Mildly Thought Provoking Perspective on Libyan Civil War

Civil war has errupted once again in the Middle Eastern country of Libya, where yet another military dictator is at war with rebellious opposition.  As the conflict thickens, "top men," who you say? "top... men," in Washington are pushing for the Obama Administration to intervene in the Middle East yet again with an already outstreatched US military.  Colonel Moammar Gadhafi, Libya's current leader, has taken control of the capitol city of Tripoli in response to government opposition in the east.  Following the capitol's takeover, Gadhafi has sent air strafing runs over Brega, an oil refining town in Western Libya controlled by opposing rebel forces.  While Gadhafi continues to make arrests and attacks against protesters and government opposition, militia volunteers flock to recruitment centers in eastern Libya to help defend rebel controlled cities.


Col. Gadhafi looks like a young Jack Nicholson in a

halloween costume, except this time the costume is real.  

Now, assuming that the US isn't being threatened by WMD's or Libya's super high tech and extensive military force, can we admit that our only possible interests in this conflict can be the affects on domestic oil prices or human rights issues?  I understand that there are humanitarian reasons to intervene, but you don't see other countries jumping on the "Liberate the Middle East" bandwagon like the US has in its recent history.  The UN isn't going to aide Libya any more than the limited amount that they already have, and although it's still early in the conflict, no other governmental bodies have expressed intent to get involved.  Meanwhile, former presidential candidates like John Kerry and John McCain are flying special ops forces over there in their private planes to help quell the civil unrest.  In all seriousness, John McCain and John Kerry are are endorsing a no-fly zone over "those places with the oil and stuff" and even possible armament of rebel forces.  Meanwhile John McCain started drawing up some signs for the new no-fly zones proposed to be imposed in late March.   

Moving on... Why is it that the US is always the first to respond to conflicts not our own, particularly when oil is involved?  I agree that conflicts such as the Libyan civil war will escalate oil prices in the US and potentially cause further market inflation, but why is the US the only government that ever gets fully involved.  Are we the scapegoat for the rest of the western world who knows from our history that we will take care of business and take the blame in the process, or are we just the only country that is so desperate to keep the oil flowing at a reasonable rate.

Maybe it really is time to reduce our "crude" dependency and let these Middle Eastern countries resolve their issues on their own and grow in the process.  We at least need to reduce our dependency enough to give other countries the chance to show their need for peaceful world relations as well.  It's as if the US is the only self-righteous member of the UN who cares about human rights, or the only member that cares about inflation of oil prices and availability of valuable resources. 

I would love to hear what my extensive reader base has to say about this.  Start an account so you can follow my blog and post comments. 

J.C.