Libya megathread: Gaddafi dead

[Chumblywumbly]

Yes, it's too simplistic to suggest that economic reasons are the only motivators behind the action in Libya, but I would be highly surprised if concerns over Western business interests - particularly oil production - are not a hefty contributory factor.

I'm actually really sick of the "war for profit" rhetoric.

Then re-read what I'm saying. There's a big difference between "Blood for Oil!!!!!" and "it would be highly surprising if Western business interests did not play some contributory factor in the decisions to push for the NFZ in this particular situation".

Is it really all that silly to suggest that the economic interests of a nation are of some concern to a government in the weighing up of military action?

[Laerod]

I'm actually really sick of the "war for profit" rhetoric.

Then re-read what I'm saying. There's a big difference between "Blood for Oil!!!!!" and "it would be highly surprising if Western business interests did not play some contributory factor in the decisions to push for the NFZ in this particular situation".

Is it really all that silly to suggest that the economic interests of a nation are of some concern to a government in the weighing up of military action?

Weeell, you used "hefty" to describe it, so "some" is an inaccurate portrayal of what you said. Though I really don't think economic interests come to play here. Both Italy and France completely scrapped their preferred customer statuses which arguably caused or are going to cause economic damage for them. The bottom line is, the West is acting completely opposite to any economic interests it may have, especially considering that intervention came after the rebels lost control of important parts of the resources or the infrastructure used to gain and trade them. Economic interest really isn't involved to any meaningful degree.

Now, it would be a stretch to claim that Western (in particular French) intervention is completely altruistic. Sarkozy is up for elections soon and his coziness with Ben Ali and Gaddafi has been real unpopular.

[Andaluciae]

That's the thing, though: Crushing the rebels swiftly and soundly would have been the best option for the oil companies who were already involved in Libya and whom the popular uprising shut down and forced to flee.

Which is why I wouldn't suggest that oil production is the only factor in the decision process.

What might be the motive for the western business interests?

[Chumblywumbly]

Weeell, you used "hefty" to describe it, so "some" is an inaccurate portrayal of what you said. Though I really don't think economic interests come to play here. Both Italy and France completely scrapped their preferred customer statuses which arguably caused or are going to cause economic damage for them. The bottom line is, the West is acting completely opposite to any economic interests it may have, especially considering that intervention came after the rebels lost control of important parts of the resources or the infrastructure used to gain and trade them. Economic interest really isn't involved to any meaningful degree.

What might be the motive for the western business interests?

A stable Libya is beneficial to business interests, particularly oil companies.

That's the entirely unremarkable point I'm making. I'm not implying a conspiracy, or arguing that the wool has been pulled over the public's eyes, or anything of that kind, but simply remarking that the economic interests of a nation play a major role in its government's decision-making process. Why this would not be the case when making a decision about Libya, I fail to see.

EDIT: In other words, saying 'it's got nothing at all to do with economic issues' is, to me, as silly as saying 'it's all about the oil'.

[Andaluciae]

Weeell, you used "hefty" to describe it, so "some" is an inaccurate portrayal of what you said. Though I really don't think economic interests come to play here. Both Italy and France completely scrapped their preferred customer statuses which arguably caused or are going to cause economic damage for them. The bottom line is, the West is acting completely opposite to any economic interests it may have, especially considering that intervention came after the rebels lost control of important parts of the resources or the infrastructure used to gain and trade them. Economic interest really isn't involved to any meaningful degree.

What might be the motive for the western business interests?

A stable Libya is beneficial to business interests, particularly oil companies.

That's the entirely unremarkable point I'm making. I'm not implying a conspiracy, or arguing that the wool has been pulled over the public's eyes, or anything of that kind, but simply remarking that the economic interests of a nation play a major role in its government's decision-making process. Why this would not be the case when making a decision about Libya, I fail to see.

The assumption we are making, though, is that stability within Libya would be better served by backing Gaddhafi, not backing the rebels, who are for all intents and purposes, an unknown quantity.

[Chumblywumbly]

The assumption we are making, though, is that stability within Libya would be better served by backing Gaddhafi, not backing the rebels, who are for all intents and purposes, an unknown quantity.

Again, that would only be pertinent if I was arguing that economic issues were the only concerns; which I'm not.

