Trying To Keep Up With Events-A Few Middle-East Links

January 20, 2015 / chr1 / Leave a comment

‘Hezbollah is fighting against Sunni jihadists in Syria on behalf of the Iranian and Syrian regimes, but that doesn’t mean it has abandoned its war against Israel. If the Syrian regime doesn’t survive, Hezbollah won’t be able to receive high-grade weapon systems from Iran anymore. It already has a formidable missile arsenal and can now—unlike during the 2006 war—inflict significant damage on Tel Aviv and even Jerusalem if it dares’

Eli Lake at Bloomberg-There’s diplomacy involved:

‘All of this gets to a paradox of the war on terror. It has never been a war on the tactic of terrorism, and it has always been a war against networks of radical Islamists. But in order to wage that war, the U.S. has had to ally with Muslim countries and people, many of whom believe the state should punish apostates, adulterers and blasphemers.’

Adam Garfinkle plays the mug’s game and makes some prognostications:

But, who really knows? Here’s a reasonable one:

‘The P5/Iranian nuclear negotiations will not produce a deal, because no deal the Obama Administration can get would pass muster in Congress. The superficial thawing of U.S.-Iranian relations will refreeze; marginal violence in a new U.S.-Iranian shadow war will occur as Iran draws ever closer to breakout capacity. Israel will not strike Iran; the Obama Administration will try to buy time via a selected extension of the interim deal as the sanctions regime continues to fray.’

Boko Haram & Al Qaeda-What’s The Strategy, Here?

May 11, 2014May 11, 2014 / chr1 / Leave a comment

It seems to me there continue to be dedicated groups of Islamist radicals and terrorists, often acting locally but willing to act globally, making universal claims to truth and willing to act on their beliefs. I am not persuaded that Western influence (cultural, ideological, economic, military) is the root cause of this Islamist terrorism, nor that Western influence will ever be enough to entirely eradicate it either (through military action or through human rights and twitter appeals).

Addition: As a friend points out in jest: Bold statements.

Michael Totten ‘The Rise Of Boko Haram‘:

‘Osama bin Laden is dead, but Al Qaeda is global, and it’s on the offensive, not on the run. One of their franchises took over Northern Mali. Another controls large swaths of Syria. Chunks of Libya could degenerate into Al Qaeda statelets if we’re not careful. Another franchise is active in Yemen. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb would like nothing more than to re-ignite the civil war in Algeria.

Some terrorists really are local—the Kurdish PKK in Turkey, for instance, and the Basque ETA in Spain—but Al Qaeda is and always has been global in its reach and ambition. It makes no difference if Boko Haram never intends to attack the United States directly when it’s affiliated with a larger network that already has and surely plans to do so again.’

What is the exact link? Eli Lake tries to provide proof: ‘Boko Haram’s Bin Laden Connection:‘

‘The dispute inside the intelligence community falls along familiar lines about al Qaeda. The White House has emphasized the distinctions between al Qaeda’s core and its affiliates and other aspiring jihadists, who the White House sees as operating almost entirely independent of the central group.

However, another faction inside the U.S. intelligence community—one that comprises the current leadership of the Defense Intelligence Agency and others working in the military—see al Qaeda as a flatter organization that coordinates between nodes and operates through consensus in the model of an Islamic Shura council.’

Fareed Zakaria At Newsweek: ‘Terrorism’s Supermarket’Via Youtube: ‘Roger Scruton On Islam And The West’…

Free speech (used both well and unwell) meets offended Muslims: ‘Mohammad Cartoonist Lars Vilks Headbutted‘During Lecture’……From The OC Jewish Experience: ‘UC Irvine Muslim Student Union Suspended’…From Volokh: ‘”South Park” Creators Warned (Threatened) Over Mohammed’

Najat Fawzy Alsaeid At The Center For Islamic Pluralism: ‘The War Of Ideologies In The Arab World’…

Repost-Philip Bobbitt Discusses His Book ‘Terror And Consent’ On Bloggingheads

Freedom Of Expression: Two Friday Benghazi Links-Eli Lake & David Harsanyi

May 2, 2014May 4, 2014 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Eli Lake at The Daily Beast: ‘Obama Administration Accused Of Slow Walking On Benghazi:’

‘Those emails suggested a haphazard process for arriving at the final talking points on Benghazi in the days and weeks after the attack. It also showed that ultimately the CIA’s then deputy director, Michael Morell removed lines in the drafts of those talking points saying it was an act of terrorism and linked to Islamic extremists.’

There was a tremendous amount of unrest throughout the Muslim world in the wake of the ‘Arab Spring.’ Long-standing governments of generations had fallen, while violent and potentially violent protests engulfed the region. One of the main thrusts of this administration’s foreign policy has been to appeal to those who would determine their own fates through democratic uprisings and ‘free and fair’ elections. This administration has placed a lot of faith, as well as arguably four American lives in this case, into a vision of the ‘moderate Muslim’ being able to lead to elective democracy in the wake of those changes.

Whether or not it would have saved lives is unclear, but I think it’s fair to speculate that a military response to the seven-hour firefight that went on in Benghazi would have inflamed, or been seen to inflame, these tensions, and certainly would jeopardize parts of this foreign policy vision.

I’m guessing this had a lot to do with the decision to send-out Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. at the time, to push this narrative and focus so heavily on a video made by an American citizen. Re-watching the video, and assuming no ulterior motives, Rice seems almost a little desperate, even, to cling to an explanation favorable to her interests:

——————

This part of David Harsanyi’s piece I definitely agree with:

‘First of all, the United States government should be actively defending the right of Americans to make stupid videos if they want. Not only does it have no right to make excuses for its citizens’ freedom of expression, it sets a dangerous precedent by doing so.’

Those are troubling instincts.

***In Egypt, a returned, al-Sisi led military autocracy executing Muslim Brotherhood members after the Brotherhood’s dramatic failure to govern is not exactly reassuring. In Syria, a full-on, protracted Civil War scenario attracting Islamists from all over is not exactly reassuring either. There’s been no real advancement on the presumed two-state solution for Israel/Palestine, while Libya remains a basket-case and funnel for Islamists around North Africa and also to Syria.

And from a reader. Dexter Filkins at the New Yorker. Letter From Iraq-‘What We Left Behind.’

Not exactly a democracy, it seems:

‘When the last American soldiers left Iraq, at the end of 2011, the bloody civil war between the country’s Sunni and Shiite sects had been stifled but not resolved. Now the sectarian violence had returned, with terrifying intensity. For more than a year, thousands of Iraqis, nearly all of them members of the Sunni Arab minority, had been gathering to rail against Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government’

Addition: How much of this is because of the withdrawal?

Conor Friedersdorf At The Atlantic-‘The Attack In Benghazi: Worth Investigating After All’

August 2, 2013August 2, 2013 / chr1 / 1 Comment

Full piece here.

There’s probably a cover-up here, but as discussed, it’s likely got much more to do with CIA operations in Benghazi. Perhaps they were putting a lid on radical Islamist factions gathering within the power vacuum of post-Gadhfi Benghazi and points east, or trying to run guns elsewhere, including Syria.

As this blog noted, Eli Lake was on this a while ago:

Full piece here.

‘The honor given behind closed doors to “Bob,” the officer who was in charge of the Benghazi intelligence annex and CIA base that was attacked in the early morning of September 12, 2012 and then abandoned for nearly three weeks, illustrates the murky lines of command that preceded the attack, and helped make it a politically volatile issue. While the State Department was responsible for elements of the security for the diplomatic mission at Benghazi, the mission itself was used primarily for intelligence activities and most the U.S. officials there and at the nearby annex were CIA officers who used State Department cover.’

