If you want to understand what we doing in Libya, please watch this brief (2-minute) cartoon, which explains US wars everywhere at this point in our history. This was written and produced by former Chief Economist, John Perkins, and explains how our current system of capitalism works globally.
The only caveat in applying this cartoon to Libya is that Libya had already nationalized its oil resources and national bank and was not in debt to the IMF or World Bank. The fact that Ghaddafi was not in debt and had initiated the basis for an independent African Bank to free some of the other African nations of their IMF servitude is what impelled NATO to go to war against Libya. There is no doubt that once the NATO countries succeed in finally killing Ghaddafi, the country of Libya will be required to take IMF loans in order to rebuild their infrastructure (which NATO destroyed) – every country on the planet can safely assume that once its infrastructure is destroyed by US armament, it will be obliged to pay for its own reconstruction through forced participation in IMF and World Bank loans, just as though their country had been wrecked purposefully by themselves or through some unexpected “act of God”. As we can clearly see by the facts that Libya’s oil fields are already being divied up amongst favored oil companies and its nationalized bank’s assets immediately seized and shortly thereafter redistributed, the cartoon linked above holds true for the eventual outcome for Libya.
Then read this article from Maximilian Forte, “The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya”.
A brief quote from the Forte article:
…To say that the current turn in Libya represents a victory by the Libyan people in charting their own destiny is, at best, an oversimplification that masks the range of interests involved since the beginning in shaping and determining the course of events on the ground, and that ignores the fact that for much of the war Gaddafi was able to rely on a solid base of popular support. As early as February 25, a mere week after the start of the first street protests, Nicolas Sarkozy had already determined that Gaddafi “must go”. By February 28, David Cameron began working on a proposal for a no-fly zone—these statements and decisions were made without any attempt at dialogue and diplomacy. By March 30, The New York Times reported that for “several weeks” CIA operatives had been working inside Libya, which would mean they were there from mid-February, that is, when the protests began—they were then joined inside Libya by “dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers”. The NYT also reported in the same article that “several weeks” before (again, around mid-February), President Obama Several “signed a secret finding authorizing the CIA to provide arms and other support to Libyan rebels,” with that “other support” entailing a range of possible “covert actions”. USAID had already deployed a team to Libya by early March. At the end of March, Obama publicly stated that the objective was to depose Gaddafi. In terribly suspicious wording, “a senior U.S. official said the administration had hoped that the Libyan uprising would evolve ‘organically,’ like those in Tunisia and Egypt, without need for foreign intervention”—which sounds like exactly the kind of statement one makes when something begins in a fashion that is not “organic” and when comparing events in Libya as marked by a potential legitimacy deficit when compared to those of Tunisia and Egypt. Yet on March 14 the NTC’s Abdel Hafeez Goga asserted, “We are capable of controlling all of Libya, but only after the no-fly zone is imposed”—which is still not the case even six months later.
In recent days it has also been revealed that what the rebel leadership swore it would oppose—“foreign boots on the ground”—is in fact a reality confirmed by NATO: “Special forces troops from Britain, France, Jordan and Qatar on the ground in Libya have stepped up operations in Tripoli and other cities in recent days to help rebel forces as they conducted their final advance on the Gadhafi regime”. This, and other summaries, are only scratching the surface of the range of external support provided to the rebels. The myth here is that of the nationalist, self-sufficient rebel, fueled entirely by popular support….