Libya

[Brodinski]

What's everyone's take on the NATO air-striking of Ghaddhafi?

I'm glad that some kind of action is being undertaken, but it has taken much too long for the international community to react. Innocent people are being murdered at will in Libya. Unspeakable atrocities are committed over there. A Belgian TV reporter who's in Libya now went to a hospital to show people's testimonies of what's happening. Ghaddhafi's death squads are shooting innocent men, women and children at random so Ghaddhafi can claim there are hundreds of citizen deaths due to American and British Tomahawk rockets.

I'm not naive though. There are certain countries that are trying to save face through this "war". Sarkozy has re-elections coming up next year and polls show his popularity is down the drain. Moreover, his credibility took a hard blow again when news got out that his government was dining with Arab dictators and - even worse - they offered to help Tunisia's Ben Ali when the protests first started.

As for America's role, I don't know. Noam Chomsky once said the US will only invade a country if:

1. there is something to be gained
2. the country is pretty much defenseless
3. the country can be made to look "evil"

Libya fits the last two criteria, but there's nothing to gain. They have like 2 % of the world's oil supply and their oil is pretty much of rubbish quality. Is Obama actually doing it to help the people of Libya?

What bothers me most is the fact that the Arab world seems to have no concern whatsoever to solve its problems. They give a temporary albeit reluctant approval to Western countries to come to the aid of Libyan citizens instead of fixing the problem themselves.

The way I see it, this "war" needs to be over quickly or it'll get uglier and uglier, not only for the people of Libya, but also for Western countries participating in the war.

[Fiscal]

I'm not naive though. There are certain countries that are trying to save face through this "war".

This is what is so messed up to me. Our President too, he has been incredibly indecisive and seemingly confused himself on what actions he believes should be taken. Both sides of our political spectrum are looking at each other like WTF is this guy doing?

[wintertriangles]

As far as I know, Obama just sent us there and Congress had no say in our involvement, is this true? And if so, that makes this term all the more like a bad sitcom rerun of the last term.

Both sides of our political spectrum are looking at each other like WTF is this guy doing? A lot of the world is doing that. He said it would be cleared up in a matter of days, not weeks. Well its been 5 or 6 days, I wouldn't be surprised if we're there in June. Granted, we never really leave any of these places do we?

Libya fits the last two criteria, but there's nothing to gain. They have like 2 % of the world's oil supply and their oil is pretty much of rubbish quality. Is Obama actually doing it to help the people of Libya? He's doing it so they can push electric cars, he's said he's happy oil is going up (and apparently that people are dying because of it) so he can fulfill this electric car dream. Problem is, electricity runs on fuel as well. Also, we've sent Brazil $2 billion to teach them how to drill.

[rufnek]

What's everyone's take on the NATO air-striking of Ghaddhafi?

Although NATO members are involved, NATO isn't really in command of the operation. Several nations are now bickering over who should be in charge. The US, UK, and some others want NATO to take over, but France--one of the first to advocate intervention and to send in its aircraft--wants NATO to assume a lesser role. The US is nominally in charge at the moment, I guess, but Obama has made it plain he wants to hand off command--to NATO if possible--as soon as he can. This is part of his general withdrawal of the US from any leadership role around the globe, thinking everyone will love us more if we're "just one of the boys."

What bothers me most is the fact that the Arab world seems to have no concern whatsoever to solve its problems. They give a temporary albeit reluctant approval to Western countries to come to the aid of Libyan citizens instead of fixing the problem themselves.

That "temporary albeit reluctant approval" that you dismiss so easily is in fact a record-breaking event in that it is the first time the kings and dictators of Arab countries have ever advocated interference with the dictator of any other Arab country. The fact they gave approval at all pretty much flabbergasted Obama who had called for such approval before he would commit US forces--he didn't think they'd do it. Of course, some of the Arab leaders are now having second thoughts and will probably withdraw support. Also the UN Security Council meets Mar. 24 to discuss Libya, and Russia and China are not likely to abstain from future votes as they did to allow the no-fly zone.

