September 11th, the 2012 Version

When terrorists slammed into the World Trade Center on September, 11, 2001 they did what enemies have historically done – go where the adversary does not expect you.

The War on Terrorism is characterized by the need to constantly anticipate and prepare for the unexpected; we are facing a reactive enemy.

If we had been more vigilant, we might have noticed the dry run in the World Trade Center attack in a Christmas Eve operation in France in 1994 by the terrorist group, the Armed Islamic group.  There they were preparing to slam into the Eiffel Tower.  But fortunately, French Special Forces intervened and killed the terrorists.

Such action in 2012 is different but reflects the same approach.

Get inside the Western thought and reaction process and create chaos.  This time, the terrorists planned a simultaneous attack in Egypt and Libya and used the fig leaf of “anger” against an objectionable movie being made in America which justified attacks on Americans.

The terrorists knew that with the liberal press and the liberal democratic government in Washington that they would go for this bait, and then respond more to the words than to the actions.  This has proven to be an effective tactic and less costly to the terrorists as well.

In other words, in 9/11 they out thought us and used our trusting nature against us-and achieved their murderous objective. Now 11 years later they have done the same thing using a different foil.

It is coming out that all this was preplanned and coordinated.

BUT their murderous strategic tactic this time was to get inside the President and Secretary of State’s OODA loop. This is the process in which when faced with a reactive enemy one must observe, orient, decide and attack.

Whoever is faster and more agile in combat usually wins.

It is now established that the President did not dynamically engage the Intelligence Community, rather he was content reading pieces of paper, rather than challenge the IC in the days preceding our nations run up to the 9/11 anniversary.

Our death loving fanatical enemies  played to the PC mind set of the Obama Administration and main stream media to fall hard for their contrived reason–the objectionable movie from a totally obscure  “movie maker.”

Rather than seeing this as fanatical Muslims playing a hard core deadly competition, the terrorists anticipated that the President’s political correct culture enablers would be the perfect foil for them.

Since Al Qaida knew it was preplanned they watched as the US media narrative AND Obama Administration at the highest levels went for the movie excuse and gave it importance and meaning it did not deserve

Consequently, it bought them at a minimum several days more of running room to froth up an even bigger Middle Eastern mob. They brilliantly used President Obama and Secretary Clinton as unwitting accomplices to validate a trumped up “objectionable movie” line.

Why is this critical BECAUSE Governor Romney got it right at the start and President Obama and Secretary Clinton doubled down and what we got was a ritualistic response with evident liberal guilt.

And this time the liberal angst even drove the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to call an American citizen, a pastor in Florida, who had a penchant to burn the Koran.

This entire ongoing worldwide crisis has proved that the  Administration does not mind sacrificing American civilian liberties in exchange for the hope that being political correct is a policy response to terrorism.

In contrast, Mitt Romney cut through the nonsense and nailed the event for what it was, a modern version of the Reichstag fire.  He wants to hold the terrorists accountable for their actions, not order a politically correct internal review in the United States.

And make no mistake, President Obama owns this crisis 100%–it is his alone.

In Libya, the “three amigos” throw the United States into the intervention for their own aspirational beliefs, not a calculation of strategic interests.

And their “value-based” intervention has come home to roost.

And in a recent piece in The Jerusalem Post, the nature of this failure was nailed.

But his boss, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, certainly didn’t. Following Tuesday’s attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Clinton said, “Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.”

Clinton, the bewildered stewardess of US foreign policy, then proclaimed with utter certainty that there is nothing to be concerned about. “We must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya,” she said.

Of course, what she failed to mention was that after the rebels felled Gaddafi’s regime – with US support – they began imposing Islamic law over large swathes of the country.

As I wrote in an earlier piece:

The New York Times identified the three women in the Obama Administration who made it all possible:

The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret.

So if Gaddafi is bad and must go.  Soon perhaps America will be fortunate enough to have those “Three Amigos” draw up a list of other “El Guapo” countries that are deserving of the Obama Doctrine.  There is a plethora of countries that everyone can agree on that are whole lot worse than Libya.

Unfortunately for the “Three Amigos,” they forgot they were dealing with a reactive enemy who use their own biases against them.  It is bit like Pogo and “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

But political correctness, and another set of words from the President will not protect Americans and allies from cascading violence in the Middle East.

Looking at it as a Law Enforcement issue and sending Predators to Libya to work with the Libyan government is even more bizarre.

In addition, the very real deadly consequences of lost Libyan MANPADs can give the enemy very deadly and destabilizing weapons to continue the threat and crisis.   Predators are useless in ferreting out MANPADS-unless used as “skeet.”  So it is all a growing fine mess, and will not getting better on this Administrations watch.

So the Administration, absent a policy, can focus a compliant and malleable media to attack Mitt Romney for standing up and cutting through the Politically Correct nonsense.

After all it is safer to have a war of words in the United States, than to conduct a war on terrorism.