Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic
For some reason, we haven't responded to the attack. And I don't know why. I'd like to know why. Is it because we don't feel comfortable addressing this with Libya? Are they promising to deal with it and just don't have the ability to take on the militants? Or is this a separate failure of foreign policy.
|
How would you suggest a response is made? - if the people in charge there appear to honestly be against the terrorists and doing their best to catch/stop them then knocking them won't help US interests nor will undermining them in front of their own people.
I recall when the IRA were active in Ireland the hardest part for the English (both Government and the English people) was turning another cheek for a while as they attacked us* ... however it was required we do so because it undermined their support and eventually lead to the (relatively) stable peace we have today.
Without the English turning another cheek they would have continued to generate sympathy and funding from other countries not directly involved in the conflict (much as is the case in the Middle East) - its far harder to look like heroic independence fighters if the people you attack don't retaliate.
Not saying this is definitely the case - but its something to bear in mind ....
*As someone who travelled regularly through London during this period and sometimes waited patiently as various 'controlled explosions' were detonated in stations I travelled through this was a (cough) interesting time for me personally.