Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Friday, October 21, 2011 by RT America
Pepe Escobar: NATO Wanted Gaddafi Dead All Along
Gaddafi at one point was a hero to the Western world, but for the last year Gaddafi was looked at as a villain. There are many reports explaining the reasons why the change of heart from the Western powers. Pepe Escobar, correspondent for the Asia Times, helps us understand what happened and what lies ahead for Libya.
© 2011 RT
Comments are closed

15 Comments so far
Show AllThank you Pepe Escobar.
The Global War on Terror gets ANOTHER boost!
The Pentagon will need more money to "make peace."
Austerity will be more necessary to make us safe from ourselves.
Why did Gadaffi have to go? 1. For the same reason why Hussein had to go. Both had their unreliable (according to big oil) hands on their oil-spigots which they could open or close at their commands and upset the world's economies. In the case of Gadaffi there had been a precedent when he inked an agreement with Armand Hammer's Occidental Petroleum Cy. which gave him an unprecedented 50% of the price of every barrel from Libyan fields. That was such a threat to the other oil companies that they soon inked similar contracts with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Nevertheless, it was a shock which indirectly resulted in the formation of OPEC, a kind of international Texas Railroad Commission. Big oil does not want to be in direct control of the oil in Libya. It wants a government which it controls and which controls the spigot which is the only reason why the Saudi rulers started the NATO war in Libya. That is also precisely the reason why the overthrow of the Shah of Iran was such a blow to the Saudi rulers and why they will use every ruse short of war to overthrow the current regime which has its hand on the Iranian oil spigot. 2. Because Gadaffi was meddling in African countries and only FRUKUS is allowed to do that. In Uganda for example. Germany which endangered the contract of a Germany-based oil company with contracts in Libya by not participating in the planned overthrow of Gadaffi learned its lesson hence instantly endorsed Obama's Ugandan caper this time.
How was Gadaffi gotten rid of? At the time of the uprisings in Egypt, Algeria, and Tunisia I wrote in wonder why nothing was happening in Libya which is squeezed between these countries. I was wrong, Something was happening in Libya. Libyan nationals that had lived in the U.S. for many years were sent by the Obama administration with CIA support to foment a "popular uprising" in Libya. If Libya was typical of a dictatorship, some 10% strongly supported Gadaffi, some 10% plotted against him, and the remaining 80% just wanted to live without having to chose sides. The notion that the whole nation has suddenly become anti-Gadaffi is just as ludicrous as the notion that all of Germany had become Nazi on the day when Hitler became chancellor in January of 1933..
And Hillary Clinton cackled: "We came, we saw, he died."
This person is morally bankrupt.
Monsters aren't people.
Escobar's conclusion has been understood by many from the beginning of this. One good result is the US has one less country to rely on for its "extraordinary rendition."
I wouldn't count on that. I'm sure the new Libyan regime will be even more US-pliant than the last one was.
Exactly what I was thinking...
Pepe Escobar cuts through the MSM crap, as usual.
Good supporting evidence for what he says:
"Libya and the Sahel's nightmare scenario"
"Libya's uprising is causing turmoil in amid its neighbours and speculation of a Tuareg rebellion has emerged."
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011921142949286466.html
"Al-Qaeda in the Sahel"
"Jeremy Keenan explains how a Saharan front in the 'global war on terror' was fabricated."
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/07/201071994556568918.html
This is what a real journalist looks like. With the rise of the Internet, smart MSM journalists should begin to abandon it for the new media.
True, but there's very little money in the new media.
By "smart journalists" I meant "conscientious journalists" as opposed to unconscious ones who can't be very smart.
Doesn't matter which you mean. There's still no money in it, except for the paid toadies of the powerful.
Meanwhile:
The US power grab in Africa
Libya - where United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a whistle-stop visit on Tuesday but didn't get to see the devastation in Sirte - is just one angle of a multi-vector US strategy in Africa. Washington's Uganda surge, where 100 "advisors" now have their boots on the ground, is a classic Pipelineistan gambit and it's not hard to fathom where that country's oil contracts will eventually land. - Pepe Escobar [AT]
The simple fact is, Libya, like Iraq, was the golden place in the area and we can't tolerate that because others will want the same thing. The cure is to destroy the government and leadership of the nations actually doing well and with freedoms. And, remember, both Iraq and Libya gave up nuclear and bio programs prior to their being destroyed. Other nations noticed this. Don't expect anyone else to sign up for murder and destruction! All nations now know that only a powerful offensive military can stop the U.S. and that means bio and radiological weapons. Bush and Obama both knew this. These wars are used to restart the world-wide cold war.