will have to wait for the emergence of a "rebel" government and the end of the civil war (if it ends soon). Then it will be possible to analyze how Tomahawking and bombing was ever justified; why civilians in Cyrenaica were "protected" while those in Tripoli were Tomahawked; what sort of "rebel" motley crew was "saved"; whether this whole thing was legal in the first place; how the resolution was a cover for regime change; how the love affair between the Libyan "revolutionaries" and the West may end in bloody divorce (remember Afghanistan); and which Western players stand to immensely profit from the wealth of a new, unified (or balkanized) Libya.

http://www.alternet.org/world/150437/no_business_like_war_business:_who_stands_to_profit_from_intervention_in_libya?page=entire

[xchrom]

1. Follow the money. Nt

[Zorra]

12. That is rule #2.

Rule #1: Never trust a republican or a corporation.

Rule #3: The money will always lead you to a republican or a corporation.

[freshwest]

13. Money has never seen a boundary it can't break down.

[Romulox]

2. I can't help but feel that Europe has decided that it's "their turn" for a Middle East adventure.

I've been especially been disappointed that the French people, who famously saw the U.S.'s folly invading Iraq, seem to be acquiescing to an almost identical invasion, perhaps because this time, blood is being traded for oil for which French companies stand to profit. :shrug:

[Octafish]

3. It's starting to look a lot like SOSO.

Look! It's a war! I mean, opportunity!

What we coulda done: Helped Libya hold an election. It's called "democracy."

[gratuitous]

4. Oh my! How can you think that way?

This is a humanitarian intervention! For humanity's sake! My goodness, what depths of cynicism must someone plumb to try to discern who might benefit from this? It's a tragedy. And a holocaust. And a bunch of other focus group tested words designed to pluck at the public's heartstrings. Er, I mean, it's genocide! Let all thoughts of cui bono fly away, as our star-spangled fightin' men and women once again go into harm's way to blast the living bejesus out of some faraway place. It's the only thing to do.

Unless you just loves you some dictators . . . And you don't love dictators, do you? Well? DO YOU?

[EFerrari]

6. Yeah, I love Gaddafi so much, I should marry him.

:)

[myrna minx]

7. My goodness - we freedom hating genocide loving liberals should start some sort of

mail order dictator dating service. A "mystery date" for the new century. :D

[EFerrari]

9. Tom Friedman said maybe Obama "will get lucky" in LIbya.

:)

[myrna minx]

11. The new slogan should "Make love AND war."

:D

[EFerrari]

14. People get lucky at casinos, too. The hawks sound like gamblers.

I was remembering David Brooks calling Iraq "Bush's Epic Gamble" around the time of the invasion.

[myrna minx]

18. Well, all I know is when William Kristol give you the thumbs up,

what could possibly go wrong? He's got the touch of Midas, he does. Jackpot!

[leftstreet]

5. Water Wars !!

K&R

Interesting article

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. Mostly the oil companies.

Under Qadaffi they were denied access to Libyan output, and couldn't acquire any exploration rights.

Oh, wait a second...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Those blasts you hear aren't bombs. They're MIC champagne corks.

[EFerrari]

15. .

[L0oniX]

16. GE "We bring good things to life"

[EFerrari]

17. This may be some stimulus for the San Francisco Bay area.

We're defense contractor heaven. Look at it as job creation. :sarcasm: