I'm as upset and angry as anyone when I heard about the
bombing of the United States Consulate in Libya. I also mourn the deaths of the
Americans who worked there. The Ambassador seemed like a man who genuinely
cared about the area and knew the people there and Americans and Libyans should
mourn his loss.
Still, I don't understand the rhetoric that came from Hillary
Clinton's mouth about the event. She actually went on to say that the United
States "freed" the city of Benghazi and that we helped rid the country of the "evil
dictator" Muammar Gadhafi. Apparently Ms. Clinton was surprised at the bombing,
and did not expect anything like that would happen, especially to the United
States consulate, located in a quiet residential area.
The location of the consulate in a quiet residential are,
lightly guarded was a huge mistake on America's part. It showed the arrogance
of the United States. When you think of the damage this so-called "Democratic" revolution
brought to the county and the destruction of the country by US and NATO forces
that actively supplied the so-called "Revolutionaries" that ended with half the
nation in chaos and the other half ruled by a revolutionary council it's relatively
easy to understand the anger that some Libyans have toward the United States.
While Libya was a thorn in the side of the United States, it
didn't deserve the level of destruction that was brought on it by the United
States and NATO. Gadhafi, as bad as he supposedly was, didn't deserve to have a
machete shoved into his rectum by the "Freedom fighters" that the United States
was backing. The ultimate insult was the line that Clinton used when she
arrived in Libya, "We came, we saw and he died" with the cackled laugh after she
said it.
Undoubtedly, there were
people in Libya that didn't appreciate that. There were people in Libya that
didn't welcome the wholesale destruction that the warplanes of NATO wrought.
There are also people in Libya that didn't welcome the regime that took Gadhafi's
place and the lawlessness that is occurring in the western half of that former
nation, now a war zone for warlords vying for power.
To this writer, the layout and the position of the Consulate
in a lightly guarded residential area was a decision that was completely incomprehensible.
I can't understand the mentality of the State Department in locating the Consulate
there. Didn't they understand that NATO wasn't seen as a benevolent force in
the "liberation" of Libya by all Libyans? That the United States and other European
nations were part and parcel in the destruction of a State that was seen not as
a dictatorial regime, but a nation that would not be intimidated by outside forces.
Some believed that Gadhafi had brought Libya to a higher level of life than
when he arrived.
To some, the destruction of Libya was seen as a show of
power by the Europeans and Americans. NATO was an instrument of violent "regime
change" and that they used Libya as an example to other nations that defied the
Western powers. At this present time, the United States is heavily involved in
the destruction of Syria, another nation that doesn't kowtow to the Western
powers. Syria and Libya were secular governments that went their own way and
this has seemed to be the reason that the Western powers have decided that they
should not exist in their present state.
According to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, secular governments in
Middle-Eastern countries unite the various factions that live together.
Installing fundamentalist Sunni governments will lead to fracturing these
nations and cause the various factions in these nations to fight with each other,
leading to lawless impotent states. This removes obstacles to Western interests
in the region. Fracturing the government in Libya was also seen as a way to
cripple Chinese oil interests in Libya.
These are just some of the reasons that bring me to ask our
State Department how they had the audacity to put our Consulate in a
residential area of Benghazi. Didn't they realize that there are factions there
that don't look upon NATO as "saviors" of their nation? Didn't they realize
that putting Americans in harm's way by locating the American compound in an
unguarded residence was foolish, let alone reckless?
The statement made by Clinton after the bombing of the Consulate
seemed oblivious of the destruction that NATO wrought on Libya. It is inconceivable
to believe that all Libyans would welcome Americans. She seemed outraged that
some in Libya would attack an American installation after America helped "liberate"
the city of Benghazi. This point of view in my estimation, lead to the deaths
of four American citizens that should have been housed in an area that was
defensible, and should have had a large contingent of Marines to guard them.
After what NATO did to Libya, any sane Secretary of State
should have housed diplomats in Libya in a secure environment. The shock and disappointment
that Clinton displayed after the bombing displayed her naivety. If she actually
thought that all Libyans would welcome Americans with open arms after we bombed
the nation back to the stone-age, she was mistaken. This is called blowback.
It's time that Congress stepped up to the plate and demanded
that American military adventures in other nations be authorized by the representatives
of the American people. This includes the carnage we are heaping on Syria. The
sooner Congress steps in and takes its rightful place in authorizing military action
against other nations, the sooner this kind of thing will stop. Stepping into other
countries internal affairs will only bring more outrage against America. It's
time we reeled this administration in and stopped American involvement in other
nation's internal conflicts. If we really prize self-determination in other
nations, we should stop interfering by backing different factions. When NATO or
the United States (which really is the same thing) backs one side or another in
conflicts in other nations, that isn't self-determination; its America determining
which side wins. When we get involved in other nations struggles we are deciding,
not the people of that nation.
In the Middle-East, this is why we are despised by many. It
is not up to the United States to determine the path that other nations should
take. The sooner we learn that lesson, the sooner we will have normal relations
with nations there. If Clinton were living in the real world, she should have
made that Consulate a fortress. The blood is on her hands.
5
4
3
