Multiple complexities,
actually. There is very little that is being dealt with these
days that is simple and above board.
Just days ago I cited an article
from the NYTimes that discussed the issue of why Obama spent two weeks
avoiding the fact that what happened in Benghazi was terrorism. It
was the opinion of the author, Ross Douthat, that Obama was loathe to admit that
US actions in Libya had created a vacuum that made it more possible for
terrorists, notably al-Qaeda, to operate.
I wrote at that time that, while
it was not directly relevant to Douthat's point, it should be noted that
"Obama's meddling in Libya also created a situation, still on-going, in which
weapons that had belonged to Ghaddafi found their way out of the country and
into the hands of Islamists."
~~~~~~~~~~
And now, Barry Rubin has put out a
piece that is very pertinent and potentially of great import with regard to
issues of weapons in the hands of terrorists. It goes beyond anything I
had suggested. (I thank Bennett R. for calling this to my attention
-- it had slipped by me.)
Rubin explains that the official
reason given for Ambassador Stevens being in Benghazi was to investigate the
building of a new school and hospital there, and notes that this would have been
something so minor that the president might not have been aware of it.
However, he then writes (emphasis added):
"...as accounts by sources
in the U.S. intelligence community suggested, negotiating with a
terrorist, anti-American group to obtain the return of U.S. weapons provided
during the civil war, that would have been a much higher-priority matter. I have
been asked by sources not to reveal the specific weapons system that was
Washington’s highest priority to buy back, but the details make
sense." That is, there is every reason to think
that Obama would have signed off on this.
"To acknowledge the cause of the attack would have
been to acknowledge the real threat in the Middle East and the embarrassing fact
that American weapons had been given to terrorist, anti-American
groups. Incidentally, far from learning anything in Libya, Obama is now
doing precisely the same thing in Syria.
"To acknowledge the nature
of the attack would be to show the depth of the security failure — on September
11 of all days — in not recognizing the danger in Benghazi."
Not just weapons seized by terrorists in the vacuum created when Ghaddafi was taken down, but weapons given to terrorists by the US (in their fight against Ghaddafi).
Continues Rubin (this an echo of what Douthat suggested):
"To admit that al-Qaeda is still very much in business would show that Obama’s claim the group had been defeated was false and demonstrate the limited value of killing Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda is, of course, still strong in Yemen and Somalia as well as having active groups in the Gaza Strip, Iraq, Syria, and other places.
Not just weapons seized by terrorists in the vacuum created when Ghaddafi was taken down, but weapons given to terrorists by the US (in their fight against Ghaddafi).
Continues Rubin (this an echo of what Douthat suggested):
"To admit that al-Qaeda is still very much in business would show that Obama’s claim the group had been defeated was false and demonstrate the limited value of killing Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda is, of course, still strong in Yemen and Somalia as well as having active groups in the Gaza Strip, Iraq, Syria, and other places.
Rubin cites Obama, who said during
the debate that, "...I said I’d end the war in Libya — in Iraq, and I did. I
said that we’d go after al-Qaida and bin Laden. We have..."
Rubin then observes, "What
Obama should have said is that he would end U.S. combat presence in these
countries. Yet the wars continue. The assassination of the U.S. ambassador to
Libya was an event in that war."
~~~~~~~~~~
Now, please, see what Shoshana
Bryen of the Jewish Policy Center has to say about this same issue
of Obama's claim that he has ended wars (emphasis added):
"The unwillingness of the Obama
administration to label the September occupation of American diplomatic
facilities in Cairo and Benghazi, and the murder of an American diplomat 'acts
of war' make this an opportune moment to consider...lessons emanating from more
than a decade of warfare in the Arab and Moslem world...
"Our adversaries in this
war are not defined by time or territory, although they have more of
both than we do. No defeat is definitive.
"In August, President Obama went to
Ft. Bliss to celebrate the anniversary of the end of combat operations in Iraq.
He included the impending withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan as he
told the troops, 'Make no mistake, ending the wars
responsibly makes us safer and our military even stronger, and ending these wars
is letting us do something else; restoring American leadership.'"The soldiers sat mainly in silence, understanding perhaps better than he that the wars have not been ended – responsibly or otherwise. The American presence and influence in the region is waning, but 'the war' against us goes on. It is fought by people who need the United States as an organizing principle, and who will not be dissuaded by our absence, our reluctance to cooperate with Israel, or the President's flattery....
"...America's primary enemies in the Middle East take a different view of both territory and defeat than Nazi Germany or even Saddam. For al Qaeda, territory is valuable as a staging ground, training ground or hideout, but the war travels. Terrorism can be conducted anywhere -- New York, Bali, London, Bulgaria or Jerusalem -- and the aim is less territory-specific than ideological, religious and dictatorial. The Taliban in Afghanistan harbored Al Qaeda, but the CIA now estimates that fewer than 1,000 remain, the remainder having fanned out in Africa, Asia and elsewhere in the Middle East...
"Al Qaeda presents its adversaries with a sort of 'whack a mole' problem – hit it here, it goes underground and pops up somewhere else. Killing its leadership, which has become an American pastime, does reduce its effectiveness, but leadership can regenerate if it has space and time. There is no one to acknowledge defeat and no one to surrender....
"...In a few short paragraphs, [Obama] defined the American battle to change Afghanistan from what it was to what he wished it to be. For a President who accused his predecessor of hubris in foreign policy, President Obama made similarly arrogant assumptions:
[] Demanding American-style anti-corruption measures and a strong
Western-style government in a country with no history of either.
[] Assuming some Afghans would choose Americans over other Afghans.
[] Assuming any choice was permanent...
[] Announcing our future departure and assuming any order the U.S. and its
allies created would outlast our presence.
[] Assuming at least some Taliban would assimilate Western-style 'human
rights' in order to reap Western-style benefits.
"...September's
outburst of violence is the next phase of a transnational war based on religious
ideology, and it includes wars waged not only by organizations, but
also by Iran. There are those who call outright for violence against the U.S.
(al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Salafists). But those who are presently more
circumspect in the expectation of political and financial gain (the Muslim
Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah) seek our destruction no less than the others.
There are Sunni elements and Shiite elements; separately they despise
one another, but together they despise us more."
This is very frightening stuff,
requiring a sophisticated understanding of the situation and enormous
resolve.
People ask me sometimes why I
think Obama is so bad -- for them he seems to be doing OK.
THIS is why Obama terrifies me: He
has neither a sophisticated understanding of the situation nor enormous
resolve. His simplistic policies represent a danger to the US and the free
world. Sure, some people think he's doing OK. It's a lot more comfortable
to accept his version of the situation.
But it's also lethal.
~~~~~~~~~~
Next week we will see the last of
the presidential debates -- this one on foreign policy. Not long
after, the American people go to the polls.
It is my fervent hope that
everyone who receives this will read the material with concentration, and take
it to heart.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment