Letters: Diplomacy correct in Mideast

The assassination of a U.S. ambassador is cause for great concern. Certainly, it should elicit recognition of the heroic work of diplomats and foreign service officers, individuals who are unheralded and forgotten in our hyper-masculine society. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, this sickening act should “shock the conscience of people of all faiths around the world.” Or how about, simply, a solemn response after this tragedy?

Cue the Mitt Romney rancor.

Ever the conniving opportunist, Romney broke his political cease-fire from campaign potshots on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. He criticized President Barack Obama for supposedly apologizing for “American values.”

From Day 1 in the White House, President Obama has led a foreign policy that seeks to engage countries using diplomacy, to build bridges where differences may exist and to employ the resources of the United Nations and NATO. Moderates and undecided voters, take notice: Romney would like to take us away from such noble goals. He would prefer to go back to the blowhard, hawkish days of George W. Bush, when the United States made enemies worldwide with its blundering foreign policy.

The fact of the matter is the State Department has made all the correct statements. It was the right thing to condemn the ill-conceived video meant to incite Muslims.

This statement was made before protesters stormed the embassy in Cairo and the consulate in Benghazi. Soon after, the situation turned violent. Not a single person in the State Department or in the White House sympathized with those who committed crimes (details are still emerging as to whether this was a planned attack using the protests as a guise).

By making statements to the contrary, Romney has blatantly lied, he has added fuel to the fire, and he has shown no respect to those who died serving their country.

President Obama is not perfect in his decisions on foreign policy (no president ever has been), but his philosophy is vastly superior to Romney’s Wild-West lunacy.

To my heroes who perform the diplomatic work of our country and to the recently departed, I give you these words from Matthew 5:9: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.”

Peter Russo

UNO political science graduate student

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by Whatnow - 26/09/2012

@Chucky, Obama knows better. He has to get the blame off his back for his failed foreign policies. It was his "strong" point, according to the rest of the Democrats. A "Kill" list will make you enemies and put our people in danger. He just didn't protect them when he knew they needed extra protection. He is clueless and and Hillary dropped the ball. He will go down in history for "It's Not My Fault".

2) Comment by Chucky - 26/09/2012

Heck, Obama still thinks is was The Film that caused the attack when from day one we knew it was a preplanned attack ( 15min. clip all there is, came out in July) Now that is just plain wrong. You can trust him, I have had enough. They love us and Obama, Because we are weak.

3) Comment by chem - 26/09/2012

As an analogy, if someone goes swimming in shark infested waters and then gets eaten, I find it ridiculous when people get so upset over it. The person knew there were sharks and the probability of getting eaten was high. I have no sympathy for them. They knew the risk and still chose to swim. The same is true of the middle east. It is a very volatile and hostile region and the people who go there know full well that there is a high probability of getting blown up, shot, or otherwise mistreated. They knew the risk. That may seem cold- hearted, but it is the reality.

4) Comment by Springer98 - 26/09/2012

Both houses of Congress investigated the allegations of arms being sold to Iran & didn't find evidence of it.

5) Comment by Springer98 - 26/09/2012

Perhaps you haven't heard of the Algiers Accords? The hostages were released within minutes of the swearing in of Ronald Reagan.

6) Comment by Whatnow - 26/09/2012

@ Chem. "There seems to be more outrage at a handful of people being killed in Libya than the approximately 3000 in New York"???? Chem, are you off your rocker??? Geesh... just shaking my head at that nonsense. I now know what kind of mind I'm trying to deal with here and I'm just wasting my time. I truly hope you realize your folly in that ludicrous statement. And just on my behalf, any death of one of our own is an outrage, sir. Shame on you.

7) Comment by jvstice - 26/09/2012

@Springer98-->google "october surprise conspiracy" for one explanation...

8) Comment by DMJ - 26/09/2012

Agagent, you're mixing your tenses. Please clarify.

9) Comment by agagent - 26/09/2012

Speaking of diplomacy, Obama says Egypt is not an ally but the state department said they were.

10) Comment by DMJ - 26/09/2012

Springer, Iran released those hostages because the Reagan administration sold them arms.

11) Comment by chem - 26/09/2012

The way I worded the statement about 9/11, that intelligence had the bits and pieces but the administration did nothing sounds like blame, but it is not. It is a realistic look at how things are in the real world. Whether it was arrogance or incompetence, or something in between, the fact is that the events of 9/11 took place. There seems to be more outrage at a handful of people being killed in Libya than the approximately 3000 in New York. We are all just armchair coaches in this matter. Oh, we had 48 hours notice, we could have done something. Lets send in the Marines. What about a naval strike? When you start doing things like that, even more Americans will be killed. There is a reason for diplomacy. Every time something happens to Americans abroad, there are those who begin to scream for war. Let’s send in the troops. That is not always the answer. And if you want to look at history, there are very few in this country who now think that invading Iraq was worth anything. There were no WMDs, no “terrorists”, nothing. All we did was get rid of Saddam, who we helped over all of his years in power, and got a lot of American soldiers killed and maimed. And just look at the state of Iraq now. The relations in the Middle East are not as simple as some make it out to be.

12) Comment by InPVille - 26/09/2012

The first President Bush's New World Order failed to advance America's diplomatic goals in the Middle East. The second President Bush's democracy crusade hasn't advanced our goals there. President Obama's support of the "Arab Spring" hasn't improved the situation. Nature abhors a vacuum. And the results of all of the above efforts has been the empowering of forces in opposition to us. The argument can be made that the area is even less stable than before. Rather than supporting the idea that our diplomacy in the Middle East is correct, the evidence supports the idea that we don't have a clue how to conduct successful diplomacy in the Middle East.

13) Comment by agagent - 26/09/2012

Bush is not President, and it Obama who is running for re-election. Obama always says "don't blame me" for all of his failures.

14) Comment by ABayouBoy - 26/09/2012

The extremists / terrorists in the Mid-East need only an irrational excuse, such as a video, to justify their actions. No measure of diplomacy will ever sway these fanatics. They are so thoroughly brainwashed by their deplorable living conditions and culture. But the vast majority of Islamics in Libya have made their opposition to the militants heard also. Mitt Romney terrifies me even more so. He is brainwashed by the extremely wealthy lifestyle. I guess that if I were lucky enough to be in the upper 1%, I might just be inclined to vote in his favor. But, his actions prove to me that he is simply a power hungry opportunist. Sorry, This Boy's voting for Obama.

15) Comment by ScotB - 26/09/2012

Diplomacy works sometimes, sometimes it doesn't. Two questions: What does it mean to be an ally? Can you negotiate diplomatically with a rogue state? We say we are Israel's ally. Iran has publicly stated it intends to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, is acknowledged by every credible intelligence agency to be the world's largest enabler of terrorism, and is pursuing nuclear capability. We waited too long to act with Hitler. The problem is that we cannot negotiate with the leaders of Iran. One of the worst fallacies of western intellectuals is to believe the people in this region of the world have a mindset like ours. These people are absolutely not afraid to die. Many embrace death in the service of Allah as the surest way to eternal salvation. We must act soon on Iran, preferably as a coalition of nations, but unilaterally if necessary. You can be sure that we will be their target. Let's not forget 9-11. Let's not forget Hitler and WWII. The lessons of history make clear what must be done. America is understandably war weary, but a detonated nuclear device in a major population center would be more costly in lives and treasure than a war. Because of its public statements of aggression and rebuke of the international community regarding its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons, our path is clear - we are understandably reluctant to take it.

16) Comment by Whatnow - 25/09/2012

I'm sorry, Chem. I meant to say 48 hrs instead of 4 days, which is still plenty of time to get the area secure.

17) Comment by Whatnow - 25/09/2012

Chem, yes you did. "What I have seen in the news is that prior to 9/11, our intelligence community had credible evidence of an imminent attack but the administration did nothing." Almost all the bits and pieces? They just didn't put it together? Didn't you read my questions concerning knowing about 9/11? That's a far stretch from knowing that the embassy in Benghazi was in danger. Give it up, Chem. This attack was nothing like 9/11. We had more warning and more details for four days and they were ignored. If you want to make excuses for ineptitude of this administration, you will have to come up with something more concrete on the 9/11 attack. Just believing Obama again and his telling us that the cause was a dumb movie that's been on YouTube since July, won't cut it. It's blaming. There a lot more to what he's saying. Even his own Carney says otherwise. And I not some person just guessing at what is going on and commenting. I am commenting on things that are out there for all to see if they want to know the truth. We may not be at war with the extremists, but they sure are at war with us.

18) Comment by chem - 25/09/2012

I am not trying to ascribe blame to anyone, now or in the past. I was attempting to show just how difficult these geo-political-religious entanglements are. They are far more difficult than I can realize sitting in my living room typing comments under a pseudonym. We had the information before 9/11: We knew almost all of the bits and pieces of the puzzle, we just did not put it together. That was no ones fault. We could not prevent an attack on our own soil, so think how difficult, if not impossible, it is to prevent such things in another country. And in a country that is openly hostile, not only to the U.S., but to Western ideals in general.

19) Comment by Springer98 - 25/09/2012

Does anybody remember the American embassy in Iran being stormed & the hostages being held for so long, during the Carter administration? Anybody ever wonder why Iran released the hostages immediately upon the election of Ronald Reagan? Any views on this?

20) Comment by Whatnow - 25/09/2012

Chem, did they know where? Did they know what? What could they have done, not knowing these things? At least the State Dept. knew where, why and when in Bengahzi. That made all the difference in the world, don't you think???

21) Comment by chem - 25/09/2012

What I have seen in the news is that prior to 9/11, our intelligence community had credible evidence of an imminent attack but the administration did nothing. Had someone listened back then, 3000 of our citizens would still be alive.

22) Comment by Whatnow - 25/09/2012

Well, I do have to admit, I had no clue about how much security these brave diplomats receive, but I was shocked to see how little. I just assumed that they had a lot more, especially in light of a warning of unrest. And I asked that if Iran bombs Israel where will Obama stand. I didn't say anything about WMD's. Iran won't let in inspectors in, so who knows. Why should I believe anything that the government tells me anyway? We always find out things after the fact.

23) Comment by DMJ - 25/09/2012

I don't recall you (or anyone else, for that matter) talk about the lack of security at the embassies prior to the attacks. Hindsight is 20/20, it seems. And are we really headed for a war with Iran? Ugh... I guess we learned nothing from the Iraq debacle. Oh but this time they really DO have WMDs, right? I think it was W who so articulately said, "Fool me once, shame...shame one me. Fool me twice.....can't get fooled again." Or was that Roger Daltry? I forget...

24) Comment by Whatnow - 25/09/2012

DMJ, Ron Paul-like isolationist foreign policy? No, I don't believe in that. We do need diplomacy. And what do you think Obama will do if Iran strikes Israel? I know what he should do, but will he do it? Or will he slap Iran with more sanctions that don't work or sit down with them and sing Kumbaya? But, Libya is still very vulnerable after Gaddafi's demise. Plus, there was warning about riots with the where and when. I still believe more protection was warranted in Bengahzi. Especially since the killing of Bin Laden and 9/11 and especially on the 9/11 anniversary. It's not keeping military there. It's extra protection for our diplomats. Libya could not do the job. Al-Queda is very organized and oozing with revenge. Even Carney said it was planned. The only one that doesn't seem to know that is Obama. He doesn't want to admit this tragedy on his watch. His job is to protect Americans and he and Clinton did nothing. Seems like Washington has learned nothing. Chem, there was no warning as to the where, when, what and how on 9/11. How do you stop a 747 that's already crashed?

25) Comment by DMJ - 25/09/2012

Whatnow....Why did I vote for Obama? I'm a liberal...what was I gonna do...vote for McCain/Palin?! Am I going to vote for Romney..who wants a war with Iran?! And from what I can tell...most of you favor a Ron Paul-like isolationist foreign policy? Good. It's refreshing to hear this from a conservative other than Paul. However, not having military in another country and not even having an embassy are 2 different things. Are we to completely abandon diplomacy, of all sorts, in countries where some (not all) of the people are anti-America? This is what pulling our embassies would entail, and this could be viewed as a hostile act in itself.

26) Comment by chem - 25/09/2012

It is not that simple and I certainly don't have an answer to the problem. We need a diplomatic presence, but we cannot send in the military either. What if they don't want us there? Do we stay with a military presence? Regardless of how any of us may feel about those people, they are sovereign nations and we simply cannot "just send in the military". Our arrogance is a huge part of our problems in that region. But not to worry. It will all come to a head pretty soon, because Israel will not allow Iran to go much furthre with their nuclear program. When Israel bombs Iran, all hell will break loose.

27) Comment by Attila - 25/09/2012

@chem: That being the case I am sure that you would not have a problem with simply closing down our embassies and cutting off diplomatic relations with these "hostile" nations; would you?

28) Comment by chem - 25/09/2012

It has now come out that "we" had ample warning of the 9/11 attack in New York and were incapable of stopping that atrocity. Why would any rational person think that we have any influence over what happens in an area of the world that is hyper-hostile toward America? Yea, I know, hindsight is always 20/20. If we only had a platoon of Marines. Why stop there? Make it a brigade. The bottom line is this: as long as we have a presence in that area, we will be targeted by the nuts that live in that region. We don't have the resources to police the world or to adequately defend our embassies in hostile territory.

29) Comment by Whatnow - 25/09/2012

If a platoon of armed American Marines had been with Ambassador Stevens at Bengahzi, Stevens and the other three Americans would still be alive. The armed Marines should have been there, the State Department had ample warning of the possibility of an attack. And now the State Dept. is mad at CNN for finding a diary that was just laying on the ground. Why? Either they are mad that CNN didn't turn it over without reading it or they are mad that they were found incompetent. Either way, it was incompetence.

30) Comment by chem - 25/09/2012

Blaming Obama, or for that matter, any President, for what happened in the middle east is nothing but pure unadulterated posturing and tripe. Short of shutting down all of our embassies in those countries, there is essentially nothing that the U.S. can do to prevent such violence, short of dropping atomic bombs all over the region.

31) Comment by Whatnow - 25/09/2012

DMJ, I have a question for you, why did you vote for Obama?

32) Comment by Whatnow - 25/09/2012

DMJ, I was a Democrat then. After Bill Clinton, I became an Independent. I didn't like the turn the Democratic Party was taking. I vote for who I think is the best qualified to lead our country and I never thought it was Obama. His policies, his ideologies, his qualifications, his associations and his past are the reasons that I didn't vote for him. And I did judge him by the company he kept. Obama may want to "blame" this film, but it still doesn't erase the fact that these embassies were not protected in spite of all of the unrest and warnings. You can defend this administration all you like, but Obama has a one track mind and he's had it for three years. His only goal is to win this election at all cost, even to the point of ignoring his job and country. He only cares about the people who will vote for him and not America as a whole. That is if he can get his focus off the other guy instead of what his record is. I'm sure if you watch "The View" he will explain what he has in mind for the country if he wins.

33) Comment by Chucky - 25/09/2012

I will say Obama gave a good speech at the UN today. If backed up with action (Iran and and its rush for nukes). voted for Obama, but will not again i fell for his oratory last time. His mention of world human trafficking was right on.

34) Comment by InPVille - 25/09/2012

@DMJ: Are you trying to tell me that Obama and Clinton cannot be expected to have learned anything about the type of people we are dealing with in the Middle East over the past nearly 30 years or even what was going in in Libya in the past several months? I thought so. . .

35) Comment by DMJ - 25/09/2012

To all of those blaming Obama and Clinton for this, did you also blame Reagan when over 200 Americans were killed in Lebanon in 1983? Did you declare him incompetent or did you vote for him again in '84? That's what I thought...

36) Comment by agagent - 25/09/2012

The Obama administration sent our ambassador to a very volatile part of Libya; housed in an unhardened, unsecured interim facility; without U S Marine protection; and with rules of engagement that severely limited its defense capability. Security assessments urged the state department to use U S forces and not depend on hired security or host country protection in unstable locations such as Benghazi, Libya. In addition, Libyan officials warned of the attack, the violence in Benghazi was proceeded by violence in Egypt, and it occurred on a day we knew the terrorist wanted to strike back. The Obama administration’s failures doomed the 4 Americans in Benghazi to brutal deaths.

37) Comment by Whatnow - 25/09/2012

The attacks on our embassies on 9/11 shows a total failure of diplomacy and a total failure of security. Obama and Hillary Clinton are both incompetent. Period.

38) Comment by InPVille - 25/09/2012

In early June of this year a bomb was set off next to one of the walls of the Benghazi U.S. consulate. The next week there was an attack on a British embassy convoy in eastern Libya. The U.S. post in Benghazi had less than standard security before the Benghazi attack: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/24/u-s-post-in-benghazi-had-less-than-standard-security-before-attack/ -[**]- "Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security" http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 -[**]- Three days after the fatal assault, CNN journalists picked up a personal journal of the late U.S. Ambassador, Christopher Stevens. CNN has been criticized for this. However, it points out the the embassy had still not been secured THREE DAYS after the attack. -[**]- Sorry Mr. Russo. But it appears to me that if U.S. Diplomacy in the Middle East is correct, then Keystone Cops are the correct model for law enforcement. -[**]- @Old Man Kensey: Not formulating in a few words what correct "forighn" policy would be in no way removes the ability to recognize and point out that something isn't working. -[**]- At least President Obama at 10:41 to 1043 ET today in his U.N. Speech is touching upon jdk944's valid point concerning the Islamic world's need to reject attacks on "Jews, Christians, ...".

39) Comment by DMJ - 25/09/2012

Romney looked like a total amateur after this. Worse, he looked just plain stupid and uninformed, which is rare for him. Then, there was the whole 47% debacle. Not a good couple of weeks for the Romney campaign. Sadly, people who hate President Obama heard from Fox, Drudge, Rush and Romney that he apologized and sympathized with the attackers. Never mind that this isn't true, that both accusations are demonstrably false. This matters not to his detractors. Facts and timelines don't matter when there's an opportunity to insult the President, it seems. Disgraceful.

40) Comment by [e-mail] - 25/09/2012

A video is just that and nothing else; it's not a cause for bedlam to break out and it's not a cause for a President to comment on it one way or another, and it's certainly not justification for assasination, overunning a consulate, killing Americans, and mutilation of their bodies by a terrorist organization well armed, funded, and helped by foriegn governments. If an American wants to condemn or mock anything, including Islam in a film or otherwise, it's guaranteed by the US constitution. A stange thing is that I never hear of any outrage when the shoe is on the other foot.

41) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 25/09/2012

Jdk, in your blind rage against Obama, you neglected to tell us about your superior forighn policy. Would it be cowboy diplomacy? Or John Wayne diplomacy? Thump our chest and proclaim.. we is the best? Have you even read up on this "so called apology" from our embassy? It never happened. There was no apology. And, there was a defense of free speech. And further, there was acknowledgement that some people don't understand the responsibility that walks hand in hand with freedom. They use freedom of speech as an excuse to attack, degrade, and ridicule. ................and those people do more damage to this country than any terrorist could ever dream of.

42) Comment by jdk944 - 25/09/2012

Mr. Russo, your application of so called diplomacy in the middle east is as misinformed about this situation as the president and his administration are!! You say this after 4 years of disasterous results in that region or what President Obama is calling "a bump in the road", with regard to the latest incidents. Are you on the president's staff? And these actions AREN'T shocking the Islamist extremists Mr. Russo. When are those of your thought process going to understand this. The Obama administration continues to tell us that the Muslim Brotherhood and a host of other Islamic radical groups in 30 countries just happened to come across the 'offensive videos' on the 11th anniversary of the devastating 9/11 al-Qaida attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 of our countrymen. That alone requires a willful suspension of disbelief by anyone at all familiar with reality. Apparently leaders of the Islamic world present a non-negotiable demand to the West that they be given a blank check for their governments to defame Jews, Christians, and Americans, but the United States must condemn any private individual who, quite apart from the knowledge of the U.S. government, does the same to Muslims. That is the issue, and anything less than an unapologetic defense of free speech is not only a betrayal of our Constitution, but a very dangerous concession that will only incite more violence in the near future. And lastly, there can be no peace with those who obsession, whose religion, is to destroy infidels!! THAT WOULD BE US Mr. Russo!!

43) Comment by Chucky - 25/09/2012

We are at war, appeasing and apologizing do not make friends, only makes us look weak and vulnerable. We made peace, others broke it.

44) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 24/09/2012

Amen