Seeing Through the Fog
Friday, September 14th 2012
There has been an ocean of ink and a vast number of electrons expended on the recent events in Benghazi, Cairo and in a dozen other cities in the Islamic world. It is likely that we are closer to the beginning than the end of the current crisis.
Much of the media coverage of these events, both the crisis itself and the domestic political reaction to those events, have created more heat than light. An unfortunate impression that remains is that the US was unprepared for terrorism on the 11th anniversary of 9-11, misunderstood what was actually happening on the ground and did not react clearly and strongly enough at the beginning of these events. What is the truth of the matter?
First let us clear away some of the fog. The tragic death of four brave Americans in Benghazi was not caused by an anti-Islamic video. This was a planned, coordinated attack by a terrorist organization which would have happened whether this video existed or not. Clearly the consulate and the "safe house" were targeted. The real question here is why the security, especially on this 9-11 anniversary was not better.
The demonstrations, allegedly based on the video, would have occurred or could occur on some perceived slight to Islam in any case. The root causes of this unrest and violence go well beyond the video. Indeed, focusing on the video is merely a distraction from a bigger issue. Explaining our free speech society can do some good with people of good will but the sort of people who delight in chanting "death to America" are unmoved by such rhetoric. Indeed for them, America's free speech society IS the problem. Public diplomacy has a leading role in explaining our society and values to the world but we should be prepared for the fact that for some people our society and values are repugnant.
Cairo's demonstration may well have been another cover operation for the exercise of some terrorist act or simply a coincident uprising on the anniversary of 9-11. No matter what may be determined, it is clear that the new Egyptian government utterly failed in its duty to protect a foreign diplomatic establishment even though they knew of the demonstration in advance. Now two or three days later they may have "gotten the message" that this is unacceptable. This message should have been delivered earlier and stronger perhaps but it has been finally delivered.
The overriding issue is America's relationship with and within the region.
This is most certainly a subject of debate within the foreign policy elite but also a legitimate point of debate in this election year in the US. To claim that it should not be debated as some pundits and much of media insist because "politics stops at the waters edge" misses the point. That refers to criticism of an administration's foreign policy by opponents while abroad--not criticism of foreign policy period! Certainly in all previous presidential election campaigns candidates have not been reticent about criticizing the foreign policy of the administration in power. In a free society foreign policy as well as domestic policy must be subject to debate.
America's relations with counties in the region are complex; and in the post-Arab Spring era the relationship with "the Arab street" is even more complex and important. The dysfunctional relationship between the US and Israel in recent days and the increasing threat of a nuclear Iran only exacerbates an already volatile situation. President Obama's Cairo Speech early in his term of office, no matter what one might think of its wisdom, had the effect of raising expectations of a new American approach to the Islamic worlds. Sadly, these expectations simply were not followed up. The frustration and anger caused by dashed expectations combined with a series of mixed messages to the peoples of the region (the green revolution in Iran, "leading from behind" in Libya, the failure to stop the massacres in Syria, red lines and red lights regarding a nuclear Iran and Israeli concerns) and a general uncertainty as to American leadership has produced a toxic situation.
The Arab Spring had great potential and may still have that potential but the US has missed several critical opportunities so far and may need to rethink a number of current assumptions. Unless we are willing to recast some of the policies of the United States held by all administrations since the end of WWII, we may expect to find more angry mobs who don't like us or our values. That just may be the price we must pay for pursuing our core values and national interests in this dangerous neighborhood. Two things are for certain, however: (1) American foreign policy must be clear, resolute and clearly understood (that is public diplomacy's role) by both allies and adversaries. (2) When America creates expectations, America must follow through on those expectations--that is the essence of leadership.
2 people have commented on this article so far
William P. Kiehl
Treasurer / Board Member
Bill Kiehl is founding President & CEO of PD Worldwide, consultants in international public affairs, higher education management, and cross-cultural communication. Dr. Kiehl is currently the Book Review Editor and editor emeritus of the journal American Diplomacy, published by the American Diplomacy Foundation in cooperation with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He served as Executive Director of the Public Diplomacy Council from February 2004 through April 2007. Dr. Kiehl has taught public diplomacy at the Foreign Service Institute and has lectured at a number of colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad. He holds his Doctorate in Higher Education Management from the University of Pennsylvania; his dissertation was "The Influence of Campus Internationalization on Local Communities."
...click authors name for more infoAuthor: Bill Kiehl
Stay Connected
Follow the Public Diplomacy Council on Facebook and share your opinion about up-to-date issues with us.
We welcome comments from our readers that advocate and shed light on the subject of public diplomacy. We avoid discussion that is politically partisan, commercial in nature or offensive, and the Council reserves the right to remove such comments.
Governor Romney's Mideastern Misadventure
Based on 28 years as a U.S. diplomat in seven different embassies, including tours heading the public diplomacy operation and serving as embassy spokesperson, I am appalled by the ill- conceived, politically motivated attack launched by Governor Romney on the Cairo Embassy press release and President Obama.
If the Embassy press release is a public relations disaster, it is an artificially created one, triggered by Mr. Romney's intemperate attack launched apparently without realizing that the release was issued hours before the violence at the Cairo Embassy and the Benghazi Consulate. It criticized an anti-Muslim film ostensibly behind the attacks, but did not in any way justify or encourage the subsequent violence and clearly was intended to blunt the anger misdirected toward the U.S. government and lessen the danger to the Cairo Embassy and its employees.
However, apparently eager to burnish nonexistent foreign affairs credentials and blunt right wing complaints that he lacked sufficient aggressiveness, Romney failed to notice that the press release was issued several hours before the violence. Perhaps he didn't realize this initially, but he doubled down on his attack after he was informed of the correct time line. This was dishonest, reckless, and a further demonstration that Mr. Romney lacks the temperament and foreign affairs sophistication necessary to be a successful president.
Even more inexplicably, after initially reacting in shock at the Romney misadventure, much of the GOP now appears to have rallied behind him, blaming the Obama administration for the rioting and for not protecting our diplomatic outposts. This is malicious nonsense. All diplomatic missions depend on the host government for security and do not maintain a large enough resident security contingent to do more than delay an attack until the host country can react. Blaming the president, instead of rallying in support, is appallingly cynical and unpatriotic, as well as unprecedented in modern American politics.
Note to the Editor: Below is the Embassy Cairo press release, issued several hours before the attacks took place.
U.S. Embassy, Cairo, 2012:
U.S. Embassy Condemns Religious Incitement
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
— September 11, 2012
More Fog, Less Clarity
While I recognize that opinions may differ and, in fact, I welcome a variety of views on issues of public diplomacy, I must respond to the remarks by J. Michael Houlahan posted following my own commentary “Seeing Through the Fog.” This is exactly the sort of fog to which I refered that we should attempt to see through—or beyond—in discussing the events of September 11, 2012.
Mr. Houlahan is certainly entitled to his political opinions. But I believe the appropriate place for partisan opinion pieces such as his, attacking the morality, patriotism or ethics of one of the presidential candidates, is on a blog devoted to such political discourse; not on this platform which seeks, in a non-partisan, objective and even-handed way, to shed some light on issues related to public diplomacy.
I do not intend to get into a debate on the merits or lack thereof of Mr. Houlahan’s statements, nor of the “facts” as he outlined them. There has been far too much kerfuffle already in the U.S. media over Mr. Romney’s allegedly ill-timed remarks and far too little attention paid to the possible serious breeches of security both at the Department of State and in the field in Benghazi, which led to the four tragic deaths in Libya. And there has been an almost single-minded obsession with an 18-minute movie trailer for a film that was never released as the “cause” of the current anti-Americanism in Islamic capitals beginning with Cairo The latter preoccupation among officials and sympathetic journalists seems an obvious ploy to evade any responsibility for the underlying causes of the rioting and violence directed at the United States. But then that is just one public diplomat’s opinion.
Post new comment