Why has Russia chimed in on the 'Qaddafi must go' chorus after opposing, sometimes harshly, the Libyan intervention since the onset? They've repeatedly [with some accuracy] called the actions against Tripoli in general and Qaddafi in particular 'illegal' and not in keeping with the parameters of the UN resolution - why suddenly do they seem to go against themselves here?
Possibly politicking by Medvedev, in which case we should soon see a countervailing opinion coming from Putin. Possibly they see Qaddafi's end approaching, figure chaos will ensue and want to be in a position to capitalize on it in some way - not sure how - oil interests of some kind one imagines - maybe they see American and especially British, French and Italian oil interests being at threat in a post Qaddafi Libya, which seems counterintuitive, but who knows what rushes in to fill the vacuum left by Qaddafi's potential demise.
On that point - I see some who supported this intervention, and I mean neocon types who not only supported it but are pissed that Obama hasn't more vigorously pressed the issue, are now talking about provisions for security once Libya falls to the 'rebels' [premature to think Qaddafi done as far as I'm concerned - yeah, wouldn't surprise me to see him soon slip across the border into Chad or Niger, nor to have a confidante betray him with a bullet to the head - but neither would it surprise me to see him hold on for another six months and possibly in doing so retain control over the western portion of a Libya divided by ceasefire - those now counting the days till his demise are probably the same fools who thought this war would be over in a week] - but the point is, why are these people only considering the post war problems now? This was a foolish war, poorly thought out and defended by specious arguments and motivations, designed to serve a strategic purpose that was vague at best, delusional at worst - I mean, originally it was supposedly about forestalling a 'humanitarian' disaster but the intervention itself has probably done more harm than good in that respect - but regardless, it was always the aftermath that caused me the most trouble - the cleanup is gonna be a nightmare - there'll probably be an insurgency of some sort, civil wars blowing hot and cold, tribal and factional violence and infighting, and at the end of the day the possible rise to power of a group or groups not at all friendly to the forces that enabled their rise - why is it enthusiasts are only now considering these problems? Countries of real strategic import to the US - Syria, Bahrain, Yemen - are crying out for attention and we're dicking around in Libya - for what? - to avoid some European refugee crisis that probably happens now anyway? to spend years rebuilding a strategically meaningless country so the Chinese can eventually return and exploit it? Did Obama have some fanciful idea that in reducing America's role and thus supposedly lending credence to the belief that America no longer is nor has to be the necessary power that this would empower a new self reliance in Europe? Cause if that was his plan it has utterly backfired and indeed seems to have exposed exact opposite reality. The whole thing verges on farcical.
