Columns

The real problem with Benghazi

J.G. NASH, Of Cabbages, Of Cabbages
Published: November 18, 2012

The Benghazi incident seems to dominate the news these days, but we've not heard nor read anything about the major problem underlying that preventable affair, which is: We should not have led (not even "from behind") the military campaign to eliminate Libya's dictator; nor opened an embassy and consulate there following Gaddafi's demise; but once done, should have protected those U.S. assets with enough, on site, U.S. armed forces to ensure their safety.

Instead, we are subjected to endless, relatively trivial reports about who called the attack on the Benghazi Consulate what, when they did so, and why; along with expanding tales of possibly associated, predictable, sexual antics, marital infidelities, and clandestine political deals involving imperial, ambitious, generals, admirals, and other politicians.

Yes, President Obama may well have orchestrated and conducted a deceptive scheme to avoid acknowledging, during his on-going re-election campaign, that Islamic terror was alive and well (as evidenced in the Benghazi attack), even though he had, seemingly, personally eliminated the terror leader, Osama bin Laden.

Our popular leader now chivalrously takes responsibility for setting up a most compliant underling (his appointed Ambassador to the worthless United Nations, Susan Rice), to act as his chief of propaganda, by making the circuit of as many media outlets as possible in a single day, while parroting intentionally deceptive reports about what had happened in Benghazi on Sept. 11th.

If that ambassador didn't know that what the boss wanted her to say about the Islamist terror attack was phony and purposely deceptive, she has no business acting as our representative to the United Nations; if she knew that she was being asked to act as Minister of Propaganda, and anyway went on to deceive the public, than there is no place for her, anywhere, in any responsible position—not even as Chicago's dog catcher.

And yes, it seems that the much bemedaled, "Hero of Iraq, Afghanistan, Langley, and Tampa" (that's ex-General Petraeus, Susan) may have also been complicit in helping his boss (same guy as Susan's) get re-elected, by, prior to the looming election, dodging repeated requests, to comment on the Benghazi attack. It's most likely that Mr. Obama intended, during his campaign speeches, to make much use of his having essentially eliminated terrorist groups, and so didn't want any diversion, such as would be created by a successful attack by Islamic terrorists on U.S. territory in Libya.

Then, as so often happens when incidents, such as Nixon's Watergate Affair, gather momentum, and grow, sort of like a hurricane spinning over warm water, they do far more damage than might have been first envisioned. Now, CIA Director, Petraeus, is being exposed as an adulterer, and possibly more; and as that sordid story unfolds, more generals and admirals seem to be drawn into the storm's dark vortex.

Sex, deception, infidelity, blinding ambition, and general (not the kind with stars on his shoulder) amoral conduct is exposed—all because the Obama Administration foolishly, and carelessly, allowed the manning of U.S. diplomatic missions in a nation with no central government, which was being ruled by roving bands of Islamic radicals and revolutionaries, that openly viewed the United States as the "Great Satan," which had to be destroyed.

That same Obama Administration "led from behind" in overthrowing (killing) Libya's dictator, and destroying whatever government there was, with no apparent thought for what would happen after that took place (remind you of Iraq or Afghanistan?). What happened is that there is now no government in Libya, and no possible excuse for setting up an archaic embassy in Tripoli, nor consulate in Benghazi.

Obama wasted billions of dollars on that clearly avoidable and unjustified military assault on camels, creating only a future haven for Islamic terrorist of every stripe. Yes, I know that a few other nations joined in that military operation, but I believe that most, if not all of those had financial motives foremost in mind when they did so; I'm not at all certain as to what our President's real reason for getting involved was, but it's safe to assume that it was seriously flawed.

Now then, let's imagine that there had been no U.S. embassy nor consulate established in Libya following the destruction of its government; in which case none of the politically-motivated interest in, and concern over, what the hapless Mizz Rice did or didn't do would exist, and those disgraced generals could get on with their clandestine bedroom antics.

I have often pointed out that technological advances (e.g., secure, voice communications between Washington and all other, major capitals) have made embassies obsolete—they're an expensive, and, as has been adequately demonstrated, dangerous diplomatic "dinosaur." We should close all of them, leaving only a small office in a very few (reasonably safe) nations, which could help U.S. tourists with their problems, while also serving as a base for our spies. No ambassadors—no Consul Generals—not even a staff ready to meet and carry bags for boondoggling members of Congress.

A thoughtful, dedicated, intelligent, chief executive (i.e., President) would not have been part of the destruction of the Libyan government, nor would he have allowed the set up and staffing of an embassy and consulate in a place without a government, but filled with primitive, war-like peoples that hate the United States and all we stand for.

The entire Benghazi incident was easily avoidable; it never should have happened. Our President angrily, and recently, loudly proclaimed that those attacking poor Mizz Rice are picking on the wrong person, and should go after him instead (which is hardly heroic or risky, considering his immunity from anything and everything except impeachment, which is most unlikely with a Democratically controlled Senate.).

I feel no sympathy for Rice (she's supposedly a mature and adequately educated woman, who's either totally incompetent, or else made an unwise, amoral decision). I am, on the other hand, quite happy to point an angry finger at our President, categorizing his involvement in Libya, as well as most everything else he's been part of, as "careless" —at best!

And while there's finger pointing going on, can anyone ignore our politically powerful Secretary of State, who's directly responsible for establishing diplomatic missions, as well as ensuring that they are adequately protected. Could the fact that Ms. Clinton's husband recently came out effectively in support of Obama's re-election have anything to do with her having escaped mention in the shameful Benghazi affair? My how the plot sickens.

Of Cabbages and Kings is a syndicated column by j.g.nash. Relevant comment may be sent to him at jgn@jgnash.com.