Sound familiar? I think it was Bush that justified his actions in Iraq not only with WMD, but, to promote democracy around the world.
Neocon's live.
..."The Arab revolutions (click here) have scrambled power dynamics and shattered security forces across the region. And instability in Mali has created an expanding safe haven for terrorists who look to extend their influence and plot further attacks of the kind we saw just last week in Algeria," she said....
Indeed, the revolutions in the Middle East has changed the dynamics of the region and indeed the policies of the USA in dealing with the new leadership is the same. Bombs, guns and war.
"W"rong.
The people of Northern Africa do not deserve war unending because Europe and the USA see Pre-emption as a real strategy to admittedly burgeoning nations. The mistake the USA is making REPEATEDLY over decades is to be shortsighted and allowing oppression. The actions of Pre-Emption are exactly that.
Pre-emption promotes the standards of oppression. Those policies make the USA a warring nation and not a benevolent one. While the events in Mali are unfortunate, the reason to enter into the idea of war without end is out of the question. We are not going to protect leadership that may or may not have the best interest of the USA in their vision for their nations. We are not going to continue to kill innocent people that understand only their daily reality.
The events of Benghazi were more than unfortunate. When a nation falls in revolution it is a new frontier and while is appears the USA has to be a part of it to guide it, that is incorrect. The USA can offer any help as far as securing the region to keep the effects of revolution from destroying national security for itself and allies, but, to expect to provide an overlay of government in the vacuum of the lack of it is not realistic or prudent.
Ambassador Stevens, on assignment by the State Department, never stopped to realize he was in more danger than there was ever intelligence. His Americana got in the way of good judgement. Americana states "Determination is enough to make the best outcomes happen." The profession of journalism frequently makes the same mistakes. There were deaths among journalists in Libya as well because they had the inflated idea they were as safe there as when embedded with the military.
A void of a profoundly stable government should never be viewed by any NATO nation as something that can be overcome by military might. It cannot. The people in these nations have made fools of The West over and over for more than a half century. The ONLY President to have a successful strategy against these dynamics were Bombs and No Fly Zones of military or militarized bases. It was the only strategy that works. The only intelligence that is needed is surveillance and military prowess to meet the surveillance needs. There is absolutely no reason to spend billions and trillions on invasions. The USA has the best outcomes when this is not the strategy sought.
Secretary Clinton did the best she could from her position in the State Department, the deficiencies are profound and have been profound. The USA cannot build secure facilities within moments of the need. The sincerely best outcome for the security of our diplomatic corps is to look at places where USA military installations already exist in dangerous regions and continue the missions from those bases. Building new installations as was done in Baghdad is out of the question.
It is known the 'idea' of a secure diplomatic mission in countries where they are not full partners in providing a stable environment for our personnel results in elaborate plans for construction of nothing more than woefully insufficient facilities full of corruption in the way monies are spent. We don't need it.
The Republicans on the panel seeking a political benefit from their questions of Secretary Clinton is not only inappropriate, but, immoral in wasting the time they are paid for to solve problems and not politicize them. The rest of the Clinton testimony today is a waste of my time, too. She was doing the job the nation demanded of her regardless of the lack of will the USA, primarily the House, has to provide the demands of those ideologies. There is absolutely no reason to continue Ambassador Rice, either. Ideologies have a very poor outcome in the real world.
