MELVIN GOODMAN:
So the question all of this begs—and this is where Hillary Clinton’s remarks did concern me—is that we created a disaster in Libya. It was the decision to conduct regime change, the decision to go after Gaddafi, which eventually led to his death. And remember, Hillary Clinton welcomed that news with the words "We came, we saw, he died."
Now, there is a link to what Putin is doing in Syria, because, remember, we had to tell the Russians that we had very limited objectives, a very limited mission in Benghazi, so that they would not veto the U.N. resolution. And then, essentially, Putin finds out that our mission really was to go after Gaddafi, creating this instability, this discontinuity, this chaos in Libya.
So what really needs to be discussed is, what is the role of military power in the making of foreign policy? Why does Hillary Clinton think that Libya is not a disaster? And why was Hillary Clinton pushing for the military role in Libya in the first place? These are important issues.
As far as the hearings were concerned, she testified off and on for nearly 11 hours. She handled herself extremely well, and she essentially exposed the fact that these were a group of Republican troglodytes doing their best to marginalize her and humiliate her. And they totally failed.
MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, in the wake of Gaddafi’s death, there was total chaos in Libya. And essentially, there was a civil war being waged between forces in the western part of the country, based around the capital, Tripoli, and forces in the eastern part of the country, based around Benghazi. And what we have learned, essentially, over the last 34 years of foreign policymaking, that when you use military power in areas that are not stable, you usually create a worse situation.
So we took a very bad situation, where there was factionalism in Libya, and made it much worse by removing the only person who seemed to hold it together, even though he did it with incredible violence and threat, but Gaddafi was holding that nation, to the extent it was a nation, holding it together. So, we were a major force and a major reason for the instability that took place. We should never have been in Benghazi. All of the other international institutions, both government and nongovernment, had pulled out of Benghazi.
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH:
Now, during the Arab Spring, uprisings across the Middle East occurred, and Gaddafi made ludicrous threats against Benghazi. Based on those verbal threats, we intervened—absent constitutional authority, I might add. We bombed Libya. We destroyed their army. We obliterated their police stations. Lacking any civil authority, armed brigades control security. Al-Qaeda expanded its presence. Weapons are everywhere. Thousands of shoulder-to-air missiles are on the loose. Our military intervention led to greater instability in Libya.
We want to stop the attacks on our embassies? Let’s stop trying to overthrow governments.
MELVIN GOODMAN:
The important thing is, these countries were not national security problems for the United States.
And this belief in regime change—and sadly enough, it goes back to President Eisenhower in 1953, when we used American power in collusion, conspiratorial collusion, with the British, Operation Ajax, to overthrow the only real democratically elected government Iran has ever had. And, of course, Kennedy followed this up in Cuba with the Bay of Pigs, which the CIA IG called a "perfect failure." Then you jump forward or leap forward to Chile, again a democratically elected government, but it was socialist, so Nixon and Kissinger target that. Go to Reagan and Iran-contra.
AMY GOODMAN: I daresay the Obama administration would say they intervened in Libya to prevent Gaddafi—this is before 2012—committing a massacre of the Libyan uprising, in the same way that they would say they have intervened in Syria for the same reason, to prevent Assad from killing his own people. Your response to both? And what would have been a peaceful alternative?
MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, in the case of Libya, I think there could be an alternative, because Gaddafi had negotiated with the United States in the past. In fact, the reference to Gaddafi giving up his nuclear weapons is extremely important, because that was done in very delicate, private negotiations. And the CIA played a major role in that, even though that’s not well known.
So, the essential element is that we should realize that the use of military power should always be the last resort, and, frankly, I think President Obama does understand that.
クリントン氏、ベンガジ事件やメール問題の追及かわす 下院公聴会
ベンガジ公聴会で、アメリカメディアは、騒がしいが、質疑されていることは、重要なことではなく、重要なことは、質疑されていなかった、と。
問題は、そもそも、なぜ、アメリカが、リビアで、諜報活動をやり、ガダフィを転覆しようとしていたのかである。
不安定な地域で政府転覆をはかれば、地域がより不安定になることは歴史で示されており、外交的な手段があり、アメリカの脅威でないにもかかわらず、アメリカはすぐに軍事介入する癖がある。
そのおかげ、リビアは現在混沌状態であり、その背景と責任についてこそ質疑されるべきであった、・・・みたいな。
WikiLeaks: U.S. Supported Unrest In Bolivia, Prepared For Death Of Evo Morales
Though the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia formally denied any involvement in an alleged assassination plot against the Bolivian president, the Bolivian government is pressing ahead with plans to investigate.
By MintPress News Desk | October 12, 2015
アメリカは反米政府であるボルビアについても、反政府勢力に協力して、不安定化を図っていた、ともいわれている。
