Qaddafi Ouster Revenge for Threatening USD and Euro Hegemony in Oil Market

Posted on Friday, 26th August 2011 @ 07:17 AM by Text Size A | A | A

Spread the love

War: Gaddafi Falls … But Why Did We Invade In The First Place?


Now that the Libyan “rebels” have taken Tripoli, and
Gaddafi’s days are quickly ending, it’s time to take stock about the
meaning behind the war, and why we’re really there.

A War For Oil and Gold?

Initially, many say
that the
Libyan war is really about .oil
.  If Libya didn’t have large oil
reserves, we wouldn’t be there.

And the Independent … noted
in April that one of the main  movers and shakers for  the Iraq oil
shenanigans has been mucking around in  Libya as well:


Lady  Symons,
59,  later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that
cashed  in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she
severed     links as an unpaid adviser to Libya’s National Economic
Development  Board    after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters

In 2009, Gaddafi proposed
nationalizing Libya’s oil reserve. As Reuters reported
at the time:


Hundreds of thousands of Libyans gathered on
Wednesday to discuss the  proposal by their leader Muammar Gaddafi to
disband the government and  allow the country’s oil wealth to flow
straight to the people.

     “Libyans, this is your historic
opportunity to take over your oil  wealth, power and full freedom. Why
do you want to let the chance slip  away from you?”


of a country’s resources is often a cause for invasion.  For example,
Guatemala’s nationalization of it’s fruit processing facilities led to a

(Incidentally, prior to the invasion, Libya had the highest
level of well-being, the best  economic policies for the quality of
life, the lowest infant mortality and the highest life expectancy of any
country in Africa, according to the UN’s Human
Development Index

Libya also has 143.8
tons of gold
… and some speculate that is the real reason for the invasion.

Of course, most Americans strongly
invasion of Libya or other Arab countries – but that is
only because they didn’t see the value of spilling our sons’ and
daughters’ blood to secure oil and gold.

And the Arab states themselves were
not motivated to take down Gaddafi
, leading to accusations that
this is Western colonialism and imperialism.  (And some of the other
Arab states have large oil reserves as well, and so aren’t as keen to
obtain Libya’s stash).

We are certainly not “liberating” Libya for democracy or even
to stop violence.  As I noted
in March:


Obama is … aiding
the Libyan “rebels”, even though there are allegations that 1,000
of them are Al Qaeda radicals
(and there are some indications that
their leader is a CIA


War Planned Right After 9/11 … Or Before

Toppling Gaddafi was planned right after 9/11, or perhaps
even before.

As American
reporter Gareth Porter reported
in 2008:

Three    weeks after the September 11, 2001,
terror attacks, former US defense    secretary Donald Rumsfeld
established an official military objective  of   not only removing the
Saddam Hussein regime by force but  overturning  the  regime in Iran, as
well as in Syria and four other  countries in the   Middle East,
according to a document quoted  extensively in then-under   secretary of
defense for policy Douglas  Feith’s recently published   account of the
Iraq war decisions. Feith’s  account further indicates   that this
aggressive aim of remaking the map  of the Middle East by   military
force and the threat of force was  supported explicitly by the
country’s top military leaders.

Feith’s book, War and
,  released last month, provides excerpts of
the paper Rumsfeld sent to  President George W Bush on September 30,
2001, calling   for the  administration to focus not on taking down
Osama bin Laden’s   al-Qaeda  network but on the aim of establishing
“new regimes” in a   series of  states…


General   Wesley Clark, who commanded the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization   bombing campaign in the Kosovo war,
recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars   being told by a
friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list   of states that
Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz   wanted to
take  down included Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Libya,  Sudan and Somalia  [and Lebanon].


When   this writer asked Feith . . . which
of the six regimes on the Clark   list were included in the Rumsfeld
paper, he replied, “All of them.”


The   Defense Department guidance document
made it clear that US military   aims in regard to those states would
go  well beyond any ties to   terrorism. The document said the Defense
Department would also seek to   isolate and weaken those states and to
“disrupt, damage or destroy”   their military capacities – not
necessarily limited to weapons of mass   destruction (WMD)…

Rumsfeld’s paper was   given to the White
House only two weeks after Bush had approved a US   military operation
in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the   Taliban regime.
Despite that decision, Rumsfeld’s proposal called   explicitly for
postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of   ground forces in
support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order   to try to
catch  bin Laden.

Instead, the   Rumsfeld paper argued that
the US should target states that had   supported anti-Israel forces such
as Hezbollah and Hamas.


A senior officer on the
Joint Staff told State Department
counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes
characterized more than once by colleagues as a “small price to pay
for  being a superpower”.

General Clark added
some details in 2007:

I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11.
About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw
Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs
just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to
work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir,
you’ve   got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re
too   busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re
going   to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September.


So I came back to see him a few
weeks later, and by that time we were  bombing in Afghanistan. I said,
“Are we still going to war with Iraq?”  And he said, “Oh, it’s worse
than that.” He reached over on his desk. He  picked up a piece of paper.
And he said, “I just got this down from  upstairs” — meaning the
Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he  said, “This is a memo
that describes how we’re going to take
out seven  countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria,
Lebanon,  Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Obama is simply carrying out the Neocons’ war plans created right after
9/11 … if
not before

Challenging The Supremacy of the Dollar
and Western Banks

Ellen Brown argues
in the Asia Times that there were even deeper reasons for the war than
gold, oil or middle eastern regime change.

Brown argues that Libya – like Iraq under Hussein –
challenged the supremacy of the dollar and the Western banks:


the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five
years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of
banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56
member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That
evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central
bankers’ central bank in Switzerland.

The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that
have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to
take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept
euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global
dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as
the petrodollar.”

According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Libya – Punishment
for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar”, Gaddafi made a
similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and
the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency
instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African
continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.


And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan
central bank. In an article  posted on the Market
Oracle, Eric Encina observed:

One seldom mentioned
fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central
Bank of Libya is  100% State Owned … Currently, the
Libyan government creates its own money,  the Libyan
Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue
that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great
resources, able to sustain  its own economic destiny.
One major problem for globalist banking cartels is
that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan
Central Bank and its national currency, a place
where they have absolutely zero  dominion or
power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya
(CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron
and Sarkozy but this is  certainly at the top of the
globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive  of
compliant nations.

the Federal Reserve provided billions
in loans to Gaddafi not too long ago

But in this 1984 world, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

Postscript: I have no love for
Gaddafi, just like I hated Saddam Hussein, who was a ruthless dictator.
I am simply pointing out that the stated reasons for the Libyan war –
just like the Iraq war – were false.


“I am simply pointing out that the stated reasons for the Libyan war –
just like the Iraq war – were false.” – Indeed. As Sun Tzu noted many a
year ago: “All war is deception.”

Not too mention Major General
Smedley Butlers’ powerful ‘War is A racket’;

As well
as Aeschylus’ wise old words: “In war, truth is the first casualty.”

some would argue that these days it’s actually journalism which takes
the first hit: (

will our leaders realise that; “War is the symptom, not the disease.” –
L.M. Heroux.

August 22, 2011 11:50 AM

Beautiful journalism, like usual. It was me who wrote the email asking
for you to remark and write on the Libya campaign. I’m glad it was read
and you acted upon it. Thank you! Great work! You definitely gave some

August 22, 2011 2:18 PM

The situation is well explained by one vestigial interpretation
of Darwinian theories of “survival of the fittest”.

interpretation led to “social Darwinism“, which on national scales equates
to imperialism, i.e. survival of the shit kicker cowboys.

The oil wars are one unavoidable manifestation of that.

who you mention as a mover and shaker in the recent decade’s
imperialistic manifestations of it, and the rest of those who
emotionally subscribe to that interpretation, are all very well “aware”
that the nation which controls the oil is the “fittest”.

problem is that it is short sighted and even suicidal, ecocidal.

is because the oil is a finite resource.

Thus, the imperialist
civilization will still be around with its need for oil when there isn’t
any more oil, even assuming one civilization “wins” the oil wars, be it
eastern or western civilization.

They have kicked over the
traces by being pig headed and stubborn, and have gone off into criminal

Neither the western nor the eastern civilizations are
going down without a fight over oil and other resources, so the pig
headed “foreign policy” of oil domination will lead to nuclear conflict
when the full blindness of full desperation sets in.

Of course it
is mysterious how supposedly sane looking folks could allow this to
happen, but looks can be deceiving.

They are stone fricking
insane, but since it is very, very complicated to treat such a disease,
successful treatment won’t happen.

That is because, at this
point in history, we are incompetent or not yet sufficiently aware of
the causes of this sickness.

The only viable hope in all of this,
IMO, is that there will be more intelligent survivors for the next
civilization that hopefully follows.

August 22, 2011 5:36 PM

I weep for Libya if the citizenry is as naive as Juan Cole seems to be
in this article
Paragraph 5 is a heartbreaker. People need to be aware of the global
elites’ methods and understand the backlash waiting for them if they
become a credible threat to the elites’ interests.

August 23, 2011 6:55 AM

I agree about a lot of things written in this website, but this whole
idea about Libya being one of the happiest places before the “invasion”
(what invasion?) is pure non-sense..
People starting revolting on
their own because of what was going on in Egypt, Syria, etc.. not
because of some “Pentagon” plan.
Ghadaffi enjoyed a very cozy
relationship with Italy and Britain (and by default the US) right before
the revolution. Why don’t you conveniently mention that in your

The reasons for the revolution were obvious: Gadaffi
is a corrupt dictator who has been enriching himself and his family at
the expense of the entire nation for decades, just like our old Egyptian
ally Mubarak.
Let me guess.. the revolution in Egypt was also
planned by the Pentagon, right?

The idea that Gadaffi was going
to nationalize the oil industry and share it with the people is just
Please stop trying to see silly conspiracies everywhere you

It is silly articles like this one that take this
website’s credibility away.

August 23, 2011 5:33 PM

Juan Cole is NOT naive.  Like Obama, he cut his political teeth by
SEEMING to oppose the Iraq war, and like Obama, he has revealed his true
nature as a hawk.

August 23, 2011 6:3

Related News On HuffPo Club

Disqus Comments

Specify a Disqus shortname at Social Comments options page in admin panel

Facebook Comments

G+ Comments

Default Comments

  • Hpub asks

    • Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.