The attacks against
United States embassies and consulates in the Islamic world this week
were to be anticipated. Though the ostensible spark for the violence
that left U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and other
Americans dead or wounded was a trailer of an amateur film called
“Innocence of Muslims,” the real impetus was the anniversary of 9/11.
So far, the main
carnage has taken place in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen, but the Islamic
frenzy has begun to spread to many other parts of the region, as well.
Protests by Muslims against the “Great Satan” have erupted in
Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, Israel and the Gaza
Strip.
Mass anti-American
demonstrations — some planned and others spontaneous — are not merely
common among fundamentalist Muslims; they are part and parcel of the
concerted campaign to destroy the West. This political-religious
phenomenon is not due to excessive Western power and imperialism, as
apologists on the Left purport. On the contrary, it is directly
correlated to liberal Western values, perceived in the radical Islamist
world as depravity and weakness.
All of the issues that
Americans, Europeans, and Israelis battle over at the ballot box — such
as the best way to achieve the greatest amount of equality for men,
women, gays, and ethnic groups — are precisely those which the jihadists
believe the Quran is telling them to eradicate and replace with Shariah
law.
When these jihadists
witness their nemeses shunning swords in favor of plow shears —
preferring Hollywood and high-tech to honor killings — they are spurred
into action, not lulled into emulation. Indeed, if there’s one thing
they know how to spot thousands of miles away, it is chinks in their
enemies’ armor.
This is not a new
phenomenon. Nor did it rear its ugly head on Sept. 11, 2001 — the day
many clueless Americans woke up to a bloody reality about which they had
been blissfully ignorant until it literally came crashing down on their
heads.
Let us go back 22 years
earlier. On Nov. 4, 1979, after the Islamic Revolution in Iran had
ousted the Shah and replaced him with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a
grass-roots group called “Muslim Students Following the Imam’s Line”
stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took its entire staff hostage for
444 days.
During the planning
stage of the operation (originally intended to last less than a week),
one prominent member of a pro-Khomeini umbrella organization was asked
to contribute to the endeavor. The 23-year-old civil engineering student
— Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — was enthusiastic, but suggested that they take
over the “Marxist anti-God” Soviet Embassy instead. His proposal was
immediately ruled out, however, on the grounds that the Soviets wouldn’t
mess around; they would slaughter every hostage-taker on the spot. The
Americans, on the other hand, were more likely to let the Iranian
government come to their rescue.
This assumption would
turn out to be even more accurate than they had hoped. In fact, when
they did scale the walls and begin to descend upon the frightened staff
members, the Marines on duty were ordered by the charge d'affairs
(acting ambassador) of the embassy to put down their weapons and — with
the rest of the staff — “surrender with your head held high.”
As it would emerge,
when days turned into weeks, and then months, and finally more than a
year, President Jimmy Carter was surrendering with his head held so high
that it got lodged in the clouds, where it has remained ever since.
This week was not
merely a horrifying reminder of the consequences of Carter’s policies;
it was a direct descendant of them — down to a disturbing detail barely
noted in the mainstream media.
The American Marines
stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo did not have bullets in their
rifles at the time of the attack. This means that even if they had been
given the green light to shoot the angry mobs, they would not have been
able to act on it.
U.S. Ambassador to
Egypt Anne Patterson can take the credit for that. How proud of herself
she must be that she had forbidden the very men in uniform posted there
to protect the building and its occupants to carry live ammunition. But
even if she is now feeling that maybe it wasn’t such a wise directive,
after all, her bosses at the State Department are probably patting her
on the back for a job well done. She wouldn’t want to antagonize the
Muslim Brotherhood, after all — especially not after a Coptic Christian
had the gall to portray the Prophet Muhammad as a bisexual pedophile.
To add irony to insult,
Patterson was not at her embassy during the attack, because she was in
Washington. She undoubtedly had to brief President Obama ahead of the
private meeting he arranged with Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi for
later this month at the U.N.
There has been
speculation about whether the U.S. president will actually go through
with what promises to be a groveling session with the Arab leader, since
Morsi barely condemned the embassy attack. Furthermore, coming on the
heels of Obama’s “inability” to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu during the same time period — due to the president’s scheduled
appearance on “Letterman” — such a tête-à-tête might not go over so big
with some swing voters.
Personally, I’d wager
the sum of the aid package that Obama is trying to convince Congress to
heap on Morsi — and that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is
attempting to hand over without congressional approval — that Obama will
keep the date. He’s just as adept at surrendering with his head held
high as Carter, after all. The question is whether the American people
are going to follow suit in November.
Ruthie Blum is the
author of To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring,’
now available on Amazon and in bookstores in Europe and North America.
No comments:
Post a Comment