The Good Men Project

Turmoil in Libya: How Responsible Is the U.S.?

Muammar Gaddafi has held the hand of both Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Literally and figuratively, some might say. He’s shown himself to be quite the tyrannical despot, or despotic tyrant—whatever you like better. But after seizing power in Libya 40 years ago, his grip is slipping away.

The younger Mr. Qaddafi blamed Islamic radicals and Libyans in exile for the uprising. He offered a vague package of reforms in his televised speech, potentially including a new flag, national anthem, and confederate structure. But his main theme was to threaten Libyans with the prospect of civil war over its oil resources which would break up the country, deprive residents of food and education, and even invite a Western takeover.

“Libya is made up of tribes and clans and loyalties,” he said. “There will be civil war.”

Recalling Libya’s colonial past, he warned, “The West and Europe and the United States will not accept the establishment of an Islamic emirate in Libya.”

The fact that he’s even using language like “last women” or “last bullet” tells you everything you need to know. The Libyan protests have been the region’s bloodiest thus far. Unfortunately, it’s probably only going to get worse.

And there’s one more thing to remember during all of this. There’s a reason Gaddafi was able to rule for so many years: oil. Even though Libya-U.S. relations haven’t always been smooth, there’s still always been a relationship. As Jeff Neumann just wrote:

Just as in Egypt and Tunisia and elsewhere around the world, wealthy countries are all too eager to overlook suppression of basic human rights in favor of “economic liberalization” in the countries they’ve invested in. So, to answer the question of who’s been propping up Qaddafi the answer is simple: we have.

—Photo via Wikimedia Commons

[MORE STORIES FROM OUR BLOG]

Exit mobile version