Hillary’s War: Nine Years Later Libya Still a Living Hell

Nine years after a US-led attack on Libya and murder of its leader, the democracy and liberation promised by Hillary Clinton and her band of “humanitarian interventionists” has never arrived. Instead, the once-wealthiest African country is mired in civil war and the standard of living has plummeted. There are several warring factions and militias vying for control, none of which seems strong enough to rule the country. This is a valuable cautionary tale about the disasters of US interventionism – which is precisely why no one wants to talk about it. Watch today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

63 thoughts on “Hillary’s War: Nine Years Later Libya Still a Living Hell”

  1. Yes, it is very much Hillary’s War. When Obama refused, she did a tour of Europe promising the US would support a European attack. Then she insisted in Washington that the US could not let them fail, as they would without US ammo stocks, air-to-air refueling, AWACS, and more.

    This is important because it is Her team of interventionist hawks who are now mis-labeled as “center-left” and running for the Democratic nomination as if they are peace candidates. They are anything but peace candidates. It is like running Dubya against Trump.

    1. I still trust the Dems far more than the GOP. As commenter Dave Sullivan has noted many times, if you look at the ACTUAL Congressional votes for the various foreign policy resolutions introduced since Trump was elected, generally the overwhelming majority sided with the position likely held by the AW readers/leadership, with a smattering of Republicans voting along with them.

      Could it be partisan voting? Maybe, but it is possible to genuinely have convictions as an elected representative. I might have more faith in Congress once its makeup better resembles the ethnic makeup around the world.

      Plus, there’s Trump’s general lawlessness/awfulness enabled by GOP leadership to consider…

      1. “I still trust the Dems far more than the GOP.”

        How could anyone trust the corrupt leadership of either major party? Ignore the “limited government” rhetoric of the Republicans, and the “helping the working class” rhetoric of the Democrats. Both are liars, and they are in it for the money and power. I have the same argument with Republican partisans that I have with Democratic partisans, and there is no principled difference between the two.

        1. I don’t know what political circles you frequent, but right-wingers are losing their shit over Sanders and The Squad (AOC, Tlaib, Omar, etc..). It’s probably all kabuki, but among the actual Trump-loving voters/citizens I know they view it as a threat to the status quo.

          Plus, as I said, there’s the ACTUAL VOTING TALLIES ON THESE RESOLUTIONS. Resolutions getting approved or disapproved has tangible effects.

          1. You know how many wars of choice were started by Democrats? Let’s see, Libya, arming the Syrian headchoppers, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan with the mujahadeen (1979), Viet Nam, etc. And they certainly helped and perpetuated many others. And the Republicans are no better.

            Vote for the individual, if they’re anti-war, not for the party. Both parties are hopelessly corrupt and in thrall to the war machine.

          2. Hey, remember who was in charge from 2000-2008? What message would it have sent if we voted a member of that party to a third consecutive presidential term?

            I hoped that as a POC Obama would see war against foreigners as less acceptable than every single one of his predecessors

          3. Hey, remember who was in charge from 2000-2008? What message would it have sent if we voted a member of that party to a third consecutive presidential term?

            I hoped that as a POC Obama would see war against foreigners as less acceptable than every single one of his predecessors

  2. Under Gadaffi, Libya was a sanctuary for displaced and stateless people, from the Tuaregs to the Saharawi. His oil wealth helped free half the continent from colonial rule. He backed Nelson Mandela back when the CIA was helping the Apartheid regime to frame and imprison him. For all this and more, the Colonel had to die. For all this and more, Hillary had to transform Libya into a scorched slave market. All dictators are dicks, but Washington hates the benevolent kind the most. All dictators are dicks, but few are bigger dicks than Hillary. What does it say about a country when all its greatest butchers are democratically elected?

    1. That democracy is a terrible system of government?

      Washington’s recent support of “fascists” in South America is confounding to me. The US is a very different place from just 20 years ago, let alone 40 (Carter/Reagan).

      It’ll be interesting to see how China behaves whenever it takes over.

      1. If true democracy had ever been allowed we wouldn’t have had Bush II/Trump and arguably Iraq II. Obama was a disappointment but no one can argue the GOP in 2008 needed a corrective

        Most people are generally decent, it’s the Electoral College that overrepresents the votes of religious fanatics and racist bumpkins in the red states

        1. True democracy? How absurd. You forgot the other recent fascist, Obama.

          The one thing they all have in common? They love war. No mater whom you elect, no matter what you fight for, no matter how strongly you believe: The results will never change.

          But it’s fun to pretend.

          1. Didn’t forget him, bud – read carefully.

            I was around in 2004, and believe you me if anything Bush was re-elected on a PRO-war platform. Don’t forget in 2008 Obama went up against John Freakin’ McCain who never passed on an opportunity to support the increased slaughter of furriners.

            If you think our imperial stretch is bad now, it arguably could be worse if there was no symbolic rejection of the Bush-era foreign policy and McCain followed him

          2. I never voted for Bush, though I might have in 2000. I voted Constitution Party in 2004 and 8. I voted Duncan Hunter in the GOP primary in 2008.

            McCain was a communist. Obama was admittedly better than McCain.

          3. Just to highlight, I would prefer Bernie over Bloomberg. I think I prefer Trump over Bernie but not if Trump continues this move towards increasing mass immigration. If both are going to flood the US, then it might as well be Bernie.

            What most don’t realize is if you enrich the poor, either directly with higher market wages or indirectly with services and payments, then you can’t take in mass immigration. Mass immigration requires Bloomberg-style poverty, because the masses of the world are poor.

          4. Are you able to obtain full disqus functionality on other sites? Is it just antiwar.com that has the problem?

          5. I get a very slow response, even on the awc blog, when I use Microsoft Edge. Firefox is faster, and Chrome seems to be the fastest of all. Have you tried all possible browsers?

            Update: I don’t normally use Microsoft Edge, but I have noticed, that even on the awc blog, it is so slow loading disqus as to be almost unusable. Honestly, try Chrome, I have no problems with that.

          6. I can’t replicate this slow loading issue you’re having. Can you provide me with concrete examples of pages and browsers that are loading slowly for you?

          7. The slow loading with Microsoft Edge isn’t with web sites in general, it is strictly with disqus plugin on antiwar.com, and possibly other sites (I haven’t really checked others in this regard). I think Edge loads most web sites quite quickly. I was trying to come up with a solution for Nicky (comrade hermit) who says she simply cannot load disqus on any awc pages other than the blogs. I, personally, do not have any problem with this because I normally use Firefox or Chrome. I just noticed that the load of the disqus comments was very slow with Edge, and was suggesting to Nicky a possible solution.

          8. The Disqus section loads with javascript. If something’s wrong, you could check the browser’s dev tools/console for js errors.

          9. “Bush was re-elected on a PRO-war platform.”

            I couldn’t for the life of me see any substantial difference between Bush and Kerry on the Iraq War, except perhaps Kerry claimed he would manage it better. I think that Bush was reelected, not because he was pro-war, but because both major candidates were pro war, and Bush seemed less duplicitous and hypocritical than Kerry on the issue. I didn’t vote for either of them.

          10. That’s your (not unreasonable) take, but I read/heard enough viewpoints by war supporters of Democrats not having the guts to follow through on de-radicalizing the Middle East by force that any viewpoint contemplating moderation or restraint was rejected.

            I believe your views then were far more nuanced than typical voters, as you were probably pretty deep into your libertarian politics that you rightly noted the very little daylight between Dems and Reps. But from someone closely following ‘mainstream’ political coverage, 2004 was a referendum on Bush and the wars were his signature accomplishments.

        2. “If true democracy had ever been allowed we wouldn’t have had Bush II/Trump and arguably Iraq II”

          And if the vote totals had shifted by one percent, Trump would have been elected without the electoral college. This just goes to show the absurdity of majority rule, the idea that if 51% of the people so wish it, they could literally torture and execute the other 49%, and it would be justified by the sanctity of “democracy.” Not to mention that neither Hillary nor Trump even received more than 20% of the votes of eligible voters.

          1. I can’t disagree with this point, but the bottom line is that without the EC, Bush loses in 2000 and Trump loses in 2016, period.
            It’s one thing to entertain hypothetical scenarios, it’s another to see that documented history proves that two of the worst presidents in my lifetime got in on an archaic technicality.

            Whether their opponents would have been any better presidents is questionable, but it’s not up for debate that the popular vote would have kept the two individuals above out of the White House.

          2. ” two of the worst presidents in my lifetime got in on an archaic technicality.”

            You are assuming that winning the popular vote confers any more legitimacy to the office of President than does winning the electoral college vote. And, you are assuming that changing the system just to favor a particular electoral outcome is a legitimate government activity. It seems to me that the idea of changing the system to favor a particular party in an election is quite a totalitarian concept. Indeed it is exactly what conservative Republicans try to do when they enact further legal restrictions on peaceful immigration, so as to favor Republican candidates (But, but, if we allow more immigration, the immigrants could later become citizens and might vote for Democrats! We can’t have that!)

            Now, granted, if I were a person who believed in the legitimacy of majority rule, I might see your point, but, I am not. I think any system where one person can rule another is illegitimate.

            There are actually two vastly different popular meanings to the word “democracy”. These are:

            1. “The absence of minority rule”

            2. “Majority rule”

            The first is quite consistent with libertarian anarchy, and liberty in general. It is the meaning many of us are taking to heart when we call a regime “undemocratic.”

            The second is not, in any manner, consistent with liberty, and, even if it were, a regime true to that meaning could not even exist, given the fact that less than half the eligible voters even vote in a given election. And, given the fact that, regardless of who actually wins elections, a small number of unelected, mostly anonymous, oligarchs with ties to large banks and corporations actually do the ruling.

            Instead of focusing on whom to put in charge of ruling society, we should be focusing on how to reduce the amount of ruling that one person does over another. We should be focusing on freeing people to make all the decisions about what to do with their lives themselves.

          3. This is a good discussion, and I appreciate you taking the time go into it in detail. However, I think there are some unstated assumptions with which I have issues but it’s not worth unpacking here.

      2. American democracy (if you can call it that) is a sham. Swiss democracy? That’s a horse of a different color. All political systems fail in a big government. Break it down. Nothing succeeds like secession.

        1. A multiparty system would be nice. The problem with secession: What happens to the nukes and other WMD? It might be nice to be elsewhere if the US breaks up. Americans might nuke one another.

          At the least, a battle over government spending would be nice. I think it’d lead to less immigration, but it would most certainly reduce imperial spending. That’s why Kristol was so upset over Trump’s election: Feared the US really would spend more domestically. I mean, Kristol said the same. He wants a populace willing to endure hardships, like poverty, for the empire.

        2. I just say, if I could find a way to work for a decent income while living in Alaska, I’d do it, to then support secession there.

          However, while I have no issue with gay people (within reason, I’m against having boys in girls’ locker rooms, similar things; it’s generally a concern about children); I know that many do have issue. So, unless some tradition were established, by some recognized authority, mandating reasonable rights, which were to remain stable, maybe it’s not possible for you and I to secede in the same polity.

          Conservatives need a tradition. Without it, we’re as dangerous as any “rational” anarchist or communist, flipping from one angry extreme to another without careful thought.

          Alaska would be nice though. It’d be nice to be out of the evil empire.

          1. Yeah, we don’t really need puritans in Queeristan anyway. Feel free to visit though. And send us your queer kids instead of “curing” them. We’ll raise them to be proud of our tradition, a tradition that stretches back to pagan times.

