Edited by Kathleen Weinberger
Washington and Islamists at a Crossroads
The media, politicians and political analysts are incredibly disappointed by the latest news about the different U.S. embassies in the region. Most important is the embassy in Benghazi, a city that Americans believe they “rescued” from the grasp of the “dictator.” Meanwhile, “Libya’s owner” was attacking the city and ordering its troops to seize everything Benghazi had to offer, from women to resources and capital. They were specifically ordered to leave no stone unturned and to show people no mercy.
It doesn’t stop at Benghazi. America has a bigger problem — a mental one. Americans seem to think the following: The Middle East was never an ally to the U.S. and most probably never will be. They hate us. The world witnessed the media coverage of the Arab Spring that we made happen. The U.S. aided and led movements to eliminate Middle Eastern dictators. We helped them achieve freedom. They returned the favor by killing the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
The U.S. government faces a real dilemma. The U.S. indeed made the Arab Spring possible and made it as American as it could be. Today, however, America is facing another Sept. 11 through the Arab Spring. Today’s U.S. president is very aware and concerned about the situation in the Middle East. Unfortunately for him, the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya occurred at the worst possible time. A few scant weeks before the presidential election, the Obama administration — including the president himself — is experiencing some serious attacks from the Republican campaign. The unfortunate events in Benghazi gave more reason for Mitt Romney and the Republican Party to criticize the president and his lack of leadership. Needless to say, Fox News is usually the main source of such criticisms.
Cairo and Sanaa added to the drama. At least in Libya it could be claimed that whoever was responsible for the assassination was a rebel group belonging to al-Qaida. They can take advantage of the country’s vulnerable reality. But how will the Right interpret the violent events in Egypt? Egypt! Where there are state institutions and an army, whose president is preparing to visit Washington? And what can be said of the case of Yemen? The country whose president, Mansour Hadi, enjoys Washington's full support and backing and possesses a plethora of allies and supporters in the region? There are means to provide protection to foreign embassies, yet it is not provided, not now, not in the past. Rebels were well able to attack the embassy, burn American flags, and replace them with black flags (Islamic flags).
The Middle East was once non-existent in the media. One could barely find one article here, one article there, once in a blue moon. Now, the Middle East is back in the headlines: on TV, on the radio, on live feed for long hours from Cairo, Benghazi, Sanaa and Tehran. Nothing compares to the Middle East in the media today. The Middle East has become the main issue in the U.S. presidential campaigns, so much so that Romney’s team attacked Obama for declaring a war on sexism and gender inequality instead of continuing the war on global terrorism. Republicans act as if the event of the century — the death of Osama bin Laden — wasn’t sufficient. They provoke Obama to prove his leadership by asking him to repeat that in Libya: Whom will the president kill before November to prove his leadership?
Benjamin Netanyahu made his way to Washington to comment on the lack of American leadership when it comes to the recent events in Benghazi. Obama’s administration apologized about the president not having enough time to meet with the Israeli prime minister. Of course, in reply to the apology, a wise remark was made about the fact that the president had time to go on air and apologize for the “insulting film,” yet not enough time to meet a “democratic” ally with the same values: Netanyahu.
In conclusion, the U.S. today is in shock. Not because the Americans lost an ambassador who had served [the country] for the past three decades (a total of six American ambassadors have died over time), but because the “unfaithful Islamists” cannot be trusted and are not worth the effort put forth in providing their countries with freedom and help.
It doesn’t stop at Benghazi. America has a bigger problem — a mental one. Americans seem to think the following: The Middle East was never an ally to the U.S. and most probably never will be. They hate us. The world witnessed the media coverage of the Arab Spring that we made happen. The U.S. aided and led movements to eliminate Middle Eastern dictators. We helped them achieve freedom. They returned the favor by killing the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
The U.S. government faces a real dilemma. The U.S. indeed made the Arab Spring possible and made it as American as it could be. Today, however, America is facing another Sept. 11 through the Arab Spring. Today’s U.S. president is very aware and concerned about the situation in the Middle East. Unfortunately for him, the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya occurred at the worst possible time. A few scant weeks before the presidential election, the Obama administration — including the president himself — is experiencing some serious attacks from the Republican campaign. The unfortunate events in Benghazi gave more reason for Mitt Romney and the Republican Party to criticize the president and his lack of leadership. Needless to say, Fox News is usually the main source of such criticisms.
Cairo and Sanaa added to the drama. At least in Libya it could be claimed that whoever was responsible for the assassination was a rebel group belonging to al-Qaida. They can take advantage of the country’s vulnerable reality. But how will the Right interpret the violent events in Egypt? Egypt! Where there are state institutions and an army, whose president is preparing to visit Washington? And what can be said of the case of Yemen? The country whose president, Mansour Hadi, enjoys Washington's full support and backing and possesses a plethora of allies and supporters in the region? There are means to provide protection to foreign embassies, yet it is not provided, not now, not in the past. Rebels were well able to attack the embassy, burn American flags, and replace them with black flags (Islamic flags).
The Middle East was once non-existent in the media. One could barely find one article here, one article there, once in a blue moon. Now, the Middle East is back in the headlines: on TV, on the radio, on live feed for long hours from Cairo, Benghazi, Sanaa and Tehran. Nothing compares to the Middle East in the media today. The Middle East has become the main issue in the U.S. presidential campaigns, so much so that Romney’s team attacked Obama for declaring a war on sexism and gender inequality instead of continuing the war on global terrorism. Republicans act as if the event of the century — the death of Osama bin Laden — wasn’t sufficient. They provoke Obama to prove his leadership by asking him to repeat that in Libya: Whom will the president kill before November to prove his leadership?
Benjamin Netanyahu made his way to Washington to comment on the lack of American leadership when it comes to the recent events in Benghazi. Obama’s administration apologized about the president not having enough time to meet with the Israeli prime minister. Of course, in reply to the apology, a wise remark was made about the fact that the president had time to go on air and apologize for the “insulting film,” yet not enough time to meet a “democratic” ally with the same values: Netanyahu.
In conclusion, the U.S. today is in shock. Not because the Americans lost an ambassador who had served [the country] for the past three decades (a total of six American ambassadors have died over time), but because the “unfaithful Islamists” cannot be trusted and are not worth the effort put forth in providing their countries with freedom and help.