After US-NATO forces have bombed Libya into bedlam the question remains open who will fall victim to Washington's "humanitarian" mission next, expert in political and military affairs Brian Cloughley asks.
NATO's saber-rattling and muscle-flexing anywhere in the world always looks like a bad omen since the Alliance has never learnt from its mistakes.
NATO's military campaign in Libya has led to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions, however, Washington is unwilling to admit that it was a grave mistake for the US to topple Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
"US-NATO's three billion dollar jamboree of aerial destruction that reduced Libya to bedlam was described by the West as a military triumph, and hailed in 2012 by two prominent US-NATO military figures [Ivo H. Daalder and Admiral James G. Stravridis] as demonstrating that 'by any measure, NATO succeeded in Libya'," author and expert in political and military affair Brian Cloughley underscored in his article for Strategic Culture Foundation.
So what did the NATO chiefs mean by saying that "NATO succeeded in Libya"?
Indeed, under Gaddafi Libya was hardly a paradise, the expert noted. On the other hand, the Libyan leader "did a great deal for his country" and had long been supported by the US and Britain, Cloughley emphasized.
According to the World Health Organization's (WHO) report, before the uprising Libya was "providing comprehensive health care including preventive, curative and rehabilitative services to all citizens free of charge through primary health care units, health centers and district hospitals."
The CIA Factbook read that Gaddafi's Libya boasted a literacy rate of 94.2 percent (higher than in Malaysia, Mexico and Saudi Arabia). Its life expectancy was 72.3 years, one of the highest in the developing world, the expert noted.
Despite Libya's high achievements, Gaddafi suddenly "fell out of favor" with Washington and NATO, which decided to support rebel groups and launch airstrikes against the country's government forces.
"The total turnaround in the West's attitude had of course nothing to do with the fact that Gaddafi had hinted at nationalizing his country's oil resources, thus removing profits from Western oil conglomerates," the author remarked with a touch of sarcasm.
Citing the WHO, Cloughley pointed out that the results of the US-NATO bombing in Libya included "shortages of food, fuel, water, medical supplies and electricity, as well as reduced access to health care and public services… The situation of women and children has become particularly vulnerable, since the hospitals are overwhelmed with trauma patients."
The country still remains in ruins after NATO's "triumph."
"And what is next for NATO? Where will it choose to mount another "model intervention" after its destruction of Libya and its humiliating defeat in Afghanistan?" Cloughley asks rhetorically.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151002/1027932576/libya-fell-victim-to-us-nato.html#ixzz3nTJq62cl