I spent 33 years...being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and the bankers. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street…In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
Marine Major General Smedley Butler
August 21, 1931 to an American Legion convention
The more things change, the more they stay the same. America has a long and illustrious history of imperialistic feats, as was so eloquently portrayed by Smedley Butler in 1931. The recent intervention of NATO, led by the United States in the Libyan civil war, is just the latest example of U.S./Western imperialism.
It all started with a massive deception. Security Council Resolution 1973 was limited in scope and simply called for the imposition of a No Fly Zone over Libya to protect threatened civilians from tyrant Muammar Qaddafi’s wrath. The intent was clear and mostly responsible for its passage through the Security Council as members Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Germany voted to abstain instead of against the resolution.
However, from the very beginning NATO’s intent to liberate Libya, not just protect its citizens, became clear. NATO bombings went beyond aircraft, anti-aircraft batteries and the like to troop formations, oil installations, and other infrastructure. Even though Obama said there would be no need for boots on the ground, reports broke that American Special Forces had been on the ground prior to the beginning of the social unrest?
Why the special interest in Libya? There is no doubt it had nothing to do with the well-being of the Libyan people. It was all about Libya’s oil reserves. In 2004, after Qaddafi ended his quest for weapons of mass destruction, President George W. Bush lifted sanctions against Libya. Since then, American companies have invested heavily in Libya. For instance, energy giants ConocoPhillips and Marathon have each invested about $700 million.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
We're trying to change that, Kenn, and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What amazes me, you still fail to connect the dots and see imperialism as a natural outgrowth of capitalism and the corrupt institution of the state.
By all measures, you should be an anarchist, but I know this message will fall on deaf ears.
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn -
1 - I'd really like for you to include links to justify you claims, such as the one where you said that there were reports that American SpecOps troops had been in Libya before the uprising. I also notice you didn't comment on the veracity of such reports...but that didn't stop you from implying that it happened. Provide your proof, please.
2 - The premise of your article seems to be that the whole driving force behind the Libyan uprising was not the Libyan people and the momentum of the 'Arab Spring', but instead you seem to believe it was mostly due to corporate greed and politicians who wanted to appease the corporations.
Such an observation is naive at best and at worst ignorant of of the necessary pragmatism of realpolitik. Why? Because in every armed conflict without exception, past, present, or future, there will be those who will seek the best angle from which to profit from the invasion. Did you really, truly expect America and the world's multinational corporations to see what was happening in Libya and sit calmly by without doing their utmost to ensure the best possible result for America and for the multinational corporations?
You know as well as I do that nature abhors a vacuum - and if America did not move to shift the fill of the political vacuum in America's favor, then a different nation would have...
...and you know it.
And the same goes for the multinational corporations, too.
3 - A healthy sense of cynicism is a good thing...but as with all else, too much cynicism is every bit as bad as too little cynicism. The uprising was part of the 'Arab Spring', and the responses of the West and of the corporations were nothing more and nothing less than sensible responses to what was happening.
And you've got to admit that what America did to support the Libyan rebels was a heck of a lot better by almost any measure than what was done by the last administration that most libertarians supported (and yes, most libertarians DID vote for Dubya - I can provide references if you need).
3 - Kenn Jacobine
Roger,
Libya (imperialism) is a direct result of unconstitutional government. Heck, Obama is the most anti-capitalist president we have had since FDR and this crap was his decision.
Besides what is your alternative to capitalism? If it is the welfare state you need only look at our current economy to see how well that works.
4 - roger nowosielski
I'm as anti-statism as you are Kenn, and I disagree with you about Obama. He only appears to be so, but in fact the preservation of all institutions has been Obama's top priority, from health care to financial reforms.
It's beyond the realm of possibility, so I believe, to have constitutional government nowadays, as as it is to have the kind of "pure capitalism" you're talking about. We're too far gone. So regardless of what would be a better economic system than the present one, my only point is that you shouldn't dissociate Western imperialism from our global economic system, working in collusion with Western nation-states.
I know it's not a very palatable proposition to someone like you, but these seem to be the wages.
5 - Kenn Jacobine
Glenn,
You are such an apologist for this regime. I am optimistic that when Obama loses reelection you will support my criticisms of whoever the Republican president is - unless he is Ron Paul then the imperialism will end.
In any event, we had special ops on the ground in Libya according to RET. COL. DAVID HUNT, U.S. ARMY and LT. COL. TONY SHAFFER, FORMER ARMY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER.
Al Jazeera also ran a story to the same effect. Of course, a military man like yourself should know that we put forces on the ground to direct attacks in the air.
