Here's an exceedingly odd
article in Foreign Policy about the accelerating collapse of Libya, because Republicans. What I apparently didn't understand before is that the purpose of a Congressional investigative committee is not to look into malfeasance by United States officials but to solve Libya's internal problems. The author sputters with outrage that Republicans in Congress have obsessed about the President's "bungled communications" about Benghazi rather than about how to transform Libya into a paradise without committing either treasure or blood. That turns out to be the proper task of the opposition party rather than, say, the White House or the State Department. Here are the helpful ideas of the State Department, by the way:
"Libya has many challenges, and we're aware of that," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Monday. "We believe they cannot be overcome if its leaders don't settle differences through dialogue and work together."
Last week, in London, Secretary of State John Kerry pledged to do "all we can to help the Libyans" solve their political problems.
"We need to try to accelerate the effort to bring about stability and security and the governance that is necessary to provide the time and the space for Libyan authorities to be able to confront the threat from extremism and the challenges that their country faces of just providing governance to their people. . . ."
But it seems the problem wasn't the flabby emptiness of these sentiments; it was Congress's inexplicable refusal to provide "resources":
With the hours upon hours of hearings dedicated to Benghazi, very little of that time focused on how Congress could help provide the resources the administration might need to improve the situation in Libya. The fact that this isn't likely to change bodes poorly for the country's future.
The article mentions the administration's alert readiness to evacuate the Libyan embassy as soon as things go from desperate to nightmarish this time. (Not gonna make that mistake twice!) Imagine the morale in that embassy. "Yes, this cesspool of a country's blowing up, and I can't imagine what professional sins I must have committed to have been assigned here, but I take comfort in knowing that Washington has my back."
3 comments:
If State follows the same procedures as in Iraq, it's a volunteer assignment. That was one of the ways that the State Department differed from the military.
Democrats in the House are also talking about the President's 'resources,' in terms of repealing his war powers. The President can't win for losing, it seems.
True story, re: State Dept in Iraq. My sister was part of the first crew back into Iraq following the liberation from Saddam Hussein. She was a volunteer. As were almost all of her coworkers. But they didn't get the full raft of volunteers, so at a certain point, the DoS said they were going to start voluntelling. There was a near riot among career DoS staffers, with many threatening to resign if ordered to go. My sister held these people in utter contempt. Before she went, one of her friends offered her a higher position than she was slated for in Baghdad in another post. She thanked him for the offer, but declined because she had given her word. So she did her two years in Baghdad rather than accept a cushier assignment elsewhere. Have I ever mentioned I'm so proud of my sister I could burst?
You should be proud.
Post a Comment