Five months on, Benghazi killers back to work and business as usual

[DinoDoc]

One difference is that in Libya there was a popular uprising, while in the other two the US toppled the existing government. Do you just stand back and let things play out in a protracted and bloody civil war a la Syria, not knowing what you're going to get when the dust settles. Or do you try to end things decisively while at the same time gaining considerable goodwill amongst the majority of the population and hopefully being able to drive your preferred outcome?

A weak and ineffectual government that lacks the ability to control its own territory is the preferred outcome for NATO? Because that's what we have.

[MrFun]

Bull****. He was killed 27 months into Obama's term, and your "ongoing intelligence" remark is off the ****ing wall - as if Obama was just going to stop all intel ops. They were continued, and stepped up. The rollup and tracking of OBL's courier was done on Obama's watch, as was the CIA op (in an "allied" country) to get DNA samples to confirm. POTUS (regardless of party) doesn't "do" anything in a Rambo sense, but this op was not some routine patrol ordered by an O3 in the 'stan. It was a high political risk decision to send over two dozen highly trained personnel deep into an "allied" country without their authorization, on a mission that could have failed in any number of ways. It was also a decision that could have been rationalized away from, and the public wouldn't have known one way or the other. Carter took a chance and lost in Iran, Reagan screwed the pooch on a large scale in Beirut, Clinton screwed the pooch on a smaller scale in Somalia. There were plenty of reasons to back away from making a decision, but Obama authorized the raid and was willing to accept the fallout of failure. And we got the mother****er.

[BlackCat]

Maybe ultimately there will be secessions - is that necessarily a bad thing?

Considering that incident there was back in the mid 19'th century, I think the US may consider such as a bad thing

[dannubis]

A weak and ineffectual government that lacks the ability to control its own territory is the preferred outcome for NATO? Because that's what we have.

In Afghanistan ? Iraq ?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

In Afghanistan ? Iraq ?

Yes, furthermore whats even more criminally stupid about the matter is that you think we (the collective west) would have learned a thing or two before the next set of 'adventures in nation building'.


To quote a great modern day political philosopher

Let's face it, they only care about the west when we stick our noses in - so the obvious answer is not to bother and let them get on with killing each other.

[DinoDoc]

In Afghanistan ? Iraq ?

In Libya. Re your examples: Ask someone that believes nation building to be a worthwhile enterprise.

[DinoDoc]

Considering that government has only been elected for just over 6 months after over 40 years of dictatorship, that's hardly surprising. Besides, they're not doing that badly, all things considered...

Rival Libya militias battle on streets of Tripoli

Awesome job providing security for the populace.

[DinoDoc]

Your attempts to paint the security situation in the country as remotely acceptable are what is lame here. Is it any wonder why the people are turning to violent Islamists to protect them as is evidenced by the citizens of Benghazi?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The West was invited to this particular party...

Likewise the Shiites and Kurds asked for the west to join the party in Iraq but we decided appropriately at the time to ignore it. Or are you stating for the record we should have invaded back in Clinton era because there was a faction's plea for help inside an otherwise sovereign nation.


Which way do you flop today?

[PLATO]

Failure of Nationbuilding in Iran and Afghanistan is not a justification for failure of policy in Libya.

Typical Liberal deflection from the issue at hand.

Libya has a long long way to go before it can be considered stable again. It is quite possible in my opinion that NATO has done nothing more than transfer power from the western tribes to the eastern tribes. Only time will tell if a strongman will emerge that can put it all together again or if (hopefully) a stable democracy will develop. Given the history of the region, I would imagine it will be a strongman. Meet the new boss...same as the old boss. Perhaps the best benefit we could see is that the new strongman (should one emerge) will be more friendly to the west.

[PLATO]

Each separate case should be assessed on its merits, simple as. Only a moron sticks rigidly to exactly the same doctrine despite the fact that each case is different!

And there we have the reason why you keep bringing up Iraq and Afghanistan. Well...at least you cleared one thing up.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Each separate case should be assessed on its merits, simple as. Only a moron sticks rigidly to exactly the same doctrine despite the fact that each case is different!

Which is why comments such as

Let's face it, they only care about the west when we stick our noses in - so the obvious answer is not to bother and let them get on with killing each other.

are so criminally stupid as to make the poster who originally said them not worthy of consideration.

[PLATO]

Libya after 6 months or so of elected democracy certainly isn't any worse than Iraq now after almost 8 years!

Each separate case should be assessed on its merits, simple as. Only a moron sticks rigidly to exactly the same doctrine despite the fact that each case is different!

[PLATO]

EXACTLY!

There's hope for you yet!

Thank you sir. You have done an excellent job of demonstrating my point. Carry on!

[PLATO]

Actually, the joke's on you - but apparently you're too dumb to realise it...

I don't think so. However, it is quite clear that your ignorance is blind...not to mention quite entertaining. Keep digging!