web analytics
July 26, 2014 / 28 Tammuz, 5774
Israel at War: Operation Protective Edge
 
 
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
IDC Advocacy Room IDC Fights War on Another Front

Student Union opens ‘hasbara’ room in effort to fill public diplomacy vacuum.



Pulling Out of Benghazi: These Colors Run Scared

Either we change our policy – and ideally, our president – or this keeps getting worse.
pwpoT

Photo Credit: Yori Yanover

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 U.S. officials said they had asked earlier this year for more security protection at the U.S 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 U.S. 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 U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 come to mind, and of course the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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.

Visit J.E. Dyer’s blog, the Optimistic Conservative.

About the Author: J.E. Dyer is a retired US Naval intelligence officer who served around the world, afloat and ashore, from 1983 to 2004.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

Please use the Facebook Tab below to leave your comment:

3 Responses to “Pulling Out of Benghazi: These Colors Run Scared”

  1. Lori Lowenthal Marcus says:

    It is always enormously enlightening to read J.E. Dyer's military analyses. Heed then well. I sure do.

  2. Lori Lowenthal Marcus says:

    *them

  3. Dolores Testerman says:

    "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."

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Loading Facebook Comments ...
Loading Disqus Comments ...
Current Top Story
John Kerry
Entire Israeli Cabinet Rejects Kerry’s Proposed Ceasefire, Talks Continue
Latest Indepth Stories
Jewish Home leader Naftali Bennett

Because let’s face it: Hamas obviously can’t defeat the IDF in the field, soldier against soldier

Shimon Peres meets with the family of fallen IDF soldier Max Steinberg.

As Peres retires, Israel fights sour legacy: Insistence on setting policy in line with hopes, rather than with reality.

Keeping-Jerusalem

Our capital was not arbitrarily chosen, as capitals of some other nations were.

UNHRC High Commissioner Navi Pillay accuses the IDF of possible war crimes in Gaza again, cutting slack to Hamas.

There is much I can write you about what is going here, but I am wondering what I should not write. I will start by imagining that I am you, sitting at home in the Los Angeles area and flipping back and forth between the weather, traffic reports, the Ukraine, Mexican illegals and Gaza. No […]

Should Jews in Europe take more responsibility in self-defense of community and property?

It is time for a total military siege on Gaza; Nothing should enter the Gaza Strip.

Germany’s The Jewish Faith newspaper ominously noted, “We Jews are in for a war after the war.”

The truth is we seldom explore with kids what prayer is supposed to be about.

Almost as one, Jews around the world are acknowledging the day-to-day peril facing ordinary Jews in Israel and the extraordinary service of the IDF in protecting them.

So on the one hand Secretary Kerry makes no bones about who is at fault for the current hostilities: he clearly blames Hamas.

King Solomon said it long ago: “Cast your bread upon the waters” because you don’t know when you’ll hit something. Our job is to do.

The anti-Israel camp does not need to win America fully to its side. Merely to neutralize it would radically alter the balance of power and put Israel in great jeopardy.

More Articles from J. E. Dyer
After the 2003 invasion: digging out a MiG-25 buried in Iraq before Desert Storm. Saddam’s jet inventory suffered various similar fates.

Another nation – probably Iran, possibly Russia and/or Syria – is entering the fight in Iraq in a new and fully committed way.

ISIS leader crowing over their victory in Mosul, Iraq. Posted on June 12, 2014.

There is now NO possible explanation for not evacuating at least non-essential personnel from the U.S. embassy and consulates in Iraq.

ISIS is executing, slowly but surely, a pincer move on Baghdad.

The ISIS guerrillas are a problem for Iran. It arose because of the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war.

To investigate Holocaust denial is to enter into a sick world of darkness and brooding fury.

It would be so catastrophic to not increase the debt ceiling that Senators must have the option of avoiding the people’s scrutiny.

Iran could produce enough high-enriched uranium (HEU) for a first nuclear warhead in as little as two weeks.

We are in uncharted territory today. The answers for the GOP going forward may not be found in the events of the past.

    Latest Poll

    Do you think the FAA ban on US flights to Israel is political?






    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/j-e-dyer/pulling-out-of-benghazi-these-colors-run-scared/2012/10/05/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: