The Libya Adventure

The world has just become a more dangerous place


The Libya Adventure
by Guive Mirfendereski

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the international community drew a line in the sand and did its all – with the United Nations authorization, to expel him from the tiny defenseless emirate. The Iraqi aggression did not stand because it was a blatant land grab by an unsavory character, who has shown his true colors as a brutal repressive tyrant against his own citizens – shi’a and Kurd and anyone else who disagreed with him. In his years of warfare against Iran and his own citizens he had used chemical weapons – most of which are supposed to be banned under various international conventions.

Then came the Kurdish shi’a uprisings in the hopes that the US and the rest of the guardians of propriety would do the right thing and take the fight all the way to Baghdad – regime change. When George H. W. Bush stopped at the border, the massacre of the wishful rebels began in earnest. That is when the no-fly zone went into effect and suppressed Saddam Hussein’s air superiority. But on the ground, much atrocity was committed – as the international community looked the other way. It took almost a decade later for that regime change to come about at the hands of George W. Bush, who made no apologies for the doctrine that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein who, after all, had planned to have President Bush, the father, assassinated when he visited Kuwait. That decision to take out Saddam Hussein cost The United States tremendous capital in the Middle East, Islamic World, and among many who believed that the war was unnecessary and unlawful under the U.N. Charter, not to mention under the U.S. Constitution and the 1974 War Powers Act.

The ingredients of the "G. W. Bush Doctrine" are easily discernable: a dictator, generally disliked, who uses force – especially military force – against its own population to suppress socio-economic, cultural, religious and/or political cravings – and who has given evidence of further brutality if not stopped deserves to go by all means necessary – preferably under a United Nations mandate on the pretext of endangerment of international or regional peace and security and, if not, still under U.N. mandate for humanitarian reasons or just by a coalition of the willing with no permission from the world body.

The United States involvement in Libya is fateful reenactment of the Bush Doctrine, and any characterization of it as an Obama “thing” would be headline grabbing by the Obamites and simply theft of intellectual property.

Three questions arise – first, why not take out the other disliked tyrants by instituting military actions that help armed insurrections to advance on the seat of power? The answer is that no armed insurrection by protesters - like the one in Libya’s -- has occurred as yet in any part of the Middle East this season.

Second, should Kadhafi be spared? Arguably not: for one thing a wounded snake, bent on retaliation against the West and his own people is far more dangerous than any backlash that the international community will suffer in doing him in – this is the theory of slaying the wounded snake. But then – get rid of Kadhafi and the pro-Kadhafi hyper-nationalists in Libya will make out the victorious rebels as a Western puppet neo-colonial regime and will do their all for a very, very long time to seize power either by radical and/or militant politics. This is what the disaffected political classes in Iran did in the early 1960s and later in 1978-1979 to overthrow a system that they had made out as a Western puppet.

The third question is what should a regime that has the makings of a Saddam or Kadhafi – in other words a candidate for the application of the Bush Doctrine – do to ward off any military intervention designed to debunk it? Nuclear weapons – acquire them and do so fast and in very many numbers. Is it a coincidence that the international community has not done squat with respect to North Korea?

With this Libya adventure, the world has just become a more dangerous place. The Arab League, comprised of more dictatorial regimes than liberal democracies, has no problem asking for a no-fly zone knowing that it will probably topple one of their own. The United Nations Security Council passes a no-fly resolution with only 3 of the permanent members voting for it. And those in charge of the no-fly zone and the enforcement of embargo embark on actions that are designed to precipitate a regime change - a rather liberal interpretation of the mandate.

In this sort of a lawless world, those who come to power by such means should heed the advice that they too can be swept away thusly if they do not dance to the tune of those who installed them. But then nobody ever got rich quick taking the long view - just like the Wall Street -- get it now while it's hot and pay the price later, if at all.


Recently by Guive MirfendereskiCommentsDate
Obama’s “Flexibility” Gaffe
Mar 28, 2012
Thou Shall Not Attack Nuclear Sites
Feb 25, 2012
Tale of Two Mahmouds
Sep 22, 2011
more from Guive Mirfendereski
Afshin Ehx

Thank You Mr. Guive Mirfendereski for the Article

by Afshin Ehx on

The following support your view in one way or another.

 Short video: //

Short article: //

Maryam Hojjat

Esfand Aashena: I agree with You

by Maryam Hojjat on

in your response to John.  It is certainly a different game from Iraq.

Soosan Khanoom


by Soosan Khanoom on

Esfand Aashena

John I don't think this has the same negative impacts as Iraq.

by Esfand Aashena on

When W went to Afghanistan in retaliation to 9/11 US enjoyed support in the world and as bad as Taliban was there was no love lost and by and large the war there seemed justified.

Going into Iraq was a whole different ball game.  It was clear the Iraq invasion is just a retaliation and scorched earth policy.  Punishing a Muslim country, Iraq, when they didn't have anything to do with it.  W, Rumsfeld and company were/are so pig headed that even when the evidence came that there are no WMD and they've made it up and things are as bad as they could be in Iraq they were/are still defending their actions!

Libya is different in a way that it is happening in parallel with a lot of uprisings in the Middle East.  While countries like Egypt and Tunis have not resorted to massive retaliations against their citizens, Libya has in fact unleashed tanks and mortars against them.

In his speech after his compound was attacked he went on a brief speech (something he has never done :-) and actually said he should have killed more of you!  meaning more Libyans!

What do you think is stopping petty dictators around the world to commit genocides on large scales?  The fear that someone stronger than them would put them away.

We have a saying that loosely translates to "there are hands over hands" meaning there is always someone stronger.  You can't stop the petty dictators and their supporters to use propaganda to hide their crimes.  But you can hit them where it hurts.

I'm not supporting this Libyan war.  In any war I always feel bad for the innocent people who have their lives upside down.  Many have to leave their homes or get killed or see their loved ones killed.  I'm just saying this isn't anywhere near Iraq and Saddam.

Everything is sacred


US imperialism in action

by John on

I can't believe how stupid Americans are to have launched yet another invasion of a sovereign nation, for a variety of reasons:

1) The US is on the verge of bankruptcy, and can ill afford this expense.

2) The US is already hated around the world, and to expose itself to further, mostly justified, charges of imperialism is foolish.

3) Didn't the US learn from their Iraq experience that sometimes a Saddam or Qaddafi is the only thing keeping the lid on a powderkeg?

4) Whether or not the Arab League invited the US to do these actions in Libya, the great unwashed masses will eventually be brainwashed into believing that this is yet another example of Americans hating Arabs and attacking Islam.