Remember the slogan “These colors don’t run,” captioning the American flag?
Neither does al Qaeda.
Why should they? They’ve just won. They have forced us out of Benghazi. It did take multiple attacks over several months, and the gruesome torture and murder of our ambassador, to edge us out. But the job is done now. We’re running scared.
Instead of sticking with our commitment to a new Libya, one in which Americans have friendship and influence – one in which we can walk free, and so can Libyans – we have closed our post in Benghazi and drawn down our embassy staff in Tripoli to “essential” personnel only. It will be of some interest to see how long it takes al Qaeda or other terrorist savages to attack us in Tripoli.
Congressman Darrell Issa revealed yesterday, in a letter to Hillary Clinton, that US officials said they had asked earlier this year for more security protection at the US mission posts in Libya – and been denied.
This data point isn’t really a bombshell, so much as a confirmation of the theory that the Obama administration wanted to avoid putting too much obtrusive US security into Libya. Fans of Dinesh D’Souza’s theory about Obama and anti-colonialism would attribute such a determination to the theory’s implications (e.g., about the offensiveness of the “West” in the former-colonial world). And for those who dislike the D’Souza theory, or at least consider it overreaching or irrelevant, the question is: what theory about Obama and his advisors does explain the decision not to adequately protect a US diplomatic mission? What could motivate a president and his staff to dismiss the security concerns expressed by the president’s own representatives in Libya?
It’s worth pointing out that Obama’s entire approach to Libya has guaranteed that the country will not unify quickly around a strong, America-friendly central government. “Leading from behind” gave terrorists months to gather in war-torn Libya in 2011; refraining from wielding US influence has left them plenty of latitude on Libyan soil in 2012. The Islamist terrorists have no reason to respect America or be wary of what we might do, because under Obama, we don’t do anything.
Well, that’s not entirely true. We do encourage the arming of poorly vetted militant groups, as we have done in Libya and Syria. Every now and then we make a Delphic pronouncement about a regional development – Egypt, Libya, Syria – taking care not to seem to have any particular outcome or alternative in mind. However the American audience sees these activities, regional jihadists see them as signs of detachment, cynicism, and weakness.
In this context, a conscious policy of poor security at a diplomatic post appears more than self-effacing. It is self-abnegating. It’s like wearing a “Hit me!” sign.
We’ve had embassies hit before, embassies that weren’t necessarily wearing “Hit me!” signs. The US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 come to mind, and of course the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. (Others will remember Saigon in 1975 as well.) We didn’t withdraw from our posts in Kenya and Tanzania. We showed determination, we rebuilt, we were back in force with even better security.
We did withdraw from Iran, with which we have not had diplomatic relations for 33 years. In the wake of the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983 – mounted by Hezbollah, the Iran-sponsored terror group – we pulled our Marines out of Lebanon. This latter case is similar to the Benghazi withdrawal, because the US Marines in Lebanon were assigned an unexecutable mission with rules of engagement that made them sitting ducks. But it is also different from the current Libyan situation, in that there was no valid reason for us to have Marines in Lebanon in 1983, whereas sound policy in 2012 would indeed have the United States robustly and sustainably represented – diplomatically, and with good security – in Libya.
As we learned with Iran, losing an ally is likely to mean having to amp up our regional military posture. We met the challenge of revolutionary Iran with a dramatic expansion of US military presence in and around the Persian Gulf. The military option is always more expensive, but our security demands it, now interlinked as it is with the dynamics of even distant regional situations.
We can hope we have not lost the possibility of an America-friendly Libya, but we will have to change our policy to keep the hope alive. Libya has a long coastline on the central Mediterranean Sea – a chokepoint whose vulnerabilities we have not had to think about much since World War II. The last time we did, in the late 1980s, Muammar Qadhafi was firing missiles at Sicily and challenging US and NATO forces with fighter jets.
The Libyan coast is a few hours’ ferry ride from Italy. It takes a bit longer to get to France or Greece. Typical intermediate-range missiles launched from Libya could reach most of Europe; small aircraft or speedboats from anywhere along the Libyan coast could wreak havoc with international shipping. Libya’s geography makes her politics significant. If the nation is not unified and effectively controlled by a central government with moderate tendencies and aspirations, Libya can quickly become a real regional headache.
If the terrorists at work in Libya were more wary of US power, they would at least be more circumspect. But they are losing their wariness. They won’t stop pushing. Either we change our policy – and ideally, our president – or this keeps getting worse.
J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.
Note for new commenters: Welcome! There is a one-time “approval” process that keeps down the spam. There may be a delay in the posting if your first comment, but once you’re “approved,” you can join the fray at will.
The Optimistic Conservative 
hack work as is too often the case.
the pullout from Beirut led directly to the subversion of Lebanese sovereignty or any hope for it.
we were chased out of Beirut by Khomeini.
No, what you characterize as being “chased out of Beirut” was actually Reagan’s belated recognition that Lebanon was a quagmire.
Reagan didn’t back away from Beirut out of fear but out of belated recognition of what the actual realities were, both regionally and domestically.
Just what many believe Pres. Kennedy, had he lived, would have in time done with Vietnam.
Regan knew that democrats and the MSM would ensure that the American public wouldn’t support the amount of military force and time needed for that force to pacify Lebanon because ‘pacifying Lebanon’ or any other Muslim nation requires pacifying the region.
Which means actually confronting mainstream Islam’s tenets because jihadism is one of Islam’s primary tenets.
Geoff how the heck does ANY of what you’re saying about Beirut allow the hackery offered by our hostess about Benghazi not to be called out as crud.
Lebanon was far more important to US interests and the challenge presented by the killing of all those American troops was vastly more bold.
Reagan cut and puled in the face of an egregious assault organized by Khomeini and when he did, American civilians (and CIA agents) were then kidnapped, held for ransom , tortured at length and murdered…in a city where Americans had lived and worked and founded a university in the 1860’s.
First of all, I wasn’t addressing your charge that the opticon’s post is “hackery and crud”.
I was addressing your charge that Reagan cut and ran in Lebanon. Lebanon had devolved into a civil war among multiple factions, by the time of the attack upon the Marines in Beirut, Lebanon was a failed state (which it still is) and one without any prospect of unity and thus, not intrinsically of more importance than Libya is now. Yes, the attack upon the Marines was more egregious than the attack in Libya. That however does not invalidate Reagan’s valid reasons for deciding not to entangle the US further into M.E. politics and a civil war.
The city “where Americans had lived and worked and founded a university in the 1860′s” no longer existed.
Hezbollah was too dispersed for effective counter attack without committing to further involvement in a civil war. Attacking Khomieni’s Iran was judged to not be an option, the fear being that it might well drive the Iranians into league with a still strong Soviet Union.
I’ve reread Opticon’s post and while I partially disagree (see below) it’s far from ‘hackery’, several valid points are made, including the main theme of the complete inadequacy of the administration’s foreign policy.
But then, your status as the resident gadfly requires your characterization of nearly every post as hackery. A tired theme and pattern that I’ve observed on your part.
You do realize there were follow up attacks on two other embassy annexes, in ’84, this is why we eventually learned the lesson after Somalia, ten years later, that a retreat, teaches who is ‘strong horse’ and who is the week one,
So according to the Beast’s Eli Lake, and the Journal’s ‘Siobjan Gorman, no fewer than four different terrorist groups were involved, AAS (Libya), AQIM,
AQ Central, and AQAP through their subsidiary, the Abu Jamal network
This is the last reference I was making;
http://www.arabist.net/blog/2012/10/2/blowback-from-egypts-released-jihadist-militants.html
Revenge for our dead in Libya is at hand. Souda Bay, Sigonella, the Fleet and the boys on the ground are ready….Godspeed.
There’s no way that Obama is going to use the Fleet in any kind of major way. Especially with the election so close.
I’m not insinuating invasion, but retaliation. I don’t think even Obama can leave the murder of an Ambassador unanswered GB. If he did, only the word “despicable” could describe it.
I’ll grant you that Obama may well authorize some small, symbolic retaliation. Probably a drone attack, which will of course claim to be against those most responsible.
The word despicable already applies, there are reports surfacing that there were multiple calls from Benghazi for greater protection and that they were refused…given the totality of the administration’s denial and stonewalling, I give great credence to those reports. It now appears highly likely that forthright and full disclosure would mean the end of any chance of Obama’s reelection. So we can count on the “full court press” of denial and obfuscation to continue as long as possible.
Yes, the handling of security was a blunder. I do not wish to make political capital off the deaths of our folks though (I am not implying you are).
Having the administration come clean on the issue would probably be asking too much also.
Allow me one, cynical comment though.
Viewed from a political perspective, a drone strike isn’t going to be seen as going far enough to bury a potentially fatal election issue. I suspect we will see something else.
I agree as to a drone strike being inadequate. If that is all they do however, it will be viewed by many Americans as indicative of a lack of resolve and by Al Qaeda as well.
One political question for Obama is which is better; retaliation, which keeps the incident in the public eye or ignoring it as much as possible, while when necessary making ‘vigorous’ assertions that “we are pursuing a robust investigation to visit justice upon the actual perpetrators”, relying upon the short attention span of many independents and the collusion of the MSM… (move along everyone, there’s nothing to see here)?
Another thought; politically, this is a marvelous opportunity for Romney to point to Obama’s incompetency during the debates. The longer we go without retaliation, the greater the charge by Romney that Obama is perceived as weak by our enemies.
Last I heard, the FBI hasn’t even entered Benghazi. We know Al Qaeda is responsible and if by now, we don’t know where most of their bases are, it raises the incompetence question again but if we do know, what are we waiting for?
Many of the animals responsible are traveling more or less freely between Libya/Turkey/Syria, along with large quantities of ex-Qaddafi weaponry. This I know.
This is hypothetical
What’s gonna happen if proof comes out that the killers in Benghazi are the same outfit as the “rebels” in Syria (the ones our Allies are supporting)? Maybe that has something to do with the wait.
If a combined op involving ground units has been authorized, it might take a few more days to coordinate. (I’m speculating)
There is a report (mentions the FBI) out that two Tunisians traveling on false documents have been arrested in Istanbul in connection to the events in Benghazi. Turkish Kanal D is not usually a reliable source.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/arrests-Tunisians-Stevens-killing/2012/10/04/id/458732
Whether the killers in Benghazi are the same outfit as the “rebels” in Syria is of less importance than that they are at the least, ideological allies. In WWII, it mattered little whether a German, Italian or Japanese was shooting at you.
They’re all threads in the same Islamic rug.
If Obama was going to retaliate, if for nothing else but political reasons, it would seem likely that he would have struck back by now. I think he hasn’t because when he can’t politically bully an opponent, his instinct is to appease not confront.
Obama wants to lessen his confrontation with jihadists, not increase it.
Some small, well publicized, but ultimately insignificant strike against people claimed to be the instigators fo the attack would be worth 2 or 3 quick points in the polls for Obama.
True, thought the longer Obama waits, the larger the retaliation has to be to secure that bounce in the polls. Enough time has gone by that Obama increasingly looks weak and unable to respond.
Of course, since Obama views terrorism as a matter for the ‘police’, then time must be given for a proper investigation, after which the usual suspects should be brought to trial with of course all of the constitutional protections those “presumed innocent” are due.
Opticon, re: the points below;
“the question is: what theory about Obama and his advisers does explain the decision not to adequately protect a US diplomatic mission?
The appeasement mindset; “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” – Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affairs, Integration and Gender Equality, Government of Sweden
Obama and is advisers continue to believe that sincere dialog and sensitivity can sway the region away from hostility toward the US. They also believe that the primary obstacle hindering persuasion of the Islamists is American support for Israel. (the reality is that for Islamists, you’re either on their side with full support or you’re the enemy)
In his second term Obama would abandon all support for Israel when, out of desperation, Netanyahu ordered an attack upon Iranian nuclear facilities. A unilateral, ‘unprovoked’ attack upon Iran by Israel would provide the needed political cover Obama needs to cut lose Israel and finally convince the Islamists that he’s on their side.
“sound policy in 2012 would indeed have the United States robustly and sustainably represented – diplomatically, and with good security – in Libya. We can hope we have not lost the possibility of an America-friendly Libya, but we will have to change our policy to keep the hope alive.”
With all due respect J.E., I cannot agree because these assertions rest upon premises that ignore relevant realities. Namely, that it is possible for the US to be “robustly and sustainably represented – diplomatically, and with good security – in Libya” and, that we could ever have “an America-friendly Libya” and that a change in US policy can notably assist in Libya (or any other Muslim nation) becoming an “ally”.
The reality is that there is no organized faction in Libya who is “America friendly”. So any robust US presence capable of providing good security will be seen as unwarranted intrusion by the US. Just as it is in every Muslim nation. Some are more ‘accepting’ because “needs must, when the devil drives” but it is always viewed as an evil by every societal faction.
The reality is that any change in US policy that could result in a regime “friendly” toward the US has to be or have elements of a dictatorship. That’s because the overwhelming mindset of the region is antithetical toward classical western liberal values. The reason I keep stressing the poll statistic that 84% of Egyptians support the DEATH penalty for apostasy is because of what it reveals about the vast regional majority’s values, beliefs and mindset.
It requires rigid control from the government for a Muslim nation whose people are opposed to the West to be accommodating toward the US. Muslim governments are controlled by a small faction, whether it be a dictatorship, Islamic theologists or a ‘royal family’. Invariably, one ‘tribe’ rules. If, it is in the personal interest of that ruling faction to be ‘accommodating’ toward some US interests, then they will ruthlessly suppress any overtly active hostility toward US interests that the government perceives to be a threat to their power and/or beneficial relationship with the US.
With the Saudi’s its maintaining control of the flow of oil and their power. With countries like Bahrain and Kuwait its holding any outside threats at bay. With Egypt it was 1.5 billion in bribe money. Pakistan its also all about the money.
Back in the 70’s, in some M.E. nations, there was a significant faction who embraced or at least were somewhat accepting of western values. Ironically, most notably in Iran, especially among the young, upwardly mobile youth under the Shah’s reign.
But all of that has been in the main aborted. The protests in Iran that Obama failed to support were not a majority protest against the Mullah’s. And those that protested did so for a variety of issues.
The general attitude in the region is quite clear.
Islamism is fighting for its survival against cultural incursion from the modern world.
Given that reality, Islam can only view any citizen who supports western values to be an enemy of Islam and therefore a traitor. Punishment can only be the death penalty.
So ‘moderates’ simply remain silent, which effectively limits their numbers to those few who intuitively reject Islamic extremism.
Impressionable youth hear the loudest voices, which currently are fanatical Islamic pronouncements. All of the cultural momentum is currently with the Jihadists and, as long as they appear to be ‘winning’, youth will flock to the jihadist banner. Youth, of any culture, always wants to be with ‘what’s happening’.
So, given these regional realities, there’s no rational basis for asserting that the US can assist in forging legitimate and therefore lasting regimes, sympathetic toward Western interests.
First, we must neuter Islam, which starts with exposing its tenets.
Then, if we can get our own house in order, we can offer Middle Eastern youth an alternative.
Getting our own house in order is of course, our domestic struggle.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” for “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Abraham Lincoln
Impressionable youth hear the loudest voices, which currently are fanatical Islamic pronouncements. All of the cultural momentum is currently with the Jihadists and, as long as they appear to be ‘winning’, youth will flock to the jihadist banner. Youth, of any culture, always wants to be with ‘what’s happening’.
Where did you come up with that? Youth of every culture always reject the established culture and even more so today.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Or perhaps you simply value argumentation. Yes, youth of every culture frequently do reject the established culture. Though not in every historical epoch have they done so.
But I was referring specifically to the jihadists in the M.E. currently being viewed as the agents for change. When the establishment is viewed as recalcitrant to needed change, aka repressive M.E. governments in this epoch, youth will flock to the banner of those they perceive as offering substantive change.
At the end of a repressive epoch, when the ‘loudest voices’ heard by youth are in favor of change, it greatly influences the youth of a nation or region.
In the M.E., at present that is the jihadists.
off topic, just a Syrian/Turkish side note here Could be nothing, then again…
online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578034372539783626.html
Artillery fire from Syria into Turkey has not ceased, according to one unconfirmed regional report.
