Conflicting interests

In an earlier post I pointed out the potential for the old empires to get frisky in Libya. Looks like the US cleared the way foe the French UK alliance to take to the skies, a quid pro quo for services rendered in the US wars. Allowing the French and Brits work in a more “sanitized” environment was the least it could do. Whether the US can really resist having future interests that will conflict with the Europeans is an unknown. What is known is that the French and British coalition and the Turks have begun to via over control. The Turks didn't take being omitted from the initial planning session lightly. They immediately joined the coalition sending an armada to the Libyan coast and getting the mission designated a NATO mission, with the GCC monarchy support. The French and Brits then moved to have the military and political elements separated. This has been followed by Turkish offer to negotiate. We have a race for Libya that has escalated from a civil war to an international showdown. Now we have oblig
 ated allies diplomatically flexing for the future control while masses of their military hardware sit opposite each other. I never had a good feeling about this “international” response. Now I know why. It is because it at the minimum sheds light on the NATO and EU unity problems, particularly with the Turks. Not to mention the danger of having different powers navies in close proximity working toward different ends of the same conflict. There is (or is a perceived) power vacuum type jockeying taking place. With the coalition of the willing NATO states rocky along with the BRIC states being in opposition to action from the start the risk of escalation at this point seems to be growing. Just a thought.

.