Sunday, February 28, 2016

How The U.S. Failed In Libya

Scott Shane and Jo Becker, New York Times: A New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’

The fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi seemed to vindicate Hillary Clinton. Then militias refused to disarm, neighbors fanned a civil war, and the Islamic State found refuge.

IT WAS A GRISLY START to the new era for Libya, broadcast around the world. The dictator was dragged from the sewer pipe where he was hiding, tossed around by frenzied rebel soldiers, beaten bloody and sodomized with a bayonet. A shaky cellphone video showed the pocked face of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, “the Leader” who had terrified Libyans for four decades, looking frightened and bewildered. He would soon be dead.

The first news reports of Colonel Qaddafi’s capture and killing in October 2011 reached the secretary of state in Kabul, Afghanistan, where she had just sat down for a televised interview. “Wow!” she said, looking at an aide’s BlackBerry before cautiously noting that the report had not yet been confirmed. But Hillary Clinton seemed impatient for a conclusion to the multinational military intervention she had done so much to organize, and in a rare unguarded moment, she dropped her reserve.

“We came, we saw, he died!” she exclaimed.

Two days before, Mrs. Clinton had taken a triumphal tour of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and for weeks top aides had been circulating a “ticktock” that described her starring role in the events that had led to this moment. The timeline, her top policy aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote, demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.” The memo’s language put her at the center of everything: “HRC announces … HRC directs … HRC travels … HRC engages,” it read.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: A sobering review.


Don Bacon said...

Qaddafi was a US ally, but US allies are expendable.
(AFP) – Apr 21, 2009
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Tuesday for stronger ties between the United States and its former foe Libya, during a meeting with a son of Colonel Moamer Kadhafi, the Libyan leader.
“We deeply value the relationship between the United States and Libya,” Clinton told reporters as she received Mutassim Kadhafi, who serves as his father’s national security adviser.
“We have many opportunities to deepen and broaden our cooperation and I am very much looking forward to building on this relationship,” the chief US diplomat said before shaking the young man’s hand.

Remarks by Ambassador [to Libya] Gene A. Cretz
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Friday, June 4, 2010 (extracts)
–The United States and Libya have just embarked on the second year of fully renewed diplomatic relations – including the first exchange of Ambassadors in 36 years. In previous speeches, I have made – and will continue to make – the case that continued engagement with Libya is in our long-term national interest.
–The U.S.-Libya relationship has rapidly expanded to include much more than cooperation in nonproliferation and science and technology.
–Today, Libya remains a strong ally in countering terrorism in a volatile region. It has fought the expansion of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, has condemned kidnappings, and has taken a position against the paying of ransom to kidnappers.

President Barack Obama stated in a speech to the nation on March 28, 2011, "The task that I assigned our forces [is] to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone," adding explicitly, "Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."

Jay Farquharson said...

MoA has already covered the NYT "whitewash",

Hillary's actions, and the NYT's propaganda were much worse than what the NYT is reporting, with out a single mea culpa from the NYT for their role.

Sad thing is, MoA was reporting on the bs at the time it was happening.

Don Bacon said...

The NYTimes has it figured out--
"The dictator’s forces were approaching Benghazi, the crucible of the rebellion, and threatening a blood bath."
And Hillary Clinton, now a probable presidential nominee, would save them from a "blood bath."--here

Don Bacon said...

On September 11, 2012, the new Libya leaders were attempting to form their new government in Tripoli. Was US Ambassador Chris Stevens there to help them? No, Stevens after a trip to Europe for instructions was way over in Benghazi working with the CIA cell there (later called a "consulate) on arms shipments to Turkey for the anti-Syria campaign. Stevens' last official meeting before he died was with the Turkey ambassador.

President Obama at the UNGA:
Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met. And two weeks ago, he traveled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That’s when America’s compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old.

RRH said...

They didn't "fail" at s#:"! They knew and know exactly what they were and are doing. That country, its government, its accomplishments, its people were destroyed on purpose by a bunch of Jim Crow gangster thieves. Like a slave learning to read, Libya was a threat.

"That Libya invested heavily in Eurpe and the U.S. caused some to believe in the simple image of Libya being in bed with the West, a notion largely dispelled thus far in this book. We can
complicate the the analogy a little more; Libya was buying the West's bed - nnot all of it, of course, but a large ppiece at precisely the same time that WWestern economies began to sink. The real threat of Libya led by Gaddafi, free of sanctions, and buying up parts oof major Western corporations, was that Gaddafi was not being subordinated to Western hegemony, rather he was buying it. Gaddafi was also buying and ensuring access, making it more difficult to sideline Libya's corporations, short of sweeping sanctions. Gaddafi, long the outsider, was suddenly very much an insider, a financially strong shareholder without debt and with lots of money to spend. The problem, as U.S. diplomatic cables constantly suggest, is that Gaddafi the "new friend" remained Gaddafi the anti-imperialist troublemaker guided by suspicious intentions...."

Forte, Maximillian. "Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO's War on Libya and Africa". p, 157.

Unknown said...

The case of Libya is not that easy to be explained, as without local support nothing is possible and the troops going from outside countries can never win the battle completely without the help of natives. This war is simply the war between the intellects of different people and trying to capture the places and dominate on the minorities or making them the minorities by killing their people.
MA Gun License