Behold
the harvest of the Arab Spring: attacks — contemporaneous if not
coordinated — on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt, and the consulate in
Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of September 11. In the former, the
American colors were hoisted down, desecrated, and burned, and the black
flag of Islamism raised in their place. In the latter, the American
ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three members of his staff were
murdered in a rocket attack as they attempted to evacuate the facility.
Whether both acts of terrorism were committed in protest of a low-budget
American film allegedly insulting to the Prophet Mohammed or, as
reports now suggest, the Libyan attack was a planned response to the
killing of al-Qaeda’s No. 2 in Yemen, the portent is equally disturbing.
The sacrosanctity of diplomats and their missions is among the oldest
and most basic axioms of intercourse between civilized nations, and the
fact that neither the Egyptian nor the Libyan government acted to
prevent these assaults suggests that barbarism is alive and well in Arab
North Africa. Egypt’s failure is especially conspicuous, because that
country actually has a functioning government and military. Nearly as
disturbing was the response, both preemptive and cowardly, of the U.S.
mission in Cairo, which went out of its way to condemn not its
besiegers, but private citizens of the West who may or may not have
“hurt the religious feelings” of riotous Muslims.
Americans are murdered by Islamists, and sovereign American soil is
violated, on the anniversary of September 11, and the first word from
the administration to reach the world is an apology. So naturally, the
mainstream media are focusing on what they in their considered wisdom
have determined is Mitt Romney’s crass and ill-timed response to the
crisis, even as the Obama campaign found itself in a foot race with the Obama administration to see whether the former could condemn Romney before the latter condemned the terrorists.
But Romney was right to call the Cairo embassy’s obsequiousness
“disgraceful,” which is why the White House eventually followed Romney’s
lead in disavowing it. Romney was also right to defend his statement
against charges that he had “jumped the gun,” saying it is “never too
early . . . to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.”
Although the press acted as if Romney’s performance at the press
conference was laughably unpresidential, what he said was appropriate
and true: “It breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people
who have served during their lives for the cause of freedom and justice
and honor,” and “the attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the
world remains a dangerous place, and that American leadership is still
sorely needed.”
Above the political fray and campaign hay, there is also the question
of what to do next. There are reports that elite Marine
counterterrorism units are even now en route to Libya, and we understand
that the president has ordered increased security at U.S. diplomatic
facilities. These are both to the good, and we should not be hamstrung
by diplomatic niceties or, indeed, by these governments’ demonstrably
weak sovereignties in bringing the terrorists to justice. But the
question remains why Stevens and embassy staff were not effectively
protected in the first place, on either side of the embassy walls.
If President Obama is to meet with the Egyptian leader, Mohamed
Morsi, the embassy breach should be the first item on the agenda. If we
are to follow through on the provision of aid to Egypt, for instance,
the money should change hands only after guarantees are made and
concrete steps are taken to protect our missions. Notably, while the
Libyan government has already formally apologized for the outrages on
its soil, the Egyptian government has not. Its prime minister, Hisham
Kandil, merely called the breach “regrettable” — immediately before
calling on the United States to “criminalize acts that stir strife on
the basis of race, color, or religion.”
That is, Egypt’s new government wants the United States to repeal the
First Amendment. But when it comes to Islamists who seize American soil
or kill American citizens, we prefer solutions rooted in the amendment
just after it. Editors in The National Review
|
