by Barry Rubin
"Where do They come from, those whom we so much dread,
As on our dearest location falls the chill
Of their crooked wing...." --W.H. Auden, "Crisis," (1940)
The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the murder of four
Americans there has become a huge issue. There are many stories and
rumors that are still being debated and more information is coming out.
What I’m going to try to do here is to analyze the enduring themes
raised by these tragic events.
Why Do They Hate Us?
There is a debate over the causes of terrorism and anti-Americanism in
the world. One possible view is that the principal problem is that of
genuine conflict. The adversaries hold certain ideological ideas—say,
revolutionary Islamism—to which American society and policies are
antithetical. The collision (as with Communism, Nazism, and aggressive
Japanese militarism in earlier decades) is inevitable. The United States
is inconveniencing the totalitarians both because of what it does
(policies) and because of what it represents (freedom, democracy,
capitalism).
The other view currently dominates many Western academic “experts,”
politicians, mass media, and even governments. That concept is that the
hatred is our own fault. We have done things in the past—which require
apologies—and are doing things in the present that makes people angry at
America who otherwise would be friendly.
An exception is made for a “tiny minority of extremists,” mainly a code
word for al-Qaida, but the more sophisticated argument is that such
people would have no following if America handled things properly.
Thus, in this case, if American facilities are attacked in Cairo and
Benghazi it must have been something America did wrong, to wit, an
insulting video made by an immigrant from the Middle East about Islam.
Diagnosing the problem tells one what the cure is: sensitivity; respect;
tightening rules against such insults; bowing and scraping; refusing to
identify radicals and terrorists with Islam in any way; giving large
amounts of money; helping the Muslim Brotherhood so it will be grateful
later; telling the NASA director to make up stuff about Muslim
contributions to space travel, etc.
That is the path the Obama Administration, with major support from the intellectual-cultural establishment, has followed.
Why Do Some of Us Hate Ourselves?
The answer to this question follows from the first answer. If “we” are
responsible for the hatred and conflict, then we have done evil and must
repent. We are the problem or, as one much-feted American intellectual
put it, the United States is the cancer of the world.
In the Benghazi case, however, it is hard to come up with more than a
video, according to the dominant view. After all, didn’t the United
States “liberate” Libya from a terrible dictator? Of course, the problem
is that from the standpoint of the radicals, the United States merely
became Libya’s new master, blocking the revolutionary Islamist, Sharia
state they wanted, producing a “puppet” (who cares if it was elected?)
government.
America is thus the prime enemy not because it did something evil but
because it did something which the U.S. government regarded as good. If
they hate us in Libya for sinful policies, then President Barack Obama,
not the Egyptian-born video producer, is the chief sinner.
-----------------------
We need your support.
To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: <https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=ET6RUW2JGHGGW>
By credit card: <http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com> and click Donate button.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line.
Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write info@gloria-center.org.
Please be subscriber 30,133 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------
Is America a Bully or a Leader?
As noted above, the establishment view today is that America has been a
bully in the past, acting unilaterally and not respecting the views of
others. Obama has said this directly when speaking to foreign—including
Middle Eastern—audiences.
But how does one stop being a bully? By showing that one isn’t tough,
doesn’t protect one’s interests fiercely. Thus, in the Benghazi case,
the U.S. government didn’t send the ambassador to Benghazi with
Americans to guard him, nor did the consulate have Americans to provide
security. To do so would be to show disrespect for the Libyans, to act
in a way that might be perceived of as imperialistic.
Similarly, the president would not call in an airstrike against the
attackers or send an armed rescue team to the consulate because to do so
would have signaled an arrogance and aggressiveness, putting Americans
first and not acting as a citizen of the world.
Who is the Enemy?
If the enemy is defined as solely al-Qaida this allows a policy of
treating all other Islamists—even the Afghan Taliban!—as a potential
friend. Both Vice-President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, for example, explained that leading elements of the Taliban, a
group complicit in the September 11 attacks, could be won over.
Certainly, the Muslim Brotherhood—the world’s largest and most powerful
international anti-American organization—was helped and treated as a
potential ally.
Al-Qaida, however, is a relatively weak organization, capable of staging
only sporadic terror attacks, with the exception perhaps of remote
Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan. It cannot take over
whole countries. The fact that Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Turkey,
and perhaps soon Syria are governed by Islamists is a far greater
strategic threat.
Then why couldn’t the Obama Administration have said that the consulate
was attacked by evil al-Qaida for no reason other than its lust to
murder Americans, with the perfect symbolism of the attack having been
staged on September 11?
There was a dual problem. First, the group involved was one the U.S.
government had worked with during the Libyan civil war so it could not
admit they were close to al-Qaida. Second, the official line was that
al-Qaida had been defeated so it could not still be a threat. Therefore,
an alternative narrative and a cover-up were needed.
Competence and Courage
Once upon a time a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination
warned that if Obama was elected president he would not be reliable in a
crisis, answering a 3 AM phone call requiring instant response. That
claim, of course, came from Hillary Clinton. Benghazi was that phone
call.
That conclusion is reinforced by the killing of al-Qaida leader Usama
bin Ladin. Notice something of huge importance that has been neglected.
Obama and his supporters bragged about his indecision on the no-brainer
of getting the architect of the September 11 attacks. If he would
hesitate on an obvious call like that one, how would he deal with a
consulate under attack in Benghazi?
There is, or should be, a sacred trust between the U.S. government and
those who put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of America.
Everything should be done to protect and save them. In this case,
however, the country’s leaders let those people down both before and
during the crisis.
Note, too, how unintentionally revealingly Obama responded to this issue
in the presidential debate. Once the crisis was over, Obama said, he
swung into action, securing those who still survived, investigating who
was responsible, and promising to punish them.
What about before and during the multi-hour assault? Silence. The
details--for example, whether or not there was a drone overhead--obscure
the fact that no proper preparations were made for the ambassador and
consulate being unprotected and that passivity prevailed during the
battle.
If the U.S. government didn’t trust the Libyans wouldn’t that show that
America thought itself superior and its interests to override those of
others? And isn’t that racist?
One could say that the Obama Administration’s failure to act denotes
incompetence, and there is truth there. But the larger picture is that
it was a failure due to its concept of America and the world. The real
danger is not from totalitarian enemies grown bolder in the fact of
American weakness and a loss of self-confidence. No, according to the
prevailing view, it was rather excessive American self-confidence and
strength in the past.
The effort to change those bad old ways, to open a new era with
completely different behavior, the failure to perceive the real enemies
and to understand America’s rights and duties were the causes of the
incident in Benghazi, and many other setbacks as well.
The chickens have come back to roost and have roosted in the White House. And the vultures are gathering.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Source: http://rubinreports.blogspot.co.il/2012/10/a-short-guide-to-benghazi-issue-what-is.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
1 comment:
Who is the enemy? The AUMF (Authorization to Use military Force) granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
It should be amended to read that military force can be used "against those who were determined to have "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th or subsequent international or domestic terrorist attacks, or who harbored or aided said persons or groups and that such terrorist acts may be tried by military commissions.
Terrorism should be defined as the use or threat to use unlawful violence to effect a policy change including, but not limited to, the promotion of the adoption of sharia law, by coercion or intimidation.
It seems to me that it is the AUMF that narrows the focus to al Qaeda.
Post a Comment