On March 23, the Portuguese paper Correio da Manha wrote: “Defending the civil population is merely a matter of form. The real issue once again is oil.”
What could be on the journalist’s mind? That the real purpose of the coalition’s enforcement of the no-fly-zone is to assure the continued flow of oil? Was Gaddafi a threat to the free flow of oil?
This is the full text of the article:
“In the 1970s Gaddafi published the Green Book, a sort of political philosophy of his regime…. He lived on the country’s oil, inspired and financed terrorism – and contracted the attack on a Pan Am jet. Then Libya’s ruler saw he would do better to set aside the Green Book and dispense with anti-imperialist policy if he wanted to survive.
“So he befriended his enemies, forming alliances with Bush, Blair, Brown, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Merkel – in a magic, oil-driven interest carousel, selling the oil that the West needed so badly. The ‘powerful of the world’ continued to view him as a madman, but one who takes his medicine. They put up with him and forgave him his extravagant behaviour. As the dictatorial strongholds started to fall in Northern Africa, they saw their last chance to get rid of him. But defending the civil population is merely a matter of form. The real issue once again is oil.”
In what way could this make sense?
Eric Koch’s book, The Weimar Triangle, is available at Indigo-Chapters and in your local bookstore. 
Makes sense in every way. Isn’t oil nationalized in Libya? Wait till the oil companies get their hands on it. There is also the seven years of bloodshed before Jesus’s Second Coming the Christian Fundamentalists believe in. I guess this is why we need all the new fighter planes do be part of the action.
If it were about guaranteeing the flow of oil, why would not the outside countries intervene in favour of Ghaddafi, who has been selling the oil, rather than the rebels, who may turn out not to be interested in foreign sales?
Exactly.