Walter Russell Mead’s take on Benghazi:

‘A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that more than half of Americans believe the Obama administration is covering up over Benghazi, and that a narrow plurality also thinks the congressional GOP is in on the whole fiasco for political gain. That seems about right to us.’

———————————-

Surprise!:

-Al Qaida doesn’t appear to be ‘on the run,’ as the State Department has issued a travel (alert) for Americans, and those jailbreaks in Libya, Iraq, and Pakistan appear to be coordinated. A return to realism would be nice, but where are the James Baker types in the Republican Party? Are we even the same country anymore and what problems would hard-core Westphalian realists face?

Should we have gone into Syria?

Relax at your own peril with Islamic terror, but don’t necessarily build a huge Homeland Security bureaucratic complex either, as Americans are looking at their Federal government with increasing suspicion? Tough to get the balance right, and America is currently undergoing a civil liberties/libertarian anti-Statist resurgence with a Progressive in power and the Snowden affair in the mix. Meanwhile, there are real threats out there: Lara Logan On Afghanistan Via Youtube: ’2012 BGA Annual Luncheon Keynote Speech’

———————————-

Just as Bush was criticized for thinking that inside every Iraqi is an American waiting to get out (Reaction to 9/11? To finish the first Gulf war? Shame over having abandoned the Kurds? Getting rid of Saddam on Bernard Lewis’ thinking that the tyrant hybrids to go?) …

…it could be said that Obama could be criticized for thinking that inside every protester in Egypt is a proto-community activist waiting to get out. The Cairo Speech and the liberal internationalists are running up against unpleasant reality. In this blog’s opinion, putting human rights activists turned diplomats in charge will have consequences. Events are already catching up.

Predictions are hard, especially about the future. It’s tough enough just to figure out what’s going on now.

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’

Walter Russell Mead At The American Interest Online: ‘Obama’s War’…From The WSJ: “Allies Rally To Stop Gadhafi”…From March 27th, 2009 At WhiteHouse.Gov: Remarks By The President On A New Strategy For Afghanistan And Pakistan…From The New Yorker: ‘How Qaddafi Lost Libya’…

Just how far Left is this administration anyways? Is Bernhard Henri-Levy actually influencing U.S. policy decisions..? From New York Magazine: ‘European Superhero Quashes Libyan Dictator’…Bernhard Henri-Levy At The Daily Beast: ‘A Moral Tipping Point’…Charlie Rose Episode On Libya Featuring Bernhard Henri-Levy, Les Gelb And Others…

Eli Lake At The Daily Beast-‘Exclusive: CIA Honored Benghazi Chief In Secret Ceremony’

May 23, 2013 / chr1 / 2 Comments

Full piece here.

‘The honor given behind closed doors to “Bob,” the officer who was in charge of the Benghazi intelligence annex and CIA base that was attacked in the early morning of September 12, 2012 and then abandoned for nearly three weeks, illustrates the murky lines of command that preceded the attack, and helped make it a politically volatile issue. While the State Department was responsible for elements of the security for the diplomatic mission at Benghazi, the mission itself was used primarily for intelligence activities and most the U.S. officials there and at the nearby annex were CIA officers who used State Department cover.’

The State Department and the CIA are going at one another under such political pressure. I can remember thinking that we seemed to be embarking on a rather different course for Middle East policy under Obama, and I’ve yet to be persuaded his worldview is accurate enough (I tend to disagree with his ideals), and his leadership deep and competent enough to deliver.

Walter Russell Mead’s take on Benghazi:

‘A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that more than half of Americans believe the Obama administration is covering up over Benghazi, and that a narrow plurality also thinks the congressional GOP is in on the whole fiasco for political gain. That seems about right to us.’

I still think the primary motivating factor for getting to the bottom of Benghazi is why we didn’t at least make all attempts possible to help, as nothing is worse for troop morale. The administration particularly needs to be seen as succeeding in Libya, and is particularly sensitive to any criticism that it isn’t.

The liberal internationalist, former human rights campaign folks guided by realpolitik, and yes, Bernhard Henri-Levy’s input in the face of Gadhafi’s tyranny were motivating factors in our involvement.

Here’s a quote from Anne-Marie Slaughter, on liberal internationalism:

‘The central liberal internationalist premise is the value of a rules-based international order that restrains powerful states and thereby reassures their enemies and allies alike and allows weaker states to have sufficient voice in the system that they will not choose to exit’

We also formed an alliance with Anglo-French interests. Our Middle-East policy is hinged upon a worldview that doesn’t seem to be lining up that well with events on the ground in the Muslim world, and I fear sacrifices too many of our strengths for too few gains, exposing too many of our weaknesses.

In addition, our military is stretched pretty thinly right now and the Republican establishment isn’t showing deep understanding of the issues either. The Muslim world is not about to live up to our ideals, and this is as much about living up to our own. To me, this generally means our sovereignty and interests first, solid alliances and international institutions next, and we’ll take it from there.

As always, it’s up for debate.

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’

Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Four Months After The Benghazi Attack, Where Are The Killers?’

January 11, 2013May 22, 2013 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

‘Ever since an armed mob torched a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, President Obama has vowed to bring the killers of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans to justice. Yet four months after the assault, U.S. counterterrorism and intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast that the hunt for those responsible remains stymied by poor cooperation by North African governments’

Well, there’s a surprise.

Addition: France will be intervening in Mali, as Al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists now control about 1.3 million people and much of the country.

As discussed many times on this blog: The current administration’s position on Bush’s War On Terror policies (whatever problems arise from that definition) has mostly been to continue them. We’re still doing the dirty work.

It’s also clear we need to prevent the kinds of conditions that lead to safe haven for groups like Al Qaeda to actively plan and coordinate attacks that would occur on our soil. That could be happening in Mali right now. Under the neo-cons (use American military force to spread democracy and pursue our self-interest) we invaded Afghanistan to do exactly the same, and we’re still there for primarily this reason.

A few questions:

–Some people are clearly not worth sitting around the table with, discussing options. Do we just continue the War On Terror indefinitely on our own?

–Some people can be cajoled, threatened, and enticed into recognizing international law, courts and institutions, at least for a while. The U.N. has some benefits, but is notably dysfunctional, so why should we continue with the same model if it doesn’t lead to outcomes we want? Shouldn’t we at least try and tweak the model if it can’t intervene in Syria and if tyrants like Gadhafi have a seat at the table?

***For American conservatives, these international institutions generally operate under ideals that are more common to Europe and the Western, universalist Left, and have been used to create world and international institutions which pursue Western interests. They don’t always represent American conservative interests, and in fact, depending on the institution, they can be leveraged against those interests.

Philosophical consistency for American conservatism would mean recognizing that the good reasons for open trade, freer markets, taxation with representation and smaller government here at home could also extend into the broader world, but that self-interest and common interests are often at odds when we come into contact with that world. Practically speaking, the more liberal, universalist worldview has been most successful in projecting Western power and interests abroad (often being underwritten with our military capabilities). Human rights campaigns and ‘girl power’ can do some good, but I’d argue shouldn’t be the primary focus of our foreign policy, but rather a recognized part of it.

There are many broader human endeavors, especially the Sciences, medicine, and much education which transcend the American pursuit of self-interest, that should naturally be expected to flourish and at times, guide our interests, but not necessarily under the current framework.

Addition: I’ve gotten some pushback for the open trade and freer markets from the conservative side. These are libertarian goals, according to some conservatives, that fall outside the scope of a purer, traditional conservative.

Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest: ‘What Did The Arab Spring Really Change?’

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’…From Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Exclusive: Libya Cable Detailed Threats’‘Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates’ From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’

How does America lead or pursue its interests in this new landscape?: We need to confront the rise of Islamism and the realities of many Muslim societies through our policy. Putting women’s rights and international institutions front and center when you’re dealing with Al Qaida and the Taliban, assorted enemies, a suspicious China and a weaker adversarial Russia has serious problems …Via Youtube-Uncommon Knowledge With Fouad Ajami And Charles Hill…Daniel Deudney tries to build a global raft partially upon Kant’s idealism and says the global institutions we’ve got are better than nothing: Repost-Daniel Deudney On YouTube Responding to Robert Kagan: ‘Liberal Democracy Vs. Autocracy’

Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘In Wake of Benghazi, State Wants $1.3 Billion to Beef Up Security Around the World’

December 18, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

‘The State Department is looking to tap into unspent money meant for reconstruction in Iraq to beef up the security of diplomatic posts in dangerous parts of the world, according to a new proposal from the State Department sent to Congress on Monday. The request came just ahead of the release Tuesday night of a report by an independent inquiry that faults the State Department for a lack of security on the night of the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.’

It wouldn’t hurt to discuss how well the overall liberal internationalist approach taken by Obama is working, either.

Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest: ‘What Did The Arab Spring Really Change?’

Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Congress Receives Confusing Benghazi Briefing From Administration’

November 17, 2012November 17, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

‘While the video was at times confusing, the briefing corroborated earlier administration accounts of attempts to provide military back-up on the evening of the attack. The Daily Beast reported on Thursday that CIA director Mike Morell testified that his agency did not request lethal military assistance like special operations teams, platoons of specialized Marines, or armed predator drones.’

Bureaucracy in action?

What isn’t clear to me is the overall Middle-East strategy, and how well it’s being executed, come what may here. Obama seems to be operating partially under a liberal internationalist doctrine; aiming to get a plurality if not a majority of Americans, and a vast majority of Muslims where he wants them to be, which is not necessarily where they are now: Bound under international law, courts, and a community of nations. This Western vision attempts to direct and subsume American power to these ends and tries to appeal to the Muslim on the street and offer carrots and sticks to Muslim nations. I suspect this is why we saw the apology tour during the riots, and the potential playing down of the Benghazi affair (if something worse hasn’t happened).

-Walter Russell Mead had an interesting piece about this doctrine a few years ago.

In practice for Obama, this has led to a real gap between his vision and many of his actions. He has continued and extended many of Bush’s policies on wiretapping and enemy combatants to deal with the threat at home and abroad. He’s admittedly set a timeline for Iraq and also a timeline in Afghanistan after his surge there, and undergone a dramatic escalation in drone strikes in Afpak and Yemen (Al Qaida is likely returning to AfPak as we speak, and disrupting them is still our objective which he never discusses as he just counts on the base to turn out).

It has meant helping to overthrow Gadhafi without Congressional approval and admittedly much more cheaply and without boots on the ground, helping France and Britain maintain their own backyard and oil supply, and making a kind of client state which is still volatile with extremists around as Benghazi showed. It remains to be seen what will happen there, and Libyans have a long way to go after the tyrant, wherever they’re headed. Our security may still be at risk.

It has meant assisting in the “Arab Spring” (I’ve still got my hand on my wallet). It has meant questionable leadership on Syria where a civil war is likely occurring. There were few to no good options, but possibly a few worse ones by waiting for the U.N.. putting any faith in Russian interests in the region, and waiting for Iran to play power games and Turkey, the Kurds, and Lebanon to become more enflamed. It has meant sanctioning Iran heavily and apparently still not preventing them from getting closer to having nuclear capabilities. On Israel, and the escalating tensions with Hamas, the seemingly intractable claims to the land, and the existential threat one of our closest allies faces, it remains to be seen what Obama will do.

It’s still not clear where the rise of Islamism is headed, and doubtful that America can really succeed on the back of this doctrine, given the fact that our public support in the region is still abysmally and unsurprisingly low.

Feel free to highlight my ignorance. Any thoughts and comments are welcome, as it’s not clear to me where there’s anything near a majority or strong plurality of people in any Muslim country who want freedom and democracy as the West defines them, and was ready on their own for the demands and sacrifices required to build institutions which maintain such freedom and democracy.

