Home > Terrorism > U.S. Embassies & Staff Come Under Attack, PART V: Foreign Policy Fantasy

U.S. Embassies & Staff Come Under Attack, PART V: Foreign Policy Fantasy

October 1st, 2012
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

10.01.2012

U.S. Embassies & Staff Come Under Attack, PART V: Foreign Policy Fantasy

original article written by Net Advisor

Excerpt: This is Part V of our 5-part series report on not just recent, but numerous terrorists attacks on U.S. Embassies and staff covering especially the last four years. The Obama Administration has blamed a “video” for recent terrorists attacks against U.S. Embassies and staff in Libya.

Part V discusses a hard look at U.S. foreign policy: What are we doing in the Middle-East, how much money are we spending, what has been the result of wars and trillions of dollars spent since 9/11/2001. Despite all U.S. efforts, government seems to think that it can buy influence to create change, when religion is guiding behavior.

[1] Foreign Policy Fantasy
In 2009, the Obama Administration had a noble plan to ‘reach out’ to counties in the Middle-East. Obama was the first U.S. President to mention Muslims in his first inaugural speech (Source: Washington Post).

The White House is living in Fantasyland if it thinks there will be some U.S. style of democracy in a region of the world that historically and currently controlled and influenced by religious beliefs not shared by the U.S.

It’s kind of hard to ‘reach out’ when you have been fighting directly or indirectly (proxy) wars, and conflicts for some 33 years in the region. Examples:

It’s also difficult to think that some unity can be created when inside most every if not every country in the Middle-East, North and East Africa, and other regions of the world  have their own internal issues. Infighting between Muslim counties have continued for the last 110 years in modern times. Historically the Sunnis and the Shi’ites have been at odds with each other since about the 7th Century (further reading: Accuracy in Media 2007 Report; Time 2007 Report; and DailyMail.UK 2011 Report).

This and many previous Administration’s progress have not exactly held a realistic account of a political ideology for the Middle-East. The U.S. somehow thinks it can broker a peace process in the Middle-East despite said in-fighting since the 7th Century. A peace process sounds good politically. However when it comes to actually having it, you’re more likely to suffer a direct hit by an asteroid.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Obama. (Original image owner credit: unknown)

[2] Is the Obama Administration Really on Israel’s Side?
In 2010, Mr. Obama made a speech in Cairo, Egypt where he was outspoken against Israel’s intent to build new settlements in East Jerusalem (Source: Washington Times). Also in 2010, it was reported that “Israel’s ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975.”

On or about 09/11/2012, Mr. Obama blew off Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who asked to schedule a meeting about Iranian nuke developments. The White House said he could not meet because the Israeli Prime Minister because of Obama’s “busy schedule” (PDF – highlight added).

Also in 2012, President Obama had delayed a joint training exercise with Israel due to “Obama’s displeasure over Israel’s plans to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities,” according to a report.

Time reports that “well-placed sources” in both countries have confirmed that the Obama administration has slashed more than two-thirds the number of U.S. troops participating; decided not to send crews to operate Patriot anti-missile systems; and will either cut in half or entirely eliminate the Ballistic Missile Defense warships involved in the exercise.

A senior Israeli official told Time the message the Obama administration is sending is “We don’t trust you.” I would contend the Israeli official is being very diplomatic. The real message is much more brutal: “Good luck Israel. You are on your own.”

— Source: Fox News and quoting Time

It was noted that the Obama Administration was adamant about having specific deadlines to exit Iraq and Afghanistan, but there are no deadlines to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons (Source: Washington Post). A political blog went into great detail on Obama’s apparent unspoken conflicts with Israel.

Obama will publicly say he supports Israel because the Jewish in the U.S. tend to vote for the Democrat, and he wants their votes. But if you just forget about the sound bites, and go by his actions, Obama’s actions seem less receptive to Israel’s concerns.

Obama at the Pentagon (2012). “New Defense Strategy.” Downsize the U.S. Military? (Photo Credit: Getty Images)

[3] Is Obama Arming the Middle-East and Disarming the USA?
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
The Obama Administration is under the impression that Egypt is on the U.S.’s side. Egypt appears to be on the U.S.’s side because they receive $1.3 Billion in military aid each year (Source: NY Times).

Food and medical help is one thing, but is it really a good idea to help arm the Middle-East?

China is increasing their military spending and Iran is bent on going nuclear. The Obama Administration is seeking to down-size the U.S. military, cut defense spending up to $1.3 Trillion*, and what may one day be critical anti-missile defense systems (report).

“…President (Obama)…wants to cut almost half a trillion dollars from the defense budget on top of some $300 billion in cuts already begun. And that does not include the half-trillion or so dollars more that would have to be cut under sequestration.”

— *Source: The Heritage Foundation Report – PDF, Page 4, (highlight added)
{Note: Underline in above quote added to show calculation of $1.3 Trillion defense cuts}

Something about this picture just doesn’t look right.

U.S. taxpayer money handed to Libya and Egypt in recent periods as shown. (Graphic Credit: Fox News)

[4] Obama Ready to Hand Over $1 Billion to Egypt, Plus $4.8 Billion Loans via IMF
If these Middle-eastern and North African countries are so oil-rich, why is the U.S. giving them billions of U.S. taxpayer money every year? Counties that do not support U.S. views, and make direct attacks on the U.S. should not be rewarded. The Obama Administration is standing by ready to hand Egypt $1 Billion of U.S. tax dollars not to mention the IMF (where the U.S. contributes 17% a year of that budget) is ready to hand over $4.8 billion in low interest loans to Egypt.

“The violent protests come as Egypt is negotiating a $4.8 billion low-interest IMF loan and a $1 billion debt relief package with the United States.”

— Source: The Hill.com, 09-11-2012 (PDF – highlight added)

Egypt Economic Facts:

  • Government Revenues: $44.69 Billion
  • Government Spending: $67.7 Billion
  • Average Annual Income (per person) $6,600
  • Unemployment Rate: 12.2%
  • Inflation Rate: 10.2%
  • Bank Prime Lending Rate 12%

— Source: CIA FactBook, 2011 (PDF)

 

“Activists of an Islamic party in Bangladesh burn the US flag during a protest against a film mocking Islam in Dhaka” (Image Credit: AFP/Getty, Caption Credit: Mail Online.UK)

[5] Nearly $4 Trillion Spent in the Middle-East, 225,000 Dead. Is it Stable Now?

The U.S. has spent an estimated $3 to $4 Trillions of dollars since 9/11/2001 in fighting wars, various aid including foreign construction projects all to support some Middle-East security and peace process. This hasn’t worked.

“Conservatively estimated, the war bills already paid and obligated to be paid as of June 2011 are $3.2 trillion in constant dollars. A more reasonable estimate puts the number at nearly $4 trillion.”

— Source: Costs of War.org (as of 06-2011)

[6] Costs of Wars in Terms of Deaths
The number of people killed in the 9/11/2001 World Trade Center attacks is 2,753 (Source: NY Mag). In related 9/11/2001 attacks would include a total 2,977 victims (Source: Wikipedia). More than double that number have died fighting the ‘war on terror’ since 9/11/2001, than actually died as a result of the 9/11/2001 terrorists attacks. The number of U.S. troops killed fighting wars since 9/11/2001 is 6,051. If one includes U.S. contractor deaths that numbers would add another 2,300, for a total 8,351. This does not include death of allies, humanitarian works, journalists, or enemy kills, which in total would exceed 225,000 deaths (Source Reuters).

Yet despite the statistics, the U.S. still seems to be under this canny impression that democracy will evolve in the Middle-East. With no promises and all “hope,” seems to be enough for the Administration to give billion of more dollars to Egypt alone.

President Obama pledged billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Egypt and Tunisia on May 18, 2011 for “embracing democracy.”

— Source: Guardian.UK, 05-18-2011

[7] How Much is U.S. Spending in Foreign Aid?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton requested $47 Billion for foreign aid in FY2012. The idea is that diplomacy and construction projects will somehow solve or convert the Middle-East region in some U.S-style democracy [Source: Department of State, U.S. Aid (Foreign Ops) (PDF 467 pps)].

U.S. money and aid including military hardware given to the Middle-East specifically in 2011 is about $7 Billion [Source: Congressional Research Service, page 2 table, (2011 Report) (PDF 31 pps)].

The Administration can give billions of dollars to these countries and they will appease the Administration by saying whatever Obama wants to hear so long as they get our money. The U.S. is being played in a fools-game here.

Since the U.S. ‘left‘ Iraq, the country has been in a civil race war. Many parts of the Middle-East are highly unstable though “Arab Spring.” Syria is in a violent war with its own people. The U.S. has fought an expensive and complicated war in Afghanistan. The U.S. & NATO got involved in fighting a brief war against Libya’s Qaddafi. Obama sent troops in Africa, and setting up a military presence in Australia, all under a president who was handed the Nobel Peace Prize?

Aug 2012. Occupy Oakland “Protesters” seen burning the American Flag. Are these people any different from those other radicals burning the American flag in foreign lands? (Image Source: Police One via examiner.com)

[8] U.S. Foreign Policy and Domestic Policy The Same?
We see American “protestors” burning American flag on American soil. Sure, they have the 1st Amendment right to protest and the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled (Texas v. Johnson) that flag burning is speech. But are these people that different from those other radicals burning the American flag in foreign lands? The point here is that this free speech shows their ill-will toward America, and its values.

The Occupy movement has demonstrated violence and crimes against property and persons (report).

Number of Arrests in “Occupy” Movement: 7,600 

— Source: OccupyArrests.com (PDF) (share link)

Number of Injuries in “Occupy” Movement: 350

Number of Deaths in “Occupy” Movement: 32

— Source: Wikipedia.org

As of 09-27-2012 there have been over 7,600 arrests, 350 injuries and 32 deaths associated to these domestic (Occupy) “protestors”. Thus, it appears that more people have been killed in as a result of U.S. domestic Occupy “protests” than Americans killed by “protestors” in the Middle-East. Yet the Obama Administration has shown sympathy against this radical group. Sympathy toward a group that publicly demonstrates ill-will toward America? This is what our President supports? Apparently so. According to this August 2012 report, President Obama ordered law-enforcement to “stand down” and not arrest Occupiers who were violating the law.

“…with the authorization of President Barack Obama’s White House, directed law enforcement officers to “stand down” and not arrest “Occupy Portland” protesters who were violating the law…”

— Source: Examiner.com (PDF)

So the Obama Administration told police not to arrest anarchists who were committing violence against persons or property? If they were Republicans or members of the Tea Party would the president have issued the same order? Vice President Joe Biden (D) called the Tea Party in 2011, “terrorists.”

“Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting. “We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

— Source: Politico, 08-01-2011 (PDF)

The Tea Party movement has not been known to cause any damage to persons or property; no drug arrests, no rape arrests, no threats or clashes with law enforcement, or no infringement on other people’s civil rights. The Occupy movement on the other hand has been subject too all of these issues. The difference between the Occupy group and the Tea Party can be found in our in-depth report.

One has to question, whose side do our leaders really support? Based on their own public statements and actions it seems fairly evident which is pretty disconcerting.

[9] Obama’s Controversial Statements
President Obama has made numerous controversial public statements from citing the teaching of the Quran to making an admission that he is Muslim. Which is fine to respect another person’s individual right to pursue religious beliefs, however that would be contradictory to what we have been told that the president is a Christan?

Obama had also refused to wear the American Flag pin, as we were told in ‘apparent protest’ to the Iraq War. Yet, Obama has provided Billions in financial and military support to nations where the U.S. has been attacked by terrorists, and or where the U.S. has troops fighting within some of those nations. One might question whether these statements could be influencing Obama’s foreign policy?

[10] Denial?
The Administration seems to be denial that after nearly four years of U.S. apologies, billions of dollars in aid and military defense handouts in Middle-East, North and East Africa, killing Osama Bin Laden, “liberating” Libya, and consequently eliminating Muammar Gaddafi, general sucking up to a religion to appease radicals bent on harming the U.S., acknowledging that Obama claims to be of such faith (video above), quoting the Quran (video above), and despite all this, U.S. Embassies and staff around the world have been subject to more destabilization than in the years prior to Obama’s term in office, attacks against the U.S. have increased, not decreased.

Just recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also came to terms of living in denial about the realities of the Middle-east.

“HILLARY CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Today many Americans are asking, indeed, I asked myself. How could this happen? How could this happen in a country in a country we helped liberate in a city we helped save from destruction?”

— Source: CNN Transcripts (PDF – highlight added), 09-12-2012

The blind leading the blind (politics). Original author unknown.

[11] The Blind Leading the Blind?
45% of American’s Completely Seem to be Blinded by U.S. Foreign Policy Facts
A poll suggested that “Nearly half (45%) surveyed approved of Obama’s handling of the recent attacks on U.S. embassies” (Source: Guardian.UK).

Seriously?

This was a foreign policy disaster from square-one. How can anyone in their right mind say that this was handed well at all? After doing the research for 3 weeks on these issues, published 5 reports on the matter, how can any sound mind individual come to this conclusion?

[12] National Security Interests
The U.S. needs to come out and say something along these lines:

OK look, we tried to do this easy, even though it wasn’t easy; we tried to be nice, and you’re government could not control terror in your own state and thus were have been attacked repeatedly; we have given you billions of dollars in aid, and cooperation was less than enthusiastic; we are doing is this way now.

The U.S. generally seems to be under the misguided impression that these countries of dispute are somehow vital to our national security interests. What that means is we need their oil or do we? Start drilling our own oil and domestic energy, permanently reduce foreign imports of oil at a material level, and watch oil prices drop like a rock.

[13] Where Does the U.S. Buy Its Oil?

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Sep-11 Aug-11 YTD 2011 Sep-10 YTD 2010
CANADA 2,324 2,240 2,157 1,937 1,971
SAUDI ARABIA 1,465 1,075 1,180 1,082 1,072
MEXICO 1,099 1,150 1,113 1,108 1,132
VENEZUELA 759 806 893 919 928
NIGERIA 529 854 826 1,107 1,018
COLOMBIA 510 365 364 308 328
IRAQ 403 637 473 422 464
ECUADOR 299 303 203 229 215
ANGOLA 283 311 323 404 413
RUSSIA 275 252 246 286 295
BRAZIL 163 213 225 177 270
KUWAIT 145 165 164 172 204
ALGERIA 139 140 204 366 337
CHAD 74 32 54 30 14
OMAN 72 52 39 0

Above Chart, Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA.gov) (PDF)

[14] What Should a Commander in Chief Do Next?
The U.S. gives billions of dollars in economic and military aid each year including to various countries in the Middle-East and Africa. Many of these countries contain elements that are anti-U.S. friendly, and governments that are corrupt. The only reason why these foreign counties are semi-friendly to the U.S. is because we give them this money. What does the U.S. get? Cheap oil? Nope. What do we get in return? Nothing. Who in the U.S. government negotiated that deal?

Washington DC doesn’t seem to understand that the West is not wanted in the Middle-East. The best thing we could do is give them what they want. Exit from land that we don’t need to be in, and let them see how they live without billions of dollars of money and aid from the back of hardworking Americans.

[15] Solving the Problem.
1. Cut off all non-humanitarian foreign aid to countries that have a history of violence toward the U.S. or who tend to vote against U.S. objectives at the UN.

2. Review each situation case-by-case, and create agreements in advance of what the receiving party of taxpayer dollars is expected to do in exchange for aid. Such aid should be reviewed each year and performance check the contract. This is how you get compliance with difficult people. If they breach the contract, no aid that year, and no make-up aid.

3. Contracts should include holding all people inside a foreign land where people who commit acts of terrorism, or otherwise unprovoked violence against the U.S. to be subject to criminal trial in the host country by their own government. Failure of host government to comply timely, results in no aid until compliance has been met, and trial is complete.

This may sound rough, but this is how you deal with difficult, uncooperative and irresponsible people and governments. If the U.S. still wants to give away tax dollars, we need to see whether that relationship is worth having and articulate such with specifics, not sound bites. Currently we have a one-way relationship. We give and give and give, they take and take and take. If you have ever been in that kind of relationship you know they don’t work. Obliviously that relationship, does not work politically either.

[16] Fantasy Ideology
The U.S. and the West has this 40-50+ year fantasy ideology that there is going to be peace in the Middle-East. It would be nice if we could all follow the late Rodney King‘s 1991 mantra “Can’t we all just get along?” Sure, it would be great if there was peace in the region and everyone could ride their unicorns with their AK-47’s strapped to their back off to the nearest mirage together. There is only one slight problem, religion is guiding behavior.

[17] Religion is Guiding Behavior
What this and perhaps other Administrations don’t seem to understand is one simple thing: Religion is guiding behavior. There is no way that anyone (on Earth) is going to think that they can give billions of dollars in aid to all these countries, spend billions protecting their oil, have endless meetings and discussions about a “peace process” while troops are fighting a ‘war on terror’ in a number of these countries, while radical Clerics brainwash the youth thinking that America and Israel are the cause of all their pain. Yet, the U.S. still operates as if radical extremists will just fall in-line with Western-driven ideology.

__________________________________________________________________________

See other NetAdvisor.org® Reports on Terrorism.

Credits: Images/ videos may be copyright of their respective entity where noted. Cartoon credit, top of page: A.F. Branco/Legal Insurrection.

Original content copyright © 2012 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

Additional information about the author:
Author has long followed global events, and developed military strategy games. While attending a major private University, author initiated a senior project where in 1993, wrote a research report titled: “International Terrorism: Challenge to U.S. Intelligence.” Net Advisor’s bio.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
__________________________________________________________________________

Related posts:

Categories: Terrorism
Comments are closed.