Libya – American Foreign Policy Failure
Yesterday’s riots and assault on the Libyan embassy are the sharpest illustration (to date) of the current administrations “lead” from behind strategy in play. No formal foreign policy expertise (other than an attention span) is needed to gather that a strategy such as this will only embolden our enemies and distance our allies. I have mentioned before that President Obama is not short on words to fill our hearts with spirit and make us feel good about ourselves. In the past however, those words were equally backed up with action and conviction. There is no leadership in any way in President Obama’s policies – zero. That is why he has to go around every chance he can get and tell everyone who will listen how much of a leader he is (he alone order the killing of Osama Bin Laden, btw). I come from the old-school leadership style where that is the clearest indication that you are hiding something and that you are having to talk yourself up to cover your shortfalls. It should be self-evident that you are leader by the actions of those who work for you and those you work with.
The tragedy inside the American consultant in Benghazi yesterday should never of happened. It should never of happen explicitly because Libya was not ready for their freedom. That might should anti-libertarian of me, but let me explain. History should caution us on revolutions of this nature – an overthrowing of tyrannical rule. It has happened through history. The uniqueness of the American Revolution can be explained in one simple phrase – a civil society. The American Colonies, pre-1776, where civilized and structured in such a way that respected the rule of law and private property. Aside from the oppressive rule from the English, the colonies would not of needed a revolution to thrive. The contrast of revolutions, to show the volatility thereof, can be seen just a few short years after America was declared sovereign (1786). In 1789 a radical social and political revolution began in France, primarily motivated by the success of the American Revolution. Beneath the surface of the French Revolution was one distinct difference. The French did not know what they wanted after they overthrew their existing absolute monarchy.
They went through roughly 11 years of erratic governmental changes. The traditional principles and values were rejected in lieu of a new “entitlement” philosophy based manly on Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s treatises. The French Revolution was very much different than the American Revolution. There was huge swings in violence against diametrically opposed French sects. Those changed frequently and resulted in prolific chaos and persistent oppression of varying sorts with little similarity to America. There was little order in their governmental formulations.
In my perspective the “Arab Spring” of last year in both Libya and Egypt (primarily) is another example of a “French Revolution”-type revolt. There is no social order or ordered economic commerce because the society had been ruled autocratically prior-to. Remove the dictatorship and you are left with nothing but anarchy – the worst in humans then are allowed to pursue vicious power grabs. Anyone blindly supporting these groups from the West was looking at a fire and holding a can of gas ready to be thrown on it.
American foreign policy was originally constructed to provide the support and networking of fellow countries that savored freedom and liberty, but understood what was needed to keep it. America’s military strength is the only effective deterrent to saber-rattling autocratics who think they can test the will of Americans to defend the Western way of life. Our goal in recent years has been to overthrow dictators and then be there to help them pick of the pieces (Iraq and Afghanistan). In order to establish a local republic; America will have to have a strong presence in each of those countries for a great long while to mold the culture to allow American republicanism to take root. The problem is that their culture will not accept American republicanism – they are simply not compatible – ever. They should not be. Human freedom and liberty is molded by the culture, their culture is rightfully different.
Currently Egypt is controlled by a majority within its government who align themselves with the Muslim Brotherhood. This organization is not conducive to the true liberation of human freedom and establishing a suitable government to keep it. There are radical extremist tendencies within their power structure can could result in something similar to Iran when all said and done – this would pose a great danger to the region, especially Israel.
Let there be no mistake Muslims across the Middle East have called for or agree to the call for Israel’s elimination. The radical sect of Islam is the only major religion that will not recognize peaceful coexistence. You are to conform to Sharia Law and Islam or be destroyed. These tenants have not changed since the 11 years after September 11, just as they have not changed for over 2,001+ years prior. Nevertheless, Sharia Law is being push into all areas of Western culture across multiple countries (France, England, Russia, Germany, India, and the United States). They are infiltrating every society and changing the rules in their favor by silencing the long-established traditions of the native country. In some instances there are separate constitutions (or rules) for Muslims alone. Their argument is religious tolerance – but the truth is their lack of tolerance. Don’t allow yourself to be confused – I am not talking about Muslims who assimilate to the native culture and respect the traditions in countries that in-turn respect theirs. The United States is the greatest example of such a country. Those believers are not my focus. They are however cautiously silent to denounce the radical sect within Islam. I am curious why? Would Christians not denounce?
It is a two way street to compromise – but they (radicals) do not see it that way at all. It is very dangerous and foolish to think otherwise – recent examples of freedom of speech proves this. Every American movie upsets someone – it is the nature of the art. In America there is tolerance for each of us to express our ideas – that is the difference. There was no law that was violated in this individual’s expression on Islam. It obviously should be rejected by the populous – and it has – no one considers his piece worthy. Case closed. No need to riot like a bunch of adolescent children that did not get their way. It solves nothing and it makes you look uncivilized. That is the truth. Jesus Christ and “God” are forsaken each day in all facets of American and World culture, but Christians do not feel the need to rise up and overtake a building and burn it to the ground. For those devil advocates out there, I am sure it has happened – but it is the exception not the rule. Why? Because Christians for the most part live in a civil society where violence and brute force are not needed to settle disputes or disagreements.
I have now returned to my opening remarks about Libya (specifically) not being ready for freedom. They are not ready because when there are disputes or disagreements, violence and brute force are the only mechanisms exercised. It works when you are the dictator and need to rule with an iron fist, but it does not work if you wish to maintain a republic. Our business (foreign policy) in the Middle East has too long been very misguided and erratic. More recently, our policies have become reckless and irresponsible on top of that. We should have the intelligence to guide the situation: To both of understood the situation in Egypt and Libya for what they really where and to understand future scenarios where dictatorships are the only effective control of a populous unwilling to compromise where pure liberation will result in anarchy. We should let history be more of a guide.