• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Libya and the Obama Administration: To Strike or Not to Strike?

    The Associated Press reports that the White House is weighing the wisdom of striking at terrorist targets in Libya in retaliation for the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate. According to the AP, the Administration is balancing “whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on al-Qaeda is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group’s profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight it in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.”

    Heritage expert Jim Carafano first reported news of an impending strike on October 4. Whatever the government decides, he concluded, a military mission won’t have much of an impact on presidential politics. “The Administration is too smart to think it can use military operations to play duck and cover—that would just fuel Wag the Dog speculation,” Carafano wrote. “Nor is it likely that Governor Romney will go after the President for attacks in Libya. He no doubt learned a lesson to be more cautious and deliberate after the criticism he received in responding to the statement made by the U.S. embassy in Cairo before the anti-American riots broke out.”

    Regardless of the decision the White House makes, it is unlikely the controversy over Libya is going away. Last night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed sole responsibility for any security slips in Libya. To many, the timing of her announcement—coming a month after the attack and on the eve of the second presidential debate—will only fuel more claims that the White House is playing politics with the issue. And taking responsibility for the security situation before the attack does little to explain the confused messaging from the Administration after the assault that killed four Americans at the Benghazi consulate.

    A late-breaking mea culpa or drone strike will not dampen the demand for a serious foreign policy debate. “There is no subject on which the two candidates differ more,” Carafano points out, “than in their views regarding foreign policy and national security.”

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Libya and the Obama Administration: To Strike or Not to Strike?

    1. Lloyd Scallan says:

      Hello "October surprise"?

    2. US-Libya says:

      Man dont make things worse!!! if the U.S. Strieks in Libya forget it!! this will make things worse. It’s obvious that the elections are in stake and not the future and that’s the problem.

    3. Pete Houston says:

      An action needs to occur whether it is in the public eye or not. The people that killed the 4 americans at the embassy need to be brought to justice. If they loose their lives or disappear in the night everyone that they associate with them will know that we will come and it will not be pretty. To do nothing is not an option.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.