While
foreign policy did not figure large in the second presidential debate,
the Middle East again emerged as the overwhelmingly main international
issue.
In
the beginning of the debate, President Barack Obama claimed that he put
a high priority on energy independence, an assertion well refuted by
Governor Mitt Romney. A president who wanted energy independence, from
the unreliability of Middle East supplies, could easily expand oil
drilling on federal land; the use of new technology to produce oil and
gas; a major pipeline from
Canada; and the continued production and use of coal for generating
power. To do none of these things and put his effort into restricting
traditional energy sources and push hard for untested, long-term, and
failed “green energy” schemes subverts energy independence.
But the main emphasis in the debate was on the Benghazi assassinations. Obama said:
“So
as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I
was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three
instructions. Number one, beef up our security and — and — and
procedures not just in Libya but every embassy and consulate in the
region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of
where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable
and it doesn't happen again. And number three, we are going to find out
who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the
things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with
Americans, we go after them.”
In
other words, Obama said let’s increase security—after the attack was
made—and then investigate and find those responsible for the attack.
This is all rather obvious and anyone would have done that. But the real
questions are different ones: How about investigating why there was
such a security breach and the reasons for the attack?
And how about what happened beforehand?
The
official story of what led up to the attack is just plain weird.
Supposedly, the U.S. ambassador arrived back in the country and
immediately ran off to Benghazi virtually by himself allegedly to
investigate building a new school and a hospital there yet without any
real security. His protection was to be provided by relatively untrained
Libyans who a few months earlier had been rebels in the civil war.
It
is quite true that the State Department and ultimately
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible for the ambassador
being in Benghazi and for ensuring his protection. The president would
not be consulted on such a “minor” event. But the story hinges on why
the ambassador was in Benghazi that day.
If
he was, 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. The fact that he was not
accompanied by a delegation of foreign aid experts to evaluate these
alleged
projects shows that the reason for the ambassador's presence in
Benghazi is being covered up. This situation transcends State Department
jurisdiction and brings in the CIA and higher-level national security
officials. The plan would have been in the presidential briefing and it
is quite conceivable he would have been called on to approve of it.
Obama
said he did three things but in fact he did four: he and his
administration immediately lied to the American people about the cause
of the attack, what happened, and who appeared to have done it.
--They
said the attack was due to the video rather than a revolutionary
Islamist attempt to hit at the United States and subvert the regime in
Libya.
--They said the attack was a spontaneous act in the context of a peaceful demonstration when it was a planned assault.
--They said that there was no idea who was responsible when it was almost certainly al-Qaida.
In the debate, Obama charged:
“While
we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor
Romney put out a press release trying to make political points. And
that's not how a commander in chief operates. You don't turn national
security into a political issue, certainly not right when it's
happening.”
Yet
all three of the above lies were precisely a matter of turning
“national security into a political issue,” and that is what Obama has
done throughout his term.
-----------------------
We
need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA
Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button:
http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of
IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on
memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl.,
NY, NY 10003.
Please be subscriber 30,084 (among about 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------
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. This includes the fact that the guards were
untrained; that they had—according to one of them—been aware of the
danger and not told any Americans; that they had fled; that Libyan
regime sources had apparently tipped off the
attackers to where Americans were hiding; and that there had been no
U.S.-provided security. Was that last shortcoming due to an attempt not
to “offend” the Libyans by showing they weren’t trusted? If so, that
arises directly from the themes Obama has set in his foreign policy.
In
addition, attributing the event on a video produced in the United
States—a clear and obvious lie--put a large part of the blame on America
itself. No, huge forces aren’t seeking to create radical Islamist
regimes in every country in the Middle East, there are just folks
offended by a slur on their religion.
To
admit that al-Qaida 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 Usama bin Ladin. Al-Qaida is, of course, still
strong in Yemen and Somalia as well as having active groups in the Gaza
Strip, Iraq, Syria, and other places.
Obama continues in the debate:
“But
when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. 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. I said we'd transition out of
Afghanistan and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their
own security. That's what I'm doing.”
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.
And contrary to Clinton’s statement, Obama affirmed: “…I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place [in Libya]….”
But
what is taking place? The debate ultimately focused on the rather
narrow question of whether Obama had or had not immediately called the
assassination a “terrorist attack.” This is a red herring. Inasmuch as
Americans were murdered for non-criminal reasons, the attack was by
definition terrorist. Yet if this was a spontaneous deed in the midst
of a peaceful demonstration of people upset because their religion had
been slandered then it was not so much a “terrorist attack”—first-degree
murder—but some combination of self-defense and passions bubbling over
in a spontaneous way.
The real questions, however, were raised by Romney in his response:
“There
were other issues associated with this—with this tragedy.
There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a
spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack.
And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack, and
it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether
there was some misleading or instead whether we just didn't know what
happened, I think you have to ask yourself why didn't we know five days
later when the ambassador to the United Nations [Susan Rice, acting of
course on administration directives] went on TV to say that this was a
demonstration. How could of we not known?”
In other words, the Obama Administration deliberately lied to
the American people.
“But
I find more troubling than this that on…day following the assassination
of the United States ambassador — the first time that's happened since
1979 — when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we
didn't know what happened, that the president the day after that
happened flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next
day to Colorado for another event, another political event.”
In
this regard, Obama didn’t so much “make political points” or “turn
national security into a political issue,” he simply put his own
political benefit ahead of national security. Since according to his own
claim, Obama didn’t know what happened and there was a wave of other
attacks developing, he should have put the priority on dealing with a
crisis.
And
as for the way Obama behaved, to quote his own words, “that's not how a
commander in chief operates.” That is why this specific issue is so
emblematic of Obama’s foreign policy performance.
Romney continued:
“This
calls into question the president's whole policy in the Middle East.
Look what's happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the
distance between ourselves and Israel, where the president said that…he
was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran four years
closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria—Syria's not just the tragedy of 30,000
civilians being killed by a military, but also a…strategically
significant player for America. The president's policies throughout the
Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a
strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before
our very eyes.”
Quite
true. The assassinations in Libya and how Obama handled them are one
more example of that pattern. A region involving hundreds of millions of
people and the main international source for American energy is going
down the drain and Obama is, figuratively, heading off for Las Vegas.
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment