View Full Version : RIP John Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya
MountainMan35
09-12-2012, 05:33
The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff members were reportedly killed Tuesday in an attack on the Libyan city of Benghazi, Reuters and AP report citing a Libyan official.
Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland tells Fox News they do not yet have information on the reports of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens' death at the moment. The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli says they can only confirm there was an attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi and one State Department employee was killed, which Secretary of State Clinton said in a statement Tuesday.
The officials tell the Associated Press Ambassador Stevens was killed Tuesday night when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff. The protesters were firing gunshots and rocket propelled grenades. All of the officials -- three in all -- hold senior security positions in Benghazi.
They are deputy interior minister for eastern Libya Wanis al-Sharaf; Benghazi security chief Abdel-Basit Haroun; and Benghazi city council and security official Ahmed Bousinia.
Ambassador Stevens was appointed as ambassador to Libya in May 2012, according to an online State Department biography.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/us-ambassador-to-libya-and-3-embassy-staff-members-reportedly-killed-in-libya/#ixzz26FpPCZbf
Apparently they were evacuating the Ambassador in one of his vehicles when it was hit with a complex ambush. Al-Sharef said Stevens died of suffocation, while two U.S. Marines sent to Benghazi when the clash erupted were shot and killed by well-armed protesters. It was not immediately clear whether the Marines were part of Stevens' security detail. The American whose death was confirmed on Tuesday also died of a gunshot wound.
aegisnavy
09-12-2012, 06:20
RIP Ambassador Stevens and the warriors. I have no words to express my outrage and frustration.
Rest In Peace Ambassador Stevens.
Just look at the lunacy of these Arabs they were assaulting an embassy over a movie because it insulted their pedophile prophet.I'd love to see the a-holes who were responsible for this with two rounds in their sternum.
RIP, Marines. RIP, Ambassador Stevens.
By all accounts, brave men.
deleted - double post, my bad.
mark46th
09-12-2012, 09:52
Killing an ambassador is an act of war, no?
Killing an ambassador is an act of war, no?
You would think but with news saying he may have died from smoke I see this admission say different.
God bless you Ambassador Stevens thank you for your service. Prays to your family and friends
Adam1680
09-12-2012, 10:06
And the Administration apologized for this.. What a travesty..
RIP Ambassador Stevens
EDIT: He apologized for Egypt and condemned Libya.. I misread..
RIP
thank you for your service to this great nation
According to this CBS report, the Ambassador was killed after Libyan security forces 'protecting' the consulate revealed his location to the mob. In addition, they are claiming two US marines were killed.
Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building - deemed safer - after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack...
Al-Sharef said two U.S. Marines sent to Benghazi when the clash erupted were shot and killed by the well-armed protesters. It was not immediately clear whether the Marines were part of Stevens' security detail. The American whose death was confirmed on Tuesday also died of a gunshot wound. He was identified by the State Department on Wednesday as Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.
Link (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/assault-on-u.s-consulate-in-benghazi-leaves-4-dead-including-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/)
RIP- Mr Stevens, thank you for your service. My family's prayers are with you, your family and friends.
Rest in Peace Ambasador Stevens, Sean Smith and the two Marine Warriors. “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty". JFK
It’s time to start opposing our foes more aggressively.:mad:
Blue
edited to remove my feelings as to the ambassador and his enabling of those very people who killed him.
I am sad to see some good Marines got killed - that's the tragedy.
It is entirely plausible that Amb. Stevens was killed in a coordinated attacked, in retaliation for the killing of Saeed al-Shihri, AQ#2 in Yemen. No doubt, an act of war, which will be ignored by the current administration.
It is entirely plausible that Amb. Stevens was killed in a coordinated attacked, in retaliation for the killing of Saeed al-Shihri, AQ#2 in Yemen. No doubt, an act of war, which will be ignored by the current administration.
An act of war carried out by who? Do you really think we're going to" ignore" this and sit on our thumbs? I know it's an election year, but can we keep domestic politics references out of anything these days?
The security situation should be improving fast with the deployment of members of an elite group known as a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team, or FAST, whose role is to respond on short notice to terrorism threats and to reinforce security at U.S. embassies. They operate worldwide. The contingent that was dispatched to Libya was based in Spain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anti-terror-marine-team-heading-to-libya-to-reinforce-security-at-diplomatic-facilities/2012/09/12/8cfe033e-fce4-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html
Cool Breeze
09-12-2012, 14:56
From what I'm seeing it looks like this was a planned attack that happened to coincide with the release of the video/movie. 9/11, coordinated attack with small arms and RPGs... does not sound like a rabble grabbing things out of their vehicles.
My two cents.
blue02hd
09-12-2012, 16:30
Do you really think we're going to" ignore" this and sit on our thumbs? I know it's an election year, but can we keep domestic politics references out of anything these days?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anti-terror-marine-team-heading-to-libya-to-reinforce-security-at-diplomatic-facilities/2012/09/12/8cfe033e-fce4-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html
The Carter administration did.
History always repeats itself.
The security situation should be improving fast with the deployment of {FAST}.
Just in time, too.
The Carter administration did.
Although the Carter administration's efforts to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis proved mostly ineffective, I think it is historically inaccurate to say that his administration did "nothing." First, the Carter administration engaged in a multifaceted diplomatic effort to secure the release of the hostages. Second, Carter increasingly isolated himself in the White House as the crisis dragged on--an unprecedented (and foolish) act of political symbolism. Third, he publicly discussed the crisis frequently and at great length (approximately 151 times). Fourth, by authorizing EAGLE CLAW, Carter took arguably the greatest political risk of the post-Vietnam era--especially given the fact that he was a Democrat and the divergent views on matters of war and peace among members of his cabinet <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10462&d=1225754503)>>.
History always repeats itself.Does history repeat itself or does it only seem that way because Americans do not value historiography?
IMO, the issue is not one Democratic president "repeating" the mistakes of an equally inept predecessor. The issue is the long standing dynamic in which post World War II presidents--with the notable exception of Eisenhower--take a crisis-to-crisis approach to national security affairs rather than one that is grounded in grand strategy.*
Add to this trend the unresolved issues of decolonization (which date back to World War I), the spheres of interest/collective security conundrum with which America has wrestled since Washington was in office, the strategic choices America made during the U.S.-Soviet rivalry, the looming shadow of Orientalism, the non-debate over GWOT, and the effacement of American navalism,**I think any president, regardless of party, would be facing some tough choices in the Middle East today.
My $0.02.
_______________________________________
* I am disagreeing with John Lewis Gaddis's contention that Bush the Younger's approach to GWOT represented a "sweeping change" to American grand strategy.
**Counter-factually speaking, if ODYSSEY DAWN had included the participation of American battleships with rail guns, I aver that asshats in Libya and Egypt would have thought thrice before violating American sovereignty.
blue02hd
09-12-2012, 18:27
Sigabo, Valid 0.02!
I will expand on my post just slightly. Looking at a bigger picture, and if you understand that I am not trying to lay a cookie cutter reference of the current Administration to the Carter Administration, I will say this: both issues that became the center of our Nations Foreign Policy during the elections could be viewed as a weak and negligible Foreign Policy. It is too easy for me, BLUE02HD, to relate the current events to those of the 1979 era, IE the Iranian Hostage situation. (which actually lasted well over a year, but the time frame may or may not be relevant)
I do not subscribe to the theory that this (AMB Stevens murder) was a random and spontaneous event. History will record the assassination of a US Ambassador. These BOLD attacks are extremely rare, despite all the Tom Clancy novels. As many of the participants here on this forum understand, violent attacks (in Afghanistan for example) usually spike during a change of responsibility or command. During times of uncertainty and transition. Without trying to forecast how the current election process will conclude, you cannot dismiss that our National Leadership is less likely to make strong, bold, overt acts globally while they are focused internally. (Think our Israeli allies may agree?) Our enemy historically and predictably attack in the seams of our Nations Authority. Pretty sure they teach that somewhere,, SWC maybe??
This is what I meant when I termed the phrase "History always repeats itself".
I love this quote: "The enemy will invariably attack at two moments. When they are ready, and when you are not."
As for my other comment which I believe you disagree with, I can only affirm my initial response. My POV of the Carter Administrations handling of the Iranian Hostage situation does not change. Buy outs and bribes do not equate to an appropriate National response. Military responses of the time were ineffective, and our Global image was very weak with respect to any aspect you could choose to discuss. (Politically, economically, and militarily) In effect, those attempts created NO traction prior to President Reagan's change of Leadership. The elections DID have an effect though, whether legitimate or not, the cards were perceived to be shuffled.
Please show me how history is not repeating itself, and how our current Foreign Policy direction is NOT like that of the late 1970's. I KNOW you will be able to make many valid points at the micro level, but the greater society does not live in the micro. (Sig, the majority of society simply is not as well educated as you. Ex: Your reference to decolonization and Oriental-ism left me with a blank look on my face. I went to State College, so please forgive me. ) I point to those who are so easily agitated in the Islamic world by a cartoon, book, or crappy You Tube video.
I am talking the Macro. Where most of the voting population in the US and around the world can be found.
