As often happens during crises like this, everyone sees what they want to see. If you see Islam as evil, then this is proof that all Muslims are evil. If you want to see Islam as a victim of the US, then this is proof that America continues to provoke Muslim outrage. Both views are ridiculous. Let’s start with some inconvenient facts which the idiots on both sides want to ignore:
● (1) The video did not cause these attacks. These attacks were premeditated to coincide with 9/11. The video was simply given as an excuse. How do we know this? For one thing, Egyptian intelligence warned the US three days early that an attack was planned. For another, there is no way this video could even have been seen across the Middle East – not to mention, why would it only outrage Muslims in a handful of countries but not others?So what does this mean? It means that this was likely just another terrorist attack by al Qaeda, who have indeed claimed credit and say this was in retaliation for the killing of their number two man. More importantly, this and the reaction by the Egyptian and Libyan governments means that there is an opportunity here.
For yet another, these were not spontaneous crowds. We know this because not only did they bring heavy weapons, such as mortars, but they actually knew the location where the US Ambassador to Libya would flee after the riots began and they shelled that location with sufficient accuracy to convince military experts that this was a highly coordinated, professional attack. These were planned attacks.
● (2) This was not aimed solely at the United States. German and other Western embassies have been attacked as well.
● (3) The Libyan and Egyptian governments were not behind these attacks. Egyptian intelligence actually warned the US this was coming. Both governments have condemned attacks. Libya has arrested around 50 people who were involved. And crowds of Libyans also demonstrated against the attacks.
It is clear that both the Egyptian and Libyan governments very much wish to avoid being seen as hostile to America. That tells us something significant. That tells us that they are much more reasonable than people have been giving them credit for and that we have an opening to work with them to forge a better relationship.
Why is this important? For one thing, if these countries drift into the world of radical Islam, then we are looking at new havens for terrorists, right on Europe’s southern border. It makes a lot more sense to engage these countries, who are giving off signs of being willing to engage with us, to try to bring them into the fold of responsible countries, than it does to write them off. As Sen. John McCain correctly said this weekend:
“It’s a fight, a struggle in the Arab world between the Islamists and the forces of moderation. And they want America disengaged.”
Anyone who doesn’t understand this, simply doesn’t understand what is going on or what is at stake. McCain then claimed that Obama’s policy of disengagement is the problem. I don’t fully agree with that because al Qaeda has been plotting attacks since the 1990s, but I do agree that Obama has failed to engage Egypt and Libya (and others) sufficiently. Now is absolutely the time to (1) get these countries to guarantee individual rights, (2) change the culture of their police by training them to shake off corruption and handle riots without violence, (3) get them to crack down on radical behavior, and (4) get them to open up their economies to create jobs for all these unemployed youths.
In this regard, I think it’s a good thing Obama has invited the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood to come speak to him. The Muslim Brotherhood have actually done a lot to shake off the image of being a terrorist organization and to be seen as a legitimate, moderate Islamic organization. If this meeting is handled correctly, Obama will let the Muslim Brotherhood know that their reputation around the world and our response to them will very much depend on them helping to rid Egypt of the kind of radical elements that give aid and comfort to terrorists like al Qaeda. Whether or not Obama can be this firm is unclear – though he has shown a much stronger anti-terrorist backbone than most conservatives want to give him credit for.
Things to avoid are (1) lumping all Muslim in with these terrorists – that just turns potential friends into enemies, (2) talking about military action where none is possible – that just inflames the situation and makes the US look weak, (3) turning our backs on these governments at this moment of opportunity – which is exactly what al Qaeda wants, and (4) further disengagement -- you cannot control what you do not participate in. Obama also must stand up for free speech and make it clear that Muslims must learn that they have no right to control the views of other people. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton has gone the completely wrong way on this and keeps trying to blame the tape.
Politically, I think this has been a disaster all around so far. Romney looked bad by speaking too quickly. He gave the MSM a chance to redirect the crisis at him. I think he was right in what he said, but he should have waited to say it. Clinton looks horrible because the State Department clearly has flopped back and forth between pandering and denying reality. She has presented an image of a liar who is desperate to cover up her mistakes and avoid blame. Obama looks like a fool as well. Indeed, many commentators left and right, including the German magazine Der Spiegel have declared his foreign policy a “failure” because he obviously has failed to “reconcile” the Muslim world. They also criticize his handling of this crisis, particularly his blaming the video. Indeed, they say that it is illegitimate to blame this video because either this was a terrorist act, in which event the video was irrelevant, or this was “an expression of a frightening ignorance,” in which event he needs to stand up to the ignorance. Obama also has had a problem keeping his administration on the same page and his running off to fund raisers rather than dealing with this are, frankly, shocking. Let’s hope everybody learns from their mistakes.
In the end, I think the key to remember here is that we must learn to tell friend from foe. We have received a clear signal of friendship here from the Libya and Egyptian governments and an opportunity we have not had since the Arab Spring began to shape these new countries. It’s time to seize that opportunity, rather than squander it in a false narrative designed to hide what really happened or a blast of ignorant bias.
This is one of those moments that turns history. Let’s hope people start to realize this.
Thoughts? Questions?
80 comments:
Interesting and thoughtful Andrew. So you think this is a real chance for the US to shape the direction of these countries?
What I have found funny, honestly, has been the response of the bloggers left and right.