There are, clearly, other issues at hand here: geo-political, regional stability, national defence, PR, humanitarian, etc.

[Laerod]

Weeell, you used "hefty" to describe it, so "some" is an inaccurate portrayal of what you said. Though I really don't think economic interests come to play here. Both Italy and France completely scrapped their preferred customer statuses which arguably caused or are going to cause economic damage for them. The bottom line is, the West is acting completely opposite to any economic interests it may have, especially considering that intervention came after the rebels lost control of important parts of the resources or the infrastructure used to gain and trade them. Economic interest really isn't involved to any meaningful degree.

What might be the motive for the western business interests?

A stable Libya is beneficial to business interests, particularly oil companies.

That's the entirely unremarkable point I'm making. I'm not implying a conspiracy, or arguing that the wool has been pulled over the public's eyes, or anything of that kind, but simply remarking that the economic interests of a nation play a major role in its government's decision-making process. Why this would not be the case when making a decision about Libya, I fail to see.

EDIT: In other words, saying 'it's got nothing at all to do with economic issues' is, to me, as silly as saying 'it's all about the oil'.

There is virtually nothing to gain economically that couldn't have been obtained by either backing Gaddafi or doing nothing.

[Chumblywumbly]

There is virtually nothing to gain economically that couldn't have been obtained by either backing Gaddafi or doing nothing.

See my post above. I don't see what's so hard to grasp, nor do I see what is so remarkable about my statement.

Would you disagree with either of the following:

1. economic interests are an important factor in the decisions of nations, relating to military action or otherwise
2. it would suit the economic interests of, among others, the nations of the coalition to have a stable Libya

EDIT: Perhaps you posted before you saw my last reply. If so, apologies.

[Laerod]

There is virtually nothing to gain economically that couldn't have been obtained by either backing Gaddafi or doing nothing.

See my post above. I don't see what's so hard to grasp, nor do I see what is so remarkable about my statement.

Would you disagree with either of the following:

• economic interests are an important factor in the decisions of nations, relating to military action or otherwise

I don't disagree with this per se, but I disagree with economic interest always being an important factor in these decisions. This particular situation is one where economic interests are negligible at best.

• it would suit the economic interests of, among others, the nations of the coalition to have a stable Libya

Which is true. Given that military intervention on behalf of civilians in Benghazi is the best way to completely fail to achieve that, I'd say that economic interests are being ignored. Gaddafi crushing the rebels was the best shot the West had at a stable Libya. And they blew it, leading me to conclude that economics aren't the deciding factor or even mildly relevant.

[Laerod]

EDIT: Perhaps you posted before you saw my last reply. If so, apologies.

Yes, but I have seen it since then. I disagree with it. I do not believe that economic reasons play any role worth mentioning.

[Chumblywumbly]

Which is true. Given that military intervention on behalf of civilians in Benghazi is the best way to completely fail to achieve that, I'd say that economic interests are being ignored. Gaddafi crushing the rebels was the best shot the West had at a stable Libya. And they blew it, leading me to conclude that economics aren't the deciding factor or even mildly relevant.

I don't see how that follows; it's not an either-or decision between a stable Libya and support of the rebels.

Helping out a force of people who happily fly the flag of the decidedly pro-American Kingdom of Libya does not seem to mark the end of a future stable Libya.

I do not believe that economic reasons play any role worth mentioning.

The economics reasons of helping pacify an OPEC country harbouring high-quality crude seem obvious.

I'd stress again, however, that these economic reasons are not in my mind the be-all and end-all.

[Laerod]

Which is true. Given that military intervention on behalf of civilians in Benghazi is the best way to completely fail to achieve that, I'd say that economic interests are being ignored. Gaddafi crushing the rebels was the best shot the West had at a stable Libya. And they blew it, leading me to conclude that economics aren't the deciding factor or even mildly relevant.

I don't see how that follows; it's not an either-or decision between a stable Libya and support of the rebels.

Under the current resolution it really is exactly that.

Helping out a force of people who happily fly the flag of the decidedly pro-American Kingdom of Libya does not seem to mark the end of a future stable Libya.

