In September 12, 2012, extreme Islam militants took advantage of an anti American demonstration over a video that made fun of the founder of Islam Mohamed, executed a terrorist act using anti-aircraft weapons and heavy machinery such as rocket grenades, and raided the diplomatic mission of the United States in Benghazi, Libya. This event occurred on late Tuesday night and was responsible for the deaths of the American ambassador and three other diplomats. The American ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens died after this attack after a four hours fierce exchange with the militants. This was the first time an American ambassador had died abroad since 1979. This was a sad event and stimulated a revisionist view of the Arab Spring. Was the Arab Spring an avenue that terrorists and other extremists Islamic groups used to gain control and to frustrate the development of democracy in the Middle East?
As the president of the United States, I would have a response that meets the threshold of securing the interest of the American public while also honoring the sovereignty of the Libyan nation. This tricky situation requires complete analysis and fact finding before taking an action. While it is given that the American were hurt and would require an almost immediate response, it is important that facts are brought to the table before a response is executed. The facts that need to be addressed include aspects such as the motive the attack. Whether the attack was planned or whether it occurred because of the riots over the video, we also need to know who was behind the attack, and the level of corporation that the Libyan authorities are willing to offer so that necessary investigations are carried out with jeopardizing the corporations of the two countries. Similarly, as the president I would be cautions on the information that we make available to the media. This way, we are able to contain paranoia and misleading information that can be misread as a sign of incompetence on the part of the government.
My first reaction after the president of United States would be offering a speech that honors the ambassador and the diplomats who lost their lives while serving the nation. The second part of the speech would highlight some details of what we plan to do in Libya so that we find the attackers in coordination with the Libyan people. This should not be an invasion of Libyan sovereignty, but cooperation between the two countries in pursuit of elements that are are not only a threat to the peace of the world, but also to the stability of Libya and the rest of Islamic Africa and the Middle East. This operation requires more than military aggression, it requires education of the Libyan civilians to understand the concept of democracy and to practice tolerance of opinions. It means that the Libyan governments distinct itself from the tyranny of the people to an institutionalized system that offers support for all citizens and provides a standard of life that Kaddafi denied his people.
The second response would be putting a halt on all military operations in Libya. The American people need to understand that military aid that we supply to countries in lieu of supporting our very American ideals sometimes backfire and become a pain in the back for the country. In January 2011, we aided the Libyan rebels from Benghazi to remove and capture Kaddafi and replace him with a constitutionally
elected leadership. While this process was widely admired for its precision and unitary approach, it created a devil that we currently face. The extremist took advantage of the support from us, acquired our weapons and now they use it against us. This same happened in Afghanistan when our country supported the Taliban when they fought the Soviets in the Muhajadeen. The trained Taliban later became Al-Qaida that evolved to become the number one threat for the United States. As the president of the United States, I would like to be cautions and creating a perennial problem by arming rebels that come back and haunt us with the very weapons that we provide for them. While it is important that the United States must engage with other countries, it is important that we engage in a manner that we do not end up being the victims after dust has settled. In the case of Libya, I think that our county needs a strong and aggressive presence to combat the extremists in Libya, but we also need to start humanitarian projects that make America become the face of humanity and stretch that cultural coordination between the countries.
The third response would be a completely military response to the problem. My response arises from the fact that our foreign embassy is an extension of the American soil. In essence, America has been attacked. In my understanding, the murder of our ambassador and the destruction of the American consulate reminds of 9/11 and the Pearl Harbor attack. We cannot play nice with the terrorists; I suggest a military response to the situation with or without Libyan coordination is in the best interest of American values. As president and commander in chief, I will dispatch six navy destroyers, thousands of marines, federal bureau investigators and intelligence gathers to dig deep into the situation and find the root cause of the problem. While I accept corporation with local police and authorities, I have no absolute trust on their faithfulness, allegiance and competence. For that reason, I will rely fully on American machinery to tackle the problem and bring the murders of Americans to justice.
After a careful assessment of the situation, I realize that the best strategy is the first response. This response allows me to coordinate our reaction with Libyan authorities while finding justice for the fallen heroes. I think that a long-term peaceful approach will not only raise the American credibility but also reduce animosity with other countries over the world. In the current state of the world, another confrontation with a middle- eastern country will be catastrophic to the reputation of the United States. We need to have a solution that fosters peace and justice while doing little damage to interests abroad. Certainly, a combination of military aggression and civil court process would helpful towards tackling the issue would be paramount. In the end, the absence of credible and independent journalism creates a situation where the official sources are lost and the extremists and biased opinions skewed to the taste of sympathizers take center stage as official news sources. This is damaging to the concept of free space. It becomes self-preservation of the freedom of speech and not the watchdog of the public. The American media has become bedrock of liars and moneymaking organizations with little or no interest of the public. This is an insult to the very idea of freedom of speech. The hyper energy created on the case of Libya limits an operation that is in the best interest of the United States.
Work Cited
Kirkpatrick, David. Libya Attack Brings Challenges for U.S. The New York Times, September 12, 2002.
Landler, Mark. Shifting Reports on Libya may cost. The New York Times, September 28, 2002.
Myers, Steven & Schmidt, Michele. After Attack in Libya, an Ambush Struck Rescuers, The New York Times, and September 20, 2012.
