(Image credit to Kevin Lamarque)

In an effort to learn the whereabouts to some of the more recent skepticism for the presidential front-runner candidate, Hillary Clinton, a friend of mine directed me to this NYT article which describes her role in US-Libya relations and how she pushed for intervention in the region at its time of turmoil thereby causing a wave of consequences domestically and globally. This is a two part article that while fascinating also takes quite some time to read and digest so I recommend watching the clip about halfway down the page as it summarizes the content rather nicely.

As per my own summary of what I read up to, it appears Hillary Clinton was not initially encouraged to intervene in Libyan affairs during her arrival as an ambassador for America due to other ongoing wars America was involved in and her bad track record thanks to voting to go to war in Iraq. What changed her mind ranges from professional ethos developed from her experiences as First Lady and a general sentiment to spare the protesters in Libya the tyranny of Qaddafi while spreading the tenets of democracy.

I personally think her heart was in the right place, especially considering as concern for welfare of the US allies was part of her rhetoric in convincing Obama toward intervention, but the execution of the task was largely questionable (sketchy information and a lack of assurance for post-Qaddafi leadership) and ended up defying the original military intent (protecting civilians) in favor of overthrowing the dictator without actually resolving anything.

Although Hillary was one of the bigger players in engaging US into battle with Libya, I do find it uncouth to lay blame on her solely for the misfortune in the area. All the same, I am still troubled by her defiant nature to President Obama and the nation’s reticence to engage in more wartime activity presumably based out of a drive to improve her public standing for “a tantalizingly easy case.”

As far as I can see, Hillary Clinton allowed her personal beliefs to interfere in her political decision-making process for a significant event at a crucial point in America’s timeline where lives were at stake. My question, therefore, is whether a president or other high-ranking politician ought to allow their biases and backgrounds to influence their decisions on policy.