      3. The US has always been against every government that helps the common person. They’re always on the wrong side. Look at all their interventions in Central and South America for the last 130 years. You’re just realizing that now?

        1. But the US is so different today from 40 years ago. The people in charge today hate the people in charge just prior to WWII.

        1. 1. I don’t owe you anything.

          2. Since when did the Secretary of State have the power to decide whether or not to go to war, and the president, the person responsible for making the go/no-go decision bear no responsibility?

  3. This woman failed terribly politically and her desicion to interfere Libya is completely disaster. Thats the reasonshe lost unlosable election and because of her incompetents we are having this rude,liar and mad as hell Trump fallow as a President.
    Hillary Clinton should write a book capitalising that,you dont do what i did then you have a future in politics.

  4. Strange, anarchists/libertarians should be happy about Libya’s current state.

    Impotent government unable to enforce laws!

    Men exercising their gun rights pursuing prosperity under the free market!

    Sweet, sweet freedom as far as the eye can see!

    1. Anti-war conservatives prefer order, tradition, stability, roots, community, etc. We don’t like rape, slavery, and general banditry.

      1. Rape, slavery and general banditry ARE conservative traditions, if American history is to be considered

        1. I’d be curious just who you think is better. The Red Army was famous for its love of rape. And socialism is literally slavery. You’re told “the people are in charge” while stomped into the ground. And there’s always a rich political elite in whatever socialist paradise is created.

          You don’t have a clue about real alternative political ideas, because your masters won’t allow it.

          1. True slavery is a stateless grassroots operation, with individual actors enslaving other human beings through mutuality-agreed upon terms with the employees willing to do the hard work of capturing and disciplining these slaves. The slaves have zero input on their condition.

            People who live in a socialist country often have the freedom to leave said society, depending on the degree of authoritarianism of whomever is in charge (state socialism vs. anarcho-socialism).

            Conflating true slavery with metaphorical slavery really doesn’t help you win converts to your view if you discount the choices available to said slaves.

            Also, rape is regrettably popular among men of all types in times of war and peace. Don’t dare attribute it to a political ideology, if anything the nihilism and brutality of that conflict brought out the worst in the soldiers, as war is wont to do.

          2. I disagree that slavery must be a stateless grassroots operation. Belloc wrote that capitalism leads to socialism, and socialism is a “return to slavery;” I believe him correct. This doesn’t mean every society calling itself socialist is fully enslaved, but there are varying levels. Belloc’s approach was to pursue a balanced society that offered more freedom, in a sense, than either libertarianism or socialism. I believe a set of values exists approximately in line with Belloc’s which are as equally different from anarchy as they are from authoritarianism, a third point on a triangle.

            In the South, there were some state laws protecting slaves. As such, slavery was less harsh as state policy. And “free” blacks enjoyed, like in ancient Greek city states, less than equal rights to citizens. So, varying degrees existed.

            Similarly, in China you have an elite, urban citizens, villagers, and ethnic minorities. Laws tend to vary. But the freedom in many ways is limited for those who aren’t part of the elite or who aren’t Han Chinese.

            Soviet communism was originally atheist. As such, any moral opposition to rape was removed. It does make logical sense that the Russian hatred for the Germans would lead to rape and murder when the power shifted to enable such. This isn’t to suggest the Germans were better, but it’s the Soviets who are most known for their rape.

          3. I would submit that it is the technologically modern and high-profile status of Germany at the time which allowed survivors of the Red Army invasion to document those crimes and be ‘heard’. We also saw this in the Bosnian civil war from late last century.

            I’m sure rape happens on a mass scale with third world conflicts, we just don’t pay attention to it

          4. Of course it happens, but there’s no reason to believe it happens equally. Christianity frowns upon such behavior, so you’d expect a Christian army to be less prone. When the Allies took Germany or when the Germans took France, neither raped the citizenry. The Russians had suffered far worse, were seeking revenge, but it’s also part of the character of the communist revolution to empower the lowest and to champion vice. You’d also expect a Viking to murder, rape and enslave at will.

