Long oppressed by their strongman leader, the rebels finally had their day. With immense military and political help from the West, they first toppled the regime, and later, the dictator himself.  At long last, “freedom” was theirs, although as we have come to know, one person’s freedom is another’s hell.

And how did the rebels show their appreciation to their liberators? By showering them not with roses, but roadside bombs, bullets and vitriol. Their message? “Thanks --- now get out.”

So it was in Iraq, and so it will be in Libya.

Amazingly, Western leaders either don’t read history, or, more likely, do so and arrogantly think they can avoid the same mistakes.

They can’t.

The objective of the US and NATO was to remove Gaddafi. Well, mission accomplished. But once again, the age-old adage applies: Be careful what you wish for…you might just get it. And get it they did, but now what? How much more blood and treasure will be expended to maintain a presence in a country that was a) stable, b) a Muslim “ally” of the West, and therefore c) didn’t need an occupying Western presence?

Sadly, too much.

                                                                                       *****

There was no question why the U.S. became involved in Libya.  It wasn’t about stopping a dictator or civilian deaths.  And it’s wasn’t about democracy and freedom.  It was because Libya produces a lot of oil. Period.

Need proof?  Among numerous examples, just look at Syria.  They continue to massacre their citizens and foment terrorism, but their petroleum production is but a fraction of what Libya pumps out annually. Case closed.

So America once again did much of the heavy lifting, giving its imprimatur for the airstrikes which led to the rebels taking down Gaddafi.  

But it seems that we have forgotten one small thing.  Those rebels --- who brutally and gleefully executed Gaddafi in full view of cameras, and are now “running” the country --- are the same folks who comprised the largest fighting force outside of Iraq to engage the United States military in that country.

That bears repeating.

We just backed the very same people who have been shooting at us for the past eight years.  A naïve question, to be sure, but did anyone in charge actually bother to think about this before participating in the regime change of a sovereign nation?
 
The rebels, who are no longer rebels but now governmental “leaders,” have tasted power. They are getting used to carrying out the law ---their law --- on the spot, administering justice as they see fit. To think that they are just going to lay down their weapons (which we provided) and obey orders from a civilian politician is a fairy tale. Just look at the recent revelation that upwards of 20,000 portable surface-to-air missiles, each capable of downing a jetliner, are missing and feared to be in unfriendly hands. What a shock.

The result will be chaos and armed factions roaming the country.  And when they are pressed further, look for car bombs and oil pipelines to start exploding.

Kind of like…Iraq. 

But the West can’t have that, so by its own admission, it will be sending in ground troops.  And as history shows, that is never a short-term proposition. 

Of course, since European countries are broke and wholly incapable of sustaining any military operation, the United States will inevitably be drawn further into the Libyan quagmire.

In the hope of not repeating past mistakes, there are two lessons that should be heeded by what will hopefully be a new Administration next year:

1) Credibility is everything.  Nowhere is a nation’s word more important than on the world stage. If a country that prides itself on being of high moral character lies and betrays, it’s credibility is shot.  Period. It’s a lesson the United States still hasn’t learned.

For example, America urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein at the conclusion of Gulf War I, pledging support to help them overthrow the dictator. But the U.S. reneged on that promise, leading to the needless slaughter of many. Because of our credibility gap, we were forced to expend enormous effort to convince the Kurds to join the coalition in the Gulf War II. 

Fast forward to the present, and it is apparent that lesson has gone unheeded, as the Libyan debacle clearly illustrates.

Moammar Gaddafi was never an angel, not in the beginning of his forty-year reign, nor at the end.  But he showed himself to be a leader with whom the West could effectively work, even if his transformation was rooted in self-preservation.

In no uncertain terms, Gaddafi was told to shape up or face the consequences.  To his credit, he did, and then some.  He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing and paid reparations, dismantled his WMD/nuclear program, and stopped harboring terrorists.  As a result of his positive actions, Gaddafi’s nation was removed the Terrorism List by the George W. Bush Administration, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating Libya was rewarded for its "renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the U.S." in the war on terror.

And yet, despite U.S. assurances to Libya that the two nations would be conditional allies, that “excellent cooperation” wasn’t good enough.  America broke its word by helping to eliminate a leader who had done everything the United States had asked of him.  With that kind of “credibility,” is it any wonder why many leaders have chosen a path at odds with America? Venezuelan General Hugo Chavez comes to mind.

This results in needless roadblocks in diplomatic, political and economic negotiations around the world. The damage from one thoughtless decision can take years to repair, with Libya the latest example.

2) It is time for energy independence.  Despite the inherent common sense of energy independence, both from economic and security perspectives, it remains a policy neither Party chooses to advance.  Sure, the rhetoric is there, but that is where it ends.

Rather than tap into the largest natural gas deposits in the world (the Marcellus and Utica Shales), the vast oil reserves in Alaska, the Bakken Formation in North Dakota, the reserves under the Rockies that may be the largest on the planet, and drill offshore, the politicians continue the disastrous policy of relying on petroleum from hostile nations.

Put another way, if Libya, and the entire Middle East for that matter, wasn’t sitting on huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.

But because neither Party will pursue energy independence in a meaningful manner, job creation suffers, inflation rises, and America’s fighting forces remain in the crosshairs.

So once again, America is involved in yet another conflict with no clear objectives, which will only create more uncertainty in world markets that are already on the verge of collapse.

