Tag: United States
A reader’s challenge
A reader challenges me:
I was surprised at this statement: “Muslims lost people and respect in the West, where no doubt anti-Muslim extremists will take action against mosques.” Your predictions are usually pretty cautious. The latter implies strong conviction that extremists will attack (?) mosques in the West. Since the West has a pretty good record of actually not reacting in that manner (very limited number of incidents in the U.S., for instance, though not non-existent either), how could one be sure?
There were about 185 hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. in 2011, according to the FBI. One every two days or so. Is that “very limited”? They don’t seem to keep statistics on mosques per se, but it is clear attacks do occur, some claim with increasing frequency recently. And my expectation was about the West, not only about the United States. The French may be quicker.
Part of the reason I expect such things is that the film that triggered the demonstrations was made in the U.S. by anti-Muslim Christian activists, mainly but not exclusively Egyptian Copts, who seem unlikely to stop at film-making. And even if they stop, the film and yesterday’s events are likely to incite others. Here is what one of my Twitter followers had to say:
No way to compromise with Muslims; your pacifism is weakness and you’d be the 1st to lose your head under Sharia law.
I take this as his wish rather than an analytical prediction. I can’t help but wonder how many Muslim acquaintances he has, how he would treat Muslims who in any way disagreed with him or tried to build a mosque in his neighborhood.
Hate crime statistics do not of course include what I would regard as the hate campaign against the “mosque at ground zero,” which wasn’t a mosque and wasn’t located at ground zero. Campaigns against mosque-building have occurred in many American communities, for example.
We’ll see if I was right or wrong in expecting “action against mosques,” an admittedly ambiguous phrase that was intended to cover attacks, resistance to mosque-building, demonstrations, incitement, bigoted tweets and the rest. In retrospect, I might have done better to anticipate “action against Muslims.”
I win either way: if I’m wrong, I’ll be glad it didn’t happen. If I’m right, I’ll have the satisfaction, albeit unhappily.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A really bad day
The Muslim world has had a busy Friday trashing U.S. embassies and killing Muslims. The latest death toll I’ve seen is seven, but who knows.
The day was a losing proposition all around. The United States suffered serious damage not only to its embassies but to its international standing. Muslims lost people and respect in the West, where no doubt anti-Muslim extremists will take action against mosques and argue that the day proves that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Al Qaeda got to display its flag amid at least the appearance of popular support.
The Arab awakening took an ugly turn that will reinforce skepticism about it worldwide. Syrians might be the biggest losers in the long term: those who are on the fence about intervention there will not want to risk creating yet another opportunity for extremism. Not that it is better to ignore the homicidal maniac who runs that country, but it is certainly easier than doing anything about him. My Twitter feed is full of Arab commentary about the stupidity of protesting a dumb movie when Bashar al Asad is killing thousands, but that entirely justified sentiment won’t change the import of a truly ugly day.
Ironically but not surprisingly, the one place where dignity prevailed was Libya, where it all started. The president of Libya’s parliament, in essence the chief of state, laid a wreath at the American embassy in honor of the Americans killed in Benghazi. Libyans know perfectly well that the Americans and NATO saved them from the worst depredations of Muammar Qaddafi. Except for the Qaddafi supporters, they are overwhelmingly grateful and friendly. That was amply apparent at the Atlantic Council’s event on Libya yesterday, when the Libyan ambassador (and every other Libyan who spoke) made affection for slain Ambassador Chris Stevens amply evident.
I am afraid the lesson of the day is one we already know: transitions to democracy take time and resources. Our effort to get off cheap and easy in Libya is not working out well. We need to be thinking about how we can help Tripoli gain control of the armed groups on Libyan territory and help the Libyans achieve a measure of reconciliation with those who supported the Qaddafi regime. We also need to work with the Libyans to bring the murderers to justice.
Egypt’s President Morsi has finally come around to recognizing that his hesitancy about blocking the violence was a big mistake. I have some sympathy with those who would use massive U.S. assistance to Egypt–debt forgiveness, military aid and development assistance totalling more than $3 billion–as leverage. There is no way the American public is going to support continuing it unless Cairo starts singing a friendlier tune and reining in extremism, not only in Cairo but also in Sinai. Tunisia is next in line for tough love, though the government’s behavior there has generally been better than in Egypt.
Yemen is a more complicated case. We get lots of support and freedom of action in our war against Al Qaeda in Yemen. No one will want to put that at risk. At the same time, we need to be paying a whole lot more attention to Yemen’s deeper problems: poor governance, underdevelopment, and water shortages. They are what make the country a haven for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Mitt Romney and his acolytes may want to pretend that all these problems can be solved if only the American president is shows resolve and therefore the United States is respected. But as Joe Cirincione pointed out in a tweet, the two worst Muslim terrorist attacks on the United States occurred under Presidents Reagan and Bush. The Romneyites presumably don’t think they lacked resolve, which is something best reserved for top priority conflicts with other states. And those rare moments when you think you know where Osama bin Laden is hiding.
