by JASMINE ELSHAMY Photo & Video Editor
The hearing for last year’s unfortunate attacks in Benghazi, Libya happened last Wednesday, May 8, where three State Department officials provided an account of the fatal attack on U.S. installations in eastern Libya as they accused senior government officials of withholding embarrassing facts and failing to take enough responsibility for security lapses.
The American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya was attacked on September 11, 2012 by a heavily armed group. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attacks on the U.S. outpost.
A pro-al Qaeda group was the main suspect at first due to the fact that they had previously attacked an American Consulate.
What many tend to forget, though, is that at the time of this attack, there were factions that had emerged from the civil war in Libya. Each faction was very territorial, and often there was much fighting over who got what piece of land. They were all extremely violent, meaning that there was a great chance that it was actually one of these factions that was behind the attack.
Of course, it is easiest to blame al-Qaeda right off the bat due to their history and track record with things along the lines of attacks and just overall violence.
Now, the Benghazi tragedy has been brought back into the spotlight with a biting vengeance. Republicans are trying to turn it into a scandal against the Obama Administration, attempting to garner points in their favor, maybe to make up for their overall poor choice in existence.
It is not a noble way to honor the tragic deaths of the people that died in the attack (not just the four Americans, other people died too, like the citizens.) No matter, the hearing brought up the questions that many did not know the answers to, but they still wanted them.
Did Clinton’s State Department fail to provide adequate security for the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi? In retrospect, obviously so, but the three diplomats who testified at the hearing gave no evidence that this failure sprang from anything other than the need to use limited resources as efficiently as possible.
It was House Republicans who voted for the budget cuts to State Department security, and they should be the ones understanding the consequences of this. Promoting and wanting the concept of “a smaller government is better” has these consequences.
“I don’t understand why no one in this country is capable of taking responsibility for anything! Okay, so Hillary Clinton messed up and was unable to provide the protection needed to protect four Americans all the way in Libya, where there is an uproar of political turmoil at the moment, especially at the time of the attack,” says senior Ahmed Halim. “At the same time, Republicans don’t need to be shoving facts like this up Democrats’ noses. There are honestly such bigger issues happening right now, I don’t get why these kinds of events get such public attention.”
Halim is right, for “shoving” the facts in Democrats’ faces did not even end up making much of a difference. It was confirmed by the Pentagon that it would have been impossible to get there in time and help prevent any damage anyway.
Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, disagrees, and while his pain is understandable, I would like to think he does not know more about deploying troops than do the professionals.
“The attack in Benghazi was very unfortunate. The fact that they are now revisiting it? What is the point of that? I am unable to comprehend what could come out of it. The people are dead already, is this really going to make a difference?” says freshman Toni Rothchild.
Comments