Face it Glenn, this administration makes the Bush years look tame in terms of war crimes. And by the way, a lot of folks claim to be libertarian, but it doesn't mean they are. In the last election, true libertarians would have sat it out. Even the Libertarian Party nominated a non-libertarian candidate.
6 - Zingzing
"Face it Glenn, this administration makes the Bush years look tame in terms of war crimes"
How so. Compare.
7 - Zingzing
Question mark...
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn -
Are you no longer able to provide links to what you consider proof? I can come up with lots of names too, and I can state that those names said lots of things, too.
Sooo...where's the links?
And last I recall, Obama hasn't used America's full military might on an illegal and unprovoked invasion that killed at least 100,000 innocent men, women, and children, and has resulted in over two million people who are STILL internally-displaced refugees (not to mention over 4,000 American military who have died in the same invasion and subsequent occupation). Exactly what is it that Obama has done that makes Dubya's crimes look 'tame'? I mean, you DO teach history, so I'd really, really like to hear you justify that statement.
9 - Kenn Jacobine
Glenn,
You guys have to be kidding! Obama has continued the war in Iraq. He escalated the war in Afghanistan even after he campaigned on ending it. He has increased drone attacks in Pakistan. He has bombed Yemen and murdered an American citizen thereby depriving him of his constitutional rights. If it actually happened, the murder of an unarmed enemy combatant (bin laden) was carried out on his orders in violation of the Geneva Conventions. And he deceived the U.N. and the Arab League by escalating the involvement of NATO in Libya beyond enforcing a "no-fly zone" to full scale regime change.
As far as the links are concerned Google "special ops on the ground in Libya"
10 - handyguy
Kenn starts with conclusions, then selectively builds premises to "prove" his point.
Obama cautiously wound down the Iraq war. It is in effect already over, and will be in reality by Christmas.
He did not campaign on ending the Afghan war....he pledged to turn his attention there in contrast to Bush's ignoring it. And that too is now on course to slowly wind down.
No action other than immediate withdrawal and cessation on inaugural day would have exempted him from the criticism of some; but that policy was never promised, and existed only in their own delusions. They'd probably have found a reason to complain even then.
11 - handyguy
PS I do thank Kenn for bringing the deliciously funny name Smedley Butler to our attention. Wonder what his friends called him? "Hey, Smedley, another beer?"
12 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn -
And what did your politicians on the right (and yes, they ARE your politicians since over 70% of Libertarians vote Republican if there's no viable Libertarian on the ticket) do when Obama announced that he would have ALL American troops in Iraq out by the end of the year? Every single one cried out that Obama was giving up on Iraq, ignoring the sacrifices of the military, allowing the Muslim extremist to win, et cetera, ad nauseum! In your haste to foment hatred for whatever Obama does, you'd wind up having a Republican in the White House who'd keep our troops in Iraq for many more years to come!
Do you not see the rank hypocrisy of any Libertarian who hates Obama for not immediately ending the Iraq occupation (which he's ending in less than two months) and who would instead vote for a Republican out of their hatred of Obama?
And considering what you do for a living, perhaps you could tell us when there was EVER an occupation (for by the time Obama took over, it was not a war, but an occupation) where the occupying nation was able to leave the occupied nation in just a couple of years with something approaching a viable and stable government? Perhaps you could describe how long it took the occupying nations to leave the occupied countries of central Europe after the end of WWII? And this is not even taking into account the intractable Shi'a/Sunni conflict that overshadowed all of America's efforts to instill a viable and stable government in Baghdad!
Hm?
Kenn, most historians would heartily agree that most questions of the day can be readily and accurately answered by an objective understanding of the lessons of history...so you've got a choice: you can either stick by conservative and libertarian talking points to preserve your disgust with everything the Obama administration's ever done or ever will do...
...or you can look back with 20/20 vision at the lessons of history and see that while he hasn't been perfect, in the big picture he's been significantly better than average (especially given the opposition he's faced at a level not seen since before the Civil War).
13 - Glenn Contrarian
And Kenn -
Since you didn't want to provide a link, I went ahead and Googled precisely what you suggested, and okay, sure, we DID have SpecOps troops on the ground.
But did you actually READ the interview between Bill O'Reilly and the guys whose names you gave? I mean, past the part where they were saying we really did have SpecOps troops on the ground in Libya?
I'm referring to the part where such is STANDARD PROCEDURE, where they are tasked with identifying targets so that FEWER civilians are killed, where Bill O'Reilly himself admitted that what the SpecOps guys were doing was in fact SAVING LIVES?
I doubt it. All you really wanted to do was to use the fact that we had them there to IMPLY that it was America and the corporate world who were all behind the popular uprising in the first place!
