By Michael Barone
Monday, February 11, 2013
There were two extraordinary disclosures in Thursday’s
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee by Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Martin Dempsey.
One is that there was no communication between them and
Barack Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the seven hours of
September 11, 2012, during which Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and
three other Americans were attacked and murdered in Benghazi.
This makes a vivid contrast with those photos we’ve seen
of the president and his leading advisers watching the video of the attack on
Osama bin Laden.
At a 5 p.m. meeting, when it was first learned that
Stevens was under attack, Obama did issue Panetta and Dempsey a directive to do
whatever they could to protect him. He then left the matter, in Panetta’s
words, “up to us.”
After the meeting, according to White House records,
Obama had a one-hour phone conversation with Israeli prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, a phone call the Weekly Standard editor William Kristol has called
“non-urgent, politically useful.”
But he apparently wasn’t curious about what was happening
in Benghazi. He wasn’t too concerned either the next morning, when, after the
first murder of a U.S. ambassador in 33 years, he jetted off on a four-hour
ride to a campaign event in Las Vegas. I don’t think you have to be a
Republican partisan to consider that unseemly.
Obama’s odd response to the Benghazi attack and the
efforts, surely choreographed by his White House, to attribute it to a
spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video suggest that his first priority
was winning reelection — and that Benghazi was an irritant that could not be
allowed to stand in the way.
The other disclosure in the testimony of Panetta and
Dempsey was that they, Secretary Clinton, and CIA director David Petraeus all
backed aid to the Syrian rebels, and that the president decided against it.
Of course, that was his decision to make under the
Constitution. And there are reasonable arguments against involvement: We could
end up aiding the wrong rebels; we could get sucked into a quagmire.
We have seen in chaotic Libya, and in the fighting in
neighboring Mali and the hostage-taking in Algeria, negative developments that
have flowed from our “leading from behind” support of those seeking to
overthrow Moammar Qaddafi.
But there are also arguments for aiding the Syrian rebels
if, as Obama stated months ago, you want to see the regime of Bashir Assad
ousted from power in a country far more strategically located than Libya. And
if you want to reduce the bloodshed that has been going on now for more than a
year.
Evidently those arguments weren’t persuasive to Obama. On
Syria, he chose to lead from very far behind.
“This now looks increasingly like a historic mistake,”
writes Walter Russell Mead in his invaluable American Interest blog, and not
just because it helps the rebels aligned with Islamist terrorist groups.
“Iran seems much less worried about what this
administration might do to it,” Mead writes. “The mullahs seem to believe that
faced with a tough decision, the White House blinked.” And, he adds, “both the
Israelis and the Sunni Arab states have smelled the same weakness.”
The two disclosures last Thursday came at a time when
other presidential actions were sending a similar message. One was the
withdrawal of one of the two aircraft carriers scheduled to patrol the Persian
Gulf. The other was the nomination to be secretary of defense of former senator
Chuck Hagel, a longtime opponent of not only military action but also economic
sanctions against Iran.
The Hagel nomination was baffling. Most incoming
secretaries of defense in the last 40 years have had extensive experience in
the Pentagon, at the White House, or on the congressional armed services
committees. Hagel has none of these. And, as he admitted at the end of a
confirmation hearing, when he misstated administration policy, “There are a lot
of things I don’t know about.”
“A decade of war is ending,” Barack Obama declared in his
second inaugural. His response to Benghazi, his decision on Syria, and his
nomination of Hagel suggest he thinks he can draw down our forces and avoid
military conflict.
But weakness is provocative and retreat invites attack.
Threats abound — Iran, North Korea, China versus Japan. Obama’s moves may end
up making war more likely, not less.
No comments:
Post a Comment