The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Benghazis kill man who helped them

    By PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 10:24am |

    So much for gratitude - a mob in Cyrenaica smoked out the ambassador who for the 3rd time was serving in Libya.

    Ironically having helped arrange the US airspace protection that allowed Benghazi to survive attacks by Qaddafi and overthrow his government, Christopher Stevens was killed on a short visit to this bastion of freedom and self-determination. (2 other Americans & likely a Libyan security official also killed)

    Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif managed to blame everyone but himself: ex-Qaddafi supporters, the US for not just packing up and leaving, and I guess the Libyan gun culture for letting attackers be better armed than Libyan security assigned to protect the Embassy. Who would have expected terrorists attacking US Embassy with weapons? How would rocket launchers end up in the hands of normal civilians?

    And so it seems speaking ill of the prophet is awful; killing innocent people to defend his honor - even fellow Muslims - is glorious. Look at that big smile for that photo op. Wouldn't Mohammed be more pleased if he turned the gun on himself and ascended to heaven? One can only hope.

    To be fair, conservative fundamentalists did poorly in July's elections, and women got 20% of the seats. But as always, concern about a rabid minority spoils any celebration of movement towards liberal democracy. And a reminder that transformational revolution ain't that easy.

    Comments

    Of course the suicide of a Muslim detainee held 11 years in Gitmo, even after a judge pronounced him innocent and to be freed, should outrage as well.

    Retribution against innocents is wrong no matter who does it. But most Americans won't hear about the Guantanamo death.

    Though the murder of 3000 innocents is worse than expressing free speech about a religious figure, disproportionate retaliation is apparent in both cases.

    When Arabs murdered 71 in Iraq last weekend, wounding numorous more, who was responsible? Who condemned the sacrifice of Muslim brothers & sisters? What was the actual purpose of this atrocity?

    But we can't justly complain when we're picking off civilians in a crowd with our remote controlled planes, with our glibly proclaimed "collateral damage".

    It seems now the Ambassador's a collateral too. Perhaps he's symbolic that we should choose diplomacy over violence?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 12:30pm

    The suicide in Gitmo and our use of drones bothers seem like important moral issues to you. And  me.

    I think it's very unlikely that either were causes of the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

    Right now,.in the immediate aftermath of the death of ambassador Stephens, I think it is inappropriate   to use that death as a pretext to repeat your complaints about the Administration- even tho I agree with most if not all of those complaints.

    Nil nisi bonum.

     


    by Flavius on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 3:50am

    This is weird.

    Why is this "inappropriate"? Are you personally in mourning over a man you never met? Am I running for national office or representing the nation in something?

    And isn't it inappropriate to ignore the suicide of an innocent Gitmo detainee *MONDAY*, i.e. the day before, whose human rights we denied? When will there be a time to discuss him?

    Did I say anything counter to the goals the Ambassador might have aspired to? Did you hush up about the need for automatic gun & gunclip control in the wake of the Aurora shooting?

    Did you even know there was fighting & insurrection still going on in Libya, that innocent civilians were being targeted, deaths in the hundreds?

    Did you know weapons we supplied in the Libyan rebellion are making their way to Mali & Nigeria to fuel conflicts there?

    Do you want to write the Washington Post and tell them it's too soon to discuss ties to Al Qaeda and Stevens' comments about insurgent?


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 6:25am

    We disagree. I'll leave it at that. See you in another blog.


    by Flavius on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 6:56am

    Beautiful dialogue, fella - not even a simple answer as to why "too soon" or which parts contentious.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 7:10am

    Biden steps in to proclaim, ""These men are as brave and as courageous as any of our warriors," Biden said."

    I'm reminded of when Bill Maher lost his show for saying the 9/11 terrorists were brave or courageous, not cowards.

    In this case, Stevens may have gone back to help, may have done something brave.

    But to go out on military missions day after day, getting shot at, storming buildings, attacked with IEDs....

    No, these men are not as brave and as courgeous as combat soldiers (who make a small percentage of our military). Nevertheless, diplomats in certain countries do often encounter danger.

    Why can't we ever describe things in real terms? Why always the need to inflate and exaggerate?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 1:54pm

    To be a diplomat in a country like Libya does require courage, wouldn't you say. Unless the foreign service carried their own weapons, you rely on someone else for protection. This is very courageous. I don't think this is the argument you want to make.

    Asking if the Arab Spring has failed is a valid question. Suggesting that fallen diplomats were not brave men is hard to support and dilates the argument.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 2:30pm

    Yes.


    by Richard Day on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 3:02pm

    Oh come on, Biden's point was that they're as brave as soldiers. Bullshit.

    Yes, there's some courage to being Ambassador in Libya or Kabul - as I noted - but not Ambassador to Madrid or Tokyo.

    But going out on recon through the mountains, in the middle of the night, people trying to pick you off, set off bombs... storming a building with machine-gun toting guys inside... being in a remote village helping people and not knowing if one has an explosive... training local police knowing there's been a wave of friendly fire / green-on-blue killings.... no, being Ambassador is not as brave as all that.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 4:01pm

    I strongly disagree. If the story is true that he went back in to retrieve people who remained in the building, his actions define a hero. Are all soldiers heroes? Are soldiers who have not come under fire heroes? Do you classify an unarmed person willing to serve in hostile territory as just another citizen, or something different than the norm? 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 4:23pm

    Is it impossible for you to read what I've written?

    In this case, Stevens may have gone back to help, may have done something brave.

    Does that equate with Biden calling all these diplomats "brave" just because they died or happened to have been in Libya?

    "These men are as brave and as courageous as any of our warriors," Biden said.

    Does that mean all Libyans are brave because they live in Libya?

    You brought in the word "hero" - I didn't. Almost all soldiers who go off in the rough to be shot at are "brave", whether they're crapping their pants while doing it or not.

    An unarmed person protected by a $700 billion US Defense budget and embassy security is not normally regarded as "brave", no, sorry. If it's Rwanda or Congo or Kabul or Cambodia, I'll make exceptions.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 4:42pm

    Let's see, in 2011 there were 3,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan which makes people brave. There were about 580 civilian deaths in Afghanistan in the first four months of 2012.

    There were 5-7,000 civilians deaths in Libya, not including a large number in Bengazi not counted. Those in Kabul are brave but those in Bengazi are not?

    We are focusing on civilians, correct? I'm not sure that I understand your point.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 5:54pm

     Look, I view the foreign service officers willing to serve in dangerous situations as brave men and heroic. You do not. There is no sense in continuing this circular argument. 

    The important question to me is whether there will be mob rule by a dedicated group of fanatics, or if true government law enforcement and democratic government is possible in the Middle East.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 11:06pm

    I think you're arguing apples and oranges. Soldiers have years of training and preparation (sometimes months, sometimes years) before going into situations like that. They also have other soldiers for support and cover. Diplomats have diplomatic experience, so they're generally smarter than average when assessing dangerous situations, but to put oneself in harm's way unnecessarily in order to assist others who are considered by the world to be "less important" is not only a courageous act, but a class one. Soldiers are brave, some diplomats are brave, some whistleblowers are brave. Apples, oranges, pears. 

    The original argument is that Joe Biden exaggerated in his comparison. I think Joe Biden exaggerates a lot, but we're all given to hyperbole when emotion is involved and he's an emotional guy under the most mundane of circumstances.


    by Orlando on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 11:24pm

    Is the soldier still brave when he goes into the public unarmed? Is the soldier equally brave if stationed in Hawaii  or in Afghanistan?

    I see differences between being in the foreign service in London and in Libya or Egypt. I don't have a problem with Biden's statement.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 12:08am

    Look, I made the differences clear if you bother to read.

    I said "combat", not just being a G.I. in a repair unit in North Carolina.

    I said hot spots like Congo, Rwanda, Cambodia, etc.

    But Ambassadors normally live in a very well protected Little America overseas, and go to work in a very well protected embassy. Almost no danger. 

    (this doesn't apply to Stevens who'd been active during the civil war)

    They are not going out on a combat mission every day where know they have a 20-100% chance of being shot at.

