How would Donald Trump have handled the attack in Libya?

In his latest incarnation as foreign policy expert, Donald Trump blames the Obama administration for a 'debacle' in Benghazi and for not claiming the spoils due the 'victor' in Libya.

Parker Michels-Boyce/The News & Advance/AP
Donald Trump flashes a thumbs-up to students before speaking at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., on Sept. 24.

Donald Trump got to play secretary of State during his weekly appearance Monday on “Fox & Friends." Like many people, the Donald is upset about the fact that the Obama administration took so long to admit that the attack in Benghazi, which killed US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans, was an organized terrorist assault.

“Well, it really is a debacle and it really is a shame and normally you would say ‘fire,’ " said Mr. Trump, referring to the act of firing people, a subject on which he’s a world expert.

As to the belated and conflicting statements by Obama officials after the attack, which generally held that it had been inspired by an anti-Islamic movie made in the US, Trump said they were lies.

“They’ve been lying for years now, they get away with it, and the press allows them to get away with it,” Trump said.

Then he got wound up and launched into a classic Trump rant about the Libyan situation.

First, he laid blame for the assault on the entire group of rebels who toppled Libyan dictator Muammar Quaddafi. That’s sure what it sounded like, anyway.

“We helped the rebels ... and they end up killing our ambassador, and other people. And we shouldn’t be in a situation like that,” said Trump.

This ignores the fact that the “rebels” are a loose coalition of many different militias and political groups whose biggest political problem now may be trying to find a way to knit together to form a workable government. According to a story in this morning’s New York Times, witnesses in Benghazi have identified the attackers as members of Ansar al-Shariah, a local Islamist militant group.

Then, Trump got to the root of the problem: By contributing to an international air-cover effort, we intervened when we shouldn’t have. Or we didn’t do it right, or back the right people, since they’re against us now.

“What [the administration] did in Libya was insane. Who are we protecting? Probably we were on the side of Iranians who wanted to take over Libya,” he told "Fox & Friends" hosts.

Let’s back up to February of last year. Trump, as part of his recurring series of short videos entitled “From the Desk of Donald Trump," recorded a short and at the time seemingly heartfelt plea for the US to intervene in Libya to stop Qaddafi from killing civilians.

“We have to go in to save these lives ... it’s horrible what’s going on,” said Trump back then.

OK, back to today. Actually, there’s more consistency then you’d think between his stance then and his stance now, because both times Trump said that what should really have happened is that the US should have received half of Libya’s oil in payment for its help in ousting Mr. Qaddafi.

“I’ve said it from Day 1, if we’re going to help them, take 50 percent of the oil. They would have agreed to it in two seconds. Now, they view us as an interloper,” said Trump.

At another point, he upped the amp several notches, adding that “it used to be, to the victors belong the spoils. We’re the victor, we get nothing because ... we’re run by stupid people."

Funny, we thought it was the Libyan rebels themselves who captured Tripoli, not the US Marines. In any case, this taking-half-of-their-oil thing is something Trump has raised in other contexts, such as Iraq. Would these other nations really give up half those revenues as easily as Trump surmises? We doubt it.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.