Are you safer now than you were four years ago? That’s the most important question that needs to be answered in Monday night’s foreign policy debate. Unfortunately for President Obama, there’s ample evidence that the answer is no. His administration killed Osama bin Laden, but the war on terror is still very much alive. And while the Benghazi attack has been getting most of the attention lately, it’s just the latest symptom of a much more systematic national security problem for this administration.
Here are some questions that are indirectly related to Benghazi that would be interesting to raise at Monday’s debate. And since it’s never a good idea to ask a question at a debate that you don’t know the answer to, the answers to all of these are already known:
Question One: Did you underestimate al-Qaeda’s Arabian Peninsula affiliate before the 2009 Christmas Day bombing attack?
Answer: Yes.
Obama’s counterterrorism advisor John Brennan surprised reporters when he referred to AQAP as “one of the most lethal, one of the most concerning” extensions of al-Qaeda at a press briefing two weeks after the attack, and noted that “They carried attacks against Prince Mohammed bin Nayef in Saudi Arabia, against Saudi targets, inside of Yemen, against Yemeni as well as against U.S. targets.”
U.S. targets — and yet the Obama administration hadn’t even designated the group as a terrorist organization until after the failed attack.
“We had a strategic sense of sort of where [al-Qaeda-Arabian Peninsula] were going, but we didn’t know they had progressed to the point of actually launching individuals here,” Brennan added. “And we have taken that lesson, and so now we’re all on top of it.” At least until the next attack.
Question Two: Did you call the Christmas Day bomber an “isolated extremist” three days after the attack?
Answer: Yes.
Despite the fact that there was already evidence that showed Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had been training in Yemen weeks before the attack, and despite a statement from AQAP taking credit for the attack, President Obama called him an “isolated extremist” in his first public speech on the matter.
“This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist,” said Obama.
It’s one thing for the president to say he wanted to wait for facts before making a definitive judgment on Abdulmutallab’s al-Qaeda ties. But Obama actually did make a definitive judgment — that Abdulmutallab was not affiliated with al-Qaeda, despite evidence to the contrary.
Question Three: Did John Brennan admit before the U.S. attack that al-Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate was capable of attacking the homeland?
Answer: Yes.
In John Brennan’s January 2010 press conference, he said the Obama administration “saw the plot was developing, but at the time we did not know in fact that they were talking about sending Mr. Abdulmutallab to the United States.” Again, if they saw the plot developing, why had they not characterized AQAP as a threat to the country? Why was Obama so reluctant to say Abdulmutallab was tied to al-Qaeda?
Question Four: Did you underestimate the Pakistani Taliban’s ability to attack the homeland prior to the Times Square bombing?
Answer: Yes.
The administration was caught flat-footed by the 2010 failed Times Square car bomb attack, which was carried out by a terrorist tied to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Until then the TTP was not widely regarded as a group that was capable of carrying out an attack on U.S. soil.
And yet after the attack, Brennan told Fox News that the TTP was a significant threat that was “almost indistinguishable” from al-Qaeda.
Question Five: Did you miss warning signs in 2009, when CIA officers were killed in a suicide attack by a double-agent?
Answer: Yes.
Seven CIA operatives were killed when a fake informant working for the Pakistani Taliban blew himself up inside a U.S. base in Afghanistan. A subsequent investigation found numerous red flags and intelligence breakdowns, including one CIA officer who had been warned about the informant weeks in advance, but hadn’t passed on the information. The investigation said that CIA officials may have ignored warning signs because they were desperate to find someone who could lead them to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The U.S. can’t have eyes everywhere all the time, and there is always the possibility that a plot will be missed. But all of these incidents show that the Benghazi attack wasn’t an isolated lapse. The Obama administration has a pattern of intelligence breakdowns and missing clear signs prior to an attack. It also has a pattern of downplaying threats that may be politically harmful.
This isn’t just a critique of past failings. There are implications here for the future. As Jeffrey Goldberg wrote yesterday: “Biden said [at the vice presidential debate] the U.S. would know if the Iranians had begun to manufacture a warhead. But the U.S. didn’t know its ambassador in Libya would be assassinated. It didn’t know that the World Trade Center would be attacked. American intelligence doesn’t know a lot of things. Such is the nature of intelligence. Biden’s sanguine approach to weaponization suggests either that he strayed far from Obama administration policy, or that the White House is more relaxed and confident about stopping Iran than it should be.”
Can we rely on the Obama administration — the same administration that overlooked the threat from AQAP, dismissed the threat from the Pakistani Taliban, and ignored the multiple attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that led up to the 9/11/12 attack — to have a clear grasp of the Iranian nuclear threat? Preventing an Iranian bomb means that we’ll need to rely heavily on intelligence, something the Obama administration has not had a great track record of gathering, processing, or acting on for the past four years.
The intelligence community is composed of dedicated, hard working, and patriotic public servants who do the best they can. Still, as Alana notes, there are limits to what they know and to what they can know even with the best assets in place. However, our nation is best served when our adversaries know that while we may be limited in predicting their attacks we are not nearly so limited in responding to their attacks. That we can respond and will respond is imperative to preventing attacks. n nMr. Obama is not interested in defense and hence he is not interested in strengthening our ability to respond to attacks. Our enemies know this and they see us drawing down. They know that in a few short years, if we continue as we are going, the U.S. will be too weak to respond militarily. As such, we have no deterrence. n nIf we are to deter our enemies, and we must do that, we have to be strong. Sadly, there's little evidence the current administration sees the world that way.
0bama isnt interested in much of anything except keeping a cushy job, so he and moochelle can travel on AF-1, party, golf, and be adored. In other words be Royalty.
Here are a few other topics that should be raised: nIs the United Nations still useful or does it do more harm than good? nHow will the government decide that Iran is at a point of no return with respect to nuclear weapons when intelligence seems to have been deficient in a much simpler matter….the Benghazi terrorist attack? n nhow badly does Egypt have to behave before all financial support is withdrawn? nShould students from Islamic countries and China be allowed to enrol in strategic fields of study such as nuclear physics, nuclear engineering, cybersecurity (the Bangladeshi would-be bomber was enrolled in this field on a student visa)? n nShould immigration policy be altered to prevent internal subversion in the USA? n nI could go on, but that should do for a start n n n n
In many respects, I believe the foreign policy debate is the most difficult for Romney. Much of what Alana writes is important, but Romney has to be very careful not to get too detailed on this. Unlike the economy where people live the issues, Libya has not been on the top of people's agenda. Their eyes will glaze over if he is unable to make his argument concisely and connect the episode to Obama's incompetence and, as Alana says, Obama's inability to keep the nation safe. Romney's mastery of a few of the major time line events is crucial. Moreover, Romney must be even more careful not to advance a foreign/defense policy that is too muscular. The public is war weary and is not comfortable to the type of commitments, tone,and formulations that most Commentary writers are. It wants out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not in to any other area. Romney will open himself to criticism if he cannot finesse the topic. Romney should do everything he can to connect the economy to the topic. Energy independence should be his major theme in relation to maintaining a secure nation and one not dependent upon an unstable area like the Middle East. And, of course, he should expose Obama's Middle East policy as an abandonment of and threat to Israel.
Not only are we not getting the intel we need, it's easy to make the case Obama doesn't WANT more intel on the islamists. Why else drone al lthese guys instead of capture and interrogate them? I'm sure we've killed LOTS of brian cells that WERE full of information … just before the hellfire hit them.
Here's one: n nWhy did the President go on a comedy show to talk and laugh, and bizarrely and unfeelingly refer to the deaths of Americans in Libya as 'not optimal' instead of tragic and preventable? n n(OK, I know its about Libya, but still . . . .)
Because he thinks he is either a Dictator or Royalty. Things like that are just a "Bump in the Road" for him.
The published Narrative is a very Powerful Argument that attracts inflammatory commentaries. Urban Accuracy Requires Profanity to deliver honest opinion. You have the right to edit my narrative to meet Turf Taste. Please don’t delete my mind based on Racial or Cultural Perspective. I am too old to spam & be deceptive. I mean no offense. ncut the bullshit nonly Israelis know that the so called terrorist attacking USA wanted 6,588,065 Israelis who populating USA to go back to Nigeria where they belong here where they are living right now nAlabama n8,850 nAlaska n6,150 nArizona n106,400 nArkansas n1,725 nCalifornia n1,219,740 nColorado n91,070 nConnecticut n116,050 nDelaware n15,100 nDistrict of Columbia n28,000 nFlorida n638,635 nGeorgia n127,670 nHawaii n7,280 nIdaho n1,525 nIllinois n297,935 nIndiana n17,470 nIowa n6,240 nKansas n17,775 nKentucky n11,300 nLouisiana n10,675 nMaine n13,890 nMaryland n238,000 nMassachusetts n277,980 nMichigan n82,270 nMinnesota n45,635 nMississippi n1,575 nMissouri n59,175 nMontana n1,350 nNebraska n6,100 nNevada n74,400 nNew Hampshire n10,120 nNew Jersey n504,450 nNew Mexico n12,175 nNew York n1,635,020 nNorth Carolina n30,675 nNorth Dakota n400 n
Let me guess. You are voting for Obama, right?
Can someone please tell me what the hell that was all about?
Guess Jewish afros are coming back. But a lot of us really don't have curly hair with body.
It is one thing to have dedicated career people in the intelligence services. n nIt is another thing for them to absolutely know – and to be able to promise to sources — that the nBoy President isn't going to burn them in some publicity stunt. Talk to the guy doing time in the Pakastanian jail and ask him if he has second thoughts about providing info to the US? Bet he does…
Mr President: what is the capital of Israel?
Mr. President, please name three countries that begin with the letter "I." n nMr. President, how many stars are on the US Flag, and what do they stand for? n nMr. President, there once was a published high school US History textbook which stated that "FDR ended the Korean war by dropping the atomic bomb." What is wrong with that statement?
The published Narrative is a very Powerful Argument that attracts inflammatory commentaries. Urban Accuracy Requires Profanity to deliver honest opinion. You have the right to edit my narrative to meet Turf Taste. Please don’t delete my mind based on Racial or Cultural Perspective. I am too old to spam & be deceptive. I mean no offense.
Stating that something is incoherent is not an inflammatory response. It is a statement of fact — one can neither be in agreement nor disagreement with you when it isn't possible to figure out what on earth it is you are trying to say in the first place….