Is US fighting a war in Libya?

[The Northerner]

Run time: 08:33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMwZvuSkX6I   Posted on YouTube: June 28, 2011 By YouTube Member: RTAmerica Views on YouTube: 185   Posted on DU: June 28, 2011 By DU Member: The Northerner Views on DU: 545

 
The decision to go to Libya has become the center of conversation in Washington. It's not just a political issue, however, but also a point of contention in the power struggle between the legislative and executive branches. This morning there was a hearing with senators on both sides of the aisle questioning the State Department's top lawyer Harold Koh. Koh is urging US lawmakers to vote for a resolution authorizing America's role in the NATO-led mission in Libya. Lawmakers say that, under the War Powers Resolution, President Obama should have come to Congress for authorization a long time ago. Vijay Prashad of Trinity College speaks to RT's Kristine Frazao

[Newest Reality]

1. Our imprecision with the terminology

certainly baffles many.

We call our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan "wars". When we play a role of intervention, for whatever reason, in the affairs of a sovereign nation, what should we call that?

Throwing the word "war" around without contextualizing it or qualifying the fact that "declaration" is involved, means we are simply obscuring the facts and playing political games that are designed to keep a lucrative racket going for those who are benefiting from the huge contracts involved. It comes to the point where you wonder, not the why so much as the what about U.S. military strategy.

In other words, what are the real benefits to whom for entering into a conflict? Is it merely strategic? If so, then is it our people's lives and our country, or simply resources, trade routes, etc., that are being "protected"? Just what percentage of the decision-making is determined by the Pentagon's need to justify, empower and finance itself, and, like a corporation, continue to grow, grow, grow? Just how much influence does the financial bottom-line of defense contractors and their suppliers, etc, play into the utilization of our dominant military industry in any situation?

With the amount of money pouring into the coffers of those who do R&D and supply the military with food for its ravenous, (and so far, uncontrollable) appetite, it doesn't seem practical to think that, all those involved, would ever want a world or geo-political situation that could threaten to EVER diminish or deflate the benefits of occupation or, even real wars. It seems, as long as we are ruled by the dominant, wealthiest players, we are destined to pour our personal and collective wealth, power, intelligence and will into the lucrative, yet deadly and destructive, mouth of aggressive productions and acts for the sake of those who stand most to profit and to the detriment of innocent men, women and children on both sides of any conflict.

Considering the enormous debt that we must pay for the Military-Industrial State, without a choice being offered to us based on truthful accounts of the "what", it looks like most of us are actually losers in any war, occupation or intervention the wealthy rulers choose, no matter how it turns out.