Obama Administration’s Foolish About Benghazi

http://news.yahoo.com/libya-militia-linked-u-attack-returns-benghazi-141851547.html

The Obama administration is the reason for the continued terrorist success in Libya.  Why?  Because Obama backed the rebel insurgents and terrorist Islamists who fought against Gaddafi. Using the romantic notion that all the Islamic countries needed was a breath of fresh Spring air, Obama ignited and then supported what has become a nightmare of terror for Libya, Egypt, and Syria.

A glaring fault of the Obama administration’s worldview is directly attributable to the President.  He seems to think that simply forcing an autocratic government out of power will automatically produce a grass-roots movement akin to the American Revolution of 1776.  However, the governments of Libya and Syria are autocratic for a vast array of social, ideological and tribal reasons.  The leadership of these regions, like that in Iraq and Iran is based on powerful clan and tribal allegiances.  These forces produced the autocratic governments, perpetuated them in existence and reinforced their continuation into this era.  The obvious breakdown of Libya and Iraq into competing tribal and clan factions, each at war with the other over land, influence and Islam, is evidence of the correctness of this analysis.  Yet, the Obama administration, its State department and the CIA that serves him, followed an amateurish plan based on romantic notions of hope and change.

Surprisingly, it is Vladimir Putin who is the voice of a seasoned and reasonable national policy regarding the Mid Eastern nations in general and Libya and Syria in particular.  Putin was betrayed during the illegal aggression against Libya which was carried out by Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy.  In conjunction with the Belgians, these three leaders had gotten United Nations permission to protect rebels forces fighting against a member of the UN (Libya).  But the UN resolution 1973 was then used by these leaders as a cover under which they engaged their nations in criminal aggression against the legal government of Gaddafi, a government, which until his murder by the rebels, was recognized by 103 nations as the legal government of Libya.  The criminal aggression was carried out by bombing, and strafing the legal army of Libya by NATO forces.  It was carried out by the use of 213 USA cruise missiles fired against the legal army and government of Libya by NATO.  The illegal aggression was carried out by the use of USA Special Forces personnel on the ground in Libya who aided the rebels, guided the bombing raids, and spotted for the missile attacks.  The entire affair enraged Putin because it was illegal under International law.  But the powerful Belgians, French, English and Americans were never called accountable.  Instead, the puppet press of the Obama administration depicted the Libyan aggression as a war of freedom against tyranny.

Evidence of confiscated weapons shipments by Russia to the Syrian government of Assad, seems to indicated that the Russians are doing legally what the USA did illegally.  How so?  The Syrian government, like the Libyan government of Gaddafi, has an internationally recognised right of self-defense against all enemies foreign and domestic.  By the way, it is illegal, regarded as treason, and punishable by death, if a citizen or group of USA citizens attempts to overthrown the federal government by force.  So, what’s the difference with Libya?  Oh, I forgot!  We declared Gaddafi a dictator and that made every illegal and criminal action that we took, well, it made our action right!!??

Strange, isn’t it, that a former Communist KGB agent, Vladimir Putin, should be more of defender of national sovereignty and I believe in Libya, of national self determination,  then the Obama administration?

Gaddafi had moved very forcefully to attempt to atone for his terrorist actions in Lockerbie.  He acknowledged the crime and paid the blood money.  Which, although Westerners do not agree with the process, is nonetheless, regarded as an expiation for the crime.  So, if the relatives of the victims accept the blood money, they are required to exonerate the perpetrator of the crime.  (Hey, I don’t agree either.  But if we are going to play the game and accept the money then we cannot secretly decide that we have other rules that we apply to the game that are unknown to the other participant.)

Gaddafi had stopped all Nuclear bomb development in acquiesce to American demands.  He had stopped all International terrorism funding and activity in return for USA government recognition of his government.  A fact attested by the visit of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Gaddafi.

However, President Obama did not honor the promises of the previous USA  administration.  President Obama reneged on government to government agreements.  He decided to repudiate the promises of the USA made to Gaddafi, instead using our prestige at the United nations to get Resolution 1973 passed and then using it as a legal cover for illegal and criminal aggression against a sovereign Libya government,  an action which was condemned by Nuremberg when it was done by the Nazi against Poland, etc.

The amateurish and cavalier approach of President Obama to foreign affairs in terribly illustrated by his handling of the Benghazi murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Stevens.  It seems that President Obama thinks that he can engage in acts of war and then walk out of the oval office and go to bed, leaving the conduct of the war to others.  But what is his plan?  What is he intending to accomplish?  What is his focus in terms of the macro and micro scenario of international politics?  Where is his instruction manual for what he intends for his officials to achieve?  Just saying to his staff, “handle it.” and then going to bed is not the basis for policy, anymore than just giving a speech on a USA issue is the same as the proposal of legislation to the Congress.

Speeches and statements to staff to “handle it” are evidence of a politician who is not engaged in governing.  They are the cavalier statements of a person who has little regard for the mechanics of real life government.  Maybe, Obama thinks that all he has to do is think and speak and everybody else has to work.

Advertisements

Published by

progressivepolitics

Retired army chaplain, Rotarian, moderately right of center on most issues, big on self reflection and self analysis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s