The plans formulated by the U.S. are aimed to secure its interest to control the world. They employ the many methods the U.S. has applied in the past and the present, plus several new ones to rule the world.
The U.S. can easily facilitate pressure in any place or region to reach their short- or long-term goals. Any observer will notice that most of the volunteering assistance provided by the U.S. in many different parts of the world is only destined to fail. Regardless of that destined failure, the U.S. tries to innovate and to compensate for its failures by finding new methods and disguising those failures under labels that have become known to all — freedom and democracy.
Washington has started to implement a global geopolitical strategy to divide the world into two parts: one part representing the club of developed countries, and the other, representing the rest of the world. That will only create political pockets and suffering through wars and economic decline. We must question whether the Western alliance in Libya is considered to be part of the same plan.
If the answer to that question is yes, then what are the next possible steps for drawing up a new map of the world in, "the American way," as they say.
Some political and military analysts say that the involvement of the U.S. and its allies in Libya is an important step for the implementation of the new military and political doctrine they wish to weave in until Robert Gates, U.S. secretary of defense, takes over. The basis of this ideology was already woven in the well-known book by the American strategic expert and former Pentagon employee Thomas Barnett, under the title: “The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century.” According to Barnett's theory, the interest of the U.S. lies in a division between two unequal worlds.
On one hand, there is a stable nucleus as Barret claims, which includes the U.S. itself and a number of countries cooperating between the developed and developing countries alike. The rest of the world falls into a special category — the shadow areas. Those shadow areas are not economically developed and are politically unstable. The role of the American military power in this scheme is to ensure access to natural resources from within the second half of the world for those living in the first half. This further suggests that the countries in the first half of the world need more resources and that countries in the second half are not allowed to use or benefit from those resources.
The difference between this doctrine and the policy of George Bush Jr. is that it is believed to be better to not think of directly seizing the land of others and planting a democracy in that horrible way. Military strikes and covert operations are enough to weaken and fragment the large, rich countries that hold natural resources, as is the case within the “the larger Middle East” project. The believers and supporters of this theory believe that this process of a weakened country began in Africa through dividing Sudan and creating a fragile government that aided an easier takeover and [eventual] control. This of course took a long time, with intermittent and constant pressure, in order to reach the desired outcome: the division of the country. This is the case every time the U.S. creates instability and tensions driven by U.S. commands, whenever it wants something that serves the interests of the plan.
We notice that this plan is ongoing in Libya now but in different forms and methods. However, the final goal is to destroy and eliminate components of the state in order to create the division that has not yet materialized or taken place. Will this plan succeed or not? This is what makes us question the Libyan situation, about the nature of the next step of the Western alliance in Libya. Moreover, is it true that the ground operation is limited to only support the opposition as they claim? And what is the planned scenario for that to take place? Or does it come down to taking over and actively invading all of Libya? Can we also say that these try outs (alliance assistance) be called the new conquest through forced European control over Libya and its oil wealth?
France and Britain confirmed their intention to support the opposition by sending military advisers to Benghazi and creating a united army under a coherent leadership rather than assist small opposition groups that have no single, united leader. We can say that in light of the assistance Europe offers, it's becoming more apparent that a ground operation by the coalition is against the U.N. Security Council resolution. That is because the coalition is not achieving its stated goals that were publicly expressed between the alliances, of using air strikes alone. They may take it as a pretext for a ground invasion, encouraged by the media, under the grounds of the humanitarian disaster in Misurata and the importance of saving its families quickly, as viewed in NATO circles.
It is noticeable that the media’s focus is depicting things as the coalition wants them depicted. They want to shape public opinion about the necessity of international military intervention in its every form in Libya to save anyone that can be saved. It could be argued that this method is now exposed and will not deceive anyone anymore.
It could be argued, according to the opinion of the analysts, that the scenario applied in Iraq would most likely start in the event of a ground invasion in Libya, despite the fact that reliance is now on the opposition forces through training, and providing support and air cover. It must be said that the escalation of an intervention scenario will actively and publicly lead to a state of division and confusion in Libya. It will also have serious consequences for North Africa in general. In this case, Europe runs the risk of confronting the powerful migrant waves of North Africa, which will be impossible to address.
In all circumstances, the subject of immigration has become a burden to Europe. Many who are now vocally opposing the migrant waves are finding new means and every restriction to prevent the increasing number of migrants. The number of migrants is accelerating and will cause anxiety to all of Europe in the short- and long term due to its implications on Libya.
However, it seems that the stakes are high in the game played in Libya, despite the issue of immigration that is a source of tension in European societies. Some observers believe that the oil and gas reserves in Libya make it an attractive and alluring spot.
All of what we have mentioned is created by what we talked about in the beginning, the foundation of the U.S. and European thought process. The U.S and Europe are trying to translate those thought processes and plans into a reality, and that is what we have observed on the ground.