It does. The most likely outcome of this is a protracted civil war or a stalemate now. The best economic situation would be that the country is united under one stable leadership. Backing the rebels (which, to be honest, is happening primarily by proxy right now) would make economic sense if and only if they win or end up controlling the majority of the resources by the time a stable cease fire is established. It doesn't look like this is going to happen anytime soon and it looked impossible before the intervention happened.

I do not believe that economic reasons play any role worth mentioning.

The economics reasons of helping pacify an OPEC country harbouring high-quality crude seem obvious.

Indeed. The fact that this is not happening (the idea that the rebels are in a position to oust Gaddafi is extremely optimistic) sort of proves that these reasons have been dismissed.

Fact is, the current intervention is the least likely thing to ensure that Libya will be stable.

I'd stress again, however, that these economic reasons are not in my mind the be-all and end-all.

Which is irrelevant. I and Andaluciae have been arguing that they aren't in any way significant.

[Chumblywumbly]

I don't see how that follows; it's not an either-or decision between a stable Libya and support of the rebels.

Under the current resolution it really is exactly that.

How so?

If Gaddafi had been left alone Libya would not be stable for some time.

The most likely outcome of this is a protracted civil war or a stalemate now. The best economic situation would be that the country is united under one stable leadership.

Of which Gadaffi's is not; not now anyway.

Again, be careful of attacking an argument I am not making. I am not talking about the "best economic situation" at all.

Backing the rebels (which, to be honest, is happening primarily by proxy right now) would make economic sense if and only if they win or end up controlling the majority of the resources by the time a stable cease fire is established. It doesn't look like this is going to happen anytime soon and it looked impossible before the intervention happened.

How does this detract from my argument?

It seems highly unlikely to suggest that the notion of a rebel-led government creating stability in Libya - even in a significant time from now - leading to a situation beneficial to external business interests failed to pass across the minds of Western leaders involved in the NFZ, particularly those with major business interests in Libya.

[Kharuyan]

Right, it is those evil, dastardly corporate executives and their evil corporations. They're being all corporationey and...yeah...that's bad!

How many people here don't realize that there has not been a single profit ever turned as a (direct or indirect) result of a military action since the industrial revolution? Along with that, how many actually think that wars are some sort of conspiracy carried out by evil corporate puppet-masters, pulling magical strings of whatever politicians they don't like?

Aside from the egregious violation of any standard of ethics that is the very idea of trading lives for financial profit, war has yielded a net loss in economic benefit for each & everyone involved every time military action is taken. There exists no single instance of war since the Industrial revolution that resulted in net financial gain/economic benefit for either the victors or losers. Those who believe in such nonsense simply have no idea how much war actually costs. Simply put, war is expensive as hell! Any veteran or serviceman can tell you that it's not a case of just order the fleet to relocate & it magically happens. Not even a single ship can be moved by the President just ordering it. To say there's a vast, interconnected web of logistical issues to address before the first move order is ever printed, would be a gross understatement. The same goes for any large military operation.

A few specialist companies profit from war because they work in war related industries like weapons manufacture/private security, but their profit is only from government buying their products/services. They are such a minority in the corporate and political worlds that they have little real lobbying power. Their very industry actually further undercuts what influence they'd otherwise have as every politician already knows their angle. (duh!)

Except for the above, no matter how you slice it, was is bad for business.

[Andaluciae]

It's articles like this that make me despise RT:
http://rt.com/news/libya-intelligence-us-iraq/

The thumbnail image on the front page is taken from an Avengers comic, and it's Iron Man holding Captain America's shield, and the US flag. Ignoring any context for the image.

Then the article talks about Iraq for a little while, and particularly Curveball. Never mind that this intervention was spearheaded by the Arab League France and the UK--it's clearly just a cover for American intervention, just like Iraq. Never mind that the US was intensely reluctant to do anything. The blatant willingness to ignore reality is a hallmark of this piece, and pRetty much everything about RT. Whereas Al-Jazeera really has shone in the middle east uprisings, and Western media that isn't FoxNews has done exceedingly well, others have really managed to get some questions about their journalistic quality raised.

But, down to brass tacks, Russia had the ability to get in the Allies way at the UN, and Lavrov didn't take it. The author just wants to write an article about how awful the west is, when the folks he wants to elevate are complicit in what her is condemning. That's sufficiently transparent as to his interests, don't you think? Mix in the level of directional control RT receives from the Kremlin, and you get a good picture of the government line on this one: It's the Americans fault.

Ahh, Russia Today, never change from being so lovely.

[Chumblywumbly]

Right, it is those evil, dastardly corporate executives and their evil corporations. They're being all corporationey and...yeah...that's bad!

Finished flailing at that strawman?

[The Pike Dynasty]

CORPORATIONS! REPUBLICANS! THE CONSTITUTION!...wait...what's that Jesus?..you're saying Libya exports next to no oil to the United States? You are saying the Democrats are in power and Obomba authorized military action without a formal Congressional vote as mandated by the Constitution just like Bush did in 2003?...Obama also informed the American citizenry via audio recording from his lax vacation in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil?


Man...all this....Change....so....so very subtle.

[Kharuyan]

Finished flailing at that strawman?

We'll never finish flailing at those evil corporate profit-mongers! They must all be destroyed!

[The Pike Dynasty]

We are still in two wars in the Middle East and now committing military resources to a third target in North Africa. Someone please give Obama the Nobel Peace Pr....oh....oh yeah.

[Chumblywumbly]

We'll never finish flailing at those evil corporate profit-mongers! They must all be destroyed!

When you've calmed down and are able to engage in serious debate, please do join us.

[Sdaeriji]

CORPORATIONS! REPUBLICANS! THE CONSTITUTION!...wait...what's that Jesus?..you're saying Libya exports next to no oil to the United States? You are saying the Democrats are in power and Obomba authorized military action without a formal Congressional vote as mandated by the Constitution just like Bush did in 2003?...Obama also informed the American citizenry via audio recording from his lax vacation in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil?


Man...all this....Change....so....so very subtle.

I am pretty sure nothing in your post is actually accurate.

[Kharuyan]

When you've calmed down and are able to engage in serious debate, please do join us.

... You do realize my original quote was lifted almost ver batim from Team America: World Police, right?

[Chumblywumbly]

... You do realize my original quote was lifted almost ver batim from Team America: World Police, right?

Unless you were posting it without context to the thread's discussion, my point stands.

[Laerod]

Under the current resolution it really is exactly that.

How so?

If Gaddafi had been left alone Libya would not be stable for some time.

As far as economics go, all the stability needed would have been that around the oil fields and whatever was being reconstructed. This intervention has at best turned this civil war into a stalemate. Let's be clear: The most that the West can realistically hope for is a de facto or de jure partition of Libya. This is the second least economically beneficial situation. The least beneficial would be Gaddafi winning despite Western intervention. It has been completely against Western economic interests to intervene in and prolong this civil war.

The most likely outcome of this is a protracted civil war or a stalemate now. The best economic situation would be that the country is united under one stable leadership.

Of which Gadaffi's is not; not now anyway.

Again, be careful of attacking an argument I am not making. I am not talking about the "best economic situation" at all.

Gaddafi was looking like he was on the path to reestablishing his rule up until the intervention took place.

Backing the rebels (which, to be honest, is happening primarily by proxy right now) would make economic sense if and only if they win or end up controlling the majority of the resources by the time a stable cease fire is established. It doesn't look like this is going to happen anytime soon and it looked impossible before the intervention happened.

How does this detract from my argument?

It seems highly unlikely to suggest that the notion of a rebel-led government creating stability in Libya - even in a significant time from now - leading to a situation beneficial to external business interests failed to pass across the minds of Western leaders involved in the NFZ, particularly those with major business interests in Libya.

I'm sure they thought about it. I'm also sure that a rebel led government leading to stability in Libya was dismissed as a fantasy given that Gaddafi was about to crush them.

[Chumblywumbly]

As far as economics go, all the stability needed would have been that around the oil fields and whatever was being reconstructed. This intervention has at best turned this civil war into a stalemate. Let's be clear: The most that the West can realistically hope for is a de facto or de jure partition of Libya. This is the second least economically beneficial situation. The least beneficial would be Gaddafi winning despite Western intervention. It has been completely against Western economic interests to intervene in and prolong this civil war.

I simply don't see this as the case, unless we also maintain that it would be impossible to have economic relations with a split - yet peaceful - Libya.