Yesterday, the NYTimes
ran an op-ed by columnist Ross Douthat -- "The Mystery of Benghazi"
-- in which he describes the Obama administration's "very
strange" behavior following the Benghazi attack:
"Having first repudiated the
embassy's apology to Muslims offended by a movie impugning their prophet, the
Obama administration decided to embrace that apology's premise and insist
that the movie was the crucial ingredient in the Sept. 11 anniversary
attack.
"For days after the attack, as it
became clearer that the Benghazi violence was an al-Qaeda operation rather
than a protest, White House officials continued to stress the importance of the
'hateful' and 'disgusting' video, and its supposed role as a
catalyst for what Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United
Nations, insisted was a spontaneous
attack.
"...Eventually, the White House
let the video slip quietly out of its public rhetoric, and refocused on
terrorism instead. But everything else that's come out about Benghazi
has seemed much more damaging because the administration practiced a
strange denial at the outset. The missed warnings, the weakness in
security...all of it would have been received differently if the White House
hadn't spent a week acting as if it had something big to
lose by calling terrorism terrorism."
~~~~~~~~~~
Asks Douthat, "What explains this
self-defeating strategy?"
He proposes the possibility
that "this White House can't resist the urge to appease our
enemies when America comes under attack." He then rejects this,
although I think it's very much on the mark.
Or, perhaps, he says, "precisely
because this White House wants to be seen as tough on terrorism, it's loath
to acknowledge the possibility that it doesn't have al-Qaida completely on
the run." Another good thought that he also rejects (see more on
this below).
~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, he suggests
this:
"Perhaps, then, the real
explanation of the White House's anxiety about calling the embassy attack
an act of terror has less to do with the 'who' than with the 'where.'
This wasn't al-Qaeda striking just anywhere: It was al-Qaeda striking
in Libya, a country where the Obama White House launched a
not-precisely-constitutional military intervention with a
not-precisely-clear connection to the national interest.
"In a long profile of Obama
published last month by Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis suggested that the
president feared the consequences of even a single casualty during the
Libyan incursion, lest it create a narrative about how 'a president elected
to extract us from a war in one Arab country got Americans killed in
another.' How much more, then, might the president fear
a narrative about how [American] Libyan intervention helped create a power
vacuum in which terrorist groups can operate with impunity?...it's
easy to see why the administration would hope that the Benghazi
attack [was] just spontaneous mob violence rather than a sign of
al-Qaeda's growing presence in post-intervention
Libya..." (Emphasis added)
An interesting thesis.
What Douthat fails to mention,
because it is not directly relevant to the Benghazi issue, is 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.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now let's look at remarks made by
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday to the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) on "Democratic Transitions in the Maghreb."
(The Maghreb is northwest Africa west of Egypt: Libya, Tunisia, Algeria,
Morocco.)
"...recent events have raised
questions about what lies ahead – what lies ahead for the region, what lies
ahead for the rest of us who have watched with great hope...the events that have
unfolded in the Maghreb. A terrorist attack in Benghazi, the burning of an
American school in Tunis – these and other scenes of anger and violence have
understandably led Americans to ask what is happening. What is happening to the
promise of the Arab Spring? And what does this mean for the United
States?
"Well, I certainly think it’s
important to ask these questions...And let me, on a personal note, start with
what happened in Benghazi. No one wants to find out exactly what happened more
than I do. I’ve appointed an Accountability Review Board that has already
started... we are working as thoroughly and expeditiously as possible, knowing
that we cannot afford to sacrifice accuracy to speed. And of course, our
government is sparing no effort in tracking down the terrorists who perpetrated
this attack."
At least now she refers
to terrorism in Benghazi. But notice, not a word, not a mention, of
al-Qaeda, although it is well understood that this is the group that
perpetrated the terrorist attack on US personnel.
And so it seems that it's not just
an issue of terrorism in Benghazi, but al-Qaeda operating there. This
is "the" enemy, according to Obama, and he's had them on the run
since the marines took out bin Laden. Or so we are told.
It's a campaign theme.
~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton makes one other reference
to Benghazi later in her talk; I cannot let it pass:
"Diplomacy, by its nature has to be
often practiced in dangerous places...That is the reality of the world we live
in....
"...we will never prevent every act of violence or terrorism or achieve perfect security. Our people cannot live in bunkers and do their jobs.
"...we will never prevent every act of violence or terrorism or achieve perfect security. Our people cannot live in bunkers and do their jobs.
"Chris Stevens understood
that diplomats must operate in many places where soldiers do not or cannot,
where there are no other boots on the ground, and security is far from
guaranteed. And like so many of our brave colleagues and those who served in our
armed forces as well, he volunteered for his assignments." (Emphasis
added)
Excuse me, but what a colossal
cop-out. It was not that Stevens operated where soldiers
cannot. It was that requests for additional security in Benghazi went
unanswered and no particular precautions were taken on the anniversary of
9/11.
~~~~~~~~~~
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad
Hariri is furious with Hezbollah's Nasrallah for having launched that drone
over Israel without consultation with the government; Hezbollah's action,
he said, was an "uncalculated adventure."
Former PM Fouad Siniora also spoke
harshly about the matter:
“It was an Iranian action that
implicated Lebanon in regional and international struggles and consequently,
made us in Lebanon a platform for the exchange of messages." Leave us out
of this, before we get hit, is the implied message.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, Israeli Ambassador to
the UN Ron Prosor has warned the Security Council that southern Lebanon (where
Hezbollah was not supposed to be permitted to operate) has become a storage
facility for 50,000 Hezbollah rockets
~~~~~~~~~~
And Israel has unveiled a
new, improved drone, the "Shoval," which has four cameras that
can provide clear identification of objects from dozens of
miles away. It carries radar and uses satellite communications to relay
pictures to distant locations.
It is being used for sea
surveillance by the Israeli Air Force and Navy and likely will play a part
in protecting off-shore installations.
Credit: Flash
90
~~~~~~~~~~
The situation is growing hotter
still in south Israel. Because of rockets being launched, residents of the
region are advised to stay within 15 seconds of a shelter. Consider
please, what that means. Three Kassams and one mortar were fired
today.
In the area adjacent to the Sinai,
the IDF is on high alert, because of concern of a terror attack being launched
across the border there. Jihadists have vowed to revenge the death of the
two leaders hit by Israel two days ago.
~~~~~~~~~~
YNet quotes IDF Gaza division
commander Tal Hermoni today:
"There will be a [ground]
operation [by Israel] in Gaza. The only question is when."
Another sigh from me. This
is not news. It will only be news when it happens.
~~~~~~~~~~
The 18th Knesset held an opening
meeting today, as required by law, and then passed the first reading of a bill
to dissolve, with none opposed. The final reading, expected to be a formality,
will take place tomorrow morning.
We are officially in election
mode, a frenetic time.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
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