Green Room

Pulling out of Benghazi: These colors run scared

posted at 8:14 pm on October 2, 2012 by

Remember the slogan “These colors don’t run,” captioning the American flag?

Neither does al Qaeda.

Why should they?  They’ve just won.  They have forced us out of Benghazi.  It did take multiple attacks over several months, and the gruesome torture and murder of our ambassador, to edge us out.  But the job is done now.  We’re running scared.

Instead of sticking with our commitment to a new Libya, one in which Americans have friendship and influence – one in which we can walk free, and so can Libyans – we have closed our post in Benghazi and drawn down our embassy staff in Tripoli to “essential” personnel only.  It will be of some interest to see how long it takes al Qaeda or other terrorist savages to attack us in Tripoli.

Congressman Darrell Issa revealed yesterday, in a letter to Hillary Clinton, that US officials said they had asked earlier this year for more security protection at the US mission posts in Libya – and been denied.

This data point isn’t really a bombshell, so much as a confirmation of the theory that the Obama administration wanted to avoid putting too much obtrusive US security into Libya.  Fans of Dinesh D’Souza’s theory about Obama and anti-colonialism would attribute such a determination to the theory’s implications (e.g., about the offensiveness of the “West” in the former-colonial world).  And for those who dislike the D’Souza theory, or at least consider it overreaching or irrelevant, the question is:  what theory about Obama and his advisors does explain the decision not to adequately protect a US diplomatic mission?  What could motivate a president and his staff to dismiss the security concerns expressed by the president’s own representatives in Libya?

It’s worth pointing out that Obama’s entire approach to Libya has guaranteed that the country will not unify quickly around a strong, America-friendly central government.  “Leading from behind” gave terrorists months to gather in war-torn Libya in 2011; refraining from wielding US influence has left them plenty of latitude on Libyan soil in 2012.  The Islamist terrorists have no reason to respect America or be wary of what we might do, because under Obama, we don’t do anything.

Well, that’s not entirely true.  We do encourage the arming of poorly vetted militant groups, as we have done in Libya and Syria.  Every now and then we make a Delphic pronouncement about a regional development – Egypt, Libya, Syria – taking care not to seem to have any particular outcome or alternative in mind.  However the American audience sees these activities, regional jihadists see them as signs of detachment, cynicism, and weakness.

In this context, a conscious policy of poor security at a diplomatic post appears more than self-effacing.  It is self-abnegating.  It’s like wearing a “Hit me!” sign.

We’ve had embassies hit before, embassies that weren’t necessarily wearing “Hit me!” signs.  The US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 come to mind, and of course the US embassy in Tehran in 1979.  (Others will remember Saigon in 1975 as well.)  We didn’t withdraw from our posts in Kenya and Tanzania.  We showed determination, we rebuilt, we were back in force with even better security.

We did withdraw from Iran, with which we have not had diplomatic relations for 33 years.  In the wake of the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983 – mounted by Hezbollah, the Iran-sponsored terror group – we pulled our Marines out of Lebanon.  This latter case is similar to the Benghazi withdrawal, because the US Marines in Lebanon were assigned an unexecutable mission with rules of engagement that made them sitting ducks.  But it is also different from the current Libyan situation, in that there was no valid reason for us to have Marines in Lebanon in 1983, whereas sound policy in 2012 would indeed have the United States robustly and sustainably represented – diplomatically, and with good security – in Libya.

As we learned with Iran, losing an ally is likely to mean having to amp up our regional military posture.   We met the challenge of revolutionary Iran with a dramatic expansion of US military presence in and around the Persian Gulf.  The military option is always more expensive, but our security demands it, now interlinked as it is with the dynamics of even distant regional situations.

We can hope we have not lost the possibility of an America-friendly Libya, but we will have to change our policy to keep the hope alive.  Libya has a long coastline on the central Mediterranean Sea – a chokepoint whose vulnerabilities we have not had to think about much since World War II.  The last time we did, in the late 1980s, Muammar Qadhafi was firing missiles at Sicily and challenging US and NATO forces with fighter jets.

The Libyan coast is a few hours’ ferry ride from Italy.  It takes a bit longer to get to France or Greece.  Typical intermediate-range missiles launched from Libya could reach most of Europe; small aircraft or speedboats from anywhere along the Libyan coast could wreak havoc with international shipping.  Libya’s geography makes her politics significant.  If the nation is not unified and effectively controlled by a central government with moderate tendencies and aspirations, Libya can quickly become a real regional headache.

If the terrorists at work in Libya were more wary of US power, they would at least be more circumspect.  But they are losing their wariness.  They won’t stop pushing.  Either we change our policy – and ideally, our president – or this keeps getting worse.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Libya’s apparently 2 countries, tribally influenced and geographically divisable. Cutting and running is Mr. Obamas way of avoiding an argument he doesnt wish to partake in.

Its becoming clear Obama is not comfortable in confrontations and cannot realise that there is evil in this world that is manefest, a solid entity.

I think the deaths of these Americans hit closer to home to him as they were in his supervision. Apart of his political apparatus.

EricPWJohnson on October 2, 2012 at 10:09 PM

This is the most cogent commentary I’ve read on the Libya debacle. Thanks for connecting the dots, J.E.

Nicole Coulter on October 2, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Title is a serious ‘ouch’ moment. Nice job.

MelonCollie on October 3, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Contrary to the popular slogan, our problem in the “Muslim world” is not that the Islamic supremacists hate us. Past a certain point, that is something we cannot have any control over.

Our problem is that Islamic supremacists hate, but do not fear us.

Cylor on October 3, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Instead of sticking with our commitment to a new Libya, one in which Americans have friendship and influence …

I don’t know which is funnier, that you said it or that you believe it.

Dante on October 3, 2012 at 8:29 AM

I don’t know which is funnier, that you said it or that you believe it.

Dante on October 3, 2012 at 8:29 AM

The former is very funny, but the latter isn’t funny at all.

Much like the “Obama’s stash” female.

MelonCollie on October 3, 2012 at 11:34 AM