    Being posted in a war zone like Iraq is one thing. But the Libyan revolution had finished - a bit higher alert - 100 Libyan civilians were killed in June - but for an embassy worker, not too much problem.

    (the bigger issue here was it was the poorly-manned consulate in Benghazi, not the well-secured embassy in Tripoli)

    And by whatever standard, people in Kabul would be braver and tougher than Libyans because they've been through decades of civil war, dealing with civilian massacres and the whims of war lords and invading armies.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 12:46am

    Stevens was the first Ambassador killed since 1988 - 24 years.

    Biden's comment either trivializes the danger combat soldiers face - Or overhypes the danger diplomats face.

    Obviously more than 1 death in 24 years, and a whole lot of maimings and lost limbs.

    Biden's comment was a bit bizarre and detracted from the moment.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 6:08am

    The distraction is coming from you. The brave men will be laid to rest with honor. Biden's statement was correct. You are the only one focused on this argument The big question now is whether the governiments elected after the Arab Spring are really in control of anything

     


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 8:09am

    You're just using mindless words.

    You might as well label them "good looking" as "brave".

    They went to work in an office, they visited a consulate, they were killed in a freak occurrence - there aren't rocket attacks on the embassy every day.

    And yes, I agree it's a question if the governments are in control of anything, and whether our pre-revolution optimism lives up to post-revolution reality.

    Congrats - that indeed was the main point of my post, so we can ignore the parsing of funeral commendations.

    (And kudos to Stevens for contributing to the post-revolution chances for democracy - I think he was brave and helpful over the course of the last 2 years for his diplomatic efforts in a country in chaos, not just because he went to the office post-revolution when things had settled down)

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 8:38am

    Enjoy life in your bubble.

    have a nice day.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 9:12am

    I think you are jumping to conclusions before all necessary data is in to make a judgment.

    If you want to do that, I just noticed that you have competitors on Twitter trying to push the idea that Benghazi is mostly pro-US:

    Rally in Tripoli: 'We are sorry,' via Guardian's live blog

    I for one admit that I don't know yet whether you or the "Big Pharoah" will win the narrative competition, or that story will end up somewhere inbetween, or something entirely different.

    BTW, a suggestion you might find Michael Lewis' Vanity Fair article enlightening about where assorted members of the Obama administration stood on the Libya decision, including Obama himself.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 4:00pm

    No, the Deputy Interior Minister isn't the only opinion - some seemed more intelligently sorry and less ready to blame everyone else.

    And I noted fundamentalists hadn't gained a hold in the elections.

    Not sure what "conclusions" you see me jumping to.

    Of course it was Bhengazis who kidnapped the Bulgarian nurses and held them for ransom - but can't blame that on all Benghazis.

    This article notes the continuing violence and difficult in disarming Islamic militias, especially near Benghazi.

    Michael Lewis article at 9 pages too long - I'll wait for the movie. In any case, we're re-running operation covert overthrow in Syria, without the air cover. I again ask "what precedent did we set in Libya? What's our policy? Will it sustain democratic movements?" If Lewis answers it, please cut-and-paste the paragraph.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 4:13pm

    Well, the Sec of State seems to differ from your interpretation, for one:

    But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya..

    I just saw a clip of her saying that on the tube, she gave it slow and deliberate emphasis.

    Michael Lewis article at 9 pages too long - I'll wait for the movie.

    Well, then I for one won't be taking your arguments about what Obama, Hillary, the DOD and thought and did on Libya (as well as of Sarkozy, Cameron, Russia on it) very seriously.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 5:10pm

    I didn't say it's the "people of Libya", but it's certainly a well established faction that killed 100 and wounded 500 in June before the elections.

    We do risk an extended civil war, but fortunately so far this has been averted.

    And we do risk an absurd Islamist government, as some of their early overreach to install Sharia law was pushed back.

    So not gloomy, but cognizant that it's not a done deal.

    As for the article, it's a 9 page man crush - if you have a point to make, please send link to concise, well-written piece where it's obvious what you expect me to get out of it.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 12:56am

    9 pages, jeezzzz. Way too long. Its not like the middle east or the world in general is all that complicated. A couple of paragraphs is all I need to understand these issues.