            Civilized societies tend to restrain such things, especially Christian. It’s part of the education and culture. Whenever one man has power over another, terrible things tend to happen. It’s a balance of power that restrains evil. But culture and education, as well as growing accustomed to being powerful, all develop restraint in those with power over others.

            This tendency towards power abuse is why I favour a distribution of capital ownership and not the concentration of it with “the people” (who inevitably end up meaning the state, under some dictator and party elite). If all is concentrated, then terrible things inevitably result. If all is balanced, then men can only dream of evil against their fellows.

            Anyway, Mao was a brigand.

            One thing that irks me about the “left” is its members can sometimes have nationalism; it’s just hidden. Bernie seems to be a Zionist. Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine. But saying one thing while doing another, or accusing one’s opponents of being what one is, seems common. Opposing nationalism often seems to mean opposing others’ nationalism. That’s not to say everyone is a nationalist, but few seem to be true unbiased global citizens.

          5. Just to add, American and other soldiers of European descent, seem to more readily abuse nonwhite citizens. I just make that assumption. But they at least seem to treat Europeans better. I’m probably speaking historically. Today, things are perhaps different, if only because these societies are decreasingly European.

        2. “Rape, slavery and general banditry ARE conservative traditions”

          And State socialism is quite a conservative, counter-revolutionary force. I view liberty as centrist, while some see opposition to State power as being leftist. I do not see, however, how it could be considered conservative in any sense of the word.

      1. I plead guilty of using hyperbole to make a point; only scumbags would be ‘happy’ about what’s happening in Libya.

        On the other hand, you and most of the commenters here are very upfront about your opposition to the state. You yourself blogged about the government shutdown a year ago and hoped that Trump would use this opportunity to get rid of “non-essential” government offices. Obviously by putting the onus on Trump, you would let his moral code determine which of these would qualify. And you know as well as me that closing down some services would hurt vulnerable people; whether that was an issue for you or not certainly wasn’t clear.

        So, I had to chuckle when a defense of a head of state appeared here, since failed states are all over the world and life is miserable for the people living there. This one was only singled out because of Clinton’s intervention.

        If my statement about people here being happy about Libya is to what you object, then I concede your criticism but it wasn’t my point.

        If you reject my using Libya as an example of a stateless society — well, that sounds like the No True Scotsman logical fallacy, which would be ironic considering your statement.

    2. Having too many warring rulers is not the same thing as having no rulers. There is nothing close to a free market in Libya. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but, the underlying principle of libertarianism is self-restraint with regard to the use of violence.

      1. Ah, the NAP. A laudable thing it is, except many don’t subscribe to it and it’s worth nothing if it isn’t enforced.

        1. “except many don’t subscribe to it”

          Ah, I think we’ve found a Hobbesian. You can always tell a Hobbesian, as their posts are nasty, brutish, and short.

          1. The history of the world, where countless groups invaded their neighbors for reasons ranging from self-enrichment to religious persecution would seem to suggest that it is a rare privilege to be able to live peacefully. One big reason Americans even live in relative peace because someone already did the heavy lifting of slaughtering the natives with their peaceful, cooperative societies so that their land could ultimately end up in our hands.

          2. “One big reason Americans even live in relative peace because someone already did the heavy lifting of slaughtering the natives with their peaceful, cooperative societies so that their land could ultimately end up in our hands.”

            It was never necessary to slaughter the natives to obtain “peace.” Doing so made all of us spiritually and materially poorer. Violence begets violence. The war torn condition of the world is a result, not only of our current actions, but, also, because of our actions of hundreds of years ago. There is so much bad Karma floating around, that it is not even clear how fast the world can be repaired, even if we immediately started doing the right things. It is certain, however, that there will be no improvement ever if we keep doing the wrong things.

Comments are closed.