Libya: Clinton, Obama chose war not diplomacy. Now our Ambassador pays for their hubris
Channel: aligzanduh
Date: 2012-09-14

file download: https://docs.google.com/a/microtopia.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=bWljcm90b3BpYS5vcmd8bWljcm90b3BpYXxneDo0ZTMyYjg3YTIxMDVkZWY1 US DIPLOMATS KILLED: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
The statements I am about to make about actual historical events and statistics are not opinions they are double referenced indisputable facts.  
Let us state at the outset that we do not know the level of support for the NATO intervention in Libya amongst Libyans. We know that the loyalists have been suppressed violently even in their speech, that reporters do not ask. And that the US government has not come up out and shown any facts. We do not know, we can guess. A third are sympathetic or support Gadaffi's ghost, a third simply want to have a normal life, and a third wanted him gone and is happy to pay the high price of becoming a conflict riven country. 
Clinton asserts. "Our mission is noble". She weeps about their lack of gratitude in our 'liberating' of Libya. It exposes the cracks and flaws in yet another militarization of a problem that may have had and it can be largely concluded would have had -- a diplomatic solution! Yes Libya could have transitioned to multi party democracy without the 28,000 sorties by every Western Country -- and in fact that fact turned many Libyans against NATO and the West. Libya had lived through a savage colonization by Italy, and then a British installed king. Who would welcome this over their skies. 
As one South African protestor against the NATO intervention said "The West is bloodthirsty. All they understand is violence. They do not understand diplomacy.
How ironic that no Western soldier -- not a single one -- was killed in a campaign that killed 30,000 Libyans, and tore their country apart. A military response to a diplomatic problem. Yet ultimately it was the diplomats who died. The State department under Clinton has adopted a very aggressive stance, eschewing diplomacy for violence in Pakistan Afghanistan Syria Palestine Yemen and Libya.  Was it ignorance or arrogance. 
And also ironic -- is that Gadaffi himself came to power in a bloodless coup, when for us to achieve change nearly destroyed the country.
Will the West ever take responsibility for the consequences of its diplomacy-free violent humanitarian interventions. How is dropping bombs humanitarian? How is the "Big Lie of a hypothetical massacre in Benghazi, that might have taken place justification for the events that have transpired" 
Much has been lost and more loss will come due to this tragic mixture of realpolitik and incompetence. We now see how much lies in the scales as costs of our decision to remove Gadaffi from power. How much more will it take for the Westerners to stop believing their polyanna version of events in Libya and remember that there were months of raging war which at any time could have had serious peace talks. I blame the deaths on our decision not to hold talks but instead simply bombing. Now each day more consequences occur, and the question that should be asked -- is not "are the people better off without Gadaffi"  to a question of "are the people better off because we chose bombing instead of peace talks". Could elections occur peacefully. Since we will never know if that could have worked -- we must allways assume that we in the West decided on the behalf of the Libyans who in our infinite wisdom we decided would benefit from full on war vs even a try at a chance for a peaceful resolution. For those who say Gadaffi was resistant -- the only issue was not being ordered that he had to 'go' -- was demanding gadaffi's humiliation and the deaths of 10s or even hundreds of thousands a better decision than going into talks, with the UN 1973 as the stick? 
The danger that the death of 4 american diplomats in Libya poses to Western Leaders is increased scrutiny.  The whole basis of the narrative that Libyans are grateful to the West and are pro-western will be questioned. But the elephant in the room is the level of Loyalist support in Libya. Noone will try to measure it. It is taboo. Gallup did polls in 10 Arab countries about NATO intervention in Libya -- but did not do it in Libya. Secondly -- was the military mission legal, it was authorized by US drafted resolution 1973. Did we break the resolution and the law by arming the rebels and pushing for regime change.
Was it worth it to kill 30,000 suppress the loyalists ruthlessly and create a refugee and arms crisis in N Africa, as well as Syria being flooded with Extremits and weaponry from Syria. Was all this worth it, so we did not have to stoop to have talks because "That would give him more time to prepare" More time to prepare against an attack by a military force 500 times larger? What "preparations" could he have made that would make talks a worse idea than wholesale liquidation of the armed forces.
Was it worth it -- to have these diplomats die