The Narrative in Libya

Is what we are being shown to be true in Libya part of a larger, more drawn out plan? I remember, quite a while ago, there were the claims of thousands of NATO troops headed to Malta to be used in Libya. Is this the create the problem, wait for the reaction, and offer the solution model?

Here is a pretty good analysis, but I think it might go farther than he states. It could be a pretext to bring in the troops directly to Libya, and right where the oil happens to be apparently.

And remember, as the analyst states, it was the US and some European countries that pretty much supported the most radical people they could find, some claim Al Qaeda. And as he says, the film, as the cartoons before, are more of a cover.

It is getting hard to believe anything coming out of the US media at all. Is this the way to insert the thousands of troops into Libya? And the scenario in Syria is much the same.

Paul Joseph Watson, in this article, believes (contrary to claims he died as a result of the rocket attack)  the ambassador might have been taken by a mob of people and “lynched.” (His word, not mine.) I wouldn’t be in a position to know, and have no certain knowledge about anything within the narrative we are being presented. However, if so, this could indicate that it has nothing to do with a movie, but everything to do with Libyan Green loyalists  still angry about the treatment of Qaddafi. He sees it as ironic, but then is it irony if “blowback” was the intended result in Libya, in order to more firmly control the country with NATO troops? I don’t know the answer to that question, by the way. It could be as the media tells us it is, which would be ironic as the US created the very monster that they may claim needs slaying.

But, it could have more to do with the decline of the US empire at a very fast pace. This would include the dollar no longer remaining supreme, as some purport that China and Russia are moving to bring the dollar down. As Gore Vidal pointed many years ago in one of his essays, empires are based more on finance hegemony than brute force alone. Although, that point could be argued, and it seems that the US believes that brute force goes a long way.

Perhaps, as one Alfred McCoy has suggested,  the US elite planners thought the world would let them off the hook for all the mischief caused around the globe. Also, the US intended to be dominant until the year 2025, but it seems time is not on their side as they might wish. In fact,  Alfred McCoy covered these issues quite well a few years back. Here is the link to his long but well thought out possible scenarios for US  imperial decline.

Are we now into the scenario of “micro-militarism” adventurism, where the actions lack logic even from the imperial point of view? I would be hesitant to call any imperial war, whether fought with proxy militias as in Syria and to a large extent in Libya, “micro.” It certainly isn’t “micro” to the people who have to endure it.

Most likely, the empire is acting out of a sort of desperation, and a need to control as much of the resources of the planet as it can before the fatal “2025” deadline arrives. Problem is, as we see in Syria, and perhaps to an extent in Libya, the US isn’t really able to control events. In Syria, this has been made very clear, as the Russians have stood in the way of NATO’s ambitions for months and months, while the country is forced to accept a destructive proxy war within. Yet, so far, the Russians and the Chinese have prevented NATO from openly raining deadly depleted uranium bombs from the sky.

Where will all of this lead? It is hard to know. Part of the problem is that the American people are left clueless. This might be advantageous to the elite for a while, but one would think that reality would catch up with them. I would bet that most Americans, to the extent they are paying attention, believe this is about a movie. Could all of this really be about a movie? It seems highly implausible.