Ahmed Abu Khattala has been captured by American forces and is being brought to the USA. In case you do not know, Khattala is the reputed leader of the terror forces of Ansar al Sharia who led the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi Libya in September of 2012. That makes the capture of Khattala by American forces a joyous occasion. All America ought to celebrate.
Nevertheless, there remains the nagging question as to why Khattala was taken now, nearly two years after the attack. There was no ongoing investigation, no need to determine Khattala's involvement. Indeed, Khattala was identified as the leader almost immediately after the attack. The federal government confirmed this to the public about a year ago and Khattala was indicted for federal crimes last Summer. Despite the indictment, Khattala was moving freely and publicly around Libya for the last year. So the question, once again, is why now? Why did president Obama finally authorize the American military to capture Khattala, something that could have been done a year ago with ease?
There is no clear answer for this question. According to the New York Times, Obama acted because the Libyan government was waging war on Ansar al Sharia and Obama was concerned that the Libyans might kill him before America took action against him. In other words, the liberal paper of record is telling its readers that Obama acted to protect this murderer from death at the hands of the wrong people (i.e., in a way where Obama could not claim credit for the capture.) Personally, I do not believe what the Times is saying. In my opinion, it is not a coincidence that the capture of Khattala comes as the rest of Obama's policy regarding the Middle East and terrorism is crumbling to dust. Indeed, the government spokesman made a point while announcing the capture of Khattala of stating that the event had nothing to do with Iraq. Clearly, Iraq was on his (and Obama's) mind.
Sadly, everything Obama does is political.
Nevertheless, there remains the nagging question as to why Khattala was taken now, nearly two years after the attack. There was no ongoing investigation, no need to determine Khattala's involvement. Indeed, Khattala was identified as the leader almost immediately after the attack. The federal government confirmed this to the public about a year ago and Khattala was indicted for federal crimes last Summer. Despite the indictment, Khattala was moving freely and publicly around Libya for the last year. So the question, once again, is why now? Why did president Obama finally authorize the American military to capture Khattala, something that could have been done a year ago with ease?
There is no clear answer for this question. According to the New York Times, Obama acted because the Libyan government was waging war on Ansar al Sharia and Obama was concerned that the Libyans might kill him before America took action against him. In other words, the liberal paper of record is telling its readers that Obama acted to protect this murderer from death at the hands of the wrong people (i.e., in a way where Obama could not claim credit for the capture.) Personally, I do not believe what the Times is saying. In my opinion, it is not a coincidence that the capture of Khattala comes as the rest of Obama's policy regarding the Middle East and terrorism is crumbling to dust. Indeed, the government spokesman made a point while announcing the capture of Khattala of stating that the event had nothing to do with Iraq. Clearly, Iraq was on his (and Obama's) mind.
Sadly, everything Obama does is political.
No comments:
Post a Comment