Who Is the Hegemon in North Africa, the U.S. or France?

In the strategic game of silkworms swallowing the red bean cake of Libya, France, bombing Libya so energetically that it once ran out of bombs, is not necessarily the winner. It’s possible that the low-profile U.S. is the final winner in this military operation.

Gadhafi’s legal government didn’t fall and Gadhafi himself is not dead yet, but the U.S. and Libyan anti-government organizations seem to be discussing Gadhafi’s “funeral affairs.”

Two days ago, the Libyan anti-government organization “National Transitional Council” was invited to visit Washington and was received by Obama personally; it got $30 million in aid from the U.S. government. Although the discussion's content was not publicized, it definitely had something to do with the “reconstruction road map” after they seize power.

At the moment, France was leading NATO allies in launching another air raid in Tripoli. At the end of the war, if French pilots and army ground personnel look from the sky and see the bombed naval port, pier, oil field and towers filled with Americans who have nothing to do with Paris, what will they think?

If, in the war in Libya, there is no private deal amongst the brother countries of NATO, then the U.S. has unilaterally designed a beautiful trap from the very beginning, letting its British, French and other "brothers" jump into it.

In the beginning, it was a maze. The U.S. hypocritically let the French lead the war, making the international society and the pushy Sarkozy blindly happy for days. People thought that perhaps France was rising and the U.S. was losing its power and afraid of fighting. Such a situation fooled all the military researchers and army fans for days.

At the halfway point, it was proper business. When France fought to exhaustion, NATO took over the military command as per prior agreement. Even though there are more Europeans in NATO, the leading power is still the U.S. NATO, the so-called America’s Imperial Tool, equals America’s own army. The baton traveled in a circle, finally going back into the hand of the U.S.

Then, it was the target. After the U.S. grasped the actual commanding power, Libya was already in pieces, Gadhafi was dying, the anti-government organization was rising and the “National Transitional Council” was built; it was time for the U.S. to take its first real shot. The “National Transitional Council” would surely be controlled firmly by Americans; the council would do whatever Americans told them to. The estimated main steps are: The U.S. leads the reconstruction, letting the U.S. oil companies into Libya, building a bilateral (note that “bilateral” means the other side cannot intervene) friendship with the new government and building military bases in Libya (temporary or long-term, they will all hang in there forever anyway). After the situation matures, African military headquarters will be established, and so on.

If the NATO brother countries think about it, will the Libyan “National Transitional Council” open an office in Paris? And there is no need to even mention the UK. The council will always agree with the U.S. At most, the “National Transitional Council” may open a “transitional” office in Paris. The permanent office can only be opened in Washington, either in the White House or the Pentagon, you name it.

In Libya, a thousand things are waiting to be done. The “National Transitional Council” started from scratch. It has no extra money for some bottles of ink, and the staff is reluctant to buy a pizza; all expenses depend on the support from the U.S. The U.S. gave millions of dollars just for one time; France didn’t have a chance to even sponsor the council with money. The “National Transitional Council” started to work like this under the “cherishing,” “protection” and “care-taking” of the U.S.

The U.S., UK and France took advantage of the United Nations’ no-fly zone resolution. In the name of “stopping the humanitarian disaster” and at the expense of an even larger humanitarian disaster, they bombed Libyan territory terribly. In fact, this is a major game of strategic layout between the U.S. and France in North Africa.

France’s main oil source is North Africa, and it is traditionally more interested in that region than the Middle East since ancient times. France has been dreamed of building a Mediterranean sphere of influence and capturing Tripoli equals controlling part or a large part of North African and African affairs. Present Libyan political power is hard to conquer; Gadhafi is difficult to defeat, and with Gadhafi living, France’s dream cannot come true.

Although the present Libyan regime made peace with the U.S. and Gadhafi has long supported America’s anti-terrorism war, what the U.S. intends is to swallow all of Africa and establish an African military headquarters, including Tripoli and reaching out into the Mediterranean. However, Gadhafi is a hard hurdle to pass. Therefore, the United States wants to get rid of Gadhafi as soon as possible. On the surface, the U.S. and France fight together because of their hatred of Gadhafi, but in fact, they each have their own plans.

There can only be one alpha male, whether he’s from America or Europe. Once France pockets the Mediterranean and reaches Africa, touching the territory in which the U.S. believes there can be “no permanent allies, only permanent interests,” the U.S. will definitely turn against its so-called friend. One of the two will surely be hurt, and it will be very obvious which one that turns out to be.

If Sarkozy hasn’t won enough support from French citizens for the next presidential campaign during the bombing of Libya, it will surely be his fond dream to equal the U.S. in splitting forces in North Africa after killing Gadhafi.