Arguably Hillary's greatest failure, Libya, illustrates why so many question her judgment

[cali]

No, she wasn't just following orders. This was her plan. President Obama, by all accounts, was initially reluctant. Yes, he gave the go ahead, it this illustrates Hillary's approach in too many instances. And as of April of this year, she has absolutely no regret. That she can even say that is disturbing.

Over the last 3 days, 700 Libyan refugees have died, many of them children.




German rescuer from the humanitarian organisation Sea-Watch holds a drowned migrant baby, off the Libyan cost May 27, 2016. Christian Buettner/Eikon Nord GmbH Germany/Handout via REUTERS

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aeeba046-25a3-11e6-8ba3-cdd781d02d89.html#axzz4AAFuFRB4

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/14/hillary-clinton-has-no-regrets-about-libya/


http://m.democracynow.org/stories/16008

Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0

[MariaThinks]

1. i think it's really sad to see people trying to slander our leading candidate by tying her name to a

tragedy of a dead baby.

shameful.

[hrmjustin]

2. +1

[HerbChestnut]

5. That baby being dead is a direct result of Hillary's decisions as SoS

Foreign policy is difficult, obviously, but if you don't have the foresight to anticipate consequences to your actions then you shouldn't be in the position of making decisions that have such a dramatic impact.

[MariaThinks]

22. no it's easier to complain, offer no answers, and then complain some more.

[Autumn]

49. The dead baby, a result of her policies doesn't bother you. Tying it to your leading candidate

That's the shameful part. You betcha

[MariaThinks]

71. What bothers me are the people doing the killing right now. Any suggestions on how to stop that?

And any suggestions on what would have happened if Qaddafi had massacred 40000 civilians if there was no outside interference? Or the fact that Qaddafi supported terror?

[Autumn]

74. My suggestions aren't important and would never be acted on. That's up to the elected officials. nt

[leveymg]

102. So, it's ok for 400k to die because of what might have happened?

Your sense of proportionality is as bad as Hillary's judgement.

[Gomez163]

31. So Hillary should have done nothing and let Qadaffi murder a half a million people??

[Ash_F]

70. A war the Arab supremacists would not have started without the USA's express support.

[Gomez163]

93. You did not answer my question.

[Ash_F]

94. Don't fight bad people by supporting even worse people.

[Gomez163]

96. Quadaffi was marching on Benghazi. They offered air support.

You are exaggerating how much we helped them. And I have no idea what that video is about or who those rebels. There were many factions.

[Ash_F]

97. Here is the short version. Bookmark this post.

There used to be a puppet Arab monarchy imposed by Europe. A minority that controlled the majority.

They got military power in exchange for giving Europe what they wanted regarding oil, trade, labor ect.

WW2 happened and Europe could not hold on to the territory anymore. A coalition deposed the royalists.

Europe lost control of the oil. They were mad about this for decades later.

The US became a superpower in the vacuum of Europe's destruction. Its business leaders had eyes for Libya and many third world countries.

The royalists still held considerable power in some places, like Tripoli, but were bitter about the loss of the whole country. In the modern day, they hold a "Arab Nationalist" worldview that is better described as racial supremacy. A minority that wants to control the majority.

The Arab Spring, while having great potential, unfortunately also has some undertones of racial/religious supremacy. The royalists exploited this opportunity and initiated the conflict with the help of poor disaffected young Arab recruits who were excited about the promise of the Spring. Gaddafi was a bad leader who enriched those closest to him, and people knew this, so that helped.

They felt they had support from both the US and EU before they started the war, but making deals with first world countries can be treacherous.

NATO finally came on board late to the party.

They gave the royalists complete control without any human rights stipulations. You can bet there were oil related stipulations though.

Since it has also become a supremacist movement, you can see the consequences of that in the video. It is not all that different from what Trump, a billionaire, is doing with poor white people.

If Clinton did not know this much, but still supported giving them military aid, then that reflects on how well she does her homework.

I think she just did not care. Her billionaire friends wanted Libya and that is all the thought she gave it.

[chwaliszewski]

101. Bulls eye.

This synopsis is like reading a Hollywood movie script. Rule #1 in DC; follow the money. The billionaires wanted Libyan oil. Period.

[puffy socks]

50. Bernie has no problem voting for war..

Sanders is not only generally aligned with Obama administration foreign policy, he has refused to specify a single weapons program or Pentagon project that he would cut or eliminate if elected in 2016. He is a longstanding backer of the most expensive US weapons program, the $1.4 trillion F-35 fighter jet, some of which are to be based in Burlington, Vermont, his hometown.

The so-called “socialist” has voted repeatedly for vast Pentagon appropriations bills, maintaining funding of the wars he was (rhetorically) opposed to, as well as funding for the CIA, NSA and the rest of the vast American intelligence apparatus, the infrastructure for police-state spying against the American people.

So right-wing is his record on foreign and military policy that even his most craven apologists, the pseudo-left groups Socialist Alternative and the International Socialist Organization, have been compelled to complain about it, although this has not stopped them hailing the Sanders campaign as a huge advance and openly supporting a candidate for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.

In a lengthy profile of Sanders, Dan LaBotz of the ISO describes Sanders’ foreign policy views as “a big problem,” adding, “What this record makes clear is that Sanders has no consistent and principled position against US imperialism.” This is a gross distortion: Sanders is a longtime proven defender of US imperialism, not a half-hearted or inconsistent opponent.

LaBotz continues: “Sanders’ program makes no mention of the military. While he calls himself a socialist, Sanders’ foreign policy and military policy remain in line with corporate capitalism, militarism, and imperialism.”

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/27/sand-a27.html

[HerbChestnut]

58. I've seen this argument against Bernie quite a few times. Here's the problems with it...

1. It does nothing to refute Hillary's positions on foreign policy. It's the political equivalent of saying, "I know you are, but what am I?"

2. Bernie voted against both Iraq War resolutions, clearly stating his case against them. What you posted references his votes to upgrade our military and fund troops already on the ground. Now, one could make the argument that defunding a war effort would require our troops to be withdrawn. However, I can't think of a case where that ever happened. An equally likely scenario would be he votes against it, the war is defunded, but the troops are kept in the field anyway and the whole situation turns into a political quagmire where Bernie (or anybody else who voted against funding) is painted as "not supporting the troops".

3. There is nothing wrong with voting to fund improvements and advancements to our military. That's actually one of the key responsibilities of the federal government. But as we all know, what often happens with these projects is they go way over budget. We need to find a way to fund military advancements while also being financial responsible. One way to find a solution to that problem is to audit the Pentagon, something Bernie strongly advocates.

So, again, what you posted surely warrants its own discussion, but it does nothing to defend Hillary on Libya.

[floriduck]

90. I've presented your number 2 item many times but it never registers.

Is it better to support the troops resulting from our interventions or say no and let these soldiers go without tools to protect themselves. I guess that's how they get by claiming Bernie is pro-war. It's quite nefarious at a minimum.

[puffy socks]

95. I dont need to defend Hillary on Libya.

Her actions on Libya were the right ones. Gaddafi was insane and clearly going to commit mass murder. He has a rich history of killing people and picking out young school girls to plpreasure him his entire life. I'm glad she laughed about it too..he was a narcissistic sociopath who murdered people, kept one man's body frozen after he killed him just to laugh in his face . I have zero sympathy ..I hope she laughs harder and louder.



It takes quite a lot of nerve to try and justify the action in Somalia or the fact that regime change in Iraq was A OK with Sanders in 98 Bernie when he voted FOR the Iraq Liberation bill , it wasn't just funding people who were already out there.. but then you don't really care if it shows Bernie's the war hawk.

[MariaThinks]

89. That baby is dead because islamic fundamentalists have chased them out.

[jeff47]

117. And those Islamic fundamentalists came to power due to Clinton's efforts at State.

Gaddafi would have killed them without our air power neutralizing his tanks.

[MariaThinks]

121. No. They came to power because they are murdering innocent people

[creeksneakers2]

112. There was already a war before Hillary stepped in

If Khadafy would have had the chance there would still have been a bloodbath.

There was a plan for pacifying Libya after the war. The Libyans kicked us out. Whatever happened after that is their fault.

[cali]

6. That is the direct and undeniable result

of the bombing of Libya, a policy Clinton pushed as SoS.

[Beacool]

40. And a policy approved by the president of the United States.

Or do you think that Hillary carried a foreign policy agenda without presidential approval?

Please...........

[cali]

43. Yes, he also bears responsibility

[Demsrule86]

17. The Bern it down crowd

has crossed over the line of decency.

[MariaThinks]

19. Completely.

[JudyM]

18. Hmm.

[IdaBriggs]

23. Wow. It's like you are clueless about her being responsible for

the problems in Libya.

You should educate yourself.

