"From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..." What's behind the bombardments?

From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country’s battles on the land and air and sea," has been the time-worn song-slogan of the U.S. Marines, since the invasion of Tripoli in 1804 under the presidency of Thomas Jefferson to the present U.S., French and English bombarment of Libia, with the obsequious nodding of the United Nations.

The bombardments of strongman Qhadafi’s 42 year old regime constitute but another in the unending list of wars, skirmishes and foreign conspiracies Washington has been continually involved in since then, a great number of them directly or indirectly involving petroleum. The military action against Libia also suggests a strong turn-about in U.S. middle-East policy: for decades Washington has supported repressive regimes in the area such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which have systematically violated human rights.

Now, since many of these regimes are showing inability to maintain the status quo, the time has come to applaud protest movements capable of introducing a certain degree of democracy while at the same time assuring the U.S. with the flow of oil necessary to feed its industrial system.

The pretext for these military adventures has invariable been the defense of U.S. citizens and/or property or the defense of those who--according to official lingo--suffer repression or lack of freedom. During the struggle against native peoples in northamerica, the slogan was: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Then there was Mexico, the war with Spain, the first and second world wars, Corea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak...slideline backing for anti-communist coups in Latin America and other parts of the world, the training of military officers from all over the world in Washington’s notions of counter-insurgency warfare or security in the context of U.S. global geopolitics.

Not all observers see Washington’s conflicts with that simple prism. In a poem published March 21 in Buenos Aires’ Página 12, Juan Sasturain indirectly refers to the notion that democracy can be established by bombs and firepower. "tu idea de salud a sangre y fuego/ tu puta ayuda es un viaje de ida:/si sufro no me alibies, to lo ruego." (your idea of health through blood and fire/your God damn help is a one way trip:/if I suffer, please don’t assist me). The suspicion is that behind the talk about defense of liberty, democracy and human rights lurk the interests of oil and the weapons industry.

At this point it is difficult to determine whether the latest U.S. war, drummed up with the support of its traditional allies, will last days or hours. It is also less than certain that the geopolitical objective will be achieved. Qhadafi, along with many other sometimes enemies, sometimes friends (Saddam Hussein,applauded in the Irak-Iran war, the Tailibán, trained to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Ben Laden, who allegedly courted by the CIA), was courted by the U.S. and Europe when he opened up the country to investment and signed multi-million dollar oil agreements (the country has 46 billion barrels of crude)--but during that honey-moon there was almost complete silence on the systematic violations of human rights in the country.

The pretext for the bombing against Qhadafi’s forces is to protect human rights and violent attacks against groups which first began to protest and then to fight against the regime.

Why did U.S. led forces put off their intervention until the last minute? That is a question being asked by opposition leaders in Libia. A very likely explanation is that by delaying the bombardments, saving the opposition’s neck at the last minute, the world powers will be able to impose their conditions on the post Qhadafi government. According to press reports, the opposition is a clumsy cluster of former member’s of Khadafi’s regime, military diserters, and anti-imperialist militants such as the Islamic Libyian Fighting Group.

In the post-Qhadafi era will these diverse groups be able to consolidate their interests? The basic demand of the U.S. led forces will certainly be the establishment of a nominally democratic regime...and protection of oil and foreign interests in the country.

It is highly significant the President Barack Obama ordered the attack while visiting Brazil, a country that has been moderatly resisting the more agressive aspects of U.S. foreign policy. But there is also a less obvious undercurrent in Obama’s visit: the promotion of U.S. military goods and attempts to gain a foothold in the Amazons. Washington’s military-industrial complex is patiently working in Colombia--via presence on seven military bases--and should military agreements be signed with Brazil, attempts will certainly be made to keep taps on the Amazons for "scientific" and geopolitical reasons;also in view of the enormous resources contained in the Amazon basin.