The modern State awaits, with a more efficient bureaucratic class overcoming the corruption and earning the public trust here in the West?: Francis Fukuyama At The American Interest-’The Two Europes’

Repost-Daniel Deudney On YouTube Responding to Robert Kagan: ‘Liberal Democracy Vs. Autocracy’

Is Bernhard Henri-Levy actually influencing U.S. policy decisions..? From New York Magazine: ‘European Superhero Quashes Libyan Dictator’…Bernhard Henri-Levy At The Daily Beast: ‘A Moral Tipping Point’…Charlie Rose Episode On Libya Featuring Bernhard Henri-Levy, Les Gelb And Others…

From Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Ansar al-Sharia’s Role In Benghazi Attacks Still A Mystery’

November 5, 2012November 5, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

‘It provides security for the city’s main hospital. It’s also a social-services organization and an ideological movement that seeks to bring its corner of eastern Libya under the rule of an Islamic government, according to the group’s own public information and published interviews with its leaders.’

Of course, this could be said of many organizations throughout the Middle East, especially the Levant. Is Libya any different?:

‘Unraveling Ansar al-Sharia, however, is one of the harder jobs today for U.S. intelligence analysts. The group itself has offered conflicting messages about its role in the Benghazi assault.’

Here’s a relevant quotation by Samuel Huntington which I keep putting up, as I think there is a strong sense of isolationism in the public mind right now, as many Americans are just tired of us being in the Middle East, the long wars, the economy etc.:

“Although the professional soldier accepts the reality of never-ending and limited conflict, “the liberal tendency,” Huntington explained, is “to absolutize and dichotomize war and peace.” Liberals will most readily support a war if they can turn it into a crusade for advancing humanistic ideals. That is why, he wrote, liberals seek to reduce the defense budget even as they periodically demand an adventurous foreign policy.’

———————————–

From Michael Totten: Mali is a sign of real trouble, and a potential hotspot:

‘The harshest form of Islamic law in the world is now being imposed at gunpoint. Ancient tombs and shrines are being bulldozed for the exact same reason the Buddha statues were destroyed in Afghanistan. And the place has turned into a rat’s nest of the who’s-who of terrorist organizations operating in North Africa.’

Our national security interests are still very much engaged.

Addition: Walter Russell Mead suggests the reason four Americans are dead is because the administration has bungled North Africa, and has for awhile.

I’d add that the President’s competence, his ability to make gutsy decisions and have an overall functional strategy while responding to ever-changing conditions are also very much in question. The President has taken bigger risks, and charted a quite different course for U.S. Foreign Policy. There is little worse for morale than potentially leaving people behind. At this point, it’s not clear that the overall vision, let alone its implementation, is working particularly well and that we are responding particularly well to the Islamist and terrorist threats.

Someone please prove me wrong, and make the argument that the current policy, strategy and leadership are working well, but need more time. If so, why didn’t we get a straight answer on Benghazi from the get-go, and some reassuring words from the President that his strategy was working?

Has the Muslim world has been successfully incentivized to push its more radical members out in the cold and not create safe havens for terrorists, protecting our national security interests?

How much longer can we keep this up, and does this approach bear fruit? I’d love some examples for reassurance.

Is there a plurality, if not a majority, of moderate Muslims ready to institute democratic reforms and democratic institutions from the ground up in the wake of the Arab Spring given the demographic, economic, and political realities on the ground?

The best case I’ve heard is that Islam’s Old Guard, and the purists’ hold on the public square and the traditions, minds, and rituals of daily life are gradually weakening. It’s not clear to me this has happened, or if it has, that the purists’ response isn’t more potentially violent and capable of lashing out at the West with its sharp, militant, radical edges. Either way, it’s still an approach being led by the West often under what are considered to be universally true ideals, and we know that most Muslims and Westerners don’t agree on what the universally true ideals are.

