Yet, critics of the President's foreign policy are mostly all over the map and their criticism turns out to be pretty selective. You end up suspecting that they have no genuine conceptual argument but instead aren't just cherry picking for partisan gain.
They'll criticize the President for not supporting Mubarak in Egypt, but also for intervening, in Libya and then again for not intervening in Syria.
This complaint about a "smaller footprint" is really just nostalgia for the failed policies of George W. Bush and his gunboat diplomacy on all issues. They miss the days of W threatening Holy Hell every 5 minutes.
Many of them seem to not like the Arab Spring. Should Obama have opposed it? Declared that the Egyptian people may not have wanted Mubarak anymore but that's not our problem, our American Interests were in favor of him ruling for life?
We are now also hearing some talk about cutting aid to both Egypt and Libya. Egypt is problematic on some levels. While you certainly have to wish them well, it's a fact that the new government in Egypt-from the Muslim Brotherhood party-is not so friendly to us.
This doesn't mean that you simply curse them. But it is a tricky relationship with many considerations. I see no reason why we should turn on Libya, however, whose Prime Minister criticized the attacks in no uncertain terms.
Today the Libyan Ambassador said these words that show his sorrow at this tragic violence:
"Libyan Ambassador to the U.S. Ali Suleiman Aujali on Thursday expressed deep regret over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, but said that the question of who was behind the attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi is still unclear."
“We are really shamed,” Aujali said on CNN’s “Starting Point.” “I feel shamed at what happened in Benghazi. This is the city I [was] born in, this is the city I grown in, this is the city I studied in. And the people of Libya, they do appreciate very much the American support from the beginning. And without your help, without your support … I would not be here today. [Qadhafi would have taken] over Libya again, and he will kill most of the people that [were] against him.”
"Aujali, who recently said that people formerly affiliated with former Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi could have been behind the attacks on the embassy, reiterated that some signs pointed that direction but added that nothing is certain yet."
“Well, it is very difficult at this time to decide who is really exactly behind it,” he said, delving into Libyan politics and noting that some people formerly affiliated with Qadhafi still had money. But, he added, “we have to find out, and I hope that very soon we will find the [people] responsible for this attack and bring them to justice.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81159.html#ixzz26OPqRM3M
Sen. John McCain-who could teach Romney a thing or two about statesmanship; not that there are only two things Romney doesn't know-argues against turning on Libya:
"Despite a vicious attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi earlier this week, leaving U.S. ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other diplomats dead, Sen. John McCain encouraged the U.S. to keep its presence in Libya."
"McCain, who toured Libya with Stevens and called him “a genuine American hero,” said the U.S. cannot divert from its mission and must continue to encourage efforts to promote democracy."
“The last thing that Chris Stevens would want is for America to withdraw from Libya,” McCain said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “These people have a chance at democracy. And the fact is, there is al-Qaida there, there are extremist groups, there's thousands of weapons, there's porous borders, and they're struggling. But they can have a democracy.”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/mccain-u-s-must-continue-libyan-mission-20120913
No comments:
Post a Comment