Here is a nice video from The New York Times to start:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/video/players/offsite/index.html?videoId=100000004216623

[MariaThinks]

24. Go educate yourself about foreign policy and try to go beyond 4-8 years

if you're able. This cherry picking of events that suit a temporary agenda is an insult to the people that are dying.

[IdaBriggs]

33. Did you watch the video? If no, you should probably just stop

because you are posting stuff that makes you look like a fool.

This is a discussion board. It provides an opportunity to learn from each other.

Watch the video. The New York Times is about as even handed as you are going to get.

[creeksneakers2]

114. I watched the video

it gave her side. That should be listened to. Have you read this?

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/14/hillary-clinton-has-no-regrets-about-libya/

[rhett o rick]

59. The death of the baby and millions more is what is shameful not discussing it. Clinton

voted to wage war on Iraq. How many died there? She supports the use of cluster bombs which are particularly deadly to children. Clinton's baggage is shameful not pointing it out.

[JoePhilly]

61. They'd be slandering Obama ...

... but since he can't run again ... Hillary replaces Obama as the person responsible for all the suffering in the world.

[MariaThinks]

64. Does anyone want to blame the people who are doing the killing?

it seems like Hillary is blamed because she couldn't find a way to stop the killers without interfering in their freedom to kill in the name of their religion.

[JoePhilly]

72. +1

[Ash_F]

73. She gave them weapons, cash and bombed the people that tried to stop them.

[BobbyDrake]

76. And remember, if she intervenes, it's just proof that she's a "war hawk."

So as usual, damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. She either doesn't do anything and it's all her fault, or she does something and it's also all her fault.

Typical progressive pretzel logic.

She's not President yet, Bros. Wait til November.

[MariaThinks]

65. Libya was a great state before Hillary took the SOS position, right?

The shameful part is that people have no answers, but blame her for everything.

[BobbyDrake]

85. It's worse. There are progressive is who will pretend that Libya was a democratic paradise!

As if the possibility of being murdered by the dictator in charge any day of the week is the pinnacle of personal freedom, or some such bullshit.

Long story short, Hillary helped take down a murdering dictator, so the anti-Clinton crowd becomes pro-dictator by default.

[MariaThinks]

87. had nothing been done, tens of thousands of civilians were about to be killed inside libya.

they conveniently skip over that.

I guess it's the black/white thinking I see on the far right as well.

[MariaThinks]

88. ALso-they spew venom against hillary but say nothing about the people currently doing all the murder

[2cannan]

108. Maybe because she was a representative of OUR government, someone we should have some say about? nt

[MariaThinks]

124. still nothing said about the actual murderers.

[Ash_F]

69. There is this too

[John Poet]

105. It's really sad that the Democratic party's voters

have made Hillary the leading candidate.

[dchill]

3. Obama was hoodwinked and bamboozled.

He fell for the Okeydoke.

[hrmjustin]

4. Obama made the call. I know you guys want to put it all on Hillary but Obama made the call.

[HerbChestnut]

7. But I thought we weren't allowed to criticize the President? Right?

I mean, that's what Hillary supporters have been saying this entire election. Of course, whenever it's convenient to deflect blame from Hillary onto Obama then by all means criticizing him is okay.

[hrmjustin]

11. I am not criticizing the president.

[HerbChestnut]

12. Oh, so you're okay with what our government did in Libya?

And the pictures above don't bother you?

[hrmjustin]

14. I gave no opinion.

If i want to I will let you know.

[HerbChestnut]

15. Very Hillary-esque of you.

[hrmjustin]

16. There are a lot of issues on the site i don't comment on.

[passiveporcupine]

99. Only this time you did comment on it

with prevarication, just like Hillary.

[MariaThinks]

21. And what would you have done in libya and try to understand the implications of your actions

[cali]

26. Not bombed it. It turned it into a failed state by fucking bombing it

[MariaThinks]

30. Qaddafi was about to massacre a town - Europe started the bombing - we led from behind i recall.

[Arazi]

36. Our intervention has now led to thousands of towns being massacred. That's better?

Everything predicted has occurred including the establishment of ISIS cells

Libya is Hillary’s clusterfuck. She's a disgusting war hawk who even supports cluster bombs

[MariaThinks]

38. again, what would you have done? Nothing? And watched 40000 people get slaughtered by qaddafi?

[Arazi]

42. How do you know Qaddafi would have done it? I see you avoided my question

The thousands of towns that have now been slaughtered is better?

The country overrun by ISIS is better?

