The recent attacks on U.S. diplomatic
compounds in Egypt and Libya, which resulted in the death of the
American Ambassador to Libya and several staff members is important
on two levels. Coming in the final days of the presidential
campaign, it is inevitably a political issue. It is that properly
because on a broader level these events reflect the diminished
standing and influence of the United States in the Middle East within
the context of the so called “Arab Spring”, and the on-going
tension and potential crisis between Israel and Iran over Iran's long
term program to develop nuclear weapons capability.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a moderate
Republican from South Carolina has described it accurately as an
ongoing lack of political leadership by the Obama Administration.
Unfortunately, because these latest events have occurred during the
heat of the current presidential election cycle, the Obama campaign
is attempting to diminish the resulting criticism over these latest
events as “inappropriate 'political' commentary. But the current
incidents are not isolated events and far from “inappropriate”
subjects for discussion. They are part of a continuum of similar
events and they occur within the larger context of America's
relationships with the entire Middle Eastern and South Asian regions,
as well as our strategic relationships with Russia and China, whose
policies in these areas are in conflict with ours and our major
allies in Europe.
It is a given that the Bush
Administration's policies with respect to the invasion of
Afghanistan, although justifiable and necessary in the face of the
attacks of “9/11”, and the less justifiable invasion and
occupation of Iraq, were taken as hostile acts against Islamic
cultures by many in the region instead of part of a broader
geopolitical strategy. Upon his election, Obama was anxious to
disassociate himself from these policies and to change regional
perceptions of the U.S. But he was both naively idealistic and
inconsistent in his efforts. His Cairo speech in June, 2009,
projected a platitude filled and unnecessarily apologetic foreign
policy orientation instead of just announcing a change in the pursuit
of U.S. interests within a context of cooperation with regional
governments. This, while pursuing the wars in both Iraq and
Afghanistan without firm commitments to clearly defined goals.
Thus, what amounted to a simplistic
public relations effort failed with respect to relations with
existing regional governments and inevitably to their “Arab Spring”
successors and the popular movements which brought them about. The
apparent decline of U.S. resolve and strength in the region had
begun.
Just prior to these latest attacks the
usual, and unfortunate, response to the obvious tension was made
first by the U.S. embassy in Cairo, which condemned the alleged
excuse for it which was “reports” of a U-Tube video supported by
idiotic Florida preacher Terry Jones, which criticized Islam and its
founder and “prophet”, Muhammad. This equally idiotic statement
by the embassy which was supported by embassy Twitter posts after
the violence commenced, assigned moral equivalence between mob
violence and the exercise of the principle of free speech, however
irresponsible. The statement released early Tuesday by the staff of
the Cairo embassy condemned the film and the "continuing efforts
by misguided individuals to 'hurt the religious feelings of Muslims'
– as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."
”. While the Obama Administration later felt compelled to back
away from this statement by the weak assertion that "The
statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not
reflect the views of the United States government", the damage
was done. The U.S. government could be intimidated by the threat of
mob action.
Underlying the Obama Administration's
position regarding violence against Western interests is the common
place assertion that the violent acts are perpetrated by a small
minority of extremists. This is both a politically correct”
distortion of the truth and a futile attempt to separate the wide
spread Islamic hostility and intolerance and common place resort to
violence which is part of the Middle Eastern culture, from whatever
political authorities are in place at the time. But it is both
unnecessary and fails to withstand recent historical reality.
Consider the response of citizens of
Arab nations, who were seen dancing in the streets after the attacks
of “9/11”. The 2005/2007multi-national violence and murders of
non-Muslims in response to the publication by a small Danish
newspaper of a cartoon depicting Muhammad; the attack on UN
headquarters in Afghanistan which resulted in the death of seven UN
workers, stimulated by the simple threat by the same Florida
preacher to publicly burn a Koran and then who did just that in
March, 2011; the protests and murder of U.S. soldiers after the
disclosure of the mistaken burning of excess inventories of copies
of the Koran, inexplicably held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan.
These events and the video of the
current incidents in Cairo and in Benghazi, Libya make it abundantly
clear that they are not the work of a tiny minority of extremists.
The videos show thousands of ordinary young men who may indeed have
been encouraged by organized Muslim extremists but who responded
enthusiastically with deadly consequences. It is preposterous,
however to believe that thousands of citizens of Egypt, Libya and
now Yemen where the American embassy was attacked, were so incensed
by a short and obscure anti-Islam internet video which few had even
seen, that they would attack U.S. embassies. The truth being
revealed is that large Islamist groups with similar anti-West agendas
found a willing citizenry to carry out these attacks on the eleventh
anniversary of the “9/11” destruction of the World Trade Center
and the new governments in place were either unable or unwilling to
take prompt and forceful action to intercede. The Pew Global
Attitudes Project reveals that positive opinions of the U.S. and
President Obama are at the 15% and 25% levels across the Muslim
countries (June, 2012).
Contrary to President Obama's beliefs,
it is not necessary that Islamic populations “like” the U.S.
Indeed, given that the cultural conflict with the U.S. and the West
is about their rejection of Western concepts of individual freedom in
favor of intolerant religious orthodoxy, this represents a naive and
hopeless goal. The situation demands presidential leadership and
requires that the mutual interests of the new governments in the Arab
states as well as Pakistan and the U.S. be explained clearly and be
made contingent on the willingness of those governments to contain
open hostilities and violence against American officials and private
citizens and cooperate in pursuit of those interests. Obama's rush
to promise financial aid to Libya and Egypt even before the nature
of their new governments was known gave up all leverage in
formulating a new relationship with these authorities. He further
diminished U.S. influence with respect to the newly installed
Islamist government in Egypt by announcing the forgiveness of one
billions dollars in debt to the U.S. government. He seems frozen in
time while the Syrian government murders its citizens and causes
regional instability by massive emigration of Syrians trying to
escape the chaos. He refuses to take the assertive diplomatic action
demanded by the Israeli government with respect to time limits and
positive steps in negotiations with Iran in order to avoid a
preemptive Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The
critical relationship with Pakistan languishes without direction.
The war in Afghanistan goes on in the face of hostilities with the
Afghan security forces whose training is the rationale for its
continuance.
Protests against American diplomatic
interests are spreading to other Arab countries and further protests
are planned in Egypt. No president can prevent protests in foreign
nations but the failure of foreign governments to protect diplomatic
facilities and personnel is unacceptable and reflects a basic lack of
respect and influence towards the U.S. as an important participant in
regional security and economic stability which these governments
should be explaining to their people. Common sense, an understanding
of real world political dynamics and a rejection of futile attempts
to change the nature of foreign cultures as a basis for foreign
policy is critical and has so far been beyond the reach of this
Administration. Platitudes about friendship and “the greatness”
of foreign cultures , while ignoring the scope of real hostility,
promises of no strings attached financial aid and simple diplomatic
“condemnation” of violence against American officials and
interests after the fact are not enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment