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

[PLATO]

Yes...you continue to compare Iraq and Libya while emphatically stating that only a moron would compare two different situations.

So yes...also I call you very highly entertaining! Please, please keep going!

[DinoDoc]

Libya: Slow rebirth for post-revolution LibyaBoth stories posted two days ago...

Libya militia linked to U.S. attack returns to Benghazi

"The government lost a very good opportunity after our 'Rescue Benghazi' event to control these militias, break them apart and absorb them into legitimate bodies," Younes Najim, an organiser of the campaign to push Ansar al-Sharia out.

"It will take time, but the longer the government takes to organise its security here, the stronger some groups will make themselves to become parallel forces to the government."

Posted 3 days ago...

[PLATO]

No...I get it. It truly is that each case is different. You can't compare the results of what happens in one country with the results of what happens in another country....just as you can't compare (which you state) the decision to make the intervention the same (or at all for that matter) in each country. While I may be more dense than you thought...you certainly win the "dense" award for not getting the implications of your own statements.

So to your last point. Yes, i supported the invasion of Iraq. What I didn't and still don't support is the moronic way we handled it. There was a real opportunity to make a fundamental change in one of the ME's bigger players and shift the balance in the favor of less conflict. We blew it. Given the result, the invasion was a bad thing. Given the opportunity, it could have been an overwhelming success.

Libya, likewise was a great opportunity. It should be obvious that the Libyans would need some type of help after the regime fell. It was a failure of policy not to get the African Union, Arab League, or somebody in their to help provide stabilization.

Which failure was worse? My guess is that Iraq will be the bigger problem in the future (but not because of the decisions that were made on intervention, but due to a host of other reasons).

[Aeson]

I was describing her views sarcastically. Rice was remarking that the fact that months have been spent on uncovering the source and reasons for acceptance of these talking points was a bigger tragedy than the incident itself.

No. You're missing the real tragedy in Rice's statement. That is the "not enough time doing the service that we owe to our fallen colleagues".

I would agree with Rice that that is a bigger tragedy than a few people being killed. Yes, it's horrible that they died ... but our government's partisan bickering about trivial matters and lack of action to bring these criminals to justice in response is going to do a lot more damage to us in the long run, brings comfort to our enemies, and will no doubt encourage such attacks in the future.

[PLATO]

1.) partisan bickering = Congresses legal right to oversight and Obama's refusal to give information
2.) trivial matters = security arrangements for counselites and accountability of government to its representatives
3.) lack of action = This administration's unwillingness to act.
4.) encouraging our enemies = Current U.S. foriegn policy

[Aeson]

1.) partisan bickering = Congresses legal right to oversight and Obama's refusal to give information
2.) trivial matters = security arrangements for counselites and accountability of government to its representatives

1 belongs in "encouraging our enemies (etc)", not in "trivial matters". 2 is not trivial, and thus obviously not the actions being referred to as "partisan bickering about trivial matters", but fits in Rice's tragedy.

Your response by it's nature (but not source) would fit into 1 and 2 and contribute to 3 and 4.

3.) lack of action = This administration's unwillingness to act.

With the addition of congress' unwillingness to work with and/or force the administration to act. All facilitated by the complete lack of accountability each group has in this regard because rather than question their party's actions virtually everyone falls in line to attack the other.

So we end up with a bunch of hairdues and hucksters arguing over who's side's fault things are and what words should be used to describe the crime, and no one actually doing anything to bring justice to the criminals or prevent future such crimes.

4.) encouraging our enemies = Current U.S. foriegn policy

Yes, from both sides.

"You want to attack America? Let us just warn you that if you do ... we're going to sit around on our asses bickering about trivial matters and let you get away with it. And do you really want that?"

[MichaeltheGreat]

1.) partisan bickering = Congresses legal right to oversight and Obama's refusal to give information

Unfortunately, you're maybe about 20% right. Congress' right to oversight is fairly limited when it comes to actions involving executive agencies, national security, etc. Or have you forgotten Cheney's energy task force already?

None of this **** should be in the public view. The proper way to handle intelligence and national security issues is to start with the chairs and ranking minority members of the intelligence committees, in closed session, and if appropriate, move it to the whole committee in closed session, with the focus from both parties on how do we learn from this to prevent it happening again, and what approach do we take going forward. Not a bunch of posturing in front of cameras.