V/R
BLUE
MTN Medic
09-12-2012, 18:54
An act of war carried out by who? Do you really think we're going to" ignore" this and sit on our thumbs? I know it's an election year, but can we keep domestic politics references out of anything these days?
The security situation should be improving fast with the deployment of
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anti-terror-marine-team-heading-to-libya-to-reinforce-security-at-diplomatic-facilities/2012/09/12/8cfe033e-fce4-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html
We WILL ignore this. How many embassies of ours have been attacked with no consequence? We lost the sovereignty of our embassies in 1979 when we didn't bend Iran over for what transpired. If you remember, that same year, our embassy in Libya was also burned.
The only thing we have shown our enemy is that there is no sequella to attack our land and kill our diplomats.
imho the killing of U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was a deliberate attack. It was done under the disguise of a demonstration against an anti-Muslim movie, it was not a protest about a film.
It was an attack by Muslim radicals with a plan. They used rocket-propelled grenades and had the discipline to follow with an attack at a second location. The attack was executed on Sept. 11 - indicates this was not an accident.
The CIA's report, Global Trends, 2015, concluded that globalization will create "an even wider gap between regional winners and losers than exists today. [Its] evolution will be rocky, marked by chronic volatility and a widening economic divide ... deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation. [It] will foster political ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism, along with the violence that often accompanies it.
Central Intelligence Agency, Global Trends, 2015. (Langley, Va.: Central Intelligence Agency, 2000) as cited in The International Forum on Globalization, Alternatives to Economic Globalization
MTN Medic
09-12-2012, 20:00
imho the killing of U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, was a deliberate attack. It was done under the disguise of a demonstration against an anti-Muslim movie, it was not a protest about a film.
It was an attack by Muslim radicals with a plan. They used rocket-propelled grenades and had the discipline to follow with an attack at a second location. The attack was executed on Sept. 11 - indicates this was not an accident.
Of course it was. So, being that it was, it was an act of war; killing a diplomat and waging war on sovereign soil. What are we going to do about it? Not a damn thing.
We were perceived as weak in 79, hence the Iran hostage crisis, we are again perceived to be weak under our current administration, hence what took place yesterday. History does repeat itself in one form or another. At the very least the perpetrators’ of this act are comfortable in the fact that they have a sympathetic ear in the White House, the POTUS is going to have to look tough and talk tough but in the end will he actually do anything to punish the guilty parties? The magnitude of what took place yesterday will be lost on most folks but it scares the hell out of me. The world is watching.
@blue02hd--
Thank you for your reply.
To me, the biggest difference between the current POTUS and President Carter is that Carter sought to position his approach to national security as something new, different, and better than the policy preferences of his immediate predecessors. (Scholars often refer to Carter as "the first post-Cold War president.") By contrast, the current president has attempted to position the policy preferences of his administration as a return to the "best practices" of some of his predecessors--specifically Truman and Clinton and implicitly (and ironically) Reagan. To me, this effort is valid only in respect to the objectives of maintaining a "preponderance of power" and nonproliferation of WMDs. Thus, while Carter was forward thinking in that he wanted Americans to imagine a world in which the Cold War did not overshadow every aspect of international relations, the current president wants to role back the clock to the 1990s.
A second key difference is that the current president is attempting to capitalize politically on the positive state of civil military relations whereas Carter intentionally contributed to the widespread dogpiling on the American armed forces that was rampant during the 1970s. To be clear, the current president's efforts ring hollow to me as a civilian but this difference is still significant.
From the perspective of the administrations of Reagan, Bush the Elder, and, to a much lesser degree, Bush the Younger, I agree that the differences outlined above can appear imperceptible. And given the outcome--acts of mass anti-American violence in the Middle East, these differences are even less noticeable.
However, I would argue that there is a big difference between the inchoate foreign policy in a time of global change (Carter) and the inarticulate (if not also incoherent) foreign policy of the current president. The bottom line is that there is no issue that the current president faces that his immediate predecessors did not wrestle with. Yet, because of his profound ignorance, he acts like he can reinvent the wheel. This is to say that while the current president references the past to make his policies politically acceptable, his understanding of that past is impoverished. Thus, while Carter could--and did-- learned from his mistakes (albeit belatedly), the incumbent is, IMO, significantly less capable of changing course. And before asshat journalists and popular historians start throwing around the word tragedy, I think they should remember that tragedy requires hubris, which, in turn requires a trait the current president never had--greatness.
A third key difference--and this point is going to be controversial--is that I believe that President Carter genuinely cared about America. His failings were that he privileged his vision of America over that of the citizens he sought to govern; he crossed the line from managing a public debate over America's role in the world to manipulating that conversation; and his reach greatly exceeded his grasp.
