[Liberty Ship]

I disagree with the author’s conclusion:

“There are also moral doubts expressed by members of the team of security contractors, that the entire Libyan military adventure is ill-advised, that they will end up dying in a foreign land for a cause that is clear to nobody.

“This, of course, is the most important lesson to be garnered from the Benghazi debacle - the same lesson that should have been learned in Vietnam, in Mogadishu, and in Iraq, among many other places: there is no moral basis for empire building and military interventionism.”

The problem in Benghazi arose not from “empire building,” but from the Obama administration effectively switching sides to join the Muslim Brotherhood in promoting their interests and goals from Gibraltar to India. Couple that with the Democrats historic pattern of betraying our friends in the field and you start to see the true “important lesson” of Benghazi.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I disagree with the author’s conclusion"

I totally agree with the author's conclusion. Gadaffi was in a box. He had given up his nuclear ambitions and was no longer a threat to American security interests. Yes, he was a bad man and brutal dictator, but if we went to war on that basis alone, then we would never stop fighting. We should have never agreed to assist the European countries who wanted him overthrown. We should have made it clear from the very beginning of their little military adventure that we would provide no assistance to them. I'm sure they are regretting doing it now also.