    That's why I like the Fluffington Post. They usually give you all the info you need on any issue in two paragraphs.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 11:41pm

    PP, what is your principal point here?

    Amid the various switchbacks and turns, I'm having trouble reaching your finish line?

    Is it that we don't have a clear, consistent policy vis-a-vis the Arab Spring?

    Is it that democracy-building the ME is tough?

    Not sure what you're getting at.


    by Anonymous Peter... (not verified) on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 4:48pm

    Are we promoting peaceful democratic protests a la Tunisia, or covert CIA-led overthrow with US air cover a la Libya, or just the covert overthrow a la Syria, or supporting the repressive old regime to crack heads a la Bahrain (with Saudi), or transitioning from one old boss to his #2 new boss as we tried with Mubarak in Egypt, or just ignore the stolen election and hope it works out as we did in Sierra Leone?

    No, we don't have any consistent policy or standard vis-a-vis the Arab Spring, except supporting status quo or our economic interests where required I suppose.

    And democracy building is tough - people don't share our values, and that's not a requirement - we may not like the results of that democracy, but we're more likely to like them if we go in with some standards and maintain some moral direction. Rather than empty convenient rhetoric.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 4:59pm

    Since there are no alleged assassins in custody, it is a bit premature to condemn 'Benghazis' for these crimes. Not surprising you would do so however as you seem to believe the people of Libya were forced to overthrow their despotic dictator of 40 years, and presumably you go on to believe they would kill us because they miss him.

    Recall that 36 years after our Founding Fathers declared our freedom and independence, marauding British troops were marching nearly unopposed on our own sacred soil, where they lawlessly burned down our Capitol and White House.


    by NCD on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 7:01pm

    It was in Benghazi, the "seat" of the uprising, and yes it was done by Benghazis. That doesn't mean all 1 million Benghazis, but a militant group of Benghazis that's been pushing for civil war.

    However, if you recall press from a year ago, it was written as "Benghazis" were rising up, when only a handful were actually fighting (and much of the progress was simply because of our overflights)

    So I didn't invent this hyperbole, and we often attribute the locale to groups. More important, I wanted people to realize that there are radicals within our Jeffersonian-tribe of revolutionaries, the same kind of crazed people who kidnapped Bulgarian nurses for 5 years accusing them of infecting people intentionally with HIV.

    So if a year ago all Benghazis were "freedom fighters" over the actions of a few, why not exaggerate now and make them all "crazed Islamic militants"?  <snark>

    As David Letterman says, "Know your cuts of meat" - who are our new allies?

    71 were massacred last weekend in Iraq, with hundreds more injured - I have trouble with these "war is over, peace has come, democracy is just around the corner" appraisals. That's not pessimistic - it's a realistic grounding for our foreign policy work, in assessing what realistic outcomes are possible.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 1:08am

    I disapprove of using of your using these deaths as evidence to substantiate your positions and would do so  even if I agreed with you on the positions you try to substantiate.

     It's just too soon .


    by Flavius on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 9:55pm

    Too soon for what? It's horrible that these crazed people attacked the embassy over a fucking movie. I've known ambassadors, I'm sympathetic both to his efforts in Libya and just the killing of innocents to somehow avenge Islam - I led off with this.

    But I'm supposed to have a week of mourning on an embassy hit? Give me a break - we kill dozens every day, there's no mourning period. Did you know your government targets rescuers and funeral attendees? Seems like not "too soon" for them.

    Biden's comment was about the event yesterday - I wait a week to remark on Biden's comments? It's no longer relevant, you'd think I was a nut for bringing something up in the past just before elections.

    We supported a revolution in Libya. We haven't discussed it since. So there's a point to actually discuss it in context and you tell me time's not right.

    Get real.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 1:53am

    PS - even Hillary's asking questions - tell her to shut up, too soon.....

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Today many Americans are asking — indeed I asked myself — how could this happen,” she said. “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding, the world can be. But we must be clear-eyed even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group, not by the people or government of Libya.”


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 6:16am