I can well understand Americans who want to turn their backs on the Muslim world and walk away. But that will not work. It will come back to haunt us, as terrorism, oil supply disruption, massive emigration, mass atrocity or in some other expensive and unmanageable form. Muslims, in particular Arabs, are going through a gigantic political transformation, one whose echoes will reverberate for decades. We need to try to help them through the cataclysm to a better place, for them and for us.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
My Libya, the video version
I was on C-Span’s Washington Journal this morning discussing Libya. Here is the video. I don’t watch, but I hope you will!
Here’s an extra treat, a piece done by the local CBS affiliate channel 9:
And just arrived, a surprise extra from the BBC.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
“Not ready for prime time”
That was the response of an unnamed former aide to Senator McCain to Governor Romney’s botched reaction to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Romney would have done better to crib from the tweet of the new prime minister of Libya, @MustafaAG:
I condemn these barbaric acts in the strongest possible terms. This is an attack on America, Libya and free people everywhere.
The question is not whether Romney is now ready to be commander-in-chief, but whether he is capable of getting ready. I don’t see much evidence of that. His insensitivities are legion: the denigration of Great Britain’s preparations for the Olympics, his attributing lack of success to Palestinian culture, his telling poor students they should borrow money from their parents to start a business, his mention of a possible need to sell stock to meet financial obligations when he was a student, his failure to mention U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan during his convention speech, his touting of the successful Salt Lake City Olympics without ever mentioning the Federal funding that helped him save the day. Those are just the items I remember off the top of my head. This is a guy who simply does not have the experience needed to empathize with others and understand how others will view him.
This should not be surprising. Romney has lived in a wealthy and protected bubble all his life. He really could borrow lots of money from his father, unlike many Americans. He has never lacked resources. Even as a young missionary in Paris, he lived well and was regarded as a candidate for president. He has not much needed the good opinion of others. He cultivates it by switching his positions to suit the audience, tying himself in knots over whether he does or does not support Obamacare, for example.
I wouldn’t be the first to suggest that Romney has already flubbed the 3 am phone call test. But it is much worse than that. He fails the breakfast, lunch and dinner tests as well. The pundits like to suggest that President Obama is more “likable,” as if that is a small thing. It is not. If Americans can’t picture themselves enjoying a beer with Romney and don’t believe he understands their problems, how can they elect him?
The Romney campaign seems to have wound itself up to challenge Obama on everything. They are pretty close to challenging him effectively on nothing. I had a debate last night on whether he was the Michael Dukakis or the John Kerry of the Republican party. That is not winning company to find yourself in.
Of course the election isn’t tomorrow, and things could change. So I’ll reserve final judgment and stick for now with “not ready for prime time,” yet.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Death in Benghazi
The murder of four U.S. officials in Benghazi yesterday will anger Americans, adding to the cycle of resentment that began with posting on the internet in the United States of a film offensive to Muslims. The United States and NATO saved Benghazi from Muammar Qaddafi’s homicidal intentions. Riot and murder, Americans will think, is no way to show gratitude.
I’ve been in Benghazi twice in the past year, once in September 2011 and again in July 2012. I did not spend my time with the upper echelons. I never met Ambassador Chris Stevens. I walked and talked with people in the street, in polling places, at the drug store, in the market places, in restaurants, at airline ticket counters, at political party offices–anywhere I could find indigenous voices. The Libyans were warm and welcoming, especially after learning that I was an American. During my first trip, I had to duck a few hugs on the street. I’m not the huggy type.
My impression is that most Libyans would agree that America saved them from Qaddafi’s worst instincts. It is not most Libyans who attacked the consulate in Benghazi (or the embassy in Egypt) yesterday. It is a self-selected few. It is also a self-selected few people in America who make anti-Muslim films.
The difference is clear: the right to make offensive films is protected in the United States; there is no right to use violence either in the United States or in Libya. The U.S. government cannot block the making of films, but both the U.S. and Libyan governments are obligated to block and prosecute violent acts.
By all reports, Chris Stevens is a big loss to Libya as well as to the United States. He was a mainstay of international support to the Libyan revolution. I know nothing about his three colleagues killed, but my 21 years of experience in the U.S. Foreign Service tell me the odds are high that they too were credits to their homeland and assets to Libya as well. I did meet our young Consul in Benghazi in July. I am praying for his safety (the names of two of those killed have not been released yet).
These deaths are likely to have an out-sized impact on American relations with Libya as well as the security posture of American diplomatic posts worldwide. This is unfortunate. Our understandable reaction will be to pull our people back into the fortresses we call embassies and consulates, and strengthen their perimeter defenses. That degrades our interactions with the countries in which we are stationed. Nor is there real safety in that direction, as rockets, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades can breach even high and thick walls.
The right approach is to lean more heavily on host governments to provide security. Accounts of the demonstrations in Benghazi and Cairo yesterday suggest less diligence than the Libyan and Egyptian governments are obligated to provide. We would also do ourselves a favor by reducing our excessive numbers of officials stationed abroad and by working more anonymously, but those are subjects for another day.
