At one point in my life I had a lot of respect for Noam Chomsky, but the analysis that you quoted here, Ezekiel, is so thin as to be laughable... indeed, I did. He was once a dizzying intellect. Now, he is just dizzy. The problem is that he creates a premise, then allows no other explanation than his stated view even when the evidence he adduces doesn't even support his point. Hidden in all of the words is a startling lack of substance.
Libya is probably the least economically-driven conflict currently in the Middle East. There is certainly an economic component, but it was far more about the history of suppression and possibility of freedom than an external push for resources. Now, was there a significant element of economic interest for some of the intervenors? Of course. But the brush is simply not broad enough to paint a majority of them that way.
I disagree. I think that while Chomsky has made some bold statements, and as with any bold statement, they can SEEM off-the-wall, my experience (both personal and just reading his comments) is that he has a depth of understanding and more information than may be apparent.
Libya is a case where I think economics does play a major role. The notion that a geopolitical strategy needs to be stated out loud, as you know, is rather contrary to reality.
U.S. interests in the middle east are, and always have been, born of economic reasons. I don't see where Libya is any different. Oil is not just a commodity, it has become the currency of the world. Whoever controls that currency, controls the world.
The U.S. (present administration included) has always declared its wish to be THE world power. Hilary Clinton's recent statements about the Benghazi affair, Obama's pronouncements to the nation and to the troops, Hagel's most recent grilling for the job of Sec. of Defense all make clear that nothing has changed with respect to America's wish to dominate (economically and, as a result, politically) the world stage.
When the U.S. president is referred to as the leader of the free world what does that mean?
When the U.S. is referred to as a military superpower, the richest country on the planet, etc. what does that mean?
I think the motivations are apparent. I don't think the U.S. is the only country that wants the job. I'm sure there are others. But at present, the U.S. seems to be the center of this question.
