Bigger Picture Please.

Instead of focusing on Benghazi,
isn't it fair to ask: If we knew then, what we're seeing now (and should have known), was the U.S. right to support the Libyan revolution, to the point of supplying air power, ammo and advice to the militants?

We've effectively destabilized another country, repeating the Bush era mistakes but with the caveat that this time it wasn't the U.S. but a NATO mission. Don't you remember how long it took -- even with expanding U.S./NATO help -- for the rebels to overthrow their government?*

We were going to protect civilians, then ended up bombing so many from above, destroying infrastructure and upending what had been a stable country. Stable under a dictator sure, but the man was responding to our money and diplomacy and Western ways.

Libya was no threat to U.S. national security interests, so why'd we get involved again? If I recall correctly, the president's first instincts -- stay out -- were good ones but he listened to Sec. Clinton, Ms. Rice and another woman, who wanted a show of strength.

If we knew then what we see now, would it have been best for the Libyan people do you think to have a functioning authority, rather than the roaming militants grabbing power in the vacuum? Maybe that's why Ms. Rice and Sec. Clinton seemed so determined early on to make the Benghazi focus on a foreigner's film, rather than homegrown troubles that came about after our U.S./NATO "help"?

Won't hurt anyone to at least ask the ?, eh.
-----------------------

*That's my reasoning for not helping support all these dictator overthrows: if the people there can't do it on their own, and need help even pulling down the statue of their leaders, chances are they are not strong enough to replace such leadership, if they can't overthrow him without outside "help".

Right now,
the US is charged with training Libyans, I've read, so there is some semblance of authority to replace what we helped kill. I don't think the civilians "won" either way. Sometimes it's better to live under a dictator than to be subject to whatever violent group seizes power in the absence of leadership.