US to Terrorists: Sorry We Hurt Your Feelings

 In response to a film that appeared on YouTube made by an Egyptian-American allegedly insulting to Islam, hundreds of irate Egyptians stormed the American Embassy in Cairo, scaling its walls, violently tearing down and burning the American flag. In its place, a black Islamic banner was jubilantly hoisted, a familiar sign often associated with Al Qaeda.

In the face of this grotesque collective display of pubescent fury, the US government issued this official statement:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

One can almost forgive the weak-kneed euphemism that begins the press release: savage marauders are referred to as “misguided individuals”, as if they were trespassing on American soil because they were given bad directions. This brand of oblique circumlocution must eventually become a rhetorical reflex for those who spend their careers in professional diplomacy, by turns dissembling and cowering.

However, instead of condemning the terrorists who invaded American territory with destruction as their premeditated purpose the US saves its indignation for those who dare to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims”. This goes well beyond absolving Egyptians extremists for an act of febrile and illegal aggression-we have essentially endorsed the motives of the barbarians at the gate. Of course, they invaded us, we seem to be demurely conceding, someone may or may not have said something on Youtube that made them feel all icky inside. If our devoted enemies should ever figure out Twitter, we should evacuate all foreign outposts immediately. Or better yet, just give us some advance notice and, in the spirit of international comity, we will tear down our own flag, even burn it safely under the supervision of a certified fire marshall.

The memo only gets worse, heaping unintended irony onto piles of self-emasculation. It not only has the audacity to mention but to guilelessly defend the “universal right of free speech” by identifying the film maker, not the rioters, as the ones showing disrespect for it. As far as “respect for religious beliefs” is concerned, is it safe to assume that this crowd is not committed to the virtue of tolerance if this is their version of open dialogue and civil dissent? Is the venom shown for the sanctity of free political speech really coming from Sam Bacile, a little known indie film producer and director?

Purblind effeteness is not the worst of this statement, though. Where blinkered, a-historical stupidity morphs into cowardice is the shameful reference to the events of September 11th and “our patriots” and “those who serve the nation” against the “enemies of democracy”. If this mob of intemperate thugs doesn’t count as an enemy democracy, then who does? To sheepishly offer such a pusillanimous and tender footed response to an angry defilement of the memory of the tragedy of 9/11 is breathtakingly unpatriotic. Whoever wrote that note, and whoever gave it the green light, should be immediately fired and publicly lampooned annually on September 11th on the steps of NYC’s Memorial Plaza. .

The last time the American government showered those who raided its embassy with earnest sensitivity (think 1979), they were duly unimpressed. It’s unlikely this most recent exercise in quixotic self-immolation will accomplish more. Increasingly, Egypt disappoints the lofty ambitions that animated its revolution, demonstrating over and over again that its primary hurdle to achieving real democratic reform is its stunted political adolescence. An “experiment in self-governance”, to borrow a coinage from Alexander Hamilton, requires more than elections, or the construction of that this or that institution, or grandiose speechifying about the magic of the historical moment. It requires certain civic virtues, a culture of tolerance and respect, that Egypt may simply lack at the moment.

Now it is being reported that the US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other diplomats were killed in Benghazi last night when their embassy, too, was stormed by Libyan rioters protesting the same film. Will our State Department humbly prostrate itself before this mob as well, as an act of contrition?

Our government should reflect on this, and the security of our embassy in Cairo, before our next dispensation of funding to it, some $1.3 billion annually. And our diplomats should also reflect deeply on this: every foreign policy, however conceived, is underwritten by the respect of friends and enemies alike, and no one respects a timorous sycophant, no matter how sincerely he offers his apologies.

Breaking News Alert:

Rumors are now widely circulating that rioters in Libya were tipped off by the embassy’s security detail staffed almost entirely by Libyan nationals. For reasons still unclear, there were apparently only two Marines on duty, unusual since embassy security is traditionally the duty of Marines. Also, rumors continue to swirl that there is evidence surfacing that these attacks were pre-meditated rather than some spontaneous convulsion of violence on the part of a ramshackle crowd. If this is true, then it seems likely that the film that allegedly motivated the violence was little more than a useful pretext.

Similar concerns surround the suicide bombing of an American consulate vehicle in Pakistan last week: how did the assailants know the exact whereabouts of that vehicle at that specific time? In a volatile tinderbox like Pakistan, these scheduling details are closely guarded and their disclosure points to a possible leak within Pakistani provided security. Given that an embassy is considered sovereign ground by international law, and that these attacks may be state sponsored, do they constitute an act of war?

Now, Libya’s Ambassador to the US, Ali Aujali, is claiming that ex-Qaddafi forces are responsible for the raid on the US Embassy:

“We know that Qaddafi’s associates are in Libya. Of course, they took this chance to infiltrate among the people,” Aujali said in today in an interview.

Further, the US officials are now reporting that 50 additional Marines have been dispatched to Libya to reinforce security for American diplomats who remain in Benghazi. They comprise an elite force, the Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team, with the dual mission of responding to terror threats around the globe and protecting imperiled embassies.

Now, reports indicate that, according to the White House public calendar, President Obama has not attended a daily defense briefing since September 5th. So far the White House has not offered a comment. According to the General Accountability office, President Obama has only attended 43.8% of his daily briefings in the last 1,225 days of his administration.

Alerts have been issued by the American embassies in Tunis and Algeria warning of potential violence against Americans and American interests on the heels of attacks on embassies in Libya and Egypt. Also, embassies in Armenia, Burundi, Kuwait, Sudan, and Zambia have issued similar warnings, stoking fear that coordinated attacks are imminent.

Pentagon and State Department sources are now entertaining the possibility that the embassy attacks were a vengeful response to the drone killing in June of Abu Yaha al-Libi, by American forces.

More evidence continues to surface indicating that the attacks were tactically planned rather than spontaneous. Some attackers purportedly wielded rocket propelled grenade launchers, unusual for a random gathering of public protesters. Also, the attacks in Libya seemed to proceed in two waves, one that crashed its way into the embassy compound, and another that infiltrated the secure location within it. This was a temporary location and so not nearly as secure as an embassy would be in typical circumstances.

Also, there continues to be persistent uncertainty regarding the specific details of Ambassador Stevens’ death. Fred Burton, a former diplomatic security official at the State Department, observes:

“Was he killed coming back to the mission or was he trying to exit the mission? Was he trying to exit the safe house that’s now into play? There are a lot of unknown factors here,” he says.

“You may have had a situation that deteriorated so rapidly that a snap decision was made to load up the ambassador, and ‘Let’s get the hell out of dodge,’ and they just vacated and ran into a situation where you had a perimeter set up and RPGs were fired into the limo as it was departing,” he says.

Ivan Kenneally is the Editor in Chief of the Daily Witness.

Category: International