Ranger from the North

As much as I appreciate the effort to get to the bottom of exactly what happened on the day of the Benghazi attack, I’d also like for Clinton, and for President Obama, to walk us through the logic of their decision to help topple the Qaddafi government, and whether they believe the U.S. is safer now that Libya is wracked by civil war. Have our national interests been served by the collapse in Libyan oil production, the destabilization of Libya’s neighboring states, and the outflow of refugees? Given that Clinton has taken some of the credit for the decision to intervene in Libya, can she explain to us what exactly she’s taken away from the experience? Assuming she did not want Libya to descend into civil war, how did she envision a post-Qaddafi transition unfolding, and what kind of role did she think the U.S. ought to have played? Or have events in Libya unfolded just as she had anticipated?

One of Hillary Clinton’s key weaknesses as a presidential candidate is her poor record as Secretary of State. In that respect, Libya is critical. Hillary was the key driver behind our Libya policy. It was largely her decision to overthrow Qaddafi for no particular reason, with no plan for what would come after. This represents an almost incredible lapse in judgment. Benghazi is important, but it is only one aspect of the ongoing policy disaster that is Libya.