Terrorism and the Embassies

The Obama administration’s decision to close nearly two dozen embassies and issue a worldwide travel alert was difficult to quarrel with. We obviously do not have access to the intelligence that was the basis for the extraordinary closures, but American officials who do claim that they uncovered one of the most serious plots against United States and other Western interests since Sept. 11, 2001. According to The Times, officials intercepted electronic communications in which the leader of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Ayman al-Zawahri, who succeeded Osama bin Laden, ordered Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the leader of the terrorist group’s most lethal branch in Yemen, to carry out an attack as early as this past Sunday. That day, the State Department extended the closing of 19 diplomatic posts in the Middle East and North Africa through at least Saturday. The information was credible enough that several European countries also closed embassies in the Middle East. It also was credible enough that Republican members of Congress who are among President Obama’s harshest critics on security and other issues have endorsed the administration’s response. Representative Peter King, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence, told ABC News that “the government would have been totally negligent if it did not take the actions taken.” Still, both the administration’s acts, and the Republicans’ response are shaped by the recent political past. The administration, excoriated by Republicans for underestimating the deteriorating security environment in Benghazi, Libya, that led to the killing of four American diplomats last Sept. 11, is bending over backward to avoid a repeat. Republican lawmakers made such an issue of Benghazi and failed to prove any dark conspiracy that they can hardly fault Mr. Obama now for taking maximum precautions. It’s no surprise that some politicians are trying to exploit the episode by arguing that it proves the value of the National Security Agency’s domestic intelligence sweeps. On Sunday, Senator Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said of the N.S.A. sweeps: “If we did not have these programs, then we simply would not be able to listen in on the bad guys.” No one has questioned the N.S.A.’s role in collecting intelligence overseas, but the debate is about domestic efforts to vacuum up large volumes of data on the phone calls of every American that are legally questionable and needlessly violate Americans’ rights. A threat from Al Qaeda, no matter how serious, should not divert attention from a thorough investigation of the domestic spying. The United States cannot fail to take reasonable precautions at its embassies, but neither can it be paralyzed and shut down its diplomatic functions for prolonged periods. The embassies should reopen as soon as possible and security should be hardened at high-risk stations. That will require Republicans in Congress, who have slashed embassy security budgets, to approve money for upgrades and other post-Benghazi recommendations. The challenge is to manage risk while staying involved in the world. Al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and elsewhere will be a threat for the foreseeable future.