2.) trivial matters = security arrangements for counselites and accountability of government to its representatives

None of these matters should be in front of the public, or members of Congress without appropriate SCI clearances and need to know, aka the intel committees, and select other members. In the good ol' days of the cold war, we had Soviet embassy staff sitting in on armed services committee hearings, foreign relations committee hearings, even non-restricted intel committee hearings. I don't care which party is in power where, that **** does not belong in the public view.

3.) lack of action = This administration's unwillingness to act.

There are two clowns in plain sight. If they're that ****ing stupid and arrogant, they're gold mines for intel. Apparently, there was a longstanding "unwillingness to act" with respect to OBL, until after a 5.56 round blew half his brains out, and he was tagged and bagged in a helo on his way to becoming fish bait and worm ****. A lot of things don't conveniently happen in daylight. We have "24" and Clancy novels for that nonsense.

4.) encouraging our enemies = Current U.S. foriegn policy

You mean by drone strikes gutting Al Qaeda and AQAP, among others? Covert support and direct action missions against al Shabaab? A higher tempo of operations within SOCOM than the SOF community has ever seen? Encouraging them to get their affairs in order is more like it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

AKA exasperated sarcasm!

AKA a statement so incromprehensibly stupid as to invalidate all past present and future statements from said poster hidden in the pretext of it was an 'obviously sarcastic' comment. And given your track record of never relying on stereotyping, I can see why the reader should easily draw the inference that you aren't a hate filled individual ultimately wishing harm on others.

You Americans are so ****ing dumb sometimes...

Why are religious people so ****ing bloodthirsty...!?

Then when we get bored, we can get back to some nice clean Christian on Christian violence again...

And for the record, exasperation usually applies when one becomes so frustrated with an intransigent opponent that one feels the need for release. Given the quote in question was an opening post there would be little reason for a reader to assume exasperation. If on the other hand, you naturally feel exasperated, as a rule of thumb, that does speak mightily to your state of mental health. On second thought I probably should have inferred as much. That said, the state of your mental health being all the more reason to ignore your inane comments.

[kentonio]

Let's be honest, if Libya had been a Republican presidents action, none of you would have given a **** because a) It's not even vaguely important in global terms, b) It was a success and c) Losing embassy staff was a terrible thing, but sometimes terrible **** happens in unstable places.

Seriously, in comparison to recent American military adventures, Libya has been a shining light.

[PLATO]

Let's be honest, if Libya had been a Republican presidents action, none of you would have given a **** because a) It's not even vaguely important in global terms, b) It was a success and c) Losing embassy staff was a terrible thing, but sometimes terrible **** happens in unstable places.

Seriously, in comparison to recent American military adventures, Libya has been a shining light.

I think this type of thinking is why there is such a divide in this country. I do not have an objection to what NATO did. The objection is to how poorly planned the aftermath was...which lead to "c.)". It is clear that the administration still does not want to take accountability for it (Clinton's "What difference does it make now?" Rice's "The bigger tragedy is..."). I would say that this is very similar (though certainly not of the same magnitude) as the Bush administration not taking accountability for how the aftermath of the Iraq invasion was ****ed up.
It is right for Congress to ask these questions...just as they should have after the Iraq invasion.

Now, let's briefly look at "b.)" Libya is a sucess because U.S. military power was applied to overthrow a brutal dictator that tortured his own people and a democracy was established, but sectarian violence is becoming an increasing issue. Okay...now substitute the word "Iraq" for the word "Libya". Interesting, no? Two fundamental differences...boots on the ground and Iraq doesn't meet "a.)".

I would put out the fact that poor planning for the aftermath of the overthrow of a regime was a failure in both cases...and both administrations should be held accountable. The difference? One of the administrations is still in power.

[MRT144]

Obama is a worse leader than W Bush? GTFO.

[DaShi]

I think this type of thinking is why there is such a divide in this country. I do not have an objection to what NATO did. The objection is to how poorly planned the aftermath was...which lead to "c.)". It is clear that the administration still does not want to take accountability for it (Clinton's "What difference does it make now?" Rice's "The bigger tragedy is..."). I would say that this is very similar (though certainly not of the same magnitude) as the Bush administration not taking accountability for how the aftermath of the Iraq invasion was ****ed up.
It is right for Congress to ask these questions...just as they should have after the Iraq invasion.

Now, let's briefly look at "b.)" Libya is a sucess because U.S. military power was applied to overthrow a brutal dictator that tortured his own people and a democracy was established, but sectarian violence is becoming an increasing issue. Okay...now substitute the word "Iraq" for the word "Libya". Interesting, no? Two fundamental differences...boots on the ground and Iraq doesn't meet "a.)".

I would put out the fact that poor planning for the aftermath of the overthrow of a regime was a failure in both cases...and both administrations should be held accountable. The difference? One of the administrations is still in power.

There really is no comparison between Iraq and Libya, and you lose credibility trying to do it. The NATO missions were to support a populist uprising. Iraq was an outright invasion for the personal benefit of a select few. It was a complete disaster and utter failure from day one. It diverted resources from Afghanistan allowing the Taliban to regain a foothold there and left Iraq as a terrorist breeding ground.

Anyway, I've already broken my rule about dignifying this absurd thread with a response.

[PLATO]

There really is no comparison between Iraq and Libya, and you lose credibility trying to do it. The NATO missions were to support a populist uprising. Iraq was an outright invasion for the personal benefit of a select few. It was a complete disaster and utter failure from day one. It diverted resources from Afghanistan allowing the Taliban to regain a foothold there and left Iraq as a terrorist breeding ground.

Anyway, I've already broken my rule about dignifying this absurd thread with a response.

So...yeah. I guess I do actually agree with everything you say in this post (well mostly anyway.). Other than that though, I think the point on accountability stands.

[kentonio]

I think this type of thinking is why there is such a divide in this country. I do not have an objection to what NATO did. The objection is to how poorly planned the aftermath was...

When Iraq is being mentioned in the same conversation, that comment loses credibility. Libya was a multinational operation that helped locals overthrow their oppressor without a foreign invasion, without huge loss of NATO life, and without the massive international commitment that Iraq and Afghanistan required. Why exactly do you think Libya required a huge investment of foreign involvement to plan an 'aftermath'? Why is it beholden to us to try and shape every aspect of how Libya rebuilds itself? How did trying to build Iraq in Americas image work out?

Arab Spring allowed the ME people a chance to reshape their own nations free from the superpower/colonial sponsored regimes that had held them down for decades. If they choose to form governments which don't like us very much, then you know what, good for them! as long as they don't start launching attacks on the west, then they have every right to decide their own direction, and it's more than a little hypocritical for western nations that preach democracy and freedom, to only allow that freedom if it happens to work out in our favour. Is it not about time we put that colonial thinking behind us and started realizing that if we want countries to have friendly relations with us, it's actually necessary to give as well as take.

which lead to "c.)". It is clear that the administration still does not want to take accountability for it (Clinton's "What difference does it make now?" Rice's "The bigger tragedy is..."). I would say that this is very similar (though certainly not of the same magnitude) as the Bush administration not taking accountability for how the aftermath of the Iraq invasion was ****ed up.
It is right for Congress to ask these questions...just as they should have after the Iraq invasion.

Two points here, firstly comments like that one from Susan Rice don't actually mean what the right wing talking heads have pretended they do, and I'm struggling to see how you can think otherwise unless you're knowingly choosing to misunderstand (which I hope you are not, because you're usually much more reasonable than that). She was quite clearly bemoaning that instead of taking the opportunity to make some good happen from the tragedy, it was instead turned into a partisan attack topic which prevented any useful outcome.

Secondly, despite you being quite right that congress should ask more questions, do you really not see the blinding hypocrisy of a Republican congress giving a Republican president a free pass on a decade long conflict that cost thousands of lives and then trying to claim the moral high ground over a tiny conflict under a Democratic president where the consequences were by comparison minuscule? No party or politician can do something that blatant and expect to be taken seriously.

I would put out the fact that poor planning for the aftermath of the overthrow of a regime was a failure in both cases...and both administrations should be held accountable. The difference? One of the administrations is still in power.

So now the other guys are in power suddenly it's time to get serious? How do you think that idea will play to the other half of the country?

