Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Street Artist Charged with 56 Counts for Punking NYPD with Drone Poster
- For Pete's Sake, What's Happened to Our Democracy?
- A Sign That Obama Will Repeat Economic Mistakes
- Obamacare Architect Leaves White House for Pharmaceutical Industry Job
- Fears Confirmed: Domestic Drones 'Fly Regularly' in US Airspace
Popular content
Today's Top News
Libya No Model
With Qaddafi on the run, we’re now hearing about Libya being a model for future U.S. interventions.
The New York Times today reports that Administration officials say the Libyan intervention “may, in some important ways, become a model for how the United States wields force in other countries where its interests are threatened.”
I should hope not.
Because what the United States and its European allies did was “international gangsterism,” as Dennis Kucinich so colorfully put it the other day.
Obama violated the Constitution and the War Powers Act by bombing Libya without Congressional approval when Libya didn’t pose a threat to the United States. And there’s a big difference between threatening the United States and threatening U.S. “interests”: Any country that opposes free trade and corporate domination may be said to threaten U.S. interests, at least the way the power elite defines them. So now future Presidents can cite the Libya intervention as precedent for bombing, say, Venezuela.
For their part, the allies violated the U.N. Security Council resolutions on Libya by providing huge amounts of weapons to the rebels when those resolutions had imposed an arms embargo on all parties.
What’s more, the CIA trained the rebel forces and guided their assaults.
And the rationale that Obama used, late in the game, for not abiding by the War Powers Act was a classic: The Administration said that because Libya’s air defenses were wiped out, U.S. pilots were no longer in harm’s way, so Congress need not worry about it.
You can call this the Obama Doctrine if you want, but it amounts to this: The President can go bomb any country it wants so long as that country doesn’t have air defenses, or the President can destroy a country’s air defenses and continue to wage war against that country—all without bothering to get approval from Congress.
This is but a recipe for more international gangsterism in the years ahead.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
18 Comments so far
Show All"The New York Times today reports that Administration officials say the Libyan intervention “may, in some important ways, become a model for how the United States wields force in other countries where its interests are threatened.”
Um, and NO ONE seems to remember the period of colonial expansion over the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, huh?
Hmmm, it sure seems that I vaguely remember when world powers were going around the planet, subjugating local populations and then keeping them in a constant state of oppression while their natural resources were drained away, huh?
Sound familiar to anyone?
Bueller?
Nah.
I guess that never happened.
Maybe I went to school in TX.
By insisting to use the debate "frame" that our overlords have given us - that of "intervention", you do all intelligent people on the planet a disservice, Mr. Rothschild.
This was murder and theft of resources. Period.
To not say that repeatedly is to either be a willing or unwitting dupe.
This was murder and theft of resources. Period.
I'll help you say it repeatedly. Our Peace Laureate won't.
Polycarpe is correct. The historical colonial hegemony of various world powers served as the model for the Libyan intervention. There was nothing novel in the reasons that the United States used to justify intervention in Libya, nor in the manner in which the United States wielded force in Libya. Colonial powers have invaded countries under the guise of preventing a humanitarian crisis or under the guise of national security since antiquity. The national security interests of the United States were not threatened by Libya.
The United States' subversion of civil liberties at home, its participation in perpetual wars around the globe, its maintenance of standing armies, and its deployment of covert special forces in nearly 60 countries around the globe is evidence that the United States is not a democratic republic. The United States is a national-security-police-state.
True. In the mid-19th century UK it was called "gunboat diplomacy"--popularized by the then prime minister, Palmerston. We do it now but using airplanes and helicopter gunships.
Is this murder and theft of resources? I think it a bit early to make such radical claims. Let's see what shapes up as new powers begin to form themselves in Libya. I'm sure there will be a power grab with contracts close on it's heals. So the radical warnings are important but are only a part of an overall potential development. It's diplomacy's challenge to even the struggle.
Where and when did this happen otherwise? Give me an example for an exception to the "murder and robbery" interpretation. "Wait and see?" I think we have waited and seen enough to be able to understand simple stuff like this.
And saying these are "radical" claims is fucked up and disgusting. This is the commonplace, obvious interpretation based on historical knowledge. It's only "radical" to people who prefer to lie to others and themselves.
Turn off your TV, john. The murder's already taken place, with more to come, and the theft of resources is just round the corner.
The gullibility of people like you never ceases to amaze me.
Well there is an other expression for it. its called STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM & THE RAPE OF SMALLER NATIONS. We the citizens of the world must take the right steps to find the right necessary measures to remove this new form of war crimes, a new age of liberating IMPERIALISM.
It must be done peacefully through new channels & I don't mean the ICC, or security council, it must be an international initiative, it must not embrace quick solutions & avoid at all costs interventions by powers or super powers or corporations.
it seem daunting it ain't, its just because it has not been done before.
People in their millions, & in their thousands, organisations worldwide have far more experience in resolving most of these problems without the use of violence & drones.
One of the trade mark of IMPERIALISM is to create a problem, intervene, weaken, divide & conquer. standard operation.
No terror no torture just truth
Obama is a war criminal and mass murderer like virtually all US presidents because the US is a criminal society.
Of course, all this imperialism will lead to squabling between the imperialist powers - and a redux of all those destructive wars that made the bankers of so many nations wealthy. The German foreign minister may be forced to resign for not being imperialistic enough.
I agree with all of the above-- except, of course, the benighted pollyanna.
Although predictable, it irks me no end that once the so-called "endgame" is at hand, even much of the alternative media jumps on board the "fait accompli" train-- or emerges from the lavatories and luggage compartments, and even under the seats -- to more or less "sensibly" adopt, legitimize, and normalize the imperialist aggressors' hard and soft propaganda scripts.
I give Rothschild credit for not being seduced or intimidated by this deplorable rush of pundits briskly euphemizing, if not approving, this turn of events and validating this despicable intervention. Others published regularly here have been regrettably disposed to go with the predatory flow.
Post reminds me of plugging a decent read on Juan Cole over at CounterPunch. Cole's influence on liberal yakky heads on MidEast policy is considerable. I personally can't stand the bastard, but it's good to examine some of the egghead leaders of punditry on this subject.
This article is spot-on, short & to the point! This assault on Libya was an act of International Gangsterism - thus O-bomb-em, Sarkozy & Cameron are International Gangsters. This author even confirms that these Al-CIAeda / King Idris inspired rebels are/were CIA trained & directed- BRAVO for speaking TRUTH to Power!
Like its wet dream Israel, the United States of Global Domination is increasingly attacking weaker nations when it has proven that they are in a weakened position.
The United Nations proved that Iraq did not have the weapons that the U.S. claimed, so the U.S. saw that Iraq was a profitable target. Now, it is Libya.
The U.S. and NATO see it as a corporate takeover. Losses versus profits.
To the corporate controlled state, human resources are cheap while energy resources are very profitable.
Of the various energy rich areas, Iran must be at the top of the hit list and, I think Iran knows that it cannot afford any semblance of weakness or it too will be crushed.
This is at least partially why the U.S. and NATO (with the help of Pakistan) continue to strategically torture Afghanistan. They are surrounding and plotting for the attack on Iran.
I wonder what the disaster will be which they will blame on Iran and use as the pretext for THAT takeover.
p.s. Mr. Rothschild hit the nail on the head when he referred to the president as "it."
Truly, the corporate president is and will be something less than human.
"a model for how the United States wields force in other countries where its interests are threatened"
Except for a handful of thuggish korporations and kings outside Merka, the whole world recognizes Merkan interests as most deserving of being crushed underfoot. And accordingly, plans are in the works.