Massive civil war, displacement, starvation is better? Because all of that was predicted. Hillary knew the ramifications of removing Qaddafi

Those sweet dead babies drowned trying to escape her clusterfuck. You're supporting that and more (and worse if she gets her Syrian no fly zone proposal implemented) by voting for Hillary

[demigoddess]

54. and Europe couldn't send some boats over to take people off of those boats?

to save lives? And Secretaries of State are no longer advisors? They are now at the desk where it says 'the buck stops here'?

[Arazi]

56. I have no idea what you mean.Your ??s are word salad

Europe helped the US massively destroy a thriving African country. Hillary Clinton is is majorly responsible for that clusterfuck.

Europe is sending boats out to try to rescue as many refugees as they can. They've even taken many into their own countries, threatening destabilization there as well.

We've done jackshit except watch emails from Sid Blumenthal to Hillary @ how to make a profit in the post war chaos

[cali]

45. Yes. Nothing- as we do far more frequently than not.

[MariaThinks]

25. No - we should do what one of our candidates is doing and just whine about how

things are stacked against us in the middle east.

[MariaThinks]

68. We were leading from behind. We did not take a lead in Libya.

[cali]

118. Disgusting excuses is all you have

[MariaThinks]

122. one sided information that completely lets the ACTUAL murderers off the hook is your pervue.

[MariaThinks]

123. And you didn't even address the fact that we were not the leaders in the libya action.

but who cares.

keep blaming your lightning rod who somehow destroyed everything in 4 years as SOS. Hillary was so powerful - more than the President even.

[cali]

8. Yes, he bears responsibility with her.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. And, she went along with it.

[Ash_F]

75. He was against it at first. She pushed him.

[hrmjustin]

79. He made the call. She gave him options.

[Ash_F]

80. She was an advocate

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

[hrmjustin]

81. He still made the call.

[Ash_F]

83. And as others said he also bears responsibility

And he is not running for president this time. Clinton is

[hrmjustin]

84. Amd my point still stands.

[Ash_F]

86. And my point is that, if Clinton had been president, there would have been no need for convincing

[floppyboo]

106. also, no need to bar Sid Blumenthal from the WH. Yup, Obama loved the deal - not.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. A bit of a rewrite, since Libya was a NATO adventure, primarily organized by our buddies

the French and British. Don't forget, the "Arab Spring" was still fresh in the air and there was plenty of amazingly convincing propaganda depicting mass genocide and so on, the usual stuff.

This is purely for the record I have no allusion that this will affect you whatsoever.

[cali]

20. Yes, and Hillary advocated vigorously for it

I have no illusions that you'll accept that fact, and other evidence that she is a hawk. Use of military force has frequently been her go to option.

[The_Casual_Observer]

47. You figure Hillary had an independent voice when it came to matters

like this? Honestly? When was the last time you ever saw a Secretary of anything oppose
official policy? When you become Secretary of State maybe you can do it.

I think you are setting the bar pretty high on this one, it must be pretty upsetting that they didn't ask or take your advice on this Libya situation.

[Arazi]

51. Let's assume Hillary was just an advisor to Obama on this. Hillary forcefully lobbied for it

But the buck stops with Obama. It still means her judgement is awful. Vote for her and you're supporting her policies that gave us those sweet, dead drowned babies

[The_Casual_Observer]

109. And Hillary did it right? What a completely stupid ass comment.

[Ash_F]

77. The US is the big dog in NATO.

[The_Casual_Observer]

107. I guess you are the expert!

[Ash_F]

113. I am glad I was able to help you.

[polly7]

13. Her judgement is plain as day. Whatever and however many it takes to feed her corporate

overlords.

[CentralMass]

28. Excerpts from an article on the current situation in Libya.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/regrets-of-a-revolution-libya-after-qaddafi/
“Libya today — in spite of the expectations we had at the time of the revolution — it’s much, much worse,” said Karim Mezran, resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. “Criminality is skyrocketing. Insecurity is pervasive. There are no jobs. It’s hard to get food and electricity. There’s fighting, there’s fear… I see very few bright spots.”

While Libya was able to hold elections in 2012, the government that emerged was never able to control the numerous militias and armed groups that gained power during the uprising, and skirmishes continued."

In all, an estimated 1,700 armed groups and militias are active in Libya, according to a recent report from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

“People don’t feel safe, because the law doesn’t protect them anymore,” Mughrabi said, describing a situation in which police stations are either not operational or are too frightened to intervene. Meanwhile, people can use militias that they have a personal connection with to settle scores.

Mughrabi said courts have also come under attack by armed groups, as have many attorneys, especially when they represented clients thought to be Qaddafi supporters.

