With Mitt Romney prepared to hunt down attackers in Libya, maybe we should clue in to how that country has reacted to the deadly assault on the US consulate in Benghazi. First of all, the newly elected Prime Minister has been given a vote of no confidence, which in Libya as in most Parliamentary democracies triggers the collapse of the government:
Libya’s prime minister-elect failed a confidence vote by an overwhelming margin on Sunday, removing him from office and throwing the country into yet more political uncertainty as time ticks on an investigation into attacks that killed four Americans last month [...]
Prime Minister-elect Mustafa Abushagur lost Sunday’s confidence vote with 125 members of the 200-member Libyan General National Congress voting against him, 44 in favor and the remainder abstentions or no-shows. Abushagur had come under heavy fire last week for proposing a cabinet that critics said was filled with political unknowns. Following the protests he came up with a new slate but lost the vote.
Now Libya’s legislature must select a new prime minister who will have to assemble another cabinet. The process could take weeks. Abushagur, a longtime engineering professor in the United States, became Libya’s first democratically-chosen prime minister since Sept. 12, a day after the attacks in Benghazi.
While US papers focus on what this means for the investigation into the consulate attacks, this hints at domestic factors as the cause, things like the inadequacy of the initial cabinet (in fact it was filled with former figures of the old Gadhafi regime). Still, Abushagur was Prime Minister for barely three weeks before his ouster.
Juan Cole argues that this represents democracy in action. Public opinion turned against Abushagur’s cabinet, leading to the no-confidence vote. The legislature got the message from their own citizens.
But this event does highlight the fractious nature of nascent Libyan politics – it’s the third government they’ve gone through this year – and the general instability that fosters. This is what Mitt Romney seeks to highlight today, this idea of an unsettled Middle East that must have order imposed on it. Considering that such a stance usually signals the rise of a dictatorship, I’d demur at that. But a little nation-building, to restore an invisible civic society, would probably help Libya.
Unfortunately, the attacks make that very difficult. The late US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, reportedly wanted his security team to stay on and guard him and his personnel after August 2, when they departed. The security team was a 16-man force of special operations soldiers.
The fear here is that the attack will force a total withdrawal from Libya, which will help create the conditions for chaos that everybody says they want to prevent.






11 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
“the U.S. consulate in Benghazi”
There is no US consulate in Benghazi, which is why State didn’t care about security. It was probably, more than anything, a CIA nest with a dozen agents. (Ineffective, of course.) Why should State provide security for CIA? Besides, the Agency likes to keep a low profile.
The US does not have an embassy, a consulate or a diplomatic mission in Benghazi. There are none listed on this State Department list of all the US embassies and consulates in the world.
http://www.usembassy.gov/
On September 12, 2012, SecState Clinton made two statements. She never used the word “consulate.”To describe the place that was attacked in Benghazi she used instead the words ‘U.S. diplomatic post, compound, our buildings and our office.’
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197654.htm
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197630.htm
Since there were no official embassy operations in Benghazi, the security arrangements for the CIA nest that was there — reportedly a dozen agents — were indecisive, which led to the recent disaster.
Despite this problem Ambassador Stevens, who was no dummy, spent five days in Benghazi without this security. Why? Obama, speaking at the UNGA, said it was “to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital.” Sure. Any time, Barry, you **** liar.
What did expect when we went after Libya’s oil? Jeffersonian democracy? If Mao said, “Revolution comes from the barrel of a gun”, then our policy towards Libya must be, “Freedom and Democracy come through being sodomized with a knife.”
Romney better get used to the idea. A Pew poll has him up by four points over Zero.
Please correct me if I am wrong. The Arab world has never had a democratic government. They’ve had kings and dictators.
But romney still has no path to 270 electoral votes. And one presidential debate does not a winner make.
We can fix this under a President Romney who said today:
The hundred thousand troops out of Afghanistan? We no longer have a place for them on U.S. bases so they’ll have to go to — Libya! With the permission of the puppet president we installed there, of course.
That’s the first part. Tracking down the terrorists? That brings nearby Mali into the picture.
Good thing we have AFRICOM to conduct warfare in this new theater. Shall we call this new effort to secure our freedoms Malibia or Libali? (AfPak is so – yesterday.)
Yeah, right!!!!!!
This country will be in perpetual revolution, you just watch.
Yup.
What do we know, if anything, about the current relations between the various tribal factions there? Romney’s a nitwit if he thinks our purpose should be to impose order in Libya, or that the US can even be a facilitator that way. What exactly does he propose the US do?
R’s also offbase urging the US to act in Syria weapons-wise with our “partners.” Which ones is he referring to? Are any of those in the beleaguered EU? I assume he’s talked to whichever “partners” he has in mind, and it would be nice for him to tell the rest of us who they are.
I think the idea of “nation building” in the ME is bogus if it’s supervised or sponsored by the US. The presumption would be demeaning to them and taken as meddling by us.
Call it Timbuktu. No joke, and it already has a funny name.
“The fear here is that the attack will force a total withdrawal from Libya, which will help create the conditions for chaos that everybody says they want to prevent.”
Personally, I want to prevent dancewater (me) from ever typing again, and most certainly keep her from typing up comments, especially on blogs, forever and always.
Or, in other words: the Obama goal in Libya is to destroy the place via chaos in any way possible. Loss of innocent life of no consequence. Number of lives destroyed of no consequence.
Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.
Maybe Americans should try governing America and Americans and stop with the American Empire BS. In view of how Afghanistan,Iraq and Libya have or are turning out the Americans are imperial imbeciles.
One can imagine how Texans would have acted/reacted if WashingtonDC decided Rick Perry and the R run capitol in Texas needed to be taken down and replaced. Then proceeded to bomb the living shit out of Austin and Texas and deliver lots of deathdealing to Texas when Rick Perry and his backers resisted and fought back. Anyone here at FDL think the Texans would have settled for that? Texas and Texans would not likely take kindly to WashingtonDC coming to Texas and doing “regime change”.Why then shouild Iraqis,Afghans,Pakistanis or Yemenis,Libyans and Syrians or Iranians not act like Texans?
Americans need to stop with the American Empire,American Militarism BS.
It does not work. Is not working. Creates more problems than is solves.
Coming American Empire attack on Tehran and Iran perhaps will be the death blow to American Empire and Global Militarism. Americans have plenty of problems at home to solve. Stop with the imperialism and militarism. It is the wrong road to be on,stay on and is taking USA to a very bad place.
Chaos? What does American Empire expect? Flower strewn Triumphal Parades?
Imbeciles.