Fermer X Les cookies sont necessaires au bon fonctionnement de 24hGold.com. En poursuivant votre navigation sur notre site, vous acceptez leur utilisation.
Pour en savoir plus sur les cookies...
AnglaisFrancais
Cours Or & Argent en

What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi

IMG Auteur
Publié le 13 mai 2013
596 mots - Temps de lecture : 1 - 2 minutes
( 23 votes, 4,7/5 ) , 2 commentaires
Imprimer l'article
  Article Commentaires Commenter Notation Tous les Articles  
0
envoyer
2
commenter
Notre Newsletter...
Rubrique : Editoriaux

Congressional hearings, White House damage control, endless op-eds, accusations, and defensive denials. Controversy over the events in Benghazi last September took center stage in Washington and elsewhere last week. However, the whole discussion is again more of a sideshow. Each side seeks to score political points instead of asking the real questions about the attack on the US facility, which resulted in the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Republicans smell a political opportunity over evidence that the Administration heavily edited initial intelligence community talking points about the attack to remove or soften anything that might reflect badly on the president or the State Department.

Are we are supposed to be shocked by such behavior? Are we supposed to forget that this kind of whitewashing of facts is standard operating procedure when it comes to the US government?

Democrats in Congress have offered the even less convincing explanation for Benghazi, that somehow the attack occurred due to Republican sponsored cuts in the security budget at facilities overseas. With a one trillion dollar military budget, it is hard to take this seriously.

It appears that the Administration scrubbed initial intelligence reports of references to extremist Islamist involvement in the attacks, preferring to craft a lie that the demonstrations were a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic video that developed into a full-out attack on the US outpost.

Who can blame he administration for wanting to shift the focus? The Islamic radicals who attacked Benghazi were the same people let loose by the US-led attack on Libya. They were the rebels on whose behalf the US overthrew the Libyan government. Ambassador Stevens was slain by the same Islamic radicals he personally assisted just over one year earlier.

But the Republicans in Congress also want to shift the blame. They supported the Obama Administration's policy of bombing Libya and overthrowing its government. They also repeated the same manufactured claims that Gaddafi was "killing his own people" and was about to commit mass genocide if he were not stopped. Republicans want to draw attention to the President's editing talking points in hopes no one will notice that if the attack on Libya they supported had not taken place, Ambassador Stevens would be alive today.

Neither side wants to talk about the real lesson of Benghazi: interventionism always carries with it unintended consequences. The US attack on Libya led to the unleashing of Islamist radicals in Libya. These radicals have destroyed the country, murdered thousands, and killed the US ambassador. Some of these then turned their attention to Mali which required another intervention by the US and France.

Previously secure weapons in Libya flooded the region after the US attack, with many of them going to Islamist radicals who make up the majority of those fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. The US government has intervened in the Syrian conflict on behalf of the same rebels it assisted in the Libya conflict, likely helping with the weapons transfers. With word out that these rebels are mostly affiliated with al Qaeda, the US is now intervening to persuade some factions of the Syrian rebels to kill other factions before completing the task of ousting the Syrian government. It is the dizzying cycle of interventionism.

The real lesson of Benghazi will not be learned because neither Republicans nor Democrats want to hear it. But it is our interventionist foreign policy and its unintended consequences that have created these problems, including the attack and murder of Ambassador Stevens. The disputed talking points and White House whitewashing are just a sideshow.

Données et statistiques pour les pays mentionnés : France | Mali | Tous
Cours de l'or et de l'argent pour les pays mentionnés : France | Mali | Tous
<< Article précedent
Evaluer : Note moyenne :4,7 (23 votes)
>> Article suivant
Publication de commentaires terminée
  Tous Favoris Mieux Notés  
The real issue is to make sure the populace stays paranoid about possible enemies outside the wall and doesn't notice their real enemies are inside the gate rallying the mobs to demand more military interventions. War pays healthy dividends for the investors. Dividends are an essential tax base.

The sheep trust the shepherd and his dogs. They accept being fleeced and their young being sent away. The sheep are content to feed, breed and be entertained as long as they are protected from things that might go bump in the night.

I would bet that most Americans can't remember the ambassador's name, the name of the city where he died or just one country that borders Libya. But they can bring you up to date with Honey Boo-boo or the NFL.

The harsh reality is that the general populace doesn't care. Most of the loud mouths either have money invested or are communitarians seeking more political power.

I may agree with most of your messages, but you are wasting your time attempting to inform the general public. Didn't this last election clearly demonstrate that giving the public a correct analysis is NOT the same as being electable? First hand experience is an expensive school, but the vast majority appear to be quite eager to pay the full tuition. And until the vast majority learns the required lessons, nothing will change.
Evaluer :   7  1Note :   6
EmailPermalink
Your response is almost as good as the post, and has the advantage of brevity. However, you disparage the long cherished past time of tilting at windmills. tsk tsk tsk.
Dernier commentaire publié pour cet article
Your response is almost as good as the post, and has the advantage of brevity. However, you disparage the long cherished past time of tilting at windmills. tsk tsk tsk.  Lire la suite
J. - 13/05/2013 à 17:44 GMT
Top articles
Flux d'Actualités
TOUS
OR
ARGENT
PGM & DIAMANTS
PÉTROLE & GAZ
AUTRES MÉTAUX