Pre-Emptive Cringing...

Yesterday, throughout the Muslim world, American embassies that are normally open on Sunday were closed because of a rise in the level of terrorist “chatter” picked up by the NSA and other intelligence-gathering organizations.

Mark Steyn finds this “pre-emptive cringing” to be unseemly for a great country.

I agree with that (though asymmetric war is full of awful choices that must be made), but wonder if we're still a “great country” in some ways that matter, at least to me.

I don't think there are easy answers for the challenges the Middle East poses for itself and other countries in the world.  I don't believe there is any one “right answer”, either.  But I do believe there must be a myriad of better paths than the one our country is currently embarked on, and this response to “chatter” is a great example.  The only messages this response sends to the terrorists are bad ones: that we can be cowed, that we respond to threats like little girls, that victory may be achieved over us very easily.

Want examples of responses that would have been preferable?  Ok, here are two:

In those countries where we had reason to believe our embassies were threatened, close those embassies, permanently.  Ban all travel by Americans to those countries.  Ban all business by Americans with those countries.  Stop all foreign aid to those countries.  And so on.  Make the threat have a cost.

In those countries where we had a reason to believe our embassies were threatened, station a significant contingent of U.S. Marines there, and deploy our significant intelligence resources in support of their mission.  Subtract the cost of this protection from our foreign aid to that country.  Make the threat have a cost.  Then, if we are attacked, retaliate with overwhelming asymmetric response (in crude terms, if they kill one American, kill a hundred of them).  Make the attack have a cost.

The response we have chosen has only good consequences for the terrorists.  Brilliant.  “Smart power” is hard at work...