What The New York Times Doesn’t Understand About Libya

The media spin masters are in full swing with the coming elections in November. The hypocrisy of most conservative and liberal media groups is not lost on me.

The Obama administration has clearly made some bad moves with regards to handling the Libya situation and over politicizing the Ambassador Stevens incident. Some things are out of their control, of course.

The New York Times is jumping on the headline bandwagon and trying to assert that U.S. security interests were handled poorly in Benghazi. Having been involved in these types of operations, I can tell you first-hand that promoting diplomacy is most effective when you don’t carry a big stick in public (e.g. a large security footprint). Having a low profile signature is best in most of these situations. Amass a large indigenous and U.S.-contracted security force and you raise a lot of eyebrows.  I’ve told this to several media outlets, including the Washington Post, but apparently they can’t see through smoke and mirrors long enough to realize what they’re chasing.

According to the NY Times headline, there may have been a mistaken sense of security in Libya. Guess what folks, it’s fucking Libya. The threat level is and will continue to be HIGH.

Meanwhile, lesser men and women in Washington (e.g. career politicians) and the media try and point fingers and place blame; they worry about more important things like getting themselves re-elected. They continue to armchair quarterback from the comfort of their DC and Manhattan digs.

Ambassador Stevens was a hero diplomat who would have known the risks, and had a heavy hand in making security decisions in Benghazi.  Many others, including my two SEAL brothers, stepped forward that day and into harm’s way so that others may continue to enjoy freedom. Let’s not forget that, and that this is risky business.