But the much bigger question was when (not if, but when) the instability and extremism that predictably followed the NATO bombing [of Libya] would be used to justify a new U.S.-led war — also exactly as happened in Iraq. Back in 2012, I asked the question this way:
How much longer will it be before we hear that military intervention in Libya is (again) necessary, this time to control the anti-US extremists who are now armed and empowered by virtue of the first intervention? U.S. military interventions are most adept at ensuring that future U.S. military interventions will always be necessary.
We now have our answer, from The New York Times:
Worried about a growing threat from the Islamic State in Libya, the United States and its allies are increasing reconnaissance flights and intelligence collecting there and preparing for possible airstrikes and commando raids, senior American policy makers, commanders and intelligence officials said this week. … “It’s fair to say that we’re looking to take decisive military action against ISIL in conjunction with the political process” in Libya, [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Joseph] Dunford said. “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use military force.”
You can read the rest @
It seems fairly clear that the US intends to smash several nations under the pretext of fighting "the Islamic State". None of this was (or is) necessary. These countries could have been our partners. They will be our vassals instead, or perhaps be nothing at all.
Thank you, Hillary. Thank you, Obama ad-Dajjal.