I’ve blogged about our incursion into Libya on three separate occasions, and the main theme threaded throughout was that getting rid of Ghadafi was only half of the equation. Stabilizing the country afterwards is the other half, and, as I said back then, our foreign policy just doesn’t seem to get that.
Well, it sure does now. Everyone is scrambling to pin the rose on who killed the U.S. Ambassador and some of his staff, with some blaming a movie that insults Islam as the culprit, and others saying it was a planned attack on behalf of al Qaida. While I’m not so sure about the al Qaida connection, there’s no way this was an unruly flash mob that simply coalesced on the consulate with unfortunate results. Unruly mobs don’t show up with rocket propelled grenades and assault rifles, then conduct a synchronized attack. But that’s really irrelevant. Whether it was al Qaida or simply a fragment of the many militias that are running around Libya, one fact is perfectly clear: If Ghadafi was still in power, it wouldn’t have happened.
So far there have been three occurrences of mobs attacking U.S. embassies: Yemen, Egypt and Libya. All three have something in common: The governments are in significant turmoil. One has a little bit extra: The turmoil was caused by our own foreign policy.
Think about it. The most conservative Islamic country in the world is Saudi Arabia. Not only did our embassy escape unscathed, but the Kingdom actually condemned the other attacks.
No matter who actually perpetrated the attack in Libya, what facilitated their ability to succeed was the U.S. removing all governmental infrastructure in the state. In retaliation, we’re apparently sending two warships with fifty Marines to the Mediterranean, which is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. What are they going to do? Invade? You mean actually put boots on the ground to stabilize the country? Hell no. If anything, we’ll launch some missiles into a sand dune, which will have about as much use as banging a wall when you’re angry.
What I find especially ominous is our current dithering over Syria. Once again, we’re calling for the ouster of the head of state without any thought to the mess that will be left behind. Only the repercussions in Syria will be exponentially greater, with everything from weapons of mass destruction on the loose to Lebanon descending into sectarian violence reminiscent of the 1980’s.
If anything, Libya should remind us that there is never a conflict “won on the cheap”, and that victory is not achieved the moment the opposing side capitulates. Believing such folly inevitably leads to what we now have in Libya, and a president giving a hollow promise to bring the killers to justice.
If he really wants to find the person responsible for the first domino that fell in the death of Ambassador John Stevens, he should look in the mirror.
thank you for your insight….it reminds us, as it should, that blind faith in our government leaders to guard our interests is without foundation. Democracy means we must be involved, informed, and questioning with respect to how our country is managed. I look forward to more of your thoughts….
Sir,
No offense meant, but I feel that a major backbone transplant is required in Washington DC, or things are going to get ugly real fast.
What I find quite strange is the sheer NEGLIGENCE shown by Washington towards Libya. Ambassador stevens warned the state department that he was added to Al-Quaeda’s hit list, but nothing was done to improve his security. Even the embassy in Tripoli had requested additional security, but they were denied and ignored.
The Daily Beast also reported yesterday that Washington knew that it was Al-Quaeda and even the precise location of one of the attackers within 24 hours of the attack ! It’s here :
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/26/u-s-officials-knew-libya-attacks-were-work-of-al-qaeda-affiliates.html
Why did they take so long to acknowledge these facts ? I don’t want to sound like one of those tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists, but these events in Libya and Egypt do feel like the start of something alot bigger. Maybe an Anti-Western/Democracy Arab “spring” ? It’s like the latter half of a drawn-out chess match, where the pawns stop moving and the big pieces start moving for the checkmate.
Also, as an Indian and a supporter of Israel and completely against a nuclear Iran, I’m having a hard time understanding Obama’s foreign/international policy.
Thanks alot for your insight in these blogs, it’s refreshing. I’d really look forward to any non-fiction book you write in future.
What we’ve had for the last four years is rectal-cranial inversion for foreign policy. What started as appeasement for Muslims has turned to unmitigated disaster in the entire region. One of the results was the coordinated assault on the Benghazi mission (the consulate is in Tripoli).
The American “press” is part of the problem, of course. Were they not the cheering section for the current administration the questions would have been asked and answered already.