After Libya destruction, has NATO chosen next target?

In Western analysis there are few mentions of the cause that has plunged the country into anarchy.

Stratfor is a Washington think tank that has high-level sources in US government. On September 19, its analysis entitled "instability of Libya threatens regional borders" concluded that there is "a quick fix or easy to manage threats to regional security Libyan ..." and that "contain the instability in Libya which will remain unlikely for the near future.''

Although it is undeniable that the chaos in Libya will continue, there is little mention of the cause that has plunged Libya into anarchy and turned it into a base for terrorist groups, including the Islamic state, analyzes Brian Cloughley the newspaper online of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

To be honest, the observations of Stratfor on Libya in September 2012 included the surprising comment that "NATO simply did not understand or did not care about the whirlwind that was unleashing" when it went to war in Libya in March of previous year, but US-NATO propaganda has convinced many people that their disastrous war in Libya has been a successful intervention in the cause of peace and stability.

US and NATO have reduced Libya in the mess described above but which has instead been presented by West as a military triumph, and hailed in 2012 by two US-NATO military figures in the foreground as a demonstration that "in every respect, NATO dis a gd job in Libya. "

These "fools" are Ivo H. Daalder, who was US representative to NATO, and Admiral James G. Stravridis, who was Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Commander of US European Command. They stated in Foreign Affairs that "NATO's operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model of intervention" and proclaimed that "the involvement of NATO in Libya has shown that the Alliance remains an essential source of stability."

Their pathetic foolishness, continues the author, it would be comical if it were not that their failure resulted in the destruction of a country to the point of international catastrophe.

Before the war, Libya was not a paradise. It was led by an autocrat, but he did a lot for his country and the vast majority of its citizens which was supported by US and Britain.

Exactly two years before the US-NATO war, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed the president's son Gaddafi in America, declaring: "I am very pleased to welcome Minister Qadhafi here to the State Department. We deeply appreciate the relationship between US and Libya. We have many opportunities to deepen and broaden our cooperation. And we are very eager to invest in this relationship. So, Mr. Minister, welcome’’

Why not? After all, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported in 2011 that "the country is providing comprehensive health care including promotion, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation services to all citizens free of charge through the primary care teams, health centers and district hospitals "and the CIA Factbook noted that Libya's Gaddafi had a literacy rate of 94.2%, higher than Malaysia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. Life expectancy was 72.3 years, among the highest in the developing world. Not bad for a country in the developing world, you might think.

But Gaddafi lost the favor of US-NATO military grouping, which (with the honorable exception of Germany) supported rebel groups willing to kill him, interpreting a UN resolution imposing a 'no-fly zones' as a 'authorization' to carry out air strikes across the country.

West turnaround attitude has of course nothing to do with the fact that Gaddafi mentioned the nationalization of his country's oil resources, at the expense of Western oil companies profits .

 

During their war in Libya US President Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron jointly they declared: "We are convinced that better times await the people of Libya," which was a prediction spectacularly wrong.

Obama and Cameron announced that "Colonel Gaddafi had to go. At that point, UN and its members would help the Libyan people to rebuild where Gaddafi had destroyed - to repair homes and hospitals, to restore basic services, and assist the Libyans, restore institutions to support a prosperous and open''.

But it was not only cruise missiles, bombs and rockets to destroy Gaddafi 'homes and hospitals ", power plants and basic utilities including some water networks.

According to WHO, the results of US-NATO bombing caused "shortages of food, fuel, water, medical supplies and electricity and reduced access to health care and public services ... The situation of women and children It has become particularly vulnerable, since hospitals are overwhelmed with trauma patients. "

What is the next target of NATO? Where will choose to impose this "intervention model" after the destruction of Libya and its humiliating defeat in Afghanistan?

NATO is desperately looking for a cause to justify its survival and is deploying more forces in east Europe.

US-NATO military coalition should however bear in mind the wise words of Brazil, China, India, Russia and even Germany (which, as mentioned above, refused to join Libya bombing), which warnedput UN from bombing consequences-

What will US-NATO do now in their strategy trying to prove that they can achieve an objective?