Clearly the Arab street’s interests were of more importance than U.S.’s
Daniel Greenfield clearly makes the case for what eventually happened in Libya, the brutal assault and murder of an American ambassador. It was never a conspiracy, but daft thinking at the levels of government based upon the total disregard of the Muslim mindset and misreading of the Islamic fundamentalist threat.
Also mixed into the decision making process was the failed notion of ‘open hand’ foreign policy, which could never have worked, especially in that region of the world were the loudest talking chest thumper wins the debate. It was all doomed from the beginning, only an assertive U.S. with will and means to pursue its own self interest, will produce needed results. Trying to win the Arab street is a mugs game that will end in failure each time its tried.
Libya was meant to be a new kind of war. Not a display of American arrogance and unilateralism, but a show of submissiveness to the goals and ambitions of the Muslim world. In post-American diplomacy, the Americans did not arrive with a show of force, surrounded by Marines and heavy fortifications, but bent humbly under the defensive shield of the Islamist Ummah. Rather than exporting the Dar Al Harb, the Americans would ask for the protection of the Dar Al Islam.
The reason that the Navy SEALS were denied the support of a Spectre C-130U gunship was the same reason that the consulate had been left nearly unguarded. And it was the same reason that so many soldiers had died in Afghanistan because they had been denied air and artillery support or even the permission to open fire.
What happened in Benghazi was only extraordinary because it caught the attention of the public, but American soldiers in Afghanistan had been suffering under the same conditions ever since it was decided that winning the hearts and minds of Afghan civilians was more important than the lives of American soldiers.
