How Much Blame Should Hillary Clinton Bear for Libya?

1
1022

The biggest blot on Hillary Clinton’s record as secretary of state – Libya – may have been a symptom of her stubbornness. (Photo: RedPepperCo.ug)

Can any credence given to a national security policy advisor to Donald Trump when it comes to Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy? Unlikely, we reflexively respond – at the least, we are sick of hearing about Benghazi. But what if he’s a retired navy rear admiral? And what if he was personally involved in negotiations for the abdication of Muammar Gaddafy? Before we hear out Charles R. Kubic at National Interest, here’s a synopsis at Counterpunch from Diana Johnstone.

As Secretary of State, [Ms. Clinton] blocked diplomacy that would have prevented or ended conflict, most notoriously concerning Libya, where even senior U.S. military officers were told to cut off their contacts with Gaddafi agents seeking a peaceful compromise.

For his part, Kubic writes:

Prior to the February 17, 2011, “Day of Rage,” Libya had a national budget surplus of 8.7 percent of GDP in 2010, with oil production at 1.8 million barrels per day, on track to reach its goal of 3 million barrels per day. Currently, oil production has decreased by over 80 percent [and] the Libyan economy contracted by an estimated 41.8 percent.

Furthermore, “Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States.” Yet, Ms. Clinton “strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.” Even though, within “weeks of the revolution there were two valid cease-fire opportunities, one presented to the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and a second opportunity presented to U.S. Africa Command for direct military commander negotiations to effect Gaddafi’s abdication, in which I was personally involved. Both opportunities were rejected and shut down by Secretary Clinton [who] had already met with rebel leaders in Paris … and had committed to support their revolution.”

Ms. Clinton’s policy “resulted in the arming of terrorists, months of war and tens of thousands of causalities, the murder of the American ambassador and the deaths of three other brave Americans, continued civil war and the collapse of the Libyan economy, and a failed nation-state contributing to a tragic European migrant crisis.”

I know Ms. Clinton sailed through the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearings last November. Perhaps those more knowledgeable than me can weigh in on Ms. Clinton’s culpability for Libya’s implosion.

This piece was reprinted from Foreign Policy In Focus by RINF Alternative News with permission.

  • miro

    I forgot the name of the author who came up with this, but it is apt: “Hillary turned Libya into Woodstock for scumbags”. An open bazaar for grenades, rocket launchers, AKs, and general ordinance. Libya as a functioning society was destroyed; at least 30,000 killed. A vote for Obama in 2012 was a direct endorsement of this “freedom fighting”.

    A vote for Hillary in 2016 is a bloody plea for more sacrifice and harvesting. Of course, I must concede that the election/race is just another sham; that Hillary has already been appointed. But why endorse such a lowly weasel by voting it in?