Anti-American Violence
in the Middle East
SEP 14, 2012
Q1: What was the
security situation in Libya leading up to the attack on the U.S. consulate in
Benghazi?
A1: As international attention focused on
the violence in Syria over the past year, many hoped that Libya was beginning
to stabilize. Embassy personnel from many countries were returning, business
delegations and consultants explored opportunities in the oil-rich nation, and
successful elections were held in July. But these few signs of normality
masked a deeply unstable, lethal environment. The young government
confronted a still-unsteady nation abundant with weapons, Qaddafi
loyalists, uncontrollable militias, and Salafi jihadi fighters. The new
government has been unable to impose a monopoly on the use of
force or secure the weapons that were pilfered from Qaddafi’s dispersed
arsenal. Whereas the Egyptian Army largely controls that nation’s weapons, in
Libya small groups still hold truck-mounted antiaircraft guns, mortars, and
rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). This past summer included a spate
of attacks on nongovernmental organizations, Sufi shrines, and Libyan
government buildings. In June and July in Benghazi, Tunisia’s consulate and
Britain’s ambassador to Libya were both assaulted in separate incidents, and an
improvised explosive device (IED) was used against the U.S. mission.
Q2: Are we likely to
see similar attempts on U.S. embassy personnel elsewhere in the region?
A2: Only hours following the attack on the
U.S. mission in Benghazi, the U.S. embassy in Yemen was assaulted. While no
Americans were killed in the more heavily fortified compound in the capital of
Sana, U.S. diplomatic staff are increasingly at risk across the region. But the
well-armed, heavy assault in Libya was qualitatively different from
what transpired in Egypt and Yemen. Those climbing the walls at the U.S.
embassy in Cairo and smashing windows at the U.S. embassy in Sana were unequal
to those in Benghazi, who used machine guns, mortars, and RPGs. Though these
crowds lacked the armament of those in Libya, their numbers, improvised
weapons, and motivation make them dangerous nonetheless. The threat
in such a highly charged environment is that more heavily armed militants
could use such riots as cover for deadly attacks.
Q3: How will the
attacks affect U.S. policy in the Middle East?
A3: While horrific, the attacks will not
likely lead to a fundamental shift in U.S. military deployments in the
foreseeable future. Yet, they will likely trigger a rethink of how U.S.
diplomats are allowed to do their jobs in the Middle East. President Barack
Obama reiterated his commitment to working as a partner with the new Libyan
government, and that is not likely to change as long as the Libyan government welcomes
U.S. support. How the United States goes about cooperating with Libya and other
regional governments, however, is less clear. Ambassador Christopher Stevens
was an active diplomat throughout Libya and had built a rapport with rebel
groups in Benghazi during the most violent days of the uprising against Qaddafi.
That made him an indispensable interlocutor with the new Libyan government and
a range of political forces in Libya. His killing raises doubts about the
procedures in place to secure U.S. diplomats, and it could lead to limiting
the kinds of activities and contacts U.S. diplomats are allowed to
pursue throughout the Middle East. Such a setback would further
isolate U.S. diplomats at a time when U.S. interests are served by wider
engagement.
Q4: Why is
anti-American violence increasing in the Middle East?
A4: The overthrow of authoritarian
regimes in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt in 2011 unleashed violent
anti-American forces that the previous governments had largely kept in
check. Some of those forces have used the pretext of an offensive film
produced in the United States to foment anti-American sentiment and actions. In
the wake of political upheaval, governments are less capable and willing to
rein in militant forces that pose a threat to U.S. interests and to their own
societies. In many cases, the police are just a shadow of their former selves,
domestic intelligence services are in disarray, and all manner of crimes are on
the rise. This increase in violence poses a challenge not only to U.S.
diplomats but threatens to undermine the fragile transitions underway
throughout the region.