The leftist bloggers are seriously trying to blame Bush, which is nonsense. They also want to blame this film even though it obviously can't be this film. And they want to run away and hope everything works out.
The right first whined that this was a "popular" attack because these countries were all Islamic. And Obama was to blame for that. Even putting the idiocy of that aside, when it became clear this was al Qaeda, they acted like they knew it all along and never once admitted they were wrong about the governments of Libya or Egypt or their people. Instead, they just kept right on blaming Obama and whining that we should blow something up. How stupid.
And don't get me wrong, there is much Obama has done wrong, but this knee-jerk Obama Derangement Syndrome is simply stupid.
I am really glad you wrote this because it dispells all this garbage I'm hearing from both sides and this makes total sense. This is an opportunity to help these countries be more moderate and we need to take it.
DUQ, I do. The first thing to realize is that these countries are as much at war with al Qaeda as we are, and there is a reason for that -- they aren't radical governments. Yes, they are Islamic governments, but they aren't the radical kind. And the speed of the condemnations is pretty solid proof that they want to be on our good sides. That gives us an opportunity, if we'll take it.
Also, let me tell you, I've read a ton about the Muslim Brotherhood and I've watched their actions for almost a decade now, and I can tell you that they are not what they are portrayed by American conservatives. They forswore terrorism and there has been no evidence they've broken that vow. They also have proven to be remarkably a-theocratic whenever they've gotten into government anywhere. Don't get me wrong, they are an Islamic party, but they are concerned primarily with governing. They could be a solid ally over time.
The real danger in Egypt is the largest minority party, the Salafists, who are a radical Islamic party like the Taliban.
Doc, We are in a bad time for American politics, where knee-jerk stupidity and echo chambers rule the day. That's the reason for the mission statement, I'm done with that.
In terms of blaming Obama, I think he does deserve blame for his response. (1) I don't know why the State Department ignored the warnings an attack was coming? (2) I agree with McCain that Obama's Middle East policy has failed because he's refused to get involved -- though I don't think pulling out of Iraq or Afghanistan are bad things (though that's being mishandled). (3) I fault him for allowing his administration to continue to act as if this video is somehow the cause.
The rest, we need to wait and see. Sadly, I think it goes against Obama's instincts to seize this opportunity.
Well, I'm glad you're trying! :D
I agree with your assessment of Obama. He's made mistakes here, as you note, but he didn't cause this and he won't solve it. I think "solving" terrorism is simply beyond the power of any one country and until the Middle East is a stable and more happy place, that's not going to change.
Andrew, You give an interesting perspective. I was at Brietbart this morning and they're all upset Obama is meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood. They have NO FACTS to back up their outrage, but that's not unusual.
Also, what do you make of the authorities going after this filmmaker?
Doc, Thanks! :)
I think one of the problems Obama faces is that he's never defined what he's trying to achieve. He came to office with this vague, messianic idea that he would end all conflict with the wave of his hand, and then he offered a very vague "I'm going to end people being upset at us" promise. That's not really a measurable goal. Moreover, it can be made to look like a failure by any small group who even stages a protest.
He would have been smarter to set actual goals and to work toward those. But the thing is that foreign policy was never his issue. As I mentioned early on about the Obama Doctrine, all he wants out of foreign policy is that he never needs to deal with it. But that's a recipe for failure because it wants to deal with him. And when you don't control events, they control you.
In terms of "solving" terrorism, I agree. That won't change until the people of the Middle East are in a situation where they have more to lose by allowing terrorism than they gain by condoning it. And that means they need to break free from their current systems and start to create thriving middle classes.
Thanks Ed. I know what you mean about lack of facts. And that's become the problem with a lot of bloggers, they simply ignore any facts which run counter to their rants.
The Muslim Brotherhood was a terrorist organization at one point. They have forsworn terrorism and so far have not violated that vow. They also have made it clear their goal is to run a government, not a theocracy. And in countries like Jordan, they are a reputable, peaceful opposition party. Could that change? Sure. But one thing is for sure, we can't prevent that change if we treat them like they will inevitably become Iran.
It reminds me a lot of when Reagan met with the Soviets. A LOT of people kept saying, "the Soviets are evil how can you talk to them?!" Well, the answer is that you need to seize opportunities when they present themselves. And you follow the axiom of trust but verify. And that is how you change the world.
On the filmmaker... I am troubled that the Obama Administration continues to blame this video. I am troubled that the government apparently leaned on Google to remove the video. I don't know enough about why they are going after this filmmaker to comment on that part, however. He does have a criminal past and I understand he's in violation of his parole. If that's what they're going after him for, then I don't care. But if they have somehow targeted him because he made this video, then I would be troubled.
Andrew, Do you think Romney will do better at this than Obama?
DUQ, Yes I do. The thing Romney has shown me is that he's a pragmatic problem solver -- he's not bound by ideology or prejudice. He's also excellent at reassessing opportunities as they come up. Obama is very poor at problem solving. He comes up with an idea, tries it, and walks away when it fails. Romney adjusts. And that's key to long term success.
I do think he made a major misstep by saying what he said, though it played well to the base, because it was rash. But he seems to realize that. So since he is excellent at learning from mistakes, I think this will teach him to take more time to think before commenting on foreign matters.
What do you think of Obama going to a fund raiser instead of meeting with Netanyahu?
I think that's really bad judgment -- shockingly bad judgment. When an ally wants to meet with you because they are talking about war, you meet with them... you don't run off for a political event.
Excellent breakdown. My only quibble is against the suggestion that the media would have allowed Romney to look good had he waited to speak. Strictly speaking it's unknowable. But given the left-wing media's usual hostility toward anything Republican candidates do or say combined with the right-wing media's present Romney-can't-do-anything-right attitude, I'd say what we got was foregone regardless of the order of events or the spacing in between them. But, yes, he does look worse coming out than he did going in.
Thanks tryanmax. I agree with you that no matter what Romney did or said, he would have been attacked by the media. But I also think the public is good at looking past the media's attack at the underlying actions and judging them independently. Unfortunately, in this instance, I don't think his comments sat well with the public's traditional view that Presidents should be given leeway to lead US foreign policy before other people start jumping in.
I also think, by speaking, he allowed the media to shift the focus of all their coverage from Obama's action (or inactions) to Romney's comments. That violates the old adage: when your opponent is imploding, let him.
I certainly cannot contest that last point, though I sometimes lack the faith you have in the public's ability sift through the spin.
I know what you mean, but the evidence is there that the public does sift through it. Otherwise, American would be a center-left country and the public would be with the Democrats on issue after issue. The fact 60% of Americans remain conservative despite near total leftist media tells me that the public does indeed look past what the media reports.
In any event, the issue to me now is will someone seize this opportunity or not?
tryanmax, It's hard to believe at times that the public doesn't buy into the MSM spin, but I think they do. I think that's why so few people trust the MSM anymore.
Andrew, I don't think Obama will seize it because, as you've outlined, he just doesn't care. He is focused on his re-election and doesn't really care about anything else right now.
I am more inclined to think Romney will seize it, but I don't know yet who his foreign policy team will be.
DUQ, Sadly, I agree. I think Obama simply wants the issue to go away and he won't do anything about this except the bare minimum to make it look like he's done something -- like sending more Marines.
I hope Romney will seize these opportunities, but we'll have to see. Frankly, I'm surprised that the only person who seems to get what is going on is John McCain.
Andrew,
Have we found out why the Libyan Government and the Egyptian Government did not stymie the attacks on our embassies or any one else's embassies for that matter? If here in the US, we found credible evidence that some Mexican Gang was going to attack the Japanese Embassy, do you think we would just stop at just telling them about it? I think we would move a battalion to protect the Japanese Embassy from this hypothetical Mexican Gang. Why didn't the Egyptians and the Libyans help protect the embassies?
Joel, Everything I've read about the warnings they had says that the warnings were not that specific. And based on prior intelligence that's been release to the public over here, that's likely. It was most likely vague suggestions of attacks against "American interests" within the country.
What bothers me Andrew is that this series of incidents can be spun every which-a-way.
If it is so that the Muslim Brotherhood has disavowed terrorism, could this be al Qaeda's way of showing that the Muslim Brotherhood is powerless without them? They just waltzed into Egypt and Libya and attacked with impunity.
Joel, The thing is, it really can't be spun because there just isn't enough information to spin it... not legitimately. All we really know is that this was a terrorist attack and that Egypt and Libya have tried to separate themselves from it. It's beyond that that things get murky. And unfortunately, too many people left and right are running on pure spin at this point, and they typically ignore the only facts that are reliable.
On your second point, I think this was an attempt to do two things. First, to show the locals that the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't control these countries. In effect, this was an attempt to give them a black eye with the locals to let the locals think that there is somebody better who is still fighting the evil imperialists. Don't forget, we've been the boogeyman over there for 50+ years now, so that's a powerful message. It's the same way Hamas gained popularity by calling Fatah soft.
Secondly, I think it's an attempt to convince Americans that we should wash our hands of the region and let whatever happens over there happen. That would suit the radicals because it would take out the one player most able to help guide the new governments and to fix their problems.
Andrew......Over the weekend, after my anger subsided a bit, I came to the conclusion that Obama looks at the world like a beauty queen. all his life he's been coddled and told how pretty (smart) he is and how he has all the right answers.
For example, what is the standard response when asked of a beuty queen on what they really want? "I want WORLD PEACE!" The audience cheers, the emcee states how good that person is, and everybody goes away happy. Unfortunately for our beauty queen president, desiring world peace and the having policies that work towards those ends is a recipe for disaster (cliche alert!).
I think he made an arrangement with Hillary that she takes the foreign affairs side of the house and he takes domestic. We've seen how that's turned out. The "smartest woman in the world" has worked her magic in foreign affairs (reset, Iran revolution, MB radicals, Libya, etc.) and unfortunately for Obama, as the president he is STILL responsible. He will toss someone under the bus for this before the election, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's her.
I really don't believe the far left is able to deal with the reality of foreign affairs, as it just continually re-affirms basic human nature, and that is something that they try to reject at every opportunity, since they are the "best and brightest" of us all.
Andrew: I think you hit the nail on the head. Obama never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He misread the Arab Spring, and now he's likely to misread the hidden messages coming from the governments in Egypt and Libya.
Patriot, I agree completely.
First, Obama's history and his behavior tells me that he has never had to face a real challenge -- everything has been handed to him. But the world doesn't work that way, and as he's finding out now, all those people "over there" aren't just going to abandon what they think are their interests just because he is President. And I think that has frustrated him and turned him off to foreign policy.
