Let's go even further and accept that closing the embassies was a reasonable thing to do. We hear that some terrorists are ready to attack at any moment.
My question is this: What happened to the idea that the host government is supposed to protect a diplomatic outpost?
Are we saying that we don't trust these governments? Or that they may be compromised with terrorist groups? Are we afraid that all of those people who broke out of prison are now coming after us?
There are a few lessons from this weekend of embassy closings:
1) The war on terrorists is alive and well. In fact, it may be more alive than any of us suspected.
We've accomplished a lot, from killing Osama Bin Laden to crushing Al Qaeda in Iraq, but there is more to do.
"In recent years, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has emerged as one of the more deadly arms of the wider al-Qaeda franchise. This brand of terrorism thrives in Muslim countries with weak governments - and Yemen, which has been afflicted by decades of civil war and instability, was an obvious target for exploitation. "
2) President Obama's "charm offensive" charmed Western liberals, college professors, The NY Times editorial board and The Nobel Peace Prize crowd. Unfortunately, it did little to change the hearts and minds of the enemy. In fact, I would argue that the "charm offensive," from the Cairo speech to talking about "torture," may have actually emboldened an enemy always looking for opportunities to attack us.
3) We can't rely on other countries to protect our embassies and outposts.
4) You can forget closing GITMO. What do we really think that the GITMO detainees are going to do when we release them? They are going to join the same crowd that is threatening our embassies this weekend. GITMO will outlive the Obama presidency!
Overall, a very bad week for "hope and change." Wonder what all of those who thought that President Obama would fix it all with speeches are saying today?