Issues Under Fire: U.S. Foreign Policy and Protecting Soft Targets
How the U.S. will be challenged to protect American interests and assets around the globe with dwindling resources is the question du jour. Considering the U.S. insists upon maintaining a global reach, it has to pay the burdensome cost of securing its global exposure. Even in the golden days of milk and honey, it was unrealistic to presume the U.S. could adequately safeguard everybody everywhere all the time.
With precious few dollars at the nation's disposal, funding domestic and international security needs will increasingly stretch resources to the brink of more incident like Benghazi. Admittedly, these are not the types of conversations the White House or the State Department would like to have in the public square, since exposing weak spot in protection coverage could lead to more violent attacks. But when incidents like Benghazi occur, inquiring minds are set into motion and the narrative quite naturally broadens.
The Daily Beast reported yesterday that "whistleblowers" leaked documents detailing the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary. Said documents indicated there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi." BTW, it should be noted, these details of these "alleged" incidents came from the testimony of a handful of government workers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. Daily Beast reporting, not ours!
With that committee hardly being a bastion of nonpartisans and lead by one of the nation's most rabid Obama haters, one must keep these "leaks" in proper context and perspective. Since President Obama has proven beyond question he's more than capable of managing risk and resources at the highest levels, by our estimation, what happened in Benghazi could happen again no matter what Party occupies the White House.
Unfortunately, during a hotly contested election broad perspectives can't fit into sound bites or on bumper stickers. When treat assessment are made and delivered to the appropriate entities for appropriate action, decisions are made to determine who gets requested resources and who has to wait. That may be the unfortunate reality that constrains any president charged with defending the country. There just ain't enough money to build staff and maintain monolithic monstrosities to protect American personnel on foreign soil.
The fact that the U.S. has set up shop in places where DEFCON 10 security levels has to be maintained 24/7 it begs one to wonder if America should be there at all. (Argument for another day!)
Going forward, if U.S. foreign policy is crystal clear and flawlessly consistent, the crippling cost of security "might" be eased. For the time being, the U.S will have to settle for protecting some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not able to protect all of the people all of the time.
Comments
Post a Comment