Secondly, I agree that this totally falls into Hillary's lap. Obama handed her the keys to White House foreign policy and she's made one serious misstep after another. Basically, under her term, nothing has gone right for us overseas. And the vibe I get from her responses to this issue have been that she's trying to avoid responsibility rather than address what needs to be addressed. That's a dangerous sign.
Third, I also don't think our left is able to handle the realities of foreign policy because their thinking is skewed by all the political games they play at home to create a useable coalition. It's basically corrupted their thinking and made it impossible for them to recognize that the rest of the world isn't "just like us."
Lawhawk, I think that's sadly likely. I can't say so for certain because we obviously don't know everything they are doing behind the scenes, but he certainly seems detached from the situation and his history is one of just telling people "fix it" rather than trying to solve the problem himself. I'm not hopeful.
Andrew.....it's like their statement on the "universal right to free speech" WTF?! I sat there thinking, are these people insane?! We try and put our constitutional values that we've fought and died for over 3 centuries, on every other culture and nation-state out there.
There is no universal right to free speech and if these clowns think so, then we are in worse shape then we think. There are "God-given" rights, but our "Bill of Rights" applies to our form of government and US citizen rights, not for every society around the world!!
God helps us (PBUH)
Patriot, There is a curious disconnect on the left with regard to the world. They seem to believe that our rights are universal rights around the world and that we are the only ones who don't live up to those rights. That's ridiculous.
A long time ago, I outlined some of the things Americans would never accept in other countries -- even European countries. Things like free speech, the right to own property, the right to an attorney, the right to be presented with the charges against you, the right to remain a citizen, etc. Those are some of the rights the left thinks everyone follows, but with other countries simply don't.
It would help things a lot if our left realized this and worked to bring our rights to other countries rather than attacking us for imaginary violations of rights other people don't even have.
Hi Andrew, I agree with most of your post.
However, the time to push liberty for all over mob democracy in Egypt and Libya should've been during the Arab spring."
Not that we shouldn't still push for liberty, but Obama and Hillary missed a far more timely opportunity to do so.
Women in both countries have seen their liberties greatly diminished since the overthrow of their dictators.
Christians in both countries havew been attacked with impunity, churches and businesses burned and looted, and killed.
And the current governments of both countries have condoned anti-semitism and have blamed the Jews for their mistakes and the atrocities that have been committed (not every atrocity but most).
The MB say a lot of nice things in public, but in their own language they sound just like many of the radical muslims they have supposedly condemned.
This isn't spin, these are the facts and there is plenty of examples (I can provide literally dozens of legitimate ones), even from Egpyt's own news sources.
So why are they condemning these recent attacks on our embassy's? Well, for one, they still want our money, and as long as they keep up the ruse they are really peaceful reformers and not terrororist sympathisers (at the very least) and not Islamist fundamentalists who endorse Sharia law (very bad for women and non-muslims) they'll keep getting our money and no retaliatory attacks.
I do agree we must keep engaging them, and demand liberty for all their citizens, but we must also be ready with a big stick if they keep taking liberties away from their citizens and warn them not to be cozy with Iran or and other terrorist organizations.
We must also demand they better not help Hamas or Hezbollah in their attacks on Israel (yes, they still fire rockets into Israel and blame Israel for all their failures. They will openly attack Israel again...that's what they do).
Of course, I hope I'm wrong about the MB, Hamas, etc., but until they stop saying and inciting hate against Israel, the US, and the West, and squashing freedom, I think it's a certainty we (and Israel) will have more problems with them.
having just gotten back after several days, and then having storms keep internet sporadic all day, I just a chance to read this. Andrew, I think your analysis makes all kind of sense. Well done! Of course whether or not these governments actually work with us and follow through will be the true question. In the past, they talk a good game to us while still pandering to the more radical elements in their own countries since it seems to be easy enough to gin up anti-U.S. sentiments in the general population. Not an easy nut to crack, but a good opportunity.
I'm going to be busy today and won't have a lot of time to comment, so for now I'll just say that at present, I'm a lot less concerned about Libya than about Egypt. I saw the counter-protests from Libyans saying this doesn't represent them (though it's impossible to know if they stand for a majority), and the Libyan government has gone out of its way to apologize for this and to point out that they actually warned something like this was coming beforehand.
Egypt, on the other hand--Morsi's response has been highly ambiguous, suggesting that if the U.S. would punish "blasphemers," none of this would have happened, and I know of no significant pushback to these attacks from within the country. And unfortunately, Egypt is probably more important geopolitically than Libya.
Finally, while Andrew may disagree, I think this proves just how untrustworthy the Muslim Brotherhood is as a potential ally and as a supposed vehicle to democracy or whatever. The U.S. government may have to bow to the will of the Egyptian people on this, but that's no reason we should consider them friends in any meaningful sense.
T-Rav, that's another good point! Morsi's conditional condemnation of these attacks was chilling.
And, of course, Obama and Hillary are only too happyt to play along and actually attempt to do Morsi's bidding.
If they are consistant they will also return Bill Maher's million dollar donation to Obam since he also insulted Islam with his idiotic film, and, oh yeah, guess we better stop the killing of Bin Laden movie.
Wouldn't wanna hurt the delicate sensibilities of radical muslims.
You know, if the MB, Hamas, etc., really do condemn terrorism, why are they insulted when someone makes a movie condemning it or other fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran?
They even get insulted when someone tells the truth about what Mohammed did.
He was a pedophile, and he encouraged rape and pillaging and murder of non-Muslims, as well as slavery status for women, among other things.
I think that's very telling of the MB's true goals (which they have stated many times in their own language: world domination under their fundamentalist brand of Islam).
Ben, I'm equally suspicious of people until they prove their good faith, and even then I believe in verifying. And it's not that I trust the MB, it's that they've got a track record of action of becoming a much more moderate Islamic force than they would have been say twenty years ago.
Not to mention, at this point, they are the power in Egypt, whether we like it or not. So it's either work with them or leave. Given that, we really have no choice but to engage them.
I'm not saying go in and act like everything is perfect, but I think we have been presented with an opportunity here (an invite) to work with them to push them in a moderate direction. I think we need to take advantage of that, and that means treating them like a partner rather than an enemy.
Also, be careful about lumping the actions of individuals in with groups. Just because bad things are happening in Egypt does not mean they are sponsored by the MB. Also, keep in mind that Hamas and the MB are very different organizations.
Sorry for the lack of commenting lately. Been sick but I am recovering, thank God. And now my wife is in the hospital for surgery (for a hand infection). Hopefully not for long.
I should be cleaning the house but I think I'll fry up some bacon instead. :^)
I'll clean the house at the last minute. LOL.
Jed, Thanks! And welcome back.
I agree that this is a huge opportunity, but whether or not they follow through we cannot tell at this point. The best thing to do is to run with it, keep a watchful eye, keep up pressure on them (carrot and stick), and see if it works out.
Jed, And really, what's the alternative? Do we drop a couple bombs and pretend we fixed something? Do we walk away and let events run themselves?
T-Rav, As I just asked Jed, what's the alternative? They are the popular government. They have condemned the attacks. They are the ones who provided the US with the intelligence about the attacks. They also have a track record in other countries of being a legitimate party. We'll see how they continue to respond, but the alternative is that we walk away and that's never a good answer.
Andrew, I agree laying all the blame on the MB for what has happened to coptic Christians, but they have incited, verbally, a lot of the violence there, and I haven't seen Morsi taking any action against those elemts responsible for the murders, rapes and destruction.
I' know Hamas is different from the MB but they both are virulantly anti-Israel. The MB hasn't directly done anything (like Hamas) to physically hurt Israel...yet, but they are less sympathetic to Israel than Musharref was.
Still, I concur we should deal with them as long as they wanna talk. But, eventually, I expect them to do more than talk about peace and actually prove that's what they want (and stop with the dangerous rhetoric in their own language concerning Israel and the West).
I meant to say we shouldn't lay all the blame on the MB for every terrorist attack, however...
Yeah, carrot and stick, but Obama won't use the stick. Romney will. Then we will see if the MB is serious about peace and freedom.
Ben, Let me point out a couple things.
First, Hillary did condemn the MB for their words recently and their inconsistent tweets. That is supposedly why Obama is calling them to the White House.
Secondly, Hamas has not renounced terror, the MB have. So comparing them is not valid at this point. Also, Hamas has been organizing anti-US protests, the MB have not.
Third, calling Mohammed a pedophile is not something I want here anymore. That violates the mission statement. It's needlessly provocative and adds nothing to this debate.
Ben, No problem on not commenting. Sorry to hear you've been sick. I hope you and your wife get better. :)
Andrew, I need to commend you both on a solid post with a lot to think about -- things I simply can't disagree with, and also for the mission statement which has raised the tone! You would not have found an actual discussion of these issues at HotAir. I would have just been more hate. Nice work. :D
Thanks Ellen! Like I said, my goal was to present an honest analysis whichever way it takes me. And this issue is a mess. :(
On the mission statement, I knew our audience would be able to handle it. It's just a matter of reminding people to be civil.
Well, I'm impressed. :)
Thanks Ellen.
"All we really know is that this was a terrorist attack and that Egypt and Libya have tried to separate themselves from it."
Andrew - You may have already addressed this, but your statement above really gets to the heart of the problem that I see with the Obama Administration. FIRST they have to accept that this was a terrorist attack directed at the US and their allies. If they could just call it what it is, then we can work with the governments of Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and all the other places to find a coordinated diplomatic solution. But until our State Department, Defense Department and Executive Branch calls this acts of terrorists, we are doomed to diplomatic failure. Even BUSH understood this.
I am not so ready to call the Muslim Brotherhood friend rather than foe yet though. That still remains to be seen. [That sounded very Obama-esque, didn't it.] Because the fate of Israel is still in the balance.
Bev, Happy Rosh Hashannah! :)
On the first point, you are right. So long as the Obama Administration continues to pretend that this was just a crowd that was upset by a film, and refuses to see this as terrorism and name it such, then it becomes impossible to work with countries like Egypt and Libya and the rest because it looks like we either don't know what we're doing or we are engaging in doublespeak. So that needs to change if we want to make progress and it's time to be much more honest and open about what is going on.
On your MB point, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying trust them and treat them like a regular friend like Canada. What I'm saying is that they have offered us an invite to engage them and to try work with them to steer their country toward moderation. We need to take that up in good faith and work with them to make that happen.
If it turns out that they are not acting in good faith, then we need to be harsh in response. And if they threaten Israel, we need to make it clear that we will defend Israel without question or pause.
But I think it would not be a bad idea to either (1) run away from this and leave it up to Libya and Egypt to sort out themselves, or (2) to treat the MB like a pariah when they have been making efforts to win our favor. Again, I'm not saying let our guard down, but I am saying we need to follow up on this and work with them to the extent it proves fruitful.
OKay, Andrew.
My point wasn't to fling hate. I really do wonder why many Muslims are insulted when someone says (using Islamic scriptures) stuff Mohammed did.
For examnple, if someone writes or talks about King David being a murderer to get a man's wife, that wouldn't insult me because it's true.
Lots of characters in the Bible did bad things.
No one disputes that or gets insulted when it's mentioned.
However, I can understand why you would choose to not have discussions about those subjects or how it causes riots and attacks among some people, so I'll refrain from bringing that up.
Unfortunately, sometimes intent gets lost in mere text, and it certainly wasn't my intent to hurl crap or start a pissing contest.
(although I still don't know why it's an insult. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Nonetheless, that discussion is now officially closed. This is your blog and I'll respect your rules).
Andrew, sorry, but I see the MB as being in about the same position as Yasser Arafat was for, well, practically his whole career. Talk publicly about living in peace, secretly agitate for violence. That may not be an entirely valid comparison, but with Morsi taking more time to demand the "blasphemers" be brought to justice than to condemn the attacks, it's the one I'm going with.
Also, where are you seeing that it was Egyptian intelligence that warned about the attacks? I'm not saying you're wrong, only that everything I saw said it was the Libyans doing the warning.
Bev, you should have added a "Let me be clear."
Thanks Ben. :)
T-Rav, It was in an article in the UK Independent, which I can't find now. Grr.
I do understand though that Libyans also warned the US that something was going on, though I'm not sure of the source.
T-Rav and Bev, And don't forget a few ums and uhs followed by a sexist joke aimed at Hillary drunk texting someone.
Andrew & T-Rav - I would settle for running off to a Las Vegas fundraiser and getting free millions from those rubes...umm...er...wise and generous patrons!
Yes, Andrew -both Libya and Egypt gave warnings to our State Department that went unheeded. THAT's what really bothers me the most. At the very least they should have beefed up security for any potential 9/11 attacks at our Embassies. One could think that it was as if Obama/Hillary/Panetta didn't WANT to stop or quell the attacks. But I think it was just pure and simple incompetence.
Bev, A trip to Vegas to rake in the millions would be nice. :)
I agree that it's shocking they didn't think to at least add security for 9/11, even if there were no warnings. Add in the warnings and you have to wonder, even if they were generic warnings.
Personally, I think Hillary is at fault here. I very much doubt that Obama paid any attention to what was going on with the embassies (and Panetta wouldn't have had any authority). I'll bet we're going to see a memo surface at some point explaining why the State Department didn't act, and I'll bet it will not reflect well on Hillary.
Andrew......not to take too strong an objection with your analysis, but I would not believe anything I hear coming out of the MB, Morsi (but I repeat myself) , Hamas, PLO, etc., that they say for Western ears. These guys are not dumb nor not media savvy. I believe it is MEMRI(?) who posts the English translations of these guys speeches to their countrymen and other Arabs. In many cases it is diametrically opposite what they have stated to the Western press. Which one are we to believe?
In addition, I trust this next comment is not in violation of the mission statement, their Holy book claims it is okay to lie to an infidel? These are some of the reasons I don't believe we can negotiate in good faith with these groups. Especially if we base our actions or non-actions on what they claim to the West.
In an earlier post on the same subject, I suggested we hit them where it hurts.....right in their pocketbook. I really don't see that as happening if we treat them as honest brokers who will not be as duplicitous as they have always been. At the very least, the public figures who we in the West are exposed to on a regular basis.
And the above should not be construed as a personal, ad hominen attack on any one individual, yet rather as an observation on the historical antecedents of a culture that has the potential to continue to cause Americans to lose their lives by stupid actions of their political leadership.
Andrew,
Off Topic
The comment vulture has again attacked and made off with some of LawHawk's comments. Curse you vultures. They are all the same you know. No respect.
Here is something that might make your day.
http://datechguyblog.com/2012/09/17/demoralized-as-hell-the-poll-the-media-isnt-talking-about-edition/
This is something all pollsters should read. It shows that what they are doing to their own polls is ethically challenged to say the least.
Patriot, The problem with your argument is that you basically are arguing that we cannot deal with the government of Egypt or with Islam at all. So what does that leave us? Do we just stick our heads in the sand and hope they don't all turn into Iran?
The fact is that you need to deal with people if you want to change them. And the MB controls Egypt and will control other governments throughout the Middle East over time. We can either try to work with them to make sure they stay on the right path, or we can choose to become victims of events.
Also, "they lie" is the same argument used against Reagan dealing with the Soviets. That's why he said "trust by verify." I don't understand why so many conservatives think that just because someone suggests talking they are also somehow implying that we're going to go blind and stupid and make ourselves patsies?
Also, I'm not basing my opinion on anything they've said. I'm basing it on what they've done. And what they've done is avoid terrorism, oppose radical Islam, and try to install a government that is relatively moderate for the Muslim world. Isn't it better to try to work with these people than to walk away and to hope everything works out?
Joel, It's an interesting analysis and it's more proof that the polls are fake right now. I'm talking about two more fake polls on Wednesday.
