I'll stay out of the debate because at this point what "shoulda woulda coulda" happened is moot since the die is already cast.
Time to move forward.
Bunkie, I don't think you were here long enough ago to read some of my comments, which might have been somewhat subtle and understated anyway (we try to keep a low political profile here, because we're already potential targets as it is for various reasons...), but it was pretty obvious what Mr. Obama would do well before the election. The folks at antiwar.com were all over Mr. Obama even that long ago; his evasive and sometimes disingenuous rhetoric, and his financial and political connections, gave him away. They pointed out that at the time of the last elections, the majority of US opinion had already turned against the wars, and yet he was failing to take a solid stand on issues that would have won him points.
Now Glenn Greenwald is claiming that he and his State Department are pulling a fast one on the "withdrawal". Unfortunately, this deception almost certainly involves Iran.
The goal IS escalation.
Fast foreword a bit: if Iran were bombed, they would immediately launch attacks on ships in the Persian Gulf. They did it during the Iran-Iraq war and sank at least one big Cypriot tanker, resulting in a panic in the oil markets that caused a brief shock to the oil markets.
In the future the situation might be rather more grim.
No need to follow the money; we already know where it is: an oil shock would make some parties exceedingly wealthy, and it would create the crisis needed as a pretext for "reactions" and "solutions".
Many people even within the ruling elites believe that this is a mistake, because it would put our military position in Iraq at risk, and because the global financial system is already so fragile.
However, whether that is a problem or not depends on one's point of view, and there is another faction that WANTS more body-count. "Controlled chaos" as they call it--though some are concerned that it would destabilize. It would also create a pretext for a military draft, which has been in the wings for a while waiting for a sufficiently big pretext for demanding one against popular resistance.
We can talk about the motive for a military draft offline but not here.
As far as what to do about the situation--well first duck and cover; just like in the airplane crash scenario you can't help anyone until your own situation is sufficiently stabilized that you have the bandwidth.
Everyone is responsible for his own actions. I can't stop the future massacre that I foresee from happening.
To the extent that other parties lit the fires that are burning other people's homes down, and did it in my name too, what I suggest is seeing what can be done to help out the folks whose houses are burning down.
The Libyans have suffered some body count. Not as much as Iraq.
If I had to guess, the new owners of the oil contracts are going to demand an end to various subsidies that existed under the late Ghadaffi, which will effectively lower their standard of living.
Their infrastructure is damaged. Probably not as life-threateningly as Iraq's.
Iraq was doomed even before the invasion: Turkey and Syria have dammed the rivers upstream. Both the Tigris and the Euphrates are dammed, and there is no longer enough water to irrigate crops in Mesopotamia.
The population especially in central Iraq is at risk. They have been cut off from the oil revenues and can no longer grow food.
I've proposed a project in the past to find contacts in the country and see if we can help them with dryland (!!!) agricultural resources.
This is a daunting task. It is almost impossible to get goods into the country, and they are effectively boycotted by major international charities.
In 10, 20 years time, I expect mass starvation in that country.
Afghanistan was already one of the poorest countries in the world not to mention that it has been continuously occupied by foreigners--one group after another--since probably antiquity. I don't think it's ever been a truly independent country. The only resource I can think of that is presumably being fought over are the poppy fields.
Life expectancies are low and the country is in chronic squalor. The whole 3 cups of tea business was never anything but an elaborate deception used for propaganda and as a front for bogus intelligence--for which reason the operator's cover was finally blown by parties who didn't think it was worth paying for. It too is almost impossible to reach for sending help (the whole reason I knew the 3 cups of tea was a crock...I had already made some inquiries to see what could be done). They probably need tools more than anything else.
The next country likely to be in the cross-hairs is Syria. Libya was almost certainly an opportunistic adventure. Lebanon is already under pressure (Israeli warplanes are flying over almost daily) but we are unlikely to be directly involved.
There seem to be smaller-scale incidents going on in Africa as well, for example the 100 military advisers dispatched to Uganda. This is probably why:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/2009/dec/02/oil-benefits-rural-ugandaChina has also been busy in Africa (as well as Central Asia where word has it they've effectively "won"). Its oil resources are relatively young (ie, not heavily depleted yet).
I expect the wars to keep spreading into other oil-producing regions. I would also expect coups and assassinations where there are not outright invasions.
I suspect that several oil-producing countries in South America are in the cross-hairs, not for invasion but for coups or assassinations. The targets are too tempting; they'll simply bribe some locals to stage a coup and set up somewhat puppet governments.
