Assault on Our Embassy in Iraq

Both Republicans and Democrats are comparing the recent attack on the United States embassy in Iraq to the attack in Benghazi during the Obama administration. Democrats are emphasizing that, like the Benghazi incident, an American embassy was attacked and are wondering aloud why there is no outcry and finger-pointing among Republicans like there was after the Benghazi attack. Republicans are emphasizing that there was no loss of life and that the crowd of protesters have ceased attacking, supposedly because of American reinforcements. There are several differences.

The diplomatic building that was attacked in Benghazi was not an embassy, but was a minimally staffed consulate; the compound in Baghdad was a fully staffed embassy with a full complement of Marine security personnel. Libya at the time of the Benghazi attack had no functioning government after the ousting of Qaddafi, an anarchistic competition among multiple militias made for an extremely dangerous atmosphere, Iraq, while not free of strife, has an operational government, army and police force that could support the American military on site. The Benghazi attacks were ultimately blamed on an  al-Qaeda offshoot and were part of that organization's continuing program of terrorist attacks on American targets; the Baghdad attack was in direct response to American retaliatory action against an Iraqi militia whose actions caused the death of an American contractor. The Trump administration blamed Iran for both the initial attack and the protest that resulted in the assault on the embassy.

Democrats are right to question the administration's actions with respect to Iran. They are wrong in comparing this incident to Benghazi, mainly for political reasons. Labeling this as "Trump's Benghazi" invites the response that there was no loss of life, and shines a light on an incident that made the Obama administration and Secretary of State Clinton look, at the very least, inept. They should address this incident separately and avoid links to Benghazi.  While there are significant differences, and the lack of any loss of life at the Baghdad embassy, the comparatively happy outcome is not the result of any strategic genius on the part of Trump or Pompeo, but simply a function of the differing circumstances.

The fact that our embassy was assaulted at all should be concerning to Trump and Pompeo and company. If the reason for the protest is to be taken at face value, Iraqis are furious that one of their allies, the United States, conducted a military operation on their territory. Initially I thought that the retaliatory operation was undertaken without notifying the Iraqi government. They were in fact notified, but we did not ask for permission. Trump believes that the militia attack and the subsequent protests leading to the breach of the embassy's walls were insinuated by Iran. If so, should we be surprised? After a long negotiating process, the United States, along with Russia, China and several European nations agreed to drop economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for them suspending their nuclear program. Trump withdrew us unilaterally from that agreement and reinstituted sanctions. Trump reneged on our agreement without any backup plan and then pointed the finger at Iran for not complying with the agreement that he had just torn up. No one should be surprised if Iran has gone back to taking action to increase its influence in the area at the expense of the United States.

No matter who you want to blame for the incident at our embassy, the blame can be traced back to Trump's "policies" with regard to Iran. Provoking and threatening will only get you so far.