Question about ambassador’s motivation remains unanswered

To the Editor:

Carol Costanzo seems to have trouble answering a question. Of the torrent of words used to reply to the non-political question, "Why did Ambassador Stevens go to Benghazi?" only nine had any bearing: "Stevens was where he understood his duty to be." The rest of her article was a tirade directed against Obama/Clinton, that axis of evil.

Returning to the question, here is a more cogent observation. An ambassador is to the State Department what a four-star general is to the military. When bombs are bursting, the general seeks safety in his bunker and the ambassador hops a flight back to Washington. They do not run toward gunfire. That is what they understand they should do because they are extremely valuable people. How many times have we seen the State Department send a plane to evacuate diplomatic personnel and their families when a situation becomes unstable? Likewise, generals need to save their hides. In Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, how many generals were killed, captured, lost a limb or were even in a firefight?

Let us imagine that Stevens had been captured by the rebels or al-Qaeda instead of been slain. What then? Do you suppose the U.S. would allow him to languish as a hostage in captivity for years a la Terry Anderson? Undoubtedly, some kind of military action would be launched. Then oops, another war!

But no matter what action taken or outcome achieved, you could bet your children's inheritance on one thing: Carol Costanzo would regale us with more anti Obama/Clinton swill and boilerplate rants such as we hear every day on Fox News and talk radio.

I hope some cable, letter or confidante is discovered that could clear up the question of Ambassador Stevens' decision.

Grafton J. Conliffe
Baker Road
Alabany