[PLATO]

When Iraq is being mentioned in the same conversation, that comment loses credibility. Libya was a multinational operation that helped locals overthrow their oppressor without a foreign invasion, without huge loss of NATO life, and without the massive international commitment that Iraq and Afghanistan required. Why exactly do you think Libya required a huge investment of foreign involvement to plan an 'aftermath'? Why is it beholden to us to try and shape every aspect of how Libya rebuilds itself? How did trying to build Iraq in Americas image work out?

Whoa. You are putting words in my mouth. I do not think Libya and Iraq are similar except in the aspect that international coalitions were instrumental in effecting regime change. With that decision comes responsibility to at least attempt to provide some help with stability in the aftermath. In Iraq, the coalition did a very poor job of it. I have made no secret to my objections to how that was handled. In Libya, no action was taken either...this is also a failure. Certainly, I don't care what type of government the Libyans choose for themselves...or more accurately, I care, but recognize that it is theirs to choose. What I am talking about are some type of international security forces to help the country obtain stability. I have suggested The Arab League or African Union as to good choices...I have not suggested NATO or any western organization (THAT would be counter productive imo). Instead, we help overthrow the oppressor and what? Leave the country to struggle with internal security issues while they try to form a Nation from a hastily formed rebel committee? Hence the problems we see. Not to mention that absolutely nothing was done to try and get some type of unity among the different tribal regions (which has been the source of EVERY conflict in Libya for centuries).

Arab Spring allowed the ME people a chance to reshape their own nations free from the superpower/colonial sponsored regimes that had held them down for decades. If they choose to form governments which don't like us very much, then you know what, good for them! as long as they don't start launching attacks on the west, then they have every right to decide their own direction, and it's more than a little hypocritical for western nations that preach democracy and freedom, to only allow that freedom if it happens to work out in our favour. Is it not about time we put that colonial thinking behind us and started realizing that if we want countries to have friendly relations with us, it's actually necessary to give as well as take.

I am all for the self determination of these countries. Sure, I would like them to be friendly, but it really is their decision. I respect that right...and in fact believe we should support it as a nation.

Two points here, firstly comments like that one from Susan Rice don't actually mean what the right wing talking heads have pretended they do, and I'm struggling to see how you can think otherwise unless you're knowingly choosing to misunderstand (which I hope you are not, because you're usually much more reasonable than that). She was quite clearly bemoaning that instead of taking the opportunity to make some good happen from the tragedy, it was instead turned into a partisan attack topic which prevented any useful outcome.

No, i don't believe that Susan Rice believes that the prying Congress is the real tragedy. I do believe that she is using carefully choosen words to try and diminish Congress' right and responsibility to determine what happened and what needs to be done differently. My personal opinion is that both Congress and The Administration should both quit pandering to their bases and get to the bottom of the situation together and find a solution together. IMO, that starts with the Administration being fully fortcoming with Congress...something they have even yet to do.

Secondly, despite you being quite right that congress should ask more questions, do you really not see the blinding hypocrisy of a Republican congress giving a Republican president a free pass on a decade long conflict that cost thousands of lives and then trying to claim the moral high ground over a tiny conflict under a Democratic president where the consequences were by comparison minuscule? No party or politician can do something that blatant and expect to be taken seriously.

I do see the hypocisy and it certainly does exist. However, nothing can be done about the Bush failures in Iraq now. Sadly, those people will suffer for a generation due to our incompetence in handling the aftermath of the invasion. IMO, it could have and should have worked out quite differently for them. That being said, Libya is still in throws of the aftermath and the Administration that caused it is still in power. Certainly we should learn from past mistakes and do better this time. The fact that it is opposing parties instead of the same party just speaks to how far everyone in Washington has lost sight of whats good for the country. Nonetheless, the Obama administration should be held accountable.

So now the other guys are in power suddenly it's time to get serious? How do you think that idea will play to the other half of the country?

It was time to get serious before, but it didn't happen. That should in no way make us not get serious now. In fact, seeing what happened with Bush's accountablity, the country should be motivated for it not to happen again. Sadly, you speak to agreat point when you imply that partisan politics will once again overrule national accountability.


Finally, U.S. citizens need to wake up and realize that invasions and bombing campaigns are not just made for TV events. They affect real people and have real consequences. The sooner we start holding politicians accountable for those consequences the better it will be for everyone in the world...including those that are left to try and pick up the pieces in countries we have devestated.