By contrast, I have never for a second believed that the current POTUS gives a care for America in a way that is acceptable for a sitting president--especially in a time of global war. For me, a bottom line question is this: will the president vaporize tens of millions of people on the other side of the planet if that is the only choice he has to protect America's interests? For all of his many flaws, I do not doubt that Mr. Carter could make this decision. (And I hold the same view of the Clintons.) I cannot say the same for the incumbent (nor of former Vice President Gore or Senator Kerry when they ran for the job).
A fourth key difference is the state of the American mind in the post-Cold War world. The fall of Communism in Europe has, IMO, unleashed a variety of forces that have greatly altered American civilization (for worse, better, and TBD). The challenge that America's political leadership continues to face is finding ways to harness those forces in a way that empowers individual Americans to reach a consensus on core issues. The ongoing failure to meet this challenge is, IMO, at the core of the growing sense of political, social, and cultural alienation that many Americans are feeling today.
Finally, a brief point about history repeating itself. IMO, history does not repeat itself because of the unceasing flux of individual and group motivation. Only the mentally unstable do the same things over and again for the same reasons. For the rest of us, even our most routine behaviors are governed by a "constellation of motivational factors" that are ultimately unknowable. Because this constellation is always in flux and cannot be pinned down, behaviors and outcomes that appear the same are actually different events.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/13-Sep-2012/us-ambassador-to-libya-killed-in-rocket-attack
Comparison photo
http://www.newsday.com/news/world/u-s-sends-marines-warships-to-libya-after-attack-kills-u-s-ambassador-chris-stevens-3-others-1.3994462
The first picture has been removed from the web; the first picture shows the Amb. being removed/scene/ from the vehicle, dazed, and alive, being handled by locals.
It is interesting that in a matter of seconds the first picture was remove from the web.
Picture
This sickens me. Makes me really angry. :mad:
RIP Ambassador Stevens and staff members. My thanks to them, and all of you willing to serve in these volatile places.
Interesting that the Newsday article Penn posted says that Ansar al-Sharia claims they are not responsible, yet CBS is reporting they have claimed responsibility.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/assault-on-u.s-consulate-in-benghazi-leaves-4-dead-including-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/?tag=stack
Golf1echo
09-12-2012, 21:51
Picture
Let see, a pitched gun battle for hours on end moving from building to building, a mob with RPG's and mortar fire not to mention other reports let alone what has not come out yet....Hope that little group sees the men that come to take them out, not just the clicking of realigning tail fins...
RIP Marine Warriors, State Department personnel and Ambassador, you will not be forgotten...
Red Flag 1
09-12-2012, 23:14
Rest In God's Peace Ambassador Stevens. Thank you for your service, and your sacrifice.
Adam1680
09-13-2012, 03:13
and now the Yemen embassy breached..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-yemen-usa-embassy-idUSBRE88C0AM20120913
MountainMan35
09-13-2012, 03:47
and now the Yemen embassy breached..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-yemen-usa-embassy-idUSBRE88C0AM20120913
Things are only going to get worse until our President makes a stand IMHO Sir.
Things are only going to get worse until our President makes a stand IMHO Sir.He did. He said yesterday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya).
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.
From Al Jazeera today (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/2012912144149580926.html).[...]US officials confirmed to Al Jazeera that a special unit of roughly 50 members of the Marine Corps had been dispatched to Libya to reinforce the troops guarding diplomats there, as two warships headed to the Libyan coast.
The Marines' Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team (FAST) detachment is specially trained to deploy rapidly to protect government workers overseas.[...]
IMO, the president has to get this right and Governor Romney needs to take a step back and let the POTUS do his job.
MountainMan35
09-13-2012, 04:35
He did. He said yesterday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya).
From Al Jazeera today (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/2012912144149580926.html).
IMO, the president has to get this right and Governor Romney needs to take a step back and let the POTUS do his job.
I definitely agree that Governor Romney needs to keep his mouth shut and allow the President to handle these issues right now. Perhaps suspend the campaign for a week like they did in 2008 during the financial crisis?
Perhaps suspend the campaign for a week like they did in 2008 during the financial crisis?IMO, absolutely not.
American politicians have conducted presidential campaigns during times of even greater crisis than we currently face today. The challenge for Gov. Romney is to find the right balance between articulating his vision of American national security policy without undermining the POTUS's freedom of action IRT the Middle East or inadvertently boxing himself if he gets the job.
Just my two cents.
Rest in Peace All...............
RIP Ambassador, Marines & State Commo Man!
Washington times is running a unconfirmed story that the Ambassador Stevens was raped before being killed.
May just be propaganda being the source is Tayyar.org
here is the Washington times piece;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/sep/13/picket-report-murdered-us-ambassador-libya-reporte/
If this is true we need bold action and now, IMHO.
RIP Ambassador Stevens and staff. By all accounts it appears to me you tried to bring some good to a region where there is very little.
Stargazer
09-13-2012, 07:56
Washington times is running a unconfirmed story that the Ambassador Stevens was raped before being killed.
May just be propaganda being the source is Tayyar.org
here is the Washington times piece;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/sep/13/picket-report-murdered-us-ambassador-libya-reporte/
If this is true we need bold action and now, IMHO.
RIP Ambassador Stevens and staff. By all accounts it appears to me you tried to bring some good to a region where there is very little.
I heard on the radio this morning on the drive in that he was missing for 12 hours. Seems like a long time between missing to surfacing... not sure where the picture of him being dragged and at hospital trying to resuscitated fits into the timetable.
Most importantly at this time, I would like to express my condolences to those left behind and pay my respects to those lost while serving this country. I pray justice is done.
The first picture has been removed from the web; the first picture shows the Amb. being removed/scene/ from the vehicle, dazed, and alive, being handled by locals.
Who confirmed that he was alive? How can you tell that he was breathing from this picture?
We were perceived as weak in 79, hence the Iran hostage crisis, we are again perceived to be weak under our current administration, hence what took place yesterday.
This President has a far more aggressive approach to attacking militants than President Bush did within the confines of the War on Terror. The cross border drone strike program and bolstered operations in Yemen were both options that President Bush did not pursue. Conveniently, President Bush also had Qaddafi, Mubarak, and a much stronger Abdullah Saleh actively controlling their own countries. (Granted our embassy in Yemen was attacked in September of '08)
As for the Iranian Hostage crisis I will have to defer to those of you in the know. I'm not that well read on it, and have no idea what was going on behind the scenes.
If we haven't found the people responsible for this within a year or two I'll give up hope, but I'm not jaded yet.
This President has a far more aggressive approach to attacking militants than President Bush did within the confines of the War on Terror. The cross border drone strike program and bolstered operations in Yemen were both options that President Bush did not pursue. Conveniently, President Bush also had Qaddafi, Mubarak, and a much stronger Abdullah Saleh actively controlling their own countries. (Granted our embassy in Yemen was attacked in September of '08)IMO, the issue is simply not about "aggression" that can be measured in numbers of air strikes and bad guys killed. It is about the effectiveness of military operations in support of a broader plan. With all due respect of the proponents of the RMA and the members of this BB who belong to the USAF, sending drones rather than professional soldiers is a step back, not forward, and it reflects the current administration's profound cynicism on a wide range of subjects.
IMO, the issue is simply not about "aggression" that can be measured in numbers of air strikes and bad guys killed. It is about the effectiveness of military operations in support of a broader plan. With all due respect of the proponents of the RMA and the members of this BB who belong to the USAF, sending drones rather than professional soldiers is a step back, not forward, and it reflects the current administration's profound cynicism on a wide range of subjects.
Nice doggie Sigaba. Glad to see you back. (still thinking on whether that last part should be in pink) :p
I agree. Snatching a potential bad guy up is more risky, but potentially more rewarding. It also allows 'justice' (in whatever form to be applied) and better eliminates collateral damage. It also (usually) requires more thought to implement than a potentially fire-n-forget action.
It also (usually) requires more thought to implement than a potentially fire-n-forget action.IMO, this is exactly what the president has in mind when it comes to GWOT. He wants us to go back to the (apparently) care free ass-grabbing big hair days of the Clinton years rather than have us do what we should have done back in 1992 (or in 2002): roll up our sleeves, put out the coffee mugs, grab the books, lock the doors, have a no holds barred debate, and develop sustainable plans of action that Americans could point to and say "Okay, so that's what we're doing..." when it comes to the communists, the Islamicists, the Russians, the warlords, and the cartels.
TXGringo
09-13-2012, 19:08
This President has a far more aggressive approach to attacking militants than President Bush did within the confines of the War on Terror. The cross border drone strike program and bolstered operations in Yemen were both options that President Bush did not pursue. Conveniently, President Bush also had Qaddafi, Mubarak, and a much stronger Abdullah Saleh actively controlling their own countries. (Granted our embassy in Yemen was attacked in September of '08)
You mean "within the confines of overseas contingency operations." Much more aggressive.
Conveniently?? You say this as if Obama didn't actively support the ousting of Qaddafi and Mubarak. "We came, we saw, he died," I believe it was. You reap what you sow, my friend.
The Right Reaction to the Murders in Benghazi
By Anthony H. Cordesman
SEP 12, 2012
As Americans, it is all too natural to overreact to events like the killing of our diplomats, especially a high-ranking diplomat like US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. What we need, however, is to take the time—and get the information—that allows us to make to make the right reaction. We will not serve the memory of our fallen, or help our diplomats who continue to serve, unless we react in ways that serve our national strategic interests instead of passion driven by the heat of the moment.
First, we need learn the facts and only target those who are actually guilty. We need to take the time to know exactly who was involved and the full history of events. The current attack may have been triggered by TV coverage of a movie, but there have been previous attacks on U.S. diplomats and the embassy in Libya, and incidents in Egypt as well. Nothing could be more dangerous that attacking an entire government, blaming an entire nation, or labeling every Islamic movement as somehow tied to violence and terrorism.
If our intelligence finds there were plans or violent elements that deliberately encouraged or escalated violence, we need to know this and pressure the Egyptian and Libyan governments to punish the guilty. To the extent the violence has spontaneous elements, we need to fully understand the forces at work and seek to deal with them.
Second, we must not make overreaction part of the election campaign. It may be the duty of the opposition candidate to criticize and challenge, but not at the cost of America’s strategic interests, lasting relations with key nations in the Middle East, or somehow making this an issue that puts Christian against Muslim or the West against the Arab world.
This is precisely the goal of those violent Islamic extremists that are our real enemies. They want this polarization. They want to make this as broad a conflict between religions and cultures as possible in order to persuade Muslims and Arabs that they face an American or Christian attack. They want the kind of overreaction that discredits secular and moderate Islamic governments in the Arab world and other Muslim states. It will scarcely serve the memory of our diplomats to be trapped into courses of action that the serve the goals of an extreme minority like the few that that are active in al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
Third, we need to remember that this is a clash within a religion and a civilization and not a struggle between Christians and Muslims or the West and the Arab world. It is natural to focus on our own casualties, and they are all too real. It is clear from our studies of terrorism since 9/11, and from the database of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), that the number of acts of terrorism among Muslims and the number of casualties that result is several orders of magnitude higher than the casualties outside the Muslim world.
We in the United States and the West are marginal targets of opportunity in the struggle between Muslim extremists and secular and moderate Islamic governments. The fact remains that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share a common core set of values, and the last thing we need is to ignore these common values and focus on anger and revenge in ways that will prevent us from working with our natural allies in the Arab and Muslim world.
Fourth, we must not lose sight of our enduring strategic interests. Libya and Egypt are critical nations in the upheavals in the Arab and Islamic world. At the same time, both are years away from stability and forging the new structure of government, social order, and economics necessary to deal with the underlying problems that caused political change in each country.
The United States can only serves its interests if it understands that it may well face a decade of diplomacy and aid efforts in which it must constantly seek to help the nations caught up in these political upheavals deal with these problems, create functioning democracies, improve their governance, and make economic reform.
The “Arab spring” is already close to entering its second year (it began on December 18, 2010), and there is no way to predict when it will end or how many further upheavals will take place. Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen are additional states that are already in play and other nations are sure to follow. We in the West need to remember that the “European spring” that began with the French Revolution (or 1848 depending on your choice of historians) triggered upheavals that lasted until at least 1914 and did not end in anything approaching stability.
Finally, we must accept the fact that our diplomats need to take risks and others will fall. Dealing with the political upheavals and violence that are part of this process of change means taking risks and taking casualties. We may be able to improve some aspects of warning and protection of our diplomats, but we already have far too much of a fortress mentality and far too many diplomats that stay in the embassies or face security regulations that prevent them from being effective.
Like our military, our diplomats must be prepared and authorized to “work outside the wire.” We cannot deal with cases like Egypt or Libya without positive and constantly proactive diplomacy. We must be willing to work directly with new governments and with the full range of secular, Islamic, other religious parties. We must accept the fact that there will be violence in many cases, and some of it will be directed against the United States. As the tragedy in Libya has shown, diplomacy is a dangerous business, and it should be.
http://csis.org/publication/right-reaction-murders-benghazi
Conveniently?? You say this as if Obama didn't actively support the ousting of Qaddafi and Mubarak. "We came, we saw, he died," I believe it was. You reap what you sow, my friend.
Agreed. That's why diplomacy is a lot more difficult for our country. We continue to actively support revolutions and hope they will lead to real democracies. The Russians have it much easier IMO.
roll up our sleeves, put out the coffee mugs, grab the books, lock the doors, have a no holds barred debate, and develop sustainable plans of action that Americans could point to and say "Okay, so that's what we're doing..." when it comes to the communists, the Islamicists, the Russians, the warlords, and the cartels.
We've been kicking the Islamist, Russian, warlord, and cartel cans down the road since way before President Clinton's time in office. Partly because each of those situations keeps changing. I'm really interested in hearing your view on a more efficient method of combating terrorism/miltants in Northern Pakistan. I'll take it to PMs.
Additional information which might turn up the heat on Hillary, et al...
UK Independant
Kim Sengupta
9/14/12
Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'
The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html
We've been kicking the Islamist, Russian, warlord, and cartel cans down the road since way before President Clinton's time in office.trvlr--
With respect, this statement is not historically accurate. For example, during the Carter and Reagan administrations, there were intense discussions about terrorism, especially in the Middle East. As a specific example, in its search for a mission following the Vietnam War, the navy was especially keen on developing capabilities that could both fight the Soviets in a global war and also respond to acts of terrorism in the "Third World." In this regard, President Carter, despite the lambasting he's received from established scholars of naval history and experts on naval affairs, was in many respects a traditional navalist.
Moreover, THE enduring debate of the Cold War (and one that continues to this day among historians who study it) centered around the question of Russia. That question (offered in the past tense) is: Did the Soviets behave the way they did because they were communists or because they were a group controlled by Russians? From this question flowed everything else.
Partly because each of those situations keeps changing. I'm really interested in hearing your view on a more efficient method of combating terrorism/miltants in Northern Pakistan. I'll take it to PMs.No disrespect, as I'm flattered both by your question as well as your PM.
However, it is incumbent upon me to make clear publicly that my POV on GWOT is not as a SME on military operations but as a student of military history and American military affairs. IMO, it would be an act of profound disrespect if I allowed members of this BB to think that I'm engaging in back-channel chalk talk on matters I am unqualified to discuss, especially matters of operations and tactics. So, I shall reply to your question in the open and confine my remarks to the political dimensions of GWOT.
To me, the ongoing issue is that America's political leadership (this includes the administration of Bush the Younger) has refused to develop a framework/process for addressing GWOT that (a) articulates clearly an understandable set of goals and objectives, (b) defines a sustainable definition of victory, (c) establishes the framework for informed public debate among stakeholders (i.e. the American people), then (d) maximizes the input of SMEs in uniform, the experience and knowledge of professional warriors, or the vast resources of the private sector, or the Ivory Tower, and, finally (e) empowers responsible parties/institutions/agencies to do their jobs with an appropriate level of (i) funding, (ii) civilian oversight, and (iii) informed public support.
IMO, the ongoing infatuation with the RMA among civilians is more than just the discussion of the contemporary manifestation of the (military revolution) MR debate that has confounded historians for decades. It is also a political plan to cut certain cohorts of warriors and armed service professionals out of the loop.
Straight up, what I know about the history of war couldn't fill the world's smallest thimble--and what I know about war itself would take up even less space. However, I do know that modern war is about killing, about destroying material and property, about sacrifice, and about tapping a dynamic of violence that, if left unchecked, could engulf the world. I also believe that the most effective (as opposed to efficient) way of keeping the wolf of war bound is to enable warriors to hold the chain.
To me, the practice of privileging of economic efficiency over military effectiveness by picking air power over soldiering while disregarding the views from BTDTs that this approach isn't the way to do it, represents the dysfunction of American politics, a deliberate misreading of the history of the Vietnam War, the second most baleful consequence of the War of American Revolution, and one of the worst legacies Jacksonian Democracy.
YMMV.
Moreover, THE enduring debate of the Cold War (and one that continues to this day among historians who study it) centered around the question of Russia. That question (offered in the past tense) is: Did the Soviets behave the way they did because they were communists or because they were a group controlled by Russians? From this question flowed everything else.
Sigaba - I think that would be an interesting topic - worthy of a separate thread. Would you be so good as to start a separate thread outlining the "that question" from a historian point of view? Please include a few (just a few) references for us to get up to speed.
Sigaba - I think that would be an interesting topic - worthy of a separate thread. Would you be so good as to start a separate thread outlining the "that question" from a historian point of view? Please include a few (just a few) references for us to get up to speed.Yes, however I'll need a moment (or two) to pick just a few references. (The running joke is that it is easier for a historian to write a thirty page--or longer--essay than a one pager.)
When you write about, "...or because they were a group controlled by Russians?" do you mean that historians ask the question of did the Soviets behave the way they did because of how Russians historically have been? Yes. This debate also echoed through the American government, especially the foreign service.
Also what does RMA stand for? Revolution in Military Affairs?:confused:Yes.