Kenn, I don't know if you've any military experience, but anyone who's done much research of military history KNOWS that ALL the major powers of the world WILL have operatives on the ground where there are signs and indications of a major political shift or popular uprising. As an historian, you of all people should know this instinctively. So that begs the question of whether you were so naive that you did not know this, or if instead you DID know this but decided to use it to accuse Obama of military adventurism and unity with corporate greed.
To address your other accustions:
Obama has continued the war in Iraq.
He continued the occupation in Iraq and is ENDING it in less than two months. He will have had troops in Iraq under his command less than three years, whereas Dubya had them there for SIX years (Mission Accomplished!)...and ALL the Republican candidates (save Ron Paul) have publicly stated they would continue the occupation!
He escalated the war in Afghanistan even after he campaigned on ending it.
I don't suppose the fact that last year, al-Qaeda led a popular uprising that came within forty miles of the capital of NUCLEAR-ARMED Pakistan means anything to you, huh? If you really cared about the REAL reason we're in Afghanistan, you'd know that we're there to prop up the Pakistani government to (hopefully) keep nukes out of the hands of Muslim extremists. Whether this is the wisest way of doing so is certainly up to debate...but that's why we're there since Dubya ignored Afghanistan so he could invade Iraq, and by doing so allowed al-Qaeda to grow unchecked. You may have noticed we've made some progress against al-Qaeda since Obama took office, and that Pakistan is now more stable than it was when al-Qaeda was strong. But since that would mean that Obama was doing something right, it must therefore all be completely false, hm?
He has increased drone attacks in Pakistan.
See the above rant on why we're in Afghanistan.
He has bombed Yemen
With what amounts to the blessings of the Yemeni government. Oh, but I forgot! The battle between al-Qaeda and the Yemenis is simply a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing, right? Not that the American people would face anymore threats from al-Qaeda if they win in Yemen like those listed in the above reference (that included the Uss Cole), hm?
and murdered an American citizen thereby depriving him of his constitutional rights.
Yes, Kenn, it makes PERFECT sense to not kill someone that you canNOT capture (as I showed you before with your utter ignorance of military logistics) but who is continuing to publicly give not only aid and comfort but also training to those who are killing Americans. Riiiiiight! "Even though you can't capture him alive, don't kill him even though he's trying to kill you (and sometimes succeeding) because that would be in violation of his Constitutional rights!" Such a WONderful Commander-in-Chief you'd be, VERY inspiring to the troops!
If it actually happened, the murder of an unarmed enemy combatant (bin laden) was carried out on his orders in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Yes, all the world's a conspiracy to you, isn't it? And if Obama says it it must be a lie, huh? And FYI, I strongly suspect you'll find that according to the Geneva Convention, an enemy combatant who refuses to surrender, who MAY still have means to resist, CAN be put down with deadly force. The SEALS did precisely as they were trained to do...and while I am certainly no Navy SEAL, what they did was precisely what we were trained to do as members of the Security Armed Response Team on the USS Abraham Lincoln not long after the bombing of the Cole. So when you know what you're talking about, Kenn, come back and let me know, willya?
And he deceived the U.N. and the Arab League by escalating the involvement of NATO in Libya beyond enforcing a "no-fly zone" to full scale regime change.
You've proceeded from the naive to the ignorant to the outright ludicrous with this last one, Kenn. Most of the UN wanted Qaddafi gone, most of the Arab League wanted Qaddafi gone, and most of the Libyan people wanted Qaddafi gone. Perhaps if you were a little MORE realistic about the diplomatic workings of the nations of the world, you'd know this.
AND IN SUMMARY, I'd really like to see your math where all the civilian deaths under Obama even came close to the 100,000+ men, women, and children who died in the illegal and unprovoked Iraq war, the vast majority of whom died on Dubya's watch!
Can you please, PLEASE show me your math on this, so I can see exactly how it is that Obama's alleged war crimes have somehow greatly exceeded the KNOWN war crimes under Dubya?
Hm?
(Note to self - I'm really wasting too much time trying to educate those who refuse to be educated)
14 - Kenn Jacobine
Glenn,
You must be on the payroll of either the administration or the DNC? I mean the BS and spin you spew in defense of failed policies is remarkable. Obama did promise to end the war in Afghanistan during the campaign and he has escalated it. He is winding down in Iraq because Bush mandated it before he left office. By the way, those forces will be leaving Iraq for Kuwait and a battle group in the Persian Gulf, so it's not like they are coming home. And no Glenn, I have never been a member of the military-industrial complex that you love so much. Sorry.
