The View from Liberal Europe

…on President Obama’s foreign policy.  This is from Spiegel Online International:

…Obama is a known factor—even if his first term hasn’t exactly dazzled the world with an energetic approach to foreign policy.  Only after long hesitation did Obama engage in the aerial warfare that toppled Moammar Gadhafi in Libya.  In the case of Iran’s secret nuclear program, it was the United Nations that stepped in.  And in the ongoing civil war in Syria, Obama has not yet managed to budge Russia away from its support of Bashar Assad’s regime.

Obama has a great deal to do in terms of foreign policy—and at the same time new conflicts are arising, for example in Mali, where the rebel-held north of the country threatens to develop into a new center of international terrorism.

Even they are not impressed.

Negligence or Arrogance?

I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters.  I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.  And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.

So announced 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.  Apparently he knows more about counterterrorism then his counterterror experts in Defense, CIA, State, et al., too.

Jennifer Griffin, of Fox News, has this:

Top State Department officials decided not to send an interagency rapid response unit designed to respond to terrorist attacks known as a FEST team, a Foreign Emergency Support Team.  This team from the State Department and CIA has a military Joint Special Operations Command element to it and has been routinely deployed to assist in investigations—for instance, after the USS Cole bombing and the bombings at the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

“The response process was isolated at the most senior level,” according to one intelligence source.  “Counterterrorism professionals were not consulted and a decision was taken to send the FBI on its own without the enablers that would have allowed its agents to gain access to the site in Benghazi in a timely manner.”  The FBI team did not get on the ground in Benghazi for several weeks after the attack and at that point any “evidence” had been rifled through by looters and journalists.

And

Further, the Counterterrorism Security Group, or CSG, was never asked to meet that night or in subsequent days, according to two separate counterterrorism officials, as first reported by CBS News.  The CSG is composed of experts on terrorism from across government agencies and makes recommendations to the deputies who assist the president’s Cabinet in formulating a response to crises involving terrorism.

Why not deploy the FEST?  State Department spokesman Philippe Reines:

[T]he first thing to know is that it’s not a security team.  It’s primarily a resource that State can send to help restore a facility.  Best example is Nairobi after the bombing because the Embassy suffered such significant damage.  It couldn’t function properly without resuming basic infrastructure needs like communications.  In this case, that was not necessary as Embassy Tripoli wasn’t impacted and could, as it does today, to function normally.

Look!  Shiny!  Umm, the terrorist attack occurred over in our Benghazi, Mr Reines….

The CSG?  Well, Obama and his lessers already knew all the answers.

[T]he most senior people in government worked on this issue from the minute it happened.  That includes the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of State, National Security advisor, etcetera.  Additionally, the Deputies Committee—the second in command at the relevant national security agencies—met at least once and more often twice a day to manage the issue.

And now, four Americans, including a high-ranking Federal government official are dead; American territory lies in ruins with no apparent attempt to restore it; and who knows what classified information, names of locals who were helping us, etc now are in the hands of our enemies.

Because Barack Obama thinks he’s more expert than his experts.

Incompetence

Fox News had this little tidbit buried in an article about a related matter—the fact that we knew who one of the Benghazi terrorists was in time to have him detained in mid-escape at a Turkish airport, and we let him get away.  The tidbit is this:

[T]he two Predator drones deployed over Benghazi the night of the attack were both unarmed. The first Predator was redirected from Darnah in eastern Libya, where Al Qaeda has active training camps that the US military has been watching for some time….  It arrived in Benghazi about an hour after the attack began, suggesting the first hour of the attack was not fed back to officials in Washington.

That drone was running low on fuel, so a second Predator, also unarmed, was deployed from Sigonella, Italy, to provide back-up.  It is not clear why the second drone left Sigonella unarmed after the attack had begun.

“While some may think that armed drones could have made a difference in Benghazi, that’s altogether unclear,” a senior defense official tells Fox News.  “You need good intelligence to drive the use of armed drones.  It’s not like you can just send hellfire missiles into a relatively crowded area when you don’t know precisely where the enemy is.”

First, keep in mind that real-time and near real-time data were flowing to State and to the White House via telephone from the consulate’s TOC and via email.

The “senior defense official” ‘s explanation for launching the second (weapons capable) drone into a combat zone unarmed is…inadequate.  The purpose of the drones was not to bore holes in the sky, but to observe the doings and to identify targets.  Perhaps even to launch on one that was being lased from the Annex rooftop later in that fight.  The claim of not knowing “precisely where the enemy is” is a reason for holding fire, not for launching unarmed.

This is really beginning to smack of an appalling paralysis under pressure by the small-time amateurs in the White House and Defense, if not of outright incompetence.

Economics

We’re well aware of the role of economics in our daily affairs and in the aggregated domestic affairs of our country.  The quality of our economy directly relates to our and to our nation’s prosperity.  But what is the role of economics in our foreign and defense policies?  Our economy is no less critical there.

General George Marshall once said

The only way human beings can win a war is to prevent it.

A successful economy plays a role in this prevention through a number of pathways.

The role of economics in foreign policy

Included among the paths is the ability to aid our allies, our friends, and those who wish to leave their current orbit and if not align with us, at least to begin to chart their own independent course.  A strong economy makes this possible.  The surplus from that can fund support for those nations struggling to get free of their current restraints—both their own and those from foreign domination.  Our strong economy, through the trade relationships our businesses create, can aid other economies as they struggle through their own recessions—and their resulting stronger economies can, through those same trade relationships, then aid our own in similar circumstance.

Another path is through the capacity to support the economic development (and through that, the social and political development) of less fortunate nations, both those in the developing world and those whose development has been stunted by being trapped under foreign domination—the follow-on condition of those nations just broken free.  Our economic strength here is especially useful in guiding the political and social development of these nations as well as their economic evolution.  By aiding these nations to develop as democracies with free market economies, we not only help them to find their own strength and prosperity, we deny the nations of tyranny the resources they need for their aggression, and we push those tyrannies back from our own shores.  This also is facilitated by our very success at home, which demonstrates the superiority of our economic methods.  As above, this is possible only from our own economic surplus.

A third path is to work with nations that are committed to the principles of free enterprise, and of freedom generally (which collection will overlap greatly, but are not coincident with, the group comprising our friends and allies), to strengthen all of us economically and politically and thereby to build, further, a bulwark against those tyrannies, who otherwise would become tempted to test us in battle, and perhaps win.

A fourth path is as a magnet for immigrants who want to come here share in our success—economically, to be sure—that’s the proximate magnet—but also our success politically and culturally.  These immigrants are a prime source constant renewal for us, in energy and in problem-solving.

The role of economics in defense policy

A strong economy creates the ability to fund, conduct R&D for, and equip our national defense system.  Without a successful national defense system, we very quickly will have no economy to defend, no nation to defend.

A strong economy enables the next step—the ability to fund the actual use of our national defense system, which usage is by its nature destructive of that system and which destruction must be replaced during the conflicts and after them.  Yes, we will be tested in battle, even though the means of testing will evolve, as the events of 11 Sep 2001 and after have demonstrated.

A strong economy gives us the wherewithal to preposition equipment and supplies near flash points.  These are, to be sure, targets, but they’re useful in the power projection phase of conflicts, and they can be useful in delivering quick reaction forces to the flash location(s) when they start to ignite.

A strong economy creates the ability to help other nations develop their own defense capacity: arms support, arms development support, and so on.  Such defense arrangements also can support economic success in the recipient nations: a common constituent of arms sales agreements is the assembly of purchased weapons in the buying nation’s factories, which represents employment for the citizens of those nations.

Related to the above, a strong economy facilitates reciprocal R&D agreements with our allies and friends.  This leads to greater commonality of key supply items, which simplifies the logistic problems inherent in coalition war.

A strong economy facilitates our maintaining a force with the technology and the numbers to enable us to hold open the world’s sea lanes.  This, by itself, creates a virtuous circle: free and easy transport of trade goods over the world’s waterways facilitates free trade, which leads to greater prosperity and stronger economies for all concerned, which leads to increased free trade and an easier time maintaining and improving those forces guarding the sea lanes.

Notice, too, that all of this adds up to a forward defense of our nation so as to minimize the likelihood that the initial, critical blows of a conflict land in our homeland.

In the end, the very success of our economy—our evident prosperity and freedom—serves as an empirical example of the rightness of our way of life.  It becomes a magnet drawing other nations to our methods, or at least to try them, it draws other nations to send their sons and daughters to our universities, where they not only will learn the academics of our institutions (whether economics, or science, or engineering, or philosophy, or…), but simply by being here through much of their formative years, these students also will learn the American way of life through immersion in it.

Moreover, our free market, capitalist economy, founded on individual liberty, individual responsibility, and individual ownership of property—our bodies and our real and our intellectual property—is what gives us the moral strength and the prosperity to constantly grow, to steadfastly maintain our freedom, to aid others, whether our neighbors or those wanting out from under.

What Did He Know

…and when did he know it?

Recall that for weeks after the terrorist attack on our Libyan consulate in Benghazi Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama and his staff and surrogates insisted that the attack was the result of mob action in response to a video.  Recall further that in the second Presidential debate Obama claimed that he’d called it a terrorist attack the day after in a Rose Garden speech.  Pay no attention to the folks behind the door making those later claims of reaction-to-a-video after Obama’s claimed Rose Garden characterization.

Fox News‘ Chad Pegram has obtained a slew of emails sent in near real-time as the attack was in progress and then winding down, and Fox News has published three of them (they also can be viewed here).

They are presented here.

and

and

These seem clear enough; however, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now is busily denying their significance.

Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence.  And I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be.

See no evil, hear no evil….