Andrew......I agree with your comment re lying. The concern I have is that I don't think this, and the last 3 administrations followed the Reagan philosophy. I really think they believe they can convince hostile to US interests governments, that they now have an administration that won't be "belligerent" like Reagans was.
And the older I get ( and I'm getting up there!) the more I see even our vaunted US senior leaders getting taken by these prevaricators because they believe they can change the tone and the outcomes by not acting like Reagan. Trust yet verify is a perect way to approach every foreign affair and leader, no matter which country or region.
As far as your comment of just "walking away and hope everything works out," that is not what I am suggesting. That is an extreme position ignoring our role in the global conversation between nations that has been going on since our founding. I am asking for a clear-eyed, muscular approach in our foreign affairs. To have an American Ambassador and staff murdered and then apologize to the host government for our Constitutional rights, because Morsi demand it, is egregious and an insult to every American who has ever been proud to call themselves an American. It shows weakness and capitulation. .... And worse.
If this is the type of engagement we will have with the MB, Hamas, etc....then screw them. We need to show the world that Americans killed in their country will be dealt with severely, more so than a strongly worded letter of condemnation and rounding up of Americans that offend their sensibilities. What that looks like is debatable, but I sure as heck hope it is NOT how we have dealt with this incident to this point.
Andrew, I don't trust any government, foreign or otherwise, to have my best interests at heart, therefore, I would go into any discussion/negotiation thinking that they were out for their best interests, as I would be for mine. No matter what their public statements are.
Having said all that, I pray that your analysis of the moderating face of these groups is spot on. It would truly put us on a course for improved relations with the region, yet I don't think we are handling it as we should with them. The strong horse and all that.
Patriot Out
Patriot, Sadly, you are correct that the last three administrations have not followed the Reagan philosophy. They seem to have decided to overlook the bad in the name of expediency... "trust and hope." That needs to change.
I absolutely agree that we need a muscular approach. We should never apologize for being America or for Americans exercising their constitutional rights, and Obama/Clinton were very wrong here to do so. All they did was play into the radical Islamists' hands. They needed to stand up and tell the world of Islam that they cannot control other people's rights of free speech. I totally agree with that.
I also agree that America needs to stay involved. We shouldn't be fighting civil wars for them, but we should be supporting those who will work with us to make those countries more free and more aligned with Western values. And we have a ton of tools to do that, everything from direct aid to trade agreements to advisers, etc. We need to use that to create leverage. Don't forget, these people run a country now and they need to keep their people happy. And we have a lot we can offer to make that happen... or withdraw to make it that much harder.
In terms of whose interests they care about, it will always been their own. That's human nature and what we need to do is to find ways to make sure it is in their interests to worry about our opinion. That's the key to changing things, and that is Obama goes wrong. He thinks asking nicely will make them fall in line. That will never happen. We need to use carrots and sticks to realign their incentives.
I hope my analysis is correct as well. I can't guarantee it, and we need to be prepared for these things to be trickery or dead ends, but it appears that there is an opening here, and those are rare moments that can change history if handled correctly.
If I seemed a little pessimistic earlier, it's well addressed by Joel's link to DaTechGuy's blog. I am convinced that the collective unofficial mission of the radio talkers is to demoralize Republicans and conservatives before November. I'd turn it off, but I have to listen to something while I work, and the music stations are too repetitive.
tryanmax, It certainly feels that way, doesn't it? At a time when conservatives should be banding together to make sure this election goes well, they seem to be sniping at their candidates. I don't understand that.
Bev, They. Had. Locks. On. The. Doors. What more do you want?!?!?!?!?!?!
T-Rav, In fairness, they also had private security. But those guys left when things started. And apparently they had an escape plan, but the Ambassador didn't follow it -- and he wasn't actually in the Embassy when this happened.
Still, I would have taken a lot more precautions.
tryanmax,
Go to Mark Levin's blog and check out his numerous pod-casts. They are free and you can hear them over your computer as background. I especially like his ones that are set for Friday. He has Ray Charles sing God Bless America as only Ray Charles can. :-)
Interesting analysis. I hope we don't wind up playing into Al Queda's hands though given the guys at the top of the tickets, I suspect we will.
Sorry, Joel, but Levin is just as bad as any of the rest, plus he's a blatant liar. He's also been the arch-ABR-talker since Herman Cain left the scene even though he backed Romney in '08.
tryanmax,
The only other thing I can suggest is go to YouTube and set up a playlist of songs you like. Play it all day then. Not much more I can say.
Anthony, It strikes me that what al Qaeda is after is that we withdraw from the Middle East. So if we stick around and work with these governments, then their plan will have backfired.
In the end their is nothing we can do about the situation in the middle east. Al Qeada is only interested in disengaging the US so they can acheive their goal of a global Islamic caliphate based on the principles of al Tamiyya (an islamic cleric and philosopher credited with starting the most agressive views of Islam in response to his feeling the Khan's were apostates who converted to Islam only to rule. He first suggested it was OK to kill innocent Musloims since if theywere good God would handle it.)
Nothing Obama could have doen could stop these people nor can it strengthen the governments which will remain weak unless they turn to dictatorship. Dictatorship is not in any way a good thing because the Muslim Brotherhood and eventually the terrorist organizations started in Egypt as a respone to the tyrrany of Egypt. If a dictator arises in these countries and the US is not an enemy of them then we will still be seen as the prime target becuase we keep them in power.
