05-18-2018 12:27:15 PM -0700
05-17-2018 08:38:50 AM -0700
05-11-2018 07:34:04 AM -0700
05-09-2018 10:17:16 AM -0700
05-04-2018 02:59:17 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Two Elevens

Here are some reactions to the news of the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and to what the Daily Mail calls Obama's foreign policy crisis. Steve Kornacki at Salon exemplifies one train of analysis: it's all Romney's fault.

It has since been learned that a total of four people – the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three of his staff members – were killed in the attacks. President Obama has now issued a statement condemning the assault, praising Stevens, and pledging “all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe.”

The foolishness of Romney’s reaction is glaring. Pretending that the statement from the U.S. embassy in Cairo was anything other than a completely understandable and reasonable attempt by its occupants to save their own lives borders on disgraceful. Romney’s implication that the statement was issued at the height of the attacks is also false; it was actually released earlier in the day, a preventive measure aimed at keeping the protests from turning violent.

Volsky and Armbruster at Think Progress represent another variant: dissent is unpatriotic. They write that "the campaign’s response disregarded Romney’s self-imposed pledge not to engage in partisan mudslinging on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, though it came before news broke that four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, were killed in the violence."

Any comparisons between 9/11/2012 and 9/11/2001 founder on an obvious difference. Today there's not even a pretense of unity against the enemy. Nobody bothers with the flowers and hymns. Just partisan politics. Speaking of which, who is the enemy? Come to that, who was the enemy on the original September 11? And why use the word "enemy"? Are we not dealing with criminals? Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage writes about the "still unnamed enemy."

“I have always said that America is at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates,” Obama declared, “and we will never be at war with Islam.” But that really isn’t up to him. What the left never seems to understand is that war doesn’t have to be mutual. No matter what you do or what defeatist foreign policy you adopt, the enemy still gets a vote. And the enemies of this country have voted with their bombs and bodies.

The left resisted calling it a “war,” describing the murder of 3,000 people as a criminal matter. Obama even attempted to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the attacks, in a civilian court in downtown Manhattan. But then Obama embraced the war and rebranded Rumsfeld’s Special Forces and drones operations as his own innovative technocratic “smart” war.

On none of these subjects is there unanimous agreement. Not on the existence of an enemy, his identity, or the strategy of combating him. All that September 11, 2001, suggested, and which September 11, 2012, has emphasized, is that there may be a "near" and a "far" foe. And for some partisans, the near enemy takes precedence.