Let’s play the old “Sesame Street” game, “One of these things is not like the other.” Ready? Here goes:

E.E. Cummings. Lindsay Graham. Walt Disney. Charles Lindbergh. Rand Paul.

Toughie, yes? Well, not so much for students of history.

The correct answer would be Graham (R-S.C.). For unlike the other four on the list, he has not espoused a hardcore isolationist bent. And unlike his fellow Republican and United States Senator Paul, (R-Ky.), he believes, as do we, that an American presence in the Middle East is imperative to the prospects of future stability in the region.

Cummings, Disney and Lindbergh, the latter as a prominent spokesman, embraced the America First movement that worked fervently to keep America out of World War II. Only after the bombing of Pearl Harbor did the populist isolationist approach, embraced by many on both the left and the right, fall in recognition of the direct attack on our nation.

Paul, imbued with the hardcore libertarian spirit of his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) held Congress’ upper chamber hostage last week, metaphorically speaking. He threatened to filibuster every last bill to come before the Senate unless and until a vote was taken on his proposal to end funding to Pakistan, Egypt and Libya.

“Rand Paul is one nice fellow, but I bet you he’s never talked with CIA Director General Petraeus about what would happen if we cut our aid off to Pakistan,” Graham said of Paul at a recent Politico event.

And apparently a (relatively) sane Senate agreed, with Paul losing his vote to the score of 10-81.

Notwithstanding Paul’s didactic approach, It is easy to see why many are frustrated with what’s happening in the Middle East, particularly from a Jewish perspective. Unrest roils the region, and Israel stands amidst and against the raging tide.

In Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, a member of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood was elected president.  In Syria, the iron-fisted regime of dictator President Bashar Assad, has already killed over 23,000 Syrians and forced another 200,000 into exile.  

Then came last week’s 9/11 anniversary violence in Benghazi, where a planned militant attack on the U.S. Consulate resulted in the murder of the popular and effective American ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three of his colleagues. Following that were the protests throughout the Middle East (and beyond), with the pathetic “Innocence of Muslims” video being the sad excuse for violent protests against the U.S.

All of the above events might cause one to reach the conclusion that the “Arab Spring” was nothing more than a media-spun catch phrase. Yet recent events suggest that another beachhead may in fact be forming, and directly as a result of American presence.

According to Max Boot in the online edition of Commentary magazine, “Libyans have taken to the streets en masse in Benghazi to make clear their anger at the militia groups they hold responsible for the attack” that killed Stevens and his three colleagues.

Boot continues:  “Fed up that Libya’s nascent, moderate government is unable to disarm militias, the people have taken the task into their own hands, forcibly disarming several militia groups and storming the headquarters of the extremist Ansar al Sharia group.  Some 30,000 people marched through Benghazi, bearing signs that included, ‘We want justice for Chris’ and ‘The ambassador was Libya’s friend.’  Protesters even chanted at (militant terrorist group) Ansar al-Sharia members: ‘You terrorists, you cowards. Go back to Afghanistan.’”

Stevens was the quintessential, exemplary career diplomat who was admired by many in Libya.  His diplomatic colleagues and journalists said he was almost daily the guest of Libyan families for lunch or dinner.  His presence, both during the fall of strongman Moammar Qaddafi and thereafter, was both reassuring and compelling.

Between Stevens’ diplomatic leadership and the liberation operation in Libya, which resulted in the overthrow of Qaddafi in a matter of weeks, the cost in both lives and funds was miniscule compared to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Libya, there is in place a moderate, pro-democracy and pro-American new government – weak to be sure, but now supported by thousands of citizens beating back those who would instigate and encourage violence and anarchy.  The new Libyan leadership immediately denounced the terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate, as contrasted by Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s delayed and faint-hearted “condemnation” of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in his country. The new Libyan government of  President Mohammed el-Mergaref, in another sign of pro-democracy backbone, ordered  the dismantling of “illegitimate” militias and said all of the various heavily armed factions must join the regular Libyan army or disband.

There are no guarantees, of course, and one can never logically disprove the negative, i.e., what would happen if we weren’t there. Nevertheless, the brave pro-American Libyans who took to the streets of Benghazi last week deserve our applause and support. They are why we’re there, and we should remain to encourage their development.