Obama's MidEast Gambit

A conundrum within a puzzle becomes a mystery.  What might have been the reason behind the Obama administration characterizing the attack on its diplomatic mission in Benghazi that took the life of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, as the result of a mob attack by Libyans incensed by the video Innocence of Muslims? 

Although it is true that Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt, among other Muslim countries saw a rush of ravening enraged Muslims going berserk over the film, and it seemed likely enough that the Benghazi incident had a similar impetus, those who witnessed the attack were more than able, capable and willing to testify that it was a well-planned, well-armed and purposeful attack.

No coincidence that the incident took place on the anniversary of the 9-11 terror attacks on NYC and Washington and in Pennsylvania.  It should not have taken anyone in the administration by surprise.  Yet it is now presumed that it did do just that.  It should not have taken anyone in the administration by surprise because intelligence officers placed in Libya, and the ambassador himself warned of plans afoot to attack U.S. interests by local militias affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Ambassador Stevens was concerned for his own safety, despite his familiarity and comfort with his assignment.  The warning signals were too clear to be shunted aside; additional security was warranted and sought.  But of course, the world knows now that the request was turned down by a State Department functionary whose job it was to review such requests.  It was her considered opinion that security, provided by locals, was more than sufficient to the task.

Clearly, it was not.  U.S. intelligence, on news of the attack and the resulting tragedy, where not only the Benghazi consulate but a nearby 'safe house' as well were scoped out and targeted for attack, ascertained that this was the result of an Islamist terror attack to commemorate 9-11, and warn the United States that it had no good reason to relax its vigilance for al-Qaeda and its affiliates were not finished their work.

It was a well trained and organized force that surrounded the consulate and whose firepower swiftly overcame resistance.  The immediate response from the White House and the State Department was that the misfortune was fallout from Muslim outrage over a poor excuse for a documentary on the historical Prophet Mohammed.  Whose purpose did this serve? 

Tender Muslim feelings, evidently.  And an American administration deeply invested in proving to the Muslim world - regardless of and despite any and all provocations - that the United States held no hard feelings against the world of Islam and its Ummah, despite the repeated and ongoing violent terrorist attacks against its interests, its property, infrastructure, symbols and people.

The New York Times yesterday had its own take on the Obama administration's intentions with respect to the Muslim world, in advance of tonight's presidential race debate between President Barack Obama and Republican contender Mitt Romney:

On the subject of political Islam, the Obama administration concluded that democracy would inevitably empower Islamist parties, leaving the United States no choice but to build partnerships with them. Breaking decades of mutual hostility, the administration has opened cordial relations with the Islamists who dominated elections in both Tunisia and Egypt — in each case, with promises of tolerance, pluralism and constitutional democracy. 

White House officials said they have no bias against Islamist parties. “We will judge these parties not by who they are but what they do,” Mr. Rhodes said. Officials said that responsibility for governing and participation in the political process can have a moderating influence on the movement. “We believe there is a chance for democratic change to undercut the Al Qaeda narrative,” Mr. Rhodes said.

The Romney camp, on the other hand, views Islamists — even the most moderate — as a potentially threatening force. Despite their public statements and recent track record, Mr. Cohen argued, it was premature to conclude that any of the Islamists were committed to democracy.

The president made his position vis-a-vis American interests and intent and the world of Islam early on in his presidency, with a visit to Egypt and a major address to the Muslim world.  They were to expect a redrawing of the map, as he pushed the re-set button and advanced a new agenda: From America to Islam, with love and understanding.  Islam has reciprocated with loathing and detestation.  
But President Obama was handed the Nobel Peace Prize, and the Arab and Muslim world has been the recipient of bated breath over its struggle with itself, as sectarian and tribal violence have superceded the 'Arab Spring', and Islamism is taking its hieratical place of dominance in the governing of Islamic affairs within Muslim-dominated countries of the world, sweeping aside fond hopes of a Muslim enlightenment.

Despite which, faith runs deep - not the faith of the Ummah in its belief in the supremacy of Islam, but the faith of an American president that he must persist, persevere, trust that reason will prevail over the passion of unredeeming faith, emanating from a renascent body within a religion that eschews reason and devotes itself to the passion of jihad, enjoining martyrdom upon the faithful. 

Will Americans listen closely to the presidential debate and will the results of the debate have any meaningful effect on the outcome of this most pressing of American elections?