The only hope is to allow these countries to test their democracies, help them without being seen as trying to control them and pray that they people there heed Ben Franklin's advice.
"Madam, a republic if you can keep it"
In the end it is up to them.
The mistake was not keeping a strong defence in tehse embassies and proper evacuation protocols for our people.
As to why the attacks are so severe let's not ignore the 800 lb Gorilla in the room. Osama Bin Laden was killed and we kept rubbing Al Queada's nose in it. And Al Queada is a bad dog and will bite if you give it the chance.
Indi, I think a key point to remember is that there is nothing fundamentally contradictory between Islam and democracy. There are Islamic democracies all throughout south-east Asia. And Turkey is an example of a functioning Islamic democracy in the Middle East. Even some of the Gulf States are trending that way.
The key is getting rule of law established and getting the institutions in place that are needed to support a democracy. That's where countries run by former dictators are weak -- look at Russia for example. That's where we need to focus: (1) improving their economies, (2) establishing rule of law, and (3) establishing institutions that respect the rule of law.
That's the only way we're going to change these counties.
Andrew
I agree and I guess I left out the context. I was thinking about Mark Levin talking about this over the last month or so.
He is making the point that Mushariff was our ally and the Muslim brotherhood is going to be terrible for us. He states our self interest comes first. I really don't think I agree with him but many conservatives fall in line with him I think.
I understand that Musharif may have sided with us in order to get the money to stay in power but he also oppressed his people. This marks us with blame in the eyes of those oppressed. Now that the oppressed have a say they won't be all happy with us. that may be against our interest but if we support their democracy and let them rule themselves then I think it will eventually get better.
If they do fall into a dictatorship run by Taliban style mullahs at least we will be their enemies and the people should they gain control and overthrow them will be on our side.
I think you make some points that counter what Levin was saying which is a good thing. Or maybe I am just being too idealistic, who knows...
Indi, You mean Mubarak?
I think the problem is that there is both short term interest and long term interest. And we've gone with short term interest too often in the region and backed very bad men who oppressed their populations in the hopes of getting temporary help with one project or another.
We are now paying the price for that as these people rise up and really don't trust us because we supported the guy who oppressed them. I think we really need to work to change that image if we're going to defuse this hotbed of trouble.
Yes I mean Mubarak
Turkey was a great example, but it has been moving in the wrong direction these past few years.
And now Turkey is on the hate Israel and blame them for everything bandwagon which is not a good sign.
Regardless, if we can engage any of these countries peacefully, we should.
One of the biggest mistakes I think Bush and now Obama has made is not insisting on the rule of law and liberty for all in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, and the Palestinian territories.
If the individual rights of the minorities and women ain't protected then essentially those countries would become another Totalitarian state like they were before, with different people in charge.
Why Bush didn't push harder for this I don't know. I expected Obama to not push for individual rights hard because he's against them and prefers collectivism democracy which can easily become a nightmare for folks living in those countries.
Those points you made, Andrew should be our prime directives and we should always be pushing for it in every country we deal with.
Not just for our interests but for their own best interests.
There's a lot of hurdles to get there, including some on the left who see nothing wrong with mob-style democracy (Carter, Obama, etc..).
Apparently, they can't see why it's bad not to have individual rights and rule of law in other countries besides our own.
As for the past, who knows? Those times were different, and most Americans wouldn't have supported the US becoming a world police force trying to spread a republic type government.
Not to mention the cost. In the past, both democrats and republicans actually tried to avoid going into debt, and cared more that their children not be burdened by their excesses.
Now, not so much. The majority of Americans still don't want the debt, but just barely at this point.
All I'm saying is, the US supporting dictators in the past is a bit more complicated a matter then it seems at first glance.
Those decisions were among many bad or worse decisions those past Presidents had to make. There were no good and easy options.
I concur it was a mistake but hindsight is 20/20 and the nat'l zeitgheist (hope I spelled that right) was quite different then.
One could argue that what happened in Iran wasn't all our doing, but we make a convenient scapegoat as does Israel.
The radicals have always been there, and they'll use any excuse or lies to obtain and keep power.
The Iranian people are definitely not better off now than they were then.
Your excellent points would help to alleviate a lot of the propaganda the radicals put out.
Won't stop the radicals but hopefully, the people of those troubled countries will decide they wanna be free and see that's what wqe want for them too.
BTW, this has been a good discussion. I know there are some disagreements about the particulars but I think we can all agree we want liberty for all the people, whether it's Egypt or Russia.
I think everyone wants freedom, but not everyone wants individual liberties and rights (including some in our own country).
Our Founding Fathers presented ideals that are still fairly new to the world.
Those ideals are alien to many folks who have only known tribal cultures, and have had no exposure to the idea of individual liberty for all.
So while I agree everyone wants freedom, individual liberty is a harder sell.
There are many men that don't want to lose the power they have over women (and we must remember this is the way they were brought up and they don't see anything wrong with it).
That's just one example of many. But push for it we must, and hopefully, we can convince these countries it's the best way for everyone.
It doesn't help that the democrat Presidents and republican presidents keep changing foreign policy and goals.
There's no consistency or stability anymore in today's political climate irt our relations with other countries.
One things for sure: appeasement doesn't work.
But we already knew that.
Post a Comment