Was Crude Oil Driving Force Behind Obama’s Decision to Go to War against Gadhafi?

Most analysts called “leftists,” and many who consider themselves Marxists, have argued on several occasions that what prompted Obama to participate militarily against Gadhafi was the desire to take over Libyan oil. Others argue that it was likely, moreover, the abundant water supply in Libya that is becoming a strategic element in a world moving toward dryness and the poisoning of the earth’s sea surfaces, rivers and lakes. So far, this type of analysis in no way considers any kind of positive character motivations: It all comes down to the theft and exploitation of the wealth of others. The U.S. and similar NATO countries act like 17th-century buccaneers toward non-ally countries.

In at least three of my articles, I expressed my disagreement with these analyses, which I found quite superficial and rooted in old clichés and certain concepts that were right for decades and now seem rather simple slogans or quasi-religious dogmas. In order to arrive at a more realistic analysis it is necessary to decipher the economic and political structure under which the U.S. fundamentally performs. That said, the dominant class of the empire is essentially clustered into two political parties: the Democrats and the Republicans.

The latter represent the most reactionary interests of that great country. Among their ranks, however, are the owners of the big U.S. oil companies, the political representatives of the capitalists or financial partnerships converted into multinational and transnational companies, especially the big oil companies. Therefore, if the possession of Libya’s oil wealth were the primary motivation for U.S. involvement in the Libyan Civil War, alongside the rebels, that Republican Party would be, as is most sane and logical, the most interested in the U.S. getting involved in the war and winning it as quickly as possible. They would not care about public expenditure, since it would mean taking control of wealth that would yield enormous profits, which up until now have only been to the benefit of Libya and mainly to the Gadhafi clan. Gadhafi’s family, though poor and needy 40 years ago, have through a work of God transformed themselves into multi-millionaire business owners in the Western world. They hide the money of satraps from around the world in banks in Europe, U.S., the Caribbean and other lands of paradise.

But all of these analyses look so thorough and accurate because they concur with Lenin’s definition about what imperialism was and its nature (the right analysis for that time period), that today is beyond what we can witness on a global level. I quote verbatim the words of Claudio Katz, which seem very spot on to me: “The economic situation was similarly transformed by the new international association of capital, the emergence of multinational companies, the reduction of protectionism, the recovery of industrial leadership and the redirecting of foreign investment to developed economies.” For those who do not understand the present process developing in the capitalist world, I advise them to read the work of Katz (economist, researcher and teacher), especially his work “Contemporary Imperialism.”

It is very difficult today to know exactly who owns the large multinational corporations, since, as the name suggests, they are composed of capital from many countries or capitalists of different nations and not always capitalists from a single country. Companies that seem British have German, Italian, Turkish, Chinese and Japanese capital etc. And this seems to be the case in the great majority of transnational companies. Today capital is more international than ever. Therefore, all kinds of interests are shared, because the only thing that drives those capitalists is doing good business and making as much money as possible. For that reason, a war between them is absolutely illogical. Not only would it destroy one another’s infrastructure, it would also create an enormous economic crisis that would equally hurt all involved.

Today the clash between two systems does not exist like in the days of the USSR and the capitalist state. Not even China can assure that today it is inside of that other system they called true socialism. The demise of the USSR and the transformation of China, with its hasty opening-up to the neoliberal capitalist model, largely decreased the tension that existed between the great powers. Those who think that war is now the way to do good business do not know what they are talking about.

The armed confrontations between powers spoken of by Lenin no longer occur. Powers incorporate themselves into large institutions of interrelated countries according to their economics, and as it happens, politically unite, as is the case with the EU. Today, the only thing the U.S. is interested in is in maintaining its supremacy to dominate world politics, and thus also remain on the cutting edge in the way of technological and economic development and progress. Armed confrontation would thus be out of place.

Today we can see that in the present world there are four major formations of states competing in the political and economic area. They not only respect each other, but also participate in one form or another in the benefits of the capitalist system. These are: the U.S., the EU, China and Russia. Anyone who claims there is a war on the horizon among these blocks would be making a very risky statement which is outside objective reality. Those who assert this are daydreaming or have no idea what a war among these powers would be; there would be no winners, only losers. Readers, forgive me for saying it in such a harsh tone: No one is crazy or stupid enough as to initiate the destruction of the world, something unseen 100 years ago, because the dreadful nuclear weapon did not exist, the end-of-the-world weapon.

The claims that these 21st-century “Marxists” analysts make, that (with stale ideas and dogmas of the 20th century) the motivation of the military intervention of U.S. and NATO in Libya is the theft of crude oil and the like, have plummeted like a house of cards. Those “most interested in war” have said “enough” to Obama and will not approve war credits for actions in Libya, without which there is no possible military action. Those who support Obama’s continuing with the war are less wedded to big business. Even among the very same Democrats there are many who oppose the war in Libya. The U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, himself was opposed from the beginning to involving the U.S. in that conflict, as he felt that American interests in Libya were not at stake. That was a quite accurate analysis, insofar as Gadhafi was supplying oil to Europe without the need for any pressure and at a very convenient price for European capitalists. Obama himself was contemplating and hesitating to interfere in the civil war in Libya because he did not want the Arab people to see this as an invasion of so-called U.S. imperialism.

On the other hand, non-intervention in Libya was delivering a message to all those dictatorial governments, friends or not of the U.S. and EU, that all the massacres and abuse against defenseless civilians did not matter. Non-intervention would send the message that the UN was becoming another second-rate institution with no truly important functions in the area of defending human rights. Then there are those who ask why the U.S. and NATO have not gotten involved in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere. Of course with the U.S. and NATO up to their ears in the mire of Iraq and Afghanistan, they are in no shape to participate in Libya, thereby getting into even more entanglements. Moreover, U.S. intervention in Libya has been very limited, which has enabled Gadhafi to keep most of his main forces intact and their heavy weaponry with which he mercilessly bombed the people of Misurata. If intentions were actually those which Gadhafi and his right and “left” wing allies are portraying, the U.S. would have gotten more deeply involved than they are now.

The role of the House of Representatives is not only to not approve military spending; it goes further. Within the House there are 10 legislators who have filed suit against President Obama for starting a war without congressional support. Which is it then? Are we dealing with individuals who understand nothing of the interests of the rich or is it something else? It seems to me that the theses of those analysts who consider themselves Marxists and Leninists have been crashed spectacularly to the ground. What is certain is that these capitalists who are ready to steal have lost interest in robbery (perhaps for last-minute moral reasons). Maybe they have become good guys and are no longer interested in either oil or water. Or maybe, as some insightful “analysts” may say, they do so only to maintain an uninvolved façade, and behind the scenes approve more money to support the military action in Libya. It would not be surprising; therefore, that use is made of explanations with an enormous lack of logic, because logic does not exist at all. What matters is the imposition of cliché and dogma, even if it means using any type of illogical speculations. The other thing that could happen is that to avoid recanting, the best thing is to be ignorant of all these events taking place today between Obama and Congressmen and to realize that all this is just smoke and mirrors to deceive the masses.

You have to go against reality; otherwise reality becomes an annoying nightmare and the best thing is avoid it.