Thursday, September 13, 2012

I'm Angry. Why Isn't The President Angry?

On the anniversary of the mass murder of Americans in New York City, America was attacked again. The words and diplomatic language which will follow in the next few days are irrelevant, at least to me. American embassies and consulates are American soil. The embassy in Cairo, Egypt was attacked, and the consulate in Benghazi, Libya was also attacked, resulting in the assassination of our ambassador and three of his staff.

The State Department in Cairo responded to its attack by lecturing Americans on “hate speech” contained in an internet video which allegedly triggered the invasion of American soil in Egypt. That statement has since been withdrawn, but I don't care. It should never have been made in the first place. The default position of the Obama administration is to apologize, stuck in the mindset of asking “why do they hate us?” Well, let me answer that. They hate us because we're America. We're free. We respect the right of all religions to believe what they want to believe, and to practice their religion without interference from the state. And we tolerate offensive speech. Regardless of what the video may have said (I haven't seen it), our ambassadors and consular spokespeople should never, repeat never apologize for an American, however loathsome, who is exercising his First Amendment rights.

Better the ambassadorial staff had made no statement at all than to have apologized in a way which gave at least minimal support to the barbarians who invaded our embassy. The State Department didn't condone the attack, of course. But by using the anti-free speech announcement, it essentially said to the mob “you shouldn't have attacked our embassy, but we understand your anger.” That's just wrong, wrong, wrong. If any statement at all had been issued, it should have at least included the words “American territory has been attacked, and though we will do our best to work with the government of Egypt in stemming future attacks and punishing the perpetrators of this attack, we nevertheless are making it perfectly clear that every self-defense measure available to us will be used to prevent future invasions of American soil.”

The largest problem with the Obama administration is that it has been so solicitous of Arab and Islamic street thinking that the locals in Cairo simply didn't believe the Americans would defend their soil or take punitive action immediately. They were right on the former, and may be right on the latter. Mobs are like dogs. If you don't discipline them right after they commit their bad act, they don't make the connection when you discipline them later. In addition, American embassies should have sufficient contingents of Marines and other security personnel on site to protect the embassy and staff. The mob breached the walls of an American compound, and burned the American flag.

The Obama administration lives in a dream world of “democracy” and the “Arab spring.” In America's London embassy, two Marines and a part-time rent-a-cop are probably sufficient for embassy protection. But when our embassy staff is quartered in hostile territory, they need a lot more protection than that. Two things should guide this principle. First, London is not hostile territory, Cairo is. Second, the Brits are pretty damned good at keeping their citizens in proper behavioral mode. In Cairo the Muslim Brotherhood which now controls the government can't even control its own members, let alone fast-forming mobs filled with blood-lust for some real or imagined insult. In fact, in Cairo it's hard to separate the mob from the government (ask the Copts, if you don't believe me).

What provoked the Islamists in Cairo is still not entirely clear, but mounting evidence indicates that the deadly attack in Benghazi was planned, coordinated, and somewhat professionally carried-out. As evidence mounts, it seems the Benghazi attack had little or nothing to do with the offensive internet video which “insulted” Mohammed by offering facts. It is possible that the attack occurred only incidentally with the anniversary of 9-11. There are connections between the mob, revenge for the death of a major al Qaeda leader in June, and even the adherents of the blind cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman who is imprisoned in the US for participating in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Whether the Libyan government was itself involved remains a question to be answered definitively at a later time. There is an unverified story that the ambassador war taken to an emergency treatment area, and that Libyan security forces informed the mob that he was being moved to a hospital where he was subsequently murdered in cold blood. But one thing is clear. The Libyan security forces put on a short pretense of opposing the mob, then simply got out of its way. The result was an invasion and trashing of American soil and the death of four Americans, including the ambassador who had worked very hard to make friends of the Libyans and listen to their causes. It seems a rabid dog doesn't care if you've offered him food and shelter.

Like most people, I have daydreamed of being the President of the United States. But I'm not qualified, for multiple reasons. One of which is temperament. While Mr. Cool Obama issues dry, reasoned, empty words and empty threats which encourage the mob, bad-tempered me would be far too dangerously close to the nuclear trigger. What we need is a leader who can make it clear America will not tolerate attacks on American soil, and make it known to the enemy that we really mean it. We (and they) don't need details. The real pledge that the wrongdoers and all their enablers will be punished must be believable. And you can't defend an embassy or consulate with drones or apologies for being a nation which allows free speech.

The next step will be fussing over who was really behind the attacks. I'm going to go out on a limb here. In each and every case of attacks on America and Americans in the Middle East, there is one enemy—Islamism. I have done this before, but just in case somebody has read this and doesn't know exactly how I distinguish between Islam and Islamists, here it is. Islam is a religion, and like most religions, it has unique laws and rules, and would like to persuade everyone to become a Muslim. Not much different from evangelical Christianity. Islamism is the belief that Islam is the solution for all problems and the model that every society in the world must follow, and that the apparatus of the modern state must be applied to enforce Sharia law on everyone, everywhere.

Islamism is a zero-tolerance belief system. It won't tolerate other religions, civil/secular government, apostasy, or any “insult to Islam.” The solution to almost everything is to kill or enslave its perceived enemies. For the Islamist, the mere presence of an infidel institution in Muslim lands is an insult to Islam requiring death and/or destruction. That goes for Christian churches and American embassies. Al Qaeda has its roots in hatred of the presence of American troops and legations in Saudi Arabia, the home of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina.

The administration and its mainstream media hacks attacked Mitt Romney for criticizing the State Department's Egyptian “free speech” statement. Too early, they say. Using a serious crisis as a political tool, they say. Aw, hooey. It's never too early to tell politically-correct fools to quit apologizing for America's right of free speech instead of condemning an attack on American soil. It's never too early to say we must not let terrorists have a free rein. Whether they are right or not, it is hugely refreshing to see an American candidate for the presidency get angry about the loss of American lives and destruction of American property. Or call it righteous indignation. Obama has demonstrated neither so far.

Since I'm too hot-tempered to be President, I strongly suggest a vote for Mitt Romney, who at least has the decency to call an Islamist an Islamist and to get angry when Americans are killed and America's flag is burned on American embassy soil. Nobody is suggesting that American forces should go about shooting suspected terrorists willy-nilly (which is the line the mainstream media will take about Romney). But whatever threat Obama may make will fall on deaf ears because our enemies simply don't believe he has the backbone to follow his words with actions other than drone strikes. Romney at least looks and sounds believable.

Given what we know as I write this article, I have said what I think about the new crisis in the Middle East. I invite all our readers to do the same. I don't pretend to have a quick solution, and “nuke 'em” or “send in the troops” hasn't even entered my mind. Obama's response is to evacuate all diplomats and staff from Benghazi and Tripoli. I also recognize that new revelations are likely to emerge even by the time this article publishes. Feel free to point them out and include them in your comments.

54 comments:

EricP said...

"Nuance" is for losers. Wanted: Real man back in the White House, stat.

El Gordo said...

What Romney said was not only fair but overdue.

It is perfectly obvious why Obama isn´t angry, or even moved. It is not because he is soft. We know he can get peeved pretty quickly, we know he can get angry and move quickly. But he never ever did it in defense of the US. He does not identify with the country. Not even with the people who support him. And since he knows the media are covering for him, he has nothing to get angry about.

His character was perfectly described by "Spengler" years ago, and I have seen nothing that disproves his thesis and I never will:

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/09/12/when-do-we-get-to-attack-obamas-character/

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I am barbaric enough to drop a MOAB on the Embassy sites.

Evacuate the Embassies to safety first. Drop the MOAB. Then politely say, "OOPS."

Ignore questions, until an apology is forthcoming.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

In the coming months, we will probably find out that the Marines normally stationed in Libya were removed by request from the Ambassador. What will be sited is that the mere presence of Marines constitutes an escalation to violence. The Ambassador wanted no part in angering his hosts, so removed the Marines as a gesture of good will.

This is all speculation of course, but it fits a pattern. The Islamists succeed in conning the Ambassador into removing the Marines, because Islam means Peace. Wait a few months, then concoct some excuse to riot, attack the embassy with out Marines. Claim something or other that America is too mean.

I blame Obama for enabling this, and Hillary for being on board.

The next Secretary of State should have all embassies, near and far, outfitted with Marines and demand that the Marines have their weapons loaded and ready for use. If any Ambassador complains or makes any request for a Marine reduction or to have the Marines safe their weapons, should be removed and replaced with a less suicidal Ambassador. Every Embassy should be on high alert at all times, regardless of the actual nature of the host countries.

Patriot said...

LawHawk...a response IS needed and soon. Here's what I suggest:

1. Remove all Americans from Egypt and Libya NOW
2. Shut all American embassies and consulates NOW
3. Publicly end all foreign aid to Egypt and Libya NOW
4. Suspend all contracts with them NOW until further notice
5. Go after their "leaders" foreign bank accounts and empty them out, until further notice (to show we can)
6. Publicly support the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood in both states, with the money that would have otherwise gone to their govt officials....PUBLICLY
7. State unequivocally that we respect ALL religions to act peacefully in their name, just as we strongly will fight any religions attempt to impose by violence their beliefs on others, no matter where in the world this occurs.
8. No more trade with Egypt or Libya......

And for the President..........Grow a pair a**hole and quit letting women run your life

Anthony said...

Lawhawk said:

The embassy in Cairo, Egypt was attacked, and the consulate in Benghazi, Libya was also attacked, resulting in the assassination of our ambassador and three of his staff.

The State Department in Cairo responded to its attack by lecturing Americans on “hate speech” contained in an internet video which allegedly triggered the invasion of American soil in Egypt.
----
The State Department in Cairo released its denunciation of the film hours before any of the attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/cairo-libya-attacks-timeline/

I think its a shame that Romney didn't let the blood dry or bother to acquaint himself with the facts before he started playing games.

This isn't related to politics, but I'm also disgusted that there are American websites which are showing a photo of the ambassador's body. I saw that type of **** in the newspapers in third world countries when I was abroad, I thought Americans had more respect for the dead. Live and learn.

I'm still voting for Romney (Obama has no plan to fix the economy) but he's just another pandering clown. My only hope is that he's pandering to people who have better ideas than the people Obama panders to.

Anthony said...

Its also worth bearing in mind that Egyptian security forces were the outermost layer of security in Egypt and Libya (non-Americans are always the outermost layer of security).

Is it a coincidence that those are the two countries whose security forces melted away? Perhaps, but probably not.

Its also worth keeping in mind that the Ambassador in Libya was killed outside a consulate (much, much smaller and less secure than Embassies, some of them don't even have Marines, though even Embassies don't have a ton of Marines).

I wouldn't be surprised if we see consulates close in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere and those places that stay open will see their security beefed up a bit.

tryanmax said...

Anthony, you'll have to enlighten me as to what Romney got wrong. I recall his statements as saying that American values should never be apologized for and that the response by the administration to the embassy attacks was inappropriate. The timing of the "apology" doesn't affect the former statement, and at least among us there is consensus that the latter statement is correct regardless of what incited the attacks.

AndrewPrice said...

I found it amazing the Libyans were condemning the violence yesterday in the streets, but Obama wasn't. How is that average Libyans got this right but Obama couldn't?

Individualist said...

"Clinton said in a statement Tuesday night that she condemned the attack in the strongest terms and has called the Libyan president to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. She says that some are trying to justify — quote — “this vicious behavior” as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. She says the U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. (via Washington Post)"

Sound to me like the state department is apologizing for Americans exercizing their free speech rights in the wake of a vicious assault on our country.

But the statement as writtne is not entirely accurate... let's fix it

the U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others (with te exception of Hollywood, the NEA, anyone who works for NPR, the US press corps (pronounced corpse of course) and anyone who is a political operative of the DNC.)

Anthony said...

tryanmax,

---
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-criticizes-obama-response-middle-east-violence-031234603--election.html

"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American Consulate worker in Benghazi," Romney said in a statement issued to reporters late Tuesday. "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Romney was referring to a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that apologized for an obscure film insulting the Prophet Muhammad being distributed by an Israeli-American real estate developer that prompted the protests Tuesday. But as ABC's Jake Tapper notes, the embassy statement was released before violence broke out.

-------

El Gordo said...

"Romney was referring to a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that apologized for an obscure film insulting the Prophet Muhammad being distributed by an Israeli-American real estate developer that prompted the protests Tuesday. But as ABC's Jake Tapper notes, the embassy statement was released before violence broke out."

Anthony, how is that a big deal? The embassy apology was wrong, and clearly in line with Obama policies and attitudes even today. It was right to criticize it. It´s still right.

How can you say Romney is "playing games" when he is taking the situation more seriously than the president or the media?

tryanmax said...

Anthony, you'll forgive me for pointing out that the second paragraph is attributable to Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News rather than Mitt Romney. Further, Jake Tapper is incomplete in his facts. The statement released by Embassy Cairo was indeed issued prior to the breakout of violence, but not before an apparent mob had assembled outside of the embassy. And given the quote by Hillary Clinton that Individualist cites above, it would seem that Romney was correct in his assessment of the Obama administration's first response. So far as I can tell, their second response was to disavow the Embassy Cairo statement, their third response was to attack Mitt Romney, and I'm not sure where on the list it falls (if anywhere) that the White House has condemned the attacks on its embassies. Still, if you have more, my question remains standing.

tryanmax said...

FYI: Link to CBS News The lead paragraph gives the timeline for the issuance of the "apology" by Embassy Cairo.

obiwan2009 said...

Bev, the whole speculation I have heard from the media is among my biggest disappointments, and also a lie for the sake of leaving plenty of details out. People in the Middle East are killed, either for being terrorist suspects, or the collateral damage notwithstanding. The media, to my disappointment, makes it look like this happened out of the blue. This, in addition to the video, are potential variables in the provocation. You are correct in the fact that Obama doesn't own up to the circumstances: there's no easy way to beat terrorism. Whether or not the news media ever reports the issue of the president's targeted killings, the people in the Middle East are certainly sick of it. However, at the same time, there's nothing justifiable about the attacks on the embassies, especially considering that plenty of these individuals who are embassadors are the kinds of people who often have an interest in trying to help with the situation and act as a line of communication, in addition to the fact that violence is well, never beautiful or exactly right, IMO, anyways, the best that violence ever gets is neccessary evil in the case of defense or the death penalty.

T-Rav, yeah, terrorism doesn't die easy. I have always heard the term "no free lunch" sadly enough, this has usually been true regarding war and devotion to a cause as well.

LawHawkRFD said...

EricP: I'm with you. I'm not feeling particularly nuanced at the moment. Neither should our president. A little righteous indignation would be appropriate. This is the most bloodless, cold president in my lifetime. I don't want a screeching loon in charge, but neither do I want a commander-in-chief who is sleepwalking through a crisis, delivering announcements by rote.

LawHawkRFD said...

El Gordo: There was another Spengler named Oswald, who described what he had seen (and what he foresaw) in the 1918 tome Decline of the West. It used to be required reading in most colleges, but has long since disappeared from academia. He saw history in terms of "civilizations" rather than timelines, and was decades ahead of anyone in predicting the "barbarian" cultures of the Soviet Union and amazingly, the Arab world. His most important point was that true civilization dies when its leaders no longer believe in their own culture.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Well, I guess we know where you stand. LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I believe that the ambassador was a good man with ideals that ultimately cost him his life. I am not being flippant when I say that he somehow reminds me of the guy who loved and lived with grizzly bears, believing he was safe because he loved and respected them. Ultimately, they killed and devoured him.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patriot: A nice collection of possible actions. Some seem a bit draconian, but all seem plausible.

tryanmax said...

T-Rav, I did happen to see that the Obama administration finally condemned the embassy attacks sometime late yesterday (after I had tuned out). But it's amazing how many other activities were higher on the response list. I also forgot to include "fundraising in Nevada."

LawHawkRFD said...

Anthony: I think Romney had all the information he needed to denigrate the statement that came out of the embassy, before, during or after the attacks. The timelines that the Washington Post and the rest of the MSM are using don't change that. It isn't "playing political games" to condemn politically-correct nonsense whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. Furthermore, Romney's mention of the demonstrations which were getting uglier by the minute was perfectly appropriate. Perhaps he foresaw the inevitable result better than our so-called commander-in-chief and his accommodationist State Department.

The timeline nonsense is nothing more or less than an attempt by the administration and its allies in the MSM to get Americans off the main track--what Romney said was accurate, true, timely, and necessary from a candidate who is seeking to be the new leader of the West.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax, T-Rav and Andrew. Agreed, agreed, agreed.

Patriot said...

LawHawk....agree, maybe a bit draconian. Perhaps we should respond in kind to the mob action?

I think back to the first "National Treasure" movie with Nic Cage and Harvey Keitel, when the Keitel character (Sadusky) tells Cage (Ben Gates)....."Someone's got to go to prison, Ben" In this Libyan action, someone's got to pay some sort of price for killing our Ambassador instead of just a "strongly worded statement from our President and Scty of State!"

We don't have to invade them, but for goodness sake they murdered an Ambassador!! Someone's got to pay!

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I don't know what runs through that fool's mind. But I know what runs through mine. Get rid of him.

LawHawkRFD said...

Last night on O'Reilly, he was attempting to defend the embassy statement as a reasonable attempt to calm the Muslim rage (over whatever it was they were outraged about). He was talking to a guest who is a retired colonel. The colonel listened politely, then tellingly asked: "And how did that work out?"

Patriot said...

LawHawk...Exactly! How did that all work out for ya? The same thing needs to be asked of Obama, Clinton, Samantha Powers and Valerie Jarrett for their asinine "Leading From Behind" doctrine in the Mid East and Libya in particular...."How did that work out?!"

Idiots....

Patriot said...

...And no, I really don't think anyone in the media will ask any of them about their failed doctrine.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev, et al: We can't be prepared for every contingency, but for God's sake it was the anniversary of 9-11 and our intelligence agencies had to know something was afoot. The fact that the murders occurred at a consulate rather than the embassy is irrelevant and silly. Does the Secret Service wave bye-bye to the president every time he leaves the White House?

LawHawkRFD said...

Patriot: Democracy for democracy's sake is a foolish, unrealistic dream. Like any other form of government, it can go terribly wrong, and yesterday was a perfect example. Democracy only works when the people are sufficiently civilized to be tolerant of dissenting beliefs. I see no indication of that anywhere in the Middle East with the obvious exception of Israel.

rlaWTX said...

Even if there was absolutely no intel about this beforehand, IT WAS 9/11!!!!!

Why, oh why, are we sending them money!?!?!?!?!

As for the Cairo statement, it should have gone something like, "One of the great things about the US is our ability to support freedom of speech - even when it is stupid or rude. Please remember that while one crank with a video camera and a YouTube account does not speak for a nation, we will defend his right to speak." No apology, but still an acknowledgment that something ticked off the rabble, while reaffirming our Constitutional rights...

Anthony said...

LawHawkRFD said...

Anthony: I think Romney had all the information he needed to denigrate the statement that came out of the embassy, before, during or after the attacks. The timelines that the Washington Post and the rest of the MSM are using don't change that. It isn't "playing political games" to condemn politically-correct nonsense whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. Furthermore, Romney's mention of the demonstrations which were getting uglier by the minute was perfectly appropriate. Perhaps he foresaw the inevitable result better than our so-called commander-in-chief and his accommodationist State Department.

----
Yes, he did. The statement was idiotic on its face. That doesn't change the fact the Romney was in such a rush to make political hay that he screwed up the facts.

Knowing that at least one person had been killed, one would have thought Romney would have waited a day or three before seeking to turn a crisis into an opportunity. Granted, the election will be happening soon, but not this week.

tryanmax said...

And had Romney remained silent for a day (or 'til tomorrow, day 3) what would be made of that? Sorry, I don't buy that waiting was a legitimate option for Romney. Parsing the timeline is grasping at straws in order to criticize Romney and puts technicality over principle.

LawHawkRFD said...

Anthony: There's simply no way we're going to agree on this, so let's move on to another topic.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: My thoughts exactly.

Individualist said...

Bush did not get Bin Laden but he did keep America from being attacked during his reign.

Obama got Bin Laden but failed to protect Americans....

I wonder which is better....

Anthony said...

T-Rav,

Mindlessly defending whatever a politician says just because he has an (R) behind his name never struck me as a good habit to get in to. Too bad you disagree.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: I like your thinking.

K said...

