General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Mystery of Benghazi
TWENTY-FOUR hours after the American compound in Benghazi was attacked and our ambassador murdered, the tragedy seemed more likely to help President Obamas re-election campaign than to damage it.
The White House already enjoyed more public credibility on foreign policy than on almost any other issue. When Mitt Romney reacted to the attack with a partisan broadside, portraying a news release sent out by the Cairo embassy before any violence began as a White House apology to the attackers, the presidents path forward seemed clear. He would be disciplined and careful, show anger and steel but also coolness under pressure, and let the rally-round-the-flag effect do its natural work.
What happened instead was very strange. Having first repudiated the embassys apology to Muslims offended by a movie impugning their prophet, the Obama administration decided to embrace that apologys premise, and insist that the movie was the crucial ingredient in the Sept. 11 anniversary violence.
--
In a long profile of President Obama published last month by Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis suggested that the president feared the consequences of even a single casualty during the Libyan incursion, lest it create a narrative about how a president elected to extract us from a war in one Arab country got Americans killed in another.
How much more, then, might the president fear a narrative about how our Libyan intervention helped create a power vacuum in which terrorists groups can operate with impunity? Thats clearly happened in nearby Mali, where the ripple effects from Muammar el-Qaddafis overthrow have helped empower a Qaeda affiliate. In this context, its easy to see why the administration would hope that the Benghazi attack were just spontaneous mob violence rather than a sign of Al Qaedas growing presence in postintervention Libya as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-mystery-of-benghazi.html?ref=opinion
Before big meetings the president is given a kind of road map, a list of who will be at the meeting and what they might be called on to contribute. The point of this particular meeting was for the people who knew something about Libya to describe what they thought Qaddafi might do, and then for the Pentagon to give the president his military options. The intelligence was very abstract, says one witness. Obama started asking questions about it. What happens to the people in these cities when the cities fall? When you say Qaddafi takes a town, what happens? It didnt take long to get the picture: if they did nothing theyd be looking at a horrific scenario, with tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered. (Qaddafi himself had given a speech on February 22, saying he planned to cleanse Libya, house by house.) The Pentagon then presented the president with two options: establish a no-fly zone or do nothing at all. The idea was that the people in the meeting would debate the merits of each, but Obama surprised the room by rejecting the premise of the meeting. He instantly went off the road map, recalls one eyewitness. He asked, Would a no-fly zone do anything to stop the scenario we just heard? After it became clear that it would not, Obama said, I want to hear from some of the other folks in the room.
Obama then proceeded to call on every single person for his views, including the most junior people. What was a little unusual, Obama admits, is that I went to people who were not at the table. Because I am trying to get an argument that is not being made. The argument he had wanted to hear was the case for a more nuanced interventionand a detailing of the more subtle costs to American interests of allowing the mass slaughter of Libyan civilians. His desire to hear the case raises the obvious question: Why didnt he just make it himself? Its the Heisenberg principle, he says. Me asking the question changes the answer. And it also protects my decision-making. But its more than that. His desire to hear out junior people is a warm personality trait as much as a cool tactic, of a piece with his desire to play golf with White House cooks rather than with C.E.O.s and basketball with people who treat him as just another player on the court; to stay home and read a book rather than go to a Washington cocktail party; and to seek out, in any crowd, not the beautiful people but the old people. The man has his status needs, but they are unusual. And he has a tendency, an unthinking first step, to subvert established status structures. After all, he became president.
Asked if he was surprised that the Pentagon had not presented him with the option to prevent Qaddafi from destroying a city twice the size of New Orleans and killing everyone inside the place, Obama says simply, No. Asked why he was not surprisedif I were president I would have beenhe adds, Because its a hard problem. What the process is going to do is try to lead you to a binary decision. Here are the pros and cons of going in. Here are the pros and cons of not going in. The process pushes towards black or white answers; its less good with shades of gray. Partly because the instinct among the participants was that
Here he pauses and decides he doesnt want to criticize anyone personally. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We still had equity in Iraq. Our assets are strained. The participants are asking a question: Is there a core national-security issue at stake? As opposed to calibrating our national-security interests in some new way.
The people who operate the machinery have their own ideas of what the president should decide, and their advice is pitched accordingly. Gates and Mullen didnt see how core American security interests were at stake; Biden and Daley thought that getting involved in Libya was, politically, nothing but downside. The funny thing is the system worked, says one person who witnessed the meeting. Everyone was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing. Gates was right to insist that we had no core national-security issue. Biden was right to say it was politically stupid. Hed be putting his presidency on the line.
http://m.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)After Benghazi Attack, Private Security Hovers as an Issue
By JAMES RISEN
Published: October 12, 2012
WASHINGTON Lost amid the election-year wrangling over the militants attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, is a complex back story involving growing regional resentment against heavily armed American private security contractors, increased demands on State Department resources and mounting frustration among diplomats over ever-tighter protections that they say make it more difficult to do their jobs.
The Benghazi attacks, in which the United States ambassador and three other Americans were killed, come at the end of a 10-year period in which the State Department sending its employees into a lengthening list of war zones and volatile regions has regularly ratcheted up security for its diplomats. The aggressive measures used by private contractors eventually led to shootings in Afghanistan and Iraq that provoked protests, including an episode involving guards from an American security company, Blackwater, that left at least 17 Iraqis dead in Baghdads Nisour Square.
The ghosts of that shooting clearly hung over Benghazi. Earlier this year, the new Libyan government had expressly barred Blackwater-style armed contractors from flooding into the country. The Libyans were not keen to have boots on the ground, one senior State Department official said.
That forced the State Department to rely largely on its own diplomatic security arm, which officials have said lacks the resources to provide adequate protection in war zones.
much more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/africa/private-security-hovers-as-issue-after-embassy-attack-in-benghazi-libya.html?pagewanted=all
BootinUp
(47,136 posts)of your own?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Reading the two pieces reminds me of the awesome responsibilities a President has and it makes me feel a great sympathy for where he finds himself.
It puts into perspective what his current options are. I don't think placing the blame on State is going to work because its a larger problem that began with his decision to do more than what was presented to him. Libya is going to fall on Obama, not Hillary as I was originally thinking. When he wins re-election, I wonder how much deeper he will get us in. How responsible does he feel for the situation?
It's beginning to look like a "you broke it you bought it" thing.
And the buck really does stop at his desk. Libya is his baby.