The dialogue today regarding the Benghazi attacks is still not correct. Following the attacks on Americans were attacks on the NEW Libyan leadership. Libyans died. The aggression, attacks and deaths did not end with the evacuation of Americans after September 11, 2012.
The dialogue within the White House regarding the attacks of September 11, 2012 was about the security of the Americans, but, also the effects of the attacks on the security of the new Libyan government. It was not politics, it was about how the USA presents itself in the public that can buffer the effects on Libyans leading that country. The public portrayal is important for far more than politics.
We can state Ambassador Stevens exhibited heroic efforts to move Benghazi and Libya to a democratic country; but; he also measured his actions against the conditions the Libya government was facing. I can only speculate as is the case with everyone else; Ambassador Stevens knew when he went from Tripoli to Benghazi there was violence in the country. He chose to stay in Libya and he chose to travel to Benghazi because he believed it more safe.
That POSTURE he took was reflective of the bravery of the new government. That new government lost people through violence in Tripoli in the days and weeks that followed.
When Ambassador Stevens traveled to Benghazi it was a statement of purpose of the USA and it's commitment to the Libyan people. I am fairly certain, in his mind, he believed he had no choice in his actions in Libya in those fateful days.
The State Department's decision process into the future has to remove the heroics of our diplomats. It should no longer be an option and sponsoring governments should understand that reality when a USA mission is on their soil.
The State Department's decision process into the future has to remove the heroics of our diplomats. It should no longer be an option and sponsoring governments should understand that reality when a USA mission is on their soil.
