A
forgotten element in the Benghazi scandal is this one: If Obama had
said it was a terrorist attack back in September 2012 he would have to
have done something about it.
Now,
not just on that one day of September 11, 2012 but for seven months
thereafter (!) the U.S. government has done zero about the murder of
four American officials.
Consider
the Benghazi scandal from the standpoint of Benghazi--where the militia
that murdered the Americans is one of the most powerful forces in the
city--and Libya itself. Suppose that from the beginning on September 11,
2012, the U.S. government announced that the U.S. facility was under
attack by a militia group linked to al-Qaida. It would have had to
explain why it had hired members of that militia group to guard the
facility, a scandal in itself. We know 100 percent that this is true but
it hasn't become an issue.
Next,
there might have been a rescue attempt and a fire fight between
American forces and that militia group in which casualties would have
occurred on both sides. Note that as far as we know the militia took no
killed or wounded, meaning that in its own eyes it achieved a total
victory at no cost. At any rate, the United States would then have been
in a military conflict with that militia. It would have to demand that
the Libyan government take action and cooperate with U.S. efforts to
punish it. On one hand, that would have been a headache for the Libyan
government; on the other hand, it might have brought welcome aid to
suppress a troublesome militia and help in getting control of the
anarchy in the country (see below).
Congress
would have given full bipartisan support to punishing those found
responsible--by a quick and conclusive FBI investigation, including
putting forces on the ground in Benghazi.
In practice, U.S. policy is still acting as if it believed the attack was due to a video and not a terrorist attack!
Note--and
this is very important--that the scandal is not restricted to what
happened on September 11, 2012, and the Washington cover-up that
followed.
As a result of the cover-up there has been no effort made to punish those who we know now to have murdered four Americans.
Think
of that point. You cannot punish the terrorists if you haven't
officially deemed them responsible for the attack, when an
Egyptian-American provocateur, who is supposedly the real guilty party,
is in prison already.
Meanwhile, Libya is suffering serious problems that are undoing whatever good the Obama Administration's intervention to overthrow the old regime achieved.
As a result, the
terrorists who murdered four Americans are going free; the group that
carried out the attack is still enjoying popularity and even playing a
role in running Benghazi. Libya itself was the biggest donor to the Muslim Brotherhood-led, U.S. handpicked Syrian opposition and a source of a massive outflow of arms to terrorists.
In
other words, as a result of the policy failure and cover-up, Libya
faces a much greater threat of a revolutionary Islamist takeover,
anarchy, and even becoming an al-Qaida base. (Imagine, for comparison,
the situation if the U.S. government had denied al-Qaida involvement in
earlier terrorist attacks.)
Meanwhile, Libya is suffering serious problems that are undoing whatever good the Obama Administration's intervention to overthrow the old regime achieved. Even as the Benghazi scandal is growing in the United States, the situation in Libya is deteriorating further.
Ignoring
the actual threat of revolutionary Islamist militias—and attributing
problems to a video last September plus the botching of the
investigation of the attack due to the cover-up also led to mishandling
post-attack U.S. Libya policy.
In
other words, as a result of the policy failure and cover-up, Libya
faces a much greater threat of a revolutionary Islamist takeover,
anarchy, and even becoming an al-Qaida base. (Imagine, for comparison,
the situation if the U.S. government had denied al-Qaida involvement in
earlier terrorist attacks.)
Here are some of the current developments in Libya where, a recent article in the Egyptian newspaper, al-Ahram, explains,
“militias at the command of various ideological camps and rival
interest groups” increasingly dominate the country’s politics.
--“Since
last week, the ministries of foreign affairs, justice and the interior
in Libya have been under siege by armed militias demanding [passage of
a] law that would ban all associates of the former regime from positions
in government….”
--There was a recent terrorist attack on the French embassy in Tripoli.
--“As
though the situation were not fraught enough, more than 100 policemen
stormed the Ministry of Interior headquarters…where they began an
open-ended sit-in to press previously voiced demands for adequate
protection for the police in the course of the performance of their
duties, health insurance, better job and pay conditions, and the
restoration of the prestige and full rights of policemen.”
--“The
following day…other militia bands stormed the Ministry of Finance
located in downtown Tripoli and began to assault the guards. These
quickly withdrew in order to avoid a confrontation with their
attackers.”
--A
band of armed men attacked a Ministry of Justice police vehicle that
was transporting prisoners and three escort vehicles.” One prisoner was
killed and several others were severely injured during the attack.
--Prime
Minister Ali Zeidan warned that “if the violence and security breakdown
continue, the international community may be compelled to intervene.”
--Despite Zeidan’s threats the militias are not scared.
--The Birka Police Station in downtown Benghazi was struck by a massive explosion that destroyed the building.
--In
southern Libya, Chadian forces advanced 100 kilometers into Libyan
territory without even encountering the Libyan armed forces. As al-Ahram
remarks:
“The
incursion further throws into relief Libya’s weak security at a time
when neither the army nor the militias are capable of controlling the
country’s far-flung borders….
“Yet,
it appears that the militias nevertheless have the upper hand. They are
better armed than the government forces and they are also said to
possess sophisticated eavesdropping equipment which they use to spy on
government officials.”
--As
a result of the violence the German embassy has suspended operations.
British Petroleum has evacuated non-essential personnel.
What
does this mean that NATO will return to shore up the regime it put into
power? The UN resolution permitting intervention in Libya is still
operative. But one additional element of the Benghazi cover-up is that
it allowed the U.S. government to ignore the serious state of Libyan
security. Remember that the Libyan operation was another of President
Obama’s supposed successes that must be made to seem triumphant during
the 2012 election.
This article is published on PJMedia.
This article is published on PJMedia.
Trying to Figure Out Syria: An Interview
Posted: 13 May 2013 01:47 AM PDT
Here's a program on the Canadian Broadcasting Company interviewing me about Syria and the extremely complicated situations and very difficult options facing intervention into that civil war.
But I should add that this debate is largely academic. The United States and Europe aren't going to intervene in Syria, at least not to do more than send more weapons, spend more on refugees, and dispatch humanitarian aid.
There is no will to do so, too much can go wrong, and the Obama Administration isn't going to risk having its own equivalent of the Iraqi intervention. It wants to keep a priority on domestic issues and knows the public doesn't want another war-type situation. The last three (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) are still quite controversial.
Moreover, a good excuse is offered because Russia and China would veto large-scale intervention in the UN Security Council.
Incidentally, it should be kept in mind that the rebels are very far from being defeated. They control the countryside in eastern Syria and a large part of Aleppo and other places. The government is holding onto the west--especially the northwestern section where the ruling Alawites live--and most of Damascus.
The infusion of Hizballah forces--less than 5,000 compared to around 50,000 worse-organized rebels--has scarcely turned the tide but merely allowed the government forces to hold onto the Damascus-Lebanon border-northwestern corridor.
So whether or not it is a good idea to do far more to defeat the Bashar al-Assad dictatorship there is no chance of that happening.
But I should add that this debate is largely academic. The United States and Europe aren't going to intervene in Syria, at least not to do more than send more weapons, spend more on refugees, and dispatch humanitarian aid.
There is no will to do so, too much can go wrong, and the Obama Administration isn't going to risk having its own equivalent of the Iraqi intervention. It wants to keep a priority on domestic issues and knows the public doesn't want another war-type situation. The last three (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) are still quite controversial.
Moreover, a good excuse is offered because Russia and China would veto large-scale intervention in the UN Security Council.
Incidentally, it should be kept in mind that the rebels are very far from being defeated. They control the countryside in eastern Syria and a large part of Aleppo and other places. The government is holding onto the west--especially the northwestern section where the ruling Alawites live--and most of Damascus.
The infusion of Hizballah forces--less than 5,000 compared to around 50,000 worse-organized rebels--has scarcely turned the tide but merely allowed the government forces to hold onto the Damascus-Lebanon border-northwestern corridor.
So whether or not it is a good idea to do far more to defeat the Bashar al-Assad dictatorship there is no chance of that happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment