America's attack on Libya is Geopolitically and Strategically counterproductive
American and non-proliferation interests are not served by our attack on Libya. by James Luko
(centrist)
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Recent attacks on Libya by the U.S. and NATO merely confirms to nations like Iran and North Korea, that America and the West will indeed attack, unprovoked, nations which do not possess nuclear weapons.
The attack on Libya will singlehandedly accelerate Iranian efforts and internal consensus on the need for nuclear weapons to defend itself from any future interventions by the US or the West.
The UN, not the US or NATO, should have supported an all-Arab intervention in Libya, ala- the Saudi intervention in Bahrain, or the use of United Nations assets ONLY to intervene in Libya- if even that was a wise choice.
In the current strategic paradigm, Iran is now proven correct in its "implied" assertions that ONLY possessing nuclear weapons would prevent an American or Western attack. Clearly nuclear weapons have protected and even aided- North Korean efforts at thwarting Western control and domination- right or wrong.
North Korea will now feel vindicated in its nuclear weapons' program as the world observes just how rapidly America and the West are willing to attack nations which do not possess nuclear weapons. Yet, North Korea- which claims to have nuclear weapons, survived "untouched" despite its artillery attack upon South Korea some months ago. South Korea is a "treaty" ally of America, yet despite a direct attack, the U.S. did not respond at all. A clear sign that possessing nuclear weapons, obviously, is an effective deterrent to American intervention.
Yet, although Libya poses ZERO threat to the United States yet we are bombing Libya. This serves as a great lesson for North Korea and Iran, and others who seek to isolate themselves from the window of external threats from America. In fact, after the American intervention in Iraq in the second Gulf War- deposing Saddam Hussein, there was indeed an American "tacit" agreement with Ghaddafi that if he stopped his nuclear weapons ambitions- which he did, America would agree to a "hands-off" policy (since Gaddafi thought at the time that he might be next on George Bush's target list) which in turn ignited a close and growing business relationship between Libya and EU nations- notably the UK. [1][2][3]
Now, the "lesson" America has taught Libya and other such nations, is that we convince nations to disarm or disengage in nuclear weapons acquisitions in return for non-intervention (as we indeed did with Libya, Ukraine, Belarus, South Africa, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Japan, etc), but, that ours is NOT a solid agreement and can be broken anytime and result in military attacks, overthrow and invasion. It unfortunately totally legitimizes the nuclear weapons defense doctrines of Iran and North Korea, that ONLY, if one possesses nuclear weapons- will the West "not" attack. This is a counterproductive geopolitical strategy and makes non-proliferation that much harder.
The strategic and geopolitically viable and acceptable alternative to Middle East interventions and military quagmires in that region of the world is energy independence. Former President Carter "declared" in 1977 that America "will" be energy independent, yet over thirty (30) years later America has not even come close to achieving that goal. France, for example, has attained approximately 70% domestic energy independence even though it has no natural domestic energy sources to speak of. America's plan to reach the moon took less time than we have spent on energy independence, and thereby proves the resilience and overall omnipotence of the oil lobby in America. (this is since the technology for alternative energy supplementation is possible but not enacted- as it is prevented by the oil lobby.)
However, with the current situation of the nuclear plants in Japan (radiation leaks) after its recent earthquake, America's most viable alternative- nuclear energy- is now set back, perhaps permanently as a new source of domestic energy supply.
Certainly this is not all to suggest that Gaddafi is an ally or that his regime should be preserved, (although purportedly the US warned off a British intelligence operation to depose Gaddafi many years ago- since the US deemed Gaddafi as a reliable anti-Marxist [Hilton Assignment, P. Seale, McConville M. 1973). It is merely to say that the timing and mode of intervention by the United States does not serve our interests at this time.
The American intervention in Libya, and not a coalition of Arab states and/or the United Nations is a geopolitical and strategic mistake which will have long lasting impacts on the security of America and non-proliferation.
1] Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by U.S.forces in 2003, Gaddafi announced that his nation had an active weapons of mass destruction program, but was willing to allow international inspectors into his country to observe and dismantle them. U.S.President George W. Bush and other supporters of the Iraq War portrayed Gaddafi's announcement as a direct consequence of the Iraq War. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, a supporter of the Iraq War, was quoted as saying that Gaddafi had privately phoned him, admitting as much.
The views expressed
in this article are those of James Luko only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
James Luko is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: sforman
Date: March 29, 2011 10:15:23 AM
I'm not sure I can agree with this. I think America has some narrowly defined interests to defend here. If you're so inclined, maybe take a look at my article in today's American Thinker. Let me know what you think.
Posted By: jamesluko
Date: March 30, 2011 06:48:23 PM
Seth,
Yes your article has valid points. I think this is a question of timing, an issue of having 'explicit' Arab support as well as it being 'public' Arab support for such unilateral action. I also don't necessarily agree that in recent years, Gaddafi has been "acutely anti-American."
Again, the European response is because of their particularly high reliance on Libyan oil, France and Italy, and then significant investments by the UK in Libya. The Europeans did not advocate such rapid and robust actions in Egypt and Tunisia, nor the removal of other dictators and regimes that have actively worked against America- like supposed allies- Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
