Empty Bravado
If there is a credible threat, then it makes perfect sense to close an Embassy for a day or two while law enforcement and intelligence assets attempt to collect more intell and hopefully neutralize the threat. It also allows time for the host nation to increase local security measures around embassy row (a temporary surge). Closing Embassies based on credible threats is a long and prudent practice, and we shouldn't confuse closing an Embassy for a day or two as pulling in our fangs. Embassies are not security outposts, they're diplomatic outposts. What would be foolish and unacceptable is to open the Embassy when we have credible threat information that results in the needless deaths. That is simply empty bravado. Ambassador's don't make the call to close Embassies lightly, so I think unless the facts indicate otherwise we should trust their judgment.
Personally I think it is good news that we announced we're not sending troops to Yemen. We're not falling into the trap of over reacting like we did previously. We're providing less propaganda for the bad guys, and we should be able to do all we need to do through covert and low visibility support. AQ used to bragg all they had to do was wave a flag in some country and the U.S. would come running, thus over extending themselves even further. We're no longer playing into their hands, but we're still getting after them. Anything other than a low visibility presence there would likely be counterproductive to our efforts in the region.
MikeF, that was a good post. I'm somewhat ambivalent one point one. In democracies there are always contrary opinions, and each side generally over states their case considerably (or over communicates a particular point such as XX is soft on terror) in an attempt to garner more support for their position. Rational debate has never been a part of our political culture, and fear is a good way to motivate the masses whether it is drugs, commis, terrorists, etc. The previous administration played the fear card effectively for political power (didn't do much against AQ IMO) and the former VP is still barking from the sidelines. Though I'm at a loss to see where we're any softer on terror now than we were two years ago.
On the other hand, there are valid reasons for concern. There is little doubt that AQ and other extremis groups would employ a WMD in the U.S. if they ever get one. There is little doubt they would attempt to pull off another attack on the scale of 9/11 if we allowed them to do so. This is at least the third attempt on one our commerical airlines since 9/11 (first was the shoe bomber, then the big plot to blow up several airlines that was disrupted in the UK, and now the Christmas bomber). Governments are obligated to defend their people, and they rightly lose legitimacy when they don't. If the attack Christmas bomber was successful the ripple effects on our economy (actually the global economy, since safe commercial flight is essential) would have been hugely damaging.
That means we (not just the U.S.) need to make tough, rational decisions where we effectively balance our efforts and investment in defense (which IMO is grossly under invested in) and offense (and like Ken suggested, that doesn't always mean military action).
This another rare moment where I disagree with Ken, because I think investing in the right defense technology is critical and it does make a difference. Where we do agree is that politically correct policies are hamstringing security efforts. Profiling is not "nice", but it can be effective in focusing efforts on likely suspects, while refusing to profile can very well allow a terrorist to get through our security measures.
There are no easy answers.
Bookmarks