On the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01, the thoughts and prayers of patriotic Americans across the nation reflected upon the survivors of those attacks, their families, and those who responded on our behalf, both here at home and overseas. Meanwhile, our embassies in Libya and Egypt (it’s actually a “consulate” in Libya) were overrun by militants, and America sustained new casualties.
The militants claim to be motivated by an American citizen’s independent film (apparently posted on the Internet approximately three months ago), in which the Islamic prophet Mohammed reportedly is portrayed irreverently. I’m not buying that as their true motivation. If someone in a foreign country made a movie in which Jesus Christ were portrayed irreverently, even insulted, do you think that America’s Christians would be attempting to overrun that foreign country’s embassy in Washington? No, they wouldn’t. So, are Libyans and Egyptians, in general, that much more religious than Americans? I don’t think so.
I think that religion is mostly just a pretext for these attacks on our embassies. In other words, I think that the militants are doing what they’ve wanted to do all along — 1) try to intimidate the U.S.A. out of its strategic involvement in their region, and 2) project their jealous, disaffected rage for the failings of their nations onto the U.S.A. — and that they’re using religious indignation as an excuse (if one believes that the central figure of his/her religion has been inaccurately historically portrayed as having modeled and/or preached abhorrent behavior or values, then instead of responding by modeling and/or inciting abhorrent behavior, one ought simply to present an accurate historical portrayal and model the behavior and values that were actually preached). It’s chillingly reminiscent of how the U.S. Embassy in Iran was overrun in 1979, with 52 American hostages held during the presidential election year that followed — an election contest strikingly similar to the current one in many ways, and in my opinion, the commonalities are not random.
In my opinion, the likelihood of such attacks on our interests, both overseas and here at home, goes up when our enemies stop fearing us, and I think that our enemies have become progressively emboldened over the past few years, by our Administration’s apologetic tone for its predecessor’s foreign policy (e.g. the first reaction to yesterday’s attacks on our embassies reportedly was a denunciation, not of the attacks, but of the movie, and an expression of regret for its offensiveness to the militants!), by its naivete with respect to the nature and intentions of our enemies (e.g. cheering on “revolutionaries” in various Middle Eastern countries — including Libya and Egypt — when it wasn’t at all clear whether their success would make Americans more or less safe), by its de-emphasis of homeland security (in multiple ways ranging from attempting to reclassify enemy combatants as criminal defendants with the same rights as American citizens, to ignoring rampant violations of our borders, to reportedly reducing the frequency of presidential intelligence briefings), and by its haste to both scale back our strategic missile defenses in Europe and to disengage from a still-dangerously-unstable Middle East (instead of standing firm with our longstanding ally Israel against Iran’s fervent pursuit of nuclear weaponry).
Yes, Bin Laden was killed during the current Administration’s tenure, but let’s face it, Bin Laden would’ve been killed regardless of who was President at the time (just like G.M. would still be making cars regardless of who was President at the time, via a legal bankruptcy restructuring process if not a taxpayer-funded bailout). Reminiscent of 1979, I think that these embassy attacks on 9/11 suggest that our enemies are unafraid of the current Administration’s response, and I think we’d better change that before they become any more emboldened than they already are.