15 - roger nowosielski
Tell you the truth, Kenn, I'd rather talk to conservatives such as you or Cannon or Clavos, and I well know we may disagree on major points, than to this site's self-appointed liberals who can't seem to raise themselves above a knee-jerk reaction and whenever you criticize them on however minor point, all they're capable of is acting offended.
I never thought I'd say it, but liberalism is a disease.
16 - Irene Athena
Human rights activist and former ambassador Craig Murray sheds some light on the "majority" Arab League support for the establishment of the West's no-fly zone in Libya:
"A senior diplomat in a western mission to the UN in New York, who I have known over ten years and trust, has told me for sure that Hillary Clinton agreed to the cross-border use of troops to crush democracy in the Gulf, as a quid pro quo for the Arab League calling for Western intervention in Libya...It was former UK Ambassador to Libya, Oliver Miles who said western military intervention in Libya should be avoided above all because of the law of unintended consequences. One consequence has happened already, unintended by the liberals who fell in behind the calls for military attacks on Gadaffi. They helped cause the foreign military suppression of democracy in Bahrain. For Clinton and Obama, it is a win-win forwarding US foreign policy on both Libya and the Gulf, where they don’t want democracy."
The fact that Murray minces no words in denouncing "Team Bush" MAY induce you to give him a read, Glenn. I'm sure you'll enjoy the second link, in any event. (I know Kenn will enjoy it, too, because though he asserts that Obama is worse than Bush, I'm sure he'll agree it's partly because Bush greased the skids.)
US Imperialism is not activated by a switch that gets turned off when a Democrat POTUS replaces a Republican. The misery that the US has brought on itself through its infliction of misery on the rest of the world WILL NOT STOP until people stop being blinded by party allegiance.
17 - Irene Athena
It makes me tired, and a bit depressed. I need sleep.
18 - Cannonshop
#15 Roger, it's not "Liberalism" that is the disease, it's FANATICISM, that weird mix of bunker-mentality and self-righteousness which afflicts ALL who cling to their "Team" of choice and treat the business of our nations as another sporting-event where one must root for 'the team' regardless of what reason, logic, or performance might indicate.
I know this trap, and so do you-we ALL fall into it from time to time. It is what Harry Browne termed in "How I found freedom in an unfree world" the "Group Trap."
Right NOW the site's conservatives might seem to make more sense-hell, right now "I" might seem to make more sense, but wait a bit longer, and soon everyone will, from one direction or another, cease to make sense. It's all about perspective and subjective experience. The Party-Democrats here are doing what they do, and sooner or later, if not one of the token conservatives present, some new token conservative will show up chanting the approved party mantra of the Republicans, just as Glenn, Zing, and others chant the approved message and generated astroturf of the Democrat party.
It's good to believe in something, and to stand for something, it's bad to believe in everything someone tells you. Just keep thinking for yourself, Roger.
19 - Cannonshop
As for me...I guess I'm one of the few who saw this coming early on, and I ain't in denial about it-this has more to do with generating campaign Ca$h than human rights. Now that it's translated into another Wilsonian Adventure, I kind of hope that it backfires, that Libya gets the kind of government they REALLY want, which is radical-islamist, and that it costs the Companies that paid (or promised pay) the DNC and the RNC to buy american bombs to remove Quaddafi a lot of money and heartache.
20 - roger nowosielski
@18
Always have, my man. And I surely respect you for changing your opinion about OWS -- not because it's about OWS but because you have balls enough to change your mind and own up to it.
Tell you the truth, Cannon, most everybody I ever meet has more common sense, I'm talking about ordinary people with no fucking education to speak of, then some here who think themselves intellectuals simply because they know their syntax.
Have never in my life ran across such a group of seemingly educated and articulate people but all so fucking stupid either for their inability to think or plain fear of thinking.
God save America!
21 - roger nowosielski
You're right, it is fanaticism, like rooting for the Oakland Raiders.
I'm done with these fuckers. Let them go to hell.
22 - Cannonshop
#20 Roger, there's a term for that. It originates, I believe, in industry, and is usually assigned to someone in the management or engineering areas, usually someone so in love with theory that they lose sight of practice.
"Educated Idiot".
23 - roger nowosielski
Be moving to another site shortly, will keep you posted when matters finalize so you might visit once in a while. Have had it here. It's bad enough having to deal with all such, but not when it's sanctioned by the all wise and all seeing comments editor.
24 - Christopher Rose
Self pity is such an attractive quality, especially when it has zero basis in reality.
The only reason you have "had it here" is because straight dealing and sincerity are alien concepts to you...
25 - roger nowosielski
"Self pity"? You're must be of your mind.
I've had it here because I'm tired of dealing with morons.
Don't worry, though. Those who are worth talking to I haven't forgotten.