Today we should mourn those who died, condemn those who killed them, and insist that those who have benefited from American support exert control over the extremists who discredit their revolutions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
GOP critique: Russia and Latin America
This is the fifth installment of a series responding to the Romney campaign’s list of ten failures in Obama’s foreign and national security policies.
Failure #7: A “Reset” With Russia That Has Compromised U.S. Interests & Values
The “reset” with Russia has certainly not brought great across the board benefits to the United States, but things were pretty bad between Washington and Moscow at the end of the Bush Administration, which had started in friendly enough fashion with George W. getting good vibes from Putin’s soul. Bush 43 ended his administration with a Russian invasion of a country the president wanted to bring into NATO. Neither our interests nor our values were well-served by that. But there was nothing we could do, so he did nothing.
A reset was in order. With Putin back in the presidency, it should be no surprise that it hasn’t gotten us far, but certainly it got us a bit more cooperation during Medvedev’s presidency on Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan than we were getting in 2008. The Russians are still being relatively helpful in the P5+1 talks with Iran and the “six-party” talks on and occasionally with North Korea. Their cooperation has been vital to the Northern Distribution Network into Afghanistan.
The Republicans count as demerits for President Obama his abandonment of a missile defense system in Europe, without mentioning that a more modest (and more likely to function) system is being installed. They also don’t like “New START,” which is an arms control treaty that has enabled the U.S. to reduce its nuclear arsenal.
I count both moves as pluses, though I admit readily that I don’t think any anti-missile system yet devised will actually work under wartime conditions. Nor do I think Iran likely to deliver a nuclear weapon to Europe on a missile. It would be much easier in a shipping container.
The fact that the Russians could, theoretically, increase their nuclear arsenal under New START is just an indication of how far behind the curve we’ve gotten in reducing our own arsenal and how easy it should be to go farther. The Romneyites don’t see it that way, but six former Republican secretaries of state and George H. W. Bush backed New START.
The GOPers are keen on “hot mic” moments that allegedly show the President selling out America. This is the foreign policy wonk version of birtherism. In this instance, they are scandalized that he suggested to then Russian President Medvedev that the U.S. could be more flexible on missile defense after the November election. The Republicans see this as “a telling moment of weakness.” I see it as a statement of the screamingly obvious. Neither party does deals with the Russians just before an election for some not-so-difficult to imagine reason.
More serious is the charge that President Obama has soft-pedaled Russia’s backsliding on democracy and human rights. I think that is accurate. The Administration sees value in the reset and does not want to put it at risk. The arguments for targeted visa bans and asset freezes against human rights abusers are on the face of it strong.
The problems are in implementation: if someone is mistreated in a Russian prison, are we going to hold Putin responsible? The interior minister? The prison warden? The prison guards? How are you going to decide about culpability for abuses committed ten thousand miles away? And if the Russians retaliate for mistreatment of an American citizen in a Louisiana State penitentiary, what do we do then? While many of the people involved may not care about visas and asset freezes, where would the tit-for-tat bans end up?
Russia has unquestionably been unhelpful on Syria, blocking UN resolutions and shipping arms to the Asad regime. The Russians have also supported Hugo Chávez and used harsh rhetoric towards the United States. But what Romney would do about these things is unclear. His claim that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe is more likely to set the relationship with Moscow back than help us to get our way.
Failure #8: Emboldening The Castros, Chávez & Their Cohorts In Latin America
I’m having trouble picturing how the octogenarian Castros have been emboldened–to the contrary, they are edging towards market reforms. Obama’s relaxation of travel and remittance restrictions has encouraged that evolution. It would be foolhardy to predict the end of the Castro regime, but cautious opening of contacts is far more likely to bring good results than continuation of an embargo that has never achieved anything.
I’d have expected the Republicans to compliment Obama on getting the stalled trade agreements with Colombia and Panama approved, but instead they complain that he waited three years while negotiating improvements to them that benefit U.S. industry. Given the difficulty involved in getting these things ratified, it is unsurprising that President Obama doesn’t want to reach any new trade agreements in the region, or apparently anywhere else.
Hugo Chávez looms large for the Republicans. They view him as a strategic threat. Obama thinks he has not “had a serious national security impact note on us.” That Chávez is virulently anti-American there is no doubt. But to suggest that he seriously hinders the fight against illicit drugs and terrorism, or that his relationship with Hizbollah is a threat we can’t abide, is to commit what the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead called the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness.” We’ve got a lot bigger drug and terrorism challenges than those Venezuela is posing.
Except for Mexico, Obama has not paid a lot of attention to Latin America. That’s because things are going relatively well there. If Chávez goes down to defeat in the October 7 election and a peaceful transition takes place, it will be another big plus, one that will redound to Obama’s credit. There are other possibilities, so I’d suggest the Administration focus on making that happen over all the other things the GOP is concerned about.
RSS - Posts
