It is difficult to make much sense of our latest war against Gaddafi.
The one thing we can know with absolute confidence is that 'our' motivation for embarking on this latest adventure is NOT humanitarian.
Listening to Cameron, Sarkozy and the deafening international chorus that has supported this action, one can well imagine Gaddafi and his supporters visualising Nato firepower and trembling in their bunkers. But if we are not too concerned for the well-being of a military dictator, let us spare a thought for the rest of the Islamic world. Let us pray they will not all die from laughing at the spectacle of Clinton/Sarkozy/Cameronian hearts theatrically bleeding for the suffering of the oppressed.
This is a humanitarian mission?
The peoples of Palestine and all points east must shake their heads in bewilderment that western politicians can continue to sell this kind of nonsense to their supposedly well-educated citizens.
One obvious question arises. What makes the eastern Libyans worthy of such special consideration? We don't seem too concerned about the human rights of the protesters in Bahrain, never mind the poor persecuted people of Gaza, nor the millions of relatives of the Iraqi dead.
It also seems that this action was only possible by getting 'The Arab League' on board and that this was achieved by promising to protect the Gulf State oligarchs from their own impoverished and tyrannised internal opposition.
How's that for humanitarianism and impartially applied principle?
It was reported that a US drone killed 80 people in Pakistan a couple of days ago. There is and will be no end to this kind of humanitarianism until we deal with the poison at the heart of our own governmental system.
Furthermore, we must surely know that any armed rebellion in our own countries would be met with all necessary force and it is not as though there are not millions of us who would happily wave our current international-bankster-controlled mock-democracies goodbye tomorrow morning.
Therefore the justifications for this action represent purest hypocrisy and fabricated pretext.
There is the oil, of course.
.......but were we not already buying this oil from Lybia? Were Blair and Mandelson getting all cuddly with Gaddafi because they were genuinely attracted to his personality? It would appear that Gaddafi is already one of our assets so what's really going on?
We do know that simply having access to resources is not enough for the powers that govern us. 'We' have always had a problem with Gaddafi. The US tried to kill him during the Reagan presidency by bombing some of his residences. According to MI5 whistle-blower, David Shayler, the UK tried to do the same during the 1990's in a bungled bomb plot that only succeeded in killing a few innocent Libyan citizens. 'We' are obviously tired of playing games with this awkward fellow and want our own boy in charge of Libyan oil.
But who are we supporting in Libya?
The most committedly-Islamic anti-Americans in Libya, by the sound of it.
And are we really supporting them considering the fact that Gaddafi has been given plenty of time to take full control of Libya's oilfields (there has been quite a delay in imposing the no-fly zone, hasn't there)?
Perhaps we were quite determined that the oil would not fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalist anti-Americans?......so what lies in store for these rebels about whose well-being we care so much?
My guess is that things will not work out very well for our new friends in Benghazi.
When Gaddafi said that 'Al Qaeda' was behind the Libyan rebellion in the east, he sounded like a raving lunatic to most western ears. However, for the many that know that 'Al Qaeda' was originally a CIA database of arab revolutionaries, buyable criminals and other assorted (often mentally ill) misfits, Gaddafi's assertion sounds more like a recognisable or even a likely possibility (bearing in mind that 'Al Qaeda' is code for a method rather than an arab organisation that controls itself centrally. British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, understood this. Might have been a mistake to say so though).
We know the west is funding anti-government movements across the world, from Belarus to Iran, from North Africa to Pakistan, from Ukraine to Taiwan.
It's the simple 'divide and rule' game that is as old as the hills.
As it is difficult (or perhaps impossible) to see a clear and coherent rationale behind the west's assault on Gaddafi, perhaps it is just a matter of creating the division, throwing in a large measure of murderous chaos (great for corporate profits of course) and letting the chips fall where they may......in the confident expectation that whatever fall-out occurs it can be managed to 'our' advantage.
Webster Tarpley offers many insights into the way 'our side' (If only they were) are playing the global 'great game' (see 'behind the 2011 orgy of destabilisations' here). He says that the destabilisations and interventions are all about preventing coherent nation states creating new alliances with global competitors like China and Russia.........."The current goal of London and Washington is to stop a jailbreak by their former clients,"
At least that makes some kind of sense.
Cosmically evil though, isn't it?
This 'great game' will surely one day, and quite soon, threaten the lives of every last one of us.
At some point we will have to stand up and oppose these people that claim to represent us.