I'm angry the left hasn't used their anti-religious magic on the Islamic fundies. They should have parachuted an ACLU battalion backed up with a company of Hollywood celebrities and film crews into Afghanistan and Pakistan six o'clock, day one of the war.

With their experience of turning America into a post Christian society it should have been child's play getting the Muslim world to hook up with Hollywood values.

Individualist said...

Someone calling in to Levin the other day (I think) made a good statement about MSNBC using the tag line "Lean Forward".

He said where I come from Lean Forward is too close to Bend Over.....

seems to fit the Obama administration ....

The state department is apologizing for something on You Tube the while their embassies are attacked and the president is heading to Vegas. Man that is a campaign commercial begging to be made.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I don't think that was a foretaste of dumps to come. But if you re-post it (not by cutting/copying and pasting), it should be OK.

That said, I'm going to sign off for awhile since it's usually at this point that my responses tend to cause the cascading collapse of the thread. If I don't comment for awhile, others should be able to without losing their comments.

tryanmax said...

You know what, I think all of this has caused us to get off of the main issue, here. That is whether Joe Biden an unmanned drone? It seems like a distinct possibility.

Anthony said...

tryanmax said...
And had Romney remained silent for a day (or 'til tomorrow, day 3) what would be made of that? Sorry, I don't buy that waiting was a legitimate option for Romney. Parsing the timeline is grasping at straws in order to criticize Romney and puts technicality over principle.

-----
An Ambassador has been murdered, something that hasn't happened in more than three decades. Clearly there was a massive screw-up. This isn't the sort of thing that would have faded away after a day even without the ongoing violent protests.

tryanmax said...

Anthony, you miss my point entirely and, I suspect, intentionally.

Patriot said...

This answers the question I made yesterday:

"Marine blogs say U.S. embassy did not authorize service members to carry ammo"

BY: Adam Kredo
September 13, 2012 1:20 pm

U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”

Probably a result of the Secty of States' "loathing" of the military when she was First Lady. I'm sure the media will hold her accountable for this policy and the Libyan Ambassadors death as a result. (Right)

LawHawkRFD said...

Patriot: I'm pretty sure a lot of the American public either doesn't know or doesn't remember how openly hostile to the military the Clinton White House was, particularly Hillary herself.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

It is coming out now that the Marines at certain embassies aren't allowed to carry live rounds for their weapons. Removing live rounds from Marines is akin to taping guard dogs' mouths shut. What is bothering me is where are those Marines willing to circumvent the rules and carry live rounds?

Patriot said...

Joel.......Marines don't circumvent the rules of engagement and stay Marines much longer.

Joel Farnham said...

Patriot,

That's true. They become dead Marines.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: My admiration for the Marines couldn't be any higher (remember my uncle and Iwo Jima). Marines innovate and overcome. But they also follow orders, even orders as foolish as to disarm them when they are under direct civilian control as they are at the Obama/Clinton embassies.

Patriot said...

Exactly right Joel.....Lebanon 1983

Look at the ROE in OIF and OEF. Asinine.

LawHawkRFD said...

Not that Islamists need any reason to loot and murder, but it is beginning to look like the organized riots and murder in Benghazi were in retaliation for the drone strike which killed a major al Qaeda leader (as hinted in the article). There are connections between the mob, revenge for the death of a major al Qaeda leader in June, and even the adherents of the blind cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman who is imprisoned in the US for participating in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Spontaneous, my butt.

Anthony said...

Al Queda's reason for existence is to kill Americans. The rationalizations they offer should not be trusted. They say whatever they think will most benefit them (and discredit their enemies).

After 9/11 at one point Bin Laden swore that Al Queda had nothing to do with the attacks (of course, later on he bragged about it).

Last but not least, given that invading every failed/failing state Al Queda infests is impossible (right now Al Queda and/or goons who want to be like Al Queda are in Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria) drone strikes are the best option. Yes, there are civilian casualties and resentment, but do you think an invasion/nationbuilding project would work out any better?

LawHawkRFD said...

Anthony: That's true enough. I don't remember mentioning invasion or nation-building in the article or any of my comments, however. We were talking about defending the embassies and staff, and that can't be done with drone strikes, unless you want to kill the staff along with the invaders.

Post a Comment