Did the Press Engender the Libyan Revolution?

.
I wonder whether the Libyan Revolution would have drawn in NATO if the press hadn't picked up on the story and run with it. I mean, horrible atrocities are happening in Darfur and yet no western governmental agency has intervened, in spite of the star power and dedication of a George Clooney.

Of course what happened in Tunisia and Egypt contributed to the situation in Libya and without social media it might have taken many more years, but seriously, without the western press pushing the story of Gadhafi would the UN and NATO have taken it on? I doubt it.

Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Burma, and on and on and on, and no western government has taken up their causes militarily - well maybe the U.S. has dropped a few bombs in Yemen. But would the UN Security Council have passed Resolution #1973 if the western press had ignored the situation in Libya? Think about it...
.

Well, well, well. It seems that Iraq has begun diplomatic talks with Iran against the wishes of the U.S. And they're sending their Foreign Minister to Syria for diplomatic talks. It would seem that Iraq's new Govt. knows more about diplomacy than the Bush administration.

The LA Times is reporting today that the Iraqi Govt. is demanding the U.S. release five Iranis they captured in Irbil saying that they (Iraq) have been working to designate the Irbil location as a consulate. Apparently Kurdistan depends on Irani tourists to support its economy. The U.S. insists that the Iranis are from the Revolutionary Guard and have been importing bomb parts for use in attacking American troops.

It appears that Iran's Revolutionary Guard controls the border between Iraq & Iran and anyone wanting to do business with Iran has to deal with them. Further, "Iraq's Kurds share a storied history with the Revolutionary Guard, fighting side by side against former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War." says the article in the LA Times. They further report Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad saying, "There cannot be and there should not be relations with security institutions of neighboring states that work against the interests of this new Iraq."

So the U.S. has gotten on the wrong side of Iraq because of its paranoid fear of anything Irani, and because when it says that Iraq is running the show and we're supporting them, it really means that the U.S. is running the show and Iraq had better step in line. Or, to put the best possible face on it, Iraq's interests are different from the U.S.'s.

I guess it proves one should be careful what they ask for, they might get it: A democratic, independent Iraq.