Breaking News: Five Months After Benghazi Murders: Killers Frolic Untouched There
Five months ago, radical Islamists in Libya murdered four American officials, and President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that the administration would not rest until those responsible were caught.
Yet it seems as if nothing has been done: just as the White House did nothing on September 11, 2012, while the U.S. consulate was under attack, it has done nothing serious since, and is doing nothing now.
Want proof? Consider this report:
Just days after President Barack Obama vowed to hunt down and bring to justice those responsible for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound here, Ahmed Abu Khattala -- one of those considered a ringleader -- spent two leisurely hours Thursday evening at a luxury hotel full of journalists, relaxed in a red fez and sandals, sipping mango juice on a patio overlooking the Mediterranean and scoffing at the threats coming from both the American and Libyan governments.
Libya’s fledgling national army was a "national chicken," Abu Khattala said, using an Arabic rhyme. Asked who should take responsibility for apprehending the mission’s attackers, he chuckled at the weakness of the Libyan authorities. And he accused U.S. leaders of "playing with the emotions of the American people" and "using the consulate attack just to gather votes for their elections."
Ali Harzi, a 26-year-old Tunisian extradited from Turkey in October, was one of the only people actually detained over the attack and at the time Tunisian authorities said they "strongly suspected" he was involved.
On Tuesday, however, his lawyer Anwar Oued-Ali said the presiding judge had "conditionally freed" Harzi the night before for lack of evidence. He must remain in the Tunis area to be available for any further questioning.
U.S. officials in December lamented the lack of cooperation with the governments of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt in their ongoing investigation into the attack, saying most of the suspects remain free.
In Libya especially, investigating the attack is difficult because authorities rely on the numerous militias made up of tens of thousands of young Libyans who took up arms against former leader Muammar Qaddafi. It is often difficult to draw clear lines between those providing security and those causing instability.
The first article was published in the New York Times -- last October.
The second was a CBS item from January.
So: these things can be found in the American mass media -- congratulations to those I so often criticize -- but do not find their way into the policy debate.
At least the militia that all witnesses identified as being responsible had to cease activities in Benghazi for a while, though the militia leaders lounged at cafes there with no one bothering them.
But even that small victory is over -- now they’re back to business as normal. The Ansar al-Sharia (Helpers of the Sharia) now control Benghazi’s western entrance, a southern checkpoint, and security at a hospital. One passing car honks to greet the Ansar al-Sharia guards and waves the al-Qaida flag out the window at them.
As Reuters puts it, this and other such radical Islamist groups “are also held up as heroes of the Libyan uprising by some locals who say they are doing a better job of the protecting them than the government in distant Tripoli.”
"These men are also people who fought on the front lines, care about their city and provide services. We can't shun them," said Benghazi University professor Iman Bugaighis, referring to several militias. "We had to ask them to come back and protect our hospital and streets."
Yes, they fought on the front lines with courage -- Islamists often speak of sacrificing their lives in jihad and martyrdom -- but the victory was handed to them by NATO, a NATO led by the United States, and a United States whose officials the Ansar al-Sharia killed perhaps because they were trying to get some of the weapons back.
Wait a minute.
The current Libyan government is a client of the United States. Can’t the White House pressure the Libyan government to push forward the investigation, to detain those identified by witnesses as the attackers?
Or is the U.S. not even trying?
Perhaps it isn’t trying because it knows the Libyan government is not eager or not able to confront the terrorists. And because the U.S. government does not want to take direct action, since that would presumably be "bullying" and "unilateral":
"The [Libyan] government lost a very good opportunity after our 'Rescue Benghazi' event to control these militias, break them apart and absorb them into legitimate bodies," Younes Najim, an organizer of the campaign to push Ansar al-Sharia out.
"It will take time, but the longer the government takes to organize its security here, the stronger some groups will make themselves to become parallel forces to the government."
Right. But why didn't the U.S. government follow up on the momentum built by the Rescue Benghazi (that is, the "force the terrorists to leave") movement? As for the Libyan government, it cannot and will not control them for a very good reason. The government is relatively weak -- especially in Benghazi -- and its “regular” military forces are made up of ex-militiamen who might be very sympathetic to Ansar al-Sharia.
In other words, the U.S. government has given weapons and money and diplomatic support to create and sustain a regime which may be made up of relatively decent people, but cannot lift a finger to catch, punish, or outlaw al-Qaeda supporters and those who have murdered Americans in cold blood.
Again, remember this is not a hostile country which provides a safe haven to anti-American terrorists, like Iran or Lebanon do, but a U.S. client state established largely with U.S. military aid and direct assistance.
The killers are not hiding out in caves, but are strolling the streets of a supposed U.S. ally.
Today, Libya; tomorrow, Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria, not necessarily in terms of al-Qaeda itself (except in Syria) but in terms of anti-American Islamist groups that are quite willing to attack U.S. targets in the Middle East.
Here’s what Obama said in his State of the Union message (which didn’t mention his alleged pursuit of the Benghazi terrorists):
Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. Different al-Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged -- from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving.
In other words, al-Qaeda is weakened to the point of collapse. It isn’t.
But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations. Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security. ... And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.
That is a perfect model of what should be done: cooperation with American allies when possible; direct action when necessary.
But that hasn’t happened.
The allies are too weak or are even in bed with the terrorists themselves. The “ally” that the U.S. government is depending on to take care of the terrorists for it is ... the Muslim Brotherhood. Incidentally, the Libyan government is also the biggest single financial donor -- presumably with behind-the-scenes U.S. encouragement, or even pressure -- to the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated group in Syria.
That’s why Obama didn’t mention Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, or Syria in his speech about counterterrorism. CIA director John Brennan is directing such a policy, but it isn’t good to say that publicly, and especially not in front of a joint session of Congress.
And elsewhere -- here’s where Yemen, Libya, and Somalia come in -- regimes cannot provide for their own security. To reframe the issue: what if they can only provide for their own security by ignoring or even undermining U.S. interests?
Yes, it's much easier to throw some California filmmaker into prison.
The night of September 11, 2012, was the perfect time to “continue to take direct action against those terrorists.” Instead, Obama went to sleep; he has yet to wake up. There is graphic proof for that assertion in the streets of Benghazi today.
PS: A very angry reader wrote me to ask why didn't I denounce President Ronald Reagan for not getting those responsible for the 1982 attack on the Marine barracks. As I tried to make clear, it is different to get terrorists hiding in a hostile to America area under the protection of governments (Syria and Iran) with tens of thousands of hostile, heavily armed soldiers which in turn were under the protection of the Soviet Union and going after terrorists sitting openly in a place whose government is a U.S. client, installed by the United States, and open to its penetration. I also have met U.S. soldiers involved in covert operations who went into those areas on missions to get those responsible, albeit without ultimate success, and heard the obstacles they faced, starting with locating the terrorists. No, it isn't the same situation.
Notes, advanced course: The Scoreboard
Libya is far from the worst situation. A mere description of what’s going on is shocking enough.
Egypt: The Muslim Brotherhood rules and leaders of “former” terrorist organizations now hold high offices. Christian churches and institutions are regularly attacked; women who demonstrate against the regime are regularly raped and brutalized while the government takes no action.
Gaza Strip: Ruled by the still openly terrorist Hamas.
Lebanon: Ruled by the still openly terrorist Hizballah which has defeated the United States regarding American promises to stop it from smuggling in arms and to keep it from refortifying southern Lebanon.
Pakistan: A government which had received billions of dollars in U.S. aid but helps the Afghan Taliban and hides out al-Qaeda leaders.
Syria: Moving from the Arab nationalist skillet into the Islamist fire.
Tunisia: It is now clear after the assassination of the leading anti-Islamist politician that his murder was freely discussed as desirable beforehand at the highest levels of the “moderate” Islamist ruling party.
Turkey: Secular military officers are resigning in droves, in part because they are being forced to take back officers thrown out of the army in the past for radical Islamist activity. Dozens of officers are being arrested, imprisoned, and tried for alleged subversion though no real proof has been offered that a single such plot existed. The Turkish regime cooperates with the terrorist IHH which tried to launch at least one operation on U.S. soil.
All of the above countries have or will soon have regimes that hate America, and all except Turkey and Tunisia have at their highest levels people who openly advocated or engaged in anti-American terrorism and the killing of Americans.