Meanwhile, the no-fly zone has opened a big can of worms. First of all, Libya's air force was never of "Top Gun" material. What really pounded the rebels was Gadhafi's top-of-the-line artillery. NATO aircraft are limited in what they can do against artillery, which requires opposing artillery and ground troops to really negate it. But the UN has forbidden the use of ground troops in Libya, so the rebels have to fill that gap. The first big question was whether NATO aircraft were simply to protect Benghazi and the last of the rebels from extermination or would the air strikes be extended to help those in other cities captured by Gadhafi's mercenaries. That's been answered--the aircraft were used to drive some tanks from one of the captured cities. But in order to win, the rebels must now retake the area lost to Gadhafi and liberate those captured cities from the ground. But if NATO aircraft aid them in that move, it switches away from the original UN assignment to protect the rebels and makes them part of the effort to oust Gadhafi. It shifts our whole involvement from a humanitarian program to save the rebels from extermination to what now could be labeled an "oil war." How will that play with other Arab leaders or even some members of NATO?

Rather than bringing a quick end to the fighting, the current arrangement will only prolong the war and the shutdown of oil shipments from Libya to Europe. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is in the unique position of siding with the unpopular king of Bahrain against freedom-loving rioters representing the Shia majority in that island nation while siding with the rebels against an unpopular head of state in Libya. People more familar with the Middle East are calling the present situation in Bahrain a "proxy war" between Saudi Arabia, whose ruling family are Sunni Muslims like the Bahraini royal family, while Iran for some time now has been trying to stir up the Shia majorities in those countries to take over. Some say Bahrain is far more a danger point for the US and others than is any of the 3 wars we're involved in today.

The longtime friendly relationship between Saudi Arabia is now weakened because the Saudi king is furious over how quickly the Obama administration turned on the king of Egypt after praising him only a few weeks before as a strong and reliable ally. A false rumor circulated at one point in the Middle East that the Saudi king had died of a heart attack during an angry phone conversation of Obama.

On the other hand, because our Secretary of Defense had been in Bahrain and had private discussions with the king just a few days before the surprise move of Saudi troops and UAE police into that island country to help put down protestors, many Muslims in many areas of the world think the US approved that measure in advance although we claim we knew nothing about it. Bahrain also is the first instance of one Muslim country sending troops into another Muslim country since the rash of civil uprisings began in January.

Meanwhile, since we are getting more oil from Canada, we're buying less from Saudi Arabia, while Saudi Arabia--and Iran--are both selling more of their oil to China, who is becoming more fluential in the Middle East. One expert told me today the Saudis will be selling more oil to China than to the US in 3 years.

As for Libya, although France has already recognized the rebel government as legitmate, Sec. of State Clinton recently said we don't know who is in the opposition and some may have "agendas." some of our own security people have said publicly they think Gadhafi will put down the rebellion and remain in power. That and Obama's footdragging in committing aircraft against Gadhafi isn't exactly giving Muslim rebels the warm fuzzies for the US.

The longer the fighting lasts, the more likely a negotiated settlement that will leave Gadhafi--or at least his family through his son--in power. Either way, it's shaping up as a likely lose-lose situation for the US as both our enemies and friends see the Obama administration as a paper tiger.

[rufnek]

Also, we've sent Brazil $2 billion to teach them how to drill.

I don't know what we may have sent $2 billion to Brazil for--maybe for their ethanol since they're the biggest and the low-cost producer of ethanol in the world--but it sure wasn't to teach them to drill because Petrobras--Brazil's oil company--has been doing that for decades and is in fact one of the greatest experts in deepwater drilling in the world, holding world's record for drilling in the deepest waters year after year. In fact, Petrobras has even set world records for deepwater drilling in the US sector of the Gulf of Mexico where it has been extremely active.

If anything, US companies have learned from Petrobras. Years ago at the annual Offshore Technology Conference here in Houston, a company introduced a new product called "Flex-pipe," an articulated joint of pipe that one could bend and shape around objects on the bottom of the ocean to carry crude from a subsea well back to a central production point. It sounded impressive, so I asked a friend, a long-time veteran of a US offshore company what he thought about it. He snorted, "If it will bend, it will leak; it's not worth a damn."

But down in Brazil Petrobras in the late 1970s was just starting to drill offshore where the waters get very deep very quickly. And because they were new at the business, they weren't privy to the "common knowledge" that "if it will bend, it will leak." So they used the pipe, which was easier and cheaper to lay. And damned if it didn't work!!! Now US companies regularly use Flex-pipe in all sorts of applications.

So don't sell the Brazilians short. We may have caught up with them in deepwater drilling until their next break-through comes along, but we're still so far behind them in making ethanol from cane that there's a big tariff on ethanol imported from Brazil so that US ethanol producers can compete.