Below Hillary put in her two-cents
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ihdQGd5C1HoRK22uFYWYpYPoFOvw?docId=CNG.245855be310ef4cebe2557c879e81c71.231
it’s not at all nothing.
it’s quite something.
attempt to intimidate Turkey comes right after warning against anti-Assad activity from Russia.
reminds Turkey that Syria isn’t their only neighbor.
We should have a clearer picture if we are still on hiatus or “Unwanted October Surprise” tomorrow Fuster.
A couple of other pieces in the regional puzzle have also shifted.
To name some
The Georgian election result.
The Iraqi central govt. demand that Turkey terminate its presence in N.Iraqi.
The Azeris tentatively agreeing to extend the Gabala radar facility lease to Russia.
The Iranian currency depreciation and riots.
The multiple car bomb attack in the center of Aleppo.
Some troop movements that I shall not get into.
If the nation is not unified and effectively controlled by a central government with moderate tendencies and aspirations, Libya can quickly become a real regional headache.
Isn’t it already something of a headache? And wouldn’t everyone, probably including the Libyans themselves, be better off if Libya was splintered into little emirates like it was not so long ago? What’s with this aspiration for bigger and bigger nation/states? Hesse wasn’t much of problem for Europe and the world until it signed on the dotted line with Prussia and the rest and created Germany. Even now nobody seems to be worried about Luxembourg or Malta or Tonga messing with anyone. Or should they throw in with their neighbors and create control and moderate tendencies and aspirations?
It is already a headache. Opticon’s point is that the headache could get much worse and is highly likely to do so without better US policies.
I don’t agree with Opticon’s premise that there’s any basis for asserting that a “central government with moderate tendencies and aspirations” is possible in Libya.
Which brings us to your point that encouraging ‘balkanization’ of Libya might have considerable advantages for the West. Small countries do have less resources to conduct wars and in a region likely to continue to be hostile to Western interests, the possible advantage that Libya would be reduced to a backwater region of little threat to the west is, at first glance, attractive. Whether it can survive close scrutiny is another matter but its certainly worth discussion.
The view that, “tribal regions that cannot cooperatively overcome tribal hostilities have no business becoming nation states” may well be a valid operative principle.
Opticon’s point is that the headache could get much worse and is highly likely to do so without better US policies.
What would those better policies be? How much real influence does the US have in Libya, other than the threat of blowing the place up? Or putting them on the same dole as Egypt, which they don’t need because they’re an oil exporter, or have been. Those who should be most concerned with Libyan events are the Italians, with their many economic ties to the country, especially oil imports. Why not let charismatic Silvio sweet talk the Libyans into behaving?
The reality is that the US isn’t always capable of influencing international events. Decline and fall of Arab despots throughout the region have created power vacuums that will be filled, not by democratic processes, but by the time-honored techniques that the Arabs have learned from their western colonizers combined with their own neo-tribal tactics.
I gather that Opticon is suggesting that by carefully backing the faction most sympathetic to western values or interests, through financial assistance, perhaps covert ops and logistical supplies we have the best chance to influence events in Libya in the direction we desire.
Were jihadist momentum dissipated or a ‘strong man’ available I might agree that to be a valid short term solution.
My perception is that the region is simply not ready for the western values needed to secure a lasting democratic form of governance. So we’re left with a strong man ruling. Until one emerges, (I’m unaware of one to back) the jihadists hold the strategic high ground.
‘The reality is that the US isn’t always capable of influencing international events.”
True however, proponents of ‘realpolitics’ would credibly answer that while influencing societies directly is not always possible, preventing, or at least minimizing other major geo-political players from influencing events is almost always possible.
An analogy might be, when playing pool or billiards, always try to arrange shots so that if you do miss, you leave your opponent little to work with on the table.
Realpolitic solutions however while potentially viable in the short term are inevitably unsatisfactory in the long term.
We simply lack a scientific, sociologically in depth understanding of how to achieve long term geo-political solutions and our current adversarial politics guarantees a lack of consistency in foreign policy.
Roughly a year ago we first wrote about Leopold Kohr. As a reminder, Kohr was an Austrian Jew who only narrowly escaped Hitler’s Germany just before the outbreak of the Second World War.
He had been born in Oberndorf in central Austria, a village of just 2,000 or so. Oberndorf’s lack of size came to play a crucial role in Kohr’s thinking. Kohr graduated in 1928 and went off to study at
the London School of Economics with the likes of fellow Austrian Friedrich von Hayek. In September 1941, Kohr began writing what would become his masterwork, ‘The Breakdown of Nations’. In it he argued that Europe, far from expanding, should be “cantonized” back into the sort of small political regions that had existed in the past and which still existed in places like Switzerland, with a commitment to private property rights and local democracy. “We have ridiculed the many little states,” wrote Kohr sadly, “now we are terrorised by their few successors.”
Kohr showed that there were unavoidable limits to the growth of societies, not least to the complexity that is a natural part of larger systems:“Social problems have the unfortunate tendency to grow at a geometric ratio with the growth of an organism of which they are a part, while the ability of man to cope with them, if it can be
extended at all, grows only at an arithmetic ratio.
Click to access think-small.pdf
All this is a defense of a much-ridiculed principle which glorifies the sovereignty of the smallest and not of the largest state-entity – Kleinstaaterei, as the Germans say. The theorist of our time who seem to be able to see only the large and get emotional over words like “humanity” (no one knows what it really means and why one should die for it) call the very idea of creating more instead of fewer states medieval backwardness. They are all out for unionism and colossalism, though unionism is nothing really but another expression for totalitarianism, even if it is thought to be a guarantee for peace. It is the one-party system transplanted into the international field. Against the scorn of our theorists I would like to point out only a very few of the advantages of this “medieval” scheme. The unionist will say that the time when hundreds of states existed was dark and that wars were waged almost continuously. That is true. But what were these wars like? The Duke of Tyrol declared war on the Margrave of Bavaria for a stolen horse. The war lasted two weeks. There was one dead and six wounded. A village was captured and all the wine drunk which was in the cellar of the inn. Peace was made and $35 paid for reparations. The adjoining Duchy of Liechtenstein and the Archbishopric of Salzburg never learned that there had been a war on at all. There was war on some corner of Europe almost every day, but they were wars with little effects. Today we have relatively few wars, and they are for no better reason than a stolen horse. But the effects are tremendous.
http://www.panarchy.org/kohr/1941.eng.html
it’s highly unlikely that Libya will any time soon be as much of a buttache as it was when Gaddafi was arming and terrorists in Europe and Africa.
On the surface that appears to be true and may indeed prove to be the case. However if that eventuates it will be because jihadists failed to capitalize on the increased resources Libya is capable of providing. It’s oil wealth could contribute significantly to jihadist coffers.
Geoff— yes, on the surface it’s obviously true………
what you’re really saying is that it’s POSSIBLE that Libya could revert to being as bad as it was when Gaddafi was pouring money in jihadist coffers….and sending guns and explosives to the IRA……and paying people to kill GIs in Germany ….and supporting half the armed factions in all of Africa…
things are better now…and it’ll take a lot to get things in Libya to be as bad as they were.
“Things are better now”
Fuster, it’s not better, It’s the same. Only difference, someone else is distributing the arms and money though different conduits (for the time being, in smaller quantities, on a lower than State level) to achieve similar purposes.
Without additional and intensified control of Libyan borders and and interdiction at exit points, terrorist activities funded and supplied from Libyan territory will increase as the Jihadists spread and consolidate their influence.
I couldn’t care less if the Libyans beat on each other (as long as the crude is flowing), but a lot of Libyan weaponry is going to find itself near Israeli borders, if it hasn’t done so already.
As usual, we supposedly solved one problem, just to create another.
NO fuster, what I’m saying is that if jihadists have half a brain they’ll use Libya’s oil wealth to fund terrorist attacks. And if they do, far more of Libya’s wealth will go to jihadist attacks. Gaddafi kept most of Libya’s wealth for himself and his supporters.
jihadist momentum in the region will not expand, as you suppose incrementally, it will expand exponentially.
In addition, things are much further along than you suppose;
Revolt of the Spooks
Intelligence officials angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya
“The administration, in particular, wants to keep hidden solid intelligence showing that the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans is now flourishing under the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.”
There are four possibly 5 terrorist networks operating in Libya, with likely affiliates from Casablanca to Sanaa, and into Europe
The irony. J.E. is that at least as first glance, Gibril an Magarief won the first round against Al Watan, and the Qatari allies, and this devastating strike and the coverup puts that in danger.
Well one recalls, from Hitchen’s book on the Special Relationship that the modern state, is a merger between Tripolitana, in the west, and Cyreniaca in the East
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/arrests-Tunisians-Stevens-killing/2012/10/04/id/458732?promo_code=FA38-1&utm_source=proteinwisdom&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
It’s been my position since before the election of Egypt’s Pres. Morsi that the rise to control of Egypt of the Muslim Brotherhood is comparable to the Iranian revolution.
It’s just coming out now that US intelligence confirms that position and that without a change of course we are headed down that path.
Revolt of the Spooks
Intelligence officials angered by Obama administration cover up of intelligence on Iranian, al Qaeda surge in Egypt and Libya
“The administration, in particular, wants to keep hidden solid intelligence showing that the terrorist group behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans is now flourishing under the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.”
Many in the US intelligence community rightly see this as the abandonment by Obama of his responsibility as Commander in Chief for political considerations. The ‘revolt’ is happening because instead of the administration reviewing its attitudes, beliefs and policies regarding Islamic terrorism, its engaged in a cover up.
No doubt Obama and his advisers are rationalizing that after the election they will ‘get serious’ and, if in the meantime a few more American ambassadors have to die…well that’s just the cost of doing business.
Taliban mock US as Afghan war enters 12th year
“With the help of Allah, the valiant Afghans under the Jihadi leadership of Islamic Emirate defeated the military might and numerous strategies of America and NATO alliance,” the Taliban said in a statement Sunday.
“And now after eleven years of unceasing terror, tyranny, crimes and savagery, they are fleeing Afghanistan with such humiliation and disgrace that they are struggling to provide an explanation”.
A total of 3,199 NATO soldiers have been killed in the war, more than 2,000 of them Americans. Most deaths occurred in the past five years as Taliban attacks escalated, according to icasualties.com.”
Note: 1700+ of the 2000 American deaths in Afghanistan have occurred since Obama took office… with of course, NO media coverage of the deaths.
But of course, its all Bush’s fault. Utter contempt is less than their stupidity and hypocrisy deserves.
This eventuality, that the Taliban are already declaring victory is no surprise, at least for some of us. Nor was I alone in that assessment;
The “British Spectator” back in 2009 warned of the potential consequences of Obama’s Afghan policies; A special form of disrespect
Barack Obama’s increasing disregard for Britain’s views is no way to treat an ally whose troops have fought side by side with America since September 11
“the very fact that these policy divisions are now starting to appear in London is symptomatic of a far deeper malaise that lies at the heart of Afghan policy-making; it is a malaise that now threatens to jeopardise the success of the entire mission.”
The Muslim Brotherhood deeply involved with Al Qaeda in Egypt.
Al Qaeda strongly resurgent in N. Africa, with likely access to Qaddafi’s munitions, far more than they’ve ever had before.
Egypt, under the Muslim Brotherhood, on the precipice of creating a Sunni version of Iran’s theocracy.
Afghanistan fallen to the Taliban in all but name.
Pakistan far more susceptible to jihadist influence than is popularly credited. Saudi Arabia the sole major bulwark against extremist jihadists seizing control of every major Muslim Middle Eastern nation.
20 of our Middle Eastern US embassy’s attacked and under threat…
Iran months away from nuclear capability.
Our closest allies alienated.
By every measure this President is a failure.
His administration an embarrassment.
And his supporters blind fools too cowardly to examine their premises and too egotistical to admit the mistakes that reality makes undeniable.
Obama wants to share the wealth. What the hell does he think the foreign aid thing is about. The only problem is that it never reaches the people for who it was intended. We need to stop all foreign aid, and pull all our troops out of most foreign Countries and protect our borders. It any legal emigrents want to assimilate into our culture fine, if not get the hell out. Like the Somalia Muslims in Lewiston Maine. They need to leave the Country, not try to get the Mayor of Lewiston fired for speaking the truth. Also we need a Federal Law Banning any part of Sharia Law in the United States. If Muslims want to live here they should abide by our Charistian Laws. We would have to if we went to a Muslim Country.