Real reason for lack of action
An idea has just come to my attention that the “real reason” that no action was taken in the Benghazi terror attack is that international law says the security of diplomatic facilities and their personnel is the responsibility of the host nation, in this case the Libyan government. It does not say a weak government or a strong government.
Would we have contemplated armed response in China or Russia? No.
Would we have to worry that the host nation government in those nations would fail to provide adequate security? No.
Could we or would we want to take military action in every country around the world? No.
Would we consider it anywhere else but a weak, unorganized Libyan nation? No.
Would sending in our operators result in more deaths with little result? Possibly, even probably, but our honor would be clean, unmarred and intact!
If the U.S. government used U.S. military assets – jets, helicopters, drones and tactical operators – to defend the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the Obama administration would consider it a violation of the sovereignty of the Libyan state and international law. At least that would be the narrative spoken all over the Muslim world. The Obama administration will not violate international law.
It is the Obama administration's intent to bring the U.S. more in line with the international community by taking away our nation's long standing right of unilateral action when our interests are endangered, without U.N. or international consent! Acting in a unilateral fashion without international community consent is against everything the Obama administration stands for!
But Obama knows that if this was released as the real reason no rescue was even contemplated, he would be gone and would lose the election because Americans don't want to give away their freedom to some international community of anti-Americans, dictators, socialists and religious fascists!
In a few days it will be so much better! Vote Freedom. Vote Mitt Romney!
Jon A. Underwood