Massive
NYT probe, with graphics, just posted online on that fatal night, with several "chapters."
The United States waded deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya, hoping to
build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda. It believed
it could draw a bright line between friends and enemies in Libya. But it
ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed
opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the
Americans had taken for allies.
Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive
interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the
attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or
other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The
attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from
NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising
against Colonel Qaddafi.
And contrary to claims by some members of
Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video
denigrating Islam.
A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United
States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting
American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the
difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture
shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now
hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.
The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants
around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al
Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment