A measured response advocating a measured response
 

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-re...rders-benghazi

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.

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/wo...n-8135797.html

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.

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.

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.)

Yes. This debate also echoed through the American government, especially the foreign service.
Yes.

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).

IMO, the measurements that matter most right now are PSI and CEP.

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-...aided-assault/