Sunday, 27 March 2011

US and Al-Qaeda fighting Gaddafi in Libya

The present invasion in Libya has left the country more devastated than ever. If Libya was left alone, the situation would have been stable by now (maybe with only pockets of disturbances); however this is not the case. The western powers were so goaded with the idea that “this was the time.”

Thus enemies are now uniting to fight Colonel Gaddafi. The Libyan rebel leader has admitted that most of his fighters fought against the Allied forces in Iraq and that he himself had recruited people from Libya to fight the foreign invasion in Iraq and that some of the rebels were actually members of Al-Qaeda. (Readstory here).

Which of course raises so many questions about the double standards of not only the rebel fighters who fought in Iraq against foreign invasion but are now collaborating with the same allied forces to fight Gaddafi, but it also shows the double standards of the US (whose soldiers died in the Iraqi war and which is costing the American taxpayer millions). Now, America is collaborating with these same jihadist fighters, arming them and supporting them to fight Gaddafi. Although the US has denied any direct involvement with the rebels, that leaves much for one to be convinced otherwise. 

When they have finished with their common foe, it might not just be over yet, for there will still be lots of scores to settle. Thus the long road for stability in Libya will not just end with the ouster of Gaddafi.

This particularly also confirms Gaddafi’s initial assertion that Bin Laden was sponsoring the rebels, which was quickly dismissed and brushed aside as a propagandist tool.

Thus when the chronicles of the war are told, objective commentators would not celebrate the uprisings of Libyans against Gaddafi but that imperialist forces who capitalized on a skeletal resistance and pounded Libya with brimstones, cruise missiles and tomahawks but has still not been able to oust the man. The story would not be that Libyans removed Gaddafi, not at all; it would be that imperialist forces hiding behind a UN Resolution bombed Libya for many days and nights and have still not been able to direct public anger against Gaddafi. 

It has rather shown that Gaddafi was after all, a strong man and his people indeed love him and are ready to die with or for him. I cannot think of any president in the world who can survive what Gaddafi is going through and his people will still not betray him. Why would they? There is free education in Libya, free health care and allowances given to even unemployed people, something the developed and rich countries in the world cannot do.

His tanks have been bombed, his army battered with air strikes, his arsenals destroyed, his jets grounded and yet he still stands tall and defiant, still hoping to spring into victory.

Already, North Korea has indicated that if Gaddafi had not abandoned his nuclear project, such a thing would not have happened, an indication that many such countries are fast learning their lessons through Gaddafi’s predicaments. They would now be wary of the west. North Korea and Iran might now no longer abandon their nuclear ambitions. Countries will now be more secretive with their military information and installations.

Certainly, the Arab Spring revolutions which led to the removal of Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak have now lost its value with the invasion of Libya. Countries would no longer treat such protests with kid gloves. 

It is interesting to note that the UK security forces clamped down on Anti-Cuts demonstrators this week. Many protesters were arrested and some including the police were injured. It will be difficult now to say where these protests in the UK will go but certainly, it has given impetuous to the fact that even the developed countries should not think they are free from these protests. (Read story here)

Most of the leaders of the imperialist forces that now besiege Libya are likely to face serious consequences back home. Already, David Cameron has started witnessing massive protesters on the streets of London, something which he might not have anticipated.

Barack Obama had to quickly withdraw America’s leadership and pass it on to NATO (before he meets Congress) as a result of growing pressure back home, after he had taken America to war without consulting Congress. Although he insists this is not a war, we know better. Moreover, Americans might want an explanation of how America’s troops could be aiding Al-Qaida fighters to take over a country, not just any country, but oil rich and strategic Libya.

Nicolas Sarkozy of France might become the hardest hit. He had received funding from Gaddafi’s government which aided him to become the president. In many countries of the world, such a practice is forbidden and clearly spelled out in their constitutions and is an impeachable offense. (read story here).
The French electorates would surely be outraged by this and that could also spell doom for him. In fact, whether Gaddafi is removed or not, the Libyan people will one day make a request for Sarkozy to refund their money back to them, after all they helped him become a president.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

People need to trust each other more. Countries need to trust each other more, instead of making enemies by this military intervention - which is so morally problematic.