As the U.S. naval presence off the coast of Libya increases, and U.S. military intervention seems increasingly likely (the French and Brits are currently in the process of enforcing a No-Fly zone), there is a deafening silence from the American left. Unlike Bush’s military actions in Iraq, there are no cries of ‘blood for oil;’ no accusations that Obama is in the pocket of ‘Big Oil,’ which is especially ironic since Libyan oil production plays a much greater role in U.S. energy demands than does (or did) Iraq.
In a nut, Europe currently buys most of Libya’s crude stock and if the supply is interrupted, Europe will bid up prices for Algerian, Angolan, and Nigerian oil, three of our ten largest suppliers of oil and petroleum products, and thus increase the cost of our oil consumption.
To Obama’s credit, and unlike Bush, he has expressed a desire to abstain from (and does not appear eager to engage in) a military occupation, or for that matter a sustained military intervention which may involve the use of ground troops, but he has specified in no unclear terms:
“Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya … “Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable … If Gaddafi does not comply … the resolution will be enforced through military action.”
