Gareth Jones  Journal Contributor

A sad but true commentary on the state of American politics today is the fact that, upon the death of the American Ambassador to Libya last Tuesday, opportunities for scrutinizing both presidential campaigns were up for grabs. As is the case with any political issue in the six months leading up to an American national election, the death of Ambassador Stevens got more national attention than normal as both Barak Obama and Mitt Romney bickered over responsibility and policy issues. But who handled the situation better? Before we can come to any conclusion, a little background is necessary.

Not since 1979, when Ambassador Dubs was killed during his kidnapping by Soviet backed rebel forces in Afghanistan, has an American Ambassador been killed in the line of duty. Also, Ambassador Stevens is only the sixth Ambassador ever to die a violent death. Furthermore, the protests that spawned the violence are over what is possibly the single most sensitive international relations issue, freedom of speech vs. religion.

Regardless of where one stands on the validity of freedom of speech over respect for religion, the underlying tension and the obvious East versus West tone the protesters have adapted, indicate that only two options are available for potential retaliation, Obama’s options being clear. Either do nothing, or very little, or act through the military.

Thus far, other than moving some war ships around the Mediterranean, Obama has essentially done nothing. And honestly, what choice did he have? Ambassador Stevens died of asphyxiation, as a result of a fire set by offended protesters. Yes, there were guns involved, and yes, a small, organized armed group was present at the time of his death, but Stevens was not gunned down, as many people believe.

If Obama were to act, who would he act against? Some of the gunmen involved have been caught, but it is not likely that the underlying organization, who took advantage of the otherwise peaceful protests to send a message, will suffer any more than they already do at the hands of the most extensive intelligence network in the world, the American Intelligence Machine. The only real option was diplomacy, and diplomacy prevailed.

Thus, the onus was on the Obama administration to handle the situation as diplomatically as possible, and that’s essentially what he did. And Romney? Romney attacked. Not the people who he would have the U.S. attack, no. Romney attacked Obama for not “being decisive”. Not four hours before Steven’s death, Romney read a statement from a besieged Embassy in Cairo that was mildly apologetic for the video. Keep in mind, this statement was released not by Obama’s administration, but by the American Embassy in Egypt, with thousands of angry and potentially violent protestors outside their very gates. And Romney was ashamed? He opened his mouth in a feeble attempt to gain political favor by portraying Obama’s response as cowardly, and it has more or less blown up in his face.

Imagine if Romney, upon learning of the growing unrest and the death of Stevens, had merely called Obama, and offered to appear with him on stage, in a joint appeal for peace and restraint, offering his services in this time of crisis? No doubt he would be suffering a little less from the major fallout his rash comments have earned him thus far, and possibly would have put himself a little closer to his seat in the white house this November.

_________________________________________

Caitlin Lezell  Journal Staff

J. Christopher Stevens, American ambassador to Libya, was killed in an attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi last Tuesday, the eleventh anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, along with three other Americans. Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador to be killed in over 30 years. The attacks were prompted by an American film released online, obscenely criticizing the Muslim faith and the prophet Muhammad, sparking an international outrage.

President Obama condemned the attackers, but stressed the idea of religious tolerance. There was no mention of an increase in American military action in the region.

Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, was quick to respond, or, attack. As reported by the New York Times, “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks…the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation, and apology for American values is never the right course.”

Romney spoke on behalf of Americans dissatisfied by Obama’s foreign policy over the past four years. Complaints against Obama have included, amongst others, weak relations with Israel, poor handling of the issue of nuclear weapons in Iran and the crisis in Syria, and a failure to prevent extremist groups from gaining too much power post-Arab Spring. Many do not believe that President Obama has acted strongly enough in the Middle East since the Arab Spring began, nor has he offered enough assistance to these nations in their transitions to democracy.

The Democratic Party was quick to fire back at Romney last Tuesday, accusing him of distastefully transforming an international crisis into an opportunity to win votes. Be that as it may, the fact that a good portion of American society remains dissatisfied by Obama still stands. It is said that he has not been aggressive enough with the American military and not assertive enough with American policy.

Obama’s focus has been on keeping diplomatic peace within the Middle East and on not rushing to involve the United States in international crises (i.e. Syria). Unfortunately for the administration, many have begun to question; what cost to American sovereignty will this hesitation involve? Is America being viewed on the outside as cautious, or as weak? Is international security being taken for granted? Many have noted the considerable lack of security covering Ambassador Stevens on such a day as September 11.

Whether one sides with Obama or Romney on this matter, the real situation must not be forgotten: the tragic loss of Ambassador Stevens, a truly admirable American foreign officer. Last Tuesday’s events are an unneeded reminder of how far the United States must to go to achieve peace in the Middle East, as well as within our own borders.