Operation "Confused Intentions": The No-Fly Zone over Libya

The operations over Libya for many paint a re-newed picture of good old international solidarity against human atrocities, with Qaddafi's forces having attacked Libyan civilians with ground forces and air strikes, the United Nations Security Council switched into gear to put through a resolution allowing the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, to stop continued attacked by forces attempting to crush rebellions in the country with brutal force. Within hours of leaders meeting in Paris, did air strikes from coalition forces take place, with the US and British Navy launching tomahawk after tomahawk [112 in total just in the first few hours of strikes], it didn't take too many days for the coalition to declare that Libya's air force was 'all gone'. However, is this really all about setting an example for other nations in the Middle East with their own rebellions to crush, who might seek out similar measures specially if their own domestic uprisings begin to take hold and make their leaders situation desperate. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other nations like Syria, have all been occupied with their own uprisings, and yet have also supported the idea of opposing Qaddafi, preventing this operation from being an entirely western one, with Qatar even committing four fighter jets to the efforts over Libya. Whilst Arab support for the operation over Libya does make it clearly different from Iraq, or Afghanistan,  [not only because NATO rather then the United States is now in charge] there are however still questions about the true intentions of all this support for the no-fly zone over Libya. With so much frustration having been aimed at Arab leaders like those in Saudi Arabia from Qaddafi [having been accused of being western puppets] it does bring forth the question of how much of this is about human rights and setting an example, and how much is about just getting rid of an annoying Qaddafi who is certainly distasteful to other leaders in the Middle East?

There remains one big reason that the leadership elsewhere in the Middle East may begin to take a role in what is happening in Libya, and that comes down to the need for forces on the ground. If pro-Qaddafi forces occupy cities, it remains difficult for coalition forces to launch attacks, not only with the looming possibility of inflicting casualties on members of the public, but also identifying rebel forces from Qaddafi forces [not all of Qaddafi forces are in tanks, and visa versa]. Bahrain, a small pin prick nation on a map of the Middle East, right next to a much larger Saudi Arabia, experienced external forces from its neighbor recently. With Bahrain in turmoil as the pro-reform revolution took hold in the nation, the royal family in the country called an emergency, and ground forces from Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were quick to respond. Their arrival didn't mean a blood bath, but there were civilian casualties and it remains uncertain as to whether foreign troops were used, and involved. There has already been consideration that a coalition led no-fly zone over Libya may not be as effective as thought, which was one of the main reasons why the United States was reluctant to support the resolution in the first place. If foreign troops are eventually needed, its certain they aren't going to be from the United States, with the White House already being questioned from the current involvement of US forces, having been forced to spell out: 'No US troops on the ground'. With the French, and the deficit concerned British caught in a similar position, any ground forces on the ground in Libya may have to be from the Middle East, particularly if the coalition want to keep this from looking like another Iraq and Afghanistan and potential a western 'oil snatch' like some in the Middle East would believe. While Libya does have neighbors like Egypt, with a better track record for dealing appropriately with public uprisings, they too many be counted out instead needed to maintain stability in their own nations, rather then helping out with the situation in Libya.

If things really do get messy from here, where will the coalition look to go next with a no-fly zone in place and the violence continuing. And even worse, what happens if rebel forces in Libya make an advance, and don't take the humanitarian message to ear, and take comparable restraint to how pro-Qaddafi forces did when he took Libyan cities. What would the coalition do then? It might be that the rebels are a ground force, lacking aircraft [not that it matters, cause no-fly means no-fly for everyone, the jet sent up this week to test the no-fly zone by military forces supporting Qaddafi discovered that] and the military weapons to launch the same indiscriminate attacks that pro-Qaddafi forces did, but whilst taking back cities where sentiment towards Qaddafi is still favorable, attacks on members of the public could become frequent, depending on how divided the nation truly is over the transition. In the end, letting events play out on the ground would send the wrong message, as though the no-fly zone was there all along to give rebel forces the upper hand, a call they may do anything with, specifically if they see the no-fly zone in place against Qaddafi, as the involvement of anti-Qaddafi nations would indicate. Whether this unlikely turn of events plays out [there remains indication that rebel forces, do understand, that if they are do take back cities, they have to do it without bloodshed and civilian atrocities - these are their fellow citizens after all, and Libya may not be as divided as this play out of events suggests] there should be concern, for the current plan needs to incorporate the future, and you cannot just slap the UN slicker on forces from Qatar, Syria, Morocco, or Saudi Arabia, and suddenly make them angels, nor can you enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and expect to make angels out of rebel forces. Having troops called in may be something that doesn't happen, but if it does, the coalition needs to have a big think - considering what options they have ruled off the table already - cause from the looks of who they have involved themselves with, they could have some serious confused intentions on their hands, and not left with options if things turn bad from here.     

All Crude Things Must Come to an End: The Oil Choke

The recent stir up in the Middle East has left oil prices in a rise, and left many asking the question of why after all these years the world hasn't begun to truly move on from crude oil. The United States in particular has maintained a dependency on oil throughout shocks like those caused by the Gulf War and the profit hungry embargo of OPEC [which was basically when a whole bunch of oil producing nations got together and said 'stuff you world' and decided to rise prices together, giving the world no option but to pay more for oil] and even the call of a number of presidents [going back consecutively to Ford through Carter up to the present day] to end the United States dependency on foreign oil [in fact ever sense the United States ran their own oil reserves largely dry] not the mention the destruction of drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico showing the true danger to the environment not with a supposed hypothetical 'global warming' world but instead with such a disastrous oil spill which has scared the region. What is it going to take to have a post-oil world? However, the continued need to do something with the entrenched procrastination to do instead nothing raises the question of whether oil will be like coal, in use until its reserves are truly burnt out, as was the case for the first industrialized nations to utilize it [Britain and the United States] and those nations that still hold reserves [China]. Whilst Oil prices go up and down, demand fluctuates with it and drives the price back to a state of equilibrium to the advantage of the demander and the lazy fat cows of oil consumption. This means that investment has accumulated slowly to fund alternatives, but has forcibly accumulated with 80 billion dollars from the Recovery Act 2009 going into such projects in the United States. But yet it still seems the private sector still lags behind in doing anything about this problem, instead willing to bite the bullet. If we don't move on now, how much longer does the world have to procrastinate before the end of oil is forced upon us when we finally do scrape the bottom of the barrel of oil reserves?

One thing is for certain: the world doesn't have forever to procrastinate like an undergraduate writing his first research essay! Oil is whats left of plant materials that have remained crushed under layers of the earth for some time. Most of the worlds current oil reserves were created million of years ago, with a process of chemical reactions occurring as vegetation which died off in extinction periods is crushed and with the heat of the earth turns into oil over time. Beyond the complicated explanation of where oil comes from, the short of it is that oil on the planet is limited, with this long process that oil goes through to become oil meaning that there is no chance of us creating crude oil out of thin air if we run out. A gentlemen however whom goes by the name of Hubbert provides an avid source of the limits of oil, but also what has turned out to be some very accurate predictions. In 1956 Hubbert predicted accurately that oil production in the United States would peak in the 1970s, and that world production of oil would peak around 2006-2010 which many oiled-obsessed-working-for-BP-and-getting-paid-too-much-Geologists are convinced is the case. What does that mean? We'll, if you take what is called a bell curve, and look at its peak [right at the top] that means that it where a lot of people is convinced is the most oil the world will ever produce now is there, and that global production is going to go down from here. All this leads the end of oil to be 2050, which is kind of a way away, but lets speculate for a moment, what if that number is wrong. Many are inclined to argue that oil reserves will last a lot longer than 2050, but why not instead that margin of error make it sooner rather than later. I am not one for conspiracy theories, nor am I one to stir the pot, but what if we run out of oil sooner then we think?

No amount of speculation will prepare us, and if the price spikes the transition from oil may cost more then those willing to hold on to their investment dollars realize. Instead, the final oil shock may be a choker, with a rush to make a transition from oil a burden on a number of developing countries, but also on developed countries dependent on cheap oil to make plastic, create petrol and jet fuel, and you know keep your car going, but also dependent on whats left of oil to keep research on alternatives to oil going. Thats right, you read that, research to alternatives to oil need oil until we move into a post-oil world. It might sounds slightly crazy, but all these bio-fuels, and hydrogen fuel, as a source of energy and alternative to oil, is dependent on oil to go threw this process where they are created, which involves large machinery for material production, mining and transportation which until we have a viable alternative to oil up and running is still dependent on oil to produce this alternative fuel source, whatever the world will move on to being addicted to next. This means that the biggest cost to research, will be later rather then sooner, and will be huge if oil comes to an end sooner than everyone suspects. It may also be the case that alternatives to oil may not be able to replace oil as we know it in all and every regard, creating an extra dilemma for a post-oil world. Hubbert and many geologists however don't base their time limits on estimation, we have a rough idea of how much oil is left. But that doesn't mean that if they are right we are safe, oil is still running out from here; production is going to go down, and that means prices are going to go up, unless the world truly begins to move on. The process might be long, but the best time to start is sooner rather then later, which means that governments [particularly in the developing world, but also in the developed] and private investors need to continue to fund research into alternatives to oil, and reduce the pain of a transition that could come just as much sooner than later; we shouldn't need Gaddafi's madness to remind us of that. The world needs to begin to move on from oil, all crude things must eventually come to an end, and the world cannot continue to flirt with oil addiction forever. Otherwise, like the wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico from now to just under a year ago, they might find themselves in for a nasty oil choke.