“It’s really the rule of militias and armed groups, as opposed to the rule of law,” she said.

More than 4,600 people have died in the fighting since the beginning of 2014, according the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, a group that monitors violence using media reports.

Some of the worst damage from the fighting is in Benghazi, where many buildings in the city’s center have been reduced to rubble. “The level of destruction, apart from Benghazi, is maybe not one that captures the world’s imagination,” Mughrabi said, but “the fear that it creates is massive.”

That fear has driven at least 435,000 Libyans from their homes to elsewhere in the country, according to the United Nations, although officials say the true total is likely higher. Libyans reported that a third of those displaced within the country were living in “precarious” accommodations, including unfinished buildings, garages, collective shelters or public spaces, according to an assessment carried out by the U.N. in August.

The U.N. estimates 2.44 million people — about a third of Libya’s population — have been affected by the fighting, which has led to shortages of food, water, electricity and medical supplies and reduced access to health care and public services. As of June, an estimated 2.5 million Libyans needed access to health services, according to the U.N., and around 400,000 required food aid."

[democrank]

29. Forget it, Cali.

It`s called Camp Weathervane for a reason. North, south, east, west, every known direction....depending on the day, depending on the weather, depending on the current talking points and what unpleasant truths needs to be smoothed over.

It`s the New Normal established to benefit The Chosen One. Hillary is never wrong, never held accountable. Those are the rules now and you`d better agree....or else. Principles are so yesterday. It`s not about that drowned infant. It`s about winning.

[tabasco]

32. "The greatest mistake of my presidency." --Barack Obama

Clinton has shown awful judgment on major issues.

[840high]

34. ...!100++++

[MariaThinks]

62. Obama's Presidency - and it's Clinton's fault. Hatred knows no logic.

[tabasco]

91. No, absolving the Sec. of State of blame for international fuck-ups

is illogical. Don't tout Clinton's experience as Sec. of State if you are unwilling to acknowledge her fuck-ups.

[YouDig]

35. The entire world was warning of a massacre in Libya. It wasn't Hillary's plan, it was

an international coalition.

How many people do you think Gadafi would have killed if the UN hadn't intervened? Anti-Hillary people don't like to think about that question.

[Akicita]

55. You could say the exact same thing about Saddam Hussein. Both Iraq and Lybia were disasterous

blunders.

[YouDig]

57. No. The world was not warning of an impending massacre in Iraq.

Iraq was not an international coalition led by Europe, it was the US and a small number of allies. Iraq was an invasion with large amounts of ground troops, Libya was an air campaign. Totally different.

So how many people do you think Kadafi would have killed? What do you think would have been the outcome of the Libyan civil war without the NATO air support. Do you even care is this just about trying to attack Hillary?

[Akicita]

60. Iraq was a result of UN action.Hussein had already killed thousands, many by chemical weapons. At

Least part of Iraq is controlled by a semi-democratic government. Libya is basically a failed state and people are risking death to escape just like in ISIS controlled areas in Libya. Not much difference.

[YouDig]

100. Hardly. It was the US strong-arming a few allies to go along.

Do you remember Libya? The whole world wanted to stop the impending massacre.

Yeah, it's a failed stated, but would it have been better to let the Kadafi massacre go ahead? If you think it's a simple answer, you are lying to yourself. How about Rwanda? Were you in favor of non-intervention there too?

To me, the basic dishonesty of people attacking Hillary over this is that none of the people who do that can ever answer the question of how many people they think Kadafi would have killed if the UN hadn't intervened. None of them even want to think about that.

[YouDig]

133. It was already unstable, so that's obviously not true. There was a civil war going on.

[Ash_F]

82. Less than the Arab supremecists that NATO supported

[Ash_F]

116. Oh btw the entire world? What countries?

Let's list them!

[MariaThinks]

125. Exactly. It would have been in the tens of thousands and THEY conveniently never mention that.

[amborin]

37. Hillary & Syrian Bloodbath:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/14/hillary-clinton-and-syrian-bloodbath

[antigop]

39. Hillary Clinton’s Legacy in Libya (NY Times Video)

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004216623/hillary-clintons-legacy-in-libya.html

As the secretary of state in 2011, Hillary Clinton pressed the Obama administration to intervene militarily in Libya, with consequences that have gone far beyond the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

[CentralMass]

41. +1

[QC]

44. Yeah but only geeks and dorkwads who care about stupid things

like issues and ethics care about that stuff.

The kool kiddiez know it's all about which team you're on.

[Duval]

46. She "has no regrets" says it all.

I hope to all hell she doesn't get the nomination.

[loyalsister]

48. That it is closely tied to her communications with Sydney Blumenthal

is what I find most outraging. She undermined the president she is still claiming to be loyal to after seeking advice that ran counter to Obama's more restrained leanings then handing it to him as if she had been doing her job as part of his administration. The fact that he views it as a mistake says it all. She will never admit it was a mistake and will never admit to how it contributed to the rise of ISIS.

That kind of political betrayal may not be a crime, but jeez it is not just an ethical lapse. With her thirst for war, I can't help but see her as having stabbed him in the back so that she could claim glory over killing. She most certainly expressed glee over the initial results. While I don't think she sees the rise of ISIS and people fleeing the country that way, I just can't understand how she does not show remorse.

[Laughing Mirror]

52. Humanitarian catastrophe washing up on the shores of Europe

Which means people are starting to pay attention. No regrets from Secretary Clinton.

[BootinUp]

53. Realities of a troubled region

A cynical line would begin to circulate in Washington: In Iraq, the United States had intervened and occupied — and things had gone to hell. In Libya, the United States had intervened but not occupied — and things had gone to hell. And in Syria, the United States had neither intervened nor occupied — and things had still gone to hell.

It was a dark jest designed to shift blame from baffled American policy makers to a troubled region. But it raised a serious question about Libya: If overthrowing a hated dictator in a small and relatively rich country produced such epic troubles, was American intervention ever justified?

There are a bunch of good articles here on Libya from the NYT if anyone is interested.

[creeksneakers2]

115. We tried to pacify Libya

They kicked us out. If they hadn't things might be different. They still can be.

[Babel_17]

92. Like Iraq, they are in our debt

No?

[riderinthestorm]

98. Thanks for this cali. What an enormous tragedy nt

[Bonobo]

103. I simply do not see how anyone can claim "foreign policy expertise" when we have nothing

to show for it but actually a series of bad and reckless decisions.

[Nyan]

104. It's not a failure. It went according to the plan.

Failure implies that they fell short of their goal to transform Libya into a democracy with unity and prosperity. You know, all those terms you throw around when you want a military intervention. All those things Hollande and Cameron said they so desperately wanted for Libya when they landed in Tripoli (and they're not makng trips to Tripoli anymore).

The only unintended consequences that they don’t appreciate are an influx of refugees. Otherwise, they don’t have to pay for anything. They're not. We're not.
They continue to have these wars of choice and US State Department will continue to spearhead them.
"Well, they have elections now"? Yeah. Iraq had elections. Nicely done. Madam Secretary. Very well done. I hope you're proud.

[Jitter65]

110. No it didn't go according to plan. Our international partners did not keep their end of

the plan. They were to go in and help set up an interim government. The internal and external partners left us hanging.

[cali]

119. It's always something.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

111. It's obvious she was ill advised

but who exctly advised her? Henry Kissinger?

[Nyan]

120. There are 119 replies and I only see 18 of them.

Wow.

[okieinpain]

126. I'm trying to figure this post out

We didn't invade libya, we just didn't sit by and let people get slaughtered by their own leader. I wouldn't call libya a disaster or a triumph. It just is.

[Recursion]

131. It's somewhere north of Iraq and south of Kosovo. Probably more south than north.

Call it the Maryland of US interventions.

We got pushed into it before we had our ducks in a row by France, but in the nature of things it became "ours" once we started, and it hasn't gone even slightly like we wanted it to.

[okieinpain]

138. i think it has gone pretty well considering it's someone

else's country. all we did was provide assistance to stop qadaffi from killing his own people. like with most things you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Mike Nelson]

132. Wow...

...now it's Hillary the Baby-Killer?

[Martin Eden]

136. DO NOT INTERVENE when the potential for unintended consequences outweighs the perceived benefits

We, our allies, and other powers in the region have a long and sordid history of interventionism in the Middle East, from the era of colonialism through the present. We (collectively) have done much to create the current mess.

We should know by now that unintended consequences are more the rule than the exception and are almost always worse than the perceived benefits of sticking our nose and our military into an extremely complicated mess.

Our capacity to exert control is illusory. If our foreign policy experts haven't learned that by now, they're not nearly as smart as they ought to be.

Our interventionism is usually cloaked under the rationale of humanitarianism or national security.

Both were a false rationale for the invasion of Iraq, and I'm not ready to buy it for Libya either.

Our military all too often serves other interests.

[Herman4747]

137. I believe that Honduras was an even worse failure. nt