Intervention in Libya Made The World More Dangerous

I will post this new article from AlterNet with some reservations. First of all, I do not believe the purpose of disarming the world (unilaterally) from WMD possession is a worthy cause, considering that USA is the only country to ever use nuclear bombs, and against a civilian population, twice, near the end of a war, after the breaking of the Axis Powers as Italy and Germany surrendered. The cause is posturing, a part of USA's Grand Area strategizing and its cultural and economic warfare.

Secondly, I am not adamantly opposed to the intervention in Libya, but merely the premises and the method, which are intrinsically tied, as I outline in How NATO Bungled the Libya Campaign. Had the Western powers ceded influence to Turkey and Egypt, as the rebels expressly desired, and had they respected the rebels enough to coordinate movements on the ground, they would have shown good faith and respect for lives. I am not against intervention, but against Western led intervention, because the West has lost all strategic sensibility, and all foreign political credibility, particularly in the MENA region. Enough is enough.

There are two sides to the air-ground inter-communication aspect and why it is critical that it is non-existent: One has to do with protection from friendly fire, as both rebels and civilians have become victims of NATO incoming. The second is that the forces on the ground are restricted to road movement for as much as they rely on their private vehicles to ride into combat, and that makes them predictable - an easy target for the highly trained Gadaffi loyalists. Without communication with the central command the rebels are effectively blind.

Thirdly, I do not consider the Libya invasion a "humanitarian intervention", but simply a failed military campaign to support a democratic insurrection on North Africa.

The AlterNet article's point on how it becomes more difficult to assure "rogue nations" it is wise policy or immunity from invasion to give up their WMD is nearly absurd in the aftermath of Iraq and the Downing Street Memo.

I agree, however, that the campaign has participated in making the world more dangerous, as described in the two articles The Danger of a Faceless Enemy: How Drone War Turns Citizens Into Prey and How Killer Drones Produce More War. The article does touch on the converging economic and military interests behind the surprising support for rebels trying to topple Gadaffi. It also contains additional information about how fragmented the operation is, politically in USA and Europe, and in the military sense.