Common sense is such that America should stop playing policeman to the world, become energy independent, put the interests of its citizens before the people of other nations, and, above all, keep its word.

Don’t hold your breath. As Voltaire said, “Common sense is not so common.”

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Recently on Good Morning America, Congresswoman and presidential contender Michele Bachmann was asked, “What is America’s number one vital interest in the Middle East.”

She answered, “…our safety and security of people in the United States is always number one.”

Not only was Bachmann’s response a non-descript talking-point, but it didn’t even answer the question.  Unfortunately, Bachmann missed a softball that she could have, and should have, knocked out of the park, one that would have separated her from her colleagues.

Here’s the correct answer:

America’s vital interest in the Middle East can be summed up in three words: oil, oil and oil.  That’s it.  If that region wasn’t sitting on such huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.

As a Republican and Tea Party leader, Bachmann should have instinctively talked of America’s unholy reliance on foreign oil, much of it from hostile nations in the Middle East, and aggressively pushed for energy-independence. 

She could have talked about how the largest natural gas deposits in the world remain virtually untapped (the Marcellus and Utica Shale); the vast oil reserves in Alaska that are closed to drilling; the Bakken Formation in North Dakota that holds over 4 billion barrels; the petroleum reserves under the Rockies that could well be the largest on the planet; the fact that we’re not drilling offshore, and that production has not yet resumed in the Gulf.

She could have then explained that, if we focused on these domestic sources, we wouldn’t be paying $4/gallon and watching inflation rise, nor would we be fretting about the Middle Eastern uprisings, and who we should be supporting. 

But she didn’t.  And that’s too bad, because otherwise, Bachmann’s voice on the national stage is an important one.

The fact is that if a leader doesn’t understand, or can’t articulate, solutions to the single-biggest problem facing America --- being bent over a barrel because of our energy dependence --- then their effectiveness is extremely limited.

And because neither Party, nor current and past Administrations, has done anything to achieve energy independence, America is now involved in yet another Middle Eastern conflict with no clear objectives.  The only things being accomplished are creating more uncertainty in world markets and placing American military personnel in danger. And for what?

Several points to consider:

1) There is no question why the U.S. is involved.  It’s not about stopping a brutal dictator, nor is it about civilian deaths.  And it’s not about democracy and freedom for the Libyans.  It’s simply because Libya produces a lot of oil.  If it was really about any of the aforementioned reasons, we’d be forcefully engaged in most countries around the globe, since democracies are the exception.  Just look at the Rwandan conflict: 20 percent of the population was slaughtered, but it had no oil.  Result: no intervention.  A little truth for why we are in Libya would go a long way.

2) So much for Obama’s campaign pledges of “no more wars of choice,” and “no blood for oil.”

3) Gaddafi, while certainly no angel, has not been the thorn in America’s side he once was.  He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing and paid reparations, dismantled his nuclear weapons program and, understanding the new world order after the 9/11 attacks, stopped harboring terrorists.  As a result, Libya was taken off the U.S. government’s State Sponsor of Terrorism list by the Bush Administration, with then- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating Libya was being rewarded for its "renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the United States" in the war on terror. And the flow of Libyan oil has been unimpeded. So much for the brutal dictator theory.

4) Who exactly are the rebels we are supporting by bombing the country and establishing the No Fly Zone?  Are they all James Madison-types looking to establish a democratic Republic? Or are they the Muslim Brotherhood--- or worse? Given many Middle Easterners’ track record of viewing the United States as the Great Satan, the odds probably aren’t favorable that we’ll be singing Kumbaya with them a few months from now, especially since reports now state that eastern Libya (home of the rebels) sent more fighters to engage the U.S. in Iraq than anywhere else.

5) A No-Fly Zone does not make a democracy.  Okay, we are preventing Gaddafi from using his aircraft.  But what happens when he starts whipping the rebels anyway?  Do we bomb his troops and tanks?  Do we send in Special Forces?  What happens when a pilot is shot down--- as just happened?  More important, what happens when a similar situation arises in Saudi Arabia, and civilians get mowed down --- as they will, since the King isn’t going quietly.  Do we establish a No Fly Zone over The Kingdom?  Do we bomb them, too?  Not a chance in the world.

Despite all the questions, there are no answers, and the coalition, if you can call it that, has already begun splitting apart.

6) We lose no matter how you slice it.  The majority of Libyan oil is sold to Italy and France, yet America has been roped in to do their heavy lifting.  Why?  And as more Libyans die from allied airstrikes, America will get blamed on the Arab Street.  Gaddafi’s claim of another “Crusade ” against a Muslim nation will hit home to millions of Muslims across the world, vastly undermining any goodwill that may have been generated over the last several years and bolstering terrorist recruitment.  And the support of the worthless Arab League, whose officials are already back-tracking, means nothing.  It’s not their planes doing the bombing, but ours.  We get all the negatives and none of the positives while the Arab League gets the best of both worlds.

The United States’ involvement in Libya, a nation that in no manner attacked America or caused it harm, sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Ironically, this effort, executed with no foresight and one that has absolutely no endgame, further endangers our national security.   Playing into the mentality of millions of Muslims that the U.S. seeks to dominate their countries will only enflame anti-American feelings.

George Washington could not have been more right when he advised against foreign entanglements and intervening in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. That wisdom is proof that modern advances will never be a substitute for old-fashioned common sense.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it