Entire post
ETA(and shame on me for not including it originally): RIP John Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith and the Warriors tasked with protecting them.
Sigaba,
FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly, and speaking of "wolves of war", nice avatar :)
IMHO: Targeted frameworks, however broad they may be, still need to work within reasonably manageable number of targets. When your target base a) encompasses a sizable chunk of the worlds population and b) weighs against this countries principal of freedom of religion, how do you start to build that framework?
What are your thoughts on a)establishing goals and b)a definition of victory when you have billions of people subscribing to Islam; while not everyone acts on its exhortations to oppress and kill non-Muslims, but there are many that do, and the potential for the rest is an ever present threat?
Can you begin the discussion without everyone agreeing that we are technically in a constant state of war with Islam, as it is with us?
v/r
BOfH
A measured response?
They invaded US territory and killed person who is the personification of the President and the US Gov't (and those who were protecting him...RIP).
A measured response? IMO, the measurements that matter most right now are PSI and CEP.
With respect, this statement is not historically accurate. For example, during the Carter and Reagan administrations, there were intense discussions about terrorism, especially in the Middle East. As a specific example, in its search for a mission following the Vietnam War, the navy was especially keen on developing capabilities that could both fight the Soviets in a global war and also respond to acts of terrorism in the "Third World." In this regard, President Carter, despite the lambasting he's received from established scholars of naval history and experts on naval affairs, was in many respects a traditional navalist.
[...]
To me, the ongoing issue is that America's political leadership (this includes the administration of Bush the Younger) has refused to develop a framework/process for addressing GWOT that (a) articulates clearly an understandable set of goals and objectives, (b) defines a sustainable definition of victory, (c) establishes the framework for informed public debate among stakeholders (i.e. the American people), then (d) maximizes the input of SMEs in uniform, the experience and knowledge of professional warriors, or the vast resources of the private sector, or the Ivory Tower, and, finally (e) empowers responsible parties/institutions/agencies to do their jobs with an appropriate level of (i) funding, (ii) civilian oversight, and (iii) informed public support.
[...]
To me, the practice of privileging of economic efficiency over military effectiveness by picking air power over soldiering while disregarding the views from BTDTs that this approach isn't the way to do it, represents the dysfunction of American politics, a deliberate misreading of the history of the Vietnam War, the second most baleful consequence of the War of American Revolution, and one of the worst legacies Jacksonian Democracy.
Sigaba, I wanted to take it to PMs in order to avoid completely sidetracking this thread. However, I understand your reasoning for explaining your opinion here.
I also misunderstood your quote. I assumed that you meant establishing a effective plan from the national discussions and "fixing" the problem. The problems themselves, especially fundamentalist Islam, and the cartels have not been fixed.
For example:
Fundamental Islamists: Our government talked about how pervasive and dangerous fundamentalist Islam can be after President Anwar Saddat's assassination during President Reagan's first term.
Action during the same time frame: Continue funding and solidifying a united Islamist front against Russia in Afghanistan through Pakistan (an Islamist country with which we had/have a tenuous relationship.) Everyone gets paid, and we deal with the consequences down the road.
IMO, this Libyan situation illustrates why our Presidents/government are so reluctant to have transparent, high level strategy on the Islamic fundamentalist problem/GWOT. We are quick to use them when we need to, so we make every effort not to inflame their region.
I'm not an expert on the Vietnam War, but other than sovereignty issues there are no strategic similarities between Rolling Thunder and the drone program. In addition to that, our ground movement in Cambodia and Laos are a great example of how difficult cross-border operations can be (even with the world's best SMEs) when our enemy operates in those AOs with near impunity.
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see any feasible grand strategic response to situations like the Libyan consulate affecting the chances of other attacks. We can definitely make sure we're ready for them at the tactical level. The fires will continue to pop up, and we'll continue to put them out. Hopefully the Friday prayers/protest revival won't lead to any more loss of life.
Most all indicators confirm an inside job. Our folks were betrayed - combine that with the reported ROE at diplomatic locations and an apparent failure to heed warnings of violence against our diplomatic presence in the region and you have a perfect storm.
Excerpts from CBS news 9/14/12:
(CBA/AP) BENGHAZI, Libya — Heavily armed militants used a protest of an anti-Islam film as a cover and may have had help from inside Libyan security in their deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate, a senior Libyan official said Thursday.
That the attackers knew the safe house's location suggests a "spy" inside the security forces tipped off the militants, el Sharef said.
U.S. officials have not confirmed the account. They have spoken of an attack on the consulate's annex that killed two Americans, but said their report on the incident was still preliminary.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57512847/official-libyan-insiders-may-have-aided-assault/