Addition: As a friend points out, Obama’s approach toward free speech (Nakoula), security (the U.S. military really shouldn’t be operating apart from local militias or internationally “approved” entities) are really quite far to the Left. The European approach has numerous problems.

Via Fox News: ‘CIA Operators Were Denied Request For Help During Benghazi Attack, Sources Say

From Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘Exclusive: Libya Cable Detailed Threats’‘Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates’ From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’From Michael Totten’s Blog: ‘Two Hours’…From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’

Al Qaida back in AfPak: Lara Logan On Afghanistan Via Youtube: ’2012 BGA Annual Luncheon Keynote Speech’

The rise of Islamism across the region…Via Youtube-Uncommon Knowledge With Fouad Ajami And Charles Hill

Dit we have this discussion a while ago?: Charlie Rose Episode On Libya Featuring Bernhard Henri-Levy, Les Gelb And Others

Eli Lake At The Daily Beast: ‘New Details On Benghazi’

November 1, 2012November 3, 2012 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full post here.

It’s clear that the security situation was dicey in Benghazi, to say the least. The State Department may be culpable in not providing more security leading up to 9/11 given the information it appears to have had. Perhaps something could have been done to help Woods and Dougherty after they returned from the initial attack, once Smith was killed and Stevens mortally wounded:

‘On the night of the 9/11 anniversary assault at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Americans defending the compound and a nearby CIA annex were severely outmanned. Nonetheless, the State Department never requested military backup that evening, two senior U.S. officials familiar with the details of military planning tell The Daily Beast’

More from HotAir here, with video links. There’s likely some incompetence involved, and bureaucracy moving slowly as it can do, and perhaps some unsavory political CYA behavior leading up to the election to deflect the matter until after the election. Such is politics.

More information will no doubt be coming out, and I still think there’s a worthwhile conversation to be had about our current Middle-East strategy, and how the administration’s liberal internationalist approach is aligned/not aligned with the War On Terror, the continuation of many of Bush’s policies, and the threats we face. There are questions of free speech, national security, competent leadership capable of a bigger strategy that lines up with developments.

It’s also a quite politicized matter in a highly polarized time.

Addition: David Ignatius has a CIA timeline here.

Another: Yet, that timeline is questioned by security officials on the ground, who say that an armed militia began getting itself ready 3 hours before 9:40 pm.

Another Addition: Via CBS News:

‘In the days after the assault, counterterrorism officials expressed dismay over what they interpreted as the Obama Administration’s unwillingness to acknowledge that the attack was terrorism; and their opinion that resources which could have helped were excluded.’

People like Tyrone Woods’ father, Glenn Dougherty’s family, and those ready to come to their aid likely have concerns about the decisions made. I”m still leaning toward dithering. The administration did respond, but the media’s job is precisely this kind of journalism.

More: Thomas Sowell is not convinced that Obama isn’t just “cooling out” the voters until after the election, throwing anything up that will stick in order to maintain the idea that his foreign policy is working, and that terrorists are no longer a threat.

Still More: The Mysteries Of Benghazi.

I am not a fan of many of Mr. Obama’s policies, but I still think preserving the integrity of our institutions is the primary focus here, even if the Commander In Chief is making decisions that place certain goals above others (international cooperation and the risks Obama took to get it and impose his foreign policy vision upon Libya and partnering with Libyan forces for security purposes…above apparently protecting American lives at all costs). I think Obama has had some success and there will be some arguable advantages to his approach, but this success is increasingly cast in doubt by realities on the ground, the rise of Islamism, and the apparent lack of leadership. The way this incident is unfolding is enough to make me want new leadership, other concerns aside.

Via Fox News: ‘CIA Operators Were Denied Request For Help During Benghazi Attack, Sources Say

Via Reuters: ‘U.S. Ambassador To Libya Killed In Benghazi Attack’

From Michael Totten’s Blog: ‘Two Hours’…From The BBC Via Michael Totten: ‘Libya: Islamist Militia Bases Stormed In Benghazi’