Libya’s prime minister-elect Mustafa Abushagur — who was voted in on Sept. 12 — was removed in a no-confidence vote on Sunday. As the Washington Post reports, this could mean further delays for the FBI investigation into the Benghazi attack:
The decision by Libya’s legislature means that the government may remain without permanent, democratically-elected leadership for many weeks. But without a government in place, the investigation into the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans may be a low priority for Libyans. The extent to which the U.S. part of the investigation can operate freely in Libya also may be hampered by the domestic political chaos.
Some Libyan officials have raised sovereignty concerns about extensive FBI operations in Benghazi, the eastern coastal city where the Americans were killed at two U.S. government outposts. Safety concerns also have kept the FBI away from the city,although it visited Thursday for an extensive sweep of the U.S. mission there.
This may actually be welcome news to the State Department, which didn’t seem particularly interested in helping the investigation along in the first place. But we’re now almost a month out from the attack, and the Obama administration still hasn’t said whether it will deal with the terrorists behind it. Will it treat it as a criminal act or a military incident? The ouster of the Libyan PM makes both options more difficult.
If they go the criminal route, with the FBI working with the Libyan government to capture and prosecute the perpetrators, they could run across multiple problems. As WaPo points out, this may not be a priority for the Libyan government at the moment. There’s also the question of where to prosecute the terrorists — can the U.S. risk allowing them to go to trial in Libya? Or trust the prison system in a country that’s still undergoing a tumultuous transition? Trying the terrorists in the U.S. brings its own batch of problems. Even if the FBI is able to build a strong case from its late investigation, there will be controversy over giving terrorists a court platform, and debates over where to put them if they are convicted.
Responding with military force is clearly the better option, but the removal of the PM also makes it more complicated. The leadership vacuum could provide bad actors with an opening to demagogue U.S. intervention in the region. WaPo reports that Libyan officials have already criticized the FBI investigation as an infringement on Libyan sovereignty, and military operations could exacerbate that. The Obama administration has touted the U.S. relationship with Libya as one of its Arab Spring successes, and may be concerned about putting the U.S. at odds with the new government. In terms of U.S. politics, a drone strike or other military operation could also anger Obama’s left-wing base before the election.
None of these options are without risk. But the riskiest one of all would be to do nothing. The Obama administration may want to wait until after the election to respond, but each day of inaction makes him look weaker to the American public and our allies and enemies abroad. Thursday, the day Vice President Biden debates Paul Ryan, will mark one month since the consulate attack. Obama won’t be able to put off a response — or at least an explanation for the delay — for much longer.
The Benghazi Attack?r nr nThe Obama administration apparently is regarding this as old news now u2013 u201ca bump in the roadu201d u2013 somewhere in the rear view mirror. What better way to advance the United States to the esteemed status of Belgium than to ignore such matters.
The Benghazi Attack? n nThe Obama administration apparently is regarding this as old news now – “a bump in the road” – somewhere in the rear view mirror. What better way to advance the United States to the esteemed status of Belgium than to ignore such matters. n
Was Mustafa Abushagur the Libyan who publicly apologized to the US after the attack in Benghazi? nIf so, did that factor into his lost confidence status?
Since you applauded Romney for only crediting our military and intelligence agents for killing Bin Laden, perhaps you should ask our military and intelligence agents when they're finally going to respond to the Benghazi attacks.
When they're allowed to.
This makes absolutely no sense. The airwaves are full of stories of military and intelligence specialists who pleaded with the State Department to up security (as did the Ambassador) and were rebuffed. But anyways what does your comment even begin to add up to? It only makes the point of the criticism. Just as President Obama nearly called off targeting bin Laden (did you know that?) and then wrote a CYA memo to blame the military if things went sidewise, so too President Obama left Benghazi with a thinned out defense for political correctness and now is stalling on responding. Obama finally let the military and intelligence guys go ahead and they did, then he spiked the football 24-7. And now he's sitting on the Benghazi killing. You think the Seals can freelance? This is up to them?
It makes perfect sense once you remember HillelA's apparent mission: defend Barack Obama from any criticism no matter how accurate or well deserved, using any deflection no matter how absurd or dishonest.
HA: Obama almost prohibited the Seals from taking out bin Laden before writing a memo that put the onus on any possible failure on the military. Finally finally he changed his mind, then took credit. The Seals are not freelancers. If Obama wants this whole Benghazi thing to go away through inactivity they have no more ability to proceed than they had the ability to stop the State Department for refusing repeated requests (with the Ambassador) to beef up defense for American diplomats in Libya.
The only thing Obama and Hillary did about the Benghazi attack was pose for pictures with the corpses. And that's all they're going to do.
a) never b) any day in the first week of November before November 6 n ntake your pick
Smoke screen to the face of the ignorant American people to hide their totally misguided policy. Pr. O got a kick in the but from the Muslim world while getting slaps in the face from the Mullahs. To use Mr. Kerry argument about OBL, is Ambassador Stevens better off now!!!!!!!