U.S. Middle East embassies under attack
The security of foreign embassies is the responsibility of the host country. The United States cannot post a small army in each of the U.S. embassies abroad, and the Marines posted to embassies are there mainly to guard classified material, and destroy it if necessary. It is thus baffling that it took the Libyan government and local Benghazi authorities four hours before they sent security units the diplomatic compound. The assault on the compound started at 10:00 p.m. local time on Tuesday, but Libyan government forces did not arrive at the scene until 2:00 a.m. Wednesday. When they arrived, it took them a few minutes to regain control of the compound, chase the assilants away, and rescue the americns who barricaded themselves in the compound’s annex.
What happened in Benghazi should thus be chalked up to the incompetence and disorganization of the Lybian security forces. Why is it that a country where domestic spying was the rule during the last four decades has apparently not managed to plant informers inside Islamic terrorist cells is an interesting questions. Equally interesting is the question of how can a battle rage in the middle of a major city for four hours, a battle during which a building is set ablaze — and the battle and the fire take place inside a diplomatic compound — yet the military, police, and emergency personnel take four hours, rather than ten minutes, to arrive on the scene.
We note that according to the State Department, five American ambassadors had been killed by terrorists before the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. The most recent was Adolph Dubs, killed after being kidnapped in Afghanistan in 1979. The others were John Gordon Mein, in Guatemala in 1968; Cleo A. Noel Jr., in Sudan in 1973; Rodger P. Davies, in Cyprus in 1974; and Francis E. Meloy Jr., in Lebanon in 1976.
2. Egypt
Egyptian ultraislamists marked the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by scaling the walls of the U.S, embassy in Cairo, protesting an amateurish video posted on YouTube. The protesters said that the video, a trailer of a movie made last year by a California real estate developer, mocked Muhammad and demanded that the U.S. government should pull it off the air.
A spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood movement asked for a formal apology from the U.S. government, and urged the U.S. government to prosecute the “madman” behind the video
After scaling the embassy’s perimeter wall, the few dozen protesters pulled down the U.S. flag and instead raised a black flag carrying the words: “There is no God but God, and Mohammad is his messenger.”
Many of the news stories which covered the angry events in Cairo, quoted the following press release from the U.S. embassy in Cairo as part of the report on the event:
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
Many media outlets — see this example from the Weekly Standard — juxtaposed the release with reports of the scaling of the embassy’s walls, giving the impression that, in response to the attack by the Egyptian mob, the embassy issued a release which completely ignored the attack and instead concentrated on criticizing those in the United States who insulting the feelings of Muslims.
Since we are in the middle of a presidential election, the events in Cairo soon became part of the campaign. Mitt Romney issued a statement late Tuesday saying it was “disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” Earlier yesterday (Wednesday, 12 September), speaking at an impromptu press conference in Jacksonville, Florida, Romney again condemned Tuesday’s attacks [the attacks in both Cairo and Benghazi] as “disgusting” and “outrageous,” and again attacked the Obama administration for standing by a statement issued by the U.S. embassy in Cairo condemning “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” [see release above], which he claimed was an “apology” for American values.
The line about the embassy’s press release being an “apology” for American values must have been part of a talking-point sheet circulated by the Romney campaign, becasue it was repeated, verbatim, by other people who supported Romney’s position (we noticed former Minnesota senator Norm Coleman and Romney’s national security adviser Richard Williamson in interviews on NPR and CNN, respectively).
A reading of the press release would show that it is, in fact, a celebration of American values rather than an apology for them, but during an intense political campaign we should epxect each side to embellish and exaggerate.
The more interesting aspect of the affair is one of timing. We now know two things about the embassy’s press release: it was issued not in response to the mob’s attack, but a couple of hours before the attack. Also, it was a local initiative by embassy staff who issued the report without consulting the State Department in Washington.
The press release was issued by the embassy staff after sources in the Egyptian government had advised the embassy of the growing unrest caused by the YouTube video, suggesting that a pointed release by the embassy might help calm things down.
The release did not work – and the mob scaled the embassy’s walls. The wording of the release is unremarkable, as are efforts by embassy staff to take action to avoid disturbances, but we should question whether it was wise to issue a release of this nature without consulting Washington. This is especially the case since the time difference between Cairo and Washington meant that tensions outside the embassy began to mount while it was still mid-afternoon in Washington. There was no need to drag anybody out of bed for a proper consultation.
Scoring political points aside, condemning the embassy’s release as a craven response to a mob attack is factually incorrect. Some on the Romney team agree that the criticism of the embassy’s release was done in haste. In an interview with National Journal’s Major Garrett, John Sununu, former New Hampshire governor, George H. W. Bush’s chief of staff, and now a top Romney surrogate, said the Romney campaign should have been more cautious. “They probably should have waited,” Sununu told National Journal. “You look at the way things unfolded, you look at the timing of it, they probably should have waited.”
Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and now a Wall Street Journal columnist, told Fox News: “I don’t feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors, say in the past few hours, perhaps since last night…. Sometimes when really bad things happen, when hot things happen, cool words or no words is the way to go.”
Senator John McCain’s longtime adviser Mark Salter chastised Romney for “unfair and hyperbolic sound bites.”
“I would probably have waited 12 or 24 hours and put out a more comprehensive statement,” said Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. “When something tragic happens and a quick statement is made, it can be interpreted as political.”
John Ullyot, a Republican strategist, said it was a self-inflicted wound.
As Peter Baker notes in today’s New York Times, only as the criticism mounted did Romney get some support, mainly from conservative leaders like Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Representative Howard McKeon of California.
Ben Frankel is the editor of the Homeland Security News Wire
