Hillary Clinton,‘Smart Power’and a Dictator’s Fall--NYT Investigative Report: Parts 1 & 2

[KoKo]

Last edited Sun Feb 28, 2016, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

The Libya Gamble: An examination of the American intervention in Libya and Hillary Clinton’s role in it.

Hillary Clinton,‘Smart Power’and a Dictator’s Fall

By JO BECKER and SCOTT SHANE
FEB. 27, 2016

The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven.

Part 1

Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall

Part 2

A New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’

(This is a Very Long investigative read with video, photos--but, well worth it)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0

[Kip Humphrey]

1. Wasn't anything "smart" about it. It could have been if properly planned & might have suceeded but

for Hillary and her lack of foresight & meticulous aftermath planning required to be successful. But that's Hillary: lack of careful analysis and planning the details, traits I recognize from my encounter with her in 1970.

[Lodestar]

2. Not a fan of Hillary's foreign policy, but I'm convinced that the mess left in the

wake of attacks on several ME states (Iraq, Syria, Libya) was intentional. A chaotic ME is a weakened ME. I think it was meant to be a scorched earth policy, rather than being the result of any lack of plans for the aftermath of those initiatives.

[Doctor_J]

3. As I posted in elleng's thread, middle east war = $$ for the super rich

"We came, we saw, he died, and my friends and I got even richer". I think she loves war and killing in and of themselves, but it's mostly about the money.

[yurbud]

8. kick their ass and take their gas

[swilton]

4. Really excellent article

very US centric but exposes the flaws of decision-makers (in this case the buck stops at Clinton). Omits the financial and geo-political motives of the foreign policy in casting it as a humanitarian intervention. Policy-makers flawed all the way for not looking at the long term consequences of a failed state and not realizing (duh??!!) that that was what would happen after the intervention. In casting dispersions on Qadaffi failed to mention positive aspects of Libyan culture - such as literacy, health care, etc. Also failed to explain Libyan history and its regional role a la the African Union. Saying that Qadaffi was killing insurgents was incomplete - no explanation for insurgency and what if any role was played by outside forces (i.e., covert operations) to start the insurgency. No explanation of Libyan political history as cause for insurgence.

I failed to look at North African relationships - not m geographic strength - during 2011. Have not been a fan of the Obama presidency and have heard comments that his presidency was Bush's 3rd term....Foreign - defense policy, he retained some of the same players (Victoria Nuland who had a role in this fiasco and whose husband just endorsed Clinton). Obama relies on drones more than Bush.

Finally regarding the article - good reader comments at the end - every one that I read (12+) considered the article an indictment of Hillary and her foreign policy experience and the responsibility she played in this disaster.

[KoKo]

6. ...1

I, also, wished it had gone more into what you point out--although it revealed more than we've known previously about the discussion and decisions that were made to take out Gadaffi. And, like you, it's hard not to wonder how after what they saw happen in Iraq that they didn't realize what would happen in Libya. But, then there has always been their guiding policy set down in the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) and the "Grand Chessboard" that has been guiding them, I think. The goal has been Regime Change and By Gosh they were going to go for it one way or another and damn the consequences to achieve the goal.

Omits the financial and geo-political motives of the foreign policy in casting it as a humanitarian intervention. Policy-makers flawed all the way for not looking at the long term consequences of a failed state and not realizing (duh??!!) that that was what would happen after the intervention. In casting dispersions on Qadaffi failed to mention positive aspects of Libyan culture - such as literacy, health care, etc. Also failed to explain Libyan history and its regional role a la the African Union. Saying that Qadaffi was killing insurgents was incomplete - no explanation for insurgency and what if any role was played by outside forces (i.e., covert operations) to start the insurgency. No explanation of Libyan political history as cause for insurgence.

[elleng]

5. Thanks for this, KoKo.

Just consolidated the 2 pieces, and posted in GD - P: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511369613

[KoKo]

7. Great! It is such a long read that it needed to be condensed

I was exhausted after reading the two parts and watching the video, and its hard for many people to spend the time to bother read all of it.

Was pleased that NYT put in the video of Hillary's "We Came....We Saw..He Died" with her hearty laugh. That has always struck me as a chilling side of Hillary that people need to know about--especially since it contrasts so strongly with her image out in the campaign, these days.

[Cheese Sandwich]

9. rec.

We should all be posting about Libya and ISIS 24 hours a day

[Jefferson23]

10. Smart only for the beneficiaries..sickening and contemptible. Clinton and Petraeus...GREAT ideas

on display..GREAT showing of "OUR American Values"..she actually said that.