Articles

Thursday, September 27, 2012

The Big Bang in Benghazi

The most important thing that any leader needs to know about war is that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. That includes a plan of fighting bloodless wars using drones and droning speeches.

The brilliant plan that Barack Hussein Obama and some of his more useless advisers cooked up for defeating Islamic terrorism was to isolate the "extreme" violent Islamists who want to kill people from the "moderate" political Islamists who are willing to take over entire countries in elections.

The Islamist terrorists would be deprived of a meaningful reason to kill people in the name of implementing Islamic law if their political brethren got to take over entire countries and implement Islamic law. Once the Muslim Brotherhood took over a few countries, then Al Qaeda would be marginalized and irrelevant. Its operatives would soon have to drop the terrorism and get jobs teaching about LGBT rights or building solar panels.

Whoever came up with this plan probably had a grandfather in the State Department who said in 1919 that the Communists would become less dangerous to Western Europe now that they had all of Russia to use for their economic experiments because stupidity doesn't go away. The same old ideas that cost millions of lives a few generations ago are repackaged with some artful worldplay and are parroted by the smart set as the sort of thing that should be obvious to anyone.

Islamism, now joins Communism and Nazis on the shelf of things that we don't really have to worry about once we've appeased them enough, at least until they stop taking off fingers and start biting off hands and then suddenly we have to start worrying all over again.

The problem with Obama's split Islamists maneuver is that Al Qaeda had spent more time attacking Saudi Arabia, the most Islamist Sunni country on earth, than any other Muslim country. Turning Egypt and Syria Islamist was not going to dissuade or isolate Al Qaeda. For Islamists, there is an endless well of "extremes" so that the rise of one Islamist government is just an excuse for more Islamists to arrive and denounce them as fakes and puppets of America and Israel.

Islamist governments have a traditional way of occupying the attention of their angrier Islamist brethren. They buy them flight lessons and maps of American landmarks. That's how the House of Saud largely solved its Islamist terror problem and that is how our "moderate" friends in Egypt are hard at work solving their Islamist terrorist problem by pointing them at Israel and using their attacks as an excuse to militarize the Sinai.

In Libya, the Benghazi consulate was being guarded from other Islamist militias by the Muslim Brotherhood militia. The ways in which plan failed are a microcosm of the larger failure of the entire plan to buy peace by selling out our allies to the Muslim Brotherhood and hoping that the Islamists we backed will be more moderate than the ones bombing us.

Much as the Saudis had been doing for years, the Muslim Brotherhood just sold out the consulate to Al Qaeda and then sent out a condolence message while warning that unless we accept the Islamic definition of un-free speech, attacks like this will keep on happening. And they will regardless of how many Mohammed movies get made or don't get made.

The only way that anyone in the region knows how to stop terrorism is either by massacres or by handing the terrorists a giant bag of money and pointing them at a new target. The Brotherhood is not about to start fighting other Salafists over American foreign aid and they couldn't even if they wanted to, without empowering the army, which in their part of the world quickly becomes a government. Instead they will do what the Saudis have been doing, talk out of both sides of their mouths, telling the terrorists to hit America and telling America that if we don't support them, the terrorists will win.

This is an old game and it works really well. We send a Muslim country money and weapons. It hands 10 percent of them to the terrorists in exchange for attacking us some more. Then it asks us for more money and weapons to stop the terrorists. Unlike most investments, this one is stable and pays out really well as long as Washington DC is full of so many chumps that it ought to have more card sharps and pool sharks than any other place in the country.

All this is bad news for Obama who was trying to run on the one accomplishment that took place during his administration-- the death of the superannuated leader of what used to be Al Qaeda, before Al Qaeda developed more franchise opportunities than Pizza Hut. But Obama was not the only one worried about his image. Al Qaeda does not like looking weak and incompetence any more than the Son of Hussein does. While Al Qaeda does not have elections, it does have donors, and the sheiks and princes are not sending it checks so its members can hang around strip clubs and do coke while fantasizing about the return of the Caliphate.

The more Obama bragged about killing Bin Laden and defeating Al Qaeda, the more Al Qaeda decided to make a point of showing that it had not been defeated just because its Sheik-Emeritus had taken a few bullets to the beard. A terrorist attack against America would take too much time and was a high risk job that could easily fall apart, but local attacks were easy and could be done on short notice-- especially with all the extra weapons lying around Libya from Obama's last war.

Obama had bragged about defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, a place that it had mostly gotten out of while O was still a State Senator trying to figure out how to fall asleep with his eyes open. All the while he kept ignoring the places where Al Qaeda actually was, like Libya. That was a situation ripe for a 3 AM wake up call that Obama slept through.

All the clever soft power games, the notion that your enemies could be split into cooperative and uncooperative segments had completely left everyone in the White House unprepared for the reality of what happens when you humiliate people that you don't have the guts to fight.

Obama fights and wins image wars through media propaganda. Al Qaeda does it by killing people. And unlike Mitt Romney, Al Qaeda isn't going to be thrown off track when the Washington Post fact checkers start accusing it of gaffes or trot out fake polls to demonstrate its unpopularity. Al Qaeda becomes popular the old-fashioned way. Its image comes from its body count and in a region where life is cheap, it can throw a few hundred grand to recruit any number of the fighters-for-pay it needs to score some bloody footage.

The worst possible way to go into a fight is to have no fallback plan and Obama, like most ideologues, never has fallback plans. He throws everything into Green Energy and Stimulus Plans and never expects failure and has no plan to cope with failure. He commits to a Surge in Afghanistan and then has no fallback plan for failure except to fire some generals.

Obama picks the option with the smoothest patter, the one that seems it can't fail because it's just so brilliant and perfect. And then when it fails, he ignores it because he has no other response to failure. Having a man like this in charge of strategy is a recipe for disaster, which is exactly what we have. Wars require men who go in knowing that setbacks are a risk and that the enemy gets a vote. Instead we have a technocrat who believes that that a plan that seems well reasoned will work because life follows ideology.

The State Senator from Illinois by way of Indonesia with his Muslim father and stepfather has made a bigger mess than the Peanut President and the mess if mostly unacknowledged because while the media often knows better than him, it knows of no substitute for him. So it will go on pretending that we didn't lose Afghanistan and that the Benghazi attack was about a video, no matter what common sense or a minor figure like the President of Libya says about it.

Al Qaeda has not been defeated because you can't defeat random militias with guns who can draw recruits from every third son of a Muslim theocrat from here to Pakistan, not without either doing severe damage to their host societies or completely discrediting their political aspirations, instead of encouraging them by empowering Islamists.

Instead Obama's end zone dance in Abbottabad ended with a black eye from Al Qaeda and a reminder that if you are going to claim victory over an enemy, then you had better have a bigger kill count than can be gotten from a few drone strikes.

13 comments:

Chana said...

Sending money and weapons to crazy nations.
Yes Mr Indonesia has made a huge mess of things.

occupant 9 said...

It's long past time to analyze Obama under the notion of intended consequences, rather than considering him a bumbling fool.

Nothing in his experience, associates or background could lend itself to strengthening America the American way, but it does lend itself spectacularly to wounding America, maybe even fatally. From that angle, Obama is achieving his goals.

Obama isn't appeasing Islam, he's actively promoting it over American values which violates the oath he apparently took when he became POTUS. Is that not grounds for impeachment at the least or more along the lines of charges of sedition and treason?

Anonymous said...

Brilliant article. Unfortunately the media elites which tell the masses how to think and what is relevant have long ago decided to toss the notion of American exceptionalism, or what used to be American communal values, out in favor of celebrity and tabloid-think. Or they are so far in the tank for a "progressive" agenda that the consequences are not thought out or have any meaning. There is no consensus in the America of today for anything reflecting strong or determined action, because there is no longer a shared sense of what America is and must be. We have been turned into a hodgepodge of excessive individualism, rank sensationalism, with decision-making emphasizing feelings. Iran, North Korea, and any group of armed muslim militias need not fear. If our enemies just keep the number of dead or maimed Americans to a level acceptable to our policy-makers and grand poobahs, sad to say, they always guarantee strong words, but no action taken.

Empress Trudy said...

The best thing is to stand back, let Libya slide into Bronze Age anarchy and recreate Europe's dreaded scenario of a million or so refugees floating to Europe which is what caused all this intervention in the first place. This time though, politely refuse, claiming 'leading from behind' wasn't far enough behind and we need to let the fine people of Europe sort all this multiculturalism out for themselves.

Ryan Dyne said...

I love your insights, but you really need to spend some (more) time proofreading your writing - to the extent of rewriting some hopelessly-wrought sentences.

mehere said...

Sadly, the islamists game plan is better than ours. They are happy to wait and lose bodies, because those bodies -- alive or dead -- don't vote. Elections aren't the issue in the Mid East so there is little reason to regard polls and surveys as important. Plus, if you have people whose lives will not change one iota whoever gets to lead them, they may as well play with guns and bombs and get excited over how brightly an embassy burns. After all, what did those infidels ever do for them?

The islamist game plan is aided by the best fifth column ever. All nations in war worry about the infiltration of agents and 'sleepers.' But when the war is never acknowledged there seems little danger from letting hordes of the non-enemy in. Once they get a grip (a grip which is aided by perhaps the most compliant main-stream media in history who resemble not a sleeping guard-dog but a dead one) they seek to influence policies and opinions.

Of course, their 'brethren' back home tend to spoil it a little by shooting people up and destroying buildings. However the peace-loving newcomers find they can, in their new-home countries, simply parade offensive banners calling for beheadings and in praise of the barbarians they left behind.

Their game plan is way better as we don't have people parading placards in Mecca, and they keep hating what we are but keep on wanting more of their family and friends to join them in what apparently is hell for the faithful. And we do nothing but say via well-paid officials and irresponsible politicians, maybe they have a point...

Passer by said...

"The Muslim Brotherhood just sold out the consulate to Al Qaeda and then sent out a condolence message while warning that unless we accept the Islamic definition of un-free speech, attacks like this will keep on happening."

Its not just that, they want the Blind Sheikh freed. Morsi said that he will work for this in the very beginning of his presidency. It appears that the initial attacks in Egypt were orchestrated in order to put pressure on the US Government and now there are secret negotiations to get Omar Abdel-Rahman freed.
I must say that Islamists know how to play hardball with leftists very well.

Anonymous said...

"you can't defeat random militas with guns who can draw recruits"
I like that phrase and will turn it ever so slightly to benefit Americans should we continue loosing the historical integrity fundamental to our freedom. For example, "you can't defeat random American militas with guns who will draw recruits from every cultural, economic, religious, and social pocket of its citizenry and who will fight against a despotic American Government.

Keliata said...

Your first three paragraphs hit the nail of the head. If only it would sink into the thick skulls of most liberals

Adobe_Walls said...

For the left appeasing the Islamists is the new "better red than dead" movement of the mid-twentieth century.

Anonymous said...

When you have a President who cannot draw a bomb or a red line, but enjoys being a pompous progressive foreign policy theoretician and negotiator, what do you expect?

Anonymous said...

I very much agree that currently islamists are the most dangerous, but also firmly believe all fundemental religious and non-religious zealots ("...support us at all costs, or pay the price..." or "we are superrior to all others") are dangerous - christan, jew, muslim, communists, facists, racial purists, etc.

The problem is the human survival instict which provokes us to often belive our own "family/club/clan/clique/whatever daddy tells us" is the best one. Too many people who will NEVER get along for long term.

Is there really any long term solution?

I Dont think it really matters in the long run who is the president/p.m./king/sultan/sheik/god :-)

giamby said...

I didn't know Frank Marshall Davis was a Muslim.

Post a Comment