Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent much of Wednesday being grilled on Capitol Hill about the conditions which led to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. As John McCain, among others, pointed out, the chaos which prevailed in Libya was not inevitable; it was due in no small part to the administration’s failure to do more to support state-building after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in an American-supported insurgency.
The failure to follow up has destabilized not only Libya but also nearby countries such as Mali, where the French have felt compelled to rush into the vacuum to prevent Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and associated extremist organizations from consolidating their hold on the northern part of the country and even marching on the capital. What’s truly odd is how reluctant the administration is to help the French, even though they are on the front lines of our common battle against jihadism.
The administration has finally agreed to airlift a French battalion into the fight but is still holding off on a French request for aerial refueling. The reason for the administration’s reluctance is truly bizarre: According to the New York Times, “A French official, speaking on ground rules of anonymity to describe bilateral discussions, said some officials in Washington were concerned that assigning American tanker planes to refuel French warplanes bombing Islamist militant targets in Mali might make the United States appear as a co-belligerent in the conflict. Even if that view was not supported under international law, it could be the perception across the Muslim world.”
If accurate, this would suggest that “some officials in Washington” are worried that by fighting terrorists we ourselves will become a target for terrorism. Earth to Washington: the jihadists already hate us and are already doing everything possible to do us harm.
Americans, after all, were just killed along with the citizens of other countries in the hostage-taking at a gas plant in Algeria. It seems a little far-fetched at this late date to imagine that we might propitiate the extremists by not fighting them too hard. Actually, if we abstain from the fight, the most likely result is that the Islamists will be able to consolidate their gains in Mali and then turn Mali into a base for terrorism against Western interests—including American interests.
The French may not always stand with us, but in the present instance we must stand with the French and not imagine that we can somehow get out of the line of fire.
The Obama administration believes in appeasement. I doubt there is anything anyone can do to change their mind on this.
We are among other things air lifting French troops in Mali,however Im sure nothing nwill please you toy soldiers short of direct "boots on the ground" participation. No more n"freedom fries" ,gentelmen.
I do not want any AMerican boots on the ground n nsupport the French
The problem was caused by Obama's intervention in Libya in the first place. Gaddhafi was a louse, but we had a deal with him, allowed "humanitarian" emotion rather than realpolitik to govern, and now West Africa is living with the consequences.
"… “some officials in Washington” are worried that by fighting terrorists we ourselves will become a target for terrorism…" n nAvoiding becoming terrorist targets is the long-standing policy that just blew up in France's face. It is disturbing to recognize that our administration is more craven cowardly than the most craven and cowardly nation in Europe. n nThe failing of the Benghazi hearings is that Clinton and the State Department were not compelled to clearly define our current foreign policy and the administration remains able to conceal its true policy and purpose.
The French have never been cowardly about having their Foreign (non-French) Legion and their armed forces throw their weight around in their African ex-colonies. Kind of like the US in the old days in Haiti and Central America..
Can anyone identify a publicly traded company that makes desert camoflauge uniforms? n nok, seriously, France made Libya impossible for the US to avoid, and the Libyan after-party led to the collapse of US trained troops in Mali. n nI do think the 'insurgents' Mali needs to be dealt with, but only with the Algerian model: ruthless and brutal unless the world can get the African Union to deal with their stubborn rule on preserving colonial boundaries. n nEven I see the parallel with following France into Vietnam.
This is the "light footprint" policy (along with rank stupidity) at work. Meanwhile, I keep waiting for someone, anyone to tell the French to exercise the utmost restraint and make sure not to take disproportionate action. Maybe the French will tell this to themselves.
lol
The French could be brutal, all right, but not cowardly. n nThey were once the best soldiers in Europe, which is why so many military terms (bivouac, rendezvous, lieutenant) are French in origin.