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.