Written by James Gerard   

This essay is in response to the articles "Gates warns of No Fly Zone", and "Chavez says he won't condemn Libya's Gadhafi"

(These notes were originally published on Yahoo comments, and I have included a response discussion)


Chavez shows his true colors as a dictator by supporting Ghadafi, who is killing his people in a crazed effort to retain power. I am afraid we can read all too clearly from Chavez' statement that he would do the same thing if he has the power and if his country tries to oust him. Some great humanitarian leader he is. Unfortunately he has proven himself to be another power hungry loon born of the same distortions that gave us Daffy.

Also, there are some absurd things being said about the “danger” of helping the rebels. We have the means to "take out" any "air defenses" that might get in the way of enforcing a "no Fly" rule. We can do this with minimal risk to our pilots and support personnel. To be effective in support of the rebels, we do not have to patrol the whole country. We only have to make a few surgical strikes on a very limited number of positions. Libya's military is tiny and primitive compared to the forces we can bring to bear. They are also disorganized by the strength of the rebels, and by the defections that have occurred. We also have very good strategic reasons to apply some surgical muscle to support the rebels, and our oil supply is not the issue. The issue is solely to give the people of Libya a chance to create a reasonable and democratic government in which the benefits of the resources of the country are distributed more equably. Globally, we must stop the use of oil and coal as fuels, because we have already increased the CO2 in the atmosphere enough to cause dangerous climate change. At present Libya produces about 2% of the oil supply, and if we take the actions needed to protect the planet for our children, that percentage will not grow much before it starts to shrink.

In response to one objection, comparing Libya with Vietnam is totally absurd. The Libyan rebels are the people, and they are rebelling against a madman and his cronies. If we had helped the Vietnamese people keep the French out of Vietnam after WWII, we would have done the right thing, and the tragedy of our totally unjustified war there would have never happened. We would have had a friend in SE Asia from then on. This is what we can do now in Libya. By helping the Libyans now to overthrow the crazed dictator, we will have a chance to help a friendly government to develop. It is also silly to think we have to become deeply involved in the country. All the rebels need is some limited air support and some food and medicine. If we take out a few tanks and impose even a partial no-fly rule, the Libyan military will have another serious reason to defect and join the rebels. We can easily do this, and it is the humane thing to do, especially since we have colluded with support for Ghadafi in the past.

One small humorous part of the situation is that there must be a hundred different ways to spell Ghaddafi, Qadaffi, Kadafi, etc. They all mean "nut-job" and "murderous fruitcake". We should help the rebels immediately. It would be an inhumane embarrassment to stall and dither and let the opportunity go. If the rebels are defeated, the “free” world will have blood on its hands again.

What do we do if he wins? He will only do so by killing thousands more of “His People”, and by establishing himself as a totally bloodthirsty dictator in the minds of everyone in the country, as well as the rest of the world. Then what? Do we cozy up to him again, and buy some oil? Send in some more big companies to profit from his “national stability”, and his exploiting of both the people and the oil of Libya? How does that make us look to the people of Libya – and the rest of the world? Does it prove once again that the real principle of the US is “Might Makes Right”, and “Profit Trumps Everything”?

It seems to me that we need to think this through a little more deeply and clearly.


Bob M
Food and medicine I have no problem sending to them immediately. The air strikes raise concern. You bring up some very good points. Our problem is how we will be perceived by the people there. Our motives are always in question. I hope we can avoid the corporate driven motives that are being revealed to have caused much suffering in the Middle East. If we aid the rebellion who will speak for them and for us when it is settled. What sort of leadership will the US support and the Libyans elect to tolerate? They may choose an Islamic Theocracy. If they do couldn't we still maintain a fair trading relationship with them? It is their land to govern as they choose. Whatever that is it will only be authentic if they decide for themselves who leads them and we leave them alone to make those decisions
Tough questions!


James38
You also bring up some good points. It seems to me that you answer one of your own best questions. While I would hope the Libyans, given the chance, would establish a sectarian government; even if they chose a religion based government, we certainly should maintain a good relationship and trade with them, so long as they respect basic human rights. After all, if we support the rebels with limited force and food and medicine, we would do so without occupying the country, and without making demands. Of whom would we make the demands anyway? Their struggle is spontaneous and barely organized at all. We can help if we chose to do so, and then step back and offer more help and guidance if we are asked. They are fighting an intolerable dictator. We can help with that effort, and hope for a better outcome than the "government" they now have.